You can not find God as a physical being

[Sundance]

With this i mean the God many seeking is not there to be found, the God I become familiar with arise from within the practitioner of a spiritual teaching.

So by seeking outward you will not find God, the quality of God is within you.
God is a state of consciousness. Only by realizing the God consciousness will you see God.

Only when you find God you will know yourself, only by knowing yourself will you know God.

Any thoughts?

I agree with you, @Conscious thoughts, although I understand the nature of God very different than you do, I’m sure.

As a Traditional Stoic, in the first place, I acknowledge that there are, indeed, many gods; they are part of the Supreme God, which I understand is identical with the Universe, the Cosmos. He is also the source of all existence and cosmic laws, as well as our inner faculty of Reason, the God Within. Other names by which we know the Supreme Divinity are Zeus/Jupiter, the Universal Mind, the World-Soul, Nature, Universal Reason, and the All-Power (that’s my own personal name for God).

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Where I go wrong?

I said: An electrical impulse cannot "feel something".
You said: Nobody said that

It is YOU who want to make it all about "where it comes from"..

You said: Because feelings are bio-electrical energy , a part of the human piezoelectric experience .

..btw, what IS the point at hand?

It's you who brought up the electrical impulse bit. So that is about where it comes from. Not what the manifestation / effect is like.

..bearing in mind, that the OP is "You can not find God as a physical being"
I would say that psychology is very relevant to the OP.

Not really, as psychology studies a phenomenon which originates in / emerges from physical brains.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, it is very relevant to the OP

Only if god is a conceptual manifestation with physical origins.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Not really, as psychology studies a phenomenon which originates in / emerges from physical brains.

No. You can't prove that consciousness originates in brains.
You can only prove that it's apparent that brains are necessary in order to experience it.

Psychology is not concerned about the origin. It deals with non-physical concepts.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Only if god is a conceptual manifestation with physical origins.

You are apparently doing metaphysics. Do you really want to go there?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No. You can't prove that consciousness originates in brains.

I said that all evidence supports the proposition that consciousness originates in physical brains.
There is zero evidence to support any other proposition.

Here's exactly what I said in post #216:

The point being discusses is you claiming that it requires supernatural shenannigans for it to exist, while literally all evidence points to it being an emergent property/function of natural physical brains.

I never used the words "proves", "prove" or "proof".
Science, especially the natural sciences, rarely, if ever, speaks about "proof". Science deals in evidence, not in proof. Proof is for mathematics. Not for physics, chemistry, biology, etc.

You can only prove that it's apparent that brains are necessary in order to experience it.

No.
Again: ALL evidence points to consciousness coming from physical brains.
ZERO evidence suggests otherwise.

Psychology is not concerned about the origin

Exactly. Which is why yours was an irrelevant question.

It deals with non-physical concepts.

I disagree. It deals with human psychology (behavior, mentality, emotion, etc). Humans are very physical.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I disagree. It deals with human psychology (behavior, mentality, emotion, etc). Humans are very physical.

Well, all I can say is that your idea of "physical" is very different from mine.
The statement "Humans are very physical" is meaningless in the context of psychology. It is not a study of the physical person.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, all I can say is that your idea of "physical" is very different from mine.
The statement "Humans are very physical" is meaningless in the context of psychology. It is not a study of the physical person.

It is the study of an aspect of physical persons.
Without a physical human, there is nothing there to study.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It is the study of an aspect of physical persons.
Without a physical human, there is nothing there to study.

So what?
Psychology is about non-physical concepts.
You are in denial.

What you are in effect arguing is that there is no such thing as a non-physical concept, because minds "emerge".
That is not a valid argument.
If it was, we would not be able to make a distinction between physical illness and mental illness.

I know that you will claim that mental illness is caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain, but that is only a "belief". We observe that people with a mental illness show physical symptoms, and conclude "that is what is causing it".

That is much like "the chicken and egg" scenario..
What comes first, the mental illness, or the physical symptoms?
As an example, is grief caused by a physical imbalance?

 

[wellwisher]

It's you who brought up the electrical impulse bit. So that is about where it comes from. Not what the manifestation / effect is like.

Not really, as psychology studies a phenomenon which originates in / emerges from physical brains.

In computers, to use a close analogy, there is hardware and software. The hardware is more tangible, while software is more ethereal, being composed of symbols and code instead of nuts and bolts. A glitch in the software can make the hardware not perform improperly, just as a defect in the hardware can make the software not perform properly. Both are needed to work well to get the entire affect. Grief causes a bug in the software, which can create physical symptoms in the hardware. Drug addiction can cause physical changes in the hardware, which can causes bugs in the software; operating system of the brain.

The problem is the philosophy of science requires that we observe phenomena in the third person so we can objectively view the subject. Since this means sensory system this allows others to confirm our discoveries through the third person. However, you cannot see software in the same way as hardware. Software requires introspection; in the first person, so you can look at the code. But this is not allowed by the philosophy of science, since others cannot look inside your mind the same way, you as the first person.

For example, dreams cannot be fully investigated by the philosophy of science since the details can only be seen by the individual who is dreaming. We can know they are dreaming, via the third person by REM and other hardware output. However, the details cannot be seen by any machine, but only in the first person by the person who is dreaming. Dreams cannot be addressed fully by science since your dreams cannot be reproduced as defined by the philosophical code.

Psychology has to depend on the patient to tell them this insider; first person, information so they can figure out the software glitch. They need to look for cues to make sure this is the truth and not a game. This is called soft science since it depends on unique data provided by the patient that is not subject to verification like the hardware side. It sort of violate the philosophy of science in the that data is not exactly reproducible by other researchers.

Science falls short by its philosophy when dealing with the software side of the brain. This is a final frontier of science and would need an update for in science philosophy. God is found in the software side since he is not physical, like hardware. A Saint is not made due to hardware, but rather by faith which is not a physical thing. It is closer to religious software, which can impact the DNA through epigenetic changes; becomes an instinctive habit.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In computers, to use a close analogy, there is hardware and software. The hardware is more tangible, while software is more ethereal, being composed of symbols and code instead of nuts and bolts. A glitch in the software can make the hardware not perform improperly, just as a defect in the hardware can make the software not perform properly. Both are needed to work well to get the entire affect. Grief causes a bug in the software, which can create physical symptoms in the hardware. Drug addiction can cause physical changes in the hardware, which can causes bugs in the software; operating system of the brain.

Your analogy fails as "consciousness" is not something that requires installing on the "brain". Neither can you "update" it or "reinstall" it or whatever. Instead, consciousness emerges from the brain and "personality" is build-up over time through physical neural connections forming in the brain.

The problem is the philosophy of science requires that we observe phenomena in the third person so we can objectively view the subject

I don't consider the use of / need for objective evidence to support propositions a "problem".

Since this means sensory system this allows others to confirm our discoveries through the third person. However, you cannot see software in the same way as hardware. Software requires introspection; in the first person, so you can look at the code. But this is not allowed by the philosophy of science, since others cannot look inside your mind the same way, you as the first person.

This is irrelevant as it is a false analogy.
There is no evidence at all that supports the case that software emerges from hardware.
There is much evidence that software is coded by a third party and you then having the ability to install said software on any compatible hardware you wish.

Consciousness is nothing like that. It's a false analogy for the purpose that you are trying to use it.

Psychology has to depend on the patient to tell them this insider; first person, information so they can figure out the software glitch. They need to look for cues to make sure this is the truth and not a game. This is called soft science since it depends on unique data provided by the patient that is not subject to verification like the hardware side. It sort of violate the philosophy of science in the that data is not exactly reproducible by other researchers.

No. Psychology starts from a baseline which IS the result of plenty of scientific study as well as case studies. It's not an "exact science", and I never claimed it is.

The point remains however: without physical brains, there is nothing for psychology to study.

Science falls short by its philosophy when dealing with the software side of the brain

There is no "software side of the brain".
There is only the brain and at best a vague conceptual analogy - which no longer applies when stretching it like you are attempting here.

This is a final frontier of science and would need an update for in science philosophy. God is found in the software side since he is not physical, like hardware.

And your evidence for this claim is....?

A Saint is not made due to hardware, but rather by faith which is not a physical thing. It is closer to religious software, which can impact the DNA through epigenetic changes; becomes an instinctive habit.

Now you went full word salad mode.