Searching for GOD...

[wigginhall]

Again, that sounds like many of the ideas of depth psychology, that most stuff is organized unconsciously and the ego sort of tittivates a bit.   In fact, Freud used to make the ego a kind of executive function, but he realized that that big chunks of this are unconscious.   This seems to match experience, for example, that I don't create my thoughts, contra AB.

[torridon]

Indeed.  The notion that we can choose which thought to think next, or how that thought should be is patent nonsense.  We shouldn't really need cognitive science papers to understand that.  It is self evident from our personal experience as thinking beings.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I thought the argument was that what is self-evident from our personal experience doesn’t count for much.

[torridon]

I thought the argument was that what is self-evident from our personal experience doesn’t count for much.

Indeed, we need to remember that all experience is construction of mind, there is no such thing as 'raw' immediate experience of reality.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Then that's why we need cognitive science to try to explain our experiences.

From your link some cognitive scientists seem to be arguing that conscious awareness is not "some executive process capable of animating and directing our mental states...to the point where it was claimed that non-conscious systems could carry out all of the psychological activities traditionally assumed to depend on “consciousness” (Hassin, 2013). Consistent with the latter view, it has been argued that conscious control of behavior was purely illusory (Wegner, 2002). Not all researchers and theorists however agree and some form of executive role for “consciousness” systems continues to be retained or emphasized (Baumeister et al., 2011; Frith and Metzinger, 2016)."

That opposes your claim that conscious awareness " contains no executive function".

[wigginhall]

An interesting example is memory.   Of course, we remember tons of things, but are we aware of how we do it?   I doubt it, although research on tip of the tongue seems to show a division between access and retrieval of words.   Hence, tip of the tongue seems to show access without retrieval, as also seen in aphasia.   

[wigginhall]

Another example are negative inner voices, which tell some people that they are worthless, etc.   These seem out of control, although they can be neutralized via some therapies.   In fact, psychanalysts have devoted a lot of attention to such voices, and the mystery of where they come from, why they are so persistent for some people, and so on.  Some people have their lives ruined, (OCD).

[torridon]

Then that's why we need cognitive science to try to explain our experiences.

From your link some cognitive scientists seem to be arguing that conscious awareness is not "some executive process capable of animating and directing our mental states...to the point where it was claimed that non-conscious systems could carry out all of the psychological activities traditionally assumed to depend on “consciousness” (Hassin, 2013). Consistent with the latter view, it has been argued that conscious control of behavior was purely illusory (Wegner, 2002). Not all researchers and theorists however agree and some form of executive role for “consciousness” systems continues to be retained or emphasized (Baumeister et al., 2011; Frith and Metzinger, 2016)."

That opposes your claim that conscious awareness " contains no executive function".

Yes, that is in the nature science, there are always a range of views, consensus tends to arise gradually over time

[Alan Burns]

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.

Two observations:

If this is true, the whole content of this forum must be the result of subconscious activity of human brains and the conscious awareness of the participants is just a spectator function.

If our conscious awareness can offer no personal control over our thinking processes, how can you give credibility to the outcome of these apparently uncontrollable thought processes?

It would appear that the more you try to ignore the existence of human freewill, the more absurd your conclusions become.

[Sebastian Toe]

Two observations:

If this is true, the whole content of this forum must be the result of subconscious activity of human brains and the conscious awareness of the participants is just a spectator function.

If our conscious awareness can offer no personal control over our thinking processes, how can you give credibility to the outcome of these apparently uncontrollable thought processes?

It would appear that the more you try to ignore the existence of human freewill, the more absurd your conclusions become.

Yet another post from you which demonstrates the workings of a biological brain making choices entirely under deterministic principles with no absurd, magic, logic free, fantasy ridden soul required.

[Stranger]

It would appear that the more you try to ignore the existence of human freewill, the more absurd your conclusions become.

What's absurd?

I'm somewhat more cautious about drawing the conclusion that consciousness is just a spectator or memory* but I can see nothing inherently absurd about it. Let's not forget that your version of freedom is not only absurd, it's self-contradictory - it literally makes no logical sense.

* As has been pointed out, there are differing opinions and I don't think there is enough evidence yet - the experiments have been very limited in scope.

[wigginhall]

Big chunks of the human body operate autonomically, why should the brain be different?

[Alan Burns]

What's absurd?

The absurdity is aptly demonstrated by my obvious freedom to claim that "the notion of our thought processes being predetermined in our subconscious before we are aware of them"  is absurd.

[Alan Burns]

Indeed.  The notion that we can choose which thought to think next, or how that thought should be is patent nonsense.  We shouldn't really need cognitive science papers to understand that.  It is self evident from our personal experience as thinking beings.

So in consciously choosing to think about the nature of my thoughts, I should come to the self evident conclusion that I have no choice in what to think about.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Two observations:

If this is true, the whole content of this forum must be the result of subconscious activity of human brains and the conscious awareness of the participants is just a spectator function.

If our conscious awareness can offer no personal control over our thinking processes, how can you give credibility to the outcome of these apparently uncontrollable thought processes?

It would appear that the more you try to ignore the existence of human freewill, the more absurd your conclusions become.

What’s your thinking here – that telling lies is wrong, unless you’re telling lies for Jesus in which case it’s and fine and dandy?

You know full well why this is nonsense because it’s been explained to you 23,456,862 times already only for you never, ever, ever actually to engage with the explanation.

At one level of meaning or abstraction discussion, argument etc function perfectly well as if there was an “I” independent of body that somehow just decided of its own accord what to say and do. And that explanatory model works well enough for most day-to-day purposes provided you don’t think too hard about it (ie your forte).

If you did think about it though you’d quickly see that this model has no explanatory power at all because it’s so beset with contradictions (which is why you invent a magic little man at the controls you call “soul” to get you off that hook, apparently oblivious to your magic man notion having exactly the same logical contradictions as the “independent I” speculation).

For something with coherent explanatory force you have to leave the nursery and dig deeper – and when you do that you quickly reach the model of cause and effect determinism, which holds together perfectly well no matter what logical fallacies you insist on throwing at it.

Of course you’ll ignore this too and just keep on lying, but you have no excuse for claiming not to know why you’re so wrong.     

[wigginhall]

So in consciously choosing to think about the nature of my thoughts, I should come to the self evident conclusion that I have no choice in what to think about.

The issue here is your incredulity.   Oh well, it's unbelievable that the earth is round, isn't it?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

What’s your thinking here – that telling lies is wrong, unless you’re telling lies for Jesus in which case it’s and fine and dandy?

You know full well why this is nonsense because it’s been explained to you 23,456,862 times already only for you never, ever, ever actually to engage with the explanation.

At one level of meaning or abstraction discussion, argument etc function perfectly well as if there was an “I” independent of body that somehow just decided of its own accord what to say and do. And that explanatory model works well enough for most day-to-day purposes provided you don’t think too hard about it (ie your forte).

If you did think about it though you’d quickly see that this model has no explanatory power at all because it’s so beset with contradictions (which is why you invent a magic little man at the controls you call “soul” to get you off that hook, apparently oblivious to your magic man notion having exactly the same logical contradictions as the “independent I” speculation).

For something with coherent explanatory force you have to leave the nursery and dig deeper – and when you do that you quickly reach the model of cause and effect determinism, which holds together perfectly well no matter what logical fallacies you insist on throwing at it.

Of course you’ll ignore this too and just keep on lying, but you have no excuse for claiming not to know why you’re so wrong.   

But I did not invent the notion of soul to explain the existence of human freewill.  The history of the human race is full of evidence that humans are aware of their own spiritual nature.  What I offer is that the "level of abstraction", as you like to call it, is not just an illusion of the independent "I" but further evidence for the reality of the existence of the human soul.

And I still fail to see how you can possibly choose to accuse me of deliberate lies if you honestly believe that all our thoughts are predetermined beyond our conscious awareness.

[Stranger]

The absurdity is aptly demonstrated by my obvious freedom to claim that "the notion of our thought processes being predetermined in our subconscious before we are aware of them"  is absurd.

No, it isn't. How on earth do you think that demonstrates anything or the sort?

[Stranger]

And I still fail to see how you can possibly choose to accuse me of deliberate lies if you honestly believe that all our thoughts are predetermined beyond our conscious awareness.

Then it's about time you started paying attention.

And once again: your own notion of 'freedom' doesn't even make sense. It's literally devoid of meaning; self-contradictory nonsense; gibberish.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But I did not invent the notion of soul to explain the existence of human freewill.  The history of the human race is full of evidence that humans are aware of their own spiritual nature.  What I offer is that the "level of abstraction", as you like to call it, is not just an illusion of the independent "I" but further evidence for the reality of the existence of the human soul.

Way to miss the point and of course people reaching for bad explanations over the centuries happened and happens still, but that doesn't make those bad answers into good ones. You can't claim "being aware of a spiritual nature" as evidence for any such thing unless you can finally define and demonstrate this supposed "spiritual".   

And I still fail to see how you can possibly choose to accuse me of deliberate lies if you honestly believe that all our thoughts are predetermined beyond our conscious awareness.

I explained it to you in my last post. Stop lying.

[bluehillside Retd.]

By the way AB, have a think about dogs for a moment. According to your mediaeval ontology, dogs don’t have the little man at the controls so they just “react”. Why then do we scold them when they’re disobedient, or reward them with treats when they do what we want them to do? After all if you can’t conceive of meaning unless that meaning goes all the way down to an explanation rather than just to a useful level of abstraction, what meaning could there be for dogs when we do this?     

[Alan Burns]

By the way AB, have a think about dogs for a moment. According to your mediaeval ontology, dogs don’t have the little man at the controls so they just “react”. Why then do we scold them when they’re disobedient, or reward them with treats when they do what we want them to do? After all if you can’t conceive of meaning unless that meaning goes all the way down to an explanation rather than just to a useful level of abstraction, what meaning could there be for dogs when we do this?     

Dogs can learn from experience, just as computer chess players can be programmed not to make the same mistake twice - without the need for a soul.

And do you seriously presume that the content of this rather bizarre example just emerged from your subconscious before you were aware of it?   

[Stranger]

And do you seriously presume that the content of this rather bizarre example just emerged from your subconscious before you were aware of it?

It makes a great deal more sense than your self-contradictory, impossible, nonsense version of 'freedom' does. Anything at all that is self-consistent, makes more sense than what you claim - no matter how bizarre or counter-intuitive it is...

[Alan Burns]

I explained it to you in my last post. Stop lying.

I did not recognise any explanation for why I can be personally accused of lying if you continue to believe that all my choices are physically predetermined in my subconscious before I am personally aware of them.

Should you be accusing the laws of physics?
If not, then what can be held responsible for a deliberate lie?
Could it be the little man at the controls?

If I did get into the habit of telling deliberate lies, how do you suggest that I can consciously stop these lies if I have no consciously driven freedom to control my thoughts?

[Sebastian Toe]

I did not recognise any explanation for why I can be personally accused of lying if you continue to believe that all my choices are physically predetermined in my subconscious before I am personally aware of them.

Should you be accusing the laws of physics?
If not, then what can be held responsible for a deliberate lie?
Could it be the little man at the controls?

If I did get into the habit of telling deliberate lies, how do you suggest that I can consciously stop these lies if I have no conscious freedom to control my thoughts?

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