Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

Your post just emphasises our freedom to choose.
And you confirm this observation with your phrase:

Better, I think, to choose understanding over ignorance.

Your materialistic model would deny us the power to consciously make any such choice

Eh ?  What makes you think that ?

[Alan Burns]

Dear Blue,

The detailed content of your post #32866 offers substantial evidence for the ability of people to think up very detailed reasons for how a materialistic model can explain human behaviour.  A materialistic model which effectively denies them the freedom they are using to direct their own thought processes.

[Alan Burns]

Eh ?  What makes you think that ?

You have previously stated that our apparently conscious choices are made in our subconscious before we become aware of them, so this would obviously deny me the freedom to consciously choose to do what you are suggesting.

[Gordon]

You have previously stated that our apparently conscious choices are made in our subconscious before we become aware of them, so this would obviously deny me the freedom to consciously choose to do what you are suggesting.

Then have you considered you might not be as free as you'd like to think you are?

[Stranger]

The detailed content of your post #32866 offers substantial evidence for the ability of people to think up very detailed reasons for how a materialistic model can explain human behaviour.  A materialistic model which effectively denies them the freedom they are using to direct their own thought processes.

Yet again: every single conjecture regarding consciousness and freedom is an attempt to explain our abilities and experiences, claiming that your 'explanation' is the only one that can, or (worse) that they are the same as your 'explanation', is basically lying.

I can't imagine why you think this blatant dishonesty is going to help your cause...

[Stranger]

Then have you considered you might not be as free as you'd like to think you are?

It really isn't even a question of how free we are. Alan's ideas about what constitutes "freedom", literally make no sense, so they can't represent some state of being "more free".

[torridon]

You have previously stated that our apparently conscious choices are made in our subconscious before we become aware of them, so this would obviously deny me the freedom to consciously choose to do what you are suggesting.

That is just splitting hairs over the role of consciousness in decision making.  We make decisions, the exact moment in the cycle is not relevant to the outcome of the process. We can choose to seek understanding rather than carefully studied ignorance.

[Alan Burns]

Why do you keep lying about this?

Yet again: every single conjecture regarding consciousness and freedom is an attempt to explain our abilities and experiences, claiming that your 'explanation' is the only one that can, or (worse) that they are the same as your 'explanation', is basically lying.

And yet again: you won't face up to the logic that shows that your supposed explanation is self-contradictory...

But your explanations are themselves self contradictory, because you try to insert a definition of human freedom into a physically predetermined model in which any form of freedom just becomes an inevitable consequence to previous events.  Why can't you see the obvious reality that your ability make up such explanations requires the power to be able to consciously direct your own thought processes?  None of your explanations come up with a viable definition for the source of your conscious ability to direct your own thoughts.

[SusanDoris]

Yet again: every single conjecture regarding consciousness and freedom is an attempt to explain our abilities and experiences, claiming that your 'explanation' is the only one that can, or (worse) that they are the same as your 'explanation', is basically lying.

I can't imagine why you think this blatant dishonesty is going to help your cause...

,
Perhaps it is because, since NS has now said this thread is a national treasure, AB  considers he can be a bit more self-satisfied than he is already!

[Stranger]

But your explanations are themselves self contradictory, because you try to insert a definition of human freedom into a physically predetermined model in which any form of freedom just becomes an inevitable consequence to previous events.

So where is the contradiction? This seems to be just an argumentum ad consequentiam.

freedom The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants.

I have repeatedly pointed to two actual contradictions in your position and you've never addressed either of them. Now you say there is a contradiction in my position but seem unable to actually point it out.

Why can't you see the obvious reality that your ability make up such explanations requires the power to be able to consciously direct your own thought processes?

Which is perfectly compatible with me being deterministic (and please don't try to pretend that your ideas are deterministic too, we've done that before) .

Yet again: every single conjecture regarding consciousness and freedom is an attempt to explain our abilities and experiences, claiming that your 'explanation' is the only one that can, or (worse) that they are the same as your 'explanation', is basically lying.

None of your explanations come up with a viable definition for the source of your conscious ability to direct your own thoughts.

They do a great deal better than "it's magic, innit" and a self-contradictory idea of freedom that requires a logical proposition to be both true and false and involves an infinite regress.

[Alan Burns]

Yet again: every single conjecture regarding consciousness and freedom is an attempt to explain our abilities and experiences, claiming that your 'explanation' is the only one that can, or (worse) that they are the same as your 'explanation', is basically lying.

But in deliberately choosing to make a consciously driven effort to attempt to explain conscious freedom being derived entirely from abilities and experiences, you provide evidence for something self determined by you from within present moments in time, rather than being a result of entirely predetermined consequences to past events.

[Alan Burns]

,
Perhaps it is because, since NS has now said this thread is a national treasure, AB  considers he can be a bit more self-satisfied than he is already!

Not self satisfied.
Just enormously frustrated at how people can persist in using their considerable intelligence and freedom to justify their belief that our amazing gift of free will can be explained away as an inevitable consequence to physically controlled electro chemical reactions in our brains.

[Stranger]

Yet again: every single conjecture regarding consciousness and freedom is an attempt to explain our abilities and experiences, claiming that your 'explanation' is the only one that can, or (worse) that they are the same as your 'explanation', is basically lying.

But in deliberately choosing to make a consciously driven effort to attempt to explain conscious freedom being derived entirely from abilities and experiences, you provide evidence for something self determined by you from within present moments in time, rather than being a result of entirely predetermined consequences to past events.

So in answer to me pointing out that you are being dishonest in effectively claiming that yours is the only 'explanation' of our abilities and experience, you post exactly the same dishonest claim. What's the matter, are you somehow unable to grasp that other people have other explanations of the same set of abilities and experiences?

Let's also note that you actually don't have an explanation at all until you can address the inherent contradictions.

I also note that you ignored most of what I said and failed to back up your own accusation of a contradiction.

Finally getting to what you said: "something self determined by you" is fully compatible with, "entirely predetermined consequences to past events"; in fact it couldn't work unless it was. (The "within present moments in time" is meaningless waffle).

This has all been explained to you over and over and over again. You never address the points made, you never face the logical contradictions in your position, and you continue to dishonestly claim that our experience can only be explained by your impossible non-explanation.

I really don't see what you hope to achieve....

[Stranger]

Just enormously frustrated at how people can persist in using their considerable intelligence and freedom to justify their belief that our amazing gift of free will can be explained away as an inevitable consequence to physically controlled electro chemical reactions in our brains.

I suggest facing up to the arguments, then. Instead of the endless thought-free repetition of the same things that have been addressed time and time and time again and which you continue to totally ignore...

[SusanDoris]

Not self satisfied.
Just enormously frustrated at how people can persist in using their considerable intelligence and freedom to justify their belief that our amazing gift of free will can be explained away as an inevitable consequence to physically controlled electro chemical reactions in our brains.

What do you mean, "explained away"? That is you denigrating the amazing abilities our evolved brains have to function on their own, without any extra little something, supposedly given by some god, possibly to some soul, none of which  is ever justified, or explained, or objectively evidenced, ever.

[Gordon]

Not self satisfied.
Just enormously frustrated at how people can persist in using their considerable intelligence and freedom to justify their belief that our amazing gift of free will can be explained away as an inevitable consequence to physically controlled electro chemical reactions in our brains.

I suspect, Alan, before you can make any progress in terms of understanding the logic that has been explained to you often, you'll need to dispense with your odd ideas of 'God'.

[Alan Burns]

I suspect, Alan, before you can make any progress in terms of understanding the logic that has been explained to you often, you'll need to dispense with your odd ideas of 'God'.

I fully understand what has been explained to me, but I cannot accept any explanation which effectively denies the truth that I have the freedom to direct my own thought processes.

[Alan Burns]

Finally getting to what you said: "something self determined by you" is fully compatible with, "entirely predetermined consequences to past events"; in fact it couldn't work unless it was. (The "within present moments in time" is meaningless waffle).

The present moment in time is most definitely relevant, not meaningless waffle.
At any moment in time, our consciousness is aware of historical data as well as current situations and state of mind.  This awareness all occurs in the present, as does any consciously invoked choice.  We are aware of these things, but these things do not automatically drive our choices or thought processes.  Our conscious awareness has real time control - it is not driven by the past.

[Stranger]

I fully understand what has been explained to me...

Why do you not respond directly to it, then? Why the endless repetition of the same old assertions and 'questions' that have already been addressed many times before? If you'd really understood, you could write all the responses your posts yourself. Which again raises the question of why you have no answers to the responses?

...but I cannot accept any explanation which effectively denies the truth that I have the freedom to direct my own thought processes.

Which is either a proud statement of blind faith (you've understood all the counterarguments, you have no answers to them, and you don't care) or a misunderstanding of what has been said to you (you don't understand that the freedom you experience is entirely compatible with a deterministic* system).

* No, your impossible version of freedom isn't deterministic.

[Stranger]

The present moment in time is most definitely relevant, not meaningless waffle.
At any moment in time, our consciousness is aware of historical data as well as current situations and state of mind.  This awareness all occurs in the present, as does any consciously invoked choice.  We are aware of these things, but these things do not automatically drive our choices or thought processes.  Our conscious awareness has real time control - it is not driven by the past.

Which is a perfect example of the mindless repetition I was referring to in my last post. This has been explained to you over and over and over again, and by several different people, so, if you have really understood the replies, why just repeat the same old assertions as if nobody had answered them?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I fully understand what has been explained to me,...

That may or may not be true. We have no way of knowing though as you never, ever engage with it and instead repeat endlessly your same mistakes.

...but I cannot accept any explanation which effectively denies...

And right there is the heart of the idiocy you cannot allow to be falsified. No matter how strong your opinion about something, when reason and evidence shows that opinion to be wrong you just dismiss it out of hand regardless of the quality of the argument that undoes you. That's the truth of it - not that there aren't arguments that show you to be completely wrong, but rather that you cannot allow for the possibility that there are arguments that show you to be wrong. Better by far to stick your fingers in your ears and shout "la-la-la" than to chance the abject terror of being honest and finding out that your huge investment in various superstitious beliefs has been entirely misplaced.     

...the truth...

But as you know (but, as ever, just ignore) what you call "the truth" is in fact just a truth - ie, the one you happen to find most comforting despite knowing too that it's no more possible that a four-sided triangle is possible. 

...that I have the freedom to direct my own thought processes.

And yet again, that's true but only at a relatively superficial level. If you weren't so terrified of thinking about it though, you'd be able to see for yourself that there must be a different reality at a deeper level because your concept of freedom is logically impossible. 

Oh, and just calling it "spiritual" (ie, "it's magic innit?") doesn't get you off that hook. It just plants you firmly in not even wrong territory.   

[Gordon]

I fully understand what has been explained to me, but I cannot accept any explanation which effectively denies the truth that I have the freedom to direct my own thought processes.

Which is code for you being unable to accept any explanation that doesn't include a contrived gap for your 'God' to occupy: in your case, Alan, your faith is an obstacle to understanding.

[torridon]

The present moment in time is most definitely relevant, not meaningless waffle.
At any moment in time, our consciousness is aware of historical data as well as current situations and state of mind.  This awareness all occurs in the present, as does any consciously invoked choice.  We are aware of these things, but these things do not automatically drive our choices or thought processes.  Our conscious awareness has real time control - it is not driven by the past.

I think we disagree about how mind works.  You think that our thoughts are free, unconstrained by circumstance; I think our thoughts are a consequence of circumstance.  When I make a choice, the choice reflects my state of mind at the moment of making a choice, and my state of mind at that moment is always a consequence of whatever led to that state of mind.  Our state of mind is not something ultimately that we can choose; if that were possible, then we would always choose to be happy and if we always chose to be happy we would have long ago gone extinct.  Our minds mediate between internal/external change and response.  Our state of mind has to reflect the circumstances of the moment, it has to be deterministic, nothing else makes any sense.  Simply inserting 'soul' into the loop alters the logic of what minds do not one iota.

[Alan Burns]

What do you mean, "explained away"? That is you denigrating the amazing abilities our evolved brains have to function on their own, without any extra little something, supposedly given by some god, possibly to some soul, none of which  is ever justified, or explained, or objectively evidenced, ever.

No matter how evolved or complex a human brain is, if it is entirely material, it will be subject to the deterministic control defined by the laws of physics.  As such, everything which occurs in the brain will be a physically predefined consequence of past events - this is the logic based upon determinism which denies any control other than what is predefined by physical reactions.

The amazing abilities you refer to are presumably those which are controlled by your conscious self, the source of which can't be defined within a physically controlled material scenario.

[Gordon]

The amazing abilities you refer to are presumably those which are controlled by your conscious self, the source of which can't be defined within a physically controlled material scenario.

Who says it can't?