Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

You could be wrong though,  couldn't you?

Note I am not asking if you think you are wrong but that you could perhaps actually be, wrong.

If I am wrong, I would not exist as a conscious entity, and neither would you 

[wigginhall]

My argument is based upon the fact that if the soul does exist as a spiritual entity which enables conscious awareness of the information held within our brain, no amount of neuroscientific investigation will discover it.

That's a wacky argument.   I have invented this thing, say, phlogiston, and so far empirical investigation cannot discover it - therefore it exists!  As I said, once it would have been sinister, and another way in which the church blocked empirical investigation into matters over which it claimed a monopoly.   Thank goodness that those days have gone.

[floo]

If I am wrong, I would not exist as a conscious entity, and neither would you 

A dog exists as a conscious entity.

[Alan Burns]

That's a wacky argument.   I have invented this thing, say, phlogiston, and so far empirical investigation cannot discover it - therefore it exists!

Well, until someone can come up with a complete explanation of how conscious awareness can be defined in terms of material reactions, I am happy to continue with using my God given soul.

[floo]

Well, until someone can come up with a complete explanation of how conscious awareness can be defined in terms of material reactions, I am happy to continue with using my God given soul.

Fine if that makes you happy, even if you cannot provide anything but your belief to substantiate it.

[torridon]

The foolishness comes in trying to define conscious perception in terms of material reactions - it is just not possible.  Perception is not a material reaction.

Wrong.  Perception is a material reaction.  When you see something, that is a wave of information propagating through your (visual) perception system, transforming multiple times along the way between retina and cortex and each of those transformations is a biological reaction. Do you really think that when a wolf eyes a bison up, it cannot see it ?

[wigginhall]

Well, until someone can come up with a complete explanation of how conscious awareness can be defined in terms of material reactions, I am happy to continue with using my God given soul.

Well, another example of your nihilism and obscurantism.   I am quite happy that neuroscience is making tentative and partial discoveries; to expect complete explanations is absurd and actually, another example of how the church can blind people to new knowledge, a bit like Nelson putting his blind eye to the telescope. 

[Sebastian Toe]

My argument is based upon the fact that if the soul does exist as a spiritual entity which enables conscious awareness of the information held within our brain, no amount of neuroscientific investigation will discover it.

Why not?

[torridon]

Well, until someone can come up with a complete explanation of how conscious awareness can be defined in terms of material reactions, I am happy to continue with using my God given soul.

in order words you are going to continue with your notions forever as we will never have complete scientific explanations for anything.  Doesn't bother you that your notions have no evidence and no coherence at all.  That is really double standards

[Alan Burns]

A dog exists as a conscious entity.

A dog exists as a biological machine which reacts in predictable ways to external phenomena.  I can't say whether or not it has any form of consciousness without entering the mind of the dog.  But the dog is still God's creation, as we all are.

[wigginhall]

AB prefers ignorance.   Fortunately, today he is an eccentric, with wacky views, but we have to recall a time when ignorance was used by the church as a defence against new knowledge.   Going back to Galileo, heliocentrism was labelled a heresy.   Thank goodness, the church no longer has that power. 

[Sebastian Toe]

If I am wrong, I would not exist as a conscious entity, and neither would you 

No. If you are wrong then all that means is that what you are living, you are living I presume, as close to a concious entity as you have wrongly proposed, as makes no difference.

So. Could you be wrong?  I ask again because you skirted around actually answering!

[Alan Burns]

Wrong.  Perception is a material reaction.  When you see something, that is a wave of information propagating through your (visual) perception system, transforming multiple times along the way between retina and cortex and each of those transformations is a biological reaction. Do you really think that when a wolf eyes a bison up, it cannot see it ?

Information can certainly induce reactions, but this does not necessarily imply that it is consciously perceived.

[wigginhall]

Actually, today's discussion has reminded me of why I sometimes challenge AB's views, even though they are wacky in the extreme.   It's not that long ago, that the church had the power to stop research, and for example, in the US, evolution is still a sticky subject in some schools.  Therefore, we have to be vigilant against this type of ignorance and blindness. 

[Alan Burns]

Actually, today's discussion has reminded me of why I sometimes challenge AB's views, even though they are wacky in the extreme.   It's not that long ago, that the church had the power to stop research, and for example, in the US, evolution is still a sticky subject in some schools.  Therefore, we have to be vigilant against this type of ignorance and blindness.

I admit that I find scientific discoveries fascinating and I certainly would not try to hinder them.  I am just pointing out their obvious limitations.

[SusanDoris]

wigginhall
'Hear, hear!' to all your recent posts here.

[Shaker]

My argument is based upon the fact that if the soul does exist as a spiritual entity which enables conscious awareness of the information held within our brain, no amount of neuroscientific investigation will discover it.

How confused are you, zipping backwards and forwards between 'fact' (which isn't) and 'if' (which isn't an argument).

[Shaker]

Well, until someone can come up with a complete explanation of how conscious awareness can be defined in terms of material reactions, I am happy to continue with using my God given soul.

... meaning that you're a proud member of the massed ranks of those who demand any pseudo-explanation, even a bad one, over "We don't know yet".

[Outrider]

You are still thinking in material terms.

Show me a reason to think in any other terms.

My free will is adequately demonstrated by the fact that I have used my gift of free will in the way God intended - to freely accept Jesus as my Saviour and Redeemer.

That's no more a demonstration of free will than hitting the floor is a demonstration of accepting God's invitation to gravity.

Can you seriously believe that this could all be done by my subconscious brain activity?  Seriously?

And there we have it - the argument from incredulity. Yes, yes I can believe that. I can believe that far more easily than I can accept the idea of a self-creating, perfectly moral, infinitely powerful and intelligent being manifesting an entire universe just to enforce behavioural codes on evolved apes about what they should or should not do with their genitals that is ultimately of no real consequence.

I can see infinitely more potential in the possibilities of the complex computing capacity of the human brain than I can in the cobbled-together imaginings of bronze age superstition.

Yes, I can believe that. Yes, I can believe that consciousness can emerge from the single most complex processing hub known to man. My question is why can't you?

O.

[torridon]

Information can certainly induce reactions, but this does not necessarily imply that it is consciously perceived.

If you see something, that is conscious perception; if you hear something, that is conscious perception. Blind sight being an example of subconscious perception. 

[Sebastian Toe]

A dog exists as a biological machine which reacts in predictable ways to external phenomena.  I can't say whether or not it has any form of consciousness without entering the mind of the dog.

You really need to look up "Do as I do" or "Do it" on youtube and then tell me that dogs cant consciously think. Albeit in a limited way,  but they are processing thoughts as far as I can see.

[Outrider]

Information can certainly induce reactions, but this does not necessarily imply that it is consciously perceived.

What makes you think that conscious perception is not another reaction?

O.

[floo]

A dog exists as a biological machine which reacts in predictable ways to external phenomena.  I can't say whether or not it has any form of consciousness without entering the mind of the dog.  But the dog is still God's creation, as we all are.

Of course a dog is conscious just like any other animal, what a silly statement to make! In your opinion a dog is god's creation.

[ippy]

A dog exists as a biological machine which reacts in predictable ways to external phenomena.  I can't say whether or not it has any form of consciousness without entering the mind of the dog.  But the dog is still God's creation, as we all are.

Have a delve into human psychology we're very much the same as dogs with our predictable actions and reactions to the various phenomena we all have to face.

You're so indoctrinated you've ended up with a limited and closed to reason mind full of fairy like beliefs, you're about one of the worst cases of religious mania I've seen on this forum!

ippy

[Alan Burns]

Show me a reason to think in any other terms.

That's no more a demonstration of free will than hitting the floor is a demonstration of accepting God's invitation to gravity.

And there we have it - the argument from incredulity. Yes, yes I can believe that. I can believe that far more easily than I can accept the idea of a self-creating, perfectly moral, infinitely powerful and intelligent being manifesting an entire universe just to enforce behavioural codes on evolved apes about what they should or should not do with their genitals that is ultimately of no real consequence.

I can see infinitely more potential in the possibilities of the complex computing capacity of the human brain than I can in the cobbled-together imaginings of bronze age superstition.

Yes, I can believe that. Yes, I can believe that consciousness can emerge from the single most complex processing hub known to man. My question is why can't you?

O.

And can you imagine how this single most complex processing hub known to man can get generated from a microscopic DNA molecule which came into existence without any form of intelligently guided interaction?

No doubt you will quote the blind process of natural selection of randomly generated mutations which seems to be responsible for generating any conceivable amount of incomprehensible complexity.