Searching for GOD...

[Shaker]

And may I add that I have never met anyone with 99.9% of my personality.  So I wonder how such diverse, unique personalities, even between identical twins, can be explained in purely biological terms

Personality isn't purely a matter of genetic inheritance though is it? While there's no question that it informs part of our personality, there is also life experience, the things that happen to us - frequently random, chance occurences - and how we react to them.

[floo]

Personality isn't purely a matter of genetic inheritance though is it? While there's no question that it informs part of our personality, there is also life experience, the things that happen to us - frequently random, chance occurences - and how we react to them.

I agree.

[ippy]

Evidence is relative to the unlearned mind... It requires a moderate amount of faith to believe anything you are told when you lack the knowledge or capacity to understand what the evidence actually is.

That's OK with me Sassy you prove it I'll believe it, I'm not backing anything that hasn't got good reasonable support for it whatever it might be, so the ball, as ever, is in your court.

As for your ref to the lack of knowledge, well that's easy, I don't know the intimate details of how the steam engines work but the principle is very basic and easy to understand, ditto any of the usual mythical, magical, primitive superstition based religions, like yours.

That good enough for you, if you decide to answer see if you can answer without asserting anything or cutting and pasting so much inept meaningless scripture in, I know it would be a tall order for you Sass, but have a try.

ippy 

[Gonnagle]

Dear Enki,

The reason why snowflakes vary from each other is well understood in scientific terms, just as the flocking behaviour of starlings is quite easily explained. This, however, doesn't in any way subtract from the wonder and fascination felt by many people in looking at the structure of snowflakes or the wheeling movements of starling flocks at dusk. Some of us can experience such phenomena without the slightest feeling of invoking a God, others seem to see God as an integral part of it. Such is life!

You seem fixated on the idea of God, so here is another wonder regarding God.

Nano-snowflakes can be exactly alike.  Some things in Nature are exactly alike.  For example, our understanding of elementary particles indicates that all electrons are exactly, precisely the same.  This is one of the cornerstones of quantum physics, and if you think for a bit you will see that this is a profound statement.  Electrons are true elementary particles, in that they have no component parts; thus they are all exactly alike.
   A water molecule is considerably more complex than an electron, and not all water molecules are exactly alike.  If we restrict ourselves to water molecules which contain two ordinary hydrogen atoms and one ordinary 16O atom, then again physics tells us that all such water molecules are exactly alike.  However about one molecule out of every 5000 naturally occurring water molecules will contain an atom of deuterium in place of one of the hydrogens, and about one in 500 will contain an atom of 18O instead of the more common 16O.  These rogues are not exactly the same as their more common cousins.
  Since a typical small snow crystal might contain 1018 water molecules, we see that about 1015 of these molecules will be different from the rest.  These unusual molecules will be randomly scattered throughout the snow crystal, giving it a unique design.  The probability that two snow crystals would have exactly the same layout of these molecules is very, very, very small.  Even with 1024 crystals per year, the odds of it happening within the lifetime of the Universe is indistinguishable from zero.

All electrons are exactly, precisely the same, they do say that God is in the detail or is that the devil

Gonnagle.

[ippy]

Personality isn't purely a matter of genetic inheritance though is it? While there's no question that it informs part of our personality, there is also life experience, the things that happen to us - frequently random, chance occurrences - and how we react to them.

Some members of my family are into this psychology stuff, it mainly works on averages, I have to add so they tell me.

Psychologists are a bit like the neurologists when they do their ambulance chasing of people that are still alive after having suffered nasty head injuries, the psychologists are on the look out for identical, biozygotic, twins, especially when brought up by different families, for nature and nurture research.

This is particularly interesting to me having two adopted sons, the current thinking on nature nurture is, 80% nature and has been the thinking for some years now after being the complete opposite some time back about the mid seventies.

The only hard thing I have had to tell both of them is because they're not genetically related to us is that they can't expect to be quite so talented or good looking, they seem to manage quite well in spite.

I'll leave it there .

ippy       

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Understanding that is a work in progress.  Clearly conscious awareness does emerge from the activity of collections of atoms and molecules because we observe it in every living creature, we just need to fill out our understanding of how it happens.

Forgive me but I am getting a vibe here consistent with the X is just a more sophisticated form of Y......the reductionists salvation in other words.

Are you suggesting that consciousness is just a sophisticated version of unconsciousness and self awareness a sophisticated version of non awareness.

If so how does it work and how can the universe by dint of us being part of it be both conscious and unconscious?

[Alan Burns]

Personality isn't purely a matter of genetic inheritance though is it? While there's no question that it informs part of our personality, there is also life experience, the things that happen to us - frequently random, chance occurences - and how we react to them.

But the early life experiences of identical twins is not sufficient to account for the differences in personalities found in many cases.  Neither does it explain the vastly different personalities often found in siblings.  If our personality is derived from our God given soul, it would explain why every human being is so unique.

[Shaker]

But the early life experiences of identical twins is not sufficient to account for the differences in personalities found in many cases.  Neither does it explain the vastly different personalities often found in siblings.

Why is it not sufficient? Have you actually read a single word of anything that has been said?

If our personality is derived from our God given soul, it would explain why every human being is so unique.

You can make up any old cobblers to say that said cobblers "explains" something, Alan. Indeed, you've just done so.

[jeremyp]

Dear Jeremyp,

I did define my God, but please don't reply that my definition is not good enough or that you don't see it, that's your problem, not mine.

Well you came up with a list of wishy washy platitudes, if that's what you call definition.

[jeremyp]

I put my trust in God who wants me (and you!) to join Him in heaven.

No, he wants me dead because he's made it impossible for people who want evidence of his existence (a not unreasonable request) to get to heaven.

[Rhiannon]

Personality isn't purely a matter of genetic inheritance though is it? While there's no question that it informs part of our personality, there is also life experience, the things that happen to us - frequently random, chance occurences - and how we react to them.

Absolutely.

[Alan Burns]

And we share about 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees and bonobos.

The reason why snowflakes vary from each other is well understood in scientific terms, just as the flocking behaviour of starlings is quite easily explained. This, however, doesn't in any way subtract from the wonder and fascination felt by many people in looking at the structure of snowflakes or the wheeling movements of starling flocks at dusk. Some of us can experience such phenomena without the slightest feeling of invoking a God, others seem to see God as an integral part of it. Such is life!

The flocking behaviour of starlings and the structure of snowflakes are often quoted as examples of "emergent properties" - the same phrase often used to describe conscious awareness.

The big difference between these examples though is the fact that the emergent property of the swooping starlings and the structure of snowflakes can only be perceived by an outside observer.  The emergent property does not perceive itself, as in the case of conscious awareness.  The behaviour and functionality of any emergent property is entirely defined by the individual components generating the property.  Awareness can't be derived from particles which do not posess awareness.

[Alan Burns]

No, he wants me dead because he's made it impossible for people who want evidence of his existence (a not unreasonable request) to get to heaven.

There is evidence in abundance for those who genuinely seek it.

[Shaker]

The flocking behaviour of starlings and the structure of snowflakes are often quoted as examples of "emergent properties" - the same phrase often used to describe conscious awareness.

Yes, that's pretty much it.

The big difference between these examples though is the fact that the emergent property of the swooping starlings and the structure of snowflakes can only be perceived by an outside observer.  The emergent property does not perceive itself, as in the case of conscious awareness.  The behaviour and functionality of any emergent property is entirely defined by the individual components generating the property.  Awareness can't be derived from particles which do not posess awareness.

I have no reason to believe that snowflakes have conscious awareness because they haven't the equipment to do so, but I have some good reasons to believe that starlings do, or a form of it compared to human beings, because they do possess such equipment. What's the point you think you're trying to make, exactly?

[Shaker]

There is evidence in abundance for those who genuinely seek it.

Prove it. There's your Shaker challenge for 2016, Alan - do what you've never done before and prove it.

Best of 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, he wants me dead because he's made it impossible for people who want evidence of his existence (a not unreasonable request) to get to heaven.

.......and you resent Him for that............

[Alan Burns]

Yes, that's pretty much it.
I have no reason to believe that snowflakes have conscious awareness because they haven't the equipment to do so, but I have some good reasons to believe that starlings do, or a form of it compared to human beings, because they do possess such equipment. What's the point you think you're trying to make, exactly?

The starlings are not aware of the swooping flock in the same way that an outside observer is aware of it.  The swooping flock property therefore has no awareness of itself - it only exists as a property in the eyes of an outside observer.  The point I am trying to make is that emergent properties are not seen or experienced from within.

[Shaker]

The starlings are not aware of the swooping flock in the same way that an outside observer is aware of it.  The swooping flock property therefore has no awareness of itself - it only exists as a property in the eyes of an outside observer.  The point I am trying to make is that emergent properties are not seen or experienced from within.

... which if I understand you aright is entirely and exactly the same as saying that a human member of a crowd such as will gather at various places in London tonight (or indeed any number of other cities) isn't aware of the behaviour of the crowd as a collective entity, because 'crowd' is merely the name we happen to give to a large number of individual entities gathered together in one place at once. Right. So?

[ekim]

There is evidence in abundance for those who genuinely seek it.

I think you are missing out on what Jesus advocated.  He said to seek first for the Kingdom of Heaven, not for evidence of it, and where to seek .... the Kingdom of Heaven is within you.  He also taught how to seek it, which you are not.

[ippy]

The starlings are not aware of the swooping flock in the same way that an outside observer is aware of it.  The swooping flock property therefore has no awareness of itself - it only exists as a property in the eyes of an outside observer.  The point I am trying to make is that emergent properties are not seen or experienced from within.

You're in danger of demonstrating an extreme case Do-Doitis, Alan.

ippy

[Dicky Underpants]

....and where to seek .... the Kingdom of Heaven is within you.  He also taught how to seek it, which you are not.

If only it were as clear as that (which isn't all that clear). The word you've quoted as 'within' is sometimes translated as 'among'. And of course, John has him saying "My Kingdom is not of this world".

[wigginhall]

It's interesting how AB keeps trying to construct a massive gulf between humans and other animals.  So examples of cooperative behaviour by animals (such as starlings) are not the same as human behaviour.  Well, yes, there are differences, but it's interesting how cooperation can be seen right across different groups of animals, including of course some insects, birds, mammals.  And not just cooperation, but collective action (as in hunting teams), fairness, punishment, and so on, are found in animals. 

I suppose AB needs this gulf, so that he can say that humans are radically different, and are given something by God, consciousness maybe, or a sense of self, that does not come from nature.

Well, it's another terrible argument.  It's not really an argument in fact, just a mixture of incredulity and God of the gaps. 

Is this it?  Has Christianity degenerated to this abysmal level of argument?

[Shaker]

It's interesting how AB keeps trying to construct a massive gulf between humans and other animals.  So examples of cooperative behaviour by animals (such as starlings) are not the same as human behaviour.  Well, yes, there are differences, but it's interesting how cooperation can be seen right across different groups of animals, including of course some insects, birds, mammals.  And not just cooperation, but collective action (as in hunting teams), fairness, punishment, and so on, are found in animals. 

I suppose AB needs this gulf, so that he can say that humans are radically different, and are given something by God, consciousness maybe, or a sense of self, that does not come from nature.

Well, it's another terrible argument.  It's not really an argument in fact, just a mixture of incredulity and God of the gaps. 

Is this it?  Has Christianity degenerated to this abysmal level of argument?

Christianity has never really been any different, essentially, because that's the hallmark of theism if anything is. Alan just takes it to a more extreme and obvious degree. Without the human exceptionalism of the kind to which you allude, theism is nothing and nowhere.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's interesting how AB keeps trying to construct a massive gulf between humans and other animals.  So examples of cooperative behaviour by animals (such as starlings) are not the same as human behaviour.  Well, yes, there are differences, but it's interesting how cooperation can be seen right across different groups of animals, including of course some insects, birds, mammals.  And not just cooperation, but collective action (as in hunting teams), fairness, punishment, and so on, are found in animals. 

I suppose AB needs this gulf, so that he can say that humans are radically different, and are given something by God, consciousness maybe, or a sense of self, that does not come from nature.

Well, it's another terrible argument.  It's not really an argument in fact, just a mixture of incredulity and God of the gaps. 

Is this it?  Has Christianity degenerated to this abysmal level of argument?

I suspect theism was unnecessarily spooked by atheists implying that science equals atheism.........they need not have been.......it doesn't equate.

[wigginhall]

I suspect theism was unnecessarily spooked by atheists implying that science equals atheism.........they need not have been.......it doesn't equate.

That doesn't explain why most arguments for Christian theism are so poor.  I think that once the traditional arguments in metaphysics had collapsed (since it's difficult to get from metaphysics to existence), people started scraping the barrel, and hence you get this gruesome mixture of incredulity (how could nature produce a sense of self?), and God of the gaps (God made the self).   There doesn't seem to be much else.