Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

As I have pointed out numerous times, animal behaviour is predictable and can be easily explained in physical terms of programmed instinct and learnt experience.  However, if you persist in claiming that animals have the same spiritual properties as human beings I will not argue with you as it is an irrelevance in the case I put forward for human spirituality.

I have never claimed that animals have the same spiritual properties as human beings; you are up to your old tricks here yet again, not reading and responding to what people have written, preferring a straw man sleight of hand. What I did claim was that cognitive perception and base emotional states are widespread through the animal kingdom, but clearly there is variance in how that manifests from species to species and from individual to individual and even moment to moment.

Human conscious awareness perceives meaning, which in itself can't be explained in terms of externally perceived reaction.  Meaning only occurs in our conscious awareness, and we have the ability to express this meaning in various external ways, but the external expressions are just representative of the perceived meaning within our conscious awareness.  And I repeat that there is no scientific definition of meaning, because meaning is a spiritual property of the conscious awareness of our human soul.

That is just assertion, another of your standard tricks.  If you wish it to be taken seriously then you need to present some compelling evidence. People are not just going to take your word for it.  I am the King of Siam, by the way.

Meaning and purpose do not exist in a material universe driven entirely by physically determined events.  Our physical universe can only do reactions, which define no meaning or purpose.

Another assertion without evidence.  This is a view that stopped learning at schoolboy chemistry, as if all that happens is chemical reactions here and there.  There is so much more that this cosmos builds on top of basic chemistry, it all leads on to biochemistry and hence to biology and hence to ecosystems and neural systems.  There is no need or place for a magic link in this chain.

This all makes the opening words of John's gospel so profoundly relevant -

In the beginning was the word ...

The word introduces meaning into this universe, because word represents meaning.

Well very nice; poetic, granted.  Not science though, maybe good for a romanticised or allegorical view of things, but not science.  If you want to search for real truth, you need to be somewhat disciplined, that's what science brings to the table, discipline.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

As I have pointed out numerous times, animal behaviour is predictable and can be easily explained in physical terms of programmed instinct and learnt experience.

You haven’t “pointed it out “, you’ve just asserted it to be true despite the evidence contradicting you. 

However, if you persist in claiming that animals have the same spiritual properties as human beings…

No-one but you has claimed “spiritual” anything. “Spiritual” is just a place marker term for “magic” you insert whenever your attempts at reasoning collapse into contradiction or incoherence.

Which is a lot.

I will not argue with you as it is an irrelevance in the case I put forward for human spirituality.

You haven’t “put forward a case” at all – you’ve just asserted it.

If you do want to attempt a case at least you could try starting with a coherent definition of “spiritual”.

Human conscious awareness perceives meaning, which in itself can't be explained in terms of externally perceived reaction.

What are you even trying to say here? You do know that consciousness is self-aware don’t you?

Don’t you?
 

Meaning only occurs in our conscious awareness, and we have the ability to express this meaning in various external ways, but the external expressions are just representative of the perceived meaning within our conscious awareness.  And I repeat that there is no scientific definition of meaning…

Yes there is. You’re just making stuff up again here.

…because meaning is a spiritual property of the conscious awareness of our human soul.

And following it up with more made up, un-defined, un-argued and un-evidenced assertions that deny what the science actually tells us.

Apart from that though…

Meaning and purpose do not exist in a material universe driven entirely by physically determined events.  Our physical universe can only do reactions, which define no meaning or purpose.

Where on earth do you get this relentless nonsense from?

This all makes the opening words of John's gospel so profoundly relevant -

In the beginning was the word ...

The word introduces meaning into this universe, because word represents meaning.

Thanks for the incoherent faith sharing. By all means try again though when you think you can manage an actual argument.

[floo]

As I have pointed out numerous times, animal behaviour is predictable and can be easily explained in physical terms of programmed instinct and learnt experience.  However, if you persist in claiming that animals have the same spiritual properties as human beings I will not argue with you as it is an irrelevance in the case I put forward for human spirituality.

Human conscious awareness perceives meaning, which in itself can't be explained in terms of externally perceived reaction.  Meaning only occurs in our conscious awareness, and we have the ability to express this meaning in various external ways, but the external expressions are just representative of the perceived meaning within our conscious awareness.  And I repeat that there is no scientific definition of meaning, because meaning is a spiritual property of the conscious awareness of our human soul.

Meaning and purpose do not exist in a material universe driven entirely by physically determined events.  Our physical universe can only do reactions, which define no meaning or purpose.

This all makes the opening words of John's gospel so profoundly relevant -

In the beginning was the word ...

The word introduces meaning into this universe, because word represents meaning.

In your opinion.

[Shaker]

So many of the posts on this gargantuan thread - like the latest handful - beside being so beautifully well thought out and engagingly written, are such a comprehensive demolition job on AB's particular brand of doubtless sincere but vacuous opinion-sharing, logical fallacy, assertion and empty linguistic Polyfilla that I do wonder what he still thinks he's doing here. We know what his intentions are - to preach, to proselytise - but given that he is constitutionally impervious to reason and merely stuck on repeat mode, what is his continued presence for, in his mind?

Not that we're likely to find out, but so it goes.

[SusanDoris]

[Sword of the Spirit

Do you read torridon's posts? I mean, actually read what they say, not read while at the same time making up what you think will be another clever reply to other posts?
 I am not referring to your specific post here but am asking in general terms as you might learn something from them (as well as from other good posts of course).

[Nearly Sane]

OMG.

You are so right.

Because in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was presented by a man called Terry Christian.

It's all there if you are only open to making shit fit with your own word view the Truth.

And it should be pointed out that Terry died for us......
frequently

[Rhiannon]

And it should be pointed out that Terry died for us......
frequently

Would a merciful God ever require such sacrifice?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

You haven’t “pointed it out “, you’ve just asserted it to be true despite the evidence contradicting you. 

No-one but you has claimed “spiritual” anything. “Spiritual” is just a place marker term for “magic” you insert whenever your attempts at reasoning collapse into contradiction or incoherence.

Which is a lot.

You haven’t “put forward a case” at all – you’ve just asserted it.

If you do want to attempt a case at least you could try starting with a coherent definition of “spiritual”.

What are you even trying to say here? You do know that consciousness is self-aware don’t you?

Don’t you?
 
Yes there is. You’re just making stuff up again here.

And following it up with more made up, un-defined, un-argued and un-evidenced assertions that deny what the science actually tells us.

Apart from that though…

Where on earth do you get this relentless nonsense from?

Thanks for the incoherent faith sharing. By all means try again though when you think you can manage an actual argument.

So in strict scientific terms, can you supply a definition of meaning?

Can you even define emergence in scientific terms?
And how it differs in scientific terms to something which is non emergent?

[Nearly Sane]

Would a merciful God ever require such sacrifice?

I think Alan's god might be like a omnipotent version of Oliver Reed from The Word

[Nearly Sane]

So in strict scientific terms, can you supply a definition of meaning?

Can you even define emergence in scientific terms?
And how it differs in scientific terms to something which is non emergent?

why did you just ignore the points bhs made? Why make it look as if you have no answer and why make it appear that you are bring dishonest? Why is it that so much of your posting reads as a dishonest non sequitur?

[SusanDoris]

And why AB thinks there should be a special scientific definition of the word meaning' is quite beyond any sensible consideration; if that's what he does hthink, of course, since  it is often well-nigh impossible to make rational sense of AB's posts.

[Rhiannon]

I think Alan's god might be like a omnipotent version of Oliver Reed from The Word

 

[Shaker]

I think Alan's god might be like a omnipotent version of Oliver Reed from The Word

Other than the fact(s) that dear old Olly was actually a rather nice man in private and entertaining in public I'd have agreed with you.

That said, any god who threatens to slap his todger on the table if he doesn't get his mushy peas is a god I'll sign up to.

[Nearly Sane]

Other than the fact(s) that dear old Olly was actually a rather nice man in private and entertaining in public I'd have agreed with you.

My take is that AB's god is something similar but every now again feels the needs to misbehave. Reed got drunk, Alan's omnipotent Reed killed Charlie Gard and didn't remember the next morning.

[Alan Burns]

why did you just ignore the points bhs made? Why make it look as if you have no answer and why make it appear that you are bring dishonest? Why is it that so much of your posting reads as a dishonest non sequitur?

Blue claimed that there is a scientific explanation for meaning, so I am asking him to explain

[Shaker]

Blue claimed that there is a scientific explanation for meaning

Where?

[Nearly Sane]

Blue claimed that there is a scientific explanation for meaning, so I am asking him to explain

No he doesn't. If you want to link that point where he thinks he does, on you go. But while you are doing that why does that claim justify you presenting a question to a number of questioned that you ignore as if it is an answer? Why is it, as asked before and you ignored to present a non sequitur, that you do this? Do you think that what appears as dishonesty is good for your case? Note I've been asking you this for hundreds of posts but you have ignored any answer. Why is that, Alan? Why do think what appears as dishonesty is good for your argument?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

So in strict scientific terms, can you supply a definition of meaning?

Can you even define emergence in scientific terms?
And how it differs in scientific terms to something which is non emergent?

In any terms at all can you define “God”, “soul”, "spiritual" etc?

Lots of problems there old son:

First, you’re rehearsing yet again the argument from personal incredulity. Even if the answer to these questions was “no” that would take you not one jot of an iota of a smidgin toward demonstrating your alternative to be true.

Why is this so difficult for you to grasp? A “don’t know” gives you just a “don’t know” – for the same reason that, back in the day, when someone said, “Can you explain thunder then?” the answer "no" would take you not one step toward Thor as the answer.

If you could at least indicate that you understand the nature of the problem here, and perhaps therefore try to avoid the mistake again that’d save an awful lot of time.

Second, “meaning” isn’t a scientific term in the way that, say, “joule” or “light year” are. “Meaning” just means the interpretation we give to phenomena and to experiences – just as you do when, say, you can’t find your car keys, pray for a bit, then find them. “God did that” is the meaning you bring to the event, but it’s no more inherent in them than Thor is inherent in thunder. Meanings are stories and narratives.

As for how meaning works on the other hand, yes there’s a great deal of science about the phenomenon – indeed there are books about it. Here for example:

https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=NgOiBO-OPdoC&oi=fnd&pg=PR1&dq=neuroscience+and+meaning&ots=gEos5rCe82&sig=dm-CmVyJEwFlhoGLDoySx6XYrvs#v=onepage&q=neuroscience%20and%20meaning&f=false

Third, “Meaning” is a function of mind which in turn is an emergent property of the brain. There’s no meaning on the moon or on Alpha Centauri. Why then would you ask how it “differs” from non-emergent phenomena? 

Finally, I explained various mistake you’d made (conflating “pointing out” with asserting for example) that I see you have just ignored.

Why is that?

[ippy]

Blue claimed that there is a scientific explanation for meaning, so I am asking him to explain

I'd say don't cut your blinkers down by more than a very small amount Alan, only if you reduced them by, say 5% in one go it'd be like looking directly into one of those new fangled scientific laser thingimys and it'd probably do your eyeballs in.

Don't go and blow your eyesight Alan, the prayers needed for recovering eyesight don't arf go on.

ippy   

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Thank you for another detailed response.
I will try to answer your points before we set off for a cycling holiday in the Loire, France. 

In any terms at all can you define “God”, “soul” etc?

God is that which exists.
Soul is a single entity of awareness which perceives and wilfully interacts with our physical world.

Lots of problems there old son:

First, you’re rehearsing yet again the argument from personal incredulity. Even if the answer to these questions was “no” that would take you not one jot of an iota of a smidgin toward demonstrating your alternative to be true.

Why is this so difficult for you to grasp? A “don’t know” gives you just a “don’t know” – for the same reason that, back in the day, when someone said, “Can you explain thunder then?” the answer "no" would take you not one step toward Thor as the answer.

If you could at least indicate that you understand the nature of the problem here, and perhaps therefore try to avoid the mistake again that’d save an awful lot of time.

I prefer to use my God given gift of faith rather than just say "I don't know".

Second, “meaning” isn’t a scientific term in the way that, say, “joule” or “light year” are. “Meaning” just means the interpretation we give to phenomena and to experiences – just as you do when, say, you can’t find your car keys, pray for a bit, then find them. “God did that” is the meaning you bring to the event, but it’s no more inherent in them than Thor is inherent in thunder. Meanings are stories and narratives.

The key word you use here is "interpretation".  Can science be used to define conscious interpretation?  What is it that interprets?

As for how meaning works on the other hand, yes there’s a great deal of science about the phenomenon – indeed there are books about it. Here for example:

https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=NgOiBO-OPdoC&oi=fnd&pg=PR1&dq=neuroscience+and+meaning&ots=gEos5rCe82&sig=dm-CmVyJEwFlhoGLDoySx6XYrvs#v=onepage&q=neuroscience%20and%20meaning&f=false

I am well aware of the neuroscientists who try to explain human perception in terms of brain activity, but it all boils down to correlation rather than a true explanation of how it works.

Third, “Meaning” is a function of mind, which in turn is an emergent property of the brain. There’s no meaning on the moon or on Alpha Centauri. Why then would you ask how it “differs” from non-emergent phenomena? 

In the physical deterministic scenario I can see no difference in what drives the events.  Emergence can only be seen as emergence through conscious human perception which can identify meaning.

Finally, I explained various mistake you’d made (conflating “pointing out” with asserting for example) that I see you have just ignored.

Why is that?

My pointing out in past posts did include reasons and evidence which seem to have been ignored

[Maeght]

My pointing out in past posts did include reasons and evidence which seem to have been ignored

Must have missed that. All I've seen us assertions and beliefs.

[torridon]

God is that which exists.

Assertion without evidence

Soul is a single entity of awareness which perceives and wilfully interacts with our physical world.

Assertion without evidence

I prefer to use my God given gift of faith rather than just say "I don't know".

That you've had a gift from God : Assertion without evidence

My pointing out in past posts did include reasons and evidence ....

You mean like in the above post ?  Not a shred of supporting evidence in sight.

[Shaker]

God is that which exists.

1. My cats exist.
2. My cats think they are gods.
3. My cats exist, therefore so do gods.
4. Seems legit.

[Alan Burns]

1. My cats exist.
2. My cats think they are gods.
3. My cats exist, therefore so do gods.
4. Seems legit.

I think you missed the deeper meaning as God being the source of all existence.
I placed God's existence in the present tense because time is only relevant to this universe.

[Alan Burns]

Where?

Me: And I repeat that there is no scientific definition of meaning…

Blue: Yes there is. You’re just making stuff up again here