Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

So this soul sits there like a back seat driver while the brain is busy doing all the work, conscripting information flows, organising and synchronising them.  To pursue the driving metaphor, if the brain is doing all the driving, your soul, wanting to have experience, instead of looking out the window for itself, you seem to have it peering into the back of the driver's head to try and work out what's outside.  If a soul has these supernatural powers to look at a brain and derive second hand experience from a brain's primary information flows, why doesn't it just use those powers to see for itself instead of looking at a brain ?

I certainly do not see the soul as a back seat driver.  The soul is the driver, perceiving the sensory information in the brain and invoking every conscious decision we make.

But the bible infers that our soul is eternal, and therefore not part of this temporal universe.  So the soul must need some form of interface in order to interact with this universe, which God has provided in the form of our human bodies.

[floo]

I certainly do not see the soul as a back seat driver.  The soul is the driver, perceiving the sensory information in the brain and invoking every conscious decision we make.

But the bible infers that our soul is eternal, and therefore not part of this temporal universe.  So the soul must need some form of interface in order to interact with this universe, which God has provided in the form of our human bodies.

Whatever the Bible infers, doesn't mean it has any veracity.

[Dicky Underpants]

But the bible infers that our soul is eternal, and therefore not part of this temporal universe.

"The Soul that sinneth - it shall die" Ezekiel 18:20

[torridon]

I certainly do not see the soul as a back seat driver.  The soul is the driver, perceiving the sensory information in the brain and invoking every conscious decision we make.

But the bible infers that our soul is eternal, and therefore not part of this temporal universe.  So the soul must need some form of interface in order to interact with this universe, which God has provided in the form of our human bodies.

So if a soul can interact with a brain, why cannot it interact with simpler things ? If it can look at brain cells why cannot it use that power to look at flowers and trees also ?  that would be far simpler than trying to work out what is going on in a brain.

[SusanDoris]

At some time you will come to realise that you are a spiritual entity Susan.  You are so much more than mere flesh and blood.

I am a material, flesh and blood member of an evolved species of ape. I have a brain which can imagine all sorts of things that do not actually exist. I have, as all humans have, an aesthetic  aspect to my personality which means I can enjoy, to varying degrees, music, the visual arts; can appreciate the superb ability some of our species have to create

stories which enable us to think a bout ourselves as humans and how we can make life better for ourselves and others.
I have two sons and two granddaughters, so some of my, and my ex's, family genes will be passing on through them. 

One aspect of my personality is that I do not admire a tendency in people to be patronising!

[Stranger]

If memory is derived from information in our physical brain cells, and these cells become damaged, then "that which perceives the content of our memory cells" will no longer perceive that information - hence dementia.

So, if the memories of our lives are actually stored in our physical brains and not in our souls, then after we die and the brain is gone, no matter how eternal our souls are, we aren't going to remember anything....

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So, if the memories of our lives are actually stored in our physical brains and not in our souls, then after we die and the brain is gone, no matter how eternal our souls are, we aren't going to remember anything....

Ah but that's it where is the information stored? If the earth blew up tomorrow Hancock's half hour would still be in existence in Box set quantity radiating out at the speed of light.

What is forgotten is the scriptural notion of resurrection in which we truly die but are reconstructed by God. A materialist after all should have no problem with the notion of reassembly.

[Leonard James]

"The Soul that sinneth - it shall die" Ezekiel 18:20

Well spotted, Dicky! Yet another contradiction.

[Sebastian Toe]

Indeed the more I read about his philosophy on the human mind, the more it concurs with my own thinking:

The capacities that make human minds superior to animal souls, according to Leibniz,.

Animal souls?
Have you changed your mind on that subject already?

[Alan Burns]

Animal souls?
Have you changed your mind on that subject already?

That line is actually a mis quote because Liebniz did not believe animals had souls.

[Sebastian Toe]

That line is actually a mis quote because Liebniz did not believe animals had souls.

Not a very good source to be quoting from then is it? 

[torridon]

That line is actually a mis quote because Liebniz did not believe animals had souls.

whereas you do, it seems, since you seem to regard the brain alone as incapable of being the seat of experience.

[Stranger]

So, if the memories of our lives are actually stored in our physical brains and not in our souls, then after we die and the brain is gone, no matter how eternal our souls are, we aren't going to remember anything....

Ah but that's it where is the information stored?

In memory cells, according to Alan (#12207).

If the earth blew up tomorrow Hancock's half hour would still be in existence in Box set quantity radiating out at the speed of light.

Err... What are you suggesting by this exactly?

What is forgotten is the scriptural notion of resurrection in which we truly die but are reconstructed by God. A materialist after all should have no problem with the notion of reassembly.

Right, so rather than store memories along with the means to use them - this incompetent god of yours stores them where they are going to be lost and has to go to all the trouble of reconstructing them.

Sounds like a massive design fault and a retrofit.

[floo]

That line is actually a mis quote because Liebniz did not believe animals had souls.

But as humans are only another species of animal, why should we be any different to the rest?

[Alan Burns]

I am a material, flesh and blood member of an evolved species of ape. I have a brain which can imagine all sorts of things that do not actually exist. I have, as all humans have, an aesthetic  aspect to my personality which means I can enjoy, to varying degrees, music, the visual arts; can appreciate the superb ability some of our species have to create

stories which enable us to think a bout ourselves as humans and how we can make life better for ourselves and others.
I have two sons and two granddaughters, so some of my, and my ex's, family genes will be passing on through them. 

One aspect of my personality is that I do not admire a tendency in people to be patronising!

But just contemplate the thought processes you use to bring you to these conclusions.  Science may be able to point to patterns of electrons which correlate to these thoughts, but science can't even scratch the surface of how these electrons can be perceived and translated into the thoughts you experience, because science can't define the "you" in this scenario.

[Shaker]

So if, as you claim, science can't do it, nothing else can either. All this talk of souls and free will and what-have-you is an exercise in gap-plugging because you're uncomfortable with saying "I don't know - in fact nobody does, yet."

[Alan Burns]

But as humans are only another species of animal, why should we be any different to the rest?

Because we do not just react.  We have an inner self, the soul, which guides our thoughts and conscious choices.

[Alan Burns]

whereas you do, it seems, since you seem to regard the brain alone as incapable of being the seat of experience.

The brain alone is quite capable of producing any of the reactions we see in animal behaviour.

[wigginhall]

So if, as you claim, science can't do it, nothing else can either. All this talk of souls and free will and what-have-you is an exercise in gap-plugging because you're uncomfortable with saying "I don't know - in fact nobody does, yet."

It also makes the problem much worse, since it has 'multiplied entities unnecessarily'.   Or in Occam's terms, non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem.   So not only do researchers have to explain the link between thought and neural activity, they now have to factor in the soul, free will, and probably other baggage.   I could suggest that in fact, thoughts are controlled from Alpha Centauri by a central intelligence agency, hee hee, but again, that would be an unnecessary multiplication.

"We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."  Newton.

[Stranger]

But just contemplate the thought processes you use to bring you to these conclusions.  Science may be able to point to patterns of electrons which correlate to these thoughts, but science can't even scratch the surface of how these electrons can be perceived and translated into the thoughts you experience, because science can't define the "you" in this scenario.

Neither can you. Just asserting it has to be a non-material soul is just making up words to cover our ignorance.

[Alan Burns]

Neither can you. Just asserting it has to be a non-material soul is just making up words to cover our ignorance.

But I am not making it up.  I am just illustrating that it fits in with the divine revelations in the Christian bible which tell us that we have a spiritual soul which will survive the death of the physical body.

[Shaker]

But I am not making it up.  I am just illustrating that it fits in with the divine revelations in the Christian bible which tell us that we have a spiritual soul which will survive the death of the physical body.

Shifting unsupported assertion away from yourself to a book makes it no less unsupported assertion, Alan. Who says the Bible is gospel?

[Alan Burns]

Who says the Bible is gospel?

[floo]

Because we do not just react.  We have an inner self, the soul, which guides our thoughts and conscious choices.

The brain guides our thoughts as it does in animals, we are just a little farther along the evolutionary process that is all.

[Leonard James]

The brain alone is quite capable of producing any of the reactions we see in animal behaviour.

Well done, Alan, you are slowly getting the picture. Now accept the fact that humans are a species of animal.