Og

So, I started some comments over here:
http://www.agnosticforums.com/bible/....html#post3275

What I was saying is that the brain is 100 billion neurons with 100 trillion connections between one another. And that since this machine is so immensely complicated, and because our perception is normally not designed to comprehend this level of complexity, that we've developed a social concept called free will that we use to regulate our community. If we didn't use the concept, no one would be responsible for their actions. But then, we wouldn't associate concepts of good/evil with anyone either.

The hindus have had this concept for a LONG time and it's expressed in "Indra's Jeweled Net" which described in the Avatamsaka Sutra.

Graphic of indra's net made in a ray tracing program:
http://ioannis.virtualcomposer2000.c.../indrasNet.jpg

This fits with what science observes of every particle in the universe. The forces that govern their behavior stretch to infinity in all directions and (though it's miniscule) every particle in the universe effects every other particle. Reflected in every atom is the entire universe, so to speak. A relatively easy concept to grasp in this field is gravitation. It's effects scale as the inverse of the distance between matter squared. With no limit.

The reality of the brain is that all of your experience, personality, "Choices," personal control, emotions, memories get processed through this immensely complex network of neurons which are each, themselves extremely complex mathematical units with multiple components. Any neuroscientist will tell you this. Any neurosurgeon will be able to map out parts of your brain. Applying a little current stimulus here or there in your brain will cause all manner of things to occur in your body.

The brain is the physical part of your body that controls everything. All of your concepts reside here. Some people get tumors and must have sections of their brain removed and the resulting loss in personality or memories is dramatic and total because they reside in the structure of a physical network.

Chemicals can be applied to the brain through oral or other applications that can dramatically change your behavior (see a simple example in diphenhydramine which is the basis for benadryl and prozak). Psychotic drugs and whatnot dramatically modify people's behaviors.

Bottom line is that the only difference between you and me and a rock is a level of complexity, not of anything supernatural.

The problem is one of understanding the nature of complex systems. And the bizarre thing we get to experience is consciousness. What does it mean to emerge as consciousness out of an extremely complex pattern of molecules? What is consciousness in this case? Is it proportional to complexity? Does it occur like a state transition like how at 100 degrees C, liquid water all of a sudden becomes vapor?

Anyway, these are the questions that most interest me. It's hard to reconcile my existence and sense of self with the reality I know as a neuroscientist that every act I commit is a complex confluence of events based on the structure of my nervous system that was set down during development in the womb and which has been modified since then based on my sensory inputs (experiences).

The science of emergent properties of complex systems is something we're just being able to begin to address given our understanding of science and the machines we've created capable of handling these questions in a different way than we are.

One of my goals in life is to create a computer that is either hardware or virtual simulation of a complex system akin to the human brain that may interface with the world in certain ways and is indistinguishable from life as we know it. An emergent consciousness, so to speak. This goal is considered by many to be definitely attainable in this century (most of our lifetimes).

How does this concept strike you? Do you feel violently against the concept of no choice? Realize that the socially applied concept of free will still must apply for our society to remain stable at the current moment.

But personally, it's through this scientific understanding and search that I "defeat sin" as it was in the garden of eden. The pairs of opposites of good/evil, life/death, male/female, ego. I see them now as simply socially applied concepts. It is not a fact of existence. Nature simply is. This understanding is where my sense of enlightenment (like that of the buddha or of christ) comes from. For me, the kingdom of heaven is here right now and the veil of free will is what separates us from it so that most people don't see it.

My main research work is on model systems such as flies and other invertebrates with remarkable complex yet much simpler nervous systems than ours. It's remarkable how identical these systems are to other complex systems I've dealt with in the field of electrical engineering with adaptive feedback control systems and such.

MickinEngland

Animals are prisoners of instinct,(survival of the fittest and all that) but humans are free of such robotic lifestyles.
For example a caveman back in the mists of time may once have died of starvation because he gave the last morsel of food to save his woman and child..
Where did that spirit of self-sacrifice come from, and why has it become a major part of our human DNA even though it's diametrically opposite to the logical 'dog eat dog' survival instinct?

Og

Heh.. you're saying that animals don't protect their young? Ok.. guess you can say that. Doesn't make it true.

You seem to be mistaking complex behavior of a deterministic system with free will. That's exactly what my post is describing.

R3NNiS

oops, O i meant to post this(these) links in the greeting sthread (snce you were interested in neurology etc. It is a set of lectures...it is in your vein so thought it would be of interest.

Science, Faith, and Human Nature: Reconciling Neuropsychology and Christian Theology.

Lecture 1

Numinous or Embodied Persons? The Practical Costs of Inner Souls and Selves

Warren S. Brown

Body-soul dualism has been predominant in Christian thought at least since St. Augustine. However, modern neuroscience makes it difficult to believe that there is any non-embodied part of the human person that has any efficacy with respect to human behavior. This lecture will give a brief overview of the status of dualism in Christian thought, and then consider the practical costs of a commitment to the centrality of the soul (an inner numinous self) in fostering gnosticism, “inner-ness,” individuality, and an instrumental view of community. A Cartesian view of persons (in the form of mind-body dualism) has also had an impact on theories in psychology and on our understanding of the nature of psychological disorders and interventions.

Lecture 2.

The Knotty Implications of Recent Neuroscience Research

Warren S. Brown

Recent research has described brain systems involved in human mental activity, inter-personal relatedness, and religiousness. Body-soul (or body-mind) dualism no longer seems to capture what is being learned about human nature in neuropsychology. The Resonance Model will be presented that suggests how to go about resolving issues between neuroscience and Christian faith. An alternative to body-soul dualism, nonreductive physicalism, suggests that humans are physical beings with mental and spiritual capacities that are not reducible to merely the operation of neurons and neurochemistry. Rather than a soul, it is the highly developed relational capacities that endow unique psychological and theological status to humankind.

Lecture 3.

Did My Neurons Make Me Do It? Salvaging Neuroscience from Reductionism and Determinism

Warren S. Brown

Neuroscience is methodologically reductionist. That is, complex human mental processes are shown to result from the activity of various parts of the brain. Consequently, it is often presumed that human thought and behavior can be exhaustively explained by brain processes, and therefore are determined by these processes in a bottom-up manner. However, nonreductive physicalism presumes that we cannot entirely account for human thought and behavior by analysis of lower-level processes. There are emergent mental properties and characteristics of whole persons that affect behavior by exerting top-down influences on lower-level physiology. Thus, thinking, believing, deciding, and relating can be shown to be real and efficacious emergent properties of physical human beings. Consequently, a robust form of free will can be maintained within nonreductive physicalism

The main page for this is here

Og

Thanks for posting R3NNiS.

His main counter to this theory seems to be simply the following statement:
I really feel like this guy is cloud gazing or something to that effect.

by that I'm referring to: "where is human value and dignity to be found?"
This term is him applying his perspective as a "free agent" to a study of reality (i.e. seeing a rabbit or a dragon in the clouds because he's seen them elsewhere in life).

All observations by scientific instruments and neuroscientists who wield them point to us as biological automata. The concept of "free moral agent" is one that arises as an applied construct within the behavior of the system that is our population.

It's my opinion that this is the nature of man and what the story of the garden of eden describes. The defining moment of humanity is when a concept of free will comes into play. This is self awareness and the acknowledgment of pairs of opposites such as good and evil.

The answer is that we are automata and one of the crucial aspects of our behavior is a veil called the concept of free will.

You can not transcend the laws of physics that govern the universe. If you could, we could not exist. Those laws allow us to exist in the first place. You can not overcome gravity. You can not live without food/water. You need air to breathe. Every single one of these are examples of large scale electro/chemical facts that apply on every level of nature.

We know for a fact that your actions are controlled by the behavior of neurons in your body. The behavior of these neurons is dictated by the laws of nature.

Determinism is the only logical solution. Free will just can't exist as anything other than an applied social concept. The science of emergent properties of complex systems addresses this well.

The question remains though.. What am I? Making the assumption of the soul is not necessarily false, but it's a poor way to start an investigation (preconceived notions).

Og

So, To be a bit more clear.

Memory is stored in physical neurons. Emotional responses are physiological in their entirety. By that, I mean that sensory inputs connect with the structure of your brain to produce outputs.

This is the definition of a causal deterministic system.

A systems next state is based on it's current state, effects from previous states, and the rules that govern it's behavior.

This is the basis of modern science. Systems are causal. Unfolding like billiard balls colliding except on an almost unimaginable scale. This understanding allows us to build computers, the internet, our voice, cars, buildings, bridges. This fundamental understanding of physical systems as causal/deterministic is the foundation of our society.

If there is a "soul" as some sort of concept separate from the physical material of the body, it can ONLY be there as a passive observer. The hindu greeting/salutation of "Namaste" grasps this and has for milenia. They salute the brahman in all things as they understand themselves to be a part of it as well. Just because my skin doesn't extend to include your neurons doesn't make us separate.

There is one intention in the universe. As the universe unfolds, determinism pushes things forward according to physical laws that must be followed in order for our life to exist. There's no option for the laws to just stop working.

We are a gigantic concert of protoplasm pushing forward with an urge to reproduce.

This is what observation tells us. It's not really plausible to think another way that doesn't include these observations. You can't expect to press a key on your keyboard and for a character to appear on the screen without the concept of determinism. You can't open your mouth to speak without determinism. "You" rely on determinism to interact with the world. You expect your parts to behave in a certain way and when you "decide" to make an action, you send signals to your parts that you know will make them do what you "want" them to do.

And this concept branches back into your brain on all levels. 100 billion neurons with 100 trillion connections between them. Complex, and it contains love, pain, consciousness, and every bit that defines "You".

R3NNiS

Causality and is not only the basis for modern (and in some cases ancient) science, but it is also a limit. I think Polkinghorne says something like this, but don't quote me, Science and faith are like two sides of a coin. Since faith is approaches reality with the question "why?" rather than sciences "how?" it can never answer sciences "How?" question, much like science can never answer Religion's question of ultimate "why?"

The Official John Polkinghorne Website

Og

I don't agree R3NNiS. If there is an answer to "why?" then it's not going to be found by halting the search. This is illustrated quite well in Scorsese's "Last Temptation of the Christ" where the devil tempts Jesus off the cross posing as a guardian angle telling him that he really wasn't the son of god and then provides a life time with a family for jesus with children and such. He gets to interact with paul and all his disciples much later in life. Jesus was too ready to accept a more pleasant reality than death on a cross and didn't dig too deep into it.

I just don't see anyone ever being able to truly and honestly address the "why?" without a firm basis for asking the question rooted in the "how?".

And modern science is based off of a deterministic understanding of the universe. Particularly where information systems are concerned. Which is what, in the end, our brains really are. "This memory is stored there." "This section of the brain controls this appendage." "This section of the brain activates in this manner during sleep."

You can stimulate the areas and cause the person to experience things. The areas can be damaged and these components of their psyche can disappear.

We are a complex sack of deterministic molecules suspended in a gas on the surface of a planet and what we call responses or choices are no different than a leaf falling from a tree to the ground or of a hurricane pounding the coast of the gulf of mexico somewhere.

This doesn't reduce the marvel of it to me.

R3NNiS

I think yo have misunderstood what i was meaning. I am not suggesting in any way that science be halted, if that is what you derived from my brief post

I was merely pointing out that neither science nor religion can validly prove or deny the other, because they approach reality with two completely different goals, and will ask different questions. The leap of faith is as you described, seeking to understand the "why?" base upon our limited understand here and now.

Can science answer why I love a person, or for that matter to believe? If you say it is because of a series of neural and physical reactions that develop into a routine pathway of emotion, I won't disagree. But i dont beleive youhave answered the question of why, but how. "Why?" may be a non-question to you. perhaps to you (as your last statement reads) there is nothing more than trajectory, and predictable cause and effect. You are welcome to that pov, if you feel it is right, but I believe there is more.

Do yourself a favor though, dont shut your eyes if something More shows you something. keep them open.

Take care.

Og

Sounds pretty poetic. You're saying that there's supernatural meaning behind love? "Why you love a person" is answered by a description of the biological impediment to couple and a variety of neural and physical responses. The person approaches you, you experience love. Why do you love this person? Because of the way the target of your love impinges upon your psyche (see neural architecture).

It covers both the why and the how.

As for why the universe exists.. Well, who can even begin to address this question.

I'm not saying that religion and science should be at conflict. I'm saying that the current incarnation of western religion (i.e. from Mesopotamia) is in conflict with free thought and science because of literal interpretation of metaphor. The term faith is simply a dirty word describing this literal view of things. Unfortunately

Science can, and repeatedly does, demonstrate how a dogmatic approach to a literally interpreted religion based on indoctrination is, in fact, in conflict with seeking both the question why, and how.

If the spirituality does not align with reality then it's a hindrance.