Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

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

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.

You have not answered the question:

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]

You have not answered the question:

No I haven't, and if you'd could have been arsed to read and understand my reply, you'd know why.

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.

Yet again, you show a total lack of understanding of basic logic. People have given you what we know about this, but it's logically irrelevant.

Your question is of the form "Explain X without Y being true", where Y is a logical impossibility. So it's logically equivalent to saying "Please explain how arithmetic works without one being equal to two?" In other words, totally nonsensical.

And you are again trying to use an argument from ignorance fallacy (basic mistake in logic). You're basically saying that unless we can show that your 'solution' is wrong, then it must be right. It is basic logic 101 that this doesn't follow.

If you are going to engage in a logical debate, at least get a basic education in the subject, for fuck's sake! As I keep pointing out (assuming you haven't been lying about your background) it shouldn't take you long to learn. Certainly a small fraction of the time you've spent here telling the world how clueless you are about basic logic.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You have not answered the question:

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.

Presumably because it has no relevance at all to justifying your faith claim "soul".

PS Just to be clear here: you're accusing someone else of not answering a question?

Really though?

Wow!   

[Alan Burns]

No I haven't, and if you'd could have been arsed to read and understand my reply, you'd know why.

Yet again, you show a total lack of understanding of basic logic. People have given you what we know about this, but it's logically irrelevant.

Your question is of the form "Explain X without Y being true", where Y is a logical impossibility. So it's logically equivalent to saying "Please explain how arithmetic works without one being equal to two?" In other words, totally nonsensical.

One being equal to two is a demonstrable impossibility.

What is also impossible is your ability to come up with validated logical conclusions in your conscious awareness without conscious control and guidance of your own thoughts.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

One being equal to two is a demonstrable impossibility.

Not in the magic realm I’ve just conjured up where logically coherent rules of mathematics no longer apply it isn’t.

As that’s exactly what you’ve done to get you off the hook of a different demonstrable impossibility – ie a stand-alone decision maker that doesn’t then require another decision-maker of its own and so on forever – presumably we’re both permitted the same get out of jail free card right? 

What is also impossible is your ability to come up with validated logical conclusions in your conscious awareness without conscious control and guidance of your own thoughts.

Just asserting idiocies doesn’t make them less idiotic. If you think that the materialistic model of decision-making is impossible then you need to explain why rather than just assert it to be so. And even if you could do that (and you can’t) you’d also need to explain what on earth that would have to do with validating your invisible wee magic man assertion “soul”.

Will this ever sink in do you think?   

[Stranger]

What is also impossible is your ability to come up with validated logical conclusions in your conscious awareness without conscious control and guidance of your own thoughts.

You have been given arguments as to why "conscious control and guidance of your own thoughts" is impossible, so how about you stop behaving like a spoiled toddler and just demanding over and over again that you're right and everybody else is wrong, and address said arguments or give it up.

In other words: grow the fuck up.

[Alan Burns]

Yet again, you show a total lack of understanding of basic logic.

Where does the concept of logic emanate from?
There is only one place where everything we have ever known exists.
There is only one place where we exist.
There is only one place from where we can formulate logic.
There is only one place from where we can apply logic.
There is only one place from where we can cast judgement of what is logical and what is not.

Your conscious awareness.

[Stranger]

Where does the concept of logic emanate from?
There is only one place where everything we have ever known exists.
There is only one place where we exist.
There is only one place from where we can formulate logic.
There is only one place from where we can apply logic.
There is only one place from where we can cast judgement of what is logical and what is not.

Your conscious awareness.

Mindless, meaningless, irrelevant rant.   

[Alan Burns]

Mindless, meaningless, irrelevant rant.   

You seem to be implying that our conscious awareness is irrelevant to the conception, formulation and implementation of logic.
I suggest you (consciously) re-asses your ideas about the role of conscious awareness in your earthly life.

[torridon]

You seem to be implying that our conscious awareness is irrelevant to the conception, formulation and implementation of logic.
I suggest you (consciously) re-asses your ideas about the role of conscious awareness in your earthly life.

Conscius awareness is involved in the conception, formulation and implementation of logic.  Clearly you cannot do these things whilst you are unconscious.  However, it is not the simple driver of such mental cogitations as people intuitively assume, but rather it is something which is itself is driven by non-conscious mental processes.  We  have no conscious control over these subliminal processes but rather the feeling of being in control is an output, or consequence of them.

[Stranger]

You seem to be implying that our conscious awareness is irrelevant to the conception, formulation and implementation of logic.
I suggest you (consciously) re-asses your ideas about the role of conscious awareness in your earthly life.

If you really think I implied that, then you need to brush up on your English comprehension as well as basic logic. Your level of attention also needs work as I have made my views about the role of consciousness clear many times before.

If you're going to make suggestions, some sort of rationale might be in order as well as realising that the best time to make them is probably not after repeatedly posting multiple obviously illogical, baseless assertions on the subject involved.

[Alan Burns]

Conscius awareness is involved in the conception, formulation and implementation of logic.  Clearly you cannot do these things whilst you are unconscious.  However, it is not the simple driver of such mental cogitations as people intuitively assume, but rather it is something which is itself is driven by non-conscious mental processes.  We  have no conscious control over these subliminal processes but rather the feeling of being in control is an output, or consequence of them.

So how does a feeling of being in control achieve the essential control needed to formulate, implement and verify the processes involved in logical deductions?  What is accountable for the results?  How can the results be judged without conscious control of thoughts?

[Stranger]

So how does a feeling of being in control achieve the essential control needed to formulate, implement and verify the processes involved in logical deductions?  What is accountable for the results?  How can the results be judged without conscious control of thoughts?

More repetitive dimwittery.   

It matters not one jot to the impossibility of conscious control of thought processes. This somehow manages to blend begging the question with an argument from ignorance. Both of which are basic logical mistakes that anybody with a hint of a grasp of logic would know better than to use.

[torridon]

So how does a feeling of being in control achieve the essential control needed to formulate, implement and verify the processes involved in logical deductions?  What is accountable for the results?  How can the results be judged without conscious control of thoughts?

This ground has already been covered umpteen times on this thread.  All the real work goes on 'under the hood' and we have already reached a conclusion by the time that we experience the satisfaction and the attribution of that to an inner 'self'. 

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01924/full

Such insights from cognitive neuroscience my be counterintuitive and are of interest to people with an interest in how minds evolved and work but are not really necessary to understand that the idea that we can 'manipulate' our thoughts makes no sense.  We have thoughts, but we do not consciously elicit, procure or change them in any way.

[Alan Burns]

This ground has already been covered umpteen times on this thread.  All the real work goes on 'under the hood' and we have already reached a conclusion by the time that we experience the satisfaction and the attribution of that to an inner 'self'. 

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01924/full

Such insights from cognitive neuroscience my be counterintuitive and are of interest to people with an interest in how minds evolved and work but are not really necessary to understand that the idea that we can 'manipulate' our thoughts makes no sense.  We have thoughts, but we do not consciously elicit, procure or change them in any way.

It must be so sad for God to see how people use their precious gift of freedom to try to analyse their gift of freedom and come to the bizarre conclusion that it does not exist.

[Nearly Sane]

It must be so sad for God to see how people use their precious gift of freedom to try to analyse their gift of freedom and come to the bizarre conclusion that it does not exist.

Why would your god condemn them for that?


ETA - btw is your god just guessing about what will happen?

[Maeght]

It must be so sad for God to see how people use their precious gift of freedom to try to analyse their gift of freedom and come to the bizarre conclusion that it does not exist.

Isn't God supposed to know what would happen and didn't he make those people who have reached those conclusions in such a way as they would do that?

[Stranger]

It must be so sad for God to see how people use their precious gift of freedom to try to analyse their gift of freedom and come to the bizarre conclusion that it does not exist.

What exactly do you imagine the point of posting this inane fantasy was?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It must be so sad for God to see…

So a universe creating god possessed of the omnis nonetheless feels “sad” when the creatures he created and installed on an infinitesimally insignificant speck of near-nothing due for consumption in the heat death of its sun actually exercise the “free” will he bestowed upon them?

And you seriously believe this anthropomorphising juvenilia?

Seriously though?   

…how people use their precious gift of freedom to try to analyse their gift of freedom …

You can’t have a “gift” unless you establish first a giver.

Try to remember this.

…and come to the bizarre conclusion that it does not exist.

Just calling something “bizarre” without sound reasoning to support the claim is (yet another) fallacy called poisoning the well. It’s not the “free” will as you fondly imagine it to be does not exist, it’s that it cannot exist for the reasons you’ve been given countless times that you cannot or will not ever address.   

What do you get from your fundamentally dishonest behaviour here?

[Nearly Sane]

AB,

So a universe creating god possessed of the omnis nonetheless feels “sad” when the creatures he created and installed on an infinitesimally insignificant speck of near-nothing due for consumption in the heat death of its sun actually exercise the “free” will he bestowed upon them?

And you seriously believe this anthropomorphising juvenilia?

Seriously though?   

You can’t have a “gift” unless you establish first a giver.

Try to remember this.

Just calling something “bizarre” without sound reasoning to support the claim is (yet another) fallacy called poisoning the well. It’s not the “free” will as you fondly imagine it to be does not exist, it’s that it cannot exist for the reasons you’ve been given countless times that you cannot or will not ever address.   

What do you get from your fundamentally dishonest behaviour here?

This is one of those posts that uses 2 levels of discussion, and ends up being internally contradictory.


On the logical level, free will doesn't exist.

However, given that, it makes no sense to talk about dishonesty since Alan has no free will to do otherwise. Yoy've slipped into discussing things on a day to day level where we notionally accept something like 'free will'.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

This is one of those posts that uses 2 levels of discussion, and ends up being internally contradictory.


On the logical level, free will doesn't exist.

However, given that, it makes no sense to talk about dishonesty since Alan has no free will to do otherwise. Yoy've slipped into discussing things on a day to day level where we notionally accept something like 'free will'.

You’ve tried this before, and no it doesn’t.  Yes, on a logical level “free” will as AB imagines it to be cannot exist. What then should we do with this information – give up entirely on legal processes, marriage, social codes of behaviour etc on the basis that, at one level, no-one can actually make choices about these things and so cannot be accountable for their “decisions”?

Or should we instead accept that different (and sometimes mutually contradictory) realities and truths exist at different levels of abstraction, and that it’s vital if we’re to function at all as social creatures to behave as if our lived experience of free will mirrored the underlying realty of free will?

When I took my kids to the zoo I’d happily say “look at the koala bears” and we’d all know where to look, but at the same time I’d be fully aware that koalas aren’t bears at all. That’s life.

So what though? 

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

You’ve tried this before, and no it doesn’t.  Yes, on a logical level “free” will as AB imagines it to be cannot exist. What then should we do with this information – give up entirely on legal processes, marriage, social codes of behaviour etc on the basis that, at one level, no-one can actually make choices about these things and so cannot be accountable for their “decisions”?

Or should we instead accept that different (and sometimes mutually contradictory) realities and truths exist at different levels of abstraction, and that it’s vital if we’re to function at all as social creatures to behave as if our lived experience of free will mirrored the underlying realty of free will?

When I took my kids to the zoo I’d happily say “look at the koala bears” and we’d all know where to look, but at the same time I’d be fully aware that koalas aren’t bears at all. That’s life.

So what though?

'mutually contradictory' means you are contradicting yourself. Thanks for admitting it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

'mutually contradictory' means you are contradicting yourself. Thanks for admitting it.

I haven't "admitted" something – I just explained to you that you'd made a point without significance.

[Stranger]

On the logical level, free will doesn't exist.

However, given that, it makes no sense to talk about dishonesty since Alan has no free will to do otherwise. Yoy've slipped into discussing things on a day to day level where we notionally accept something like 'free will'.

This doesn't follow at all. There is nothing about determinism that negates dishonesty. If somebody says something they know to be untrue, that is still dishonest. There is also nothing wrong with pointing it out, since there is nothing that prevents a person from realising their dishonesty and changing their approach accordingly. In a deterministic system, every new input to a person's mind can potentially change it in any number of ways.

[Alan Burns]

Or should we instead accept that different (and sometimes mutually contradictory) realities and truths exist at different levels of abstraction ....

In this one statement you are implying that we have a choice over which reality or truth to accept.

Yes we do indeed have a choice - but there is only one truth and only one reality.
Our choice is to either accept it or reject it.