If God exists, what would be a good reason why he never communicates or helps his creation by intervention?

by pistolpete 56 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat

    Pain is an experience and brain activity is a material event. Those are two different things. Brain activity correlates with pain in that they happen at the same time, but it’s a category mistake to say they are identical to one another. You can’t objectively measure pain. What you can measure is brain activity and then make an assumption that similar brain indicators reflect similar pain experiences. But ultimately that’s an assumption we can’t test because we can’t share each other’s experiences directly. We can only infer by comparing others’ pain to our own. You don’t need a neural scanner to do this. Often we can see people’s pain on their faces. And in an everyday sense we can say “I see your pain”. Looking at electrical impulses is a more technical method of doing the same thing. But of course we know that when we say we can see someone’s pain on their face, we don’t literally mean that there face is identical to the experience of pain. Electrical impulses in the brain are a more detailed way of looking at pain than looking at someone’s face but essentially the same kind of inference is being drawn between a physical representation and an experience. So it’s a category mistake to say that a brain scan allows us to “see” pain just as it would be a mistake to say that pain and a facial expression are the same thing.

    Why is this important? Because experience is different from a physical event it has properties of its own. Most importantly we can’t share each other’s experience. For example I can tell you I broke my leg and, how big the break was, how long it will take to heal and so on. All those things can be measured and shared. What I can’t share directly is the actual experience of having broken my leg. If you’ve broken your leg too, we can compare descriptions of the experience and infer a lot in common. But again, what we can’t do is share each other’s experience or know how the other person experienced the pain itself.

    David Chalmers has a good example that demonstrates the different between physical properties that can be measured and experiences that can’t be quantified. He gives the example of a scientist who studies colour and knows everything there is to know about colour. They know the wavelengths, how light refracts, how the eye works, how the brain processes colour. They know absolutely everything there is to know about colour. Yet if they can’t see colour there is still one thing about colour that they don’t know: namely the experience of seeing colour. Because no matter how exactly you can measure a thing, measurement is not identical to the experience of the thing.

    https://youtu.be/uhRhtFFhNzQ

  • truth_b_known
    truth_b_known

    So as I am following -

    • God must be proved through a repeatable experiment or
    • God must communicate with all mankind in a way that everyone experiences simultaneously.

    If God does not it is either because -

    • God is a jerk for making us and not talking to us as well as leaving us to what we see around us (I am guess war, famine, crime, etc.) or
    • God does not exist.

    (footnote - I am using "God" simply as the term for whatever may or may not have caused everything to be set in motion and not a specific deity.)

    I can understand how a person would come to such conclusions if their paradigm of what everything is comes solely from a Western, Judeo-Christian culture. That is why I always find it interesting that such debates are not whether or not there is a god, but whether or not the God of the Bible exists.

    There is a famous saying in India - "The only atheists here are the people who went to Catholic school."

  • notsurewheretogo
    notsurewheretogo

    I really do love your posts and debates SBF.

    You can’t objectively measure pain.

    But they did, that is my point...over 90% accuracy.

    Still nothing on the bigger picture as to god talking properly to us all?


  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat

    Pain is an experience. You can’t measure an experience. What scientists can measure is brain activity. Those are two different things. You can say a neural impulse is a millimetre long, lasts for half a second or whatever. You can’t say pain is a millimetre long, and more than you can say a thought is half a millimetre long and so on. Pain is an experience not a physical property.

    Can you give a link to the claim about measuring pain with 90% accuracy because I’m not sure what that would event mean. How can you measure pain “accurately” any more than you can measure how striking a sunset is, the depth of a thought, or the sincerity of an emotion. We can describe such things, and compare our descriptions of our experiences. What we can’t say is that a particular sunset is objectively 4.5, one thought is exactly twice as big or good or complex as another thought. It’s the wrong kind of language and mistakes an experience for a physical property.

    We know that we experience the same physical events differently including pain. For example my mother can drink boiling hot tea whereas I can’t drink tea until it cools down a bit. Am I feeling hot tea at pain level 8 whereas she experiences it at pain level 2? Or are we both experiencing it at pain level 5 and I can’t tolerate it whereas she can? Who knows? Ultimately we can’t experience each other’s pain to tell for sure. We can make reasonable guesses and comparisons as best we can. A brain scan isn’t going to help here either, because if my mum’s brain registers response level 3.4556 (whatever a number would mean in this context) and I register the exact same number, does that mean we have the exact same experience? Or if I register 3.2345 or whatever, is that a lot less pain? Or a little less pain? We can describe pain. We can even give it a number. I’ve got 9 out of 10 pain an so on. What we can’t know is your 9 the same as my 9?

    In fact my own 9 isn’t always the same because my own experience of pain changes over time. For example I thought bad toothache was the worst kind of pain, close to 10 out of 10. Then I had kidney pain and I had to reevaluate my pain scale altogether!

  • notsurewheretogo
    notsurewheretogo

    Take a look:

    https://www.colorado.edu/today/2013/04/10/first-objective-measure-pain-discovered-brain-scan-patterns-cu-boulder-study

    But the comparison to the feeling of pain and how each of us feel it compared to an experience of god seems a bit tenuous?

    We all feel pain...to different degrees for sure but we know pain exists because all feel it and it can now be measured to great accuracy.

    An "experience" equating to god communicating seems wildly different and hugely subject between the two? We can prove pain via science and evidence now but there is still zero proof, tangible, of a god.

    It's all related to opinion, perception etc and that in itself lends weight to my point in circumstantial evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt that god does not exist given we have zero evidence and the rather fuzzy, non repeatable, tenuous links?

    I do love your points on conscious though...this interests me in with my late sister and my inability to comprehend her consciousness is gone. Keep posting and making these points.

  • truth_b_known
    truth_b_known

    I believe what Slim Boy Fat is referring to is called "qualia".

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

    With qualia we see the difference between conceptual knowledge and experiential knowledge.

    I like this explanation -

    Qualia is the term to used describe actual subjective experience and sensation, as opposed to mere knowledge and information.

    The concept is best described by Frank Jackson's color blind scientist thought experiment: A scientist knows everything there is to know about the color red from physics, optics and neuroscience, but is color blind, and so she doesn't know what it's actually like to see the color red. If we then somehow repaired her vision so that she can now see colors, and let her see the color red, she would learn something new about red that she didn't know before, despite all of her previous knowledge about the physics and biology involved. This additional knowledge she gains is the qualia of seeing red.
  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat

    Yes Qualia, that’s what I’m thinking of. I see from the Wikipedia link that some doubt it even exists. Daniel Dennett in particular. I think that’s just insane. Our own first hand experience of the world is the thing we can be most certain about. To call it a kind of illusion and say that only matter really exists I think is just crazy. I liked David Chalmers’ observation that Dennett’s book Consciousness Explained could have been more accurately titled Consciousness Explained Away. Because rather than accounting for consciousness, he more or less denies it exists at all. But these are the sorts of strange conclusions that reductive materialism ultimately leads to if taken to the end. If a thinking mind comes up with the conclusion that there is no mind at all, it indicates it’s time to go back to the beginning and see where we took a wrong turn somewhere. I'm persuaded by Bernardo Kastrup that it makes much more sense to view consciousness, rather than matter, as the base of reality.

    Notsure, the article is interesting. It says that the researchers anticipated that pain signals in the brain would differ between individuals but in fact what they found was that similar levels of pain are indicated by very similar brain patterns. All that makes sense, for sure. I still wonder though, when they say it’s 90 to 100% accurate, what are they measuring it against? In order to determine the accuracy of a measurement we need to have a precise measure in the first place. But in case of pain what would the original measurement be? I can only suppose what they mean is that there was a very close correlation between different people who rated a pain as 5 or 8 or 10, for example. Which may give a good idea that people generally agree about the level of pain in relation to the brain signal. But at its core it’s a subjective description they are starting with. My own experience of pain is that even the same level of pain is experienced as different levels of pain depending on how long it lasts. A certain level of pain can be tolerable for ten minutes for example, but if it lasts for 24 hours then it’s experienced differently. On the other hand you can also become accustomed to a level of pain. So has the pain value shifted or just our perception of it? Brain signals are interesting but they can’t tell us everything there is to know about pain because there is more to the experience pain than just the signal.

    Raymond Tallis has written a lot about the methodology of brain scans and correlations with emotions and thoughts, labelling it pseudoscientific, a kind of “neo-phrenology”. He points out that there is a lot of muddled thinking on the topic because people confuse the measurement with the thing being measured, something we would never do other contexts.

    https://www.newstatesman.com/books/2011/02/mind-self-consciousness-brain

    How all this relates to religious experiences is it underlines how difficult it is to evaluate the experience of others. We all feel pain to differing degrees so we can relate to each other on that, not perfectly, but have a good idea. But when someone has a kind of experience that we have not encountered, such as a voice or a kind of guidance, how do we go about evaluating that? One approach is simply to say we don’t believe in voices or messages, so therefore it could not have happened, and there must be another explanation. Another approach is to say that’s a kind of experience I’ve never had and it’s difficult for me to account for. It could have an outside cause or it could have an internal or in some sense psychological cause. The reason I would hesitate to rule out an outside cause is because we know so little about consciousness and how it really works and because there is apparently something more than a physical event going on. There is an experience as well.

    The predominant view of consciousness is that each of us has a discrete mental world. I can’t hear your thoughts or experience your experiences. I can’t send a thought mentally or influence the world by thoughts alone. That’s how many of us now understand the world. But it’s not the only way of understanding the world. There are plenty of uncanny experiences in every day life that cause us to pause and wonder if there might be something going on at the level of consciousness which is not accounted for by material events alone. They could all be coincidences, and that’s how they are usually explained, but who really knows? If some day our knowledge expands to include the idea of consciousness having causal influence of its own over and above material events, I suspect humans will look back and say the evidence for it was everywhere—we just chose not to see it. Some humans that is, because of course many humans do already believe that consciousness is porous and causal to some extent, they just tend to be characterised by others as cranks, primitive, religious, a bit mad, or whatever else.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit