Death/Dying

[gogobuffalo]

Booooo! Of all things for you to comment on of what I said. Well, regardless of the fact if whether or not we could tell that we were, God didn't want to create us that way. He wanted to create wonderful beings in His image that had free will, that could do what they wanted and I think that is truly a wonderful gift from God. Almost as wonderful as His gift of Salvation through Christ Jesus, but not quite!

[David Blacklock]

I don't know how this eventually panned out, but when I first read about this many years ago, it immediately got my attention: In a famous study from the 70's, Libet (UCSF) demonstrated that unconscious electrical processes in the brain causing apparently volitional, spontaneous activity precede the electrical activity designating conscious decision-making. This implies that unconscious neuronal processes precede and potentially cause volitional acts that are retrospectively thought to be consciously motivated by the subject.

This experiment marked the subject's conscious experience of the will to perform an action in time, and afterward compared this information with data recording the brain's electrical activity during the same interval.
Libet's experiments suggest unconscious processes in the brain are the true initiators of volitional acts, therefore, little room remains for the operations of “free will.” If the brain has already taken steps to initiate an action before we are aware of any desire to perform it, the causal role of consciousness in volition is all but eliminated.

Libet finds room for free will in the interpretation of his results only in the form of “power of veto.” It has been suggested that consciousness is merely a side-effect of neuronal function, an “epiphenomenon” of brain states — our reports of instigation of our own acts are, in this view, a mistake of retrospection.

DB

[frankbaginski]

David Blacklock ,

Actually the results of this test are not surprizing at all. If you use Newtonian physics then you are right the space for free will to exist is very small. But once you include the realm of particle physics we are back to full access to free will again. Let me explain. In particle physics many experiments have shown that photons know if they are going to be viewed by an eye. They change their state in expectation of the future. Also if you split a beam of light in the right way you can cause one beam to change state and the other beam will change state as well even though not connected to the other beam. In fact it appears that every photon in the universe knows what every other photon in the universe is doing. It is as if they all exist at one point and have direct knowledge of each other in one realm, and in our view of the universe they are far removed and appear independant. I would not be too concerned with this type of data. The connection to time is of this world. Who is to say how our free will is attached to this world. Don't limit your thoughts to just what can be measured by the tools of this world.

[Kurieuo]

Hi David.

Do you see any drawbacks to the position of Epiphenomenalism in explaining the interaction of the mental with physical, and particularly vice-versa?

[David Blacklock]

>>drawbacks to the position of Epiphenomenalism<<

I don't know - I had to look it up. Reading over the subject matter in a cursory fashion, I was reminded why I don't like philosophy, which requires that you form an opinion based on inadequate hard data - very interesting, though. Libet's experiment and all the epiphenomena (heh, heh) that resulted from it don't seem to leave us with a definitive position - but that's science for you.

In Frank's post, the phenomenon of entanglement (Einstein called it 'spooky action at a distance'), uncertainty principle, the double-slit experiment - all the experiments that led to the acceptance of those ideas have been consistently reproducible, and experiments in particle accelerators that followed have led to further completely reliable results confirming the Standard Model and quantum mechanics, but we don't have a clue why it works that way. Nevertheless, the use of these findings has produced about 35% of the technology in general use today.

If Libet's experiment had led to a use, like quantum mechanics led to its uses, we would be applying it today, but still without a hard answer to the questions surrounding epiphenomemism.

[frankbaginski]

Studying these oddities of physics is a blind alley. As for science it should reap the knowledge and see if devices can be made to make life easier. Beyond that, dwelling on the why I think is beyond our ability.

I think the spirit world is an extension of this one. For personal reasons I know it is. There may be many ways for us to see "symptoms" of this realm. The easiest way is the internal search for God. Now this may not leave any experimental results but it true none the less.

[Kurieuo]

>>drawbacks to the position of Epiphenomenalism<<

I don't know - I had to look it up. Reading over the subject matter in a cursory fashion, I was reminded why I don't like philosophy, which requires that you form an opinion based on inadequate hard data - very interesting, though. Libet's experiment and all the epiphenomena (heh, heh) that resulted from it don't seem to leave us with a definitive position - but that's science for you.

I purposely highlighted this term (epiphenomenalism) to see whether you did in fact agree with such a position as it was used in your above post. I appreciate your honesty regarding not really knowing what it is, but then I am not really sure what appealed to you in Libet's experiment?

For everyone's sake, epiphenomenalism believes that the mind and body are both physically constituted, and that mental states are produced by certain physical states. However, as this is a physicalist position, the interaction between the body and mind is all one way; physical states (e.g., electrons firing in the brain) must produce mental states (e.g., our emotions, desires, intentions, etc), but mental states can not produce physical states. So for example, our desire to do some Christmas shopping and go do it is produced by certain physical states. A large problem for epiphenomenalism, and any physicalist accounting in the mind/body debate, is explaining intentionality such as this. For such intentions involve a whole complex array of other mental assets including beliefs about what a shop is, that the shop will have the items we are going to buy, that they will be open and not closed, etc, etc. It is very difficult to explain how all these "mental assets" can be physically explained.

I have read about Libet's experimentation and rather than support epiphenomena in a wholistic fashion, it actually contradicts it particularly where "vetoing" is involved:

Libet finds room for free will in the interpretation of his results only in the form of 'the power of veto'; conscious acquiescence is required to allow the unconscious buildup of the readiness potential to be actualized as a movement. While consciousness plays no part in the instigation of volitional acts, it retains a part to play in the form of suppressing or withholding from certain acts instigated by the unconscious. Libet noted that everyone has experienced the withholding from performing an unconscious urge. Since the subjective experience of the conscious will to act preceded the action by only 200 milliseconds, this leaves consciousness only 100-150 milliseconds to veto an action (this is because the final 50 milliseconds prior to an act are occupied by the activation of the spinal motor neurones by the primary motor cortex, and the margin of error indicated by tests utilizing the oscillator must also be considered). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet

Thus, where the same Wikipedia article continues: "It has been suggested that consciousness is merely a side-effect of neuronal functions, an epiphenomenon of brain states. Libet's experiments are proffered in support of this theory...", whoever uses Libet's experiments to support epiphenomenalism must also pay attention to the vetoing. For the vetoing is where our conscious will (mental state) actually overrides our physical state(s). This suggests that epiphenominalism is in fact wrong (since mental states are only produced by physical states and not vice-versa), and so anyone who attempts to use Libet's experiment to lend support to a physicalist explanation of the mind/body interaction must do so selectively, and I dare say misleadingly.

[Gman]

Hey guys I don't mean to ruin your fun but this is one thing I would like to post. If original sin is true, that doesn't mean that God creates humans guilty and that He is cruel for doing so. God created humans perfectly and flawlessly, but the Bible also says that after Adam and Eve sinned that man lost the image of God. That would certainly imply that we were not quite how we were created. I do like the imperfect in love explanation, which to an extent I believe is true. But I also believe that original sin is true. There are multiple versus in the Bible that can be used to support it.

I don't think that God creates humans guilty... It was man that was responsible for the split, much like a divorce.. This always reminds me of that parable of the Lost Son story.

And Gman isn't your theory the same thing as orginal sin? Now you will probably find some way to word your way around this, haha just joking, but God says that man should love God with his whole heart and mind and etc. in the Bible. Now if we are born imperfect in love, we are therefore born without fullfilling this request from God, therefore being born sinful! Well, just my thoughts on the matter, I'm not expert on original sin by any means.

I guess another question to this is that why would God command man to love with Him with his whole heart and mind if he was perfect in love anyways? Also perhaps there are times when man can actually love God totally, but does he love God always or all the time? I would surmise not...

But yea people always get this wrong in my mind: God did not create these terrible beings that run around and kill each other and do terrible things and He did not create a terrible place for these terrible people to do these terrible things in.

I would be careful to say that our world was created perfect by God. To me this makes God somewhat guilty since he was the one that set it up originally under the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The 2nd law of thermodynamics clearly shows that the universe was designed to be temporary. I can't find anything in the Bible that states that the universe was created to be perfect. I believe man was created perfect in love originally in spirit, but then lost this spiritual connection or crippled the relationship later via sin.

I thought this article shared some good light on on the subject...
Source: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... ering.html

HE ceated two perfect people and a perfect Earth. It was MAN who brought MAN into a sinful world, not God. God of course knew it was going to happen, but creation in this way is the only way for God to have created us with a true and complete free will, which is what He wanted to do. Why? Well I just don't know. But ask yourself this: would you like to be a preprogrammed robot?

I don't think is was God who brought sin into the world and I don't think he makes robots... I thought this article addressed it pretty well.. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... l-sin.html

[David Blacklock]

>>I am not really sure what appealed to you in Libet's experiment?<<

I was responding to someone's suggestion that it woold be horrible if we were like robots. I think most of our response patterns are very similar to the instinctual patterns of animals, and when the robot statement was made, I thought of Libet's experiment. Also, I'm glad somebody else (besides me) likes Wikipedia. I noticed the "veto" power item when I researched Libet's article for my post of a couple of days ago. I had another source that mentioned epiphenomenism which is where it came from in my original post. The whole field of consciousness is full of speculation, therefore I don't read much about it.

DB

[Kurieuo]

>>I am not really sure what appealed to you in Libet's experiment?<<

I was responding to someone's suggestion that it woold be horrible if we were like robots. I think most of our response patterns are very similar to the instinctual patterns of animals, and when the robot statement was made, I thought of Libet's experiment. Also, I'm glad somebody else (besides me) likes Wikipedia. I noticed the "veto" power item when I researched Libet's article for my post of a couple of days ago. I had another source that mentioned epiphenomenism which is where it came from in my original post. The whole field of consciousness is full of speculation, therefore I don't read much about it.

DB

I certainly find the discussions round Libet's experiment interesting, so I am glad you mentioned it.

I actually dislike information from Wikipedia as I have found it tends to be moderated towards a secular perspective. However, it still can be a good resource. I just wouldn't use it as an only source. I noticed your information appeared to be drawn from it, so thought any information I drew from it would be more acceptable to you.

So you don't like philosophy and you don't like speculation. How is it that you bring yourself to believe anything?

[David Blacklock]

I'm a sucker for evidence.

DB

[Kurieuo]

I'm a sucker for evidence.

DB

I must be missing something.

If you don't like philosophy what kind of "reasoning" do you use to deduce what is evidence for you beliefs and what isn't? Speculation is also required in science in order to make inferences to the best conclusions. In fact, science has a lot to do with speculating on theories as well as developing proofs which involves a great deal of logic and reasoning (philosophy). I just think philosophy is extremely beneficial in helping us to understand truth which I guess is why I am inquiring.

[David Blacklock]

There is one method that consistently gets closer to the truth than any other - that is use of the scientific method. Since it is done by humans it is, of course, subject to all the errors humans are prone to make, but despite all its faults, it is ultimately self-correcting. Every theory is up for grabs when new evidence shows up and no theory is considered completely true or complete. Certainly, as you mentioned, speculation is important in devising a hypothesis to test.

As logical as it may be, much of philosophy is based on things there is insufficient evidence for - at least in my judgement. The official type of reasoning that relies on evidence that can be tested is inductive, as opposed to deductive. That's not the only difference, but an important one. I do like philosophy - it just puts me to sleep. I'm reading a book now called, "Plato and a Platypus walk into a Bar..."

The Indians asked their new chief, who they had sent to Harvard to become educated, if the coming winter was going to be cold. Not being skilled in the ancient ways of knowing, he hedged and said, "yes, I think that's definitely a possibility. You had better start gathering firewood." The next day he called the US weather service and asked them what they thought. They hedged, but said the were beginning to see indications that it could be a cold winter.

The Indians came back a week later and asked the chief again. He reinforced his previous recommendation and suggested they double up on gathering wood. Again, he called the weather service the next day. They said their predictors were beginning to point toward really cold.

The Indians came back a week later to again consult the chief. He told them to pull out all the stops, the winter was going to break records. The next day, he called the weather service again. They said, "You better get ready for a blockbuster. Our regular indicators are giving mixed signals, but those Indians are putting back firewood like crazy."

From the chapter about circular reasoning. Note - no data testing was done.

DB

[frankbaginski]

David,

Hard evidence is hard to find. The most we could hope for is repeating consistant evidence. But evidence comes in all forms. One form may be observing things fall in a gravitational field towards the center of the body making the field. Another may be the number of people of faith on this planet today and in the past. If a belief does not die there has to be a reason why. Something keeps it going. If you can't see a reason in the physical world then you have to extend your thoughts to include the metaphysical. In the metaphysical world there are two opposing forces so the view is polarized. This makes what seems a tangle of faiths consistant with spiritual warfare. What possible reason would man have to keep a polarized world view?

As for evidence of God -

Causation - everything has a cause, so going back there is a cause for the universe outside of the universe

entropy - The universe is heading for heat death so there was a start - go to causation

patterns exist across unconnected parts of the universe - see Leonardo Fibonacci

Complex design in biology beyond natural processes - see intelligent design

Joh 18:38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.

Truth was standing in front of Pilate. For him to ask the question means he did not see with his own eyes the answer he was looking for. So presented with the best of evidence Pilate chose not to see. We all have blinders on to one degree or another. If you don't allow for the possiblities then you will not see.

[Gman]

I alway hear this... Where is the physical proof that God created it all? Well if someone wants to go this route, then where is the physical proof that claims that he DIDN'T create it all? You can't have your cake and eat it too...