Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

They are free from total control of past events because they are determined by the conscious will of the human soul which always exists and acts in the present - and this consciously driven will is certainly not random.  As I said in a previous post, our conscious thoughts are capable of reaching far beyond anything which can be derived from predetermined physically controlled reactions.

Or to put it another way, "it's magic innit". You always do this - when your attempts at arguments are falsified (as they always are) you just give up the effort for a bit and take refuge in magic, then when you think the coast is clear you come back to exactly the same stock list of arguments that have already been shown to be false. If you think logic is too "short-sighted" to recognise the grand understanding that only you have, then stop using it so incompetently and find some other method to demonstrate that your various claims and assertions aren't utter nonsense.

[torridon]

They are free from total control of past events because they are determined by the conscious will of the human soul which always exists and acts in the present - and this consciously driven will is certainly not random.  As I said in a previous post, our conscious thoughts are capable of reaching far beyond anything which can be derived from predetermined physically controlled reactions.

Well I'm afraid thoughts are random according to your description. Anything that occurs in the present moment that is not a consequence of something prior is random by definition.  This is simply definitional and must logically apply to thoughts whatever the nature of the thinker; you've got a mental block about this it seems.

[Gordon]

They are free from total control of past events because they are determined by the conscious will of the human soul which always exists and acts in the present - and this consciously driven will is certainly not random.  As I said in a previous post, our conscious thoughts are capable of reaching far beyond anything which can be derived from predetermined physically controlled reactions.

Utter theobollocks, Alan.

[Stranger]

But none of this can deny me the ability to make consciously driven choices which are not entirely predetermined by physically defined reactions.

Once again "physical" is utterly irrelevant to the logic and I do wish you could at least stop misrepresenting the argument against you like this - it just makes you look dishonest.

As I said, mindlessly repeating foolish nonsense, is not going to make it make sense or be any more convincing - it just adds the the impression that you can't or won't think about the arguments that have been put to you.

It is my ability to consciously think which frees me from any physically predetermined scenario over which I can have no control.

[misrepresentation struck out]

This is just a baseless fantasy. You have never put forward any logical reason for this. What's more, being "free" from all the determining causes that led up to something means that it's (to that extent) random.

You should try going to a quiet place away from the artificial distractions of this modern world (dare I suggest a church!) and allow yourself to contemplate the amazing reality of your own existence and your ability to consciously think far beyond anything which can be predetermined by past events.  Rejoice in your freedom - it is an amazing gift beyond human understanding, but it is there to be used, not to be misunderstood by our limited capabilities.

Not determined by past events and not involving randomness is still as totally meaningless as a triangular circle, no matter where you think about it. You should really try to actually think (and go to a church if that helps you) about what is being put to you, instead of just asserting and using obvious fallacies. At least try to stop just ignoring all the arguments against you.

They are free from total control of past events because they are determined by the conscious will of the human soul which always exists and acts in the present...

This is still meaningless blather.

[Alan Burns]

You should really try to actually think (and go to a church if that helps you) about what is being put to you, instead of just asserting and using obvious fallacies. At least try to stop just ignoring all the arguments against you.

I am not ignoring the arguments put to me.
I am highlighting the fact that they totally fail to explain the reality of my consciously driven freedom to think, to contemplate and to draw my own conclusions.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I am not ignoring the arguments put to me.

You always ignore the arguments put to you. Stop lying.

I am highlighting the fact that the totally fail to explain the reality of my consciously driven freedom to think, to contemplate and to draw my own conclusions.

You're "highlighting" nothing - you're just repeating the same mistakes over and over again because you'll never address the falsifications you're given that tell precisely you why they're mistakes.

[SusanDoris]

The blip of life's existence on this journey to ever increasing entropy and chaos will never be able to achieve this impossible goal before all organic matter is totally obliterated.

And what do you think that totally imagined  god you believe in will do then, poor thing? No brain-washed followers to imagine its existence?
 
You are right, of course, that there will be no organic matter, norwill there be any planetearth, or any sun, or any solar system … ...

[Stranger]

I am not ignoring the arguments put to me.

Drivel. You never actually address them, you just endlessly repeat your baseless assertions and fallacies. You've just done the same again, for fuck's sake! You didn't address any of the actual arguments, you just repeated this, that has been addressed countless times before:-

I am highlighting the fact that they totally fail to explain the reality of my consciously driven freedom to think, to contemplate and to draw my own conclusions.

Our experience of "consciously driven freedom" is entirely compatible with minds being deterministic systems (physical or otherwise) and your definition of "freedom" is still meaningless nonsense - both for reasons that have been given to you time and time again and that you keep on ignoring...

[ippy]

And what do you think that totally imagined  god you believe in will do then, poor thing? No brain-washed followers to imagine its existence?
 
You are right, of course, that there will be no organic matter, norwill there be any planetearth, or any sun, or any solar system … ...

It's the day after all of that lot that worries me Susan.

Regards, ippy.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Dear Alan,

God here. Listen old son, I hope you don’t mind me butting in like this but I’ve been looking in on your efforts to proselytise for me and, while I appreciate the effort, I can’t help but feel that some friendly advice from above wouldn’t come amiss. See, your problem here is that the arguments you’re trying to convert people are rubbish, and worse still those people know that they’re rubbish. Yeah I know they might fly with the very young or the very gullible, but you’re really going to have to up your game here if you want people with critical faculties to take me seriously. Capiche? Good.

Now then, I’m sorry to have to break this to you but it’s come to my attention too that there are some folks who could be persuadable – you know, people who if they were given some good enough reasons would come to believe in my existence. Thing is though, when they see people like you attempt to proselytise with all the reasoning ability of a breeze block well, I’m sorry to say that some of them tar all my little sunbeams with the same brush of utter wrongness and you’re actually putting them off ever believing in my divine wonderfulness.

I know right, disaster! There’s you thinking you’re doing my work, and actually all you’re really doing is giving old uncle Nick a leg up in popularity stakes!

So listen, do me a favour willya? Just shape up or ship out. Find something to persuade these folks that any averagely educated twelve-year-old wouldn’t see through in a heartbeat, or maybe try something else to do like leprechaun spotting or something.

Now you’ll have to excuse me I’m afraid – I’ve got a couple of tsunamis to fire up and loads of babies to give malaria to so I’ll take my leave for now.

All best, your pal God.

[Roses]

The blip of life's existence on this journey to ever increasing entropy and chaos will never be able to achieve this impossible goal before all organic matter is totally obliterated.

Ehhhhhhhhhhh?

[ippy]

Utter theobollocks, Alan.

I think your 'theobollocks', should be presented to the OED lexicographers for inclusion in all future editions of their book, it gets my vote.

Regards, ippy.

[Roses]

Dear Alan,

Satan here, I want to award you the Satanic Star, the highest honour I bestow. Your posts on R&E are doing a great job of ensuring non believers hold onto their convictions, and believers question theirs.
Thank you so much.

Carry on the good work,

Love and hugs

SatanXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

[Alan Burns]

You're "highlighting" nothing - you're just repeating the same mistakes over and over again because you'll never address the falsifications you're given that tell precisely you why they're mistakes.

My conscious freedom is no mistake.  It s a reality.  The only reality I can possibly perceive.
To deny my conscious freedom is a denial of whatever constitutes me.
Your alternative removes me from the equation, replacing me with a biological robot entirely defined by forces beyond my control.  Yet I am free to consciously choose to contradict your alternative scenario, because this conscious freedom shows it to be false.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

My conscious freedom is no mistake.  It s a reality.

That’s right – as a description of a functional, lived experience it’s “no mistake”; as an explanation for the necessary underlying reality of what’s happening though it’s hopeless.

The only reality I can possibly perceive.

Your inability to perceive something is just a function of your lack of imagination or intellect or honesty. It has no epistemological value though.

To deny my conscious freedom is a denial of whatever constitutes me.

No, it’s just to deny some very bad ideas you’re in thrall to. If you want to define yourself by where those bad ideas lead you, that’s a matter for you.

Your alternative removes me from the equation, replacing me with a biological robot entirely defined by forces beyond my control.  Yet I am free to consciously choose to contradict your alternative scenario, because this conscious freedom shows it to be false.

First, that’s another of the endless logical fallacies you keep peddling - in this case the argumentum ad consequentiam. I’ve told you that using wrong arguments is pointless, so why do you keep doing it?

Second, even leaving aside the pejorative language of “biological robot” the logically sound explanation for what constitutes “you” “removes” nothing because at one level of abstraction the same “you” continues to experience functioning as a choice-making entity. The knowledge that it cannot really be so for explanatory purposes without collapsing into a self-contradictory mess of reasoning just gives you a more profound grasp of reality, that’s all. To paraphrase Richard Feynman, flowers are no less appealing because you also know about photosynthesis. Deal with it.

[Stranger]

My conscious freedom is no mistake.  It s a reality.  The only reality I can possibly perceive.
To deny my conscious freedom is a denial of whatever constitutes me.
Your alternative removes me from the equation, replacing me with a biological robot entirely defined by forces beyond my control.  Yet I am free to consciously choose to contradict your alternative scenario, because this conscious freedom shows it to be false.

It is simply not possible for anybody to perceive your contradictory, nonsense version of freedom. All you are perceiving is being able to act without external constraint.

Your freedom to consciously choose to contradict simple logic, refuse to engage with it, and mindlessly repeat the same silly assertions ad nauseam and ad infinitum, is perfectly compatible with the logic you deny. In fact, I really can't think of a more obvious example of a person's choices being clearly the result of the past, than your posts...

[ippy]

Dear Alan,

Satan here, I want to award you the Satanic Star, the highest honour I bestow. Your posts on R&E are doing a great job of ensuring non believers hold onto their convictions, and believers question theirs.
Thank you so much.

Carry on the good work,

Love and hugs

SatanXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Don't laugh L R he probably thinks your post was inspired by Satan, and he probably thinks that you don't, even worse, realise Satan was inspiring you.

He's likely thinking my response to your post, Satan and all of that, a very sad man.

Regards, ippy. 

[Roses]

Don't laugh L R he probably thinks your post was inspired by Satan, and he probably thinks that you don't, even worse, realise Satan was inspiring you.

He's likely thinking my response to your post, Satan and all of that, a very sad man.

Regards, ippy.

You are probably right, however, assuming Satan exists he couldn't possibly be any worse than how the god of the  Bible is portrayed.

[ippy]

You are probably right, however, assuming Satan exists he couldn't possibly be any worse than how the god of the  Bible is portrayed.

We're on the same side on this one.

Regards, ippy.

[torridon]

My conscious freedom is no mistake.  It s a reality.  The only reality I can possibly perceive.
To deny my conscious freedom is a denial of whatever constitutes me...

In a sense, it is a mistake.  Or, better, is is something of an illusion and it is being simplistic to deny all the deeper insights we now have about how minds construct our personal experience.  We all have a similar direct experience of the world and in a sense it is undeniable. That table feels undeniably solid, although, I know it isn't really.  The Sun looks really small in the sky, although I know it isn't, actually.  The ground feels stationary under my feet, although I know it isn't, really.

The rest of us in this room have grasped that there is more to understand here rather than simply what meets the eye.  For sure, we all feel as if we are free but we also know that all feelings derive from something and the nature of human personal experience is a product of evolutionary forces which are predicated on keeping organisms alive at minimum cost in a highly competitive environment, rather than reproducing external reality, as is.  It is one of the distinguishing features of the human flavour of consciousness that, being a highly social species,  we have developed a strong sense of self, or personhood, and agency, and consequently a compelling sense of personal moral responsibility.  This underpins social cohesion and hence the success of populations.  So, although I feel it is undeniable that there is a 'me' inside exercising the levers of power and taking responsibility, I simultaneously can understand that the 'me' and all of its apparent agency is a construction that masks a subtler underlying story.

Chris Frith of UCL has a nice essay on this particular aspect of human experience :

https://aeon.co/ideas/our-illusory-sense-of-agency-has-a-deeply-important-social-purpose?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_campaign=0ad535471b-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_09_12_06_03&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-0ad535471b-69413141

[Alan Burns]

In a sense, it is a mistake.  Or, better, is is something of an illusion and it is being simplistic to deny all the deeper insights we now have about how minds construct our personal experience.  We all have a similar direct experience of the world and in a sense it is undeniable. That table feels undeniably solid, although, I know it isn't really.  The Sun looks really small in the sky, although I know it isn't, actually.  The ground feels stationary under my feet, although I know it isn't, really.

The rest of us in this room have grasped that there is more to understand here rather than simply what meets the eye.  For sure, we all feel as if we are free but we also know that all feelings derive from something and the nature of human personal experience is a product of evolutionary forces which are predicated on keeping organisms alive at minimum cost in a highly competitive environment, rather than reproducing external reality, as is.  It is one of the distinguishing features of the human flavour of consciousness that, being a highly social species,  we have developed a strong sense of self, or personhood, and agency, and consequently a compelling sense of personal moral responsibility.  This underpins social cohesion and hence the success of populations.  So, although I feel it is undeniable that there is a 'me' inside exercising the levers of power and taking responsibility, I simultaneously can understand that the 'me' and all of its apparent agency is a construction that masks a subtler underlying story.

All the examples you quote here relate to how our conscious awareness interprets external data perceived through our sensory organs, and I agree that what we perceive about the external world can appear to be somewhat different to the reality.  But our conscious control is an integral part of our conscious awareness.  The reality of our freedom to choose and direct our thoughts does not get changed or misinterpreted by our conscious awareness.  We think of something.  We choose how, when and where to do it.  And we can verify that it has been done.  There is no illusion in this.  You can't compare it to our illusionary perception of the external world.  Our freedom to choose what to think, act and speak is at the root of the reality of our existence - it defines each one of us as a separate entity in a physically predetermined material universe.

[Gordon]

We think of something.

Might there be factors that influence what we think? It seems to me you've started a few steps into the process.

We choose how, when and where to do it.  And we can verify that it has been done.  There is no illusion in this.  You can't compare it to our illusionary perception of the external world.  Our freedom to choose what to think, act and speak is at the root of the reality of our existence - it defines each one of us as a separate entity in a physically predetermined material universe.

Nobody denies that once we starting thinking about something we can then deliberate and make choices - but how these thought processes begin, and what extent we are consciously aware of all of the precursors, is an aspect it seems you'd prefer to avoid.

[Enki]

All the examples you quote here relate to how our conscious awareness interprets external data perceived through our sensory organs, and I agree that what we perceive about the external world can appear to be somewhat different to the reality.  But our conscious control is an integral part of our conscious awareness.  The reality of our freedom to choose and direct our thoughts does not get changed or misinterpreted by our conscious awareness.  We think of something.  We choose how, when and where to do it.  And we can verify that it has been done.  There is no illusion in this.  You can't compare it to our illusionary perception of the external world.  Our freedom to choose what to think, act and speak is at the root of the reality of our existence - it defines each one of us as a separate entity in a physically predetermined material universe.

Everything you say is based upon the underlying assumption that the 'me' you talk about is something other(or more) than the workings of the brain. As I don't have this assumption(for extremely valid reasons), I immediately take issue with your  continuing assumptions.

Hence,

Conscious awareness (which can be simply  replaced by 'awareness' or 'consciousness') seems to be a product of the brain.

Conscious control would also seem to be a product of the brain, whether it be instigated in our unconscious or not.

We have complete freedom to think and choose, the important addenda being that the 'we' is our brain and that is what we(the brain) wants.(assuming no extraneous factors)

Each one of us is defined as a separate entity by our location and brain make up at any given point in time.

Whenever you use the word 'we' in conversations like these, then I simply define that as being essentially a person's brain(or the workings of that brain).

So, to take your last sentence,

Our freedom to choose what to think, act and speak is at the root of the reality of our existence - it defines each one of us as a separate entity in a physically predetermined material universe.

I have no reason at all to disagree with this, but what I mean by it is obviously a world away from your interpretation.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

All the examples you quote here relate to how our conscious awareness interprets external data perceived through our sensory organs, and I agree that what we perceive about the external world can appear to be somewhat different to the reality.

Good. Then by analogy you should be able to grasp too that your experience of agency as if there’s a separate “you” making the decisions could be different from reality. That’s a first step at least.   

But our conscious control is an integral part of our conscious awareness.

Yes, albeit that “conscious awareness” cannot mean what you think it means. Consciousness is a phenomenon that arises from the integrated function of multiple neural processes.

The reality of our freedom to choose and direct our thoughts does not get changed or misinterpreted by our conscious awareness.  We think of something.  We choose how, when and where to do it.  And we can verify that it has been done.  There is no illusion in this.

Of course there is if by “we” you think there’s something somehow floating free of the underlying material reality of brains that tells them what to do. This has been explained to you countless times, so why keep ignoring the arguments that falsify your unqualified assertions? 
 

You can't compare it to our illusionary perception of the external world.

Yes you can because the analogy tells you that the way we experience things will often fail if you assume the experience also to be the explanations for those things. It’s a simple enough idea I’d have thought. 

Our freedom to choose what to think, act and speak is at the root of the reality of our existence - it defines each one of us as a separate entity in a physically predetermined material universe.

The impression of “freedom” may well be at the root of a reality, yes. It collapses immediately into logical incoherence though if you just assume that impression to indicate an underlying reality of what’s really going on. If you think the impression of agency "defines us" that's up to you - it doesn't do that any less though for being just one, albeit fairly superficial, grasp of what reality necessarily entails.     

Perhaps if you bothered finally reading and engaging with the arguments that explain why this is so you’d be spared the embarrassment of continual Violet Elizabeth Bott style “it’th twoo I tell you, it’th twoo…” replies every time your efforts are falsified.

[Stranger]

The reality of our freedom to choose and direct our thoughts does not get changed or misinterpreted by our conscious awareness.

It quite clearly does, in your case at least. You've formed a view of this "freedom" which is inherently self-contradictory and hence totally impossible. The good news is that all you need is some clarity of thought and some honest introspection to see through your delusion. The bad news is that you seem so committed to your delusion, that you seem incapable of either.

We think of something.  We choose how, when and where to do it.  And we can verify that it has been done.  There is no illusion in this.

Here again you are conflating this simple description of what happens with your impossible, delusional, self-contradictory view of "freedom". We obviously do think, make choices, and act on them (nobody disputes that) - the question is all about how we make those choices.

Unless you can step back and see that thinking about something and making a choice is not the same thing as your impossible version of "freedom", you'll never get anywhere.

Our freedom to choose what to think, act and speak is at the root of the reality of our existence - it defines each one of us as a separate entity in a physically predetermined material universe.

Where is even the first hint of any logic or evidence for this assertion?

Why won't you actually engage with the arguments and stop the mindless repetition of baseless assertions and fallacies? What do you think you're achieving by endlessly repeating the same nonsense?