Omniscience of Divine Being.

I see the point that consciousness does not appear to provide the "spark" that begins the firing of the neurons to initiate the process of movement, but if there is to be freewill, must it really reside this first spark? To me it only proves that our brains are slow and certain operations lag others. Our consciousness is the final product of a vast number of operations, so I guess its expected that our brains would show activity before we are aware of that activity.1) The person was still conscious of and agreeable to his/her general desire to flex the wrist even though he/she didn't know the exact moment it would happen.2) This doesn't say anything about pre-planned activity, but only a forced random activity. It would be interesting to know what would be observed if the patient was instructed to flex his/her wrist when the clock was exactly on the top tick mark. I would guess that the patient would be conscious of his/her intention to move almost as soon as the instructions were given. It might also be interesting to do this experiment with a Kung-Fu master and see if his consciousness lags less than the rest of us.3) As stated at the end: "Although research casts doubt on whether conscious processes cause actions, the data remain consistent with the idea that conscious processes could still exert some effect over actions by modifying the brain processes already under way. The fact that conscious awareness of intention precedes movement by a few hundred milliseconds means that a person could still inhibit certain actions from being made."If you think that this does negate freewill, then please explain some more. And please give your own definition of freewill since it is undeniable that we all fit the dictionary definition. I think the two amiguities are with the self (what are we?) and with the power to decide (where does it come from?).

Hi Ifen, I replied to Sidelined already so I won't repeat myself, but I will add something. I disagree with their conclusion here. The "decision" IMO includes everything from the first spike in brain activity to the person beginning to reach for the button. By eliminating all but the brainwave spike they have obviously ensured that our consciousness cannot have a say in the decision. In reality a person is not expected to act randomly and there is time for for cognitive dissonance where the person can consciously debate with himself about what he wants to do before agreeing and acting.

I'll second that.We can play around with these theories about what God is and how he works, but it is an impossibility for us to really grasp what God is and how he works. It is hard enough for us to really grasp what we are and how we work. So though this kind of specualting is fun, nothing concrete can come of it and no logical proof can be made. In the end all I can do is trust that God is who He says he is: life, love, light, and truth, and that Jesus was the perfect image of Him. If I know who Jesus is, I know who the Father is, and that is what is truly important. I always have time for deep metaphysical stuff... Nope no homework. Finals were over and done with last week. I don't start lifeguarding again for two weeks, so I've got a whole bunch of free time, which I've been spending reading Crime and Punishment, working around the house and in the yard, and (to my mother's terror) hunting for a crotch rocket to buy off of ebay.This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 05-15-2005 01:15 PM

Well, it seems to me from the naturalist standpoint, that we should have no power to determine the future, and I believe this is what sidelined is saying when he says "no freewill". From this naturalist standpoint, one processes leads to another so that even our desires and the final termination of cognitive dissonance are all a consequence of preceeding mindless events.It is my belief that consciousness opens up a kind of new dimension of reality, the spiritual, and it is from this dimension that real power to determine the future comes from. Sidlined might argue that because this "new dimension" is dependant upon the physical world for existence that it is really just an illusion. To this have two thoughts. How can something you feel be an illusion? If you feel it, then it must be real. Secondly, if existence in this spiritual dimension allows us power to determine the future, then in a way, the physical reality is just as dependant upon this spiritual dimension.Now the question that has to do with the OP that remains open is can we share God's power to determine? I believe we can. More than just behaviours are unobservable. Take love or anger. The naturalist perspective holds that we are the sum of our physical parts, yet we cannot objectively describe or understand these feelings simply by understanding how the brain works. These feelings are real, and they are not made less real by the fact that we can see certain areas of the brain light up on an MRI when the person is feeling them.These are spiritual realities and they can only be understood by shared experience or similes and metaphors, and in the same way, God is Spirit and can only be understood by shared experience or similes and metaphors.

Thank ya, I AM definately enjoying it. Well, Christianity has something for everyone, then with the Trinity.God is Spirit, which means when you feel and express unmerited love, you have experienced God. God is a man, Jesus Christ. "The Way" became human so that we could understand Him (the perfect metaphor). And there is the Father who observes all deeds done by men and desires that they all follow "The Way".Have you ever read the "Jesus Sutras"? In them, some of the truths of Christianity are explained in a more Eastern way, that you may find more agreeable. I believe they helped me understand what God is better.

Okay If you have a phantom limb sensation, that feeling is very much real. That is all I am saying about feeling. If you experience a dream, that dream is a reality regardless of whether it corresponds to anything physical. If you feel angry about something that didn't happen, this doesn't change the reality of the fact that you felt angry. The feelings do not report a reality; they are a reality whether caused by the physical reality or not.

I see how those two quotes of mine look like a contradiction. When I said, "How can something you feel be an illusion? If you feel it, then it must be real," I meant the feeling itself cannot be an illusion, though the thing that caused the feeling can. Because, if you are to have real power to determine the future, you have to get outside the cause and effect chain of the physical reality. It is like floating down the river in a canoe without a paddle. If the river takes you where you wanted to go anyway, then you think you have power to determine, but if it doesn't take you where you want to go, then you think you are powerless. To truly have power to determine your course, you have to get outside the canoe and push. Perhaps consciousness, being on a different plane of reality allows us to step outside of the boat and take charge of our destiny.The pure naturalist would say that this is nonsense because consciousness is created and governed by physical events, so you are really not stepping outside the cause/effect chain. He believes that we are nothing more than the sum of our physical parts.But since conscious experience is real and yet cannot be described in terms of the rest of the physical reality (except by metaphor), and since it allows us to transcend time a little bit by remembering the past and understanding future effects of our actions, I am suggesting that conscious experience might allow us to have real power to determine the future.Once we stop looking at the paradox of freewill in a universe where God knows the future as a purely physical one, perhaps it will become less of a paradox. God obviously does not dwell in the physical. He is a transcendant Spirit. And we too, as I have suggested, do not dwell entirely in the physical.If, as in the venn diagram example, our consciousness is a little circle inside God's consciousness, which is the set of all consciousness, then perhaps what we feel God feels. As you have said before, God does not see and is not seen, but is "seeing" (or perhaps all three). So if we can share feelings with God, then perhaps we can also share his power. When we make a decision, the power comes on loan from God, the action comes from our physical body, and our will may or may not be in congruity with God's.I hope that made at least a little sense...