Evidence for God from Science

Justhuman wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Justhuman wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Justhuman wrote:Besides that, I don't believe in any form of immaterial power that can create, or control, a material realm.

I think you have that back-to-front. I'd point out we experience precisely that immediately and directly with ourselves, an exterion of our will over the natural and material realm.

I'd have to reread the "delusions of free will" posts to refreshen my mind...

Do you mean that the will controls material substances directly?

I believe the mind to be a faculty of the soul that, for us as physical beings, requires certain physical states to obtain in the brain and central nervous system before the mind can function.

justhuman wrote:To me our will is merely the computational result of neural and biological processes, which is confined whithin the thought patterns in the brain. It is not an immaterial extension of ourselves.

Some might consider one’s brain being touched with an electrode causing a memory to occur as evidence for such. Yet, such doesn't show mental states are reducible to physical states. Rather this only demonstrates that the mind is causally connected to the brain and not that they are identical.

Given the distinctiveness of mental and physical properties, there is a reason to embrace the two as difference substances however interlinked and connected they might be.

justhuman wrote:Besides, how can something immaterial control something material?

Why isn't it a problem to you that the material (physical) control the immaterial (conciousness), yet the other way around presents some problem? Lack of knowledge about how something works, doesn't mean it can't work. In any case, I think it's a false dilemma. The relationship as I see between mind and matter appears direct and immediate.

Consider the question of how turning a key can start a car? It starts the car because there is an system inbetween the key and the car’s engine such that turning the key causes the engine to start. The "How” question is a request to describe that intermediate mechanism.

Yet, as far as I experience, my control over my fingers as I type this message is rather direct and immediate. I don't really think much, yet I have thoughts, develop an intention to communicate a message, and just start typing. Everything just happens, my mind (will, thoughts, desires, intention) and body (brain, neurology, fingers) is so intimately tied together.

Furthermore, many philosophically inclined Theists who consider the ontology of reality are often Idealists. In a manner of speaking, everything is running on "God's mind" so-to-speak, such that what we call physical reality is simply that which we experience in the mind-constructed world. Consider how at quantum levels particles behave with observation changing the result (e.g., double-slit experiment). It mightn't be that "minds" or consciousness run on the physical order, but on the most fundamental levels the physical order running on mind.

In fact, there is quite a bit of research that shows that our mental force changes to our brain chemistry with OCD patients and what-not. The brain appears plastic and can change. People via pure will power can rewire brain neurology.

As a side, here's a video that makes a case for the "soul".

Thoughts are not immaterial in the sense of the opposite to material stuff. Thoughts are virual, they do not reside anywhere else than whithin the neural patterns of our brain. So thoughts do not control anything, our brain does.

Fine, but where is the supporting evidence? There are numerous scientific studies that show it is not really the case our thoughts are merely reduced to our brains. That is far too simplisitic an understanding, and isn't supported by the fuller research. Research that has been known for some time, which it seems to me, many materialists tend to ignore.

As per the video previously linked, take Wilder Penfield who is known for his experiments in applying electrodes to the motor cortex, where patients were made to involuntartily raise their arms, vocalise and recall memories. Yet, he could not involuntarily cause patients to act i.e., stimulate their will. He concludes, "There is no place in the cerebral cortex where an electrical stimulation will cause a patient ... to decide." Ergo, the "mind" is not in the brain chemistry, and cannot be explained by it.

Or, what about "unified perception" and the "visual binding problem"? To give a rundown, in the brain there is a part where colour information is had, and a part for helping with shapes. The entire visual system of the brain has been mapped. Yet, the is no place in the brain where shapes and colours are unified into the one picture we directly experience. To quote, "There is now overwhelming biological and behavioral evidence that the brain contains no stable, high-resolutoin, full field representation of a visual scene, even though that is what we subjectively experience." (Martinez-Conde et al., The Neural Binding Problem(s) 2008 p.5). If the entire visual system is mapped, then we KNOW our brain cannot produce our subjective experience of unified perceptions, it cannot be explained by looking at the brain alone. Therefore, the brain cannot explain the mind, but rather appears itself to be a tool used by the mind.

Additional studies show that our subjective experiences shape brain chemistry. That is, people appear to be able to re-wire and re-mould their brain, create new pathways, through mere will power. You have probably heard often of such rehabilition methods with brain-damaged people. The evidence suggests that we are able to change the way our brains work through mental effort. Sure, there are limits, but rather than our brains being our be-all and end-all of "WHO WE ARE" it seems they simply serve a utilitarian function to us, enabling us to process and experience physical phenema. Our will however, our decision making ability, our unification of physical experiences, our intentions, and the like, are more deeply seated and not found in our brains.

Highly recommend giving that video linked to at end of my last post a watch.

@Kurieuo
Will look into the videos later...

Do you suggest that our thoughts (will, soul) reside somewhere outside our brain? In an immaterial, or other specific non-physical, 'space'?

Justhuman wrote:@Kurieuo
Will look into the videos later...

Do you suggest that our thoughts (will, soul) reside somewhere outside our brain? In an immaterial, or other specific non-physical, 'space'?

Isn't it obvious? If what we directly experience isn't formed by our brains, then such suggests this "seat of consciousness" which puts the fuller picture together of the world we experience is at least more than merely our brain.

Furthermore, I wouldn't merely suggest but argue strongly that the world, our world, isn't material only. It seems obvious to me it isn't and that an ontology of reality that is exclusively material/physical is rather naive, simplicistic, goes against common intuitions and wrong.

Before you jump the gun to relegate such a position (mine) to Christians, God-believers or the like, various respectible secular philosophers have also come out in agreement with such based upon rational arguments. So then, lack of belief in "Materialism" doesn't necessarily boil to a Believer vs non-Believer issue.

Kurieuo wrote:

Justhuman wrote:@Kurieuo
Will look into the videos later...

Do you suggest that our thoughts (will, soul) reside somewhere outside our brain? In an immaterial, or other specific non-physical, 'space'?

Isn't it obvious? If what we directly experience isn't formed by our brains, then such suggests this "seat of consciousness" which puts the fuller picture together of the world we experience is at least more than merely our brain.

But there have been cases of people's thoughts being altered as a direct result of brain damage. How could this be if thoughts don't originate from the brain?

Ken

But there have been cases of people's thoughts being altered as a direct result of brain damage. How could this be if thoughts don't originate from the brain?

Ken

Our brains are BOTH receivers and interpreters of OUTSIDE input, as well as originators of thoughts. Our brains receive, interpret, and then react to outside stimuli that it does not originate. And our biology also dictates certain information that the brain doesn't originate - when we are in pain from a sudden injury what happens? The injury occurs and THEN the brain receives and then interprets information per the nerve stimuli and subsequently sends out in pain messages. People that are brain damaged have their receivers, originators, and interpretative abilities skewed so as to malfunction per what would otherwise be normal functionality.

But there have been cases of people's thoughts being altered as a direct result of brain damage. How could this be if thoughts don't originate from the brain?

Ken

Philip wrote: Our brains are BOTH receivers and interpreters of OUTSIDE input, as well as originators of thoughts. Our brains receive, interpret, and then react to outside stimuli that it does not originate.

Yes and those outside stimuli are actions we experience from other people and other things; right?

Philip wrote: And our biology also dictates certain information that the brain doesn't originate - when we are in pain from a sudden injury what happens? The injury occurs and THEN the brain receives and then interprets information per the nerve stimuli and subsequently sends out in pain messages. People that are brain damaged have their receivers, originators, and interpretative abilities skewed so as to malfunction per what would otherwise be normal functionality.

I don’t think this is what he was suggesting. If I understood him correctly, he seemed to be suggesting that our thoughts originate from somewhere else; not our brains. If I understand you correctly, you are pointing out that outside stimuli (actions we experience around us) causes our brains to interpret and create thoughts concerning those outside stimuli. If I am misunderstanding you, let me know where I went wrong.

Ken

Ken: Yes and those outside stimuli are actions we experience from other people and other things; right?

Often, yes. But those "other people and things" must ultimately have a source that is not them!

Ken: If I understand you correctly, you are pointing out that outside stimuli (actions we experience around us) causes our brains to interpret and create thoughts concerning those outside stimuli. If I am misunderstanding you, let me know where I went wrong.

External stimuli are not the only originators of our thoughts. Because we can originate response thoughts that are entirely our own - or w can originate thoughts that are in response to our own experiences or sudden desires. ALL outside stimuli that results in our stimuli must first have a cause for their existence. A physical reality must first exist. We must first exist - as well as our brains. We and these are all things with a necessary cause.

How we interpret or think about things - things which may no longer even exist - also can prompt our thoughts, impact our thinking and desires. Such things may only reside in our subconsciousness or memory, nonetheless, they can still stimulate our original thinking in response, and thus motivate our desires and actions.

Kurieuo wrote:

Justhuman wrote:@Kurieuo
Will look into the videos later...

Do you suggest that our thoughts (will, soul) reside somewhere outside our brain? In an immaterial, or other specific non-physical, 'space'?

Isn't it obvious? If what we directly experience isn't formed by our brains, then such suggests this "seat of consciousness" which puts the fuller picture together of the world we experience is at least more than merely our brain.

Furthermore, I wouldn't merely suggest but argue strongly that the world, our world, isn't material only. It seems obvious to me it isn't and that an ontology of reality that is exclusively material/physical is rather naive, simplicistic, goes against common intuitions and wrong.

Before you jump the gun to relegate such a position (mine) to Christians, God-believers or the like, various respectible secular philosophers have also come out in agreement with such based upon rational arguments. So then, belief in "Materialism" doesn't necessarily boil to a Believer vs non-Believer issue.

I think the biggest problem with an immaterial 'anything' is its relation to material stuff. There is material substance, and there is immaterial substance (if the immaterial exists and whatever that immaterial substance might be). But immaterial substance has no relation to material substance, like neutrino's in relation to matter (and neutrino's is a material substance, so an immaterial substance has even infinitely less interaction with material substance, like 0 (zero)).
If thoughts (or the will, or the soul) are immaterial and reside inside our brain and also outside our brain, then how are those thoughts 'fixed' to our brain? How does that immaterial substance interact and keep up with its material 'counterpart' and even evolves with the changing brain?

Ken: Yes and those outside stimuli are actions we experience from other people and other things; right?

Philip wrote: Often, yes. But those "other people and things" must ultimately have a source that is not them!

True but their source has nothing to do with the discussion, because our brains are interpreting and creating thoughts about the outside stimuli (other people and things) not whatever it’s source is.

Ken: If I understand you correctly, you are pointing out that outside stimuli (actions we experience around us) causes our brains to interpret and create thoughts concerning those outside stimuli. If I am misunderstanding you, let me know where I went wrong.

Philip wrote: External stimuli are not the only originators of our thoughts.

I don't agree that external stimuli originate any of our thoughts, they just influence them.

Philip wrote: Because we can originate response thoughts that are entirely our own - or w can originate thoughts that are in response to our own experiences or sudden desires.

I believe all of our thoughts originate this way.

Philip wrote: ALL outside stimuli that results in our stimuli must first have a cause for their existence. A physical reality must first exist. We must first exist - as well as our brains. We and these are all things with a necessary cause.

How we interpret or think about things - things which may no longer even exist - also can prompt our thoughts, impact our thinking and desires. Such things may only reside in our subconsciousness or memory, nonetheless, they can still stimulate our original thinking in response, and thus motivate our desires and actions.

Justhuman wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Justhuman wrote:@Kurieuo
Will look into the videos later...

Do you suggest that our thoughts (will, soul) reside somewhere outside our brain? In an immaterial, or other specific non-physical, 'space'?

Isn't it obvious? If what we directly experience isn't formed by our brains, then such suggests this "seat of consciousness" which puts the fuller picture together of the world we experience is at least more than merely our brain.

Furthermore, I wouldn't merely suggest but argue strongly that the world, our world, isn't material only. It seems obvious to me it isn't and that an ontology of reality that is exclusively material/physical is rather naive, simplicistic, goes against common intuitions and wrong.

Before you jump the gun to relegate such a position (mine) to Christians, God-believers or the like, various respectible secular philosophers have also come out in agreement with such based upon rational arguments. So then, belief in "Materialism" doesn't necessarily boil to a Believer vs non-Believer issue.

I think the biggest problem with an immaterial 'anything' is its relation to material stuff.

Some (like Merleau-Ponty) believed it to be a false dichotemy to split the two, but believe there to be really one substance (body-subject) that possesses what we wrongly split into say "material" (body) and "immaterial" (mind) categories.

Perhaps such are correct, that there is really one substance possessing both material and immaterial properties. It could be that Materialists just look at the material side of things since they find it hard to see beyond what is directly physically experienced, and then those with more of a "spiritual spark" so-to-speak, have some kind of fascination with such, and so elevate their own subjective experiences. Somewhere inbetween, surely, there is a correct harmonisation of the two?

Yet, what if there is really only one substance? To borrow from Aristotle, a hylomorphism of sorts that is both "matter" and "form" / "material" and "immaterial" / "body" and "soul" which correctly understood is just one and the same substance. Modern Atheist philosophers like Thomas Nagel wish to posit that "Nature" itself is comprised also of some sort of "laws of consciousness" waiting to be discovered, in addition to the physical laws we better understand. Thus, if true, then there is no relationship issue at all -- because we are talking about the one and the same foundational substance.

Now, as for what I believe, I can appreciate the above position/s and am open to them. Yet, it doesn't matter here what I believe. What is significant is that many philosophers have put forward solutions to the material-immaterial issue (better understood as the "mind-body" issue) of how the two can "relate" and influence each other while appearing to be so diametrically different. So then, in a Philosophy 101 class where the "relationship problem" is presented as a surface-level objection against Substance Dualism, this issue might remain with students who do not do their research assignment on such and delve deeply into it. But, let me just say here, it is a surface-level objection and a great many solutions exist and have been proposed which would resolve this apparent dilemma (like the position/s presented above).

The one thing that remains, the issue which has entertained many great thinkers even until this day, is that the mind with its mental states appear to be qualititavely distinct from the brain or physical states. Given both exist, how are we to reconcile them together? Adhering to a simple Materialism seems to me woefully inadequate when explaining more experiential and subjective elements.

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Justhuman wrote:@Kurieuo
Will look into the videos later...

Do you suggest that our thoughts (will, soul) reside somewhere outside our brain? In an immaterial, or other specific non-physical, 'space'?

Isn't it obvious? If what we directly experience isn't formed by our brains, then such suggests this "seat of consciousness" which puts the fuller picture together of the world we experience is at least more than merely our brain.

But there have been cases of people's thoughts being altered as a direct result of brain damage. How could this be if thoughts don't originate from the brain?

Please clarify whether a person exists behind such thoughts i.e., do we have a person using their brain to think? OR, is it more the case a person with their thoughts bubble up from their brain? You can't have it both ways.

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Justhuman wrote:@Kurieuo
Will look into the videos later...

Do you suggest that our thoughts (will, soul) reside somewhere outside our brain? In an immaterial, or other specific non-physical, 'space'?

Isn't it obvious? If what we directly experience isn't formed by our brains, then such suggests this "seat of consciousness" which puts the fuller picture together of the world we experience is at least more than merely our brain.

But there have been cases of people's thoughts being altered as a direct result of brain damage. How could this be if thoughts don't originate from the brain?

Please clarify whether a person exists behind such thoughts i.e., do we have a person using their brain to think? OR, is it more the case a person with their thoughts bubble up from their brain? You can't have it both ways.

I think it is the brain that is a part of the person; not the other way around, so you have a person using their brain to think.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Justhuman wrote:@Kurieuo
Will look into the videos later...

Do you suggest that our thoughts (will, soul) reside somewhere outside our brain? In an immaterial, or other specific non-physical, 'space'?

Isn't it obvious? If what we directly experience isn't formed by our brains, then such suggests this "seat of consciousness" which puts the fuller picture together of the world we experience is at least more than merely our brain.

But there have been cases of people's thoughts being altered as a direct result of brain damage. How could this be if thoughts don't originate from the brain?

Please clarify whether a person exists behind such thoughts i.e., do we have a person using their brain to think? OR, is it more the case a person with their thoughts bubble up from their brain? You can't have it both ways.

I think it is the brain that is a part of the person; not the other way around, so you have a person using their brain to think.

I think everyone here considers the brain as a part of the person, such a non-controversial claim. A person however using their brain, such suggests an order of things where a person is not reducable to their brain but rather stands above or beyond it.

To then answer your question. It stands to reason that brain damage could impact the flow of thoughts, memories, sensations and the like. Yet, I'd hold that the same person who would now be coping with brain damage is nonetheless the same person experiencing life who previously had a non-damaged brain.

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: Isn't it obvious? If what we directly experience isn't formed by our brains, then such suggests this "seat of consciousness" which puts the fuller picture together of the world we experience is at least more than merely our brain.

But there have been cases of people's thoughts being altered as a direct result of brain damage. How could this be if thoughts don't originate from the brain?

Please clarify whether a person exists behind such thoughts i.e., do we have a person using their brain to think? OR, is it more the case a person with their thoughts bubble up from their brain? You can't have it both ways.

I think it is the brain that is a part of the person; not the other way around, so you have a person using their brain to think.

I think everyone here considers the brain as a part of the person, such a non-controversial claim. A person however using their brain, such suggests an order of things where a person is not reducable to their brain but rather stands above or beyond it.

To then answer your question. It stands to reason that brain damage could impact the flow of thoughts, memories, sensations and the like. Yet, I'd hold that the same person who would now be coping with brain damage is nonetheless the same person experiencing life who previously had a non-damaged brain.

I think we are in agreement here; I was just questioning the idea that our thoughts originate from somewhere other than our brains.

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote: But there have been cases of people's thoughts being altered as a direct result of brain damage. How could this be if thoughts don't originate from the brain?

Please clarify whether a person exists behind such thoughts i.e., do we have a person using their brain to think? OR, is it more the case a person with their thoughts bubble up from their brain? You can't have it both ways.

I think it is the brain that is a part of the person; not the other way around, so you have a person using their brain to think.

I think everyone here considers the brain as a part of the person, such a non-controversial claim. A person however using their brain, such suggests an order of things where a person is not reducable to their brain but rather stands above or beyond it.

To then answer your question. It stands to reason that brain damage could impact the flow of thoughts, memories, sensations and the like. Yet, I'd hold that the same person who would now be coping with brain damage is nonetheless the same person experiencing life who previously had a non-damaged brain.

I think we are in agreement here; I was just questioning the idea that our thoughts originate from somewhere other than our brains.

Yes, we apparently both agree they originate with the person who isn't reducible to their brain, but rather originate with the person who uses their brain to think. Correct me if I'm wrong.