AB,
in all this you have failed to answer my question:
So what possible mechanism would you suggest for me to be able to rectify these mistakes if I can't control what you deem to be the ultimate underlying cause?
I know that you can read because you can construct reasonably intelligible sentences. This means that you must be able to read what's said here, so the problem must be downstream of basic literacy. So what happens when you see very plainly expressed word like:
"
Yet again: at the level of abstraction that is conscious awareness you are (or would be if you were honest) perfectly capable of evaluating arguments, deriving meaning, changing your mind etc. Within that paradigm (but only within that paradigm), these things aren’t “illusory” at all. They’re real enough to be functionally useful, indeed necessary if we’re to exist both individually and collectively"?
Do you think, “OK, I see them but I’m just going to pretend that I haven’t?” or maybe, “I think that’s wrong because it doesn’t accord with my faith beliefs, but I can’t make a rebuttal argument so I’ll just keep repeating those in the hope the falsification of it goes away?” Or do you think something else?
For what it’s worth, I see your dishonesty as different from that of someone like Vlad. He wakes up, thinks “what six lies can I tell on an mb before breakfast in the hope that someone pays me some attention?”. You on the other hand I think hand on heart don't see yourself as dishonest – despite your behaviour here being just that.
Yet again, “you” can decide to do whatever you like (provided it’s lawful and doesn’t scare the horses) because that’s your experience of consciousness. If, say, you said 2+2=5 (which in rhetorical terms is what you do) and I explained why it isn’t, chances are you’d agree with me. You should therefore be perfectly capable of understanding where you go wrong with your various mistakes and fallacies, and of changing your mind about those things to. Except you won’t do that, because the religious beliefs you hold
a priori cannot be jeopardised at any cost – including the cost deep dishonesty.
Your major mistake here though is assume that “you” is something other than a temporal, localised phenomenon that arises from underlying components that themselves aren’t conscious at all. “You” in other words are an emergent property of countless bits of stuff and forces interacting to form a system. That system (ie, consciousness) derives meaning and makes decisions, but does so necessarily only within its own, relatively narrow level of abstraction. Consciousness cannot be a more fundamental phenomenon than that though because beneath the system there is no “you” – just lots and lots of sub-atomic particles.
Doubtless you’ll just ignore this as you ignore everything else, but hey-ho.
And speaking of just ignoring problems with your assertions, any thoughts by the way on why it’s ok to use the gaps in the findings from neuroscience (and from other disciplines) to dismiss entirely the large body of evidence they do provide, yet it’s also fine just to assert the claim “soul” about which you have zero information of any kind?
Or is “I just know” seriously all you have to say about that?
