Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Look old son, wouldn’t it just be more honest if you changed tack now? Rather than pretend the logic and evidence that undoes you isn’t there, why not instead say something like, “OK, so I cannot construct an argument that’s logically cogent and I cannot offer evidence that falsifies the evidence ranged against me but, nonetheless, I choose to believe in my alternative conjecture. Why? Because I really, really think I’m right about that because that’s my “faith” even though there’s no reason I can suggest for anyone else to agree with me". 

See, here’s the upside: you’d still be just as wrong as you are now, but at least this way you’d be honestly wrong.

Wouldn’t that be a more comfortable place for you to be?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Here's what you could have said instead: "OK blue, thanks fort that. It makes for interesting reading, and I can see now why the consensus from science and philosophy is that consciousness is an emergent property of our physical selves."

Oh well.

Dear Hillside

I see you are hawking for praise for statin' the bleedin' obvious.

Yours Ungratefully

Vlad.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I see you are hawking for praise for statin' the bleedin' obvious.

Yours Ungratefully

I was "hawking" for no such thing, and I see that you're as utterly charmless as ever.

Oh well. You're welcome anyway. I don't suppose there'd be any point in asking whether you'd bothered reading the evidence you demanded would there?

[torridon]

I define the soul by what it does - providing conscious awareness and free will interaction with this world via our physical body.  Despite all the scientific jargon, there is still no definition for how these properties arise from material entities.  I do not know how the soul works, but I can offer my postings (and yours) as evidence for its existenceThese are just assumptions because there is no scientific definition of what "awareness" is.  All you have is correlation of brain activity, but this does not comprise the full story.

Defining the soul by 'what it does' in itself is not so problematic, that is effectively what most people have always done.  That is just giving a name, 'soul', to that sense of unique personhood and agency that we all experience.  What is problematic is the further contention that this soul thing is in fact a distinct and separate thing from the body that interacts with it as there is zero evidence to support this idea.  And the further contention that this soul is eternal is also without any evidential justification and always will be.  These claims take a serious attempt to understand our experience in the light of life sciences into the la-la land of fantasy beliefs and it is this intrusion into the arena of rational thought and learning by naive make-believe that irks me.  In the arena of science, these ideas are lightweight imposters, out of place, posturing themselves as if to be taken seriously as some alternative hypothesis.  To be taken seriously, we would need to see some detail, some working, some ways to test them out.  But none of this is ever forthcoming. In the absence of any real detail, this soul idea is as useful to a real understanding of the experience of being as the Fat Controller is to running Britain's railways.

[bluehillside Retd.]

torri,

Defining the soul by 'what it does' in itself is not so problematic, that is effectively what most people have always done.  That is just giving a name, 'soul', to that sense of unique personhood and agency that we all experience.  What is problematic is the further contention that this soul thing is in fact a distinct and separate thing from the body that interacts with it as there is zero evidence to support this idea.  And the further contention that this soul is eternal is also without any evidential justification and always will be.  These claims take a serious attempt to understand our experience in the light of life sciences into the la-la land of fantasy beliefs and it is this intrusion into the arena of rational thought and learning by naive make-believe that irks me.  In the arena of science, these ideas are lightweight imposters, out of place, posturing themselves as if to be taken seriously as some alternative hypothesis.  To be taken seriously, we would need to see some detail, some working, some ways to test them out.  But none of this is ever forthcoming. In the absence of any real detail, this soul idea is as useful to a real understanding of the experience of being as the Fat Controller is to running Britain's railways.

Nice post. Just to note that that defining the "soul" by "what it does" is however a problem for AB as his complaint about the evidence-based models of consciousness as an emergent property is that they're not "fully defined". (Itself an irrelevance incidentally – gravity isn't fully defined either, yet the models we have for it seem to work perfectly well.) Inasmuch as the evidence does "define" consciousness though, it does so at least to the extent that "soul" does - ie, as "that sense of unique personhood and agency that we all experience" to use your phrase. At best that just gives him a different word for consciousness, but he also thereby denies himself any of the modelling potential we have already from the various disciplines that are researching this area.

[Alan Burns]

Defining the soul by 'what it does' in itself is not so problematic, that is effectively what most people have always done.  That is just giving a name, 'soul', to that sense of unique personhood and agency that we all experience.  What is problematic is the further contention that this soul thing is in fact a distinct and separate thing from the body that interacts with it as there is zero evidence to support this idea.  And the further contention that this soul is eternal is also without any evidential justification and always will be.  These claims take a serious attempt to understand our experience in the light of life sciences into the la-la land of fantasy beliefs and it is this intrusion into the arena of rational thought and learning by naive make-believe that irks me.  In the arena of science, these ideas are lightweight imposters, out of place, posturing themselves as if to be taken seriously as some alternative hypothesis.  To be taken seriously, we would need to see some detail, some working, some ways to test them out.  But none of this is ever forthcoming. In the absence of any real detail, this soul idea is as useful to a real understanding of the experience of being as the Fat Controller is to running Britain's railways.

But remove the soul and there is no controller - we all just become part of the deterministic goo of the universe.

[Gordon]

But remove the soul and there is no controller - we all just become part of the deterministic goo of the universe.

This might come as a shock to you, Alan: there are no good reasons to think there is a 'controller'.

[Alan Burns]

torri,

Nice post. Just to note that that defining the "soul" by "what it does" is however a problem for AB as his complaint about the evidence-based models of consciousness as an emergent property is that they're not "fully defined". (Itself an irrelevance incidentally – gravity isn't fully defined either, yet the models we have for it seem to work perfectly well.) Inasmuch as the evidence does "define" consciousness though, it does so at least to the extent that "soul" does - ie, as "that sense of unique personhood and agency that we all experience" to use your phrase. At best that just gives him a different word for consciousness, but he also thereby denies himself any of the modelling potential we have already from the various disciplines that are researching this area.

It is not just that consciousness is not fully defined.  My point is that it is impossible to define in material terms.  No amount of material reactions, no matter how much complexity they entail, can ever define conscious awareness, because there is no end recipient of information - the reactions just transfer from particle to particle with no feasible mechanism for perceiving the whole process by one conscious entity.  None of the examples of emergence you give show any possible mechanism for the "emergence" to become a conscious entity in its own right.

[Alan Burns]

This might come as a shock to you, Alan: there are no good reasons to think there is a 'controller'.

So what is controlling the posts we make to each other?

[Gordon]

So what is controlling the posts we make to each other?

Us.

[torridon]

But remove the soul and there is no controller - we all just become part of the deterministic goo of the universe.

There is no separate controller.  It is a brain monitors a body's milieu and external changes and responds accordingly.  That is what brains are for.  There is no need for another controller to do what the brain already does.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Look old son, wouldn’t it just be more honest if you changed tack now? Rather than pretend the logic and evidence that undoes you isn’t there, why not instead say something like, “OK, so I cannot construct an argument that’s logically cogent and I cannot offer evidence that falsifies the evidence ranged against me but, nonetheless, I choose to believe in my alternative conjecture. Why? Because I really, really think I’m right about that because that’s my “faith” even though there’s no reason I can suggest for anyone else to agree with me". 

See, here’s the upside: you’d still be just as wrong as you are now, but at least this way you’d be honestly wrong.

Wouldn’t that be a more comfortable place for you to be?

But the logic and evidence placed against me does nothing to contradict the conviction I have that the "I" in me is not driven by the deterministic nature of this material universe.  I am a conscious entity with the power to perceive, contemplate, interact, intervene, manipulate, create, argue, postulate .... etc.  None of which would be possible if I was a biological robot driven by the uncontrollable forces of nature.

[Gordon]

But the logic and evidence placed against me does nothing to contradict the conviction I have that the "I" in me is not driven by the deterministic nature of this material universe.

I think that is just you, Alan.

I am a conscious entity with the power to perceive, contemplate, interact, intervene, manipulate, create, argue, postulate .... etc.  None of which would be possible if I was a biological robot driven by the uncontrollable forces of nature.

You can indeed do these things, so it is possible, it's just that in thinking about such things your personal incredulity getting in the way again.

[Alan Burns]

There is no separate controller.  It is a brain monitors a body's milieu and external changes and responds accordingly.  That is what brains are for.  There is no need for another controller to do what the brain already does.

But the key word here is "responds".  A deterministic model can do nothing but respond in a pre determined manner defined only by the forces of nature.  To exert control, you need a controlling entity which is not shackled by deterministic reactions.

[Alan Burns]

Us.

Precisely.  We are the control centre for our own physical body, not the pre determined forces of nature..

[Alan Burns]

I think that is just you, Alan.

You can indeed do these things, so it is possible, it's just that in thinking about such things your personal incredulity getting in the way again.

And where does my personal incredulity emanate from?

[Gordon]

And where does my personal incredulity emanate from?

The organ within your skull, Alan: there is no other option.

[Gordon]

Precisely.  We are the control centre for our own physical body, not the pre determined forces of nature..

I'd say we both have, for the present at least, functional biology.

Your 'pre-determined forces of nature' is of course, as you utilise the phrase, hyperbole but that we are unavoidably affected by precursors of all sorts is fairly obvious.

[torridon]

But the key word here is "responds".  A deterministic model can do nothing but respond in a pre determined manner defined only by the forces of nature.  To exert control, you need a controlling entity which is not shackled by deterministic reactions.

Everything responds to change, simple structures respond in a simple way, more complex structures, like living things, respond in more complex ways.  There is a spectrum of complexity or sophistication of response. Humans are part of the spectrum of life forms and we respond in more sophisticated ways than other creatures having more degrees of freedom but as has been pointed out countless times we cannot have total freedom - total freedom from any basis upon which to fashion a response defines any response as a random event rather than a meaningful response.

[Alan Burns]

Everything responds to change, simple structures respond in a simple way, more complex structures, like living things, respond in more complex ways.  There is a spectrum of complexity or sophistication of response. Humans are part of the spectrum of life forms and we respond in more sophisticated ways than other creatures having more degrees of freedom but as has been pointed out countless times we cannot have total freedom - total freedom from any basis upon which to fashion a response defines any response as a random event rather than a meaningful response.

The conscious will of the human soul is NOT random.  And it is not constrained by unavoidable deterministic reactions to previous physical events.   We can't describe conscious awareness in physical terms, all we can do is describe the things we are aware of.  Similarly we have no physical description of conscious choice - we just know of the things we consciously choose to say or do or think.

[Alan Burns]

The organ within your skull, Alan: there is no other option.

And if this organ is entirely driven by naturally occurring events, then my personal incredulity is just an unavoidable reaction, and the fact that you disagree with what I believe must mean that my brain is wired differently to yours - so there can be no right or wrong in this scenario, just physically generated differences.

However if there is a means of consciously controlling our thoughts and words, then it is the conscious controller which becomes responsible for the personal incredulity.  But where does the conscious controller fit in with the deterministic functioning of our brain?

[Gordon]

And if this organ is entirely driven by naturally occurring events, then my personal incredulity is just an unavoidable reaction, and the fact that you disagree with what I believe must mean that my brain is wired differently to yours - so there can be no right or wrong in this scenario, just physically generated differences.

People are different, Alan, and this includes how they think just as much as how high they can jump etc etc etc.

However if there is a means of consciously controlling our thoughts and words, then it is the conscious controller which becomes responsible for the personal incredulity.  But where does the conscious controller fit in with the deterministic functioning of our brain?

Nope: your 'conscious controller' would seem to be synonymous with your brain: you've simply contrived this distinct 'conscious controller' notion as a hook to hang your choice of god on.

[Alan Burns]

People are different, Alan, and this includes how they think just as much as how high they can jump etc etc etc.

Nope: your 'conscious controller' would seem to be synonymous with your brain: you've simply contrived this distinct 'conscious controller' notion as a hook to hang your choice of god on.

The point I am making, Gordon, is that a brain which works entirely from the natural forces of nature can have nothing else in control, only natural reactions to previous events.  For any form of conscious control to exist, you will need the conscious awareness to have power to influence certain elements in the brain in order to implement this control.   There is no halfway house in this.  If the brain is just material elements, you are driven entirely by the naturally occurring events over which you have no control.  If there is any form of conscious control, the controlling element has the power to intervene in the "cause and effect" chains in order to implement that control.  And such events would have to be classified as supernatural because they are not entirely determined by past events.

[Alan Burns]

But your complaint about all the evidence ranged against you is that it does not "define" consciousness. Why are the definitions we do have any less definitions than the one you've just attempted for "soul"? 

I have not come across any physical definition for conscious awareness.  Speculation about emergent properties or information flow do not define conscious awareness.

My logic is based upon the need for the physical content of our brain cells to be perceived and manipulated at will by whatever comprises our conscious awareness.  The soul as described in the Christian bible fits this requirement much better than any other explanation I have encountered.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I have not come across any physical definition for conscious awareness.  Speculation about emergent properties or information flow do not define conscious awareness.

That could be because reductionist materialists have linguistically pirated the phrase emergent.