For the sake of argument, let's say God exists

[HosannaHM]

Well, the wants and desires are easily explained by the reaction our body has to certain stimuli. Whether that's hunger, thirst, sexual arousal, or the chemicals associated with the memory of a good or bad experience. The choices and decisions are made by the neurons firing in such as way as to weigh up the options, access any relevant knowledge and memories, and processing all of that. Our evidence? Well, if all the decision making processes are outsourced to some sort of nonphysical "will", why fire the neurons during the decision making process at all? Why fire them in a characteristic pattern, in centres of the brain that would have little function other than to process information for making decisions?

Can neurons explain love? The will to give your life up for someone else?

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Can neurons explain love? The will to give your life up for someone else?

Love is easy. Altruism is more difficult, but explainable. You aren't making novel points here - Richard Dawkins wrote a book in the 1970s extensively covering these topics.

 

[Delphiki]

Can neurons explain love? The will to give your life up for someone else?

Yes. The emotion can be so powerful, that many of us will attribute it to some sort of supernatural influence.

 

[Tomatoman]

Can neurons explain love? The will to give your life up for someone else?

Yes. In fact the best way to explain human emotions is through the lens of evolutionary psychology. Here's a good book on the subject:

The Moral Animal: Amazon.co.uk: Robert Wright: Books


I warn you though, if you read that book your faith will take a heavy pounding.

 

[Ar Cosc]

Can neurons explain love? The will to give your life up for someone else?

There's definitely a physical/evolutionary explanation. It's that humans are preprogrammed to be pair-forming, because our young take so long to raise, that it's essentially a full-time job. Without one parent staying looking after the child, and the other providing, the child dies, and the genes aren't passed on. For this to happen most effectively, the parents should be in a long-term relationship. Under this theory, love is simply a trait we evolved to stop the family unit from splitting apart as soon as the man had sown his seeds.

As for giving your life up for someone else, when people lived in large family groups, the groups in which the odd member would sacrifice themselves for the group would survive better, and pass on the family genes better than more selfish ones.

 

[Tomatoman]

As for giving your life up for someone else, when people lived in large family groups, the groups in which the odd member would sacrifice themselves for the group would survive better, and pass on the family genes better than more selfish ones.

Interestingly, there is actually an equation showing the relationship between the relatedness of genes and altruism.

Formally, such genes should increase in frequency when

where
r = the genetic relatedness of the recipient to the actor, often defined as the probability that a gene picked randomly from each at the same locus is identical by descent.B = the additional reproductive benefit gained by the recipient of the altruistic act,C = the reproductive cost to the individual of performing the act.

Kin selection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

speaking as someone who frequently argues with creationists, one thing that impresses me about this is the strong match between theory and reality. Hamilton's mathematical models are based entirely on the cold, hard logic of natural selection.

The Altruism Equation : EvolutionBlog

 

[Greg1234]

Yes. The emotion can be so powerful, that many of us will attribute it to some sort of supernatural influence.

Actually the supernatural element is a universal though not entirely different. The same way "blue" is both a particular frequency of light and the designation given to a particular mood.

 

[Doveaman]

That humans have bigger brains is an observed fact, but it's not evidence that there's something supernatural going on in the background that's not also going on to a lesser degree in other animals who make tools.

I’m not claiming that the human “will” is supernatural. The human “will” is a part of who we are as human beings. That’s why it’s called the “human will”.

My claim is that a part of who we are as human beings is nonphysical, and the human “will” has to do with that part:

“There is a spirit in man”

“The spirit is willing, but the body is weak”

“For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him?”

“The body without the spirit is dead” - Job 32:8, Matt 26:41, 1 Cor 2:11, James 2:26.

You may not agree to these claims, but the fact that scientists find the human mind so complicated gives support to these claims; scientists are trying to find a physical explanation for something that is not entirely physical. I wish them luck.

But you also have other neurons firing in your brain telling you not to eat, for whatever evolutionary reason.

Not being able to explain that “reason” doesn’t help your argument.

Neurons do not “tell me” not to eat, they simply respond to my “will’ not to eat so that my body may not eat.

There's a shortage of food, you are overweight, or you're trying to prove a religious point.

This doesn’t explain why I am capable of refusing what I desire or capable of pursuing what I don’t desire.

“For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do — this I keep on doing.” - Rom 7:19.

Have you ever done something you didn’t want to do, or refused to do something you wanted to do?

It’s as if we desire and don’t desire at the same time. Why would a brain do that? Misfiring neurons, perhaps?

If you're hooked up to an EEG machine, we can look at the brain activity that triggers this.

But you cannot look at that which triggers the brain activity – the “will”.

And we can affect the "will" to perform actions with various chemical and electrical stimulation. If the will is nonphysical, then why can it be changed by taking very physical things like antidepressants, marijuana, alcohol, or LSD?

”Nonphysical” does not mean “nonhuman”. It is that nonphysical element of the human mind that makes us human and not animal.

The human “will” works through the human brain; if the human brain is affected then the human “will” can be altered. A person on antidepressants, marijuana, alcohol, or LSD may make a different decision from what they would have made if they were not on them but their free “will” is still involved in making those decisions.

Well, the wants and desires are easily explained by the reaction our body has to certain stimuli. Whether that's hunger, thirst, sexual arousal, or the chemicals associated with the memory of a good or bad experience.

As I said before, I can be hungry and desire not to eat; thirsty and desire not to drink; sexually aroused and desire not to take the plunge. I am not a robot responding mindlessly to stimuli.

The choices and decisions are made by the neurons firing in such as way

“In such a way” as what? Is this “such a way” scientifically repeatable so as to reproduce a free-will decision? Let’s see it then.

as to weigh up the options, access any relevant knowledge and memories, and processing all of that.

The way I see it, if all our decisions are only made in response to electrical neurons firing in a brain then we are nothing more than biological robots that are electrically driven. You will then need to demonstrate how electricity can fire off an intelligent, free-will decision in a brain.

Our evidence?

None so far.

Well, if all the decision making processes are outsourced to some sort of nonphysical "will", why fire the neurons during the decision making process at all?

Because the physical and nonphysical elements of our mind is what makes us human. Our human awareness occurs through the brain, therefore we need neurons firing in our brain so that we are aware of the decisions being made by our “will”. We also need neurons firing in our brain to drive our body to do our “will”.

Why fire them in a characteristic pattern, in centres of the brain that would have little function other than to process information for making decisions?

Perhaps for the same reason a computer’s CPU fires data in characteristic patterns in centers of a computer’s Chipset in response to the desire and decisions being made by the "will" of the computer’s user.

 

[Doveaman]

Your concept of the "will" is also completely unscientific, thus you cannot "disprove" it. It's basically just some idea you made up.
Like I said, you should take a science class. You clearly do not understand what science is.

It is no different from the ancients claiming that lightning was caused by “goddidit” and scientists then demonstrating a physically natural cause.

All I’m asking is that you demonstrate a physically natural cause for the human “will” and my claim will be shown to be false.

Ar Cosc nailed it.

I wasn’t impressed.

Wants and desires are pretty easy to explain neurologically.

Pretty much everything is easy to explain, but not easy to demonstrate. I’m sure there are a number of scientific explanations floating around out there as to why people believe in God. I’m not impressed by any of them. I prefer demonstrations.

The brain is a complicated fact-checking circuit; it sorts out the basal needs and cycles through the stored information in an attempt to secure those needs.
There is no mystical reason why we desire water, for example. We have receptors in our kidneys that tell the brain the status of the blood volume. If it's low, the brain turns on the thirst center.

Might I remind you that I don’t have to desire water despite how thirsty I am? My body may need water but my mind can refuse it. Ever heard of the phrase “Mind over matter”?

There is also no mystical human "will" that keeps our heart pumping or our lungs functioning. Afferent and efferent arms of the circuit keep everything in an optimal range when in health.
Virtually everything in the nervous system can be explained by reflexes. Some are extremely complicated. Some are extremely simple. But there is no evidence or need to outsource any of this.

The nervous system is designed to work the way it does, but it cannot be compared to the human “mind”. I do not have to “will” my heart to pump blood for it to pump blood, but I do have to “will” my body to drink water when I’m thirsty. And I can desire and freely choose not to drink water no matter how thirsty I am, even to the point of death. I wonder what electrical receptors I would be responding to if I refuse to satisfy my body's thirst? Malfunctioning receptors, perhaps?

 

[Doveaman]

What did it predict and how can we verify this?

It predicts that scientists will never understand how the human mind works since they are relying on the physical to explain something that is not entirely physical.

You're wrong. That quote talks about psychic abilities.

No, it doesn’t. It is talking about the nonphysical element of the human mind.

“There is a spirit in man...

The spirit is willing, but the body is weak...

For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him?

the body without the spirit is dead” - Job 32:8, Matt 26:41, 1 Cor 2:11, James 2:26.

You can deny this all you want but it’s not going to go away. We are who we are, my friend, and it’s much more than just frogs and snails and puppy-dogs' tails.

First you need to tell us how you verified it, how it can be demonstrated, and what your data showed regarding the nonphysical nature of the human will. Once you provide that, we can work toward seeing how it can be falsified.

But you didn’t ask for so much evidence when you were told that “goddidit” produced lightning. You simply showed the natural processes that did it. Why can’t you do the same with my claim? Demonstrate to me the natural processes that generate the human “will” and I will concede.

 

[Doveaman]

Yes. The emotion can be so powerful, that many of us will attribute it to some sort of supernatural influence.

Human love is not supernatural; it’s natural. But can you explain it? Since you attribute love to a physical process in the brain, can you or anyone else give a repeatable demonstration of how this process works so as to reproduce human love?

 

[Doveaman]

The physicists would know better than to say they understand all about electricity.

Including the electricity in the brain. I agree.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

It is no different from the ancients claiming that lightning was caused by “goddidit” and scientists then demonstrating a physically natural cause.

Ah, so you admit that science will soon replace your fairytale?

Might I remind you that I don’t have to desire water despite how thirsty I am? My body may need water but my mind can refuse it. Ever heard of the phrase “Mind over matter”?

The nervous system is designed to work the way it does, but it cannot be compared to the human “mind”. I do not have to “will” my heart to pump blood for it to pump blood, but I do have to “will” my body to drink water when I’m thirsty. And I can desire and freely choose not to drink water no matter how thirsty I am, even to the point of death. I wonder what electrical receptors I would be responding to if I refuse to satisfy my body's thirst? Malfunctioning receptors, perhaps?

What you're describing as the "will" is simply the function of your cerebral cortex. Your cortex can override a lot of your basal functions (thirst, breathing rate, etc.)

You can dehydrate yourself to death, but it will be rather unpleasant. Your osmolarity receptors will give you a sensation that is near impossible to override if water is available. Like trying to hold your bladder when it is beyond full. I take it you've never been stranded in the desert?

Basically, your "will" concept was born out of your inability to understand the functions of the cerebral cortex and the rest of the brain. Seriously, take a biology class. Anatomy & physiology would do you good.

 

[sandwiches]

It predicts that scientists will never understand how the human mind works since they are relying on the physical to explain something that is not entirely physical.
No, it doesn’t. It is talking about the nonphysical element of the human mind.

“There is a spirit in man...

The spirit is willing, but the body is weak...

For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him?

the body without the spirit is dead” - Job 32:8, Matt 26:41, 1 Cor 2:11, James 2:26.

Like I said. That's talking about psychics, not the human will.

You can deny this all you want but it’s not going to go away. We are who we are, my friend, and it’s much more than just frogs and snails and puppy-dogs' tails.
But you didn’t ask for so much evidence when you were told that “goddidit” produced lightning. You simply showed the natural processes that did it. Why can’t you do the same with my claim? Demonstrate to me the natural processes that generate the human “will” and I will concede.

Because in this case, even if we show you EEGs, MRI or CAT scans showing the activity in the brain, you'll keep saying there's an unknown component that those scans cannot account for. So, in other words, unlike lightning, in which you are not personally vested, you won't believe the data we have. Therefore, you must have some evidence that shows that the nonphysical aspect of the "human will."

What you fail to understand is that what you asking is absurd. What if I ask you to show me evidence that a computer's mathematical abilities are physical? And when you fail to do so, I'll claim that those abilities are nonphysical due to a computer spirit. A process cannot be extracted and put on a table any more than we can extract "beer brewing" from a brewery.

 

[juvenissun]

I see a lot of people claiming something as complex as the life here on earth must have a creator. Now my question is for those who claim the God of the Bible is the one. How do you make the leap from there having to be a creator, to the creator being the God of the Bible?

Simple. Just like a multiple choice question:
The instruction says: Choose the best answer.

So your true question should be: why is this God better than that god?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Simple. Just like a multiple choice question:
The instruction says: Choose the best answer.

So your true question should be: why is this God better than that god?

Why are gods the only choices available?

 

[Greg1234]

Simple. Just like a multiple choice question:
The instruction says: Choose the best answer.

So your true question should be: why is this God better than that god?

Yet even that question is flawed. That's like asking a man who accepts radio waves, "which one, Samsung or Motorola?".

 

[Ar Cosc]

Yet even that question is flawed. That's like asking a man who accepts radio waves, "which one, Samsung or Motorola?".

Not really, an argument creationists use time and again is "everything needs a first cause", and one of Doveaman's favourites "intelligence comes from intelligence". Even if you think that's a cast-iron argument, you still have to explain why you have chosen Jehovah as your god, and not Allah, or Brahma, or Waheguru, or Ptah?

 

[Upisoft]

Even if you think that's a cast-iron argument, you still have to explain why you have chosen Jehovah as your god, and not Allah, or Brahma, or Waheguru, or Ptah?

Zeus is quite angry at you now. Don't walk alone in a thunderstorm.

 

[Hespera]

Like I said. That's talking about psychics, not the human will.


Because in this case, even if we show you EEGs, MRI or CAT scans showing the activity in the brain, you'll keep saying there's an unknown component that those scans cannot account for. So, in other words, unlike lightning, in which you are not personally vested, you won't believe the data we have. Therefore, you must have some evidence that shows that the nonphysical aspect of the "human will."

What you fail to understand is that what you asking is absurd. What if I ask you to show me evidence that a computer's mathematical abilities are physical? And when you fail to do so, I'll claim that those abilities are nonphysical due to a computer spirit. A process cannot be extracted and put on a table any more than we can extract "beer brewing" from a brewery.

In primitive cultures it is very common to believe there are "spir its" in everything. Rocks, water, you name it.

In an intermediate level, there are still those who think there are 'spirits", but not in as many things.

Now, my culture, I was taught that to act according to how you
happen to feel not according to what is reasonable and makes sense
is nothing but self indulgence. Letting emotion run the show is very destructive on many levels.

This 'faith' concerning invisible undetectable "spirits" is no different on a quality-of-mental-process level, from the thought process that goes on with an obese person who cannot resist their craving for chocolate. No matter what.

We note of course that nobody much ever thinks they are doing something stupid, people always find ways to rationalize. In fact people, as so often seen on this forum, take great pride in their faith in their absurd ideas and rationalizations.