Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

an hour or so from now I'm going to ride a motorcycle in blustery weather (which I love doing, since it adds to the sense of risk)

What is it that loves this experience?

This is one of the things which sets us apart from animals - they do not appear to love experiences of risk because they do not have the free will to take risks or the awareness to appreciate them.

[Alan Burns]

What happens to awareness every night when you fall asleep ?

The human brain functions as a window into this physical universe.  The window may be shut at night, but the awareness is still there, and it may no longer be experiencing all the features of this universe, including the time dimension.  The brain might generate a dream, which could be likened to the playing of a video which the awareness will experience.

Its not really correct to claim that awareness persists through sleep. A gazelle would not be aware of the lion creeping up on it if it was sound asleep. Awareness is minimal during sleep, and even more so in hibernation, and maybe even more so still in coma.

If the soul's awareness is fed through human senses, the physical awareness will not be present when the sense is not active during sleep.

[Gordon]

an hour or so from now I'm going to ride a motorcycle in blustery weather (which I love doing, since it adds to the sense of risk)

What is it that loves this experience?

This is one of the things which sets us apart from animals - they do not appear to love experiences of risk because they do not have the free will to take risks or the awareness to appreciate them.

I do, or perhaps more specifically my brain does,  but then that is 'me'.

Even if animals don't think about risk that is simply because their biology has evolved from our species and they have different attributes from us.

[ekim]

Biology is just an observation of how our physical body works.

No it isn't - bits of our biology work whether or not we are aware of it, such as our autonomic nervous system.

The universe is only known through human awareness.

By humans I presume you mean, but so what? All you are referring to here is how your biology works, since your human awareness is intrinsic to your biology.
 

Our awareness gives us everything - it should not be trivialised.

A meaningless statement: your awareness doesn't 'give' you anything, it is just you biology at work. It isn't trivial I agree, but then an hour or so from now I'm going to ride a motorcycle in blustery weather (which I love doing, since it adds to the sense of risk) so I hope my brain continues to do what it naturally does whenever I'm awake.

I think what Alan is saying is that biology is just a study of life forms and forces rather than bios ... life itself (i.e. that which many might say distinguishes a life form from an inanimate form like a pebble) and that life requires awareness to recognise those forms and forces.

[Gordon]

Biology is just an observation of how our physical body works.

No it isn't - bits of our biology work whether or not we are aware of it, such as our autonomic nervous system.

The universe is only known through human awareness.

By humans I presume you mean, but so what? All you are referring to here is how your biology works, since your human awareness is intrinsic to your biology.
 

Our awareness gives us everything - it should not be trivialised.

A meaningless statement: your awareness doesn't 'give' you anything, it is just you biology at work. It isn't trivial I agree, but then an hour or so from now I'm going to ride a motorcycle in blustery weather (which I love doing, since it adds to the sense of risk) so I hope my brain continues to do what it naturally does whenever I'm awake.

I think what Alan is saying is that biology is just a study of life forms and forces rather than bios ... life itself (i.e. that which many might say distinguishes a life form from an inanimate form like a pebble) and that life requires awareness to recognise those forms and forces.

I get that, but the sense of awareness of things external to ourselves and abstractions are just a consequence of how our species has evolved biologically, whereas Alan want to add in an element of woo into the mix (e.g. souls).

[ekim]

Biology is just an observation of how our physical body works.

No it isn't - bits of our biology work whether or not we are aware of it, such as our autonomic nervous system.

The universe is only known through human awareness.

By humans I presume you mean, but so what? All you are referring to here is how your biology works, since your human awareness is intrinsic to your biology.
 

Our awareness gives us everything - it should not be trivialised.

A meaningless statement: your awareness doesn't 'give' you anything, it is just you biology at work. It isn't trivial I agree, but then an hour or so from now I'm going to ride a motorcycle in blustery weather (which I love doing, since it adds to the sense of risk) so I hope my brain continues to do what it naturally does whenever I'm awake.

I think what Alan is saying is that biology is just a study of life forms and forces rather than bios ... life itself (i.e. that which many might say distinguishes a life form from an inanimate form like a pebble) and that life requires awareness to recognise those forms and forces.

I get that, but the sense of awareness of things external to ourselves and abstractions are just a consequence of how our species has evolved biologically, whereas Alan want to add in an element of woo into the mix (e.g. souls).

Yes, it does get confusing and I suspect it is because, like the word 'god', nobody seems to want to describe what they mean by 'soul'.  The word itself, if I remember correctly, comes from a source which meant 'life'.  The word in the New Testament is 'psyche' which is now studied as psychology and psychiatry.  To make matter worse 'soul' has been used in the Old Testament to cover a number of Hebrew words with various meanings e.g. yachiyd - uniqueness or individuality, tselem - a kind of self image, nephesh - instincts, appetites, drives which we share with the animal world, and - neshama - human mind.

[torridon]

an hour or so from now I'm going to ride a motorcycle in blustery weather (which I love doing, since it adds to the sense of risk)

What is it that loves this experience?

This is one of the things which sets us apart from animals - they do not appear to love experiences of risk because they do not have the free will to take risks or the awareness to appreciate them.

Humans might well be adrenalin junkies, can we say the same about other creatures ? Granted probably not to the same extent however the adrenal system is present in all mammals so it is a reasonable assumption that they experience that adrenalin rush during flight or fight situations.  Do any of them 'needlessly' put themselves in danger in order to reap that reward? Perhaps we would benefit from the insights of a primatologist to answer that.

[Rhiannon]

Perhaps the answer is that humans rarely need our fight or flight response on a day to day basis as we once did, so have to seek it out. Animals probably get enough anyway.

I doubt there are too many adrenaline junkies among the refugees from Syria.

[Enki]

an hour or so from now I'm going to ride a motorcycle in blustery weather (which I love doing, since it adds to the sense of risk)

What is it that loves this experience?

This is one of the things which sets us apart from animals - they do not appear to love experiences of risk because they do not have the free will to take risks or the awareness to appreciate them.

There is plenty of evidence of risk taking behaviour in animals,  especially young animals. There is evidence that it is associated with attraction to novelty and to the amount of boldness shown by an individual. There is also evidence that such behaviour is useful in evolutionary terms.

[Leonard James]

an hour or so from now I'm going to ride a motorcycle in blustery weather (which I love doing, since it adds to the sense of risk)

What is it that loves this experience?

This is one of the things which sets us apart from animals - they do not appear to love experiences of risk because they do not have the free will to take risks or the awareness to appreciate them.

There is plenty of evidence of risk taking behaviour in animals,  especially young animals. There is evidence that it is associated with attraction to novelty and to the amount of boldness shown by an individual. There is also evidence that such behaviour is useful in evolutionary terms.

All these things are so obvious to anybody who understands how evolution works that it is difficult for us to appreciate that some people just don't grasp it properly.

[floo]

an hour or so from now I'm going to ride a motorcycle in blustery weather (which I love doing, since it adds to the sense of risk)

What is it that loves this experience?

This is one of the things which sets us apart from animals - they do not appear to love experiences of risk because they do not have the free will to take risks or the awareness to appreciate them.

There is plenty of evidence of risk taking behaviour in animals,  especially young animals. There is evidence that it is associated with attraction to novelty and to the amount of boldness shown by an individual. There is also evidence that such behaviour is useful in evolutionary terms.

All these things are so obvious to anybody who understands how evolution works that it is difficult for us to appreciate that some people just don't grasp it properly.

Agreed.

[torridon]

Perhaps the answer is that humans rarely need our fight or flight response on a day to day basis as we once did, so have to seek it out. Animals probably get enough anyway.

I doubt there are too many adrenaline junkies among the refugees from Syria.

Good point.

[Outrider]

Biology is just an observation of how our physical body works. The universe is only known through human awareness. Our awareness gives us everything - it should not be trivialised.

Who's trivialising it? This is an amazing thing, that such subtlety and refining, a recursive, self-correcting, self-updating, coherent, complex data form is sustained by brain activity despite the regular and complete replacement of all the physical hardware in which it is active.

That's stupendous, that's not trivialising it. Trivialising it is saying that despite that incredible complexity you understand it well enough to determine there's no way consciousness could be a part of that so you're going to invent 'souls'.

O.

[Outrider]

standing on the beach looking at a wave rolling in, a child might observe that the wave is made of seawater, but a deeper insight says the the wave is not defined by the particles of seawater it is currently comprised of, rather that the seawater is a medium for the transport of the wave, which itself is something less tangible. Lifeforms are like that, constantly rolling through the cosmos wherever a suitable medium persists

The wave is being observed, but what is the observer?  Can it really be compared to the wave it is observing?  The observer is much more than a transient pattern of particles.

Can it be compared? Yes, we've done it repeatedly here.

Why is the observer more than a transient pattern of particles? On what basis do you say that?

We have no concept of existence prior to the existence of that pattern of brain activity, and no evidence of any existence after the cessation of that brain activity. The pattern is not only transient, but as transient as our lives - why presume 'we' are somewhere else?

O.

[Outrider]

an hour or so from now I'm going to ride a motorcycle in blustery weather (which I love doing, since it adds to the sense of risk)

What is it that loves this experience?

This is one of the things which sets us apart from animals - they do not appear to love experiences of risk because they do not have the free will to take risks or the awareness to appreciate them.

Or because they don't have the capacity for abstract conceptualisation that we do. Throwing 'free will' into the mix just gives you two unevidenced concepts (along with 'soul'), one of which makes no sense on any level.

O.

[torridon]

an hour or so from now I'm going to ride a motorcycle in blustery weather (which I love doing, since it adds to the sense of risk)

What is it that loves this experience?

This is one of the things which sets us apart from animals - they do not appear to love experiences of risk because they do not have the free will to take risks or the awareness to appreciate them.

But they do appear to have minds. They might not have the same tastes, they might not be so sophisticated as us; all that indicates is there is a spectrum and a diversity in cognitive abilities across different species. Even an ant probably has a mind of some sort.

[Alan Burns]

Who's trivialising it? This is an amazing thing, that such subtlety and refining, a recursive, self-correcting, self-updating, coherent, complex data form is sustained by brain activity despite the regular and complete replacement of all the physical hardware in which it is active.

That's stupendous, that's not trivialising it. Trivialising it is saying that despite that incredible complexity you understand it well enough to determine there's no way consciousness could be a part of that so you're going to invent 'souls'.

O.

To me it is trivialising the amazing complexity of our human brains to suggest that it all came into existence by the crude process of natural selection acting on random mutations.

I did not invent the idea of a soul.  The awareness of souls has been an integral part of all civilisation for the last few thousand years.

[Nearly Sane]

Who's trivialising it? This is an amazing thing, that such subtlety and refining, a recursive, self-correcting, self-updating, coherent, complex data form is sustained by brain activity despite the regular and complete replacement of all the physical hardware in which it is active.

That's stupendous, that's not trivialising it. Trivialising it is saying that despite that incredible complexity you understand it well enough to determine there's no way consciousness could be a part of that so you're going to invent 'souls'.

O.

To me it is trivialising the amazing complexity of our human brains to suggest that it all came into existence by the crude process of natural selection acting on random mutations.

I did not invent the idea of a soul.  The awareness of souls has been an integral part of all civilisation for the last few thousand years.

Mmm incredulity, followed by assertion, and incorrect assertion at that, leaving aside the fallacy of ad populum. Impressive pacing of fallacies though

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What's the methodology then?

Measurement of brain activity correlating with accounts of subjective experience building up a model of the operation of the brain that produces testable hypotheses which are then validated or refuted.

How do you differentiate between an intelligence and a conscious, self aware intelligence?

At the moment, given the vague use of the terms, they're essentially colloquial expressions for variants of the same thing, so we don't so far as I know, but neurology is far from my speciality.

O.

So that's a round about dunno then..........

Plus a retreat into ''your asking the wrong questions again......

.....and another shoehorning of ideas to fit science rather than science addressing the questions.

My apologies for not being at the forefront of neurological research, would you rather I made stuff up? Claimed truth based on what I wanted to be true and said it's a matter of faith?

If you think it's the right question show me why.

As to 'shoehorning' ideas to fit science, science follows where the evidence leads. There is a strong correlation between brain activity and our experience of self - if you can find something else that contributes and supply a reason to think it exists that isn't just an argument from personal incredulity then I'm sure the world is waiting with bated breath...

O.

What is the evidence of an experience of a sense of self outside personal experience of self?

[torridon]

Who's trivialising it? This is an amazing thing, that such subtlety and refining, a recursive, self-correcting, self-updating, coherent, complex data form is sustained by brain activity despite the regular and complete replacement of all the physical hardware in which it is active.

That's stupendous, that's not trivialising it. Trivialising it is saying that despite that incredible complexity you understand it well enough to determine there's no way consciousness could be a part of that so you're going to invent 'souls'.

O.

To me it is trivialising the amazing complexity of our human brains to suggest that it all came into existence by the crude process of natural selection acting on random mutations.

I see it the opposite way around. I remember going into the garden last week and wondering at the conkers on my tree.  Rich dark brown seed, just trying to burst out from a protective outer shell covered in such deadly sharp spikes that you couldn't help but be put in mind of a fearsome medieval weapon. Then I think, what lengths this tree has gone to to protect its offspring from grazing.  But the really jaw dropping realisation is that all this fearsome apparently made-for-purpose arrangement is the product of a humble insentient process, natural selection.  That to me is truly staggering.

[BashfulAnthony]

Who's trivialising it? This is an amazing thing, that such subtlety and refining, a recursive, self-correcting, self-updating, coherent, complex data form is sustained by brain activity despite the regular and complete replacement of all the physical hardware in which it is active.

That's stupendous, that's not trivialising it. Trivialising it is saying that despite that incredible complexity you understand it well enough to determine there's no way consciousness could be a part of that so you're going to invent 'souls'.

O.

To me it is trivialising the amazing complexity of our human brains to suggest that it all came into existence by the crude process of natural selection acting on random mutations.

I see it the opposite way around. I remember going into the garden last week and wondering at the conkers on my tree.  Rich dark brown seed, just trying to burst out from a protective outer shell covered in such deadly sharp spikes that you couldn't help but be put in mind of a fearsome medieval weapon. Then I think, what lengths this tree has gone to to protect its offspring from grazing.  But the really jaw dropping realisation is that all this fearsome apparently made-for-purpose arrangement is the product of a humble insentient process, natural selection.  That to me is truly staggering.

I talk to the trees, that's why they put me away.   

[torridon]

Who's trivialising it? This is an amazing thing, that such subtlety and refining, a recursive, self-correcting, self-updating, coherent, complex data form is sustained by brain activity despite the regular and complete replacement of all the physical hardware in which it is active.

That's stupendous, that's not trivialising it. Trivialising it is saying that despite that incredible complexity you understand it well enough to determine there's no way consciousness could be a part of that so you're going to invent 'souls'.

O.

I did not invent the idea of a soul.  The awareness of souls has been an integral part of all civilisation for the last few thousand years.

Arguably most of our thinking pre science was wrong.  Nothing surprising about that.

[Alan Burns]

Who's trivialising it? This is an amazing thing, that such subtlety and refining, a recursive, self-correcting, self-updating, coherent, complex data form is sustained by brain activity despite the regular and complete replacement of all the physical hardware in which it is active.

That's stupendous, that's not trivialising it. Trivialising it is saying that despite that incredible complexity you understand it well enough to determine there's no way consciousness could be a part of that so you're going to invent 'souls'.

O.

I did not invent the idea of a soul.  The awareness of souls has been an integral part of all civilisation for the last few thousand years.

Arguably most of our thinking pre science was wrong.  Nothing surprising about that.

I think you are over estimating what science can explain.  It is a staggering assumption to think that science can be used to explain everything about our existence.  It is only scratching the surface of reality.

I am sure our awareness of souls is a natural God given insight which has been common throughout the history of the human race.  The Devil will use any means to tempt us into believing that God does not exist, and neither does our soul, but we need to look beyond these false assumptions and re discover our true self.

[torridon]

I did not invent the idea of a soul.  The awareness of souls has been an integral part of all civilisation for the last few thousand years.

Arguably most of our thinking pre science was wrong.  Nothing surprising about that.

I think you are over estimating what science can explain.  It is a staggering assumption to think that science can be used to explain everything about our existence.  It is only scratching the surface of reality.

I am sure our awareness of souls is a natural God given insight which has been common throughout the history of the human race.  The Devil will use any means to tempt us into believing that God does not exist, and neither does our soul, but we need to look beyond these false assumptions and re discover our true self.

Any number of unwarranted assumptions in there, Alan. No real evidence for souls, or devils or Gods, just a bunch of mutually supporting fantasies. Some of us prefer something stronger than 'that is what people have always believed'.

[Rhiannon]

Who's trivialising it? This is an amazing thing, that such subtlety and refining, a recursive, self-correcting, self-updating, coherent, complex data form is sustained by brain activity despite the regular and complete replacement of all the physical hardware in which it is active.

That's stupendous, that's not trivialising it. Trivialising it is saying that despite that incredible complexity you understand it well enough to determine there's no way consciousness could be a part of that so you're going to invent 'souls'.

O.

To me it is trivialising the amazing complexity of our human brains to suggest that it all came into existence by the crude process of natural selection acting on random mutations.

I see it the opposite way around. I remember going into the garden last week and wondering at the conkers on my tree.  Rich dark brown seed, just trying to burst out from a protective outer shell covered in such deadly sharp spikes that you couldn't help but be put in mind of a fearsome medieval weapon. Then I think, what lengths this tree has gone to to protect its offspring from grazing.  But the really jaw dropping realisation is that all this fearsome apparently made-for-purpose arrangement is the product of a humble insentient process, natural selection.  That to me is truly staggering.

Great post.