Searching for GOD...

[wigginhall]

Torridon is spot on, learning about the mind and the brain is wonderful; the supernatural, where is it?

[Alan Burns]

It is clearly, and bearing in mind your copious previous comments of a similar sentiment, an indication that you find determinism unacceptable because of how you regard the consequences: as in 'nothing but inevitable, uncontrollable reactions'.

It is not that it is unacceptable.
It is the fact that physical determinism is totally incompatible with the reality we all perceive.

[Alan Burns]

'Spiritual nature' is just some flim-flam calculated to avoid and deny what we have learned about mind.  Fact is, most of our mental activity goes on under the hood; that doesn't justify us in imagining something spooky going on there that science cannot see.  It just means what the terms already in use mean - subconscious means below the level of our conscious awareness; preconscious means cerebral activity preceding fully conscious mental states.  The science is there for anyone to engage with, then we can drop all the mystical nonsense and come to understand the true wonder of mind.

But if the science dictates that every action I invoke is entirely pre determined by my sub conscious it is clearly flawed.

[Shaker]

It is not that it is unacceptable.
It is the fact that physical determinism is totally incompatible with the reality we all perceive.

The reality we perceive ("all"?) isn't actually reality though is it? We know this much.

[Alan Burns]

The reality we perceive ("all"?) isn't actually reality though is it? We know this much.

It is the only reality I know

[Shaker]

Which just goes to show how limited it is.

[torridon]

But if the science dictates that every action I invoke is entirely pre determined by my sub conscious it is clearly flawed.

Not so much 'science dictates', but more profoundly, simple logic tells us, that every event (this includes choices made) is either a consequence of prior events , or it is not, in which case it is a random event.  This is a simple undeniable point of logic which we cannot escape by throwing in adjectives like 'physical' or 'material' or 'spiritual'; these things change the logic of choice not one iota; a 'spiritually induced' choice is still either a deterministic event or it is not, in which case it is random.  What the sciences have revealed about how minds make choices is consistent with this simple point of logic; your rationale is just muddled thinking born of how things seem, superficially.  Whatever happened to your claim, to 'think deeply' about things ?

It is the only reality I know

In a sense, yes I hear that, but the way we experience reality is not how reality actually is.  This has been broadly the job of science, to dig beneath our intuitions to reveal the more complex substrata underlying our perceptions.  Our senses did not evolve with any remit to reveal epistemic truth; they evolved, and minds work, to keep us alive at minimal calorific cost.  To understand truth, we have to be prepared to accept this fundamental revelation, that our direct experience is all fabrication of mind from start to finish.  Go look at a tree now, it is not the actual tree you are seeing, it is a phenomenological fabrication of mind born mostly of memory.

You can stick with 'the only reality I know' of course, most people do, most of the time, and it does what it says on the tin. But we can all also dig deeper, learn to see further, by engaging those intellectual resources of mind that are also part of what it is to be human. We are not living in caves now exactly because we have learned to observe, to question, to hold abstract concepts in mind and build on them and refine them through testing. If we fail to engage our curiosity, we are missing much of what it is to be human.

[Sriram]

Not so much 'science dictates', but more profoundly, simple logic tells us, that every event (this includes choices made) is either a consequence of prior events , or it is not, in which case it is a random event.  This is a simple undeniable point of logic which we cannot escape by throwing in adjectives like 'physical' or 'material' or 'spiritual'; these things change the logic of choice not one iota; a 'spiritually induced' choice is still either a deterministic event or it is not, in which case it is random.  What the sciences have revealed about how minds make choices is consistent with this simple point of logic; your rationale is just muddled thinking born of how things seem, superficially.  Whatever happened to your claim, to 'think deeply' about things ?

In a sense, yes I hear that, but the way we experience reality is not how reality actually is.  This has been broadly the job of science, to dig beneath our intuitions to reveal the more complex substrata underlying our perceptions.  Our senses did not evolve with any remit to reveal epistemic truth; they evolved, and minds work, to keep us alive at minimal calorific cost.  To understand truth, we have to be prepared to accept this fundamental revelation, that our direct experience is all fabrication of mind from start to finish.  Go look at a tree now, it is not the actual tree you are seeing, it is a phenomenological fabrication of mind born mostly of memory.

You can stick with 'the only reality I know' of course, most people do, most of the time, and it does what it says on the tin. But we can all also dig deeper, learn to see further, by engaging those intellectual resources of mind that are also part of what it is to be human. We are not living in caves now exactly because we have learned to observe, to question, to hold abstract concepts in mind and build on them and refine them through testing. If we fail to engage our curiosity, we are missing much of what it is to be human.

It is true that the world is largely perception. It is a 'reality' created by mind. So, is there nothing real at all?

There is one thing that stands beyond mental perception. Which perceives things but is itself not perceived. That is the subject, the Self.

If we somehow stop all perception of objects and stop all mental thought processes...what remains? The Self. 

This is what is regarded as Real in spiritual philosophies.  This is what is meant by Self Realization or Know Thyself.

[torridon]

It is true that the world is largely perception. It is a 'reality' created by mind. So, is there nothing real at all?

There is one thing that stands beyond mental perception. Which perceives things but is itself not perceived. That is the subject, the Self.

If we somehow stop all perception of objects and stop all mental thought processes...what remains? The Self. 

This is what is regarded as Real in spiritual philosophies.  This is what is meant by Self Realization or Know Thyself.

I think the 'Self' is also construction of mind.  Take away mind and there is nothing left to think or experience selfhood. A robin will have a sense of self, but it won't be quite the same as that experienced by a tree frog. A human child has a sense of self but not the same experience as that in an adult. A patient with dementia has a eroded sense of self, as also happens in Cotard's syndrome. Under general anaesthetic, there is no Self, it disappears completely.  All these observations are consistent with the view that the Self is also a construction of mind.  Take away the mind, and you also take away the Self.

[Gordon]

It is not that it is unacceptable.
It is the fact that physical determinism is totally incompatible with the reality we all perceive.

If determinism was 'totally incompatible' with reality then reality would be exclusively random - and it isn't.

[Sriram]

I think the 'Self' is also construction of mind.  Take away mind and there is nothing left to think or experience selfhood. A robin will have a sense of self, but it won't be quite the same as that experienced by a tree frog. A human child has a sense of self but not the same experience as that in an adult. A patient with dementia has a eroded sense of self, as also happens in Cotard's syndrome. Under general anaesthetic, there is no Self, it disappears completely.  All these observations are consistent with the view that the Self is also a construction of mind.  Take away the mind, and you also take away the Self.

How can that be? The mind has to work on something. Mind creates illusions on what? That 'something' is what we call the Self or Consciousness, to use a current word.  Even when the mind ceases to exist, that something exists. In sleep, in dream, even in coma.

Like watching a movie. If the movie is an illusion, it is so to an audience....not by itself.   How can a movie be an illusion in itself?  Who is watching the movie?

[ekim]

I think the 'Self' is also construction of mind.  Take away mind and there is nothing left to think or experience selfhood. A robin will have a sense of self, but it won't be quite the same as that experienced by a tree frog. A human child has a sense of self but not the same experience as that in an adult. A patient with dementia has a eroded sense of self, as also happens in Cotard's syndrome. Under general anaesthetic, there is no Self, it disappears completely.  All these observations are consistent with the view that the Self is also a construction of mind.  Take away the mind, and you also take away the Self.

The 'Self realisation' process that Sriram is suggesting is not about 'taking away the mind' but more about either allowing it to become still or allowing consciousness to settle in a still centre rather than have it enmeshed in the concepts of 'self' which your post mentions.  The difficulty in discussing it is that the mental faculties used require mental constructs and language.  Directly the word 'Self', even with a capital 'S', is used, the intellect will latch on to it as an objective concept which needs analysing.  So, in a sense, everything you say is correct as far as the concept you are using is concerned.

[Maeght]

I really struggle with phrases such as '...allowing consciousness to settle in a still centre'. This means nothing to me and I'm sure is very hard to explain. When people talk like that it seems a different language to me.

[ippy]

How can that be? The mind has to work on something. Mind creates illusions on what? That 'something' is what we call the Self or Consciousness, to use a current word.  Even when the mind ceases to exist, that something exists. In sleep, in dream, even in coma.

Like watching a movie. If the movie is an illusion, it is so to an audience....not by itself.   How can a movie be an illusion in itself?  Who is watching the movie?

This lot's all very well as a statement but it would be interesting to know how you acquired this information, in detail?

Regards ippy

[Alan Burns]

If determinism was 'totally incompatible' with reality then reality would be exclusively random - and it isn't.

I said physical determinism, which is entirely controlled by natural laws of science acting upon material elements - hence no control, just pre defined physical reactions.

What is incompatible with this is our ability to invoke conscious choices which have not been determined by nature, but by what comprises the "self" in each one of us.

For example, I am often accused of assertion, but what is it that "asserts"?  If my assertions are merely uncontrollable consequences of the physical reactions taking place in my subconscious brain before I become aware of them, then it is not "me" that is asserting, but the forces of nature acting within me over which I can have no control.  So can you honestly accuse nature itself of these apparently false assertions?  If not, then you must consider what it is that makes these assertions.  I stand accused, and if found guilty, then this is evidence for the assertive power of the human soul over nature itself.

[ippy]

I said physical determinism, which is entirely controlled by natural laws of science acting upon material elements - hence no control, just pre defined physical reactions.

What is incompatible with this is our ability to invoke conscious choices which have not been determined by nature, but by what comprises the "self" in each one of us.

For example, I am often accused of assertion, but what is it that "asserts"?  If my assertions are merely uncontrollable consequences of the physical reactions taking place in my subconscious brain before I become aware of them, then it is not "me" that is asserting, but the forces of nature acting within me over which I can have no control.  So can you honestly accuse nature itself of these apparently false assertions?  If not, then you must consider what it is that makes these assertions.  I stand accused, and if found guilty, then this is evidence for the assertive power of the human soul over nature itself.

You've more or less single handedly invented the art of assertion making and have never given any viable support to any one of the many that you've made on this thread Alan.

Many commiserations to you with your terribly regressive outlook Alan, kind regards ippy.

[Alan Burns]

You've more or less single handedly invented the art of assertion making and have never given any viable support to any one of the many that you've made on this thread Alan.

Well, thanks Ippy for confirming the validity of my last sentence:

I stand accused, and if found guilty, then this is evidence for the assertive power of the human soul over nature itself.

[Maeght]

I said physical determinism, which is entirely controlled by natural laws of science acting upon material elements - hence no control, just pre defined physical reactions.

What is incompatible with this is our ability to invoke conscious choices which have not been determined by nature, but by what comprises the "self" in each one of us.

For example, I am often accused of assertion, but what is it that "asserts"?  If my assertions are merely uncontrollable consequences of the physical reactions taking place in my subconscious brain before I become aware of them, then it is not "me" that is asserting, but the forces of nature acting within me over which I can have no control.  So can you honestly accuse nature itself of these apparently false assertions?  If not, then you must consider what it is that makes these assertions.  I stand accused, and if found guilty, then this is evidence for the assertive power of the human soul over nature itself.

No, its you.

[Maeght]

Well, thanks Ippy for confirming the validity of my last sentence:

It doesn't confirm that in anyway.

[Alan Burns]

No, its you.

Precisely 

[Maeght]

Precisely 

That means nothing. It is you, but that says nothing about whether you have free will or whether you actions etc are determined by previous events. Adding a smiley doesn't change that either.

[Maeght]

You are a product of your genes and your previous experiences in my view Alan. These determine your responses to events, situations, etc and determine your beliefs. These responses are not free or else they would be random.

Cue your usual assertions .......

[Alan Burns]

You are a product of your genes and your previous experiences in my view Alan. These determine your responses to events, situations, etc and determine your beliefs. These responses are not free or else they would be random.

Cue your usual assertions .......

For which I take full responsibility, because "I" have the power to consciously choose my words, and "smileys".

[ippy]

For which I take full responsibility, because "I" have the power to consciously choose my words, and "smileys".

Of course you have, now don't go worrying your little head about it.

Commiserations Alan, ippy

[ekim]

I really struggle with phrases such as '...allowing consciousness to settle in a still centre'. This means nothing to me and I'm sure is very hard to explain. When people talk like that it seems a different language to me.

Inner experiences are difficult to explain to those who have not had them which is why most 'spiritual' language is expressed in myth, analogy and parable e.g. The Kingdom of Heaven is like .....  The expression I used which you have mentioned was more appropriate to Sriram's comment, which was more based upon Hindu philosophy where a variety of meditation methods are promoted rather than upon Christian theology where prayer seems to be the main focus.