Searching for GOD...

[Enki]

If the soul does not invoke my conscious choice to press the "e" key on the keyboard, then what does invoke it?  And how is it determined within the sub conscious before I have even chosen to press it?

Present thinking suggests that it is a result of linked activity in various parts of the brain. The argument about the sub conscious is extremely valid but is not one which I have mentioned at all, so I leave others to answer that one. However, true to form, Alan, I asked you a question, which yet again you have totally ignored. I see no point in asking it again, because it would seem it is a waste of my time and yours.

[Alan Burns]

So basically all you have is "it's magic innit", your previous claims of having supporting evidence and logic were untrue, and you are guilty blatant double standards when criticising others for not having a full explanation of consciousness.

Is that about right?

We do not need an explanation of how our conscious awareness and free will work in order to realise they exist.  What I endeavour to do in my posts is to point out the impossibility of ever being able to explain how these attributes can be defined by deterministic activity of material entities.

[Alan Burns]

How bizarre: rather than consider the issue on which you wish to speak using the biological equipment in your head, in order to formulate what you intend to say as a consequence of you mental deliberations before you speak, you think that your 'soul' decides how to reply. Since this implies that your soul must do all the considering, and in doing so have access to all your experiences, knowledge and preferences - plus of course your personal language abilities - I suspect that you are mistaking your 'soul' for your brain.

The real irony here though is that you've often bleated along the lines that people aren't 'biological robots' while you cheerful portray yourself as a 'spiritual robot' without seeing the irony in your own argument. However, since brains do what you think 'souls' do, and we do know we all have brains, then you 'soul' notion is clearly redundant (as well as incoherent).

You have got it wrong, Gordon.  The brain is an amazing biological machine, but what we have is a conscious entity (you) which can interact with the machine in order to implement such tasks as free speech.  It is of course a two way interaction with the machine providing data (human senses, stored memories, leant experiences) and the soul being able to implement conscious choices based upon the data by invoking the machines many functions.

[Stranger]

We do not need an explanation of how our conscious awareness and free will work in order to realise they exist.  What I endeavour to do in my posts is to point out the impossibility of ever being able to explain how these attributes can be defined by deterministic activity of material entities.

Something you seem utterly unable to back up with anything but fallacies and assertions. You claimed to have logic and evidence but have posted neither.

There is no reason at all to supposed that our minds aren't deterministic and your proposal for something that makes meaningful choices without being deterministic is logically impossible for the reasons that have been explained to you many times and which you continue to totally ignore.

[Stranger]

You have got it wrong, Gordon.  The brain is an amazing biological machine, but what we have is a conscious entity (you) which can interact with the machine in order to implement such tasks as free speech.  It is of course a two way interaction with the machine providing data (human senses, stored memories, leant experiences) and the soul being able to implement conscious choices based upon the data by invoking the machines many functions.

He asserted - without a hint of evidence or reasoning...     

[Alan Burns]

This shows clearly that you did not read the previous post.  The point was that it wasn't a conscious choice.  The more subtle insight from cognitive science, is that it is actually a subconscious choice that you become aware of having made shortly afterwards.

This makes no sense at all.
You are saying that a decision to press the "e" key was made in my sub conscious without any input from my conscious awareness, yet I am consciously aware of making the decision myself. 
So what could possibly invoke my sub conscious to press the "e" ?

[Alan Burns]

Something you seem utterly unable to back up with anything but fallacies and assertions. You claimed to have logic and evidence but have posted neither.

There is no reason at all to supposed that our minds aren't deterministic and your proposal for something that makes meaningful choices without being deterministic is logically impossible for the reasons that have been explained to you many times and which you continue to totally ignore.

I agree that it is logically impossible for a machine to perform any function without that function being pre determined by something, but what if the something which pre determines the machine's action is a consciously enabled driver?

You may then ask what drives the driver, but God has apparently enabled the driver to drive himself.

[torridon]

This makes no sense at all.
You are saying that a decision to press the "e" key was made in my sub conscious without any input from my conscious awareness, yet I am consciously aware of making the decision myself. 
So what could possibly invoke my sub conscious to press the "e" ?

Don't affect surprise as if this is news to you, these findings around consciousness lag have been referenced many times on this thread.  Please have the courtesy to read if you are going to post.  We covered this in January following a thread around a paper from cognitive psychology which describes consciousness as the end-product of non-conscious executive systems.  Something that is the end product cannot be the start of it.   Awareness always lags behind reality as it is a complex product derived from preconscious mind states. The idea that we could make decisions in conscious real time is a non-starter.  Even Freud suspected that it was subconscious mind that was the real seat of volition and choice, and all the relevant science done since his day has only furthered that understanding.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01924/full

[Stranger]

I agree that it is logically impossible for a machine to perform any function without that function being pre determined by something, but what if the something which pre determines the machine's action is a consciously enabled driver?

It makes no difference, a choice still has to be made. Once again you have totally ignored the argument that has been presented to you multiple times. What's the point? Either address the argument or just admit you can't.

You may then ask what drives the driver, but God has apparently enabled the driver to drive himself.

Translation: it's magic innit!

Again: anything that makes a choice will have a (possibly very large) number of things that it might base its answer on (including its own nature and current state). Either all those things taken together can lead to only one choice or not.

If so, the choice is deterministic (predetermined by those things).

If not, there is nothing left to base the remaining choice on, so it must be made for no reason - which means random.

[Gordon]

You have got it wrong, Gordon.  The brain is an amazing biological machine, but what we have is a conscious entity (you) which can interact with the machine in order to implement such tasks as free speech.  It is of course a two way interaction with the machine providing data (human senses, stored memories, leant experiences) and the soul being able to implement conscious choices based upon the data by invoking the machines many functions.

Nope: you see, Alan, the evidence suggests that the 'conscious entity' is 'me', and that 'I' am the 'machine': the machine and I are one and the same thing.

So, Occam's razor and all that, renders this 'soul', and the God thing, utterly redundant since it has no explanatory value as things stand and unless you come up with a method appropriate for supernatural claims then 'God' isn't a remotely serious proposition.

[Maeght]

This makes no sense at all.
You are saying that a decision to press the "e" key was made in my sub conscious without any input from my conscious awareness, yet I am consciously aware of making the decision myself. 
So what could possibly invoke my sub conscious to press the "e" ?

Stop pretending this is new to you Alan and asking questions which have been answered many times. Why do you do that?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

God Himself has the explanation.  All we have to do is use this amazing gift.

Can we all just take a moment to mark the very instant Alan gave up any prospect of ever being helped out of the hole he’s dug for himself.

Here’s how it works:

1. Find a phenomenon (in this case consciousness) that isn’t fully explicable in scientific terms.

2. Decide that the fact of current gaps in knowledge means that consciousness (though for some unknown reason not other partially understood phenomena) cannot therefore be naturalistic. (Nope I have no idea why either, but hey…).

3. Decide that conceptually there must be a “supernatural”, or perhaps “supra-natural” into which certain beliefs can be situated (again, no I have no idea what this would actually mean in practice either).

4. Pouffe into existence various explanatory conjectures (“God”, “soul” etc) that have no evidence, no data, no anything that’s investigable, and moreover that are inherently logically incoherent.

5. Try to validate these claims with some very bad arguments and, when that fails, fall back on assertions of personal faith.

6. Never, ever, ever address the arguments that undo you.

7. When pressed for something other than white noise about these faith beliefs finally collapse into the circularity of asserting the details to be known to the very entity you've been asked for details about to test the claim of “His” existence in the first place.

Job done!

It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.

[Alan Burns]

Nope: you see, Alan, the evidence suggests that the 'conscious entity' is 'me', and that 'I' am the 'machine': the machine and I are one and the same thing.

So, Occam's razor and all that, renders this 'soul', and the God thing, utterly redundant since it has no explanatory value as things stand and unless you come up with a method appropriate for supernatural claims then 'God' isn't a remotely serious proposition.

But machines have no will of their own

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Can we all just take a moment to mark the very instant Alan gave up any prospect of ever being helped out of the hole he’s dug for himself.

Here’s how it works:

1. Find a phenomenon (in this case consciousness) that isn’t fully explicable in scientific terms.

2. Decide that the fact of current gaps in knowledge means that consciousness (though for some unknown reason not other partially understood phenomena) cannot therefore be naturalistic. (Nope I have no idea why either, but hey…).

3. Decide that conceptually there must be a “supernatural”, or perhaps “supra-natural” into which certain beliefs can be situated (again, no I have no idea what this would actually mean in practice either).

4. Pouffe into existence various explanatory conjectures (“God”, “soul” etc) that have no evidence, no data, no anything that’s investigable, and moreover that are inherently logically incoherent.

5. Try to validate these claims with some very bad arguments and, when that fails, fall back on assertions of personal faith.

6. Never, ever, ever address the arguments that undo you.

7. When pressed for something other than white noise about these faith beliefs finally collapse into the circularity of asserting the details to be known to the very entity you've been asked for details about to test the claim of “His” existence in the first place.

Job done!

It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.

No Blue,
The sequence starts with:
1. I discover God and His love for all mankind

Everything follows from this

[Gordon]

No Blue,
The sequence starts with:
1. I discover God and His love for all mankind

Everything follows from this

Then I suspect, Alan, that your are lost to, and are immune to, reason and rationality.

[Alan Burns]

It makes no difference, a choice still has to be made. Once again you have totally ignored the argument that has been presented to you multiple times. What's the point? Either address the argument or just admit you can't.

Translation: it's magic innit!

Again: anything that makes a choice will have a (possibly very large) number of things that it might base its answer on (including its own nature and current state). Either all those things taken together can lead to only one choice or not.

If so, the choice is deterministic (predetermined by those things).

If not, there is nothing left to base the remaining choice on, so it must be made for no reason - which means random.

But your scenario offers no choice at all - in  the end everything is just inevitable reaction.
Can you not differentiate between a machine and its consciously enabled driver?

[Gordon]

But your scenario offers no choice at all - in  the end everything is just inevitable reaction.
Can you not differentiate between a machine and its consciously enabled driver?

What if it a self-driving machine?

[ippy]

Alan, we all get things arse upwards from time to time, admit it to yourself, you'll feel a lot better in yourself if you do.

Regards ippy

[Alan Burns]

What if it a self-driving machine?

It is still a machine  - with programmed instructions from a consciously enabled driver.

[Gordon]

It is still a machine  - with programmed instructions from a consciously enabled driver a functioning brain.

FIFY.

[torridon]

It is still a machine  - with programmed instructions from a consciously enabled driver.

That 'consciously enabled driver' is constructed by the machine, this is what the evidence tells us.

Imagine if some bright spark at Uber suggested that they should soup up their self-driving software with the creation of a virtual hologrammatic apparent driver projected into the driving seat, apparently driving the car.  This, he argues, would get more rides, people would be happier to pay for a ride with an apparent virtual driver than one without.

This is what evolution has created in us, an apparent self that exists because it allows for better operation of the body that generates it.  When the engine is switched off, the driver vanishes - just like us, when we go to sleep, the self evaporates.

[Stranger]

But your scenario offers no choice at all - in  the end everything is just inevitable reaction.

Argumentum ad consequentiam - again.

Can you not differentiate between a machine and its consciously enabled driver?

Once again, you have totally ignored the argument. Unless you can point out a flaw in the argument that would enable a "consciously enabled driver" to do something different, you have nothing but a flat rejection of logic in favour of blind faith and "it's magic innit".

If you can't see a flaw in the argument but are rejecting it anyway - have the courage to admit it.

[Stranger]

No Blue,
The sequence starts with:
1. I discover God and His love for all mankind

Everything follows from this

So, based on this, either:

• You are admitting that you have no logic or evidence to support your claims (because it all relies on your faith) and your previous claim that you had was a bit of a porky.
  
  
• You have some logic and/or evidence that supports the existence of this god and which you have, rather strangely, not mentioned yet.

Do tell.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

No Blue,
The sequence starts with:
1. I discover God and His love for all mankind

Everything follows from this

No Alan, what you discovered was a belief in "God and His love for all mankind" as you put it. Whether that belief is well founded or utter nonsense is the point here and, so far at least, you've provided no reason at all to conclude that it isn't the latter.

See Reply 27161 for the explanation of why that is.

[Alan Burns]

Once again, you have totally ignored the argument. Unless you can point out a flaw in the argument that would enable a "consciously enabled driver" to do something different, you have nothing but a flat rejection of logic in favour of blind faith and "it's magic innit".

Does the fact that I have the freedom to consciously reject your logic not prove your logic to be flawed?