Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

or Dennett more likely Ha Ha Ha.

I'd say Alan is more likely to reply.

[Alan Burns]

No, all actions are initiated by preconscious mind, your conscious mind only gets to know about it slightly later.  Your conscious mind is a memory of the action just initiated.  If it worked how you seem to think, you wouldn't last as a batsman, our preconscious mind is always racing ahead, that is what the 'pre-' means; conscious mind is always playing catchup.

You are effectively relegating our conscious awareness to be just a spectator of what has already been done before we know anything about it.

At the risk of yet again being accused of personal incredulity, and the "ad pop" argument, I have to say that this would be regarded as a load of b****cks by the vast majority of the human population.

But if your theory is correct, I had no control over what I have just replied and only became aware of it after I chose what to write.

So presumably I can take no personal responsibility over this post because it was all done by the pre determined activity of my sub conscious neurons before I knew what was happening.
 

[Sebastian Toe]

You are effectively relegating our conscious awareness to be just a spectator of what has already been done before we know anything about it.

At the risk of yet again being accused of personal incredulity, and the "ad pop" argument, I have to say that this would be regarded as a load of b****cks by the vast majority of the human population.

But if your theory is correct, I had no control over what I have just replied and only became aware of it after I chose what to write.

So presumably I can take no personal responsibility over this post because it was all done by the pre determined activity of my sub conscious neurons before I knew what was happening.
 

..but you can and do take control.You are the sum of your parts of all concious levels.
And your "defence" of
Sorry m'lud I robbed the old lady because I can't control my neurons.
Would elicit a reply from a wise judge of,

Well Burglar Bill, we're all in the same boat but despite that, the majority of us don't go around nicking stuff from OAPs.
5 years, take him down.

[Alan Burns]

..but you can and do take control.You are the sum of your parts of all concious levels.
And your "defence" of
Sorry m'lud I robbed the old lady because I can't control my neurons.
Would elicit a reply from a wise judge of,

Well Burglar Bill, we're all in the same boat but despite that, the majority of us don't go around nicking stuff from OAPs.
5 years, take him down.

So my subconscious neurons are found not guilty!
I rest my case.
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

...as is Alan, so why not address him directly?

I have taken it upon myself to tackle the implied assumptions of the Dennettian majority of this thread...Got a problem?

[Sebastian Toe]

I have taken it upon myself to tackle the implied assumptions of the Dennettian majority of this thread...Got a problem?

...obviously you have one with addressing Alan!

[Sebastian Toe]

So my subconscious neurons are found not guilty!
I rest my case.
 

Where was that verdict announced?

[Sebastian Toe]

Physical brain components are needed to solve problems, just as we consciously employ calculators and computers to solve perceived problems.

But problem solving starts with conscious awareness of the problem.  Then this conscious awareness must be capable of deliberately initiating whatever physical processes are needed to solve the problem. 

After the soul has initiated the "adding up" subroutine a result is sent back?

Is it checked for correctness at all?

[Stranger]

I have taken it upon myself to tackle the implied assumptions of the Dennettian majority of this thread...

Once again I am left with the impression that you have never read any Dennett.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

...obviously you have one with addressing Alan!

Alan and the rest of you have been put on notice that I know not whether there is a soul independent of any body we now have or are resurrected in. But I have no commitment to a materialist view of consciousness because one has yet to be demonstrated. I therefore feel no obligation to take Alan to task but have when it comes to a Dennettian explanation, a reductionist materialist approach which doesn't understand emergence, a consciousness equals intelligence approach and even a strong implied commitment to any of these.

[Stranger]

So my subconscious neurons are found not guilty!

Like it or not Alan a great deal of what you are is subconscious. Whereas the exact relationship between the subconscious and the conscious is (as far as I know) still a matter of some debate, what is absolutely certain is that your notion of freedom is logically impossible.

You keep on evading, by using lots of meaningless waffle (#30486), or ignoring (#30492) that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Once again I am left with the impression that you have never read any Dennett.

Really....how so?

[Gordon]

I have taken it upon myself to tackle the implied assumptions of the Dennettian majority of this thread...Got a problem?

I have.

In our earlier exchange, Vlad, you commented on my reply to Alan's post #30477 in which he seems to claim that neurology could never fully 'define' (to use Alan's term) 'conscious thoughts'. I replied asking him how he knew this to be the case and you, in your reply to me (#30485), said 'I think we are waiting for science to demonstrate it is entirely down to neural activity.' - and in my #30490 I agreed with you.

Then your response to me, #30495, consisted solely of 'or Dennett more likely Ha Ha Ha'.

No wondering people get exasperated by your shenanigans. 

[Stranger]

Really....how so?

Well for starters Dennett is a compatibilist and the only person in this conversation (apart from me) who has explicitly expressed a compatibilist view recently was Genial Harry.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I have.

I don't see how someone like yourself who has repeatedly claimed to just be here to point out logical facilities and has been found practically to only point out those of theists can take exception to my focus here

.

In our earlier exchange, Vlad, you commented on my reply to Alan's post #30477 in which he seems to claim that neurology could never fully 'define' (to use Alan's term) 'conscious thoughts'. I replied asking him how he knew this to be the case and you, in your reply to me (#30485), said 'I think we are waiting for science to demonstrate it is entirely down to neural activity.' - and in my #30490 I agreed with you.
 

I feel myself there are things science can never find out unless it ceases to be science whether science can fully define consciousness is a question like will science fully define the universe and therefore I am more likely to side with Alan against the scientism I feel underlines the arguments of many people on this thread.


I'm sure Alan is quite aware that I probably take a more Antiochian view of the afterlife preferring a more biblically literal interpretation of the individual in death and resurrection rather than experiencing post mortem as a classical soul. It isn't though for you to assume any commitment to materialism in my belief.

[Gordon]

.

In our earlier exchange, Vlad, you commented on my reply to Alan's post #30477 in which he seems to claim that neurology could never fully 'define' (to use Alan's term) 'conscious thoughts'. I replied asking him how he knew this to be the case and you, in your reply to me (#30485), said 'I think we are waiting for science to demonstrate it is entirely down to neural activity.' - and in my #30490 I agreed with you.
 


I feel myself there are things science can never find out unless it ceases to be science whether science can fully define consciousness is a question like will science fully define the universe and therefore I am more likely to side with Alan against the scientism I feel underlines the arguments of many people on this thread.


I'm sure Alan is quite aware that I probably take a more Antiochian view of the afterlife preferring a more biblically literal interpretation of the individual in death and resurrection rather than experiencing post mortem as a classical soul. It isn't though for you to assume any commitment to materialism in my belief.

I didn't assume anything, Vlad, especially since most of the time (like now) what you say makes little sense anyway.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I didn't assume anything, Vlad, especially since most of the time (like now) what you say makes little sense anyway.

Easy to say when you have the advantage of a ship crewed by people who want to comment on philosophy and theology but can't be asked to learn anything about it.

Since I know what's coming from you in response to that expose I would counsel you not to bother writing it

[Alan Burns]

You keep on evading, by using lots of meaningless waffle (#30486), or ignoring (#30492) that.

But to be guilty of deliberate evasion, ignoring or compiling meaningless waffle must surely implicate that I have the freedom to do so.  If not, my supposed evasion, ignoring or waffle making are just inevitable consequences to which there can be no deliberate causation.

[Gordon]

But to be guilty of deliberate evasion, ignoring or compiling meaningless waffle must surely implicate that I have the freedom to do so.  If not, my supposed evasion, ignoring or waffle making are just inevitable consequences to which there can be no deliberate causation.

Nobody has said you don't have the freedom to think, even if you don't do so very well in this regard. Your thinking, however, isn't quite as free as it seems or feels.

[Gordon]

Easy to say when you have the advantage of a ship crewed by people who want to comment on philosophy and theology but can't be asked to learn anything about it.

What does that have to do with you and I agreeing that Alan was wrong?

Since I know what's coming from you in response to that expose I would counsel you not to bother writing it

Do we now add clairvoyance to your CV?

[Stranger]

But to be guilty of deliberate evasion, ignoring or compiling meaningless waffle must surely implicate that I have the freedom to do so.  If not, my supposed evasion, ignoring or waffle making are just inevitable consequences to which there can be no deliberate causation.

More evasion. I have never denied your freedom to do as you want and we have had this type of exchange many times before, so it's quite clear that you are deliberately avoiding addressing my point.

[Sebastian Toe]

But to be guilty of deliberate evasion, ignoring or compiling meaningless waffle must surely implicate that I have the freedom to do so. 

You do.
However, no unevidenced, entirely logic free, magic soul required.
Just the grey matter between your ears.

[Sebastian Toe]

Alan and the rest of you have been put on notice ...

Oooooh! Should we be scared or impressed?

... that I know not whether there is a soul independent of any body we now have or are resurrected in.

Neither do I.
However do you find his line of arguement and explanations of a soul at least, reasonable?
Eg (and I'm paraphraseing here but I dont think I'm far out)
an immortal entity, residing somewhere that is not of this universe and also not in heaven, outwith time (except when it somehow links to our brain to access memories, hard wired subroutines for "adding up" amongst other things, then it is within time), which is somehow allocated to our bodies at an undetermined point in our life, by God and when our bodies die the soul pops off to heaven (if you are a good Catholic or something?) And there it then acquires the ability to react as if it still has a brain - ish?

[Alan Burns]

Nobody has said you don't have the freedom to think, even if you don't do so very well in this regard. Your thinking, however, isn't quite as free as it seems or feels.

There can be no half measures in this, Gordon.  Any degree of freedom, no matter how small, requires a departure from the physically pre determined control dictated by the constraints of a material universe.  Such a departure requiring a source from outside the pre destined nature of our material universe.

[Stranger]

There can be no half measures in this, Gordon.  Any degree of freedom, no matter how small, requires a departure from the physically pre determined control dictated by the constraints of a material universe.  Such a departure requiring a source from outside the pre destined nature of our material universe.

The constraints of logic have nothing to do with the physical universe. You cannot make a choice that isn't entirely the result of pre-existing reasons without introducing something that isn't due to any reasons, which means that it is random.

It doesn't matter a jot if some "source from outside the pre destined nature of our material universe" is involved or not.

Your version of "freedom" is self-contradictory, logically impossible, and makes no sense at all.

Why do you continue to dishonestly pretend it is anything to do with the physical universe?