Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There's no reason to suppose that is correct.  That's exactly what brains do - they integrate multiple streams of information flow into a singular flow of experience.  I have two eyes but I don't have double vision, the brain integrates the flows into a seamless singular flow of awareness.

I'm sure there are a couple of "bobs your uncle" missing from this thesis.

[Stranger]

Our conscious awareness is still a mystery in scientific terms, because a single entity of awareness can't be defined in terms of physical reactions alone.

Translation: it's difficult to see how this works so it must be magic.

I can be selective by deliberately ignoring some or all of the influences and choosing to do something just because it is what I want to do at that moment.

Once again avoiding the actual question. You can't explain the mechanism of choice making by using another choice to override the potential determinism of the first choice - you are introducing infinite regression.

"What I want to do at the moment" is itself a choice and it is subject to exactly the same logic as the first one: it either happens entirely due to (pre-existing) reasons or, to the extent that it doesn't, is for no reason at all, which means it is random.

[Alan Burns]

So if you ignore other influences and go with 'what I want to do at that moment', all you are saying is that 'what I want to do at that moment' is the option that appeals the most.

But in order to get to this, I have the freedom to choose my own paths of thought.  What appeals to me at any moment is chosen by me within my present state of conscious awareness, not by uncontrollable physically determined chains of cause and effect.

To presume that everything is determined by nothing but physically controlled reactions is a very short sighted view, because this does not come close to reflecting the reality we live in.  A reality which can't be defined by physical reactions alone.

[torridon]

But in order to get to this, I have the freedom to choose my own paths of thought.  What appeals to me at any moment is chosen by me within my present state of conscious awareness, not by uncontrollable physically determined chains of cause and effect.

1. You seem obsessed with this word, physical.  Whether it is physical or not is irrelevant; cause and effect is a principle of logic.

2. I don't recognise your 'reality' at all.  Speaking for myself, a moment of choice is a moment in which I identify which option appeals the most to me;  I don't see how I could possibly alter how something external appeals to me.  I have no control over it.  If you like the look of the nectarine more than the look of the peach, you are claiming is that you can like the look of the peach more than the look of the nectarine.  That cannot be right, it just makes no sense to me at all.  If we could do that, then we could also choose what to find convincing irrespective of whether we found it convincing or not.

[Alan Burns]

1. You seem obsessed with this word, physical.  Whether it is physical or not is irrelevant; cause and effect is a principle of logic.

2. I don't recognise your 'reality' at all.  Speaking for myself, a moment of choice is a moment in which I identify which option appeals the most to me;  I don't see how I could possibly alter how something external appeals to me.  If you like the look of the nectarine more than the look of the peach, you are saying you can like the look of the peach more than the nectarine.  That cannot be right, it just makes no sense to me at all.

It is you who are obsessed with the concept of "physical", because you are attempting to define everything within the constraints of physically determined reactions over which we can have no control.

And in doing this, you try to over simplify your conscious ability to choose by quoting trivial examples such as choosing between peaches and nectarines.  What about defining the choices you make in consciously discerning what to write in your post?

Conscious control exists in every one of us, Torri.  It is beyond anything which can be defined uncontrollable physical reactions.

[torridon]

It is you who are obsessed with the concept of "physical", because you are attempting to define everything within the constraints of physically determined reactions over which we can have no control.

And in doing this, you try to over simplify your conscious ability to choose by quoting trivial examples such as choosing between peaches and nectarines.  What about defining the choices you make in consciously discerning what to write in your post?

Conscious control exists in every one of us, Torri.  It is beyond anything which can be defined uncontrollable physical reactions.

Excuse me, it is you, not me, that keeps including 'physical' in your posts, as if that changes anything, despite several of us having pointed out that it does not alter logic.  There is not a logic for physical and a separate logic for everything else.  If an idea is incoherent, it is incoherent, end of story, adding 'physical' will not transform a meaningless idea into something that makes sense.

I have to simplify things, how else to get to the bottom of the matter ? If you cannot understand how choice works in a simple binary situation there's not much chance of you grasping how it plays out in more complex situations.  And given the above, it seems clear you still haven't grasped it.  Hiding behind 'mysteries' of 'consciousness' is no substitute for actual understanding of reality and engaging brain when thinking through the logic of a situation.

[Stranger]

It is you who are obsessed with the concept of "physical", because you are attempting to define everything within the constraints of physically determined reactions over which we can have no control.

Look, for the sake of argument, let's assume that your soul thingy exists. Now when it comes to make a choice, it still has to do so entirely because of reasons (all the relevant facts and its own nature and experience right up to the moment of the choice) - all the reasons make one choice inevitable, or not. If not, there are no further reasons left to base any remaining choice on, so it can only be random.

There is no assumption of any physical cause and effect, it's just basic logic: you can't make any part of a choice for no reason without it being random and if every part of a choice is entirely the result of reasons, it is (pre)determined by them.

[ekim]

Look, for the sake of argument, let's assume that your soul thingy exists. Now when it comes to make a choice, it still has to do so entirely because of reasons (all the relevant facts and its own nature and experience right up to the moment of the choice) - all the reasons make one choice inevitable, or not. If not, there are no further reasons left to base any remaining choice on, so it can only be random.

There is no assumption of any physical cause and effect, it's just basic logic: you can't make any part of a choice for no reason without it being random and if every part of a choice is entirely the result of reasons, it is (pre)determined by them.

If I am reading Alan correctly, I think what he is attempting to do is distinguish between conscious responses, which you might class as reasoned, and subconscious reactions which are not reasoned but are driven by instincts, emotions, inherited predispositions or ingrained habits.  Both are determined, but the former benefits from a conscious intelligent assessment and the latter results from the more spontaneous and unconscious drives.

[Alan Burns]

Look, for the sake of argument, let's assume that your soul thingy exists. Now when it comes to make a choice, it still has to do so entirely because of reasons (all the relevant facts and its own nature and experience right up to the moment of the choice) - all the reasons make one choice inevitable, or not. If not, there are no further reasons left to base any remaining choice on, so it can only be random.

There is no assumption of any physical cause and effect, it's just basic logic: you can't make any part of a choice for no reason without it being random and if every part of a choice is entirely the result of reasons, it is (pre)determined by them.

But your logic is based upon chains of cause and effect which we get from physically controlled activity.   What is needed to break this chain and allow freedom to control and manipulate our own thoughts?  The answer must be based upon a non physical cause driven by conscious will rather than inevitable physically controlled chains of events.  Without this there can be no freedom to control our own thoughts, because in the physical scenario there is no identifiable source of control.

[wigginhall]

How the hell do I get to control my own thoughts?   Alan, you could make a fortune selling mind control.

[Stranger]

But your logic is based upon chains of cause and effect which we get from physically controlled activity.

That is simply untrue - I made no assumptions about anything being "physically controlled". Are you even reading, let alone thinking about what people are saying to you?

What is needed to break this chain and allow freedom to control and manipulate our own thoughts?  The answer must be based upon a non physical cause driven by conscious will rather than inevitable physically controlled chains of events.

Adding a "non physical cause driven by conscious will" is just adding another choice-maker ("conscious will") into the process of making a choice - it changes the logic not one iota because the logic applies just as much to its choice as to any other.

Being non-physical doesn't mean that you can make a choice that is not entirely the result of reasons (including those inherent in the choice maker: its nature and experience) and that is also free from randomness. That would mean that part of the choice is for no reason (because all the reasons don't fully decide the choice) but for some reason as well (not random) - which is a clear logical (not physical) contradiction.

The non-physical doesn't magically allow logical contradictions - it can't make Boolean values both true and false at the same time.

[Alan Burns]

That is simply untrue - I made no assumptions about anything being "physically controlled". Are you even reading, let alone thinking about what people are saying to you?

Adding a "non physical cause driven by conscious will" is just adding another choice-maker ("conscious will") into the process of making a choice - it changes the logic not one iota because the logic applies just as much to its choice as to any other.

Being non-physical doesn't mean that you can make a choice that is not entirely the result of reasons (including those inherent in the choice maker: its nature and experience) and that is also free from randomness. That would mean that part of the choice is for no reason (because all the reasons don't fully decide the choice) but for some reason as well (not random) - which is a clear logical (not physical) contradiction.

The non-physical doesn't magically allow logical contradictions - it can't make Boolean values both true and false at the same time.

So please explain how you can introduce consciously driven control into a closed system entirely under the control of the physically pre defined events of cause and effect?

Why can you not accept that human willpower can invoke a choice from within its conscious awareness by interacting with the physical brain?

[Alan Burns]

How the hell do I get to control my own thoughts?

You just did.

[Alan Burns]

There's no reason to suppose that is correct.  That's exactly what brains do - they integrate multiple streams of information flow into a singular flow of experience.  I have two eyes but I don't have double vision, the brain integrates the flows into a seamless singular flow of awareness.

And what precisely is a flow of awareness?
(in physical terms)

[Sebastian Toe]

Why can you not accept that human willpower can invoke a choice from within its conscious awareness by interacting with the physical brain?

So please explain how it does that.

[Sebastian Toe]

And what precisely is a flow of awareness?

It is an integration of multiple streams of information flow into a singular flow of experience. 

[wigginhall]

You just did.

Not so.

[Gordon]

Tell me, Alan: how do 'souls' operate in young children?

[Stranger]

So please explain how you can introduce consciously driven control into a closed system entirely under the control of the physically pre defined events of cause and effect?

Just as soon as you explain what "consciously driven control" means, how it works, and in what why making it non-physical makes any difference at all to the logic I have presented.

You've been presented with a purely logical argument and your approach appears to be to add a lot of utterly irrelevant qualifications to it ("uncontrollable", "physical", "material", and adding "pre" to determined), then taking them away again (by making it non-physical) and pretending that that addresses the original argument that never depended on, or included them, in the first place.

Why can you not accept that human willpower can invoke a choice from within its conscious awareness by interacting with the physical brain?

Because you've provided no evidence and no reasoning to take the idea that "human willpower" and "conscious awareness" are separate from the physical brain so as to need to interact with it.

[Alan Burns]

So please explain how it does that.

I do not know how God has enabled me to do this.

But it is what I do, every minute of my conscious life I am in control of my thoughts, words and actions.  A control which defies any explanation from the uncontrollable chains of physically controlled cause and effect.

[Alan Burns]

Not so.

So are you a physically controlled robot with no will of your own?

[Stranger]

A control which defies any explanation from the uncontrollable chains of physically controlled cause and effect.

He asserted, without the hint of a jot of a smidgen of evidence or logical argument to support it.

[wigginhall]

So are you a physically controlled robot with no will of your own?

Wow, talk about false dichotomies.   I started off saying I don't control my thoughts.

[Alan Burns]

Tell me, Alan: how do 'souls' operate in young children?

The human soul will gain more control as the physical biological machine develops and grows.

So we see the conscious willpower gradually come to the fore as they develop into adults.

[Alan Burns]

He asserted, without the hint of a jot of a smidgen of evidence or logical argument to support it.

The logical argument is simple.

In a closed system under nothing but physically controlled reactions to events, consciously driven control can't exist because every event is an inevitable,uncontrollable reaction to previous events.

Consciously driven control is incompatible with physically controlled determinism.