Searching for GOD...

[SusanDoris]

AB

I very strongly recommend that you read - without skipping anything - 'How History Made Science and How Science Made History'. It explains, particularly in the last fifth of the book, how people interested in what makes us tick graduallyk accumulated knowledge and now understand enough to know that no soul, or anything else conjured up in the imagination of believers,   is required or has any existence.

[Nearly Sane]

AB

I very strongly recommend that you read - without skipping anything - 'How History Made Science and How Science Made History'. It explains, particularly in the last fifth of the book, how people interested in what makes us tick graduallyk accumulated knowledge and now understand enough to know that no soul, or anything else conjured up in the imagination of believers,   is required or has any existence.

How can you demonstrate the non existence of something that by definition is unfalsifiable by the methodology of science?

[SusanDoris]

How can you demonstrate the non existence of something that by definition is unfalsifiable by the methodology of science?

Well, I cannot of course! And I will, also of course, back-track immediately someone proves the existence of some soul or other. In the meantime, I think this situation is unlikely to change during the rest of my life.

It is, however, perpetually interesting following and joining in discussions about it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

How can you demonstrate the non existence of something that by definition is unfalsifiable by the methodology of science?

Might there not be a way of re-phrasing the question to invalidate any claim to knowledge at least? "X is" is fundamentally a statement of knowledge - ie, that X exists. Popper though tells us that a theory can only be genuine if there is a way of falsifying it. If in no circumstance is there a means of falsifying it because you can't build an experiment that would do that (as for "God", "soul" etc) then the claim is epistemically worthless - ie, it's self-negating.   

That's not to say that by some remarkable co-incidence any such claim might not just happen to describe a truth, but it is to say that the knowledge content of such claims is zero. 

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Might there not be a way of re-phrasing the question to invalidate any claim to knowledge at least? "X is" is fundamentally a statement of knowledge - ie, that X exists. Popper though tells us that a theory can only be genuine if there is a way of falsifying it. If in no circumstance is there a means of falsifying it because you can't build an experiment that would do that (as for "God", "soul" etc) then the claim is epistemically worthless - ie, it's self-negating.   

That's not to say that by some remarkable co-incidence any such claim might not just happen to describe a truth, but it is to say that the knowledge content of such claims is zero.

Rather it needs the statement made by Susan rephrased so that it isn't a positive claim about non existence.

[Alan Burns]

Intentions form as a means to satisfy prior need. I intend to go for a slap up meal down at my high street kebab van tonight, why, because I am hungry.  The need is pre-existing, so this scenario is consistent with cause and effect.  Intentions don't arise out of thin air, they arise as a plan to satisfy a need. When a domestic cat crouches motionless in the long grass intently watching the blackbird, it is not random, it is because it has formed an intention, a plan, to take the hapless bird with a surprise attack when the moment is right.

But this does not really explain where intentional deceit originates.  What natural cause is there for intentional deceit, other that a deliberate act of free will (not random!) to go against our natural instincts?

[torridon]

But this does not really explain where intentional deceit originates.  What natural cause is there for intentional deceit, other that a deliberate act of free will (not random!) to go against our natural instincts?

Deceit and trickery is widespread throughout nature, with levels of deceit that vary with cognitive abilities.  There is nothing unnatural about it.  Here is a primer :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deception_in_animals

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But this does not really explain where intentional deceit originates.  What natural cause is there for intentional deceit, other that a deliberate act of free will (not random!) to go against our natural instincts?

Deceit is common among many species especially those with higher cognitive functions like our own, and where it "comes from" is generally that if provides some advantage to the creature doing the deceiving – greater access to food for example.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

That's the fallacy of begging the question, a type of circular reasoning. You just included the conclusion to be proven (that there must be something to do the "directing") within the premise of the question.

You've had explained to you many times that needs and wants emerge from the subconscious (you don't decide to be hungry for example), that your little man at the controls "soul" is both redundant and logically incoherent, and that your personal incredulity and your sincerity about that conjecture has no epistemic value at all.

Why then do you keep repeating the same mistakes?

Because the little man at the controls (me) is actually in control  QED

[torridon]

Because the little man at the controls (me) is actually in control  QED

You need to keep up with the science.  The 'you' that feels in control, is in reality at the end of a chain of preconscious processing; any decision you think that 'you' have made was already made before 'you' got to 'know' about it and claim ownership over it.

[Alan Burns]

You need to keep up with the science.  The 'you' that feels in control, is in reality at the end of a chain of preconscious processing; any decision you think that 'you' have made was already made before 'you' got to 'know' about it and claim ownership over it.

It is science that has a lot to catch up on to discover the truth behind our freedom to consciously choose what we think and say and do.

[torridon]

It is science that has a lot to catch up on to discover the truth behind our freedom to consciously choose what we think and say and do.

No hubris there, then 

[floo]

It is science that has a lot to catch up on to discover the truth behind our freedom to consciously choose what we think and say and do.

Science is likely to discover that no god was responsible for human intelligence, imo.

[Alan Burns]

No hubris there, then 

And where and how does this hubris (excessive self confidence) originate if I am just a biological robot who can make no conscious decisions of their own? 

[Maeght]

And where and how does this hubris (excessive self confidence) originate if I am just a biological robot who can make no conscious decisions of their own? 

Its not a question of whether we make conscious decisions or not but whether they are free or determined by previous experiences. No reason why hubris couldn't happen in this scenario.

Any answer yet as to how the soul makes decisions?

[Alan Burns]

Its not a question of whether we make conscious decisions or not but whether they are free or determined by previous experiences. No reason why hubris couldn't happen in this scenario.

Any answer yet as to how the soul makes decisions?

It is entirely to do with conscious decisions.  Torri claims that all our decisions are pre determined in the sub conscious before we become aware of them, but the reality is that we consciously consider the valid options and then consciously choose the one we want to invoke.   A conscious choice is not pre determined, but actively determined in real time by our conscious control.

So once we discover the true source of our conscious awareness, we will find the source of our freedom to choose.

[ProfessorDavey]

It is entirely to do with conscious decisions.  Torri claims that all our decisions are pre determined in the sub conscious before we become aware of them, but the reality is that we consciously consider the valid options and then consciously choose the one we want to invoke.   A conscious choice is not pre determined, but actively determined in real time by our conscious control.

So if we imagine two scenarios leading up to a decision which are completely identical (two parallel worlds) - so exactly the same person genetically with completely identical experiences. Is it possible that at the time of decision making the two people could make take different decisions.

[Alan Burns]

So if we imagine two scenarios leading up to a decision which are completely identical (two parallel worlds) - so exactly the same person genetically with completely identical experiences. Is it possible that at the time of decision making the two people could make take different decisions.

Yes, because despite genetical and physical similarities, each soul has its own individual powers of freedom.

[Enki]

So if we imagine two scenarios leading up to a decision which are completely identical (two parallel worlds) - so exactly the same person genetically with completely identical experiences. Is it possible that at the time of decision making the two people could make take different decisions.

Or, alternatively,  a thought experiment. If we imagine we can go back in time to the point where we made a decision, and, therefore, everything being identical, could we make a different decision?

[torridon]

It is entirely to do with conscious decisions.  Torri claims that all our decisions are pre determined in the sub conscious before we become aware of them, but the reality is that we consciously consider the valid options and then consciously choose the one we want to invoke.   A conscious choice is not pre determined, but actively determined in real time by our conscious control.

That is still deterministic though, as we have no control over what we want.  Noone can want something that they don't want; noone can believe something that they don't believe, and yet this is the implication of your ideas.  We are at the mercy of our wants and we cannot choose what to want. How could anyone choose what to want except on the basis of which want they want.  This really makes no sense.

[torridon]

And where and how does this hubris (excessive self confidence) originate if I am just a biological robot who can make no conscious decisions of their own? 

Your psychological characteristics are not relevant to the fundamental process of decision making.

[ippy]

Yes, because despite genetical and physical similarities, each soul has its own individual powers of freedom.

In this post of yours Alan you declared the following,"each soul has its own individual powers of freedom".

Why can't you see that there is no way that you can possibly know this, nor can anyone else know it either, ("each soul has its own individual powers of freedom"), it's statements of this kind you frequently make, where you make yourself look so foolish; surly you must be able to see this?

ippy

[Alan Burns]

That is still deterministic though, as we have no control over what we want.  Noone can want something that they don't want; noone can believe something that they don't believe, and yet this is the implication of your ideas.  We are at the mercy of our wants and we cannot choose what to want. How could anyone choose what to want except on the basis of which want they want.  This really makes no sense.

But everyone has the freedom to consciously choose how to satisfy their wants. 

[Shaker]

But everyone has the freedom to consciously choose how to satisfy their wants.

Do they?

[ekim]

But everyone has the freedom to consciously choose how to satisfy their wants.

What come first the want or the choice?