Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

But the concepts of consciously driven freedom and physically determined brain activity are incompatible.

So you keep asserting, always without even a hint of a morsel of a smidgen of evidence or logical reasoning...

The explanations given on this thread are that our apparent choices are made within  subconscious brain activity before we are consciously aware of the choice - which denies us the freedom to make consciously driven choices.

The exact role of the conscious vers. the subconscious mind is both unknown and irrelevant. We think about stuff, are conscious of it, and make choices somehow. It cannot involve the sort of self-contradictory, impossible process you call "freedom".

[Alan Burns]

We think about stuff, are conscious of it, and make choices somehow.

This so called explanation explains nothing.
It opens up more questions:

What determines our thoughts?
What comprises our conscious awareness?
What invokes the choice?

[BeRational]

This so called explanation explains nothing.
It opens up more questions:

What determines our thoughts?
What comprises our conscious awareness?
What invokes the choice?

Questions are fine.

Made up nonsense is not.

[Alan Burns]

Questions are fine.

Made up nonsense is not.

To make up anything requires the consciously driven freedom to do so.
This is not nonsense - it is reality.

[BeRational]

To make up anything requires the consciously driven freedom to do so.
This is not nonsense - it is reality.

We have conscious awareness, no one disputes that.
Lots of animals do.

You must not invent a soul without evidence that is the point.

You make up answers with magic to fit.

This is not honest

[Stranger]

This so called explanation explains nothing.

Who called it an explanation? It was a statement of what happens. It's also hypocritical to accuse others of not having an explanation when all you have offered by way of an explanation, is self-contradictory magic.

To make up anything requires the consciously driven freedom to do so.

Nobody is denying our freedom to make things up.

This is not nonsense - it is reality.

What is nonsense is your interpretation of "freedom". It is nonsense because it is self-contradictory. It is as impossible as a square circle.

You have the freedom post your endless blind faith, baseless assertions and your lies about what other people are denying all you want, but until you can address the basic contradiction in your own position, you have nothing.

[torridon]

To make up anything requires the consciously driven freedom to do so.
This is not nonsense - it is reality.

Well, not actually.

'Consciously driven' is how it seems, not how it actually is. Our consciousness is an end result of perceptual and cognitive neural processing; it is the outcome.

I'm sure this must have been mentioned before; have you really forgotten it ?

[BeRational]

To make up anything requires the consciously driven freedom to do so.
This is not nonsense - it is reality.

It is not possible for light to travel through a vacuum, therefore there must be Limimiferous  ether

Just like the soul must exist because you think something is impossible

[Alan Burns]

You have the freedom post your endless blind faith, baseless assertions and your lies about what other people are denying all you want, but until you can address the basic contradiction in your own position, you have nothing.

I have my God given freedom, and no amount of misguided human logic can take this freedom away.

[Alan Burns]

It is not possible for light to travel through a vacuum, therefore there must be Limimiferous other.

Just like the soul must exist because you think something is impossible

The soul must exist because I can think.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The soul must exist because I can think.

Given the quality of that thinking though, perhaps you should ask for a refund?

[Roses]

The soul must exist because I can think.

Another illogical statement on your part with nothing to support it.

[Alan Burns]

Well, not actually.

'Consciously driven' is how it seems, not how it actually is. Our consciousness is an end result of perceptual and cognitive neural processing; it is the outcome.

I'm sure this must have been mentioned before; have you really forgotten it ?

Of course I have not forgotten it - it has been mentioned numerous times on this thread.
My consciously driven freedom is not just how it seems - it is how it is.  I have the freedom to think of something, and I have the freedom to choose how, when and where to deal with my thoughts, or to choose to do nothing if I so wish.  To presume that this freedom is just consciously perceived rather than consciously driven reduces our perceived freedom to be just an inevitable reaction over which we can have no conscious control.  This is not freedom in any way, shape or form.

[Stranger]

I have my God given freedom, and no amount of misguided human logic can take this freedom away.

The soul must exist because I can think.

More blind faith, baseless assertions. Where are the logical deductions you claimed to have made before?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Of course I have not forgotten it - it has been mentioned numerous times on this thread.

Then why don't you ever address it?

My consciously driven freedom is not just how it seems - it is how it is.

Except we know that it can't be because this notion rests essentially on magic to get around the logical contradiction it gives you.

I have the freedom to think of something, and I have the freedom to choose how, when and where to deal with my thoughts, or to choose to do nothing if I so wish.  To presume that this freedom is just consciously perceived rather than consciously driven reduces our perceived freedom to be just an inevitable reaction over which we can have no conscious control.  This is not freedom in any way, shape or form.

And the mistake of the argumentum ad consequentiam to finish.

Do you really think that your continued dishonesty here is going to win you any converts to your superstitions? 

[Stranger]

I have the freedom to think of something, and I have the freedom to choose how, when and where to deal with my thoughts, or to choose to do nothing if I so wish.

But not the "freedom" from what you wish to do the most. That would make no sense (you can't be "free" from being you), and would lead to an infinite regress - another contradiction you never face up to...

[torridon]

Of course I have not forgotten it - it has been mentioned numerous times on this thread.
My consciously driven freedom is not just how it seems - it is how it is.  I have the freedom to think of something, and I have the freedom to choose how, when and where to deal with my thoughts, or to choose to do nothing if I so wish.  To presume that this freedom is just consciously perceived rather than consciously driven reduces our perceived freedom to be just an inevitable reaction over which we can have no conscious control.  This is not freedom in any way, shape or form.

We don't have conscious control over the preconscious processes that result in consciousness do we ?  Just think it through.  It makes no sense.

[Alan Burns]

We don't have conscious control over the preconscious processes that result in consciousness do we ?  Just think it through.  It makes no sense.

But thinking it through requires consciously driven freedom to control my thoughts.
It needs a deliberate act to initiate the thought process.
It needs deliberate control over the thought process.
Where do you suppose these acts of conscious deliberation arise?

[Sebastian Toe]

But thinking it through requires consciously driven freedom to control of my thoughts.
It needs a deliberate act to initiate the thought process.
It needs deliberate control over the thought process.

Can you not see that you are consistently demonstrating  the workings of a biological brain making choices entirely under deterministic principles with no magic, logic free, fantasy ridden soul required?

[torridon]

But thinking it through requires consciously driven freedom to control my thoughts.
It needs a deliberate act to initiate the thought process.
It needs deliberate control over the thought process.
Where do you suppose these acts of conscious deliberation arise?

Acts of 'conscious deliberation' arise out of a preconscious or subconscious desire to deliberate.  Everything has roots, everything has origins.  if I choose to ponder the meaning of life now, that desire must arise as a consequence of something, otherwise it would be random.  I don't think minds could possibly be random, the operation of mind must observe basic logical principals otherwise a mind would be a curse, not a benefit.  Whatever we do, whatever we think, there must be a precursor reason for it otherwise the whole set up of mind is pointless random noise.

[SusanDoris]

Can you not see that you are consistently demonstrating  the workings of a biological brain making choices entirely under deterministic principles with no magic, logic free, fantasy ridden soul required?

My optimism tries to maintain a grip!

[Stranger]

But thinking it through requires consciously driven freedom to control my thoughts.

This doesn't even make sense. How do you decide how to control your thoughts? By thinking about it?

You have a choice in how to react (yes, all choices are reactions) to this post - you can just go back to your thought- and logic-free dogmatic script or choose to concentrate a bit harder on the actual situation.

It needs a deliberate act to initiate the thought process.
It needs deliberate control over the thought process.
Where do you suppose these acts of conscious deliberation arise?

They certainly don't arise by some impossible, self-contradictory process that isn't determined by the past and isn't random. They don't arise in an infinite regress of choosing what you want by what you want to want, and what you want to want to want... They don't originate in a regress of thinking about how to control your thoughts, about how to control your thoughts, about how to control your thoughts...

Thinking is something you really should try sometime.

[ekim]

Ekim,

It really doesn't matter what the so called Christian approach is, you have totally missed the point.

Whether you choose 'God's will' or 'my will' you still have to choose. The logic comes in the act of choosing, which has to be the result of a deterministic system or is purely random. Unfortunately Alan does not accept that it is a deterministic system and also rejects the idea of randomness in this context. Yet he can put nothing in its place. All he is left with is endless 'can you  not see...' type statements and bald assertions which are frankly useless as arguments.

I don't think I have missed the point as it has been repeated ad nauseam within this topic.  I doubt whether Alan would agree with what I have said as it does not allow the notion of freedom he seems to be arguing for.  What I was suggesting was that an omniscient and omnipotent God does not do random, all is determined by an omnipresent God.  Humans using an intellectual thought process need the concept of 'random' to fill in the gaps where they cannot see the determining principle or accept that all is divinely determined.  In this scenario, there is no freedom but there is the opportunity to be free from human self centred attachments and unite with the divine state (Heaven) as indicated in this paraphrase of Matt 6 19-21 'Don’t attach yourself to transient earthly pleasures but unite with the eternal delights of the Divine. What you treasure is where your heart is.'

[BeRational]

The soul must exist because I can think.

So light cannot travel through a vacuum, is that also true?

[Alan Burns]

This doesn't even make sense. How do you decide how to control your thoughts? By thinking about it?

Our thoughts are either under conscious control, or they are entirely under the control of physically defined reactions.  There can be no half measures.

You have a choice in how to react (yes, all choices are reactions) to this post - you can just go back to your thought- and logic-free dogmatic script or choose to concentrate a bit harder on the actual situation.

If choices are reactions, then I have no possible choice to consciously invoke the action you suggest.  I would be entirely under the control of the laws of physically defined reactions.  But I do have the choice to deliberately not go down your suggested route.

They certainly don't arise by some impossible, self-contradictory process that isn't determined by the past and isn't random. They don't arise in an infinite regress of choosing what you want by what you want to want, and what you want to want to want... They don't originate in a regress of thinking about how to control your thoughts, about how to control your thoughts, about how to control your thoughts...

They arise from the conscious will of my human soul.

Thinking is something you really should try sometime.

And to try thinking, we need the conscious freedom to invoke our thoughts.