Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

One more time, for the hard of thinking.


How does your non-physical internal contemplation mechanism work?
There you go. Straightforward question.
Excluding all things physical, implied or otherwise.
In fact, exclude the word physical from your reply as it has no bearing whatsoever on the internal workings of your non physical internal contemplation mechanisms.

How does it work?

I do not need to know how my thought processes work, or how I control them.
I just know the truth that I can and do have freedom to control my own thought processes.
As Stranger keeps pointing out, this concept is illogical.
So the fact that it is illogical enables me to consider it to be:

An extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency.
(Oxford English Dictionary definition of miracle)

[Sebastian Toe]

I do not need to know how my thought processes work, or how I control them.
I just know the truth that I can and do have freedom to control my own thought processes.
As Stranger keeps pointing out, this concept is illogical.
So the fact that it is illogical enables me to consider it to be:

An extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency.
(Oxford English Dictionary definition of miracle)

In that case then an equally valid statement would be;
I do not need there to be a current scientific definition of conciousness that relies on this material universe.
I just know the truth that I am a biological being and that my brain is all I need to have a perfectly normal existence.
I do not need magic or miracles to live.

[wigginhall]

And I know the truth that clearly I do not control my thought processes.  Nothing could be clearer to me.

[SusanDoris]

No.
You can't change the basic laws of physics.  They underpin everything in the materialist scenario. 

They underpin everything. Full stop.

ETA As far as I  can see, AB has wriggled out of answering Sebastian Toe's direct question. I think that is, and as I have thought for nearly a thousand pages, not good manners. AB may think it is being very clever, but I think it demonstrates the opposite.

[wigginhall]

If the brain is entirely material, there will be nothing but inevitable physically controlled activity going on between the neurons.  The words "mental constructs" do not change this basic physically controlled scenario.

Well, it's the claim that brain produces mind.   This seems a reasonable working hypothesis, with plenty of supporting evidence, e.g., the negative effects of brain disease on thinking and feeling.  How's the research on brain/soul coming on?   Any recent research publications?

[Stranger]

But in all this, you have no explanation for how you can introduce any form of control into physically predetermined reactions.  Can you control the laws of physics?

And you have no explanation of what you call 'control' full stop - it's self-contradictory nonsense. Once again I see no evidence that you are reading and thinking about the posts you reply to.

If your mind is not to some extent random (it does some things for no reason at all) then on that level of detail we can say that you have "no control" over how your own mind works - no matter if it's physical or not. You obsess about the physical but that must be the case regardless.

And within the meterialistic scenario, the only reason for any event is a physically defined reaction to previous events.

And within any logically possible way in which your mind works, there are always reasons for your choices that are ultimately reactions to your nature, nurture, experience, state of mind at the time, and the circumstances.

There is simply no logical way in which it can be otherwise, unless you introduce something into the choice making that is for no reason at all: randomness.

I do not need to know how my thought processes work, or how I control them.
I just know the truth that I can and do have freedom to control my own thought processes.
As Stranger keeps pointing out, this concept is illogical.
So the fact that it is illogical enables me to consider it to be:

An extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency.
(Oxford English Dictionary definition of miracle)

Except that something being illogical doesn't fit that definition. You are arguing for something that is inherently self-contradictory in a way that has nothing at all to do with being "explicable by natural or scientific laws".

If you say that a miracle defies logic, then any claim to have arrived at a conclusion by logic is self-defeating - you're undermining the claimed basis for you own argument.

Further, you have yet to actually point out in any sort of coherent way, either what having freedom to control your own though processes really means or why it is incompatible with physical laws and logic. You need to provide a sensible definition of what the 'you' could possibly refer to if it isn't a set of deterministic processes.

[Alan Burns]

They underpin everything. Full stop.

If that is true, then everything posted on this forum is entirely defined and sourced from physically predetermined reactions occurring in the brains and bodies of each individual.  So any concept of personal control can be discounted as illusionary, because physically predefined electrochemical activity will underpin everything.

[Gordon]

If that is true, then everything posted on this forum is entirely defined and sourced from physically predetermined reactions occurring in the brains and bodies of each individual.  So any concept of personal control can be discounted as illusionary, because physically predefined electrochemical activity will underpin everything.

Everything posted on the Form is the result of brains working, where that working includes both the choice of words and grammar, and also the more nuanced aspects such as how assertive or humourous the tone of the reply should be.

One problem you have, Alan, is that the argument from consequences runs through much of your posting: for you the consequences of 'control' or 'choice' being just biology in tandem with determinism leaves no role for this 'god' thing - and you simply can't process anything that doesn't allow for 'god'.

[Sebastian Toe]

I do not need to know how my thought processes work, or how I control them.
I just know the truth that I can and do have freedom to control my own thought processes.
As Stranger keeps pointing out, this concept is illogical.
So the fact that it is illogical enables me to consider it to be:

An extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency.
(Oxford English Dictionary definition of miracle)

Or magic:

Magic is the power to use supernatural forces to make impossible things happen

Collins dictionary.

[SusanDoris]

If that is true, then everything posted on this forum is entirely defined and sourced from physically predetermined reactions occurring in the brains and bodies of each individual.  So any concept of personal control can be discounted as illusionary, because physically predefined electrochemical activity will underpin everything.

correct! And see Gordon's reply following mine. Anyway, whether you like the idea or not, it works extremely well and has enabled the human species to survive very successfully and not even approach the threat of extinction for at least another few billion years.

And why don't you answer Seb's question about how does your soul thing work independently of mind?

If I have not expressed the question as it should be said, go back and have another two or three reads of it yourself.

[Sebastian Toe]

And why don't you answer Seb's question about how does your soul thing work independently of mind?

Actually Susan, he has answered it to best ot his abilities.
His answer can be summed up as:

I dunno, it must he magic.

[Alan Burns]

And you have no explanation of what you call 'control' full stop - it's self-contradictory nonsense. Once again I see no evidence that you are reading and thinking about the posts you reply to.

If your mind is not to some extent random (it does some things for no reason at all) then on that level of detail we can say that you have "no control" over how your own mind works - no matter if it's physical or not. You obsess about the physical but that must be the case regardless.

And within any logically possible way in which your mind works, there are always reasons for your choices that are ultimately reactions to your nature, nurture, experience, state of mind at the time, and the circumstances.

There is simply no logical way in which it can be otherwise, unless you introduce something into the choice making that is for no reason at all: randomness.

Except that something being illogical doesn't fit that definition. You are arguing for something that is inherently self-contradictory in a way that has nothing at all to do with being "explicable by natural or scientific laws".

If you say that a miracle defies logic, then any claim to have arrived at a conclusion by logic is self-defeating - you're undermining the claimed basis for you own argument.

Further, you have yet to actually point out in any sort of coherent way, either what having freedom to control your own though processes really means or why it is incompatible with physical laws and logic. You need to provide a sensible definition of what the 'you' could possibly refer to if it isn't a set of deterministic processes.

I agree that it is illogical to assume that there is no reason behind a conscious choice.
But where we differ is in the concept that conscious human willpower is capable of initiating a chosen action - the conscious will of the individual is the reason behind the choice.

[Alan Burns]

Everything posted on the Form is the result of brains working, where that working includes both the choice of words and grammar, and also the more nuanced aspects such as how assertive or humourous the tone of the reply should be.

One problem you have, Alan, is that the argument from consequences runs through much of your posting: for you the consequences of 'control' or 'choice' being just biology in tandem with determinism leaves no role for this 'god' thing - and you simply can't process anything that doesn't allow for 'god'.

If the brain is a material object, all working is attributable to physically defined reactions.  No choices possible.  You can't magic up any choices from pre determined physical reactions.  Choices can only be executed from conscious interaction, not reaction.

[torridon]

If the brain is a material object, all working is attributable to physically defined reactions.  No choices possible.  You can't magic up any choices from pre determined physical reactions.  Choices can only be executed from conscious interaction, not reaction.

Peahens make choices of mate by evaluating the peacock's display.  Are they using 'conscious interaction', then ?

[Stranger]

I agree that it is illogical to assume that there is no reason behind a conscious choice.
But where we differ is in the concept that conscious human willpower is capable of initiating a chosen action - the conscious will of the individual is the reason behind the choice.

No, that is not where we differ. We differ in that you refuse to consider how human willpower arrives at its choice. You seem to have a total mental block about considering how "will power" chooses one course of action rather than another. It is not magically removed from its choices having to be for reasons or for no reason - it is not a third option.

Will power cannot be its own reason for a choose (unless it's just random).

[torridon]

I do not need to know how my thought processes work, or how I control them.
I just know the truth that I can and do have freedom to control my own thought processes.
As Stranger keeps pointing out, this concept is illogical.
So the fact that it is illogical enables me to consider it to be:

An extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency.
(Oxford English Dictionary definition of miracle)

Clutching at straws.

Your illogic would not qualify for the above definition of miraculous, which refers to events falling outside of science.  Your claims are worse than that, they are self-contradictory, so there is no chance even a god with supernatural powers could achieve that.  Likewise a God would in incapable for drawing a four sided triangle or lifting a rock that was too heavy for him to lift. If your proposal is meaningless then it cannot be ascribed to the Divine.

[torridon]

If that is true, then everything posted on this forum is entirely defined and sourced from physically predetermined reactions occurring in the brains and bodies of each individual.  So any concept of personal control can be discounted as illusionary, because physically predefined electrochemical activity will underpin everything.

Rather than 'any concept of personal control can be discounted as illusionary', (I think you meant illusory), we could better say that 'feelings of personal control are emergent (mental phenomena)'. 

[Stranger]

If the brain is a material object, all working is attributable to physically defined reactions.  No choices possible.  You can't magic up any choices from pre determined physical reactions.  Choices can only be executed from conscious interaction, not reaction.

You can't magic up choices by using the different words like "conscious interaction". Either "conscious interaction" happens because of actual underlying reasons for each part of the process or it involves randomness.

Yet again you are trying to associate any underlying decision making process with being material, when it's actually a logical necessity.

Your ideas of 'choice' and 'freedom' are not wrong because we think that there is no non-material soul, they are simply meaningless contradictions - they don't even make any sense.

[Alan Burns]

Peahens make choices of mate by evaluating the peacock's display.  Are they using 'conscious interaction', then ?

how do you know it is not instinctive reactive behaviour?

[Alan Burns]

No, that is not where we differ. We differ in that you refuse to consider how human willpower arrives at its choice. You seem to have a total mental block about considering how "will power" chooses one course of action rather than another. It is not magically removed from its choices having to be for reasons or for no reason - it is not a third option.

Will power cannot be its own reason for a choose (unless it's just random).

I am using my conscious willpower to tell you that you are wrong.

[Alan Burns]

You can't magic up choices by using the different words like "conscious interaction". Either "conscious interaction" happens because of actual underlying reasons for each part of the process or it involves randomness.

Reasons only exist in the human mind.
They form part of our conscious awareness.
Outside the human mind, we only have material reactions.

[Alan Burns]

Clutching at straws.

Your illogic would not qualify for the above definition of miraculous, which refers to events falling outside of science.  Your claims are worse than that, they are self-contradictory, so there is no chance even a god with supernatural powers could achieve that.  Likewise a God would in incapable for drawing a four sided triangle or lifting a rock that was too heavy for him to lift. If your proposal is meaningless then it cannot be ascribed to the Divine.

All I am claiming is that our power to consciously choose comes from God. 
Without this power, we can only comply with whatever is determined from physical reactions within us.

[Stranger]

I am using my conscious willpower to tell you that you are wrong.

An 'answer' that is totally unconnected with the point I raised.   

Reasons only exist in the human mind.

That has got to be one of the silliest things you've posted - which is saying a lot.

They form part of our conscious awareness.
Outside the human mind, we only have material reactions.

If your choices are entirely because of the reasons (causes) then it is a reaction of something (you) to something (the situation).

You aren't addressing the logic, you are just playing games with language.

[Stranger]

All I am claiming is that our power to consciously choose comes from God.

I think everybody knows this is your claim. What is missing is the slightest hint of any evidence or reasoning to back it up.

Without this power, we can only comply with whatever is determined from physical reactions within us.

[Daft irrelevance deleted]

Choices must be determined reactions of what we are to situation, otherwise they can't be our choices. Your version of freedom isn't just wrong, it's nonsensical.

[Sebastian Toe]

I am using my conscious willpower to tell you that you are wrong.

I am using my biological brain and emergent properties to tell you that you are wrong.