Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

Can you not grasp the simple truth that conscious manipulation of what goes on inside your head is essential in order to construct a meaningful argument.  Any presumption that such arguments can just emerge from predetermined physical reactions is totally implausible - despite your constant plea that it is what the limited evidence suggests.

Argument by evidence- and reasoning-free assertion, in defiance of hard logic - not "limited evidence".

Regardless of how much consciousness is involved, "meaningful arguments" can only be constructed either entirely due to all the events that led up to them or not. If not, then some part of them cannot be because of anything that led up to them, so cannot actually be meaningful in the context of the previous discussion. Can you seriously not grasp the blatant contradiction in your silly assertions?

This argument stands regardless of whether you think minds are entirely physical or not. Why not at least try to address the logic and stop pretending that something non-physical or some meaningless phrases about "the present" can make a difference to it?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Just out of interest, why do you bother? It must be clear to you by now that you cannot win converts here when the only arguments you have are fallacious, so what do you hope to achieve by it? Worse yet you tell us that you want to write a book. Why though? Why go to all that effort when it will presumably rest on the same logical mistakes you make here?   

Let’s give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you’re not just trolling, that you’re sincere in your beliefs (though frankly it’s hard to tell). If you want to proselytise for those beliefs then you have a choice: proclaim them as articles of faith, or make some arguments that are likely to persuade others you’re right.

If you opt for the former, that’s fine. Proclaim away, just as anyone else if free to proclaim their beliefs in anything else. Knock yourself out if that’s your thing. 

If though you seriously want to attempt some arguments to justify your faith beliefs then if you don’t want to keep being laughed out of the room you need to have a least a basic grasp of how reason and logic works. Why? Because that’s what “argument” means for Pete’s sake. And it’s at this point that you always run away, presumably because at some deep level you suspect that if ever you tried to make logically sound arguments the effort wouldn’t even get it’s trousers on. So there you are – lost in the wilderness crying out logical fallacy after logical fallacy and bewildered about why no-one will pretend with you that they’re not fallacious at all.

So like I said – why bother?

[Alan Burns]

But the problem for you with actual thinking is, as we both know, that you’re terrified of what it might reveal so instead you’re determined to keep that box forever closed. Never, ever address the argument that shows your “if you said it, I must be right” nonsense to be false and you can stay wrapped in the warm comfort blanket of your unqualified faith beliefs.

What does that say about you do you think?

How can I possibly be terrified?
My arguments have nothing to do with my faith position.  They are based upon sound objective reasoning.

It is a simple objective truth that our ability to construct any meaningful argument cannot be derived from an uncontrollable series of physically predetermined reactions.  It is inconceivable how any argument can be formed without our ability to consciously manipulate our own thought processes.  I am fully aware that such conscious manipulation cannot be defined within any series of predetermined physically controlled reactions.  The explanation for our mental capacity to construct arguments must lie outside the predetermined nature of uncontrollable physical reactions.

I have no doubt that you will deliberately contrive to think up arguments to refute my conclusions (or try to ridicule them) - thus providing yet more evidence for your own ability to consciously construct arguments to support your own mistaken belief that human freewill does not exist.

[Gordon]

How can I possibly be terrified?
My arguments have nothing to do with my faith position.  They are based upon sound objective reasoning.

It is a simple objective truth that our ability to construct any meaningful argument cannot be derived from an uncontrollable series of physically predetermined reactions.  It is inconceivable how any argument can be formed without our ability to consciously manipulate our own thought processes.  I am fully aware that such conscious manipulation cannot be defined within any series of predetermined physically controlled reactions.  The explanation for our mental capacity to construct arguments must lie outside the predetermined nature of uncontrollable physical reactions.

I have no doubt that you will deliberately contrive to think up arguments to refute my conclusions (or try to ridicule them) - thus providing yet more evidence for your own ability to consciously construct arguments to support your own mistaken belief that human freewill does not exist.

Super, Alan, were it not for two problems: a) your posts, including the one quoted, are invariably littered with various fallacies, and b) underlying your claims to objectivity are your incoherent beliefs in supernatural agents.

[torridon]

It is a simple objective truth that our ability to construct any meaningful argument cannot be derived from an uncontrollable series of physically predetermined reactions.  It is inconceivable how any argument can be formed without our ability to consciously manipulate our own thought processes.  I am fully aware that such conscious manipulation cannot be defined within any series of predetermined physically controlled reactions.  The explanation for our mental capacity to construct arguments must lie outside the predetermined nature of uncontrollable physical reactions.

And yet you see no issue with an elephant being able to consciously control its trunk using those pesky uncontrollable series of physically predetermined reactions.

Double standards Alan, double standards

[Sebastian Toe]

How can I possibly be terrified?
My arguments have nothing to do with my faith position. 

Just to be clear.
You do not argue that our thoughts are controlled by an entity which exists outside of this physical universe?
Said entity having been created by your god.

That's not your position, correct?

[Stranger]

How can I possibly be terrified?
My arguments have nothing to do with my faith position.  They are based upon sound objective reasoning.

This is just not true - you have not posted any sound objective reasoning.

It is a simple objective truth that our ability to construct any meaningful argument cannot be derived from an uncontrollable series of physically predetermined reactions.

That is not an objective truth, it's just an assertion.

It is inconceivable how any argument can be formed without our ability to consciously manipulate our own thought processes.

This is firstly personal incredulity. Just saying that something is "inconceivable" cannot be a step in a logical argument. Just because you can't imagine or grasp how something might be, does not make it false. This is textbook argument from incredulity fallacy.

Secondly, you have provided no argument that this ability to "consciously manipulate thought processes" (whatever that means) is in any way incompatible with what you called "uncontrollable series of physically predetermined reactions" - which is itself, nothing but an attempt to raise people's incredulity by the use of language, rather than logic.

I am fully aware that such conscious manipulation cannot be defined within any series of predetermined physically controlled reactions.  The explanation for our mental capacity to construct arguments must lie outside the predetermined nature of uncontrollable physical reactions.

These are just further assertions that you have provided no basis for. What's more, you've again ignored the fact that determinism is a logic "problem" for you that you cannot escape from by postulating something non-physical.

I have no doubt that you will deliberately contrive to think up arguments to refute my conclusions (or try to ridicule them) - thus providing yet more evidence for your own ability to consciously construct arguments to support your own mistaken belief that human freewill does not exist.

Now the dishonesty about our abilities (which nobody disputes) being evidence of your contradictory, nonsense version of "freewill".

So - you have provided no sound reasoning, just empty assertions, logical fallacies, and dishonest claims about evidence, and once again, you've totally ignored the actual logical argument that shows that your conception of "freewill" is contradictory.

All this has been pointed out before - so I have no idea why you think just repeating it will help. Do you really not understand that you can't turn textbook cases of logical fallacies and baseless assertions into sound objective reasoning, no matter how many times you repeat them?

[Alan Burns]

And yet you see no issue with an elephant being able to consciously control its trunk using those pesky uncontrollable series of physically predetermined reactions.

Double standards Alan, double standards

Does an elephant have the ability to consciously construct meaningful arguments about its own existence?
I think not.

[Gordon]

Does an elephant have the ability to consciously construct meaningful arguments about its own existence?
I think not.

You can't be certain though, can you?

Mind you, in contrast, we certainly don't have any use for trunks - have a think about that.

[torridon]

Does an elephant have the ability to consciously construct meaningful arguments about its own existence?
I think not.

Maybe not, who knows ?

But it does seem to be able to exercise its will over its trunk, thereby effortlessly solving that hard problem of how mind can influence matter without the benefit of supernatural powers as you seem to think is required.

[Bramble]

we certainly don't have any use for trunks - have a think about that.

You Glaswegians must be a hardy lot. It's a wonder you don't get frostbite.

[ippy]

You can't be certain though, can you?

Mind you, in contrast, we certainly don't have any use for trunks - have a think about that.

Crossing wide stretches of water that would be deep enough to go over our heads?

Regards, ippy.

[Outrider]

The content of the argument is totally irrelevant to the basic truth behind your ability to consciously construct an argument.

You are still just asserting this 'truth', you've not supported that contention.

My contention is that for any argument to have credibility, it must be verifiable by some form of consciously driven interaction.

And yet the evidence suggests that we become consciously aware of the arguments we want to make after we've decided upon them.  Perhaps that verification is post-hoc, as well?

Without such interaction it becomes just a meaningless consequence of brain chemistry driven by unavoidable physical reactions.

Why is it meaningless?  If our subsconscious does the processing and comes up with a response, why is it meaningless?  And, if this is the case... so what?  Again this comes across as you rejecting the argument not because you've found a flaw in it, but because you feel a sense of distaste for the implication - it's 'just' a consequence of brain activity.  That's not 'just', that's amazing!

O.

[Gordon]

You Glaswegians must be a hardy lot. It's a wonder you don't get frostbite.

Ironically I went swimming this very morning with my younger grand-daughter - trunks included!

[Roses]

Ironically I went swimming this very morning with my younger grand-daughter - trunks included!

WOW, I feel very chilly at the thought of that.

[Nearly Sane]

WOW, I feel very chilly at the thought of that.

I think this may well have been in a heated indoor pool

[Roses]

I think this may well have been in a heated indoor pool

I hope so, one would hate to think of Gordon's nether regions getting frostbite, even if he was wearing trunks! 

Talk about going off topic, but it makes a change from the constant repetition on this thread.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

How can I possibly be terrified?
My arguments have nothing to do with my faith position.  They are based upon sound objective reasoning.

It is a simple objective truth that our ability to construct any meaningful argument cannot be derived from an uncontrollable series of physically predetermined reactions.  It is inconceivable how any argument can be formed without our ability to consciously manipulate our own thought processes.  I am fully aware that such conscious manipulation cannot be defined within any series of predetermined physically controlled reactions.  The explanation for our mental capacity to construct arguments must lie outside the predetermined nature of uncontrollable physical reactions.

I have no doubt that you will deliberately contrive to think up arguments to refute my conclusions (or try to ridicule them) - thus providing yet more evidence for your own ability to consciously construct arguments to support your own mistaken belief that human freewill does not exist.

Stranger has already answered this dishonest nonsense more than adequately in Reply 37156 so I won’t repeat those rebuttals. In short though:

1. Just asserting something to be “obviously true” isn’t a logically sound argument, or indeed an argument at all. It’s just an assertion, just as “we really touch the keys with our fingers” is just an assertion.

2. Your post here and pretty much all of your previous posts have been littered with logical mistakes from beginning to end. These mistakes are explained to you, only for you to ignore the explanations and to repeat exactly the same mistakes over and over again in subsequent posts. This is why you’re impossible to deal with – when your mistakes are explained to you, then it’s incumbent on you to address the problem. Either explain why the mistake isn’t a mistake, or stop attempting it. You don’t ever do that though do you.

And that’s why you’ll never, ever persuade anyone here or elsewhere who is capable of reasoned thinking – we know your justifications for your beliefs are wrong, and we know that you’re too dishonest to deal with the problem.

Game over.

[Alan Burns]

2. Your post here and pretty much all of your previous posts have been littered with logical mistakes from beginning to end ...

And as I confidently predicted, your post is littered with evidence of your profound ability to consciously choose how to reply in order to support your bizarre view that you have no conscious control of your apparently predetermined brain activity.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

And as I confidently predicted, your post is littered with evidence of your profound ability to consciously choose how to reply in order to support your bizarre view that you have no conscious control of your apparently predetermined brain activity.

Being confident in your mistakes does not make them less mistaken.

Either finally be honest and address the logical fallacies you keep attempting or don't. It's up to you, but you will have nothing of value to say unless you ever do.

[torridon]

And as I confidently predicted, your post is littered with evidence of your profound ability to consciously choose how to reply in order to support your bizarre view that you have no conscious control of your apparently predetermined brain activity.

A post on here is evidence of the beliefs of the poster.  It says nothing specific about the nature of the thought processes that went into constructing the post.

[Stranger]

And as I confidently predicted, your post is littered with evidence of your profound ability to consciously choose how to reply in order to support your bizarre view that you have no conscious control of your apparently predetermined brain activity.

This dishonesty does your cause no favours. Nobody disputes anybody's ability to think about things and come up with posts, so claiming it as evidence for your own explanation for it, is tantamount to lying. Doesn't your god disapprove of that sort of thing? (cue: how can I be accused of dishonesty, if all my choices....blah, blah, blah...)

Again we see you simply ignoring the actual point, that however much (or little) consciousness is involved in choices, they must still be either entirely due to all the events that led up to them, or not (and therefore involve randomness).

[bluehillside Retd.]

torri,

A post on here is evidence of the beliefs of the poster.  It says nothing specific about the nature of the thought processes that went into constructing the post.

But he must cling to that to maintain his faith conviction: "If you can say it at all, my answer "magic" must be true". Never mind that the argument explains why it's not true - it stays in a box he'll never open because, in his head, the fact that it's been made in the first place justifies his conviction. And that makes him bullet-proof - no matter how dishonest, how stupid, how cowardly that's all he needs to shut down a priori any possibility of thinking.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Being confident in your mistakes does not make them less mistaken.

Either finally be honest and address the logical fallacies you keep attempting or don't. It's up to you, but you will have nothing of value to say unless you ever do.

Sorry, but it is not possible to address anything which removes my freedom to consciously address anything.

[Alan Burns]

A post on here is evidence of the beliefs of the poster.  It says nothing specific about the nature of the thought processes that went into constructing the post.

Disregarding whatever beliefs are being put forward, it simply indicates that the poster has the conscious freedom to construct a post in order to justify those beliefs.  Without conscious interaction, how can any post be regarded as personal?