Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

Your use of the word "deliberate" verifies that you believe I must be capable of making a conscious choice which has not been entirely predetermined by chains of cause and effect events beyond my control.

You've seized on the use of 'deliberate' but, as I'm sure you must know, this is a tautology since it just means choosing between options you have deliberated/thought about. Of course your deliberations don't occur in isolation from the prevailing circumstances given that to make a choice requires at least two options each of which has aspects, which includes your personal wants and preferences.
 

[Alan Burns]

Yet again it seems only that you haven't read the post you claim to be responding to.  I have never claimed that our choices are 'predetermined' so stop misrepresenting me and actually engage with what is written.

If you maintain that we are entirely composed of material elements, it is inevitable that the behaviour of these elements will be subject to the laws of physics.  Whatever words you use to describe physical brain activity, such activity will be predetermined by physically defined reactions.

The outcome of the deliberations of my mind is clear evidence that minds work on deterministic principals; I don't make random choices that are irrelevant to the issues that need resolution. On the contrary I make choices that are appropriate and fitting.  This is clear evidence that the fundamental principal of cause and effect is at work in the way minds have evolved. The ability to think is not inconsistent with determinism, the abilities to deliberate, contemplate, ruminate are entirely consistent with an underlying principal of determinism.  I can be confident of this just from my own experience of being a living thinking being - I do not have random thoughts, my contemplations are always in service of some or other desire, they are always consequential to something.  We are not random beings, there are always reasons for our thoughts and feelings.

And in all this you seem unable to grasp the concept that we can consciously control and manipulate our own thought processes.  If they are entirely predefined by inevitable reactions to chains of cause and effect, there is no possibility for conscious control or manipulation, because in the materialistic scenario, whatever we perceive to be control or manipulation will be subject to physically predetermined reactions - leading to the inevitable conclusion that our perception of control or manipulation is just an illusion.

[torridon]

If you maintain that we are entirely composed of material elements, it is inevitable that the behaviour of these elements will be subject to the laws of physics.  Whatever words you use to describe physical brain activity, such activity will be predetermined by physically defined reactions.And in all this you seem unable to grasp the concept that we can consciously control and manipulate our own thought processes.  If they are entirely predefined by inevitable reactions to chains of cause and effect, there is no possibility for conscious control or manipulation, because in the materialistic scenario, whatever we perceive to be control or manipulation will be subject to physically predetermined reactions - leading to the inevitable conclusion that our perception of control or manipulation is just an illusion.

Can you not understand that the notion that we can 'control our thought processes' is a nonsense ?  It is not the way that mind works.  We are essentially our thoughts, and the notion that that there is a 'we' controlling the thoughts makes no sense.  There is no separate me choosing which thoughts should appear in my mind; rather what happens is that thoughts are triggered by something prior, quite often, other thoughts.  The extent to which we can choose our thoughts is itself a prior thought process.

[Alan Burns]

Can you not understand that the notion that we can 'control our thought processes' is a nonsense ?

If our notion of controlling our own thoughts is a nonsense, the thought processes you use to reach this absurd conclusion could not take place.  Conclusions, whether true or not, can only be reached by an ability to consciously control and manipulate your thoughts.  A conclusion could never be reached by inevitable reactions driven only by physically controlled events.

It is not the way that mind works.  We are essentially our thoughts, and the notion that that there is a 'we' controlling the thoughts makes no sense.  There is no separate me choosing which thoughts should appear in my mind; rather what happens is that thoughts are triggered by something prior, quite often, other thoughts.  The extent to which we can choose our thoughts is itself a prior thought process.

Our conscious awareness is the only reality we perceive.  It defines what we are.  It defines where we are in time.  It defines our present.  We are not predetermined by the past.  We exist and act in the present.  A present which as you rightly conclude defies any scientific definition - as does our conscious awareness.  But try as you might, you will never be able to define yourself by physical reactions alone - because the action required to attempt such definition requires the conscious control which you deem to be a "nonsense".

[Sebastian Toe]

If you maintain that we are entirely composed of material elements, it is inevitable that the behaviour of these elements will be subject to the laws of physics.  Whatever words you use to describe physical brain activity, such activity will be predetermined by physically defined reactions.And in all this you seem unable to grasp the concept that we can consciously control and manipulate our own thought processes.  If they are entirely predefined by inevitable reactions to chains of cause and effect, there is no possibility for conscious control or manipulation, because in the materialistic scenario, whatever we perceive to be control or manipulation will be subject to physically predetermined reactions - leading to the inevitable conclusion that our perception of control or manipulation is just an illusion.

Your post demonstrates the workings of a biological brain making choices entirely under deterministic principles with no magic, logic free, fantasy ridden soul required.

[SusanDoris]

If our notion of controlling our own thoughts is a nonsense, the thought processes you use to reach this absurd conclusion could not take place.  Conclusions, whether true or not, can only be reached by an ability to consciously control and manipulate your thoughts.  A conclusion could never be reached by inevitable reactions driven only by physically controlled events.Our conscious awareness is the only reality we perceive.  It defines what we are.  It defines where we are in time.  It defines our present.  We are not predetermined by the past.  We exist and act in the present.  A present which as you rightly conclude defies any scientific definition - as does our conscious awareness.  But try as you might, you will never be able to define yourself by physical reactions alone - because the action required to attempt such definition requires the conscious control which you deem to be a "nonsense".

And what makes you think that you know better than most of all the rest of us put together? And please don't come back with some re-hashed version of one of your pick and mix sets of words! 

[torridon]

If our notion of controlling our own thoughts is a nonsense, the thought processes you use to reach this absurd conclusion could not take place.  Conclusions, whether true or not, can only be reached by an ability to consciously control and manipulate your thoughts.  A conclusion could never be reached by inevitable reactions driven only by physically controlled events.

That's just baseless assertion that ignores the reasoning of the post you purport to be responding to. It is baseless assertion to claim that  reaching a conclusion can only be done by manipulating our thought processes.  We reach a conclusion by following our thoughts, not by 'manipulating' them. At base, we cannot choose which thoughts to think, or, the extent to which we can, that is itself a thought process.  This is basic mind function.  If I choose to spend the next hour thinking about Poland, that is in service of a desire to think about Poland that has already arisen for some or other reason.  I'm afraid there is no escaping this logic Alan, things happen for a reason, and that includes the thoughts that arise in minds.

[torridon]

Our conscious awareness is the only reality we perceive.  It defines what we are.  It defines where we are in time.  It defines our present.  We are not predetermined by the past.  We exist and act in the present.  A present which as you rightly conclude defies any scientific definition - as does our conscious awareness.  But try as you might, you will never be able to define yourself by physical reactions alone - because the action required to attempt such definition requires the conscious control which you deem to be a "nonsense".

I'd agree our conscious experience is for most intents and purposes, our defacto present.  It might not be strictly faithful to the nuances of general relativity and so on.  It doesn't matter to us that our reality might be slightly out of step in some sense.  But our present moment is a consequence of the past, it cannot be free from it. The shards of broken glass on the floor is a consequence of next door's kids having kicked the football into the window in the previous moment.  I am laughing now because someone just told me a funny joke in the previous moment.  Cause and effect does not suddenly stop when applied to minds.  If I am miserable I cannot be just choose to be happy because the present moment is some magical place wherein cause and effect does not hold.  If that is your reality, I really just do not recognise it as valid.

[Alan Burns]

We reach a conclusion by following our thoughts, not by 'manipulating' them. At base, we cannot choose which thoughts to think, or, the extent to which we can, that is itself a thought process.

The inevitable conclusion from this logic is that our thoughts are defined by a series of physically controlled events which just happen and over which we can have no personal control.

This is basic mind function.  If I choose to spend the next hour thinking about Poland, that is in service of a desire to think about Poland that has already arisen for some or other reason.  I'm afraid there is no escaping this logic Alan, things happen for a reason, and that includes the thoughts that arise in minds.

But reasons exist in our present state of conscious awareness.
Outside our conscious awareness, there is only physical reaction.
Can you define a reason in terms of physical reactions alone?

[torridon]

The inevitable conclusion from this logic is that our thoughts are defined by a series of physically controlled events which just happen and over which we can have no personal control.

'Physically' is irrelevant.  Things happen for reasons, and choices we make in the present moment have consequence in the next moment.  This is the reality we live in, everything is interconnected in chains of cause and consequence.  No man is an island, as they say.

[torridon]

But reasons exist in our present state of conscious awareness.
Outside our conscious awareness, there is only physical reaction.
Can you define a reason in terms of physical reactions alone?

Again, 'physical' is an irrelevant term here.  Any present moment of mind state is inevitably going to be a consequence of the things that led to that mind state. My reason to go out and remonstrate with the neighbours derives from my irritation with their kids carelessness with the football.  It does not come out of thin air, it derives from something prior.   Can you think of an occasion when you decided to do something that was not for any reason ?  If you can, then you are claiming a random choice, something you frequently deny. There is no escaping this simple logic Alan, if you make choices for a reason, that identifies your choosing as consistent with cause and effect.  That we make 'meaningful' choices implies determinism.

[wigginhall]

I suppose AB goes on about "physical", because he is positing a supernatural control over brain.   Since I cannot detect this, it's a big fat zero for me.

[Stranger]

The inevitable conclusion from this logic is that our thoughts are defined by a series of physically controlled events which just happen and over which we can have no personal control.

...

But reasons exist in our present state of conscious awareness.
Outside our conscious awareness, there is only physical reaction.
Can you define a reason in terms of physical reactions alone?

Just how many times do you need the answers to this baseless nonsense before you take some notice of them and stop pretending that they don't exist and just endlessly repeating yourself?

If you've been paying any attention at all, you could write out the responses yourself by now. Why don't you engage with the answers?

[Alan Burns]

I suppose AB goes on about "physical", because he is positing a supernatural control over brain.   Since I cannot detect this, it's a big fat zero for me.

And what do you attribute to be the ultimate determining source for this conclusion?
Was it just an inevitable consequence of physically defined cause and effect events which extend back to the beginning of time?

[Alan Burns]

Just how many times do you need the answers to this baseless nonsense before you take some notice of them and stop pretending that they don't exist and just endlessly repeating yourself?

If you've been paying any attention at all, you could write out the responses yourself by now. Why don't you engage with the answers?

Yes, no doubt I could.
But my consciously controlled thoughts can never accept the logic which denies my ability to personally control my thoughts.

[SusanDoris]

Just how many times do you need the answers to this baseless nonsense before you take some notice of them and stop pretending that they don't exist and just endlessly repeating yourself?

If you've been paying any attention at all, you could write out the responses yourself by now. Why don't you engage with the answers?

Probably because that would mean he'd actually have to think about them, instead of producing another mindless comment from the limited, and very repetitive,selection he draws on.

[Alan Burns]

Probably because that would mean he'd actually have to think about them, instead of producing another mindless comment from the limited, and very repetitive,selection he draws on.

And once more you validate my arguments by acknowledging that I have the ability to consciously choose to think about something.

[Gordon]

Was it just an inevitable consequence of physically defined cause and effect events which extend back to the beginning of time?

That thought utterly terrifies you, which is no doubt why you indulge in this hyperbole. In essence though that is the case, where that the incremental steps 'back to the beginning in time' that have led to you results in you having biology that allows you to think and to make choices, albeit with constraints. 

[BeRational]

And once more you validate my arguments by acknowledging that I have the ability to consciously choose to think about something.

Thinking and choosing does not make your case.

I think that is the mistake you repeat over and over.

Brains think and choose.

[Stranger]

Yes, no doubt I could.
But my consciously controlled thoughts can never accept the logic which denies my ability to personally control my thoughts.

Leaving aside the ambiguity of what "control my thoughts" might mean and assuming you are referring to the assertion that your choices are not fully defined by the preceding reasons and yet involve no randomness:-

Firstly, this is a statement of personal incredulity and blind faith that is all you appear to have in the face of actual logic.

Secondly, it really doesn't explain the endless repetition of the same statements of personal incredulity and blind faith, as if you haven't already had all the arguments explained to you over and over again.

[Stranger]

And once more you validate my arguments by acknowledging that I have the ability to consciously choose to think about something.

This is thoroughly dishonest. Nobody is denying your ability to think and choose.

Every single conjecture about human minds is an attempt to explain our experiences of thinking and choosing - trying to claim that they validate yours alone is tantamount to lying.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

And once more you validate my arguments by acknowledging that I have the ability to consciously choose to think about something.

Stop lying.

First, if you of all people have the ability to think about anything you’ve never managed to show the first sign of it here.

Second, you don’t have any arguments. You just repeat the same mistake over and over again and refuse or fail point blank ever to address the actual arguments that undo you. Yet again: at one level of perception we’re captains of our own ships apparently with a “me” separate from our bodies that makes the decisions for us. That’s the way it feels and it’s a good enough place marker explanation provided you don’t bother to think about it. Ever.

The merest, slightest, most cursory of thinking though – you know, actual thinking – will tell you that this cannot be, and that more nuanced, reason-based and sensible analysis gives the more coherent explanation for what’s actually going on.

You can carry on being dishonest if you want to, but be aware that if you do you’ll convince no-one and you’ll just keep wasting everyone’s time.       

[SusanDoris]

This is thoroughly dishonest. Nobody is denying your ability to think and choose.

Every single conjecture about human minds is an attempt to explain our experiences of thinking and choosing - trying to claim that they validate yours alone is tantamount to lying.

My response exactly. How dare AB keep implying strongly that he knows better than I do myself  what I think, know, or mean and constantly misrepresent what I (and many of us here) write. It is not worthy of a participant in discussion  and I think it is about time he ceased and desisted.

And that is a very good reason never to allow AB to have the last word on this topic!!

[wigginhall]

Yes, the dishonesty is asphyxiating. 

[torridon]

And once more you validate my arguments by acknowledging that I have the ability to consciously choose to think about something.

.. which you would only do because you wanted to ..

Penny.  Drop.  Come Alan stop being so thick, this isn't really that difficult.