Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Please to not misquote me by curtailing what I wrote.
To repeat - I will deny any theory which takes away the reality of my freedom to choose.
My ability to make conscious choices can't be denied, but speculative theories can.

I didn't - you told us that you deny "any theory" etc. That's dismissing the findings of science (the thing you then said you don't do). Why you deny "any theory" etc (eg in this case a personal perception you happen to have about consciousness) is irrelevant. If on the other hand you actually engaged with what science tells us and showed where it was wrong, then you'd have falsified it rather than just dismissed it.     

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

The plain words that AB actually used appear to mean that he ruled out any theory that positively asserts the brain can never and does not interact with something undefined by science because it appears to be supernatural  - in his evangelism that is a soul or free will or something along those lines.

Now you're just making stuff up. Here (again) is what he actually said:

I will continue to deny any theory which effectively removes the reality that we are capable of driving our own thoughts and invoking conscious choices.  Not spookiness, just demonstrable reality.

(Reply 31408)

There’s no connection between that and your re-imagining of it as ruling out “any theory that positively asserts the brain can never and does not interact with something undefined by science”. No theories in science “positively rule out” things of which science has no knowledge. Science is necessarily indifferent to such claims. Thus AB is either ruling out no theories at all on the basis of your creative re-wording, or he’s ruling out those that provide explanations he doesn’t like. Clearly it’s the latter.   

Is there such a positive statement/ finding by science...you banana?

No – that's just something you’ve made up you banana.

[Gordon]

Routine biology can't escape the uncontrollable nature of physically predetermined chains of cause and effect.

Therefore we can't escape determinism - can't see the problem with that since the alternative is chaos.

Our ability to make consciously driven choices is evidence for agency outside the predetermined nature of material reactions.

It does seem that brain activity is associated with decision-making and I can't seen any scientific researchers looking for 'agency outside the predetermined nature of material reactions' - perhaps you need to let them know where they are going wrong.

In 2014, researchers in Switzerland discovered that the prefrontal cortex not only shows increased activity during decisions requiring self-control, but during all decision-making processes. Sarah Rudorf and Todd Hare of the Department of Economics of the University of Zurich were able to identify specific regions of the prefrontal cortex that are most active in the process of making a decision.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/the-athletes-way/201505/the-neuroscience-making-decision

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I am not here to preach to the converted.

But you are here to preach, so why not do it in the faith sharing area as you clearly have no intention of discussing anything?

My wish is to share the reality of God's love with as many people as possible.

No doubt you think you think both that there is a god and that this god is a loving one. As you’ve never yet managed to produce robust reasoning or evidence for these remarkable assertions of fact though (or even bothered to try) you’ll understand I hope why you’re so easily dismissed by people with functioning intellects. 

In doing this, I have discovered just how persuasive the forces of evil can be in convincing people that God does not exist.

No you haven’t. What you’ve “discovered” (or at least should have by now) is that if you want people to believe your claims of fact you’ll need something a bit more credible than science-denying assertions of personal faith to do the job. Calling people more capable of thinking than you are “evil” by the way is just obnoxious.   

I can't face up to such forces on my own -…

There are no such “forces”, and of course you can – just try at least to engage with the arguments that undo you.

– just  I need God's help through prayer and the power of His saving grace.  Sometimes I feel that I have failed and I am tempted to give up, but God calls me (and others) to witness and gives me the strength an courage to pick myself up and carry on.  It is not easy, and I certainly do not do this for an ego trip.

I don’t doubt that you think these various personal faith beliefs to be true. Can you think of any reason for anyone else to think you’re right about that though, apart that is from your apparent expectation that the mindless repetition of unqualified assertions will do the trick?

The first step in discovering God's love for us would be to admit the possibility, (and probability) of His existence - hence my posts.

Bullshit. First, as has been explained to you countless times no-one denies the possibility of anything – gods, leprechauns or the Loch Ness monster for that matter. Your problem though is that you just assert the probability of this supposed god while never, ever even so much as attempting an argument to demonstrate this claimed probability.

Second, there’s no “hence” because the possibility part isn’t your problem – the probability claim on the other hand precisely is. Do you not think that in the unlikely event that not only is there a god and in the even more unlikely event that the real god just happens to be the one you believe and in the even more unlikely event that this god just happens to have chosen you to be his special messenger on Earth that maybe this god would perhaps prefer you not to make such a horlicks of the job and to try instead finally to assemble some reasoning to support your assertions?

Really though?   

[Alan Burns]

Therefore we can't escape determinism - can't see the problem with that since the alternative is chaos.

The alternative to unavoidable predetermined physical control is things being determined by the power of human freewill.

[torridon]

Routine biology can't escape the uncontrollable nature of physically predetermined chains of cause and effect.  Our ability to make consciously driven choices is evidence for agency outside the predetermined nature of material reactions.

'Physically' is redundant here.  'Predetermined' is also a dubious choice of word, as we cannot rule out randomness, and we cannot fully account for the emergence of atomic matter from quantum fields.  Purged of redundant words, all you are attesting for is freedom from cause and effect, and you really wouldn't want to be free of cause and effect; as Gordon points out, that would be chaos.

[torridon]

In doing this, I have discovered just how persuasive the forces of evil can be in convincing people that God does not exist.  I can't face up to such forces on my own - I need God's help through prayer and the power of His saving grace.  Sometimes I feel that I have failed and I am tempted to give up, but God calls me (and others) to witness and gives me the strength an courage to pick myself up and carry on.  It is not easy, and I certainly do not do this for an ego trip.

There are no 'forces of evil'.  If there were a God, as you seem to think, then said God would eliminate these forces.  If he doesn't it is either because he cannot, meaning he is not omnipotent, or he doesn't want to, which means he is in league with those forces.  Either way you just shot yourself in the foot.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

I didn't - you told us that you deny "any theory" etc. That's dismissing the findings of science (the thing you then said you don't do). Why you deny "any theory" etc (eg in this case a personal perception you happen to have about consciousness) is irrelevant. If on the other hand you actually engaged with what science tells us and showed where it was wrong, then you'd have falsified it rather than just dismissed it.     

No
Please understand basic English grammar
I said any theory which removes the freedom to consciously choose.
That is a qualification which does not translate to "any theory".
So I say again,
My freedom to choose (and yours) is demonstrable.
More demonstrable than speculative theories

[Alan Burns]

Gabriella,

AB: "I will continue to deny any theory which effectively removes the reality that...etc" (Reply 31408).

How much more evidence would you like? Notice that he doesn't say, "I will look for gaps in the scientific theories and insert my claims of fact into those gaps" or similar. To the contrary, he simply denies "any theory" that contradicts his faith beliefs full stop. QED

My freedom to choose is not based on faith.
It is based on fact.

[Gordon]

The alternative to unavoidable predetermined physical control is things being determined by the power of human freewill.

If our mental activity (consciousness, decision making, thinking etc) all emerge from our biology, and what influences out biology, then I'm afraid, old chap, that you don't a 'get out of determinism free' card just because you'd prefer it otherwise: as far as is known our biology is deterministic so if you want to introduce something that acts on our biology that is not deterministic but also is not random then you're going to need the supernatural version of an EEG to show this 'soul' thingy at work.
 

[SusanDoris]

//ab

Another few pages of - as far as I'm concerned - cringe-making, hand-wringing-sets of words from you, and a set of interesting, , clear-thinking posts from others  from which you should, like me, learn.

[Alan Burns]

It does seem that brain activity is associated with decision-making and I can't seen any scientific researchers looking for 'agency outside the predetermined nature of material reactions' - perhaps you need to let them know where they are going wrong.

Correlation of physical brain activity does not define what invokes a choice.  It just infers a physically induced reaction involved with that choice.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

No

Yes.

Please understand basic English grammar

That’s rather ironic given that I generally refrain from correcting your grammar as I can more or less pick out what you’re trying to say anyway.   

I said any theory which removes the freedom to consciously choose.

You actually said, “any theory which effectively removes the reality that…” but it still means that you deny or dismiss automatically “any” theory that contradicts the personal opinion about “the reality” rather than just your reality. That’s science denial whichever way you cut it. If instead you bothered to examine the science you presume to dismiss though you’d find either:

A. That you could actually show it to be wrong. That’s called falsification – a different thing to unqualified dismissal; or

B. That you couldn’t show it to be wrong, in which case your personal conception of “freedom” would be falsified.

Just saying effectively, “I don’t like what science says so I’ll dismiss it anyway” as you do on the other hand just exposes you for holding that faith trumps all. Why then bother with even your half-hearted attempts at argument when what you actually think is that your faith must be correct?     

That is a qualification which does not translate to "any theory".

Yes it does if that theory shows your faith beliefs to be wrong. And that’s called science denial.

So I say again,
My freedom to choose (and yours) is demonstrable.
More demonstrable than speculative theories

You can say it as often as you like, but it’ll still be an idiotic, science-denying, unqualified, irrational, meaningless piece of white noise gibberish even if you screw up your eyes, stamp your feet and shout “it’th twoo I tell you, it’th twoo itth twoo it’th twoo” until the end of your days. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

My freedom to choose is not based on faith.
It is based on fact.

So you assert. Sadly though, "that's the way it feels to me" does not make something a fact.

By all means try again though if you wish. Other than your personal opinion on the matter, how would you propose to demonstrate this supposed fact?

[Gordon]

Correlation of physical brain activity does not define what invokes a choice.  It just infers a physically induced reaction involved with that choice.

You seem to be separating 'choice' from the neurological activity in involved in decision making yet in the link I poster earlier the researchers were pointing out that the prefrontal cortex show increased activity during all decision making. No doubt you'll say this is a reaction but the researchers don't mention this being a reaction to anything - are they wrong? 

[Sebastian Toe]

No
Please understand basic English grammar
I said any theory which removes the freedom to consciously choose.
That is a qualification which does not translate to "any theory".

Perhaps it would help if you are able to give as an example, one of the aforementioned theories?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Seb,

Perhaps it would help if you are able to give as an example, one of the aforementioned theories?

He can't because he has no idea. It's sufficient for Alan just to assert that any science that would contradict his (deeply irrational) opinion of what "free" will entails must necessarily be wrong. There's no reason therefore for him even to care about the evidence or the methodologies or the testing or the anything that that science involves.

And that's called science denial.       

[Gordon]

No
Please understand basic English grammar
I said any theory which removes the freedom to consciously choose.
That is a qualification which does not translate to "any theory".
So I say again,
My freedom to choose (and yours) is demonstrable.
More demonstrable than speculative theories

Which is code for you rejecting any theory that doesn't include 'God', and since no scientific theories regarding human mental activity supported by our biology mention 'God' you are, in effect, rejecting all the relevant science in favour of your preferred religious superstitions.

[Alan Burns]

Therefore we can't escape determinism - can't see the problem with that since the alternative is chaos.

It does seem that brain activity is associated with decision-making and I can't seen any scientific researchers looking for 'agency outside the predetermined nature of material reactions' - perhaps you need to let them know where they are going wrong.
In 2014, researchers in Switzerland discovered that the prefrontal cortex not only shows increased activity during decisions requiring self-control, but during all decision-making processes. Sarah Rudorf and Todd Hare of the Department of Economics of the University of Zurich were able to identify specific regions of the prefrontal cortex that are most active in the process of making a decision
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/the-athletes-way/201505/the-neuroscience-making-decision

This quote just identifies correlation of physical brain activity which is apparently associated with consciously involved choice.  It in no way defines what invokes the choice.

[Gordon]

This quote just identifies correlation of physical brain activity which is apparently associated with consciously involved choice.  It in no way defines what invokes the choice.

So we're back to 'defining': let me have a guess here, you get to do the 'defining' so as to ensure 'God' gets a mention in any definition you approve of.

Doesn't work, Alan: this is you avoiding the obvious problem that the science that underpins the knowledge we currently have regarding mental activity (consciousness, thought, choices etc), and any new knowledge that comes along from further research, isn't remotely concerned with religious superstitions dating from antiquity. This is you trying to contrive a gap into to which you can insert your faith beliefs, using your usual mix of fallacies, and it is so blindingly obvious as to be more than a tad pathetic.

Why don't you try 'defining' this 'soul' you claim in clear and precise terms that can be investigated instead of evangelising, since the evangelising really isn't working you know: I'd give it a rest if I were you.   
   

[ippy]

This quote just identifies correlation of physical brain activity which is apparently associated with consciously involved choice.  It in no way defines what invokes the choice.

I doesn't matter to how much reason or logic you is presented to you Alan, you've been so heavily indoctrinated into having the 'Comfort Blanket in Chief', installed I doubt you'll ever be able to see any of the copious amounts of rationality that's been presented to you as such.

In all of the way through this saga of a thread all you've ever come up with is assertion after assertion and have never managed to support any one of these copious amounts of assertions with a realistic explanation that would or could support them.

When you went to school didn't you notice it was probably called St Something or other, Trinity or one of the many other religious names there's so many, did you notice the blooming great cross nailed to the wall or planted on the building somewhere else, the priestly visits, didn't it occur strange some bloke or another visiting your school from time to time wearing a frock, doing oh it's just a nativity play, oh yes I'm one of the shepherds this year, harvest festival, it's all part and parcel of the church grabbing as many new recruits as possible and you didn't notice Alan?

This unscrupulous lot know the youngest ones are prime candidates, the most vulnerable likely candidates for recruitment, you must be aware of all these things Alan and you still fell for it and as for the non-religious being the works of the devil it's serious stuff when someone, anyone starts going down that road, the only reason most of us are as you've been informed many times there's no good reason to even look for anything supernatural in the first place, difficult if you've got a head full of religious unevidenced nonsense.

I just hope for you that some day you'll join the enlightenment, until then it's commiserations Alan,

ippy

[torridon]

This quote just identifies correlation of physical brain activity which is apparently associated with consciously involved choice.  It in no way defines what invokes the choice.

It is the brain that invokes choice.  That is why we have brains, brains evolved to enable choice in complex organisms.  Here we have the most complex object in the known universe, capable of more states than there are atoms in the cosmos, intimately wiring up senses to muscles, inputs to outputs, enabling fluid seamless decision making on the go with apparent ease, and yet somehow it isn't actually used for invoking choices at all as there is an invisible little man inside with his own decision making apparatus that doesn't need all that biological interwiring of senses and needs to responses and he does it all by magic and he just tells that messy brain thing what decision to make and that accounts for the neural correlates we observe through scanning machines.  Simples, in'it. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

This quote just identifies correlation of physical brain activity which is apparently associated with consciously involved choice.  It in no way defines what invokes the choice.

You’ve been corrected on this kind of thing several times now, but still you persist in it. In strict epistemics everything is correlative. Why? Because we cannot rule out least the possibility that something other than the apparent cause is doing it. What you’re doing here is arbitrarily selecting just one such example – brain/consciousness – and identifying that as a falsification, while accepting the same phenomenon everywhere else. You don’t for example say, “that germs causing diseases thing is just correlative…therefore genies”.

Look, as you’re entirely unwilling or unable to address the logic that undoes you let’s turn this around. Let’s say that my “deepest perception” is that storks deliver babies when no-one is looking, therefore that’s what happens. How would you propose to show me to be wrong?

Seriously. Just try it.       

[Alan Burns]

It is the brain that invokes choice.  That is why we have brains, brains evolved to enable choice in complex organisms.  Here we have the most complex object in the known universe, capable of more states than there are atoms in the cosmos, intimately wiring up senses to muscles, inputs to outputs, enabling fluid seamless decision making on the go with apparent ease, and yet somehow it isn't actually used for invoking choices at all as there is an invisible little man inside with his own decision making apparatus that doesn't need all that biological interwiring of senses and needs to responses and he does it all by magic and he just tells that messy brain thing what decision to make and that accounts for the neural correlates we observe through scanning machines.  Simples, in'it. 

Yes, the brain is an amazing biological machine, and the fact that it is all generated from the data held in a microscopic DNA molecule is truly mind blowing.

But an entirely material brain is in essence mechanistic - driven by physical reactions to previous physical events.   No room for consciously driven choices - just inevitable reactions defined by the laws of physics - not you.  But hey - I can snap my fingers whenever I choose to.  And at the same time I can stick out my tongue and jump up and down on one leg, just because I want to.  Isn't it truly amazing what the laws of physics make me do!

[torridon]

Yes, the brain is an amazing biological machine, and the fact that it is all generated from the data held in a microscopic DNA molecule is truly mind blowing.

But an entirely material brain is in essence mechanistic - driven by physical reactions to previous physical events.   No room for consciously driven choices - just inevitable reactions defined by the laws of physics - not you.  But hey - I can snap my fingers whenever I choose to.  And at the same time I can stick out my tongue and jump up and down on one leg, just because I want to.  Isn't it truly amazing what the laws of physics make me do!

That desire to snap your fingers came from somewhere; otherwise it would be random. That desire to jump up and down came from somewhere; otherwise it would be random.  This is the signature of cause and effect.  That consciousness comes from somewhere - it is derived from preconscious states of mind, so is not, in a true and precise sense, the driver of choice, but merely the reporting of it.