Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

jeremy,

Did you decide to type all those extraneous exclamation marks or was it merely the inexorable machinery of the deterministic Universe?

The scene: bluehillside now banging his head with increasing force on his desk while sobbing quietly.

[Alan Burns]

Blue,

So based upon your secular based presumptions, the inevitable consequences of physically driven activity in your brain cells would appear to be claiming some form of superiority over the inevitable consequences of physically driven activity in my brain cells.  Can you not see how ludicrous this is?

Whereas based upon my spiritual beliefs, the conscious awareness of my spiritual soul wants to give witness to the existence of the spiritual entity of awareness which is you.  Can you not see how plausible this is?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

So based upon your secular based presumptions…

Wrong already. It’s got nothing to do with secularism, just with logic.

…the inevitable consequences of physically driven activity in your brain cells would appear to be claiming some form of superiority over the inevitable consequences of physically driven activity in my brain cells.

Your terminology is all over the place, but certainly if you’re suggesting that I can produce coherent logic for my arguments and you cannot then yes

Can you not see how ludicrous this is?

No. Some people are more competent at reasoning than others, just as some people are more competent at singing than others.

So what?

Whereas based upon my spiritual beliefs, the conscious awareness of my spiritual soul wants to give witness to the existence of the spiritual entity of awareness which is you.  Can you not see how plausible this is?

Of course not, for the perfectly good reasons that you cannot demonstrate any of your terms (“spiritual” etc), you cannot produce a model that isn’t contradictory and therefore impossible, you rely on magic for an explanation (which therefore explains nothing at all), and you do not understand what “plausible” means (I may as well say, “can you not see how plausible my faith beliefs about leprechauns are?” for all the epistemic value it has). 

Apart from all that though…

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Incidentally, as you've ignored them again (perhaps they missed your attention a second time?) here again are the explanations for where you consistently go wrong for you to respond to with some actual, honest-to-goodness counter-arguments. Good luck!

Here’s what you know (or have no excuse for not knowing because it’s been explained to you so often):

1. Your concept of “freedom” is incoherent, self-contradictory and so impossible. Neither science, nor reason nor anything else can find a “source” for it therefore because it cannot exist in the first place.

2. For everyday, common-or-garden functional purposes though your impossible version serves well enough nonetheless. Moreover, this “impossible but good enough for day-to-day purposes” freedom sits perfectly well in the materialist model.

3. The experience of things does not necessarily provide a good explanation for them. You know this already because there are plenty of examples of our perception telling us one thing when more considered thinking tells us another, more coherent thing – the difference between the perception and the deeper reality of touch is just one example. What that tells you is that you cannot necessarily rely on your perception of freedom to provide a good explanation for it – there’s no inexorable logical path from one to the other. 

4. The moment you try to respond to an argument you don’t like with, “but that would mean…” you’ve exited the discussion. “But that would mean” arguments are not always wrong by the way – if I claimed the moon to be made of cream cheese and you replied with, “but that would mean that the Eagle lunar lander would have sunk into it so it cannot be made of cream cheese” that would be a good argument. What you actually do though (a lot) is to finish “but that would mean” just with a consequence you happen not to like.

And that’s a very bad argument indeed because for epistemic purposes your personal preferences are entirely irrelevant.

5. Your way to get out of the determinism you don’t like is to invent a little man at the controls you call a “soul”. That though would just transfer the determinist vs random problem to the little man, so you then try to get off that hook by placing him outside both evidence and logic. The moment you try “it’s magic” as an explanation however then again you immediately exit the discussion for reasons that should be obvious even to you. If you want claim magic for one speculation, then you have no choice but to allow it for any other speculation. To do otherwise is called “special pleading”, yet another of the fallacies of which you’re so fond.

6. When you cannot (or will not) address any of the falsifying arguments ranged against you, calling the people making them “the forces of evil” is something I’d be ashamed of if my six-year-old said it, let alone an adult. Indeed ascribing malevolent agency is what six-year-olds do say (“that tree hit me” etc). Once again, it also exits you immediately from any sort of sensible discussion.   

7. If you think you have evidence for something (like a “spiritual”), then (finally) you should present it. A warning though: the word “evidence” actually means something – a good test is that if I could use the same type of “evidence” to argue for leprechauns (“I believe it really deeply” etc) than it cannot be evidence at all.

Now then. After all your thousands of posts of mindless assertions, here’s your chance finally to engage openly and honestly with the explanations you’ve just been given of where you keep going wrong.

I have to say that I have very low expectations that you will do so, but it’s your choice. Surprise me.   

[Stranger]

So based upon your secular based presumptions, the inevitable consequences of physically driven activity in your brain cells would appear to be claiming some form of superiority over the inevitable consequences of physically driven activity in my brain cells.  Can you not see how ludicrous this is?

No.

That's your own incredulity. Human brains are incredibly complex systems that are (according to all the evidence) perfectly capable of doing as you describe without the need for magic. Just phrasing something in a way that you think will make it sound less believable, isn't actually an argument against it.

Whereas based upon my spiritual beliefs, the conscious awareness of my spiritual soul wants to give witness to the existence of the spiritual entity of awareness which is you.  Can you not see how plausible this is?

No.

For a start it's all but meaningless. You haven't defined or demonstrated the existence of anything 'spiritual' or a 'soul', so you might as well have said "magical". That's before we get to the fact that, based on what you've said previously, it's inherently self-contradictory, and so, not only implausible, but actually impossible.

I note that you've dropped your claim of  "logical impossibility"; do you concede that you can't back it up, or were you hoping people won't notice?

[Alan Burns]

Your terminology is all over the place, but certainly if you’re suggesting that I can produce coherent logic for my arguments and you cannot then yes

I think you missed the point.
Presuming that there is no spiritual entity of perception to enable conscious control,
how can the so called logic resulting from any person's physically predetermined reactions be measured in plausibility terms?  You claim yours to be superior, but what is this superiority measured by?  If the instrument of measurement is just another set of physically predetermined reactions how can it be considered to be an adequate judge of plausibility?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I think you missed the point.

Just as you missed again the explanations of where you go wrong that I've posted twice for you now? Well, possibly - let's see shall we...

Presuming that there is no spiritual entity of perception to enable conscious control,...

That's a pretty sound working assumption given the total absence of evidence for such a thing, yes.

...how can the so called logic...

Ah, and then you collapse again into pejorative language in the hope that the logic that undoes you will somehow go away if you poison the well by calling it "so-called". That's a really nasty habit of yours by the way. It won't, and it's just logic. If you don't like it then finally bring some logic of your own to the table that would falsify it.

... resulting from any person's physically predetermined reactions be measured in plausibility terms?

What are you even trying to say here? Logic is "measured" in various ways, not least in that its fruits (penicillin, aeroplanes etc) can be investigated and by means of intersubjective experience found to be "plausible" as you put it. Conversely magic-based speculations ("soul" etc) have no means of investigation, and so are epistemically worthless. To put it another way, your big problem isn't that your various claims and assertions are implausible, it's that they're not even implausible. You're firmly planted in "not even wrong" territory.     
 

You claim yours to be superior, but what is this superiority measured by?  If the instrument of measurement is just another set of physically predetermined reactions how can it be considered to be an adequate judge of plausibility?

I've just told you. If you dismiss investigation, testing, repeatability etc then you may as well argue that 2+2=4 is no more or less true than 2+2=5.   

[Stranger]

Presuming that there is no spiritual entity of perception to enable conscious control,

A "spiritual entity of perception to enable conscious control" is at best meaningless, and at worst (if we take what you've said about it seriously), contradictory and hence impossible.

Unless you address the inherent contradiction - anything at all you say about this 'soul', and all your arguments against deterministic minds, is completely pointless because your preferred option is impossible.

how can the so called logic resulting from any person's physically predetermined reactions be measured in plausibility terms?  You claim yours to be superior, but what is this superiority measured by?  If the instrument of measurement is just another set of physically predetermined reactions how can it be considered to be an adequate judge of plausibility?

How can the so called logic resulting from any person's magic, contradictory soul be measured in plausibility terms?  You claim yours to be superior, but what is this superiority measured by?  If the instrument of measurement is just another magic, contradictory soul how can it be considered to be an adequate judge of plausibility?

...makes exactly the same amount of sense.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Just as you missed again the explanations of where you go wrong that I've posted twice for you now? Well, possibly - let's see shall we...

That's a pretty sound working assumption given the total absence of evidence for such a thing, yes.

Ah, and then you collapse again into pejorative language in the hope that the logic that undoes you will somehow go away if you poison the well by calling it "so-called". That's a really nasty habit of yours by the way. It won't, and it's just logic. If you don't like it then finally bring some logic of your own to the table that would falsify it.

What are you even trying to say here? Logic is "measured" in various ways, not least in that its fruits (penicillin, aeroplanes etc) can be investigated and by means of intersubjective experience found to be "plausible" as you put it. Conversely magic-based speculations ("soul" etc) have no means of investigation, and so are epistemically worthless. To put it another way, your big problem isn't that your various claims and assertions are implausible, it's that they're not even implausible. You're firmly planted in "not even wrong" territory.     
 
I've just told you. If you dismiss investigation, testing, repeatability etc then you may as well argue that 2+2=4 is no more or less true than 2+2=5.

But from your materialist perspective, how can I possibly take anything you say seriously if what you espouse is nothing but the inevitable, uncontrollable consequences of physically determined reactions in your brain?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But from your materialist perspective, how can I possibly take anything you say seriously if what you espouse is nothing but the inevitable, uncontrollable consequences of physically determined reactions in your brain?

For exactly the same reason that's been explained to you, what, 20 times maybe? 50 perhaps? Who knows, we may be up to the 100 mark by now and every single time it's been explained you've just ignored and ignored and ignored the explanation. I even told you again only recently when I listed your various errors, and then I posted the same list again when you ignored that too. Of course though you just ignored that as well.

Why do you bother with this industrial-scale avoidance?

Here it is again for you to just ignore again - Item 2:

Here’s what you know (or have no excuse for not knowing because it’s been explained to you so often):

1. Your concept of “freedom” is incoherent, self-contradictory and so impossible. Neither science, nor reason nor anything else can find a “source” for it therefore because it cannot exist in the first place.

2. For everyday, common-or-garden functional purposes though your impossible version serves well enough nonetheless. Moreover, this “logically impossible but good enough for day-to-day purposes” freedom sits perfectly well in the materialist model.

3. The experience of things does not necessarily provide a good explanation for them. You know this already because there are plenty of examples of our perception telling us one thing when more considered thinking tells us another, more coherent thing – the difference between the perception and the deeper reality of touch is just one example. What that tells you is that you cannot necessarily rely on your perception of freedom to provide a good explanation for it – there’s no inexorable logical path from one to the other. 

4. The moment you try to respond to an argument you don’t like with, “but that would mean…” you’ve exited the discussion. “But that would mean” arguments are not always wrong by the way – if I claimed the moon to be made of cream cheese and you replied with, “but that would mean that the Eagle lunar lander would have sunk into it so it cannot be made of cream cheese” that would be a good argument. What you actually do though (a lot) is to finish “but that would mean” just with a consequence you happen not to like.

And that’s a very bad argument indeed because for epistemic purposes your personal preferences are entirely irrelevant.

5. Your way to get out of the determinism you don’t like is to invent a little man at the controls you call a “soul”. That though would just transfer the determinist vs random problem to the little man, so you then try to get off that hook by placing him outside both evidence and logic. The moment you try “it’s magic” as an explanation however then again you immediately exit the discussion for reasons that should be obvious even to you. If you want claim magic for one speculation, then you have no choice but to allow it for any other speculation. To do otherwise is called “special pleading”, yet another of the fallacies of which you’re so fond.

6. When you cannot (or will not) address any of the falsifying arguments ranged against you, calling the people making them “the forces of evil” is something I’d be ashamed of if my six-year-old said it, let alone an adult. Indeed ascribing malevolent agency is what six-year-olds do say (“that tree hit me” etc). Once again, it also exits you immediately from any sort of sensible discussion.   

7. If you think you have evidence for something (like a “spiritual”), then (finally) you should present it. A warning though: the word “evidence” actually means something – a good test is that if I could use the same type of “evidence” to argue for leprechauns (“I believe it really deeply” etc) than it cannot be evidence at all.

Now then. After all your thousands of posts of mindless assertions, here’s your chance finally to engage openly and honestly with the explanations you’ve just been given of where you keep going wrong.

I have to say that I have very low expectations that you will do so, but it’s your choice. Surprise me.

[torridon]

But from your materialist perspective, how can I possibly take anything you say seriously if what you espouse is nothing but the inevitable, uncontrollable consequences of physically determined reactions in your brain?

Because he might be right, that is sufficient reason.

Just because thought processes are ultimately deterministic does not mean the thoughts are incorrect.

[Stranger]

But from your materialist perspective, how can I possibly take anything you say seriously if what you espouse is nothing but the inevitable, uncontrollable consequences of physically determined reactions in your brain?

[Irrelevant language removed]

Because he has a better grasp of logic than you do.

As has been explained many times: there is nothing about thinking things through, presenting arguments, and other people assessing and responding to them, that is in any way incompatible with deterministic minds. On the other hand, it does seem to be incompatible with your mind; what is the point in just ignoring everything that has been explained to you?

[Alan Burns]

Because he might be right, that is sufficient reason.

Just because thought processes are ultimately deterministic does not mean the thoughts are incorrect.

But you claim that all our apparently conscious choices are made in our subconscious before we become aware of them.  So this implies that any reasoning we "choose" to perform would also be done subconsciously before we are aware of it.   So would you claim that your subconscious brain activity is correct and my subconscious brain activity is wrong?  But then, what precisely would be the determining factor which invokes this claim?  Can you not see just how ludicrous this is?

[Alan Burns]

[Irrelevant language removed]

Because he has a better grasp of logic than you do.

As has been explained many times: there is nothing about thinking things through, presenting arguments, and other people assessing and responding to them, that is in any way incompatible with deterministic minds. On the other hand, it does seem to be incompatible with your mind; what is the point in just ignoring everything that has been explained to you?

Quite simply because your explanations do not make sense.
How can I deliberately think things through if all my brain activity is unavoidably predetermined by past events?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Quite simply because your explanations do not make sense.

How would you know that as you always just ignore them?

[Enki]

Quite simply because your explanations do not make sense.
How can I deliberately think things through if all my brain activity is unavoidably predetermined by past events?

They make sense to me. So, from your point of view, is this because I've got an error prone 'soul'? In which case how would you know which 'soul' is error prone, yours or mine? And, if it's your 'soul' that is error prone, could it be because it doesn't exist, and that it is actually your thinking that is error prone?

[torridon]

But you claim that all our apparently conscious choices are made in our subconscious before we become aware of them.  So this implies that any reasoning we "choose" to perform would also be done subconsciously before we are aware of it.   So would you claim that your subconscious brain activity is correct and my subconscious brain activity is wrong?  But then, what precisely would be the determining factor which invokes this claim?  Can you not see just how ludicrous this is?

Not sure I follow that.  Consciousness lag is about the speed of neural processing in the construction of personal awareness, it doesn't say anything about whether your internal mental calculations are correct or incorrect.  Ask two schoolboys what the capital of Australia is, they could both answer correctly or incorrectly; their consciousness lag is not an issue, it is a timing thing, and it would only be a relevant consideration if you were timing how quickly they could recall the answer.

[jeremyp]

But you claim that all our apparently conscious choices are made in our subconscious before we become aware of them.

I'm not sure if that is his claim, I can't be bothered to look back through the thread, but, it is quite possibly true. There is experimental evidence that our consciousness is our brain backfilling a narrative after the fact.

A simple example would be, if you have a clock on the wall with a second hand and you glance up at it, for a brief period of time it appears that the second hand is not moving, and then it starts going round as expected. This is because it takes a little while to get your eyes on the clock and then to focus the image. Your brain backfills the time you are doing that with the first in focus image it gets. You don't see the clock coming into focus because your consciousness does not operate in "real time".

[Alan Burns]

AB,

How would you know that as you always just ignore them?

Can I just ask you how you came to think up your analogy which compares belief in God to belief in Leprechauns - do you believe it was all done subconsciously before you became aware of it?  Or do you take the credit for deliberately thinking it up?  Or was it an inevitable consequence to past events and your perception of it is "just the way it seems"?

[Stranger]

Quite simply because your explanations do not make sense.

Says the guy whose preferred 'explanation' is obviously self-contradictory.   

Firstly, if they don't make sense to you, then stop ignoring them and explain why (apart from the baseless assertions and personal incredulity). Secondly, address the obvious logical contradiction in your own position.

How can I deliberately think things through if all my brain activity is unavoidably predetermined by past events?

Assuming you have a fully functional human brain, then I suggest that using it would be a good start. The first thing for you to contemplate is that determinism does not prevent you from thinking things through (as has been explained to you repeatedly).

[Alan Burns]

They make sense to me. So, from your point of view, is this because I've got an error prone 'soul'? In which case how would you know which 'soul' is error prone, yours or mine? And, if it's your 'soul' that is error prone, could it be because it doesn't exist, and that it is actually your thinking that is error prone?

I believe that our ability to make sense of anything requires the consciously driven will and perception of the human soul.

[Alan Burns]

Not sure I follow that.  Consciousness lag is about the speed of neural processing in the construction of personal awareness, it doesn't say anything about whether your internal mental calculations are correct or incorrect.  Ask two schoolboys what the capital of Australia is, they could both answer correctly or incorrectly; their consciousness lag is not an issue, it is a timing thing, and it would only be a relevant consideration if you were timing how quickly they could recall the answer.

You have not understood my point.
If our apparently conscious choices are made before we become aware of them, how can we possibly claim responsibility for driving our own thought processes and coming up with conclusions?

[jeremyp]

You have not understood my point.
If our apparently conscious choices are made before we become aware of them, how can we possibly claim responsibility responsibility for driving our own thought processes and coming up with conclusions?

Because our subconsciouses are part of us too.

[Alan Burns]

Because our subconsciouses are part of us too.

So did your subconscious just reply to me?

[torridon]

You have not understood my point.
If our apparently conscious choices are made before we become aware of them, how can we possibly claim responsibility responsibility for driving our own thought processes and coming up with conclusions?

Put simply, our sense of agency is a constituent part of the phenomenology of the self.  This is a defining characteristic of human consciousness - a strong sense of self, of agency, of moral conscience; these attributes combine with memory to form the basis of personhood.