Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

Which isn't an answer to the question.

You weren't asked about determinism in the physical sense.

At last! Okay, so you don't know.

The problem with that is that you started all this out by saying that a physical explanation for our conscious awareness and "free will" was not possible because of physical determinism and now you are saying you haven't a clue what the alternative is.

Further, there aren't many places for you to go from that. Either you have to ask us to accept an unknown that is illogical (presumably on the basis that it's beyond "human logic" or a "mystery"), which undermines the whole idea of a logical argument for it in the first place. Or you have to accept that "free will" can only be made up of deterministic (and possible random) processes in the soul, which undermines the argument that it can't be physical.

Either way, your whole argument for god on the basis of the necessity of the soul has collapsed in a heap of contradictions...

So if our souls are not responsible for the generating the content of these posts, we are left with a deterministic chain of events driven by natural uncontrollable forces within our brains.  In your eyes, does the responsibility for the content of my posts lie with these natural unguided forces?  If not, where does the responsibility lie?

How about actually responding to what I said? Do you accept that your argument has failed or not? If not, what part of what I said do you think is wrong?

An appeal to consequences is yet another fallacy.

[Alan Burns]

So if our souls are not responsible for the generating the content of these posts, we are left with a deterministic chain of events driven by natural uncontrollable forces within our brains.  In your eyes, does the responsibility for the content of my posts lie with these natural unguided forces?  If not, where does the responsibility lie?


How about actually responding to what I said? Do you accept that your argument has failed or not? If not, what part of what I said do you think is wrong?

An appeal to consequences is yet another fallacy.

I was just illustrating the problem with your conclusion by postulating that my ability to post on this forum must be driven by the conscious free will of my human soul.  If you can provide any alternative explanation which is feasible please do so.

[Alan Burns]

Quote from: Alan Burns on March 09, 2017, 03:08:14 PM

    But trying to explain reality without God appears to mean that all material must have properties of awareness, and our ability to make conscious choice has to be an illusion.

Broadly speaking, yes, that is right.

So it appears that we need to bend our perception of reality to fit in with limited human scientific discovery.  Can you not contemplate the possibility that our perception of reality may be correct, and a piece of rock does not have self awareness, and our free will is not driven by uncontrolled cause and effect chains, and we have yet to discover the true reality of how it all works?

[Stranger]

I was just illustrating the problem with your conclusion by postulating that my ability to post on this forum must be driven by the conscious free will of my human soul.  If you can provide any alternative explanation which is feasible please do so.

This level of evasion is a kind of dishonesty. I'll address your point just as soon as you address mine.

Here it is again:

At last! Okay, so you don't know.

The problem with that is that you started all this out by saying that a physical explanation for our conscious awareness and "free will" was not possible because of physical determinism and now you are saying you haven't a clue what the alternative is.

Further, there aren't many places for you to go from that. Either you have to ask us to accept an unknown that is illogical (presumably on the basis that it's beyond "human logic" or a "mystery"), which undermines the whole idea of a logical argument for it in the first place. Or you have to accept that "free will" can only be made up of deterministic (and possible random) processes in the soul, which undermines the argument that it can't be physical.

Either way, your whole argument for god on the basis of the necessity of the soul has collapsed in a heap of contradictions...

[Nearly Sane]

I was just illustrating the problem with your conclusion by postulating that my ability to post on this forum must be driven by the conscious free will of my human soul.  If you can provide any alternative explanation which is feasible please do so.

you haven't demonstrated that it is feasible and indeed given that it is claiming something is neither A nor not A, your position us shown to be logically incoherent.

[floo]

There is no evidence the 'soul' is anything more than another word for conscious perception. We are able to do things other species of animals can't because we are rather more evolved than they are. It is quite possible that in other parts of the universe there are other beings more evolved than us, who would regard humans as no higher up the evolutionary chain than we regard apes to be.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

If you ever discover the love of God through the Christian faith you too will know it as a fact.

So would you. So far though, all you have is some very bad arguments and a warm feeling when you think about a (culturally determined) idea of a "God".

Frankly, pitching up here and lying for Jesus will if anything make others less likely to share your superstition. You're doing a pretty good job for atheism, but if that's not your intent perhaps you should stop?   

[Maeght]

My answer has to be that it is neither random nor predetermined but determined.  In other words it is not defined by what has gone before, but by what the current will of the conscious soul is.

That is just a play on words. If it is determined on what basis is the determination made? Prior expriences and therefore predetermined or random?

[Maeght]

I was just illustrating the problem with your conclusion by postulating that my ability to post on this forum must be driven by the conscious free will of my human soul.  If you can provide any alternative explanation which is feasible please do so.

No 'must' about it.

[ekim]

What if the human reads that and doesn't  think it makes any sense.  What does consciously identifying with spirit or mind and body mean, and further what does spirit mean?

Again, I can only give my spin on how I see the 'religious/spiritual' situation and even this will have a 'mystic' bias.  I'll try and answer your questions in reverse order and the reply is likely to be analogical rather than logical.  'Spirit' meant 'air' and as well as being a symbol for life it possibly represents 'space' 'no-thing-ness' which permeates everything i.e. it is omnipresent and whole (Holy). The 'self' can be seen as an individual identifying with various aspects of his physical being.  Some may see themselves as physical body oriented, some as energy oriented, some as intellectually oriented and some as emotionally oriented.  To dis-identify with the 'self' and identify with 'no self' requires a method to be followed and the method is not a thought process and so it is quite likely that 'if a human reads about it he won't think it makes sense'.  Although very few seem to be interested in it, the Jesus method was not metaphysical it was metanoial (beyond mind).

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

Again, I can only give my spin on how I see the 'religious/spiritual' situation and even this will have a 'mystic' bias.  I'll try and answer your questions in reverse order and the reply is likely to be analogical rather than logical.  'Spirit' meant 'air' and as well as being a symbol for life it possibly represents 'space' 'no-thing-ness' which permeates everything i.e. it is omnipresent and whole (Holy). The 'self' can be seen as an individual identifying with various aspects of his physical being.  Some may see themselves as physical body oriented, some as energy oriented, some as intellectually oriented and some as emotionally oriented.  To dis-identify with the 'self' and identify with 'no self' requires a method to be followed and the method is not a thought process and so it is quite likely that 'if a human reads about it he won't think it makes sense'.  Although very few seem to be interested in it, the Jesus method was not metaphysical it was metanoial (beyond mind).

If “To dis-identify with the 'self' and identify with 'no self' requires a method to be followed and the method is not a thought process and so it is quite likely that 'if a human reads about it he won't think it makes sense” then what method would you propose to distinguish your assertions about “spirit” from nonsense?

[torridon]

So it appears that we need to bend our perception of reality to fit in with limited human scientific discovery.

Yes, essentially, that is what we need to do if we want to understand things with any depth beyond the merely superficial.  It has been an overarching theme of science that how things seem to us is not how they actually are in any objective sense.  Most of our experience is illusory in some or other sense. How things seem is a product of our particular evolutionary pathways, all experience is construction of mind; that computer screen you are seeing right now is not actually the computer screen, it is a neurological fabrication constructed more from memory than from novel optical input, but it sure doesn't feel that way does it ?  None of us experiences reality directly, as it is, nature has no remit or incentive to do that. Rather, what nature does is to create forms of experience that keep us alive and reproducing at minimum cost, we don't need to swim in full undiluted reality in order to navigate the world. That computer screen you are seeing might not be the real deal, but it is good enough to get us through the day; similarly with free will, it matters not for most intents and purposes that our decision making is ultimately determined, we feel free and that is good enough for daily living.

Can you not contemplate the possibility that our perception of reality may be correct, and a piece of rock does not have self awareness, and our free will is not driven by uncontrolled cause and effect chains, and we have yet to discover the true reality of how it all works?

Science is never finished, but it is unlikely that all our findings are going to be completely reversed, that would be inconceivable. So, we run with our current understanding, that represents the best current knowledge.

[Alan Burns]

That is just a play on words. If it is determined on what basis is the determination made? Prior expriences and therefore predetermined or random?

Can you not contemplate the possibility of the human soul being able to make real time choices which are not constrained or defined by previous history?  Do you honestly believe that all your thoughts and imagination are defined entirely before they occur?  I do not know how the human soul works, but I do know that it frees me from the constraints of a biological machine derived and driven entirely by the natural unguided forces of nature.

[torridon]

Can you not contemplate the possibility of the human soul being able to make real time choices which are not constrained or defined by previous history?  Do you honestly believe that all your thoughts and imagination are defined entirely before they occur?  I do not know how the human soul works, but I do know that it frees me from the constraints of a biological machine derived and driven entirely by the natural unguided forces of nature.

You're still avoiding the fact that a soul would have to make a choice on some or other basis. A choice is either determined by previous factors or it isn't.  ie if it is does not owe to previous factors then it is random.  This is going to be true whatever the apparatus that is making a choice, be it a computer program or a dung beetle or a soul.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Can you not contemplate the possibility of the human soul being able to make real time choices which are not constrained or defined by previous history?

Only if you accept the binary alternative that it would function randomly instead.

Do you honestly believe that all your thoughts and imagination are defined entirely before they occur?

"Defined" is the wrong word, but essentially yes.

I do not know how the human soul works...

And nor do you know that it exists at all. Again though, as you don't know "how the human soul works" then on what possible basis do you dismiss out of hand the current explanation of consciousness as an emergent property on the specious ground that it's not "fully understood"?

Why do you run away whenever you're asked this simple question?

...but I do know that it frees me from the constraints of a biological machine derived and driven entirely by the natural unguided forces of nature.

You know no such thing - you merely choose to believe it because it's a comforting narrative, and you care not a jot about the profound contradictions it entails.

[Udayana]

ekim,

If “To dis-identify with the 'self' and identify with 'no self' requires a method to be followed and the method is not a thought process and so it is quite likely that 'if a human reads about it he won't think it makes sense” then what method would you propose to distinguish your assertions about “spirit” from nonsense?

Not answering for Ekim; my take would be that you need to commit to it and see if it works for yourself. You can't determine it's truth or falsity or "sense" through a discussion with others or other external examination. This is dangerous of-course, you risk getting stuck in an endless loop like Alan. This is a risk we share with all information processing systems.  Indeed you may already be stuck in one - even the "working" system is usually just a loop.

[ekim]

ekim,

If “To dis-identify with the 'self' and identify with 'no self' requires a method to be followed and the method is not a thought process and so it is quite likely that 'if a human reads about it he won't think it makes sense” then what method would you propose to distinguish your assertions about “spirit” from nonsense?

I hope I wasn't giving the impression of asserting anything but in the context of what I was suggesting 'spirit' is non sense.  The methods usually advocated are meditational or contemplative in nature.  The word 'contemplate' has 'temple' in the middle of it and a temple was a space for communing, rather than a building.  There are many methods and I doubt if there is a 'one fits all'.  They seem to fall into two types.  One is an attempt to still the mind which is a struggle (jihad) and the other attempts to find or create an inner space in the midst of mental activities.

[Alan Burns]

You're still avoiding the fact that a soul would have to make a choice on some or other basis. A choice is either determined by previous factors or it isn't.  ie if it is not determined then it is random.  This is going to be true whatever the apparatus that is making a choice, be it a computer program or a dung beetle or a soul.

You are implying that the spiritual soul must have the same constraints for making a choice as a computer or dumb animal.  But the soul has an extra feature - conscious awareness.  Can you not see that our conscious awareness can interact with our body to implement conscious choices?   I know that scientific study shows evidence that specific physical brain activity occurs before we are aware of making the choice, but my conjecture is that the soul can do whatever is needed to implement the conscious choice, because if the soul is not of this universe, it may not be constrained by the time dimension of this physical universe. 

You may not agree with the content of my post, but can you honestly believe that the content is derived entirely by historical events over which I have no control?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Udayana,

Not answering for Ekim; my take would be that you need to commit to it and see if it works for yourself. You can't determine it's truth or falsity or "sense" through a discussion with others or other external examination. This is dangerous of-course, you risk getting stuck in an endless loop like Alan. This is a risk we share with all information processing systems.  Indeed you may already be stuck in one - even the "working" system is usually just a loop.

Which is fine for a process that makes you feel good – be it “spirit”, yoga or anything else. The problem though comes when some assert their process to be a method that validates “true for you too” facts. “I believe in God, believing in God makes me feel good, therefore God is objectively real” etc.

[Udayana]

Hi Udayana,

Which is fine for a process that makes you feel good – be it “spirit”, yoga or anything else. The problem though comes when some assert their process to be a method that validates “true for you too” facts. “I believe in God, believing in God makes me feel good, therefore God is objectively real” etc.

Yes, that is Alan's logic failure. Unfortunately once he hits it, he just has to go around the same argument again.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

I hope I wasn't giving the impression of asserting anything but in the context of what I was suggesting 'spirit' is non sense.

You said it! Why the gap between “non” and “sense” though? 

The methods usually advocated are meditational or contemplative in nature.

Which no doubt some enjoy and find helpful. What meditation and contemplation can’t do though is to validate facts – which is where some overreach.

The word 'contemplate' has 'temple' in the middle of it…

No it hasn’t!

…and a temple was a space for communing, rather than a building.  There are many methods and I doubt if there is a 'one fits all'.  They seem to fall into two types.  One is an attempt to still the mind which is a struggle (jihad) and the other attempts to find or create an inner space in the midst of mental activities.

All very lovely no doubt. All I ask is that those who contemplate “God” or indeed any other claim of fact don’t mistake their musing for verification of the claim.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Udayana,

Yes, that is Alan's logic failure. Unfortunately once he hits it, he just has to go around the same argument again.

Actually what he does is just repeat the same assertion rather than argument, regardless of how many times it's shown to be nonsense. 

[Alan Burns]

.....  on what possible basis do you dismiss out of hand the current explanation of consciousness as an emergent property on the specious ground that it's not "fully understood"?

I dismiss it on the grounds that any emegent property is derived entirely from the physical reactions of sub atomic particles to events, and it is not possible to define perception in terms of reactions alone.  As I have said before, perception requires a perceiver, and you can't define a perceiver with material particles.  Torri has suggested that the way round this is to assume that all particles must have a property of awareness, but this then leads to the bizzar scenario where everthing we see has awareness - rocks, water, air, effluent ....

[Rhiannon]

If you ever discover the love of God through the Christian faith you too will know it as a fact.

But you know that I once was a Christian and truly believed I found God's love. I didn't want to lose my faith and when I did I went through a whole range of distressing emotions - denial, sadness, panic, confusion, loss, even a sense of betrayal.

There are no 'facts' to discover in this stuff, Alan.

[Maeght]

Can you not contemplate the possibility of the human soul being able to make real time choices which are not constrained or defined by previous history?

I am asking you how it would be possible for a 'real time' ((not sure why you've introduced this phrase) choice to be neither rnadom nor predetermined. What I can contemplate is irrelevant to your answer.

Do you honestly believe that all your thoughts and imagination are defined entirely before they occur?

I can certainly see that they are all dependent on previous ecents and experiences or are totally random. But as I say, what I think is irrelevant to your answer so please answer the questions not ask me ones.

I do not know how the human soul works, but I do know that it frees me from the constraints of a biological machine derived and driven entirely by the natural unguided forces of nature.

You cannot conclude the latter if you say the former. You cannot, and never have been able to, show that we are free from our 'programming' due to previous events. You just trott out personal incredulity and assertions and think you are making a reasoned arguement. You're not.