Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

Curious though that AB thinks his "soul" is a footballer. Wonder if it plays for Southampton FC - "The Saints"?

...after all, Jesus plays for Man City 

Or indeed Tottenham Hotspurs


https://youtu.be/1S7egZ1WIvc

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Or indeed Tottenham Hotspurs


https://youtu.be/1S7egZ1WIvc

I saw that the night it was first broadcast and have seen it several times since. It still has me on the floor every time - genius.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

I saw that the night it was first broadcast and have seen it several times since. It still has me on the floor every time - genius.

One of the great things about it is Bob Hoskins face when Billy mentions getting the first grey pubic hair.

I call him Billy in part because we share a love of Glasgow but also because we shared a bed once.

[Alan Burns]

Curious though that AB thinks his "soul" is a footballer. Wonder if it plays for Southampton FC - "The Saints"?

...after all, Jesus plays for Man City 

Do you seriously think that physically predetermined electro chemical activity in your material brain could have produced this post?

Was it entirely composed by your subconscious before you became aware of it?

[Gordon]

Do you seriously think that physically predetermined electro chemical activity in your material brain could have produced this post?

Yes.

[Stranger]

Do you seriously think that physically predetermined electro chemical activity in your material brain could have produced this post?

Yes - that is what all the evidence tells us. Whereas that is a strong probability, what we can say with absolute certainty is that, however it was produced, it did not involve a logically impossible process, such as making a choice that involved no randomness and wasn't entirely determined by what led up to it.

[torridon]

Do you seriously think that physically predetermined electro chemical activity in your material brain could have produced this post?

In the sense that all our thoughts have origins, yes.  Thoughts aren't random, they do not appear out of nowhere, they are triggered by something prior.

You are reading this post right now, and it is probably triggering response thoughts in your mind.  It is the law of cause and effect and the arrow of time, as it manifests through minds.  If humans had somehow escaped the law of cause and effect then we would be random beings and that would surely lead to our early extinction as a species.  it is much better that we do things for a reason. 

[Alan Burns]

In the sense that all our thoughts have origins, yes.  Thoughts aren't random, they do not appear out of nowhere, they are triggered by something prior.

You are reading this post right now, and it is probably triggering response thoughts in your mind.  It is the law of cause and effect and the arrow of time, as it manifests through minds.  If humans had somehow escaped the law of cause and effect then we would be random beings and that would surely lead to our early extinction as a species.  it is much better that we do things for a reason.

Yes, a consciously chosen reason - not an unavoidable reaction

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Do you seriously think that physically predetermined electro chemical activity in your material brain could have produced this post?

Was it entirely composed by your subconscious before you became aware of it?

Essentially yes, because that’s the only logically coherent explanation I have. If I were to abandon logic in favour of your alternative of “the way it feels must be the way it is, therefore magic” I’d have no way to hold the line in the face of any other magical explanation for observable phenomena.

“Thunder is most likely caused by the rapid expansion and heating of air caused by lightning”

“Nah, that’s just what Thor wants you to think.”

“Okaaaay - what is this “Thor” and how does it do that?”

“Er, I haven’t got any details about that but that’s my faith belief so I must be right. Do you seriously think that lightning causes thunder?”   

[Stranger]

Yes, a consciously chosen reason - not an unavoidable reaction

*sigh*

What's actually amazing is that, despite the hundreds of posts exchanged about this, you still post things like this that suggest that it's all gone way over your head and you haven't even begun to grasp the argument against you.

Every choice (even choosing a reason) is either entirely due to preceding reasons or not. If not, then, to the extent that it isn't, it is for no reason and therefore random. The degree to which it is conscious is totally irrelevant.

Even if you don't agree with that argument, if you've grasped it, why would you post what you just did as if it made any difference at all?

[Alan Burns]

*sigh*

What's actually amazing is that, despite the hundreds of posts exchanged about this, you still post things like this that suggest that it's all gone way over your head and you haven't even begun to grasp the argument against you.

Every choice (even choosing a reason) is either entirely due to preceding reasons or not. If not, then, to the extent that it isn't, it is for no reason and therefore random. The degree to which it is conscious is totally irrelevant.

Even if you don't agree with that argument, if you've grasped it, why would you post what you just did as if it made any difference at all?

Because there is a world of difference between our freedom to make a conscious choice and an automated reaction.   No amount of convoluted short sighted human reasoning can take away the demonstrable reality of my freedom to choose.  It is what makes us human.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Because there is a world of difference between our freedom to make a conscious choice and an automated reaction.

Only in the mind of the non-thinker.

No amount of convoluted short sighted…

When in doubt, just insult the reasoning that falsifies you eh?
 

…human reasoning can take away the demonstrable reality of my freedom to choose.

You can’t “take away” something you cannot demonstrate to exist in the first place.

It is what makes us human.

Credulousness is indeed a common human characteristic, yes.

[Stranger]

Because there is a world of difference between our freedom to make a conscious choice and an automated reaction.

Of course a human choice is much more than most people think of when they say "automated reaction" but you are trying to argue with emotive language, rather than logic.

No amount of convoluted short sighted human reasoning can take away the demonstrable reality of my freedom to choose.

Again this is full of emotive language and devoid of logic. The logic presented is not convoluted, it's simple. You keep on denigrating it, but you never present a counterargument. Doesn't your inability to do so give you any pause for thought?

There is nothing demonstrable about your self-contradictory notion of freedom - to claim so is simply untrue. All you can demonstrate is that you can do what you want - and you can only demonstrate that to yourself. You can't even demonstrate that over a message forum - you might have a gun to your head for all I know.

It is what makes us human.

Yes our thinking abilities are what makes us human, but that doesn't require impossible, self-contradictory magic.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Only in the mind of the non-thinker .....

But what drives our thought processes?
Are they really just derived from subconscious brain activity before we become aware of them?
Do we not need to consciously drive our own thought processes to reach a credible conclusion?
Does our ability to think not provide evidence that we have the freedom to think?

[Stranger]

Does our ability to think not provide evidence that we have the freedom to think?

Nobody is denying our freedom to think.     

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But what drives our thought processes?

Why do you keep asking the same questions, have them answered, then just ignore the answers?

“Thought processes” don’t have to be “driven” in the sense that there’s a pilot at the controls. They occur subconsciously in ways broadly aligned to their antecedents that best enabled genetic success. Thought processes that for example led to running toward the tiger would quickly have been eliminated from the genome. 

Are they really just derived from subconscious brain activity before we become aware of them?

Essentially yes, and there’s no “just” about it.

Do we not need to consciously drive our own thought processes to reach a credible conclusion?

The question is meaningless. For it to be coherent you’d first have to demonstrate a “we” somehow independent of the thought producing apparatus of brains. 

Does our ability to think not provide evidence that we have the freedom to think?

Not in the sense that you intend, no. You have the “freedom” to think that, say, Brexit is a good or a bad idea in the sense that no-one can stop you. There is though no evidence for an independent “we” that you’d need to have do the thinking separately from our minds.     

[Alan Burns]

Nobody is denying our freedom to think.     

But if our thoughts are entirely derived from events which are predefined by the laws of physics acting on material elements, our freedom to think would equate to the freedom of a river flowing into the sea with no ability to change direction.  I do not recognise your concept of freedom.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Why do you keep asking the same questions, have them answered, then just ignore the answers?

My persistence aptly demonstrates that I have the consciously driven freedom to choose to be persistent, which renders your answers to be well and truly falsified.

[Gordon]

But if our thoughts are entirely derived from events which are predefined by the laws of physics acting on material elements, our freedom to think would equate to the freedom of a river flowing into the sea with no ability to change direction.  I do not recognise your concept of freedom.

Your 'freedom' to think (assuming a brain undamaged by trauma or illness), Alan, is in essence the same as your 'freedom' to breathe: in that it will happen anyway, since that is what your biology will do by default.

[Gordon]

My persistence aptly demonstrates that I have the consciously driven freedom to choose to be persistent, which renders your answers to be well and truly falsified.

No it doesn't: it just demonstrates that, in this regard anyway, you aren't very good at thinking and understanding the associated logic.

[Alan Burns]

Your 'freedom' to think (assuming a brain undamaged by trauma or illness), Alan, is in essence the same as your 'freedom' to breathe: in that it will happen anyway, since that is what your biology will do by default.

But unlike my heartbeat, I have conscious control over my breathing which facilitates my freedom to speak my consciously chosen words.

[Alan Burns]

No it doesn't: it just demonstrates that, in this regard anyway, you aren't very good at thinking and understanding the associated logic.

I fully understand the logic put forward to contradict my own conclusions, and I fully comprehend why this "logic" does not explain the reality of my freedom to ponder and evaluate and criticise such logic.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But if our thoughts are entirely derived from events which are predefined by the laws of physics acting on material elements, our freedom to think would equate to the freedom of a river flowing into the sea with no ability to change direction.  I do not recognise your concept of freedom.

Whether or not you recognise something is irrelevant to the reasoning for it.

My persistence aptly demonstrates that I have the consciously driven freedom to choose to be persistent, which renders your answers to be well and truly falsified.

Persistence and obduracy are not the same thing, you cannot just assert an “I” independent of mind, and you can’t falsify an argument by never addressing it.

But unlike my heartbeat, I have conscious control over my breathing which facilitates my freedom to speak my consciously chosen words.

Wrong again. You can’t choose to do what you don't want to do. Even if you only ever drink tea because you don’t like coffee but decide to exercise your “free” will by having coffee instead, that want for coffee will still have preceded the action.

I fully understand the logic put forward to contradict my own conclusions,…

That may or may not be true. So far though your refusal or inability ever to engage with it suggests otherwise.

…and I fully comprehend why this "logic" does not explain the reality of my freedom to ponder and evaluate and criticise such logic.

What you comprehend is an irrational belief that your experience of “free” will is also the explanation for it. Your problem though is that that supposed explanation relies on the abandonment of reason and the embracing of magic. 

[Alan Burns]

AB,

You haven't understood a word of the argument that falsifies this mistake have you. Not. A. Word.

You are mistaken.  I do fully understand your arguments.
But you consistently fail to comprehend the reality which falsifies your arguments.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You are mistaken.  I do fully understand your arguments.

In that case why have you never been able to address them with counter-arguments of your own?

But you consistently fail to comprehend the reality which falsifies your arguments.

Because you have never shown the slightest interest in trying to demonstrate that it is “the” reality rather than just your personal (and highly irrational) reality. Why not begin by explaining what a “soul” is, how it works, how anyone would identify such a thing, how you propose to escape the “determined vs random” problem without resorting to “it’s magic”, why you think your subjective experience of something must also provide the objective explanation for it etc?

We know that you’re big on assertion, but if you want to be taken seriously then – finally – you’ll have to provide something more than just assertion.