Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

I'd dispute 'pre-determined', we cannot rule out random events; but that notwithstanding, that our conscious awareness is effectively a spectator over events which have already happened is consistent with current research.

Can't help thinking that you're trying to teach Alan calculus before he's learnt to add up. Until he can get it into his head that there is no escape from deterministic (with possibly some random element) processes even if he invents a non-physical soul, he's only going to leap on this as more evidence of the limitations of "material".

The nature and role of conscious awareness and the light science is throwing on it is interesting but Alan isn't out of kindergarten yet.

[Maeght]

But if conscious awareness only spectates over what has already happened, .......

What do you mean by saying it has already happened?

[Leonard James]

I think it is illusory in the sense that we have an intuitive feeling of a person being inside us having experience and having control, Cartesian dualism if you like, but there is no scientific support for such an entity inside us; perhaps it is closer to truth to recognise that it is just a class of feeling, like many other feelings, and is a phenomenological construct of a waking mind, an artefact, a cerebral projection cleverly contrived to feel like 'me'.

I don't think anything like that. I don't have anything inside of me doing my thinking for me. My subconscious mind is just as much me as my conscious mind is.

[torridon]

But if conscious awareness only spectates over what has already happened, one has to ask the obvious question of why do we have this incredible ability of conscious awareness and perception of choice.

It's hard to imagine how our experience of reality would be without consciousness.  On our shoulders sits a virtual reality headset that is permanently fixed and we can never take it off to see what 'raw' reality would be like, if such a thing makes sense.  We can be sure that it enhances our survival chances though, since it has become a ubiquitous phenomenon since it first evolved.  The services it provides are largely about interpretation, synthesis and prioritisation of information.

[torridon]

My own take on this is that it is that my conscious awareness is the real me which has the ability to perceive and make conscious decisions which trigger the physical response in our brains needed to implement these choices.   I am fully aware that current science seems to invalidate this scenario because of the timing of events.  But current science only has perception of about 6% of the content of our universe, the rest being categorised as dark matter or dark energy, which could well include the spiritual entity of the human soul.  So my belief in the soul's ability to facilitate conscious awareness and choice is based upon my perception of reality rather than limited scientific evidence.

But our perception of reality is itself a manufactured thing, a product created by subliminal preconscious processes over which have no control and no awareness of.  Of course we all take this state of being as to be authentic, it works, it does the job marvellously and we have no need normally to consider the work a brain has already done to so (seemingly) effortlessly and seamlessly create our smooth unitary stream of conscious experience.  It only becomes an issue when it becomes a matter of science denial.

[Alan Burns]

What do you mean by saying it has already happened?

I was referring to the scientific investigations into conscious awareness which reveal that specific brain activity occurs prior to the person making a conscious choice.  Experiments have shown that the measured brain activity can be used to predict the outcome of the choice before the person is aware of making the choice.

[Alan Burns]

But our perception of reality is itself a manufactured thing, a product created by subliminal preconscious processes over which have no control and no awareness of.  Of course we all take this state of being as to be authentic, it works, it does the job marvellously and we have no need normally to consider the work a brain has already done to so (seemingly) effortlessly and seamlessly create our smooth unitary stream of conscious experience.  It only becomes an issue when it becomes a matter of science denial.

It becomes a much bigger issue when you consider how all this came into being, perhaps a matter of Creator denial 

[Shaker]

Vlad, is that you?

[Alan Burns]

The nature and role of conscious awareness and the light science is throwing on it is interesting but Alan isn't out of kindergarten yet.

I do not think you fully understand some of my posts.  I find it difficult to express my ideas in short emails.  A recent letter published in the May issue of Mensa magazine may explain a bit more clearly:

Ross Groves' review of Professor Haggard's lecture on free will (Magazine, March) brings up some interesting points.  Any attempt to analyse free will based solely on current scientific knowledge will inevitably lead to the conclusion that free will must be an illusion, because every event in the brain must have a physical cause determined by prior events.

However, human perception would indicate that a free will event is driven by conscious thought which a person chooses to put into action.  There is a problem here in that there is no scientific definition of what comprises conscious thought.  There is certainly correlation between conscious thoughts and measured brain activity, but we do not know if electro chemical activity in the brain is all that is needed to define our perception of thoughts.  Correlation does not necessarily imply causation.  So until we can define what comprises conscious thought we can't assume that free will events are entirely driven by deterministic events.

In the last book written by neurologist Sir John Eccles, entitled "How the Self Controls the Brain", there is an indication that free will events and perception are related to increased probabilities of quantum tunnelling events occurring in the frontal cortex of the brain.  Perhaps this could be the gateway to the human soul?

Alan Burns

[torridon]

I do not think you fully understand some of my posts.  I find it difficult to express my ideas in short emails.  A recent letter published in the May issue of Mensa magazine may explain a bit more clearly:

Ross Groves' review of Professor Haggard's lecture on free will (Magazine, March) brings up some interesting points.  Any attempt to analyse free will based solely on current scientific knowledge will inevitably lead to the conclusion that free will must be an illusion, because every event in the brain must have a physical cause determined by prior events.

However, human perception would indicate that a free will event is driven by conscious thought which a person chooses to put into action.  There is a problem here in that there is no scientific definition of what comprises conscious thought.  There is certainly correlation between conscious thoughts and measured brain activity, but we do not know if electro chemical activity in the brain is all that is needed to define our perception of thoughts.  Correlation does not necessarily imply causation.  So until we can define what comprises conscious thought we can't assume that free will events are entirely driven by deterministic events.

In the last book written by neurologist Sir John Eccles, entitled "How the Self Controls the Brain", there is an indication that free will events and perception are related to increased probabilities of quantum tunnelling events occurring in the frontal cortex of the brain.  Perhaps this could be the gateway to the human soul?

Alan Burns

Of course Eccles' work is now way out of date; this is a tactic common among science deniers - looking for a piece of work from the history of science that might appear to give some licence to the denier's beliefs whilst studiously ignoring all the work that has been done since.

[torridon]

But our perception of reality is itself a manufactured thing, a product created by subliminal preconscious processes over which have no control and no awareness of.  Of course we all take this state of being as to be authentic, it works, it does the job marvellously and we have no need normally to consider the work a brain has already done to so (seemingly) effortlessly and seamlessly create our smooth unitary stream of conscious experience.  It only becomes an issue when it becomes a matter of science denial.

It becomes a much bigger issue when you consider how all this came into being, perhaps a matter of Creator denial 

How all this came into being would be another matter altogether; if you want to propose a creator god to answer that then like all things it needs to stand to evidence and to reason and not be just a matter of presumption born of cultural legacies.

[Stranger]

I do not think you fully understand some of my posts.  I find it difficult to express my ideas in short emails.  A recent letter published in the May issue of Mensa magazine may explain a bit more clearly:

Ross Groves' review of Professor Haggard's lecture on free will (Magazine, March) brings up some interesting points.  Any attempt to analyse free will based solely on current scientific knowledge will inevitably lead to the conclusion that free will must be an illusion, because every event in the brain must have a physical cause determined by prior events.

However, human perception would indicate that a free will event is driven by conscious thought which a person chooses to put into action.  There is a problem here in that there is no scientific definition of what comprises conscious thought.  There is certainly correlation between conscious thoughts and measured brain activity, but we do not know if electro chemical activity in the brain is all that is needed to define our perception of thoughts.  Correlation does not necessarily imply causation.  So until we can define what comprises conscious thought we can't assume that free will events are entirely driven by deterministic events.

In the last book written by neurologist Sir John Eccles, entitled "How the Self Controls the Brain", there is an indication that free will events and perception are related to increased probabilities of quantum tunnelling events occurring in the frontal cortex of the brain.  Perhaps this could be the gateway to the human soul?

Alan Burns

This is still mistaking logic for science. It is logical consistency that requires our will to be driven by cause and effect (determinism), not science.

[Alan Burns]

This is still mistaking logic for science. It is logical consistency that requires our will to be driven by cause and effect (determinism), not science.

I am not denying that every event has a cause.  I use the term determinism loosely in relation to events whose cause is determined by the laws of science applied to material elements.  When it comes to conscious awareness and human free will I believe we need to look beyond these scientifically determined events to events which have a cause which originates from outside these predicated chains of events.

[Stranger]

I am not denying that every event has a cause.  I use the term determinism loosely in relation to events whose cause is determined by the laws of science applied to material elements.  When it comes to conscious awareness and human free will I believe we need to look beyond these scientifically determined events to events which have a cause which originates from outside these predicated chains of events.

Why do we need to?

If something originates outside of "scientifically determined ... chains of events", then it has to have been caused by some other determined chain of events (or it is random).

What difference does it make?

[Maeght]

I was referring to the scientific investigations into conscious awareness which reveal that specific brain activity occurs prior to the person making a conscious choice.  Experiments have shown that the measured brain activity can be used to predict the outcome of the choice before the person is aware of making the choice.

Okay, so do you think the subconscious brain could operate without the conscious element?

[Alan Burns]

Okay, so do you think the subconscious brain could operate without the conscious element?

No.  I believe the conscious element (the soul) can do whatever is needed to implement conscious choices.  The fact that Science currently can't explain how this happens does not mean it is impossible.

[Maeght]

No.  I believe the conscious element (the soul) can do whatever is needed to implement conscious choices.  The fact that Science currently can't explain how this happens does not mean it is impossible.

Ok - you questioned why we have a conscious element if the subconscious makes all the decisions. What makes you think that, in the standard model (i.e. no soul) the conscious element's only contribution is in the actual making of a decision?

[Shaker]

No.  I believe the conscious element (the soul) can do whatever is needed to implement conscious choices.  The fact that Science currently can't explain how this happens does not mean it is impossible.

The problem for you, Alan, is that at the very same time it doesn't mean you have free rein to fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale du jour that you for goodness only knows what reason happen to find personally appealing.

[Alan Burns]

The problem for you, Alan, is that at the very same time it doesn't mean you have free reign to fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale du jour that you for goodness only knows what reason happen to find personally appealing.

But my so called gap fillers are not fairy tales, but divine revelations about the reason and purpose behind our existence, and they make infinitely more sense than the man made attempts to show that our existence is just an accident produced by the unguided natural forces of this universe which are demonstrably destructive.

[Sebastian Toe]

they make infinitely more sense

..only in your head!

[Alan Burns]

Ok - you questioned why we have a conscious element if the subconscious makes all the decisions. What makes you think that, in the standard model (i.e. no soul) the conscious element's only contribution is in the actual making of a decision?

I do not believe that a conscious element could exist in any model which does not have a soul, because the recipient of conscious information is the soul.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I do not believe that a conscious element could exist in any model which does not have a soul, because the recipient of conscious information is the soul.

Just out of interest, do you even know what the term "circular reasoning" actually means?

[Maeght]

I do not believe that a conscious element could exist in any model which does not have a soul, because the recipient of conscious information is the soul.

You questioned what I referred to as the standard model asking why we would have a conscious element if was nothing but an observer of subconscious decisions. This suggests you consider that the conscious element's only role is to make decisions. What I am asking is why you think that?

[Leonard James]

But my so called gap fillers are not fairy tales, but divine revelations about the reason and purpose behind our existence, and they make infinitely more sense than the man made attempts to show that our existence is just an accident produced by the unguided natural forces of this universe which are demonstrably destructive.

The only reason you believe they are "divine revelations" is because somebody tells you they are. There is zero evidence for anything "divine".

[Alan Burns]

You questioned what I referred to as the standard model asking why we would have a conscious element if was nothing but an observer of subconscious decisions. This suggests you consider that the conscious element's only role is to make decisions. What I am asking is why you think that?

The role of the conscious element is to perceive and make conscious choices on what is perceived.
I believe it is a God given ability for us to make conscious decisions, which ultimately allows us to choose our own destiny.