Searching for GOD...

[wigginhall]

I suspect that it originates from those who wished to exercise power and control over the masses, what better way than positioning yourself between God and people and using the carrot and stick method of Hell and Heaven, sin and salvation to manipulate them.

I mentioned it to my wife, who is a Jungian therapist, and she cackled with glee, as for her it's obvious that the human psyche contains heaven and hell, which gets projected outwards.   It seems plausible to me, but I think that controlling people is another factor.

[jeremyp]

Not necessarily. It could merely be mediated by the brain, like a radio set. If the radio is broken, nothing is received, but the ether is still filled with the radio waves. I'm not saying I believe this, just pointing out that it is theoretically possible.

Occam’s razor disposed of that argument.

[SteveH]

Occam’s razor disposed of that argument.

Quite. I did say that I didn't necessarily believe it.

[Sriram]

I'm not denying the Self, but rather, I think what we call 'the Self' is something that arises as a focus of subjectivity, or better, the subjective aspect of the agglomeration of information/matter/energy flows within a bounded region of spacetime.  It doesn't make sense to talk about 'the self' as if it were something universal, diffuse and ubiquitous, it is a localised focus of information integration that is the outcome of brain functioning. A human has a self, a phenomenon of mind arising out of its energy and information and memory flows; so does a hedgehog to a lesser degree, but a rock has no self as there is no integration or memory retention happening in a rock.

You are still talking about mechanisms and processes. There is a Subject around whom all these processes happen. The difference between Life and Death, the presence of the Subject.

[torridon]

You are still talking about mechanisms and processes. There is a Subject around whom all these processes happen. The difference between Life and Death, the presence of the Subject.

If by 'Subject' you mean a Self/Soul etc, then you cannot divorce that from the processes from which it forms.  It does not spring out of nowhere, it is a phenomenon that derives from something.  A hedgehog has a self, a centre of being, and that derives from the hedgehog, it reflects the particularities of that individual creature.  A hedgehog's self cannot exist in a vacuum.  How could I have a sense of self if I am not there.

[Sriram]

Sam Harris being perfectly honest about not knowing what happens after death.  Not bad! Not as pretentious as I had thought.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_Uahu9XNzU

I wish others would also adopt a similar 'don't know' attitude instead of the.... 'I know that the brain dies and we decompose...nothing more to it at all...because that's all we see happening'....attitude.

[torridon]

I wish others would also adopt a similar 'don't know' attitude instead of the.... 'I know that the brain dies and we decompose...nothing more to it at all...because that's all we see happening'....attitude.

Which is the right attitude.  What we should do is follow the evidence, not make up stuff to believe despite the evidence.

[Alan Burns]

If by 'Subject' you mean a Self/Soul etc, then you cannot divorce that from the processes from which it forms.  It does not spring out of nowhere, it is a phenomenon that derives from something.  A hedgehog has a self, a centre of being, and that derives from the hedgehog, it reflects the particularities of that individual creature.  A hedgehog's self cannot exist in a vacuum.  How could I have a sense of self if I am not there.

But I am not a hedgehog.
I do not presume that a hedgehog can have the same sense of self as me.
Science has not come anywhere near to defining what comprises the human self.
Do you believe that your self comprises nothing more than physically predetermined material reactions?

[Sriram]

Which is the right attitude.  What we should do is follow the evidence, not make up stuff to believe despite the evidence.

You tell me...which is the right attitude!  You quote Sam Harris whenever you think he is saying something that you agree with. If he says he 'doesn't know' ...why should you have a problem is saying likewise?!

[Sriram]

If by 'Subject' you mean a Self/Soul etc, then you cannot divorce that from the processes from which it forms.  It does not spring out of nowhere, it is a phenomenon that derives from something.  A hedgehog has a self, a centre of being, and that derives from the hedgehog, it reflects the particularities of that individual creature.  A hedgehog's self cannot exist in a vacuum.  How could I have a sense of self if I am not there.

I have already discussed this earlier. The Self is different from Self awareness.  Consciousness is different from self consciousness.  An infant is conscious but not self aware. 

Consciousness is fundamental, a property of Life itself.  Self awareness is memory/brain linked and is something that we learn as we grow. Self awareness is  different from animal to human or even among humans because it is linked to personality and learning.

[torridon]

But I am not a hedgehog.
I do not presume that a hedgehog can have the same sense of self as me.
Science has not come anywhere near to defining what comprises the human self.
Do you believe that your self comprises nothing more than physically predetermined material reactions?

I agree you are not a hedgehog and I agree a hedgehog is unlikely to have the same sense of self as you.  It's senses are particular to it and yours are particular to you.  We don't know what it is like to be a hedgehog, the best we can do is extrapolate from our own experience taken in combination with an understanding of how our experience comes to be.  I understand myself as a product of all the formative influences that have shaped me.  If you subtract all the formative influences then there cannot be anything meaningful left that I could identify as 'me' rather than you or Tom or Dick or indeed that hedgehog. If you take a pencil eraser to a beautiful line drawing and erase all the pencil lines one by one then there will be no meaningful drawing left.  We are each an individual amalgamation of our formative influences; if this were not the case, then we would all be the same, making identical choices and the human genome would write itself out of the evolutionary history of life, lacking diversity.

[torridon]

You tell me...which is the right attitude!  You quote Sam Harris whenever you think he is saying something that you agree with. If he says he 'doesn't know' ...why should you have a problem is saying likewise?!

There are lots of things we don't know, I don't have a problem with that; humans will always have to live with limited knowledge.  You can't use that observation though to dismiss the value of evidence as a guide to better knowledge.  We do better to follow the evidence rather than ignore it and carry on regardless.

[torridon]

I have already discussed this earlier. The Self is different from Self awareness.  Consciousness is different from self consciousness.  An infant is conscious but not self aware. 

Consciousness is fundamental, a property of Life itself.  Self awareness is memory/brain linked and is something that we learn as we grow. Self awareness is  different from animal to human or even among humans because it is linked to personality and learning.

Agree with most of that, self awareness is a facet of consciousness that is highly developed in humans, or adult ones at least.  To a varying and lesser degree in all higher creatures.  None of the above can be entirely divorced from brain and memory function.  My sense of self would disappear altogether if my memories were to vanish. Imagine what it would be like to wake up one morning and all your memories of who and what you are had gone.  Our sense of self would be seriously compromised.  Luckily this doesn't happen because our memories are preserved in subconscious mind so long as that has a incessant supply of oxygen and glucose and on waking our sense of self recovers back to where it was rather like your computer does when coming out of sleep mode.  When I am in a deep sleep there is no sense of self, but the fundamentals from which is is constructed when awake are preserved through memory processes.

[Stranger]

Science has not come anywhere near to defining what comprises the human self.

It's done a lot better than your incredulity, self-contradiction, and superstition.

Do you believe that your self comprises nothing more than physically predetermined material reactions?

Seriously, Alan? Why this pretence that you don't know the answer?

Why won't you engage in honest debate, you know, taking some notice of what has already been said to you, rather than just ignoring it all and asking the same questions and raising the same 'points' time and time and time again?

[Roses]

But I am not a hedgehog.
I do not presume that a hedgehog can have the same sense of self as me.
Science has not come anywhere near to defining what comprises the human self.
Do you believe that your self comprises nothing more than physically predetermined material reactions?

As you are not a hedgehog, you don't know how it perceives the world.

Science has done very well so far, as human knowledge progresses it may have it all done and dusted one day. Religion is only a matter of faith, and as there is no verifiable evidence, which can be scrutinised in the same way as scientific discoveries, it is not in the same league.   

[jeremyp]

Science has not come anywhere near to defining what comprises the human self.

So, if the combined resources of all science have so far failed to define what comprises the human self, how arrogant is it of you to presume that you do know what comprises the human self?

Clue: the answer is "unbelievably arrogant".

[Sriram]

There are lots of things we don't know, I don't have a problem with that; humans will always have to live with limited knowledge.  You can't use that observation though to dismiss the value of evidence as a guide to better knowledge.  We do better to follow the evidence rather than ignore it and carry on regardless.

There is plenty of evidence in the form of NDE's to suggest that there is an after-life.  You just don't want to consider it as evidence.

A 'don't know' is better than a dismissive... 'It is hallucination'...or... 'it is the brain winding down'...or ...'death has to be the end'... or some such.... 

[torridon]

There is plenty of evidence in the form of NDE's to suggest that there is an after-life.  You just don't want to consider it as evidence.

A 'don't know' is better than a dismissive... 'It is hallucination'...or... 'it is the brain winding down'...or ...'death has to be the end'... or some such....

The evidence that life stops when we stop living is far far greater.  NDE claims are just a fringe interpretation of an aberrant mental state. We do not overturn centuries of steadily growing understanding of life on such a flimsy basis, that would be a abysmal fail of our due diligence.  When a fire goes out, it just goes out, we do not scratch around to convince ourselves that it has merely gone somewhere else.  When a creature dies, it stops living, it is not carrying on living somewhere else.

[Gordon]

There is plenty of evidence in the form of NDE's to suggest that there is an after-life.  You just don't want to consider it as evidence.

NDE's are evidence that some people claim there is this 'after-life' but isn't evidence for the 'after-life' being claimed: that those claiming NDE's are still alive at they point they make the claim is probably relevant. 

A 'don't know' is better than a dismissive... 'It is hallucination'...or... 'it is the brain winding down'...or ...'death has to be the end'... or some such....

'Don't know' is fine provided it isn't being used as code for therefore 'x' (where 'x' fits one's preferences/biases).

[Roses]

There is plenty of evidence in the form of NDE's to suggest that there is an after-life.  You just don't want to consider it as evidence.

A 'don't know' is better than a dismissive... 'It is hallucination'...or... 'it is the brain winding down'...or ...'death has to be the end'... or some such....

An NDE isn't evidence for any afterlife, it is something to do with the brain beginning to shut down apparently.

[SteveH]

There is plenty of evidence in the form of NDE's to suggest that there is an after-life.  You just don't want to consider it as evidence.

A 'don't know' is better than a dismissive... 'It is hallucination'...or... 'it is the brain winding down'...or ...'death has to be the end'... or some such....

Near-death experiences prove nothing, because they are near-death experiences. The person didn't quite die, or they wouldn't be around to report on the experience. This point has been made before, numerous times.

[Alan Burns]

So, if the combined resources of all science have so far failed to define what comprises the human self, how arrogant is it of you to presume that you do know what comprises the human self?

I know enough to conclude that physically predetermined material reactions alone can never define what I choose to say, think or do.

[Alan Burns]

Near-death experiences prove nothing, because they are near-death experiences. The person didn't quite die, or they wouldn't be around to report on the experience. This point has been made before, numerous times.

I agree that alone they do not prove anything.

But given that those people who die cannot relate their experience, you could presume it comprises all the evidence we can expect to have.

But there is the event which changed the world - the resurrection.

[torridon]

I know enough to conclude that physically predetermined material reactions alone can never define what I choose to say, think or do.

Strawman.  No one has argued for 'physically predetermined material reactions'.  What we have said is that a meaningful resolution of choice is consequence of the factors that led to the choice.

[Sriram]

The evidence that life stops when we stop living is far far greater.  NDE claims are just a fringe interpretation of an aberrant mental state. We do not overturn centuries of steadily growing understanding of life on such a flimsy basis, that would be a abysmal fail of our due diligence.  When a fire goes out, it just goes out, we do not scratch around to convince ourselves that it has merely gone somewhere else.  When a creature dies, it stops living, it is not carrying on living somewhere else.

There is nothing 'fringe' about it.  There are numerous accounts of a similar nature from all backgrounds and cultures.

What according to you would be a conclusive evidence of after life?!