Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

My grandfather smoked all his life and did not get cancer, so smoking does not cause cancer

And telling kids god is a fact doesn't cause no critical faculty, which isn't a scientific term anyway, and therefore means your attempted analogy doesn't work.  Show me your actual working for it being analogous to cancer?.

[BeRational]

And telling kids god is a fact doesn't cause no critical faculty, which isn't a scientific term anyway, and therefore means your attempted analogy doesn't work.  Show me your actual working for it being analogous to cancer?.

There fact that it did not affect you does not mean it does not affect others.

Children tend to have the faith of their parents.

Smokers tend to get cancer.

Children should never be told that gods exist.

[Nearly Sane]

There fact that it did not affect you does not mean it does not affect others.

Children tend to have the faith of their parents.

Smokers tend to get cancer.

Children should never be told that gods exist.

I note your begging the question by the religion/cancer analogy. And the circular reasoning about no critical faculty = having religion.

[BeRational]

I note your begging the question by the religion/cancer analogy. And the circular reasoning about no critical faculty = having religion.

There point is simple and I am sure everyone else got it.

Not interested in your normal arguing for arguing sake.

[ippy]

Teaching religion to very young children like almost everything in psychology, it works on a percentage basis and so of course not every very young child will be taken in, sorry indoctrinated.

ippy

[Alan Burns]

Please read the thread. This must have been pointed out to you several million times already, your ideas about free will alone contradict not just the science, but even basic logic. Noone can make a choice on a basis that is free of any basis. Preconscious processing precedes consciousness, not the other way around as you seem to believe. Many animals apart from humans exhibit learning and other higher cognitive function in contradiction of your oft repeated assertions that other animals run on instinct only.  Your denial of science is of the same scale as a haddock denying seawater.

I fully understand your points about the physical events of pre conscious processing.  My conviction remains that the cause of whatever is needed to implement a conscious choice emanates from the human soul.   You describe the mechanisms, I am referring to the causes.  The measured time lapse between brain activity and conscious awareness does not mean that we do not make conscious decisions - it just means that our conscious decisions invoke physical activity which appears to occur before the conscious awareness of the decision being made.  Strange things can happen with quantum events.

Also if you recall my previous posts I have pointed out that animals can use learnt behaviour just as a chess playing computer program can learn from its mistakes.  No free will needed.

[ippy]

What rubbish. Resign from the board.

Sorry Vlad I keep forgetting English isn't your first language, it must be difficult for you to keep up.

ippy

[Stranger]

My conviction remains that the cause of whatever is needed to implement a conscious choice emanates from the human soul.

Yes, and a conviction is all you have; no evidence, no reasoning, and a self-contradictory conclusion.

Strange things can happen with quantum events.

Now you're resorting to quantum quackery. 

[torridon]

I fully understand your points about the physical events of pre conscious processing.  My conviction remains that the cause of whatever is needed to implement a conscious choice emanates from the human soul.   You describe the mechanisms, I am referring to the causes.  The measured time lapse between brain activity and conscious awareness does not mean that we do not make conscious decisions - it just means that our conscious decisions invoke physical activity which appears to occur before the conscious awareness of the decision being made.  Strange things can happen with quantum events.

Baffling, the lengths you will go to to avoid learning from the science.

The causes, as you mention, are determining factors that give rise to choice. If there are no determining factors, then the 'choice' is random.

[torridon]

Also if you recall my previous posts I have pointed out that animals can use learnt behaviour just as a chess playing computer program can learn from its mistakes.  No free will needed.

And if you recall on this very thread not so long ago we had posted up a video of an orang-utan trying to fix up a hammock - an example of a non human animal displaying a behaviour that is neither instinctive nor learned, but more akin to something like scientific method - trial and error, requiring imagination, forethought, planning and understanding.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, and a conviction is all you have; no evidence, no reasoning, and a self-contradictory conclusion.

Now you're resorting to quantum quackery. 

Is it right though to have a model though of a subconscious driver informing the consciousness which rather looks like a ''one way traffic, send this to the top floor and be quick about it?''.

That is certainly reductionist and sets up the question, why the consciousness? Also there is an older more basic process which seems to be overlooked here.
That new experiences and skill learning are handled by the part of the brain which handle thought processes and then familiar stuff is then handled without thinking about it.

Consciousness and subconsciousness leads to a binitarian view of a person. I am not against it but I do think that the conscious must communicate with
the subconsciousness and that it is not all one way traffic. Also there is the question of whether the subconscious makes and takes decisions. There is the issue of course of the consciousness becoming aware of information from the subconsciousness i.e. the 'Henry Higgins' moment when one realises one has been in denial of something without really being aware of it

Also a few citations might help.

[Gordon]

On the subject of consciousness this episode from 'The Life Scientific' is worth a listen.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05xxhvy

[Alan Burns]

And if you recall on this very thread not so long ago we had posted up a video of an orang-utan trying to fix up a hammock - an example of a non human animal displaying a behaviour that is neither instinctive nor learned, but more akin to something like scientific method - trial and error, requiring imagination, forethought, planning and understanding.

And the truth is that hammock fixing is not a natural trait of orang-utans.  This is just an example of learnt behaviour from humans.  Orang-utans in their natural habitat do not use hammocks!

[Alan Burns]

Baffling, the lengths you will go to to avoid learning from the science.

The causes, as you mention, are determining factors that give rise to choice. If there are no determining factors, then the 'choice' is random.

Our conscious choices are certainly not random.  So in the materialistic scenario the cause of a conscious choice gets traced back through all the "cause and effect" events to the beginning of time.  And if our perceived conscious choices are pre determined, there is no real need for conscious awareness.

Scientist claim there is no discernable cause for certain quantum events, but these events are not random.  We rely on the probability of specific quantum events occurring at the right time and place to achieve stability at the atomic level.  So we ponder the question:  What controls quantum events?

[Nearly Sane]

There point is simple and I am sure everyone else got it.

Not interested in your normal arguing for arguing sake.

Let's say I was just arguing for the same if it, that would have nothing to do with the argument and your mention of it is then an ad hom fallacy. And a rather feeble attempt at poisoning the well.

And yes, I got the point too, I think it is simplistic rather than simple. And that it was circular in that instead of dealing with the assertion about the undefined 'critical faculty', you circularly said having religion was the same (also another assertion).

And the having religion is like cancer , also circular with a begging the question of it being a bad thing by using cancer as the analogy.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Am I? If you think there are stations in between feel free.

Yes: a work intended as fiction that caught the wind, a conjuring trick, mistaken identity or deliberate switcheroo, coma misdiagnosed as death, the tiny number of reported to Paul exaggerated the story, Paul himself exaggerated the story …

…how many possible explanations would you like?

The point being that your “conspiracy vs kosher resurrection” schtick is a false binary. For what it’s worth, my view is that a deliberate conspiracy is one of the less likely options.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Let's say I was just arguing for the same if it, that would have nothing to do with the argument and your mention of it is then an ad hom fallacy. And a rather feeble attempt at poisoning the well.

And yes, I got the point too, I think it is simplistic rather than simple. And that it was circular in that instead of dealing with the assertion about the undefined 'critical faculty', you circularly said having religion was the same (also another assertion).

Wasn’t BR just saying that dogmatic beliefs (of any kind) delivered by authority figures are more likely to take hold when the audience has yet to develop critical thinking abilities? The uptake need not be total, but for those who run religious schools it’s a numbers game.

And the having religion is like cancer , also circular with a begging the question of it being a bad thing by using cancer as the analogy.

Well, as you know I happen to think that religious belief is more a bad thing than a good one but, leaving that aside, the reference to cancer was just an analogy wasn’t it – ie that the fact of exceptions to a general principle does not invalidate the general principle?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

And telling kids god is a fact doesn't cause no critical faculty, which isn't a scientific term anyway, and therefore means your attempted analogy doesn't work....

That's not what he said. He''s saying that children have yet to develop the critical faculties they develop in later life (not that telling them god is a fact causes that state) which is why they make a more persuadable audience than adults for dogmatic teachings.

Show me your actual working for it being analogous to cancer?.

The cancer reference was just a reference to there being exceptions to any general principle.

There's also a common analogy for the way viruses and memes alike spread - ie, transmission from person-to-person and exponential growth when each person passes it on to more than one other. I'm struggling to think of a positive equivalent but if, say, there was an immunity from a disease that could be passed from person-to-person that would do just as well for this purpose.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

And the truth is that hammock fixing is not a natural trait of orang-utans.

It's not a "natural trait" because there aren't suitable lengths of cloth lying around in the Borneo jungle.

This is just an example of learnt behaviour from humans.

And the information you have for this bold assertion is what exactly?

Or could you by any chance be just guessing about that too?

Orang-utans in their natural habitat do not use hammocks!

They don't ride bicycles either. So?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Yes: a work intended as fiction that caught the wind, a conjuring trick, mistaken identity or deliberate switcheroo, coma misdiagnosed as death, the tiny number of reported to Paul exaggerated the story, Paul himself exaggerated the story …

…how many possible explanations would you like?

It is not a question of how many explanations there are or how many I like.
The only one for which there is historical attestation for is a real resurrection.

Now you are in the business of suggesting alternatives they now have to go up against the Real resurrection claim and the attendant history.

Mistaken identity, unlikely although there is some reported delay in recognition explicably by believing not unreasonably that he was dead.
Deliberate switcheroo? Do you mean a double?
Coma misdiagnosed as death. Well it happens today I suppose.
Three things militate against it Firstly they would have been more familiar with death, secondly the nature of the injuries, thirdly from what we know of the trial it would be important that He was quite dead.
Paul exaggerating the story? For what purpose? He knew presumably that post ascension encounters were possible and that others would have had similar experiences to relate.

I think rather that the resurrection story is one Paul comes into. The enjoinder to check with witnesses comes in an epistle.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

It is not a question of how many explanations there are or how many I like.

But that’s exactly what you asked for! You attempted a false binary, and I explained that there are many more possibilities than the two you posit (conspiracy vs resurrection).

QED

The only one for which there is historical attestation for is a real resurrection.

Oh dear. The “historical attestation” you assert to be the case fails the basic tests of historicity – that’s why the resurrection isn’t taught as fact in history classes.

Worse, there are countless myth stories for which witness statements are claimed. Don’t think your pick of them is anything special.

Now you are in the business of suggesting alternatives they now have to go up against the Real resurrection claim and the attendant history.

First, if you want to shift the conversation away from asking for other options and on to how likely they are then you at least need to withdraw the false binary you were attempting.

Second, no they don’t because you have no means of calculating the probability of a supernatural event for comparison purposes.

Mistaken identity, unlikely although there is some reported delay in recognition explicably by believing not unreasonably that he was dead.
Deliberate switcheroo? Do you mean a double?
Coma misdiagnosed as death. Well it happens today I suppose.
Three things militate against it Firstly they would have been more familiar with death, secondly the nature of the injuries, thirdly from what we know of the trial it would be important that He was quite dead.
Paul exaggerating the story? For what purpose? He knew presumably that post ascension encounters were possible and that others would have had similar experiences to relate.

Way to miss the point. However unlikely you may think these explanations to be, you have no means of calculating for comparison purposes the likelihood of a kosher resurrection.

Now what?

I think rather that the resurrection story is one Paul comes into. The enjoinder to check with witnesses comes in an epistle.

Writing a letter about an event thought to be true for a bad reason doesn’t magically make that bad reason into a good reason.

[torridon]

And the truth is that hammock fixing is not a natural trait of orang-utans.  This is just an example of learnt behaviour from humans.  Orang-utans in their natural habitat do not use hammocks!

And on the African plains, early humans did not drive cars, but hey, we too find novel uses for our cognitive abilities.

[torridon]

Scientist claim there is no discernable cause for certain quantum events, but these events are not random.  We rely on the probability of specific quantum events occurring at the right time and place to achieve stability at the atomic level.  So we ponder the question:  What controls quantum events?

Wave function collapse is probabilistic and depends on the information exchange with other material in the locale.  I don't think anybody considers it to be random, nor do they consider it magic; just hard to compute and therefore predict.

[bluehillside Retd.]

torri,

Wave function collapse is probabilistic and depends on the information exchange with other material in the locale.  I don't think anybody considers it to be random, nor do they consider it magic; just hard to compute and therefore predict.

Funnily enough, when you get down to it "hard to compute" is all AB has for his idiosyncratic take on consciousness. Never mind all that evidence from neuroscience, from emergence, from... etc: "That consciousness stuff looks really, really complicated to me so I refuse to accept that even a brain with trillion functional components could do it on its own.

And another thing...

...oh no, as you were. Sorry, that's all I have.

Pardon? Who said "argument from personal incredulity" at the back there?

See me afterwards!"

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

But that’s exactly what you asked for! You attempted a false binary,

Hillside I may be the maleficent little goblin infesting your nightmares, but even I have been calling for alternative histories. I even congratulated you on your alternatives.

The point is that all I am putting forward is the historical records we have. That is no more me attempting a false binary, than it was me doing a survivor bias or an argumentum ad consequentium. If you think I have please quote me doing one.