Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No they aren't, or at least they aren't in the context of particle theory, which focuses on sub-atomic particles.
Gobbledegook

In the particle theory of matter molecules are particles. This is elementary stuff Davey.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

FFS. No it doesn't. I could tell you why not again, but as you'll never be honest enough to address the argument what would be the point?

Your "why not" explanations are based upon your presumption that there is nothing but physically driven material reactions to drive human behaviour.  It you start with this premiss, your conclusions that our perception of freedom is an illusion will be entirely predictable.  You consistently fail to acknowledge that human achievements and behaviour offer evidence which contradicts your conclusions.  You just presume that anything humans do must be predetermined by subconscious brain activity in order to fit in with your starting premiss, no matter how incongruous it is with reality.

[torridon]

... You just presume that anything humans do must be predetermined by subconscious brain activity in order to fit in with your starting premiss, no matter how incongruous it is with reality.

'Predetermined' is perhaps not the best word.  'Born of' might be better.  And it isn't an assumption, it is what the evidence shows. It is a good idea to follow the evidence, this principal has given us the modern world.  Science denial brings no rewards.

[Gordon]

Your "why not" explanations are based upon your presumption that there is nothing but physically driven material reactions to drive human behaviour.  It you start with this premiss, your conclusions that our perception of freedom is an illusion will be entirely predictable.  You consistently fail to acknowledge that human achievements and behaviour offer evidence which contradicts your conclusions.  You just presume that anything humans do must be predetermined by subconscious brain activity in order to fit in with your starting premiss, no matter how incongruous it is with reality.

Yet your starting premise is 'God', which you then insist on trying to squeeze into how our biology works, but since your attempts invariably lead to illogical conclusions I'd have thought that by now you'd have realised that your bespoke approach involving 'souls' interacting with brains really is hogwash.

I don't suppose you'll ever drop the 'God' notion, since you're so invested in it, but maybe you should consider that you need to revise your ideas specifically about this since they don't survive contact with knowledge and logic - since if you were correct then professional neurologists etc would be busily  exploring how these 'souls' affect brain activity, and as far I know they aren't.
   

[Alan Burns]

'Predetermined' is perhaps not the best word.  'Born of' might be better.  And it isn't an assumption, it is what the evidence shows. It is a good idea to follow the evidence, this principal has given us the modern world.  Science denial brings no rewards.

And our consciously driven ability to follow the evidence is what contradicts your physically driven scenario.

[Sebastian Toe]

And our consciously driven ability to follow the evidence is what contradicts your physically driven scenario.

Yet our biological ability to follow the evidence is what contradicts your magic, unevidenced, illogical, unrealistic, undefined scenario.

[Gordon]

And our consciously driven ability to follow the evidence is what contradicts your physically driven scenario.

I think one of your core weaknesses, Alan, is that for you 'consciousness' is code for 'therefore God' - and that notion is fallacious on several fronts: begging the question, your trademark incredulity and is an argument from consequences.

Best guess is that what you see as being divine is really just routine biological activity (whether you like it or not). 

[torridon]

And our consciously driven ability to follow the evidence is what contradicts your physically driven scenario.

Whilst that consciously driven ability to follow the evidence is itself born of non-conscious mental processes.  So, no contradiction on my part.

[Alan Burns]

Whilst that consciously driven ability to follow the evidence is itself born of non-conscious mental processes.  So, no contradiction on my part.

But the question you keep ducking concerns the feasibility of sub conscious processes being capable of generating what in all aspects looks to be consciously driven thought patterns.  If it is not your conscious self driving your own thoughts, what is it that does the driving, and how do you know if and when it takes a wrong turn without the conscious freedom needed to verify the results?

[Gordon]

But the question you keep ducking concerns the feasibility of sub conscious processes being capable of generating what in all aspects looks to be consciously driven thought patterns.  If it is not your conscious self driving your own thoughts, what is it that does the driving, and how do you know if and when it takes a wrong turn without the conscious freedom needed to verify the results?

For crying out loud, Alan: it's just biology, and your deperate need for there to be some other 'driver' is just your attempt at a 'god of the gaps' into which, handily, your can insert your bizarre 'soul' notion.

In the field of theo-neurology you certainly stand alone!

[torridon]

But the question you keep ducking concerns the feasibility of sub conscious processes being capable of generating what in all aspects looks to be consciously driven thought patterns.  If it is not your conscious self driving your own thoughts, what is it that does the driving, and how do you know if and when it takes a wrong turn without the conscious freedom needed to verify the results?

If it is not my 'conscious self' driving my thought processes, then it must be my 'sub-conscious self' that is doing the driving.  If you find that hard to comprehend, then try 'it is my sub-conscious desires that do the driving'.  All our hopes and fears are basically subconscious.  When you are fast asleep, your hopes and fears are still there, but you are no longer conscious of them. Except when they manifest in dreams, perhaps.

We tend to think of conscious mind being a top-down director of all our thoughts and actions, and in most every way, this is a good enough appraisal.  It is only when we study the way that mind and brain work in detail that a more subtle understanding becomes apparent which upends our intuitive, everyday, model of mind function.

If I stub my toe on the table leg, it feels instantaneous, right ? in real time ? Well, no.  The nerves fibres first have to transmit data of the collision up my leg and up the spinal cord before reaching my brain, this signal travels at high speed, something like 200mph, but it is not instantaneous, nothing can travel faster than light.  My mind will subsequently create the conscious experience of pain slightly after the event.  This is not a top-down consciously directed process.  If it were, I could simply choose to not experience pain. It doesn't work that way; the contents of conscious mind are derived from subconscious processes over which we have no conscious control.  This is also true of abstract thoughts, I cannot choose which thought should occur to me next; thoughts come and go under the auspices of brain function over which I cannot exert conscious control.

[Alan Burns]

If it is not my 'conscious self' driving my thought processes, then it must be my 'sub-conscious self' that is doing the driving.  If you find that hard to comprehend, then try 'it is my sub-conscious desires that do the driving'.  All our hopes and fears are basically subconscious.  When you are fast asleep, your hopes and fears are still there, but you are no longer conscious of them. Except when they manifest in dreams, perhaps.

We tend to think of conscious mind being a top-down director of all our thoughts and actions, and in most every way, this is a good enough appraisal.  It is only when we study the way that mind and brain work in detail that a more subtle understanding becomes apparent which upends our intuitive, everyday, model of mind function.

If I stub my toe on the table leg, it feels instantaneous, right ? in real time ? Well, no.  The nerves fibres first have to transmit data of the collision up my leg and up the spinal cord before reaching my brain, this signal travels at high speed, something like 200mph, but it is not instantaneous, nothing can travel faster than light.  My mind will subsequently create the conscious experience of pain slightly after the event.  This is not a top-down consciously directed process.  If it were, I could simply choose to not experience pain. It doesn't work that way; the contents of conscious mind are derived from subconscious processes over which we have no conscious control.  This is also true of abstract thoughts, I cannot choose which thought should occur to me next; thoughts come and go under the auspices of brain function over which I cannot exert conscious control.

Yes, in the materialist model all of this makes sense.

But it still does not answer this fundamental question:
If it is not your conscious self driving your own thoughts, what is it that does the driving, and how do you know if and when it takes a wrong turn without the conscious freedom needed to verify the results?

It is only when we study the way that mind and brain work in detail that a more subtle understanding becomes apparent which upends our intuitive, everyday, model of mind function.

How can you possibly perform such a detailed study without a top down directive from your conscious self?

[Sebastian Toe]

How can you possibly perform such a detailed study without a top down directive from your conscious self?

How can your version of a soul possibly work given the huge gap between what you wish it does and the practicalities of it actually functioning?

[Gordon]

Yes, in the materialist model all of this makes sense.

But it still does not answer this fundamental question:
If it is not your conscious self driving your own thoughts, what is it that does the driving, and how do you know if and when it takes a wrong turn without the conscious freedom needed to verify the results?

How can you possibly perform such a detailed study without a top down directive from your conscious self?

Your question is meaningless since it is fallacious: it is a clear example of begging the question, and to keep asking this question relentlessly is pointless and rather silly.

It is a non-question.

[ekim]

Yes, in the materialist model all of this makes sense.

But it still does not answer this fundamental question:
If it is not your conscious self driving your own thoughts, what is it that does the driving, and how do you know if and when it takes a wrong turn without the conscious freedom needed to verify the results?

The driver is the desire for a particular outcome that your 'self' is attached to.  If that desire is not satisfied then you will know that you have taken a wrong turn.  Ask yourself - what is it that drives you to keep posting your thoughts about your religion?  The sort of 'freedom' that you are referring to, I would suggest that, according to your religion, it is something to aspire to.  The 'heart' is often used to symbolise the emotional element of the psyche and so -Mtt 5:8.. "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God."

[Alan Burns]

Your question is meaningless since it is fallacious: it is a clear example of begging the question, and to keep asking this question relentlessly is pointless and rather silly.

It is a non-question.

The question has never been answered, Gordon, so that is why I keep repeating it.

If it is not your conscious self driving your own thoughts, what is it that does the driving, and how do you know if and when it takes a wrong turn without the conscious freedom needed to verify and correct the results?

The fundamental problem with the materialist view is that if conscious awareness is an emergent property of material reactions, our conscious awareness can have no influence over the reactions from which it emerges.

[Gordon]

The question has never been answered, Gordon, so that is why I keep repeating it.

If it is not your conscious self driving your own thoughts, what is it that does the driving, and how do you know if and when it takes a wrong turn without the conscious freedom needed to verify and correct the results?

The fundamental problem with the materialist view is that if conscious awareness is an emergent property of material reactions, our conscious awareness can have no influence over the reactions from which it emerges.

Then all you are doing is repeating a pointless question - and repetition makes the question no less pointless.

[Alan Burns]

Then all you are doing is repeating a pointless question - and repetition makes the question no less pointless.

Why is it pointless to question the atheist view that all our thought patterns must be predetermined by sub conscious brain activity?

Why can you not admit that your ability to consciously discern the numerous fallacies you keep reporting would be impossible without consciously driven directives to detect, analyse and identify these fallacies?

[Gordon]

Why is it pointless to question the atheist view that all our thought patterns must be predetermined by sub conscious brain activity?

This isn't an "atheist view", Alan: it's what the evidence suggests.

Why can you not admit that your ability to consciously discern the numerous fallacies you keep reporting would be impossible without consciously driven directives to detect, analyse and identify these fallacies?

Because your statement is itself fallacious - your personal incredulity alone does you no favours.

[torridon]

..If it is not your conscious self driving your own thoughts, what is it that does the driving, and how do you know if and when it takes a wrong turn without the conscious freedom needed to verify the results?
..

Short answer - it is our subconscious self that is doing the driving.

When I want to return a tennis serve, I am watching the trajectory and speed of the ball, and all the time my mind is solving complicated equations of motion that will trigger motor responses activating particular muscles with particular force in particular sequence in order to achieve a good return; and yet all this goes on under the hood without me, or my 'conscious self' getting involved in the mathematics. What a good thing it is that all the real work involved in keeping me alive goes on silently and subliminally under the hood at near-zero calorific cost.

When I see an acquaintance in the street, I have to activate over 40 facial muscles in particular sequence in order to smile. Again, this all goes on under the hood, how awkward life would be if my conscious mind were really in control.  I'd never return a tennis serve and I'd never be able to smile at a friend.

So it is with abstract thinking; all the conscious thoughts we have on the way to solving a tricky problem, say, are all born of mental processes that go on under the hood.  We are only aware of the consequent outcome, that thought briefly present in mind, that sensation of pain after stubbing your toe.

[Sriram]

Short answer - it is our subconscious self that is doing the driving.

When I want to return a tennis serve, I am watching the trajectory and speed of the ball, and all the time my mind is solving complicated equations of motion that will trigger motor responses activating particular muscles with particular force in particular sequence in order to achieve a good return; and yet all this goes on under the hood without me, or my 'conscious self' getting involved in the mathematics. What a good thing it is that all the real work involved in keeping me alive goes on silently and subliminally under the hood at near-zero calorific cost.

When I see an acquaintance in the street, I have to activate over 40 facial muscles in particular sequence in order to smile. Again, this all goes on under the hood, how awkward life would be if my conscious mind were really in control.  I'd never return a tennis serve and I'd never be able to smile at a friend.

So it is with abstract thinking; all the conscious thoughts we have on the way to solving a tricky problem, say, are all born of mental processes that go on under the hood.  We are only aware of the consequent outcome, that thought briefly present in mind, that sensation of pain after stubbing your toe.

What you say is perfectly right. Most of our actions are decided by our unconscious mind.   The question is....what is this unconscious mind? 

You tend to dismiss it as just a backroom of the conscious mind.  Just a store room of repressed memories or some such.  Actually the unconscious mind is probably the real workshop doing all the work....and the conscious mind is probably only the front desk. This is where the crux of the issue lies.

Once we understand or acknowledge the importance and powerful nature of our unconscious mind...we will begin to understand the unseen forces that work silently behind our lives and then perhaps even the idea of a God will get unraveled.

[torridon]

What you say is perfectly right. Most of our actions are decided by our unconscious mind.   The question is....what is this unconscious mind? 

You tend to dismiss it as just a backroom of the conscious mind.  Just a store room of repressed memories or some such.  Actually the unconscious mind is probably the real workshop doing all the work....and the conscious mind is probably only the front desk. This is where the crux of the issue lies.

Once we understand or acknowledge the importance and powerful nature of our unconscious mind...we will begin to understand the unseen forces that work silently behind our lives and then perhaps even the idea of a God will get unraveled.

Agree most of that; unconscious mind is the business end, the backroom place where work gets done; conscious mind is front desk. However I don't see anything mysterious about that, no need to enlist supernatural agency to explain it. It is just biochemistry in action, it is physics in action, it is cause and effect in action. That minds function in this manner is inevitable, any other modus operandi would be unfeasible.  We have no evidence to suggest something inexplicable or supernatural going on.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Agree most of that; unconscious mind is the business end, the backroom place where work gets done; conscious mind is front desk. However I don't see anything mysterious about that, no need to enlist supernatural agency to explain it. It is just biochemistry in action, it is physics in action, it is cause and effect in action. That minds function in this manner is inevitable, any other modus operandi would be unfeasible.  We have no evidence to suggest something inexplicable or supernatural going on.

Interesting analogy which evoked my local Garage where the front desk is almost indistinguishable from the workshop. All of which leads to the question, why have a front desk?What could it possibly be for when a telephone to the workshop would suffice.

[Alan Burns]

Short answer - it is our subconscious self that is doing the driving.

And I presume you believe that it was your subconscious self which came to this conclusion 
And was it your subconscious self which came to this belief?

When I want to return a tennis serve, I am watching the trajectory and speed of the ball, and all the time my mind is solving complicated equations of motion that will trigger motor responses activating particular muscles with particular force in particular sequence in order to achieve a good return; and yet all this goes on under the hood without me, or my 'conscious self' getting involved in the mathematics. What a good thing it is that all the real work involved in keeping me alive goes on silently and subliminally under the hood at near-zero calorific cost.

The player still has the conscious choice whether to return a drop shot or slam it.

When I see an acquaintance in the street, I have to activate over 40 facial muscles in particular sequence in order to smile. Again, this all goes on under the hood, how awkward life would be if my conscious mind were really in control.  I'd never return a tennis serve and I'd never be able to smile at a friend.

The driver of a car does not need to know how each part of the car works in order to control it.
I can make the conscious choice whether or not to smile, when to smile and how big a smile to make - I am in control.

So it is with abstract thinking; all the conscious thoughts we have on the way to solving a tricky problem, say, are all born of mental processes that go on under the hood.  We are only aware of the consequent outcome, that thought briefly present in mind, that sensation of pain after stubbing your toe.

And you still have not given any indication as to how sub conscious thought patterns can be directed to reach a verifiable conclusion.

[Udayana]

Interesting analogy which evoked my local Garage where the front desk is almost indistinguishable from the workshop. All of which leads to the question, why have a front desk?What could it possibly be for when a telephone to the workshop would suffice.

For thinking, logic and maths.

Torridon's description of the unconscious is not really right. The unconscious mind does not do any maths or solve any equations when serving or returning a tennis ball, just as an apple falling from a tree does not calculate the speed at which it will hit the ground. The mechanisms it uses to determine its response are entirely non-mathematical.

The "front desk" ability has developed because consciousness aids well-being in situations that the unconscious does not deal with well.     

You say the garage does not need a front desk as you can just call the engineer - but the scenario is much more complex: there are many customers - not just you, engineers time is best spent on their job - not answering calls, scheduling work, billing and all the rest. Not having a front desk may work for small enterprises, but all large ones choose to have one.