Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

The thing is if someone tells me of their personal experience, then on the level if true to then, I am bound to respect that if not agree with it. And the use of other's experiences to bulk up the reason to believe is a mistake of desire for method.

[floo]

I wonder how AB, and other very devout Christians, would react if it was proved beyond all doubt no god exists? I suspect many of them would refuse to believe it, retiring into a closet where they could protect their imaginary god from stark reality. 

[ippy]

Your post sums up AB's 'reasoning' well.

Lack of reason Floo.

Regards ippy

[Nearly Sane]

I wonder how AB, and other very devout Christians, would react if it was proved beyond all doubt no god exists? I suspect many of them would refuse to believe it, retiring into a closet where they could protect their imaginary god from stark reality.

Thar's as much a logically incoherent idea as Alan's soul.

[floo]

Lack of reason Floo.

Regards ippy

I have no doubt at all AB thinks he is being very 'reasoned', not understanding why most of us see his POV as unreasoned.

[Alan Burns]

AB

Do you enjoy being so ignorant of how the human brain functions?
It seems you have not learnt a thing from all the first-class, intelligent, informed posts here ... ... probably because you haven't read them with any understanding at all.

I am truly in awe of the amazing functionality of the brain.  It is a fascinating biological machine.  And I am its driver.

[Alan Burns]

Bloody hell, this is like trying to argue with a brick wall.   I can't believe that you have repeated 'atomic particles do not perceive', when I just pointed out that they don't see things either.   Does this mean that the brain cannot construct visual experience?   I'm just waiting for you to  move the goal-posts.

Reacting to image patterns is not the same thing as seeing an image.  A computerised robot could be programmed to react in animal like ways to the data patterns obtained from visual sensors, but it would not see anything, because there is nothing within the robot which can perceive - it just reacts.

[torridon]

I am truly in awe of the amazing functionality of the brain.  It is a fascinating biological machine.  And I am its driver.

and that feeling of being 'I' is a product of that amazing brain functionality; it is not some inexplicable invisible black box that has somehow taken the brain over.  The evidence for this is abundant, just try going to sleep at night, the sense of self disappears along with all the other contents of consciousness.  This is the ubiquitous day in day out experience of all humans; all, that is apart from individuals in whom the processes that give rise to this phenomenon are compromised by some or other pathology.  People with Cotard's for instance present to the doctor complaining that they are dead, when quite evidently they are not.  This condition gives us an insight into what is lost when the sense of self is impaired or lost.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotard_delusion

[torridon]

Reacting to image patterns is not the same thing as seeing an image.  A computerised robot could be programmed to react in animal like ways to the data patterns obtained from visual sensors, but it would not see anything, because there is nothing within the robot which can perceive - it just reacts.

That's broadly correct I think; if we compare a self driving car to a golden eagle for instance, the self driving car could appear superficially to be having visual perception, but in reality our AI tech is currently well short of being comparable to the phenomenon of visual perception in eagles which far exceeds that in humans.  That may change in the future of course as we learn from Nature.

[SusanDoris]

#25,430 I did not relise I had left some extra characters in my post - I have corrected it.

[ekim]

and that feeling of being 'I' is a product of that amazing brain functionality; it is not some inexplicable invisible black box that has somehow taken the brain over.  The evidence for this is abundant, just try going to sleep at night, the sense of self disappears along with all the other contents of consciousness.  This is the ubiquitous day in day out experience of all humans; all, that is apart from individuals in whom the processes that give rise to this phenomenon are compromised by some or other pathology.  People with Cotard's for instance present to the doctor complaining that they are dead, when quite evidently they are not.  This condition gives us an insight into what is lost when the sense of self is impaired or lost.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotard_delusion

Let me anticipate what Alan might say.  Your observation is biased in favour of matter/energy derivatives.  It is the conscious 'I' (soul) which has produced and maintains body mind functionalities.  Sleep is a time when much maintenance takes place and when a switching mechanism takes place.  In dreamless sleep the mind is switched off and the body is focused upon.  In dreaming sleep the body is semi paralysed and the mind is focused upon.  The sense of self is a false identity which changes over a life time, the conscious 'I' (soul) is the real identity.  Pathologies are the result of persistent malfunctions of the body/mind mechanisms, but the soul goes marching on.

[Alan Burns]

Let me anticipate what Alan might say.  Your observation is biased in favour of matter/energy derivatives.  It is the conscious 'I' (soul) which has produced and maintains body mind functionalities.  Sleep is a time when much maintenance takes place and when a switching mechanism takes place.  In dreamless sleep the mind is switched off and the body is focused upon.  In dreaming sleep the body is semi paralysed and the mind is focused upon.  The sense of self is a false identity which changes over a life time, the conscious 'I' (soul) is the real identity.  Pathologies are the result of persistent malfunctions of the body/mind mechanisms, but the soul goes marching on.

A good post, ekim

[Walt Zingmatilder]

and that feeling of being 'I' is a product of that amazing brain functionality; it is not some inexplicable invisible black box that has somehow taken the brain over.  The evidence for this is abundant, just try going to sleep at night, the sense of self disappears along with all the other contents of consciousness.  This is the ubiquitous day in day out experience of all humans; all, that is apart from individuals in whom the processes that give rise to this phenomenon are compromised by some or other pathology.  People with Cotard's for instance present to the doctor complaining that they are dead, when quite evidently they are not.  This condition gives us an insight into what is lost when the sense of self is impaired or lost.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotard_delusion

So is the disappearance of the 'I', which is frankly only reliably mentionable because it is what we experience rather than observe, that of sleep or of the weird and terrifying adventures experienced then reported in Cotard's?

I ask this since not even the most consummate of turd polishers could equate sleep with Cotard's IMHO?

[torridon]

Let me anticipate what Alan might say.  Your observation is biased in favour of matter/energy derivatives.  It is the conscious 'I' (soul) which has produced and maintains body mind functionalities.  Sleep is a time when much maintenance takes place and when a switching mechanism takes place.  In dreamless sleep the mind is switched off and the body is focused upon.  In dreaming sleep the body is semi paralysed and the mind is focused upon.  The sense of self is a false identity which changes over a life time, the conscious 'I' (soul) is the real identity.  Pathologies are the result of persistent malfunctions of the body/mind mechanisms, but the soul goes marching on.

There would need to be some evidence, some sort of justification for that though. I think we could agree there is potential for a multi-layered view of identity, with deeper levels having greater persistence over time than more immediate concerns. However, the notion of a soul which is categorically and ontologically separate from the sense of 'me' born of autobiographical memories that develops during a life is an altogether different matter; this is what would require compelling justification.

[torridon]

So is the disappearance of the 'I', which is frankly only reliably mentionable because it is what we experience rather than observe, that of sleep or of the weird and terrifying adventures experienced then reported in Cotard's?

I ask this since not even the most consummate of turd polishers could equate sleep with Cotard's IMHO?

A Cotard's sufferer is perhaps the nearest thing we have to a real life p zombie and it is a condition involving a deficit in the normal production of a sense of self.  Cotard's is an extreme case, but it is quite often the case that we come to understand our normal condition by studying such pathologies when normal processes go awry. We all have a diminished sense of self during sleep, and during general anaesthetic it is destroyed altogether, to be restarted later.  There are subliminal neurological processes at work which underpin our normal everyday experience of being alive and awake.

[SusanDoris]

Let me anticipate what Alan might say. 

Oh dear, now look what you've done !

[wigginhall]

Let me anticipate what Alan might say.  Your observation is biased in favour of matter/energy derivatives.  It is the conscious 'I' (soul) which has produced and maintains body mind functionalities.  Sleep is a time when much maintenance takes place and when a switching mechanism takes place.  In dreamless sleep the mind is switched off and the body is focused upon.  In dreaming sleep the body is semi paralysed and the mind is focused upon.  The sense of self is a false identity which changes over a life time, the conscious 'I' (soul) is the real identity.  Pathologies are the result of persistent malfunctions of the body/mind mechanisms, but the soul goes marching on.

This reminds me a bit of Jung, who suggested a distinction between Self and ego, and the relations between them are crucial in an individual's development.  Self is to an extent the totality of the psyche also, as well as its centre.

However, echoing torridon a bit here, it strikes me that Self is a psychological thing, whereas the soul, in Alan's view, is supernatural.   As far as I can see, Jung did not posit something supernatural in the human psyche, although he did suggest that the Self is projected onto various numinous things, including God.

Isn't this the central problem with soul, that as a supernatural thing, it fits uneasily into psychology and neuroscience, in fact, it doesn't fit at all, and no-one can describe any kind of interface.   

[floo]

A Cotard's sufferer is perhaps the nearest thing we have to a real life p zombie and it is a condition involving a deficit in the normal production of a sense of self.  Cotard's is an extreme case, but it is quite often the case that we come to understand our normal condition by studying such pathologies when normal processes go awry. We all have a diminished sense of self during sleep, and during general anaesthetic it is destroyed altogether, to be restarted later.  There are subliminal neurological processes at work which underpin our normal everyday experience of being alive and awake.

I had never come across Cotard's Syndrome before. I looked it up, very creepy, and ghastly for the poor sufferer. 

[ekim]

There would need to be some evidence, some sort of justification for that though. I think we could agree there is potential for a multi-layered view of identity, with deeper levels having greater persistence over time than more immediate concerns. However, the notion of a soul which is categorically and ontologically separate from the sense of 'me' born of autobiographical memories that develops during a life is an altogether different matter; this is what would require compelling justification.

In discussion and debate and where its focus is upon objective evidence, I doubt whether it is possible to provide compelling justification because it is usually referred to as an inner state of being and all anyone can do is to provide a method towards that end or beginning, which ever way you look at it.  When you look at those methods, you see that what stands in the way of progress is the ego/self with its collection of memories, concepts, dreams and emotions etc. and you could add to that a religious or collective ego.  In my view Christianity would come under that category as it seems to have covered over the Jesus method with a personality cult.  As regards 'soul', I'll try to give my view in a reply to Wigg's question.

[ekim]

This reminds me a bit of Jung, who suggested a distinction between Self and ego, and the relations between them are crucial in an individual's development.  Self is to an extent the totality of the psyche also, as well as its centre.

However, echoing torridon a bit here, it strikes me that Self is a psychological thing, whereas the soul, in Alan's view, is supernatural.   As far as I can see, Jung did not posit something supernatural in the human psyche, although he did suggest that the Self is projected onto various numinous things, including God.

Isn't this the central problem with soul, that as a supernatural thing, it fits uneasily into psychology and neuroscience, in fact, it doesn't fit at all, and no-one can describe any kind of interface.

Yes, I believe that is a problem with all intense inner experiences where attempts are made to communicate them in words.  How often do we hear today the words fantastic, incredible, unbelievable, stunning, out of this world etc. and yet, somehow words have to be used initially as an attempt to convey the intense experience.  In the New Testament the word 'psyche' is translated as 'soul' and yet I believe the word 'soul' has a Germanic origin meaning 'life', another vague word.  We could perhaps say that psychologists study the forms and forces of the psyche and biologists study life forms and forces, but 'life', who knows whether it exists in its own right.  If it does, I would have thought of it as natural rather than supernatural.  The word 'God' meant 'that which is to be invoked' and so I suppose that you could make a God of anything desired ... money, power, protection, love, life and a devil of anything feared.

[wigginhall]

Yes, the idea of intense inner experiences reminds me of a post that Nearly Sane made a few days ago, and to which I replied - to wit, that there are different languages being used.   There is the language of inner experience, which is in a sense, irrefutable.  Then there is reasoned argument dealing with evidence, logic, and so on.   Then there is the language of science, which is similar but with its special vocabulary.

You have this odd situation that some theists have decided to mash-up these different languages with very queasy results. Thus we get Alan arguing that the brain cannot deal with self, as it is physical, and we also get various arguments for God, never mind the bizarre rumblings of creationists, e.g. complexity cannot be produced by random physics or biology.

I'm not sure why this has happened, I suppose it's a kind of search for rigour, not just messy personal feelings.   But it produces a mess.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

A Cotard's sufferer is perhaps the nearest thing we have to a real life p zombie

That doesn't come out of a reading of the Wikipedia article. So where does it come from?

You seem to be putting great store on a person saying they have no actual existence.

How can we know that? There is nothing as yet that links Cotard's with P zombie state in your citation from wikipedia. Surely sleep is closer to P Zombie. Cotard's sounds too complicated to act as any sort of model for P Zombieism. It is more like an altered state of consciousness rather than uonconsciousness.

You seem to be merely accepting the testimony of the subjective whenever you  see it fits your argument, ergo, mere polish.

[Sebastian Toe]

That doesn't come out of a reading of the Wikipedia article. So where does it come from?

You seem to be putting great store on a person saying they have no actual existence.

How can we know that? There is nothing as yet that links Cotard's with P zombie state in your citation from wikipedia. Surely sleep is closer to P Zombie. Cotard's sounds too complicated to act as any sort of model for P Zombieism. It is more like an altered state of consciousness rather than uonconsciousness.

You seem to be merely accepting the testimony of the subjective whenever you  see it fits your argument, ergo, mere polish.

"During psychopathological
examination, we saw an agitated,
suspicious patient with severely
affected formal thinking. He
reported being dead since he had
drowned in a lake years before, and
said that he had been reanimated as
a zombie by radiation from mobile
telephones. He was under the
impression that he was still under
water, and that everybody else had
also drowned and become
a zombie. The patient explained
that although it was morally wrong
to exert violence on living persons,
there was nothing wrong with
beating up zombies. He wasn’t
afraid of retaliation or legal
prosecution, because he believed
himself to be dead and to have no
feelings."

http://tinyurl.com/Cotzombie

[torridon]

...It is more like an altered state of consciousness rather than uonconsciousness...

Yes I think that is right.  A sense of self is a fundamental component or quality of the contents of normal consciousness; it is the feeling of being an agent, having experience and being in control, that gives meaning to what otherwise would be mere experience happening.  Consider what the experience of having a nightmare is like.  Terrible things happen but you are a powerless observer, forced to watch things unfold but unable to do anything about it.  A nightmare is a form of conscious experience but we are helpless, unwilling observers in it.  Maybe that is similar to the experience of a Cotard's sufferer, trapped in a waking dream state, relegated to being a passive observer of experience rather than an active agent in it.

[Alan Burns]

Yes I think that is right.  A sense of self is a fundamental component or quality of the contents of normal consciousness; it is the feeling of being an agent, having experience and being in control, that gives meaning to what otherwise would be mere experience happening.  Consider what the experience of having a nightmare is like.  Terrible things happen but you are a powerless observer, forced to watch things unfold but unable to do anything about it.  A nightmare is a form of conscious experience but we are helpless, unwilling observers in it.  Maybe that is similar to the experience of a Cotard's sufferer, trapped in a waking dream state, relegated to being a passive observer of experience rather than an active agent in it.

And what is it that has the sense of self?
What has the feeling of being an agent?
What perceives the experience of being in control?
What perceives the nightmare?
Who or what is the powerless, helpless, unwilling observer?
What is it that is forced to watch things unfold?