Searching for GOD...

[Brownie]

Floo, may I ask if you find it difficult to say or write the word, "God"?
"Deity" roughly means the same thing, a supernatural being with a divine nature whom people worship.

Perhaps you think "God" is far too familiar or personal;  the Jews used to believe that it was wrong to utter the name of God and wrote of Him/Her (they always thought in terms of "Him") as "G-d".  Many observant Jews still do.

They also had names for God - El Shaddai is one.

Just wondering why you use "Deity" so often.

[Outrider]

So you are implying that the selection of a particular outcome by a capable agency is something over and above normal deterministic behaviour.

No, I'm not implying anything.

The selection of a particular outcome by a capable agency - i.e. humans - is an intrinsic part of the deterministic model of the universe.

What I'm saying fairly plainly is that the claim that there is an interventionalist intelligence with a 'plan' that has set reality in motion or moderated it is entirely unevidenced, and not considered part of the standard deterministic model of reality.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sassy,

For Bluehillside,

Neuroscience... Give us a short detailed informative post on the actual subject.
Show us how you believe it takes away any free will and choice from the person.
Then explain why some believe in God and some don't and what proof you have that it is controlled by the brain.

You see the use Neuroscience does not explain why belief in God would manifest in the body of the sick being cured
from diseases which kill and cannot be cured in advanced stages.

I am interested in hearing what you really have learned and what you can actually prove.

You see, the emperors new clothes does not work with me. The wisdom of God can seek out and destroy human reasoning.
Show us how the body heals by the faith of a person in their brain. What happens with the brain of the believer?
More importantly...why...

I think you may have told us in the past that you live in Scotland? I hear that there's a big storm coming through - do stay warm won't you, and rely on friends and neighbours when you can to bring in supplies if you need them to.   

[wigginhall]

Sorry if I have mislead you on earlier posts, but I have always maintained (or tried to!) that our free will is free from deterministic causes.  The fact that I can think of a word or action, and then implement it, implies that the source of our apparent free will is linked to our conscious awareness.  If we were not able to think of a word or action, I do not believe we could say the word or implement the action.   Our awareness not only perceives, but thinks!  So we really need to define what comprises a "conscious thought" in order to understand our perception of free will.  Is a conscious thought comprised soleley of the electrical state of many brain cells, or is it the interpretation of the electrical state of our brain cells.  If it is the latter, the question then is: what is it that interprets the electrical state of our brain cells?

I've pointed out before that brain damage seems to affect severely our ability to think of a word and speak it.  Stroke clinics are full of people like this, and car crashes can have a similar effect.   Brain disease, such as Alzheimer's shows something even more severe, a loss of mental functions such as memory and reasoning.   I suppose you could say that the soul is undamaged by these things, but is powerless in the face of the brain being damaged.   I'm not sure what use this is to the people affected.

[Bubbles]

Floo, may I ask if you find it difficult to say or write the word, "God"?
"Deity" roughly means the same thing, a supernatural being with a divine nature whom people worship.

Perhaps you think "God" is far too familiar or personal;  the Jews used to believe that it was wrong to utter the name of God and wrote of Him/Her (they always thought in terms of "Him") as "G-d".  Many observant Jews still do.

They also had names for God - El Shaddai is one.

Just wondering why you use "Deity" so often.

Hashem is another one they use

http://www.aish.com/sp/ph/69739762.html?tab=y

[Alan Burns]

The complex of neural activity in a brain is the interpretation, a thought is the higher cognitive interpretation of vaguer feelings emanating from lower levels of mind.

I think I can claim assertion for these statements.  Since there is still no scientific definition of how conscious awareness works, we can't just assume that it is the neural activity in the brain.  This may well be a part of conscious awareness, but it does not define conscious awareness.

The mystery for me is how can any form of conscious awareness come into existence in a closed material universe comprising only of atomic elements.  The concept of emergence does not explain it, because nothing actually "emerges" from chemical activity - only reactions.  Any complexity or functionality perceived as emergent properties are merely observations as seen in human conscious awareness.  Any emergent property is still just comprised of atomic elements reacting with each other.

[wigginhall]

I think I can claim assertion for these statements.  Since there is still no scientific definition of how conscious awareness works, we can't just assume that it is the neural activity in the brain.  This may well be a part of conscious awareness, but it does not define conscious awareness.

The mystery for me is how can any form of conscious awareness come into existence in a closed material universe comprising only of atomic elements.  The concept of emergence does not explain it, because nothing actually "emerges" from chemical activity - only reactions.  Any complexity or functionality perceived as emergent properties are merely observations as seen in human conscious awareness.  Any emergent property is still just comprised of atomic elements reacting with each other.

The point about neural activity is that we can look at it empirically.  As I just said, various types of brain damage, and their effects on speech and language and thought, give neurologists a wealth of research material to work with.   For example, in stroke clinics, you can see people who find vocabulary difficult, and others, who find grammar difficult, and mixed types.

My point is that this is empirical.   Your notion of 'conscious awareness' just seems to float above all this like the proverbial ghost at the banquet.

[floo]

Floo, may I ask if you find it difficult to say or write the word, "God"?
"Deity" roughly means the same thing, a supernatural being with a divine nature whom people worship.

Perhaps you think "God" is far too familiar or personal;  the Jews used to believe that it was wrong to utter the name of God and wrote of Him/Her (they always thought in terms of "Him") as "G-d".  Many observant Jews still do.

They also had names for God - El Shaddai is one.

Just wondering why you use "Deity" so often.

Why not?

[Outrider]

I think I can claim assertion for these statements.  Since there is still no scientific definition of how conscious awareness works, we can't just assume that it is the neural activity in the brain.  This may well be a part of conscious awareness, but it does not define conscious awareness.

Apart from your distaste at the idea, though, what reason do you have to think there's anything more?

The mystery for me is how can any form of conscious awareness come into existence in a closed material universe comprising only of atomic elements.

The mystery for me is how, in the self-declared absence of a concrete definition of consciousness, you can so suredly declare that it can't possibly be the result of the interaction of already identified phenomena.

The concept of emergence does not explain it, because nothing actually "emerges" from chemical activity - only reactions.

Whilst how consciousness might emerge from brain activity isn't precisely defined - that's why it falls in the bracket of 'emergent' behaviour - your depiction shows that you fail to understand the concept of emergence. Evolution was an emergent behaviour of biology until the discovery of DNA and the genetic explanations of mutation showed the mechanisms.

Any complexity or functionality perceived as emergent properties are merely observations as seen in human conscious awareness.  Any emergent property is still just comprised of atomic elements reacting with each other.

Right. And what's wrong with that? That's a fantastically complex set of interactions, capable of encoding an unfathomable amount of information.

O.

[Alan Burns]

I've pointed out before that brain damage seems to affect severely our ability to think of a word and speak it.  Stroke clinics are full of people like this, and car crashes can have a similar effect.   Brain disease, such as Alzheimer's shows something even more severe, a loss of mental functions such as memory and reasoning.   I suppose you could say that the soul is undamaged by these things, but is powerless in the face of the brain being damaged.   I'm not sure what use this is to the people affected.

As I see it, the human brain with its sensory inputs is the soul's window into this world.  A camera does not "see" and a tape recorder does not "hear".  What these instruments do is process the information into a format that can be percieved by a conscious observer.  I believe that our human eyes and ears process information through our brains into a format which can be perceived by our soul.  If the instruments suffer physical damage, the information will get corrupted in some way.  But as you say, the soul will remain undamaged

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I think I can claim assertion for these statements.

This from a man who consistently asserts into existence “God”, “soul”, “devil” etc?

Since there is still no scientific definition of how conscious awareness works, we can't just assume that it is the neural activity in the brain.  This may well be a part of conscious awareness, but it does not define conscious awareness.

As you’ve been told often now, the understanding of consciousness is far from complete but neuroscience can already tell us a great deal about it. Moreover, we know too that very complex outcomes can come from relatively simple components with no top down plan needed through a process called “emergence”, and prima facie consciousness as an emergent property of our material brains fits that paradigm.

Why then invent an entirely ontology to replace that for which there’s neither reason nor evidence?     

The mystery for me is how can any form of conscious awareness come into existence in a closed material universe comprising only of atomic elements.

That’s yet another example of the argument from personal incredulity – a basic logical fallacy. It may well be a “mystery” for you, but that says nothing to the claims you then build on your personal incredulity.

The concept of emergence does not explain it, because nothing actually "emerges" from chemical activity - only reactions. 

Any complexity or functionality perceived as emergent properties are merely observations as seen in human conscious awareness. 
Any emergent property is still just comprised of atomic elements reacting with each other.

Flat wrong.

Again.

Look, I’ve told you why this is wrong several times now and I’ve even pointed you toward a book that explains it more fully (Stephen Johnson’s “Emergence”). Until you finally grasp what emergence actually entails, why keep parading your misunderstanding of it here?

[wigginhall]

As I see it, the human brain with its sensory inputs is the soul's window into this world.  A camera does not "see" and a tape recorder does not "hear".  What these instruments do is process the information into a format that can be percieved by a conscious observer.  I believe that our human eyes and ears process information through our brains into a format which can be perceived by our soul.  If the instruments suffer physical damage, the information will get corrupted in some way.  But as you say, the soul will remain undamaged

Yet with severe dementia, we can see people who have lost all their mental functioning, can't recognize people, can't think, or remember very much, become incontinent, may not be able to swallow.   In many ways, their actual identity has been shattered.  Ah well, never mind, their soul is still floating there, watching all this.   This strikes me as a bizarre idea, and not much use to those suffering.   

[Alan Burns]

Look, I’ve told you why this is wrong several times now and I’ve even pointed you toward a book that explains it more fully (Stephen Johnson’s “Emergence”).

I have read several articles on emergence which describe it as an observed pattern of behaviour.  I may be wrong, but from what I have read so far, Stephen Johnson is the only person who has tried to relate emergence to conscious awareness in the brain.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

As I see it, the human brain with its sensory inputs is the soul's window into this world.  A camera does not "see" and a tape recorder does not "hear".  What these instruments do is process the information into a format that can be percieved by a conscious observer.  I believe that our human eyes and ears process information through our brains into a format which can be perceived by our soul.  If the instruments suffer physical damage, the information will get corrupted in some way.  But as you say, the soul will remain undamaged

And I believe that aeroplanes fly because the worker priestesses of Nephilim hold them up with invisible fishing wire in exchange for regular supplies if garibaldi biscuits from the airlines, who keep the while thing covered up.

See, we can both believe things that flatly contradict all the available evidence and for which we have no evidence whatever, but sadly neither of us should expect anyone else to take us seriously when we do.   

[Sassy]

Sassy,

I think you may have told us in the past that you live in Scotland? I hear that there's a big storm coming through - do stay warm won't you, and rely on friends and neighbours when you can to bring in supplies if you need them to.

What a croc I live in England. I love Scotland and Edinburgh my favourite place of all my travels it feels like home to me.
Try to keep your lonely brain cell from clogging up on too much wrong information...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sassy,

What a croc I live in England. I love Scotland and Edinburgh my favourite place of all my travels it feels like home to me.
Try to keep your lonely brain cell from clogging up on too much wrong information...

Interesting things crocodiles. Did you know that some species can communicate up to 20 messages vocally, and that they can live to be over 100 years old?

Oh hang on, did you mean crock?

Sorry – my bad.

Wherever you are, stay warm and safe anyway and try not to let your contempt for others limit your enjoyment of your own life won’t you.

[torridon]

As I see it, the human brain with its sensory inputs is the soul's window into this world.  A camera does not "see" and a tape recorder does not "hear".  What these instruments do is process the information into a format that can be percieved by a conscious observer.  I believe that our human eyes and ears process information through our brains into a format which can be perceived by our soul.  If the instruments suffer physical damage, the information will get corrupted in some way.  But as you say, the soul will remain undamaged

A camera does not "see" and a tape recorder does not "hear", yes, OK.  But antelopes do see and cats do hear, but your belief system arbitrarily denies souls to these creatures, so how do they see and hear ?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I have read several articles on emergence which describe it as an observed pattern of behaviour.

No you haven't. "Emergence" describes properties that are caused by simpler components that individually have no concept of those properties, whether or not they are "observed". Some types of emergence are non-adaptive (like snowflakes) and others are adaptive (like ant colonies).   

I may be wrong, but from what I have read so far, Stephen Johnson is the only person who has tried to relate emergence to conscious awareness in the brain.

You are wrong - it's fairly mainstream academic thinking these days. 

[Brownie]

This Wiki article gives a fairly comprehensive definition of the word "soul", floo.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul

Torridon, the Abrahamic belief systems deny that animals (other than homo sapiens) have souls but there are other beliefs who acknowledge they do have souls.  Also some Christians don't toe the 'party line' in this regard.   It was Thomas Aquinas who first decided that animals have no souls, I do not know why Christians have gone along with that ever since, it's only an opinion.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Brownie,

...it's only an opinion

As for that matter is the existence of "souls" in the first place, regardless of which species supposedly get to have them.

[floo]

I define 'soul' as another word for consciousness, how do other posters define the word?

[Shaker]

I define 'soul' as another word for consciousness, how do other posters define the word?

James Brown

[floo]

James Brown

James Brown?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Floo,

James Brown?

Get on down!

[Brownie]

Brownie,

As for that matter is the existence of "souls" in the first place, regardless of which species supposedly get to have them.

Of course bluehillside, that isn't in dispute.
-----------------
floo, I posted a link to a wiki article in my previous post, which gives definitions of the word 'soul'.   Don't feel obliged to read it  but I thought you might find it interesting.
-------------------------------
Shaker, well done.  I tried to copy youtube links for soul music but when I got back here, I couldn't post any.  Anyway you got there first and who doesn't like James Brown?  I'd like to try to post an Amy Winehouse one so wish me luck.