Are Gods physical?

[ytrewq]

In a previous thread I was astounded to hear the claim that Gods are not physical, presumably meaning they do not consist of physical matter. How any theist could actually claim to know that is a mystery, but never mind. The question being asked here is :-

Are Gods made from physical matter, and if they are not, then what are they made from.

If they are able to think and do stuff, then presumably they must be made of something.

By physical matter, I mean the physical stuff within our Universe from which everything else is made from, which includes atoms, sub-atomic particles, and to be fair I suppose we must include dark matter as well.

But there are other classes of things that undeniably exist, that are not physical matter as such, that perhaps Gods could be made of. Here is a list of stuff that definitely exists, and thus Gods might potentially be made of :-

(a) Physical matter, including atoms, sub-atomic particles, and dark matter

(b) Electromagnetic radiation and other forms of radiation, energy and fields. For example, light and radio waves.

(c) Human (or animal) feelings, emotions, thoughts, love, hate jealousy, intelligence, stupidity, truth, dishonesty, spirituality and so on. All of these can be said to exist, but not in a physical form.

(d) Similar to (c), morals, legal or scientific laws, stories, information, principles, and so on. As with (c), all of these can be said to exist, but not in a physical form, although the media that encodes them may be physical, such as a book or CD.

OK. So what are Gods made from? Certainly not anything in the (c) or (d) category, which do not physically exist in their own right and are not capable of performing physical feats on their own. That is, it makes no sense to say that a God (or anything else) is made from love, or justice or logic or spirituality. These are attributes of something that physically exists.

I have heard it said that Gods are not physical, but spiritual. Spiritual is an adjective, an attribute of something that exists, so it makes no sense to say that a God is made of spirituality, any more than saying it is made of love. So sure, Gods probably are very spiritual things, but that says nothing of what they are made from, which is the topic of this thread.

So what is left? Within the realms of human knowledge, and Im not interested in just making stuff up, then I must conclude that Gods (if they exist) are made of the same stuff that everything else in the Universe is made of, being categories (a) and (b).

Anyone agree or disagree with the above?

[ytrewq]

Absolutely zero evidence has been given to show, in any sort of scientifically acceptable way, that consciousness exists outside the brain. It has never been detected outside the brain, ever. Please let us be clear about that. What we have had is reports of the type that people have "felt" that their consciousness exists outside their body, which count for nothing and are discarded.

Let's also remain clear that consciousness has never been detected inside the brain... ever. If you were an android, or if an android held the same (somewhat arbitrary) standards as you are advocating, they would say that "absolutely zero evidence has been given to show in any sort of scientifically acceptable way" that consciousness exists at all. All we have in both cases are reports; innumerable reports of normal conscious experience from the body and many other reports that under certain circumstances, conscious experience can occur from outside the body also.

Well of course consciousness has never been "detected" inside the brain...! With the conventional model that I gave, consciousness has no physical existence in it's own right, so of course you can't "detect" it in the way that you detect things in any normal sense of the words Would you also make statements like "our emotions have never been detected inside our brain..." Such statements are ridiculous, because emotions and consciousness are processes running on a physical brain.

But once you make the claim that consciousness exists outside of the brain, then you are in big trouble, because now you really do have to explain what it is outside of the brain that you refer to, that either physically constitutes your claimed exterior consciousness, or physically provides the brain on which a consciousness process could run. Why would anyone favour this model, when it creates so many problems, and requires overturning of well accepted science, when the conventional model explains everything so much more simply and neatly and fits within well accepted science?

You have shot yourself in the foot well and truly. You are a glutton for punishment in continuing to flog a model of exterior consciousness. But to be fair, I think you said that for normal, healthy people, consciousness probably did reside in the brain. That's a good start, but are you implying that it somehow leaks out only under extreme provocation such as when sick or something? I think you would be far better to come out and say it's either one or the other, as I have. Any wishy-washy "sometimes it's one and sometimes it's the other" is very unconvincing for me. Are our emotions also sometimes within our brain and sometimes not? Ridiculous.

To be honest, the burning question in my mind is not which model is more likely to be correct, but why anyone would almost religiously cling to a belief that consciousness is "more" than just a process running on our physical brain. The reason, I believe, is because as humans we desperately need to believe that we are special, and that our "consciousness" which we view as our very essence is therefore also special. This is a deeply ingrained facet of human nature so, as with religious beliefs, we should expect that such "feelings" count for more than evidence and common sense, and that is what I observe. Personally I don't think that consciousness is any more mysterious than our emotions. Both are easily described and explained as processes running on our brain. So what?

[ytrewq]

[Replying to post 220 by Razorsedge]

I must have missed it. Kindly show me the method that can prove that consciousness exists outside our bodies, and I'll share with you the one million dollars available for anyone that can do so.

I've already offered the method. It's up to you to use it.

It's always good when a particular discussion with a particular person reach a conclusion and doesn't drag on forever.

On the topic of whether consciousness resides outside of our brain, the evidence you provide, and are unable to provide any other, is that when we meditate, we have amazing feelings and "perceptions" that tell us that out consciousness is outside of our body. I admire your honesty.

I would claim that this provides no evidence that our consciousness resides outside of our body.

I will leave it to others as to whether they find your argument compelling.

Now if only Mithrae could be dealt with so simply ......

[otseng]

Now if only Mithrae could be dealt with so simply ......

Moderator Comment

Please avoid making comments about other posters.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[ytrewq]

Now if only Mithrae could be dealt with so simply ......

This comment may have been misunderstood. It was intended, in a lighthearted and humorous way, as a compliment to Mithrae. Insults are rightly not permitted, but surely compliments are OK, even a good thing. For any misunderstanding, I apologize.

[Mithrae]

Now if only Mithrae could be dealt with so simply ......

I think I'll take that as a compliment, though it doesn't seem too nice to Razor ......

On the topic of whether consciousness resides outside of our brain, the evidence you provide, and are unable to provide any other, is that when we meditate, we have amazing feelings and "perceptions" that tell us that out consciousness is outside of our body. I admire your honesty.

Just as I respected your honesty when you acknowledged back in post #205 that you likewise had made a claim which was based upon what you feel or don't feel at particular moments of your personal experience, being near high temperatures, lead enclosures, radiation, particle beams and so on (with the not-unreasonable presumption that many other folk could confirm similar experience, as with Razor's claims about particular moments of his experience).

This apparent double standard aside, I'll wait for you to catch up on the last third of post #212 (or better yet, the still-notorious post #36 linked therein) before replying further. Granted it's my weekend at the moment and I might fall behind myself later on, but it seems (particularly given the quite remarkable discrepancies I highlighted in your response to the Pam Reynolds case) that there may well be some under-examined presuppositions colouring your views in this discussion.

[William]

[Replying to post 224 by ytrewq]

This comment may have been misunderstood. It was intended, in a lighthearted and humorous way, as a compliment to Mithrae. Insults are rightly not permitted, but surely compliments are OK, even a good thing. For any misunderstanding, I apologize.

I saw it more as an insult to Razor disguised as a compliment to Mithrae.

[ytrewq]

[Replying to post 217 by ytrewq]

The term that was actually used was that she was "clinically dead", meaning no heartbeat or blood to the brain, but her brain was still well and truly alive, and cooled to 10 DegC to ensure that it did stay alive. Brain activity was monitored by way of an ECG on the main brain stem, which monitored whether audible clicks from speakers in her ears produced a corresponding ECG signal on the brain stem. But that's all the brain monitoring that was carried out. There was no way to know if certain parts of her brain were still functioning - to do that would require probes into every part of her brain, which is practically impossible and, in any event, the monitoring was in fact limited to a single ECG sensor in the brain stem.

So in my view, it's a "no brainer" as to what happened, assuming the description of events is correct. The obvious explanation is that some parts of her brain were still functioning.

So in my view, your conclusions are wrong. Pam's reported experience is well explained by some parts of her brain continuing to more-or less function, which I find not unreasonable given that her brain was not dead, and AFAIK, the limited monitoring could not preclude that certain parts of her brain were still active.

EEG monitoring showed no activity in response to one of the most basic of all stimuli, yet you assert that it is "obvious" that 'some parts' of her brain were still active and functioning with no blood flow and cooled to 10 degrees.

This is simply a statement of faith, pure and simple. No blood flow means no oxygen or glucose, both of which are necessary for all cellular metabolism and activity. The brain consumes a disproportionate chunk of the body's energy and has little storage capacity - which is why it is most at risk from cessation of blood flow. What you are asserting to be "obvious" seems to be quite literally physically impossible. But as I said, you are compelled by your presuppositions to introduce speculative 'explanations' without a shred of verifiable evidence.

You make good points, and may well be right that her brain was in fact "shut down" and not active in any way except for surviving, and thus not capable of experiencing anything. I was simply making the point that it was not proven that some parts of her brain were still more-or-less active. But I was making this comment on the basis that the reported events were correct, and that her dreaming occurred during the time her brain was "shut down". In my view, the explanation I gave would still be more likely than some totally-off-the-planet theory that her dreaming was happening outside of her body. But that is all of little relevance, unless we know that her recollections really did refer to when her brain was shut down. As it turns out, this seems unlikely when we look closer, as below.

So now let's look at other explanations, which are much more likely. Pam was under anaesthetic for a significant time before and after her brain was shut down. Given that fact, the most likely explanation by far is that she was dreaming while under anaesthetic, or dreamily aware of her surroundings during anaesthetic, which is relatively common. When she finally came out of anaesthetic and became fully conscious, she had no way of knowing when her recalled events took place, no way of knowing whether her recollections were from when under anaesthetic or when her brain was shut down. I reached this conclusion without looking on the net, but your Wikipedia link shows that well qualified people agree :-

Anesthesiologist Gerald Woerlee analyzed the case, and concluded that Reynolds' ability to perceive events during her surgery was the result of "anesthesia awareness".[8]

According to the psychologist Chris French:

Woerlee, an anesthesiologist with many years of clinical experience, has considered this case in detail and remains unconvinced of the need for a paranormal explanation... [He] draws attention to the fact that Reynolds could only give a report of her experience some time after she recovered from the anesthetic as she was still intubated when she regained consciousness. This would provide some opportunity for her to associate and elaborate upon the sensations she had experienced during the operation with her existing knowledge and expectations. The fact that she described the small pneumatic saw used in the operation also does not impress Woerlee. As he points out, the saw sounds like and, to some extent, looks like the pneumatic drills used by dentists.[2]

When you look closely at the case, there is no evidence that Pams "experience" happened while her brain was shut down. Much more likely, I respectfully suggest, that it happened while under anaesthetic, as this is quite common.

Apparently this case has been seized upon by the NDE enthusiasts, and perhaps the "consciousness outside the brain" enthusiasts, in a desperate attempt to find some evidence for their beliefs, but when looked at in detail, it doesn't really provide any evidence at all.

One thing that I find highly ironic is that these enthusiasts gleefully tell us that Pam had her eyes taped shut and her ears blocked during the time her brain was shut down, apparently in the belief that this assists their case. Really? Most people would say that if our eyes are taped shut, and our ears blocked, then we could not possibly see or hear what was happening, and as Pam did claim to see and hear things, that that provides very strong additional evidence that her recalled experience did not take place while here brain was shut down. To hear and see with your eyes and ears disabled would take a second supernatural explanation!!! Well as discussed, we have no reason to believe the first supernatural claim that Pam experienced something with no brain, but I sure as heck ain't gonna accept yet another supernatural claim that she could see and hear without eyes and ears. We have just moved from the unlikely to the absurd.

The claim that Pam provides evidence for awareness without a brain is thus completely discredited as far as I am concerned. On any logical, unbiased analysis, the obvious conclusion is that she had the common experience of "anesthesia awareness". Time to move on.

So what evidence is left for those that, for reasons that elude me, believe that consciousness exists outside of out brain?

None that I am aware of. Can anyone provide any, apart from "perceptions" during meditation?

[ytrewq]

[Replying to post 224 by ytrewq]

This comment may have been misunderstood. It was intended, in a lighthearted and humorous way, as a compliment to Mithrae. Insults are rightly not permitted, but surely compliments are OK, even a good thing. For any misunderstanding, I apologize.

I saw it more as an insult to Razor disguised as a compliment to Mithrae.

If Razor saw it that way, I apologize. But I was really just stating obvious truths. Razor's sole evidence was his "perceptions" while meditating, which most certainly are more easily dealt with that Mithrae's many-faceted postings.

[ytrewq]

Now if only Mithrae could be dealt with so simply ......

I think I'll take that as a compliment, though it doesn't seem too nice to Razor ......

On the topic of whether consciousness resides outside of our brain, the evidence you provide, and are unable to provide any other, is that when we meditate, we have amazing feelings and "perceptions" that tell us that out consciousness is outside of our body. I admire your honesty.

Just as I respected your honesty when you acknowledged back in post #205 that you likewise had made a claim which was based upon what you feel or don't feel at particular moments of your personal experience, being near high temperatures, lead enclosures, radiation, particle beams and so on (with the not-unreasonable presumption that many other folk could confirm similar experience, as with Razor's claims about particular moments of his experience).

This apparent double standard aside, I'll wait for you to catch up ...

I see no "double standard" at all. Just as with emotions, consciousness is something that we feel, so by definition, if we can't detect a change in our felt consciousness then there isn't one.

If someone claimed that some "thing" affected their emotions, then likewise, the bottom line is whether they feel that their emotions are being affected. And just as with consciousness, our universal experience is that the physical environment around us does not affect our emotions except indirectly by way of our bodily receptors.

No double standard at all.

And yes, I will make an effort to "catch up" but like you, have only so many hours in the day.

[ytrewq]

[Replying to post 225 by Mithrae]

I'll wait for you to catch up on the last third of post #212 (or better yet, the still-notorious post #36 linked therein) before replying further.

OK, so I did refer back to your post #36, where you seemed largely to be offering help to William with his particular views, rather than presenting your own views. I suggest that our present discussions should be about your personal views, not your interpretation and defense of some one else's views.

To be honest, I found your #36 to be very vague and "fluffy", plus you touched on many different things.

Is there a single, well defined question or claim from #36 that we can discuss? Then if we resolve that, we can move onto the next claim or question.

But please, no meaningless statements like "God is consciousness", where after pages of discussion I am still none the wiser as to what the statement means.