Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

AB,

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.

I do not understand why you should think a soul needs a controller.  Your soul is the definitive controller of your conscious thoughts and actions.  It does not need a driver.  And your emergent property can have no control of its own since it is entirely derived from deterministic material reactions.  So what is it that exerts control?  Do you claim to have no control over yourself?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I do not understand why you should think a soul needs a controller.

Because it would be subject to the same objection you raise when you insist that our brains require a controller. It happens to be a very bad objection for the reasons that have been explained to you exhaustively here (albeit that they fall on deaf ears) but if you want to insist on it for one purpose nonetheless then exempting for another purpose is called “special pleading”, yet another logical fallacy. Just claiming your conjecture to be "spiritual" to get you off the hook is epistemically equivalent to, "its magic" – it tells you nothing at all.   

Your soul is the controller of your conscious thoughts and actions.

And that’s called the fallacy of reification. Just asserting something does not make it so.

It does not need a driver.

And that’s the special pleading bit. If “soul” doesn’t need a controller, then why would brains? You’re just adding an extra layer of complexity here that provides no answer at all – see “homunculus fallacy” if you want to know why.

And your emergent property can have no control of its own since it is entirely derived from deterministic material reactions.

And that’s the fallacy known as the non sequitur. The “since” is unwarranted as you’re provided no reason to think that self-awareness isn’t an emergent property of our (astonishingly complex) brains.

So what is it that exerts control?

You do.

Do you claim to have no control over yourself?

As you’ve been told countless times now, what we have is the impression of self-control because that what it feels like. Any suggestion that “free” will is actually free of cause and effect though collapses immediately into incoherence and self-contradiction, however childishly appealing the conjecture might seem.

So let me ask you a question: are you familiar with the idea of a logical fallacy – ie, reasoning rendered invalid by a flaw in its logical structure?

If you are you should also know that a fallacious argument is always a wrong argument, yet your posts here rely almost entirely on them.

Why do you do this? Do you just not understand that fallacious arguments are invalid, or do you think that somehow they can retrospectively become valid again provided their outcome is one of which you happen to approve ("God", "soul" etc)?

If you genuinely think your faith beliefs to be correct and you’d like other people to agree with you, why would you fall at the first hurdle every time like this rather than find an argument that isn’t manifestly false?

Seriously, why? 

[Enki]

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.

I do realise that it is my brain driving my thought processes, and there is increasing evidence that what I regard as 'me' is quite possibly the result of the synchronization of nerve firing within different parts of the brain, affecting the brain's EM field by pulling together ion channels in seemingly disparate parts of the brain. It also seems to me that nature creates its own purposes and guidance in all living things through a process called evolution, which is essentially a materialistic phenomenon. Finally I do see myself as part of the continuum of a deterministic universe, there is no just about it. Where you see this as a meaningless and unacceptable idea, I don't at all. This is one of the clear differences between us, and, for me, this is where the evidence leads.

[Alan Burns]

As you’ve been told countless times now, what we have is the impression of self-control because that what it feels like. Any suggestion that “free” will is actually free of cause and effect though collapses immediately into incoherence and self-contradiction, however childishly appealing the conjecture might seem.

You claim it is just an impression of self control in order to fit in with your materialistic philosophy.  But your posts indicate to me that you are indeed in control.  Meaning the real "you" and not the deterministically controlled emergent property which you claim to be.  You are free in the sense that you are free from the shackles of material based cause and effect.  Your freedom derives from spiritual rather than material causes.

[Nearly Sane]

You claim it is just an impression of self control in order to fit in with your materialistic philosophy.  But your posts indicate to me that you are indeed in control.  Meaning the real "you" and not the deterministically controlled emergent property which you claim to be.  You are free in the sense that you are free from the shackles of material based cause and effect.  Your freedom derives from spiritual rather than material causes.

and as ever your continuing inability to define freedom in a logically coherent fashion, makes your post incoherent

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You claim it is just an impression of self control in order to fit in with your materialistic philosophy.

Wrong again. I "claim" it because that's what the evidence suggests. If your complaint is that evidence itself is a "materialist philosophy" then (finally) come up with a method of your own to distinguish your claims of the non-material from just guessing.

But your posts indicate to me that you are indeed in control.

Presumably because you put too much faith in your raw perception of things without troubling with any underlying reality.

Meaning the real "you" and not the deterministically controlled emergent property which you claim to be.

That "real" is the fallacy of reification again. Why do you keep doing this to yourself?

You are free in the sense that you are free from the shackles of material based cause and effect.

That's incoherent. If I was so "free" then I'd function randomly, which is clearly not the case.

Your freedom derives from spiritual rather than material causes.

And a second reification fallacy to finish off. Again, why shoot yourself in both feet here?

I asked you some questions by the way about your indifference to logical fallacies - do you intend to benefit us with an answer?

[ippy]

I do not understand why you should think a soul needs a controller.  Your soul is the definitive controller of your conscious thoughts and actions.  It does not need a driver.  And your emergent property can have no control of its own since it is entirely derived from deterministic material reactions.  So what is it that exerts control?  Do you claim to have no control over yourself?

"Your soul is the definitive controller of your conscious thoughts and actions".

I've just seen the above in your post 17977, I would like you to give me or more obviously give a to all of us, a precise explanation of how you came by this knowledge, I can assure you I will join your movement and be equally as devout as you obviously are, but only if you can  somehow show me how you have managed to verify/substantiate the reason you believe the above.

I thought Sass was our top poster for mainlining on assertion, you seem to be streets in front at the moment, our "Numero Uno Assertionist".

I din't mind you having these beliefs A B, that's not the problem for me, it's just the worry of where you people keep passing this stuff into the minds of our very young and vulnerable children; deliberately targeting children with your stuff at that age, as all religions do, absolutely stinks.

ippy

[Alan Burns]

"Your soul is the definitive controller of your conscious thoughts and actions".

I've just seen the above in your post 17977, I would like you to give me or more obviously give a to all of us, a precise explanation of how you came by this knowledge, ....

The alternative materialist explanation requires you to imagine that you are not in control, and any concept of control is an illusion.

This is not the reality I perceive.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The alternative materialist explanation requires you to imagine that you are not in control, and any concept of control is an illusion.

This is not the reality I perceive.

Lots or realities are not as you perceive them to be. What's so special about that one?

PS And your thoughts about your reliance on logical fallacies?

[ippy]

The alternative materialist explanation requires you to imagine that you are not in control, and any concept of control is an illusion.

This is not the reality I perceive.

Please explain the alternative non-materialist explanation that you're implying actually exists, of course with any of the methods or supportable evidence needed to differentiate whatever non-materialist explanations are from something that could have been made up off the top of anyone's head.

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The alternative materialist explanation requires you to imagine that you are not in control, and any concept of control is an illusion.

Which of course leads us to the question that sends'em scuttling for another bite out of the carpet.......What is it which is being illuded.

Searle has pointed out the illusion IS the reality in the case of consciousness and I guess folks like Bluehillside agree with that because they refer to consciousness as an emergent.

In any dust up between Searle and Dennett I find myself with Searle of course and not just for partisan reasons.

[Alan Burns]

Please explain the alternative non-materialist explanation that you're implying actually exists, of course with any of the methods or supportable evidence needed to differentiate whatever non-materialist explanations are from something that could have been made up off the top of anyone's head.

ippy

I do not pretend to know how God made me as a conscious, free thinking, creative being, but I do know that man made attempts to explain how we came into existence without God fall far short of this reality.

[Gordon]

I do not pretend to know how God made me as a conscious, free thinking, creative being, but I do know that man made attempts to explain how we came into existence without God fall far short of this reality.

You seem to have redefined 'reality' to suit yourself: there are more fallacies going on here, which is no surprise since you seem unable to avoid them.

Your thinking on anything relating to your faith is shambolic.

[Alan Burns]

You seem to have redefined 'reality' to suit yourself: there are more fallacies going on here, which is no surprise since you seem unable to avoid them.

Your thinking on anything relating to your faith is shambolic.

It is the materialists who have re defined the reality of our free thinking as an illusion.

[torridon]

The alternative materialist explanation requires you to imagine that you are not in control, and any concept of control is an illusion.

This is not the reality I perceive.

So what, in broad terms we all share the same perceptual systems, but there are deeper insights to be had beyond merely that is how it seems.  But it requires willingness to engage with findings, it requires thirst for knowledge. If everyone lacked that inquisitive streak we would still be living on a flat earth and grunting in the dark.

[Nearly Sane]

It is the materialists who have re defined the reality of our free thinking as an illusion.

Is this the free thinking that you have no logically coherent definition of?

[torridon]

Which of course leads us to the question that sends'em scuttling for another bite out of the carpet.......What is it which is being illuded.

All experience is construct of mind; not just vision, not just hearing and taste, all conscious experience is fabrication constructed by lower levels of mind and this includes the sense of self.  Just try doing some introspection when you are asleep 

[Alan Burns]

So what, in broad terms we all share the same perceptual systems, but there are deeper insights to be had beyond merely that is how it seems.  But it requires willingness to engage with findings, it requires thirst for knowledge. If everyone lacked that inquisitive streak we would still be living on a flat earth and grunting in the dark.

And where does this thirst for knowledge emanate from?  No other animals have it.  And it would not appear to give any immediate survival advantage - indeed it could hinder our survival by wasting our valuable time.  If our conscious free will is an illusion, what drives our willingness to engage?

[Gordon]

And where does this thirst for knowledge emanate from?

The thing between your ears.

No other animals have it.

Perhaps not to the same extent but they have different attributes depending on their circumstances: then again some of them can fly but we can't.

And it would not appear to give any immediate survival advantage - indeed it could hinder our survival by wasting our valuable time.

Yikes: pity we wasted valuable time on trivial stuff like, say, medicine.

If our conscious free will is an illusion, what drives our willingness to engage?

That would be the thing between your ears again.

[torridon]

And where does this thirst for knowledge emanate from?  No other animals have it.  And it would not appear to give any immediate survival advantage - indeed it could hinder our survival by wasting our valuable time.  If our conscious free will is an illusion, what drives our willingness to engage?

Many other animals display curiosity.  Alan, meet cats;  cats meet Alan. Curiosity is a foundational driver of behaviours throughout much of the animal kingdom. Driven by dopamine, it is known as the seeking system in psychology and whereas in other creatures it might manifest mainly in searching for food and shelter, in humans it also becomes the search for knowledge and understanding, for mates, for careers, for nice items of clothing on the High Street.  Next time you do a Google search, that is the dopamine limbic reward system at play, motivating that behaviour, just the same as motivates cats to explore the neighbourhood.

[BeRational]

The alternative materialist explanation requires you to imagine that you are not in control, and any concept of control is an illusion.

This is not the reality I perceive.

So you can perceive reality? WOW

Do you perceive the time at your feet to be different to the time at your head?

Can you perceive this real difference?

I do not believe you.

[Alan Burns]

PS And your thoughts about your reliance on logical fallacies?

Well if such a great writer as CS Lewis gets accused of using logical fallacies I consider myself in good company. 

[Gordon]

Well if such a great writer as CS Lewis gets accused of using logical fallacies I consider myself in good company. 

You'd be  fool to do that, especially since you seem to be conflating CS Lewis's literary abilities (though his Narnia stuff isn't my taste) with his arguments in favour of Christianity.

[Sassy]

So if the sky fairy can help people why doesn't it do it 100% of the time, instead of when it feels like it?

Go back to sleep, Floo.

You have no understanding about God or the bible but your own. So far off the mark you couldn't score a goal if the net was side to side on a football pitch and you were on a penalty shoot out spot.

There is no offense but it is true. People in the world face real difficulties and you don't and never have.
When you have really studied the bible and Christianity, the true nature of God then come back because even your thinking could be corrected, simply by you actually studying what is KNOWN about Christianity.

[Sassy]

You could talk about them on Faith Sharing area sassy, i am certain a few of us would be interested & even if didn't go along with it, there's be no criticism.

  The truth of these things is out there.
What channels do you watch on tv?