Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

What you describe is simply the way our brains interpret what is detected by the physical senses.  It is just data processing - filtering out unnecessary data before is passes on to the conscious area of the brain which is perceived by the human soul.

There isn't really a 'conscious area' of the brain; rather, consciousness arises out of a variable whole brain integration via a mechanism of hormonal damping and excitation.  There isn't some sort of internal screen onto which the outcome of all sensory integration is projected for some little internal person to watch, this is just the naive stuff of children's comic books. The notion that perception requires a perceiver to perceive the perception is either circular or it implies an infinite regress of internal perceivers to carry out perception within the internal perceiver.  All of which is bizarre enough, but it is compounded further by the insinuation that these internal perceivers only reside in humans - what on earth would be the point if in every other animal all this preparation of perceptions there was nothing to witness it and act on it.  Have you never heard of the principal of the economy of nature ?  Whatever is not used is eliminated.

[torridon]

torri,

It's a gift you know...

Well, actually, you missed the gentle strains of Motorhead playing softly in the background.

[torridon]

I previously said that animal behaviour can be explained by instinct and learnt experience.  In this case I would put it down to instinctive behaviour.

and we have pointed out already, that many forms of learning required conscious awareness.  No seal can learn circus tricks whilst unconscious.

[Alan Burns]

There isn't really a 'conscious area' of the brain; rather, consciousness arises out of a variable whole brain integration via a mechanism of hormonal damping and excitation.  There isn't some sort of internal screen onto which the outcome of all sensory integration is projected for some little internal person to watch, this is just the naive stuff of children's comic books. The notion that perception requires a perceiver to perceive the perception is either circular or it implies an infinite regress of internal perceivers to carry out perception within the internal perceiver.  All of which is bizarre enough, but it is compounded further by the insinuation that these internal perceivers only reside in humans - what on earth would be the point if in every other animal all this preparation of perceptions there was nothing to witness it and act on it.  Have you never heard of the principal of the economy of nature ?  Whatever is not used is eliminated.

So the human self is now just a matter of "a variable whole brain integration via a mechanism of hormonal damping and excitation".   

Regarding the infinite regress - you come to this by thinking purely in material terms.  A spiritual perceiver does not need any other perceiver, just as a spiritual act of will does not need any further deterministic cause.  The spiritual soul is the beginning and the end point of human interaction with this world - no need for any infinite regress.

[floo]

So the human self is now just a matter of "a variable whole brain integration via a mechanism of hormonal damping and excitation".   

Regarding the infinite regress - you come to this by thinking purely in material terms.  A spiritual perceiver does not need any other perceiver, just as a spiritual act of will does not need any further deterministic cause.  The spiritual soul is the beginning and the end point of human interaction with this world - no need for any infinite regress.

The human self is only a more developed species of animal, imo.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

So the human self is now just a matter of "a variable whole brain integration via a mechanism of hormonal damping and excitation".

I have no idea what you mean by “the human self” (and nor do you) but if you’re trying to say something like “consciousness”, then pretty much that’s what the evidence tells us yes.   

Regarding the infinite regress - you come to this by thinking purely in material terms.

Presumably because neither you nor anyone else has even managed to come up with a method to distinguish their claims of the of the non-material from just making stuff up.

A spiritual perceiver does not need any other perceiver, just as a spiritual act of will does not need any further deterministic cause.  The spiritual soul is the beginning and the end point of human interaction with this world - no need for any infinite regress.

Of course Alan, of course. Here’s the thing though: once you’ve made up something in your head and called it “spiritual”, you think that gives you license to make up anything else you like about it. When it suits you you try to play on materialism's turf (“when the souls wants to do the driving, it must interact with the brain” etc) and when it doesn’t (the infinite regress problem for example) you just allow it to float free of rationalism entirely.

The problem though is that I too can make up any shit I like, call it “spiritual”, tell you you can’t see “the big picture” when it’s not apparent to you too, and play just as fast and loose as you do with reason and rationalism whenever the insurmountable problems with it are pointed out. Why then should anyone take your claims and assertions any more seriously than you take mine?

It’ll be lost on you, but what you’re actually committing is called the homunculus fallacy. Here’s the Wiki entry that describes it for you:

“Homunculus fallacy – where a "middle-man" is used for explanation, this sometimes leads to regressive middle-men. Explains without actually explaining the real nature of a function or a process. Instead, it explains the concept in terms of the concept itself, without first defining or explaining the original concept. Explaining thought as something produced by a little thinker, a sort of homunculus inside the head, merely explains it as another kind of thinking (as different but the same).”

You're welcome.

[wigginhall]

Yes, AB's spiritual self, or spiritual consciousness, or whatever, reminds me of Hitchcock's McGuffin, which was a plot device, whereby a character in a film pursued something, which actually had no importance, or no meaning.

It's also a bit like vitalism and other such ideas, which appear to describe something,  but don't.   

Or, as blue has just said, guesswork.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

I have no idea what you mean by “the human self” (and nor do you) but if you’re trying to say something like “consciousness”, then pretty much that’s what the evidence tells us yes.   

Presumably because neither you nor anyone else has even managed to come up with a method to distinguish their claims of the of the non-material from just making stuff up.

Of course Alan, of course. Here’s the thing though: once you’ve made up something in your head and called it “spiritual”, you think that gives you license to make up anything else you like about it. When it suits you you try to play on materialism's turf (“when the souls wants to do the driving, it must interact with the brain” etc) and when it doesn’t (the infinite regress problem for example) you just allow it to float free of rationalism entirely.

The problem though is that I too can make up any shit I like, call it “spiritual”, tell you you can’t see “the big picture” when it’s not apparent to you too, and play just as fast and loose as you do with reason and rationalism whenever the insurmountable problems with it are pointed out. Why then should anyone take your claims and assertions any more seriously than you take mine?

It’ll be lost on you, what you’re actually committing is called the homunculus fallacy. Here’s the Wiki entry that describes it for you:

“Homunculus fallacy – where a "middle-man" is used for explanation, this sometimes leads to regressive middle-men. Explains without actually explaining the real nature of a function or a process. Instead, it explains the concept in terms of the concept itself, without first defining or explaining the original concept. Explaining thought as something produced by a little thinker, a sort of homunculus inside the head, merely explains it as another kind of thinking (as different but the same).”

You're welcome.

You say that I just make things up in my head.  And you claim that you are capable of doing the same.  So in these two cases what is it precisely that is the instigator of making things up?  Your claimed model of the brain is just a deterministically controlled bit of matter with no will of its own, so how can you explain the ability for you or I to deliberately make things up in our heads?  If there is nothing at the controls?  So if we can make things up in our heads, is this not evidence of a conscious controlling entity within us?  Where does the control emanate from?

[wigginhall]

An evil god, obviously. 

[Gordon]

So the human self is now just a matter of "a variable whole brain integration via a mechanism of hormonal damping and excitation".   

Pretty much: in effect we are our biology.

Regarding the infinite regress - you come to this by thinking purely in material terms.  A spiritual perceiver does not need any other perceiver, just as a spiritual act of will does not need any further deterministic cause.  The spiritual soul is the beginning and the end point of human interaction with this world - no need for any infinite regress.

I haven't seen the comment 'wibble' for a while, but this effort of yours certainly qualifies as being a sterling example of some.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You say that I just make things up in my head.  And you claim that you are capable of doing the same.

Actually I say that your claims and assertions are indistinguishable from something you’ve just made up, but for this purpose you're close enough.

So in these two cases what is it precisely that is the instigator of making things up?  Your claimed model of the brain is just a deterministically controlled bit of matter with no will of its own, so how can you explain the ability for you or I to deliberately make things up in our heads?

Easily. “Free” will just feels free, but the only cogent reasoning we have tells us that in actuality our experiences are ultimately derived from cause and effect. That we sometimes perceive things differently is epistemically useless.

If there is nothing at the controls?

No. That would be your homunculus fallacy again.

So if we can make things up in our heads, is this not evidence of a conscious controlling entity within us?  Where does the control emanate from?

Of course not. See above.

[wigginhall]

These comments are too harsh.  AB obviously means that the yadda-yadda-yadda interacts with the blah-blah-blah in a spiritual sort of acka-acka-acka and then you get the pay off, in the form of a very large spiritual oofla-oofla-oofla.   Clear?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

These comments are too harsh.  AB obviously means that the yadda-yadda-yadda interacts with the blah-blah-blah in a spiritual sort of acka-acka-acka and then you get the pay off, in the form of a very large spiritual oofla-oofla-oofla.   Clear?

Pellucidly so. Why didn't he just say that in the first place though?

Thanks for putting me straight.

PS If ever I get around to writing an AB:English dictionary I'm pretty sure that the definition for "Spiritual" will have to be: "It's magic innit."

[Alan Burns]

These comments are too harsh.  AB obviously means that the yadda-yadda-yadda interacts with the blah-blah-blah in a spiritual sort of acka-acka-acka and then you get the pay off, in the form of a very large spiritual oofla-oofla-oofla.   Clear?

I think you have just shown undeniable evidence for your own spiritual inner self.  Surely no one could accuse you of being deterministically controlled by the uncontrollable forces of nature to produce such a witticism. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I think you have just shown undeniable evidence for your own spiritual inner self.  Surely no one could accuse you of being deterministically controlled by the uncontrollable forces of nature to produce such a witticism.

It wasn't a witticism. For epistemic purposes "spiritual" and "yadda-yadda-yadda"/"blah-blah-blah"/"acka-acka-acka"/"oofla-oofla-oofla" are all interchangeable terms.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

AB,

It wasn't a witticism. For epistemic purposes "spiritual" and "yadda-yadda-yadda"/"blah-blah-blah"/"acka-acka-acka"/"oofla-oofla-oofla" are all interchangeable terms.

Some utter durry has passed through your typing hand and onto the interweb over the past few years but this takes the cake.

[floo]

Some utter durry has passed through your typing hand and onto the interweb over the past few years but this takes the cake.

And in English please?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Floo,

And in English please?

He only does Vladdish. Perhaps we should start a competition to see who can best translate it into recognisable English?

[wigginhall]

I think you have just shown undeniable evidence for your own spiritual inner self.  Surely no one could accuse you of being deterministically controlled by the uncontrollable forces of nature to produce such a witticism. 

I think you've missed the point, see blue's post.   Yadda-yadda-yadda is about as meaningful as your use of 'spiritual', 'soul', and a few other terms.

[floo]

Floo,

He only does Vladdish. Perhaps we should start a competition to see who can best translate it into recognisable English?

 

[torridon]

So the human self is now just a matter of "a variable whole brain integration via a mechanism of hormonal damping and excitation".   

The 'human self' is a construct of mind, this is what the evidence suggests.

Which shouldn't come as a surprise given that we realise now that all experience is construction of mind.  You are looking at the computer screen right now, yes ?  Well your vision of that screen is not the actual screen, it is an inner construction of mind that serves as a good enough representation of the actual screen.  The sounds you hear are all construction of auditory cortex. Your sense of taste, sense of balance, sense of direction, sense of right and wrong, sense of self and personhood, these are all constituent parts of conscious experience, all products of mind, and they all come and go under the hormonal control of lower levels of mind.

[Alan Burns]

I think you've missed the point, see blue's post.   Yadda-yadda-yadda is about as meaningful as your use of 'spiritual', 'soul', and a few other terms.

It is you who has missed the point.
Where did the term "Yadda-yadda-yadda" emanate from?
You can cling to the belief that it was the inevitable consequence of countless chains of physical "cause and effect" events which began with the big bang.
Or you can face up to the reality that the free spirit which is wigginhall wilfully brought it into existence.
There is no compromise or halfway house in this.  This universe is either a deterministic system which is closed to any events not caused by previous events, or it is not.  The latter allows for events which are not random, but have a deliberate cause emanating from outside the physically deterministic nature of our universe.

[Alan Burns]

The 'human self' is a construct of mind, this is what the evidence suggests.

Which shouldn't come as a surprise given that we realise now that all experience is construction of mind.  You are looking at the computer screen right now, yes ?  Well your vision of that screen is not the actual screen, it is an inner construction of mind that serves as a good enough representation of the actual screen.  The sounds you hear are all construction of auditory cortex. Your sense of taste, sense of balance, sense of direction, sense of right and wrong, sense of self and personhood, these are all constituent parts of conscious experience, all products of mind, and they all come and go under the hormonal control of lower levels of mind.

But how does all this get perceived into the single entity which is Torridon?

[torridon]

Regarding the infinite regress - you come to this by thinking purely in material terms.  A spiritual perceiver does not need any other perceiver, just as a spiritual act of will does not need any further deterministic cause.  The spiritual soul is the beginning and the end point of human interaction with this world - no need for any infinite regress.

The word 'spiritual' here has no real definition.  If we replace 'spiritual' with 'magic', or 'supernatural' it comes to the same thing; it's just empty verbiage, meaningless noise whose only virtue is that it obscures the fact that real understanding, real meaning, is being avoided.

[Nearly Sane]

So the human self is now just a matter of "a variable whole brain integration via a mechanism of hormonal damping and excitation".   

Regarding the infinite regress - you come to this by thinking purely in material terms.  A spiritual perceiver does not need any other perceiver, just as a spiritual act of will does not need any further deterministic cause.  The spiritual soul is the beginning and the end point of human interaction with this world - no need for any infinite regress.

So the cause of any action is detemined and not in any sense free? Or have you just given up on defining free because you couldn't make any logically coherent statemenursx about it?