Searching for GOD...

[floo]

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?

The brain.

[Alan Burns]

The brain.

And the brain comprises the same fundamental components as a lump of rock.  You are much more than that.

[BeRational]

And the brain comprises the same fundamental components as a lump of rock.  You are much more than that.

But not connected in such a complex way, sending electrical signals, from which the 'you' emerges from.

[jjohnjil]

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?

It is a very difficult problem, Alan, I haven't a clue as to how we observe all these experiences, but a soul explains nothing.  if, as I suspect you believe, God is somehow in control of your soul, how does he perceive?

The easy way out of a problem is to kick it into the long grass. Saying it's all down to the unexplainable soul is doing just that and doesn't get you anywhere.

Our ancestors did that with most things they didn't understand - How could a calm sea suddenly turn into a giant wave ... How could a mountain that had been just part of the scenery for centuries, suddenly erupt into a raging inferno?

These things were all attributed to some god or other and it took someone to dig deeper until we now realise how these things happen.  If we had all accepted the idea of such things being supernatural, we would still be worshiping the Sun God and the like.

The best way, Alan, is to say we don't know how these things work. One day we may understand how our consciences perceive things, but if we lazily put it all down to something that's even more unexplainable, we'll never progress.

[Alan Burns]

It is a very difficult problem, Alan, I haven't a clue as to how we observe all these experiences, but a soul explains nothing.  if, as I suspect you believe, God is somehow in control of your soul, how does he perceive?

No, God is not in control of our soul - He has delegated control.  We are in control - not nature, not God. 

[BeRational]

No, God is not in control of our soul - He has delegated control.  We are in control - not nature, not God.

There is no soul, just a very very complex brain.

[Alan Burns]

But not connected in such a complex way, sending electrical signals, from which the 'you' emerges from.

And an electrical signal comprises electrons passing from one place to another - is this really what defines "you"?

[ekim]

The best way, Alan, is to say we don't know how these things work. One day we may understand how our consciences perceive things, but if we lazily put it all down to something that's even more unexplainable, we'll never progress.

Another way is to just enjoy being conscious and allow it to expand rather than waste time trying to explain it or waiting for someone else to explain it.  It might be you last day to do so.  Some Indian schools of thought have a word for it ... satchitananda ... the joy of being conscious.

[Alan Burns]

Another way is to just enjoy being conscious and allow it to expand rather than waste time trying to explain it or waiting for someone else to explain it.  It might be you last day to do so.  Some Indian schools of thought have a word for it ... satchitananda ... the joy of being conscious.

I agree that a lot of time can be wasted in trying to explain consciousness.  Time would be better spent in trying to discern the reason for our conscious awareness.  Trying to explain it away as an accident of nature is just a distraction from the true purpose of our conscious awareness.

[floo]

And the brain comprises the same fundamental components as a lump of rock.  You are much more than that.

Humans are a product of evolution just like any other animal species.

[BeRational]

And an electrical signal comprises electrons passing from one place to another - is this really what defines "you"?

Yes when trillions of electrons pass in complex paths, it does define you.

You need to get over it.

[Gordon]

I agree that a lot of time can be wasted in trying to explain consciousness.  Time would be better spent in trying to discern the reason for our conscious awareness.  Trying to explain it away as an accident of nature is just a distraction from the true purpose of our conscious awareness.

Sounds like you are begging the question again, Alan, with an added dash of reification.

[Sebastian Toe]

Who or what is the powerless, helpless, unwilling observer?
What is it that is forced to watch things unfold?

Wel it couldn't be a soul could it?
Because souls have the ultimate free will, power and control to manipulate nature.

 Don't they?

[Alan Burns]

Yes when trillions of electrons pass in complex paths, it does define you.

You need to get over it.

It just defines a lot of electrons moving about!

[Alan Burns]

Wel it couldn't be a soul could it?
Because souls have the ultimate free will, power and control to manipulate nature.

 Don't they?

Our souls have the freedom to consciously manipulate and control through the limited abilities of the physical body - this is not total control or ultimate power, neither is it totally determined by nature alone.

[ippy]

I agree that a lot of time can be wasted in trying to explain consciousness.  Time would be better spent in trying to discern the reason for our conscious awareness.  Trying to explain it away as an accident of nature is just a distraction from the true purpose of our conscious awareness.

Not really Alan it's just a case of being realistic, like that other post citing mountains spouting a volcano, as though it must be a sign of some kind, we used to think it was the god or gods speaking, in your case where you keep on insisting something about a a soul, whatever that's supposed to be, is no better than ancient man worshipping a volcano or worshipping the sun etc as they used to do.

If the he, she or it  from this god idea of yours you keep banging on about were to be about somewhere Alan, just think how disappointed he, she or it would be to see that you haven't moved any further on than stone age man, this post of yours is yet another one of the many posts of yours that don't really make any sense.

Necessarily the very kindest of regards to you Alan, ippy. 

[Sebastian Toe]

Our souls have the freedom to consciously manipulate and control through the limited abilities of the physical body - this is not total control or ultimate power, neither is it totally determined by nature alone.

So
Who or what is the powerless, helpless, unwilling observer?
What is it that is forced to watch things unfold?

And why is it powerless?

[ippy]

Our souls have the freedom to consciously manipulate and control through the limited abilities of the physical body - this is not total control or ultimate power, neither is it totally determined by nature alone.

Have a really good think about this post of yours Alan before you answer, how could you or anyone else possibly know this and if you still insist that you do have this knowledge, write it down and let us all in to how you arrived at this conclusion?

I've yet to see you give a rational answer to any question similar to the one above, for all of the way through this marathon thread.

Necessarily the very kindest of regards to you Alan, ippy.

[torridon]

I agree that a lot of time can be wasted in trying to explain consciousness.  Time would be better spent in trying to discern the reason for our conscious awareness.  Trying to explain it away as an accident of nature is just a distraction from the true purpose of our conscious awareness.

Putting it that way I think that is rather begging the question.

For myself I would no way be interested in explaining it away, but rather understanding it.  Photosynthesis is pretty cool, the co-evolution of flowering plants and pollinating insects is fascinating,  but these things pale into comparison compared to the evolution of consciousness, in the first place, and the subsequent evolution of conscious persons. These are jaw dropping developments in the history of life on this planet that I find enthralling but we nonetheless tend to just take for granted every day.  I see facile superstitious 'explanations' for it as obscuring a path to real understanding of a phenomenon which truly is something of immense and fascinating complexity.

[BeRational]

It just defines a lot of electrons moving about!

Yes and you emerge from that.

Deal with it

[floo]

Our souls have the freedom to consciously manipulate and control through the limited abilities of the physical body - this is not total control or ultimate power, neither is it totally determined by nature alone.

AB that is a meaningless statement.

[torridon]

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?

Just saying it is a soul doing all that answers nothing; you can't say what a soul consists of or how it does these things.  It is a response that evades understanding rather than engages with and tries to understand.

Maybe you didn't get the point about Cotard's; in such cases there is no inner perceiver, or at least a diminished one; this is consistent with the evidence that a conscious self is an emergent phenomenological product of brain function.  When aspects of brain function are compromised, the sense of self is likewise compromised - this is not what you would expect from a soul with no such inherent contingent complexity.  A 6 month old infant has no sense of self, again this is consistent with the gradual development of neurological functioning.  Does a foetus with no mind at all have a soul ?  Does a half Neanderthal/half human hybrid have half a soul ?  The view from neuroscience and psychology is based on evidence whereas there is no evidence for souls, or 'windows'; all you have is a facile idea with simple appeal but it doesn't stand up to the slightest critical scrutiny.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just saying it is a soul doing all that answers nothing; you can't say what a soul consists of or how it does these things.  It is a response that evades understanding rather than engages with and tries to understand.

Maybe you didn't get the point about Cotard's; in such cases there is no inner perceiver, or at least a diminished one; this is consistent with the evidence that a conscious self is an emergent phenomenological product of brain function.  When aspects of brain function are compromised, the sense of self is likewise compromised - this is not what you would expect from a soul with no such inherent contingent complexity.  A 6 month old infant has no sense of self, again this is consistent with the gradual development of neurological functioning.  Does a foetus with no mind at all have a soul ?  Does a half Neanderthal/half human hybrid have half a soul ?  The view from neuroscience and psychology is based on evidence whereas there is no evidence for souls, or 'windows'; all you have is a facile idea with simple appeal but it doesn't stand up to the slightest critical scrutiny.

Cotard's is a red herring here. Just something that sounded flash but essentially irrelevent to the argument.

[BeRational]

Cotard's is a red herring here. Just something that sounded flash but essentially irrelevent to the argument.

Why?

[Sriram]

Just saying it is a soul doing all that answers nothing; you can't say what a soul consists of or how it does these things.  It is a response that evades understanding rather than engages with and tries to understand.

You ask so many questions about the nature of the soul and how it does all the things that we attribute to it. But you readily accept something called Dark energy that pushes galaxies apart without having any idea about what it is or how it does what  does. I am not questioning the Dark Energy hypothesis. I am only pointing out your double standards.

No one claims to know everything about the soul or the spirit. In fact everyone admits their ignorance about its nature.  But that does not make the soul hypothesis wrong....anymore than your ignorance of the nature of Dark energy makes that hypothesis wrong.   

Maybe you didn't get the point about Cotard's; in such cases there is no inner perceiver, or at least a diminished one; this is consistent with the evidence that a conscious self is an emergent phenomenological product of brain function.  When aspects of brain function are compromised, the sense of self is likewise compromised - this is not what you would expect from a soul with no such inherent contingent complexity.  A 6 month old infant has no sense of self, again this is consistent with the gradual development of neurological functioning.  Does a foetus with no mind at all have a soul ?  Does a half Neanderthal/half human hybrid have half a soul ?  The view from neuroscience and psychology is based on evidence whereas there is no evidence for souls, or 'windows'; all you have is a facile idea with simple appeal but it doesn't stand up to the slightest critical scrutiny.

About consciousness...you are wrong in treating only our conscious awareness as Consciousness.   We have discussed this many times and many Science articles have also been linked by me that point to the Unconscious mind being largely in control and the Conscious mind being just a front office as it were....with the Unconscious mind being the actual work shop.