Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

Quote from: Alan Burns on Today at 04:29:38 PM
If your conscious awareness is generated from within the timeline it will be entirely determined by preceding events...

You have given us no reason whatsoever (that isn't clearly and obviously wrong) to think that this isn't the case.

The reason exists in your consciously controlled ability to reason, contemplate, apply logic and come up with validated conclusions.

Quote from: Alan Burns on Today at 04:29:38 PM
...with no possibility of control, manipulation or conscious deliberation.

Non sequitur / baseless assertion.

So please explain how you can apply control, manipulation or conscious deliberation within whatever comprises your thought processes if they are all determined before you become aware of them.

[Stranger]

The reason exists your consciously controlled ability to reason, contemplate, apply logic and come up with validated conclusions.

Meaningless waffle. Doubly so as an answer to my point.

And, of course, all these processes ─ control, reasoning, applying logic, validation, and reaching conclusions ─ require time.

So please explain how you can apply control, manipulation or conscious deliberation within whatever comprises your thought processes if they are all determined before you become aware of them.

Shifting the burden of proof fallacy. It is your claim that they cannot be explained as part of the natural world, so it's up to you to show this claimed impossibility.

And, again, while I can see no conflict at all with deterministic (real meaning, not your 'determined by' crap) minds, all these processes ─ control, manipulation, and deliberation ─ are clearly impossible without time.

You also seem to be (yet again) conflating the role of consciousness with whether things are determined by the past or not. It doesn't make a jot of difference. There is no logical connection whatsoever between the role of consciousness and determinism (real meaning again).

ETA: Also always very interesting to see what part of posts you ignore. This

Of course you're suggesting zero time. If something isn't within a time dimension (whether it's the same one as our universe makes no difference) then it is logically the same as having zero time. That is, there is no time in which it can do anything.

It is clearly impossible to interact with anything in zero time, which is why your 'postulation' is so laughably absurd.

was met with deafening silence.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Another way of looking at it is, not so much as a struggle to overcome the desires which arise, but more as identifying with a neutral observing consciousness in the midst of a variety of forces.  There are a number of meditation practices which tend to lead to this but it is not easy just as it is not easy to maintain balance when learning to wind surf in the midst of the forces of gravity, water movement and air movement.  You could see it as a state of peace.  If I remember correctly, I believe the words Muslim and Islam have the word for peace (salaam) embedded within them so in this context it would be better to be Muslim rather than a Muslim.

Unfortunately meditation is not something I am good at so I have not experienced this state of peace where I can still observe and think. I know it takes lots of practice and since I have prioritised my time to other activities I don't see much improvement in the art of meditation in the near future. But I appreciate how effective it can be in controlling our responses to many things including physical and mental pain.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I haven't read the full article yet, so I'll maybe add to this later but I'm well aware of HADD (I've read Dennett) and other natural tendencies to believe things.

I think the point I'm trying to make is that, as Pinker said: "Submitting all of one’s beliefs to the trials of reason and evidence is an unnatural skill, like literacy and numeracy, and must be instilled and cultivated."

There are many biases in the human mind but we don't have to just submit to them. Critical thinking is a skill that that we can learn. One of the reasons why Alan's apparent disdain for fallacies is so absurd is that learning about common mistakes can help you not to repeat them.

Of course nobody can make somebody want to learn these things or want to submit beliefs to the rational part of our minds, but the option is there. Even if somebody does not want those things, it is good that they can at least recognise what they are doing. It's people who are unaware that their beliefs are not based on evidence or reasoning that tend to cause the problems.

Agreed. And while it's a useful approach on many levels and has many benefits, you also forgo some benefits in the process of living your life with your approach. Quite possibly you don't find anything of value in what you have dispensed with, or for you the benefits of your approach outweigh what you have discarded, but as you say not everyone wants to take that approach to everything. Maybe society benefits from the diversity of people with both types of approaches - I might be a critical thinker about some aspects of my life and not others. It seems like many people just replace religion with something else that they don't take the critical thinking approach to - as you mentioned regarding the Tory party conference.

How damaging anything is would presumably be largely based on human behaviour, which is diverse and unpredictable due to the way nature/ nurture influences our thoughts and behaviours to produce unique minds. So how we get along is influenced by how we communicate with each other, tolerate differences and learn to disagree in a non-violent way as we're stuck with being part of a diverse society.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

So please explain how you can apply control, manipulation or conscious deliberation within whatever comprises your thought processes if they are all determined before you become aware of them.

I thought you agreed in an earlier post that your thoughts that you are controlling and manipulating are made up of stored memories and knowledge and information, and interpretation of your current circumstances. In other words you can't control, manipulate etc thoughts that haven't popped into your head from your stored memory or from information that you are not acquiring from your current circumstances. Therefore what you think is determined by this past information/ current circumstances. Are you using the word 'determined' in a different way from everyone else?

[Alan Burns]

I thought you agreed in an earlier post that your thoughts that you are controlling and manipulating are made up of stored memories and knowledge and information, and interpretation of your current circumstances. In other words you can't control, manipulate etc thoughts that haven't popped into your head from your stored memory or from information that you are not acquiring from your current circumstances. Therefore what you think is determined by this past information/ current circumstances. Are you using the word 'determined' in a different way from everyone else?

The difference lies in the fact that past events influence our conscious choices and thought processes, but we are not totally controlled by past events.  We are aware of the past but not controlled by it.  In order to invoke any act of critical thinking you need a source of conscious control - not inevitable reactions to past events.

[torridon]

The difference lies in the fact that past events influence our conscious choices and thought processes, but we are not totally controlled by past events.  We are aware of the past but not controlled by it.  In order to invoke any act of critical thinking you need a source of conscious control - not inevitable reactions to past events.

We are not 'controlled' by the past, but rather the choices we make in the present are a consequence of the past. Shall I put asafoteida in my curry tonight ? Well, maybe not, as the last time (in the past) I smelled the open jar I found the smell awful.  Or maybe I will, as I just read an article (again, in the near past) extolling the health benefits of asafoetida. Which influence will win out ? I cannot control my pleasure/displeasure at the smell, nor can I control how much I value or accept the purported health benefits of this spice.  Both influencing factors are a 'given', and choosing between them is a process of discovering my preference in the moment.  I cannot choose which preference to have or which factor should influence me the most.

[Alan Burns]

We are not 'controlled' by the past, but rather the choices we make in the present are a consequence of the past. Shall I put asafoteida in my curry tonight ? Well, maybe not, as the last time (in the past) I smelled the open jar I found the smell awful.  Or maybe I will, as I just read an article (again, in the near past) extolling the health benefits of asafoetida. Which influence will win out ? I cannot control my pleasure/displeasure at the smell, nor can I control how much I value or accept the purported health benefits of this spice.  Both influencing factors are a 'given', and choosing between them is a process of discovering my preference in the moment.  I cannot choose which preference to have or which factor should influence me the most.

The trivial examples you quote are simply derived from learnt experiences as observed in most animal behaviour.  You cannot extrapolate this as a viable explanation for your unique ability to consciously apply critical thinking to try to understand the nature of our existence and the world we live in.

[Stranger]

The difference lies in the fact that past events influence our conscious choices and thought processes, but we are not totally controlled by past events.  We are aware of the past but not controlled by it.  In order to invoke any act of critical thinking you need a source of conscious control - not inevitable reactions to past events.

More gibberish. You need to properly define what you mean. Mindless mantras and meaningless undefined phrases are not arguments.

And yet again: the role of consciousness (how much or little it is in control) has nothing to do with whether your choices are deterministic (real meaning). Insisting on 'conscious control' says nothing about whether your choice could have been otherwise.

NOTHING.

[Stranger]

The trivial examples you quote are simply derived from learnt experiences as observed in most animal behaviour.  You cannot extrapolate this as a viable explanation for your unique ability to consciously apply critical thinking to try to understand the nature of our existence and the world we live in.

Baseless, unargued assertion. Another dimwitted logical mistake, i.e fallacy.

You also really don't seem to realise (and are refusing to even address) how utterly absurd your own proposals are. We have 'conscious control of our own thought process' which implies (until you define it properly yourself) that we can consciously think about each concious thought before we think it, and an 'ever present state of conscious awareness' which implies (until you define it properly yourself) that all choices, interactions, control, and so on are all somehow happening in zero time.

Is this supposed to be you expressing yourself through the medium of nonsense poetry or something?

[torridon]

The trivial examples you quote are simply derived from learnt experiences as observed in most animal behaviour.  You cannot extrapolate this as a viable explanation for your unique ability to consciously apply critical thinking to try to understand the nature of our existence and the world we live in.

Why not ? If there is a flaw, then explain what the flaw is and illustrate with an example.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

The difference lies in the fact that past events influence our conscious choices and thought processes, but we are not totally controlled by past events.  We are aware of the past but not controlled by it.  In order to invoke any act of critical thinking you need a source of conscious control - not inevitable reactions to past events.

Not sure what you mean by your idea of "totally controlled".

To clarify, are you agreeing or disagreeing with the idea that the only information you have access to in order to make a choice or decision is the information and memories in your brain from past events - this would include current circumstances happening now as you will be making a decision after reviewing that information so that information is now in the past at the time you are reviewing?

If you are disagreeing with that statement, are you saying you are disagreeing because you would feel totally controlled by the past if all the information in your brain that you are reviewing to make choices is past information?

And are you therefore saying your brain is using information not from the past to make a choice? If yes, could you give me an example of information you think your brain is using to make a choice that is not from the past?

Maybe the confusion here is your definition of the words "controlled" or  "past".

I am not clear why you think you would be "totally controlled" if you can only make a choice after you use/ recall/ review information stored in your brain.

[ekim]

The trivial examples you quote are simply derived from learnt experiences as observed in most animal behaviour.  You cannot extrapolate this as a viable explanation for your unique ability to consciously apply critical thinking to try to understand the nature of our existence and the world we live in.

Don't you think that critical thinking is a learnt process? Do you see yourself as having the same ability to critically think now as you did when you were, say, 9 months old? (Don't answer that Stranger). Isn't it also a process that can be lost when buried in doctrine or ideology?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Don't you think that critical thinking is a learnt process? Do you see yourself as having the same ability to critically think now as you did when you were, say, 9 months old? (Don't answer that Stranger). Isn't it also a process that can be lost when buried in doctrine or ideology?

Just wanted to clarify what critical thinking means in relation to moral beliefs.

For example using a critical thinking process, what is wrong with euthanising old people with multiple health problems who are a burden on the NHS? Even if they paid for their own healthcare through insurance there would still be a resource issue with a shortage of doctors and hospital beds in the NHS.

So using a critical thinking process how would we decide whether or not a belief in euthanising them is right or wrong?

[Alan Burns]

I am not clear why you think you would be "totally controlled" if you can only make a choice after you use/ recall/ review information stored in your brain.

My contention lies with the materialistic scenario in which our conscious awareness is presumed to be an emergent property of material reactions.  In this scenario we can only be aware of the consequences of material reactions which have already occurred, implying that we have no conscious control over what we experience in our conscious awareness.  In your post you seem to understand the reality in which we do have conscious control over what we recall into our conscious awareness and how we process it to determine choices and conclusions.  This is the conscious control which is deemed to be impossible in the materialistic scenario.

So you may well ask what determines our conscious control?  It is certainly beyond the capabilities of material reactions which occur outside our conscious awareness.  I present this as evidence of the spiritual power of our human soul.

[Stranger]

In your post you seem to understand the reality in which we do have conscious control over what we recall into our conscious awareness...

Did you even read that before pressing post!? Conscious control over what we recall into our conscious awareness!!!??? Do you not see how utterly absurd that is? We are back into the realm of consciously thinking about each conscious thought before we consciously think it, except now it's consciously picking out what to "recall into our conscious awareness" before we're consciously aware of it (because otherwise you'd have already recalled it).

This is the conscious control which is deemed to be impossible in the materialistic scenario.

False. It's deemed to be impossible because it's self-contradictory, thought-free drivel.

It is certainly beyond the capabilities of material reactions which occur outside our conscious awareness.

More nonsense. If we are entirely material, then "conscious awareness" is as well, so there is no dividing line.

I present this as evidence of the spiritual power of our human soul.

   Not even close.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

My contention lies with the materialistic scenario in which our conscious awareness is presumed to be an emergent property of material reactions.  In this scenario we can only be aware of the consequences of material reactions which have already occurred, implying that we have no conscious control over what we experience in our conscious awareness.

As I requested in the post you have just answered, could you give me an example of information you think your brain is using to make a choice that is not from the past? You have not actually presented any evidence to show that you are consciously controlling what you are experiencing.

On the other hand you have presented evidence that you are experiencing something in your conscious awareness based on past information stored in your brain. As far as I can see you are demonstrating that your posts are determined by past events.
 

In your post you seem to understand the reality in which we do have conscious control over what we recall into our conscious awareness and how we process it to determine choices and conclusions.  This is the conscious control which is deemed to be impossible in the materialistic scenario.

Not sure that I do. Everything I recall and process is based on past events/ info stored in my brain - so is determined by events in my past. Also, while I may consciously try to recall some pieces of information, other thoughts and info just pop into my head without me consciously recalling them. You are clearly going through the same process, unless you can show some evidence of something you are recalling or processing that is not based on past events/ info in your brain?

So you may well ask what determines our conscious control?

If by conscious control you mean reviewing information and making choices on how we respond to each other - the evidence based on your posts and my posts on here is that our review of information and the choices we make in responding to each other are determined by the post we just read on here and the information already stored in our brain.

If you had not read my post (an event from the past) you would not be able to choose to respond to it. If you did not have words from the English language stored in your brain (acquired in the past) and the ability to string them into a sentence (learned at school in the past) you would not be able to understand what I typed, interpret it based on your stored knowledge of words, review the ideas that popped into your brain in response to my post, and choose some words you have learned to respond to my post in English, addressing the points I have made.

You have also chosen to not respond to some of the questions I asked - presumably because you either didn't understand the question or because you did not like the question or because you could not think of a reply based on the information stored in your brain. Again your choice to not respond was determined by past events - a mix of your nature/ nurture e.g. your innate intelligence plus your learning of English words and their meanings, and your emotions/ feelings of liking or not liking my question.

It is certainly beyond the capabilities of material reactions which occur outside our conscious awareness.  I present this as evidence of the spiritual power of our human soul.

Not sure what you mean by material reactions that occur outside our conscious control - what is your definition of such a 'material reaction'? What makes it 'material'? And what makes it a reaction outside of our conscious control?
 

Is choosing words stored in your brain from past events and typing them out a material reaction according to your definition of 'material reactions'?

[Alan Burns]

Not sure what you mean by material reactions that occur outside our conscious control - what is your definition of such a 'material reaction'? What makes it 'material'? And what makes it a reaction outside of our conscious control?
 

Material reactions are controlled by the laws of physics.
We cannot control the laws of physics.

[Maeght]

Material reactions are controlled by the laws of physics.
We cannot control the laws of physics.

Correct.

[torridon]

Material reactions are controlled by the laws of physics.
We cannot control the laws of physics.

 
 .. and neither can we operate outwith the laws of physics or principles of logic; unless you indulge some or other form of magical thinking, in which case you have already lost the plot.

[Stranger]

Material reactions are controlled by the laws of physics.
We cannot control the laws of physics.

And you really do need to stop the dishonest pretence that it is physics that stops your batshit concept of 'freedom' from making any sense.

Control itself is an interaction and cannot happen in zero time. Any 'ever present state' is zero time because the present (to the extent it has a precise meaning) is a single moment it time. Anything 'outside of time' is possible if and only if it is possible in zero time. This is because the requirement is identical, namely that there is no extension along a time dimension.

Once you have time, then either everything happens because of (pre-existing) reasons, which means determinism (real meaning) where there is only one possible outcome, or, to some extent, things happen for no reason at all, which means randomness.

It really is time you stopped hiding behind meaningless mantras, that you refuse to even try to define or clarify, and faced up to the logic. And, no that doesn't mean some silly assertion that it is based on the material universe. In fact, it is based on what you say minds can do.

[Stranger]

Agreed. And while it's a useful approach on many levels and has many benefits, you also forgo some benefits in the process of living your life with your approach. Quite possibly you don't find anything of value in what you have dispensed with, or for you the benefits of your approach outweigh what you have discarded, but as you say not everyone wants to take that approach to everything.

To be honest I'm always a bit unclear what it is I'm supposed to be missing out on. What have I actually 'abandoned'? Obviously there are people who see a benefit in believing things they have no good reason to think are true, but I really don't understand what it is.

How damaging anything is would presumably be largely based on human behaviour...

Yes and one of the (many) problems arises when people become certain of things they have no good reason to think are true. I mean seeing some benefit in certain beliefs while understanding that it is just faith is one thing but it's those that don't understand that it is just faith that are worrying.

[Alan Burns]

To be honest I'm always a bit unclear what it is I'm supposed to be missing out on.

The joy of discovering God's love.
And the eternal salvation of your human soul.

[Stranger]

The joy of discovering God's love.
And the eternal salvation of your human soul.

The thing is Alan, nobody has ever given me any reason at all to think this is anything more than a deluded fantasy. The evidence from the state of the world is strongly indicative that it is too.

And as if that wasn't enough, we have your bizarre and nonsensical assertions about 'freedom' on here, and your total inability to honestly and logically defend it, despite the claim to have 'sound logic'. If you ever had any ability to think logically and deal with questions honestly, it appears to have been totally destroyed by your faith. I wouldn't go near said faith for fear of suffering the same fate. I value reason, logic, and honesty way too much.

[Alan Burns]

And as if that wasn't enough, we have your bizarre and nonsensical assertions about 'freedom' on here, and your total inability to honestly and logically defend it, despite the claim to have 'sound logic'. If you ever had any ability to think logically and deal with questions honestly, it appears to have been totally destroyed by your faith. I wouldn't go near said faith for fear of suffering the same fate. I value reason, logic, and honesty way too much.

It remains a mystery to me how you can value reason, logic, and honesty if the output from your material brain is entirely determined by material reactions beyond your conscious control.