Emergence 1 – My Contention

             I want to explore the idea of “emergence” or “emergent properties”, as I understand the philosophical concept.  Emergence is probably more popularly summed up in the common phrase “The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.”  Emergence is the idea that something can have a property that doesn’t exist in its individual parts.  I think the most common example typically put forth as an emergent property is the “wetness” or “fluidity” of water.  Water is just a collection of H2O molecules.  An H2O molecule has no property, by itself, that could be called wetness.  But when you put a bunch of them together (and the temperature and pressure are right), the property of wetness “emerges” out of the collection of molecules, and thus it is considered an emergent property.  An emergent property is also frequently defined as a property that you would not (or could not?) have predicted by just looking at the individual parts.  The idea of emergent properties is apparent in everything from molecules to societies.

             There are lots of examples of emergent properties, and I will explore some in future entries.  However, there is really only one so-called emergent property that I care about:  consciousness.  How consciousness is related to the actions of a bunch of neurons communicating with one another is of great interest to me.  There are many people who consider consciousness to be the quintessential example of an emergent property.  They say that consciousness is a property that naturally arises from the complex interaction of neural networks.  This allows them to consider consciousness to be a natural part of the material world – as natural as the wetness of water - and nothing more.  Importantly, this allows them to reject any idea that consciousness is non-material or immaterial.  I think that is a mistake (see here and here), and I hope to show why I say that over the course of a few thought experiments that I will initiate with this blog entry.  My contention is this:  calling consciousness an emergent property of the brain is tantamount to saying that “consciousness is the property of exhibiting consciousness” …which is no explanation at all.  Further, I want to make the contention that all “emergent properties” are conscious perceptions.  I contend that “emergence” and “consciousness” are the same things, and so you can’t use one to explain the other, because all you are saying is “consciousness is consciousness.” 

             This is a tricky argument for me to explain, so I’m going to unravel it slowly, hoping that what I say makes sense.  This is my first time trying to explain this concept, so it may be a bit rocky.  I would certainly be interested in people’s comments on the matter.

             I’m going to start my series of thought experiments about emergent properties by using an example that I have to admit is marginally “emergent”:  specifically, the meaning of words.  If we string together a couple of “A”s, a couple of “I”s and an “L”, “M” and “V” in the right order, we can create a meaning that emerges from those letters that is certainly not contained in any single letter and could not be predicted by examining the letters alone.  We could string those letters together to create the phrase “I AM ALIVE”, which has a very significant meaning that has nothing to do with the letters themselves.  The meaning of the phrase could be considered an emergent property of those letters.

             My question now is this:  where does the emergent property of those letters exist?  Does it exist on the page (or screen) where those letters appear?  Does the emergent property somehow float above the letters in some way?  This is obviously not the case.  If an ant crawls across the page, it doesn’t encounter the meaning of the phrase encompassed by the letters.  If a bird flies overhead and sees the entire phrase, it doesn’t encounter the emergent property of the meaning of the phrase.  In fact, if a non-English speaking person, or an illiterate person, looks at the entire phrase, they also will not experience the emergent property of these letters.  The only one who experiences it is an individual who knows the meaning of the phrase as it is written.  Thus, the emergent property exists only in the minds of human beings.  Further, it exists only in the minds of some human beings.  Thus, since not all seeing humans experience the meaning of the phrase, I think it should be clear that the emergent property does not exist in the visual perception of the words or even in the visual cortex.  Two different people can look at the phrase and see exactly the same image in their brains, but one experiences the meaning and the other, who doesn’t know English, experiences nothing.  In fact, it is not until the firing of various neurons in our brain are brought together into our conscious perception of the fact that the image we see on the page is actually a phrase, and the phrase means something, that we experience the emergent property of meaning.  Thus, in this example, the emergent property of the meaning of the phrase is our conscious perception of it.  The emergent property just is conscious perception, in this case.  If we then say that the meaning of letters is an emergent property, we have not found a new property at all.  All we are describing is our conscious perception of the meaning.  We initially ascribed the emergent property to the letters themselves, but that’s not where the emergent property exists.  It exists nowhere but in our consciousness.  It just is our consciousness.  There is no difference between the emergent property of “meaning” and the conscious perception of meaning.  I hope that makes sense.

             If the meaning of words were a clear example of what people call an emergent property, then I might be able to rest my case with this one example.  But calling the meaning of words an emergent property is not particularly clear.  Most “true” emergent properties spontaneously arise from the collection of their parts.  The meaning of words does not naturally arise from their existence.  Meaning also requires a set of rules of language, rules that have to also be understood and agreed on by others who use the same language.  For the words to have the meaning they have, there are a lot of outside things that have to be brought to bear upon the series of vertical, horizontal, and slanted lines that make up the phrase “I AM ALIVE”.  Given that, I don’t think most people would consider “meaning” to be an emergent property in the same way that “wetness” is an emergent property.  I’m not sure I totally agree with that, since it seems to me that if you consider the parts of your system to be the letters plus the linguistic rules of English, then you can still say that meaning emerges from the sum of the parts, it’s just that the parts are a lot more complex.  But I’m not going to argue that here.

             In summary, to the extent that the property of “meaning” is an emergent property of letters, the concept of emergence is shown to simply be a restatement of the property of consciousness.  They are one and the same.  The idea of meaning itself cannot exist without consciousness.  My goal is to show that the same thought process can be applied to more standard examples of emergence and that the same conclusions can be drawn. 

The God who knocks???

             You might be strong enough to beat someone into submission, but even the strongest person in the world can’t beat someone into trust and love.

             In Christianity, God is described as the all-powerful creator.  As such, he could easily create humans as robots, who submit to his will without fail.  Alternatively, he could have created humans with free will but then cowed them into submission through fear and intimidation.  But that is not what God is described as doing.  Instead, he creates humans with free will and gives them the opportunity to run free – to turn their backs on him and escape.  He does not run after them.  He does not yell at them, demanding that they return and worship him.  He does not reach out his arm and grab them and pull them back in.  If they don’t want to be with him, he lets them have their choices (“…gave them over”).  He is described as calling out for them (“Adam, where are you?”) or as knocking at their door (“Behold, I stand at the door and knock…”).  How can it be that the all-powerful creator God waits for permission to come in?  He is described as being in the “still small voice” not in the “thunder and lightning.”  We can live our lives ignoring him.  We can even shake our fists at him and curse him.  He warns us of the consequences, but does not prevent us from walking away.  He lets us choose our path. 

             There are some who turn back, if ever so slightly, to say “here I am” or to open the door and let him in.  To those who cry out “help!” he is right there, ready and waiting to draw people back.  He says, as one point “…how often I wanted to gather you together, just as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not have it!”  But there are some who give him permission.  They voluntarily, freely submit.  We do not have the capacity to love God or even trust God – we need his help for that – but we can give him permission to transform us.

             This is how I understand the message of Christianity.  God does not beat us into submission.  He allows us to freely reject him.  But to those who turn and cry out for help, no matter how far away they are, he is right there, ready to do what they cannot do themselves.

Earworms 101

When I have a notion that some correlated event in my life is actually causal, I like to try to collect real data on the “notion” to see if it is true.  For example, I might have a sense that reading a book at night helps me to sleep better, or that every time I eat green peppers, I have heartburn at night.  But I wonder – are these vague notions actually true?  Does one cause the other?  Are they even actually correlated?  We all tend to get convinced of these kinds of connections based on just a few events that stick out in our minds.  We become so convinced of the correlation that we live our lives as if the notion were true without really pursuing any test of our assumption. I don’t like the idea of being misled in this way – even if it is something innocuous – so I try to design a way to test the notion and see if the data really supports it.  Over time, I’ll try to discuss a few of these attempts, but, in this entry, I’m going to start with an experience that is, I think, fairly universal:  earworms.

 

Earworms are those songs that play again and again in your head from time to time.  What causes them to happen?  There are a lot of notions about earworms, but I wondered if they were really true.  For example, I’ve heard people say a few times that the song you hear in your head is one that you heard but didn’t get to listen to all the way to the end. The notion is that your brain picks it up and tries to finish it.  Even Wikipedia thinks this notion is true.  But is that really true?

 

You probably don’t care about earworms, but I find them fascinating.  Why do they happen?  I find anything that your mind/brain does to be fascinating.  One interesting thing about earworms is that the song that plays in your mind is sometimes a song you don’t even like.  Often, after some time, you really want to get it out of your mind.  But it seems like you can’t.  It’s my mind, isn’t it?  Why can’t I just say “stop thinking about that song” and my mind just obeys and stops thinking about a particular song?  If our mind can’t control our mind, who does???

 

So…I started trying to track what songs became earworms and the conditions under which I heard the song (if at all) a little over three years ago.  During that time, I have identified 21 earworm songs that lasted long enough for me to remember to write them down.  Unfortunately, I have a bad memory so I know that during the past few years, I’ve forgotten to record earworm songs many times, creating some inaccuracies in my data collection.  I’ve tried to remedy that in the past couple of months – I’ll talk about that near the end of this entry.  But, for what it’s worth, here are my observations:

 

1.  Earworms can be intense while they are occurring, but once they leave my mind, I have a hard time recalling what the song was the next day.  That’s why I found tracking earworms to be difficult.  If I didn’t write it down the day it occurred, I would forget.  I would remember that I had an earworm…but I couldn’t remember what the song was.

 

2.  For me, earworms almost always occur in the morning and tend to only last through the morning.  After that, they are forgotten.  There were only two occurrences over the past 3+ years where the same song lasted two successive days in my head.  For what it’s worth, those songs were “Trying to Get That Feeling Again” by Barry Manilow and “Nobody Does It Better” by Carly Simon.

 

3.  Where do earworms come from?  For me, the most common situation is this:  I listen to music on the way home from work (I typically bounce around about six or seven different stations) and then, two or three days later, the song pops into my mind as an earworm!  I can never tell what song is going to become an earworm and, also, I would have listened to plenty of other songs in the two or three days since I heard it.  This particular characteristic fascinates me.  What is going on in our brains that a song you hear can bounce around unconsciously for days, and then somehow bubble to the surface one random morning?  That’s just crazy.

 

4.  I’ve tried the “partial song” idea.  Sometimes, when I’m coming home from work, I’ll hear a song I like and so I’ll turn it off halfway through (anything for science!).  I can never remember what song it was, but I do remember doing it.  All I know is that none of those songs have ever become earworms. 

 

5.  Earworms aren’t always songs that I heard being played somewhere.  One time I saw a Facebook post listing One-hit Wonders and it included the song “Black Betty” by Spiderbait.  That’s a song I haven’t heard in decades probably.  Yet, a day or so after I randomly read the title on a list, it bubbled up as an earworm.  It’s not a song I particularly like and, in fact, I’d say that earworm songs can be either songs you like or dislike – I don’t think that matters.

 

6.  I’ve rarely had an earworm that was a new song.  In fact, most of my earworms are songs I would have heard many times when I was growing up (like, I mean, 60’s or 70’s music) but haven’t heard much, if at all, since then.  The one exception to this rule (that I’ve noted in the past 3+ years) is the “Wellie Wisher’s Song”, which is a song from a kids show that my grandkids were watching.  That song became a very intense earworm for about a 24-hour period one time while I was on vacation.

 

7.  I wondered if it is possible to “create” an earworm by listening to a song over and over again.  So, I tried listening to a worship song with a simple chorus over and over again on my way to work (typically I hate listening to the same song over and over again – hate it).  The next day was a stressful day at work but then the following morning, that song was an earworm.  So, I do think it is possible to create earworms.

 

8.  I think ongoing stress reduces earworms.  I base this on the fact that earworms tend to go away for me once I get to work and face the various pressures of the day.  Also, during some stressful periods in my life, I’ve had an absence of earworms for one to two weeks at a time.  However, the relationship to stress might be indirect.  For example, when I’m stressed I might be less likely to listen to the radio on the way home, and therefore less opportunity for an earworm to pop up.

 

9.  One thing that seems odd to me is that earworm songs are very rarely a song on my playlist.  I sometimes listen to songs at work with headphones in order to drown out the background noises.  I’m a pretty boring guy, so my playlist has consisted of pretty much the same songs for years.  Yet, as far as I can recall, none of those songs have become earworms.  You’d think that the more common songs would have a higher chance of becoming earworms, but it doesn’t seem to work out that way.

 

10.  As I mentioned earlier, the one thing I couldn’t measure was how often I have earworms.  So, about two months ago I started trying to track earworms every morning.  Here is the data so far:  4 earworm mornings out of 64 total days tracked, or about 6%.  I would say that the last month has been more stressful than usual, and also I think I haven’t been listening to songs as much on my drive home.  Anyway, I’ll keep tracking this over time and see what happens.  I’ll have to give an update down the road.

 

If you feel so inclined, I think you would find it interesting to do your own tracking.  If you do, let me know the results and I’ll pool things together.  I suppose it would also be interesting to see if there are common songs that tend to be earworms…like “Baby Shark”, haha. 

 

One word of warning though.  Just the act of tracking your own earworms has some effect on their occurrence I believe.  For example, in the morning when I fill out my spreadsheet regarding earworms, just the act of thinking “did I have an earworm this morning?” can sometimes trigger an earworm.  In fact, I bet my mention of the song “Baby Shark” in the previous paragraph has triggered an earworm (unless you are one of the fortunate people in the world who has never heard that song).  I apologize for that!

 

If I think about this from a brain physiology perspective, I find the concept of earworms to be quite difficult to explain, and possibly quite useful in understanding some difficult concepts such as consciousness.  An earworm is absolutely a conscious event – that’s what makes it so annoying at times – it seems to be some unconscious meandering of our brain that somehow bubbles to the surface to become conscious.  But how in the world does that happen?  I am conscious of hearing a song on the radio, which then somehow begins bouncing around in my brain totally unconsciously…for days (!), before somehow becoming conscious again and again for a few hours, and then disappears from consciousness, never to be heard from again.  How in the world does that happen??? 

             I know that one thing neuroscientists search for are “neural correlates of consciousness”, which involves figuring out the minimum brain structure that is necessary for consciousness (e.g. humans can lose one whole half of their brain, and yet still be conscious).  But the existence of earworms seems to complicate that concept.  Presumably, songs are stored in memory in the brain in some manner by strengthening the connections between some whole set of neurons.  I don’t think anyone knows the details here, but let’s imagine that there is some way to trigger this series of neurons to “play back” the song in your mind.  By hearing the song once, it makes the “triggering” event to be more sensitive and easier to initiate.  Yet, for some reason it is not triggered for days?  I would suggest that it must get triggered over that period, but it just “plays” the song in the background – in our unconscious mind.  Then, somehow, one day, that same path yields a conscious result and, for whatever reason, now that hair trigger keeps getting tripped repeatedly for a while.  Or maybe it fires spontaneously for a while?

             My point here is that it is the same set of neurons in both the unconscious and conscious case.  The same set of neurons encode the earworm.  So what makes them unconscious for some period and then conscious for another period?  This would mean that the seat of consciousness, or at least some aspect of it, changes over time.  To me, this highly complicates the idea of finding a neural correlate for consciousness because it would seem to indicate that consciousness can “take up residence” in different areas of the brain at different times.  I find this fascinating.

             I suppose it is also possible that the pattern of neuronal firing gets copied from some kind of deep memory into some kind of “conscious memory”, which then gets played over and over.  There is, certainly, a “working memory” or “short-term memory” in the brain.  But one would still have to wonder how it is that such a transfer of a whole set of neuronal firings can get transferred and why does it take days for that to happen?  It’s not like we hear the earworm song again and again between the time that we hear it and the time that it becomes an earworm.  On the contrary, we never hear it again until it pops, often unwanted, into our conscious minds. 

             The existence of earworms does seem to clearly indicate one fun thing about our brains:  our brains must contain some kind of “playlist” of a huge group of songs that we have heard throughout our lifetimes.  I know that some of my earworms occurred with songs that I had not heard for twenty or thirty years.  Yet, somehow, that song has been stored in my brain for all that time – just waiting to be released.  That seems really crazy!!!

 

Does God have Free Will?

             If you are trying to engage someone in a productive discussion on some particular point of disagreement, it is often helpful (necessary?) to go back to a starting point where you both agree and then find out where the divergence of thinking actually occurs.  In doing this, you often find that the point of disagreement is not really what you thought it was.  In that vein, I was recently thinking about a particular line of argument in my head and I thought it would make sense to go back to a statement everyone would agree with.  So, working backwards in my mind, I eventually settled on the following question as a starting point for agreement: “Does God have free will?”  I considered it to be a rhetorical question.  I said to myself “Of course the answer has to be ‘yes.’”  Everyone would agree that God has free will.  It seemed like a great starting point for the line of discussion I had in my mind. 

             When I first considered this question, I considered it so obvious that I thought even people who don’t believe in God would agree with it.  Specifically, I thought everyone would agree with the following statement:

 

“If there is a God of any consequence, then the one fundamental characteristic he[1] must have is the characteristic of free will.”

 

             Well…I’ve come to realize that not everyone agrees with that statement.  At first I was incredulous.  I really was.  But the more I’ve considered the issue, the more I’ve come to realize that it’s a trickier question than I first imagined.  I’ve come to realize that it is not the obvious starting point at which everyone would agree.  But I’ve also come to realize that it might be a rather valuable starting point from which to consider the whole issue of free will and determinism.  That issue, when debated and discussed, is almost always focused around the human condition – i.e. do humans have free will?  But in all of my reading on the issue of free will (which, granted, is limited), I have not come across any serious in-depth discussion of free will as it might relate to God.[2]  I know, of course, that not everyone believes in God and so many might say “why argue about something that doesn’t exist?”  But, as I phrased the question above, I think it is a useful line of thinking for anyone, including those who do not believe there is a god of any kind.  The point is, our views about free will and determinism are really exposed if we start asking about free will for a being, hypothetical or not, that has characteristics of being all-powerful and all-knowing.  Can such a being have free will???

             Exploring this question has not changed my original view:  I still think the answer is a resounding “yes.”  I still think that God obviously has free will.  But I can see now that part of the reason I feel that way is based on the very fundamental views I have about reality.  Those views are not shared by everyone!

             An example of the pathway this question takes is to rephrase it to something like “Can God do what He wants?”  Again, my first reaction is “of course God can do what He wants.”  But, then, someone might say “If God knows the future, then is He is bound to act according to that future, so He is not free.”  That’s a common problem with an all-knowing God.  But I think most people would say that God is outside of time and space – i.e. is not constrained by time and space – and therefore it’s not at all clear what it would mean for God to “know His own future.”  God is not living through time, waiting for certain events to happen and then making a decision (free will decision?) about them.  But, then, you have to wonder if free will has the same meaning if you take time out of the equation.  For example, can cause and effect happen in a realm devoid of time?  I’m sure a few philosophers have wrestled with that question and written books on the topic.  But, as for me, I’ve never experienced life outside of time so I have no idea how timelessness works.

             OK, so fine, that’s plenty confusing.  Maybe a similar question would be that, if God is outside of time and space, what does it mean for God to “want” something?  The word “want” as we typically use it, has a basis in a universe constrained by time.  If you “want” something, it implies that you don’t have it now but you would like to have it in the future.  Thus, it quickly becomes clear that you would have to define “want” differently when it comes to God (or any being existing outside of time), and so the question gets messy.  So, then you have to ask “can God want anything?”  And down the philosophical rabbit hole we go!  As is often the case, philosophy becomes a task of carefully defining the terms, which can often prove rather difficult and never-ending.

             One question we often ask with respect to free will has to do with responsibility for one’s own actions.  So, what about the question “Is God responsible for His own actions?”  Here we might have a clear answer.  We could ask it another way: “Can anyone or anything else be responsible for the actions of God?”  If the answer is “yes”, then doesn’t that make the “anyone” or “anything” the real God?  And so we would be asking the same question of that “anyone” – are they responsible for their own actions?  The buck has to stop somewhere unless there is one big circle of causality, which seems illogical to me.  So, I would say “yes, certainly God is responsible for His own actions.”  Is there anyone who would disagree with that?

             So here is where this line of thinking seems to help identify points of divergence.  I, personally, make a direct link between “responsibility for your actions” and “free will.”  I cannot conceive of any reality in which you can be responsible for your own actions if you are not free to decide those actions.  If God does anything, He is responsible for it.  And, if He is responsible, then He “chose” it.  And, if He chose a course of action, then He could have chosen otherwise.  If He could not choose otherwise, then who or what prevented Him from choosing otherwise?  If something can prevent God from choosing otherwise, then that person/thing becomes God in my opinion.  Here’s where the concept of God’s free will diverges from a concept of man’s free will.  The question of “could I (a human being) have chosen otherwise?” is harder to answer.  As a human being, I could be compelled by some other force or thing or being, and so the answer to the question is not as obvious.  But, when it comes to God, well, God, by definition, cannot be controlled by any outside force.  The answer to that question has to be “God is not compelled by any other force to make the decisions He makes” in order for God to be truly God.

             I suppose this line of thinking is a lot like asking if God is the “first cause.”  To me, that is part of the definition of God.  In fact, some would argue that it is the need for some “first cause” that is the best argument for the existence of God.  You can’t ask “who caused God?” or “who created God?”  God is not created and is not caused.  Personally, I do find the argument logically reasonable, but I don’t see it as the best argument for the existence of God – at least not the existence of a living God – as I discuss elsewhere <here>.

             In future entries, I am going to be building on the idea that God has free will.  But I acknowledge here that not everyone will accept that concept at face value.  I would certainly be interested in hearing the ideas of others on this topic.

---

[1] I know that a hypothetical “god” could be he/she/they/whatever, but writing that out every time is tiring to me and so I’m using the shortcut “he”.

[2] If you know of any such discussions, I would appreciate being sent a reference or link.

Prayer: From ACTS to APPLE PIES

             For a lot of people, prayer basically means asking God for things.  For others, it might even be defined more nebulously as "expressing your thoughts to the heavens."  But, for the Christian, prayer is a lot more than just asking God for things.  As we read the prayers recorded in the Bible, and various teachings on prayer in the Bible, we can see that there is a lot more to prayer than just "asking".  Certainly people prayed for God to do certain things or provide them with certain things, but they also used prayer to express thanks to God and to praise and worship God.  Sometimes people's prayers are primarily about confession of sin.  And there are many other examples.

             In order to highlight the different aspects of prayer, someone (I don't know who) came up with the acronym of "A.C.T.S.".  I think this one is pretty well known in many Christian circles, where A=adoration (praise), C=confession, T=thanksgiving, S=supplication (asking).  It's quite a useful acronym.  One of my Bible study teachers in college modified this a bit to the acronym "TACSI" (pronounced "taxi") where the I=intercession.  This latter acronym was to help emphasize the difference between asking for things (supplication) and praying for others (intercession).  There's a lot more to it than that, but that is for a future discussion.

             Anyway, over the years I have had quite a few occasions to teach on the topic of prayer and, through my own personal study, I realized that there were additional "types" of prayer.  I tried to come up with a new acronym that could incorporate these additional types of prayer to help people remember them.  At one point I had settled on "TACL RIC" but I always thought it was a bit too goofy.  Eventually, I have settled on "APPLE PIES", which I would like to briefly present here.  This acronym outlines seven "types" of prayer and two important characteristics of prayer.  I thought it might be useful to anyone who is trying to learn more about prayer.  It's easy to remember the acronym, but remembering what each letter stands for does take a bit more work than ACTS!  Personally, though, I've found it quite useful in my own prayer life.  So, here is the brief definition of each word in the acronym, along with a few relevant scripture passages:

 

A:  Appreciation

      Showing appreciation by giving thanks to God for the things He has done.

Ps 95:2, Phil 4:6, I Thes 5:18

 

P:  Praise

      Praising God for His character.

Ps 100:4, Ps 103, Heb 13:15

 

P:  Posture

      Physical - and mental - posture in prayer.  Physically kneeling in prayer is obviously not required but should not be ignored, and should be coupled with the critical character of humility.

Ps 95:6, Is 6:5, Eph 3:14

 

L:  Listening

      Being still before God and listening for His guidance.

Eccl 5:1-2, Jn 10:27, Js 1:19

 

E:  Examination & Confession

      Asking God to examine your heart and confessing sin.  Often coupled with listening.

I Jn 1:9, Ps 32:1-3, Ps 139:23-24

 

P:  Petition

      Asking God for what is on your heart.

Matt 7:7-11, Jn 16:23-24, Js 5:17-18

 

I:   Intercession

      Seeking that God would intervene for others.

Ex 32:9-14, Luke 10:2, Col 1:9-12

 

E:  Expectation

      Pray with faith.  Pray with the expectation that God hears and will answer. 

Jas 1:5-8, Dan 3:16-18, Ps 103:2

 

S:  Submission/Commitment

      Yielding to God's will or expressing to God what you are going to do in response to God's goodness.

I Sam 1:11, Jn 6:66-69, Ps 37:4

 

            There is a lot than can be said about each of these nine types and characteristics of prayer, and I hope to expand on these in the future.  But, if you want a quick example of how these different types of prayer can come together in a single prayer, read Neh 1:4-11.  I count at least seven of the nine entries all packed into these eight verses (and the remaining two of the nine are implied).  I encourage you to see if you can identify all nine.  I'll put together a more detailed review of this passage in the future.

  

This is presented under CC BY 4.0.  You have the right to distribute this in any manner, modify it, etc.  I only ask that you acknowledge your sources.

Book Reviews and Recommendations - Entry #6

 Book Review of "Prayer" by Ole Hallesby

              This is a review that is 40+ years in the making!

             If one measure of the importance of a book is "has the book made any real tangible change in the way you live your life?", then the book simply titled "Prayer", written by Ole Hallesby in the 1931 is absolutely important.  In fact, for me personally, this book might be at the top of the list (excluding the Bible).  The weird thing is that I think I read it only once or twice (until recently - April 2023).  Rereading it recently made me realize how deeply embedded in my psyche some of the points in the book had become.

             I read this book some time during my first year in college (1979-1980).  I do not recall how I came across it, but I'm guessing someone gave me their copy because I had no money to buy books.  At the time, I was interested in learning about prayer and reading all of the books I could get my hands on.  So, of course, I read a lot of books by E.M. Bounds and so on.  But I think the one by Hallesby was one of the first I read, probably because of its simple title.  His main point is unique among any teaching on prayer I read then and any teaching I've heard since.  His fundamental point is that "prayer is helplessness."  For me, it was a revolutionary starting place.

             The funny thing is that the book faded into almost an "ancient text" quality in my mind.  By that I mean that I have always remembered the main point of the book and I knew it came from that book (although I thought the author's name was O'Hallesby until very recently), but I never went back and read it again.  There have been a few times in the 40+ years since I read it the first time that I said "I should go back and read it again."  But, I could never find it in my collection of books and so I would eventually forget again and move on.  Also, oddly, I've never heard anyone else mention this book and I've never heard anyone else present prayer the way it is presented in this book.  Yet the book has had multiple multiple printings and has sold many copies.  I did, recently, come across a podcast where this book was reviewed and the reviewers on the podcast also kind of marveled that the book was not more well known among Christians.  Also, in the podcast they also mentioned that they thought the author's name was O'Hallesby too, which is kind of funny.

             What's so great about it?  First, it will deepen your understanding of prayer and second, it will motivate you to pray.  I sometimes teach lessons on the principles of prayer and I often find myself asking the question "isn't it more important to just spend time actually praying than to spend time learning about prayer?"  But then I hearken back to an illustration I heard somewhere about using a shovel.  If you're using the wrong end of the shovel, you'll eventually give up on the tool as useless, but if someone shows you how to use it, you find it is quite effective.  The same is true for prayer - it is worth learning how to use the "tool" of prayer properly.  Oh, and by the way, when I recently re-read the book, I discovered that the analogy I have been using of the shovel came directly from the book.  I remembered the analogy for 40 years, though I had long forgotten where it came from.

             The one thing I really can't figure out is why the idea of "prayer is helplessness" isn't brought out or emphasized by anyone else (that I know of).  The question is:  why pray?  Isn't God going to do what He's going to do?  Is prayer about convincing a reluctant God to do something He'd rather not do?  Or is it just that prayer is one of those things God tells us to do, so we should do it and not ask why?  No - as Hallesby shows from scripture - prayer is the cry of an infant to which it's mother responds.  We have too high of an opinion of ourselves when we bring deep theological discussions of predestination into prayer.  In prayer, more than anything else, we have to "become as little children."  Prayer is not for those who can take care of things themselves.  Prayer is not for independent adults.  Prayer is the cry of the helpless.  If you're not that helpless, then maybe your only real prayer should be "God, help me to realize how helpless I really am"!

             There are some aspects of the book that seem a bit dated - after all, it was written almost 100 years ago.  But Hallesby has a series of excellent and insightful thoughts about prayer - different types of prayer and impediments to prayer.  His thoughts are always very directly practical and he plainly addresses many questions that many of us have had about prayer.

             It's a pretty short, clearly written book.  For Christians seeking to understand the basic principles of prayer, I consider it a must read. 

 

 

                                                                              

A Theory of Soul Consistent with Scripture and Neuroscience - Part 13: Heads or Tails

             I'd like to present an illustration that is going to be very foundational for future discussions of my theory of the soul.  I think it is a simple point - at least I hope it is.  The point has to do with the close relationship between a truly random event and a "willed" event.  I've discussed this elsewhere, and it's going to come up again, but I want to put forward an illustration that should offer some insight into why free will is difficult to discern experimentally.

             Imagine that I have given you a long list of my recorded coin flips.  It's just a list:  Heads. Tails. Tails. Heads. Heads. Heads. Tails. Heads. Tails. Etc.  The list contains 1000 entries.

             A couple of givens:  assume that the flip of a coin is truly random and assume that my coin is a fair coin, such that you expect a 50% distribution of heads and 50% distribution of tails. 

             As you look at the table, there is nothing unusual about it.  I ask you to convince yourself that this is a random table of flipping a fair coin.  So, you dutifully collect some statistical measurements on the data.  You find that 50.2% of the entries are heads.  Seems fine.  You even break things down a bit more and look at the distribution of each set of successive groups of 100 values.  Their distributions also seem fine.  As far as you can tell, this is a typical table of random coin flips.

 

             Then I provide you with the following information:  occasionally, at time points known only to me, instead of flipping the coin, I willfully placed the coin down with either a heads or a tails.  You don't know how often I did that, but for the sake of illustration I will let you know that it was less than a dozen times during the 1000 entries you have in front of you.  I tell you that the series of intentional heads or tails spell out a word using an ASCII table.  My contention is this:  you could not tell which of the 1000 flips is intentional (and therefore has some meaning) and which is random.  In fact, looking across the entire distribution, you could not tell whether my claim that some of the coin flips are intentional is true or not.  Since I am telling you that sometimes my intentional coin placements are heads and some are tails, you wouldn't necessarily see a change in the distribution.  And, really, with so few intentional coin placements in the midst of so many random events, how could you really know that the distribution was not totally random even if all of my intentional placements are heads?  Any variations from a 50:50 split would be well-within any expected variation. 

             Could you ever distinguish my proposed "willed" series of events from a truly "random" series of events?  I contend that you will never be able to distinguish these because of the nature of random and willed events in this illustration.  Even in the extreme case - the case where every coin flip was actually not a flip but was, instead, me placing it down according to my own will; and further the case where I was obsessed with heads so I placed the coin heads up 1000 times in a row - even in that case, you can't prove that it wasn't random since there is some finite chance that a truly random series would result in the same distribution.  In such an extreme case, though, I couldn't blame you if you concluded that this was just a determined series of coin placements, and neither random nor willed.  Sometimes I think that when scientists think of free will, they imagine it must happen in the brain in a manner that fits this latter example.  Specifically, that to exercise free will means that every neuron fires under the control of the will.  If there is any "mixing" of events, it is a mix of determined and willed events.  But in my theory, this is not so.  Willed events are rare and are mixed in with a lot of random events.  In this latter case, not only can you not prove that there are no willed events, you might never suspect that there are any willed events.  If I hadn't told you that I sometimes placed the coin down intentionally, you would never have suspected that I was doing that.

              Finally, the whole situation is further complicated by the fact that you can't repeat the experiment and get the same results.  One common experimental method to extract rare events from the midst of random (or assumed to be random) noise is to perform what is called "spike-triggered averaging."  This allows you to find a very weak signal (like I'm proposing free will is) in the midst of a lot of random noise.  But this approach only works if the signal is repeatable and deterministic based on some known trigger.  In the situation I've described, we have none of the necessary conditions.

             Why do I bring this up?  Because the random coin flip is directly analogous to the randomness in the synaptic junction of neurons.  Neurons either fire (heads) or they don't (tails) as a result of sufficient conditions of neurotransmitter release at the synaptic junction.  That process is fundamentally random (I'll have to dive into the evidence in a future entry).  Therefore, we have exactly the same situation as the table of coin flips, but instead we have a table of neuronal firing states.  It's obviously a very complicated table because there are lots of neurons (not just a single coin) and they are all experiencing their random changes again and again as time progresses.  Also, a coin flip has a uniform distribution, whereas the distribution of any neuron's firing states is related to its inputs, is more complicated, and can change over time.  So it is a very complex table!  My point is that if you can't identify willed events in a simple table of random-plus-willed coin flips, then you surely can't identify willed events in the midst of random neuronal firing.  Willed neuronal firing events could occur constantly in the midst of random neuronal firing, and you would never know.  I contend that that is exactly what happens in the brain and you could never prove me wrong.  It doesn't mean I'm right, of course, but you can't dismiss the idea out of hand.

             Can the idea that willed events are hidden in random neuronal firing ever be considered scientific?  If you consider true science as only encompassing concepts that are disprovable and can be subject to repeated observation, then no.  Of course, by that definition, any theory of the past, such as evolution, is also not science.  But with respect to my theory, you could disprove it by showing that every neuronal firing event is predictable with 100% accuracy.  Specifically, if you can show that there are no such things as random events anywhere in the universe, then, I think, there would be no room for free will.  But, ignoring how difficult that would be, it seems pretty clear that the direction physics (and biology) are going is to confidently assert that there are random events in the universe.  Thus, rather than disproving the idea of free will, science seems to be progressing towards demonstrating that the necessary substrate for free will does indeed exist. 

             Of course, demonstrating that true randomness exists does not prove that free will exists.  I think that's where "disprovable science" ends.  The point of this entry was to show that if randomness does exist, it can be the source for free will and, further, that it would be impossible to rule out the possibility of free will if randomness exists.  Thus, given randomness, it is impossible to disprove the existence of free will and therefore, the concept no longer fits into the disprovable science realm.  That may bother some, but it certainly doesn't bother me because I've already accepted that there is truth to be found outside of science (something I've discussed elsewhere).

             In summary, free will requires an apparent fundamental randomness to exist.  Free will can be buried undetectably in that randomness.  Since it seems that fundamental randomness really does exist in the physical world, then neuroscience, if it confines itself to scientific statements, cannot claim to have proven that free will does not exist.  This makes the debate about free will and determinism a philosophical debate rather than a scientific one.  Yet it seems that scientists are the ones fully confident about their deterministic views.  To such scientists I say: l let go of your biological determinism and come live in the free world.  It's an exciting place to be!

My Dad

            My dad passed away last night (Pearl Harbor Day) after a long battle with Parkinson's Disease and diabetes.  As I suppose is often said in situations like this, we knew his death was imminent but we just didn't think it would be "today."

            In a moment of quiet this morning, I decided to continue my regular reading through the New Testament, with my current "reading emphasis" being to understand the link between body and soul.  This latest emphasis is something I started almost 14 months ago, beginning with the start of Matthew and, each day, reading the next paragraph or two.  So who could predict that on this day - just hours after my dad's passing - I would find today's reading starting with the following paragraph:

 

"For we know that when this earthly tent we live in is taken down (that is, when we die and leave this earthly body), we will have a house in heaven, an eternal body made for us by God himself and not by human hands. We grow weary in our present bodies, and we long to put on our heavenly bodies like new clothing. For we will put on heavenly bodies; we will not be spirits without bodies. While we live in these earthly bodies, we groan and sigh, but it’s not that we want to die and get rid of these bodies that clothe us. Rather, we want to put on our new bodies so that these dying bodies will be swallowed up by life. God himself has prepared us for this, and as a guarantee he has given us his Holy Spirit."

II Corinthians 5:1-5

 

            My dad loved to pitch horseshoes and was a professional horseshoe pitcher in the State of Oregon (a profession that requires a day job!).  But my dad's Parkinson's slowly began taking away his coordination and strength to the point where he could no longer pitch.  He picked up bowling and found it easier, and enjoyed that for many years but eventually, after too many falls, he had to give that up entirely.  I'm sure my dad longed for that future "new body" that Paul describes in the paragraph above, though I certainly don't remember my dad complaining about his progressing disability.  But he surely always imagined he would get back to horseshoe pitching someway somehow.  Those well-worn regulation horseshoes might still be in the trunk of the car.

            In my work to develop medical devices that can restore some lost function due to the progression of a disability, I am sometimes reminded that whatever we do is only a temporary fix.  Inevitably our bodies give out.  Sure:  exercise, eat healthy...do all those good things...but eventually that "earthly tent we live in is taken down."  Eventually the progressive degradation of my dad's body even took away his ability to enjoy watching sports - a lifelong passion fueled and often fulfilled by frequent bouts as a sports writer for various newspapers throughout his lifetime.

            I'm sure I got my love of statistics from my dad, who used to keep stats on every basketball and baseball game he ever listened to.  I bet he has written down somewhere, in one of his ever-present notebooks, the total number of times in his life that he tossed a 2lb, 10oz bent piece of metal toward a waiting post 40 feet away.  I think I also got my love of writing from my dad as well.  Those two things have certainly served me well in my profession over the years.

            Interestingly, I think I can also attribute my somewhat unconscious sense that "it's a good idea to read through the Bible" from my dad as well.  I still recall him having us kids read through some genealogical passage somewhere in I Samuel and it was tortuous and boring, but we came across some guy named "Dodo" and it made it tolerable!  But those concepts somehow stick in your mind and shape your thinking as you get older.  So, you could say that it was his influence that brought me to happen to be reading the paragraph above on this particular day. 

            Some just see coincidences and can calculate the odds of every event.  They see all of these coincidences as logically random events.  But my statistics aren't that good - I still allow for some miracles here and there!

A Theory of Soul Consistent with Scripture and Neuroscience - Part 12: Addressing Sloppy Christian "Beliefs" about the Soul

[Note:  This entry is written specifically for Christians.]

 

I found the following paragraph on the site "Bibles for America":

 

"Our soul is our personality, who we are. With our soul we think, reason, consider, remember, and wonder. We experience emotions like happiness, love, sorrow, anger, relief, and compassion. And we’re able to resolve, choose, and make decisions."

 

             I think this paragraph would describe a pretty typical evangelical Christian view of the body, soul, and spirit.  Although the context from which the paragraph above is taken is based on a Biblical perspective, this paragraph on the soul is not tied to any Biblical references.  But...it seems pretty Biblical on first pass.  It seems logical.  It would sound good to most Christians.  They would agree with it, I bet.

 

             And that's the problem.

 

             Neuroscience has proven this opening paragraph on the soul to be wrong.  The paragraph does not describe how things really are.  Even though I'm not a neuroscientist, I know enough to know that this paragraph has key fallacies.  I would say almost all scientists would know this paragraph is just plain false.  In fact, most people in the academic world would have enough knowledge of the workings of the brain to know that the assertions in this paragraph are wrong.

 

             If I was not a believer in God - specifically, not a Christian - I would just laugh at this paragraph and once again conclude that Christian believe in fairy tales.  This is clearly a statement of falsehood.  And it seems to present the Christian view.  Therefore:  Christians believe in falsehood.  But...I am a Christian and so paragraphs such as these are embarrassing.  They misrepresent Christian beliefs.

 

             This is the problem I am trying to address in these entries on the soul.  My contention is this:  first, the paragraph I've quoted above does not express Biblical teaching; second, what Christians should believe about the soul does not violate any known discoveries of neuroscience.  You can believe what the Bible teaches about the soul, and you can accept all of the discoveries of neuroscience, and you don't have to throw logic out the window to do so. 

 

             Unfortunately, the apparent impasse mostly lies with the Christian view as commonly presented in the opening paragraph.  Yes, it is certainly true that neuroscience oversteps its bounds with statements denying the existence of the soul, denying free will, sometimes even denying consciousness.  In fact, I would say that neuroscience doesn't just overstep its bounds with respect to religious belief - it oversteps its bounds into philosophy and ethics and even the social sciences and even art.  I've discussed this elsewhere.  But what I'm really concerned about is an incorrect view of the soul being presented as if it is a foundational Christian view.

 

             Now, I must stress that I don't think every word in that opening paragraph is wrong.  In fact, there are plenty of aspects that are, at the very least, partially true.  The problem is that mixed in with truth is significant error and thus you have to conclude that the whole paragraph is wrong.  Let me give quick example.  The statement that with our soul we "...experience...love...anger..." presents many problems and is too simplified.  If the statement was changed to "our soul is involved in our moral expressions of love and anger", then that would be acceptable.  I hope to show, in this series of blog entries, how to specifically think about the soul's involvement in expressions of love and anger, but, for now, the phrase "is involved in" is vague enough to cover the concept.

 

             It's important for Christians to recognize that there is no Biblical support for the statement that our soul is the seat of emotion, or that it is where we experience love or anger or other characteristics of our personality.  Frankly, the Bible is pretty vague on those details.  It is not vague about the existence of the soul, but it is vague about where the soul ends and the physical body begins, and vice versa.  In my theory of the soul, I draw sharper lines between the soul and body - not to claim any new insight from scripture - but only to show that a reasonable description of the soul and body can be made and still be consistent with the findings of neuroscience.  I think it is helpful for Christians to know that there is a logical description of the soul that can fit with neuroscience.  I also think that a clearer understanding of the soul can sometimes help Christians to live the Christian life.  But I wouldn't go so far as to say that all Christians need to understand and accept my (or anyone else's) theory of the soul.  What I would say, though, is that Christians need to think clearly about what is Biblical and what is not, in relation to the soul, and I think they need to stop assenting to paragraphs like the one above.  Why?  Because it makes us all look irrational and illogical and even foolish.  Certainly some Christian beliefs are "crazy" in the sense that they involve belief in miracles.  I've talked about this elsewhere [here].  But belief in miracles, though it may be crazy, is not irrational.  Rejecting the plain discoveries of neuroscience is irrational.

 

             Here's where I think the dog comparison helps [see here].  Christians should be clear on this.  Dogs don't have souls but, for example, dogs get angry.  Dogs remember things.  So to say that the soul is the seat of anger or "With our soul we...remember" is almost certainly false just by observing dogs.  Everyone should be able to come to that conclusion.  You don't need to know the latest neuroscientific discoveries to come to that conclusion.  But this knowledge is taken a lot further in neuroscience.  We know that damage to certain areas of the brain can wipe out memories.  We know that damage to certain areas of the brain can change the frequency and character of an individual's anger.  So...if our memories were all located in the soul, then why would brain damage affect our memories?  It's not just that we can't express our memories after brain damage - it is possible to damage very specific areas of the brain where essentially the only obvious deficit is a loss of memory (or sometimes just some memories).  To me, and to most people in the neuroscience world, this is unassailable proof that the statement "with our soul we remember" is false.  Our brain - our physical brain - is clearly involved in memories to a great extent. 

 

             You could say, as some do, that the soul is essentially physical and almost synonymous with the brain.  I don't agree with that, but it's a valid consideration given the evidence.  My point is that when most Christians agree with the opening paragraph, they do so with the idea that the soul is a non-physical substance.  They would not expect that the soul would be damaged by a blow to the head or affected by a stroke.

 

             If you've read any of my other entries, you know that I believe humans have a soul and that our soul is not physical.  In fact, I think the concept of a non-physical soul is a very fundamental belief of Christianity.  I even think that the soul does possess a memory of some description.  But a correct description of the soul does not ascribe all of our memories to it.  A correct description of the soul would not ascribe all of our emotions to it.  There is clearly decision-making in the brain that does not require the soul.  Even concepts such as thinking and reasoning are difficult to place fully in the soul.  Our personalities, as expressed to the outside world, are clearly strongly influenced by our physical brain.  So we have to conclude that the opening paragraph is wrong.

 

             In summary, I say this to Christians:  it is important to think clearly on this issue.  When it comes to detailed descriptions of the soul presented as Christian teaching, it is important to only go as far as scripture does.  In general, about all you can say is that human beings are unique in having a soul and our soul is involved in our moral decision-making.  To make confident statements about the soul that go beyond scripture and clearly violate known scientific discoveries is to present Christian beliefs as irrational.  That is bad.  We are crazy.  But we are not irrational.