Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

In your mind it may be conceived as a logical impossibility, but in coming to this conclusion you seem unable to grasp that you had to have used your conscious control of the thought processes needed to achieve it.

If it’s logical impossible (and it is) then this idiocy is falsified ab initio.

It is a demonstrable reality with no need for infinite regress.

Ah, so you’re back to your pet lie of claiming something to be “demonstrable" without actually being able to demonstrate it at all then.

Jesus just called for you – he was in tears. He asked me to ask you to stop lying in his name. 

You are the ultimate source of control.

But “you” cannot be the logically impossible bipartite model your blind faith wants it to be.

Try to remember this. 

[Enki]

In your mind it may be conceived as a logical impossibility, but in coming to this conclusion you seem unable to grasp that you had to have used your conscious control of the thought processes needed to achieve it.

It is a demonstrable reality with no need for infinite regress.
You are the ultimate source of control.

I tend to think that our brain needs information to make sense of the world enough to build a picture which is conducive to our evolutionary needs.  Hence such senses as sight and hearing are prominent in feeding information back to our brains. However, with the vast amount of information being processed by our brains, we need some sort of focus to extrapolate what our brains consider to be important at any particular time. This could be explained by what we call consciousness where the brain is constantly directing and receiving relevant data at the same time. This data might well be from our senses or our short term memories for instance. But the point is, is that it is an interactive focussed process. in this scenario consciousness is constantly informing the brain and the brain, which is composed of many unconscious processes is actually directing our consciousness. This whole idea is very similar to the  Global workspace theory of which more can be found here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_workspace_theory


I am not for one moment suggesting that these ideas are necessarily correct. Indeed they might be totally wrong, but I would suggest that they are at least feasible.

So now what about your constant refrain of suggesting that we are demonstrably showing evidence for your idea of controlling our own thoughts as evidence for this 'soul' idea every time we reply on this forum?

1) It has an illogical impasse

2) Saying that something is demonstrated is not the same as actually demonstrating that something, especially as other explanations are available.

3) Using magic or the supernatural to get over problems(such as the illogic of your idea of conscious control of your thoughts) is not applicable because it has no explanatory content.

Therefore, and accepting your ability to repeat ad nauseam the same mantra, it seems to be a dead end as far as explanation goes.

[Sebastian Toe]

In your mind it may be conceived as a logical impossibility, but in coming to this conclusion you seem unable to grasp that you had to have used your conscious control of the thought processes needed to achieve it.

It is a demonstrable reality with no need for infinite regress.
You are the ultimate source of control.

And you seem unable to grasp that it is you biological brain that is doing the thinking for you without the need to invoke a magic requiring unevidenced, unexplained "soul".

[Gordon]

I am sure that everyone gets odd thoughts occasionally.
But this in no way detracts from our power to consciously direct our thoughts to achieve consciously chosen goals.

But if, as you say, you are in control of your thoughts then where do these odd thoughts come from - you concede that odd thoughts happen without apparently realising that your concesssion undermines your claims.
 

And I am quite sure that many of the "odd thoughts" which pop into my mind are divinely inspired to bring my attention to what is truly important in our lives.

So a divine agent does a good line in odd thoughts - pull the other one!

Conversely some of the "odd thoughts" can be put there by the evil one to tempt me away from God's love.

Dear oh dear.

[Alan Burns]

If it’s logical impossible (and it is) then this idiocy is falsified ab initio.

So please explain how your conscious mind came to the realisation that conscious control of your own thoughts is a logical impossibility.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

So please explain how your conscious mind came to the realisation that conscious control of your own thoughts is a logical impossibility.

Have you genuinely not understood a word of the explanation(s) I and others have given you for why that question has no relevance at all to the logical impossibility of your "soul" conjecture?

Not one word?

Nothing?

Zip?

Sweet FA?

Could you perhaps find an averagely intelligent ten-year-old to explain it to you?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Have you genuinely not understood a word of the explanation(s) I and others have given you for why that question has no relevance at all to the logical impossibility of your "soul" conjecture?

I have never had a feasible explanation for why this question has no relevance - the fact that you keep avoiding to answer it shows how relevant it is, so I will ask again, and keep asking until I get an answer:

So please explain how your conscious mind came to the realisation that conscious control of your own thoughts is a logical impossibility.

[Stranger]

I have never had a feasible explanation for why this question has no relevance - the fact that you keep avoiding to answer it shows how relevant it is, so I will ask again, and keep asking until I get an answer:

So please explain how your conscious mind came to the realisation that conscious control of your own thoughts is a logical impossibility.

This has been explained endlessly to you. By considering the logic of the situation and realising that the obvious meaning of "conscious control of your own thoughts" is absurd because it immediately leads to an infinite regress as it would requires us to consciously think about each conscious thought before we thought it. Even you have called it 'silly', and, given that you rejected that definition, to date...

I'm still waiting for a proper definition of what "conscious control of our own thoughts" even means that isn't question begging or a dishonest attempt at re-labelling.

[Sebastian Toe]

I have never had a feasible explanation for why this question has no relevance - the fact that you keep avoiding to answer it shows how relevant it is, so I will ask again, and keep asking until I get an answer:

So please explain how your conscious mind came to the realisation that conscious control of your own thoughts is a logical impossibility.

Alan,
you seem unable to grasp that it is you biological brain that is doing the thinking for you without the need to invoke a magic requiring unevidenced, unexplained "soul".

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I have never had a feasible explanation for why this question has no relevance - the fact that you keep avoiding to answer it shows how relevant it is, so I will ask again, and keep asking until I get an answer:

So please explain how your conscious mind came to the realisation that conscious control of your own thoughts is a logical impossibility.

Why are you still lying about this? The feasible explanation for why it’s not relevant is that no answer to that (no matter what it is) can somehow make your logically impossible alternative (“soul”) in some mysterious way logically possible.

There’s only one way to do that, and that’s to find an argument that’s sound and that rebuts the argument for why it’s impossible.

And no: 

– “Its obvious” is not an argument.

– “I assure you” is not an argument.

– “The reality we all perceive” is not an argument.

And why aren't these placemarkers you try instead of the arguments you claim to have but never produce arguments in their own right? That's right - because they're just descriptions of your perceptions. And when your perception of how something occurs and the logic for how something occurs contradict each other, it’s you perception that’s wrong.

Can you work out why?

[Alan Burns]

By considering the logic of the situation and realising that the obvious meaning of "conscious control of your own thoughts" is absurd because it immediately leads to an infinite regress as it would requires us to consciously think about each conscious thought before we thought it. Even you have called it 'silly', and, given that you rejected that definition, to date...

BUT HOW ON EARTH CAN YOU POSSIBLY CONSCIOUSLY CONSIDER THE LOGIC OF THE SITUATION WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO CONTROL YOUR OWN THOUGHT PROCESSES ?

[Alan Burns]

I'm still waiting for a proper definition of what "conscious control of our own thoughts" even means that isn't question begging or a dishonest attempt at re-labelling.

You know perfectly well what it means - you employ it with every conscious thought process.

[Alan Burns]

There’s only one way to do that, and that’s to find an argument that’s sound and that rebuts the argument for why it’s impossible.

But how can you find an argument which is sound without being able to direct your own conscious thoughts to compile and verify said argument?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But how can you find an argument which is sound without being able to direct your own conscious thoughts to compile and verify said argument?

Doesn't matter. An argument is either sound or unsound, and it's sound when its premises are true and its reasoning is valid. That's how we know that your "soul" conjecture is logically impossible. It's also how we know that your incredulity about a different explanation doesn't change that. Even if every hypotheses you're given about how consciousness works is wrong, that still doesn't change the fact of your alternative being as wrong as it ever was.

Do you suppose this simple fact will ever sink in for you?

     

[Stranger]

BUT HOW ON EARTH CAN YOU POSSIBLY CONSCIOUSLY CONSIDER THE LOGIC OF THE SITUATION WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO CONTROL YOUR OWN THOUGHT PROCESSES ?

It doesn't matter. You are trying to shift the burden of proof (another fallacy). It's you who is trying to support a proposition about it, not me. It's entirely up to you to make your case.

You know perfectly well what it means - you employ it with every conscious thought process.

Drivel. Since you have rejected the obvious definition, I have no no idea at all what you mean by it. So, I'll keep on asking until you can be bothered to even properly define what your claim even means.

What do you mean by "conscious control of our own thought processes"?

ETA: Quite frankly, I don't think you even know what you mean by it. It seems to be nothing more than a vague feeling that 'you' are in control somehow that you need to be true to satisfy your blind, irrational faith.

[Gordon]

BUT HOW ON EARTH CAN YOU POSSIBLY CONSCIOUSLY CONSIDER THE LOGIC OF THE SITUATION WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO CONTROL YOUR OWN THOUGHT PROCESSES ?

Logical steps that underpin an argument are one thing - your inability to understand the logical problem implicit in your claim is another thing entirely.

You are the problem here, Alan: your particular bespoke form of religious faith has left you 'logic blind'. Drop the 'God' nonsense and your understanding of logic and argument will improve for sure.

[Alan Burns]

Drop the 'God' nonsense and your understanding of logic and argument will improve for sure.

Without the power to consciously control our own thought processes how can anyone possibly contemplate the validity of any logic or argument?
We could not even start to consciously understand anything if we have no conscious control of our own thoughts.
Are you afraid of accepting the inevitable consequences of having conscious control of your own thoughts?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Doesn't matter. An argument is either sound or unsound, and it's sound when its premises are true and its reasoning is valid. That's how we know that your "soul" conjecture is logically impossible. It's also how we know that your incredulity about a different explanation doesn't change that. Even if every hypotheses you're given about how consciousness works is wrong, that still doesn't change the fact of your alternative being as wrong as it ever was.
   

BUT HOW DO YOU CONSCIOUSLY DETERMINE IF AN ARGUMENT IS SOUND OR UNSOUND?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Without the power to consciously control our own thought processes how can anyone possibly contemplate the validity of any logic or argument?

Irrelevant. “Soul” is your claim. It’s logically impossible for the reasons that have been set out for you countless times without rebuttal. That’s the problem you need to address, not demanding answers about something else.
 

We could not even start to consciously understand anything if we have no conscious control of our own thoughts.

Bullshit, but irrelevant in any case. “Soul” is your claim. It’s logically impossible for the reasons that have been set out for you countless times without rebuttal. That’s the problem you need to address, not demanding answers about something else.
 

Are you afraid of accepting the inevitable consequences of having conscious control of your own thoughts?

Begging the question fallacy, but irrelevant in any case. “Soul” is your claim. It’s logically impossible for the reasons that have been set out for you countless times without rebuttal. That’s the problem you need to address, not demanding answers about something else.

[Stranger]

Without the power to consciously control our own thought processes how can anyone possibly contemplate the validity of any logic or argument?

Oh, do stop chanting your dimwitted mantras at us all, it's extremely tedious and makes you look like an idiot. You haven't even defined what you mean by your silly phrase. Yet again:

What do you mean by "conscious control of our own thought processes"?

We could not even start to consciously understand anything if we have no conscious control of our own thoughts.

Meaningless assertion.

Are you afraid of accepting the inevitable consequences of having conscious control of your own thoughts?

I have no idea what you even mean by it!

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

BUT HOW DO YOU CONSCIOUSLY DETERMINE IF AN ARGUMENT IS SOUND OR UNSOUND?

Still irrelevant. Whatever the answer is, it cannot make your logically impossible answer into the correct one.

Yet again...your speculation “soul” would have to do some thinking of its own.

This would initiate an infinite regress.

An infinite regress is logically impossible.

How then do you propose resolve your problem with your conjecture “soul”?   

[Gordon]

Without the power to consciously control our own thought processes how can anyone possibly contemplate the validity of any logic or argument?

Nobody has said we don't have capacity to think within our intellectual contraints.

We could not even start to consciously understand anything if we have no conscious control of our own thoughts.

You have the ability to think, after a fashion, but that does not involve being able to think about what your next thought should be before thinking it - that, as you've been told, is incoherent and illogical nonsense.

Are you afraid of accepting the inevitable consequences of having conscious control of your own thoughts?

Nope - I'm not afraid of the impossible.

[torridon]

So please explain how your conscious mind came to the realisation that conscious control of your own thoughts is a logical impossibility.

I'm pretty sure that if I could control the flow of thoughts, then I'd select only the good thoughts to have, and reject the rubbish ones.  Unfortunately, it doesn't work like that, and furthermore, could not possibly work like that.  We get the thoughts that we get, for better or worse.

[Sebastian Toe]

BUT HOW ON EARTH CAN YOU POSSIBLY CONSCIOUSLY CONSIDER THE LOGIC OF THE SITUATION WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO CONTROL YOUR OWN THOUGHT PROCESSES ?

Alan,
you seem unable to grasp that it is your biological brain that is doing the thinking for you without the need to invoke a magic requiring unevidenced, unexplained "soul".

[Sebastian Toe]

You know perfectly well what it means - you employ it with every conscious thought process.

Once more for clarity, you seem unable to grasp that it is your brain that is doing the thinking for you without the need to invoke a magic requiring unevidenced, unexplained "soul".