WHY ARE ORGANISMS DIFFERENT FROM MACHINES?

http://www.people.vcu.edu/~mikuleck/PPRISS3.html ^ | Donald C. Mikulecky

[spirited irish]

Betty wondered, “I don’t know why the materialists haven’t figured this out yet”

Spirited: The answer to Betty’s question points to the reality of man’s fallen state, what Christianity calls sin.
For many materialists-—perhaps the greater percentage— the answer is: “Pride of Mind.” For others it is both “Pride of Mind and Pride of Flesh.”

For a smaller yet profoundly significant few, it’s what Voegelin called the ‘gnostic spiritual disease,’ which at its most extreme, is such complete rebellion against the Father that there is refusal to even be “in His image.” Karl Marx is one primary example of this disease; today’s Transhumanists are another. Here we see a longing to escape the hated ‘meat machine,’ even if escape means somehow transferring one’s ‘essence’ to machines.

“Vain fantasies” is but one way in which God summarizes these philosophies.

[P.O.E.]

Was out zotting a carpenter ant nest in the shed, and within a few days they had flyers out by the dozens.

Talk about a microprocessor. How do it know?

[Alamo-Girl]

Actually Obama does remind me of a hypnotist. He doesn't really say anything, but his audience believes he said what they wanted to hear.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for sharing your insights, dear spirited irish!

Truly I suspect some of those suffering from the spiritual disease were given over to illness because they realized that God IS and willfully chose to worship the creature instead of the Creator.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.– Romans 1:20-32

To God be the glory!

[spirited irish]

“Truly I suspect some of those suffering from the spiritual disease were given over to illness because they realized that God IS and willfully chose to worship the creature instead of the Creator”

Spirited: You’ve ‘hit the bullseye’! Marx did in fact know that “God is.”

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for your encouragements, dear spirited irish!

[hosepipe]

LoL... also true..

[hosepipe]

[ “Pride of Mind and Pride of Flesh.”(sin) ]

Some identify with the flesh, some identify with the spirit.. yet others with the Spirit..
Tied up in identity are the roots of who you are..

Little wonder, "You MUST be born again"- Jesus..
Its not about what you believe but Whom you Are that counts..

Jesus came to make a family.. some family members think screwy things.
Unless they are indoctrinated and dogmatized.. i.e. John ch 10..

[MHGinTN]

Here's a question for you to ponder: Did you have a form of consciousness before you were formed in your Mother's womb? ... We know that we will have consciousness after we leave this body, but did we have consciousness before being physically formed in our Mother's womb?

The answer, from a reading of what Jesus taught is related to being 'born again'. The consciousness of/in the soul is created with the physical body, but the consciousness of the spirit is achieved through an act of being 'born again of the Spirit', His Spirit enlivening our human spirit component.

So, the soul is not bound to linear temporal perspective and is in fact an ongoing 'thing' which exists even after the body has rotted away. Jesus taught that the spirit too is not bound by linear temporal perspective and shall continue in existence, but for those not 'born again', the spirit of man will continue endlessly in a dead state, void of the LIFE of God in the human spirit.

Perhaps that helps to explain why I want to differentiate between soul and spirit every chance I get. Everything that is alive has a soul of greater or lesser complexity, but only humans have been given a spirit component to their soul which differentiates them from all other live as physical, soulish, and spiritual.

And here's another notion to ponder: the fifth chapter of Daniel reveals an interesting aspect about that 'other realm' where beings dwell and reach 'down' to our linear temporal realm ... when they manifest in our realm, they have physical appearance, even if only the hand of the physical.

[hosepipe]

[ Did you have a form of consciousness before you were formed in your Mother's womb? ]

Good question.. if eternal life is possible..
then is eternal past and eternal future possible also?..

What is "spirit/Spirit"?.. We really dont know in a material way..
We tend to look at life carnally(flesh)..
Where did our/the spirit come from..

Is it possible that our spirit is a evil angel getting a second chance?..
A second to reject Satan and his gospel..
Which is, "Eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and YOU will be like God"..

Can a man decide good and evil himself?..
Often, The good can be evil and the evil can be good..
The observer problem trumps a proper diagnosis..

What IF, an recalcitrant (evil)Angel had his "mind" blanked/cleared/occluded before being injected into a human body at conception.. You know.. to make the test (of being human) legitimate.. And that "angel" grows into that body identifying with the body instead of the spirit that he actually is.. thinking that he is merely flesh?..

That would make us all prodigal sons.. and provide a good test of our real spiritual proclivities.. Some opting for evil or good and opting to allow God to diagnose that..

If SO, then God is a genius.. what a plan... What a wonderful plan..
i.e. a second chance for Satans minions.. and for Satan himself..

[hosepipe]

besides that; if true; being born again is absolutely tangible..

[MHGinTN]

Sorry, pure Bovine scatology ... when you were created in body, your soul contasining a spirit component also came into being.

[hosepipe]

[ Sorry, pure Bovine scatology ... when you were created in body, your soul containing a spirit component also came into being. ]

What is a spirit?..

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, dear brother in Christ!

Pre-mortal existence (other than Christ of course) makes a good backdrop for a novel, movie or television script. And it is LDS theology (and a minority view in Judaism and Islam.)

But it is not Scriptural:

The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him. - Zechariah 12:1

To God be the glory!

[hosepipe]

[ The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him. - Zechariah 12:1 ]

Actually this supports my speculation..
The mechanics of the forming is not mentioned..
What is,is, and what ain't, ain't.. Spectulation is fun..
I think I will not be judged on how accurate my spectulations are..

There may be some Mormons in heaven.. I say God bless them..
We are no doubt not judged on how smart we are..

If we were, many smart alecks will not be there..
You know like Peter, Thomas.. etc..

[Alamo-Girl]

I think I will not be judged on how accurate my spectulations are..

Truly I cannot imagine your having the kind of speculations that deny Who Christ IS or that would call evil, good or good, evil.

[hosepipe]

[ Truly I cannot imagine your having the kind of speculations that deny Who Christ IS or that would call evil, good or good, evil. ]

If christ is God?..
Then christ is unknowable..
since God has 3 or more iterations.. i.e. seven spirits of God..

God is not to be known but experienced/obeyed.. i.e. "tell them I AM sent you"-Ex ch3..
Deducing good/evil is eating from the wrong tree..

Truely, some worship Jesus human body/flesh instead of his Spirit..
How can the Father and Jesus and the Holy Spirit be one?..
It is(should be) quite easy for Spirits to be One.. not so human flesh..

I believe Jesus existed before his human flesh was conceived..
The Holy Spirit enlived "the protoplasm" with Gods "sons" spirit..
Being God it must be so.. Is Jesus Flesh or Spirit?.. is God carnal?..

Which brings me to the current problem/side bar..
Where did OUR spirits come from?..

Are "WE" flesh or spirit?.. Or is the flesh a metamorphic stage?..
Gotta admit.. its an interesting dilema/question/morphology..

Also; why did Jesus walk on water, go thru walls, appear in forms not easily recognized?..
Heal, read peoples minds, and any number of other strange events?..
Was it not to wean the deciples of carnality toward their spirit's?..

I think so..

Truely it is a matter of identification..
What do you identify with The flesh?.. or the spirit?..
Your whole world view lies in the matter..

Most I think try to merge the flesh and the spirit.. and make them one..

"God is Spirit and those that worship him MUST worship him in spirit".. a verse of scripture I believe.. Many try to worship God in the flesh.. because of identity, they identify with their flesh..

Which is OK with me because that is WHY? they here on this planet, to determine that.. Do you love the flesh or do you love the spirit/Spirit.. The Kingdom of God is in Spirit.. as far as I can determine..

[betty boop]

So, without apology to Descartes:"Cogito, ergo Deus est! I think, therefore God is!" as Stuart C. Hackett expressed it.

LOLOL!!! That's a great insight into Descartes, Texas Songwriter! His famous "Cogito, ergo sum" is the description of the process that led him to conclude that he had "found" that very center of himself, called the immaterial soul, which is the very foundation of immaterial consciousness, and thus of all our human knowledge. He wrote in (Meditations):

Thinking is another attribute of the soul; and here I discover what properly belongs to myself. This alone is inseparable from me. I am — I exist: this is certain; but how often? As often as I think; for perhaps it would even happen, if I should wholly cease to think, that I should at the same time altogether cease to be.

In saying this, Descartes is not declaring man or his reason to be "king"; but only that the fact that he thinks is the only "objective" proof he has of his own real existence. It's a terribly profound statement. But to me, certainly not the most profound thing that Descartes ever said. That would be his decisive argument that the idea of God is the prior condition in the human mind for the mere possibility of any other idea, even that of the ego itself.

Descartes was a world-class philosopher and mathematician, the founder of analytic geometry. More importantly for our purposes, he was also a deeply religious man, one committed to the Christian understanding of divine creation — as referring not only to the original creative act, "in the beginning"; but also to God's eternal continuous creation of Nature, throughout space and time.

Truly you wrote: "Consciousness, excepting life itself, is the single most important fact about our existence." I absolutely agree. (As evidently Descartes did as well).

What is really fascinating to me is that science increasingly confirms that all life forms possess a form of consciousness. Even amoeba and bacteria have been found to display a rudimentary type of learning and remembering in replicable experiments. Indeed, one could say that consciousness is the hallmark, the sine qua non of what it means to be "alive."

Increasingly (though often reluctantly), scientists are beginning to admit that consciousness itself — like life itself when you boil it all down — is immaterial. The challenge the naturalists and materialists face is they have to show how nonliving, material objects bootstrapped themselves into life and consciousness. There is nothing in the physical laws of nature that affords any principle by which this can have been really accomplished.

In short, the hypothesis does not rest on anything rational, but only on something that is irrationally hoped for: an explanation of Life and the Universe that rules out God a priori, thus to conclude that all natural events must have wholly natural causes.

You quote Searle as saying the Darwinist (materialist, naturalist) "holds an unshakable faith that science will eventually discover a completely naturalistic explanation for consciousness." And you are certainly right to point out that this is a faith statement, not a scientific one; there's no testable evidence that could render this "unshakeable faith" true or false. Yet this faith statement is clung to so desperately that any evidence that does not conform to it will be screened out in advance, dismissed, disregarded — and ridiculed when necessary or convenient.

But as you note, this is not science, it is a faith operation. And it seems to me that it has no prospect of ever becoming "reasonable." Or rational. The problem is its correspondence to actual reality is doubtful in the first place.

Thank you oh so much for that brilliant description of how Dr. Moreland answered his little daughter with regard to the difference between machines and living organisms. It is simply brilliant!

You wrote: "Geoffrey Medell said consciousness is a mystery which seems like a radical novelty in the universe, not prefigured by the aftereffects of the Big Bang." Yep. It sure does look that way, and other scientists have acknowledged this as well. As the Kineman article referred to above put it,

The origin of perception, or the perceiver, remains an unanswered and perhaps unanswerable question. Like the epistemological limit in explaining the origin of quantum particles or the origin of the universe, not much can be said prior to a mutual causation. It is a mutual causation [i.e., "mutual" between the "intangible" abstract universe (formal cause) and the "tangible" material universe (final cause). Or to put it another way, the dynamic relation that Heraclitus and Leibniz recognized as subsisting between the "changeless" [Heraclitus — ~500 B.C. — called this Logos) and the "changing" or "changeable" (the free potentialities of the natural world).]

The results of common observation are associated with a "space-like" world and the results of abstraction with a "time-like" world, even though these acts themselves involve both aspects. Space thus appears tangible to us and time does not. With some introspection, we may come to appreciate that abstraction is time-like.

Thank you ever so much, Texas Songwriter, for your outstanding essay/post!

[betty boop]

If relating the person to the particular body is the lesson, we are in agreement that the person is not the body. That said, there are a few niggling issues yet unresolved.

Oh really???? LOLOL! Dear brother in Christ, you are a master of understatement!

But then you wrote this fascinating essay, proposing to fill in some of the details using what looks to me like a very promising model involving some striking and sophisticated notions regarding time, associating them with different intangible levels of consciousness. Our "ordinary" consciousness — direct perception — operates at the level of linear time. Time on this view is seen as an irreversible succession of "moments" moving from past to present to future. Yet activities of the soul are not confined to this level, or perhaps we should say dimension. So you differentiate two other "levels" of time, the planar and the volumetric.

Correspondingly, with respect to consciousness, you distinguish it according to different aspects of "soul": ordinary consciousness, a/k/a direct perception (the lowest ranked), the soul itself (concept formation and decision making), and Spirit (expressing that which is universally divine, and thus "timeless" in life and consciousness), the soul being intermediary between the other two. I'm not sure this is a good way to frame it. But in any case, for the sake of discussion, we need to define our terms here.

Just some thoughts about possible definitions. When I think of "soul," I think of "formal cause" of the particular human person, preeminently including his bodily expression in "matter." Of Spirit, I think of "God's thumbprint" (so to speak) — that human quality summed up under the term imago Dei. It is that which shows us to be innately, distinctly, essentially human and which marks us apart from the beasts, even quite "smart" ones such as Albert.

It seems planar time is required for decision making. The "step-by-step" process inherent in linear time affords no way to make choices. At best all it can offer is a model of a determined system that inexorably consists (looking backwards) of a virtually limitless chain of cause and effect that is utterly beyond human control because, to us human observers, its is a string of past events relative to our present "position" in time. Which quickly becomes past for us. In short, linear time cannot account for free human choices. And yet it is plain that human beings do deliberate and decide choices regarding their own future actions. (Note that "future" in linear time is not yet created relative to the present; so future considerations can have no real meaning or possible bearing on the present in which human beings decide.)

For all these reasons, we need planar time at minimum to understand the human ability to make free decisions. Man is not "bound" to linear time, and cannot be "explained" in its terms. As the only truly free actor in Nature, something more than the concept of linear time is required. To me, your planar time is an excellent candidate.

Perhaps we could say that planar time is the natural temporal habitat of the human soul — which is a divinely created unique, particular "self." But the stamp of imago Dei is common to all humans by virtue of their created nature. The dimension planar time cannot capture this distinction any better than linear time could capture the idea of a soul at liberty to choose.

But it seems to me your "volumetric time" fills the bill here and quite nicely. It comprehends the "time of all times" involving the human kingdom of Nature. In this superior "time of all times" are enfolded the linear and the planar.

Thus it appears the nature of time is not as we directly experience it (linear time), but has three expressions or dimensions. Or maybe we could say that linear and planar time together constitute a complementarity (in Niels Bohr's sense) that can be reconciled only in the "mother system," which in your model would be volumetric time.

Just some food for thought. It seems to be consonant with some of your own conjectures. But you are the best judge of that, dear brother in Christ!

You raise some truly fascinating issues, MHGinTN. Thank you ever so much for this outstandingly marvelous essay/post!

[RobRoy]

What’s the difference between a Volkswagen?