Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

torri,

That 'conscious control' lies within the broader context of a (largely) deterministic universe.  Will is part of the phenomena of it, not something separate to it.  If you form a desire, or an intention to act, that is a consequence of the machinations of the universe playing out through human cognition and emotion. If you ever formed an intention or desire that had absolutely no connection whatsoever to events of the past, then that would be a random phenomenon, by definition. Everything that happens, does so either because it is a consequence of previous events, or it is not a consequence of previous events, in which case it is random.

Nicely put, but you're talking to a brick wall. Decades ago AB came up with a very bad answer, and no amount of evidence, reason, logic or anything else will dissuade him from it. You may as well post in Mandarin for all the effect it will have - all you'll get in reply is the mantra-like repetition of the same mistake accompanied sporadically with some very bad arguments.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Liar Boy,

It will be interesting to watch for areas which act as confirmation bias for the ''psychological incompetence'' theory of those so inclined.

Presumably that meant something in your head at least when you typed it?

[ekim]

Blue

The David Eagleman Brian series was very interesting, and brings home that the universe we see is created in our brain.
We do not see what is there, we see what we think we see.
We cannot see motion in detail, the brain edits what we see to build a smooth picture.
Also the part where he explained that sight is complex and requires processing time, we actually live in the past.

Does he say what the 'we' is that sees what is created in the brain, that sees the smooth picture, that lives in the past etc.?

[bluehillside Retd.]

BR,

The David Eagleman Brian series...

That'd be his sequel to the Monty Python classic presumably?   

[BeRational]

BR,

That'd be his sequel to the Monty Python classic presumably? 

Indeed

[torridon]

Does he say what the 'we' is that sees what is created in the brain, that sees the smooth picture, that lives in the past etc.?

Eagleman puts up a nice analogy in Episode 2; the feeling of being 'me' emerges out of the synchronicity of neural activity; see around minute 46 onwards :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06yrqzh/the-brain-with-david-eagleman-2-what-makes-me

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Eagleman puts up a nice analogy in Episode 2; the feeling of being 'me' emerges out of the synchronicity of neural activity; see around minute 46 onwards :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06yrqzh/the-brain-with-david-eagleman-2-what-makes-me

At last a real 'we' from T Don.

[ekim]

Eagleman puts up a nice analogy in Episode 2; the feeling of being 'me' emerges out of the synchronicity of neural activity; see around minute 46 onwards :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06yrqzh/the-brain-with-david-eagleman-2-what-makes-me

He seemed to be concerned with defining 'me' in terms of behaviour patterns, character traits, personality, memory, false memories etc. which most people appear to identify with or identify others with.  I was hoping for something more about the indifferent observer of those traits.  He seemed to come close to it with the example of the man with no memorable past and no imagined future, a man who acts in the present according to whatever confronts him.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

He seemed to be concerned with defining 'me' in terms of behaviour patterns, character traits, personality, memory, false memories etc. which most people appear to identify with or identify others with.  I was hoping for something more about the indifferent observer of those traits.  He seemed to come close to it with the example of the man with no memorable past and no imagined future, a man who acts in the present according to whatever confronts him.

There is no "indifferent observer" - that's the point. If you want to posit one nonetheless, you fall into the same incoherence as AB's "soul" speculation. 

[ekim]

ekim,

There is no "indifferent observer" - that's the point. If you want to posit one nonetheless, you fall into the same incoherence as AB's "soul" speculation.

Far be it from me to posit anything.  I just like to remain open to the possibility and not take anything as Gospel, especially from somebody who is bound up in his behaviour patterns, character traits, false memories etc.

[torridon]

He seemed to be concerned with defining 'me' in terms of behaviour patterns, character traits, personality, memory, false memories etc. which most people appear to identify with or identify others with.  I was hoping for something more about the indifferent observer of those traits.  He seemed to come close to it with the example of the man with no memorable past and no imagined future, a man who acts in the present according to whatever confronts him.

I would draw a distinction between the 'me' that counsellors and psychologists deal with - the habits, the beliefs, the prejudices, the skills; these relate to neural assemblies that are largely stable and strongly connected.  Then there is the 'me' of the moment, the recipient of sensory information, the taker of decisions, right here, right now.  That 'me' arises out of the synchrony of neural activity in the present moment, and it dies away as the synchrony subsides such as when we go to sleep. I quite liked his analogy of the drummers coming into step; I like to think of it as a symphony orchestra - when you go to a concert, just before the start there is a general low level random cacophony as the instrumentalists are tuning up and practising difficult passages.  Then the conductor raises his baton and draws forth a wonderful rich coordinated sound that means things to the audience.  This is like the moment we wake up and 'me' emerges from the general low level neural activity once more, drawing meaning out of the noise.  Consciousness is a most wonderful thing that nature has produced, and we all take it for granted, every day.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

Far be it from me to posit anything.  I just like to remain open to the possibility and not take anything as Gospel,...

Doesn't work. You can be open to the possibility of conjectures that are coherent - an orbiting teapot for example - but an "indifferent observer" that's neither deterministic nor random is the logical equivalent of a four-sided triangle: it's incoherent on its own terms, and therefore not possibility apt. It's just noise. 

...especially from somebody who is bound up in his behaviour patterns, character traits, false memories etc.

That's everyone (though the "false" is debatable).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Then there is the 'me' of the moment, the recipient of sensory information, the taker of decisions, right here, right now.  That 'me' arises out of the synchrony of neural activity in the present moment, and it dies away as the synchrony subsides such as when we go to sleep. I quite liked his analogy of the drummers coming into step; I like to think of it as a symphony orchestra - when you go to a concert, just before the start there is a general low level random cacophony as the instrumentalists are tuning up and practising difficult passages.  Then the conductor raises his baton and draws forth a wonderful rich coordinated sound that means things to the audience. .

That's it......... I'm calling Bullshit/emperors new clothes on this. Feel free to refute/give the courtiers reply.
Any synchrony of neural activity could just be correlated firstly. Secondly, all you have is neural activity and we are back to the question why not neural activity without a me?
What else 'emerges' from synchrony or synchrony of the moment. Nobody knows?. Any further on what is being illuded.

In any case the analogy of an orchestra doesn't help you guys because any orchestral analogy presupposes a listener.

In conclusion something neurological is happening, People are watching it, but we are still no closer or more conclusion on what a me is.

[Alan Burns]

That 'conscious control' lies within the broader context of a (largely) deterministic universe.  Will is part of the phenomena of it, not something separate to it.  If you form a desire, or an intention to act, that is a consequence of the machinations of the universe playing out through human cognition and emotion. If you ever formed an intention or desire that had absolutely no connection whatsoever to events of the past, then that would be a random phenomenon, by definition. Everything that happens, does so either because it is a consequence of previous events, or it is not a consequence of previous events, in which case it is random.

Currently there is no definition for what defines conscious awareness, and until there is such a definition, you can't assume anything about the nature of conscious control.

The irony is that (in your scenario) you seem to be consciously arguing from one lump of deterministically controlled lump of matter (you) with another lump of deterministically controlled matter (me).  If we are both under the unavoidable control of the natural forces of nature, how can either of us be deemed to be wrong?  If anything in your scenario has the label of being wrong it is nature itself!

[Sebastian Toe]

Currently there is no definition for what defines conscious awareness, and until there is such a definition, you can't assume anything about the nature of conscious control.

The irony is ......

....that you have done exactly that.

[torridon]

Currently there is no definition for what defines conscious awareness, and until there is such a definition, you can't assume anything about the nature of conscious control.

We don't fully understand gravity either, so shall we stop building rockets and satellites and aeroplanes ?

I don't think so.

[torridon]

The irony is that (in your scenario) you seem to be consciously arguing from one lump of deterministically controlled lump of matter (you) with another lump of deterministically controlled matter (me).  If we are both under the unavoidable control of the natural forces of nature, how can either of us be deemed to be wrong? 

Determinism does not equate to infallibility.  Clearly we are bounded by limited cognitive resources and personal experience. As organic computers, brains are subject to disease, ageing, false memories etc.

[torridon]

That's it......... I'm calling Bullshit/emperors new clothes on this. Feel free to refute/give the courtiers reply.
Any synchrony of neural activity could just be correlated firstly. Secondly, all you have is neural activity and we are back to the question why not neural activity without a me?
What else 'emerges' from synchrony or synchrony of the moment. Nobody knows?. Any further on what is being illuded.

In any case the analogy of an orchestra doesn't help you guys because any orchestral analogy presupposes a listener.

In conclusion something neurological is happening, People are watching it, but we are still no closer or more conclusion on what a me is.

Go watch the program then, and try to engage with the findings.  Noone said this was going to be easy; new concepts require us to break down older ways of thinking, this has always been the way.  It makes a lot of sense to me, certainly far more than traditional ideas of souls.  How can I account for myself being a conscious being ? Why, clearly I must have a conscious being inside me, and so the implication would be that conscious being must have a conscious being inside it, so you have to stop the regress by arbitrarily deciding that the first inner inhabitant has no insiders of its own.  This looks like random arbitrary nonsense to me, it's magical thinking.  Give me real insights into the real world any day, even if they are hard to grasp initially.

[Alan Burns]

....that you have done exactly that.

No, I have shared what I believe to be divine revelation.

I thank you, Lord and Father, for revealing the mysteries og the kingdom to mere children

[Alan Burns]

We don't fully understand gravity either, so shall we stop building rockets and satellites and aeroplanes ?

But we know what it does and how to use it.
Same with souls.

[floo]

But we know what it does and how to use it.
Same with souls.

Gravity is a proven fact, the term soul in that way you view it, most certainly isn't.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Gravity is a proven fact, the term soul in that way you view it, most certainly isn't.

But there are souls. You and me. It's how to best describe that 'Me' and 'that you'. As Torridon informs us and academics like Searle remind us there are philosophical approaches, Searle's is materialist but he reminds us that materialists have failed to elucidate what consciousness is and at worse explained it away.

I think it's how Souls describe themselves which is important and the science of course is important for medicinal reasons but only allowing a scientific reductionist or  ''Bob's your uncle emergentist'' descriptions are of limited use.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Go watch the program then, and try to engage with the findings.  Noone said this was going to be easy; new concepts require us to break down older ways of thinking, this has always been the way.  It makes a lot of sense to me, certainly far more than traditional ideas of souls.  How can I account for myself being a conscious being ? Why, clearly I must have a conscious being inside me, and so the implication would be that conscious being must have a conscious being inside it, so you have to stop the regress by arbitrarily deciding that the first inner inhabitant has no insiders of its own.  This looks like random arbitrary nonsense to me, it's magical thinking.  Give me real insights into the real world any day, even if they are hard to grasp initially.

I'm afraid I am a holist and you quite patently are a reductionist.
There is nothing wrong with reductionism in it's place but it is never going to be the great journey into humanity that you seek to suggest.

[torridon]

But we know what it does and how to use it.
Same with souls.

Your idea of souls is good enough for most people for most of the time I think; a simple, intuitive model.  Similarly, the layman in the street does not worry his head about quantum gravity or the curvature of spacetime.  He just needs to know that heavy things are, errm, heavy and they always fall downwards.  That wouldn't do if you were planning to put a satellite into orbit though. Likewise, the simple idea of souls has run out of utility for anyone needing more in depth insight.

[torridon]

I'm afraid I am a holist and you quite patently are a reductionist.
There is nothing wrong with reductionism in it's place but it is never going to be the great journey into humanity that you seek to suggest.

If you want to know how something works, you need to take it apart.  If you don't want to know, then carry on regardless, that just means you're disinterested.