Searching for GOD...

[BeRational]

You are once more confusing conscious awareness with predictable instinctive reaction.  You can't just presume that your labrador has the same conscious awareness as yourself by observing natural instinctive reactions.

In most situations, our conscious awareness allows override control over how we react to perceived sensory data.  Before we react instinctively, our conscious awareness coupled with freewill gives us the ability to deliberately suppress or alter an instinctive reaction if we so wish.

But YOU PRESUME it does not.

How do you know?

[Alan Burns]

If you seriously want to proselytise your faith beliefs, why persist in making yourself look stupid when you do it? Do you not think that will make you even less likely to be taken seriously?

But following Eagleman's conclusions, how can I possibly "make" myself look stupid if everything I do is entirely predetermined before I know I am doing it?

[wigginhall]

But following Eagleman's conclusions, how can I possibly "make" myself look stupid if everything I do is entirely predetermined before I know I am doing it?

Have you got a citation to those conclusions, and not from an anonymous review?

[torridon]

You are once more confusing conscious awareness with predictable instinctive reaction.  You can't just presume that your labrador has the same conscious awareness as yourself by observing natural instinctive reactions.

If it seems to be in pain, the reasonable presumption is that it is in pain, unless there is some reason to think otherwise.  Is there evidence to suggest dogs don't feel pain ? If you take your pet to the vet for surgery, the vet will give anaesthetic so that it does not suffer.  Can you really not understand this ?

[Alan Burns]

AB,
     
I’ve just scrolled through the 127 almost all very positive reviews (the book scores 4.5/5 overall) and I can’t find it. Either way, if you ignore almost all the positive reviews and select instead just the one (dimwitted and anonymous) one that suits you what does that say about you do you think?   

This strikes me as an Ad Pop argument.

There were over 30 reviews which gave the book one or two stars.  I did not look at them all, but most were highlighting Eagleman's unrealistic conclusion that we can have no conscious control over what we do.

Perhaps the positive reviews were skewed by the popularity in believing that we can do anything we want without feeling guilty.

[Alan Burns]

If it seems to be in pain, the reasonable presumption is that it is in pain, unless there is some reason to think otherwise.  Is there evidence to suggest dogs don't feel pain ? If you take your pet to the vet for surgery, the vet will give anaesthetic so that it does not suffer.  Can you really not understand this ?

I did not suggest that your dog does not feel pain.
All I am saying is that our conscious awareness and freewill allow us to choose how to react to the experience of pain.

[torridon]

I did not suggest that your dog does not feel pain.
All I am saying is that our conscious awareness and freewill allow us to choose how to react to the experience of pain.

So you retract your reply #35446 then, in which you claimed that a human soul was necessary to experience anything at all, never mind pain ?

[Alan Burns]

Have you got a citation to those conclusions, and not from an anonymous review?

Review by Laura Sanders
By
Science News
10:12am, July 1, 2011

Buy this book

People only think they know what they’re doing. In reality, great ideas, decisions and opinions are all generated well before the conscious brain is in on the task, argues Eagleman, a neuroscientist.

[torridon]

But you can't just presume that there is such a thing as a self-aware naturalistic organism until you can define (or explain) the "self" in naturalistic terms (ie in terms of physically predetermined material reactions).

Why not ?

I don't see how that follows.

You seem to keep arguing that we know nothing at all unless we know absolutely everything. Science doesn't work like that, we always work in a context of partial but improving knowledge; we do not ignore the evidence because we do not have all the answers already.  If an organism appears to be self aware then that would be the default presumption in the absence of any counter evidence.

[SusanDoris]

But following Eagleman's conclusions, how can I possibly "make" myself look stupid if everything I do is entirely predetermined before I know I am doing it?

How do you make yourself look stupid? You manage it with consummate ease!!

[wigginhall]

Review by Laura Sanders
By
Science News
10:12am, July 1, 2011

Buy this book

People only think they know what they’re doing. In reality, great ideas, decisions and opinions are all generated well before the conscious brain is in on the task, argues Eagleman, a neuroscientist.

No, I mean his own conclusions, not someone else's.   You talked about Eagleman's conclusions, what are they?

[wigginhall]

Why not ?

I don't see how that follows.

You seem to keep arguing that we know nothing at all unless we know absolutely everything. Science doesn't work like that, we always work in a context of partial but improving knowledge; we do not ignore the evidence because we do not have all the answers already.  If an organism appears to be self aware then that would be the default presumption in the absence of any counter evidence.

It's an old trick to say that science cannot talk about X until it can define X, and obviously nonsense.  That often comes at the end of a complex investigation, not the beginning.  It's a creationist ploy, and actually anti-science.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But following Eagleman's conclusions, how can I possibly "make" myself look stupid if everything I do is entirely predetermined before I know I am doing it?

For the reason that’s been explained to you 29,675,128 times already and you just ignore. Within one, fairly narrow frame of reference discussions are meaningful, “you” can make yourself look stupid etc. That’s what happens when you stop at the experiential, the perception etc and for most everyday uses it’s fine. When you want explanations for what’s actually happening though you need to dig deeper using the methods and tools of reason and evidence.

This’ll probably be lost on you, but you’re like a person who thinks he has a good view of the word because he's put his trainers on. That’s the “perception”, the “strength of feeling” stuff you always run away from when challenged. If you really want to see the world though you need to leave the house and go for a run too. That’s the reason and evidence bit. Trouble is though running requires effort, and what’s more it could well reveal to you a world that’s very different from the one you’ve constructed for yourself sitting on the stairs tying your laces.   

Which is why you’ll never do it.     

This strikes me as an Ad Pop argument.

Presumably because you don’t know what ad pop means. I didn’t say that’s lots of positive reviews meant he was right – I just said that you had to be very selective indeed to find one bad one, and moreover one that relies on exactly the same bad thinking that you try. 

There were over 30 reviews which gave the book one or two stars.  I did not look at them all, but most were highlighting Eagleman's unrealistic conclusion that we can have no conscious control over what we do.

Not when I looked there weren’t, and nor could there be for it to have 4.5 stars from 127 reviews. Either way, it’s easy enough for you to clear up – just post the link you were asked for.

Perhaps the positive reviews were skewed by the popularity in believing that we can do anything we want without feeling guilty.

Nope, no idea what you’re even trying to say there.

Review by Laura Sanders
By
Science News
10:12am, July 1, 2011

Buy this book

People only think they know what they’re doing. In reality, great ideas, decisions and opinions are all generated well before the conscious brain is in on the task, argues Eagleman, a neuroscientist.

Which is a completely different quote from the one you were asked to cite.

Why be so dishonest about that?

[wigginhall]

Dishonesty in AB is like Blackpool rock, the word runs right throgh the centre.

[Alan Burns]

Not when I looked there weren’t, and nor could there be for it to have 4.5 stars from 127 reviews. Either way, it’s easy enough for you to clear up – just post the link you were asked for.

There were over 500 reviews on Amazon.com (the American site), which would allow for over 30 one or two star reviews.

I was asked to post a non anonymous citation confirming Eagleman's conclusions, which is what I did.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

There were over 500 reviews on Amazon.com (the American site), which would allow for over 30 one or two star reviews.

1. So it was the US Amazon. Why didn't you just say so?

2. You now tell us that there are some 500 reviews, of which around only 30 were negative. How much scrolling through all the good reviews did you have to do before you found a bad one to cite?

3. By my reckoning 30 bad reviews is about 6% of the total. Why then select from that set rather than from the 94% that were positive?

4. The review you quoted gets it wrong in any case. What Eagelman actually does is to set out the findings from science about the workings of the brain. He no more concerns himself with souls than a science writer about rainbows would concern himself with leprechauns.     

I was asked to post a non anonymous citation confirming Eagleman's conclusions, which is what I did.

No you didn't. You can still make yourself look stupid within the reason- and evidence-based explanation Eagleman sets out.   

[Alan Burns]

For the reason that’s been explained to you 29,675,128 times already and you just ignore. Within one, fairly narrow frame of reference discussions are meaningful, “you” can make yourself look stupid etc. That’s what happens when you stop at the experiential, the perception etc and for most everyday uses it’s fine. When you want explanations for what’s actually happening though you need to dig deeper using the methods and tools of reason and evidence.

But it just does not add up does it?
You claim at one level we can have meaningful discussions between individuals, some of whom can apparently make themselves look stupid.

But all this is undermined by your proposed explanation which renders everything to have been entirely predetermined by events before anyone becomes consciously aware of what they chose to write.

You consciously choose to adhere to this anomaly by presuming that the superficial level is "just the way it seems" and works fine for everyday use.

Can you not see the impossibility of you having the freedom to consciously choose to expound a theory which would deny you the conscious freedom needed to deduce and proclaim it?

How can you expect people to take this seriously?  But I forgot - we can have no choice in the matter.   

This’ll probably be lost on you, but you’re like a person who thinks he has a good view of the word because he's put his trainers on. That’s the “perception”, the “strength of feeling” stuff you always run away from when challenged. If you really want to see the world though you need to leave the house and go for a run too. That’s the reason and evidence bit. Trouble is though running requires effort, and what’s more it could well reveal to you a world that’s very different from the one you’ve constructed for yourself sitting on the stairs tying your laces.   

And effort requires the conscious freedom which you deny exists.

[torridon]

How can you expect people to take this seriously?  But I forgot - we can have no choice in the matter.   

And effort requires the conscious freedom which you deny exists.

You are free to put some effort in so long as no one is stopping you.  All you need is the desire to do it.  Consciousness is largely irrelevant in this.

[Alan Burns]

You are free to put some effort in so long as no one is stopping you.  All you need is the desire to do it.  Consciousness is largely irrelevant in this.

Effort comes from within.  It requires a conscious choice. - it does not occur just because no one stops me from doing it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But it just does not add up does it?
You claim at one level we can have meaningful discussions between individuals, some of whom can apparently make themselves look stupid.

But all this is undermined by your proposed explanation which renders everything to have been entirely predetermined by events before anyone becomes consciously aware of what they chose to write.

You consciously choose to adhere to this anomaly by presuming that the superficial level is "just the way it seems" and works fine for everyday use.

Can you not see the impossibility of you having the freedom to consciously choose to expound a theory which would deny you the conscious freedom to deduce and proclaim it?

How can you expect people to take this seriously?  But I forgot - we can have no choice in the matter.

Are you actually not reading the plain words you’re being given repeatedly that explain very clearly where you’re going wrong here, or can you genuinely not understand them?

Within the framework of conscious awareness there is meaning – and lots of it: we argue, we fall in love, we commit crimes, we cry when our children are born, we do all sorts of things that our conscious selves find to be deeply meaningful.

Have you got that so far? Good.

OK, deep breath now. BUT…all that meaning IS ONLY WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF CONSCIOUS AWARENESS. Underneath that sit all sorts of processes for which the narrow, conscious sense of meaning is meaningless. They just can’t care. If there are any, the aliens on Alpha Centauri don’t care. The universe itself other than the tiny, minuscule, insignificant part of it that comprises your conscious awareness doesn’t care either. None of it matters at all except for when it matters only to the consciously aware part of us that can care.

Still with me? Fine.

So what is the nature those processes that so much more profoundly define the universe than the infinitesimally small sliver of it that’s your personal “perception”? Strap in – this is where you’re overweening sense of self-importance and solipsism fall apart – they’re deterministic. There’s cause and effect all the way down, or at least all the way down so far as we can tell to the quantum field level, and even then we’re not sure whether there’s “true” randomness.   

And here’s the final nail in your coffin of magical thinking: consciousness itself is just an emergent property of all that vast well of cause and effect that’s going on under the bonnet. Or it least it is if you’re to follow the evidence rather that superstitions that were already outdated some 300 years ago.

Now copy and paste this into a document, print it and stick in on a wall close to your computer. The next time you’re even tempted to post the idiocy of “but with determinism there’s no meaning” as if that were either:

A. True; or

B. Relevant

You can pause, anticipate the mistake, stop typing and silently thank me for putting you straight.

Again.         
     

And effort requires the conscious freedom which you deny exists.

Telling lies for Jesus is doing you no favours here. No-one denies that it exists – what is denied is just your incoherent, fallacy-laden, self-aggrandising version of it. See above.

[Enki]

But it just does not add up does it?
You claim at one level we can have meaningful discussions between individuals, some of whom can apparently make themselves look stupid.

But all this is undermined by your proposed explanation which renders everything to have been entirely predetermined by events before anyone becomes consciously aware of what they chose to write.

You consciously choose to adhere to this anomaly by presuming that the superficial level is "just the way it seems" and works fine for everyday use.

Can you not see the impossibility of you having the freedom to consciously choose to expound a theory which would deny you the conscious freedom needed to deduce and proclaim it?

How can you expect people to take this seriously?  But I forgot - we can have no choice in the matter.   
And effort requires the conscious freedom which you deny exists.

Why can't meaningful discussions not take place in a deterministic scenario? Part of that scenario is the discussion itself which can deterministically affect the various mind processes.
Choices are constantly changing according to the various inputs(both external and internal) that impinge upon or are part of the brain processes. Remember that choice simply means the act of choosing between two or more possibilities. The processes by which choices are made are not described by the word, choice.

Why is it not possible that you(in this case your brain) cannot make decisions and precipitate actions before you are consciously aware of them? Certainly there is evidence, at least in certain situations, that is in fact what happens. Even creative people often point to the fact that when they produce their creative works there seems to be an unconscious element that takes over.

Why cannot freedom, being the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants, be the result of a deterministic scenario which is intrinsic to the processes of your brain?

Your alternative idea of a God given 'soul' is riven with anomalies and illogicalites, and it is one for which there is not the slightest smidgeon of evidence.

So, I'll let my incredulity come to the fore here. After all, you seem to rely on it.

How can you expect people to take your ideas seriously?

[Alan Burns]

You can pause, anticipate the mistake, stop typing and silently thank me for putting you straight.

But in an entirely physically predetermined scenario, can you please identify the physical events which can determine the course of actions needed for me to deliberately pause, anticipate the mistake, stop typing and silently thank you for putting you straight?

And please do not pretend that the concept of "physical" is irrelevant.  It is entirely relevant because in your proposed scenario, the laws of physics will determine any outcome, and I know that "I" can't have any control over the laws of physics, so how can "I" possibly have the freedom to choose the outcome which you suggest?

[Alan Burns]

Why cannot freedom, being the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants, be the result of a deterministic scenario which is intrinsic to the processes of your brain?

Your alternative idea of a God given 'soul' is riven with anomalies and illogicalites, and it is one for which there is not the slightest smidgeon of evidence.

So, I'll let my incredulity come to the fore here. After all, you seem to rely on it.

How can you expect people to take your ideas seriously?

It is the conscious "I" which determines what I consciously do, think or say, - not the subconscious "I" over which I can have no control.
This cannot be passed off as incredulity.  It is a fundamental reality which defines my existence and what I am and what I do.  I cannot bring myself not to believe in my freedom to choose what I do, think and say.

[Roses]

AB, the RCC hierarchy chose to ignore the activities of the paedophile priests, instead of reporting those evil scum to the police. Then there are the Magdalene laundries where unmarried mothers were treated like slaves, and often physically abused, no doubt also with the approval of the RCC hierarchy. There are so many crimes, which can be laid at the door of the RCC, and its skewed doctrine. Instead of preaching to us, which isn't doing you any favours at all, or your god, you should be seriously questioning a branch of Christianity, which has done so much harm over the centuries.

[Sebastian Toe]

It is the conscious "I" which determines what I consciously do, think or say, - not the subconscious "I" over which I can have no control.
This cannot be passed off as incredulity.  It is a fundamental reality which defines my existence and what I am and what I do.  I cannot bring myself not to believe in my freedom to choose what I do, think and say.

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