Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

More simplistic thinking : the extent to which we can 'control our own thought processes' is itself a thought process.

To presume that our thoughts do not derive from something prior without being random is the plain absurdity here.  This is an unintelligible claim.  In reality, our thoughts occur as a consequence of something, they happen for a reason.   Clearly we cannot control what happened in the past.  Get over it.

All things happen for a reason, but to presume that all reasons are entirely defined by past events will reduce the entities of conscious awareness which define you and me to be just spectators of what emerges from physically determined brain activity.

Are you a spectator or a driver of your conscious activity?
But the very act of contemplating this conundrum requires an ability to consciously manipulate our thought processes - not just spectate upon them.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

All things happen for a reason, but to presume that all reasons are entirely defined by past events will reduce the entities of conscious awareness which define you and me to be just spectators of what emerges from physically determined brain activity.

Are you a spectator or a driver of your conscious activity?
But the very act of contemplating this conundrum requires an ability to consciously manipulate our thought processes - not just spectate upon them

There's so much wrong here. We're not "spectators" in the sense that there's a separate "we" independent of mind to do the spectating. We are our minds, and in any case even if that were not so you'd still be attempting an argumentum ad consequentiam - essentially "I don't like the implications of X, therefore X can't be true". 

You've had this mistake explained to you countless times now, so why do you keep repeating it?     

[Alan Burns]

AB,

There's so much wrong here. We're not "spectators" in the sense that there's a separate "we" independent of mind to do the spectating. We are our minds, and in any case even if that were not so you'd still be attempting an argumentum ad consequentiam - essentially "I don't like the implications of X, therefore X can't be true". 

You've had this mistake explained to you countless times now, so why do you keep repeating it?   

Because the so called explanations completely fail to explain my consciously driven freedom to refute such explanations.  It has been explained to me numerous times that our apparent consciously driven choices are predetermined in our subconscious brain activity before we become aware of them - hence the interpretation such an explanation reduces our conscious awareness to be just a spectator upon predetermined events.

So do you deem whatever comprises your conscious self to be a spectator or a driver?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Because the so called explanations completely fail to explain my consciously driven freedom to refute such explanations.

Of course they don’t for the good reason that your “consciously driven freedom to refute such explanations” is just a repetition of your old mistake of conflating the experience of something with the explanation for it.

Why you keep ignoring the problem is anyone’s guess, but it does you no credit when you do. 

It has been explained to me numerous times that our apparent consciously driven choices are predetermined in our subconscious brain activity before we become aware of them - hence the interpretation such an explanation reduces our conscious awareness to be just a spectator upon predetermined events.

No, it’s not “a spectator” at all. What it actually is is consciousness that has the apparent experience of executive choice, but that cannot be exercising such choice unless you finally find some way to resolve the binary determined vs random problem. Just inventing something you call a “soul” that, apparently, works by magic doesn’t get you off that hook no matter how much you may wish that it does.     

So do you deem whatever comprises your conscious self to be a spectator or a driver?

Neither.

[torridon]

All things happen for a reason, but to presume that all reasons are entirely defined by past events will reduce the entities of conscious awareness which define you and me to be just spectators of what emerges from physically determined brain activity.

Are you a spectator or a driver of your conscious activity?
But the very act of contemplating this conundrum requires an ability to consciously manipulate our thought processes - not just spectate upon them.

We don't manipulate our thoughts processes, not in any meaningful sense.  We cannot just decide that feeling wretched is a joyous experience. If we could manipulate our thoughts as you keep imagining, the world of humans would be incomprehensible. Our thoughts and feelings happen, and they arise as a consequence of whatever circumstance gave rise to them.  Effect always follows cause, it cannot be instantaneous.  You may have heard it said the speed of light is a cosmic speed limit faster than which nothing can travel. What is really meant by that, is the speed of causation, light just happens to be massless and so in a vacuum, light travels at the speed of causality.  So, if you find that you fancy a tea rather than a coffee, it must be something in the past that resulted in that effect in the present and we cannot revisit the past such that we could alter our present moment.  Understanding this, is merely accepting the basic facts of life, that today is a consequence of yesterday and choices we make today affect the future state of things.  Consciousness may be mysterious to us to some extent, but we can be sure that whatever it is, it must respect these basic fundamentals of logic and reality.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Of course they don’t for the good reason that your “consciously driven freedom to refute such explanations” is just a repetition of your old mistake of conflating the experience of something with the explanation for it.

But it is not just an experience is it?
I can invoke conscious choices at will and verify that they have been enacted.
How could I possibly do this if I was under the control of nothing but physically predetermined reactions?

No, it’s not “a spectator” at all. What it actually is is consciousness that has the apparent experience of executive choice, but that cannot be exercising such choice unless you finally find some way to resolve the binary determined vs random problem. Just inventing something you call a “soul” that, apparently, works by magic doesn’t get you off that hook no matter how much you may wish that it does.     

You will one day discover that the human soul and a creative God is closer to reality that a world comprising nothing but physically derived binary cause and effect.

[Alan Burns]

We don't manipulate our thoughts processes, not in any meaningful sense.  We cannot just decide that feeling wretched is a joyous experience. If we could manipulate our thoughts as you keep imagining, the world of humans would be incomprehensible. Our thoughts and feelings happen, and they arise as a consequence of whatever circumstance gave rise to them.  Effect always follows cause, it cannot be instantaneous.  You may have heard it said the speed of light is a cosmic speed limit faster than which nothing can travel. What is really meant by that, is the speed of causation, light just happens to be massless and so in a vacuum, light travels at the speed of causality.  So, if you find that you fancy a tea rather than a coffee, it must be something in the past that resulted in that effect in the present and we cannot revisit the past such that we could alter our present moment.  Understanding this, is merely accepting the basic facts of life, that today is a consequence of yesterday and choices we make today affect the future state of things.  Consciousness may be mysterious to us to some extent, but we can be sure that whatever it is, it must respect these basic fundamentals of logic and reality.

Once more you are confusing feelings with thoughts.
We obviously can't control or manipulate our feelings.
But of course we can control and manipulate our thoughts - how could we have made such profound scientific discoveries or generated creative works of art without such a gift? 

I agree that such control and manipulation can't be explained in a materialistic scenario - so we can either presume it is all an illusion, or conclude that there has to be something more than mere physical reactions to past events.

[Nearly Sane]

Once more you are confusing feelings with thoughts.
We obviously can't control or manipulate our feelings.
But of course we can control and manipulate our thoughts - how could we have made such profound scientific discoveries or generated creative works of art without such a gift? 

I agree that such control and manipulation can't be explained in a materialistic scenario - so we can either presume it is all an illusion, or conclude that there has to be something more than mere physical reactions to past events.

Ah the infinite regress of controlling our thoughts which would be done by mmm thinking, which we would control by oh thinking, which would be controlled by errr thinking etc etc etc.

[torridon]

Once more you are confusing feelings with thoughts.
We obviously can't control or manipulate our feelings.
But of course we can control and manipulate our thoughts - how could we have made such profound scientific discoveries or generated creative works of art without such a gift? 

I agree that such control and manipulation can't be explained in a materialistic scenario - so we can either presume it is all an illusion, or conclude that there has to be something more than mere physical reactions to past events.

I don't think we can simply and easily disentangle thoughts and feelings as if they were fundamentally different things.  There isn't really a tight definition for a thought, and ultimately they are all aspects of the phenomenology of mind.  Consider : if I think a thought, it is because I wanted to. You cannot disentangle these things. If I decide to spend tomorrow afternoon investigating the relevance of Wittgenstein to modern philosophy, it is because I want to. Everything we do, we do because we want to.  You cannot disentangle these things, they are intimately bound up together. And so it follows, that if we cannot manipulate our feelings, all the choices that flow from those feelings are a consequence of something over which we have no control.  This is simple logic born of observation that respects the fundamental realities such as the directionality of the arrow of time.  Just because it might not be readily intuitive is a poor reason for reverting to supernatural explanations in which the inherent illogic is disguised by a veneer of mysteriousness broadly consistent with popular cultural myths.  We can dig beneath the apparent to see what lies beneath, but it takes a little courage and an unwavering honesty.

[ekim]

Consider : if I think a thought, it is because I wanted to. You cannot disentangle these things. If I decide to spend tomorrow afternoon investigating the relevance of Wittgenstein to modern philosophy, it is because I want to. Everything we do, we do because we want to.  You cannot disentangle these things, they are intimately bound up together. And so it follows, that if we cannot manipulate our feelings, all the choices that flow from those feelings are a consequence of something over which we have no control. 

Although desire (want) appears to be the driving force, thoughts and emotions do arise without consciously wanting them to occupy the attention (consciousness).  There can be multiple and conflicting thoughts and desires to select from.  Don't you think that some control comes from what focus you give to your attention i.e. you tune out some thoughts and desires and tune in on others.  Isn't it this kind of control or manipulation which expands into skills and expertise and loss of control contracts into addiction and compulsion?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But it is not just an experience is it?

It seems highly likely to be given the reason and evidence that supports that position.

I can invoke conscious choices at will and verify that they have been enacted.
How could I possibly do this if I was under the control of nothing but physically predetermined reactions?

No you can’t – or at least you can’t if you think there’s separate “I” somehow floating free of your mind. Almost all of your mental process happen subconsciously – that’s why you don’t have to tell yourself to breathe or to blink or to regulate the countless other functions on which you depend. It all happens under the bonnet. Your wants and desires emerge from the subconscious, and you act on them. However distressing you may find this reality to be doesn’t stop it being reality, so your repeated collapse into the argmentum ad consequentiam doesn’t help you.   

You will one day discover that the human soul and a creative God is closer to reality that a world comprising nothing but physically derived binary cause and effect.

You can’t “discover” something that’s fundamentally logically incoherent and has no evidence whatever to support it. Whether you will ever discover that is though hard to guage.

[torridon]

Although desire (want) appears to be the driving force, thoughts and emotions do arise without consciously wanting them to occupy the attention (consciousness).  There can be multiple and conflicting thoughts and desires to select from.  Don't you think that some control comes from what focus you give to your attention i.e. you tune out some thoughts and desires and tune in on others.  Isn't it this kind of control or manipulation which expands into skills and expertise and loss of control contracts into addiction and compulsion?

Absolutely agree with you that 'thoughts and emotions do arise without consciously wanting them to occupy the attention'.  I often make that case myself, that thoughts arise into conscious mind, quite often unbidden.

On the other hand, I don't really buy the idea that there is a 'me' independently selecting from those thoughts, thereby exerting 'control', as if there is a me that is separate from all those thoughts arbitrating independently.  Rather the feeling of selfhood is something intangible that arises like a centre of gravity in the midst of all that flux.  The thoughts that are 'selected', really are selecting themselves, they aren't being selected by something independent. The thoughts and ideas that get 'selected' are really just the ones that shout the loudest.

This puts me in mind of an episode from last night's Springwatch, which showed a parent bird coming to feed its chicks.  Dad didn't decide which chick to feed on some sort of rational basis, but rather the behaviour of Dad was a direct consequence of the chicks' demands for food; clearly the ones getting fed the most were the ones yelling the most loudly.  I think that is a useful analogy for the way minds work. Our thoughts self-select and we cannot control which ones shout the loudest.

[Alan Burns]

This puts me in mind of an episode from last night's Springwatch, which showed a parent bird coming to feed its chicks.  Dad didn't decide which chick to feed on some sort of rational basis, but rather the behaviour of Dad was a direct consequence of the chicks' demands for food; clearly the ones getting fed the most were the ones yelling the most loudly.  I think that is a useful analogy for the way minds work. Our thoughts self-select and we cannot control which ones shout the loudest.

But unlike animals, we have the freedom to consciously choose to override such instinctive behaviour if we so wish. 

It is a great shame that you cannot appreciate just how important this gift is.

We have been given this amazing freedom for a purpose.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But unlike animals, we have the freedom to consciously choose to override such instinctive behaviour if we so wish. 

It is a great shame that you cannot appreciate just how important this gift is.

We have been given this amazing freedom for a purpose.

Yet more irrational and evidence-free assertions. Why do you bother with this continual nonsense?

[torridon]

But unlike animals, we have the freedom to consciously choose to override such instinctive behaviour if we so wish. 

It is a great shame that you cannot appreciate just how important this gift is.

We have been given this amazing freedom for a purpose.

Still not getting it are you ?  If you read the whole post that you cherry picked from then you'd understand this was an analogy for the way that minds work that does not descend into magical thinking.

At a base level, all minds, animal or human, share a common ancestry that enables individuals to make optimal decisions at minimum cost and whatever higher cognition humans have evolved it still feeds into the more ancient emotional limbic response. In layman's terms, we still do what we want, we just use our higher brain power to better identify our options. To recapitulate your post, 'consciously choosing to override an instinctive option' may reflect our higher cognitive capacities, yes, but it also still does reflect what we most want to do, in this case to override an instinctive response. This is consistent with my thesis, that we always do what we most want, and we do not control our wants, as this makes no sense.

[ekim]

Absolutely agree with you that 'thoughts and emotions do arise without consciously wanting them to occupy the attention'.  I often make that case myself, that thoughts arise into conscious mind, quite often unbidden.

On the other hand, I don't really buy the idea that there is a 'me' independently selecting from those thoughts, thereby exerting 'control', as if there is a me that is separate from all those thoughts arbitrating independently.  Rather the feeling of selfhood is something intangible that arises like a centre of gravity in the midst of all that flux.  The thoughts that are 'selected', really are selecting themselves, they aren't being selected by something independent. The thoughts and ideas that get 'selected' are really just the ones that shout the loudest.

This puts me in mind of an episode from last night's Springwatch, which showed a parent bird coming to feed its chicks.  Dad didn't decide which chick to feed on some sort of rational basis, but rather the behaviour of Dad was a direct consequence of the chicks' demands for food; clearly the ones getting fed the most were the ones yelling the most loudly.  I think that is a useful analogy for the way minds work. Our thoughts self-select and we cannot control which ones shout the loudest.

There is a lot in what you say.  Part of the practices associated with some, let's call it, spiritual paths is to find or create and establish a still centre in the 'midst of all that flux', much of which goes to make up the selfhood you mention and which is to be transcended.  From that position arises the ability to feed or not feed those demands which shout the loudest.  I suppose one could say that the selfhood you mention is more evident in those who are attention seeking and 'shout the loudest'.  Politics, religion, business and celebrity status are examples of areas where this abounds and where the ploy is to attract as many subconscious 'Dad and Mum' feeders as possible.  If you are aware of what is going on, i.e. the subconscious becomes conscious, you can choose to feed or not feed.  The same applies to one's own noisy wants or don't wants.

[Alan Burns]

Best guess to date is that consciousness is a function of the human brain: human brains are clearly detectable, much is already known about how they operate and research continues. So it seems likely that we are all at the behest of the 'laws of science' even if it doesn't feel that way when you are deciding whether to have Corn Flakes or Weetabix for breakfast.

You try to diminish the amazing gift of human free will by comparing it to making a choice between Corn Flakes or Weetabix!
It is the gift of human free will which is the driving force behind all the amazing works of human creativity and scientific investigations.  It also opens the door to eternal salvation of the human soul by being able to accept Jesus as our Saviour.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You try to diminish the amazing gift of human free will by comparing it to making a choice between Corn Flakes or Weetabix!
It is the gift of human free will which is the driving force behind all the amazing works of human creativity and scientific investigations.  It also opens the door to eternal salvation of the human soul by being able to accept Jesus as our Saviour.

You may have missed it but there is a faith sharing area on this mb. As faith is all you have, however unfounded or preposterous your claims they would at least find a home there and away from thinking people.   

[ekim]

You try to diminish the amazing gift of human free will by comparing it to making a choice between Corn Flakes or Weetabix!
It is the gift of human free will which is the driving force behind all the amazing works of human creativity and scientific investigations.  It also opens the door to eternal salvation of the human soul by being able to accept Jesus as our Saviour.

I think what you are missing out on from what others are saying is that the human will is not free from the driving force of desire to be creative, investigative, to be saved by Jesus, etc.

[Alan Burns]

I think what you are missing out on from what others are saying is that the human will is not free from the driving force of desire to be creative, investigative, to be saved by Jesus, etc.

Of course our will is driven by our conscious desires, but my point is that we have the freedom to choose how, when or if to indulge these desires.  Our conscious awareness is not a spectator upon physically predetermined reactions emerging from our material brains - it is the driving force which is accountable for all our choices.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Of course our will is driven by our conscious desires, but my point is that we have the freedom to choose how, when or if to indulge these desires.  Our conscious awareness is not a spectator upon physically predetermined reactions emerging from our material brains - it is the driving force which is accountable for all our choices.

Except that your "point" has been falsified countless times now, albeit that you keep ignoring the falsifications.

[Alan Burns]

Ah the infinite regress of controlling our thoughts which would be done by mmm thinking, which we would control by oh thinking, which would be controlled by errr thinking etc etc etc.

Another example of simplistic thinking based upon endless chains of mechanistic physical cause and effect in which there can be no causal event.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Except that your "point" has been falsified countless times now, albeit that you keep ignoring the falsifications.

Falsifications which I have answered countless times because they do not explain my conscious freedom to compose such answers.  It is not "just the way it seems".  It is the way it is.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Falsifications which I have answered countless times because they do not explain my conscious freedom to compose such answers.  It is not "just the way it seems".  It is the way it is.

Ah, but we both know that‘s not true now don’t we. You’ve had explained to you many times that the experience of “free” will need not necessarily be the explanation for it, especially when that explanation would be logically impossible. You can assert “the way it seems is the way it is” and invent a magic little man at the controls who works by magic to make sense of it if you like, but it’s still hopeless thinking.

Try this: try to grasp just for a minute the rational explanation – ie, that your experience of “free” will is only a convenient fiction that’s functionally useful but nothing more. Without collapsing yet again into a logical fallacy, what argument or evidence wold you point to that would invalidate that explanation?     

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Another example of simplistic thinking...

Such a pity you have no comprehension of irony.