Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

Don't be daft: all I needed to do was think about how to respond to you. No magic needed, Alan, just biology doing what it does.

That is the point, Gordon.  Your response involved consciously controlled thought, not just physically induced reaction.

[torridon]

It is based on logic, not faith, and you have not provided any alternative logic.

Eh ?

Your entire argument is a denial of logic. We say choices are made for a reason and explain how that works.  You just give us the 'conscious will of the human soul' but never give any explanation of the derivation of choices made or any algorithm for how 'spiritually determined' can be simultaneously not deterministic and not random.  You are simply arguing out of incredulity because you don't like the findings of science and the implications of the logic.

[Gordon]

That is the point, Gordon.  Your response involved consciously controlled thought, not just physically induced reaction.

Good heavens man: how much dafter can you get - thought is physically induced reaction, the clue being that you only think when using the bit of your biology that is capable of thought.

[torridon]

But you seem to class anything produced from the non physical to be defined by the same cause and effect chains as physically induced reactions.  How do you know this?

Any outcome not respecting cause and effect would be random; it matters not whether the events are 'physical' or not.  This is simply logic. There isn't a separate domain of logic for 'physical' things.

[Alan Burns]

Good heavens man: how much dafter can you get - thought is physically induced reaction, the clue being that you only think when using the bit of your biology that is capable of thought.

There is no definition of thought in material terms.
Perhaps you really believe it is just a pattern of electrons.

But if you truly believe that my conscious thoughts are determined by the same physically controlled reactions in the brain as your thoughts, and that they occur in your subconscious before we become aware of them, than how can you consciously determine that mine are wrong and yours are right?  Does it not involve consciously controlled manipulation of your own thought processes to come to a decision?  If so, what controls this manipulation?  And remember - physically laws acting on material entities produce reactions, not conscious choices.

[Gordon]

There is no definition of thought in material terms.
Perhaps you really believe it is just a pattern of electrons.

But if you truly believe that my conscious thoughts are determined by the same physically controlled reactions in the brain as your thoughts, and that they occur in your subconscious before we become aware of them, than how can you consciously determine that mine are wrong and yours are right?  Does it not involve consciously controlled manipulation of your own thought processes to come to a decision?  If so, what controls this manipulation?

It's just biology doing what it does, Alan: I know you don't like it, since it scuppers your notion of 'souls' - but there were are nonetheless.

[Alan Burns]

Eh ?

Your entire argument is a denial of logic. We say choices are made for a reason and explain how that works.  You just give us the 'conscious will of the human soul' but never give any explanation of the derivation of choices made or any algorithm for how 'spiritually determined' can be simultaneously not deterministic and not random.  You are simply arguing out of incredulity because you don't like the findings of science and the implications of the logic.

My thought processes are entirely logical to me.

[Alan Burns]

It's just biology doing what it does, Alan: I know you don't like it, since it scuppers your notion of 'souls' - but there were are nonetheless.

Biology is nothing more than material elements reacting with each other in accordance with the laws of physics.  It is not a case of me not liking it.  It is a case that our humanity comprises far more than biology alone can ever define. Can you define conscious likes and dislikes as biological entities?  Can you define belief in physical terms?  What determines my personal incredulity?  What initiates my alleged assertions?  Am I really controlled by nothing but physically defined reactions to previous events?

[torridon]

My thought processes are entirely logical to me.

Your claims are not logical.  it is not logical to claim that a choice can be not a consequence of causes without therefore being random. By claiming such, all you do is imply that 'spiritual souls' are illogical.  But the rest of us recognised that long ago.

[torridon]

Biology is nothing more than material elements reacting with each other in accordance with the laws of physics.  It is not a case of me not liking it.  It is a case that our humanity comprises far more than biology alone can ever define. Can you define conscious likes and dislikes as biological entities?  Can you define belief in physical terms?  What determines my personal incredulity?  What initiates my alleged assertions?  Am I really controlled by nothing but physically defined reactions to previous events?

Don't be so silly, this is just hyper-naive incredulity, as if we were still living with a nineteenth century science of particles interacting and nothing else.  We have long moved way beyond that.  Mental states have a biological basis that much is beyond all reasonable doubt, you don't need to invent 'souls' to explain mental states.  My dog likes to eat food, my dog feels anger if you take his food away; mental states evolved hundreds of millions of years before humans evolved and we too experience mental states because we inherited the neural structures that give rise to mental states.   There is no excuse for being so far behind the curve in this, its not like you don't have an internet connection or TV.

[Gordon]

Biology is nothing more than material elements reacting with each other in accordance with the laws of physics.

Sounds like you've decided to give the fallacy of composition an airing.

It is not a case of me not liking it.  It is a case that our humanity comprises far more than biology alone can ever define. Can you define conscious likes and dislikes as biological entities?  Can you define belief in physical terms?  What determines my personal incredulity?  What initiates my alleged assertions?  Am I really controlled by nothing but physically defined reactions to previous events?

Mental states, including beliefs, are biological phenomena: that is why dead people no longer have beliefs (or consciousness etc).

[Stranger]

Biology is nothing more than material elements reacting with each other in accordance with the laws of physics.  It is not a case of me not liking it.

I suspect that you reject it because it is not in accordance with your faith.

It is a case that our humanity comprises far more than biology alone can ever define.

Utterly bizarre phrasing aside (why use 'define', when you mean 'explain'?) this is just a baseless assertion.

Can you define conscious likes and dislikes as biological entities?  Can you define belief in physical terms?  What determines my personal incredulity?  What initiates my alleged assertions?

This is blatant double standards. You have no explanation at all for any of those things that is any more use than "it's magic, innit" and even that assertion is logically self-contradictory in a way that you refuse to even acknowledge or address.

Am I really controlled by nothing but physically defined reactions to previous events?

The evidence and logic are telling us that you are a physical process.

[SusanDoris]

You have given no credence to my post and offered no feasible alternative explanation, Gordon.

All those who do not give credence to your posts are correct. I could - I suppose - add 'in my opinion' ... ...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sounds like you've decided to give the fallacy of composition an airing.

Mental states, including beliefs, are biological phenomena: that is why dead people no longer have beliefs (or consciousness etc).

Point two is debateable. Now we do have substratism as espoused by many materialisticists on this board. Where all ideas are merely patterns on the substrate of matter an idea rarely expanded on to show how that works. Is that where you are coming from? Perhaps you'd like to explain the workings of it allthough I shan't hold my breath.


You seem to have conflated the medical definition of consciousness with the wider philosophical idea (therefore, by implication your biology must be mixed up, according to your ideas).


Finally, I don't care if we are totally material so any power you think that may offer you over people like me you can forget.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Don't be so silly, this is just hyper-naive incredulity, as if we were still living with a nineteenth century science of particles interacting and nothing else.  We have long moved way beyond that.  Mental states have a biological basis that much is beyond all reasonable doubt, you don't need to invent 'souls' to explain mental states.  My dog likes to eat food, my dog feels anger if you take his food away; mental states evolved hundreds of millions of years before humans evolved and we too experience mental states because we inherited the neural structures that give rise to mental states.   There is no excuse for being so far behind the curve in this, its not like you don't have an internet connection or TV.

Yes but like Searle I am waiting for people like you to explain how it works.

[Gordon]

Point two is debateable. Now we do have substratism as espoused by many materialisticists on this board. Where all ideas are merely patterns on the substrate of matter an idea rarely expanded on to show how that works. Is that where you are coming from? Perhaps you'd like to explain the workings of it allthough I shan't hold my breath.

I'm simply observing that, as far as is known, thinking about anything requires a functioning brain: would you agree? By the way what are 'materialisticists'?

You seem to have conflated the medical definition of consciousness with the wider philosophical idea (therefore, by implication your biology must be mixed up, according to your ideas).

No idea what you're trying to say here.

Finally, I don't care if we are totally material so any power you think that may offer you over people like me you can forget.

Not even if I wear my magic cape?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm simply observing that, as far as is known, thinking about anything requires a functioning brain: would you agree? By the way what are 'materialisticists'?

No idea what you're trying to say here.

Not even if I wear my magic cape?

Basically if beliefs are biological Gordon direct me to a stuffed one in a museum.

Tell me how much one weighs, or the spin number of one, or one on a microscope slide. Play me a recording of one that is interpretable.

How does one idea which is biological get from brain to brain? Does it have wings or are they spores like dandelions.


Problems eh, Gordy...yes...but your problems.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sounds like you've decided to give the fallacy of composition an airing.

Mental states, including beliefs, are biological phenomena:

Show us some preserved biological specimens of mental states and beliefs then.

Gordon, Gordon? Are you there Gordon? Gordon......

[Alan Burns]

Your claims are not logical.  it is not logical to claim that a choice can be not a consequence of causes without therefore being random. By claiming such, all you do is imply that 'spiritual souls' are illogical.  But the rest of us recognised that long ago.

As I keep telling you Torri
A conscious choice is definitively caused by human willpower.
It is not random
It is illogical to presume that it is caused by uncontrollable physically defined reactions, because it will not be a choice, but an inevitable reaction.

[Alan Burns]

Don't be so silly, this is just hyper-naive incredulity, as if we were still living with a nineteenth century science of particles interacting and nothing else.  We have long moved way beyond that.  Mental states have a biological basis that much is beyond all reasonable doubt, you don't need to invent 'souls' to explain mental states.  My dog likes to eat food, my dog feels anger if you take his food away; mental states evolved hundreds of millions of years before humans evolved and we too experience mental states because we inherited the neural structures that give rise to mental states.   There is no excuse for being so far behind the curve in this, its not like you don't have an internet connection or TV.

And how on earth can you presume to know the mental states of animals?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And how on earth can you presume to know the mental states of animals?

They are biological?

[Alan Burns]

Sounds like you've decided to give the fallacy of composition an airing.

Mental states, including beliefs, are biological phenomena: that is why dead people no longer have beliefs (or consciousness etc).

But what happens to our self awareness when the physical body dies?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Good question.

The trouble about the just switching off theory is that it portrays humanity as just a machine.

If we are just a machine then why have consciousness is a question that respectable scientists asks.

Of course the Torridonians are then back to reducing consciousness, without satisfactory justification to mere intelligence in a way that comes across as just another ''...Because it is, got it ?''

[torridon]

And how on earth can you presume to know the mental states of animals?

Same as with anybody, we infer broad mental states from observed behaviour.  If I kick a schoolboy and he creases up in pain, that is a sign that he actually is in pain.  Likewise if I kick a labrador and he creases up in pain, that is a sign that he actually is in pain.  Not rocket science you know, just reasonable assumptions.

[torridon]

But what happens to our self awareness when the physical body dies?

Don't be silly.  Our conscious awareness does not even survive going to sleep every night.