Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

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

OK, give an example of what you mean by 'my ability to personally control my thoughts'

Give us an instance of when you 'controlled' a thought.

[Gordon]

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

Don't be silly: thinking is a product of a functioning brain just as insulin is a product of a functioning pancreas, and in both cases it is hard to choose to turn off these products (though some brains/pancreases are more efficient than are others).

Try choosing to not think of anything at all - not so easy is it!

[Sebastian Toe]

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

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

[Alan Burns]

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.

But the point I am making is that an entirely material based system, no matter how complex, will be driven by physically predefined chain reactions to events with no possibility of intervention, apart from random activity.  But my freedom to consciously think and compose this message is real.  And my ability to consciously realise that my choices are not predetermined before I make them is real.  My arguments are based on reality, not on human efforts to try to fit reality into short sighted logic.

I am certainly not terrified by these apparently sincere but failed attempts to explain away the freedom I am currently demonstrating.

[Alan Burns]

OK, give an example of what you mean by 'my ability to personally control my thoughts'

Give us an instance of when you 'controlled' a thought.

How can I possibly deny that every word I write stems from my ability to consciously control what I think and do?

[Gordon]

But the point I am making is that an entirely material based system, no matter how complex, will be driven by physically predefined chain reactions to events with no possible intervention, apart from random activity.  But my freedom to consciously think and compose this message is real.  And my ability to consciously realise that my choices are not predetermined before I make them is real.  My arguments are based on reality, not on human efforts to try to fit reality into short sighted logic.

I am certainly not terrified by these apparently sincere but failed attempts to explain away the freedom I am currently demonstrating.

Alan

You are struggling to accept that you yourself are an 'entirely material based system' that functions in a deterministic universe: you don't like this idea because it renders your notion of 'God' redundant - and guess what, your notion of 'God' is redundant.

That you can think is just part of the particular 'entirely material based system' that is our species, but we can't fly unaided though there are other 'entirely material based system(s)' that can.

[Gordon]

How can I possibly deny that every word I write stems from my ability to consciously control what I think and do?

To a degree, yet every thing you think and do has antecedents and context, such as what normally goes on in the wee forum that influences how you interact when here.

[Alan Burns]

Alan

You are struggling to accept that you yourself are an 'entirely material based system' that functions in a deterministic universe: you don't like this idea because it renders your notion of 'God' redundant - and guess what, your notion of 'God' is redundant.

That you can think is just part of the particular 'entirely material based system' that is our species, but we can't fly unaided though there are other 'entirely material based system(s)' that can.

But my ability to consciously accept or reject any theory requires freedom to control my own thought processes.  A freedom which cannot exist in an entirely material based scenario.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But the point I am making is that an entirely material based system, no matter how complex, will be driven by physically predefined chain reactions to events with no possible intervention, apart from random activity.

It’s not “pre-determined” in the sense that there’s some grand plan, but it is deterministic in the sense that so far as we can tell it’s entirely cause and effect based, at least down to the quantum field level. I don’t know why you keep lying about this, but that’s a matter for you.     

But my freedom to consciously think and compose this message is real.

It’s “real”, but not in the sense you imply – it’s the same kind of “real” as a goldfish “really” experiencing the universe as everything it can see from its tank. I don’t know why you keep lying about this, but that’s a matter for you.     

And my ability to consciously realise that my choices are not predetermined before I make them is real.

It’s “real”, but not in the sense you imply – it’s also the same kind of “real” as a goldfish “really” experiencing the universe as everything it can see from its tank. I don’t know why you keep lying about this, but that’s a matter for you.     

My arguments…

You don’t have any. Mindless and irrational assertions are not arguments. I don’t know why you keep lying about this, but that’s a matter for you.     
 

…are based on reality,…

Just a reality AB, and a very shallow one at that for the same reason that perceiving the Earth as flat is just a reality. I don’t know why you keep lying about this, but that’s a matter for you.     
 

…not on human efforts to try to fit reality into short sighted logic.

Finding logical argument to rebut your un-argued and logic-free assertions does not make the logic “short-sighted”. I don’t know why you keep lying about this, but that’s a matter for you.     
 

I am certainly not terrified...

If not for your sense of terror, why else would you always just ignore or misrepresent the arguments that undo you? I don’t know why you keep lying about this, but that’s a matter for you.   

…by these apparently sincere but failed attempts to explain away the freedom I am currently demonstrating

Arguments don’t fail just because you ignore or misrepresent them. I don’t know why you keep lying about this, but that’s a matter for you.     

[Stranger]

But the point I am making is that an entirely material based system, no matter how complex, will be driven by physically predefined chain reactions to events with no possible intervention, apart from random activity.  But my freedom to consciously think and compose this message is real.

There is no contradiction in both being true. And, yet again, the constraint of the only alternative to a deterministic process is randomness is LOGICAL and is not because of a PHYSICAL system.

And my ability to consciously realise that my choices are not predetermined before I make them is real.

No, you haven't realised it, your simplistic incredulity is telling you this is the case and you've asserted it.

My arguments are based on reality, not on human efforts to try to fit reality into short sighted logic.

You haven't even presented an argument. Assertions based on incredulity are not arguments. Your intuition and incredulity is not the same things as reality.

I am certainly not terrified by these apparently sincere but failed attempts to explain away the freedom I am currently demonstrating.

Back to the dishonesty: you are demonstrating no such thing. It's utterly absurd and totally dishonest to suggest that anything you post demonstrates anything but normal human thinking and choosing, which is completely consistent with determinism (with possibly some randomness).

You are not demonstrating your incoherent and contradictory notion of freedom. The idea that you could is absurd.

[Alan Burns]

To a degree, yet every thing you think and do has antecedents and context, such as what normally goes on in the wee forum that influences how you interact when here.

But the concepts of degrees and influences are not applicable in a materialistic scenario where every event will be entirely defined by previous events.

[Stranger]

But my ability to consciously accept or reject any theory requires freedom to control my own thought processes. 

OK, accept my view of freedom then, for, let's say two hours, then go back to rejecting it.

Let us know how much control you really have over your thought processes...

[Alan Burns]

I see that Stranger and Bluehillside are once more demonstrating what they believe to be their capacity to choose arguments before they are consciously aware of them.

[Gordon]

But the concepts of degrees and influences are not applicable in a materialistic scenario where every event will be entirely defined by previous events.

Don't be silly: of course degree and influence applies - do you never prepare for possible eventualities such as deciding take out holiday insurance as a precaution without knowing whether or not you'll call on the policy? That is a choice based on influence and experience without you knowing exactly what will occur during the holiday.

The nature of the policy may depend on the destination you chose earlier, and the destination you chose earlier may depend on ??

[Sebastian Toe]

But the concepts of degrees and influences are not applicable in a materialistic scenario where every event will be entirely defined by previous events.

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

[torridon]

But my ability to consciously accept or reject any theory requires freedom to control my own thought processes.  A freedom which cannot exist in an entirely material based scenario.

Nonsense. Material has got nothing to do with it.  If you believe something to be true you cannot 'consciously' believe it to be untrue.  If you find something deeply unconvincing you cannot use this consciousness thing to magically transform it into something convincing.  Minds do not work like that, and any creature that evolved such irrational thought processes would soon be extinct.

Give an example of a thought that you controlled, how did you control it, what change did you effect on it ?

[Alan Burns]

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 seem to be implying that if I thought about things, I would inevitably come to the same logical conclusion as yourself.

But the conclusions you pronounce imply that our thoughts must be predetermined before we are consciously aware of them.

Can you not see the obvious contradiction here?

Surely in order to reach any meaningful conclusion I would need the freedom to consciously control my own thoughts.

[Stranger]

You seem to be implying that if I thought about things, I would inevitably come to the same logical conclusion as yourself.

You would certainly see the flaws in your self-contradictory notion of 'freedom' and accept the absurdity of claiming that people's ability to think and choose is evidence for, or a demonstration of, it.

But the conclusions you pronounce imply that our thoughts must be predetermined before we are consciously aware of them.

There may be randomness and the process is almost certainly chaotic (mathematical sense)

Can you not see the obvious contradiction here?

There obviously isn't a contradiction.

Surely in order to reach any meaningful conclusion I would need the freedom to consciously control my own thoughts.

Consciousness is simply irrelevant to the underlying logic. Just because something happens consciously doesn't tell us whether it happened entirely due to previous reasons or not, and logic and our own experience (if you actually think about it) tells us that the contents of our consciousness are because of the reasons that led up to them.

Your view is full of absurd false dichotomies like this. There is absolutely no reason to conclude that conscious choice is incompatible with being determined by the reasons that led to it.

[Alan Burns]

You would certainly see the flaws in your self-contradictory notion of 'freedom' and accept the absurdity of claiming that people's ability to think and choose is evidence for, or a demonstration of, it.

I see no flaws in concluding that consciously driven thoughts and choices are evidence of them not being entirely predetermined by past events.

There may be randomness and the process is almost certainly chaotic (mathematical sense)

Consciously driven thought processes are certainly not random.

There obviously isn't a contradiction.

I consciously choose to disagree.

Consciousness is simply irrelevant to the underlying logic. Just because something happens consciously doesn't tell us whether it happened entirely due to previous reasons or not, and logic and our own experience (if you actually think about it) tells us that the contents of our consciousness are because of the reasons that led up to them.

Your view is full of absurd false dichotomies like this. There is absolutely no reason to conclude that conscious choice is incompatible with being determined by the reasons that led to it.

Consciousness is entirely relevant because it is the reality we exist in,
My conscious awareness defines me, just as it defines my consciously driven choices.

[torridon]

Consciousness is entirely relevant because it is the reality we exist in,
My conscious awareness defines me, just as it defines my consciously driven choices.

You're wrong, whether a choice is made consciously or subconsciously (for instance) not does not alter the logic of the nature of choice, which is that to not be a random event, a choice must owe to some or other reason. Conscious thinking does not allow anyone to do something which is inherently inconceivable.  The fact that it is the reality we exist in is neither here nor there.

[Sebastian Toe]

I see no flaws in concluding that consciously driven thoughts and choices are evidence of them not being entirely predetermined by past events.Consciously driven thought processes are certainly not random.I consciously choose to disagree.Consciousness is entirely relevant because it is the reality we exist in,
My conscious awareness defines me, just as it defines my consciously driven choices.

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

[torridon]

You seem to be implying that if I thought about things, I would inevitably come to the same logical conclusion as yourself.

But the conclusions you pronounce imply that our thoughts must be predetermined before we are consciously aware of them.

Can you not see the obvious contradiction here?

Surely in order to reach any meaningful conclusion I would need the freedom to consciously control my own thoughts.

We've asked you for an explanation of how anyone could control a thought and you haven't been able to come up with an example.  I think you're just making stuff up if you cannot substantiate your own claims.

[Alan Burns]

You're wrong, whether a choice is made consciously or subconsciously (for instance) not does not alter the logic of the nature of choice, which is that to not be a random event, a choice must owe to some or other reason. Conscious thinking does not allow anyone to do something which is inherently inconceivable

I fully agree that a conscious choice is not a random event.
My contention lies with highlighting the obvious difference between a consciously driven choice and an inevitable reaction to previous events.

[Alan Burns]

We've asked you for an explanation of how anyone could control a thought and you haven't been able to come up with an example.  I think you're just making stuff up if you cannot substantiate your own claims.

Well, I would say that the ability to "make stuff up" provides obvious evidence of our freedom to consciously control our own thought processes.

[Stranger]

My contention lies with highlighting the obvious difference between a consciously driven choice and an inevitable reaction to previous events.

What obvious difference?

Well, I would say that the ability to "make stuff up" provides obvious evidence of our freedom to consciously control our own thought processes.

And you would be being obviously dishonest to do so, for reasons that have been explained to you countless times before.