Searching for GOD...

[Shaker]

And what's your methodology for determining if you've found it?

[SusanDoris]

Trying to think of or actually find something positive to say about AB's posts ... ... but it is very difficult! I couldn't bear the thought of living the rest of my life trapped in that smothering cocoon of blind belief.

The only thing I've come up with is that I suppose AB is not hypocritical about it, unlike the Trump,, with his apparently fervent wish that God will bless his choice of Supreme court Judge.

[Shaker]

Trying to think of or actually find something positive to say about AB's posts ...

The spelling's mostly OK.

[SusanDoris]

The spelling's mostly OK.

thanks for a laugh!

[Stranger]

To have another separate chain of events not originating from the Big Bang would need to have been started by an agency from outside this deterministic universe.

Once again you spectacularly miss the point. Any other chain of events will be subject to te same deterministic (with possibly random elements) logic as the universe - you are adding nothing. 

I am not disputing that everything must have a cause.  I am questioning the ultimate source of the cause.

Why? What difference does it make? Where is the evidence?

I am suggesting that there is plenty of evidence that our universe is not entirely driven by deterministic chains of events which started with the Big Bang.  For example, intelligent design does exist as demonstrated with the human creativity derived from intelligent interactions driven by our free will to achieve conscious objectives.

This isn't evidence, it's just personal incredulity again. Are you claiming to know everything about the how the physical universe works?

Either you are (so you think you are god) or you're not, in which case claiming that something (creativity, for example) cannot possibly be the result of physical processes, is absurd...

[Sebastian Toe]

Out of the many possible explanations, I endeavour to home in on the truth.

That truth being "5"!?

[wigginhall]

Personal incredulity is the only shot in AB's armoury, as far as I can see.  He can't believe that he's part of a chain of cause and effect; he can't believe that there isn't an ultimate cause, and he can't believe that this has a cause.   He can't believe that our sense of self isn't injected by the Big Behemoth, and he can't believe that he hasn't been granted access to this knowledge, even though he can't believe that any human could be.    So it goes.

[Outrider]

I am not disputing that everything must have a cause.  I am questioning the ultimate source of the cause.

Sorry to be a pedant, but to seek an 'ultimate' cause is disputing that everything must have a cause, surely?

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Incidentally AB you're right to the extent that decision making is essentially either pre-conscious or conscious. We have instinctive and executive areas of the brain that enable that - the limbic system (that most animals have) and the prefrontal cortex (that mammals have) respectively.

Where you career off the rails though is to decide that the prefrontal cortex - the executive function that does the conscious decision making, moderating of social behaviour, differentiation of good from bad etc - is somehow an immaterial little man at the controls called "soul" rather than a physical meat computer with highly developed emergent properties that allow us just to feel as if we're free of cause and effect.

[Maeght]

Out of the many possible explanations, I endeavour to home in on the truth.

But you have to use a sound methodology to attempt that - and you aren't.

[Enki]

Personal incredulity is the only shot in AB's armoury, as far as I can see.  He can't believe that he's part of a chain of cause and effect; he can't believe that there isn't an ultimate cause, and he can't believe that this has a cause.   He can't believe that our sense of self isn't injected by the Big Behemoth, and he can't believe that he hasn't been granted access to this knowledge, even though he can't believe that any human could be.    So it goes.

Interesting thing this incredulity feeling. For instance, I might suggest that I am quite incredulous that anyone, including Alan, has this idea of a 'soul' that is actually in charge of our decision making. That's not any sort of  argument of course,  but,  according to Alan, my incredulity actually would be some sort of argument that I am right and that he is wrong.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi enki,

Interesting thing this incredulity feeling. For instance, I might suggest that I am quite incredulous that anyone, including Alan, has this idea of a 'soul' that is actually in charge of our decision making. That's not any sort of  argument of course,  but,  according to Alan, my incredulity actually would be some sort of argument that I am right and that he is wrong.

Yes, but the difference is that personal incredulity is all Alan has – his entire position rests on: “I don’t understand X, therefore Y”.

You on the other hand are incredulous that he could think that way, but you also have various arguments worthy of that name that suggest strongly that he’s mistaken.

[Alan Burns]

Hi enki,

Yes, but the difference is that personal incredulity is all Alan has – his entire position rests on: “I don’t understand X, therefore Y”.

You on the other hand are incredulous that he could think that way, but you also have various arguments worthy of that name that suggest strongly that he’s mistaken.

Correction, I do understand X which is why I deem it to be a physical impossibility.

And any form of personal incredulity (whether right or wrong) is evidence that our conscious awareness is not entirely driven by unguided deterministic events, because we have the ability to decide what is incredulous.  Otherwise, if we are just biological robots driven by natural unguided forces, the source of our incredulity is nature itself!

[ippy]

That truth being "5"!?

Not according to good old Douglas Adams.

ippy

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Correction, I do understand X which is why I deem it to be a physical impossibility.

Correction:

First, your various mis-statements about the findings of neuroscience in particular tell us that you don’t understand “X” at all.

Second, even if you did understand the findings of neuroscience and the problems it’s working on just now, all that would tell you is that there’s much still to find out. Not for one moment though would that tell you that the phenomena its investigating are “a physical impossibility”, any more than thunder was a physical impossibility before its cause was discovered.

Third, even if you could overcome the first two problems you’d still have not a hint of an iota of a scintilla of a smidgin of an argument for the “Y” you posit to replace your personal incredulity.   

And…

“And”? As your opening line has just collapsed there is no “and”. Anyways…
 

…any form of personal incredulity (whether right or wrong) is evidence that our conscious awareness is not entirely driven by unguided deterministic events, because we have the ability to decide what is incredulous.  Otherwise, if we are just biological robots driven by natural unguided forces, the source of our incredulity is nature itself!

Oh dear. Yes, the source of our incredulity is nature itself.

So what?

[Stranger]

Correction, I do understand X which is why I deem it to be a physical impossibility.

And any form of personal incredulity (whether right or wrong) is evidence that our conscious awareness is not entirely driven by unguided deterministic events, because we have the ability to decide what is incredulous.

Once again claiming to be god my telling us you know everything that is possible in the physical universe.

Otherwise, if we are just biological robots driven by natural unguided forces, the source of our incredulity is nature itself!

You have still provided no evidence that we are not a part of nature.

[wigginhall]

Yes, AB is claiming omniscience.   He just knows that something is impossible, since he has done an in-depth study of neuroscience, cognitive science, and so on.   Better tell all those researchers that AB knows better!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

Yes, AB is claiming omniscience.   He just knows that something is impossible, since he has done an in-depth study of neuroscience, cognitive science, and so on.   Better tell all those researchers that AB knows better!

That's far too modest a claim. He's also done an in depth study of all the findings those disciplines could ever discover but haven't found out yet, and of all possible physical causes that science would never discover come what may. Having done all that, he then concludes that a "physical" answer is "impossible", and pops in his little man at the controls "soul" with no supporting evidence of any kind.

Perhaps Alan Burns is God after all? 

[Alan Burns]

You have still provided no evidence that we are not a part of nature.

Of course we are part of nature.
We have physical bodies and brains just as animals do.
But we are not entirely driven by nature.  If we were, we would not be having this debate.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But we are not entirely driven by nature.  If we were, we would not be having this debate.

Just out of interest, do you know what the term non sequitur means?

You've just committed a doozy.

[ekim]

Trying to think of or actually find something positive to say about AB's posts ... ... but it is very difficult! I couldn't bear the thought of living the rest of my life trapped in that smothering cocoon of blind belief.

The only thing I've come up with is that I suppose AB is not hypocritical about it, unlike the Trump,, with his apparently fervent wish that God will bless his choice of Supreme court Judge.

I would say persistence (faith) in the face of being persistently harangued by at least 10 others.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

I would say persistence (faith) in the face of being persistently harangued by at least 10 others.

Why persistence rather than, say, obtuseness, and what haranguing (rather than rebuttals) do you think he's received?

[Stranger]

But we are not entirely driven by nature.  If we were, we would not be having this debate.

How do you know? Are you claiming omniscience?

Once again: unless you know everything about the physical world, you cannot claim that we are not entirely "driven by nature".

You are, however, displaying the characteristics of the kind of mindless robot you seem to think being part of nature would mean, by just repeating the same baseless assertions over and over, without ever addressing the counterarguments...

[Alan Burns]

First, your various mis-statements about the findings of neuroscience in particular tell us that you don’t understand “X” at all.

For what its worth, this short article goes some way to explaining the misgivings I have about the ability of the physical brain to generate consciousness:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-russell/brain-consciousness_b_873595.html

[Enki]

Correction, I do understand X which is why I deem it to be a physical impossibility.

And any form of personal incredulity (whether right or wrong) is evidence that our conscious awareness is not entirely driven by unguided deterministic events, because we have the ability to decide what is incredulous.  Otherwise, if we are just biological robots driven by natural unguided forces, the source of our incredulity is nature itself!

No. Personal incredulity is not an argument, let alone evidence that something is true or not. Whether we live in a determinist world where we function under the illusion of free will or in a world where free will actually exists, the fact that we might be(or feel) incredulous would be applicable to both.

I personally think that there is every reason to think that the source of our incredulity is nature itself, because I see no evidence for any other basis for it. You certainly haven't presented any that I can think of.