Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

In the absence of any feasible definition for what comprises our conscious awareness or how it works, I would say the onus is on you to demonstrate how conscious awareness emerges from physically predefined reactions of material elements.

You really don't get logic at all, do you? It's you who is making a claim (that a material explanation is impossible) based on what you call the "absence of any feasible definition for what comprises our conscious awareness" (which isn't even accurate).

That's what's called and argument from ignorance.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

In the absence of any feasible definition for what comprises our conscious awareness or how it works, I would say the onus is on you to demonstrate how conscious awareness emerges from physically predefined reactions of material elements.

Wrong again.

First, there are several "feasible definitions" as you put it. What we don't have yet is a complete explanation.

Be nice if you could at least get that right.

Second, consciousness as an emergent property of brains is consistent with what's known already about emergence as a phenomenon. There's no particular reason to think that consciousness can't fit that model however much you assert it to be otherwise.

Third (as with your every other attempt at logic) you fundamentally misunderstand the meaning of "burden of proof". You're the one who keeps telling us that consciousness arising naturally is "impossible" - it's your claim so it's your job to demonstrate (rather than just assert) it.

I did incidentally offer twice recently to explain to you the basics at least of logical argument. Typically you just ignored the offer, but in doing so you condemn yourself to making howlers like this over and over again.

Does that not bother you at all? 
     

[Sebastian Toe]

In the absence of any feasible definition for what comprises our conscious awareness or how it works, I would say the onus is on you to demonstrate how conscious awareness emerges from physically predefined reactions of material elements.

The biologocal working brain is, using your own form of arguement, ..........is blatantly obvious and demonstrated in every post on this topic.
It is beyond me how you are unable to use that biological brain to actually think and come to any other conclusion.

[torridon]

This last paragraph betrays the fundamental error in your thinking.   You refer to "deliberations" and "thinking things through".  What is the ultimate causal source for any deliberation?  What is it that drives the process of "thinking things through"?  It is "you", Torri, not the uncontrollable predefined physical reactions in your brain cells.  You are God's amazing creation with your own creative powers - not just a mere blob of reconstituted star debris controlled by nothing but the meaningless, physically predefined reactions of material elements.

Typical evasiveness, going off on a tangent to bypass thinking about and addressing the question.  I wasn't claiming that it was anything other than me making choices.  The desire to 'think things through' is not some magical supernatural force, there are reasons for it.  I want to think things through so that I can better understand and make better choices.  There is nothing mystical about that.  You ought to try it some time.

[Alan Burns]

The biologocal working brain is, using your own form of arguement, ..........is blatantly obvious and demonstrated in every post on this topic.
It is beyond me how you are unable to use that biological brain to actually think and come to any other conclusion.

Biology comprises lots of material elements reacting with each other to produce observable consequences.  But reactions do not define perception.  Perception is AWARENESS of reactions, not the reactions themselves.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Biology comprises lots of material elements reacting with each other to produce observable consequences.  But reactions do not define perception.  Perception is AWARENESS of reactions, not the reactions themselves.

Biology also produces emergent properties that arise from the collaborative functioning of the system, but that do not belong to any one part of that system.

It wouldn't take you much time to find out something about this so as to help prevent you making the same mistakes over and over again. It really wouldn't if only you could be bothered (or weren't so frightened of what you might find out). 

[torridon]

It may seem illogical to you, but it makes perfect sense to me.
I have freedom to choose what I do.
A freedom which can't be derived from physically predetermined reactions.
A freedom which enables me to choose to follow Jesus and accept Him as my Lord and Saviour.

You can only do those things because you want to.  You don't have the freedom to want something that you don't want; you don't have the freedom to believe something you don't believe. Since we cannot do such things, all we are left with, is acting on whatever desires we do have.  Your conceptualisation of 'freedom' is trivial and worthless.

[Alan Burns]

Typical evasiveness, going off on a tangent to bypass thinking about and addressing the question.  I wasn't claiming that it was anything other than me making choices.  The desire to 'think things through' is not some magical supernatural force, there are reasons for it.  I want to think things through so that I can better understand and make better choices.  There is nothing mystical about that.  You ought to try it some time.

But I have thought very deeply about human freewill, which is why I came to the inevitable conclusion that our conscious choices can't possibly be determined by material reactions alone, because material reactions are predetermined by the laws of physics, allowing no possibility for the freedom of consciously driven choices.  To restrict my thoughts to what can be achieved by material reactions alone, I would have to conclude that my freedom to think is just an illusion, but in order to think that, I would need the freedom to think it out!

[Sriram]

You can only do those things because you want to.  You don't have the freedom to want something that you don't want; you don't have the freedom to believe something you don't believe. Since we cannot do such things, all we are left with, is acting on whatever desires we do have.  Your conceptualisation of 'freedom' is trivial and worthless.

But that's not true. There is always the random element. And we have no idea from where the randomness comes.

[torridon]

Biology comprises lots of material elements reacting with each other to produce observable consequences.  But reactions do not define perception.  Perception is AWARENESS of reactions, not the reactions themselves.

Perception is the awareness of the object of perception, not awareness of the reactions that constitute perception, I would have thought.  If I look at the screen, I am not aware of the cellular reactions taking place in my visual system, I am aware of the screen.  This awareness, or perception, derives from, and is constituted by, reactions in the visual system; the end result is visual perception of the screen.

[Sebastian Toe]

Biology comprises lots of material elements reacting with each other to produce observable consequences.  But reactions do not define perception.  Perception is AWARENESS of reactions, not the reactions themselves.

The biologocal working brain is, using your own form of arguement, ..........is blatantly obvious and demonstrated in every post on this topic.
It is beyond me how you are unable to use that biological brain to actually think and come to any other conclusion.

[torridon]

But I have thought very deeply about human freewill, which is why I came to the inevitable conclusion that our conscious choices can't possibly be determined by material reactions alone, because material reactions are predetermined by the laws of physics, allowing no possibility for the freedom of consciously driven choices.  To restrict my thoughts to what can be achieved by material reactions alone, I would have to conclude that my freedom to think is just an illusion, but in order to think that I would need the freedom to think it out!

We cannot be 'free' in a fundamental sense, ie free from cause and effect, because freedom from cause and effect would mean random.  If you make a choice for no reason, that means you have just made a random choice.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But I have thought very deeply about human freewill…

That’s clearly not true. To think very deeply about something you’d have to address the arguments that falsify your preliminary conclusions. Just ignoring them in order to repeat the initial mistake isn’t thinking at all – it’s the denial of thinking.

…,which is why I came to the inevitable conclusion that our conscious choices can't possibly be determined by material reactions alone, because material reactions are predetermined by the laws of physics, allowing no possibility for the freedom of consciously driven choices.

That’s only an inevitable conclusion if you don’t allow yourself to think beyond the superficial – the moment you do that though the manifest contradictions in your conceptualisation of “free” will become apparent. 

To restrict my thoughts to what can be achieved by material reactions alone, I would have to conclude that my freedom to think is just an illusion, but in order to think that I would need the freedom to think it out!

Palpable nonsense for reasons you’d grasp if only you didn’t always ignore them.

[torridon]

But that's not true. There is always the random element. And we have no idea from where the randomness comes.

I think we'd need to park the notion of randomness to one side.  Noone knows if true randomness exists; we can't assume something we don't know and cannot ever know.

[Stranger]

But I have thought very deeply about human freewill...

Your posts stand as evidence against this. Especially your inability or unwillingness to engage with the actual logical arguments that have been presented to you and your frequent use of numerous fallacies.

...which is why I came to the inevitable conclusion that our conscious choices can't possibly be determined by material reactions alone, because material reactions are predetermined by the laws of physics, allowing no possibility for the freedom of consciously driven choices.  To restrict my thoughts to what can be achieved by material reactions alone, I would have to conclude that my freedom to think is just an illusion, but in order to think that I would need the freedom to think it out!

See? Baseless assertion and total nonsense. Hardly any evidence of thought, let alone deep thought...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Just by way of a coda, why would someone who claims to be capable of thinking deeply be so utterly indifferent to even the basic tenets of logical thought? You post here logical mistake after logical mistake after logical mistake and very often you're corrected on them, yet you just ignore the corrections and proceed to commit exactly the same logical mistakes all over again.

Why on earth then would you think that anyone would take seriously your clam to think deeply, or indeed to think at all for that matter?
 

[jeremyp]

Without the spiritual awareness of my soul, I would not have the freedom or capability to believe in anything.,

But you don’t have that freedom.

You are a Christian. Could you freely choose not to believe in Christianity? If you think the answer is yes: do it now.

[Alan Burns]

We cannot be 'free' in a fundamental sense, ie free from cause and effect, because freedom from cause and effect would mean random.  If you make a choice for no reason, that means you have just made a random choice.

But the reason is determined by consciously driven human will.
Reasons for our choices are deliberately formed within our conscious awareness.
Not in the inevitable consequences of physical reactions.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Just by way of a coda, why would someone who claims to be capable of thinking deeply be so utterly indifferent to even the basic tenets of logical thought? You post here logical mistake after logical mistake after logical mistake and very often you're corrected on them, yet you just ignore the corrections and proceed to commit exactly the same logical mistakes all over again.

Why on earth then would you think that anyone would take seriously your clam to think deeply, or indeed to think at all for that matter?

You seem to be oblivious to the obvious short sightedness of the logic you are espousing, which deliberately ignores any evidence which can't be verified by limited human scientific knowledge.  Your logic seems to be based on the presumption that if it can't be scientifically verified, it either does not exist, or it is some form of illusion, or it can be equated with belief in leprechauns.

[Gordon]

You seem to be oblivious to the obvious short sightedness of the logic you are espousing, which deliberately ignores any evidence which can't be verified by limited human scientific knowledge.  Your logic seems to be based on the presumption that if it can't be scientifically verified, it either does not exist, or it is some form of illusion, or it can be equated with belief in leprechauns.

If you claim 'evidence' then you need an associated method that allows you so identify, measure, categorise, describe the properties of etc etc etc. If you say that a method based on naturalism is unsuitable then you need to provide an alternative method: but you've been told this often, and you still don't have one.

Your own incredulity, your tedious and repetitive hyperbole and your fondness for other fallacies doesn't count. 

[Alan Burns]

If you claim 'evidence' then you need an associated method that allows you so identify, measure, categorise, describe the properties of etc etc etc. If you say that a method based on naturalism is unsuitable then you need to provide an alternative method: but you've been told this often, and you still don't have one.

Your own incredulity, your tedious and repetitive hyperbole and your fondness for other fallacies doesn't count.

Much of my evidence is based upon the obvious limitations of what can be achieved from physically predetermined reactions of material elements.  The personal optimism of what can be achieved from nothing but material reactions shows no bounds for for some posters on this thread.

[Gordon]

Much of my evidence is based upon the obvious limitations of what can be achieved from physically predetermined reactions of material elements.

Smashing - so precisely what is your evidence based on, methodologically speaking?

The personal optimism of what can be achieved from nothing but material reactions shows no bounds for for some posters on this thread.

Don't you ever read for comprehension? I asked you what methods you see as being viable alternatives to anything naturalistic: if you've rejected naturalism and you claim you have evidence then let's put 'science' to one side and you can explain the alternative method(s) used to provide this evidence you speak of.
   

[Sriram]

I think we'd need to park the notion of randomness to one side.  Noone knows if true randomness exists; we can't assume something we don't know and cannot ever know.

That's nice for a change...!

So, if true randomness does not exist, there could be some external influence that we know nothing about.  That is the point.

That would apply even to random genetic variations besides other so called 'random' events.   

[torridon]

But the reason is determined by consciously driven human will.
Reasons for our choices are deliberately formed within our conscious awareness.
Not in the inevitable consequences of physical reactions.

That is a nonsense and it has been explained to you countless times already.  This is really really simple, will cannot be its own cause. Effects derive from causes not from themselves.  If the magistrate asks the thief why he stole the bike, do you think he is going to be satisfied with the answer "because I stole the bike".  There has to be a reason giving rise to our desires otherwise our desires would be random. Our will is always is always a consequence whatever gave rise to it; if that were not the case and we had random desires arising for no reason, humans would have long ago gone extinct.

[torridon]

That's nice for a change...!

So, if true randomness does not exist, there could be some external influence that we know nothing about.  That is the point.

That would apply even to random genetic variations besides other so called 'random' events.

There will always be things that we do not know about; but it can be a bit of a waste of time speculating about such things, which is why we work with the evidence that we do have.