Searching for GOD...

[ippy]

Thanks - it's useful to be good at English and able to express my POV on a forum like this. You're also good at using your own terms of phrase to express your opinion e.g. your phrases such as "indoctrinate" or "thinking for yourself" seem to have a different meaning for you.
We will have to disagree. I think religion is better incorporated into a lesson about beliefs, morals, philosophies and ethics - issues that affect people today rather than limiting it to a backward looking historical exercise about what people believed in the past.

Though i agree it is useful to know the historical background of current rituals as it helps people put them in context and thereby communicate with other cultures. In our global society, communication, understanding, empathy, tolerance are all useful skills to learn, unless people plan to somehow limit their exposure to people who think differently from them or who have had different lives to their own.

For example those Muslim communities that make the effort to gain knowledge and understanding of some of the other cultures they interact with tend to do better educationally, economically and socially than the ones who isolate themselves.
Well it seems ethics, morals, values, beliefs and cultures also like "to pounce on" children at that vulnerable age to recruit them into a particular way of thinking rather than teaching them to reason for themselves.

No doubt it would be interesting to experience vulnerable children creating their own ethics, morals, values, beliefs and cultures that have never been thought of before. On the whole, despite all this indoctrination of vulnerable children rather than them being left alone to think for themselves, they tend to survive and continue procreating and indoctrinating. Reason tells me that all the indoctrination probably serves some kind of useful purpose but if you disagree, feel free to elaborate.
You never have explained what teaching a 5 year old to think for themselves about abstract concepts means exactly.

For example, what is your version of teaching a 5 year old to think for themselves about the following questions:

• Do we have a purpose?
• Is it ok to challenge the rule of law?
• Is nationality a useful concept?
• Should we be indoctrinating children into a particular nationality or should they be given a choice from age 5 when they can communicate?
• Should we define a list of British values, and should we indoctrinate children with British values.
• What happens to family members when they die?

I would explain what I believe to the 5 year old. If they have a preference to believe what I believe - that makes it easy and leaves me adequate time to get groceries, cook, read stories with them, work, do various admin, pay bills, cleaning, laundry, ironing, exercise, spend time with my husband, and generally bond with family members through shared cultural experiences, narratives, symbols, metaphors, rituals and beliefs.

If the 5 year old wants to talk metaphysics because they disagree with any of my beliefs - ok but i've got limited time. As they get older it is easier for them to explore different beliefs themselves by reading books or watching TV shows, movies, YouTube, TED talks etc. Interesting article. I agree with some parts - for example I don't think there should be mandatory acts of worship in school, but I disagree with the idea that those who do get something out of a collective act of prayer at a faith school should be prevented from doing so. The school can offer them to any pupil that is interested IMO, and pupils will just have to learn to be more robust and not develop a herd mentality but stand up for freedom of belief - hopefully it will help them learn how to function in the adult world.

When I was specifically referring to under age vulnerable children of up to seven years of age I had in mind something like S D's methods of teaching this particular age group, which incidentally S D is as I understand an ex teacher, and as such is able to articulate such matters in a far better way than I, this would be the way I would recommend teaching any youngster.   
 
We'll never agree about lessons specifically about religion aimed at any children of the seven and under category I'm referring to, after seven years of age well the world could be considered the oyster of those that want to try to indoctrinate.

I want to see this kind of indoctrination of this specific age group permanently disabled other than as I've said before, indoctrinating children to think for themselves, in a manner commensurate with their age, as so well described by S D, what the parents decide to have planted into their heads outside school hours is of course up to them, I don't se why the state should be doing the work of these various religious beliefs for them, as it were in preparation. 

The only reference I'll make to Islam, is that it needs to get on with it's much needed reformation as soon as possible, or even sooner than that, (by the way I won't be expanding on this subject at any time).

You say, more or less, in your post: "If a five year old has a preference to believe what I believe, can make it easy for me",  that's the trouble I doubt there's much effort made to distinguish between belief and the plain truth is made, even if it is, to a five year old ? Maybe expecting this five year old to understand?

Like I keep on saying it's the under the age where most children on average have gained the ability to reason that I'm referring to, the age that most religious organisations prefer to pounce, simply because it's known to provide the largest percentage of new recruits, (victims as I see it), these are the particular group of vulnerable young children I would like to see shielded from these divisive organisations.

We're all one race the human race we need more things that bring us together unlike the divisive religions, religion needs to be consigned to the past where it belongs.

Regards ippy

[Alan Burns]

Antibiotics are judged effective or not according to their performance through clinical trials, first and foremost.  I can add to that my own personal anecdotal pennorth of having recovered from infection quickly after having taken penicillin.  I don't see that this has any relevance to the determinism/free will debate.  After all, I don't consciously choose to judge that I got better after taking antibiotics, I have no control over such judgements, conscious or otherwise.

I am well aware of the human capability of consciously perceiving an intended goal and then choosing how best to achieve that goal by consciously manipulating our natural habitat.  This is substantial evidence of what can be achieved through the gift of free will, rather than the inevitable consequences of the aimless, purposeless events within physically driven deterministic activity.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I am well aware of the human capability of consciously perceiving an intended goal and then choosing how best to achieve that goal by consciously manipulating our natural habitat.  This is substantial evidence of what can be achieved through the gift of free will, rather than the inevitable consequences of the aimless, purposeless events within physically driven deterministic activity.

It’s not evidence of this at all for reasons that have been explained to you countless times and that you just respond to with the same mistakes. I see little point therefore in doing it again. Just out of interest though, your entire schtick takes as axiomatic the notion that no processing entity however complex could ever become self-aware. I see your assertion, but as you’ve never troubled to tell us why you think that could you perhaps give it a go now?

Thanks.

[Maeght]

This is substantial evidence of what can be achieved through the gift of free will, .......

No its not.

[SusanDoris]

• Do we have a purpose?

Only if we decide on it for ourselves. Evolution does not have a purpose.

• Is it ok to challenge the rule of law?

This can be done without resource to any supernatural anything. It is a pity the religions do not change their laws to bring them forward a couple of thousand years in their thinking.

• Is nationality a useful concept?

In some ways, yes. It seems to be a practical and useful survival need to belong to a group

• Should we be indoctrinating children into a particular nationality or should they be given a choice from age 5 when they can communicate?

[/quote[]Who does that? It is religions who indoctrinate. There is no need for nations to indoctrinate since they exist and people can do something about being a member or not.

• Should we define a list of British values, and should we indoctrinate children with British values.

/Too difficult to pinpoint and define exactly said values.

[

• What happens to family members when they die?

The most important thing you should not do is to tell then they have gone to heaven. . Tell them the truth, using the words which will have the least upsetting consequences at the age concerned. There is no way to avoid upset sooner or later but that is an important lesson anyway, but if they know the facts, the evidenced facts, they are far, far more likely to cope than if they have been told a lie. And I do consider it a lie, because not one single religiously believing parent has any knowledge whatsoever of any real heaven. It is surely about time that more people acknowledged this, principally the leaders of religious beliefs.[/list]

[SteveH]

ETA: To be clear: so why can't it have produced logical minds?

Because all evolution is interested in is survival. The ability to do more than the most basic logical thinking is irrelevant to survival, and indeed some forms of illogicality may aid survival. Understanding Fermat's last theorem or quantum mechanics don't help us survive.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Steve H,

Because all evolution is interested in is survival. The ability to do more than the most basic logical thinking is irrelevant to survival, and indeed some forms of illogicality may aid survival. Understanding Fermat's last theorem or quantum mechanics don't help us survive.

That make no sense. More sophisticated logicality leads to more survival options – genetic modification for example may turn out to have a significant advantages than weren't available to our ancestors. That the same greater sophistication also allows us to understand quantum mechanics doesn’t imply that something other than evolution is at work.     

[Alan Burns]

AB,

It’s not evidence of this at all for reasons that have been explained to you countless times and that you just respond to with the same mistakes. I see little point therefore in doing it again. Just out of interest though, your entire schtick takes as axiomatic the notion that no processing entity however complex could ever become self-aware. I see your assertion, but as you’ve never troubled to tell us why you think that could you perhaps give it a go now?

Thanks.

Well first of all we need to define what self awareness is in physical terms.  It is not a reaction.  It is perception of reactions.  We have information contained within physical elements, but it is not classifiable as information until it can be perceived in some way.  So we have the problem - if nothing exists but physical entities, how can these physical entities perceive their own state?  How can the state of information within physical elements be perceived by the physical elements alone?  Is it feasible to conclude that there could be something non physical which is needed to perceive the information within the physical?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Well first of all we need to define what self awareness is in physical terms.  It is not a reaction.  It is perception of reactions.  We have information contained within physical elements, but it is not classifiable as information until it can be perceived in some way.  So we have the problem - if nothing exists but physical entities, how can these physical entities perceive their own state?  How can the state of information within physical elements be perceived by the physical elements alone?  Is it feasible to conclude that there could be something non physical which is needed to perceive the information within the physical?

Various mistakes there but let’s focus on the main one – your reliance (again) at the argument from personal incredulity fallacy. You can ask “how” questions as much as you like, but all that tells us is that you don’t know the answer to something. What you were actually asked though is what fundamental barrier you think there to be that would make it "impossible" for a sufficiently sophisticated data processing entity to become self aware. If you can’t think of an answer to that, just say so – tell us it’s a matter of your personal faith and we’ll leave you to it. If you do have an argument though (other that is than that you personally can’t imagine how it would happen) then when not finally share it?

[SusanDoris]

I have mentioned somewhere that AB should read 'Living With The Stars' by K and I Schrijver, and he should also read the book in which I have now reached Chapter 7, called 'Built on Bones' by Brenna Hassett. From both he might learn more about the human body and how it functions and nowhere, nowhere is there a little controller. It is really sad that AB is probably going to believe in his entirely imaginary view of life until said life ends.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I have mentioned somewhere that AB should read 'Living With The Stars' by K and I Schrijver, and he should also read the book in which I have now reached Chapter 7, called 'Built on Bones' by Brenna Hassett. From both he might learn more about the human body and how it functions and nowhere, nowhere is there a little controller. It is really sad that AB is probably going to believe in his entirely imaginary view of life until said life ends.

Actually Susan only the first eight words of that were needed 

[ippy]

Steve H,

That make no sense. More sophisticated logicality leads to more survival options – genetic modification for example may turn out to have a significant advantages than weren't available to our ancestors. That the same greater sophistication also allows us to understand quantum mechanics doesn’t imply that something other than evolution is at work.   

Quantum mechanics, assists with the navigational ability of the European Robin when it's migrating, our U K Robins don't migrate, it does look like it's design, but of course we now know better than that due to scientific investigation; another gap closed.

Regards ippy

[Enki]

Well first of all we need to define what self awareness is in physical terms.  It is not a reaction.  It is perception of reactions.  We have information contained within physical elements, but it is not classifiable as information until it can be perceived in some way.  So we have the problem - if nothing exists but physical entities, how can these physical entities perceive their own state?  How can the state of information within physical elements be perceived by the physical elements alone?  Is it feasible to conclude that there could be something non physical which is needed to perceive the information within the physical?

There are plenty of hypotheses/theories(in its loosest sense) which try to explain self awareness(e.g. the integrated information theory, the Penrose-Hameroff theory, various metacognitive theories).  If one is rightly going to ask, as you do, pertinent questions about ' how can these physical entities perceive their own state??' or ' How can the state of information within physical elements be perceived by the physical elements alone' or whether its 'feasible to conclude that there could be something non physical which is needed to perceive the information within the physical?' then you must also ask the same questions of your own ideas.

Hence, to be able to deal with your idea of a 'soul' we have to first establish the presence of such an entity, somethimg which we are evidentially completely unable to do. Following on from this, we cannot therefore comment with integrity on its workings in any way. Thus such a question as 'How can the state of the soul be perceived  by the physical elements of the brain' cannot posssibly be answered as we have no evidence that the soul exists, and therefore no evidence at all on how it achieves this connection. Could your idea of a soul be feasible? It is possible but unless one has any evidence that such a non natural thing exists, then you are simply stuck in the realm of assertion with nothing of any evidential value to say. And assertions without anything valid to contribute can be safely dismissed as  pure imaginative conjecture until such a time as evidence accrues which supports such a conjecture.

That, for me, is why I find your repetitious meanderings on this subject of so little worth.

[ippy]

I have mentioned somewhere that AB should read 'Living With The Stars' by K and I Schrijver, and he should also read the book in which I have now reached Chapter 7, called 'Built on Bones' by Brenna Hassett. From both he might learn more about the human body and how it functions and nowhere, nowhere is there a little controller. It is really sad that AB is probably going to believe in his entirely imaginary view of life until said life ends.

If either book goes against anything A B thinks this god idea that definitely does exist inside his head, I don't think there's a lot of hope that he'll learn anything from them, unfortunately for him.

Regards ippy

[SteveH]

Quantum mechanics, assists with the navigational ability of the European Robin when it's migrating, our U K Robins don't migrate, it does look like it's design, but of course we now know better than that due to scientific investigation; another gap closed.

Regards ippy

BUt European robins don't understand quantum mechanics.

[ippy]

BUt European robins don't understand quantum mechanics.

But they've got CERNE, we haven't?

Regards ippy

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Various mistakes there but let’s focus on the main one – your reliance (again) at the argument from personal incredulity fallacy. You can ask “how” questions as much as you like, but all that tells us is that you don’t know the answer to something. What you were actually asked though is what fundamental barrier you think there to be that would make it "impossible" for a sufficiently sophisticated data processing entity to become self aware. If you can’t think of an answer to that, just say so – tell us it’s a matter of your personal faith and we’ll leave you to it. If you do have an argument though (other that is than that you personally can’t imagine how it would happen) then when not finally share it?

I have tried to explain several times why it is physically impossible for material elements alone to become an entity of conscious self awareness.  Perhaps you have not fully understood the problem, or you may be relying on what may well be labelled "personal optimism" in the assumption that physical complexity alone can somehow generate conscious awareness.  You accused me in another post of what I assume to be not reading enough, but I can assure you that I am able to read and understand many of the scientific publications mentioned in this thread, but none have come close to giving a feasible explanation for the attributes of human self awareness and free will.  One of the first books I borrowed from the adult library when I reached the age of twelve was Einstein's original book on his theory of relativity.  The mathematics was a bit beyond me at the time, but I found his ideas about the relativity of time and space fascinating.  I do still have a fascination for reading about human scientific discovery, but I also am well aware of its limitations.

[Alan Burns]

Thus such a question as 'How can the state of the soul be perceived  by the physical elements of the brain' cannot possibly be answered as we have no evidence that the soul exists ....

You obviously have not understood what I have been saying.  Physical elements do not perceive, they just predictably react in accordance with our understanding of material science.  Perception involves a one way transfer of information to an entity of self awareness.  The only transfer in the other direction involves the ability to consciously interact with physical elements in order to implement acts of will.

[BeRational]

You obviously have not understood what I have been saying.  Physical elements do not perceive, they just predictably react in accordance with our understanding of material science.  Perception involves a one way transfer of information to an entity of self awareness.  The only transfer in the other direction involves the ability to consciously interact with physical elements in order to implement acts of will.

Imagine in your brain all the billions of synapses and bit and bobs that pass electrical impulses, one is broken. Further imagine that this could be replaced with an artificial one that worked just as well. I think you would agree that you would not notice and you would feel exactly the same. Now imagine it's more than 1, perhaps 1000, would you notice?

What if they were all replaced, would the resulting brain not be aware and concious?

[SusanDoris]

AB

It is not that we - other posters - do not understand, it is that you have totally failed to provide even the smallest, minutest scrap of objective (etc etc etc) evidence for your assertions which rely 100% on blind faith.

bluehillside and Ippy
Thank you for your comments.

[torridon]

I have tried to explain several times why it is physically impossible for material elements alone to become an entity of conscious self awareness....

and again you merely sidestep Blue's question with another assertion.You have never explained why, all you ever do is assert it, not explain it.  People are not going to accept things merely on your say-so.

[torridon]

You obviously have not understood what I have been saying.  Physical elements do not perceive, they just predictably react in accordance with our understanding of material science.  Perception involves a one way transfer of information to an entity of self awareness.  The only transfer in the other direction involves the ability to consciously interact with physical elements in order to implement acts of will.

Yes we understand what you are saying, but the evidence suggests that you are wrong.  Perception derives from multiple simpler reactions at a lower level.

[Enki]

You obviously have not understood what I have been saying.  Physical elements do not perceive, they just predictably react in accordance with our understanding of material science.  Perception involves a one way transfer of information to an entity of self awareness.  The only transfer in the other direction involves the ability to consciously interact with physical elements in order to implement acts of will.

You obviously have not understood what I have been saying. Physical elements interact. There is nothing to justify your idea that physical elements can't produce self awareness. Indeed, some of the various hypotheses suggested do indeed suggest that self awareness is a result of that complex interaction. One further example is that given by Al-Khalili/McFadden in 'Life on the Edge' which develops the Penrose-Hameroff hypothesis including that the EM field of the brain could be a seat for consciousness.

The findings suggest that the brain's own EM field, generated by nerve firing, also influences nerve firing, providing a kind of self referencing loop that many theorists argue is an essential component of consciousness.

Life on the Edge, Chapter 8, Page 351


I notice with interest that you do not make one single argument, or produce any single piece of evidence, that suggests that your idea of a 'soul' has anything to recommend it. Your ideas seem simply to rest on two baseless assertions

1) that the natural world on its own cannot produce self awareness.

2) there must be a soul which is just a place holder for something separate from the natural world

You might consider these two assertions to be important, I see no reason to give them credibility at all.

[torridon]

Imagine in your brain all the billions of synapses and bit and bobs that pass electrical impulses, one is broken. Further imagine that this could be replaced with an artificial one that worked just as well. I think you would agree that you would not notice and you would feel exactly the same. Now imagine it's more than 1, perhaps 1000, would you notice?

What if they were all replaced, would the resulting brain not be aware and concious?

That was rather good.  Even at a macro scale, such as with surgical prosthetic limbs the brain quickly accepts them as part of the body. 

[Alan Burns]

Imagine in your brain all the billions of synapses and bit and bobs that pass electrical impulses, one is broken. Further imagine that this could be replaced with an artificial one that worked just as well. I think you would agree that you would not notice and you would feel exactly the same. Now imagine it's more than 1, perhaps 1000, would you notice?

What if they were all replaced, would the resulting brain not be aware and concious?

Just like replacing the parts in a complex machine, it will still function, but you can't replace the driver.