Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

    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

The properties of an EM field will be entirely defined by the deterministic activity of the physical elements of the brain.  There is nothing in this loop of activity which can conceivably be defined as self awareness, it is just reactions defined by our perceived rules of science.  Nothing more.

[Gordon]

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

You recently told me, Alan, that you didn't know for sure how 'souls' work and yet you seem so confident you know how the physical works (or doesn't work) where, unsurprisingly, your theory involves a gap into which your God conveniently fits. However - if you, our resident expert on 'souls', accept that you don't fully understand how 'souls' work why do you not accept that experts in sciences like neurology have similar limits to their understanding.

Sounds to me like you are indulging in double standards here.   

[Alan Burns]

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.

The evidence lies in your own ability to perceive and consciously interact with this material world - attributes which can never be derived from the crude, aimless process of random mutations coupled with natural selection.  You are much, much more than a survival machine.  And this evidence can be coupled with mankind's unique ability to be aware not only of their own existence, but of the existence of a Creator and a life beyond the death of our physical bodies.

[Gordon]

The evidence lies in your own ability to perceive and consciously interact with this material world - attributes which can never be derived from the crude, aimless process of random mutations coupled with natural selection.  You are much, much more than a survival machine.  And this evidence can be coupled with mankind's unique ability to be aware of the existence of a Creator and a life beyond the death of our physical bodies.

Alan

Let me precis the above for you: 'God: like, wow man!'

In essence, that is all you ever say.

[Alan Burns]

Alan

Let me precis the above for you: 'God: like, wow man!'

And one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is "Wonder and awe"

[Gordon]

And one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is "Wonder and awe"

In your case, in relation to 'God', I'm not sure that is a good thing.

[Rhiannon]

And one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is "Wonder and awe"

Do you think that the non/ religious lack these?

[ippy]

The evidence lies in your own ability to perceive and consciously interact with this material world - attributes which can never be derived from the crude, aimless process of random mutations coupled with natural selection.  You are much, much more than a survival machine.  And this evidence can be coupled with mankind's unique ability to be aware not only of their own existence, but of the existence of a Creator and a life beyond the death of our physical bodies.

I'm sure Vlad is your alter ego Alan, he hasn't given a rational answer to how he seems to know all about this god idea or the soul idea, whatever that's supposed to be, either? 

Commiserations Alan, ippy

[torridon]

The evidence lies in your own ability to perceive and consciously interact with this material world - attributes which can never be derived from the crude, aimless process of random mutations coupled with natural selection. 

That's not evidence, it is unsupported assertion and a non-sequitur.  You might as well claim quantum entanglement as evidence for transdimensional magic pixies whose role is to alter the spin of distant entangled particles on the quiet.

What the evidence does show, and which should be blindingly obvious, is that perception and consciousness are absolutely derived from aimless process of biological evolution.  Because some things are hard to understand need not licence us to reach for magic as explanation.  We grow by facing the challenge of trying to understand.

You are much, much more than a survival machine.  And this evidence can be coupled with mankind's unique ability to be aware not only of their own existence, but of the existence of a Creator and a life beyond the death of our physical bodies.

We can all speculate, no bad thing necessarily.  Speculation is no more magic than perception however, and to have lasting usefulness, our speculations have to withstand critical scrutiny.

[BeRational]

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

But it is your brain with I tiny part replaced with an artificial element that fires electrical impulses exactly as the old one did.
Would you still be you?
Would you notice?
Would the 'driver's still be there?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

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

That’s not true, so why pretend otherwise? What you’ve actually done is to assert it - over and over again in fact – but never once have you tried to explain why you think it.

I hear your assertion. Really, I do. The question you keep avoiding though is that, as all the available logic and evidence points to self-awareness as an emergent property, why do you just assert it not to be?

Perhaps you have not fully understood the problem,…

You’ve yet to explain what you think the problem to be, so there’s nothing for me not to have “fully understood”.

…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.

I don’t assume that at all – though I do think it overwhelmingly the most likely explanation given the logic and evidence for it. That’s not the point though. Rather that point is that you’re the one who asserts it to be “physically impossible”, so the burden of proof is with you finally to explain why you think that.

Why not at least try to give it a go?

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.

That’s a false claim. You’ve told us often that your mind is forever closed even to the possibility that you could be wrong (indeed you seem to be proud of your closed-mindedness) so necessarily no reasoning, no evidence, no proof, no anything however persuasive could ever cause you to change your mind. Why then bother reading anything at all given that you’ve already decided that nothing could ever falsify your beliefs?

[Enki]

The properties of an EM field will be entirely defined by the deterministic activity of the physical elements of the brain.  There is nothing in this loop of activity which can conceivably be defined as self awareness, it is just reactions defined by our perceived rules of science.  Nothing more.

I do not disagree with your first sentence at all. However You  go on to suggest that the self referencing loop cannot conceivably be defined as self awareness. That was not what was being suggested.  What was suggested that it was an 'essential component of consciousness' and consciousness is surely a pre-requisite for conscious awareness and conscious perception, is it not?

Al-Khalili/McFadden actually go on to suggest that:

Synchronization of nerve firing by the brain's EM field is also very significant in the context of the puzzle of consciousness because it is one of the very few features of nerve activity that is known to correlate with consciousness.

Of course they may be wrong, and arguments and evidence in the future may suggest other ways in which consciousness develops, but what have you to offer except the totally unevidenced, completely vague entity  of a soul with nothing to recommend it except that in your eyes you hope to convince others by simply asserting that it exists?

[wigginhall]

Well, AB will deny any scientific work on consciousness, as he has repeatedly asserted that it cannot derive from physical arrangements.   When asked to turn this assertion into a reasoned argument, he seems to be saying, well, it just can't.   Or, I say so.  I suppose it's reverse engineering - if you start with the supernatural, you end up with it  as well.   Plus lashings of incredulity, always useful in a tight corner.    I remember when quasars were discovered, and there were people who said, I can't believe that something so far away could be so bright.   Ah well.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

I suppose it's reverse engineering - if you start with the supernatural, you end up with it  as well.

Which appears to be wrong if Alan Burns does it, but not if others do it. For example:

Bluehillside Retd. #28335

The question you keep avoiding though is that, as all the available logic and evidence points to self-awareness as an emergent property,

Torridon #28333

What the evidence does show, and which should be blindingly obvious, is that perception and consciousness are absolutely derived from aimless process of biological evolution.  Because some things are hard to understand need not licence us to reach for magic as explanation.  We grow by facing the challenge of trying to understand.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

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.

The problem for you Susan Doris is that we now have 1134+ pages of this thread and there has yet to be a single post demonstrating why Alan Burns is wrong to believe as he does.

However, I may be wrong. Here's your big chance. Demonstrate that AB is believing in an entirely imaginary view of life

[Robbie]

Good to see you Sword, you don't post often enough.

[SteveH]

Have you any evidence to support AB's POV?

Oh, silly SotS - he forgot to add "IMO" at the end, which is all the evidence you need, if your practice is anything to go by.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The problem for you Susan Doris is that we now have 1134+ pages of this thread and there has yet to be a single post demonstrating why Alan Burns is wrong to believe as he does.

However, I may be wrong. Here's your big chance. Demonstrate that AB is believing in an entirely imaginary view of life

Yes the attitude of ''world view, guv'' ''what me guv'' ''search me guv'' is pervasive.

[SusanDoris]

The problem for you Susan Doris is that we now have 1134+ pages of this thread and there has yet to be a single post demonstrating why Alan Burns is wrong to believe as he does.

However, I may be wrong. Here's your big chance. Demonstrate that AB is believing in an entirely imaginary view of life

Well, as far as I recall, no-one has said he is wrong to believe what he does; he as much as anyone else has  a right to believe whatever fantasy he chooses. If, however, he expects his beliefs to be considered seriously as being objective, then he will need to do more than just make assertions all the time.


P.S. I shall have to add a thank you for slightly livening up my afternoon!!

[SteveH]

Ehhhhhhhhhh?

You regularly demand evidence from others, but are very fond of writing a bald statement of opinion, followed by "IMO", and no attempt to provide reasons to agree with you.

[Robbie]

Oh, silly SotS - he forgot to add "IMO" at the end, which is all the evidence you need, if your practice is anything to go by.

Great post Steven.

[bluehillside Retd.]

SoTS,

The problem for you Susan Doris is that we now have 1134+ pages of this thread and there has yet to be a single post demonstrating why Alan Burns is wrong to believe as he does.

However, I may be wrong. Here's your big chance. Demonstrate that AB is believing in an entirely imaginary view of life

I see little point in correcting you (yet again) as you'll only vanish (yet again) when I do but, for what it's worth, you have this wrong. No-one says that whatever it is that AB believes in is necessarily wrong - any guess may by dumb luck turn out to be a good one (and I'm ignoring here by the way his a priori problem of terminological incoherence meaning his speculations aren't even right/wrong apt). Who can say - maybe his guess "god" is right; maybe my guess "leprechauns" is right too.

What's actually being said though is that the arguments he attempts to validate his belief "god" are wrong. Flat wrong, either because they align with codified fallacious logic or because he doesn't bother with the argument bit at all and just asserts his claims to be true.

That's why for the former he tries a string of argumenta ad consequentia, arguments from personal incredulity etc (and wearingly) etc, and for the latter he'll just proclaim that, say, no information processing entity however complex could ever be self-aware without ever bothering to explain why he thinks that.

Doubtless you'll be long gone again by now, but that's why you're wrong again - the issue isn't the objects of his claims, it's the arguments he relies on to validate them.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Robbie,

Great post Steven.

Not really - it's just whataboutism.

[torridon]

Which appears to be wrong if Alan Burns does it, but not if others do it. For example:

Bluehillside Retd. #28335
Torridon #28333

That's a false equivalence  The TOE is actually a good example; science starts with observation, with evidence, and any conclusions are derived from that, whatever they may be, no matter how uncomfortable or unintuitive they may be.  When we see people denying elements of TOE we have to ask why that is, as it demonstrates that they are valuing their apriori beliefs over and above evidence based reasoning as a route to discovery.

[ippy]

Looks like living in wonderland man has pushed off, too many home truths for him, I dare say he thinks this god idea, that lives within his imagination, is putting him to some sort of trial; sure.

Regards ippy