Science and spirituality

[Gordon]

You are a single entity of conscious awareness.
An entity which can't be defined or artificially reproduced in any material form.

And yet here we are: extant materially nonetheless!

We're just brains with a bit of external packaging - and that you don't like this is a problem for your particular brain.

[Alan Burns]

True, but nor does it mean there isn't causation. And therefore the best way forward is to look for evidence of causation. And, of course, there is plenty. Most notably that the neurological effects can be mimicked or altered through modification of the chemical or electrical pathways that are associated with those effects. This is the classical manner by which scientists attempt to unpick causation from correlation - change one (or more) things and see whether something else also alters. If it does it provides evidence that the second thing is caused by the first. You also, of course, need to do all sorts of other studies, e.g. doing it in reverse.

I do not dispute that there can be a physical cause to the change in state of our material brain which induces specific feelings.

The big question is how this change in state of the material brain gets perceived into the single entity of awareness which is you.  How does the state of many brain cells get perceived and interpreted into whatever comprises your conscious awareness?  Changing the state of brain cells does not in itself define conscious awareness - it is only capable of inducing reactions in other brain cells.  The end result of complex chains of physical reactions is just another reaction, so how can these reactions get perceived by your conscious awareness?  Awareness is a state of mind which defies physical definition.

[ekim]

We know there is a physical response to external stimuli which we recognise as joy. What is missing in that explanation?

I think from a "spiritual" perspective what you describe as a response to stimulus would be described as pleasure.  Joy, bliss, blessedness, ananda is seen more as arising into consciousness when inner stillness or peace is attained rather than inner stimulus.  Pleasure seeking would be seen as counter productive as it has the tendency to create attachments, addictions etc.

[ProfessorDavey]

The big question is how this change in state of the material brain gets perceived into the single entity of awareness which is you.  How does the state of many brain cells get perceived and interpreted into whatever comprises your conscious awareness?

Via your astonishingly complex network of neurones in your brain. Human conscious awareness does not exist outside of that neural network - it is, in reality, who we are. That's why we consider someone to be dead if there is irreversible loss off that brain activity even if other physiological functions may still be ongoing.

[Gordon]

I do not dispute that there can be a physical cause to the change in state of our material brain which induces specific feelings.

The big question is how this change in state of the material brain gets perceived into the single entity of awareness which is you.  How does the state of many brain cells get perceived and interpreted into whatever comprises your conscious awareness?  Changing the state of brain cells does not in itself define conscious awareness - it is only capable of inducing reactions in other brain cells.  The end result of complex chains of physical reactions is just another reaction, so how can these reactions get perceived by your conscious awareness?  Awareness is a state of mind which defies physical definition.

Here's a definition: it's functioning biology that does the perceiving and interpreting you seem so fixated on, since the idea of non-biological perceiving and interpreting is grasping at straws: and 'conscious awareness' sounds like a terms describing a neurological brain-state.

I get that you are trying to create a 'gap', but that approach seems pointless if you have nothing substantive to fill it with - and your personal incredulity is, as always, insufficient.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Via your astonishingly complex network of neurones in your brain. Human conscious awareness does not exist outside of that neural network - it is, in reality, who we are. That's why we consider someone to be dead if there is irreversible loss off that brain activity even if other physiological functions may still be ongoing.

Less of the astonishingly since not everyone is astonished by it.

Complexity is not exactly the same as emergent which the same as emergent , an idea which introduces novelty rather than a mere assemblage of 'old' parts into a machine.

For you it seems the higher conscious functions must be mechanisms rather than emergent.

Feel free to correct me if You think I am wrong.

[Alan Burns]

Here's a definition: it's functioning biology that does the perceiving and interpreting you seem so fixated on, since the idea of non-biological perceiving and interpreting is grasping at straws: and 'conscious awareness' sounds like a terms describing a neurological brain-state.

I get that you are trying to create a 'gap', but that approach seems pointless if you have nothing substantive to fill it with - and your personal incredulity is, as always, insufficient.

Not so much a gap but an unbreachable chasm.

You seem to use the term "biology" as an explanation for all that goes on within our human condition.  But this is just a label which explains nothing about the way material reactions alone can generate human conscious awareness.  Neither can it be used to explain how our conscious awareness can interact with the physical working of our human brain - rather than it just being a window on what has already occurred before we become aware.

[Alan Burns]

Via your astonishingly complex network of neurones in your brain. Human conscious awareness does not exist outside of that neural network - it is, in reality, who we are. That's why we consider someone to be dead if there is irreversible loss off that brain activity even if other physiological functions may still be ongoing.

Complexity alone does not define how self awareness manifests within this complexity.
The concept of complex networks of electro chemical activity being able to generate self awareness will remain in the realms of human science fiction.  It will never be a reality.

[Gordon]

Not so much a gap but an unbreachable chasm.

You seem to use the term "biology" as an explanation for all that goes on within our human condition.  But this is just a label which explains nothing about the way material reactions alone can generate human conscious awareness.  Neither can it be used to explain how our conscious awareness can interact with the physical working of our human brain - rather than it just being a window on what has already occurred before we become aware.

Which bit of 'human conscious awareness' appears to be an example of 'material reactions', as in being an aspect of the 'physical working of our human brain', are you struggling with!

You may not like it, Alan, but your efforts to create a gap so as to insert some theobabble really are blindingly obvious, and vacuous with it.

[Maeght]

I think from a "spiritual" perspective what you describe as a response to stimulus would be described as pleasure.  Joy, bliss, blessedness, ananda is seen more as arising into consciousness when inner stillness or peace is attained rather than inner stimulus.  Pleasure seeking would be seen as counter productive as it has the tendency to create attachments, addictions etc.

Thanks for that but no idea what 'arising into consciousness when inner stillness or peace is attained rather than inner stimulus.' means.

Merriam Webster defines pleasure as

Definition of pleasure
1: DESIRE, INCLINATION
wait upon his pleasure
— William Shakespeare
2: a state of gratification
3a: sensual gratification
b: frivolous amusement
4: a source of delight or joy

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/joy

[ekim]

Thanks for that but no idea what 'arising into consciousness when inner stillness or peace is attained rather than inner stimulus.' means.

Merriam Webster defines pleasure as

Definition of pleasure
1: DESIRE, INCLINATION
wait upon his pleasure
— William Shakespeare
2: a state of gratification
3a: sensual gratification
b: frivolous amusement
4: a source of delight or joy

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/joy

Your reply shows the problem with communicating the so called "spiritual" inner state using words, which is why the (let's call them) mystics advocate a method that the enquirer can use to attain to that 'state'.  When talking about it the most they can do is use an analogical language which of course is wide open to criticism by the logical mind.  To make matters worse many of the words used come from a time when they meant something different to today's meaning or they have been translated into a best fit word from a foreign language.  Sorry I can't be more helpful.

[Alan Burns]

Which bit of 'human conscious awareness' appears to be an example of 'material reactions', as in being an aspect of the 'physical working of our human brain', are you struggling with!

You seem to have a lot of faith in what can be produced by the unavoidable consequences of physically defined material reactions.

My faith is firmly routed in God's creative ability to bring you and I into existence with the amazing gifts of conscious awareness and human free will.

[jeremyp]

You seem to have a lot of faith in what can be produced by the unavoidable consequences of physically defined material reactions.

My faith is firmly routed in God's creative ability to bring you and I into existence with the amazing gifts of conscious awareness and human free will.

You can't bring any evidence to the table that your god even exists. You can't demonstrate that conscious awareness is anything more than the emergent property of a sufficiently complex functioning brain. Free will is a logically incoherent concept.

You need more if you want to convince the atheists here that there is anything magic about consciousness.

[Gordon]

You seem to have a lot of faith in what can be produced by the unavoidable consequences of physically defined material reactions.

Works for me (and for you too, whether you like it or not).

My faith is firmly routed in God's creative ability to bring you and I into existence with the amazing gifts of conscious awareness and human free will.

I know: but as has been often explained to you, what you subscribe to is illogical.

[torridon]

You seem to have a lot of faith in what can be produced by the unavoidable consequences of physically defined material reactions.

My faith is firmly routed in God's creative ability to bring you and I into existence with the amazing gifts of conscious awareness and human free will.

We've been here a thousand times before though.  When we couldn't understand thunder, we invented Thor and his hammer; when we couldn't understand mental illness, we invented possession by demons.  Ancient Egyptians had no knowledge of nuclear fusion, so they settled for the Sun being a god, Aten. You're just following in that line, a knowledge gap to squeeze a god into without any justification from empiricism, reason, or evidence.  Such magical thinking always succumbs to the slow painstaking work of science, this is what history shows us.  You're backing a loser, not a winner.

[Maeght]

You seem to have a lot of faith in what can be produced by the unavoidable consequences of physically defined material reactions.

My faith is firmly routed in God's creative ability to bring you and I into existence with the amazing gifts of conscious awareness and human free will.

No good evidence your God exists.

[Maeght]

Your reply shows the problem with communicating the so called "spiritual" inner state using words, which is why the (let's call them) mystics advocate a method that the enquirer can use to attain to that 'state'.  When talking about it the most they can do is use an analogical language which of course is wide open to criticism by the logical mind.  To make matters worse many of the words used come from a time when they meant something different to today's meaning or they have been translated into a best fit word from a foreign language.  Sorry I can't be more helpful.

Thanks for trying 

[Alan Burns]

We've been here a thousand times before though.  When we couldn't understand thunder, we invented Thor and his hammer; when we couldn't understand mental illness, we invented possession by demons.  Ancient Egyptians had no knowledge of nuclear fusion, so they settled for the Sun being a god, Aten. You're just following in that line, a knowledge gap to squeeze a god into without any justification from empiricism, reason, or evidence.  Such magical thinking always succumbs to the slow painstaking work of science, this is what history shows us.  You're backing a loser, not a winner.

Quoting past unrelated events cannot be used to disprove people's current faith in God.
Science will never come up with an explanation for the God given gift of free will every person on this forum aptly demonstrates in every post they write - because any scientific explanation would deny our ability to guide our own thoughts, words and actions to achieve our conscious goals.

[Sriram]

I don't see why such a big fuss is being made by some people about philosophical issues.

OK....I can understand arguments against beliefs such as the six day creation or Adam & Eve or other such ancient religious myths. I can also understand arguments against fanatical jihad type of beliefs or violent behavior or forced conversions.

But what exactly is the issue in believing that there is some form of Intelligence behind creation or that we live beyond death?!!  The arguments that we can't see or measure such things and therefore they cannot exist.....is childish.   

[Gordon]

But what exactly is the issue in believing that there is some form of Intelligence behind creation or that we live beyond death?!!  The arguments that we can't see or measure such things and therefore they cannot exist.....is childish.   

No robust evidence for either of the two things you mention: it's a simple as that.

[torridon]

Quoting past unrelated events cannot be used to disprove people's current faith in God.

That just means you have not learned the lessons from history.  Magical thinking always gives way to understanding, sooner or later

[torridon]

Science will never come up with an explanation for the God given gift of free will every person on this forum aptly demonstrates in every post they write - because any scientific explanation would deny our ability to guide our own thoughts, words and actions to achieve our conscious goals.

This is simplistic nonsense that has been exhaustively dealt with on other threads. The idea that we could choose which thoughts to have or what emotions to experience is irrational.

[torridon]

But what exactly is the issue in believing that there is some form of Intelligence behind creation or that we live beyond death?!!  The arguments that we can't see or measure such things and therefore they cannot exist.....is childish.   

What would be more childish would be to believe in things for which there is no evidence. That's fantasy thinking.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No robust evidence for either of the two things you mention: it's a simple as that.

No robust scientific evidence you mean, however once we invoke science ....and you think you haven't because you haven't said it, we are into sufficient reason and a no reason universe isn't actually reasonable.

[Gordon]

No robust scientific evidence you mean, however once we invoke science ....and you think you haven't because you haven't said it, we are into sufficient reason and a no reason universe isn't actually reasonable.

Is a no reason 'God' "actually reasonable"?