Searching for GOD...

[jeremyp]

Only a little over 600 replies left on this thread before we crash the server.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

That should happen in less than 2 weeks I think...

[Gordon]

Alan

You might find this recent research of interest in view of your contention that animals other than humans just react instinctively - these crows seem to think otherwise.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-45968935

[torridon]

Yup, that nicely demonstrates crows using their imagination to solve problems.  Not pre-programmed, not instinctive, not learned, not trained, but spontaneous abstract conceptualisation and imagination.

[SusanDoris]

Only a little over 600 replies left on this thread before we crash the server.

Well, thinking of the song, 'Always look on the bright side of life', I suppose that would cause a halt to AB's posts, but please, please, mods, make sure that the last post isn't one of AB's!

[Roses]

Only a little over 600 replies left on this thread before we crash the server.

If that is the case the sooner it is closed the better.

[ekim]

There can always be another thread...... Searching for God II  or Searching for Heaven.

[Alan Burns]

Ok - so no random choices and you think conscious choices are determined.

Regarding decisions being made in the present, based on your beliefs, am I correct in thinking you would claim that if I (influenced by my soul) consciously decide now in the present to pray, it is because it is time for the Maghrib prayer, which is determined by the Islamic tradition that Maghrib starts at the time of sunset - and the tradition as well as sunset are events that happened in the past. So in your model of a soul as perceiving and influencing my conscious decisions, you would say my soul's decision to pray is determined by past events but I/my soul could decide in the present not to pray? The question is what prompted my decision not to pray? You presumably agree, that as it is a conscious decision, there was a reason for it? And the reason is based on a thought I have already had - so my mind/ soul would then weigh up which thought is more important to me, the individual, - the thought that I should pray or the thought that I should not pray.

You are conscious of the options available and past influences prior to invoking your choice.  The point I have been making is that past influences do not fully determine your choice.  You are correct in observing that you have the power to consciously weigh up the options, and it is your consciousness that makes the final choice.  Your choice is certainly influenced by past events, but you still have conscious control in making your choice, driven by the will of your soul rather than the uncontrollable electrochemical reactions in your physical brain cells.

Ok - so you agree that a conscious state of our spiritual soul is not a proposition that can be tested by science? And you seem to have made it clear that this is your belief. So if anyone reads this thread and agrees with your view, it would seem that they will not be basing their belief in souls on any objectively testable evidence. We don't know what it is in an individual's brain process that could lead to the mind's perception that this belief in souls is a proposition to be accepted, but in your opinion do you think the mind accepting this belief in souls is a conscious choice or an unconscious choice? Personally I have no idea whether belief in the supernatural is more of a conscious rather than unconscious choice; I also have no idea whether it is the mind's belief in the supernatural that acts to produce electrochemical activity in the brain or whether electrochemical activity leads to belief in the supernatural.

Belief of any sort is a state of the conscious mind which would require the freedom to drive your own thought processes in order to come to that belief.  I can't envisage any non human animal being able to show signs that they believe in anything because I would presume that they do not have the freedom to drive their own thought processes.  So I believe that our soul has the freedom to guide the electrochemical activity involved in our thought processes.

I agree that we currently don't know if thoughts are just electrochemical activity or something else undefined is involved. Your belief in a soul being involved will resonate with some people and not others - and I don't know why some individuals' minds/ brains adopt that thought of the existence of a concept such as a soul despite not having objective evidence, while other individuals' minds/ brains reject the concept due to lack of objective evidence. That people are individuals and have diverse views on this is a good thing IMO but other individuals may have the opinion that this kind of diversity is a bad thing.  I don't know how much control I have over my thoughts. I can certainly control my selection of words to explain my thoughts but not sure I am controlling my thoughts. If you tell me not to think of something I can't prevent myself from thinking about it - so my experience is that my control over my thoughts is not very extensive. But I would say that my thoughts are what makes me, me.

Your interesting and well thought our replies to my post offer ample evidence of your freedom to guide and control your own thought processes.  A freedom which nature alone can't provide.

[Stranger]

You are conscious of the options available and past influences prior to invoking your choice.  The point I have been making is that past influences do not fully determine your choice.  You are correct in observing that you have the power to consciously weigh up the options, and it is your consciousness that makes the final choice.

How does the consciousness make its choice, Alan? Entirely because of reasons or not?

[Stranger]

Your interesting and well thought our replies to my post offer ample evidence of your freedom to guide and control your own thought processes.

People's ability to think and do as they want is not in dispute and it is dishonest of you to suggest that it is.

A freedom which nature alone can't provide.

Evidence and logic free assertion.

[Alan Burns]

Yup, that nicely demonstrates crows using their imagination to solve problems.  Not pre-programmed, not instinctive, not learned, not trained, but spontaneous abstract conceptualisation and imagination.

Such problem solving ability can also be induced by pre programmed algorithms based on reactions to sensory data without the need for conscious perception.  It would require sophisticated programming which would presumably have been developed by the evolutionary processes.  I can envisage the algorithms being developed to utilise whatever means are available to reach the objective which is invariably a source of food.

[Sebastian Toe]

  I can envisage the algorithms being developed to utilise whatever means are available to reach the objective which is invariably a source of food.

Then join the AI teams trying to devolop those algorithms.
You'll be a multi millionaire in no time at all

[Sebastian Toe]

Such problem solving ability can also be induced by pre programmed algorithms based on reactions to sensory data without the need for conscious perception.  It would require sophisticated programming which would presumably have been developed by the evolutionary processes. 

Substitute conciousness for "problem solving" , give evolution a bit more time and credit, bingo, no need for a soul.

[Stranger]

Such problem solving ability can also be induced by pre programmed algorithms based on reactions to sensory data without the need for conscious perception.  It would require sophisticated programming which would presumably have been developed by the evolutionary processes.  I can envisage the algorithms being developed to utilise whatever means are available to reach the objective which is invariably a source of food.

Face it, Alan, you are simply immune to evidence and reasoning. No matter what capability is observed in non-human animals, no matter how far beyond our ability to duplicate with software, you'll just insist that it is "pre-programmed". Conversely, you will continue to insist, no matter what the evidence, that human behaviour can't be explained by deterministic systems.

It's obviously just blind faith.

[torridon]

Such problem solving ability can also be induced by pre programmed algorithms based on reactions to sensory data without the need for conscious perception.  It would require sophisticated programming which would presumably have been developed by the evolutionary processes.  I can envisage the algorithms being developed to utilise whatever means are available to reach the objective which is invariably a source of food.

How predictable.  I think your neural pathways have been lined with concrete somehow.  Clearly crows experience conscious visual perception, without that they would not even be able to see the challenge set.  Clearly the solution for their challenge was not something taught to them, neither was it something they stumbled on by trial and error as in some blind deep learning program.  They worked it out spontaneously through abstract reasoning with a little imagination.  To anyone else, this would be a source of wonder; given how far back we have to go to find a common ancestor with birds, this shows connectedness across divides of deep time; it tells us something profound about the nature of intelligence.  Yet all this is lost on you it seems, seemingly debilitated by religious faith, unable to see the wonder of the world all around us and our interconnectedness in it.

[Alan Burns]

Face it, Alan, you are simply immune to evidence and reasoning. No matter what capability is observed in non-human animals, no matter how far beyond our ability to duplicate with software, you'll just insist that it is "pre-programmed". Conversely, you will continue to insist, no matter what the evidence, that human behaviour can't be explained by deterministic systems.

It's obviously just blind faith.

I have seen nothing in animal behaviour which can't be programmed into a computer simulation with no need for conscious perception. 

[Gordon]

Such problem solving ability can also be induced by pre programmed algorithms based on reactions to sensory data without the need for conscious perception.  It would require sophisticated programming which would presumably have been developed by the evolutionary processes.  I can envisage the algorithms being developed to utilise whatever means are available to reach the objective which is invariably a source of food.

You know, Alan - given all the 'good news' and hallelujah bollocks that surrounds Christianity your response to this finding regarding these crows is utterly joyless.

It rebuts your claims about non-human animals of course and you haven't even the good grace to acknowledge that you are quite simply wrong - even when there is evidence to show you are wrong.

 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

You are conscious of the options available and past influences prior to invoking your choice.  The point I have been making is that past influences do not fully determine your choice.  You are correct in observing that you have the power to consciously weigh up the options, and it is your consciousness that makes the final choice.  Your choice is certainly influenced by past events, but you still have conscious control in making your choice, driven by the will of your soul rather than the uncontrollable electrochemical reactions in your physical brain cells.

And you think that when my soul makes a choice e.g. if my soul made the choice that I should not pray - it had a reason for making that conscious choice to not pray?

Belief of any sort is a state of the conscious mind which would require the freedom to drive your own thought processes in order to come to that belief.  I can't envisage any non human animal being able to show signs that they believe in anything because I would presume that they do not have the freedom to drive their own thought processes.

The conscious mind analyses and reasons its way to a particular choice based on available information so if you believe that the soul acts the same way, you presumably think the soul has a reason for the conscious choices it makes or the beliefs it holds? Current research suggests that the part of our mind that operates automatically - processing information quickly, that is influenced by our experiential and evolutionary history, and helps map new stimuli into pre-existing knowledge structures - can hold a belief based on the mind's interpretations of experiences as evidence. Whereas the analytical part of the mind uses something more than experience, such as logic and reasoning to make a choice.

For example if the lack of evidence for a soul (and I include a person's perceptions and interpretations of experiences as evidence) leaves a person unconvinced subconsciously that a soul exists, I'm not sure if you could consciously come up with reasons to believe in a soul without something analytical such as logic and evidence that is more than just personal experience/ perceptions. Logically we know our perceptions could be wrong so we have a reason to not trust our perceptions. Of course we can be aware of this and still reason that it is useful to adopt a belief position based on our perceptions, while acknowledging our perceptions could be flawed.

So I believe that our soul has the freedom to guide the electrochemical activity involved in our thought processes.Your interesting and well thought our replies to my post offer ample evidence of your freedom to guide and control your own thought processes.  A freedom which nature alone can't provide.

As yet we don't know all the freedoms nature can provide. As supernatural explanations can't be tested for accuracy, if we adopt a position that allows for supernatural involvement it would be based on possibly flawed perceptions and interpretations.

[Alan Burns]

How predictable.  I think your neural pathways have been lined with concrete somehow.  Clearly crows experience conscious visual perception, without that they would not even be able to see the challenge set.  Clearly the solution for their challenge was not something taught to them, neither was it something they stumbled on by trial and error as in some blind deep learning program.  They worked it out spontaneously through abstract reasoning with a little imagination.  To anyone else, this would be a source of wonder; given how far back we have to go to find a common ancestor with birds, this shows connectedness across divides of deep time; it tells us something profound about the nature of intelligence.  Yet all this is lost on you it seems, seemingly debilitated by religious faith, unable to see the wonder of the world all around us and our interconnectedness in it.

But do you not realise that the ability to see the wonder of the world all around us and our interconnectedness is unique to humans and is evidence of their profound ability to drive their own conscious thought patterns in order to appreciate this wonder?

[Gordon]

But do you not realise that the ability to see the wonder of the world all around us and our interconnectedness is unique to humans and is evidence of their profound ability to drive their own conscious thought patterns in order to appreciate this wonder?

Who says it is unique to humans?

[Sebastian Toe]

I have seen nothing in animal behaviour which can't be programmed into a computer simulation with no need for conscious perception.

Well the AI guys and gals are waiting on your knock on their door. There's a fortune to be made out there notwithstanding the benefits to humanity.
Why are you waiting?

[Alan Burns]

And you think that when my soul makes a choice e.g. if my soul made the choice that I should not pray - it had a reason for making that conscious choice to not pray?

There is always a reason for your conscious choice, but the reason is not predetermined by past events. You are free to choose what you want to do for whatever reason you choose at the moment you choose.  You are in control.

The conscious mind analyses and reasons its way to a particular choice based on available information so if you believe that the soul acts the same way, you presumably think the soul has a reason for the conscious choices it makes or the beliefs it holds? Current research suggests that the part of our mind that operates automatically - processing information quickly, that is influenced by our experiential and evolutionary history, and helps map new stimuli into pre-existing knowledge structures - can hold a belief based on the mind's interpretations of experiences as evidence. Whereas the analytical part of the mind uses something more than experience, such as logic and reasoning to make a choice.

I believe the conscious mind is your soul - it is what defines you.  The workings of the mind are controlled by you - not by physical reactions to events beyond our control.

For example if the lack of evidence for a soul (and I include a person's perceptions and interpretations of experiences as evidence) leaves a person unconvinced subconsciously that a soul exists, I'm not sure if you could consciously come up with reasons to believe in a soul without something analytical such as logic and evidence that is more than just personal experience/ perceptions. Logically we know our perceptions could be wrong so we have a reason to not trust our perceptions. Of course we can be aware of this and still reason that it is useful to adopt a belief position based on our perceptions, while acknowledging our perceptions could be flawed. As yet we don't know all the freedoms nature can provide. As supernatural explanations can't be tested for accuracy, if we adopt a position that allows for supernatural involvement it would be based on possibly flawed perceptions and interpretations.

The alternative materialistic scenario would allow no freedom to consciously guide our thoughts to analyse things in the way you describe.  Our ability to consciously analyse is evidence for the God given freedom which emanates from our human soul.

[torridon]

But do you not realise that the ability to see the wonder of the world all around us and our interconnectedness is unique to humans and is evidence of their profound ability to drive their own conscious thought patterns in order to appreciate this wonder?

I'm not sure we can 'drive our thoughts'.  It's not like our thoughts are something separate to us that we can summon at will.  It doesn't work like that. Thoughts happen, we follow our thoughts, perhaps, but we cannot really direct them; that in itself would be another thought process.

To wonder and ponder on things might be a defining characteristic of humans, more than any other, the human species lives in its own head.  That doesn't justify the view that all non human creatures are lesser than us or are essentially mechanistic beings lacking conscious or emotional experience.  We are part of the web of life, we share the fundamentals of lived experience and our roots are also their roots.  It is not to our credit that we cut ourselves off from nature, become disconnected and imagine we can persist in isolation from the broader sweep of life, such hubris would eventually lead to our downfall.  Better that we take honest, humble account of our real nature, understand what we have in common and what distinguishes us.

[Stranger]

There is always a reason for your conscious choice, but the reason is not predetermined by past events.

Self-contradictory. Either your choice is entirely due to reasons that existed just before it, or not. If not, then anything else must be for no reason.

You are free to choose what you want to do for whatever reason you choose at the moment you choose.  You are in control.

Nobody is arguing against that - please stop the dishonest pretence that they are.

The workings of the mind are controlled by you - not by physical reactions to events beyond our control.

False dichotomy.

The alternative materialistic scenario would allow no freedom to consciously guide our thoughts to analyse things in the way you describe.

Baseless assertion.

Our ability to consciously analyse is evidence for the God given freedom which emanates from our human soul.

Untrue and tantamount to a lying.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB: “It’s magic”.

Gabriella: “Could you perhaps provide some details about your “it’s magic” idea?”

Others: Reason, facts, evidence, citations etc.

AB: “It’s magic”.

Gabriella: “Could you perhaps…” etc.