Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

Awareness is a reaction

A physical reaction may occur as a consequence of awareness, but it does not define awareness.

You need to define the recipient.

[torridon]

A physical reaction may occur as a consequence of awareness, but it does not define awareness.

You need to define the recipient.

Perception frequently leads to motor response, yes, flight or fight response etc, but that awareness itself is the result of multiple reactions at a lower level of perception in the first place; as I gave in the example of eyesight, it is composed of multiple chain reactions at the level of biochemistry.  This is how awareness builds up, from the elementary to the complex.

The recipient, well, this is a somewhat less easy concept here that I am arguing about with Vlad on another thread. For now, I'll just say that the 'recipient', in terms of humans, at least, is a construct of conscious mind.

[Alan Burns]

For now, I'll just say that the 'recipient', in terms of humans, at least, is a construct of conscious mind.

In other words, the recipient is "you".

[torridon]

In other words, the recipient is "you".

Well, yes, of course, and in most circumstances, that would be good enough.  But a scientific or philosophical definition of what is meant by 'me' or 'you' is actually not so simple.  It is the philosophical problem of identity and western religions have traditionally cited the soul as that essential thing which persists within a person over time and that too might be good enough for most people for most of the time.  It is not sufficient however for digging beneath the skin of what makes us tick.  If we want to study pyschology, for instance, 'souls' are one of the first things that have to go out the window as such ideas obstruct rather than help learning at that level.

[Stranger]

You need to define the recipient.

Actually, it's you who needs to define it, in order to show that it can't be produced by the physical brain. We have no evidence of anything but the brain, so it is you who needs to back up your assertions.

[edit for typo]

[ekim]

Well, yes, of course, and in most circumstances, that would be good enough.  But a scientific or philosophical definition of what is meant by 'me' or 'you' is actually not so simple.  It is the philosophical problem of identity and western religions have traditionally cited the soul as that essential thing which persists within a person over time and that too might be good enough for most people for most of the time.  It is not sufficient however for digging beneath the skin of what makes us tick.  If we want to study pyschology, for instance, 'souls' are one of the first things that have to go out the window as such ideas obstruct rather than help learning at that level.

Psyche is the word in the New Testament which is translated as 'soul'.  'Soul' is a Germanic word which is based upon 'life'.  I would suggest that psychology perhaps can only study mental forms and forces which are associated with 'psyche'.  Similarly biology studies life forms and forces rather than 'life' itself.

[Alan Burns]

Actually, it's you who needs to define it, in order to show that it can't be produced by the physical brain. We have no evidence of anything but the brain, so it is you who needs to back up your assertions.

We have two types of evidence.  One is the evidence produced from our physical senses, man made equipment and human logic.  The other evidence is the perceived nature of our human mind.  It is apparent to most people that the former does not adequately explain how the latter exists.  We have yet to discover what makes the human mind work as it does.  There are some who assume that material science will eventually explain how the conscious awareness and free will of the human brain works, but this is only an assumption based upon the logic that nothing else exists apart from what can be detected by current science.   My own view is that human science may never be able to discover the nature of our human soul.  I maintain that the evidence for the human soul lies in the awareness of our own existence and our ability to implement acts of free will rather than the limited scope of human scientific investigation.

[Stranger]

We have two types of evidence.  One is the evidence produced from our physical senses, man made equipment and human logic.  The other evidence is the perceived nature of our human mind.

Okay.

It is apparent to most people that the former does not adequately explain how the latter exists.

Even if you had evidence that this is true of most people, it would be an ad populum fallacy.

We have yet to discover what makes the human mind work as it does.

Exactly; which is why we cannot definitely say whether it can or cannot be explained by current science.

There are some who assume that material science will eventually explain how the conscious awareness and free will of the human brain works, but this is only an assumption based upon the logic that nothing else exists apart from what can be detected by current science.

Science is the only way we have of investigating the problem - if you have another methodology, then feel free to present it. There is no assumption that current science will do the job. Some serious scientists have argued that new theories will be required, but they remain in the minority.

My own view is that human science may never be able to discover the nature of our human soul.  I maintain that the evidence for the human soul lies in the awareness of our own existence and our ability to implement acts of free will rather than the limited scope of human scientific investigation.

You are entitled to your view but you have not provided any evidence or reasoning to back it up, so it no more than blind faith.

You really need to examine what you mean by 'free will' as well. Most people (in my experience) have a concept of it that is self-contradictory.

[Shaker]

Science is the only way we have of investigating the problem - if you have another methodology, then feel free to present it.

I've been asking around about that - you find the odd person here and there who claims that such a methodology exists and the even odder one who claims to have presented it somewhere else, but as to sharing it here or giving a pointer to these other places, no dice I'm afraid.

[Leonard James]

My own view is that human science may never be able to discover the nature of our human soul.

Quite! But that is simply because there is no evidence that such a thing exists. The 'soul' is nothing more than a concept invented by various religions/beliefs, which is why it is described in so many different ways.

I maintain that the evidence for the human soul lies in the awareness of our own existence and our ability to implement acts of free will rather than the limited scope of human scientific investigation.

Awareness and free will are evident in many other species, they are in no way restricted to humans.

[floo]

Quite! But that is simply because there is no evidence that such a thing exists. The 'soul' is nothing more than a concept invented by various religions/beliefs, which is why it is described in so many different ways.

Awareness and free will are evident in many other species, they are in no way restricted to humans.

Dogs are a good example of another species, which seems to have awareness and free will.

[Alan Burns]

Dogs are a good example of another species, which seems to have awareness and free will.

So can you find a dog which chose to go on a diet because it was aware that it was too fat? 

[floo]

So can you find a dog which chose to go on a diet because it was aware that it was too fat? 

Just because humans are more intelligent than other animals doesn't mean that we are not an animal species, we have just progressed further. How many humans went on diets in days of yore because they were too fat? It is science, a product of human ingenuity, which has pointed us in the direction of the dangers of over eating. I don't remember any commandments saying, 'Thou shalt not over eat'.

[BeRational]

AB

Before scientists discovered how light propagates through space you would have insisted on the aether.

[Nearly Sane]

Dogs are a good example of another species, which seems to have awareness and free will.

Given that you appear to agree with Alan. Burns that free will exists, perhaps you might help him out on the argument and say what your evidence for it is?

[floo]

Given that you appear to agree with Alan. Burns that free will exists, perhaps you might help him out on the argument and say what your evidence for it is?

Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh?

[wigginhall]

We have two types of evidence.  One is the evidence produced from our physical senses, man made equipment and human logic.  The other evidence is the perceived nature of our human mind.  It is apparent to most people that the former does not adequately explain how the latter exists.  We have yet to discover what makes the human mind work as it does.  There are some who assume that material science will eventually explain how the conscious awareness and free will of the human brain works, but this is only an assumption based upon the logic that nothing else exists apart from what can be detected by current science.   My own view is that human science may never be able to discover the nature of our human soul.  I maintain that the evidence for the human soul lies in the awareness of our own existence and our ability to implement acts of free will rather than the limited scope of human scientific investigation.

This all seems circular to me.  You say that there is no scientific evidence for the soul, true enough, but that the evidence relates to self-awareness.   But that is the soul, isn't it, in your terms?  You might as well say that evidence for phlogiston is that things stop burning when the air is saturated with phlogiston.

[Nearly Sane]

Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh?

Alan Burns has attempted to argue that free will exists on this thread (not at all successfully imo),  you seem to agree with him that free will does exist, so I was wondering if you had better arguments for it, and if so what are they?

[Leonard James]

So can you find a dog which chose to go on a diet because it was aware that it was too fat? 

The fact that man's sense of self-awareness is greater than that of other species does not alter the fact that they are self-aware. My dog is perfectly well aware when I ask a guest to sit down that I am not referring to it ... but responds immediately when I ask it to do so directly with the same words.

[Leonard James]

Given that you appear to agree with Alan. Burns that free will exists, perhaps you might help him out on the argument and say what your evidence for it is?

Let's not start this again, NS!

Dogs have the ability to do something other than they have been told to, just as humans do. That is what Floo meant. Whether you consider it free will or not does not alter one jot the fact that the ability is possessed by both species.

[floo]

Let's not start this again, NS!

Dogs have the ability to do something other than they have been told to, just as humans do. That is what Floo meant. Whether you consider it free will or not does not alter one jot the fact that the ability is possessed by both species.

Thanks Leonard.

[Nearly Sane]

Let's not start this again, NS!

Dogs have the ability to do something other than they have been told to, just as humans do. That is what Floo meant. Whether you consider it free will or not does not alter one jot the fact that the ability is possessed by both species.

Why not? A substantial part of the thread has been people challenging Alan Burns on his assertion and argument that free will exists. You didn't pick up the many posters such as Shaker,  torridon, bluehillside etc when they challenged Alan on this so why now when I pick up floo for using the same term?

[Leonard James]

Why not? A substantial part of the thread has been people challenging Alan Burns on his assertion and argument that free will exists. You didn't pick up the many posters such as Shaker,  torridon, bluehillside etc when they challenged Alan on this so why now when I pick up floo for using the same term?

Because we all understand the substance of Alan's post and what he intends. He is trying to set humans apart from other animals, and both Floo and I are saying why that is not true.

[Nearly Sane]

Because we all understand the substance of Alan's post and what he intends. He is trying to set humans apart from other animals, and both Floo and I are saying why that is not true.

But you are saying it and making an assertion that he gets picked up on. If floo thinks free will exists why shouldn't she have to argue for it in the same way as Alan?

[Stranger]

Why not? A substantial part of the thread has been people challenging Alan Burns on his assertion and argument that free will exists. You didn't pick up the many posters such as Shaker,  torridon, bluehillside etc when they challenged Alan on this so why now when I pick up floo for using the same term?

Actually, free will could probably do with a separate thread - I'd tend towards the compatibilist view (as expounded by Dennett and others). That, of course, makes it meaningful from a mortal, human point of view but nonsensical from the point of view of an omnipotent and omniscient god.