Searching for GOD...

[Sebastian Toe]

Regarding the infinite regress - you come to this by thinking purely in material terms.  A spiritual perceiver does not need any other perceiver,

Yes it does.
The soul needs an extra-spiritual controller to observe its actions and makes spiritual type decisions.

This extra-controller resides in a special place beyond the spirit world and connects via quantum spirit stuff.

How you cannot see that this is a fact is truly beyond comprehension. 

[torridon]

But how does all this get perceived into the single entity which is Torridon?

Through subliminal processes of integration and synchronisation.

You are looking at a web browser screen right now; it seems steady, but in fact, under the hood, there are probably a hundred or so process threads being time sliced in and out of execution but we don't notice it.  It goes on underneath our awareness thanks to cunning software engineering by Microsoft.

If you watch a film on TV, why is it that you don't see an irritating flicker of stills, as what you are seeing is 24 still images per second.  Subliminal processes in perception integrate the information into a continuous flow experience before we become aware of it.

Sound and light travel at enormously different speeds and yet it would seem that the same subconscious processes of integration and synchronisation happen in the mind of an antelope; without that it would be hopelessly confused and soon end up as lunch if its hearing was not synchronised with its vision.
 
I have to keep reminding you, it seems, that our conscious awareness is the end product, or outcome, of a great deal of clever preconscious processing, hence consciousness lag, and the feeling of singularity and continuity of being, is, like everything else we experience, a product of consciousness.

[Alan Burns]

So the cause of any action is detemined and not in any sense free? Or have you just given up on defining free because you couldn't make any logically coherent statements about it?

see #17948

[Nearly Sane]

see #17948

which is irrelevant to your problem of logical incoherence

[Alan Burns]

Through subliminal processes of integration and synchronisation.

You are looking at a web browser screen right now; it seems steady, but in fact, under the hood, there are probably a hundred or so process threads being time sliced in and out of execution but we don't notice it.  It goes on underneath our awareness thanks to cunning software engineering by Microsoft.

If you watch a film on TV, why is it that you don't see an irritating flicker of stills, as what you are seeing is 24 still images per second.  Subliminal processes in perception integrate the information into a continuous flow experience before we become aware of it.

Sound and light travel at enormously different speeds and yet it would seem that the same subconscious processes of integration and synchronisation happen in the mind of an antelope; without that it would be hopelessly confused and soon end up as lunch if its hearing was not synchronised with its vision.
 
I have to keep reminding you, it seems, that our conscious awareness is the end product, or outcome, of a great deal of clever preconscious processing, hence consciousness lag, and the feeling of singularity and continuity of being, is, like everything else we experience, a product of consciousness.

These are just words describing how the information gets processed, but it says nothing about how it gets perceived by the conscious entity of awareness which is you.

[wigginhall]

It is you who has missed the point.
Where did the term "Yadda-yadda-yadda" emanate from?
You can cling to the belief that it was the inevitable consequence of countless chains of physical "cause and effect" events which began with the big bang.
Or you can face up to the reality that the free spirit which is wigginhall wilfully brought it into existence.
There is no compromise or halfway house in this.  This universe is either a deterministic system which is closed to any events not caused by previous events, or it is not.  The latter allows for events which are not random, but have a deliberate cause emanating from outside the physically deterministic nature of our universe.

Pure guesswork.   These causes could be demons or angels or Venusian mermaids, of the special non-material kind.   That is the level to which you have come, as soon as you venture outside the universe.   It might be the thoughts of a universal evil god, which creates all our experiences.   

[torridon]

These are just words describing how the information gets processed, but it says nothing about how it gets perceived by the conscious entity of awareness which is you.

You didn't read, or understand, what the words say, then, which is that the 'conscious entity of awareness' is itself an outcome of the preconscious processes of mind.

[Alan Burns]

You didn't read, or understand, what the words say, then, which is that the 'conscious entity of awareness' is itself an outcome of the preconscious processes of mind.

The outcome of the preconscious processes of mind are just electrons buzzing round reacting with other electrons. What defines perception?

[Alan Burns]

Pure guesswork.   These causes could be demons or angels or Venusian mermaids, of the special non-material kind.   That is the level to which you have come, as soon as you venture outside the universe.   It might be the thoughts of a universal evil god, which creates all our experiences.

Or it might be the work of a conscious creative God who gives us the gift of a conscious creative life.

[torridon]

The outcome of the preconscious processes of mind are just electrons buzzing round reacting with other electrons. What defines perception?

You're just going round in circles to avoid actually engaging with any of the insights offered to you on this thread.

[Gordon]

The outcome of the preconscious processes of mind are just electrons buzzing round reacting with other electrons.

In essence everything, and leaving aside your no doubt simplistic summary compared to what particle physicists might say, is in a sense 'just electrons buzzing round reacting with other electrons.'

What defines perception?

People, although they may define it differently.

[Alan Burns]

You're just going round in circles to avoid actually engaging with any of the insights offered to you on this thread.

However much they try, the insights on this thread do not explain the existence of the human attributes of conscious awareness and consciously driven free will (free from physical deterministic control).

[Nearly Sane]

However much they try, the insights on this thread do not explain the existence of the human attributes of conscious awareness and consciously driven free will (free from physical deterministic control).

but in some way not determined and that is why your statements fail any test of logical coherence.

[Enki]

It is you who has missed the point.
Where did the term "Yadda-yadda-yadda" emanate from?
You can cling to the belief that it was the inevitable consequence of countless chains of physical "cause and effect" events which began with the big bang.
Or you can face up to the reality that the free spirit which is wigginhall wilfully brought it into existence.
There is no compromise or halfway house in this.  This universe is either a deterministic system which is closed to any events not caused by previous events, or it is not.  The latter allows for events which are not random, but have a deliberate cause emanating from outside the physically deterministic nature of our universe.

Rather than say that you have missed the point, I suggest that you are so totally indoctrinated by your particular faith that you cannot possibly see that there is any point at all. Of course you can cling to your version of reality that everyone has a 'soul' without any evidence whatever to back it up, relying simply on the incredulity that you so obviously feel, which simply leads to unreasoned assertion after assertion on your part. Alternatively I suggest that your mode of thinking will not allow you to consider even the possibility of ourselves being the product of a material universe, that our sense of self emanates from purely material sources, that there is a dichotomy between supposed free will which is not random and making choices based upon cause and effect(indeed, you always ignore this point completely), in accepting that other animals can show the same(but not equal) quality of consciousness and even self awareness. The growing mass of evidence from many different disciplines supports this alternative view of course, but you will always choose to ignore it  as it cannot possibly fit your confirmed beliefs. Therefore any logic, any reasoning, any
evidence that does not fit your beliefs must be totally rejected, it seems.

You may be right of course, but until you give some hard evidence, reasoning and logic which supports your views about your God, the existence of a 'soul' etc. (and this you seem patently unable to do). then I, as with many others, remain totally unconvinced.  You have said, on occasions, that your presence on this forum is to open people's eyes to the possibility that there is a God. Most people responded, as I did, by saying that we were always open to that possibility. We didn't need you to show us the way. I actually think that your presence here is to actually convert people to a belief in your God, and I think that you thought that by showing your utter conviction in your beliefs people would be so impressed that they would follow your lead. If that is so, then how wrong you were, Alan. The superior quality of some of the arguments that others have used in response to your assertions and statements has in fact almost certainly mediated against you. Although the ideas you have produced have become intensely repetitive and limited, the responses have been far ranging and challenging, obviously not for you, Alan, but for people such as me. In this way you have, perhaps, fulfilled a useful function on this Message Board.

 

[wigginhall]

Or it might be the work of a conscious creative God who gives us the gift of a conscious creative life.

Well, of course it might be.  I don't see anyone here denying that.   But since that is a guess, how on earth can it be substantiated?   Well, actually not on earth, since you are saying that these things are outside the universe.   I suppose you might say that it feels right to you, but then thousands of religions presumably feel right to someone.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It is you who has missed the point.
Where did the term "Yadda-yadda-yadda" emanate from?

No, you have. If you want to rely on your personal incredulity about the prevailing model of consciousness as an emergent property by asserting into existence a little man at the controls you call "soul" (that has no definition of any kind remember) that immediately gives you the problem of the homunculus fallacy – what little man at the controls drives this soul, and so on forever. Your escape clause to get you off the hook is to throw in the term "spiritual" that itself has no definition, no explanation for its workings etc and so answers nothing.   

That's why you might as well have said "magic", or for that matter "yadda-yadda-yadda" or, if you felt like being honest, "I have no idea whatever". It's all white noise come what may.

[SusanDoris]

enki #17,965

Agree absolutely.

/Alan ~Burns

Why don't you too agree with enki's post? 

It is reasonable to  assume you do not, I think.

[Alan Burns]

Well, of course it might be.  I don't see anyone here denying that.   But since that is a guess, how on earth can it be substantiated?   Well, actually not on earth, since you are saying that these things are outside the universe.   I suppose you might say that it feels right to you, but then thousands of religions presumably feel right to someone.

The world's numerous religions are evidence for the spiritual source of our conscious human awareness.

[ippy]

Rather than say that you have missed the point, I suggest that you are so totally indoctrinated by your particular faith that you cannot possibly see that there is any point at all. Of course you can cling to your version of reality that everyone has a 'soul' without any evidence whatever to back it up, relying simply on the incredulity that you so obviously feel, which simply leads to unreasoned assertion after assertion on your part. Alternatively I suggest that your mode of thinking will not allow you to consider even the possibility of ourselves being the product of a material universe, that our sense of self emanates from purely material sources, that there is a dichotomy between supposed free will which is not random and making choices based upon cause and effect(indeed, you always ignore this point completely), in accepting that other animals can show the same(but not equal) quality of consciousness and even self awareness. The growing mass of evidence from many different disciplines supports this alternative view of course, but you will always choose to ignore it  as it cannot possibly fit your confirmed beliefs. Therefore any logic, any reasoning, any
evidence that does not fit your beliefs must be totally rejected, it seems.

You may be right of course, but until you give some hard evidence, reasoning and logic which supports your views about your God, the existence of a 'soul' etc. (and this you seem patently unable to do). then I, as with many others, remain totally unconvinced.  You have said, on occasions, that your presence on this forum is to open people's eyes to the possibility that there is a God. Most people responded, as I did, by saying that we were always open to that possibility. We didn't need you to show us the way. I actually think that your presence here is to actually convert people to a belief in your God, and I think that you thought that by showing your utter conviction in your beliefs people would be so impressed that they would follow your lead. If that is so, then how wrong you were, Alan. The superior quality of some of the arguments that others have used in response to your assertions and statements has in fact almost certainly mediated against you. Although the ideas you have produced have become intensely repetitive and limited, the responses have been far ranging and challenging, obviously not for you, Alan, but for people such as me. In this way you have, perhaps, fulfilled a useful function on this Message Board.

I like the way you've put this to A B and I totally agree with every word, this man can't be all that happy with the end product of all of these posts of his, I don't think he will have gained many of his imaginary brownie points on the way.

Regards ippy

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The world's numerous religions are evidence for the spiritual source of our conscious human awareness.

Lots of problems there.

First, you have no means even of defining this supposed "spiritual soul".

Second, "the world's numerous religions" is no such thing - that fact of lots of religions past and present just tells you that lots of people have believed lots of different things, generally because these various narratives fill an explanatory gap until more robust explanations arrive. You're just committing the ad pop fallacy again here.

Third, if you really want to make the numbers mistake nonetheless you lose because most people have had and still have different religious beliefs to your own. If you seriously think knowledge to be a popularity contest then you just won the wooden spoon.   

[Gordon]

The world's numerous religions are evidence for the spiritual source of our conscious human awareness.

The ad pop gets an airing too: nice day for it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Gordon,

The ad pop gets an airing too: nice day for it.

What’s curious here is that AB either simply has no idea that there are such things as logical fallacies and so commits them over and over unwittingly, or he knows they exist but he just doesn’t care.

As he’s had his reliance on them pointed out so many times already it’s hard to imagine that it’s the former.

If it’s the latter though, why then does he bother when he must know he’ll be pulled up on them every time? What can he think he’ll achieve by repeating the same mistakes?

It’s all very odd. I suppose the third option is that he’s just a troll, but you’d have thought the novelty of it would have worn off by now surely?

Oh well.

[SusanDoris]

I wonder sometimes whether there is a deep fear in those who believe  as AB does that if they go against the dogmatic doctrine (or whatever phrase is most appropriate), of which they arre utterly convinced, they  seriously expect that God will do a bit of smiting.  But then, of course, how would they know anyway?!!

[Alan Burns]

Rather than say that you have missed the point, I suggest that you are so totally indoctrinated by your particular faith that you cannot possibly see that there is any point at all. Of course you can cling to your version of reality that everyone has a 'soul' without any evidence whatever to back it up, relying simply on the incredulity that you so obviously feel, which simply leads to unreasoned assertion after assertion on your part. Alternatively I suggest that your mode of thinking will not allow you to consider even the possibility of ourselves being the product of a material universe, that our sense of self emanates from purely material sources, that there is a dichotomy between supposed free will which is not random and making choices based upon cause and effect(indeed, you always ignore this point completely), in accepting that other animals can show the same(but not equal) quality of consciousness and even self awareness. The growing mass of evidence from many different disciplines supports this alternative view of course, but you will always choose to ignore it  as it cannot possibly fit your confirmed beliefs. Therefore any logic, any reasoning, any
evidence that does not fit your beliefs must be totally rejected, it seems.

You may be right of course, but until you give some hard evidence, reasoning and logic which supports your views about your God, the existence of a 'soul' etc. (and this you seem patently unable to do). then I, as with many others, remain totally unconvinced.  You have said, on occasions, that your presence on this forum is to open people's eyes to the possibility that there is a God. Most people responded, as I did, by saying that we were always open to that possibility. We didn't need you to show us the way. I actually think that your presence here is to actually convert people to a belief in your God, and I think that you thought that by showing your utter conviction in your beliefs people would be so impressed that they would follow your lead. If that is so, then how wrong you were, Alan. The superior quality of some of the arguments that others have used in response to your assertions and statements has in fact almost certainly mediated against you. Although the ideas you have produced have become intensely repetitive and limited, the responses have been far ranging and challenging, obviously not for you, Alan, but for people such as me. In this way you have, perhaps, fulfilled a useful function on this Message Board.

Dear Enki,

Your carefully thought out response is evidence of your ability to intelligently drive your thought processes.  Do you not realise that it is you who are driving these thoughts, not the unintelligent, purposeless, unguided forces of nature?  You are so much more than a blob of material being just part of the continuum of this deterministic universe.

[Nearly Sane]

Dear Enki,

Your carefully thought out response is evidence of your ability to intelligently drive your thought processes.  Do you not realise that it is you who are driving these thoughts, not the unintelligent, purposeless, unguided forces of nature?  You are so much more than a blob of material being just part of the continuum of this deterministic universe.

Still not making any logically coherent points about how something is free and not deterministic. The bot is quite badly programmed.