Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

Excellent post Torri - have some virtual Karma clicks.

[ippy]

Is it anything but for selfish reasons without the Christian faith?

You see Christians...(which you would know had you known God personally) have a spirit of love and care placed upon their heart. It is a care that comes from selflessness. Not about feeling right for themselves but doing it for a sincere care of another.


So whilst believer and non believer can feel love and compassion their actions and motives are quite different.
Non believers do it to make themselves feel better. Whilst believers do it solely to make the other person feel better.

So different reasons for feeling compassion and love.

5

ippy

[Sriram]

That's as maybe, but your subtle evasion is noted. Fear is one of the primary emotions that all animals have; if you say 'boo' to a goose and then you say 'boo', to a lawyer you will induce a feeling of fear in both your victims, and there is no particuar reason to think that the feeling of fear is qualitatively or fundamentally different. Lawyers and geese share a common ancestry which is why we share the six or seven primary emotions with all other vertebrates. It is not coincidence. I agree the goose's reaction may be predictable, I agree the goose does not have free agency; but on your part, you ought to understand that the goose does have internal mental states; it has feelings, inner experience, emotions, just like us, and if you can see that then you are half way there to seeing that the hard problem of consciousness is not some iniexplicable magic unique to humans, but rathers conscious experience is pretty ubiquitous throughout the animal kingdom. The testimony of every bat, every lobster, every haddock, every goose and even every lawyer (yes even lawyers), is that inner mental states are the same thing as neural activity, just understood and experienced from a different perspective. Mental states are what neural activity feels like.

Refer bold above.

'Feels like' to whom or what?

[Gordon]

Refer bold above.

'Feels like' to whom or what?

The possessor of the neural biology of course.

[Alan Burns]

Mental states are what neural activity feels like.

Yes there are many similar traits which can be pointed out between humans and other animals.  But it is a presumption to use these similarities to indicate that animals experience the conscious awareness which humans have.  Animals are not able to express any information about their awareness experience, so it is all down to fickle human interpretation.

To support my arguments I would point out the many things humans can do which no animal can do, and which go beyond mere biologically controlled reactions.  In particular there was an earlier post from Shaker where he pointed out the extreme capability for humans to do evil, and goodness.

[Alan Burns]

The possessor of the neural biology of course.

And how does the possessor of the neural biology actually perceive what is going on in their neural networks, rather than just follow the biological reaction to the neural activity?

[Gordon]

And how does the possessor of the neural biology actually perceive what is going on in their neural networks, rather than just follow the biological reaction to the neural activity?

Because their perception is an aspect of their neural network: it is a characteristic of their biology.

[Alan Burns]

Because their perception is an aspect of their neural network: it is a characteristic of their biology.

But the words "aspect" and "characteristic" do not indicate how perception of neural activity is achieved.

[Rhiannon]

As I said on a previous post, I can see no way that love and compassion can exist without our God given human soul through which we have the gifts of awareness, free thought and free will.  Without the soul we become a deterministic biological robot which just reacts to events in a way entirely defined by the laws of science.  And I see no room for love and compassion to exist in this latter scenario.

So what you are saying is that love and compassion come from God for believers and non-believers alike. Not that it is necessary to have Christian beliefs in order to feel them.

[ippy]

So what you are saying is that love and compassion come from God for believers and non-believers alike. Not that it is necessary to have Christian beliefs in order to feel them.

Rhi, you'll never get any sense out of this one, is he worth the trouble? I doubt it.

ippy

[Gordon]

But the words "aspect" and "characteristic" do not indicate how perception of neural activity is achieved.

I'm using descriptive terms, Alan, in order to describe that perception involves a range of aspects - such as sensory inputs. It is just biology working: doing what it does.

[torridon]

Yes there are many similar traits which can be pointed out between humans and other animals.  But it is a presumption to use these similarities to indicate that animals experience the conscious awareness which humans have.  Animals are not able to express any information about their awareness experience, so it is all down to fickle human interpretation.

It comes down to the same problem with humans. I cannot prove that you are not a zombie, just giving the outward appearance that you have inner experience. But it is a reasonable assumption, all things considered.  It is also the reasonable assumption that other animals that appear to be conscious are in fact conscious, having an inner mental life of some sort. The neuroanatomical structure that is the seat of conscious experience is known as the extended reticular activating system, the essential component in this assembly is a small tissue known as the periaqueductal gray; any tissue damage to the periaquductal gray invariably leads to degradation or complete loss of consciousness and this happens in all animals, not just humans. Humans have inherited this neuroanatomy as we have mammalian brains so it is bizarre to propose that the same structure is redundant in all other mammals. The hard problem of consciousness is difficult for us all; but your solution to this problem, a 'soul' falls far short as you deny it to all other animals that a better and fuller explanation of consciousness would need to cover. 

[torridon]

That's as maybe, but your subtle evasion is noted. Fear is one of the primary emotions that all animals have; if you say 'boo' to a goose and then you say 'boo', to a lawyer you will induce a feeling of fear in both your victims, and there is no particuar reason to think that the feeling of fear is qualitatively or fundamentally different. Lawyers and geese share a common ancestry which is why we share the six or seven primary emotions with all other vertebrates. It is not coincidence. I agree the goose's reaction may be predictable, I agree the goose does not have free agency; but on your part, you ought to understand that the goose does have internal mental states; it has feelings, inner experience, emotions, just like us, and if you can see that then you are half way there to seeing that the hard problem of consciousness is not some iniexplicable magic unique to humans, but rathers conscious experience is pretty ubiquitous throughout the animal kingdom. The testimony of every bat, every lobster, every haddock, every goose and even every lawyer (yes even lawyers), is that inner mental states are the same thing as neural activity, just understood and experienced from a different perspective. Mental states are what neural activity feels like.

Refer bold above.

'Feels like' to whom or what?

We have to visualise the sense of self as rather like a centre of gravity that emerges from all that neural activity; or alternatively at a deeper level, as a centre of gravity of focussed subjective aspect of the matter of which we are made.  This is what brains do, they focus, integrate and refine sensory perceptions and information flow into a very small region, combine it with personal stored memory, and your sense of self emerges as the tightly bound and delimited focal point of all that subjectivity. We instinctively feel as if we are a single point of perception, agency and control, but really we are composite beings from which a sense of singularity cleverly emerges.

[Enki]

I am afraid of heights.  I recognise it as a natural reaction over which I have no real control and I admit that I am intensely aware of it.

Love and compassion are feelings too, but I have full control over these.  This is the difference I was pointing out to Torridon.

I completely disagree, Alan. I can experience fear in a variety of scenarios. It is possible however for me to rationalise those fears, and think and act in a way which may well control those feelings(although extremely hard).

I can experience love and compassion, again in all sorts of scenarios. And, again, it is possible for me to rationalise those feelings of love and compassion and act in a way which may well control those feelings(although extremely hard).

For me all these feelings are part of my nature and ones, in the light of current evidence, which seem to be shared with a range of other animal species, albeit with a greater complexity and subtlety.

Perhaps you are different, Alan, but I doubt it somehow.

[Enki]

Is it anything but for selfish reasons without the Christian faith?

You see Christians...(which you would know had you known God personally) have a spirit of love and care placed upon their heart. It is a care that comes from selflessness. Not about feeling right for themselves but doing it for a sincere care of another.


So whilst believer and non believer can feel love and compassion their actions and motives are quite different.
Non believers do it to make themselves feel better. Whilst believers do it solely to make the other person feel better.

So different reasons for feeling compassion and love.

My feelings of love and compassion come from my own nature but are directed towards others, and which I would hope are as sincere as any person of any faith. Sometimes the subject of my love and compassion arouses all sorts of contradictory emotions within me and those feelings certainly do not make me feel better, as you suggest, but often make me feel particularly ill at ease.

I would not presume to question your motives when acting out of love and compassion because I do not know you, and any attempt by you to question mine is similarly rejected by me out of hand. I refuse to group all Christians/believers as somehow selflessly or selfishly motivated and I refuse to group all non Christians/non believers similarly. We are all human beings and one can make personal judgments of this nature only on the basis of knowing a person pretty well.

[Rhiannon]

Good post, Enki.

And I guess this is why we should try to refrain from judging Sass for spattering the forum with her spite, as she tends to so often do.

[Sriram]

Refer bold above.

'Feels like' to whom or what?


We have to visualise the sense of self as rather like a centre of gravity that emerges from all that neural activity; or alternatively at a deeper level, as a centre of gravity of focussed subjective aspect of the matter of which we are made.  This is what brains do, they focus, integrate and refine sensory perceptions and information flow into a very small region, combine it with personal stored memory, and your sense of self emerges as the tightly bound and delimited focal point of all that subjectivity. We instinctively feel as if we are a single point of perception, agency and control, but really we are composite beings from which a sense of singularity cleverly emerges.

There is nothing to visualize here. I am talking about the one who visualizes. The Subject behind all experiences, concepts and thoughts.

 

[torridon]

We have to visualise the sense of self as rather like a centre of gravity that emerges from all that neural activity; or alternatively at a deeper level, as a centre of gravity of focussed subjective aspect of the matter of which we are made.  This is what brains do, they focus, integrate and refine sensory perceptions and information flow into a very small region, combine it with personal stored memory, and your sense of self emerges as the tightly bound and delimited focal point of all that subjectivity. We instinctively feel as if we are a single point of perception, agency and control, but really we are composite beings from which a sense of singularity cleverly emerges.

There is nothing to visualize here. I am talking about the one who visualizes. The Subject behind all experiences, concepts and thoughts.

I already covered that in the above post, or at least my take on it.  It is hard for us to dismiss older intuitions about the nature of self and personhood, but that is what we have to do in order to progress. I am a billion billion carbon atoms none of which are alive. I am a thriving ecosystem of billions of bacteria and viruses on two legs. I am a person.  Somehow we have to reconcile all these things to understand how the thing that we intuit - a person, a subject, an experiencer - emerges from all that. Understanding the difference between subjectivity and objectivity is at the heart of that it seems.

[Brownie]

Very good torridon, somewhat existentialist.   Interesting.

[Dicky Underpants]

There is nothing to visualize here. I am talking about the one who visualizes. The Subject behind all experiences, concepts and thoughts.

Following the idea that Atman = Brahman, you're not left with much of a Subject in any case. It's just reality doing 'stuff', with no individual self existing any more than in a materialist view, such as torridon's.

[Alan Burns]

So what you are saying is that love and compassion come from God for believers and non-believers alike. Not that it is necessary to have Christian beliefs in order to feel them.

Yes this is what I believe.
We are all God's creation, and whether we believe in Him or not we can still use the gifts He has given to us.

[Alan Burns]

We have to visualise the sense of self as rather like a centre of gravity that emerges from all that neural activity; or alternatively at a deeper level, as a centre of gravity of focussed subjective aspect of the matter of which we are made.  This is what brains do, they focus, integrate and refine sensory perceptions and information flow into a very small region, combine it with personal stored memory, and your sense of self emerges as the tightly bound and delimited focal point of all that subjectivity. We instinctively feel as if we are a single point of perception, agency and control, but really we are composite beings from which a sense of singularity cleverly emerges.

You have made an admirable attempt at trying to imagine how a single point of conscious awareness can arise from the activity of a collection of atoms and molecules, but all your words describe it as perceived from some outside observation.  I find it impossible to see how this point of awareness can arise from within the discrete particles involved.  Each particle is just an element in a chain of reactions which produce some form of end result, but this result is just another series of individual particle reactions.  There is nothing within this material description which can perceive all these reactions into a single point of awareness.

[Sriram]

There is nothing to visualize here. I am talking about the one who visualizes. The Subject behind all experiences, concepts and thoughts.


I already covered that in the above post, or at least my take on it.  It is hard for us to dismiss older intuitions about the nature of self and personhood, but that is what we have to do in order to progress. I am a billion billion carbon atoms none of which are alive. I am a thriving ecosystem of billions of bacteria and viruses on two legs. I am a person.  Somehow we have to reconcile all these things to understand how the thing that we intuit - a person, a subject, an experiencer - emerges from all that. Understanding the difference between subjectivity and objectivity is at the heart of that it seems.

You seem to believe that there is a progression from believing in a Self to not believing in a Self.  Not so.

I know that our body is composed of billions of cells and billions of bacteria and so on. Its like saying that a car is made of so much metal and plastic and rubber and stuff....so what?  The driver is still the Consciousness behind the car.

The idea of the Self is more to do with the realization of the Self through direct personal experience and introspection rather than through any objective analysis.

You can't sense the Self objectively. Like an electron wanting to sense the String objectively. It itself IS the String!

[Sriram]

Following the idea that Atman = Brahman, you're not left with much of a Subject in any case. It's just reality doing 'stuff', with no individual self existing any more than in a materialist view, such as torridon's.

Yes...the Brahman is said to be the ultimate Consciousness that transforms itself into individual consciousness. Something like the String that transforms itself into quarks and electrons.

But, just as electrons and other elementary particles do exist in spite of being transformations of the String.....similarly, individual atmas do exist though they are manifestations of the Brahman.

Seen from the POV of the Brahman however...everything else can be seen as an illusion with  Brahman being the only Reality. That is one view.... but it is not a 'material' view surely.

[torridon]

You have made an admirable attempt at trying to imagine how a single point of conscious awareness can arise from the activity of a collection of atoms and molecules, but all your words describe it as perceived from some outside observation.  I find it impossible to see how this point of awareness can arise from within the discrete particles involved.  Each particle is just an element in a chain of reactions which produce some form of end result, but this result is just another series of individual particle reactions.  There is nothing within this material description which can perceive all these reactions into a single point of awareness.

This is, in part, what the brain does, it unifies muliple information flows into a single point of focus and experience.  You have two eyes, yet you do not see things twice, your cortex cleverly integrates both retinal information streams into a single visual experience.  Many spiders have eight eyes but it is unlikely they see things eight times. This is what a brain is doing during conscious experience, it procures multiple diverse information flows, synthesising them into a unified amalgam and storing an echo of that in biochemical neural patterns for future reference.  It is primary brain function to create an apparently single point of observation and agency.