Searching for GOD...

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Okay, but why?  Please give your easons.

I don't think it is funny to delude younger people into thinking that there is a little independent soul inside everyone.

You’ll first have to explain your belief that younger people are deluded by reading this thread in order for me to take your question seriously and bother responding. Though admittedly diminishing Ippy’s will to live is quite a good motivating factor for responding.

Do you have any evidence you can present that this thread has deluded anyone.

[Stranger]

Perhaps, finally you could explain why evolution has made no accommodation for the detection of single points of time for single points in space.

You're making bugger all sense - why do you think it should?

I think the answer is none, nix, zero and would therefore question its relevance in the context of the discussion here.

Once again - this is about Alan's bizarre nonsense about stuff (thoughts, choices) happening in some "present" that somehow manages to exist and persist long enough to do said stuff, apparently with the mistaken belief that this can somehow free him from the determinism/random dilemma that makes his notion of freedom impossible.

In order to try to justify one impossible belief he seems to be adding another - it really is quite bizarre...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You're making bugger all sense - why do you think it should?

Once again - this is about Alan's bizarre nonsense about stuff (thoughts, choices) happening in some "present" that somehow manages to exist and persist long enough to do said stuff, apparently with the mistaken belief that this can somehow free him from the determinism/random dilemma that makes his notion of freedom impossible.

In order to try to justify one impossible belief he seems to be adding another - it really is quite bizarre...

I'm sorry you aren't showing the wherewithal to recognise that the idea that only single points in space have single points of time is absolutely non sequitur and irrelevant to brains or any evolved thing in biology but that's how it is.

[Stranger]

I'm sorry you aren't showing the wherewithal to recognise that the idea that only single points in space have single points of time is absolutely non sequitur and irrelevant to brains or any evolved thing in biology but that's how it is.

FFS Vlad - are you even reading reading the posts? I know that it's irrelevant to brains and biology; Alan isn't talking about brains and biology, he's taking about impossible, magic souls that somehow manage to exist and do impossible, magic stuff in an impossible, magic "present".

Do pay attention.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

FFS Vlad - are you even reading reading the posts? I know that it's irrelevant to brains and biology; Alan isn't talking about brains and biology, he's taking about impossible, magic souls that somehow manage to exist and do impossible, magic stuff in an impossible, magic "present".

Do pay attention.

To avoid confusion then leave interesting points that are irrelevant out of it.
You do not detect themyriad of temporal differences and you are experiencing a unity of being rather than the individual existence of millions of brain cells and you don't really know why that should be.

[SusanDoris]

You’ll first have to explain your belief that younger people are deluded by reading this thread in order for me to take your question seriously and bother responding. .

I did not say I believed that younger people are being deluded by this thread, I said that I did not think it was funny to delude younger people...
Let me rephrase the point: If younger people are reading this thread, and have already been inculcated, and, in some cases, indoctrinated strongly,  into a belief in a God/spirits/after-life/whatever, then the unending string of fallacies and totally subjective claims and assertions made by AB might increase their unevidenced beliefs and retard their knowledge of reality.

Perhaps you can now respond.

Do you have any evidence you can present that this thread has deluded anyone.

No, that is not possible to ascertain but those that are in the fog of belief seem to dig themselves further and further in every time they post.

I personally will not be a party to AB's posts going unchallenged.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I did not say I believed that younger people are being deluded by this thread, I said that I did not think it was funny to delude younger people...
Let me rephrase the point: If younger people are reading this thread, and have already been inculcated, and, in some cases, indoctrinated strongly,  into a belief in a God/spirits/after-life/whatever, then the unending string of fallacies and totally subjective claims and assertions made by AB might increase their unevidenced beliefs and retard their knowledge of reality.

Perhaps you can now respond. 
No, that is not possible to ascertain but those that are in the fog of belief seem to dig themselves further and further in every time they post.

I personally will not be a party to AB's posts going unchallenged.

Yes I agree that it’s good to challenge unevidenced beliefs and I have been pretty clear that I think Alan’s beliefs about souls are unevidenced.

I am not worried about Alan posting his beliefs about souls as I have no evidence that anything Alan has posted here is any more dangerous to young people than any of the other unevidenced cultural beliefs they may operate under. If some evidence of the danger caused by Alan’s posts on souls is presented I will re-think my position.

[torridon]

To avoid confusion then leave interesting points that are irrelevant out of it.
You do not detect themyriad of temporal differences and you are experiencing a unity of being rather than the individual existence of millions of brain cells and you don't really know why that should be.

Our experience is something that has been honed by selection to optimise the survival chances of the individual.  We all have two eyes, but anyone suffering double vision is at a disadvantage compared to someone with unified visual sense.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Our experience is something that has been honed by selection to optimise the survival chances of the individual.  We all have two eyes, but anyone suffering double vision is at a disadvantage compared to someone with unified visual sense.

But the big mystery is why we need to be aware of any of this particularly as there is some suggestion from people like yourself that we are only aware after the event.

If that is the case then what you say is more relevant for the unconscious process you suggest than our awareness of it.

All you seem to be desiring here is a big cheer for evolution from the gallery. What a pointless intervention.

[ekim]

(1) I don't think we can ever truly 'gain conscious detachment' from our desires. 
(2)The extent that we could do so, would arise only as a consequence of a desire to gain conscious detachment from desires. 
(3) We mediate multiple levels of abstraction and cognition; so we might seek out some or other behaviour modification therapy to help us control an addiction as you say, but we would only do that if we desire to do so arose for some reason.  I would not go into rehab if I didn't want to.

(1) If you persistently think that way then you probably can't.  This is probably why conscious inner stillness in some form is usually suggested.
(2) Yes, that is correct, but when that desire is satisfied i.e. detachment is attained, then that desire ceases.  The analogy sometimes used is 'you use a thorn to remove a thorn, once achieved both thorns are thrown'.
(3)Then your consciousness is attached to two desires, one that keeps you chained to the addiction and the other to the desire not to go into rehab.

[ekim]

(1)Which still doesn't actually explain the reasons for modifying one's actions. Is this a random choice, or is it a result of determinism? No matter how you dress it up, you still have to face this problem.
(2) Incidentally, it seems to me that you are equating 'wants' with  basic desires. Why so? Surely to want to be free of these desires is also a 'want', whether it be conscious or unconscious.

(1)Then I'll attempt to undress it.  It is the result of determinism to be free from attachment.  Once free the determinism ceases with the desire. No problem!
(2)No, it's just that I am simple minded.  I tend to reduce all 'wants, needs, appetites, fears, cravings' to the one word 'desire'.  Some operate sub/unconsciously (i.e. outside of our sphere of attention) and some operate consciously. It is easier to manage choice consciously.  Please see my reply to Torri for your last sentence.

[SusanDoris]

Yes I agree that it’s good to challenge unevidenced beliefs and I have been pretty clear that I think Alan’s beliefs about souls are unevidenced.

I am not worried about Alan posting his beliefs about souls as I have no evidence that anything Alan has posted here is any more dangerous to young people than any of the other unevidenced cultural beliefs they may operate under. If some evidence of the danger caused by Alan’s posts on souls is presented I will re-think my position.

You will note that I did not use the words 'dangerous' or 'danger'. I indicated that it (i.e. the fallacies etc perpetrated by AB) will tend to limit their knowledge of reality, and that to me means they would not be as aware of that reality as they could and, again in my view, should be.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

You will note that I did not use the words 'dangerous' or 'danger'. I indicated that it (i.e. the fallacies etc perpetrated by AB) will tend to limit their knowledge of reality, and that to me means they would not be as aware of that reality as they could and, again in my view, should be.

Ok. Noted.

You're entitled to your view of course of what they should be aware of.

Personally, I'm not concerned about the different brains of different readers of this thread having different perceptions of reality.

[torridon]

But the big mystery is why we need to be aware of any of this particularly as there is some suggestion from people like yourself that we are only aware after the event.

If that is the case then what you say is more relevant for the unconscious process you suggest than our awareness of it.

All you seem to be desiring here is a big cheer for evolution from the gallery. What a pointless intervention.

Awareness, as we experience it, is not instantaneous, it is a process that takes time.  Look at your screen now, awareness of it starts from the moment light starts reacting with particular proteins in your retina, but you aren't fully aware of the screen at that point in time. Awareness is something that builds over a period of a half second or so.  What we remember, is the end result of a process of information integration and refinement.  There is nothing in this to suggest that consciousness is pointless.  If you are a gazelle being chased by a lion or an F1 driver reacting to changing road circumstances, you are probably reacting ahead of full awareness of the situation.  In the fullness of that half second we forget intermediate cuts and remember the end result, apart perhaps, from when we experience a moment of deja vu.  There is nothing pointless about consciousness.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Awareness, as we experience it, is not instantaneous, it is a process that takes time.  Look at your screen now, awareness of it starts from the moment light starts reacting with particular proteins in your retina, but you aren't fully aware of the screen at that point in time. Awareness is something that builds over a period of a half second or so.  What we remember, is the end result of a process of information integration and refinement.  There is nothing in this to suggest that consciousness is pointless.  If you are a gazelle being chased by a lion or an F1 driver reacting to changing road circumstances, you are probably reacting ahead of full awareness of the situation.  In the fullness of that half second we forget intermediate cuts and remember the end result, apart perhaps, from when we experience a moment of deja vu.  There is nothing pointless about consciousness.

I think we are aware of this and that you are giving a particular limited definition of consciousness. Are you suggesting this is an adequate explanation of consciousness?


The answer to a post like this is, couldn't a machine do this without the violation of Ockham that awareness involves...?

[trippymonkey]

Just how much evidence FOR religions is there anyway ?!??!?

Nick

[torridon]

I think we are aware of this and that you are giving a particular limited definition of consciousness. Are you suggesting this is an adequate explanation of consciousness?


The answer to a post like this is, couldn't a machine do this without the violation of Ockham that awareness involves...?

The origins of consciousness lie in the arms race between predator and prey in the Cambrian explosion; as creatures became more complex and began developing sense organs, the simple nervous system that served simpler creatures was insufficient to process the multimodal information flows in creatures that needed to integrate information about internal body state with new information about immediate surroundings captured through external senses.  This is the fundamentals of consciousness, I don't see where the violation of Ockham is.

[SteveH]

The concept of how long a moment lasts for is not relevant.
 There is no such thing as a duration of the present

Yes, there is - Planck time, which is the shortest possible duration, and is in effect an instant, but is of measurable, though vanishingly small, duration. The spacial equivalent is the Planck length, effectively a point. I'm not a physicist, so if I've misunderstood this, put me right, anybody, provided you know what you're talking about, and preferably without the sarcasm which seems to be de rigeur on this forum.

[BeRational]

Yes, there is - Planck time, which is the shortest possible duration, and is in effect an instant, but is of measurable, though vanishingly small, duration. The spacial equivalent is the Planck length, effectively a point. I'm not a physicist, so if I've misunderstood this, put me right, anybody, provided you know what your talking about, and preferably without the sarcasm which seems to be de rigeur on this forum.

I am not a physicist either, but I think from what I know you have it correct.

This also means that your feet are in a different time to your head!

This is not something we are aware of, and goes to show that our 'common sense' is not a good measure of reality. It's good enough for us to not get eaten most if the time.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The origins of consciousness lie in the arms race between predator and prey in the Cambrian explosion; as creatures became more complex and began developing sense organs, the simple nervous system that served simpler creatures was insufficient to process the multimodal information flows in creatures that needed to integrate information about internal body state with new information about immediate surroundings captured through external senses.  This is the fundamentals of consciousness, I don't see where the violation of Ockham is.

All your arguments for consciousness as it is merely explain mechanisms of intelligence. You could be describing a sophisticated unconscious and unselfaware machine rather than human awareness. Therefore in your schemes human awareness, the thing experienced is a mysterious bolt on or in Ockham terms an entity introduced beyond necessity to the argument you are making. Even declaring it an illusion is multiplying beyond necessity.

[Stranger]

Yes, there is - Planck time, which is the shortest possible duration, and is in effect an instant, but is of measurable, though vanishingly small, duration. The spacial equivalent is the Planck length, effectively a point. I'm not a physicist, so if I've misunderstood this, put me right, anybody, provided you know what your talking about, and preferably without the sarcasm which seems to be de rigeur on this forum.

Simplistically, the Planck units are an exercise in dimensional analysis. Basically it's a set of units based on what are considered to be fundamental natural constants; speed of light, Planck constant, gravitational constant, etc. instead of our invented standards for mass (kg), time (s), length (m), and so on. The equations that define the Planck units are simply the ways in which you can combine the physical constants so that the answer has the units you want. Hence, the Planck time is given by

t_p = sqrt(ħG/c⁵)

Where ħ is the reduced Plank constant, G is the gravitational constant and c is the speed of light. It's worth noting that dimensional analysis ignores dimensionless (unitless) constants, so there's nothing to tell you whether to use (for example) the Planck constant or the reduced Planck constant, that differ by a factor of 2pi.

The exact physical significance of the Planck time depends on how general relativity and quantum mechanics combine, which is currently unknown. It is true that hypotheses that quantise space-time (e.g. Loop Quantum Gravity) do regard the Planck time and length as the size of the relevant quanta and this is often repeated as if it is fact.

The Planck time is way beyond our ability to measure.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Simplistically, the Planck units are an exercise in dimensional analysis. Basically it's a set of units based on what are considered to be fundamental natural constants; speed of light, Planck constant, gravitational constant, etc. instead of our invented standards for mass (kg), time (s), length (m), and so on. The equations that define the Planck units are simply the ways in which you can combine the physical constants so that the answer has the units you want. Hence, the Planck time is given by

t_p = sqrt(ħG/c⁵)

Where ħ is the reduced Plank constant, G is the gravitational constant and c is the speed of light. It's worth noting that dimensional analysis ignores dimensionless (unitless) constants, so there's nothing to tell you whether to use (for example) the Planck constant or the reduced Planck constant, that differ by a factor of 2pi.

The exact physical significance of the Planck time depends on how general relativity and quantum mechanics combine, which is currently unknown. It is true that hypotheses that quantise space-time (e.g. Loop Quantum Gravity) do regard the Planck time and length as the size of the relevant quanta and this is often repeated as if it is fact.

The Planck time is way beyond our ability to measure.

I bet you're glad you got that off your chest.

[Enki]

(1)Then I'll attempt to undress it.  It is the result of determinism to be free from attachment.  Once free the determinism ceases with the desire. No problem!
(2)No, it's just that I am simple minded.  I tend to reduce all 'wants, needs, appetites, fears, cravings' to the one word 'desire'.  Some operate sub/unconsciously (i.e. outside of our sphere of attention) and some operate consciously. It is easier to manage choice consciously.  Please see my reply to Torri for your last sentence.

1)  I'm not sure you are using the word 'determinism' in the way that I'm using it, Ekim. By determinism I mean that all actions are the result of causes. Hence, even if one feels free from any attachments, there still have to be underlying causes for any action undertaken. The alternative view is that there are no underlying causes, which means that any action taken is purely random.

2) I doubt that you are simple minded, Ekim.    However I see the word 'want' in a much more expansive way than you. For me 'want' covers anything one might desire at any given moment, whether it be searching for an appropriate word for this post or whether the need for a drink because one is thirsty. Hence, the desire to be free of all these 'wants' is still a 'want'. I am, of course, very happy to accept that these wants may also surface wihin the sub conscious/unconscious, such that many times we are not actually aware of why we decided upon a particular action.

[Alan Burns]

And you've been answered multiple times but you just ignore it. For example here: #31926 (after the fourth quote).

I presume that this is the quote you refer to:

Yes I did compose the reply. I did so using my experience, knowledge, beliefs, and state of mind. All of those things are due to my lifetime of experience, nature, and nurture. There was also what happened to occur to me to say at the time (something over which I have no conscious control but was, no doubt, also due to the factors already mentioned).

It is not exactly a watertight answer is it?
In order to fit reality into your theoretical logic you must bring yourself to admit that you have no conscious control over what you say.  But I fail to see how you can claim to have freedom to choose if you have no conscious control over what you do.  The point I made was that I am held to be personally responsible for my supposed assertions, dishonesty, ...  etc, yet your logical analysis implies that I have no conscious control over what I am being accused of.  You can't have it both ways.  You need to come to terms with the obvious truth that our freedom to consciously choose our thoughts, words and actions is real.  This freedom allows us to consciously "cherry pick" from our lifetime of experience, nature, and nurture in choosing what to do.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It is not exactly a watertight answer is it?

In order to fit reality into your theoretical logic you must bring yourself to admit that you have no conscious control over what you say.  But I fail to see how you can claim to have freedom to choose if you have no conscious control over what you do.  The point I made was that I am held to be personally responsible for my supposed assertions, dishonesty, ...  etc, yet your logical analysis implies that I have no conscious control over what I am being accused of.  You can't have it both ways.  You need to come to terms with the obvious truth that our freedom to consciously choose our thoughts, words and actions is real.  This freedom allows us to consciously "cherry pick" from our lifetime of experience, nature, and nurture in choosing what to do.

Is there any point in correcting you again on this as it’s been done so often already only for you to ignore the corrections you’ve been given?

(Wearily) yes you can “have it both ways” because the freedom we use on a day-to-day basis is a construct that’s useful for things like ordinary social exchanges and court cases but it does not for one moment indicate, imply or suggest some sort of ultimate freedom untethered from both determinism and randomness. Remember the goldfish? Whatever a goldfish’s reality is it functions quite readily without having any idea of a reality going on under the table.

That’s your reality too, as you’d know if you tried to think about it: you function quite happily with the perception of "freedom" (as do we all), but that tells you nothing whatever about the deeper explanations that aren’t immediately apparent.