Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Basically, the soul makes its own mind up.

First error – the fallacy of reification. What you should have said there was, “Basically, I believe that the soul makes its own mind up”.

Second error – you’ve just transferred your problem with a materialistic explanation to your non-material one: how could it “make its own mind up” neither deterministically nor randomly?

As you now know (I hope) what “thought experiment” means, try it here: faced with two identical situations, would this supposed “soul” of yours make the same choice twice (ie, it’s deterministic) or different ones (ie, it’s random)? 

I do not know the mechanics of how it interacts with the physical workings of the brain –

That’s a big problem for you then, but not your biggest. Not by a very long chalk. Before you get there if you wanted your assertions to be taken seriously by someone possessed of a functioning intellect then you’d need to concern yourself first with questions like why do you think a soul exists at all, what it consists of, how it would be investigated etc. That’s a huge amount of work to do before you need to worry about how it would interact with something else. Just now, you’ve done the equivalent of saying you don’t know how exactly leprechauns get the pots of gold to the ends of rainbows – a potentially fascinating question no doubt, but a highly premature one.

…it may be through quantum events whose cause we can't determine,

No Deepak. Invoking the quantum is a get out of jail free card the religious sometimes attempt when all else has failed, even though they rarely if ever know anything about it.

Doesn’t wash.

…but there is nothing in science or logic which contradicts the possibility of this interaction.

And nor of the interaction of leprechauns, pots of gold and rainbows. Your mistake here is called a category error – the claim “soul” isn’t truth apt until and unless you can define it and provide a means of investigating the claim. You’re firmly planted in “not even wrong” territory here.

And the evidence of this interaction abounds in the existence of human creativity, imagination, worship, investigation, theorising, discovery, exploration ........

Except as you now know full well that’s not evidence at all. Not even close. What it is is a just narrative you happen to find persuasive. If you want to call that evidence nonetheless though, then you cannot deny my claim that rainbows are evidence for leprechauns, or that thunder is evidence for Thor.

Can you see the problem here? When you set the bar for the term “evidence” meaninglessly low, you have no choice but to accept claims for anything else using the same abysmally low standard. Is that really where you want to be?

Really though?

On the plus side, for what it’s worth this is the first time in a very long times that you haven’t just ignored everything that’s been said to you. OK your efforts are logically disastrous, but at least they’re not dishonestly so this time.

Well done! 
 

[Alan Burns]

By thinking rather than just reacting.


Thinking is reacting, and you're still just ignoring the logic:-

Yet again: either a choice is entirely due to its antecedents or not. You can only make a choice if you want one option rather than another. You cannot control that want without having a meta-want: to want to want the option, and so on into an infinite regress.

You seem to be claiming that our thoughts are unavoidably predetermined by past events.

If so, how can the conclusions from your unavoidably predetermined thoughts possibly claim superiority over the conclusions from my unavoidably predetermined thoughts?

[Stranger]

If so, how can the conclusions from your unavoidably predetermined thoughts possibly claim superiority over the conclusions from my unavoidably predetermined thoughts?

Round and round and round we go: #32551.

When will you stop going round and  round in these silly circles of inane assertions and daft questions, all of which have been answered multiple times, and face up to the logic of the situation?

Yet again: either a choice is entirely due to its antecedents or not (and not means there must be some randomness). You can only make a choice if you want one option rather than another. You cannot control that want without having a meta-want: to want to want the option, and so on into an infinite regress.

How about trying to argue against it, or simply admit you can't and that your beliefs are based on blind faith alone?

[torridon]

Basically, the soul makes its own mind up.  I do not know the mechanics of how it interacts with the physical workings of the brain - it may be through quantum events whose cause we can't determine, but there is nothing in science or logic which contradicts the possibility of this interaction.  And the evidence of this interaction abounds in the existence of human creativity, imagination, worship, investigation, theorising, discovery, exploration ........

Really, you don't know how you come to a decision ?  Have you never wondered why you made one choice rather than another ? It must be a surreal experience living in the Burns household :

Mrs Burns: "Alan why did you paint our house pink ?"
Mr Burns: "Because my soul made its mind up"
Mrs Burns: "Yes, OK, but why did you decide to paint our house pink ?"
Mr Burns: "Because my conscious awareness decided to"
Mrs Burns: "Yes, OK, but why did your conscious awareness decide to paint it pink and not white or grey ?"
Mr Burns: "Because I thought about it freely"
Mrs Burns: "Yes, OK, but WHY, for God's sake ?"
Mr Burns: "Because my soul made its mind up"
Mrs Burns: <wanders off in despair, muttering....>

[jjohnjil]

The needle's stuck on this thread.  Everyone has obviously been wasting their time. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Just been thinking about what’s at the heart of AB’s deep misunderstanding. I think it’s this: for reasons known only to himself he asserts our self-awareness to be “impossible” (he’s never bothered to tell us why he thinks that). Having created that gap, he then proceeds to fill it with a conjecture he calls “soul” that (also for reasons known only to himself) apparently can be self-aware. His second order (though still major) problem is to explain how this supposed soul would break free of the iron logic of determined vs random. That’s where the “it’s magic” comes in – he blithely tells us that it’s “self-determining” and proceeds immediately to talking about how it would “interact” and so on as if the premise "soul" had been demonstrated.

When you strip away the mindless assertions, the disastrous reasoning, the wishful thinking etc what’s lurking at the bottom is that single unqualified and un-argued assertion – the our self-awareness is supposedly impossible.

And on that the whole sorry sandcastle is built, one grain at a time. Couldn’t find my car keys and then they turned up? That’ll be god at work then etc. That explains too I think why he can never, ever concede where he goes wrong – if ever he allowed the incoming tide of reason to reach even one grain of sand at the base he knows at some level that the whole edifice would quickly be washed away and he cannot allow that. He’s far too heavily invested in some very bad ideas.

It’s awful really, but he’ll never change.         

[wigginhall]

It's also about the physical world.  AB asserts that the brain cannot produce consciousness, so he has to hang onto that dualism, body and soul.   If he gives that up, his ideas collapse.  The fact that research on the brain and cognition is steaming ahead, has to be brushed aside.   It's like peeking into the mind of a 17th century gentleman.

[Nearly Sane]

It's also about the physical world.  AB asserts that the brain cannot produce consciousness, so he has to hang onto that dualism, body and soul.   If he gives that up, his ideas collapse.  The fact that research on the brain and cognition is steaming ahead, has to be brushed aside.   It's like peeking into the mind of a 17th century gentleman.

Scribo, ergo sum.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

It's also about the physical world.  AB asserts that the brain cannot produce consciousness, so he has to hang onto that dualism, body and soul.   If he gives that up, his ideas collapse.  The fact that research on the brain and cognition is steaming ahead, has to be brushed aside.   It's like peeking into the mind of a 17th century gentleman.

Earlier than that I think - he's mediaeval in his thinking. He thinks his interior monologue must be an invisible little man doing the talking, that there's agency in inanimate objects, that there's a tangible force called "evil" that we poor saps with our reason and our logic have been unwittingly hijacked by etc. It's barely a hop and a skip from thinking that trees have spirits and suchlike, and it's utterly impervious to argument no matter how robust.       

[Alan Burns]

Round and round and round we go: #32551.

When will you stop going round and  round in these silly circles of inane assertions and daft questions, all of which have been answered multiple times, and face up to the logic of the situation?

Yet again: either a choice is entirely due to its antecedents or not (and not means there must be some randomness). You can only make a choice if you want one option rather than another. You cannot control that want without having a meta-want: to want to want the option, and so on into an infinite regress.

How about trying to argue against it, or simply admit you can't and that your beliefs are based on blind faith alone?

You totally ignore or misunderstand the power of human freewill.
It is not based upon religious faith, but on the reality of my power to consciously choose, rather than react to previous events.  The logic you espouse relegates a conscious choice to be an illusion, but you could never have come up with this flawed logic without having the freedom to drive your own thoughts.

[Alan Burns]

Really, you don't know how you come to a decision ?  Have you never wondered why you made one choice rather than another ? It must be a surreal experience living in the Burns household :

Mrs Burns: "Alan why did you paint our house pink ?"
Mr Burns: "Because my soul made its mind up"
Mrs Burns: "Yes, OK, but why did you decide to paint our house pink ?"
Mr Burns: "Because my conscious awareness decided to"
Mrs Burns: "Yes, OK, but why did your conscious awareness decide to paint it pink and not white or grey ?"
Mr Burns: "Because I thought about it freely"
Mrs Burns: "Yes, OK, but WHY, for God's sake ?"
Mr Burns: "Because my soul made its mind up"
Mrs Burns: <wanders off in despair, muttering....>

I have never denied that there are reasons for our choices.
But we have the power to consciously consider those reasons before making the choice.
It is all driven by our conscious awareness - not by inevitable reactions.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You totally ignore or misunderstand the power of human freewill.

Wrong. He's just smart enough to falsify your impossible concept of it.

It is not based upon religious faith,...

Of course it is. If not for religious faith, why would you proudly tell us that nothing could ever change your mind about your beliefs (by which what you actually mean by the way is that nothing could ever be allowed to change your mind)?

...but on the reality of my power to consciously choose, rather than react to previous events.

That's not "the reality" at all - it's just a fundamentally bad piece of thinking to assume that your experience of something must also be the explanation for it. But you know this already don't you, what with it being explained to you already maybe 100 times or more.
 

The logic you espouse relegates a conscious choice to be an illusion, but you could never have come up with this flawed logic without having the freedom to drive your own thoughts.

Logic doesn't become flawed just because you assert it to be so - you need to show why it's flawed, which is where you always fall apart like a cheap suit.

You seemed to have slipped back from being just wrong to being dishonestly wrong again. Shame that.

[jeremyp]

So does this imply that we can carry on for another 32768 posts on this thread?

Yep.

[Alan Burns]

Just been thinking about what’s at the heart of AB’s deep misunderstanding. I think it’s this: for reasons known only to himself he asserts our self-awareness to be “impossible” (he’s never bothered to tell us why he thinks that). Having created that gap, he then proceeds to fill it with a conjecture he calls “soul” that (also for reasons known only to himself) apparently can be self-aware. His second order (though still major) problem is to explain how this supposed soul would break free of the iron logic of determined vs random. That’s where the “it’s magic” comes in – he blithely tells us that it’s “self-determining” and proceeds immediately to talking about how it would “interact” and so on as if the premise "soul" had been demonstrated.

When you strip away the mindless assertions, the disastrous reasoning, the wishful thinking etc what’s lurking at the bottom is that single unqualified and un-argued assertion – the our self-awareness is supposedly impossible.

And on that the whole sorry sandcastle is built, one grain at a time. Couldn’t find my car keys and then they turned up? That’ll be god at work then etc. That explains too I think why he can never, ever concede where he goes wrong – if ever he allowed the incoming tide of reason to reach even one grain of sand at the base he knows at some level that the whole edifice would quickly be washed away and he cannot allow that. He’s far too heavily invested in some very bad ideas.

It’s awful really, but he’ll never change.       

I did not claim that self awareness was impossible.
I said it was physically impossible for self awareness to emerge from material reactions alone.
The impossibility arises from having to define a single entity of awareness from many magnitudes of discrete reactions.  There is nothing in the physical model which can pull all these reactions into a single entity of awareness.  Physical reactions can initiate further reactions, but no matter how complex the chain of reactions, they do not define conscious awareness.  It is a logical impossibility.

And remember that emergent properties are perceived from outside, not from within.

[Alan Burns]

That's not "the reality" at all - it's just a fundamentally bad piece of thinking to assume that your experience of something must also be the explanation for it. But you know this already don't you, what with it being explained to you already maybe 100 times or more.
 

But the so called explanations merely assert that my conscious awareness of making a choice or directing my own thoughts must be an illusion in order to comply with a materialistic scenario.

These explanations do not explain your ability to think up imaginary scenarios such as turning back time in order to defend your logic.  The freedom you demonstrate in order to generate such thought processes defies the logic you espouse.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I did not claim that self awareness was impossible.
I said it was physically impossible for self awareness to emerge from material reactions alone.

That’s called a difference without significance. Even if that’s what you did say, it’s still an un-argued and unqualified assertion with no evidence whatever to support it. It does though provide for you a gap into which you insert your various superstitions.

The impossibility arises from having to define a single entity of awareness from many magnitudes of discrete reactions.  There is nothing in the physical model which can pull all these reactions into a single entity of awareness.  Physical reactions can initiate further reactions, but no matter how complex the chain of reactions, they do not define conscious awareness.  It is a logical impossibility.

No it isn’t. You need to understand something of emergent properties to see where you’ve gone wrong again. That’s not to say that consciousness is necessarily an emergent property of brains (though that is where all the evidence currently points) but it is to say that you have no basis at all to assert it to be impossible.

And remember that emergent properties are perceived from outside, not from within.

Did that means something in your head when you typed it? We observe emergent properties pretty much all the time – they’re everywhere from street patterns to flocking birds to waves. There’s no great mystery about this. I could point you (again) to a book about this to get you started, but there wouldn’t be any point would there. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But the so called…

Straight in with the fallacy of poisoning the well there I see…

…explanations merely assert that my conscious awareness of making a choice or directing my own thoughts must be an illusion in order to comply with a materialistic scenario.

Wrong again. You assert that your experience of something must also provide the explanation for it. It doesn’t, because there’s no logical path from one to the other. You’ve had this explained many times already only for you to ignore the explanation completely – which is why you keep returning to the same basic mistake.
 

These explanations do not explain your ability to think up imaginary scenarios such as turning back time in order to defend your logic.

Yes they do, but you’re getting ahead of yourself again. Your first job is to explain why your perception of an experience must also explain it. You know, the problem you always run away from.

The freedom you demonstrate in order to generate such thought processes defies the logic you espouse.

Endlessly repeating idiocy doesn’t make it not idiotic. You do know that right?

[Stranger]

Round and round and round we go: #32551.

When will you stop going round and  round in these silly circles of inane assertions and daft questions, all of which have been answered multiple times, and face up to the logic of the situation?

Yet again: either a choice is entirely due to its antecedents or not (and not means there must be some randomness). You can only make a choice if you want one option rather than another. You cannot control that want without having a meta-want: to want to want the option, and so on into an infinite regress.

How about trying to argue against it, or simply admit you can't and that your beliefs are based on blind faith alone?

You totally ignore or misunderstand the power of human freewill.
It is not based upon religious faith, but on the reality of my power to consciously choose, rather than react to previous events.  The logic you espouse relegates a conscious choice to be an illusion, but you could never have come up with this flawed logic without having the freedom to drive your own thoughts.

Yet again, you have run away from facing up to the logic! If you're so sure of yourself, why not face up to it?

What you would do in, my shoes now, would be to totally ignore what you said - but I'm not afraid of thinking about it...

You totally ignore or misunderstand the power of human freewill.

I'm still waiting for you to offer a coherent and logical explanation of how it manages (as you claim) to make choices that are entirely due to causes and not entirely due to causes.

Any time you're ready...

It is not based upon religious faith, but on the reality of my power to consciously choose, rather than react to previous events.

I'm also still waiting for you to explain, in a logical and coherent way, why the two things need to be different.

Any time you're ready...

The logic you espouse relegates a conscious choice to be an illusion...

I dispute this and you should know exactly why (I've repeated it often enough). However, even if it were true, it doen't mean that the logic is flawed.

Reality is not under an obligation to be as you would like it to be.

...but you could never have come up with this flawed logic without having the freedom to drive your own thoughts.

I don't dispute anybody's freedom to drive their thoughts - something you should already know. However, this again seems to be the utterly absurd claim that our experience is the same as your proposed 'explanation' for it.

I seriously don't understand why you do this (it looks like extreme dishonesty or stupidity). Do you not understand that the whole debate about free will and consciousness is about many rival explanations for what we expereince? That, at the very best, yours is just one explanation amongst many? Keeping on claiming that what we are all capable of and what we experience shows that your explanation is right, is utterly absurd.

What part of that do you not understand?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stranger,

What part of that do you not understand?

All of it.

[Alan Burns]

Logic doesn't become flawed just because you assert it to be so - you need to show why it's flawed, which is where you always fall apart like a cheap suit.

I have explained numerous times why it is flawed.
It is because there is no definitive cause for a conscious choice in your scenario.
Classifying our apparent choice be an illusion effectively redefines the choice to be an unavoidable reaction dictated by previous chains of events with no single causal event.

Do you honestly believe that all our posts are just a result of chain reactions dating back to the beginning of time?

[Alan Burns]

What part of that do you not understand?

I fully understand what you are saying, but I have to continually point out why your short sighted logic is flawed. 

You earlier claimed that our thoughts are just reactions.

Yet you continually accuse me of deliberately ignoring or misinterpreting or assertion.
In your scenario, any deliberate act would be impossible, because the thought processes behind those "deliberate" acts would have been unavoidable reactions.  So please explain where and how this deliberation gets initiated.

[Stranger]

The freedom you demonstrate in order to generate such thought processes defies the logic you espouse.

This is basically a barefaced lie, as has been explained to you many, many times...

I have explained numerous times why it is flawed.

No, you have not. You have never once pointed out a flaw. All you keep saying is that it must be flawed because you must be right. That isn't logic, Alan.

[Stranger]

I fully understand what you are saying...

I don't believe you.

...but I have to continually point out why your short sighted logic is flawed. 

Totally ignoring it and continually asserting you are right, is not pointing out why it is flawed. To point out flaws you need to say what part of the reasoning is wrong. The fact that you don't agree with the conclusion, does not mean that it is flawed.

[Alan Burns]

I'm still waiting for you to offer a coherent and logical explanation of how it manages (as you claim) to make choices that are entirely due to causes and not entirely due to causes.

Any time you're ready...

I have never disputed that our choices do not have causes.
It is the origin of the cause which is in question.
Is it the end result of a physical chain of reactions?
Or is it formed within our conscious awareness, possibly after perusal of the options, but sometimes just because it is what our conscious awareness wants to do at that moment.

[Alan Burns]

Did that means something in your head when you typed it? We observe emergent properties pretty much all the time – they’re everywhere from street patterns to flocking birds to waves. There’s no great mystery about this. I could point you (again) to a book about this to get you started, but there wouldn’t be any point would there.

The key word here is "observe".
All the examples of emergent properties you give are merely an externally observed functionality or pattern.  There is no concept of a single entity of any sort within the objects being observed.