Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

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.

You've just demonstrated, yet again, what I said earlier: that  in this regard anyway, you aren't very good at thinking and understanding the associated logic.

[Alan Burns]

You've just demonstrated, yet again, what I said earlier: that  in this regard anyway, you aren't very good at thinking and understanding the associated logic.

Without our God given freedom to consciously control and manipulate our own thought processes, the concepts of thinking and understanding would not exist.  Neither would our appreciation of logic.  The suggestion that it all happens within our sub conscious brain activity can't be taken seriously.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Without our God given freedom to…

Statement of blind faith noted.

…consciously control and manipulate our own thought processes, the concepts of thinking and understanding would not exist.

Unless “the concepts of thinking and understanding” are in fact descriptions of materialistic emergent properties. And as that’s precisely what all the available evidence and reasoning indicates, there’s no good reason at all just to assert them not to have existed without a god.   

Neither would our appreciation of logic

Wrong again.

The suggestion that it all happens within our sub conscious brain activity can't be taken seriously.

Why not?

Oh sorry – I forgot. You can’t take it seriously because it undoes your validation for your personal faith beliefs. Oh well.

I take it by the way that you still have no interest in answering any of the questions I just asked you?

Funny that.

[Gordon]

Without our God given freedom to consciously control and manipulate our own thought processes, the concepts of thinking and understanding would not exist.  Neither would our appreciation of logic.  The suggestion that it all happens within our sub conscious brain activity can't be taken seriously.

I see your problem, Alan: you're still lumbering under the notion that 'God' figures in how our biology works, and there is no good reason to think this, and in your efforts to accommodate this 'God' you usually end up tying yourself in self-inflicted irrational and illogical knots (often in the form of fallacies).

[torridon]

Without our God given freedom to consciously control and manipulate our own thought processes, the concepts of thinking and understanding would not exist.  Neither would our appreciation of logic.

I don't see how you derive that.  There is nothing magical about thinking, this is what our brains have evolved to do.  Many other creatures have developed cognitive abilities, chimps for instance easily outperform humans in some cognitive tests and even corvids show a surprising degree of problem solving intelligence.  What this shows is that humans along with other species are on a natural spectrum in terms of their perception and cognition faculties.  No magic is required for abstract thought, just a brain evolved under the right sort of selection pressures.

[Alan Burns]

I don't see how you derive that.  There is nothing magical about thinking, this is what our brains have evolved to do.  Many other creatures have developed cognitive abilities, chimps for instance easily outperform humans in some cognitive tests and even corvids show a surprising degree of problem solving intelligence.  What this shows is that humans along with other species are on a natural spectrum in terms of their perception and cognition faculties.  No magic is required for abstract thought, just a brain evolved under the right sort of selection pressures.

I see no evidence of chimps or corvids thinking about how they came into existence.  Problem solving to gain reward can be developed from learnt experiences similar to computer chess playing programs which get better at finding solutions from past experience.

[Stranger]

You are mistaken.  I do fully understand your arguments.

The evidence of your posts contradicts this statement. If you understood, why the endless, pointless repetition of "points" that are totally undermined by the argument?

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

You keep on with these trite, logic- and (apparently) thought-free assertions that "reality" falsifies the logic or that your sort of freedom is "demonstrable", when the slightest bit of actual logical thought about the reality or what you can actually demonstrate, shows how absurd they are.

Nobody would put forward and argument that is clearly falsified by reality or that can be easily demonstrated to be wrong. Claiming that what is being argued here falls into that category seems dishonest or stupid.

Without our God given freedom to consciously control and manipulate our own thought processes, the concepts of thinking and understanding would not exist.  Neither would our appreciation of logic.

Why do you think statements of blind faith are going to stand up to reasoning and evidence?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I see no evidence of chimps or corvids thinking about how they came into existence.

But you do see evidence of other species thinking – about using tools, solving complex problems, adopting strategies for deferred rewards etc.

Moreover, a corvid may well say “I see no evidence of humans thinking about flying’, or a whale may say “I see no evidence of humans thinking about echolocation”. What’s so special about thinking about how we came into existence rather than thinking about anything else?

Problem solving to gain reward can be developed from learnt experiences similar to computer chess playing programs which get better at finding solutions from past experience.

And?

[torridon]

I see no evidence of chimps or corvids thinking about how they came into existence.  Problem solving to gain reward can be developed from learnt experiences similar to computer chess playing programs which get better at finding solutions from past experience.

So what, is the ability to consider existential questions a marker of magic ? I think other animals tend to have more pressing concerns, watching out for danger, finding food, defending your hareem against upcoming males, negotiating the social dynamics of the troupe etc.  Humans have managed to escape the harshness of life in the jungle and so we have had more time to develop our aesthetic sense and our capacity of abstract conceptualisation.  That does not equate to some sort of impossible supernatural power, just that our mental processes have developed in particular ways with particular strengths and weaknesses.

[Alan Burns]

So what, is the ability to consider existential questions a marker of magic ? I think other animals tend to have more pressing concerns, watching out for danger, finding food, defending your hareem against upcoming males, negotiating the social dynamics of the troupe etc.  Humans have managed to escape the harshness of life in the jungle and so we have had more time to develop our aesthetic sense and our capacity of abstract conceptualisation.  That does not equate to some sort of impossible supernatural power, just that our mental processes have developed in particular ways with particular strengths and weaknesses.

Yes, it would appear that the evolutionary objective of survival has been replaced in many humans by a consciously driven search for the truth behind their existence.

This thread could be aptly renamed "searching for truth", which in my mind is no different to searching for God.

Does the concept of truth exist outside human awareness?

[torridon]

Yes, it would appear that the evolutionary objective of survival has been replaced in many humans by a consciously driven search for the truth behind their existence.

This thread could be aptly renamed "searching for truth", which in my mind is no different to searching for God.

Does the concept of truth exist outside human awareness?

Survival requires understanding, and humans, leading complex lives invest more brain power in trying to understand their environment so they can better prosper.  In earlier humans this led to the development of religious narratives and practice, and over time we developed sharper more refined ways to understand, leading to empiricism and eventually science.  I don't see anything impossible in this progression, such that we have to declare it must be magic'.  Rather we have developed greater capacities for abstract conceptualisation over time quite naturally and, in tandem, our cortex has grown in size in line with the need for an increasingly sophisticated and intellectual brain.

[Gordon]

Yes, it would appear that the evolutionary objective of survival has been replaced in many humans by a consciously driven search for the truth behind their existence.

This thread could be aptly renamed "searching for truth", which in my mind is no different to searching for God.

Does the concept of truth exist outside human awareness?

That is because you tend to use the term 'truth' in a loaded way, Alan: as reification, and as a placeholder for 'God'.

Ideas about concepts like 'truth', and related terms like 'honesty' exist only in brains, since ideas don't happen anywhere else. To say that something is true requires more than just the idea of 'truth' - it requires a method to justify that 'x' is more likely the case/true than not, but of course you prefer your reification approach.

[Alan Burns]

That is because you tend to use the term 'truth' in a loaded way, Alan: as reification, and as a placeholder for 'God'.

Ideas about concepts like 'truth', and related terms like 'honesty' exist only in brains, since ideas don't happen anywhere else. To say that something is true requires more than just the idea of 'truth' - it requires a method to justify that 'x' is more likely the case/true than not, but of course you prefer your reification approach.

And such methods and conceptualisation would demand freedom to consciously manipulate one's thought processes - would you agree?  Or perhaps you believe Blue's idea that it all just emerges from physically predefined activity in your subconscious. 

[Stranger]

And such methods and conceptualisation would demand freedom to consciously manipulate one's thought processes - would you agree?

In the way you have defined it, "freedom" is simply impossible because it is self-contradictory, so no.

Or perhaps you believe Blue's idea that it all just emerges from physically predefined activity in your subconscious. 

Far, far more believable than self-contradictory magic.

[ekim]

Yes, it would appear that the evolutionary objective of survival has been replaced in many humans by a consciously driven search for the truth behind their existence.

This thread could be aptly renamed "searching for truth", which in my mind is no different to searching for God.

Does the concept of truth exist outside human awareness?

'Consciously driven' implies a desire to find the truth which means that the consciousness is not free from the desire until the 'truth' is found hence 'the truth will set you free' from the desire.  You could substitute the word 'God' with the word 'Truth'  and as the God of the Bible has absolute terms associated with it, the Truth you would need to seek would be the Absolute Truth not the relative truth.  If it is absolute, it is unlikely that a mental concept of truth, which is not much different to a mental image, would be the 'Truth' you are seeking.  This is possibly why there is a commandment not to worship earthly nor subconscious images.   'Mystics' of a variety of religions including Christianity tend to see 'knowing' as a merging so that there is a oneness, at-one-ment, union, like a raindrop merging with an ocean, the net result of which is an inability to conceptualise about it.  If you attempt to do so, you get a result similar to this thread.  The most you can do is to outline a method, for those who are interested, that can be followed as a means to achieve the appropriate end.  I suspect that the Jesus method was 'metanoia' i.e. to go beyond the conceptualising mind.  However this has been translated as 'repent' which probably has benefited the church but diminished the method.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

And such methods and conceptualisation would demand freedom to consciously manipulate one's thought processes - would you agree? 

No, for the reason you don’t understand or won’t address – without invoking magic, “to consciously manipulate one's thought processes” is logically impossible (the determined vs random problem you just ignore).

Or perhaps you believe Blue's idea that it all just emerges from physically predefined activity in your subconscious.

As ever you use the wrong terminology despite being corrected on it countless times, and it’s not “Blue’s idea” – it’s the “idea” that all of the applicable science and logic arrives at. Your response (“but it doesn’t feel that way to me”) is hopeless. It doesn't feel that way to anyone else either, but that's not the point.   

[Gordon]

And such methods and conceptualisation would demand freedom to consciously manipulate one's thought processes - would you agree?

Nope, for all the reasons given to you many times before by various others - if my thought processes were independent of the various factors that determine them: prevailing circumstances, previous experiences, personal preferences and any unconscious biases or traits I may have, then I would be having random thoughts unconnected to these aspects and I'd be in a chaotic situation, which I'm not

Or perhaps you believe Blue's idea that it all just emerges from physically predefined activity in your subconscious. 

The evidence to date points that way.

[Alan Burns]

As ever you use the wrong terminology despite being corrected on it countless times, and it’s not “Blue’s idea” – it’s the “idea” that all of the applicable science and logic arrives at. Your response (“but it doesn’t feel that way to me”) is hopeless. It doesn't feel that way to anyone else either, but that's not the point.   

I presume by wrong terminology you refer to the use of "predefined" as opposed to "predetermined".  The former is accurate because it refers to reactions to events which are predefined by the laws of physics.

My views are based on the unlikeliness of many aspects of humanity to arise entirely from the results of predefined physical reactions occurring in material elements, which is evidence that human investigation to date does not give the full picture of reality and is not adequate for you to draw a conclusion that every aspect of human behaviour must result from uncontrollable physically predefined reactions.

Our humanity indicates that there is more to reality than uncontrollable physical reactions.

[Gordon]

I presume by wrong terminology you refer to the use of "predefined" as opposed to "predetermined".  The former is accurate because it refers to reactions to events which are predefined by the laws of physics.

'Determined' is sufficient, Alan, so you can drop the 'pre'. Raindrops rolling down a window on a miserable day are just as subject to the laws of physics as human biology - so what? Anyway, the underlying problem you have involves logic and not physics,

My views are based on the unlikeliness of many aspects of humanity to arise entirely from the results of predefined physical reactions occurring in material elements, which is evidence that human investigation to date does not give the full picture of reality and is not adequate for you to draw a conclusion that every aspect of human behaviour must result from uncontrollable physically predefined reactions.

Nope - your views are based on your desperate need to manufacture a gap into which you can drop your 'God', and in your failed attempts to do so you invariably end up in an illogical mess of your own creation.

Our humanity indicates that there is more to reality than uncontrollable physical reactions.

No it doesn't (and ignoring your trademark fallacious hyperbole).

[Stranger]

I presume by wrong terminology you refer to the use of "predefined" as opposed to "predetermined".  The former is accurate because it refers to reactions to events which are predefined by the laws of physics.

Determined or deterministic is correct. You seem again to be more interested in using language and distraction, rather than tackle the evidence and logic you are up against. When you say "predefined" or "predetermined" it suggests that there is no thought or evaluation going on at all, which is a misrepresentation.

My views are based on the unlikeliness of many aspects of humanity to arise entirely from the results of predefined physical reactions occurring in material elements...

So we have more distorted and emotive language and your personal incredulity.

...which is evidence that human investigation to date does not give the full picture of reality and is not adequate for you to draw a conclusion...

No Alan, your incredulity and use of language is not evidence of anything but your own beliefs.

...that every aspect of human behaviour must result from uncontrollable physically predefined reactions.

The use of the word "uncontrollable" is also deceptive. There are control systems throughout nature, which you don't ascribe to magic.

And once again you are ignoring the fact that you can offer no alternative. Despite your continued pretense that the "problem" of determinism is related to physics, the logic tells us that you can invent any magical sort of soul you want and you're still left with exactly the same "problem" of everything being a "predefined reaction" - unless you add randomness.

Our humanity indicates that there is more to reality than uncontrollable physical reactions.

[dishonest term removed]

No, it doesn't.

[Alan Burns]

No Alan, your incredulity and use of language is not evidence of anything but your own beliefs.

But my capacity for incredulity, my use of emotive language and my ability to believe are all evidence that I have the freedom to think.  If these are just the end results of physically predefined chains of cause and effect, I am irrelevant and such labels are meaningless.  These labels can only have meaning if I have personal control of my thoughts. 

[Stranger]

But my capacity for incredulity, my use of emotive language and my ability to believe are all evidence that I have the freedom to think.

Nobody is disputing anybody's freedom to think.

If these are just the end results of physically predefined chains of cause and effect, I am irrelevant and such labels are meaningless.  These labels can only have meaning if I have personal control of my thoughts.

Meaning and relevance are value judgements and whether you find a situation meaningful or not has no bearing whatsoever on its truth or otherwise.

Having "personal control of my thoughts" doesn't even make sense. How are you going to decide how to control them? By thinking about it?

And once again, you can offer no alternative that isn't self-contradictory. Despite your attempts to pretend that your "problem" would be solved if there was something non-material, by continually linking the logic of the situation to the physical world, the logical problem you are still running away from, would remain.

Logically, your mind is either a deterministic system, or it isn't (and therefore has a random element).

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I presume by wrong terminology you refer to the use of "predefined" as opposed to "predetermined".  The former is accurate because it refers to reactions to events which are predefined by the laws of physics.

You struggle with the idea of “defined”. If what you’re trying to say is that events are themselves consequent on antecedent events, then yes - the alternative is randomness. So far as we can tell this holds true at least to the quantum field level. 

My views are based on the unlikeliness of many aspects of humanity to arise entirely from the results of predefined physical reactions occurring in material elements, which is evidence that human investigation to date does not give the full picture of reality and is not adequate for you to draw a conclusion that every aspect of human behaviour must result from uncontrollable physically predefined reactions.

But I have gone to some lengths before now to explain to you why unlikeliness is a completely wrong argument. As so often you ignored the explanation, but you can’t just reintroduce the same mistake as if it hadn’t already been falsified.

Our humanity indicates that there is more to reality than uncontrollable physical reactions.

“Our humanity” does no such thing. If you seriously think otherwise then explain why you think that rather than just assert it. 

[Alan Burns]

The use of the word "uncontrollable" is also deceptive. There are control systems throughout nature, which you don't ascribe to magic.

We consciously recognise control systems because we perceive comparisons with our own abilities to achieve an objective by deliberate manipulation - which involves interaction, not reaction.  We have no control over the laws of physics, so it becomes impossible to define a source of control within chains of physical cause and effect.  The control systems we perceive in nature can be deemed to work as intended by the Creator.  Just as computerised control systems work as intended by their human creators.  Control implies a conscious source with the power to interact in order to achieve a perceived objective.  A power which cannot be sourced within chains of uncontrollable physically predefined reactions.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The control systems we perceive in nature can be deemed to work as intended by the Creator.  Just as computerised control systems work as intended by their human creators.

See "Paley's watch" for an explanation of where you've gone wrong there:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy