Searching for GOD...

[Shaker]

The clear bright line that Alan and his ilk try to force between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom (in its entirety) is a pitiful and desperate spectacle indeed.

It must be a strange thing to live in 1858.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Shakes,

The clear bright line that Alan and his ilk try to force between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom (in its entirety) is a pitiful and desperate spectacle indeed.

It must be a strange thing to live in 1858.

Or in Alan's case, 1458.

[Shaker]

Ah yes. Silly me.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Shakes,

Ah yes. Silly me.

Just musing on the difference between how AB thinks his ontology works and how it actually works. Essentially he suggests that it’s based on observations of the way the world works (he prays and then finds his car keys, determinism can’t produce freedom that’s “real” therefore the universe isn’t only deterministic etc) whereas in fact it’s completely the other way around.

Having decided that the narrative “God” is meaningful to him, he then has to deal with the problem of free will. The solution? He conjures up a magic something he calls “soul” to do the decision making. But then how does our species alone get to have this little man at the controls and so be “God’s” special project? Not a problem – just assert that other species just “react” or “perceive” or something, so only our species has the little chap. And how does this "soul" do its thing exactly? Um, AB hasn't quite got "all the details" worked out yet it seems, so the logical incoherence of it must be fine until he has.

And so it goes. It’s top down post-rationalising and casuistry all the way with some very bad reasoning thrown in that requires ever more fanciful invention and denial of the evidence to sustain, but there it is nonetheless. As he’s proud of telling us that he has a closed mind (because he’s “absolutely certain” about his beliefs) nothing can be allowed to disturb that – no argument, no evidence, no anything and so the twisting in the wind as he tries to claim his personal opinions as facts for the rest of us becomes ever more convoluted.

It’s actually quite chilling when you see it close up, but there it is anyway.   

[Alan Burns]

There is no reason to suppose that other animals don't 'attach meaning'.  'Meaning' is an emotional response to events and most animals share the basic emotions that we know.

Meaning can refer to whatever any written word represents in our mind.  It is not just emotion, and it is not mere reaction.  It is attaching conscious meaning to our sensory data.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Meaning can refer to whatever any written word represents in our mind.  It is not just emotion, and it is not mere reaction.  It is attaching conscious meaning to our sensory data.

So all you have to do now is to find some way to falsify all the evidence that indicates that many other species do that too.

[Alan Burns]

It might be better to personalise that question.  As Alan identifies with being a soul then he should be in a position to answer how he makes decisions rather than how a hypothetical soul makes decisions.  Is it any different to the way you make a decision without a soul?

Without a soul we are just nature's automated puppets with no will of our own.

[Maeght]

Without a soul we are just nature's automated puppets with no will of our own.

And how does our soul decide what our will is?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

So all you have to do now is to find some way to falsify all the evidence that indicates that many other species do that too.

Can you find an animal that can perceive meaning represented by abstract things such as written words?  (And please bear in mind that trained reaction does not imply perceived meaning)

[Alan Burns]

And how does our soul decide what our will is?

In the same way as your conscious will decides how to reply to my posts.

[Maeght]

In the same way as your conscious will decides how to reply to my posts.

Which is?

[Alan Burns]

Which is?

I can confidently say what it is not.
It is not the automated uncontrollable reaction predicted by physical chains cause and effect.

Can you not see that your conscious awareness has control over what, how and when you reply to posts?

When we discover the source and explanation of our conscious awareness, we will discover the source and explanation of human free will, but these are beyond the scope of human scientific investigation which currently limits itself to what can be perceived by human senses and man made instruments.  But why should we wait when God has revealed to us the truth of the existence of the human soul and its capability to choose its own destiny?

[Shaker]

I can confidently say what it is not.
It is not the automated uncontrollable reaction predicted by physical chains cause and effect.

Unsurprisingly your confidence is misplaced, as we know it has been in other areas.

When we discover the source and explanation of our conscious awareness, we will discover the source and explanation of human free will, but these are currently beyond the scope of human scientific investigation which currently limits itself to what can be perceived by human senses and man made instruments.

I see no reason to think that there's anything else to investigate. Even if there were, how would we know of it? What's the methodology for investigating it?

But why should we wait when God has revealed to us the truth of the existence of the human soul and its capability to choose its own destiny?

Because some of us want evidence, not your tiresome parade of assertion and fallacy.

[Maeght]

I can confidently say what it is not.
It is not the automated uncontrollable reaction predicted by physical chains cause and effect.

If you cannot say what it is then you cannot have any confidence in saying that. A strong belief, yes, but nothing mire.

Can you not see that your conscious awareness has control over what, how and when you reply to posts?

I wish you'd stop with these pointless appeals whuch simple demonstrate your incredulity and add nothing to the discussion.

When we discover the source and explanation of our conscious awareness, we will discover the source and explanation of human free will, but these are beyond the scope of human scientific investigation which currently limits itself to what can be perceived by human senses and man made instruments.

More assertions.

But why should we wait when God has revealed to us the truth of the existence of the human soul and its capability to choose its own destiny?

Because that hasn't happened

[Gordon]

I can confidently say what it is not.
It is not the automated uncontrollable reaction predicted by physical chains cause and effect.

Can you not see that your conscious awareness has control over what, how and when you reply to posts?

When we discover the source and explanation of our conscious awareness, we will discover the source and explanation of human free will, but these are beyond the scope of human scientific investigation which currently limits itself to what can be perceived by human senses and man made instruments.  But why should we wait when God has revealed to us the truth of the existence of the human soul and its capability to choose its own destiny?

Super - but you were asked what it is: not what it isn't.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Can you find an animal that can perceive meaning represented by abstract things...

Pretty much all animals do that. A gazelle on the savannah for example will see moving grass and will then construct a model and an attendant meaning to which it will respond. Is it just a breeze, or is it a lioness sneaking up to pounce? These options are "meanings" just as much as we take meanings from written sentences. The media may be different - grass vs ink and paper – but the principle is the same.   

...such as written words?

And that's cheating. There's nothing inherently relevant about written words here – that's just your arbitrary choice of specialness. A hummingbird might as well say, "Can any other bird fly backwards? No? Truly then I must be god's special chosen one".   

(And please bear in mind that trained reaction does not imply perceived meaning)

And please bear in mind that this piece of idiocy has been falsified here many times now. Do you seriously think that someone trained the elephants in the video to work together to save the calf, that someone sneaks into the jungle to train chimps how to organise complex hunting strategies, or to grieve when a baby chimp dies?

Seriously? 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

When we discover the source and explanation of our conscious awareness, we will discover the source and explanation of human free will, but these are beyond the scope of human scientific investigation which currently limits itself to what can be perceived by human senses and man made instruments.

Two mistakes there. First you find something to which science does not have the answer, then insert an answer that happens to appeal to you ("God") even though it has no reason or evidence of its own to support it. That's called the god of the gaps fallacy.

Second, that science doesn't have the answer (or the complete answer) tells you nothing about what the answer might be, and nor indeed about whether science might find the answer in the future. Your assumption that the explanatory gap is caused by science being confined to the material is only your unqualified guess, and your "thinking" here is exactly that of the Viking who couldn't explain thunder so asserted the cause to be Thor. 

But why should we wait when God has revealed to us the truth of the existence of the human soul and its capability to choose its own destiny?

Because you haven't demonstrated any of that to be true. As your determination never to provide any evidence for your claims suggest that you have none (don't worry about that too much by the way – neither has anyone else) then nor is there any prospect of you doing so either.

So what you actually bring to the table is some undefined, badly argued, un-evidenced guesses that you personally happen to find persuasive nonetheless.

And that's it.

For a non-credulous audience it's all a bit thin though isn't it?

[torridon]

I can confidently say what it is not.
It is not the automated uncontrollable reaction predicted by physical chains cause and effect.

Can you not see that your conscious awareness has control over what, how and when you reply to posts?

When we discover the source and explanation of our conscious awareness, we will discover the source and explanation of human free will, but these are beyond the scope of human scientific investigation which currently limits itself to what can be perceived by human senses and man made instruments.  But why should we wait when God has revealed to us the truth of the existence of the human soul and its capability to choose its own destiny?

There is nothing magic about will.  Will manifests greater diversity and range and nuance in humans than it does in a haddock or a reed warbler but that doesn't qualify it as something supernatural.  What we commonly refer to as freedom of the will in humans is really that vastly greater range of possibilities that humans can conceive of; it is about cognition, not freedom. I've yet to meet a haddock that expressed a desire to embark on a career in lion taming, perhaps by way of retail banking, but that is because it lacks my powers of abstraction and conceptualisation, not that it lacks freedom. True freedom would imply we can break the laws of nature, or that we could defy the arrow of time. At any moment in time, will is the outcome of all previous moments in time; if I want a drink, it is because of something, something prior that led to a state of thirst; I cannot just decide by willpower to be not thirsty if I am. The state of the cosmos in the present moment is an inevitable consequence of the previous state and humans have no magic power to override that; I cannot want something that I don't want, I cannot believe something that I don't believe; we all obey the arrow of time and respect fundamental principles of logic.  To be truly free of these things would be an incomprehensible state, we would not be here to talk about it. Be glad that you do not have true freedom because thereby you can exist to enjoy the illusion of it.

[floo]

The brain and the soul must work together, Floo, to make us what we are.  The soul can perceive the meaning behind what is contained in the physical brain, and can interact with it to facilitate human will.

You keep saying that Alan because it is something which you want to be true, but you can't produce any evidence to substantiate your belief that a 'soul' is not just another term for consciousness.

[Alan Burns]

There is nothing magic about will.  Will manifests greater diversity and range and nuance in humans than it does in a haddock or a reed warbler but that doesn't qualify it as something supernatural.  What we commonly refer to as freedom of the will in humans is really that vastly greater range of possibilities that humans can conceive of; it is about cognition, not freedom. I've yet to meet a haddock that expressed a desire to embark on a career in lion taming, perhaps by way of retail banking, but that is because it lacks my powers of abstraction and conceptualisation, not that it lacks freedom. True freedom would imply we can break the laws of nature, or that we could defy the arrow of time. At any moment in time, will is the outcome of all previous moments in time; if I want a drink, it is because of something, something prior that led to a state of thirst; I cannot just decide by willpower to be not thirsty if I am. The state of the cosmos in the present moment is an inevitable consequence of the previous state and humans have no magic power to override that; I cannot want something that I don't want, I cannot believe something that I don't believe; we all obey the arrow of time and respect fundamental principles of logic.  To be truly free of these things would be an incomprehensible state, we would not be here to talk about it. Be glad that you do not have true freedom because thereby you can exist to enjoy the illusion of it.

But I have the freedom to choose to take a step in faith - as we all have.  God gave us this freedom for us to freely choose to accept Him as our Saviour.

[BeRational]

AB

Did you see the elephants react to save the baby elephant?

Had they seen this done before, or did they work out themselves that one of their young was in trouble, and think of  a way to save it?

[Alan Burns]

And that's cheating. There's nothing inherently relevant about written words here – that's just your arbitrary choice of specialness. A hummingbird might as well say, "Can any other bird fly backwards? No? Truly then I must be god's special chosen one".   

You misunderstand the significance of words.  Words bring meaning to life, the universe and everything.  Far more significant than flying backwards!

In the beginning was the Word ....
And the Word was God ....
And the Word was made flesh and lived amongst us ....
Listen all you who have ears!

And words reveal the inner self - the soul, because that is where words emanate.

[BeRational]

You misunderstand the significance of words.  Words bring meaning to life, the universe and everything.  Far more significant than flying backwards!

In the beginning was the Word ....
And the Word was God ....
And the Word was made flesh and lived amongst us ....
Listen all you who have ears!

And words reveal the inner self - the soul, because that is where words emanate.

Did you see what the elephants did?

They did not just react, they solved the problem because they made a moral decision.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Second, that science doesn't have the answer (or the complete answer) tells you nothing about what the answer might be, and nor indeed about whether science might find the answer in the future. 

Seems to me you are just creating your own ''science of the Gaps'' then. In the future science will do this and science will solve that.
I wonder how close to scientism you are getting. Are you prepared to accept that there are or even might be some things science could not possibly answer?

Given the problems around science's abilities. I don't see your argument having as much virtue and advantage as you might think.

[torridon]

But I have the freedom to choose to take a step in faith - as we all have.  God gave us this freedom for us to freely choose to accept Him as our Saviour.

Read the post Alan.

We choose with the feeling, or illusion, of freedom.  True freedom would actually be nonsensical.  The choices we make are predictable in principle, but not in practice, the computational challenge would be far too great for any computer.