Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Len,

Like deciding to jump up and touch the moon.

What's doing this "deciding" exactly?

[Stranger]

The cause of me making a choice is my decision to do so.

Yes, but your decision isn't atomic; it isn't a (singular) thing. It's an incredibly complex function of your brain that can, in principle at least, be broken down into steps that are either deterministic or introduce a random element.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Len,

What's doing this "deciding" exactly?

Good question......got an answer?

[Leonard James]

Len,

Who's this "me" - the agglomeration of unfathomably long chains of cause and effect that have gone before, or do you subscribe to Alan's little man at the controls conjecture that's somehow free of these constraints?

At the risk of repeating myself (again!) "me" is my brain - or rather that part of my brain which coordinates all incoming stimuli with my memory banks. The CPU of the brain, if you see what I mean.

And no, my ability to choose a course of action is not at the edict of anything except me ... much less Alan's "soul" thing. 

[Leonard James]

Len,

What's doing this "deciding" exactly?

My brain is. See previous post.

[Leonard James]

Yes, but your decision isn't atomic; it isn't a (singular) thing. It's an incredibly complex function of your brain that can, in principle at least, be broken down into steps that are either deterministic or introduce a random element.

Ask a neuroscientist, not me. It is clear to me that the brains of all organisms contains a part that coordinates all sensory input with memory banks and thence promotes responsive activity.

[Leonard James]

Good question......got an answer?

See above.

[torridon]

The cause of me making a choice is my decision to do so. Nothing can oblige me to make a specific decision ... except of course the confines of possibility.

The very notion that you can have control over something (in this case your decision making brain) implies a separation; a separation between the controller and that which is controlled.  It might be alright in Alan's eyes because he has a soul acting as controller; but in your case there is no controller because the controller and the controlled are the same thing - your brain.  It doesn't make sense to claim we have control over our brain because we are our brain.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Len,

My brain is. See previous post.

Well, that at least avoids the superfluity of conjuring up Alan's little man at the controls so it has the explanatory advantage of parsimony. You still though I think adhere to the notion that your brain is in some way free of the constraints of cause and effect. Let's assume for a minute however the the reasoning and neuroscience are correct - that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, and that its decision-making actually comprises the outcomes of unfathomably long chains of cause and effect that we just experience as "free' will. What then would be experientially different about that compared with you idea of "real" free will?

And if there is no experiential difference, why not go where the reason and evidence leads?

[Leonard James]

Torri and Blue,

We don't have control over our brains, but we DO have control of our actions. As I have said umpteen times, there must be some part of the brain that coordinates incoming stimuli with our memory bank, and decides on actions.

That must be the case, otherwise we are left with something non-physical controlling us, which to me is the height of fantasy.

[Alan Burns]

Ask a neuroscientist, not me. It is clear to me that the brains of all organisms contains a part that coordinates all sensory input with memory banks and thence promotes responsive activity.

But have you asked yourself how "awareness" fits in?
What is it that is aware of your sensory inputs and all your memory banks?
A CPU can process such information, but it is not aware.
[The neuroscientist does not know either.  ]

[Leonard James]

But have you asked yourself how "awareness" fits in?
What is it that is aware of your sensory inputs and all your memory banks?
A CPU can process such information, but it is not aware.
[The neuroscientist does not know either.  ]

Awareness is part of the brain's function. Many creatures are self-aware, Alan, as has been pointed out to you before ... but you simply ignore it because it doesn't fit in with your "specialness" of humans.

[Stranger]

But have you asked yourself how "awareness" fits in?
What is it that is aware of your sensory inputs and all your memory banks?
A CPU can process such information, but it is not aware.
[The neuroscientist does not know either.  ]

And with all your talk of a soul, you are not one jot nearer to an explanation, either.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Len,

We don't have control over our brains, but we DO have control of our actions.

But when I ask you who's this "we" you say, "our brains" and then you seem to posit a separate "we" that (you say) doesn't control our brains (though presumably does exist in some separate sense).

I'm confused by this - do you think there's a "we"/"I" separate from out brains, or are "we"/"I" our brains (or rather emergent properties of our brains)?

As I have said umpteen times, there must be some part of the brain that coordinates incoming stimuli with our memory bank...

There may well be, but it's still all brain.

...and decides on actions.

But again, what do you mean by "decides" here? Runs on the rails of cause and effect despite the appearance of "free" will, or functions in some way outside of that paradigm?

That must be the case, otherwise we are left with something non-physical controlling us, which to me is the height of fantasy.

Not really. Not only need there not be a non-physical, but there need be no "control" - however impossibly complex, why would you not think that conscious "decision" making isn't just the result of cause and effect?

[ekim]

ekim,

1.  But the problem with following "Jesus's method" and finding that it works is that others will follow Allah's method and, for all I know, Colin the Leprechaun's method and will get the same results - every bit as genuinely and profoundly felt. How then should any of these people distinguish the truth value of their claim from those of the others?

2.  All that a method that's persuasive gives you is a method that's persuasive - it says nothing to the content.

1.  That's a good example of what the mind does.  It creates a problem and then spends its time raising reasons why it shouldn't follow the method.  Jesus referred to it like this: 
'Just as when seeds are sown, some are eaten by birds, some fall on infertile soil and fail to germinate, some fall among weeds and are choked and some fall on fertile soil and bear fruit.  Similarly, when the Truth is heard, there are those who do not understand and it is easily displaced in them by anyone malevolent; and there are those who immediately receive it with joy and it lasts for a while, but as soon as it creates problems for them they abandon it and it does not take root; also there are those who receive it, but because they are more concerned with the ways of the world and possessions it becomes choked and does not bear results; but for those who receive it and take it deeply into the good ground of their Being and are converted and healed and realise the Truth, it will multiply many times.'

The major difficulty, though, is that the conclusion or destination e.g. Heaven, paradise, nirvana etc cannot be adequately described and you cannot be absolutely sure that the Heaven which Jesus refers to is the same as your own experience.  All you have are analogies to go by.  Also there may be many ways or methods to reach the same 'destination', so if Colin the Leprechaun's seems easier, follow it and see what happens.
2.  I'm not sure what you mean by 'content'.  If you mean the conclusion to following the method, no it doesn't,  it is left for you discover it.  It might be a pack of lies of course.

[Leonard James]

Len,

But when I ask you who's this "we" you say, "our brains" and then you seem to posit a separate "we" that (you say) doesn't control our brains (though presumably does exist in some separate sense).

I'm confused by this - do you think there's a "we"/"I" separate from out brains, or are "we"/"I" our brains (or rather emergent properties of our brains)?

There may well be, but it's still all brain.

But again, what do you mean by "decides" here? Runs on the rails of cause and effect despite the appearance of "free" will, or functions in some way outside of that paradigm?

Not really. Not only need there not be a non-physical, but there need be no "control" - however impossibly complex, why would you not think that conscious "decision" making isn't just the result of cause and effect?

"we" and "I" refers to the part of our brains which is awareness. We are aware of ourselves and our environment. I don't know how to explain it any other way. There must be a kind of central office of brain cells which takes in all the stimuli and coordinates them into "awareness".

Decisions ARE the result of cause and effect. They are the central office's response to all the stimuli which it receives.

[torridon]

But have you asked yourself how "awareness" fits in?
What is it that is aware of your sensory inputs and all your memory banks?
A CPU can process such information, but it is not aware.
[The neuroscientist does not know either.  ]

Awareness is a phenomenological construct of brain function.  It is the integration and synchronisation and interpretation of information flows within the unique context that is our own private personal brain.  The feeling that there is a person inside us in receipt of all that experience, is just that, it is a feeling, and like all feelings, it is a phenomenological product of normal brain functioning.

[Leonard James]

Awareness is a phenomenological construct of brain function.  It is the integration and synchronisation and interpretation of information flows within the unique context that is our own private personal brain.  The feeling that there is a person inside us in receipt of all that experience, is just that, it is a feeling, and like all feelings, it is a phenomenological product of normal brain functioning.

Thank you Torri, that is an exact explanation of what I was unable to put into words.

[Udayana]

Thank you Torri, that is an exact explanation of what I was unable to put into words.

hmm. it's all hand waving though, until we see the maths.

[Sebastian Toe]

Many on this forum are quick to dismiss the personal evidence of witnesses to God's work, which implies that the witnesses are either lying or deluded.

But when the evidence is corroborated by several independent witnesses it is harder to dismiss in this way.  For example there were several independent sightings of the risen Christ.  More recently there have been many recorded witnesses to miracles.  One example is the "multiplication of food" in El Paso:
http://www.amazon.com/Miracles-Amazing-Story-among-Paso-Juarez/dp/0892831502

Oh look a mysterious black figure.
Reported by several many independent witnesses!

IT IS the apparent mysterious figure in black which has reduced students and teachers to a state of mass hysteria and forced a school to suspend all its classes.
But despite the school reopening, blood-curling screams can still reportedly be heard.
In a saga which is gripping Malaysia’s media, dozens of students and teachers at the SMK Pengkalan Chepa 2 secondary school have been engulfed by a wave of mass hysteria.
The hysteria and hype surrounding the school is so strong that media have so far not been allowed to enter the school to verify their claims.
The school, which has more than 1000 students and 80 teachers, has since reopened under the observation of several religious teachers and Islamic medical practitioners, Free Malaysia today reported.
But screams were heard from inside the school, in the Malaysian state of Kelantan, as recently as Sunday.
Principal Siti Hawa Mat said 100 teachers had reported seeing a black figure, adding it was the first time an incident like this has been reported in the school since it opened in 2001.

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/school-life/mass-hysteria-in-malaysian-school-screams-heard-from-the-classrooms/news-story/42f3d7d2b784a402cb6ec188aed2eb2e

Who do you think it is Alan?

[Leonard James]

hmm. it's all hand waving though, until we see the maths.

So are all the "spiritual" explanations, with the added disadvantage that there is zero evidence for a "spiritual" world in the first place. At least we know the physical world exists.

[2Corrie]

That is hardly surprising, Alan. The religious concept you are talking about was devised by people who probably felt the same way that you do, and made up a story to explain it. Guessers following guessers.

The reason it works for some is the human capacity to be able to convince themselves of a 'truth' that gives them an escape card from death.

Belief in God is not totally correlative to belief in an afterlife - take the Saducees for example

[Leonard James]

Belief in God is not totally correlative to belief in an afterlife - take the Saducees for example

Some wise guy once said that the exception proves the rule! 

[Dicky Underpants]

1.  That's a good example of what the mind does.  It creates a problem and then spends its time raising reasons why it shouldn't follow the method.

There have been times in my early life when I thought I was following the 'method', and indeed received some confirmation in experience that I was doing the right thing. Then I realised that there are innumerable 'methods', and no one can have any certainty what Jesus' method was, since there appear to be a number of Jesuses depicted in the NT, each offering a different message. There are a few common factors that can be perceived though - altruism, non-violence and forgiveness. Maybe these constitute a 'method' - you tell me. I suspect, though, that you are trying to fit Jesus into 'truth through meditation' mould.

The major difficulty, though, is that the conclusion or destination e.g. Heaven, paradise, nirvana etc cannot be adequately described and you cannot be absolutely sure that the Heaven which Jesus refers to is the same as your own experience.  All you have are analogies to go by.  Also there may be many ways or methods to reach the same 'destination.....

You still seem to be implying that the Jesus recorded in the gospels had a uniform message. John's gospel has him saying "My kingdom is not of this world". Luke has the equivocal verse you referred to earlier "The Kingdom of heaven is within you" -( or "among you"). Other parts of the synoptics seem to indicate that the Kingdom will arrive in a few decades on earth when god finally winds up history, another text suggests that the Kingdom has arrived in his own person, and a few parables imply that the Kingdom will grow as a gradual process.
The overall tone is certainly grander than the gospel of Colin the leprechaun (the latter makes a great read all the same), but the scriptures don't appear to be a very reliable guide.

[Dicky Underpants]

Belief in God is not totally correlative to belief in an afterlife - take the Saducees for example

Take the whole of the Old Testament, except a verse in Daniel. The same OT which apparently prophesied a certain Jesus who believed implicitly in an afterlife....