Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

There is plenty of evidence for quantum activity in the human brain:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqk1oL42r5s

The source of such quantum events remains undetectable in modern science.

So what?

Just be satisfied with 'dont know' for now: but do recognise that 'don't know' isn't code for 'therefore God'.

[torridon]

There is plenty of evidence for quantum activity in the human brain:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqk1oL42r5s

The source of such quantum events remains undetectable in modern science.

Everything is underpinned by quantum mechanics, not just brains. Quantum mechanics was discovered by science, but science has not discovered spirit beings.  The notion that that we can alter our brain function at the quantum level by willpower is no more sensible than the notion that we can alter our brain function at the cellular level.  It is just a perceived knowledge gap you're trying to squeeze magical woo into.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

There is plenty of evidence for quantum activity in the human brain:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqk1oL42r5s

The source of such quantum events remains undetectable in modern science.

And for a long time the source of thunder was unknown to the Norse people. They made the same mistake that you make – they used their knowledge gap as a rationale for Thor, just as you use our knowledge gap as a rationale for “soul’/”god”. 

That’s why I keep asking you (and you keep refusing to answer) what value you think a “don’t know” answer has for your various speculations.     

[Alan Burns]

AB,

And for a long time the source of thunder was unknown to the Norse people. They made the same mistake that you make – they used their knowledge gap as a rationale for Thor, just as you use our knowledge gap as a rationale for “soul’/”god”. 

That’s why I keep asking you (and you keep refusing to answer) what value you think a “don’t know” answer has for your various speculations.     

What I do know is that I have conscious control of my thoughts, words and many of my actions - and the source of this control cannot emerge from physically controlled material reactions - over which I can have no control.  I know I have repeated this many times, but I have never had a feasible explanation for how material reactions alone can give us the conscious freedom we all enjoy.

[Gordon]

What I do know is that I have conscious control of my thoughts, words and many of my actions - and the source of this control cannot emerge from physically controlled material reactions - over which I can have no control.  I know I have repeated this many times, but I have never had a feasible explanation for how material reactions alone can give us the conscious freedom we all enjoy.

It just seems that you are in control of your thoughts, Alan, but you aren't really and that you don't have an explanation that fits your biases is of no great consequence to the rest of us.

If you were right then phobias would be a conscious choice - and they aren't.

[Alan Burns]

It just seems that you are in control of your thoughts, Alan, but you aren't really and that you don't have an explanation that fits your biases is of no great consequence to the rest of us.

If you were right then phobias would be a conscious choice - and they aren't.

Your posts display overwhelming evidence that you are in control of your own thoughts.  Just try thinking about how different it would be if you did not have control of your own thoughts .....

[Gordon]

Your posts display overwhelming evidence that you are in control of your own thoughts.  Just try thinking about how different it would be if you did not have control of your own thoughts .....

But I'm not really in conscious control of my own thoughts - even if it sometimes feels as if I am - and I'm untroubled by that.

[torridon]

What I do know is that I have conscious control of my thoughts, words and many of my actions - and the source of this control cannot emerge from physically controlled material reactions - over which I can have no control.  I know I have repeated this many times, but I have never had a feasible explanation for how material reactions alone can give us the conscious freedom we all enjoy.

That's fair enough in terms of a casual appraisal but it fails to capture the subtler insights into how our minds work that we have learned through studying mind and brain. Strictly speaking consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of mind and an emergent phenomenon cannot exert control over that from which it emerges; that would be downward causation. I suggest to you it is unseemly to be a habitual science denier, it is disrespectful of the work that researchers do, so it would be better for you to align your thinking to incorporate, rather than deny, the finding of science. Instead of talking about 'consciously controlling our thoughts', you could take note of Ekim's post from two days ago, where he suggested you think of it in terms of our subconscious hopes and desires being the driving force behind our thoughts, words and actions.  This framing makes sense and does not offend against the findings from the sciences of the mind.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

What I do know is that I have conscious control of my thoughts, words and many of my actions - and the source of this control cannot emerge from physically controlled material reactions - over which I can have no control.

If you know that you should be able to justify why you know it rather than just believe it. You can’t do that, so all you have is a belief based on the way experience of “conscious control” feels. 

I know I have repeated this many times, but I have never had a feasible explanation for how material reactions alone can give us the conscious freedom we all enjoy.

And I have never had a feasible explanation for how material reactions alone can give us Thor causing thunder as we all know he does.

Can you see the problem here? If you set up “the conscious freedom we all enjoy” (or Thor for that matter) as axiomatic you’ll never get “a feasible explanation for how material reactions alone can give us” conscious control/Thor because neither of them exists.

Your thinking here is completely circular – your premise (“conscious control”) and your conclusion (also “conscious control”) are the same thing. It goes like this:

1. Conscious control is real.

2. Materialism can’t explain how conscious control works.

3. Therefore conscious control is real.     

Can you really not see the problem here? Really though?

Here’s how it should work:

1. My everyday experience feels like I have conscious control.

2. Actual conscious control would however create insurmountable logical problems.

3. Therefore my explanation for my everyday experience cannot be true. 

Note here especially that for this argument to be valid there's no necessity for materialism to explain how consciousness works (the argument from incredulity mistake you keep making). Rather all that's necessary is to show that "conscious control" as you imagine to it be cannot exist. This has been done for you countless times without rebuttal.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Strictly speaking consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of mind and an emergent phenomenon cannot exert control over that from which it emerges; that would be downward causation.

Can you name an emergent phenomenon which does not affect the previous levels of organisation from which it emerged?

[Sebastian Toe]

Can you name an emergent phenomenon which does not affect the previous levels of organisation from which it emerged?

Is "affect" different from "exert control"?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is "affect" different from "exert control"?

Not if exerting control means “altering the physical status of”.

[Sebastian Toe]

Not if exerting control means “altering the physical status of”.

..but yes, different,  if it doesn't mean that.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

If you know that you should be able to justify why you know it rather than just believe it. You can’t do that, so all you have is a belief based on the way experience of “conscious control” feels. 

My views are not just based on the way my mind feels about conscious control.  It is what can be achieved by conscious control - achievements which would not be possible without conscious control.   You may choose to label this as personal incredulity, but it is based on the simple fact that our ability to control and guide our thoughts is essential in order to reach verifiable conclusions

And I have never had a feasible explanation for how material reactions alone can give us Thor causing thunder as we all know he does.
Can you see the problem here? If you set up “the conscious freedom we all enjoy” (or Thor for that matter) as axiomatic you’ll never get “a feasible explanation for how material reactions alone can give us” conscious control/Thor because neither of them exists.

How can you compare Thor to the verifiable capability of the human mind to exert conscious control?

Your thinking here is completely circular – your premise (“conscious control”) and your conclusion (also “conscious control”) are the same thing. It goes like this:

1. Conscious control is real.

2. Materialism can’t explain how conscious control works.

3. Therefore conscious control is real.  there is more to reality than materialism   

FIFY

Here’s how it should work:

1. My everyday experience feels like I have conscious control.

2. Actual conscious control would however create insurmountable logical problems.

But without the conscious control you use to direct your thoughts, you would be unable to conceive of any logical problems.

Note here especially that for this argument to be valid there's no necessity for materialism to explain how consciousness works (the argument from incredulity mistake you keep making). Rather all that's necessary is to show that "conscious control" as you imagine to it be cannot exist. This has been done for you countless times without rebuttal.   

I do not imagine conscious control - I use it.

[torridon]

Can you name an emergent phenomenon which does not affect the previous levels of organisation from which it emerged?

Water is wet.A molecule of H2O is not wet. Wetness is an emergent property that arises out of the organisation and interaction of many molecules of H2O.  The wetness of water does not affect the underlying molecular constituents from which it arises.

[ProfessorDavey]

Can you name an emergent phenomenon which does not affect the previous levels of organisation from which it emerged?

Another good example is phospholipids.

As single molecules their most interesting feature is difference in charge in different regions of the molecule. However put them together then they will self-assemble into membrane structures, with an emergent property that those membranes have differential permeability - some stuff will go through, other stuff won't. That emergent property is absolutely essential for the evolution of cells as it permits processes to be compartmentalised within membrane bound structures.

[torridon]

My views are not just based on the way my mind feels about conscious control.  It is what can be achieved by conscious control - achievements which would not be possible without conscious control.   You may choose to label this as personal incredulity, but it is based on the simple fact that our ability to control and guide our thoughts is essential in order to reach verifiable conclusions

We do not control our thoughts in the sense of there being some independent entity controlling the flow of thoughts.  In essence, we are our thoughts, I cannot separate my thoughts from 'me'.  And in the extent that we do 'control' our thoughts, this is itself a thought process - all part of the ongoing flow within a waking alert brain.  This will be true across all higher species subject to their varying cognitive capacities.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Another good example is phospholipids.

As single molecules their most interesting feature is difference in charge in different regions of the molecule. However put them together then they will self-assemble into membrane structures, with an emergent property that those membranes have differential permeability - some stuff will go through, other stuff won't. That emergent property is absolutely essential for the evolution of cells as it permits processes to be compartmentalised within membrane bound structures.

Would you not agree that the emergence of the membrane affects and controls the physical position of the component molecules though?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Water is wet.A molecule of H2O is not wet. Wetness is an emergent property that arises out of the organisation and interaction of many molecules of H2O.  The wetness of water does not affect the underlying molecular constituents from which it arises.

Yes, In a way, I wondered if wetness was a surface phenomenon and whether that surface dictates the movement of the component molecules.

[ProfessorDavey]

Would you not agree that the emergence of the membrane affects and controls the physical position of the component molecules though?

No - that shows a complete lack of understanding of the chemistry. The formation of a lipid bilayer, which is the essential building block for a membrane is driven by the underlying chemistry of the individual molecules. But once they have self assembled due to that chemistry new and more complex properties emerge, namely the creation of a differentially permeable barrier and the compartmentalisation of regions delineated by that permeable barrier.

[Alan Burns]

We do not control our thoughts in the sense of there being some independent entity controlling the flow of thoughts.  In essence, we are our thoughts, I cannot separate my thoughts from 'me'.  And in the extent that we do 'control' our thoughts, this is itself a thought process - all part of the ongoing flow within a waking alert brain.  This will be true across all higher species subject to their varying cognitive capacities.

None of this explains how thought patterns can be guided to reach verifiable conclusions.  If it is not consciously driven control, what does the guiding and what verifies the conclusion?

[Gordon]

None of this explains how thought patterns can be guided to reach verifiable conclusions.  If it is not consciously driven control, what does the guiding and what verifies the conclusion?

For crying out loud Alan's - it's the bit of biology located inside your skull.

That you can't imagine that this can be the case without 'God' is just your incredulity getting the better of you again.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No - that shows a complete lack of understanding of the chemistry. The formation of a lipid bilayer, which is the essential building block for a membrane is driven by the underlying chemistry of the individual molecules. But once they have self assembled due to that chemistry new and more complex properties emerge, namely the creation of a differentially permeable barrier and the compartmentalisation of regions delineated by that permeable barrier.

Yes, I know the membranes are assembled from components and by processes at the previous level, that is what emergence is, so less disrespect please, however we know that the spatial positions of the components are determined by the nature of the membrane. The components then work as a membrane.

You are religiously wedded to reductionist materialism.I wouldn't say you don't understand anything about emergence but not as much as you think.

Your stinking hyperbole is derived from a fetid reductionism.

[ProfessorDavey]

... however we know that the spatial positions of the components are determined by the nature of the membrane.

Once again you have it the wrong way around - the nature (i.e. properties) of the membrane are determined by the spatial positioning of the phospholipids, and that is driven energetically by the fundamental charge proporties of the individual phospholipid molecules.

The point is that the complex properties of a membrane are emergent from the self assembly of the individual molecules - but those individual molecules do not themselves possess the properties of either selective permeability, nor ability to compartmentalise.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Once again you have it the wrong way around - the nature (i.e. properties) of the membrane are determined by the spatial positioning of the phospholipids, and that is driven energetically by the fundamental charge proporties of the individual phospholipid molecules.

The point is that the complex properties of a membrane are emergent from the self assembly of the individual molecules - but those individual molecules do not themselves possess the properties of either selective permeability, nor ability to compartmentalise.

  No I get the importance of the lower organisational levels, but part of the definition of emergent properties is that they are not demonstrated in those lower levels.
Individual molecules cannot act like the membranes they make up. That should be obvious. What I am saying is when the membrane goes, the components of it all go together.

You are merely describing what individual components do....and that's it, that is like using the term emergence shamanically.