Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

Third, you have no argument of any kind to suggest that a “recipient of information” cannot be defined in material terms. Your problem here is that you severely underestimate the scale of very large numbers, and you have no grasp of the phenomenon of emergence that occurs when those very large numbers of components interact in consistent ways. 

So how many termites do you think will be required to define a conscious recipient of information?

[torridon]

It is not a mistake.
I was just comparing the human race with every other species of animal, and no other animal shows any evidence of seeking God, which implies that the seeking of God is not a common attribute, and in terms of evolutionary theory there seems to be no perceivable survival attribute in wasting time contemplating the possibility of a non existent God.

So I suggest that the human attribute of being aware of God's existence is no accident, but a God given gift to enable us to find Him after the Fall.

There are many reasons for belief in gods in earlier humans. Cognitive bias, superstition, community bonding, pyschological factors, an explanatory framework for existence, agent detection.....   There just aren't any reasons that stand up to scrutiny in the modern sense.

[torridon]

So how many termites do you think will be required to define a conscious recipient of information?

I'll go for a quadrillion, a recent estimate of the number of synapses in a human brain.

But then of course, other creatures also develop a sense of self with smaller brains than us.

And of course, the average termite is way smarter than the average synapse.

Not sure about creationists though.

[Sebastian Toe]

So how many termites do you think will be required to define a conscious recipient of information?

100,000,000,000?

[BeRational]

So how many termites do you think will be required to define a conscious recipient of information?

I am interested in your assertion that humans are special from other animals and posses a soul that enables them to think and reason, rather than just react.
When a person has brain damage or dementia and can clearly no longer reason or think correctly, does that mean the soul has been damaged as well?
You seem to imply that this soul is separate from the brain, so I would expect this soul to be unaffected by what happens to the brain.

Is that what you think as well?

[Alan Burns]

I am interested in your assertion that humans are special from other animals and posses a soul that enables them to think and reason, rather than just react.
When a person has brain damage or dementia and can clearly no longer reason or think correctly, does that mean the soul has been damaged as well?
You seem to imply that this soul is separate from the brain, so I would expect this soul to be unaffected by what happens to the brain.

Is that what you think as well?

The body is the communication between the soul and this universe, so when the brain is damaged, the communication will suffer.  Not the soul.

[BeRational]

The body is the communication between the soul and this universe, so when the brain is damaged, the communication will suffer.  Not the soul.

But I thought you were the soul?

So what are souls doing and thinking in people with dementia?
What decisions is that soul making?

[floo]

When someone sadly suffers from dementia, their conscious thought is disturbed. As 'soul' is just another name for the conscious mind, imo, it is damaged.

[BeRational]

The body is the communication between the soul and this universe, so when the brain is damaged, the communication will suffer.  Not the soul.

I saw a brain surgeon on TV performing and operation while the patient was awake. He did this as he needed the person conscious so that he could ask him questions. He was operating on a portion of the brain responsible for vocabulary. He showed him pictures, and long as he could say what the pictures was, he could keep cutting out bits of his brain. However ,it got to a point where he showed him a picture, and the patient said he knew exactly what it was, he could see it was red, it had wheels, there was driver, it had a siren. But he COULD not say what the pictured vehicle was. The surgeon moved the electrode, and the patient immediately said "Fire Engine".
The patient was awake, aware able to make decisions, talk to the surgeon. Everything about the person was fine. But as soon as a tiny electrode was tested on his brain, his ability to verbalise pictures completely disappeared.
We do no understand how the brain creates consciousness, but that was a good demonstration that the brain alone, is completely responsible.
In other patients that had suffered damage, they too were completely aware and conscious, able to make decisions just like you, BUT they could not recognise the face of their wife, their children or even themselves.

So what is the soul doing in people like this?
Can it recognise pictures and people all the time, but the person whose soul it is cannot.

What then is this soul for?

[ekim]

The point is that we always have free will of our own, and it is our conscious decision whether or not to comply with God's will.  I would always imagine that I am free to carry out my own will as well as God's will, as long as it does not conflict with His will.

If we define 'will' and 'won't' as the intention to act or not act it is difficult to see how that intention can be free from preceding events especially as what you call 'my own will' is another name for self will and is likely to revolve around self preservation in some form.  How do you determine what is God's will and do you consider yourself to be free from it or bound by it?

[Nearly Sane]

.....
So what is the soul doing in people like this?
Can it recognise pictures and people all the time, but the person whose soul it is cannot.

What then is this soul for?

I think according to AB, it's on the 'spiritual' plane shouting 'FIRE ENGINE!!! IT'S A FIRE ENGINE!!! OH FFS YOU BIG LUMP OF PHYSICALNESS, FIRE ENGINE!!'
But the surgeon is 'holding' down on the line so the brain can't hear. The ability to name attributes is because it can see the soul on a silent video doing its soul nut in but doing charades.

Note this is also Alan's idea of what happens when there is permanent brain damage such as in the case of Phineas Gage: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage.
The soul is shouting 'say thank you, for the sake of your eternal me!'. But what comes down the 'line' due to interference  is 'Tell them to feck the feck off!'

Oh and for a good laugh ask him about Split Brain patients

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-brain

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It is not a mistake.

Yes it is. You told us that it's logically "difficult" to peoples over the ages seeking gods ("Looking at human history, a conscious desire to find God or a spiritual source of things would appear to be a natural part of our human nature, and something difficult to explain in logical scientific terms."). I explained to you that that’s not true – there are perfectly logical reasons for it as crude attempts at explaining the phenomena they observed.

QED

I was just comparing the human race with every other species of animal, and no other animal shows any evidence of seeking God…

No you weren’t. That was a separate argument you made (also wrong) about the uniqueness of the phenomenon. Lots of species have lots of characteristics though that are unique to them, so it doesn’t help you either in fact or in logic.

... which implies that the seeking of God is not a common attribute, and in terms of evolutionary theory there seems to be no perceivable survival attribute in wasting time contemplating the possibility of a non existent God.

Wrong again. There’s huge evolutionary advantage in recognising patterns, seeking explanations etc. It’s because of that attribute that we can cure cancers and fly satellites to Jupiter. The same characteristic though also means though that in seeking these explanations we often get the answer wrong before we get them right – think Thor and thunder, your god and creationism etc again for examples.

So I suggest that the human attribute of being aware of God's existence is no accident…

Again with the reification fallacy? Seriously?

You just jumped straight from “seeking gods” to “being aware of God's existence” with no connecting logic or evidence. My “seeking” leprechauns does not make me aware of their existence. What people seek are explanations - that they sometimes label them "gods" tells you nothing about whether there are gods.

…but a God given gift to enable us to find Him after the Fall.

A personal opinion you happen to have with no evidence of any kind to support it.

[BeRational]

I think according to AB, it's on the 'spiritual' plane shouting 'FIRE ENGINE!!! IT'S A FIRE ENGINE!!! OH FFS YOU BIG LUMP OF PHYSICALNESS, FIRE ENGINE!!'
But the surgeon is 'holding' down on the line so the brain can't hear. The ability to name attributes is because it can see the soul on a silent video doing its soul nut in but doing charades.

Note this is also Alan's idea of what happens when there is permanent brain damage such as in the case of Phineas Gage: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage.
The soul is shouting 'say thank you, for the sake of your eternal me!'. But what comes down the 'line' due to interference  is 'Tell them to feck the feck off!'

Oh and for a good laugh ask him about Split Brain patients

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-brain

You just reminded me about the guy with a spike in head that totally changed his personality, thanks.

This soul business answers nothing, and created more issues it seems to me.

[Rhiannon]

I'll go for a quadrillion, a recent estimate of the number of synapses in a human brain.

But then of course, other creatures also develop a sense of self with smaller brains than us.

And of course, the average termite is way smarter than the average synapse.

Not sure about creationists though.

 

[floo]

Where is the 'soul' supposed to be situated, if not in the brain?

[wigginhall]

The interesting thing about souls, brains, and fire engines, is that with AB, you seem  to end up with a soul with its own intelligence.    This must be the case, if the brain is said not to generate consciousness, which is the function of the soul.    Hence the weirdness of brain damage, with an undamaged soul, which still cannot get through with its messages.   I think torridon asked a long time ago, why bother then with a brain?   Why not just have an intelligent soul which controls everything? 

Of course, there is zero evidence for an intelligent soul, but that won't trouble AB.   He knows. 

[floo]

I understand how weird brain damage can be as my husband had half his brain trashed after an aneurysm burst in 2006. He can do really complicated graphs on the computer but can't do simple things like send an e-mail. When talking he knows exactly what he wants to say, but often the words come out wrong which of course he finds highly frustrating, when I don't grasp what he is trying to say.

[wigginhall]

I used to work in a stroke clinic, studying people with loss of vocabulary, or loss of grammar.  AB's stuff seems embarrassing really, when you think of people who suffer brain damage, and have to reconstruct their speech and language, if they can.   Still, they can pray, and there might be a miracle. 

[Nearly Sane]

I understand how weird brain damage can be as my husband had half his brain trashed after an aneurysm burst in 2006. He can do really complicated graphs on the computer but can't do simple things like send an e-mail. When talking he knows exactly what he wants to say, but often the words come out wrong which of course he finds highly frustrating, when I don't grasp what he is trying to say.

And AB in his position of a Dr in computing science will tell you that your husband's soul is fine but is struggling to communicate because the quantum communication method which he can't define from the spiritual plane which he can't define that is used by the soul which he can't define to to send its free will decision which he can't define is screwed up in some way that he can't explain.

[floo]

And AB in his position of a Dr in computing science will tell you that your husband's soul is fine but is struggling to communicate because the quantum communication method which he can't define from the spiritual plane which he can't define that is used by the soul which he can't define to to send its free will decision which he can't define is screwed up in some way that he can't explain.

My husband, even with half a functioning brain, in his position of a Dr in Philosophy would ask AB to provide evidence to support his position. I know he would derive the utmost enjoyment vigorously debating the issue with AB.

[ippy]

My husband, even with half a functioning brain, in his position of a Dr in Philosophy would ask AB to provide evidence to support his position. I know he would derive the utmost enjoyment vigorously debating the issue with AB.

So, I'm assured, would a Dr of psychology Floo and again so am I told anyone that holds a religious belief has some really profound, for them, problems with any religious belief they held before they set out on a course to study psychology.

ippy

[floo]

So, I'm assured, would a Dr of psychology Floo and again so am I told anyone that holds a religious belief has some really profound, for them, problems with any religious belief they held before they set out on a course to study psychology.

ippy

My husband was a 'born again' before he went to uni to do his first degree in Science and theology at 18. He was an unbeliever by the time he completed his degree.

[Robbie]

You're witty ippy! I did you disservice getting you mixed up with someone else of similar name yesterday (put right), but remember you now.Not sure I really understand your post here, some of it maybe.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

So how many termites do you think will be required to define a conscious recipient of information?

It's not "define" but "constitute", and the answer is lots and lots and lots. Perhaps a good place to start would be to find the self-aware species with the fewest number of synapses and assume that to be our working minimum threshold.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

AB,

It's not "define" but "constitute", and the answer is lots and lots and lots. Perhaps a good place to start would be to find the self-aware species with the fewest number of synapses and assume that to be our working minimum threshold.

You are confusing intelligence with consciousness here.