The Face of God....

[TheVat]

Recap of Anslem's Argument

You should recognize that Anselm's argument is a bit of wordplay. Note that one can also prove the existence of the greatest jelly doughnut with the same logic. Anselm's word tapdance proves anything - and therefore, proves nothing.

 

[TheVat]

if a complex creature that - a] has a brain, and b] has been making decisions - ever has its brain removed, it immediately stops making decisions,

And, apparently, then always votes Republican.

 

[Olga]

The organ that makes decisions for us is the brain.

The evidence for this is that:
- every complex creature that has ever made any decision has had a working brain,
- no complex creature that has not had a brain has ever made a decision,
- if a complex creature that - a] has a brain, and b] has been making decisions - ever has its brain removed, it immediately stops making decisions,
- changes to a working brain results in changes in the decisions that creature makes, for example removing the frontal lobe results in drsariv change to personality, motivation and communication.

I cannot believe I have to explain this it someone who claims to have gone to university. What are they teaching you over there?

О.к., допустим, решения принимает мозг. Какая именно область мозга это делает?

 

[DaveC426913]

OK, let's say the brain makes decisions. Which part of the brain does this?

You're asking which part of the motor makes the car go.

The answer is: all of it. You cannot look at a part of a motor to find which subpart does the 'go' part. A motor is a complex device wherein all parts must work in unison, or there is no 'go'.

 

[Olga]

You're asking which part of the motor makes the car go.

The answer is: all of it. You cannot look at a part of a motor to find which subpart does the 'go' part. A motor is a complex device wherein all parts must work in unison, or there is no 'go'.

С двигателем всё понятно, топливо сгорает в цилиндре или камере, создаётся давление, и т.д. Двигатель не принимает решений самостоятельно. Это делает водитель. А каким образом мозг принимает решения? Почему, например, человек (мозг) решает, что ему нужно броситься на танк?

 

[DaveC426913]

With the engine, everything is clear, the fuel burns in the cylinder or chamber, pressure is created, etc.

That it is clear to you how an engine works, but it is not clear to you how a brain works, is not cause for questioning that it does work.

The engine does not make decisions on its own. The driver does.

You are mixing the analogy.

Q: What organ in the body makes decisions?
A: The brain.
Q: What part of the brain makes the decisions?
A: No one part. All of it operates to produce a decision.

Q: What device in a car makes the 'go'?
A: The motor.
Q: What part of the motor makes the 'go'?
A: No one part. All of it operates to produce 'go'.

And how does the brain make decisions? Why, for example, does a person (the brain) decide that he needs to rush at a tank?

Tens of billions of neurons all have pre-existing levels of excitability, partly from genetic and partly from real-world experience. These come together with current input (say, from the colour of a stoplight ,the gumlnih in you belly ,the stress toons in your blood, etc), along with innumerable other factors that are encoded in the synapses rom reetn and log-term experiences - in a vastly complex way - but we might boil them down to subconsious thoughts ("Am I stressed?", "Is it late?", "Is my dog missing me?", "Am I hungry?" "Did I tape my show?", "Did my father survive that crash in a similar stoplight?") etc etc etc. They all compete, and present a range of options, one of which biols to the top and induces an action (or inaction).

This is the essence of a decision. And decisions are the essence of free will. I have multiple, competing options. I choose one, because I can.
It is not germane why I might have chosen the action I did; th essence is simply that I did choose it - willingly and with forethought. I coiuld tell you beforehand what my action was going to be, and I could tell you afterward what I was thinkngi that caused me to choose - whether or not there are other factors - I am aware, I am cogniant, I am sentient enough to preview and review may actions forward in time, backward in time and currently.

Bacteria can't do that. They do not rise to the level of what we consider free will. Neither do rocks.


The problem you're having is that you are trying to answer a question based on knowing very little about cognitioon and consciousness, and this is not the place for you to learn. The brain is essentially the single most complex object in existence. Do you expect to learn it all in a forum post?

More to the point, as I said above, just because you don't understand it doesnt mean it doesn't work that way. That is called argument by incedulity.

 

[DaveC426913]

Finally, if what is good fo the goose is good for the gander, I'm sure you are busy writing up an expalanation how God is beaming thoughts into my soul so that I can operate accroding to his laws. You'll be sure to describe that process at the atomic scale - as you've been asking here, right?

Or, what if, instead of all that above, I just said "the brain operates on brain magic. Trust me on this." Woudl you accept that? No? Then why do you think anyone would aceept "God and souls just are!!"

 

[Olga]

That it is clear to you how an engine works, but it is not clear to you how a brain works, is not cause for questioning that it does work.


You are mixing the analogy.

Q: What organ in the body makes decisions?
A: The brain.
Q: What part of the brain makes the decisions?
A: No one part. All of it operates to produce a decision.

Q: What device in a car makes the 'go'?
A: The motor.
Q: What part of the motor makes the 'go'?
A: No one part. All of it operates to produce 'go'.


Tens of billions of neurons all have pre-existing levels of excitability, partly from genetic and partly from real-world experience. These come together with current input (say, from the colour of a stoplight ,the gumlnih in you belly ,the stress toons in your blood, etc), along with innumerable other factors that are encoded in the synapses rom reetn and log-term experiences - in a vastly complex way - but we might boil them down to subconsious thoughts ("Am I stressed?", "Is it late?", "Is my dog missing me?", "Am I hungry?" "Did I tape my show?", "Did my father survive that crash in a similar stoplight?") etc etc etc. They all compete, and present a range of options, one of which biols to the top and induces an action (or inaction).

This is the essence of a decision. And decisions are the essence of free will. I have multiple, competing options. I choose one, because I can.
It is not germane why I might have chosen the action I did; th essence is simply that I did choose it - willingly and with forethought. I coiuld tell you beforehand what my action was going to be, and I could tell you afterward what I was thinkngi that caused me to choose - whether or not there are other factors - I am aware, I am cogniant, I am sentient enough to preview and review may actions forward in time, backward in time and currently.

Bacteria can't do that. They do not rise to the level of what we consider free will. Neither do rocks.


The problem you're having is that you are trying to answer a question based on knowing very little about cognitioon and consciousness, and this is not the place for you to learn. The brain is essentially the single most complex object in existence. Do you expect to learn it all in a forum post?

More to the point, as I said above, just because you don't understand it doesnt mean it doesn't work that way. That is called argument by incedulity.

Отличный пост, Дэйв. Неужели вы действительно подумали, что я не знаю всего того, что вы сейчас здесь написали? Знаю намного больше, чем вы думаете, я интересовалась этим вопросом раньше. Мне нужно было чтобы ВЫ задумались о том, как выглядит мыслительный процесс, и где в этом процессе находится ВОЛЯ. И вы САМИ написали, что мозг предлагает вам различные варианты, а ВЫ из них выбираете. Т.е., вы сами не заметили, Дэйв, как отделили себя от мозга. Есть мозг, и есть ВЫ, принимающий решения. Вы хоть сейчас это поняли?

 

[DaveC426913]

I needed YOU to think about what the thought process looks like

Oh bullshit.

Dave, how you separated yourself from the brain. There is the brain, and there is YOU, making decisions. Do you even understand this now?

You asked about what organ makes decisions. You want to know the organ? It is the brain.

(Actually, even that is not entirely true. The stomach is known as the second brain, and plays big part in the chemical processes that affect the brain. But you're not ready for that.)

Take my leg away, I'm still me.
Take my brain away, I am not me.
Leave my brain, but damage it physically or chemically, and I am not me.
Give me a drug, such as PCP, and who I am changes until the chemicals leave my body.


"Me" is a phenomenon emergent from the processes in my brain. As are you in yours.


You asked for evidence, there you go.

Now, you tell me how taking PCP, which affects the chemistry of the brain, can turn a peaceful, kitten-loving christian altruist into a murderous villain. How can PCP - a chemical - corrupt this immaterial "soul" you speak of? I'd like evidence please. Explain the chemical effect of drugs on the soul, which you claim is not part of the chemical body.

 

[Olga]

Oh bullshit.


You asked about what organ makes decisions. You want to know the organ? It is the brain.

(Actually, even that is not entirely true. The stomach is known as the second brain, and plays big part in the chemical processes that affect the brain. But you're not ready for that.)

Take my leg away, I'm still me.
Take my brain away, I am not me.
Leave my brain, but damage it physically or chemically, and I am not me.
Give me a drug, such as PCP, and who I am changes until the chemicals leave my body.


"Me" is a phenomenon emergent from the processes in my brain. As are you in yours.


You asked for evidence, there you go.

Now, you tell me how taking PCP, which affects the chemistry of the brain, can turn a peaceful, kitten-loving christian altruist into a murderous villain. How can PCP - a chemical - corrupt this immaterial "soul" you speak of?

Так кто же всё таки окончательно выбирает из всего множества вариантов, предлагаемых мозгом?

 

[DaveC426913]

So who ultimately chooses from all the many options offered by the brain?

I do. All of me. There are an infinitude of factors that get weighed.

That infinitude - of genetics, nurturing, memories, experiences, processes and conclusions - is the very essense of each one of us.

Again, you cannot ask what "part" of a motor makes the car move. A subpart does not move a car.

A consciousness is not a single part. It is a collective, whose components all work together, and the sum total is the "me" in each of us. Any of those parts stop working and the "me" stops working.

Tell me this: (this is second pointed question I've asked of you, I'll be looking for answers). How much for your brain do you think can be removed before "you" are not "you"? Do you think there is some small set of molecules that, if not touched, will keep you as Olga?

If your entire brain were physically removed, do you assert you soul is still there in your body? If so, what is it doing? It's certainly not sitting at a stoplight making decisions, is it? No. that requires your brain. All of it. No, your soul is not what makes decisions.

 

[Olga]

I do. All lof me. There are an infinitude of factors that get weighed.

That infinitude - of genetics, nurturing, memories, experiences, processes and conclusions - is the very essense of each one of is.

Again, you cannot ask what "part" of a motor makes the car move. A subpart does not move a car

A consciousness is not a single part. It is a collective, whose components all work together, and the sum total is the "me" in each of us. Any of those parts stop working and the "me" stops working.

Tell me this: (this is second pointed question I've asked of you, I'll be looking for answers). How much for your brain do you think can be removed before "you" are not "you"? Do you think there is some small set of molecules that, if not touched, will keep you as Olga?

If your entire brain were physically removed, do you assert you soul is still there in your body? If so, what is it doing? It's certainly not sitting at a stoplight making decisions, is it? No. that requires your brain. All of it. No, your soul is not what makes decisions.

Ну, это тоже так себе аргумент, Дэйв. Можно сказать, что мозг выполняет роль компьютера в организме, и без него вся система не будет работать. Т.е. водитель управляет машиной с помощью компьютера, но в самом компьютере тоже достаточно программ, чтобы делать некоторые вещи автоматически, даже лучше самого водителя.

Вы знакомы с опытами академика Бехтерева? Он под гипнозом давал людям водку, и говорил, что это вода. Они оставались абсолютно трезвыми. А другим давал воду, и говорил, что это водка. Люди были пьяны в стельку. Как вы можете это объяснить?

 

[DaveC426913]

Well, that's not a very good argument either, Dave. You could say that the brain acts as a computer in the body, and without it the whole system wouldn't work. That is, the driver controls the car with the help of a computer, but the computer itself has enough programs to do some things automatically, even better than the driver himself.

You could say that, sure. The world is rife with metaphors and analogies. But analogies can only take you so far.
It is dangerous to take a factor in a loose analogy and try to apply it back to the subject.

I can only present the analogies and hope you see the parts that are applicable. I can lead you to the eter, but I can't make you drink.

Are you familiar with the experiments of academician Bekhterev? He gave people vodka under hypnosis and said it was water. They remained absolutely sober. And he gave water to others and said it was vodka. The people were completely drunk. How can you explain that?

What on Earth does this have to do with anything?

Are you trying to prove that vodka doesn't make the soul drunk?

 

[Olga]

You could say that, sure. The world is rife with metaphors and analogies. But analogies can only take you so far.
It is dangerous to take a factor in a loose analogy and try to apply it back to the subject.

I can only present the analogies and hope you see the parts that are applicable. I can lead you to the eter, but I can't make you drink.


What on Earth does this have to do with anything?

Are you trying to prove that vodka doesn't make the soul drunk?

Это о работе сознания. Каким образом гипнотизер внушает другому(не своему!) мозгу, те или иные вещи? Какие нейронные связи при этом включаются у гипнотируемого? Почему выбор за него делает гипнотизёр?

 

[DaveC426913]

This is about the work of consciousness. How does a hypnotist suggest certain things to another (not his own!) brain? What neural connections are activated in the hypnotized person? Why does the hypnotist make the choice for him?

I guess we're on to another topic then?

Can I take that you grant everything I've said up to this point?

 

[Olga]

I guess we're on to another topic then?

Can I take that you grant everything I've said up to this point?

Нет, мы просто пытаемся рассмотреть эту же тему с ещё одной стороны. Мы ведь что то ищем, верно?

 

[James R]

Olga:

Is it your claim that the thing that makes the decisions is an immaterial soul that exists separately from the human brain and body?

You have asked DaveC, repeatedly, to explain how the decision making process works. You want DaveC to explain how the decision forms in the brain and then is enacted by the body, step by step.

Let us assume that DaveC can't explain exactly how the brain makes decisions. Does this add any weight at all to your claim that a soul makes decisions?

It does not.

You have an even bigger problem than DaveC has. That's because you have to explain how the soul can make a brain and a body do anything. How does an immaterial soul communicate with a material body and brain, Olga? How does it cause changes in the body and the brain?

How does the soul make decisions, Olga? Please give us the step by step process that you demanded that Dave provide for you.

If you cannot, then why do you think your "soul" claim is superior to DaveC's brain claim? It is, in fact, worse, because it introduces a new entity into the decision-making pipeline, and that entity is unobservable, undetectable and supernatural. You have no evidence for it at all.

At least DaveC has evidence that brains exist, for a start. And, in fact, he can appeal to much stronger evidence for the brain's specific role in decision making.

What evidence have you got that supports the idea that an immaterial soul does anything?

 

[James R]

This statement contradicts what is written in the Bible. God is the Being, i.e. the Existing. Everything that exists is physical and material. Another thing is that science at its current level does not know everything about matter.

Is it your assertion that God is physical and material, then?

Where can we find this physical, material God of yours? With what apparatus can we detect it?

It is true that science does not know everything about matter. What it does know is that it has never found any gods.

You say you've found your god in matter? Where is it, then?

Also, are you saying that your God is bound by the laws of physics? If so, then it is not all powerful and it cannot be all knowing or all seeing, as I pointed out before.

Is your God limited, Olga?

 

[James R]

How did you know that your parents loved you, James?

I have evidence of it from their words and actions. This can also be verified by third-party observers of how my parents interact with me.

Nature does everything herself.

No need for a god, then.

Thanking and acting according to His laws.

God makes natural laws, but God is bound by natural laws, because God is part of nature?

Could God choose to change natural laws, Olga?

 

[James R]

Dave, matter cannot have any free will at all. This is contrary to all the laws of physics. It is all subject to physical laws and is determined.

Okay. Let's assume that the laws of nature imply that we can't have free will.

And you say what, then? That God is part of nature and subject to natural laws, but God can give you supernatural free will that the laws of physics can't give you?

See the problem with that?

Or do you now want to change your mind and claim that your God is supernatural after all, which means he can do the free will trick?

Matter does not and cannot have any will.

Is God matter? Can God have free will? If God can have free will, is it because God isn't matter? What is God, then?

Some people think that this is even easier: no will - no responsibility.

That doesn't follow. We would still hold people responsible for their actions even they have no free will. If you choose to murder somebody, you will be put into jail, even if your choice to murder was determined by some kind of natural law and circumstances of physics. You might argue that you're not responsible, but you decided to murder somebody. Or, at least, you thought you decided to murder somebody.

It really doesn't matter whether free will exists or not. Either way, you will be held responsible for your actions by other people. The excuse of "no free will" won't give you a "get out of jail free" card.

Freedom is, first of all, responsibility. But you don't want that, do you?

Why would you say that?