Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

Contradictions, by definition, must involve something which is can be accused of contradicting.

Like a functioning brain.     

[Alan Burns]

Yes, trying to be honest for once.

So if my conscious choices have already been predetermined before I make them, please explain how I can consciously "try" to do anything?

In your deterministic scenario any perceived effort of trying will be illusionary because it has already been predetermined.

And I still fail to see how any set of predetermined physical reactions can be accused of lying.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Susan,

May I politely suggest that a quick edit needed here?!!

Oops - yes. Done (and apologies to NS).

[Stranger]

So if my conscious choices have already been predetermined before I make them, please explain how I can consciously "try" to do anything?

This has been answered about 38 million times already in this thread.

What the hell is the point of repeating the same questions over and over again, and never taking any notice of the answers?

[Alan Burns]

Like a functioning brain.     

If a functioning brain comprises nothing but physically predefined electrochemical activity, how can the outcome of such activity be accused of contradictions?

[Stranger]

If a functioning brain comprises nothing but physically predefined electrochemical activity, how can the outcome of such activity be accused of contradictions?

This has been answered about 38 million times already in this thread.

What the hell is the point of repeating the same questions over and over again, and never taking any notice of the answers?

[Gordon]

If a functioning brain comprises nothing but physically predefined electrochemical activity, how can the outcome of such activity be accused of contradictions?

I see the fallacy of composition must be the fallacy du jour.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

So if my conscious choices have already been predetermined before I make them, please explain how I can consciously "try" to do anything?

In your deterministic scenario any perceived effort of trying will be illusionary because it has already been predetermined.

And I still fail to see how any set of predetermined physical reactions can be accused of lying.

Are you really so astonishingly obtuse that you just will not even read the countless times this has been explained to you, or is it conceptually so difficult that the words used may as well be in klingon?

Trying, lying, blaming and all the rest make perfect sense at the level of abstraction of how things seem to be. That's why people fall in love, get married, negotiate mortgages, have messy divorces, whatever. And at one level these explanations for what's happening serve well enough. If ever you could drag yourself out of the shallow end of the reasoning pool and actually think about it though, (even) you would realise that at deeper levels of abstraction a different explanatory picture emerges – and moreover a picture that doesn't require pouffing into existence magic little men at the controls to satisfy the hard of understanding.     

[Alan Burns]

This has been answered about 38 million times already in this thread.

What the hell is the point of repeating the same questions over and over again, and never taking any notice of the answers?

My deliberate choice to repeat these questions aptly illustrates that the answers you have given are not valid, because I am demonstrably free to choose to repeat these questions until you can provide a valid explanation for my conscious ability to choose to carry on asking them.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Are you really so astonishingly obtuse that you just will not even read the countless times this has been explained to you, or is it conceptually so difficult that the words used may as well be in klingon?

Trying, lying, blaming and all the rest make perfect sense at the level of abstraction of how things seem to be. That's why people fall in love, get married, negotiate mortgages, have messy divorces, whatever. And at one level these explanations for what's happening serve well enough. If ever you could drag yourself out of the shallow end of the reasoning pool and actually think about it though, (even) you would realise that at deeper levels of abstraction a different explanatory picture emerges – and moreover a picture that doesn't require pouffing into existence magic little men at the controls to satisfy the hard of understanding.   

And I still fail to see how these "deeper levels of abstraction" can possibly allow me the freedom of thought needed to allow me to discover them.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

And I still fail to see how these "deeper levels of abstraction" can possibly allow me the freedom of thought needed to allow me to discover them.

Do you though? Do you really fail to see that despite it being spelled out for you countless times in terms any averagely bright twelve-year-old would understand somehow you, a person who clams to be able to think, either cannot or will not grasp such a simple and unanswerable explanation?

Really though?

[Stranger]

My deliberate choice to repeat these questions aptly illustrates that the answers you have given are not valid, because I am demonstrably free to choose to repeat these questions...

This is a lie - for reasons that have also been explained to you endless times. Just because you don't like the proposed explanation of your ability to do as you wish, does not mean that that ability invalidates the proposed explanation.

Every single conjecture about human abilities to think and choose is a proposed explanation for those abilities - it is a lie to say that they are evidence for yours alone or that they invalidate one or more of the other proposed explanations.

Nobody is denying our experiences of being able to think and make choices. You cannot possibly demonstrate anything more than the things that nobody denies.

Please stop lying.

[Gordon]

And I still fail to see how these "deeper levels of abstraction" can possibly allow me the freedom of thought needed to allow me to discover them.

That is just you, Alan: you are an example of how an approach to faith, and one which seems unique to you, can screw-up reasoning abilities - hence your frequent reasoning errors (fallacies).

[Enki]

My deliberate choice to repeat these questions aptly illustrates that the answers you have given are not valid, because I am demonstrably free to choose to repeat these questions until you can provide a valid explanation for my conscious ability to choose to carry on asking them.

Not necessarily. Here is a different scenario.

Your 'deliberate choice to repeat these questions' could just as easily demonstrate that the answers are completely valid, but that your thought processes are unable to grasp their validity which in your case leads to your endless(and rather fruitless) repetition of repeating the same questions. All that can be ascertained  in this scenario is that you have the freedom to carry on asking these questions(a freedom which no one disagrees with).

[torridon]

We know that water cannot help but feel wet.  We know that walls cannot avoid  feeling solid.

Any emergence will be defined entirely from the physically predetermined reactions of the material from which it emerges.  So how can a contradiction occur from this emergence?    Contradictions, by definition, must involve something which is can be accused of contradicting.

Yes, that would be you.  The 'you' that contradicts emerges from the trillions of particles that make you up.  An atom of carbon cannot contradict anything, just as a molecule of water cannot be wet.  Wetness arises at higher levels of complexity out of the interactions of many particles and 'you' arise out of the interactions of trillions of nerve cells operating and cooperating in ways that give rise to sensations, perceptions, emotions, thoughts, contradictions.  It's an instance of the same principal.

[Alan Burns]

Yes, that would be you.  The 'you' that contradicts emerges from the trillions of particles that make you up.  An atom of carbon cannot contradict anything, just as a molecule of water cannot be wet.  Wetness arises at higher levels of complexity out of the interactions of many particles and 'you' arise out of the interactions of trillions of nerve cells operating and cooperating in ways that give rise to sensations, perceptions, emotions, thoughts, contradictions.  It's an instance of the same principal.

And in this entirely deterministic scenario, what defines a contradiction, and what causes it?

[torridon]

And in this entirely deterministic scenario, what defines a contradiction, and what causes it?

You contradict the views of people whose beliefs seem wrong to you.  We cannot choose whether or not to believe something, this is the signature of determinism manifested through human mind. You will choose to argue against the view that you do not share if that is your desire.  If you don't have that desire, you won't contradict.  All entirely consistent with a deterministic account of mind.

[Alan Burns]

You contradict the views of people whose beliefs seem wrong to you.  We cannot choose whether or not to believe something, this is the signature of determinism manifested through human mind. You will choose to argue against the view that you do not share if that is your desire.  If you don't have that desire, you won't contradict.  All entirely consistent with a deterministic account of mind.

But surely in this scenario it is your conscious awareness which is the driving force - not predetermined reactions.  You need freedom of thought to consciously perceive and analyse the data provided by your sensory organs in order to form opinions.  It is nonsense to presume that your opinions are predetermined in your subconscious before you become aware of them.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But surely in this scenario it is your conscious awareness which is the driving force - not predetermined reactions.

Wrong as always. Your conscious awareness is an emergent property of the material stuff that is you. Reversing that by assertion as you do just gives you insurmountable logical problems - the ones you always ignore in fact.
 

You need freedom of thought to consciously perceive and analyse the data provided by your sensory organs in order to form opinions.  It is nonsense to presume that your opinions are predetermined in your subconscious before you become aware of them.

You do know that irrational assertions do not make an argument right?

[Stranger]

But surely in this scenario it is your conscious awareness which is the driving force - not predetermined reactions.

False dichotomy and circular reasoning again. Your conscious awareness must be a determined reaction unless there is randomness. Assuming that is isn't is just assuming your conclusion before you start.

You need freedom of thought to consciously perceive and analyse the data provided by your sensory organs in order to form opinions.

But not the self-contradictory, impossible version of 'freedom' that you keep on about. It is also correct that you cannot just choose what you find convincing. You are either convinced or not. You can't just suddenly decide that I'm right for half and hour can you?

[Sebastian Toe]

My deliberate choice to repeat these questions aptly illustrates that the answers you have given are not valid, because I am demonstrably free to choose to repeat these questions until you can provide a valid explanation for my conscious ability to choose to carry on asking them.

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 surely in this scenario it is your conscious awareness which is the driving force - not predetermined reactions.  You need freedom of thought to consciously perceive and analyse the data provided by your sensory organs in order to form opinions.  It is nonsense to presume that your opinions are predetermined in your subconscious before you become aware of them.

That's not strictly accurate in terms of mind function and you already know this, it's been pointed out innumerable times.  Strictly speaking, conscious awareness is not 'in the driving seat'; it follows behind, it is more of a memory and it therefore contains no executive function.  These subtleties of mind function seem to trip you up endlessly.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

That's not strictly accurate in terms of mind function and you already know this, it's been pointed out innumerable times.  Strictly speaking, conscious awareness is not 'in the driving seat'; it follows behind, it is more of a memory and it therefore contains no executive function.  These subtleties of mind function seem to trip you up endlessly.

That’s a sweeping generalisations. Could you provide some evidence where this has been proved. Thanks

[torridon]

That’s a sweeping generalisations. Could you provide some evidence where this has been proved. Thanks

'Proof' is not really a thing in science.  However there has been a considerable amount of research around this in recent decades.   Here is a paper on it from 2017 :

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01924/full

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

'Proof' is not really a thing in science.  However there has been a considerable amount of research around this in recent decades.   Here is a paper on it from 2017 :

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01924/full

Their argument is interesting and it will be interesting to see evidence to support it that might convince more than “some students of the cognitive sciences” that their view of consciousness is likely to be an accurate explanation of the evidence. As they stated in their paper:

“Over the past 30 years, there has been a slow but growing consensus among some students of the cognitive sciences that many of the contents of “consciousness,” are formed backstage by fast, efficient non-conscious systems.

In our account, we take this argument to its logical conclusion and propose that “consciousness” although temporally congruent involves no executive, causal, or controlling relationship with any of the familiar psychological processes conventionally attributed to it.”