Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

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

It is more than speculation; the information flow concept is measureable and thanks to progress in that area we are now becoming able to identify degrees of consciousness with far greater precision than before.

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.

You happily (and incorrectly) note that that the scientific accounts of consciousness lack definition in 'physical' terms, and then go on to happily embrace the soul concept which has zero definition and contains no account whatsoever as to how this thing interacts with the 'physical' body.  Double standards.

[Alan Burns]

It is more than speculation; the information flow concept is measureable and thanks to progress in that area we are now becoming able to identify degrees of consciousness with far greater precision than before.

But it is still just correlation of brain activity without any explanation as to how these information flows get perceived into conscious awareness.  Information flows do not comprise the perceiver of the information.  They are certainly part of the physical side of the process, but you will need to see beyond the mere physical to fully understand what comprises human conscious awareness.

[torridon]

But it is still just correlation of brain activity without any explanation as to how these information flows get perceived into conscious awareness.  Information flows do not comprise the perceiver of the information.  They are certainly part of the physical side of the process, but you will need to see beyond the mere physical to fully understand what comprises human conscious awareness.

well, yes, and 'information' is beyond the 'merely' physical.  You are stuck on this paradigm regarding matter.  To understand consciousness we will probably need to move beyond older and simpler concepts and information is one concept that transcends earlier notions of matter.  All of reality derives from quantum fields which are not matter.  Scientists studying quantum mechanics have already moved beyond the 'mere physical'.

[Alan Burns]

well, yes, and 'information' is beyond the 'merely' physical.  You are stuck on this paradigm regarding matter.  To understand consciousness we will probably need to move beyond older and simpler concepts and information is one concept that transcends earlier notions of matter.  All of reality derives from quantum fields which are not matter.  Scientists studying quantum mechanics have already moved beyond the 'mere physical'.

Looks like science may be getting closer to the spiritual nature of things.   

[SweetPea]

Looks like science may be getting closer to the spiritual nature of things.   

Isn't it interesting, though that the materialists have to wait until Science shows them there is something beyond the physical. It's rather like waiting for NASA to tell us aliens exist.

[Gordon]

Isn't it interesting, though that the materialists have to wait until Science shows them there is something beyond the physical.

What to date has science shown that is 'beyond the physical', and what methods would they have used to do so?

It's rather like waiting for NASA to tell us aliens exist.

No it isn't.

[floo]

Isn't it interesting, though that the materialists have to wait until Science shows them there is something beyond the physical. It's rather like waiting for NASA to tell us aliens exist.

Aliens would be physical beings as we are. If science eventually discovers how the universe came into being, I suspect no god will have been instrumental in creating it.

[SweetPea]

What to date has science shown that is 'beyond the physical', and what methods would they have used to do so?
.....

Gordon, Torridon said, "Scientists studying quantum mechanics have already moved beyond the 'mere physical' ". Do you disagree with him?

[SweetPea]

Aliens would be physical beings as we are. If science eventually discovers how the universe came into being, I suspect no god will have been instrumental in creating it.

I suspect you may be wrong, Floo.

[Robbie]

I suspect no-one will ever find out for certain, ie there will never be scientific proof, the search will go on ad infinitum.

[floo]

I suspect you may be wrong, Floo.

I hope not.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Robinson,

I suspect no-one will ever find out for certain, ie there will never be scientific proof, the search will go on ad infinitum.

Science doesn't involve proofs. Rather it develops explanatory models called theories that are immensely powerful but that also are falsification apt. There's no proof for gravity for example – conceptually at least it could all be invisible pixies holding stuff down with very thin stings – but the theories we have for it are functionally useful. Sadly AB is way off the pace in understanding what various scientific disciplines tell us about the nature of consciousness, and moreover he makes to various statements of fact that he cannot know to be true but that's just ignorance of the data and poor logic.   

[Gordon]

Gordon, Torridon said, "Scientists studying quantum mechanics have already moved beyond the 'mere physical' ". Do you disagree with him?

Nope - but he isn't referring to anything supernatural.

[Alan Burns]

Robinson,

Science doesn't involve proofs. Rather it develops explanatory models called theories that are immensely powerful but that also are falsification apt. There's no proof for gravity for example – conceptually at least it could all be invisible pixies holding stuff down with very thin stings – but the theories we have for it are functionally useful. Sadly AB is way off the pace in understanding what various scientific disciplines tell us about the nature of consciousness, and moreover he makes to various statements of fact that he cannot know to be true but that's just ignorance of the data and poor logic.

You must recognise that the information we can detect with our physical senses and man made instruments is limited compared to the entire reality of things.  In other words, science has given us some pieces of the jigsaw, but it is not complete, and we have no idea just how many missing pieces there are.  So to extrapolate from the scientific knowledge alone may well give a false picture of reality.  In particular, the conclusion that we have no free will is very dubious because it conflicts with our perceived reality.  Also, the assumption that our conscious awareness is entirely driven by material reactions may be far from the truth because we have no material definition for how conscious awareness manifests itself.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You must recognise that the information we can detect with our physical senses and man made instruments is limited compared to the entire reality of things.  In other words, science has given us some pieces of the jigsaw, but it is not complete, and we have no idea just how many missing pieces there are.  So to extrapolate from the scientific knowledge alone may well give a false picture of reality.

So far, so good…

In particular, the conclusion that we have no free will is very dubious because it conflicts with our perceived reality.

And then you fall apart with a non sequitur. “Our perceived reality” very often misleads us – our abilities evolved to best engage with our environment, not to lead us to universal truths. That’s why we're good at seeing tigers coming at us through the grass, but not at watching cell division with the naked eye. 

Also…

You can’t have an “also” when your first argument has collapsed.

…,the assumption that our conscious awareness is entirely driven by material reactions…

It’s not an “assumption” as you imply. Rather it’s the consensus we have from cogent logic and the evidence from various scientific disciplines. Our personal perceptions on the other hand tell us relatively little of epistemic value.

…may be far from the truth…

Yes they may be, but only because anything we think “may be far from the truth”. Better though to have a few pieces of the jig-saw than no pieces at all.

…because we have no material definition for how conscious awareness manifests itself.

And that’s another non sequitur to follow. The reason our models of anything may be “far from reality” isn't because of insufficiently complete “definitions” (something you lack entirely for “soul” by the way). We have good models for the nature of consciousness as an emergent property of self-aware species, and no reason to reject them in favour of unnecessary and fundamentally logically contradictory speculations about “perceiving” will-o-the-wisps for which there's no evidence at all. The actual reason is that we have no means to eliminate the possibility of realities we cannot recognise.     

[torridon]

You must recognise that the information we can detect with our physical senses and man made instruments is limited compared to the entire reality of things.  In other words, science has given us some pieces of the jigsaw, but it is not complete, and we have no idea just how many missing pieces there are.  So to extrapolate from the scientific knowledge alone may well give a false picture of reality.  In particular, the conclusion that we have no free will is very dubious because it conflicts with our perceived reality....

Most findings in science conflict with our perceived reality to some extent, that is why we do it, to find out how things really are rather than just how they seem.  How things seem is a construction of mind, and our minds have evolved not to show us reality, but to optimise our chances of survival and reproduction. Work in theoretical biology demonstrates that species evolving to perceive reality 'as is' quickly go extinct, as they are outcompeted by rival species that can stay alive at lower cost. As a simple example of this, consider your sense of vision - we have discovered that only a small fraction of what we see is derived from novel data flowing in along the optic nerve.  The vast majority of what we see is drawn from memory, in other words, our minds are making a guess at what is out there based on past experience and expectation.  This process has been honed to such a seamless state of perfection that we take it for reality without murmur.  This allows us to navigate the world without bumping into things at much lower cost than a full-on raw vision system would.  All of our experience works in this fashion - what we take unquestioningly to be reality 'out there' is no such thing, it is all construction of mind optimised over millions of years to keep us alive. In essence, your brain is a virtual reality headset that is permanently hardwired in place and we can never take it off to see what the world is like in the raw.

[ekim]

You must recognise that the information we can detect with our physical senses and man made instruments is limited compared to the entire reality of things.

In essence, your brain is a virtual reality headset that is permanently hardwired in place and we can never take it off to see what the world is like in the raw.

From the perspective of the mystics, you are both looking in the wrong direction, so to speak.  They were not concerned about 'the reality of things' and were quite aware of the mind's ability to fashion its own 'virtual reality' from what it perceives.  They were more concerned with the 'subject I' in its pristine state and they devised methods to subdue the externalised senses and to find a stillness in the midst of the 'virtual' forms and forces of the mind.  'Be still and know that I am being.'

[Enki]

Gordon, Torridon said, "Scientists studying quantum mechanics have already moved beyond the 'mere physical' ". Do you disagree with him?

No, I don't disagree with Torridon at all. Science deals with the natural world, not the supernatural world, because it has no means of identifying if such a world actually exists. Quantum mechanics is a branch of physics, which is a major(some might say the major)branch of science (which deals with the natural world.)  I don't see your problem.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

From the perspective of the mystics, you are both looking in the wrong direction, so to speak.  They were not concerned about 'the reality of things' and were quite aware of the mind's ability to fashion its own 'virtual reality' from what it perceives.  They were more concerned with the 'subject I' in its pristine state and they devised methods to subdue the externalised senses and to find a stillness in the midst of the 'virtual' forms and forces of the mind.  'Be still and know that I am being.'

All very lovely no doubt, but that's not the issue. Rather it's about claims of facts and truth - specifically in this case about logic and science denial, and about asserting alternative conjectures as if they were reason-based. If you want to talk about the practices of "mystics" as a sort of superannuated yoga though, then no-one disagrees that they may have led to the desired blissed out states. 

[ekim]

ekim,

All very lovely no doubt, but that's not the issue. Rather it's about claims of facts and truth - specifically in this case about logic and science denial, and about asserting alternative conjectures as if they were reason-based. If you want to talk about the practices of "mystics" as a sort of superannuated yoga though, then no-one disagrees that they may have led to the desired blissed out states.

The original issue, though, was 'Searching for God' rather than 'asserting alternative conjectures'.  The 'blissed out states' or 'blessed state' could well be what is meant by 'Heaven' which is where the Christian God is said to reside.  Even if I am right, I am sure that looking in the wrong direction produces a more entertaining discussion.  17,000 replies and 50,000 views perhaps testifies to this, so, Alan .... keep going.

[SweetPea]

The original issue, though, was 'Searching for God' rather than 'asserting alternative conjectures'.  The 'blissed out states' or 'blessed state' could well be what is meant by 'Heaven' which is where the Christian God is said to reside.  Even if I am right, I am sure that looking in the wrong direction produces a more entertaining discussion.  17,000 replies and 50,000 views perhaps testifies to this, so, Alan .... keep going.

Ekim.... it could all have been over with just one comment, haha..

[Alan Burns]

The original issue, though, was 'Searching for God' rather than 'asserting alternative conjectures'.  The 'blissed out states' or 'blessed state' could well be what is meant by 'Heaven' which is where the Christian God is said to reside.  Even if I am right, I am sure that looking in the wrong direction produces a more entertaining discussion.  17,000 replies and 50,000 views perhaps testifies to this, so, Alan .... keep going.

Actually it is coming up to 500,000 views 
So I hope it will help some to discover the Good News

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I am surprised that atheists here are ploughing on with the old tosh that logic and science =atheism.

[ekim]

Actually it is coming up to 500,000 views 
So I hope it will help some to discover the Good News

Oops, so it is.  I can see that you are going to go for the million.

[Stranger]

I am surprised that atheists here are ploughing on with the old tosh that logic and science =atheism.

They aren't.