Searching for GOD...

[Sebastian Toe]

Can anyone help?
There's a can of worms laying open and the lid is missing!
 

[Alan Burns]

So, not something that there's any evidence for, then? You'd be as well posting a definition for a unicorn fairy demon god four-sided triangle...

O.

I define the human soul by stating what it does - which particle physics can never achieve.

You will not find evidence for the human soul, or for God within the limitations of human scientific investigation.

Just as you will not discover evidence for the existence of JK Rowling by examining the print in the Harry Potter books.
Nor will you discover the inspiration behind the paintings on the Sistine Chapel ceiling by examining the pigment.

[Enki]

I define the human soul by stating what it does - which particle physics can never achieve.

You will not find evidence for the human soul, or for God within the limitations of human scientific investigation.

Just as you will not discover evidence for the existence of JK Rowling by examining the print in the Harry Potter books.
Nor will you discover the inspiration behind the paintings on the Sistine Chapel ceiling by examining the pigment.

If I examine the words(not simply the print) in the Harry Potter books, I come to the reasonable conclusion that they were the result of a creative mind.

If I examine the paintings(not simply the pigment) on the Sistine Chapel, I come to the reasonable conclusion that they were the result of a creative mind.

If I examine conscious awareness, I come to the reasonable conclusion that it originates in a mind.

As it is a reasonable conclusion that the mind is a product of the brain and that there is no evidence whatever of any other entity involved, I am inexorably drawn to the conclusion that all three examples are a result of biological processes inherent in the workings of individual brains.

[torridon]

I define the human soul by stating what it does - which particle physics can never achieve.

You will not find evidence for the human soul, or for God within the limitations of human scientific investigation.

 therefore, this sentiment can only ever be baseless speculation.

And by your logic, you presumably define dog souls by stating what they do.

And worm souls, and ant souls and bumble bee souls and ....

[SusanDoris]

And what about Putin, AB? Does he have a soul according to your faith beliefs?

[Alan Burns]

therefore, this sentiment can only ever be baseless speculation.

And by your logic, you presumably define dog souls by stating what they do.

And worm souls, and ant souls and bumble bee souls and ....

If you read my original post, I am referring to the human freedom to consciously interact, rather than predictably react within this otherwise material world.
As ever, you are confusing the predictable behaviour of non humans driven by instinct and past experience with the immense creativity and boundless limitations of the human mind.

[Alan Burns]

And what about Putin, AB? Does he have a soul according to your faith beliefs?

He has the freedom to choose between good and evil - and it will be his soul which is held to account for how he uses this freedom.

[Alan Burns]

If I examine the words(not simply the print) in the Harry Potter books, I come to the reasonable conclusion that they were the result of a creative mind.

I was highlighting the limitations of purely scientific investigation.
To perceive meaning behind the patterns of ink on paper and draw conclusions, you need to go beyond the limitations of science.  Is there a scientific definition of perceived meaning or the ability to draw conclusions?

If I examine the paintings(not simply the pigment) on the Sistine Chapel, I come to the reasonable conclusion that they were the result of a creative mind.

Again, to perceive the intended message of the painting requires more than science alone can discover.  There is no scientific definition for the ability to interpret the artist's intention, nor is there any definition for the ultimate message concerning God's love in reaching out His hand for the salvation of mankind.

If I examine conscious awareness, I come to the reasonable conclusion that it originates in a mind.

How can you examine conscious awareness when there is no knowledge of what it comprises or how it is generated?

As it is a reasonable conclusion that the mind is a product of the brain and that there is no evidence whatever of any other entity involved, I am inexorably drawn to the conclusion that all three examples are a result of biological processes inherent in the workings of individual brains.

Which is an inevitable conclusion if the only admissable evidence is limited to the science of biology and physics.

[Sebastian Toe]

If you read my original post, I am referring to the human freedom to consciously interact, rather than predictably react within this otherwise material world.
As ever, you are confusing the predictable behaviour of non humans driven by instinct and past experience with the immense creativity and boundless limitations of the human mind.

And you seem confused.

Definition of the dog soul;
an entity of conscious awareness capable of invoking wilful interaction as opposed etc....

I have defined a dog soul therefore a dog soul exists.

[Sebastian Toe]

I was highlighting the limitations of purely scientific investigation.
There is no scientific definition for the ability to interpret the artist's intention,

Is there a definition for;

The place where the soul exists
How the soul "links" from that place to an individual body
How the soul reads the brain inputs
How the soul causes physical reactions
How the soul is created
When the soul is created
How the soul is "allocated" to an individual
What the soul does when brain activity is low eg sleeping or unconscious etc
?
...there are more but I await your well informed and studied definitions for the above which I presume that you must have in order to persuade others of your conclusions.

[torridon]

If you read my original post, I am referring to the human freedom to consciously interact, rather than predictably react within this otherwise material world.
As ever, you are confusing the predictable behaviour of non humans driven by instinct and past experience with the immense creativity and boundless limitations of the human mind.

Dogs consciously interact with the world.  Try taking his food away and you'll soon discover the truth of that,  As for bumble bees and ants, well then it starts to get a little hazy, I admit. But dogs are definitely conscious.  More easily predictable than humans, granted, but humans are predictable too.  I can pretty much predict what sort of response you come up with in response to my posts.  So, predictability is a sliding scale, not suitable as a marker for an either/or scenario such as has a soul/doesn't have a soul.  This is the sort of problem you will face in trying to map real world observations to simplistic beliefs like souls.

[Alan Burns]

Dogs consciously interact with the world.  Try taking his food away and you'll soon discover the truth of that,  As for bumble bees and ants, well then it starts to get a little hazy, I admit. But dogs are definitely conscious.  More easily predictable than humans, granted, but humans are predictable too.  I can pretty much predict what sort of response you come up with in response to my posts.  So, predictability is a sliding scale, not suitable as a marker for an either/or scenario such as has a soul/doesn't have a soul.  This is the sort of problem you will face in trying to map real world observations to simplistic beliefs like souls.

You may well predict the nature of my posts, but I maintain the conscious freedom to choose the content of my posts and when to make my posts.  No amount of short sighted logic based upon the unavoidable reactions involved in particle physics can take away this God given freedom.

[torridon]

You may well predict the nature of my posts, but I maintain the conscious freedom to choose the content of my posts and when to make my posts.  No amount of short sighted logic based upon the unavoidable reactions involved in particle physics can take away this God given freedom.

Unevidenced assertion.  'Freedom' in the sense used here would really mean 'random'.  You just haven't figured it yet, despite this being explained to you a million times.

[jeremyp]

I define the human soul by stating what it does - which particle physics can never achieve.

Actually, pretty much everything in physics is defined by stating what it does.

You will not find evidence for the human soul, or for God within the limitations of human scientific investigation.

Great, so what possible reason do I have for assuming that they exist? It seems to me that, if there is no evidence, I don't have to believe in them.

Just as you will not discover evidence for the existence of JK Rowling by examining the print in the Harry Potter books.
Nor will you discover the inspiration behind the paintings on the Sistine Chapel ceiling by examining the pigment.

The print of every Harry Potter book includes a page that explicitly asserts the copyright of JK Rowling. Furthermore books and paintings are objects created by humans. Their very existence allows us to infer an author.

Of course, you probably mean that there is no way for the characters in the Harry Potter books to find evidence for Rowling's existence. This is true but if we extend your analogy we find that the characters in the Harry Potter books also have no free will. So the existence of a creator "god" does not also imply the existence of free will or souls.

[Outrider]

I define the human soul by stating what it does - which particle physics can never achieve.

I can, on an exactly equal basis, define it as non-existent, and you've no basis to determine that your 'argument' is any more valid than mine, which makes them both useless.

You will not find evidence for the human soul, or for God within the limitations of human scientific investigation.

If has no discernible effect whatsoever, in what way can it be considered 'real'?

Just as you will not discover evidence for the existence of JK Rowling by examining the print in the Harry Potter books.

Reading the works of JK Rowling is evidence of JK Rowling - not sufficient to determine everything about her, but to determine that there's an author. You want it to be evidence of both Harry Potter and his magic.

Nor will you discover the inspiration behind the paintings on the Sistine Chapel ceiling by examining the pigment.

Given the way Michaelangelo had to be strong-armed into painting the Sistine Chapel, his part of it at least appears to be motivated by trying to avoid being harmed by the Church, but I suspect that's not what you were looking for?

O.

[Maeght]

I define the human soul by stating what it does .

By what you believe it does.

[Enki]

I was highlighting the limitations of purely scientific investigation.
To perceive meaning behind the patterns of ink on paper and draw conclusions, you need to go beyond the limitations of science.  Is there a scientific definition of perceived meaning or the ability to draw conclusions?

Yes, in psychology and cognitive neuroscience, it's defined as pattern recognition and identification, a cognitive process whereby the brain matches information received with information already stored, making connections between memories(especially semantic memories) and information.

Again, to perceive the intended message of the painting requires more than science alone can discover.  There is no scientific definition for the ability to interpret the artist's intention, nor is there any definition for the ultimate message concerning God's love in reaching out His hand for the salvation of mankind.

See above. As regards perceiving the intended(or unintended) message the artist seeks to convey, that would depend upon how such capacities as learning, attention, memory retention, interests and experiences of the individual involved have modified the perception process.

How can you examine conscious awareness when there is no knowledge of what it comprises or how it is generated?

We can at least relate and measure neural correlates of consciousness(e.g. transcranial magnetic stimulation), even if we cannot yet fully explain what consciousness is. There are also recognised tests to measure self awareness in an individual, especially after severe brain injury. So, yes, neuroscience can go a long way in examining conscious awareness. Research into such phenomena as blindsight, split brain syndrome, binocular rivalry and gestalt switching is leading to progress on how the brain reacts to and perceives the world.

Which is an inevitable conclusion if the only admissable evidence is limited to the science of biology and physics.

So, where is your explanation, I wonder. You seem to be simply stuck with your assertion that 'the soul is not of the universe' without anything at all to back it up. As others have noted, you simply make assertions. Yes, you quite reasonably ask for explanations from others, but when it comes to your own pet theory, no explanation of your 'soul' idea is forthcoming. You can't give any indication of where it is located, how it interacts with the material world or even  what it is made of. That smacks of hypocrisy to me, you demand explanations from others, but you shy away from providing them yourself.

[Alan Burns]

Yes, in psychology and cognitive neuroscience, it's defined as pattern recognition and identification, a cognitive process whereby the brain matches information received with information already stored, making connections between memories(especially semantic memories) and information.

See above. As regards perceiving the intended(or unintended) message the artist seeks to convey, that would depend upon how such capacities as learning, attention, memory retention, interests and experiences of the individual involved have modified the perception process.

We can at least relate and measure neural correlates of consciousness(e.g. transcranial magnetic stimulation), even if we cannot yet fully explain what consciousness is. There are also recognised tests to measure self awareness in an individual, especially after severe brain injury. So, yes, neuroscience can go a long way in examining conscious awareness. Research into such phenomena as blindsight, split brain syndrome, binocular rivalry and gestalt switching is leading to progress on how the brain reacts to and perceives the world.

So, where is your explanation, I wonder. You seem to be simply stuck with your assertion that 'the soul is not of the universe' without anything at all to back it up. As others have noted, you simply make assertions. Yes, you quite reasonably ask for explanations from others, but when it comes to your own pet theory, no explanation of your 'soul' idea is forthcoming. You can't give any indication of where it is located, how it interacts with the material world or even  what it is made of. That smacks of hypocrisy to me, you demand explanations from others, but you shy away from providing them yourself.

As you infer above, the nearest we can get to a scientific explanation of conscious human will and thought processes is in some form of correlation with measurable brain activity - but correlation alone does not define causation.

The underlying problem is that if a complete scientific explanation was found for our conscious thought processes, then we would be entirely shackled to the unavoidable consequences of physically defined reactions.  I am fully aware that this has been discussed numerous times on this thread, but I maintain that the reality of human achievements and capabilities and especially our ability to consciously drive our own thought processes offers substantial evidence that we comprise more than a biological robot driven entirely by past events.  Our conscious awareness is more than a mere spectator of events which have already been determined - it is the driving force which allows us to consciously interact with this material world rather than just react to it as being part of the material continuum.  Our human capabilities are all the evidence I need to know that we comprise more that science alone can ever define.

[Sebastian Toe]

The underlying problem is that if a complete scientific explanation was found for our conscious thought processes, then we would be entirely shackled to the unavoidable consequences of physically defined reactions. 

It's more complicated than your simplistic view and I personally don't have a problem with that scenario.

[torridon]

The underlying problem is that if a complete scientific explanation was found for our conscious thought processes, then we would be entirely shackled to the unavoidable consequences of physically defined reactions.  I am fully aware that this has been discussed numerous times on this thread, but I maintain that the reality of human achievements and capabilities and especially our ability to consciously drive our own thought processes offers substantial evidence that we comprise more than a biological robot driven entirely by past events.  Our conscious awareness is more than a mere spectator of events which have already been determined - it is the driving force which allows us to consciously interact with this material world rather than just react to it as being part of the material continuum.  Our human capabilities are all the evidence I need to know that we comprise more that science alone can ever define.

If we are not driven by past events, then we are random beings, this is what it would mean to operate outwith the principle of cause and effect. if there is no reason giving rise to your preference in a moment of choice, then your preference is random. It's quite simple really.

[Alan Burns]

If we are not driven by past events, then we are random beings, this is what it would mean to operate outwith the principle of cause and effect. if there is no reason giving rise to your preference in a moment of choice, then your preference is random. It's quite simple really.

There is nothing random about our human will.
You do not appreciate the power of the human soul to invoke and guide our conscious choices without being entirely shackled to the unavoidable consequences of past events.  I know that in the physically driven, time dependent "cause and effect" scenario I am postulating what can be deemed to be a logical impossibility.  What is also a logical impossibility is for every aspect of human conscious thought, word or deed to be driven by events beyond our personal control - for we can have no control over past events.  So you have a choice - to choose to believe in the short sighted logic which deems you to have no choice - only inevitable reaction.  Or you can conclude that the reality of your conscious freedom to ponder this question is evidence of a supernatural power within you which is beyond human understanding.

[jeremyp]

There is nothing random about our human will.
You do not appreciate the power of the human soul to invoke and guide our conscious choices without being entirely shackled to the unavoidable consequences of past events.

If we are not shackled to the unavoidable consequences of past events, then they weren't unavoidable by definition.


 

I know that in the physically driven, time dependent "cause and effect" scenario I am postulating what can be deemed to be a logical impossibility.

And you wonder why people don't take you seriously. If you are postulating a logical impossibility, there's no need for us to believe you.

[Enki]

As you infer above, the nearest we can get to a scientific explanation of conscious human will and thought processes is in some form of correlation with measurable brain activity - but correlation alone does not define causation

Of course not, but remember also that correlation does not necessarily mean there is no causation. At the very least you have a relationship between demonstrable conscious thought processes and particular brain activities, a relationship which can be repeated experimentally, shows consistency and is biologically plausible. Remember also that if the brain dies, there is no evidence of any consciousness remaining. Now if one looks at your 'soul' idea. no relationship can be demonstrated because there is no evidence that such a thing as the soul exists. Hence correlation or causation cannot even be examined.

The underlying problem is that if a complete scientific explanation was found for our conscious thought processes, then we would be entirely shackled to the unavoidable consequences of physically defined reactions.  I am fully aware that this has been discussed numerous times on this thread, but I maintain that the reality of human achievements and capabilities and especially our ability to consciously drive our own thought processes offers substantial evidence that we comprise more than a biological robot driven entirely by past events.  Our conscious awareness is more than a mere spectator of events which have already been determined - it is the driving force which allows us to consciously interact with this material world rather than just react to it as being part of the material continuum.  Our human capabilities are all the evidence I need to know that we comprise more that science alone can ever define.

You can maintain it all you like, but I'm afraid that doesn't count as evidence, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you over many posts. As this subject has been done to death, and as you have never come up with any answer to the logic which continually undoes you, there is no reason to pursue it further.

In a later post to Torridon, you say, " Or you can conclude that the reality of your conscious freedom to ponder this question is evidence of a supernatural power within you which is beyond human understanding", which to me sums you up. As far as I can see you have a vague feeling about a soul being responsible for your apparent freedom to think as you do, which involves some sort of supernatural force. You can't explain it, you can't even understand it, but you obviously have faith in it. As Jeremy as pointedly expressed, why should I believe you when you have nothing of any substance to offer, apart from your very obvious faith?

[torridon]

There is nothing random about our human will..

Quite agree.  There's also nothing random about will in a dog or a kangaroo or a naked mole rat either.  Our will forms in consequence to the circumstances we are in.  This is why 'free' will in the sense of being free from cause and effect would be a nonsense, it would be a death sentence for any organism that had it.  It is a good thing that we are 'shackled' to there always being a reason for why we choose one way and not another

[Alan Burns]

You can maintain it all you like, but I'm afraid that doesn't count as evidence, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you over many posts. As this subject has been done to death, and as you have never come up with any answer to the logic which continually undoes you, there is no reason to pursue it further.

The arguments which you claim to "continually undo me" all deny the reality of humans being able to choose their own destiny.  If at every moment in our lives we could not have chosen a different word, thought or action there can be no concept of freedom.  Being entirely shackled to the unavoidable consequences of past events is not the reality which is at the heart of my existence.  Nor is it the reality which would enable our human minds to ponder such questions.

In a later post to Torridon, you say, " Or you can conclude that the reality of your conscious freedom to ponder this question is evidence of a supernatural power within you which is beyond human understanding", which to me sums you up. As far as I can see you have a vague feeling about a soul being responsible for your apparent freedom to think as you do, which involves some sort of supernatural force. You can't explain it, you can't even understand it, but you obviously have faith in it. As Jeremy as pointedly expressed, why should I believe you when you have nothing of any substance to offer, apart from your very obvious faith?

What I have to offer is what makes us human - our consciously driven freedom to choose rather than react.