Searching for GOD...

[Maeght]

But in your scenario, you cannot explain how your conscious choices are determined by anything but the physically controlled chains of cause and effect, over which there can be no control other than the laws of physics.  So whatever conclusions you come to can't be attributed to you personally, because you have no control over them.

Control is irrelevant. They are still your conclusions.

[Alan Burns]

Language doesn't define truth. Simple logic proves you wrong because you haven't been able to define freedom in a logically coherent fashion.

I admit that I can't define how freedom works.  But I can demonstrate its existence by what I consciously choose to do and say.  And I can offer its existence as evidence of the power of our spiritual soul.

[Alan Burns]

Control is irrelevant. They are still your conclusions.

They can't be categorised as my personal conclusions unless I have conscious control over how they are arrived at.  This is simple logic.

[torridon]

But in your scenario, you cannot explain how your conscious choices are determined by anything but the physically controlled chains of cause and effect, over which there can be no control other than the laws of physics.  So whatever conclusions you come to can't be attributed to you personally, because you have no control over them.

Think emergence, think varying levels of what is meant by 'control'.  The 'me' that controls the movement of my fingers is a phenomenon of higher levels of complexity and emergence. I can hold my arm up now and wiggle my fingers.  So can a Capuchin monkey, it is executing that same translation from intention to executive motor control that I am doing. It doesn't need a soul to do that.  However, neither I nor the monkey can control what intentions to form, what desires or fears to have, what thoughts to think.  Such things at the borders between mental phenomena and 'physical' phenomena are much closer to the elemental laws of nature in terms of complexity.  We cannot control the laws of nature, for the same reason, more or less, we cannot control our thoughts, hopes, intentions. The 'me' that takes responsibility for actions is a phenomenon of high end natural complexity that derives from a simpler underlying deterministic substrate of reality.  Think emergence, think varying levels of what is meant by 'control'.

[Maeght]

They can't be categorised as my personal conclusions unless I have conscious control over how they are arrived at.  This is simple logic.

No it isn't. They come from you, they are yours.

[Nearly Sane]

I admit that I can't define how freedom works.  But I can demonstrate its existence by what I consciously choose to do and say.  And I can offer its existence as evidence of the power of our spiritual soul.

Nope, since you can't say what it is, you can't demonstrate it. Logic is a bit hard for you, isn't it?

[Stranger]

You claim that "you" are personally responsible for the conclusions you write.  And you accuse whatever comprises "me" of not having honesty to acknowledge the points you make.

Both these points infer that the "me" and "you" in this scenario must have consciously controlled influence over the physically determined events in  our material brains.  Without this controlled influence, your above claims are false, because our outcomes will be determined by physically determined events beyond any personal control.

Once again you've totally ignored the points I made in favour of just mindlessly repeating your pointless, logic-free dogmas. If you read my post that you were supposedly replying to, you might see that I had already addressed your "point".

According to all the evidence, "conscious control" is "physically determined events in our material brains". There is no logical contradiction; there is only your refusal to accept what the evidence is telling us. Your proposed 'solution', on the other hand, contains a the glaring logical contradiction of making our choices not deterministic and yet without randomness.

[Alan Burns]

Nope, since you can't say what it is, you can't demonstrate it. Logic is a bit hard for you, isn't it?

I am demonstrating it with this post
My freedom is real
So is yours

[Alan Burns]

Think emergence, think varying levels of what is meant by 'control'.  The 'me' that controls the movement of my fingers is a phenomenon of higher levels of complexity and emergence. I can hold my arm up now and wiggle my fingers.  So can a Capuchin monkey, it is executing that same translation from intention to executive motor control that I am doing. It doesn't need a soul to do that.  However, neither I nor the monkey can control what intentions to form, what desires or fears to have, what thoughts to think.  Such things at the borders between mental phenomena and 'physical' phenomena are much closer to the elemental laws of nature in terms of complexity.  We cannot control the laws of nature, for the same reason, more or less, we cannot control our thoughts, hopes, intentions. The 'me' that takes responsibility for actions is a phenomenon of high end natural complexity that derives from a simpler underlying deterministic substrate of reality.  Think emergence, think varying levels of what is meant by 'control'.

You are talking yourself out of existence

[Alan Burns]

Once again you've totally ignored the points I made in favour of just mindlessly repeating your pointless, logic-free dogmas. If you read my post that you were supposedly replying to, you might see that I had already addressed your "point".

According to all the evidence, "conscious control" is "physically determined events in our material brains". There is no logical contradiction; there is only your refusal to accept what the evidence is telling us. Your proposed 'solution', on the other hand, contains a the glaring logical contradiction of making our choices not deterministic and yet without randomness.

But in your physically determined scenario, how can I possibly be personally accused of consciously refusing to accept your evidence?

[wigginhall]

"How can I possibly be?" = incredulity.

[SteveH]

You keep saying two plus two equals four is logic.  That is maths. You are making logic sound like some immutable truth.

By definition.....Logic is....

1. the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.

2. a particular method of reasoning or argumentation:

3. the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.

Logic is not something out there, a natural law or an integral part of the universe. It is merely our way of understanding things based on our background and knowledge. It is not universal.  Our limitations cannot decide what the universe is. Logic is also dependent on culture and time. What seems logical today need not  be logical tomorrow.

As I said, there is nothing 'logical' about Parallel Universes or about Strings vibrating in eleven dimensions or non local influences between particles across large distances or that we humans seem to be the only living beings in our part of the universe and so on....but these could all be true nevertheless.

This is complete cobblers. Maths is part of logic, and logic is a natural law. If A is greater than B and B is greater than C, then, assuming that "greater than" has the same meaning throughout, A must be greater than C. That's logic, and it applies everywhere and at all times.

[Sriram]

This is complete cobblers. Maths is part of logic, and logic is a natural law. If A is greater than B and B is greater than C, then, assuming that "greater than" has the same meaning throughout, A must be greater than C. That's logic, and it applies everywhere and at all times.

If the dictionary definition is not good enough, here is a wiki article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

Mathematical theories are just one form of logic.

Logic in a general sense is about 'valid inference'....nothing more.  A valid inference can change depending on our knowledge and background...and what we consider as reasonable at any point of time.   

There is nothing called 'logic' that is valid everywhere and for all time.

[Nearly Sane]

I am demonstrating it with this post
My freedom is real
So is yours

No logical coherent definition of freedom. You are still struggling with logic.

[Nearly Sane]

If the dictionary definition is not good enough, here is a wiki article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

Mathematical theories are just one form of logic.

Logic in a general sense is about 'valid inference'....nothing more.  A valid inference can change depending on our knowledge and background...and what we consider as reasonable at any point of time.   

There is nothing called 'logic' that is valid everywhere and for all time.

Yeo, there is. This just shows you don't understand logic.

[torridon]

You are talking yourself out of existence

That's hardly a constructive engagement with the post you were referring to.  Things are not always as they seem on the surface; so what shall we do, blindfold ourselves to ensure that we cannot see anything that would cause us to question simplistic models of what we are ?  Reality will not disappear courtesy of such trivial strategies.

[torridon]

I am demonstrating it with this post
My freedom is real
So is yours

Free in the trivial sense, this is a free country, no one is telling what you can and cannot write.  But you cannot be free of natural law or free of yourself, to claim so would be nonsensical.  We are manifestations, outcomes, of natural law, we are constituted of them and without them we could not possibly exist or make choices. A house is not free of the bricks from which is it constructed.

[Alan Burns]

That's hardly a constructive engagement with the post you were referring to.  Things are not always as they seem on the surface; so what shall we do, blindfold ourselves to ensure that we cannot see anything that would cause us to question simplistic models of what we are ?  Reality will not disappear courtesy of such trivial strategies.

What I would like to point out is this obvious dilemma -

You claim that our apparently free thoughts occur in our subconscious before we become aware of them.

Yet in your previous post, you ask me to: "Think emergence, think varying levels of what is meant by 'control' ....."

How can I possibly have the freedom to direct myself to produce these thoughts if they have to be determined in my sub conscious before I become aware of them?

And do you really believe all these thoughts of yours originated in your subconscious?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Also Alan. Torriden as far as I am aware has not addressed the question of dialogue between consciousness and subconsciousness where the consciousness informs the subconscious.

[Stranger]

But in your physically determined scenario, how can I possibly be personally accused of consciously refusing to accept your evidence?

Human brains are sophisticated information gathering, processing, and decision making systems.

Your question is based entirely on your refusal to accept that you might be a physical entity. If I did the same for your supposed solution, I could equally ask: if I have a magic, logicically impossible soul, how can I possibly be personally accused  of anything?

[ekim]

Not sure I totally understand your post but ..........I have said that your programming can be changed with training, learning and by having different experiences. It is whether you can control your responses at any one moment in time that I question.

The answer to that can depend upon what you mean by 'control' and what you mean by 'you' and what you mean by 'responses' and to what you are responding.  To many people 'control' means 'suppress', 'you' means 'a collection of physical and mental forms and forces', 'response' means 'unconscious and automatic reaction' and 'to what you are responding' can be anything external to the body or internal to the body and mind.  If you can give some indication of what the terms represent to you then I'll attempt to give my view and try to relate it to the religious topic.

[Sebastian Toe]

Also Alan. Torriden as far as I am aware has not addressed the question of dialogue between consciousness and subconsciousness where the consciousness informs the subconscious.

The question of apparent dialogue between consciousness and subconsciousness where the consciousness seems to inform the subconscious?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The question of apparent dialogue between consciousness and subconsciousness where the consciousness seems to inform the subconscious?

That's the one TOE

Also what if the subconscious ONLY informs the conscious? That doesn't explain away the conscious.

What is that for?


I am expecting atheist science from you namely those questions which embarrass atheists are not proper questions.


Ha Ha.

[Sebastian Toe]

Also what if the subconscious ONLY informs the conscious? That doesn't explain away the conscious.

Not sure what you mean here.

(Could Vlad the Strawbaler's subconcious please emerge and put that another way?)

[Alan Burns]

According to all the evidence, "conscious control" is "physically determined events in our material brains".

In making this statement, you show that you do not understand the concept of control.

For control to exist, there must be a definable source which has the capability of invoking control.

In an entirely physically determined scenario there can be no definable source of control, since everything is a direct, unavoidable consequence to past events.  If you believe this, then you must concede that you have no personal control over anything you write, because all your thoughts, words and actions will be directed by physically defined reactions - and you can't control the laws of physics.

And you have the problem of defining the concept of personal belief in the physically defined scenario.   If you have no personal control over what you believe, how can it be labelled as your belief?