Searching for GOD...

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

How it feels to me is that there are some things I don't seem to be able to believe, possibly because I don't like the meanings I attach to those beliefs - such as my parents' religion, Hinduism, though they are only nominally Hindu.

But I can believe in a particular interpretation of Islam, presumably because of the meanings I attach to that, but it doesn't feel "bad" to have a lack of belief but my life works better for me with the belief. Like my analogy of doing martial arts, without it I am relatively fit and can stick to running, but with it I feel an added benefit to my life. The non-comprehensibility lends itself to a lack of belief but for me the non-comprehensibility of the concept of God doesn't overcome the benefit of belief. Are my attempts at interpreting my feelings in this way rational thought?

[Nearly Sane]

I think there are elements of rationality, though I think the desire to analyse as all desires are, is not at base rational. I can appreciate and understand what you say but it doesn't tie in with my analysis of my experiences - not that that means either of us is wrong as this is about communication of how it feels to us.

I don't feel any concept of benefit related to my beliefs, or how I believe things. I just believe/don't believe stuff. Some of the stuff I believe in is not completely consistent with other stuff I believe. On an intellectual level, I can note that but it doesn't appear that there is much to do other than that.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I think there are elements of rationality, though I think the desire to analyse as all desires are, is not at base rational. I can appreciate and understand what you say but it doesn't tie in with my analysis of my experiences - not that that means either of us is wrong as this is about communication of how it feels to us.

I don't feel any concept of benefit related to my beliefs, or how I believe things. I just believe/don't believe stuff. Some of the stuff I believe in is not completely consistent with other stuff I believe. On an intellectual level, I can note that but it doesn't appear that there is much to do other than that.

Not sure how AB does religious belief, but thinking about it, it's the religion that i get a benefit from and an incomprehensible God just happens to be an intrinsic part of the religion.

[Nearly Sane]

Not sure how AB does religious belief, but thinking about it, it's the religion that i get a benefit from and an incomprehensible God just happens to be an intrinsic part of the religion.

and that certainly has an element of rationality. It's your experience that you judge what a benefit is by. I do wonder though whether what you see as non-comprehensible and what I see as incoherent are similar judgements. You seem to have a base idea beyond which comprehension fails. I don't see how any base idea is logically coherent or meaningful in any way.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.   

You’re welcome, and I hope you have a nice holiday.

God is that which exists.

A doughnut is “that which exists” – it’d be a pretty rubbish dictionary though that defined every noun as “that which exists” don’t you think?

And the difference between a doughnut and your “God” by the way is that I can provide evidence that former does in fact exist.

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

Yes I know that to be your assertion, but even conceptually it’s so beset with logical contradictions that it collapses as soon as you examine it. What you were actually asked for though was a definition, not a job description. What is this “soul” that you think carries out these activities?

And while you’re at it, how do you propose to define “spiritual” other than as a place marker for “it's magic”? 

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

First, your claim of “a God given gift of faith” is just a speculation on your part. Retreating to it whenever you’re asked something about why you think there's a “God” at all doesn’t help you.

Second, you were actually asked (but just ignored) whether or not you understand why the argument from personal incredulity you keep attempting is such a bad one. Whether the answer to “how does X work then?” is, “here’s a very robust explanation”, “here’s a partial but logically consistent explanation” or “no idea” tells you nothing whatever about whatever alternative you might want to use to fill the gap.

All I’m asking you is whether you now understand this and, if you do, then I’m suggesting too that you stop doing it.   

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

Yes it can, and “what interprets” is conscious self-awareness. This has been known for a 100 years or more – it would take you very little time and effort to find out what neuroscience actually does tell us.

Why not then do that?

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.

That’s fundamentally misguided. Apples falling off trees “correlates” with the theory of gravity, and vice versa. That’s what all science does – it provides explanatory models that most closely correlate to observable phenomena, but it never claims certainty about anyhting. 
 

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.

That’s just incoherent. What are you trying to say here?

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

That’s not true – you have produced neither reasons that are cogent, nor evidence that’s investigable.

Why would you even suggest otherwise given the ease with which the claim can be checked and shown to be false?

[SusanDoris]

And what are you going to use to evaluate this 'objective evidence' bearing in mind your yearning for a 'brave new world' where religious belief is absent?

It was the claimed 'deeper' meaning to which AB referred that I was asking about, not objective evidence for God!! If I do not understand the meaning of a word, phrase, or article, then I will use a dictionary, check on what others think they mean but will never ascribe to myself any superior or specialised quality or skill which would enablemene to discern some hiddenmeaning. I think that the people who do clailm such insights are possibly deluding themselves, or perhaps trying to show they are somehow more ‘spiritual, or have a specially blessed or privileged position; that to me sounds rather like conceit and a need to make others sound and feel less spiritual, etc.

[ippy]

It was the claimed 'deeper' meaning to which AB referred that I was asking about, not objective evidence for God!! If I do not understand the meaning of a word, phrase, or article, then I will use a dictionary, check on what others think they mean but will never ascribe to myself any superior or specialised quality or skill which would enablemene to discern some hiddenmeaning. I think that the people who do clailm such insights are possibly deluding themselves, or perhaps trying to show they are somehow more ‘spiritual, or have a specially blessed or privileged position; that to me sounds rather like conceit and a need to make others sound and feel less spiritual, etc.

Don't concern yourself with that lot Susan, A B keeps on coming out with it, all it does is show him up for what he is and I've no need to illustrate what he is it's pretty obvious to anyone with more than about half a dozen brain cells.

ippy

[Nearly Sane]

Don't concern yourself with that lot Susan, A B keeps on coming out with it, all it does is show him up for what he is and I've no need to illustrate what he is it's pretty obvious to anyone with more than about half a dozen brain cells.

ippy

How many brain cells do you think AB has?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

How many brain cells do you think AB has?

It would be easy to accuse AB of dishonesty (indeed I’ve done so I the past) but I wonder if he’s not just blind to arguments that undo him.

I’ll get the details wrong no doubt, but years ago I saw a documentary about a toad and a snake that preyed on it. When the snake was upright – ie, in the strike position – the toad went apeshit and either ran away or attacked depending on the available options. When the snake slithered past though – ie, not in its attack posture – the toad appeared not even to see it, and ignored it completely.

AB seems to me to be a bit like that. When he tries a terrible argument and is pulled up on it the words of the rebuttal simply don’t register. It’s as if they don’t exist – he tries one of the various fallacies he relies on, is corrected, and responds with something like, “I put my faith in God” as if the argument he tried for his “God” existing in the first place hadn’t just been detonated.

He did this for example just recently – he tried an argument from personal incredulity, I explained that to him and asked whether he understood it, and he replied with a compete irrelevance. It’s as if the snake had just slithered past and so didn’t impact on his consciousness.

Is that dishonest, or a mind so certain of its convictions that at some subconscious level no counter argument can be acknowledged, let alone engaged with?

Dunno, but I find it quite chilling.       

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

It would be easy to accuse AB of dishonesty (indeed I’ve done so I the past) but I wonder if he’s not just blind to arguments that undo him.

I’ll get the details wrong no doubt, but years ago I saw a documentary about a toad and a snake that preyed on it. When the snake was upright – ie, in the strike position – the toad went apeshit and either ran away or attacked depending on the available options. When the snake slithered past though – ie, not in its attack posture – the toad appeared not even to see it, and ignored it completely.

AB seems to me to be a bit like that. When he tries a terrible argument and is pulled up on it the words of the rebuttal simply don’t register. It’s as if they don’t exist – he tries one of the various fallacies he relies on, is corrected, and responds with something like, “I put my faith in God” as if the argument he tried for his “God” existing in the first place hadn’t just been detonated.

He did this for example just recently – he tried an argument from personal incredulity, I explained that to him and asked whether he understood it, and he replied with a compete irrelevance. It’s as if the snake had just slithered past and so didn’t impact on his consciousness.

Is that dishonest, or a mind so certain of its convictions that at some subconscious level no counter argument can be acknowledged, let alone engaged with?

Dunno, but I find it quite chilling.     

And that is relevant to the question I asked ippy in what way?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

And that is relevant to the question I asked ippy in what way?

It wasn't directly, but it seems to me to provide a more plausible explanation than ippy's so I just thought I'd develop the theme a little - you know, like people do.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

It wasn't directly, but it seems to me to provide a more plausible explanation than ippy's so I just thought I'd develop the theme a little - you know, like people do.

That's nice, I wasn't aware the ippy had provided an explanation, or indeed what that explanation might be for. Nor indeed what theme you ate developing.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

That's nice, I wasn't aware the ippy had provided an explanation, or indeed what that explanation might be for. Nor indeed what theme you ate developing.

The theme of why AB continually ignores questions - you know, the issue you keep asking him about.

[ippy]

How many brain cells do you think AB has?

Have another read N S, I didn't alude to how many brain cells A B has.

ippy

[SusanDoris]

Don't concern yourself with that lot Susan, A B keeps on coming out with it, all it does is show him up for what he is and I've no need to illustrate what he is it's pretty obvious to anyone with more than about half a dozen brain cells.

ippy

Except perhaps for Sword of the Spirit who thinks similarly (although a bit more pompously in my opinion) to AB.

 ETA Note to self: Must make a note of others' versions of SotS's user name!

[torridon]

There is no scientific definition of meaning.  We can all interpret meaning in a written or spoken word, but in scientific terms it is just ink stains on paper or vibrating air molecules.  And where does meaning exist in a material brain?  Certain patterns of brain activity may well represent some form of meaning, but only on being interpreted.  I put it to you that meaning does not, indeed cannot exist outside of human conscious perception.

Maybe it's fair to recognise that we don't currently have a scientific definition of meaning.  I think we need that little word 'yet' here.  Our brain imaging techniques are currently rather crude, we don't have the granularity of data points.  And because we don't have the data we have not yet developed mathematical modelling techniques to describe and measure things like meaning. I'd imagine we might call it 'neural computational modelling', but as far as I am aware, we are not at that point yet.

So what is meaning ?  I think we could model it as a quality and extent of interaction between novel information and internal models based on past experience.  At base, all conscious experience is affective, and similarly, when we lay down memories, they aren't usually just matter of fact, two plus two equals four, Paris is the capital of France, but they normally incorporate an emotional content - that was a particularly fine sausage I ate last night, that maths teacher was really horrible, that girl at the agricultural show had a really really interesting bottom.  Meaning lies in the complex emotional engagements of our internal models of the world.  Show me a modern abstract artwork and it might leave me cold whereas a landscape by Gainsborough might grab me instantly.  Beauty is not out there, it is a personal emotional response that requires a rich inner context of stored experience. Read me a poem by Shelley, it might move me, but read it to an Emperor penguin, and unless it is a particularly unusual penguin, it will probably be unmoved by it.  That is because it does not have the store of relevant previous context within which to find meaning. However when the same penguin returns from the sea with a belly full of fish and is faced with a hundred thousand near identical mother and baby penguins, the particular call of his baby is sufficient to uniquely identify his baby; the information content in the particular cadence of his baby's call has meaning for the penguin that would be lost on me as I lack that individual penguin's particular internal model.  We don't yet have the technology to justify developing the modelling techniques to describe emotional states mathematically yet, both neuroscience and artificial intelligence being in their infancy, but these things are coming.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Maybe it's fair to recognise that we don't currently have a scientific definition of meaning.  I think we need that little word 'yet' here.  Our brain imaging techniques are currently rather crude, we don't have the granularity of data points.  And because we don't have the data we have not yet developed mathematical modelling techniques to describe and measure things like meaning. I'd imagine we might call it 'neural computational modelling', but as far as I am aware, we are not at that point yet.

So what is meaning ?  I think we could model it as a quality and extent of interaction between novel information and internal models based on past experience.  At base, all conscious experience is affective, and similarly, when we lay down memories, they aren't usually just matter of fact, two plus two equals four, Paris is the capital of France, but they normally incorporate an emotional content - that was a particularly fine sausage I ate last night, that maths teacher was really horrible, that girl at the agricultural show had a really really interesting bottom.  Meaning lies in the complex emotional engagements of our internal models of the world.  Show me a modern abstract artwork and it might leave me cold whereas a landscape by Gainsborough might grab me instantly.  Beauty is not out there, it is a personal emotional response that requires a rich inner context of stored experience. Read me a poem by Shelley, it might move me, but read it to an Emperor penguin, and unless it is a particularly unusual penguin, it will probably be unmoved by it.  That is because it does not have the store of relevant previous context within which to find meaning. However when the same penguin returns from the sea with a belly full of fish and is faced with a hundred thousand near identical mother and baby penguins, the particular call of his baby is sufficient to uniquely identify his baby; the information content in the particular cadence of his baby's call has meaning for the penguin that would be lost on me as I lack that individual penguin's particular internal model.  We don't yet have the technology to justify developing the modelling techniques to describe emotional states mathematically yet, both neuroscience and artificial intelligence being in their infancy, but these things are coming.

Tnglingly optimistic for the scientismatist or reductionist.
I'm wondering, given what Godel teaches us whether anything like meaning can be described fully by internal conditions.

Are you suggesting that everything is describable by brain imaging.
You have extended into faith in technology. I'm not sure about putting faith in not knowing what meaning is until we have somehow invented a machine which can know.

Aren't we just creating another oracle or Dare I say it, God.

[torridon]

Tnglingly optimistic for the scientismatist or reductionist.
I'm wondering, given what Godel teaches us whether anything like meaning can be described fully by internal conditions.

Are you suggesting that everything is describable by brain imaging.
You have extended into faith in technology. I'm not sure about putting faith in not knowing what meaning is until we have somehow invented a machine which can know.

Aren't we just creating another oracle or Dare I say it, God.

I think a god would be like a black box, we cannot know what goes on inside, it's inaccessible to us, remaining eternally mysterious. Maybe we are too curious to tolerate black boxes forever, we need to disenchant and figure mysteries out for ourselves. Mental states fall sufficiently into the category of mysteries for many to dismiss them as beyond science, beyond the maths, but I think that is somewhat defeatist.  Our technologies for determining internal mental states are somewhat crude but there is a direction of travel and I am just speculating along that line. We have achieved simple thought control of prosthetics through technology already and I don't see research in such areas slowing down.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

and that certainly has an element of rationality. It's your experience that you judge what a benefit is by. I do wonder though whether what you see as non-comprehensible and what I see as incoherent are similar judgements. You seem to have a base idea beyond which comprehension fails. I don't see how any base idea is logically coherent or meaningful in any way.

Yes, one area where our judgements seem to differ is that I can get on board with the idea of adding a meaning to not knowing how the natural world originated and adding meaning to the unknown original cause of the natural world. The idea being that the origin of the natural world was not part of the natural world to begin with and then adding meaning to that unknown.

Alternatively I could just say I don't know and leave it at that, and accept my mind's ability to add different shades of meaning while distrusting the meaning it adds, until demonstrable evidence is added to the mix to show that the meaning has a basis in objective reality. But while I do that in many areas of my life, where it seems important if there could be negative outcomes to my life, God doesn't seem to be one of those areas. I don't see any down-side to my belief.

There are of course down-sides for religious belief for some people, as  there also seem to be for lots of different non-religious beliefs, but given we don't tell people to not hold any beliefs because some beliefs can be harmful, I would treat religious beliefs the same way.

   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think a god would be like a black box, we cannot know what goes on inside, it's inaccessible to us, remaining eternally mysterious. Maybe we are too curious to tolerate black boxes forever, we need to disenchant and figure mysteries out for ourselves. Mental states fall sufficiently into the category of mysteries for many to dismiss them as beyond science, beyond the maths, but I think that is somewhat defeatist.  Our technologies for determining internal mental states are somewhat crude but there is a direction of travel and I am just speculating along that line. We have achieved simple thought control of prosthetics through technology already and I don't see research in such areas slowing down.

This is still a bit of a paeon to faith in technology and in the human spirit of discovery. It also rings hollow given that one of reductionists greatest thinkers and Bertrand Russell are, at base satisfied that the universe just is. I'm talking about their reluctance to prize open the greatest black box of all. How or whether the universe came about.

I did not frame any of the objections to science knowing what meaning is on the grounds of ''the beyond''. I do so with the idea that no system seems to adequately describe itself in it's own terms. So being is always going to be a different from the description of being.

You on the other hand seem to be arguing on romantic notions of science and discovery. A reductionist take on things boiling down to mental states is just as bad as the ''beyondness'' of mental states.

[ekim]

I think a god would be like a black box, we cannot know what goes on inside, it's inaccessible to us, remaining eternally mysterious. Maybe we are too curious to tolerate black boxes forever, we need to disenchant and figure mysteries out for ourselves. Mental states fall sufficiently into the category of mysteries for many to dismiss them as beyond science, beyond the maths, but I think that is somewhat defeatist.  Our technologies for determining internal mental states are somewhat crude but there is a direction of travel and I am just speculating along that line. We have achieved simple thought control of prosthetics through technology already and I don't see research in such areas slowing down.

The mystic, however, tends towards inner stillness rather than agitation of the mental forms and forces i.e. thoughts and emotions.  'Meaning', in his case, would probably relate to finding a 'mean' or still centre.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

This is still a bit of a paeon to faith in technology and in the human spirit of discovery. It also rings hollow given that one of reductionists greatest thinkers and Bertrand Russell are, at base satisfied that the universe just is. I'm talking about their reluctance to prize open the greatest black box of all. How or whether the universe came about.

I did not frame any of the objections to science knowing what meaning is on the grounds of ''the beyond''. I do so with the idea that no system seems to adequately describe itself in it's own terms. So being is always going to be a different from the description of being.

You on the other hand seem to be arguing on romantic notions of science and discovery. A reductionist take on things boiling down to mental states is just as bad as the ''beyondness'' of mental states.

As opposed to a “God” that “just is” presumably. Why God rather than no god then?

Yet again, if you want to accuse people of “reductionism” you need to demonstrate first something that’s been reduced from. Why this is so difficult for you I have no idea, but there it is nonetheless.

Oh, and while we’re on the subject surely “God” is the most reductionist response of all isn’t it? After all, once you decide that the answer to big questions is in a box neatly tied with a bow and called “God”, what need have you of further enquiry?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

As opposed to a “God” that “just is” presumably.

I think you are confusing description, explanation etc of a thing with the thing itself.
In a sense then all things just are but some are because of something.

Torridon seems to be hoping that everything is up for scientific explanation. Which camp are you in?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think you are confusing description, explanation etc of a thing with the thing itself.

Then, as so often, you think wrongly. How would you propose to posit something without at least trying to describe or define it?

In a sense then all things just are but some are because of something.

But you're complaint was that some say the universe "just is", and then you seek to resolve that by positing a cause that itself "just is". You've just moved the "problem" back one step. 

Torridon seems to be hoping that everything is up for scientific explanation. Which camp are you in?

No he isn't - he doesn't tell us what he "hopes" for. What he does say though is that progress has been made, and that there's no reason to think that that won't continue to be the case. The "camp I'm in" (as you well know by the way) is that there's no means of distinguishing faith claims from just guessing (as you know too given that you always run away from that question), that science is the method we have that best correlates with observable phenomena, but that even so there'd be no way to eliminate the risk of an unknown unknown no matter how much we discovered.     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,



But you're complaint was that some say the universe "just is", and then you seek to resolve that by positing a cause that itself "just is". You've just moved the "problem" back one step. 

.   

Everything in a sense just is. But the position of Dawkins and Bertrand where one stops one's gallop at explaining things at the creation or otherwise of the universe is fundamentally flawed since it reeks of special pleading, humbug and ''move along now, nothing to see here''.

Again my position is everything in a sense Just is or more to the point ''is''...but some things are because of something else.