Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

It would appear that what you believe about the workings of our conscious mind is somewhat different to what I believe.

That would probably be because what you believe involves self-contradiction and an infinite regress, both of which are logically impossible.

Are you ever going to face up to this? Are you ever going to try to justify the nonsensical gibberish of "the ever present state of conscious awareness" or address all the problems raised about "consciously control our own thought processes", or are you just going to continue to be an intellectual coward and run away all the time?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It would appear that what you believe about the workings of our conscious mind is somewhat different to what I believe.

Yes, because what I believe relies on reason and evidence and what you believe rejects that reason and evidence out of hand and relies on blind faith instead.

How do we arrive at these beliefs?

See above.

What comprises belief?

?

Belief is that which we consider most likely to be true.

In my case, I am aware of many things in my conscious awareness, and in order to make sense of what I perceive I consciously contemplate whatever data exists in my mind by manipulating my conscious thoughts in order to reach conclusions which I consciously verify and test using my ability to think things out.

We all do that. Your mistake though is to assume the experience of these things requires a separate “I” somehow not governed by rules of physics or even of logic rather than a single, integrated unit we call “mind”.

I know that's hopeless because your model is logically impossible, and I know your attempted solution that that – ie, a magic god functioning outwith time, logic and anything else we understand about the universe – to be the avoidance of an answer. It’s just incoherent. White noise. Not even wrong.       

However you, Blue, apparently have a different approach.
Whatever you experience in you conscious awareness has just emerged as a property of material reactions.
Your apparent control of your thought is "just the way it seems" because such control cannot exist because you have no controller.
So the concept of belief will have just somehow popped into your conscious awareness without any consciously controlled verification.
No doubt you will correct me if I am wrong.

I have done – many times in fact but as you will never engage with the corrections you’re given it’s a fool’s errand.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

So on a day to day level, you act as of the futire bring fixed is untrue. So your post where you raised the idea of the future being fixed, and then talked about trying to improve future behaviour was at best talking at 2 completely different levels, and internally contradictory.

Inasmuch as none of us can have “true” choice as AB fondly imagines there to be, yes.

What “choice” had you not to post as you just did? 

[Nearly Sane]

NS,
 

Inasmuch as none of us can have “true” choice as AB fondly imagines there to be, yes.

What “choice” had you not to post as you just did?

Not getting your point here? Are you saying that Outrider's post where he talked about the future being fixed, and then in the next para talked about trying to change future behaviour is not internally inconsistent?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Not getting your point here? Are you saying that Outrider's post where he talked about the future being fixed, and then in the next para talked about trying to change future behaviour is not internally inconsistent?

They’re internally inconsistent inasmuch as the narratives we tell ourselves about the agency we have over decision-making at the experiential level don’t align with the underlying reality of what’s actually happening. As Outy suggests, we can enjoy it (or not) in the moment, but “we” are still essentially just along for the ride.     

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

They’re internally inconsistent inasmuch as the narratives we tell ourselves about the agency we have over decision-making at the experiential level don’t align with the underlying reality of what’s actually happening. As Outy suggests, we can enjoy it (or not) in the moment, but “we” are still essentially just along for the ride.     

So Outrider makes an argument against one of Alan's points on one level, and then makes an argument against another of Alan's points on a different level, and the two arguments that Outrider uses contradict each other directly, and you think that's fine?

[Outrider]

So on a day to day level, you act as of the futire bring fixed is untrue.

Yeah, it's weird, I admit. My turn for cognitive dissonance, I guess (but what choice do I have? )

So your post where you raised the idea of the future being fixed, and then talked about trying to improve future behaviour was at best talking at 2 completely different levels, and internally contradictory.

I don't see it as contradictory, as such, I maintain that the reality is that the future is fixed and unchangeable. I don't act in my day to day life in that fashion for a number of reasons, not least of which is just the difference between the traits that develop as children before you think logically about these things. When I'm not thinking about it I 'forget' that the future's fixed, I've been brought up to hope, to dream, to work for the future, and that's a hard habit to shake.

It parallels my idea that people aren't religious or irreligious for logical reasons, those logical reasons come after the fact and reinforce or recant it.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

Yeah, it's weird, I admit. My turn for cognitive dissonance, I guess (but what choice do I have? )

I don't see it as contradictory, as such, I maintain that the reality is that the future is fixed and unchangeable. I don't act in my day to day life in that fashion for a number of reasons, not least of which is just the difference between the traits that develop as children before you think logically about these things. When I'm not thinking about it I 'forget' that the future's fixed, I've been brought up to hope, to dream, to work for the future, and that's a hard habit to shake.

It parallels my idea that people aren't religious or irreligious for logical reasons, those logical reasons come after the fact and reinforce or recant it.

O.

The contradictory part is more about you replying to Alan on 2 different points in the one post, and using arguments that are in contradiction to each other.

And I agree as regards why people are theist or atheist - as I've expressed several times, the reasons given are rationalisations.

ETA I don't think it's possible to live as if you don't have free will. That it doesn't mean we actually have it, is in many ways uninteresting. The issue here is more that Alan often elides people writing about free will not existing in a philosophical sense, as if it's contradicted by them writing in the day to day
 sense. If you do that in the same post without making the distinction clear, then I think you in part validate his point.

[Alan Burns]

That would probably be because what you believe involves self-contradiction and an infinite regress, both of which are logically impossible.

You believe your ability to come to these conclusions can be achieved without the power to consciously control the thought processes involved.  I would say that arriving at these conclusions without the power to consciously guide your thoughts is in itself a logical impossibility.

[Stranger]

You believe your ability to come to these conclusions can be achieved without the power to consciously control the thought processes involved.  I would say that arriving at these conclusions without the power to consciously guide your thoughts is in itself a logical impossibility.

The difference being that you have bugger all in the way of logic or evidence to back up this absurd assertion, just blind, unreasoning faith. Added to which, you don't seem to have the first inkling of a clue about logic, making it doubly absurd.

[Alan Burns]

The difference being that you have bugger all in the way of logic or evidence to back up this absurd assertion, just blind, unreasoning faith. Added to which, you don't seem to have the first inkling of a clue about logic, making it doubly absurd.

Are you saying that the concept of guiding thoughts to reach validated conclusions is just an absurd assertion?

[torridon]

Are you saying that the concept of guiding thoughts to reach validated conclusions is just an absurd assertion?

Of course it is.  'Guiding' itself would be a thought process.  So what guides the guiding ?  All you are doing is invoking an infinite regress; hence the absurdity.

[Stranger]

Are you saying that the concept of guiding thoughts to reach validated conclusions is just an absurd assertion?

   Wow. You've always had an obvious problem with logic, now you seem to be struggling with English.

[Alan Burns]

Of course it is.  'Guiding' is itself would be a thought process.  So what guides the guiding ?  All you are doing is invoking an infinite regress; hence the absurdity.

What I am saying is that without conscious guidance and validation, how can any conclusion be achieved?

[Stranger]

What I am saying is that without conscious guidance and validation, how can any conclusion be achieved?

If 1 doesn't equal 2, how can arithmetic work? Makes as much sense as your question.   

I am, of course, assuming that you haven't changed your mind, and that the different wordings that you've used are just meant to rephrase "consciously control our own thought processes" to make it sound more 'reasonable' in some way. It all looks a bit grubby and dishonest, frankly. Have you thought of becoming a Tory MP?

[Sebastian Toe]

If 1 doesn't equal 2, how can arithmetic work? Makes as much sense as your question.   

. Have you thought of becoming a Tory MP?

Please don't sully Tory MPs!

[torridon]

What I am saying is that without conscious guidance and validation, how can any conclusion be achieved?

That 'conscious guidance' like all thought processes, has non-conscious origins. Conscious experiences and thoughts derive from the complex interplay of underlying neural processes and mechanisms that occur outside of our conscious awareness.  Conscious thoughts emerge from a non-conscious mental substrate.  We have no control over this or any other fundamental aspect of how minds work.

[Gordon]

What I am saying is that without conscious guidance and validation, how can any conclusion be achieved?

You make no sense -it's as if you've decided that all your thoughts appear spontaneously at your command, and without any antecedent processes, in order that you can feel that mentally control the process: and that would be chaotic.

The next time you find yourself feeling anxious for no good or specific reason (and I suspect we've all experienced that from time to time) does that mean that you consciously decided to feel a bit anxious for no good reason?

[Alan Burns]

If 1 doesn't equal 2, how can arithmetic work? Makes as much sense as your question.

What we do know is that 1 + 1 = 2
How do we know this?
How does it enter into our conscious awareness?
We need the power to consciously guide our thoughts to reach a validated conclusion.
A power which you claim is impossible.

[Stranger]

We need the power to consciously guide our thoughts to reach a validated conclusion.
A power which you claim is impossible.

Endlessly repeating the same mindless, thought-free drivel over and over again, is not going to make it magically transform from an idiotic assertion into something rational.

Do you really not understand this?

[Alan Burns]

Endlessly repeating the same mindless, thought-free drivel over and over again, is not going to make it magically transform from an idiotic assertion into something rational.

Do you really not understand this?

To really understand anything requires my ability to consciously guide my thoughts to reach a validated understanding of the subject.
Without such power to control my thoughts I would not understand anything.

[Stranger]

To really understand anything requires my ability to consciously guide my thoughts to reach a validated understanding of the subject.
Without such power to control my thoughts I would not understand anything.

You can stamp your little foot as hard as you like and as often as you like, this is still a mindless thought-free assertion.

ETA: Note that I and others have provided reasoning to back up our conclusion, you have not.

[Alan Burns]

You can stamp your little foot as hard as you like and as often as you like, this is still a mindless thought-free assertion.

ETA: Note that I and others have provided reasoning to back up our conclusion, you have not.

They have provided reasoning, (even though it is flawed), by using their power to consciously guide their thoughts to come up with validated, reasoned arguments.
Please explain how anyone can come up with reasoned arguments without the fundamental power to control and guide their thoughts to reach consciously validated conclusions.

[Stranger]

They have provided reasoning, (even though it is flawed), by using their power to consciously guide their thoughts to come up with validated, reasoned arguments.

Two mindless thought-free assertions for the price of one!

Please explain how anyone can come up with reasoned arguments without the fundamental power to control and guide their thoughts to reach consciously validated conclusions.

Argument from ignorance fallacy. A fallacy is a basic mistake in logic akin to thinking 2 + 2 = 5 in arithmetic.

Nobody has to provide an alternative to rule out your impossible, nonsensical, evidence- and reasoning-free fantasy.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

They have provided reasoning, (even though it is flawed), by using their power to consciously guide their thoughts to come up with validated, reasoned arguments.
Please explain how anyone can come up with reasoned arguments without the fundamental power to control and guide their thoughts to reach consciously validated conclusions.

“Problems in medicine do not mean that homeopathic sugar pills work; just because there are problems with aircraft design, that doesn't mean that magic carpets really fly.”

Ben Goldacre, Bad Pharma: How Drug Companies Mislead Doctors and Harm