Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

Emergence is a phenomenon of nature and a property of complex systems.  'Physical', is irrelevant to the concept, as are human beings, complex systems exhibited emergent properties before humans came along to understand them. Water always flowed before we came to understand fluid dynamics.

Claiming 'control' to be something 'external' is just an abdication of our potential to understand complex phenomena.  All this does is relocate the phenomenon to a black box in some other realm of reality, beyond our ken, thus trivially relieving ourselves of the effort involved to build understanding.  If you are not prepared to conceptualise how things work inside that black box then it gets us no further forward at all. It is an exercise in evasion, a ploy.

When the dominant chimp exercises control over his family group, it does not help to imagine that adult chimps must therefore be supernatural or 'external'.  Intentionality, will, desire, control, these are real phenomena of this world,  not some external world somehow inexplicably intruding into our reality.  When a chimp fashions a twig to make a tool to extract termites from a mound, its ingenuity, its intentionality, its hunger, these things have not derived from some other realm of reality, they are emergent properties of complex neural systems linking cause and effect, action and reaction, hunger to eating.

Whatever you describe in the behaviour in chimps or other animals is just a programmed natural instinct to do something which is needed.  Humans have the unique capacity to override their natural instincts to do something just because they want to do it.  And the derivation of the source decision to override is a conscious choice which nature does not explain.

[floo]

Whatever you describe in the behaviour in chimps or other animals is just a programmed natural instinct to do something which is needed.  Humans have the unique capacity to override their natural instincts to do something just because they want to do it.  And the derivation of the source decision to override is a conscious choice which nature does not explain.

Humans are animals too, just more evolved than others. It probably took millions of years for us to get to where we are now.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Alan

Just trying to understand the point you are trying to make about self-control. The study I have linked to below on self-control in non-human animals suggests animals have the capacity to overcome some of their instincts.

Are you trying to differentiate humans from animals on the basis that exercising conscious choice such as waiting for something in relation to religion is a very abstract notion because there is no test that can be set up to teach / prove that the something (after we are dead) will ever materialise? And non-human animals don't have the ability, as far as we know, to conceptualise something abstract after death.

Theists can though learn from experience that they perceive better outcomes happen for them in day to day circumstances if they hold a religious belief, which could explain why they hold onto their belief.

http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/05/nonhuman-animals.aspx

The ability to delay gratification, to wait for something better, and even to put behavioral strategies into play to help bridge the delay to that better reward is within the capability of at least some nonhuman animals. Their successes and failures seem to relate to our own, with many of the same factors contributing to self-control or impulsivity. Their lack of language, their lack of cultural norms regarding patience as a virtue, and their lack of the same extensive future-oriented foresight that humans have (e.g., saving for retirement 40 years in the future) does not seem to hinder their ability to make choices that suggest some foresight, some inhibitory control, and perhaps even some conscious access to understanding and dealing with their own fallibility in these situations. These results indicate that a full account of the emergence of self-control in humans is well-served by taking a comparative approach, and I am thankful to have been able to contribute to that effort by studying captive chimpanzees and other primates and documenting the cognitive abilities of these animals.

[torridon]

Whatever you describe in the behaviour in chimps or other animals is just a programmed natural instinct to do something which is needed.  Humans have the unique capacity to override their natural instincts to do something just because they want to do it.  And the derivation of the source decision to override is a conscious choice which nature does not explain.

Wot Gabriella said.

It's incorrect to claim that the ability to override instinct is uniquely human; it is characteristic of humans, one of our defining attributes, but it is not uniquely human.  Humans clearly have greater cognitive resources to bring to bear on decision making; if we are smarter than the average chimp, that doesn't mean we must be supernatural, it means we are a bit smarter.  It's just a matter of degree, not such a profound and unique phenomenon that justifies us believing that humans have supernatural powers.

[Enki]

An excellent post, Gabriella. Many of us have made exactly the same points.

[Walter]

Humans are animals too, just more evolved than others. It probably took millions of years for us to get to where we are now.

more evolved?      differently evolved would be more accurate

[BeRational]

Humans are animals too, just more evolved than others. It probably took millions of years for us to get to where we are now.

We are not more evolved though,  as it also took all other species the same amount of time to get where they are.

We are differently evolved.

[floo]

We are not more evolved though,  as it also took all other species the same amount of time to get where they are.

We are differently evolved.

OK differently then.

[Alan Burns]

Alan

Just trying to understand the point you are trying to make about self-control. The study I have linked to below on self-control in non-human animals suggests animals have the capacity to overcome some of their instincts.

Are you trying to differentiate humans from animals on the basis that exercising conscious choice such as waiting for something in relation to religion is a very abstract notion because there is no test that can be set up to teach / prove that the something (after we are dead) will ever materialise? And non-human animals don't have the ability, as far as we know, to conceptualise something abstract after death.

Theists can though learn from experience that they perceive better outcomes happen for them in day to day circumstances if they hold a religious belief, which could explain why they hold onto their belief.

http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/05/nonhuman-animals.aspx

The ability to delay gratification, to wait for something better, and even to put behavioral strategies into play to help bridge the delay to that better reward is within the capability of at least some nonhuman animals. Their successes and failures seem to relate to our own, with many of the same factors contributing to self-control or impulsivity. Their lack of language, their lack of cultural norms regarding patience as a virtue, and their lack of the same extensive future-oriented foresight that humans have (e.g., saving for retirement 40 years in the future) does not seem to hinder their ability to make choices that suggest some foresight, some inhibitory control, and perhaps even some conscious access to understanding and dealing with their own fallibility in these situations. These results indicate that a full account of the emergence of self-control in humans is well-served by taking a comparative approach, and I am thankful to have been able to contribute to that effort by studying captive chimpanzees and other primates and documenting the cognitive abilities of these animals.

Thanks for your detailed response.
However my main point is that if there is a scientific explanation for how we make conscious choices, this effectively removes any personal responsibility for the choices we make because they will depend entirely on the laws of science over which there can be no control.  I agree that there are many similarities between human and animal behaviour, but there are also many significant differences.  I recently read of someone saying that our human conscience is a reflection of God's presence within us.  I am not aware of evidence that animals have anything resembling a human conscience.  So I remain convinced that our freedom to make conscious choices which are not dictated by the laws of science is ample evidence of the existence and spiritual power of the human soul.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You’re piling mistake upon mistake upon mistake here…

However my main point is that if there is a scientific explanation for how we make conscious choices, this effectively removes any personal responsibility for the choices we make because they will depend entirely on the laws of science over which there can be no control.

No it doesn’t. That we feel as though we have “free” choice does not mean that it actually is free of cause and effect, which is a fundamentally incoherent notion.The consequences of that are a secondary matter.   

I agree that there are many similarities between human and animal behaviour, but there are also many significant differences.  I recently read of someone saying that our human conscience is a reflection of God's presence within us.

But that could only have been said by someone who thinks there is a “God” in the first place, in which case – like you – he’d have all his work ahead of him to demonstrate that before making conjectures about what this god does.

I am not aware of evidence that animals have anything resembling a human conscience.

Do you mean “conscience” (eg, feeling guilty) or consciousness?

Either way, you haven’t looked hard enough and you’re trying an argument from personal incredulity again - a basic error in reasoning.   

So I remain convinced that our freedom to make conscious choices which are not dictated by the laws of science is ample evidence of the existence and spiritual power of the human soul.

It’s not evidence for anything because it’s not true. You need to find out something about what emergent properties actually are, and you need to stop thinking that a PC is somehow analogous to a brain for this purpose – ie, you vastly underestimate the complexity and functionality of the latter compared with the former.   

[Dicky Underpants]

The short term benefit was probably felt by the Jewish people by unifying them, as with other parts of the OT. The long term detriment was the condemnation of the human condition illustrated by the Catholic church in particular, one reason being the result of Adam and Eve's bad choices.

I've tried to resist the temptation to say anything more about Adam and Eve in this thread - I don't find the myth very illuminating. Neither, apparently, did the ancient Jewish people, if indeed they knew very much about it. The A&E story seems to have been incorporated into the canon quite late. None of the major prophets is at all concerned with it - they are very much concerned with other significant figures and the covenants between the Jews and their God. So I don't think it can be argued that this particular story about a God who punishes had much of a unifying influence.

However, as you suggest, Christianity's treatment of the myth was a much more significant affair, courtesy of the version of the myth given by St Paul (probably for very personal reasons). I've heard Jews refer to Paul's version of the myth as 'totally pagan' - and it's a fair comment, since Jesus gets instated as a human sacrifice for 'sin', which Judaism had long since abandoned. St Augustine and others made the whole scenario a damn sight worse, and the rot continues to this day, despite worthies like Pelagius. Not that we can completely wipe out the legacy of our evolutionary inheritance (oh gawd - I've started interpreting the myth again) Robert Ardrey's* 'African Genesis' suggests we have to take our aggressive impulses seriously. Dickie D's 'Selfish Gene' was interpreted by Anne Widdecombe (horror of horrors) as a re-statement of 'original sin'. That seems to me to be totally misrepresenting the case. We don't have to deal with our inherited nature with a threatening God as the stick and Jesus as carrot and panacea all in one. The ball is entirely in our court.

*Ideas cribbed from trained anthropologists like Raymond Dart and Konrad Lorenz.

[Walter]

You appear to be a very confused person

[Dicky Underpants]

It's incorrect to claim that the ability to override instinct is uniquely human; it is characteristic of humans, one of our defining attributes, but it is not uniquely human.  Humans clearly have greater cognitive resources to bring to bear on decision making; if we are smarter than the average chimp, that doesn't mean we must be supernatural, it means we are a bit smarter.  It's just a matter of degree, not such a profound and unique phenomenon that justifies us believing that humans have supernatural powers.

Yup - that's basically what I was saying at the end of my last post.

[Enki]

I've tried to resist the temptation to say anything more about Adam and Eve in this thread - I don't find the myth very illuminating. Neither, apparently, did the ancient Jewish people, if indeed they knew very much about it. The A&E story seems to have been incorporated into the canon quite late. None of the major prophets is at all concerned with it - they are very much concerned with other significant figures and the covenants between the Jews and their God. So I don't think it can be argued that this particular story about a God who punishes had much of a unifying influence.

However, as you suggest, Christianity's treatment of the myth was a much more significant affair, courtesy of the version of the myth given by St Paul (probably for very personal reasons). I've heard Jews refer to Paul's version of the myth as 'totally pagan' - and it's a fair comment, since Jesus gets instated as a human sacrifice for 'sin', which Judaism had long since abandoned. St Augustine and others made the whole scenario a damn sight worse, and the rot continues to this day, despite worthies like Pelagius. Not that we can completely wipe out the legacy of our evolutionary inheritance (oh gawd - I've started interpreting the myth again) Robert Ardrey's* 'African Genesis' suggests we have to take our aggressive impulses seriously. Dickie D's 'Selfish Gene' was interpreted by Anne Widdecombe (horror of horrors) as a re-statement of 'original sin'. That seems to me to be totally misrepresenting the case. We don't have to deal with our inherited nature with a threatening God as the stick and Jesus as carrot and panacea all in one. The ball is entirely in our court.

*Ideas cribbed from trained anthropologists like Raymond Dart and Konrad Lorenz.

Thanks for this post, Dicky.

I read it with interest. I do agree with your main points but I would also just like to say that on the subject of your first paragraph, my original response was a rather brief one and I did link it to other parts of the OT. I do agree with you that the Adam and Eve part was not given a great deal of prominence in early Judaism, indeed it wasn't referred to in Jewish writings until about the 3rd Century BCE as far as I can tell.

However, my feelings are that the whole creation story, of which Adam and Eve is only a part, were a sort of mythological foundation which established the unspeakable Adonai or Lord as the ultimate divinity for Jews. He occurs at various places and times in the Torah, and, perhaps, it might be suggested that the Garden of Eden was the first. Also, in this story we see  a God who has anthropomorphic attributes(e.g. compassion, anger) from the very beginning, and the idea of punishment for disobedience is also ingrained in the story. Although there is no Satan in this story, and the word for 'sin' doesn't occur, if one takes the whole of the written Torah as a unifying force for Jews, then I suggest that the creation myths are an integral, but not the most important, part.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

You’re piling mistake upon mistake upon mistake here…

No it doesn’t. That we feel as though we have “free” choice does not mean that it actually is free of cause and effect, which is a fundamentally incoherent notion.The consequences of that are a secondary matter.   

But that could only have been said by someone who thinks there is a “God” in the first place, in which case – like you – he’d have all his work ahead of him to demonstrate that before making conjectures about what this god does.

Do you mean “conscience” (eg, feeling guilty) or consciousness?

Either way, you haven’t looked hard enough and you’re trying an argument from personal incredulity again - a basic error in reasoning.   

It’s not evidence for anything because it’s not true. You need to find out something about what emergent properties actually are, and you need to stop thinking that a PC is somehow analogous to a brain for this purpose – ie, you vastly underestimate the complexity and functionality of the latter compared with the former.

Dear Blue,
I have never claimed that our conscious decisions are free from cause and effect.  The question I put to you concerns the ultimate origin which initiates the chain of cause and effect involved in conscious decisions.  No matter how complex the physical processes, in your scenario a conscious decision will be entirely dependent on pre determined reactions to physical events.  There can be no compromise on this.  You are either entirely driven by the uncontrollable laws of nature, or there is something else involved to facilitate conscious choice which is driven by human will rather than natural uncontrollable reactions to previous events.   And this conclusion is based on scientific logic rather than personal incredulity.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Thanks for your detailed response.
However my main point is that if there is a scientific explanation for how we make conscious choices, this effectively removes any personal responsibility for the choices we make because they will depend entirely on the laws of science over which there can be no control.  I agree that there are many similarities between human and animal behaviour, but there are also many significant differences.  I recently read of someone saying that our human conscience is a reflection of God's presence within us.  I am not aware of evidence that animals have anything resembling a human conscience.  So I remain convinced that our freedom to make conscious choices which are not dictated by the laws of science is ample evidence of the existence and spiritual power of the human soul.

Yes I agree there do seem to be significant differences between human thought and animal thought. Humans exert self-discipline and self-control over more areas of their life and for longer periods in order to achieve more complex abstract goals, rather than just food. Each brain seems to have a unique perspective of these complex abstract goals and "what ifs" , based on individual experiences and a genetic component.

None of this is objective evidence for gods or souls but clearly, individual brains can interpret the inclination to perceive complex abstract concepts of the supernatural as subjective evidence of the existence of the supernatural.

[Alan Burns]

Yes I agree there do seem to be significant differences between human thought and animal thought. Humans exert self-discipline and self-control over more areas of their life and for longer periods in order to achieve more complex abstract goals, rather than just food. Each brain seems to have a unique perspective of these complex abstract goals and "what ifs" , based on individual experiences and a genetic component.

None of this is objective evidence for gods or souls but clearly, individual brains can interpret the inclination to perceive complex abstract concepts of the supernatural as subjective evidence of the existence of the supernatural.

One of the things which science can't investigate is the concept of meaning or purpose.  There is no scientific definition for these attributes, which is why I feel that science alone can't be used to determine the true nature of our existence.  Because if there is meaning and purpose behind our existence on this earth, scientific analysis alone will never discover it.  So the question I pose is this: - Is there any meaning or purpose behind these significant differences between humans and other species?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

One of the things which science can't investigate is the concept of meaning or purpose.  There is no scientific definition for these attributes, which is why I feel that science alone can't be used to determine the true nature of our existence.  Because if there is meaning and purpose behind our existence on this earth, scientific analysis alone will never discover it.  So the question I pose is this: - Is there any meaning or purpose behind these significant differences between humans and other species?

Meaning and purpose are abstract concepts so people take different views.

They can see no meaning or purpose, or they can see no common or shared meaning and purpose but find meaning and purpose individually, or they can assume a common, shared meaning and purpose amongst various like-minded groups or they can explore meaning and purpose through philosophical discussions, some of which may have a religious component, without ever coming up with any definitive answer that can be shown objectively - since we are talking about abstract concepts.

[Sebastian Toe]

So the question I pose is this: - Is there any meaning or purpose behind these significant differences between humans and other species?

No and no.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes I agree there do seem to be significant differences between human thought and animal thought. Humans exert self-discipline and self-control over more areas of their life and for longer periods in order to achieve more complex abstract goals, rather than just food. Each brain seems to have a unique perspective of these complex abstract goals and "what ifs" , based on individual experiences and a genetic component.

None of this is objective evidence for gods or souls but clearly, individual brains can interpret the inclination to perceive complex abstract concepts of the supernatural as subjective evidence of the existence of the supernatural.

I think there is an issue with the idea that the differences are 'significant' if there is no definition of the significance. Undoubtedly there are substantial differences but these appear to be of degree, and there are many other animals whose abilities in certain areas are substantially 'better' at that thing than ours. 

[torridon]

One of the things which science can't investigate is the concept of meaning or purpose.  There is no scientific definition for these attributes, which is why I feel that science alone can't be used to determine the true nature of our existence.  Because if there is meaning and purpose behind our existence on this earth, scientific analysis alone will never discover it.  So the question I pose is this: - Is there any meaning or purpose behind these significant differences between humans and other species?

Maybe science doesn't do meaning because meaning is a personal thing; there is no such thing as objective meaning, it is all in the mind.  A penguin finds meaning in the particular call of its offspring, whilst the cacophony of other calls around leaves him unmoved.  I might find meaning in the lilt and phrasing of a song, but the same song leaves others unmoved. You find meaning in your faith, Gabriella finds meaning in hers.  There is no such thing as objective, true for all meaning. Whatever floats your boat.

[Gordon]

One of the things which science can't investigate is the concept of meaning or purpose.

These are subjective feelings rather than objective facts: in essence they are thoughts that originate in your biology. I suspect you may be begging the question in assuming purpose as something objective and independent of what people conclude for themselves.

There is no scientific definition for these attributes, which is why I feel that science alone can't be used to determine the true nature of our existence.

Science doesn't to beauty either, but this doesn't stop people concluding that something is subjectively beautiful. Again I suspect this 'true nature' is you begging the question again.

Because if there is meaning and purpose behind our existence on this earth, scientific analysis alone will never discover it.

Especially since these feelings are subjective opinion rather than objective fact.

So the question I pose is this: - Is there any meaning or purpose behind these significant differences between humans and other species?

No, since I don't think 'meaning and purpose' is in any sense objective: it just seems a matter of degree reflecting the niches that various species occupy and the attributes they have acquired via natural means. So our species has intellectual abilities (including being able to conceptualise abstractions) but we can't fly or breathe underwater.

[Outrider]

One of the things which science can't investigate is the concept of meaning or purpose.

It can, though not in the way that you think. Neurology can examine our brains as we ponder such things, and determine what's physically happening at the time to explain where these notions are originating.

There is no scientific definition for these attributes, which is why I feel that science alone can't be used to determine the true nature of our existence.

Except that you've got an implicit assumption here that a) because we currently don't have a definition for these attributes that we never will and b) that because you don't like the current definition of them as emergent behaviours of the complex activity of the brain that we therefore don't have a valid definition.

Because if there is meaning and purpose behind our existence on this earth, scientific analysis alone will never discover it.

Perhaps, perhaps not. It certainly won't at the moment, because there's no strong evidence that there such an externally imposed meaning or purpose - until there's evidence there's no science to be performed, but until there's evidence there's no reason to need anything explained, scientifically or otherwise.

So the question I pose is this: - Is there any meaning or purpose behind these significant differences between humans and other species?

Not that I've seen any evidence for - they are the result of natural forces, not the end-game of some master plan.

O.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I think there is an issue with the idea that the differences are 'significant' if there is no definition of the significance. Undoubtedly there are substantial differences but these appear to be of degree, and there are many other animals whose abilities in certain areas are substantially 'better' at that thing than ours.

Significant is clearly a subjective term. This isn't a probability distribution so I don't think there is an issue about some posters finding a difference significant.

If I understand Alan's posts correctly, the difference between animals and humans that seem most significant to Alan are the human capacity for abstract thought that allows discussion of the supernatural, planning many years in advance for an unknown future, communication that leads to discussion of moral choices and values and an organised belief system - which may or may not include a supernatural element.

I think he thinks it significant that human have the ability to influence complex value-based decisions (more complex than food decisions) using these abstract moral ideas that go against a person's initial preferred inclinations. I presume Alan is aware that certain parts of the brain can be seen to be activated using imaging while making these moral choices and holding these values, so I think his focus may possibly be on the source of the value system or the source of the ideas that leads to these thoughts that over-ride initial preferences and defers to the value system.

[Walter]

this might help to explain whats going on here,

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090304160400.htm