Searching for GOD...

[Leonard James]

Dear Leonard,

No we are all party to the same information, it is how we choose to interpretate interpret that information that makes us different.

Gonnagle.

OK, so what decided you to choose the "god" interpretation?

[Gonnagle]

Dear Leonard,

A profound change in me, and since that day decades ago I have been on a voyage of discovery, it has been a real rollercoaster of a ride.

Gonnagle.

[Leonard James]

Dear Leonard,

A profound change in me, and since that day decades ago I have been on a voyage of discovery, it has been a real rollercoaster of a ride.

Gonnagle.

What caused the change in you?

[Nearly Sane]

Dear Sane,

Same as you, only I have a God spot, you don't, even though you have a spiritual side and religious, which makes me wonder why you dismiss any notion of God.

Gonnagle.

In which case I am not choosing, and I don't dismiss any notion of God, I 've only ever stated that I have never seen a definition of it that isn't either logically contradictory or meaningless.

[torridon]

1. Instead of thinking 'a flow of electrons can generate conscious awareness', try to understand it thus ; 'a flow of electrons is conscious awareness', that would be slightly closer. 

2. It is because they are pure information; inner mental experience is what information feels like when we process it.

Just some questions which might help clarify it for Alan:
1. Does this mean that the electric circuits in my house are consciously aware when the lights are switched on?
2. Feels like to what?  What is the subject which 'feels' the objective mental forms (information)? Are you saying that scientists have declared it to be electrons?

1. Not in any sense resembling normal use of the word 'conscious', ie as applied to sentient beings in a waking state - this is a very very particular informational state many orders of magnitude more complex than a single stream linear information flow along a single wire.
2. To my way of thinking, the 'subject' would be an emergent centre of gravity of those information flows that are mostly intimately concerned with the internal state of the body.

[wigginhall]

If you can bring yourself to believe that your conscious awareness is nothing more than a flow of electrons I fear that there could be some insurmountable obstacle here.

Reversal of the burden of proof, which you use a lot.   Your task is to produce arguments and evidence to sustain your own position.   Saying that another position is wrong does not do this. 

[Enki]

So in essence you are implying that "you" are just a flow of electrons.   

We know a great deal about electrons and their characteristics and we also understand quite a lot about the electrical activity of the brain and are learning more each day. We also have pretty solid evidence of a connection between electrical activity within the brain and our consciousness. This suggests, at the very least, a correlation between the two, and, arguably causation. In fact it is quite reasonable to suggest that this electrical activity is consciousness.

So, what are you offering?

An assertion of a 'soul' for which:

a) You seem to have no means of even validating its existence(except by personal credulity, which only counts for you, not others).

b) You seem totally unable to describe its location.

c) You cannot seem to describe its make up, except in only the vaguest of terms, none of which can be verified.

d) You have not shown in any way how such a metaphysical entity manages to connect to the physical world.

Tell me, if an unbiased observer was looking at these two alternatives(a soul or electronic activity) then which one do you think he/she would find the more rational explanation for consciousness?

[wigginhall]

enki - yes, good arguments.  I also think that dementia is explained better by the idea that the brain produces consciousness, and various cognitive structures.    It's straightforward then to say that as the brain is damaged, one's sense of self, one's memory, one's perceptions of others - are all damaged.   On the other hand, with the soul idea, presumably, the brain is damaged, but the soul is not.   So how come that people with dementia can practically disappear as persons? 

[floo]

If I read Alan aright he believes the 'soul' is a separate entity to the brain!

[torridon]

enki - yes, good arguments.  I also think that dementia is explained better by the idea that the brain produces consciousness, and various cognitive structures.    It's straightforward then to say that as the brain is damaged, one's sense of self, one's memory, one's perceptions of others - are all damaged.   On the other hand, with the soul idea, presumably, the brain is damaged, but the soul is not.   So how come that people with dementia can practically disappear as persons?

I think it is hard for us all to accept the idea that there is no primary ontological basis to a 'person'.  It runs contrary to our intuitions, and contrary to most traditional beliefs.  Trying to conceptualise a 'person' as an ephemeral, emergent and temporary property of other things does not come naturally; like people often say of free-will, that you have to live as if you have it, we also live day to day as if there was a 'person' inside, a 'person' being a distinct thing in its own right.

[Alan Burns]

Is our 'spiritual home' part of this universe?

This universe will eventually burn out and then slowly evaporate into radiation.

Heaven is eternal.

[wigginhall]

I think it is hard for us all to accept the idea that there is no primary ontological basis to a 'person'.  It runs contrary to our intuitions, and contrary to most traditional beliefs.  Trying to conceptualise a 'person' as an ephemeral, emergent and temporary property of other things does not come naturally; like people often say of free-will, that you have to live as if you have it, we also live day to day as if there was a 'person' inside, a 'person' being a distinct thing in its own right.

Yes, good points.  On the other hand,  I have hung out with Buddhists for the last 30 years, and they (or some of them), tend to take everything to pieces, and certainly being a person.   In fact, some Buddhists argue that there is neither self nor God, which is quite amusing, but also reflects a kind of equivalence possibly, between the two.   

I suppose AB's argument is partly that the I can't be explained materially, therefore God.   A poor argument.

Oops, I forgot the bit about dementia, which is that the person can disappear, because of brain damage.   But the soul survives? 

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

This universe will eventually burn out and then slowly evaporate into radiation.

Heaven is eternal.

So why bother with a Universe?

Why not just have Heaven?

By the way has God got back to me yet on my latest message? I want to know what I did that requires his forgiveness?

[Dicky Underpants]

Heaven is eternal.

But the plural version presumably not (Genesis 1:1)

[Alan Burns]

But how is it evidence of God's creation. I look around and see the world. Full stop, no God. How would a world that was not created by a God look different?

You would not see anything because you would not exist.

[Stranger]

But how is it evidence of God's creation. I look around and see the world. Full stop, no God. How would a world that was not created by a God look different?

You would not see anything because you would not exist.

So, you seem to be asserting that the only way that a universe could exist is if it was created by your god...?

Evidence? Reasoning? Anything at all to back this up...?

[Alan Burns]

I want to know what I did that requires his forgiveness?

Try using your God given conscience

[wigginhall]

If you can smell burning rubber, in a virtual sort of way, it's because the Assertatron is now working flat out, pumping out unsupported statements by the gallon.   Alert! Alert!  The soul is, God is, heaven is, all because I say so!  Alert! Alert!

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

You would not see anything because you would not exist.

Oh dear. And you know this how?

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Try using your God given conscience

It's clear.

So everything is fine then?

[Alan Burns]

You would not see anything because you would not exist.


So, you seem to be asserting that the only way that a universe could exist is if it was created by your god...?

Evidence? Reasoning? Anything at all to back this up...?

Without God:

In the beginning there was a big bang.
(end of story)

[Alan Burns]

Oh dear. And you know this how?

To answer this, you need to ask yourself:
What is knowledge?
How can it exist?
What does it physically comprise of?
Where does it emanate from?

[ekim]

Just some questions which might help clarify it for Alan:
1. Does this mean that the electric circuits in my house are consciously aware when the lights are switched on?
2. Feels like to what?  What is the subject which 'feels' the objective mental forms (information)? Are you saying that scientists have declared it to be electrons?


1. Not in any sense resembling normal use of the word 'conscious', ie as applied to sentient beings in a waking state - this is a very very particular informational state many orders of magnitude more complex than a single stream linear information flow along a single wire.
2. To my way of thinking, the 'subject' would be an emergent centre of gravity of those information flows that are mostly intimately concerned with the internal state of the body.

Interesting.  In the case of (1) At what order of magnitude does awareness arise?  Does a foetus, for instance, possess sufficient complexity to be aware?
In the case of (2)Does this centre of gravity collapse when information ceases to flow?  Is it a special centre of gravity or is it like the earth's centre of gravity, which doesn't seem to depend upon a complex information flow or electrons?

[Stranger]

Without God:

In the beginning there was a big bang.
(end of story)

With God:

It all just happened because God just is, 'cos he's magic and doesn't need an explanation and 'cos I say so, so there!

More seriously, the fact that you find other explanations incomplete or not to your liking is not evidence or reasoning that supports your favourite story. It's OK for us to not know all the answers - we don't need all the answers.

I'll ask again, what evidence, reasoning or anything at all do you have to support the existence of your god...?

[wigginhall]

To answer this, you need to ask yourself:
What is knowledge?
How can it exist?
What does it physically comprise of?
Where does it emanate from?

Well, perhaps you need to ask these questions, but we have seen that your answers tend to be unsupported assertions, coupled with the usual incredulous 'X can't be true, therefore God'.