Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

You obviously don't understand the cogito, or you would see that it must be true, as a matter of simple logic. If I deny my own conscious existance, who is it that's doing the denying?

I think it is the nature of selfhood that is somewhat illusory; we tend to think of our self as a thing, moreover, a singular thing but this simple rationale which might have been good enough in Descartes' day does not stand up to serious scrutiny in any of the sciences of the mind.  With no ontological basis of its own, it is more accurate to think of a self in terms of a process rather than a thing, and an aspect of conscious experience that has evolved profoundly in humans.  There is no master neuron in the brain which could act as governor and seat of selfhood.  Rather our sense of self emerges out of the confluence of a great many underlying aspects of mind.

[Stranger]

But we are also free to choose between rival preferences: shall I go down the boozer, or stay in and watch telly?

So how do you decide which? You weigh them up and decide which you'd really prefer at that moment - that's just another preference. You can't ultimately choose what your preferences, it would lead to in infinite regress.

[torridon]

But we are also free to choose between rival preferences: shall I go down the boozer, or stay in and watch telly?

which comes down to the same principal, choosing is a matter of identifying your preference at the moment; but we cannot choose which preference to have.  If I end up in the boozer, that was me acting on my preference for boozer over telly in that moment of choice. If I'd really rather stay in and watch telly then that would have been my preference.  What we can't do, is choose to prefer telly if I prefer the boozer, that makes no fundamental sense.  If I could do that then I could also choose to believe something I don't believe.  Minds don't function that way, thank goodness.

[wigginhall]

Some assertions don't need arguing for, because they are self-evident, such as the reality of the self, as Descartes (who was wrong about practically everything else) realised: "I think, therefore I am". I can't deny my own selfhood without immediately falling into logical contradiction.

Don't agree.  As soon as you say "I think", you have presupposed there is an I, or a thinker.  So he's assuming his conclusion.  I can't locate a thinker.

"The word I is grammatically convenient but does not describe a datum".  (Russell).

[ekim]

However we don't have any evidence for something metaphysical being the 'self', and furthermore it makes no logical sense, it is an idea that renders the brain somewhat redundant.  Why should my self, be something separate to me ?  It makes no sense.

I think the 'mystic' might look at it differently.  To him there is a physical 'self', where a individual identifies with the physical body.  Beyond the physical (metaphysical) is the mind (noia) where the individual identifies with a mental construct or ego/self having a variety of desirable or undesirable qualities.  Beyond the mind (metanoia) is where individual 'self' identity dissolves and the 'I' consciousness is free from its attachments to the physical and metaphysical.  Any attempt to make sense of it, either physically or metaphysically, would probably hinder the metanoia process.

[bluehillside Retd.]

SteveH,

Thirty-four thousand, two hundred and twenty-three replies, and one million, five hundred and ninety-three thousand, nine hundred and seventeen views! You'd think we'd've reached some kind of consensus by now...

Not for as long as people persist in posting stuff like this:

But we are also free to choose between rival preferences: shall I go down the boozer, or stay in and watch telly?

“You” can choose to go the pub in the sense that there isn’t an anti-pub policeman stopping you from doing it, but you’d have all your work ahead of you to demonstrate a “you” that somehow independent of your brain decides on its own wants and then tells your body to start walking to the Rat & Handbag.

[Alan Burns]

I'll add quantum mechanics to the list of things you've got no idea about...

I admit that I am not an expert in quantum mechanics, but I do have a  friend who is a quantum physicist and I have read up on the subject.  So please let me know where I am wrong in what I have said.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I admit that I am not an expert in quantum mechanics, but I do have a  friend who is a quantum physicist and I have read up on the subject.  So please let me know where I am wrong in what I have said.

Your problem isn’t your ignorance of the quantum mechanics – it’s that you used it to try to sneak in “god” with no connecting logic of any kind.

[Stranger]

I admit that I am not an expert in quantum mechanics, but I do have a  friend who is a quantum physicist and I have read up on the subject.  So please let me know where I am wrong in what I have said.

OK. First what you said didn't really make much sense, and what sense I could make of it seems to suggest you've got it backwards. So...

We have quantum events with no apparent cause.

The quantum mechanics of a given situation allows us to calculate probabilities, so we have a combination of deterministically defined probabilities and random variation within those probabilities.

But in order to achieve stability at the atomic level, we need the probability of specific quantum events to occur at specific times.

This is where is seems to be backwards. You seem to think we need the probabilities (and some things happening according to them at exact times) to make atoms stable but, in fact, we calculate the structure of atoms using quantum mechanics and it's the solutions to those equations that give the probabilities.

For example, to a first approximation, we model the hydrogen atom as an electron in the electric field of a stationary proton (treating both as point charges) and then set up and solve the Schrödinger equation to find the possible states of the system. It's those solutions that provide us with probability densities. The basic structure of the atom follows from the solutions themselves - that's what defines the various possible 'shells' the election can be in and hence the structure of the atom.

So this would indicate that indeterminate quantum events are not entirely random, but may have a cause which can't be perceived by human investigation.

I really don't know what you're even trying to say here, and what "indeterminate quantum events" you mean. Of course nothing in QM is entirely random. Again: the theory gives us probabilities in any given situation. The theory itself provides the 'cause' for things to behave in the way they do. There are many strange things about QM but there really is no more mystery about why the laws apply than there is about any other theory.

[Alan Burns]

...... If I could do that then I could also choose to believe something I don't believe.

Of course we can't choose our beliefs.  We can only believe in something we perceive to be true.
But this does not take away our freedom to choose what we say, think or do.

[SteveH]

Of course we can't choose our beliefs.  We can only believe in something we perceive to be true.

Quite - so why, according to traditional Christian theology, does God condemn to everlasting perdition those who find it impossible to believe in God, but try to live decent lives?

[Robbie]

Something I'm sure we've all wondered. I never believed that, wasn't taught it but have met a few who do believe that if you are not 'saved' you are damned. They're few and far between and on the extreme fringes of Christianity but they pack a powerful punch. That's why they try to sell the faith so hard. In days gone by the mainstream churches tried to keep people in line by similar preaching.

I wouldn't consider Alan to be in that category, at least from what I've read of his posts. He's happy clappy and wants everyone else to share in it but nothing more sinister.

[Sriram]

I never hear any scientists labelling consciousness as 'supernatural'.  Quite the opposite, they see it as a challenge to understand.  However we don't have any evidence for something metaphysical being the 'self', and furthermore it makes no logical sense, it is an idea that renders the brain somewhat redundant.  Why should my self, be something separate to me ?  It makes no sense.

They may not label Consciousness as supernatural, but they do consider any speculation of Consciousness being independent of the body as 'supernatural. That  completely misses the possibility of Consciousness being independent of the body and still being something 'natural'. A case of defining 'Natural' very narrowly. Not very helpful scientifically or philosophically.

'Trying to understand' consciousness,  is in conflict with the very nature of consciousness as the ultimate subjective element. Trying to understand it objectively is a contradiction.

Why should a metaphysical self make the brain redundant?!! What do you mean 'my self separate to me'?!

[torridon]

Of course we can't choose our beliefs.  We can only believe in something we perceive to be true.
But this does not take away our freedom to choose what we say, think or do.

You still don't understand this fundamental point about how mind works.  You can grasp the fact that we cannot believe things that we do not believe, fine, but it is exactly the same with our desires.  We do not want the things that we do not want.  Am I really having to point this out ? What we believe is that which we find the most convincing; similarly what we choose is that which we find most appealing. If I believe A I cannot choose to believe B instead.  If I find I'd much rather have the tea rather than the coffee I cannot find I'd rather have the coffee instead.  At every moment of every day our minds are always choosing the most appealing course of action and this is universally true of all minds whether you are a hedge fund manager or a hedgehog.  We are always expressing our preference but we cannot choose (in the moment) which preference to have, we merely act it out.

[torridon]

Why should a metaphysical self make the brain redundant?!! What do you mean 'my self separate to me'?!

That was your claim in #34210, to quote "some metaphysical external agency 'floating above the brain'". This makes little sense.  We have brains, expressly performing the mediation of all information flows within the bounds of a body, intimately wired up to all parts of it.  Why on Earth would a self be something separate, distinct.  By definition, a self would be enmeshed within the whole, arising as an aspect of its very fabric.

[Sriram]

That was your claim in #34210, to quote "some metaphysical external agency 'floating above the brain'". This makes little sense.  We have brains, expressly performing the mediation of all information flows within the bounds of a body, intimately wired up to all parts of it.  Why on Earth would a self be something separate, distinct.  By definition, a self would be enmeshed within the whole, arising as an aspect of its very fabric.

Why? Are we enmeshed into our cars or our robots?

[torridon]

Why? Are we enmeshed into our cars or our robots?

Why not ?  A body has a sense of self arising from, err, it's self, or more commonly written as itself. Why would my self be not as aspect of myself ?  I can feel my toes and my fingers right now, why, because my fingers and toes are all wired up and part of the whole

[Sriram]

Why not ?  A body has a sense of self arising from, err, it's self, or more commonly written as itself. Why would my self be not as aspect of myself ?  I can feel my toes and my fingers right now, why, because my fingers and toes are all wired up and part of the whole

Whatever it is it is...! We cannot ask why should it not be something else...!   The universe doesn't work to our likes and dislikes.

You didn't answer my question about the cars and robots.  The 'Self' in these cases is quite distinct from the physical entity.

[SusanDoris]

Why? Are we enmeshed into our cars or our robots?

What a very silly comment.

i.e. about the being 'enmeshed into our cars'.

[torridon]

Whatever it is it is...! We cannot ask why should it not be something else...!   The universe doesn't work to our likes and dislikes.

Because that makes no sense.  My self is by definition about me, not something else

[torridon]

You didn't answer my question about the cars and robots.  The 'Self' in these cases is quite distinct from the physical entity.

I am distinct from my car, clearly, but this is a crude analogy for something as subtle and profound as the evolution of mind. One of the routes by which we are coming to understand consciousness is through AI; in a sense, AI recapitulates what nature has achieved and if you take self driving cars as a reference to fit with your question then the sense of self that occurs naturally in us would be rather analogous to a virtual driver produced by the car's operating software.  Think the inflatable pilot in Airplane! but hologrammatic, and much smarter 

[Alan Burns]

Quite - so why, according to traditional Christian theology, does God condemn to everlasting perdition those who find it impossible to believe in God, but try to live decent lives?

Christian theology says that God is the final judge, and most Christian theologians believe there is scope for God not to condemn such people.  But it is clear that the easiest path to salvation is by accepting Jesus as their Saviour.  Scripture says that no one can come to the Father except through Jesus, so it is Jesus who will have the ability to save those who for various reasons beyond their control have been prevented from coming to believe in Him.

[Roses]

Christian theology says that God is the final judge, and most Christian theologians believe there is scope for God not to condemn such people.  But it is clear that the easiest path to salvation is by accepting Jesus as their Saviour.  Scripture says that no one can come to the Father except through Jesus, so it is Jesus who will have the ability to save those who for various reasons beyond their control have been prevented from coming to believe in Him.

Just because Christian theology states that to be the case, doesn't mean it is correct.

[Sriram]

I am distinct from my car, clearly, but this is a crude analogy for something as subtle and profound as the evolution of mind. One of the routes by which we are coming to understand consciousness is through AI; in a sense, AI recapitulates what nature has achieved and if you take self driving cars as a reference to fit with your question then the sense of self that occurs naturally in us would be rather analogous to a virtual driver produced by the car's operating software.  Think the inflatable pilot in Airplane! but hologrammatic, and much smarter 

The driverless car again!  Haven't we discussed this many times?!   

In fact, that adds to my point.  The 'Self' can be quite remote and still manage to drive the vehicle. 

Similarly, the Higher Self can be quite removed from the body (in a physical spatial sense).  But it could still be controlling everything that is happening. The Unconscious mind and Chalmers ideas are relevant here.

The ego self is another matter.  That is the sense of self or self awareness that is built into our minds as we grow in childhood. This is the self that is the illusion.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

The 'Self' can be quite remote and still manage to drive the vehicle.

How?

Your problem incidentally isn't that science dismisses claims of the supernatural, it's that it's indifferent to them. And it has to be that way because those who assert it offer no way to validate the claim with which the methods and tools of science can engage. And the problem with that is that in the absence of any other validating method you can populate the space "supernatural" with anything at all that takes your fancy - gods, djinns, pixies, unicorns, you name it: call it "supernatural" and anything goes.