Who created God?

[KindredSoul]

while it doesn’t destroy free will completely (it’s possible you can still have veto power), it does take a lot away from it. If you have made the decision before you’re consciously aware of it, it certainly diminishes your free will. If your decisions are made by you unconsciously, but your free will is only the veto power over unconscious decisions, you’re still not free in the traditional sense.

I do not know that the traditional sense is so limited as that, not as I’ve ever understood it. To me, free will is having the ability, no matter how difficult (especially since Catholics believe in concupiscence, it goes without saying that we do not believe free will would always be easy to exercise), to make decisions that you wouldn’t have had the power to make if “you” and all your decisions are just a string of wholly inevitable chemical reactions beyond your own control. As long as your decisions are not totally inevitable (totally beyond your own control), that’s all I have ever considered necessary to qualify as free. Again, due to concupiscence, there are hints of this even theologically, which seem to support my feeling as to the bare essential needed to constitute free will in the spiritual sense.

It’s true, these are all serious issues with experimentation techniques. Still, we’re improving. Now brain scans are being used, this kind of an experiment was done before (with the same result) using, IIRC, a braincap that measured electrical signals.

My point was, unless we have already come to the conclusion, obviously without proving it (faith, if you will, and there’s nothing altogether wrong with that, obviously, but we mustn’t say we scientifically discerned it in that case), that the brain and the “self” are synonymous, there is no reason to believe that those electrical signals are the same as consciousness, even if they are wholly compatible with outside measurable/inside memorable consciousness. Again, there is a precedent for memory loss, or for brain cells not making new memories. If a person is conscious when those electrical signals are not present, it is logical to conclude they’d have no memory of it when they came back to measurable consciousness, so neither the lack of electrical signals nor their lack of memory would logically suggest that consciousness must be totally dependent on/synonymous with those physical processes when we know it’s entirely possible that they just don’t have any memory of that time. It would be a nonsequiter to think this indicates (yes, even scientifically demonstrates) that the “self” is material.

I think you’re confusing “scientifically demonstrate” with “proof beyond all doubt”. There will always be doubt, and we’ll never know anything for sure. (For all I know, the very reasoning processes my brain is capable of are fundamentally flawed and will inevitably lead to bad conclusions.)

I don’t think I’m confusing it, but I agree with you on everything else, at least in this world.

Science is not about proving something with certainty, beyond all doubt, completely and forever. It’s about providing a good explanation that explains observations and makes testable (and confirmed) predictions. How well the explanation is supported by evidence is all that matters, and explanations should be judged by the fruit they bear, if you will.

Above, I explain why I don’t think that the fruit those experiments bear is the indication, no matter how weak, that the brain is all there is. It seems like a bit of a leap, to me, to look at the results and think that it demonstrates (even if not proves) that we are solely material. Too many factors are being overlooked, such as I brought up above. If one bases one’s faith that we are solely material on those scientific findings, that’s one thing…but the faith in itself is removed from the science, and a person of that opinion cannot say it’s objectively supported by science so much as compatible with the science–with which, as I have argued above, the opposite belief is equally compatible. In other words, the science is totally useless in answering that particular question.

CONTINUED…

 

[KindredSoul]

…CONTINUED (From Above)

The point I wanted to make was that if it were impossible for brain processes to generate a mind on their own, independent of supernatural elements such as the soul, neuroscientists would be the first people to notice it since it is their field to see how brains account for various mental events, including the mind itself.

Yet they separate the consciousness from the experience of consciousness, which is simply too integral for an outside observer to make an informed decision. I can look at another person, if I ignore my own experience, and think: “Hey, he doesn’t visibly and measurably think, nor does he have any memories, when the brain is not working. So he must be the brain.” However, this depends on the words “visibly” and “measurably”, when in fact from my own experience of self there appears to be something unmeasurable, unspeakable, for which I cannot find words, about that experience. The very manner (not the means, but the experience) in which I go about “being” my own self is totally “invisible” and “unmeasurable” to anyone who’s not me. Looking at my chemical brain reactions simply isn’t the same, nor can it ever be, as being me and measuring my self in the way that only I specifically can. I cannot show my self awareness, as I experience it, to anyone else by any conceivable means, nor can I see or measure anyone else’s as they experience it. I don’t experience myself from the outside, I am myself, and that quality of “being” myself gives me insights to my own existence that an outside party cannot have. Thus there is a precedent for the self being something that is not logically/completely experienced from the outside, so outside appearances and studies, measurements and sights, all of these are called into question.

I don’t see why this would imply that rights and morality are illusions. They exist in our minds, and our minds exist in this world. They are just as real as anything else in it.

That would be a hands-down argument for the existence of every god that has ever been conceived, though, if it were an acceptable argument; apologetics would be unnecessary if something existing in the mind simply made it so, since we could simply say “God exists in my mind, so He must exist objectively too”, which is what this argument would depend on for morality and rights to be anything real (i.e., immutible, not arbitrary). Reality would be a mess of logical contradictions of course, but even so (and the same would apply to morality anyway, since all contradictory moral codes that any individual held would have to be equally real)…

If everything I have in my mind is not objectively real, and if (in your opinion) God isn’t real even though He certainly exists in my mind (and in our opinion, outside of it), then why are morality and rights different? They aren’t. Again, if we are only material beings, they are the same as gods would be in that scenario: Constructs meant to organize and protect ourselves, and our very desire and drive to do so is only the effort of a physical thing to preserve itself, just as the motion of a river preserves itself. Unless it is morally wrong to dam up a river, unless that is an immoral oppression of the river’s motion, I do not see how it is morally wrong to frustrate the attempt of “consciousness” to maintain itself or its “happiness”. It in itself is but one more physical phenomenon, in the materialist interpretation of things if it is followed to its logical (not even extreme) conclusion.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[flyingfish]

…, there is no reason to believe that those electrical signals are the same as consciousness, even if they are wholly compatible with outside measurable/inside memorable consciousness. Again, there is a precedent for memory loss, or for brain cells not making new memories. If a person is conscious when those electrical signals are not present, it is logical to conclude they’d have no memory of it when they came back to measurable consciousness, so neither the lack of electrical signals nor their lack of memory would logically suggest that consciousness must be totally dependent on/synonymous with those physical processes when we know it’s entirely possible that they just don’t have any memory of that time. It would be a nonsequiter to think this indicates (yes, even scientifically demonstrates) that the “self” is material.

That’s not quite what I’m saying though. Even if scientists explain the mechanism for how a brain would generate a mind, it still wouldn’t refute the existence of the soul. You can never prove there is no soul. My point is, if the material is sufficient to explain the mind, then why posit an immaterial entity no one can ever observe?

I’m not sure I understand the point you’re making about memory. I guess you’re saying that even if say someone is in a coma, and has no memory of that time, it is still possible that they consciously existed somewhere else, but their brain didn’t record that information and so they don’t remember it when they come out of the coma?

Looking at my chemical brain reactions simply isn’t the same, nor can it ever be, as being me and measuring my self in the way that only I specifically can. I cannot show my self awareness, as I experience it, to anyone else by any conceivable means, nor can I see or measure anyone else’s as they experience it. I don’t experience myself from the outside, I am myself, and that quality of “being” myself gives me insights to my own existence that an outside party cannot have. Thus there is a precedent for the self being something that is not logically/completely experienced from the outside, so outside appearances and studies, measurements and sights, all of these are called into question.

I agree.

That would be a hands-down argument for the existence of every god that has ever been conceived, though, if it were an acceptable argument; apologetics would be unnecessary if something existing in the mind simply made it so, since we could simply say “God exists in my mind, so He must exist objectively too”, which is what this argument would depend on for morality and rights to be anything real (i.e., immutible, not arbitrary). Reality would be a mess of logical contradictions of course, but even so (and the same would apply to morality anyway, since all contradictory moral codes that any individual held would have to be equally real)…

I don’t think human rights and moral principles exist outside our minds, but because they exist in our minds they exist in the world and are real. I think every god ever conceived is real in this way as well: as a concept in human minds.

If everything I have in my mind is not objectively real, and if (in your opinion) God isn’t real even though He certainly exists in my mind (and in our opinion, outside of it), then why are morality and rights different? They aren’t.

Morality and rights are human ideas that exist in human minds, that’s what makes them real. I certainly would never claim that human moral standards can exist without human beings. But I don’t think it’s necessary to claim this either.

 

[KindredSoul]

That’s not quite what I’m saying though. Even if scientists explain the mechanism for how a brain would generate a mind, it still wouldn’t refute the existence of the soul. You can never prove there is no soul. My point is, if the material is sufficient to explain the mind, then why posit an immaterial entity no one can ever observe?

Where I disagree is in thinking the material can be scientifically demonstrated to even be sufficient to explain the mind. You’re free to believe that it is sufficient (just as I believe in the soul, which is not demonstrable in a lab either, so we’re in the same boat there), but I don’t believe such a thing is scientifically demonstrable as scientists in such a field are prone to thinking. The material might be sufficient to explain my observances of someone else who appears, for all intents and purposes, to have a mind like mine but whom, to me as an outside observer, might well just be mimicking me. But there’s something about my own experience of self that certainly isn’t explainable by the third-person observations of scientists.

I can scientifically prove that a man is only discernibly conscious if his brain works…but I can never scientifically prove that materials alone even can produce the phenomenon that is “me” as I experience me. The only reason, in fact, that I believe that other people are equally non-material is because of inductive reasoning (aside from my religion): If I find that no material experiment convincingly shows that matter alone can produce “me”, why should I believe matter alone produces other “selves”, when they were born like me and there is no reason to think I’m special by comparison?

To recap: If not for inductive reasoning (aside from my religion), I might conclude, from the research you indicate, that other people could be strictly material, but I could not conclude it about myself from the same research. I could not even conclude that I could be strictly material from that research. Since the inductive reasoning is quite valid and logical in that case, if I find that such material explanations are not sufficient to explain “me”, then I must also conclude they are insufficient to explain “others.”

One more thing: You point out that the soul is an entity that no one can ever observe. True, but on the scientific basis the claim that matter alone can (as in, it is even possible for it to) produce “me” is also something no one can ever observe. No matter how many experiments I run on another human being, I am never observing him being him in the same way that I am observing me being me. I am not truly observing his “me”, in other words, because for that I’d have to be him. I cannot possibly therefore observe anything than the physical effects his own “me” has on the brain chemicals, etc. I can never observe his “me” itself, no more than I can show my own “me” to someone else in the way that I myself am aware of it–which, I believe, is the only truly reliable and real way to be aware of it. It’s a sense I can’t explain, but I’m sure you know what I mean. There’s something about the sense of self that cannot be put into words, but it’s just obvious that science cannot tap into that sense. And even if I run the experiment on myself, unless I totally ignore the part about memories, I cannot possibly know if I really ceased to be when I was comatose (or brain-dead); since knowing I ceased to be would be essential to knowing whether or not my “me” is something that can be produced by matter alone (because if I existed during my brain-dead time and just can’t remember it, then clearly the answer is “no”–so I must know whether or not I existed during that time to make a conclusion, which I cannot possibly/logically know), it is impossible for me to ever be able to say, scientifically, that matter is sufficient to explain my existence. Because first I must know exactly what my existence is, which science cannot appear to discern.

I’m not sure I understand the point you’re making about memory. I guess you’re saying that even if say someone is in a coma, and has no memory of that time, it is still possible that they consciously existed somewhere else, but their brain didn’t record that information and so they don’t remember it when they come out of the coma?

Yeah, that’s what I was saying.

Morality and rights are human ideas that exist in human minds, that’s what makes them real. I certainly would never claim that human moral standards can exist without human beings. But I don’t think it’s necessary to claim this either.

But I do not think the reality of morality is based on its technical material existence so much as its objectivity. Morality loses its point if it’s not objective in some way. If murder is wrong, it’s wrong. If it’s not, it’s not. If murder is only wrong if we think it’s wrong, there is no point to have moral standards. Even “majority rule” cannot be applied, since that in itself would be a moral standard that someone else may not share. So the would-be criminal who disagrees both with the majority morality and with the concept of “majority rule” is perfectly justified in committing his crime. If he says his crime is not immoral, it’s not, and he has at least an equally valid claim as anyone who says it is immoral. This is how morality is pointless in such a reality. You can say he’s wrong…but at best, both you and he are right. He’s wrong, because you say so. He’s right, because he says so. That would be pointless, but without making up arbitrary (arbitrary in a materialist reality) rules about which humans have the authority to define morality, that’s what we would be left with, in such a materialist scenario.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[flyingfish]

I can scientifically prove that a man is only discernibly conscious if his brain works…but I can never scientifically prove that materials alone even can produce the phenomenon that is “me” as I experience me.

It seems like you’re bringing Cartesian skepticism into this. Strictly speaking, you can never prove that anyone but you has a mind. But if you’re going to be that skeptical, you don’t really have anything apart from your own existence.

A scientific point of view would be to trust our observations. If I observe you behaving as though you’re thinking, and debating with me, it’s reasonable to infer that you also have a mind. I can never know this for sure, but there is certainly plenty of evidence for it.

I do think we can in theory prove that materials are sufficient to produce a mind. We would require the technology to build neural networks of equal complexity to the human brain.

It may also be possible to at some point link with another human mind, or to project their brain patterns onto yours and see what you would think. I don’t see a logical impossibility to this. Though at the present time we lack the technology.

I cannot possibly know if I really ceased to be when I was comatose (or brain-dead); since knowing I ceased to be would be essential to knowing whether or not my “me” is something that can be produced by matter alone (because if I existed during my brain-dead time and just can’t remember it, then clearly the answer is “no”–so I must know whether or not I existed during that time to make a conclusion, which I cannot possibly/logically know), it is impossible for me to ever be able to say, scientifically, that matter is sufficient to explain my existence. Because first I must know exactly what my existence is, which science cannot appear to discern.

Well, strictly speaking, you can never know for sure. Even if you are comatose and wake up remembering nothing. However, I think it’s rather outrageous to suggest that there are two “yous”: the material one and the spiritual one, and when you were comatose you existed as your spiritual self, which your material self had no memory of when you woke up.

Why couldn’t the spiritual self let your material self know that you were really still alive? If the spiritual self can read memories from your brain and influence your actions, why not write memories to your brain?

You can never prove that it’s not the case, true. However, it just seems so outlandish to propose this. Wouldn’t a much better explanation be that since you don’t remember being conscious, that you weren’t?

Morality loses its point if it’s not objective in some way. If murder is wrong, it’s wrong. If it’s not, it’s not. If murder is only wrong if we think it’s wrong, there is no point to have moral standards.

Morality is objective though, because human beings have an “objective” nature. We need food to eat, we need sleep, we need to procreate. Health benefits us, illness harms us. Cutting off someone’s arm would damage them. These are all objective facts. That’s where we can derive our objective moral values.

Yes there may be some outliers who would love to have their arm cut off, but so what? We can acknowledge that they are outliers. They are free to have their objective moral system based on their nature, but most of us would disagree with them.

I don’t see why you think the existence of exceptions would make morality pointless. Even if some people fundamentally want to die of starvation, doesn’t mean most of us don’t want to eat and be healthy. It would certainly be a valid moral principle that it’s good to fight starvation and work for health for human beings.

(I understand you can take a step back and say well, why should the moral good be the well being of human beings. That’s a completely valid criticism. However, no moral system, including the religious one is saved from this. You can similarly ask why the moral good should be to follow a god.

My point is that because human nature is not arbitrary, we can use it as a basis for an objective moral system.)

 

[mommamaree]

Do we really HAVE to understand this? Do we really HAVE to know?

I am perfectly happy just having Faith that He is Who IS.

Now if you are just saying it’s fun to discuss and speculate, well, ok I guess. But I never have understood why some folks have a need to take something apart down to the molecular level (and further) in order to believe it. It’s almost as if they are looking for excuses NOT to believe. Not saying this is you, just speaking in general.

In my limited human understanding of the world and God, I pray that I’m humble enough to know my limits and accept them, and just move along.

~Liza

LOVE this answer!

 

[KindredSoul]

It seems like you’re bringing Cartesian skepticism into this.

No, quite the opposite. I believe that inductive reasoning is plenty good enough reason to believe other humans (and, to an extent, other organic beings) have a self like mine, so that I do not need to be skeptical of that…but if they have selves like mine, it means that there’s something that science is not seeing in any neuroscience experiments. Contrary to what you think I’m saying, it’s precisely the relative certainty, via inductive reasoning, that would lead me to not think science proves to me that other people are sufficiently explained by material alone, for it could never prove to me myself that I am sufficiently explained by such; it is logical to assume that if it does not apply to me, it does not apply to others.

A scientific point of view would be to trust our observations. If I observe you behaving as though you’re thinking, and debating with me, it’s reasonable to infer that you also have a mind. I can never know this for sure, but there is certainly plenty of evidence for it.

Not quite true. The reason such inductive reasoning is sufficient for humans (and to a degree, even animals) is because we know that we came about in more or less the same manner. We share a similar origin. However, it is plenty conceivable, and not at all far fetched, that an AI could be created which mimics human behavior in every way without being discernibly conscious, working from a series of complex programs but never needing consciousness in order to mimic us. Consciousness is only truly observed from the inside, which means aside from inductive reasoning (which, again, would plenty apply to those life forms we observe from nature, including humans) you can’t just look at something’s behavior and assume it is conscious. This is not radical skepticism; there’s simply no logical reason to think that outside appearances alone, even down to intricate physical reactions (without the inductive reasoning that if I, as a human being, have a self, so must other human beings) indicate that something has a “self”, which cannot be seen from the outside.

I do think we can in theory prove that materials are sufficient to produce a mind. We would require the technology to build neural networks of equal complexity to the human brain.

Because of the above, I could not find it logical, without making a leap of faith, to conclude that such a manmade artificiality had a “self”. Even the inductive reasoning wouldn’t work, unlike with other humans, because the artificial life form–as in, something totally new and assembled “cell” by “cell” by a mortal–is something wholly different from me by virtue of its coming to be by being totally “assembled”. Until I’ve first satisfied myself that I am indeed fully material, which has not yet been done, I cannot conclude that some complex thing that I obviously know (by way of a human having built it microscopic piece by piece) is completely material, is the same as me. The problem is that consciousness simply isn’t truly necessary for all our behaviors and actions, insofar as they can be observed from the outside, so an artificial being displaying those actions does not demonstrate it must have consciousness in the same way we do. Building something which seems to think and behave like humans should not necessarily imply that this something has the same sort of “self-hood” as humans, or even animals. And since we cannot logically conclude that this thing has a self in the same way we do, our ability to create it from materials would not prove that our selves can be sufficiently explained by the material.

It may also be possible to at some point link with another human mind, or to project their brain patterns onto yours and see what you would think. I don’t see a logical impossibility to this. Though at the present time we lack the technology.

That would be more interesting, indeed. Even so, brain patterns and thoughts are not “me”, strictly speaking, so I’m not sure what that would prove. I am not synonymous with my thoughts, feelings, emotions, and personality traits, though I am responsible for the first and the last of these by virtue of shaping them over the course of my life (and for the other two whenever I could control them). Thus even if all those things were projected onto another human being, they’re not “trading selves” with me or experiencing my “self” as I do…merely trading or experiencing my thoughts, feelings, emotions and personality traits. That’s not the same thing as “me.”

Well, strictly speaking, you can never know for sure. Even if you are comatose and wake up remembering nothing. However, I think it’s rather outrageous to suggest that there are two “yous”: the material one and the spiritual one, and when you were comatose you existed as your spiritual self, which your material self had no memory of when you woke up.

No, I am not suggesting that there are two “selves”. There is only one, and it appears to me that it is currently scientifically unexplainable; I believe it is spiritual and you believe it could one day be proven to be physically explainable. Regardless, it’s the only self we have. Read below for more on this.

…CONTINUED

 

[KindredSoul]

…CONTINUED (From Above)

Why couldn’t the spiritual self let your material self know that you were really still alive? If the spiritual self can read memories from your brain and influence your actions, why not write memories to your brain?

Currently, it certainly seems that human thoughts, memories, emotions, etc. are all material. That is to say, the spiritual self couldn’t maintain the memory (again, there is no such thing, in my opinion, as a material self–you misread me if you thought I think there are two “selves”) at all, even while it was not united to the brain. I am not making this up to save my belief. It is consistent with Old Testament theology of “Sheol” to believe that the most natural state (at least ordinarily) of a disembodied human soul is to know nothing but vague, bland, timeless existence. Naturally, such a soul would not form memories, so even while disembodied each moment of experience would be a senseless (but conscious) “now”. Even while still disembodied, it wouldn’t remember “I’ve been in a void-like existence for five hours” because it had no memories. Thus, when it finally began to have access to the brain again, it would have no memories to write into the brain.

The brain is currently the matrix through which the soul experiences more than its own self, and since “thoughts, memories, emotions” etc. are not that self so much as something that self experiences and shapes, they are included in the number of things that the disembodied self would not logically be expected to have access to. Clearly, the New Covenant seems to hold that souls in Heaven do not need bodies in order to think and remember, but reconciling this with Old Testament theology on the matter, it would seem that God must take away the soul’s initial limitations for this to be so (or perhaps we are normally dependent on the body, as some believe the eyes can become dependent on glasses, and entering into eternity–as only happens at one’s ultimate death–jars us from this dependence). Whether this only happens at death or also during Near Death Experiences is a different debate; suffice to say I am not “winging” this. It is a discernible implication just from reconciling the New Testament’s concept of “soul” with the Old Testament’s.

You can never prove that it’s not the case, true. However, it just seems so outlandish to propose this. Wouldn’t a much better explanation be that since you don’t remember being conscious, that you weren’t?

Not at all. Sometimes, due to zoning out or whatever, I can look back and not remember a given moment. If I were all alone and had no one to tell me I existed at those times based upon their scientific observation of me, should I conclude that if there is “blank spot” during which I don’t remember my existence, I didn’t exist during that moment? Likewise, it is possible that I could get amnesia tomorrow. Would the most logical conclusion, until I found evidence to the contrary, be to assume I must have only begun existing at the first moment I remember? If I am even familiar with the concept of remembering and forgetting, it seems that thinking such a thing as I didn’t exist seems a much bigger leap, even in the absence of evidence to the contrary, than to think I simply don’t remember.

Morality is objective though, because human beings have an “objective” nature. We need food to eat, we need sleep, we need to procreate. Health benefits us, illness harms us. Cutting off someone’s arm would damage them. These are all objective facts. That’s where we can derive our objective moral values.

Yes there may be some outliers who would love to have their arm cut off, but so what? We can acknowledge that they are outliers. They are free to have their objective moral system based on their nature, but most of us would disagree with them.

But our disagreement doesn’t mean anything objective, unless we can prove that majority rule is indeed an objective moral standard. If somehow those who think human beings should have their arms cut off surprisingly manage to overpower those of us who’d rather be whole and healthy, we cannot say they are objectively wrong if they themselves do not accept “majority rule” as a valid moral standard. We are free to disagree, but they are also free to disagree, and persue their maiming spree to the ends of the earth, and we cannot logically say, in a materialist reality, that they are objectively doing anything wrong.

I don’t see why you think the existence of exceptions would make morality pointless. Even if some people fundamentally want to die of starvation, doesn’t mean most of us don’t want to eat and be healthy. It would certainly be a valid moral principle that it’s good to fight starvation and work for health for human beings.

But it would, then, be an equally valid moral principle that it’s good to instigate starvation and oppose the health of human beings, assuming someone out there thought those were good persuits. The whole point of my argument is that morality in such a scenario becomes only opinion, and opinion, by definition, is subjective.

CONTINUED…

 

[KindredSoul]

…CONTINUED (From Above)

(I understand you can take a step back and say well, why should the moral good be the well being of human beings. That’s a completely valid criticism. However, no moral system, including the religious one is saved from this. You can similarly ask why the moral good should be to follow a god.

Indeed. However, if this God consciously created us, He knows our purpose. For instance, you can objectively say, even in a materialist world, that a clock should indicate the time, because it would not have existed if it was not consciously made to tell the time. If it were not for someone wanting a convenient way to tell the time, the clock would not be made, and so it is easy to discern that it ought to fulfill that role. Likewise, if we were created we can indeed say it is right that we should do what our Creator desires, because our existence had a definite intention from the moment it was set into motion. It was not random. If the clock just randomly existed, and was uncreated, we cannot say that it should tell the time…it just happens to tell the time. If it did not, we cannot say that it’s not “behaving” (functioning) properly, because we don’t know if that was its purpose or just a coincidence, and in fact there is no reason to believe it has a purpose at all. Likewise, if we just arose by (initially mindless, unintentional) material means, we do not know that our purpose is to live, or if it is just a complex accident of billions of years worth of circumstances that we merely happen to live. For the whole of humanity to cease living is not contrary to any objectively discernible purpose, because we have no reason to think “living” was anything more than a pointless accident.

The one thing you could argue is arbitrary, in a religious universe, is God Himself. I don’t personally hold that He is arbitrary. But you could logically argue such a thing on the basis that He just happens to exist, and so has no purpose in the same way that we would have no purpose if we were the highest beings. Thus if there were multiple gods equal to God, how they treated each other would likewise not be subject to objective morality. However, this would only apply to deities, in such a universe, not to the creations of those deities. Anything created can be said to have whatever purpose its maker intended, and should behave accordingly. Anything uncreated has no such restriction. To say God exists without objective purpose would mean God’s own moral standards and purpose are set only by Himself–which may technically be arbitrary, but for God this is acceptable because He is the only one of His kind (who’s going to have any claim against Him? Unlike with humans, among whom there would be a range of different opinions, all valid if we were uncreated). Regardless of all that, we would have an objective purpose (and thus conceivably an objective moral code designed to fulfill that purpose), because we would be beings created with a specific purpose in mind, even if our Creator was not. Just like a Clock in a materialist reality has a specific purpose, even if its human creator does not.

My point is that because human nature is not arbitrary, we can use it as a basis for an objective moral system.)

For reasons given above, I hold that human nature is indeed arbitrary without a Creator. We know that we have come to live. We do not have any reason, in a materialist scenario, to believe that this in itself, our coming to live, was not arbitrary. Perhaps it was a complex process that happened over millions of years, but something does not have to be sudden in order to be arbitrary. The Grand Canyon did not happen without a reason…but it did happen without a purpose. Without a Creator, I would contend that human nature is the same way. We have a string of “reasons” in the sense of causes, like any other material phenomenon, but no purpose. All the causes which endowed us with our nature in such a world were merely one complex and lengthy bit of happenstance, and thus do not pave the way for an objective morality that one can be objectively faulted for disobeying or objectively commended for upholding.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[flyingfish]

Not quite true. The reason such inductive reasoning is sufficient for humans (and to a degree, even animals) is because we know that we came about in more or less the same manner. We share a similar origin. However, it is plenty conceivable, and not at all far fetched, that an AI could be created which mimics human behavior in every way without being discernibly conscious, working from a series of complex programs but never needing consciousness in order to mimic us. Consciousness is only truly observed from the inside, which means aside from inductive reasoning (which, again, would plenty apply to those life forms we observe from nature, including humans) you can’t just look at something’s behavior and assume it is conscious. This is not radical skepticism;

I would say it is radical skepticism. If something is behaving and interacting as though it’s conscious, the reasonable thing to assume is that it is conscious. No, you can’t know for sure, but you can’t know for sure about other people either.

What if it were aliens that came to visit us in spaceships beyond what we could conceive, would you also think there was no mind there? What if we made an AI that surpassed us in what it could achieve?

I think it would be radical skepticism to do anything other than assume it’s self aware.

That would be more interesting, indeed. Even so, brain patterns and thoughts are not “me”, strictly speaking, so I’m not sure what that would prove.

Well, if you observed my brain in a certain configuration when I was thinking of responding to you, put your brain in the same configuration, and experienced the same thought, that would be pretty conclusive evidence that I was experiencing that thought.

That is to say, the spiritual self couldn’t maintain the memory (again, there is no such thing, in my opinion, as a material self–you misread me if you thought I think there are two “selves”) at all, even while it was not united to the brain.

Okay, so say when you’re in a coma your spiritual self exists but can’t make memories. Why not? Is it self aware? If it can’t make memories, then what would that say for the kind of afterlife you’d have as a spiritual self? How would you be judged when you die if you get there without thought processes and memories?

It is a discernible implication just from reconciling the New Testament’s concept of “soul” with the Old Testament’s.

It seems like you have to do a lot of work for this. Wouldn’t it be simpler to think of the mind in terms of what we can observe?

Not at all. Sometimes, due to zoning out or whatever, I can look back and not remember a given moment. If I were all alone and had no one to tell me I existed at those times based upon their scientific observation of me, should I conclude that if there is “blank spot” during which I don’t remember my existence, I didn’t exist during that moment? Likewise, it is possible that I could get amnesia tomorrow. Would the most logical conclusion, until I found evidence to the contrary, be to assume I must have only begun existing at the first moment I remember? If I am even familiar with the concept of remembering and forgetting, it seems that thinking such a thing as I didn’t exist seems a much bigger leap, even in the absence of evidence to the contrary, than to think I simply don’t remember.

You’d have to use other knowledge of human physiology to make that judgment in my opinion. If I passed out or were in a coma and then woke up with no memories, I would say I did not exist for that time. But if suddenly woke up without a memory of before, and yet was alive, and not a newborn I would conclude that I had to have existed before in order to have grown up and so on.

But it would, then, be an equally valid moral principle that it’s good to instigate starvation and oppose the health of human beings, assuming someone out there thought those were good persuits. The whole point of my argument is that morality in such a scenario becomes only opinion, and opinion, by definition, is subjective.

Yes and no. The choice of which standard you will use is subjective (whether it is the God standard, the human nature standard, or some made up standard). However, the standard itself can be objective such as God’s commandments can be objective, facts about human nature are objective and so on.

Indeed. However, if this God consciously created us, He knows our purpose.

We can also study human nature scientifically and infer our function in the world from that.

I just don’t see any difference between being created by God for a purpose, or evolving within a mindless universe. In either situation, we’ll have a certain nature and a certain function, and we can use our knowledge of that (whether revealed by God in religious texts, or studied by anthropologists/biologists/psychologists) to guide our moral choices.

I just don’t see how being created by God is any more objective. So what if we were created? So what if we were created by God for a purpose? So what if God thinks we should behave in a certain way? It’s still a subjective choice to accept this standard as the moral standard.

Sure you can argue that if you don’t listen to God he can burn you in hell, or if you don’t listen to God you will not experience an optimally happy life. But you can argue the same about human nature. If you deny your nature and say cut off your arm, you will also suffer, and if you follow your nature and say eat healthy food and sleep well and have relationships you will be happy and enjoy your life.

Anything created can be said to have whatever purpose its maker intended, and should behave accordingly.

A subjective opinion. You can say the same about something having evolved in a mindless universe to function in a certain way.

 

[KindredSoul]

I would say it is radical skepticism. If something is behaving and interacting as though it’s conscious, the reasonable thing to assume is that it is conscious.

This starts with the premise that consciousness is exclusively defined by the behavior that often accompanies it, similarly to if I assumed that anything that barks like a dog is a dog and a dog that doesn’t bark isn’t a dog. Yes, the dog mistake is easier to disprove, but I chose such an exaggerated example precisely to emphasize the following point: “Whatever acts like X is in fact X” is not so universally reliable a premise that to doubt it requires radical skepticism.

What if it were aliens that came to visit us in spaceships beyond what we could conceive, would you also think there was no mind there? What if we made an AI that surpassed us in what it could achieve?

If aliens came, I would assume there was a “self” there. If an AI was made, I would not. But then, I would also not assume that an alien was strictly material. I would think they had souls as much as we did. I have seen the AI made, piece by piece. I have no reason to think that the indescribable concept of “Me”, which I cannot see from the third person, formed within or was endowed to the AI. The alien is an organic form, which presumably grew as all organic forms, and did not have to be assembled piece by piece by piece. The difference is that I have a better reason for assuming the AI is strictly material, because I myself (for instance) might have pieced every last molecule of it together, and thus I cannot fathom how it should have a “self” equal to mine, which nothing has scientifically satisfied me could be sufficiently explained by the strictly material. A human commissioned it and built it exclusively, with no help from a natural organic process…and since humans cannot create non-material things, I assume that something totally and at every point in its creation put together by humans must not have such a materially unexplainable experience that I observe to be the nature of my own self. I suppose if I thought somehow that something complex enough suddenly formed a non-materially explainable self to deal with and control its mental complexities, I could believe that an AI somehow “formed” (or was given) a self like mine while it’s human maker was unawares. But unless I thought that, which would be a somewhat arbitrary thought, there’s simply a big difference between it and me, and it and the alien. Basically, even if I could become convinced that an AI was like me, it would only raise the question of “Might an AI somehow come to transcend the material without its maker’s knowledge or intention, and without our knowing how?” and wouldn’t prove that I am sufficiently explained by the material.

Well, if you observed my brain in a certain configuration when I was thinking of responding to you, put your brain in the same configuration, and experienced the same thought, that would be pretty conclusive evidence that I was experiencing that thought.

I said before that the thought would not be you, though. Yeah, it would be conclusive evidence that you were thinking that thought, but I would not be experiencing you.

Okay, so say when you’re in a coma your spiritual self exists but can’t make memories. Why not? Is it self aware? If it can’t make memories, then what would that say for the kind of afterlife you’d have as a spiritual self? How would you be judged when you die if you get there without thought processes and memories?

I already answered the first two questions in the second paragraph of post #88 explaining why I don’t think we’ll be like that in the afterlife. It’s true I don’t know exactly what changes it, but something clearly will if my religion is true (My reasons for believing in my religion are totally independent of this particular debate–without any religion to tell me otherwise I might indeed think nothing would change and we’d just become senseless awareness upon death, though that still doesn’t sound all bad to me since we wouldn’t have emotions like boredom or feeling meaningless–we would simply be tranquil, unbothered, not happy but not sad; it’d be an afterlife not good but not bad, and I could live with that…pun only semi-intended ). For the last question, I have already said that, although our thoughts, memories, personality traits, actions, etc. are material, we are responsible for them because it is we who shape them through the will (which belongs to the soul but, without those things, would be aimless and unmemorable). If I make a statue, I am responsible for it’s shape. But I am not the stone from which it came, nor do I cease to be if separated from it. You do not have to be something, nor be inseparable from something, in order to be responsible for it.

CONTINUED…

 

[KindredSoul]

…CONTINUED (From Above)

It seems like you have to do a lot of work for this. Wouldn’t it be simpler to think of the mind in terms of what we can observe?

Except I cannot possibly observe the “self” from a scientific perspective, except for my own self. Looking at someone else’s self, yes, even reading their most personal thoughts and emotions or seeing the physical reactions behind them, is merely like looking at a closed box with the naked eye and thinking you’re seeing what is inside of it. I have also never observed the only self I can fully observe, my own, ceasing to exist (it is a logical impossibility, true, but that’s just the catch-22 of such a claim and why we must have faith either way as to whether or not it will one day cease to exist, because it’s also logically impossible to observe and thus put the burden of proof on my own self continuing to exist beyond death until I’ve gotten there). Since I cannot fully observe the selves of others, I cannot say that their ceasing to interact with me means that they cease to exist, or even probably cease to exist. There are simply too many unknowns to think that there is sufficient scientific evidence to make that call.

As for my conclusion seeming like a lot of work, believe me it isn’t. It is a conclusion that comes with far less effort, for me, than convincing myself that I am simply material. The latter would take more effort for me, more assumption and mental gymnastics. For you it might be the other way around, and I take on good faith that such is the case for you…but that would simply be the nature of an impass we appear to have reached.

You’d have to use other knowledge of human physiology to make that judgment in my opinion. If I passed out or were in a coma and then woke up with no memories, I would say I did not exist for that time. But if suddenly woke up without a memory of before, and yet was alive, and not a newborn I would conclude that I had to have existed before in order to have grown up and so on.

You would have to have knowledge that the self was material in order to make that distinction, though. This discussion is precisely about how we don’t know that (and you even agree that we do not). Besides, does that mean that if human physiology was one of the things you’d forgotten you should logically assume you had not existed? It’s true that there’s no one who can tell us we existed while in a coma, but the amnesiac in that scenario has no access to anyone who can tell him as much either. Knowing that this is a logically possible scenario, and that such a person would be assuming wrong if he assumed he hadn’t previously existed, should the person having been in a coma not logically caution himself against confidently making the same blunder regarding his own existence seeing as he is, effectively, in the isolated amnesiac’s position? Perhaps the answer to that last question is subjective, another insurmountable impass between us.

I just don’t see any difference between being created by God for a purpose, or evolving within a mindless universe. In either situation, we’ll have a certain nature and a certain function, and we can use our knowledge of that (whether revealed by God in religious texts, or studied by anthropologists/biologists/psychologists) to guide our moral choices.

This deals with the difference between a purpose and a reason in the sense of “cause.” If everything is material, ultimately we are the inevitable result of chemical reactions getting more and more complex. Even we ourselves are the result of that, nothing higher, ultimately, than a vast number of protons, neutrons, and electrons very intricately put together, sharing this in common with such amoral and rightless things as dirt.

All the history of evolution didn’t happen because that’s our purpose, it happened for the same reason that acid will eat through certain materials: It is not acid’s purpose to eat through such things. That was simply the natural course of it. It just does. We would be the same. At every turn, we did and became what was the next natural outcome given our build and past genetic history and the systematic result of whatever chemicals form DNA, which in turn formed something else, and so on. If someone eventually kills someone or manages to end the human race, that too could be said to be the natural outcome of such history, rather than immoral in any way. They didn’t do it because it was the wrong or right thing to do, just as we didn’t adjust to living because it was the wrong or right thing to do: In the materialist scenario, they did so (and we had lived) just as the (potentially inevitable) result at the end of millions of years worth of reactions and just-so-happens mechanics. At the end of their own evolutionary history, they reached the outcome of “Kill everyone,” just as we reached the outcome of “Do what it takes to live.” Both have a cause, a “reason.” Neither has a purpose.

I just don’t see how being created by God is any more objective. So what if we were created? So what if we were created by God for a purpose? So what if God thinks we should behave in a certain way? It’s still a subjective choice to accept this standard as the moral standard.

So if a human makes an invention, and it doesn’t work properly, is it only subjective to think that the said thing is functioning incorrectly? When something is created, its very essence of existence is to fulfill a certain function/do a certain thing. It is not an accident. It did not just come to be. Perhaps we’re at another impass. I see no argument for thinking that something created or invented shouldn’t fulfill the function without which its creator wouldn’t have bothered to create or invent it.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[KindredSoul]

I think we just differ on some very basic things, so suffice to say that I think we just fundamentally “sense” things differently, in a way that is not conducive to the ability to debate. Try as we might, it seems that maybe each of us is just not “getting” something from the other. In my last post, I used the word “impass” several times, and I think we’re probably running out of steam, and have explained ourselves to each other as much as we can, and if we do not already perfectly understand each other (even if we disagree), I do not think we will henceforth.

For me, my sense of self is so strong and so impossible to explain to my own satisfaction (which, at the end of the day, is what matters to any given individual) by material means that seeing other people’s third-person-observable expressions of consciousness linked to (not necessarily explained by, if I consider my own sense of self) material causes and events does not negate that; on the contrary, my own sense of self leads me to believe that I’m not seeing all there is to see in those other people, that they too have a self not explainable materially which only they can sense as I sense mine, even if I don’t sense their selves as I sense mine. Even given what science has found, I cannot possibly explain to myself my own existence, materially, so no matter how it appears that I might explain the existence of another as such, I figure that they are not material either since by inductive reasoning that they’re not fundamentally different from me.

It seems that you work from the opposite basic premise: That if other people’s third-person-observable expressions of consciousness can be linked to material causes at every turn, they are probably explained by those material causes and so you are too. I could never understand how anything could convince you of the “you are too” part, because I–through inductive reasoning–believe you have the same strong, scientifically unexplainable sense of self that I do. I can see neither how you can think it is materially explainable nor how you can not think that this sense of self plays a larger role in this debate than you seem to give it credit for. I’m not saying this in a demeaning manner )), and I assume that you also cannot quite understand why I think the way I do. Again, like we’re just not “getting” each other. That’s just how an impass works, though, I guess.

We also appear to define self differently. To you, it seemingly is defined by the the thinking, the emotions, personality and all that. So if you could crawl into somebody’s mind and have their thoughts, personality, feelings, etc., you would think that this proved the self is material. To me, the self at its most basic, essential form is sheer awareness, independent of memories and thoughts. Imagine being in a void, having no thoughts, feelings, memories, or desires, but just “being” and just blindly/vaguely knowing that you are, and you will have arrived at what I consider the barest meaning of “self” to be. I do not believe we are typically without all those other things, and I do not believe we will be without them in eternity…but they, to me, do not define “self” nor are they necessary for a self to exist. Those other things may “belong” to the self or be experienced by it when it has access to them, but they are not the self in…well…itself (great wording, huh? ). Even if I could crawl into someone else’s mind and experience their thoughts and emotions and all that as they do, I’m experiencing those things with my self, not theirs, and I am not really experiencing their self, due to the way I understand the term. But maybe our difference in terms is yet another irreconcilable difference. Maybe you think self is meaningless without those other things you seem to attach to defining it. I just don’t agree.

Incidentally, my belief in the soul does not depend exclusively on the arguments here; for reasons irrelevant to this debate, I believe in the religion I do, and that would lead me to believe in the soul regardless. Rather, the discussion here is about why, even if I had absolutely no religion, if I were agnostic such as yourself, I would be more inclined to believe the self is non-material and thus does not necessarily cease with the death of the body and brain, although admittedly without definitely believing in a Creator the nature of why this immaterial self exists would be more puzzling to me–but then, so would the nature of why material things exist. Like I said, I’d have no logical reason to conclude, without religion, that the afterlife was more than blind, senseless, thoughtless awareness, but I would still believe in one. As it is, I am religious and do not have to go through all this reasoning in order to believe in a soul…I could just accept it as a natural consequence of believing what I believe religiously and leave it at that, and if I had no other choice I would…but I am far too curious and introspective an individual to just “leave it at that” when I perceive that my sense of logic could reaffirm what I believe, even if it is not the only justification for believing it. I’d believe in the soul and afterlife if for no other reason than my religion. I just don’t think that’s the only reason I have for believing in it.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[flyingfish]

If aliens came, I would assume there was a “self” there. If an AI was made, I would not. But then, I would also not assume that an alien was strictly material. I would think they had souls as much as we did. I have seen the AI made, piece by piece. I have no reason to think that the indescribable concept of “Me”, which I cannot see from the third person, formed within or was endowed to the AI. The alien is an organic form, which presumably grew as all organic forms, and did not have to be assembled piece by piece by piece.

You could see an organic form be assembled piece by piece, we’ve actually gone a long way to being able to do this with humans. We know how sperm and eggs are assembled, we know how they combine, we know how the embryo grows and so on.

I don’t see a fundamental difference between having been “designed” by natural selection, or by a life form (or by a deity). Why do you see this? In looking at the assembling of a human being from the building up of the sperm and egg to adulthood, where do you see the “soul” get attached?

If an AI built by us piece by piece surpassed us, unified our physical theories, or proved a mathematical theorem that has eluded us, or designed spaceships capable of carrying us to the stars, and insisted that it was self aware you would still doubt? That is radical skepticism.

I have also never observed the only self I can fully observe, my own, ceasing to exist

You observe this every time you fall into a dreamless sleep. You observe time pass, and you had been unconscious for that time. For all intents in purposes, you did not exist.

So if a human makes an invention, and it doesn’t work properly, is it only subjective to think that the said thing is functioning incorrectly? When something is created, its very essence of existence is to fulfill a certain function/do a certain thing. It is not an accident. It did not just come to be. Perhaps we’re at another impass. I see no argument for thinking that something created or invented shouldn’t fulfill the function without which its creator wouldn’t have bothered to create or invent it.

No, it’s objective to think it’s functioning incorrectly. But it is a subjective choice to think that inventions should function correctly. Just like it would be objective to think that a human who is not eating properly is functioning incorrectly, but it would be subjective to decide that human beings should function according to their nature.

Evolution is not an “accident”, it is design for adaptability and survival in a given environment. Doesn’t matter if there is a mind behind it or not, the outcome is the same.

We also appear to define self differently. To you, it seemingly is defined by the the thinking, the emotions, personality and all that. So if you could crawl into somebody’s mind and have their thoughts, personality, feelings, etc., you would think that this proved the self is material. To me, the self at its most basic, essential form is sheer awareness, independent of memories and thoughts. Imagine being in a void, having no thoughts, feelings, memories, or desires, but just “being” and just blindly/vaguely knowing that you are, and you will have arrived at what I consider the barest meaning of “self” to be.

I think that’s a good description. I don’t think you can wipe a person clean and have it retain self awareness, as a person grows and learns and develops their personality their brain changes in terms of the memories it makes, in terms of the skills it learns, the kinds of neural pathways it develops. The newborn does not have self awareness, and only develops it later after brain growth and learning. If you wiped all that, the consciousness would be gone.

I’m curious, why are you so convinced that your particular religion is true?

 

[tonyrey]

How exactly does that prove the brain makes decisions? Are you a machine that waits for decisions to be made for you?

You have evaded my questions:

1. How exactly does that prove the brain makes decisions?
2. Are you a machine that waits for decisions to be made for you?

The dark shadow is in your imagination! For one thing you don’t know exactly when **you **make your choice. You make it before you are aware of it because your mind works through the brain. Your awareness is communicated by the brain. The brain waves are not **your **decision but the result of your decision. Even if you became aware of it two hours later it wouldn’t alter the fact that it was **your **choice, not your brain’s. The brain doesn’t make choices: it simply reacts to physical events. It is a machine which is unaware of what it is doing and doesn’t understand what it is doing. The brain is simply a biological computer which is programmed by what happens to it. Do you regard a computer as a conscious, responsible decision-maker? If not why not?

BTW Free will is not contra-causal. **You **are the cause of your decisions. You are not a cog in a machine but a responsible agent who chooses what to think and how to act. Try standing up in court and saying you’re not guilty because you don’t have free will - and see what happens!

What do you expect in neuroscientists’ circles? Do you think they are qualified to interpret the whole of reality? Ever heard of Sir John Eccles?

I would think neuroscientists would be the most qualified to judge whether something more than the brain is needed to explain consciousness. They are the ones who study the brain, and link the different parts/actions of the brain to different functions.

They have failed miserably to explain consciousness in spite of many years of research.
How long are you prepared to wait until your faith that you are just a mindless body disappears?

What about Sir John Eccles?

A famous neuroscientist whose books might teach you something…

 

[KindredSoul]

You could see an organic form be assembled piece by piece, we’ve actually gone a long way to being able to do this with humans. We know how sperm and eggs are assembled, we know how they combine, we know how the embryo grows and so on.

Yet it assembles itself, not me; it is playing out a process not invented by me, one that has existed far longer than recorded history. I do not know if I am truly privy to every element of that process. I am not, ultimately, the one behind the process (in general) of how organic growth works. This came about long before me, and I cannot say I know that every step in that process is materially observable. I’d have to ask the one who made the initial “blueprint” for organic grown if it was the sort of process to which I can truly have empirical access to observing all its workings. If I were the author of that blueprint, or if the author of such were around or had left some record to be found of his intentions, it would be more reasonable to assume there was no missing element that I didn’t intend or was not aware of, if that’s what the blueprint suggested. Such conditions would exist for AI. They do not exist for the process of organic growth, aside from Divine Revelation in a Universe where God is the said Author. And if God is the Author, the answer seems to be that the process going on is not strictly material.

I don’t see a fundamental difference between having been “designed” by natural selection, or by a life form (or by a deity). Why do you see this? In looking at the assembling of a human being from the building up of the sperm and egg to adulthood, where do you see the “soul” get attached?

Explained above. I doubt it is to your own satisfaction, but it’s there nontheless. It also begs the question to assume that if the empirical (thus material) senses used in scientific observation do not pick up on the attachment of the nonmaterial soul, said soul should not be thought to exist.

If an AI built by us piece by piece surpassed us, unified our physical theories, or proved a mathematical theorem that has eluded us, or designed spaceships capable of carrying us to the stars, and insisted that it was self aware you would still doubt? That is radical skepticism.

No, that’s realizing that behaving like X doesn’t necessarily make something an X, and I’ve explained why that’s not so radical a realization at all. If you continue to insist that it’s radical skepticism, I’m simply going to have to disagree with you, because I don’t see how you think there’s anything so radical about that.

You observe this every time you fall into a dreamless sleep. You observe time pass, and you had been unconscious for that time. For all intents in purposes, you did not exist.

No, I never observe such a thing, even if for the sake of argument you were right. If I did, I should remember what it felt like not to exist…sounds like an oxymoron, correct? Because it is. If I observed myself not existing, it would mean I existed. You cannot observe yourself not existing. You just can’t. It’s the kind of thing that, if it were true, you would just have to take it on faith. There’s just no way to know that. We’ve been over the memory thing for one of the deeper reasons why not remembering it is not sufficient to declare you didn’t exist, and clearly you reject that. But that does not make it true that not remembering a time period that you know has passed means you are observing your nonexistence. If you think so, we cannot possibly reconcile ourselves on this issue.

Evolution is not an “accident”, it is design for adaptability and survival in a given environment. Doesn’t matter if there is a mind behind it or not, the outcome is the same.

If I carve an L into dried mud, or if it simply forms a crack in the shape of an L, the outcome is the same. I know of no one who would say that the latter is no more accidental than the first. Sure, the cracked L is following a definite design: Reacting to the heat, breaking at all the places that are most prone to it, etc…in a sense, it’s thus not just happening without a cause. But it’s certainly not purposeful. It’s just the way things happened to turn out according to the physical circumstances. Evolution works the same way, if it’s ultimately the result of chemical reactions which resulted in DNA which resulted in creatures that naturally did what it took to live which resulted in those creatures making effort to do what it took to live which resulted many many years later in us. The outcome being the same as if it had been planned by a mind does not mean that life has the same amount of purpose in both scenarios.

CONTINUED…

 

[KindredSoul]

…CONTINUED (From Above)

I think that’s a good description. I don’t think you can wipe a person clean and have it retain self awareness

I certainly don’t see why not. It’s most definitely not logically impossible, so far as I can see. Pure awareness simply shouldn’t logically require thoughts and all that. You seem to think that in order to have awareness, we must be able to comprehend and reflect on it. The latter is not logically necessary for the former. One doesn’t have to comprehend something with the intellect or emotions just to be aware of it. Pure self awareness can easily be conceived to exist even if there are absolutely no thoughts, emotions, etc., with which to comprehend it.

The newborn does not have self awareness, and only develops it later after brain growth and learning.

According, it would seem, to the very same sort of scientific observations (even if not exactly the same) whose effectiveness at determining whether consciousness exists or not we are currently debating. Using this in order to make your point would beg the question, because we wouldn’t even be discussing this if I already agreed with you that such means of determinating the existence or non-existence of a particular “self” were valid, yet I’d have to have already agreed with you on that in order to believe you when you say the newborn is not self-aware…especially considering that I have always concluded that the newborn is self aware but simply won’t remember it later, and can think of no reason other than such reasoning as those experiments would use (which, again, we wouldn’t be discussing if I already considered conclusive) to assume otherwise.

I’m curious, why are you so convinced that your particular religion is true?

A mixture of evidence and probability based on that evidence, with faith (informed by reason rather than independent of it) to fill in the gaps. If you were looking for specific arguments, the fruit of diving into that discussion would be zilch for each of us, especially since this far simpler, less complicated debate is demonstrating our inability to agree on just about anything. I’ve had the discussion enough to be satisfied with my reasons, and I doubt you or I would have any new “objections” to raise against each other that I haven’t heard or seen used before, though perhaps we might see them packaged in a different way…though, from experience, such new packaging (often even when posed by experts) usually unravels to be the same arguments I’ve always heard simply in new clothing, and I’m sure you’ve experienced similarly in your time debating.

You see, I realize that debate almost never leads to one side convincing the other, at least among the vast majority of debates I observe. Why do I ever debate then? I guess some people simply enjoy debating, and perhaps you yourself are one such person…I personally find it too time consuming for that, and I’m also too passive (believe it or not) to enjoy such a sometimes assertive exercise. Instead, when I enter debates it’s only to test out what the opposition’s objections to my previously untried reasoning are until I am satisfied with myself that those objections do not compel me to change my position (or if they do, to adjust/change my position accordingly). For instance, outside of passively investigating the matter outside of debate, I had not tested my reasoning for the existence of the soul as opposed to materialism being sufficient to explain the self in the context of debate, so I entered this debate to check out what sort of objections might be raised to it and whether they were strong enough to make me reconsider. I am pretty well satisfied that the opposition does not offer any objections that I find detrimental to my reasoning (though I recognize I have not posed any objections that you find detrimental to your reasoning either), and consequently this debate is close to having run its course, if it hasn’t already. I haven’t budged you, true, but that was never my intention. I debate to satisfy myself (or maybe some observers as a peripheral benefit) of my reasoning, not to satisfy my opponent of my reasoning. I became satisfied as such on the “why believe in Catholicism” discussion some time ago, so have no reason to enter that debate again at all unless I notice some specific unexpectedly unfamiliar objection which gives me pause and spurs me to test my beliefs against it.

If it turns out there is no real reason to continue the discussion, by the way, thank you for your time.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[Mr_Sun]

Maybe God is more of a presence rather than an individual that can be created.

I think when you think about this it and ask where did all that matter come from that started the big bang, then you got yourself an exploded brain on your hands to clean up

 

[flyingfish]

especially since this far simpler, less complicated debate is demonstrating our inability to agree on just about anything.

It seems to me like our fundamental disagreement lies in our view of evidence and what we consider to be reasonable belief.

For example, logically I agree with the objections you made to my claims. It’s possible that when people are in dreamless sleep, in comas, or passed out they are still self aware and simply lack memories of it later.

There is nothing that can ever disprove this sort of claim, because it is a claim that is entirely consistent with there being no evidence for it.

My problem with positing something like this, is that it’s a claim of something that is unobservable.

What does it mean to be unobservable? It means it does not interact with anything we can observe, otherwise, there would be a way to indirectly observe it. If the soul materially interacted with the brain via working through it, we would be able to detect it (theoretically) by observing every physical interaction in the brain and seeing if any were unpredicted by physical theories. (If there are no breaks in the causal chain, then it would mean the brain’s workings are uninfluenced by the soul, so what would be its point?)

I don’t think it’s reasonable to posit such an entity. Something that is unobservable is consistent with lack of evidence for it, but in my opinion it is far more reasonable to simply say it’s not there.

 

[flyingfish]

You have evaded my questions:

1. How exactly does that prove the brain makes decisions?

If the brain knows what you will choose before you’re consciously aware of it, it’s reasonable to assume that the brain made that decision. (Loosely speaking, more accurately the unconscious part of the brain makes the decision before the conscious part becomes aware of it.)

1. Are you a machine that waits for decisions to be made for you?

I would say that I am the machine that makes decisions. I don’t think I have contra-causal free will.

The dark shadow is in your imagination! For one thing you don’t know exactly when **you **make your choice. You make it before you are aware of it because your mind works through the brain. Your awareness is communicated by the brain. The brain waves are not **your **decision but the result of your decision.

If I call me the conscious part of the brain, then in this particular example the conscious part of the brain only became aware of the decision after it was made. If I include the unconscious parts of the brain into the concept of “me”, then I would agree with you, but I would also not claim that it was a freely made decision.

BTW Free will is not contra-causal.

The kind of free will that you’re speaking of must be. Contra-causal means not determined by the causal chain of physical events (like the way chemicals and electrical impulses and the matter of neurons interact with each other).

Contra causal means overriding the laws of physics. If this is not done, then you have a deterministic mind (or with random elements in a quantum system).

They have failed miserably to explain consciousness in spite of many years of research.
How long are you prepared to wait until your faith that you are just a mindless body disappears?

I don’t think I’m a mindless body, I obviously have a mind. But I will believe I am made entirely of the stuff of this universe until I see evidence to the contrary.