This reference describes the issues involved in the now world-dominant ideology/paradigm of scientism, the mind-forged-manacles or iron cage in which we are now all trapped:
http://www.aboutadidam.org/lesser_alternatives/scientific_materialism/index.html

This related references points out that all of the usual suspects (including Sells) that promote old-time back to the past Christian religiosity really wouldnt have a clue as to what they are talking about:
http://www.adidam.org/teaching/gnosticon/universal-scientism

There is also no such thing as "collective faith". Real faith is always a personal entirely subjective phenomenon based on the individuals own consideration of his/her subjective situation, and subsequent Realization.

I'm afraid you lost me at "no way", Mr Sellick.

"...there is no way we can bridge the gap between the material and our experience of being conscious"

and

"...neural networks produce consciousness but we have no way of knowing how this happens".

All this changes, if you were to introduce the simple word "currently" before each incidence of "no way". In doing so, you recognize the fact that science does not stand still, and that every year we will learn more about neural activity, and get closer to an understanding of how it impacts behaviours. Thus you cannot state, categorically, that:

"Even if it were possible to describe each neural firing and excitatory or inhibitory activation of synapses this would still not amount to a description of an event in consciousness. What would be missing would be the self that experiences this event."

In making the above statement, you have interposed the notion that "self" somehow can never be interpreted through the analysis of electrical impulses. Which is, of course, completely wrong. History is littered with "never" statements that have been overtaken by the continuous advancement of our understanding of human physiology.

Only by using the "never" word can you give yourself licence to introduce the concepts of spirit, psyche and soul, to temporarily fill the gaps in our knowledge.

Which is a bit of a circular argument, don't you think? Wearing your logical hat, that is, not your religious one.

I will stick with "no way". The distinction is between the brain and the mind. Although the two are related in some mysterious fashion they are realities that will never overlay each other, simply because consciousness cannot be reduced to brain mechanisms.

Let me suggest that 'Materialism' is not the conviction that there is nothing but the material. Rather, 'Materialism' is the conviction that matter, or existence, are important.

Otherwise, I enjoyed reading your article, Peter, and mostly agree.

Whether the brain and the mind are separate, identical or overlap, is also an unimportant materialist indulgence, because the only difference would be whether or not certain divisions exist within the material. While "Mind" could possibly reside in a different/separate layer of material reality, this remains a materialistic, time-wasting question.

Watching Sells desperately trying to convince himself that 'God' exists and that so does a spirit world inhabited by choirs of Angels or nymphs with wonderful adornments is rather sad.

Every now and again he pops by to share with us the latest bit of religious gobbledegook which he kneads and pokes into various shapes which might appeal to our intellect or searching souls.

Unfortunately, Sells is facing serious headwinds because of science. Had he been born three or four centuries ago he would have been at home among witches and goblins but, alas, they have gone.

Still Sells plods along, looking under this stone or that, looking for...: what would convince him? A burning bush? A pillar of salt.

Poor, tormented Sells. Death will put him at rest soon enough, his fruitless journey finally over!

David G

Did you read the article? The world of angels and nymphs and the supernatural is precisely what Peter rejects; in this article and many, many others.

Anglican Archbishop William Temple once called Christianity the “most materialistic of the great religions”. I’m not quite sure this is true, for it materialism is grounded in its Jewish roots. But it is certainly very materially focussed.

It is possible to believe in God without believing in miracles (understood as divine suspension of the laws of nature) or an immortal soul destined for an afterlife in heaven or hell

.

Dear Peter Sellick,

.

You wrote :

« … there exists an unbridgeable gap between matter and consciousness. »

As I see no reason to doubt that you dispose of consciousness, may I ask how you managed to bridge the unbridgeable gap ?

Perhaps you meant to say that there is an unbridgeable gap in your knowledge of how consciousness is produced from matter. If so, the unbridgeable gap you mention is, in fact, what you consider to be your own, personal, irremediable ignorance.

Allow me to suggest that for consciousness to be produced from matter, there would need to be a transfer of data, probably with the help of some form of energy. You mention matter and consciousness but neither data nor energy. Though matter and energy are closely related they are not exactly the same. If there is any work to be done, such as the transfer of data, I imagine, perhaps naively, that it’s energy that does the job, not matter.

However, if it is of any comfort to you, I, personally, do not think you are irremediably ignorant. In its simplest form, consciousness may be defined as awareness. As I am sure you are aware, even some automobiles, today, are equipped with radar systems which allow them to detect (or become “aware” of) obstacles while maneuvering to park, and alert the driver to their presence. According to the definition, that is a very basic form or consciousness.

All life forms, perhaps even from single cells to the most complex structures, appear to be similarly equipped with consciousness according to this definition. It is called the instinct of survival with, perhaps, even an element of free will (choice) thrown in as well :

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/penrose-hameroff/cambrian.html

I find it quite magical. Unlike yourself, however, I do not exclude the possibility that science may come up with a valid explanation of this particular phenomenon one of these days.

I agree with Pericles: much of what you present here as hard fact seems to me to be more of the order of your personal religious conviction – or desire.

.

I must agree with Banjo:

What we are aware (conscious) of in the world and perhaps even how our body/mind reacts to this stimuli could well be a physical thing.

If that indeed is the case, then render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, then consciousness is just a material thing and as unimportant as the rest of the material world.

Religion often rejects and struggles with this idea because it is dangerous, because it could be interpreted as: "well, since all is material anyway, since even my behaviour is a result of some chemical/electric reactions in the brain, then I am not responsible for whatever this brain does".

Firstly however, beware because it was not (yet, perhaps) shown that this is completely the case!

More importantly, you ARE responsible for being associated with this body/mind. If this brain is indeed completely electro-mechanical as speculated, influenced by nothing else, and it does evil, then what have YOU got to do with it? Then you should keep away from the temptation of being conscious through this straying body/mind - or else don't complain when being charged with its sins!

If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away [Matthew 5:29]. If consciousness causes you to stumble, then it is better for you to go unconscious.

Just because it is a "mystery" today, Sells, doesn't mean that you can provide any explanation you like to fill in the gaps.

>>I will stick with "no way". The distinction is between the brain and the mind. Although the two are related in some mysterious fashion...<<

As you try to do here...

>>...they are realities that will never overlay each other, simply because consciousness cannot be reduced to brain mechanisms<<

That is simply your opinion, using the evidence - or more precisely, the lack of evidence - available to you.

That you then parlay this missing information into a proposition that it is religion that fills the space, is unhelpful.

Dear Pericles,

A distinction must be made between the contents of consciousness and the fact of YOU being conscious.

We know that the contents can be manipulated (though we aren't sure to what extent): a drug can make one see the world in vivid colours while another drug can make one see it all dull. An electrode here can make one feel happy while an electrode there can make one feel sad. A device could be attached to the brain which would make one join Doctors Without Borders, while another device could be attached which would make one join ISIL.

However, what has this do to with the fact that YOU are conscious of all these effects?

Had you left the body and stopped being conscious through it (and please don't tell me it's impossible - we all do it when the body dies just as we all once started being conscious through our bodies around the time of their birth), whoever is conducting these experiments, would still observe the same results: the verbal recounting about the looks and colours of the world would still convey the same; the face would still be smiling or downcast respectively; and that human body would still join Doctors-Without-Borders or ISIL respectively. There is however no objective way you could ever tell whether *someone* is still "home" to experience the above.

<<That you then parlay this missing information into a proposition that it is religion that fills the space, is unhelpful.>>

Religion is not about a pie in the sky, or some deity which created this world and is pulling its ropes - these things I leave to science. Religion is about knowing yourself, because once you do, you realise that you have no limits, that you were never born, never die and are not subject to time or space, that there is nothing besides you. In other words, that YOU are God.

I'm not sure why, Yuyutsu.

>>Dear Pericles, A distinction must be made between the contents of consciousness and the fact of YOU being conscious.<<

Why must we make such a distinction - what is your rationale for doing so?

Furthermore, in order to make such a distinction, you need to be able to distinguish between the two states. How would you describe the difference? The "me" is completely contained within those electrical impulses, and nowhere else. If you like, they are "my" electrical impulses.

And their existence as electrical impulses, and the way they interact with each other and are modified by my senses from time to time, does not make them somehow amoral, or disconnected from all the other activities that are managed by the brain.

Yuyutsu,

"....In other words, that YOU are God."

Who, according to you, doesn't exist....

Even as a concept?

Dear Pericles,

<<Why must we make such a distinction - what is your rationale for doing so?>>

The contents are objectively verifiable, some at least, possibly all, but the fact that you are actually subjectively aware of all that is not verifiable. Whatever laboratory/behavioural observation others make about your body/mind (to be absolutely accurate, what they believe to be YOUR body/mind), could occur both with or without your being conscious through that body/mind.

<<The "me" is completely contained within those electrical impulses, and nowhere else.>>

Possibly so, your concept of "me" could well be contained within those electrical impulses, but I wasn't referring to 'The "me"': I was referring to YOU.

---

Dear Poirot,

<<Even as a concept?>>

Concepts of God exist, no doubt, probably almost as many as the number of people on earth, excluding babies, yet God is not a concept - neither are you!

It was a serious question, Yuyutsu, and I was hoping that you might treat it as such.

On what logical grounds are you able to separate the workings of the brain, and the mind? Are they in fact distinguishable entities, or are they just a convenient fiction, in order to introduce the idea of a soul, a spirit, a psyche or whatever as the differentiating factor.

The mere fact that we are aware of differences between ourselves and others, and are capable of independent thought, is surely insufficient. This could just as easily be the result of those electrical impulses, processing inputs from the world at a higher rate than other animals.

After all, some animals are also capable of making progress towards this self-awareness. A dog can recognise the name it is given, for example, even when used by a stranger.

My point is that this presumed difference between body and mind has been exploited by charlatans throughout the ages to promote a particular agenda. And it is an assumption that we seem to have swallowed, hook line and sinker, when it is nothing more than vanity.

>>I wasn't referring to 'The "me"': I was referring to YOU.<<

And I am saying that there is no difference whatsoever between "me" and "ME".

Dear Pericles,

<<On what logical grounds are you able to separate the workings of the brain, and the mind?>>

I'm not even attempting to do that.

<<Are they in fact distinguishable entities, or are they just a convenient fiction, in order to introduce the idea of a soul, a spirit, a psyche or whatever as the differentiating factor.>>

I understand that you are seriously interested in this question, but I'm so sorry, I don't know the answer.

<<The mere fact that we are aware of differences between ourselves and others, and are capable of independent thought, is surely insufficient.>>

I agree. It tells nothing about the relationship between body/brain and mind.

Actually, I don't even know whether we are capable of independent thought and actually also, there is no difference between ourselves and others - that's just a distortion of reality that we experience, but whether this distortion in our consciousness occurs in the brain or in the mind, or in both which are the same, I have no clue.

<<This could just as easily be the result of those electrical impulses, processing inputs from the world at a higher rate than other animals.>>

Yes, it could.

<<After all, some animals are also capable of making progress towards this self-awareness. A dog can recognise the name it is given, for example, even when used by a stranger.>>

Recognition is not self-awareness. Recognition may occur in robots too and can be verified objectively, self-awareness cannot.

<<My point is that this presumed difference between body and mind has been exploited by charlatans throughout the ages to promote a particular agenda.>>

As I said, I don't know whether there is a difference between body and mind. Charlatans throughout the ages have also exploited people's romantic and familial love, people's labour, people's money, people's generosity and people's loyalty - but would you stop all those as a result?

<<And I am saying that there is no difference whatsoever between "me" and "ME".>>

One is in small letters, the other in capitals, both are in quotes and both are concepts. You are neither of those.

Yuyutsu,

So "I'M God"...and yet I don't exist?

(and I'm not talking about my material self)

Does my consciousness exist?

Does my consciousness that you think I'm God exist?

We seem to be in some kind of strange accord here, Yuyutsu.

>>I agree. It tells nothing about the relationship between body/brain and mind.<<

I say strange, because I cannot detect from what you write, any actual thought pattern that is in any way consistent. Perhaps your thinking is of a different quality to mine.

Or maybe you don't actually have a clue, and are just employing a lot of words to disguise that fact.

These are your most recent contributions that led me to the latter option:

>>I wasn't referring to 'The "me"': I was referring to YOU... One is in small letters, the other in capitals, both are in quotes and both are concepts. You are neither of those.<<

The question remains, why did you (or even "YOU") choose to employ capital letters for the personal pronoun, if you don't have any explanation as to why you do so? Putting random words together in a sentence does not indicate any genuine attempt at coherent thought.

Sells, I have a slight problem. I think this thread is where it can be solved.

You see, my left leg thinks it has a soul. It is telling me it wants to walk off and have a separate life from me and, when it dies, it doesn't want to be associated with me which will leave me legless in Heaven.

Now look, I realize that you think that I must have been giving my leg a hard time. The truth is that, in our youth, my leg and I played soccer but not very well. My leg sometimes let me down and when it kicked the ball, it went wonky which caused to me score most goals for the other side much to my embarrassment.

Now my dilemna is: should I have my left leg amputated, kind of like set it free in a surgical divorce? Does my leg have property rights or any claim to my children? Would a wooden leg be able to claim against me at a latter stage say after two years of time together?

The sole of my left leg is at odds with the soul of my leg and insults like 'heel' and 'bunion features' are being tossed around. It really is becoming quite untidy.

Sells, look within your book of magical tricks and give me your best guess as to what to do. Do legs have a soul? Is there a special place in the sky for left legs? What about right legs?

I await your advice and hope it gets here before my hamstring gets anymore fancy ideas!

Dear Poirot,

<<Does my consciousness exist?>>

I don't think that there is any such object in existence. That you are conscious is technically an adjective, but more like a verb, and in any case not a noun. Language is useful to describe the relationships between objects, but as you are not an object and the one being conscious (or unconscious, as the case may be) is YOU, it breaks down and might produce false ideas.

---

Dear Pericles,

<<The question remains, why did you (or even "YOU") choose to employ capital letters for the personal pronoun>>

The capitals were intended to highlight the emphasis of the sentence. If we were talking, I would accentuate that word.

<<if you don't have any explanation as to why you do so?>>

Quite the contrary: I was actually critical of Peter Sellick over his idea of differentiation between mind and body, of which I am sceptical.

<<I say strange, because I cannot detect from what you write, any actual thought pattern that is in any way consistent. Perhaps your thinking is of a different quality to mine.>>

I think that this is probably because you identify yourself with your mind. YOUR mind - you are not that mind, you have it (assuming it even exists separately of the brain), you are not it.

Yuyutsu,

If I'm "YOU" (ME) - then you can obviously define me as something that differs from everything else.

How can you do that if I don't exist - as anything?

"I think that this is probably because you identify yourself with your mind. YOUR mind - you are not that mind, you have it (assuming it even exists separately of the brain), you are not it."

Apparently Pericles is God as well.

We all are.

And even though Yuyutsu often chooses to refer to God as "He" for convenience sake - he also maintains God doesn't exist as any sort of entity.

All I can say is that the only spirit I believe in is rectified spirit.

Dear Poirot,

<<If I'm "YOU" (ME) - then you can obviously define me as something that differs from everything else.>>

I cannot define you, nor would I ever dare to try. What makes you say that I "obviously" could?

<<How can you do that if I don't exist - as anything?>>

I cannot.

<<Apparently Pericles is God as well. We all are.>>

Exactly so!

Yuyutsu,

"I cannot define you, nor would I ever dare to try. What makes you say that I "obviously" could?"

Yes, I realise you're quite adept at evading the crux of questions you find difficult to answer...so let's try agin, shall we.

As you are aware, I did not ask you to "define me" per se.

I remarked that by labelling me "YOU" that you were able to "define me as something that differs from everything else."

In addressing me as "YOU", you were singling out my entity as separate from other entities and the general milieu....none of which, according to you exists.

How is it possible to differentiate between entities if none exist and/or are God - who also doesn't exist

Dear Poirot,

I can only relate to what you write here, not to what you have in mind.

So I'm reading the questions you posted to me:

<<In addressing me as "YOU", you were singling out my entity as separate from other entities and the general milieu>>

I have not claimed that you are either separate or an entity.

Now unlike your last post you are asking me about your entity ("MY entity"), but in my last post I wasn't relating to that entity (by which I presume you refer to your body-mind), I was then relating to you.

<<none of which, according to you exists.>>

Your entity exists, this is quite apparent.

<<How is it possible to differentiate between entities if none exist and/or are God - who also doesn't exist>>

But entities do exist - YOU are not an entity though.

I suspect that the chances of getting any sensible or coherent contribution from Yuyutsu have now reached absolute zero.

>>I have not claimed that you are either separate or an entity.<<

Yet here we are, conversing on a forum, under the impression that we each have a separate existence.

Which is exactly the sort of behaviour one would expect if we were, in fact, separate entities, capable of independent thought.

If we cannot deduce either our existence or our non-existence from our behavioural characteristics, Yuyutsu, what other clues are available that might assist?

Pericles,

Quite...

Yuyutsu,

"I have not claimed that you are either separate or an entity."

Well you have now.

"Your entity exists, this is quite apparent."

I'm quite fascinated by your employment of "YOU"...which you appear to wield as some sort of "tricky-lets-toss-out-all-the-rules-of-rational-interaction-when-it-suits-my-purpose" proposition.

"YOU are not an entity though."

So my "YOU" = "God" - which is (according to you) not even a non-material entity, and which doesn't have a definition "at all" and doesn't "exist"...even though you can identify it for the sake of referencing it in online debate.

Okay....

Dear Pericles,

<<Yet here we are, conversing on a forum, under the impression that we each have a separate existence.>>

Yes, we HAVE a separate existence, which is our body-mind combination.
But as you said, this is just something we have, not what we are.

<<Which is exactly the sort of behaviour one would expect if we were, in fact, separate entities, capable of independent thought.>>

Hypothetically, if that were the case, then the behaviour might possibly have been the same, so what?

<<If we cannot deduce either our existence or our non-existence from our behavioural characteristics, Yuyutsu, what other clues are available that might assist?>>

Just by watching a car for example, you cannot deduce either the existence or the non-existence of its owner. Some may even notice a driver inside that car: while I'm sceptical whether the mind even exists separately of the brain, the analogy could be that the driver is to the car just as the mind is to the body. Yet none of this says anything about the owner of the car, of whom the driver may merely be an employee or a thief. So if you want to know yourself, the owner or your body and mind, then you need to look inside - not outside at the road, or at the car or even at its driver.

---

Dear Poirot,

Yes, YOUR entity exists: this refers to the entity which belongs to you - your body (and mind), not to yourself.

<<So my "YOU" = "God" - which...>>

Your "YOU"? - WHOSE "YOU"?

Are you speaking for yourself or about some "YOU" (or "ME") which you happen to have?

Lol!...Pericles, he's all yours.

He can't elucidate his core meaning and so answer my question, so he switches to playing semantics.

Thanks Poirot, but no thanks.

>>Lol!...Pericles, he's all yours.<<

There isn't even a hint of a sane thread that can usefully be explored - it's all just burble...

>>...the analogy could be that the driver is to the car just as the mind is to the body<<

I think I'll just leave this one in the garage.