Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

Well as most higher animals seem to have some degree of awareness you have to give souls to other animals as well.

You may be interpreting predictable animal reactions as awareness, when in fact they are just programmed reactions driven by instinct and learnt experience.  From the materialist view, all human behaviour must also be driven by instinct and learnt experience, and our "awareness" only takes place after the event, making it in effect a redundant feature.  But if awareness and free will do come from the soul, it will explain much of the huge gulf of difference between animal behaviour and human behaviour.

[Shaker]

Which huge gulf of difference is this?

[Rhiannon]

Didn't one of them run away?

If they had any sense.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Atkins

 

[ippy]

Perhaps you might take up a serious suggestion from me, my wife took up child psychology and has gone as far as her GCSE A level we have other professional interested people in my immediate family, I'm only a looker on, they have all mentioned how difficult the course work is for students that have religious beliefs of one kind or another, quite a challenge for their beliefs so I'm told.

Perhaps you might like to go for the Open university and do a course on human psychology, one thing it would be a good thing to do and it could also sort out a large amount of the questions that you might see as challenging at the moment.

ippy   

A Christian friend of mine had a son who suffered behavioural problems and was advised to seek help from an expert in child psychology.  The expert diagnosed that the problem was caused by the parental Christian teachings given to the child, and recommended that the child be taken away from the parent!  The fact that this parent had four other perfectly normal children was not considered.  This mother then had to jump through several hoops to get her son's problem diagnosed correctly and get appropriate treatment which proved successful.

This Christian friend will not mind me disclosing her identity as the writer and broadcaster Anne Atkins, who now has a very poor opinion of experts in child psychology.

If Anne Atkins is against almost anything it's a recommendation, the woman is, (breathless hesitation), barking.

Seriously it's a very worthy occupation that would enable anyone taking it up would benefit from a more open aspect of how we, humans, behave, I would think it's like any other profession it doesn't necessarily get it right for all of the time.

From seeing the way you write it, imo, would suit you very well to take it up. 

ippy
 

[ippy]

Didn't one of them run away?

If they had any sense.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Atkins

 

Says it all, a seriously batty woman.

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm more than willing to be corrected on this, but I was under the impression that at least some schools of Christian thought held that our souls was not in control, but was rather a sort of score-sheet - our activities in life stained the soul to a greater or lesser degree, but not that it was the controlling influence in our lives.

This reminds me of what I learnt in primary school.  I imagined my soul to be a big white balloon which I carried round with me, and it got stained with black marks when I did something wrong, but I was able to get it cleaned up again by going to confession.

As I matured I realised that if if my soul is destined for heaven, my "awareness" must be in my soul, not in my body, otherwise I would not perceive heaven.  And the lack of any feasible material definition of awareness means that science does not contradict this realisation.  As I previously stated, my most basic concept of reality dictatess that it is awareness (my soul) that drives my free will decisions, and ultimately defines my destiny.  So hence my conclusion that it is our human soul which gives awareness and free will, and will ultimately define our destiny.
(And I still need to get cleaned up occasionally by going to confession!)

Without your body and brain you don't exist!

You have a real soul through which you communicate with the world Floo. It's usually abbreviated to  R. Soul

[torridon]

Well as most higher animals seem to have some degree of awareness you have to give souls to other animals as well.

You may be interpreting predictable animal reactions as awareness, when in fact they are just programmed reactions driven by instinct and learnt experience.  From the materialist view, all human behaviour must also be driven by instinct and learnt experience, and our "awareness" only takes place after the event, making it in effect a redundant feature.  But if awareness and free will do come from the soul, it will explain much of the huge gulf of difference between animal behaviour and human behaviour.

Firstly, if awareness resides in the soul, then how come humans suffer consciousness lag ? That we have a conciousness lag is fully understandable from a 'materialist' viewpoint in which awareness is the outcome of an immense complexity of biochemical neural networking.  If it is a 'soul' that is somehow just aware of things by some sort of magic bypassing all that organic activity in the brain then awareness would be instantaneous.

Secondly, the gulf between animal behaviours and human behaviours may be remarkable, but it is not so remarkable as to justify us supposing that humans are in some sense supernatural beings whilst other creatures are not. We are flesh and blood too, and we are born of a line of primates, who were born of a line of mammals and so forth. Do we suppose that somewhere in Africa 50000 years ago a forest dwelling ape suddenly gave birth to a fully formed tool making sociable human complete with language skills, musical ability, a sense of humour and a soul to boot. Evolution doesn't work like that. All our traits including the particular qualities of our conscious experience have their roots in our shared ancestry so if modern humans have fully formed souls then our non human ancestors would have had partial souls of some sort. Would a child born to a Neanderthal father and Homo Sapiens mother have had half a soul ?

[SusanDoris]

Ugh, that vile woman. I can well believe any offspring of hers having issues.

I go for the 'off' switch as soon as I hear that she's around!!

[Bubbles]

I'm more than willing to be corrected on this, but I was under the impression that at least some schools of Christian thought held that our souls was not in control, but was rather a sort of score-sheet - our activities in life stained the soul to a greater or lesser degree, but not that it was the controlling influence in our lives.

This reminds me of what I learnt in primary school.  I imagined my soul to be a big white balloon which I carried round with me, and it got stained with black marks when I did something wrong, but I was able to get it cleaned up again by going to confession.

As I matured I realised that if if my soul is destined for heaven, my "awareness" must be in my soul, not in my body, otherwise I would not perceive heaven.  And the lack of any feasible material definition of awareness means that science does not contradict this realisation.  As I previously stated, my most basic concept of reality dictatess that it is awareness (my soul) that drives my free will decisions, and ultimately defines my destiny.  So hence my conclusion that it is our human soul which gives awareness and free will, and will ultimately define our destiny.
(And I still need to get cleaned up occasionally by going to confession!)

Without your body and brain you don't exist!

You have a real soul through which you communicate with the world Floo. It's usually abbreviated to  R. Soul

 

[floo]

I'm more than willing to be corrected on this, but I was under the impression that at least some schools of Christian thought held that our souls was not in control, but was rather a sort of score-sheet - our activities in life stained the soul to a greater or lesser degree, but not that it was the controlling influence in our lives.

This reminds me of what I learnt in primary school.  I imagined my soul to be a big white balloon which I carried round with me, and it got stained with black marks when I did something wrong, but I was able to get it cleaned up again by going to confession.

As I matured I realised that if if my soul is destined for heaven, my "awareness" must be in my soul, not in my body, otherwise I would not perceive heaven.  And the lack of any feasible material definition of awareness means that science does not contradict this realisation.  As I previously stated, my most basic concept of reality dictatess that it is awareness (my soul) that drives my free will decisions, and ultimately defines my destiny.  So hence my conclusion that it is our human soul which gives awareness and free will, and will ultimately define our destiny.
(And I still need to get cleaned up occasionally by going to confession!)

Without your body and brain you don't exist!

You have a real soul through which you communicate with the world Floo. It's usually abbreviated to  R. Soul

HILARIOUS!

[Outrider]

As I matured I realised that if my soul is destined for heaven, my "awareness" must be in my soul, not in my body, otherwise I would not perceive heaven.

You presume your awareness must be in your soul because you believe, in spite of the evidence, that you can perceive a heaven that has manifestly failed to be demonstrated.

And the lack of any feasible material definition of awareness means that science does not contradict this realisation.

That's your argument from incredulity again - that fact that you cannot accept how awareness could be materially defined does not mean that it can't be done, any more than fundamentalists's inability to accept the scientific understanding of evolution makes that unfeasible.

As I previously stated, my most basic concept of reality dictates that it is awareness (my soul) that drives my free will decisions, and ultimately defines my destiny.

Which is lovely, but still doesn't provide any evidence for soul or free will (or 'destiny' come to think of it), and doesn't explain how you get around the fundamentally oxymoronic nature of the concept of free will.

So hence my conclusion that it is our human soul which gives awareness and free will, and will ultimately define our destiny.
(And I still need to get cleaned up occasionally by going to confession!)

Except that's not your conclusion, that's your premise - you've stated that as your assumption in the first place, then stated it as your conclusion. It's just a belief, nothing more, nothing less.

O.

[Sebastian Toe]

And if the soul is not restricted by deterministic rules of science, it may do whatever is needed to enact a free will choice, even if it means going back in time to set the brain cells in motion.

Really?

Your soul can time travel?

Really, really?

[Alan Burns]

What is belief?  Is it the inevitable chemical reactions in our brain which produce external reactions, or is it the inner conviction experienced within the human soul?

It's a particular pattern of activity in the chemical reactions in the brain, not the chemical reactions themselves, in much the same way that a sea view is not the water, or the light, but the pattern of the reflected light as it reaches the eye.

But patterns of any sort only exist in the subjective perception of an observer.  The objective reality is that they are just individual atomic particles reacting to their immediate environment according to the laws of science.  A particular pattern of brain cell activity can only be perceived as belief by an observer of that activity, not by the activity itself which just comprises of individual atomic particles reacting to their neighbours.

[Outrider]

But patterns of any sort only exist in the subjective perception of an observer.

No, we've covered this before - if the tree falls in the forest it still makes sound, because sound is pressure waves in the air and pressure waves in the air don't need a listener to exist.

The pattern exists. The recognition of that pattern is a pattern itself in the consciousness of the observer, but the original pattern exists - otherwise, you're suggesting, days didn't exist until someone was around to notice the periodic disappearance and reappearance of the sun? That's crazy. The recognition of the pattern is something different to the pattern itself.

The objective reality is that they are just individual atomic particles reacting to their immediate environment according to the laws of science.

Yes.

A particular pattern of brain cell activity can only be perceived as belief by an observer of that activity, not by the activity itself which just comprises of individual atomic particles reacting to their neighbours.

Why? There are any number of systems in nature which have positive, negative or complex feedback loops within them - why can consciousness not be a pattern of brain activity, and self-awareness not be a 'sub-harmonic' in that pattern?

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But patterns of any sort only exist in the subjective perception of an observer.  The objective reality is that they are just individual atomic particles reacting to their immediate environment according to the laws of science.  A particular pattern of brain cell activity can only be perceived as belief by an observer of that activity, not by the activity itself which just comprises of individual atomic particles reacting to their neighbours.

Material stuff exists.

Sometimes that material stuff is arranged in particular ways - with repetitions for example.

Other material stuff - sentient creatures - can sometimes recognise those particular ways.

When those sentient creatures are people, we call these things "patterns" or "shapes" or similar.

The part of us that does the naming we call "mind" or "consciousness".

"Mind" or "consciousness" are emergent properties of the physical stuff of which we are made.

None of this requires appeals to a supposed little man at the controls, to a "soul", to your version of "free will" or to any other of the conjectural paraphernalia you keep trying to retro-fit onto the facts when there's no need or evidence for them at all.   

 

[SusanDoris]

Floo

I think it's not so much that AB has a vivid imagination, but that his imagination is strictly confined to the area of religious ideas to which he has committed himself, and which he believes to be true.     

There's a poster on another forum who believes that, for instance, a rainbow exists only if there is a person to see it. He has a six-year-old son so I hope the boy has a good, thinking brain in his head and bwill be more observant of reality..

[Outrider]

Floo

I think it's not so much that AB has a vivid imagination, but that his imagination is strictly confined to the area of religious ideas to which he has committed himself, and which he believes to be true.     

There's a poster on another forum who believes that, for instance, a rainbow exists only if there is a person to see it. He has a six-year-old son so I hope boy has a good, thinking brain in his head and be more observant of reality..

Actually, he's sort of right, the rainbow isn't there. There is no differently coloured patch of sky, there's an optical illusion that occurs if you stand in a particular place in relation to the sun and a refractive area such as raindrops in the air.

I say sort of right, because actually the rainbow isn't there even if you can see it.


O.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Outrider and Susan,

Rainbows! a tear falls for a giant of the good old Beeb forum, Luther Wesley Baxter, will this thread ever exceed his gems

Gonnagle.

[jjohnjil]

Dear Outrider and Susan,

Rainbows! a tear falls for a giant of the good old Beeb forum, Luther Wesley Baxter, will this thread ever exceed his gems

Gonnagle.

Yes indeed, viva La Sparky, the place hasn't been the same without him!

[SusanDoris]

Outrider

thank you. However, the light is stil being refracted on the drops of water, isn't it?  So aren't the colours still there to be seen? Would other apes, for instance, see it?

[torridon]

But patterns of any sort only exist in the subjective perception of an observer.

No, we've covered this before - if the tree falls in the forest it still makes sound, because sound is pressure waves in the air and pressure waves in the air don't need a listener to exist.

Not sure that is quite right. Sound is a cerebral phenomenon in the brain of the hearer. The tree falling will cause pressure waves in a surrounding medium if there is one, but the pressure waves themselves are silent, and so a tree falling in and of itself is a silent event.  Sound is a derivative interpretative experiential phenomenon that takes place in mammalian and reptilian brains. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, vision is in the visual cortex of the seer, and sound is in the auditory cortex of the hearer.

[Alan Burns]

Why? There are any number of systems in nature which have positive, negative or complex feedback loops within them - why can consciousness not be a pattern of brain activity, and self-awareness not be a 'sub-harmonic' in that pattern?

O.

Any product produced by a pattern of activity is just an end reaction to that activity defined by another observed pattern of sub atomic particles.  Consciousness is not defined in terms of a reaction.  It is perception.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

But patterns of any sort only exist in the subjective perception of an observer.  The objective reality is that they are just individual atomic particles reacting to their immediate environment according to the laws of science.  A particular pattern of brain cell activity can only be perceived as belief by an observer of that activity, not by the activity itself which just comprises of individual atomic particles reacting to their neighbours.

Material stuff exists.

Sometimes that material stuff is arranged in particular ways - with repetitions for example.

Other material stuff - sentient creatures - can sometimes recognise those particular ways.

When those sentient creatures are people, we call these things "patterns" or "shapes" or similar.

The part of us that does the naming we call "mind" or "consciousness".

"Mind" or "consciousness" are emergent properties of the physical stuff of which we are made.

None of this requires appeals to a supposed little man at the controls, to a "soul", to your version of "free will" or to any other of the conjectural paraphernalia you keep trying to retro-fit onto the facts when there's no need or evidence for them at all.   

 

But it is not possible to define what an emergent property is without explaining it through the eyes of an observer - hence the little man.

[torridon]

AB,

But patterns of any sort only exist in the subjective perception of an observer.  The objective reality is that they are just individual atomic particles reacting to their immediate environment according to the laws of science.  A particular pattern of brain cell activity can only be perceived as belief by an observer of that activity, not by the activity itself which just comprises of individual atomic particles reacting to their neighbours.

Material stuff exists.

Sometimes that material stuff is arranged in particular ways - with repetitions for example.

Other material stuff - sentient creatures - can sometimes recognise those particular ways.

When those sentient creatures are people, we call these things "patterns" or "shapes" or similar.

The part of us that does the naming we call "mind" or "consciousness".

"Mind" or "consciousness" are emergent properties of the physical stuff of which we are made.

None of this requires appeals to a supposed little man at the controls, to a "soul", to your version of "free will" or to any other of the conjectural paraphernalia you keep trying to retro-fit onto the facts when there's no need or evidence for them at all.   

 

But it is not possible to define what an emergent property is without explaining it through the eyes of an observer - hence the little man.

Any 'little man' regime is bound to fail because it implies an infinite regress.  The little man would require an even littler man inside to make emergent sense of the little man's experience.

An infinite regress is a hallmark of a non-explanation. The buck has to stop somewhere and by indulging infinite regressions we are practising avoidance.  I might broadly characterise my journey from believer to atheist as being a decision to face up, to stop passing the buck, to disavow superficial rationalisations.

[torridon]

Why? There are any number of systems in nature which have positive, negative or complex feedback loops within them - why can consciousness not be a pattern of brain activity, and self-awareness not be a 'sub-harmonic' in that pattern?

O.

Any product produced by a pattern of activity is just an end reaction to that activity defined by another observed pattern of sub atomic particles.  Consciousness is not defined in terms of a reaction.  It is perception.

Consciousness is not easy to define but it certainly includes perception. When a gazelle sees a lion creeping up on it that is conscious perception.  The gazelle, by the way, does not need to have a little gazelle inside it to make sense of the patterns of incoming information to recognise it as something scary and gazelle-eating;  that is what the brain does.

I know we struggle with mind/body. Try thinking of it like this : every thing in the cosmos has a subjective aspect, and an objective aspect when viewed from somewhere else.  Thus I can say 'I am', but someone else referring to me would say, 'he is'.  Both are equally valid statements. Mind and brain are essentially two aspects of the same thing.  Rather like a lens will focus sunlight, what a brain does, is to focus subjectivity, it creates a highly refined and enriched region, or focal point, of subjectivity.  Thus in contrast to a stone or a twig or a skyscraper, a brain manufactures a very rich sense of 'being' or 'am' ing and the first-person subjective aspect of that is what we call mind.