Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

If you read my post, I said that we are not free of influences or desires.  We are consciously aware of them.  But we are not entirely driven by them. We are free to choose how to deal with them.  We can indulge in them to whatever extent we want to - or we can choose to resist them.  The choice is ours.

Try reading what you said. You said:

We are not free from influences and desires.
We are free to choose how to deal with them.

I replied:

Just repeating the same idiocy doesn't make it less idiotic. How could a supposed “chooser” be free of influences and desires of it own?

Can you see where you went wrong again? I know you said that “we are not free of influences or desires”. My question though in reply was, if you do want to invent an invisible little man at the controls, how could that invisible little man itself somehow be “free of influences or desires” of its own?   

If you want to assign your invisible little man with “influences and desires” of its own then you just relocate (what you wrongly think to be) the problem to that invisible little man. If on the other hand you want your invisible little man to be “free of influences or desires” of its own how could it make decisions on “our” behalf without functioning randomly?

Good luck with that.   

[ekim]

AB,
  If on the other hand you want your invisible little man to be “free of influences or desires” of its own how could it make decisions on “our” behalf without functioning randomly?

It's in The Book. You surrender your decision making to the Big Man and become free from the wants of the little man but subject to the Will of the Big Man. 

[Enki]

My conscious self - it is the only "I" which exists.  It defines me, and defines the "present".  Everything I do, think or say, and awareness of everything which exists emanates in my own conscious self.  I can't give you a material or scientific definition of "I".  I only know what it does.

Thanks for your reply. I sort of knew what you would say, but it would have been wrong of me to speculate wihout having it being said in your own words.

My immediate response is to say that I think that you are being far too reductionist. When I talk about "I" it includes much more than my conscious self. It includes all the workings of my mind, which as I see it(and for which there is a great deal of evidence) is dependent on the firing of the neurons in my brain. It includes all my thoughts, my desires, hopes, fears, mannerisms, abilities, lack of abilities. Consciousness seems to me to have something to do with an awareness of what the mind is already thinking, and is just one aspect of what it is like being "me", and even that has many gradations. I can become less conscious, for instance, if I imbibe too much alcohol, and when I dream or when I am very tired. From my point of view, these are all aspects of what it is to be "me". Unlike you, I see my consciousness as a product of my mind and hence my brain, as the overwhelming body of neuroscience does.

Also what is "me" has changed over time. I am now 82 years old. I sometimes look at old photos of myself when I was young and consider that I am looking at a very different person.

So I suspect that there is a considerable hiatus between our two views. Now, I don't expect you for one moment to go along with my views, but maybe you should bear them in mind when you ask questions such as:

For consciousness to be "naturalistic", are you prepared to concede that you have no ability to consciously manipulate whatever enters your conscious awareness?

Post 45488

It is a question which makes little sense to me and the only way I can think of to answer it is to say that my brain/mind seems to have the ability to respond to and manipulate influences, whether or not I am consciously aware of them. There does seem to be, however, a more focussed ability when awareness is involved, and therefore a greater chance of successful manipulation by my brain/mind.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Incidentally, your little man at the controls notion is an informal fallacy in its own right, called the “homunculus fallacy”.

“1. a putative process or entity in the mind or the nervous system whose operations are invoked to explain some aspect of human behavior or experience. The problem with such theories is that the behavior or experience of the homunculus usually requires explanation in exactly the same way as that of the person as a whole. As a result, homunculus theories tend to end in circular reasoning. For example, to explain its theory that certain ideas are kept from conscious awareness because they are threatening to the person, psychoanalysis must posit some specialized part of the person that is aware of the ideas and knows that they are threatening. Similarly, some information-processing theories invoke a “decision-making process” to explain the making of decisions. Both theories invoke a sophisticated level of inner awareness or processing in an attempt to explain another outward level of awareness or processing. For this reason, critics would say that they require homunculi, or that they commit the homunculus fallacy.”

https://dictionary.apa.org/homunculus

Perhaps Stranger could add it to his list to save us the time of explaining it to you over and over again…

[Alan Burns]

A poignant reflection on today's Gospel reading - very apt for those searching for God.

John 11:1–45
Friends, today’s Gospel about the raising of Lazarus has a pointed message for us.

Everyone reading this is, to a degree, spiritually dead. Maybe you’re like Lazarus—four days in your tomb. Maybe you feel there is just no hope for the likes of you. I don’t care how far you’ve fallen. I don’t care how dead you are. The voice of Jesus can call you back to life, can pull you out of the tomb.

Listen to what Jesus says: “Untie him and let him go.” God hates death and the ways of death. He hates all the ways we’ve managed to tie ourselves up. He hates how we’ve wandered into tombs and graves.

Maybe you’re sunk in an addiction. Maybe you’ve done things you are so ashamed of that you can’t even bring yourself to speak of them. Maybe you’ve fallen out of relationship with the people you love the most. Maybe you’ve been a first-class jerk. Maybe you just feel you’re a failure. Maybe you’re terrified of dying. I don’t care. Listen for the voice!

“Untie him and let him go.”

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

A poignant reflection on today's Gospel reading - very apt for those searching for God.

John 11:1–45
Friends, today’s Gospel about...

This is a discussion area. Did you want to discuss anything, or just to proselytise? If the latter, you should move this fatuous drivel to the faith sharing area.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

This is a discussion area. Did you want to discuss anything, or just to proselytise? If the latter, you should move this fatuous drivel to the faith sharing area.

I did not wish to preach to the converted, and I thought it was appropriate for the title of this thread.

[Nearly Sane]

I did not wish to preach to the converted, and I thought it was appropriate for the title of this thread.

But you did wish to preach.

[Alan Burns]

Just another confirmation of what I see as conscious control of thought processes:

Many years ago I was an apprentice draughtsman in a large drawing office for a steel fabricator.  There was a problem in detailing the requirements for a spiral staircase.  No one in the office knew of a formula for calculating the length of a spiral, and there was no internet facility!  Having thought about the problem, I recalled once when I got to the end of a toilet roll and (for reasons which I will not disclose  ) I started to peel off a thin layer from the outside of the cardboard tube.  I finished up with a triangle of grey paper which was not ideal for purpose, but I had to make do!  Thinking about this triangle, I realised that the hypotenuse had formed a spiral before I peeled it off.  So eureka! I found that I had the height of the triangle together with the base length (from diameter and angle of turn) from which I could calculate the length of the hypotenuse and hence the length of a spiral.   So the senior draughtsmen were both relieved and highly impressed.

So to get to this solution, I had to recall previous knowledge back into my current conscious awareness.  I then had to consciously manipulate this knowledge to reach the desired goal of discovering a method for calculating the length of a spiral.  Could all this have been accomplished by sub conscious brain activity before it emerged into my conscious awareness?  I think not.  Nor was my conscious control "just the way it seemed".

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I did not wish to preach to the converted, and I thought it was appropriate for the title of this thread.

If you want to preach to anyone but not to discuss anything then don't do it here.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Just another confirmation of what I see as conscious control of thought processes:

Many years ago I was an apprentice draughtsman in a large drawing office for a steel fabricator.  There was a problem in detailing the requirements for a spiral staircase.  No one in the office knew of a formula for calculating the length of a spiral, and there was no internet facility!  Having thought about the problem, I recalled once when I got to the end of a toilet roll and (for reasons which I will not disclose   ) I started to peel off a thin layer from the outside of the cardboard tube.  I finished up with a triangle of grey paper which was not ideal for purpose, but I had to make do!  Thinking about this triangle, I realised that the hypotenuse had formed a spiral before I peeled it off.  So eureka! I found that I had the height of the triangle together with the base length (from diameter and angle of turn) from which I could calculate the length of the hypotenuse and hence the length of a spiral.   So the senior draughtsmen were both relieved and highly impressed.

So to get to this solution, I had to recall previous knowledge back into my current conscious awareness.  I then had to consciously manipulate this knowledge to reach the desired goal of discovering a method for calculating the length of a spiral.  Could all this have been accomplished by sub conscious brain activity before it emerged into my conscious awareness?  I think not.  Nor was my conscious control "just the way it seemed".

Is there any point in asking you yet again how you’d propose to get from your incredulity about that to “therefore it’s impossible”, let alone to explain how inserting an invisible little man at the controls wouldn't fall foul of the homunculus fallacy – ie, how fixing a "problem" with one entity doing its own decision-making by moving it to another entity to do the decision-making instead wouldn't just relocate the problem rather than solve it?

https://dictionary.apa.org/homunculus

Just repeating nonsense doesn’t make it less nonsensical. You should know this by now. Really you should.   

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Is there any point in asking you yet again how you’d propose to get from your incredulity about that to “therefore it’s impossible”, let alone to explain how inserting an invisible little man at the controls wouldn't fall foul of the homunculus fallacy – ie, how fixing a "problem" with one entity doing its own decision-making by moving it to another entity to do the decision-making instead wouldn't just relocate the problem rather than solve it?

https://dictionary.apa.org/homunculus

Just repeating nonsense doesn’t make it less nonsensical. You should know this by now. Really you should.

The circular reasoning referred to in the homunculus link is entirely derived from the need for continuous "cause and effect" events as seen in observed material behaviour.  What I continue to point out is the impossibility for all our perceived conscious control to be entirely derived from material reactions over which we can have no conscious control.  Do you honestly believe that my ability to deduce the formula for the length of a spiral could have been formed by sub conscious brain activity before it popped into my conscious awareness?  This involves far more that the bland assumption of personal incredulity.  Just as God is the ultimate source of all that exists, I am the ultimate source of my consciously driven directives.  No need for endless chains of "invisible men" or turtles.

[Outrider]

The circular reasoning referred to in the homunculus link is entirely derived from the need for continuous "cause and effect" events as seen in observed material behaviour.

That's a valid criticism, but implicit in it is the need for you to explain a non-material methodology for determining your conclusions, including a mechanism by which that non-material system could interact with the material system that we have a wealth of evidence for. Whilst you are at liberty to just dismiss conventional scientific enquiry, the reason people resort to it is that it has a demonstrable track record. If you're using something else you need to establish its bona fides, not just claim that you're not bound by conventional science and therefore your unevidenced conclusion stands.

What I continue to point out is the impossibility for all our perceived conscious control to be entirely derived from material reactions over which we can have no conscious control. Do you honestly believe that my ability to deduce the formula for the length of a spiral could have been formed by sub conscious brain activity before it popped into my conscious awareness?

If you're suggesting 'impossibility' then what people do or do not believe is not the point, belief is the issue where the point can't be proven or disproven. As it happens, I do believe that, so by definition I don't think it's impossible. You stretching your sense of incredulity through some hypothetical sense of implied probability to 'therefore impossible' just isn't rigorous enough to convince.

This involves far more that the bland assumption of personal incredulity.

Excellent. Then you need to spell out that 'more', because so far it's appeals to 'do you believe' because you don't.

Just as God is the ultimate source of all that exists, I am the ultimate source of my consciously driven directives.

If that's your start point then we aren't talking about possible and impossible, you're starting from an unproveable claim, and deriving conclusions from that which are therefore equally unproveable. You have that right, you can believe that at your liberty, but it's not a basis for arguing that other people should adopt a similar belief.

No need for endless chains of "invisible men" or turtles.

But if your 'consciousness' needs something to drive it because reasons, it's rather arbitrary to suggest that the driver itself doesn't need something 'conscious' to drive it in turn, and so on. You need to establish what that baseline origin of consciousness is if you want to suggest that it can't possibly be material, because if all you have is 'manifestations of conscious need an independent driver' without establishing a basis for terminating that chain then you do end up with an endless chain.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The circular reasoning referred to in the homunculus link is entirely derived from the need for continuous "cause and effect" events as seen in observed material behaviour.

Sort of – what it actually does though is to explain that you cannot solve a (supposed) problem by just relocating it. If for some reason you think the naturalistic paradigm for decision-making is impossible, then just asserting something else to do the decision-making instead answers nothing. 

What I continue to point out is the impossibility for all our perceived conscious control to be entirely derived from material reactions over which we can have no conscious control.

No, you don’t “point that out” at all – you declare it and assert it, but no matter how many times you’ve been asked you’ll never, ever justify that claim with an argument.

Do you honestly believe that my ability to deduce the formula for the length of a spiral could have been formed by sub conscious brain activity before it popped into my conscious awareness?

I see no reason not to, but what I believe about this is neither here nor here. You’re the one who tells us you’re not convinced by it, you’re the one who jumps straight from “I’m not convinced” to “therefore it’s impossible” so it’s your burden of proof to find an argument to take you from the former to the latter.

This involves far more that the bland assumption of personal incredulity.

But as personal incredulity is all you’ve ever managed to produce here (“I’m not convinced”) why should anyone take that claim seriously? What is this supposed “far more” of which you speak? In the unlikely event that you want to try at least to answer that, try to remember too that as soon as you frame your reply as a question about what other people think you’ve negated the effort.   

Just as God is the ultimate source of all that exists,…

Fallacy of reification. What “God” would that be that you’ve just inserted into your claim?

… I am the ultimate source of my consciously driven directives.  No need for endless chains of "invisible men" or turtles.

What do you mean by “I” here – the automaton Alan Burns you think there to be? The invisible little homunculus at the controls you think does your decision-making for you and then pulls some magic levers to make “you” do as your told? What?

And, yet again, if you do still want to cling to your little man at the controls notion how would you then propose to avoid the homunculus fallacy?     

[Alan Burns]

I see no reason not to ......

While I see a huge improbability of unguided brain activity being able to solve a problem which was conceived (and solved) within my conscious awareness.

Do I detect a fallacy of hiding your head in the sand?

[Alan Burns]

What do you mean by “I” here –

My soul of course - which is not something emerging from unavoidable material reactions, but which is an entity of awareness with the ability to wilfully interact rather than react within this material world.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

While I see a huge improbability of unguided brain activity being able to solve a problem which was conceived (and solved) within my conscious awareness.

Do I detect a fallacy of hiding your head in the sand?

Yes – argument by assertion. You forgot to tell us WHY you think that to be improbable, let alone impossible.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

My soul of course - which is not something emerging from unavoidable material reactions, but which is an entity of awareness with the ability to wilfully interact rather than react within this material world.

Actually, which is not something you’ve ever been able to demonstrate to exist at all either as a necessity or a as a fact, and nor have you been able even to suggest how such a thing would get you off the hook of the homunculus fallacy.

Apart from all that though…
 

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Yes – argument by assertion. You forgot to tell us WHY you think that to be improbable, let alone impossible.

I am at a loss to understand why you presume that unguided material reactions alone could have possibly conceived of and solved the problem of deducing the formula for calculating the length of a spiral staircase.  Obviously you are working from the premise that there is nothing but material reactions involved - therefore you see no problem ....

[Alan Burns]

.... and nor have you been able even to suggest how such a thing would get you off the hook of the homunculus fallacy.

You vastly underestimate the power of the human soul.
And you vastly over estimate what can be achieved by unguided material reactions.

[Nearly Sane]

You vastly underestimate the power of the human soul.

Wibble

[Outrider]

My soul of course - which is not something emerging from unavoidable material reactions, but which is an entity of awareness with the ability to wilfully interact rather than react within this material world.

Fixed that for you 

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I am at a loss to understand why you presume that unguided material reactions alone could have possibly conceived of and solved the problem of deducing the formula for calculating the length of a spiral staircase.  Obviously you are working from the premise that there is nothing but material reactions involved - therefore you see no problem ....   

Stop right there. Whether or not you can see why I think things is nether here nor there. You’re the one claiming either highly improbable or impossible (you flip-flop between these two, very different, positions) so it’s your job to justify your claim about that. Stop trying to shift the burden of proof and focus instead on the claim you’re making by – finally – justifying it.

What’s stopping you?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You vastly underestimate the power of the human soul.

So I explain to you that you’ve failed to demonstrate that there even is such a thing as a "soul" and, even if you had, that you’d still be stuck with the homunculus fallacy and instead of addressing these problems you just ignore them in favour of vacuous drivel about how powerful this entirely reified (another fallacy) “soul” supposedly is. It's equivalent to me claiming leprechauns to be real, you asking me to justify my claim and my replying by telling you that you underestimate how musical they are.

What does your blatant and repeated dishonesty say about you do you think? 

[Sebastian Toe]

My soul of course - which is not something emerging from unavoidable material reactions, but which is an entity of awareness with the ability to wilfully interact rather than react within this material world.

What does your soul do when it is not "connected" to your material brain?