Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

Just another aspect of consciousness described in Julian Jaynes' book The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. which seems a million miles away from the neuroscientists view:

    O what a world of unseen visions and heard silences, this insubstantial country of the mind! What ineffable essences, these touchless rememberings and unshowable reveries! And the privacy of it all! A secret theater of speechless monologue and prevenient counsel, an invisible mansion of all moods, musings, and mysteries, an infinite resort of disappointments and discoveries. A whole kingdom where each of us reigns reclusively alone, questioning what we will, commanding what we can. A hidden hermitage where we may study out the troubled book of what we have done and yet may do. An introcosm that is more myself than anything I can find in a mirror. This consciousness that is myself of selves, that is everything, and yet nothing at all — what is it?
    And where did it come from?
    And why?

[Enki]

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

You might also try looking at this short article:

http://www.livescience.com/47096-theories-seek-to-explain-consciousness.html

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

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

Should I be surprised that a proponent of the argument from personal incredulity links to an article by another proponent of the argument from personal incredulity?

"Yet whatever ideas are put forward, one thorny question remains: How can something as immaterial as consciousness ever arise from something as unconscious as matter?
 
If the anomaly persists, despite all attempts to explain it, then maybe..."

Ug: "You know what Stig, you've been trying to work out this thunder thing for ages now. If you keep on like this, maybe we should adopt my Thor assertion instead?"

Stig: "Er, how would you know Ug whether I'm 1%, 99% or any other % through exploring my field? Oh, and what methods would you propose to test your Thor claim in any case?"

[Stranger]

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

An article with nothing to offer but an argument from incredulity.

Just another aspect of consciousness described in Julian Jaynes' book The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. which seems a million miles away from the neuroscientists view:

    O what a world of unseen visions and heard silences, this insubstantial country of the mind! What ineffable essences, these touchless rememberings and unshowable reveries! And the privacy of it all! A secret theater of speechless monologue and prevenient counsel, an invisible mansion of all moods, musings, and mysteries, an infinite resort of disappointments and discoveries. A whole kingdom where each of us reigns reclusively alone, questioning what we will, commanding what we can. A hidden hermitage where we may study out the troubled book of what we have done and yet may do. An introcosm that is more myself than anything I can find in a mirror. This consciousness that is myself of selves, that is everything, and yet nothing at all — what is it?
    And where did it come from?
    And why?

Some waffle without any sort of argument.

[bluehillside Retd.]

enki,

You might also try looking at this short article:

http://www.livescience.com/47096-theories-seek-to-explain-consciousness.html

Interesting article about the work of real scientists rather than new age ones ("Noetics" eh?) but I wonder why they're bothering - after all, Alan Burns has already declared that a naturalistic explanation is "physically impossible".

Maybe we should tell them?

[torridon]

Just another aspect of consciousness described in Julian Jaynes' book The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. which seems a million miles away from the neuroscientists view:

    O what a world of unseen visions and heard silences, this insubstantial country of the mind! What ineffable essences, these touchless rememberings and unshowable reveries! And the privacy of it all! A secret theater of speechless monologue and prevenient counsel, an invisible mansion of all moods, musings, and mysteries, an infinite resort of disappointments and discoveries. A whole kingdom where each of us reigns reclusively alone, questioning what we will, commanding what we can. A hidden hermitage where we may study out the troubled book of what we have done and yet may do. An introcosm that is more myself than anything I can find in a mirror. This consciousness that is myself of selves, that is everything, and yet nothing at all — what is it?
    And where did it come from?
    And why?

Julian Jaynes' ideas were very radical at the time, and they hardly support your view of things. He proposed that humans only became conscious in the modern form very recently around the time of the Greek tragedies and it developed out of earlier forms of consciousness which were more akin to what we call schizophrenia now. He quotes very early Bible scriptures amongst other things as evidence of this - the book of Amos for instance, in which God is speaking directly to the prophet and Jaynes' interpretation of this is one side of the split (or bicameral) mind instructing the other half via an audible inner voice across the corpus callosum. 

[Maeght]

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.

that doesn't follow at all if the stance you are taking in the debate is based on your prior experiences and 'programming'. Are you free to take the totally opposite view to that which you are currently arguing?

[ekim]

ekim,

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

Because there is evidence that he has persisted with his side of the debate pretty much alone against at least a dozen others.  I don't know enough about Alan's character to declare him obtuse (Annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand) and he hasn't annoyed me.  Harangued (an aggressive and critical manner) might be too strong a word but some of the replies seem to contain a mocking element which don't appear in Alan's replies.  However, I do think his persistence is misplaced as faith is persistence with a method to fall in line with the way of the Divine (this topic) rather than persistence with trying to explain how the divine manipulates the physical world.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

Because there is evidence that he has persisted with his side of the debate pretty much alone against at least a dozen others.

No he hasn’t. To persist with a debate you need to engage with it – by contrast, regardless of the rebuttals ranged against him he just persists with (in effect) “2+2=5”, presumably in the hope that his interlocutors will just go away. And that’s obtuseness.

I don't know enough about Alan's character to declare him obtuse (Annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand) and he hasn't annoyed me.

You don’t need to know about his character – you just need to look at the tactics he attempts.

Harangued (an aggressive and critical manner) might be too strong a word but some of the replies seem to contain a mocking element which don't appear in Alan's replies.

Perhaps because, when any attempt to persuade him to engage with the arguments has failed, there’s not much else left.

However, I do think his persistence is misplaced as faith is persistence with a method to fall in line with the way of the Divine (this topic) rather than persistence with trying to explain how the divine manipulates the physical world.

In what possible way is religious faith a “method” please?

[Shaker]

Because there is evidence that he has persisted with his side of the debate pretty much alone against at least a dozen others. I don't know enough about Alan's character to declare him obtuse (Annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand)

He has persisted only by completely failing to engage with/ignoring the points that others make informing him that, without any exception I'm aware of, his arguments are fallacious (which he regards as a matter of mere personal opinion) and based ultimately on no more than a personal belief not binding upon anyone but himself. This has been done more times than I can remember, but the hard questions and sound points are simply ignored. (At the same time as hypocritically accusing others of being selective in responding to posts). Persistence is a virtue in some cases, but not at the expense of a total refusal to heed any counterargument whatever. This is why, as I've said before, there's no debating with him, no dialogue. Those things assume a two-way flow of point and counter-point, and in his case the flow of points is one way only - everything out, nothing in.

A good debate is a fine thing, but Monty Python's Five Minute Argument sketch was meant to be a joke.

[ekim]

ekim,

No he hasn’t. To persist with a debate you need to engage with it – by contrast, regardless of the rebuttals ranged against him he just persists with (in effect) “2+2=5”, presumably in the hope that his interlocutors will just go away. And that’s obtuseness.  You don’t need to know about his character – you just need to look at the tactics he attempts.

I expect we have different views because I am not fully engaged in the discussion and I am too naive to presume he has tactics.

In what possible way is religious faith a “method” please?

Now why did you have to go and spoil everything!    I expect this is where I take flack from atheists and Christians (as this is largely a Christian topic).  This is only my view of the Jesus method.  It is based upon consciously surrendering to the power of the divine by the method of metanoia (meta...beyond, noia...mind) to enter a blissful state within (heaven).  Anything which causes deviation from this path is called hamartia (sin).  Although straightforward, there are many ways to deviate, strong faith (persistence) is required.  It is personal and experiential.  Many are called, few make it.

[ekim]

He has persisted only by completely failing to engage with/ignoring the points that others make informing him that, without any exception I'm aware of, his arguments are fallacious (which he regards as a matter of mere personal opinion) and based ultimately on no more than a personal belief not binding upon anyone but himself. This has been done more times than I can remember, but the hard questions and sound points are simply ignored. (At the same time as hypocritically accusing others of being selective in responding to posts). Persistence is a virtue in some cases, but not at the expense of a total refusal to heed any counterargument whatever. This is why, as I've said before, there's no debating with him, no dialogue. Those things assume a two-way flow of point and counter-point, and in his case the flow of points is one way only - everything out, nothing in.

A good debate is a fine thing, but Monty Python's Five Minute Argument sketch was meant to be a joke.

That might be because he is outnumbered and overwhelmed and doesn't have the time to answer everything, but if it is as you say, it must be quite frustrating.

[Shaker]

That might be because he is outnumbered and overwhelmed and doesn't have the time to answer everything, but if it is as you say, it must be quite frustrating.

He needn't feel himself outnumbered - paraphrasing Einstein, if he had a decent, sound, valid argument to back up his constant bald assertions, just one reply would do.

[Enki]

I think that Donald Trump shows a degree of persistence in the face of very vocal opposition, at least, so far. Whether this is a virtue in his case though is another matter.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

I expect we have different views because I am not fully engaged in the discussion and I am too naive to presume he has tactics.

Only in the sense that we “have different views” about Pride and Prejudice when one of us read it and the other hasn’t. 

Now why did you have to go and spoil everything!     

I expect this is where I take flack from atheists and Christians (as this is largely a Christian topic).  This is only my view of the Jesus method.  It is based upon consciously surrendering to the power of the divine by the method of metanoia (meta...beyond, noia...mind) to enter a blissful state within (heaven).  Anything which causes deviation from this path is called hamartia (sin).  Although straightforward, there are many ways to deviate, strong faith (persistence) is required.  It is personal and experiential.  Many are called, few make it.

Questions and challenges are not “flack”, but the question rather was what method you think you have to conclude that there's “a power of the divine” in the first place. “Surrendering” and such like are subsidiary issues.

[ekim]

I think that Donald Trump shows a degree of persistence in the face of very vocal opposition, at least, so far. Whether this is a virtue in his case though is another matter.

I suppose you can never be sure of the motives driving persistence.  There's always the chance that they are ego driven as with stubbornness or the result of persuasive addiction.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

That might be because he is outnumbered and overwhelmed and doesn't have the time to answer everything, but if it is as you say, it must be quite frustrating.

It's not that he won't answer everything, but rather that he won't answer anything. Even the responses to the bits he cherry picks consist essentially of the repetition of his "2+2=5" mantra.

[Alan Burns]

You might also try looking at this short article:

http://www.livescience.com/47096-theories-seek-to-explain-consciousness.html

An interesting article, but it seems to pose more questions than answers.  Discovering where information resides in the brain, and how it gets transmitted to different parts does not explain how it gets perceived into what we know as our conscious awareness.  Information has no meaning in itself until is gets perceived.  And there is this sentence - "An interesting corollary of integrated information theory is that no computer simulation, no matter how faithfully it replicates a human mind, could ever become conscious. ", which highlights the problem in that the observation of external reactions, no matter how complex, can ever be used to identify internal consciousness.

[ekim]

ekim,

 the question rather was what method you think you have to conclude that there's “a power of the divine” in the first place. “Surrendering” and such like are subsidiary issues.

There is no method to draw a conclusion initially.  There is only an openness to the possibility and the willingness to seek and find out, just like any adventure I suppose.  I used the word 'power' as I believe that El and Elohim represented power (perhaps in the sense of life potential).  The method advocated was to facilitate realising that potential which is enlivening, blissful etc. and as the man said: - "like a treasure hidden in a field which, when discovered by a man, the joy of the discovery causes him to give up all to purchase the field."

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

An interesting article, but it seems to pose more questions than answers.  Discovering where information resides in the brain, and how it gets transmitted to different parts does not explain how it gets perceived into what we know as our conscious awareness.  Information has no meaning in itself until is gets perceived.  And there is this sentence - "An interesting corollary of integrated information theory is that no computer simulation, no matter how faithfully it replicates a human mind, could ever become conscious. ", which highlights the problem in that the observation of external reactions, no matter how complex, can ever be used to identify internal consciousness.

Oh dear. What “perceives” is consciousness, an emergent property of the physical stuff of your brain (specifically, the prefrontal cortex). Think about an ant colony – what “perceives” how to farm other creatures, or the construction of air-conditioning tubes to ventilate the mound? Nothing does, yet they emerge nonetheless.

Just out of interest, do you even know what the “fallacy of personal incredulity” even means?

[SusanDoris]

An interesting article, but it seems to pose more questions than answers.  Discovering where information resides in the brain, and how it gets transmitted to different parts does not explain how it gets perceived into what we know as our conscious awareness.  Information has no meaning in itself until is gets perceived.  And there is this sentence - "An interesting corollary of integrated information theory is that no computer simulation, no matter how faithfully it replicates a human mind, could ever become conscious. ", which highlights the problem in that the observation of external reactions, no matter how complex, can ever be used to identify internal consciousness.

In my opinion, that is unintelligible. I admit I've only listened once!!

[Alan Burns]

Julian Jaynes' ideas were very radical at the time, and they hardly support your view of things. He proposed that humans only became conscious in the modern form very recently around the time of the Greek tragedies and it developed out of earlier forms of consciousness which were more akin to what we call schizophrenia now. He quotes very early Bible scriptures amongst other things as evidence of this - the book of Amos for instance, in which God is speaking directly to the prophet and Jaynes' interpretation of this is one side of the split (or bicameral) mind instructing the other half via an audible inner voice across the corpus callosum.

You are correct in assuming that I do not agree with Julian Jaynes' conclusions, but he was very good at highlighting just how difficult it is to understand consciousness.  In particular, he shows how our consciousness comprises much more that mere perception of our sensory information and memory banks by revealing a whole inner universe of thoughts, moods, feelings, dreams, mysteries, ambitions, regrets, disappointments, triumphs etc.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

There is no method to draw a conclusion initially.

Then in what way should anyone else – or indeed you – distinguish it from just guessing about stuff?

There is only an openness to the possibility and the willingness to seek and find out, just like any adventure I suppose.

Happy to be open minded about anything you like. Absent any means of validation though, how would I know if I’d “found out” anything rather than just imagined it?

I used the word 'power' as I believe that El and Elohim represented power (perhaps in the sense of life potential).  The method advocated was to facilitate realising that potential which is enlivening, blissful etc. and as the man said: - "like a treasure hidden in a field which, when discovered by a man, the joy of the discovery causes him to give up all to purchase the field."

Very poetic. Trouble is, I might find that contemplating Colin the Nabob of the Leprechauns makes me feel blissful etc too – is he therefore real as well?

[Shaker]

Happy to be open minded about anything you like. Absent any means of validation though, how would I know if I’d “found out” anything rather than just imagined it?

This is a question I asked Alan a few days ago. Still awaiting a response.

[Stranger]

You are correct in assuming that I do not agree with Julian Jaynes' conclusions, but he was very good at highlighting just how difficult it is to understand consciousness.

Yet, according to your claim that it cannot possibly result from a purely physical system, you have managed to understand it! Not only must you understand consciousness but also every possible way in which a biological system like the brain may operate!

You really should share this amazing knowledge with the world, instead of endlessly repeating your claim without any sort of supporting argument...