Searching for GOD...

[floo]

I was not quoting examples of aesthetic appreciation, but examples of imaginative creativity which are not just inevitable reactions, but consciously guided actions needed to generate inspired works of art.

All activated by your brain, no god creature, imo.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

No, because for that to be so there'd have to be a "you" separate from your brain in order to "drive" it (ie, Cartesian dualism) - something that you have no way to demonstrate, that's logically incoherent, and that's been undone by arguments from several disciplines.

But the evidence is still there in our continued perception of reality - the so called arguments can't take that away.

[Nearly Sane]

I was not quoting examples of aesthetic appreciation, but examples of imaginative creativity which are not just inevitable reactions, but consciously guided actions needed to generate inspired works of art.

You were not quoting examples of it, you were asserting that they were examples. Stating that they are is begging the question, and using the odea that they are being 'quoted' would in a less pleasant poster be indicative of lying.

[Maeght]

Not just religious beliefs, but any creative output from human beings - poets, novelists, artists, sculptors, composers, singers etc. 

I wasn't suggesting religious beliefwax evidence of non determined behaviour so you are addressing a different point there. My point was that yourreligious beliefs mean you need to believe in free will.

They all show evidence of human activity which is highly unlikely to have been generated by uncontrolable reactions to physical events in the human brain.

No they don't at all.

The materialist model does not allow any form of conscious control or manipulation - all is just pre determined unavoidable reaction.  And this is not what makes us human.

You believe and assert.

[Nearly Sane]

But the evidence is still there in our continued perception of reality - the so called arguments can't take that away.

again begging the question Alan and using pre loaded language such 'so called' rather than honestly deal with the arguments.

[Maeght]

But in the act of thinking I am right, does this not show evidence for my ability to consciously drive my brain into thinking this way?

Of course not.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I was not quoting examples of aesthetic appreciation, but examples of imaginative creativity which are not just inevitable reactions, but consciously guided actions needed to generate inspired works of art.

No they’re not. As you keep ignoring the explanations for why they’re not though, I see little point in repeating them. The clue though is in your pejorative use of “just inevitable reactions”. 

[torridon]

But the evidence is still there in our continued perception of reality - the so called arguments can't take that away.

Our perceptions are not the real deal though.  We all have a false intuition of direct experience. Our perceptions are a fabrication, optimised to keep us alive; nature has had no remit to show us reality 'as is'.

[Shaker]

Our perceptions are not the real deal though. We all have a false intuition of direct experience. Our perceptions are a fabrication, optimised to keep us alive; nature has had no remit to show us reality 'as is'.

Tread carefully, unwary poster; carry this too far and you'll have some clown deploying the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism on you.

The thing that interests me is, whereas you say that nature has no remit to show us reality 'as is', what reason(s) do we have for supposing otherwise? To say that our perceptions aren't the real deal assumes that there's a real deal which eludes us; to say 'false' automatically implies 'true' - and as ever I would ask "What justification do we have for thinking this?"

One for the philosophy forum we don't have 

[Nearly Sane]

Tread carefully, unwary poster; carry this too far and you'll have some clown deploying the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism on you.

The thing that interests me is, whereas you say that nature has no remit to show us reality 'as is', what reason(s) do we have for supposing otherwise? To say that our perceptions aren't the real deal assumes that there's a real deal which eludes us; to say 'false' automatically implies 'true' - and as ever I would ask "What justification do we have for thinking this?"

One for the philosophy forum we don't have 

Bung it on to Ethics and Freethought, it is a de facto if not de verbe feelossofsoapy board

[wigginhall]

Tread carefully, unwary poster; carry this too far and you'll have some clown deploying the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism on you.

The thing that interests me is, whereas you say that nature has no remit to show us reality 'as is', what reason(s) do we have for supposing otherwise? To say that our perceptions aren't the real deal assumes that there's a real deal which eludes us; to say 'false' automatically implies 'true' - and as ever I would ask "What justification do we have for thinking this?"

One for the philosophy forum we don't have 

Yes, you can even argue that there is no reality as is, for as soon as we consider it, we are positing a reality as I am considering it.   In other words, you can't step outside into a land of as is, without dragging your perceptions and sensations with you.   Well, we can postulate reality as is, but that is now a postulate!  Laugh or what. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

Yes, you can even argue that there is no reality as is, for as soon as we consider it, we are positing a reality as I am considering it.

I think I’d frame that as, “there’s no way to identify that we have described as reality as is” rather than that there or isn’t one but I take the point..   

In other words, you can't step outside into a land of as is, without dragging your perceptions and sensations with you.   Well, we can postulate reality as is, but that is now a postulate!  Laugh or what.

Quite. If, say, AB believes in something he calls “God” then that’s his reality, and moreover a reality he proudly tells us he’s “absolutely certain” about (thereby inadvertently also telling us that he has a closed mind on the subject). Where he goes wrong though is to insist that his reality about that necessarily is also my reality about that, and he’s not helped in the claim by having only very bad arguments for support.

What we do have though is our old friend inter-subjective experience. Thus he could argue that, say, gravity is a truth for the two of us equally because of the inter-subjective experience of what happens if each of us jumps out of the window, or that 2+2=4 because of the inter-subjective experience of what happens when each of us applies the claim.

Just re-asserting his dualism though regardless of the falsifications that are thrown at it seems to me not even to get its trousers off for the purpose of persuading anyone else that he’s right.   

[torridon]

Tread carefully, unwary poster; carry this too far and you'll have some clown deploying the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism on you.

The thing that interests me is, whereas you say that nature has no remit to show us reality 'as is', what reason(s) do we have for supposing otherwise? To say that our perceptions aren't the real deal assumes that there's a real deal which eludes us; to say 'false' automatically implies 'true' - and as ever I would ask "What justification do we have for thinking this?"

One for the philosophy forum we don't have 

I'd probably go along with Wiggs, above, in that there can be no such thing as an objective perception of reality; Nietzche 'there are no facts' comes to mind; but that is probably deeper than needed to counter Alan's core position, that 'that is how it seems', is enough to demolish all other reasoned arguments. 'How it seems' is evolutionary legacy, we perceive the world through a particular lens, unique to our species and unique to us each as individuals and that lens has no remit to be an accurate guide to external reality, in so far as such a thing could exist, rather it's remit is to allow us to navigate the world at minimum calorific cost.  Our sense of vision for instance, only processes a tiny amount of incoming data and our internal imagery is constructed mostly from memory and expectation.  So I don't put much weight by 'that is how it seems'.

[ippy]

I'd probably go along with Wiggs, above, in that there can be no such thing as an objective perception of reality; Nietzche 'there are no facts' comes to mind; but that is probably deeper than needed to counter Alan's core position, that 'that is how it seems', is enough to demolish all other reasoned arguments. 'How it seems' is evolutionary legacy, we perceive the world through a particular lens, unique to our species and unique to us each as individuals and that lens has no remit to be an accurate guide to external reality, in so far as such a thing could exist, rather it's remit is to allow us to navigate the world at minimum calorific cost.  Our sense of vision for instance, only processes a tiny amount of incoming data and our internal imagery is constructed mostly from memory and expectation.  So I don't put much weight by 'that is how it seems'.

I don't know if it would be a similar experience, when I put my hearing aids on each morning, for a moment when I switch them on the sound is tinny, this sound coming from the aids will not be changing, the miniture speakers can only reach their set level or capacity, but then brain takes over and turns this tinny sound reproduction into an approximation of it's preconcieved ideas, from, when I assume, from past memory of the sounds it remembers from when my hearing was having it's best days.

The sound correction my brain does is all performed without any concious effort on my part and manages to bring back normality, as near as is possible, to my hearing.

I believe the brain does something very similar when it patches over the blind hole in our vision where the rods and cones go through a hole in the retina to send their input via the optic nerve to the receptors within the brain.

I'm quite sure the brain does these things quite happily on it's own, can't see any logical reason to add anything magical.

ippy

[ekim]

I'm quite sure the brain does these things quite happily on it's own, can't see any logical reason to add anything magical.

.... then focus on the centre of this image and then close your eyes.  All will be revealed in the after image...... http://www.maniacworld.com/the-jesus-optical-illusion.jpg

[floo]

.... then focus on the centre of this image and then close your eyes.  All will be revealed in the after image...... http://www.maniacworld.com/the-jesus-optical-illusion.jpg

If I had a pound for every weird experience/optical illusion, I have had in my 67 years I would be quite rich!

[Alan Burns]

Can no one see the irony in people making carefully thought out arguments to show that our perception of freedom to direct our thoughts is just an illusion?

[Nearly Sane]

Can no one see the irony in people making carefully thought out arguments to show that our perception of freedom to direct our thoughts is just an illusion?

it would help, Alan, if you actually addressed the arguments and didn't misrepresent people's position as you do here. You are portraying the argument as if people are saying thoughts are random. Now this is either that you don't understand what has been said or you are lying.


BTW any chance at all that you can deal with the infinite regress that your position creates?

[Maeght]

Can no one see the irony in people making carefully thought out arguments to show that our perception of freedom to direct our thoughts is just an illusion?

No.

I think you have a very simplistic view of what we are saying is the most likely way in which fountains make decisions and this leads you into asking such questions. The brain is complex and capable of having amazing thoughts - none of that however means we are capable of making choices free our previous experiences and not predetermined by them.

[torridon]

Can no one see the irony in people making carefully thought out arguments to show that our perception of freedom to direct our thoughts is just an illusion?

Maybe our 'perception of freedom' is in fact, more accurately, the lack of our perception of constraints.

We are unaware of the vast majority of goings-on happening in a mind, nearly all of it is subconscious.  What we are aware of, in any given moment, is only that which we most need to be aware of, consciousness being a system of prioritisation.  There is no need for us to be aware of the fine detail of the intricate chains of cause and effect rippling through neural assemblies that lead up to the making of a choice.  Likewise, when you click on an icon on your desktop, you don't need to be aware of all the millions of lines of codes being executed on various internet nodes or of all the networking cables and protocols that make it all happen. As with a mind, it is all under the hood.

[wigginhall]

AB is completely busted by his infinite regress, as NS keeps pointing out.   In order to direct my thoughts, I have to know what they are, which means thinking about them, before I think them.   But hang on, in order to think  about them  before I think them, I have  to have thought about that, beforehand.  Turtles all the way down.

[Walter]

Jeez! is this bollocks still going on?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

AB is completely busted by his infinite regress, as NS keeps pointing out.   In order to direct my thoughts, I have to know what they are, which means thinking about them, before I think them.   But hang on, in order to think  about them  before I think them, I have  to have thought about that, beforehand.  Turtles all the way down.

Yes, but he's told us several times that he hasn't quite got all the details worked out yet so, you know, that's all fine then isn't it?

Similarly, I might say that I haven't quite got all the details worked out yet for why no-one's ever found a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow but hey, leprechauns!

Oh, hang on a mo though...

[Enki]

I'd probably go along with Wiggs, above, in that there can be no such thing as an objective perception of reality; Nietzche 'there are no facts' comes to mind; but that is probably deeper than needed to counter Alan's core position, that 'that is how it seems', is enough to demolish all other reasoned arguments. 'How it seems' is evolutionary legacy, we perceive the world through a particular lens, unique to our species and unique to us each as individuals and that lens has no remit to be an accurate guide to external reality, in so far as such a thing could exist, rather it's remit is to allow us to navigate the world at minimum calorific cost.  Our sense of vision for instance, only processes a tiny amount of incoming data and our internal imagery is constructed mostly from memory and expectation.  So I don't put much weight by 'that is how it seems'.

Interesting also is that the eye sees the world upside down, but to make sense of all our sensory inputs, the brain uses its capacity to invert the image. So our visual perception is in fact controlled by the brain even though we may be completely unaware of this.

[wigginhall]

There is interesting research on linguistic redundancy, and how the brain fills in gaps and stumbles all the time, so as to produce (fabricate) a smooth coherent stream of sound and meaning.   You can actually do this concretely, by recording some speech, and then deleting bits, and people don't notice the deletions.