Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

You (and others) appear put a lot of faith in your ability to make logical deductions and conclusions based upon human scientific investigation to date.

Not without good reason.  Science represent the sharpest tools we have to separate fact from fiction.  If you don't want to make that effort it just shows you aren't really interested in the truth.

[torridon]

I put my faith in the evidence of human scientific investigation to date combined with discernment of divine revelations backed up by many human witness stories (including mine) to the many and varied ways God can intercede with our earthly lives.  I find no conflict, just amazing confirmatory experiences with this faith view.

Unfortunately this thread is testimony to your repeated denial of large areas of science, from evolutionary biology to cognitive science, and that's not to mention all the inner contradictions of pure logic.

[Outrider]

You (and others) appear put a lot of faith in your ability to make logical deductions and conclusions based upon human scientific investigation to date.

That's something of a false equivalence you're using there - I trust humanity's collective capacity to make logical deductions based upon a well-established history of it proving effective.

I put my faith in the evidence of human scientific investigation to date combined with discernment of divine revelations backed up by many human witness stories (including mine) to the many and varied ways God can intercede with our earthly lives.  I find no conflict, just amazing confirmatory experiences with this faith view.

That trusted human capacity to make observations, and logical deductions from those observations, gives good reason not to have faith in those 'witness' stories of the subjective feeling that a god might have interceded in reality.  I find that people who don't question their experiences don't find much conflict between their experiences and reality - that's an observation from which I can begin to draw logical conclusions.

O.

[Roses]

Logic tells me that much of the Bible lacks any credibility, especially the god character and what is attributed to Jesus.

[Alan Burns]

Unfortunately this thread is testimony to your repeated denial of large areas of science, from evolutionary biology to cognitive science, and that's not to mention all the inner contradictions of pure logic.

I have no recollection of ever denying scientific discoveries.
What I dispute is the unfounded extrapolation of these discoveries which attempt to fit reality to into a regime entirely derived from these limited discoveries to date, resulting, for example, in the denial of the reality of our freedom to drive our own thoughts or make conscious choices.

[torridon]

I have no recollection of ever denying scientific discoveries.
What I dispute is the unfounded extrapolation of these discoveries which attempt to fit reality to into a regime entirely derived from these limited discoveries to date, resulting, for example, in the denial of the reality of our freedom to drive our own thoughts or make conscious choices.

Consciousness lag, or flash lag, is not an 'unfounded extrapolation', it is a measured phenomenon.  You are just in denial of it.

[Stranger]

What I dispute is the unfounded extrapolation of these discoveries which attempt to fit reality to into a regime entirely derived from these limited discoveries to date, resulting, for example, in the denial of the reality of our freedom to drive our own thoughts or make conscious choices.

The biggest problem with what you call "freedom" has nothing whatsoever to do with science. Your notion of "freedom" is fundamentally self-contradictory.

You are in denial of reason and logic.

[ippy]

Just for arguments sake say let's say Alan's imaginary invisible friend does exist, I wonder what makes it laugh of course that's assuming whatever it might be has got a sense of humour? 

Commiserations Alan, ippy.

[Alan Burns]

Consciousness lag, or flash lag, is not an 'unfounded extrapolation', it is a measured phenomenon.  You are just in denial of it.

But to presume that this measured lag can lead to the conclusion that all our thoughts exist before we are consciously aware of them is the unfounded extrapolation.  You can't reach this conclusion without knowing the true nature and capabilities of human conscious awareness.

[Roses]

But to presume that this measured lag can lead to the conclusion that all our thoughts exist before we are consciously aware of them is the unfounded extrapolation.  You can't reach this conclusion without knowing the true nature and capabilities of human conscious awareness.

But your idea of the true nature and capabilities of human conscious awareness is wrapped up in your religion, so is biased.

[Gordon]

But to presume that this measured lag can lead to the conclusion that all our thoughts exist before we are consciously aware of them is the unfounded extrapolation.

That is quite funny, Alan, coming as it does from someone who claims we have 'souls'

You can't reach this conclusion without knowing the true nature and capabilities of human conscious awareness.

And the 'true nature and capabilities' of the 'soul' are what exactly? Since I recall your answer to my asking you the method whereby the 'soul' interacts with our biology was, in essence, 'dunno' maybe you are applying double standards.

[torridon]

But to presume that this measured lag can lead to the conclusion that all our thoughts exist before we are consciously aware of them is the unfounded extrapolation. 

It is not an unfounded extrapolation, it is what the evidence reveals.  It demonstrates that our conscious thoughts take time to form, they are not instantaneous, we do not live 'in the present' as you like to claim.  What seems like the present is not in fact the present at all, and this makes sense in the greater scheme of things in that neural processing is rather slow; even AI synths with much faster processing speeds would still not be able to 'live' in the present.  Nothing in reality is instantaneous, that would break the universal speed limit of causality.

[Alan Burns]

It is not an unfounded extrapolation, it is what the evidence reveals.  It demonstrates that our conscious thoughts take time to form, they are not instantaneous, we do not live 'in the present' as you like to claim.  What seems like the present is not in fact the present at all, and this makes sense in the greater scheme of things in that neural processing is rather slow; even AI synths with much faster processing speeds would still not be able to 'live' in the present.  Nothing in reality is instantaneous, that would break the universal speed limit of causality.

As I said, you can't reach this conclusion without knowing the true nature and capabilities of human conscious awareness.

[Stranger]

But to presume that this measured lag can lead to the conclusion that all our thoughts exist before we are consciously aware of them is the unfounded extrapolation.

It isn't unfounded for reasons already given, but even if it was, an unfounded extrapolation would still be light years better than your totally baseless, self-contradictory ideas on the subject.

[torridon]

As I said, you can't reach this conclusion without knowing the true nature and capabilities of human conscious awareness.

Which reflects your underlying attitude problem, that is to say, we cannot/will not draw any conclusions at all until we are in possession of the full facts, an approach which quietly ignores the fact that we will never know everything.  We can draw reasonable conclusions based on the available evidence to date, if we did not do that then we would never have invented vaccines or built spacecraft.  In the face of new findings, some of us factor them in; others, it seems, only retreat deeper into denialism and apologetics and the more this goes on, the farther behind the curve you get.

[Outrider]

But to presume that this measured lag can lead to the conclusion that all our thoughts exist before we are consciously aware of them is the unfounded extrapolation.  You can't reach this conclusion without knowing the true nature and capabilities of human conscious awareness.

I link you to a machine that measures unconscious brain activity.  It can predict your decisions, based on measurement of that unconscious activity, before you become consciously aware of them with a significant degree of success.

Please explain how the inference from that evidence is that our decisions are made subconsciously and we become aware of them after the fact is an 'unfounded extrapolation'? It's a logical deduction - it may be incorrect, it might be that we're actually indirectly measuring the soul's impact on our thought process somehow, but that would be an unfounded extrapolation because there's no direct evidence for the soul: there's just evidence of decision prior to conscious awareness.

That's deduction, not 'unfounded extrapolation'.  Making up concepts like 'soul' in the absence of any evidence for such, or evidence of a need for such, to explain a subjective feeling about phenomena that isn't actually demonstrable to support a concept that is logically self-contradictory might be considered an 'unfounded extrapolation', as an example, but deduction from evidence is not.

O.

[Sebastian Toe]

..... the reality of our freedom to drive our own thoughts or make conscious choices.

, you can't reach this conclusion without knowing the true nature and capabilities of human conscious awareness.

[Alan Burns]

I link you to a machine that measures unconscious brain activity.  It can predict your decisions, based on measurement of that unconscious activity, before you become consciously aware of them with a significant degree of success.

Please explain how the inference from that evidence is that our decisions are made subconsciously and we become aware of them after the fact is an 'unfounded extrapolation'? It's a logical deduction - it may be incorrect, it might be that we're actually indirectly measuring the soul's impact on our thought process somehow, but that would be an unfounded extrapolation because there's no direct evidence for the soul: there's just evidence of decision prior to conscious awareness.

That's deduction, not 'unfounded extrapolation'.  Making up concepts like 'soul' in the absence of any evidence for such, or evidence of a need for such, to explain a subjective feeling about phenomena that isn't actually demonstrable to support a concept that is logically self-contradictory might be considered an 'unfounded extrapolation', as an example, but deduction from evidence is not.

O.

But can you not see that your ability to make such deductions can only be made if you have consciously driven control over the processes leading to the deduction.  It is impossible in an entirely materialistic scenario for such consciously driven control to exist for the reasons you have already given.  Which is evidence that this control can only be achieved by means outside the capability of physical material reactions alone.

[Sebastian Toe]

But can you not see that your ability to make such deductions can only be made if you have consciously driven control over the processes leading to the deduction.  It is impossible in an entirely materialistic scenario for such consciously driven control to exist for the reasons you have already given.  Which is evidence that this control can only be achieved by means outside the capability of physical material reactions alone.

you can't reach this conclusion without knowing the true nature and capabilities of human conscious awareness.

[torridon]

But can you not see that your ability to make such deductions can only be made if you have consciously driven control over the processes leading to the deduction.  It is impossible in an entirely materialistic scenario for such consciously driven control to exist for the reasons you have already given.  Which is evidence that this control can only be achieved by means outside the capability of physical material reactions alone.

'Materialistic' has nothing to do with it. 'Physical' has nothing to do with it.   All your protestations about the impossibility the actual workings of mind derive from your failure to engage with a more subtle understanding of mind, despite numerous posters attempts.  You are like a flat-earther repeating the same mantra over and over again, a round Earth is impossible because that would mean Australians spending all their days upside down, but all such protests are merely symptoms of a refusal or inability to engage with a more subtle understanding of gravity.  So it is with you and conscious mind, you seem unable to grasp that conscious mind and conscious thoughts must have derivation in order to be consistent with a broader and deeper understanding of reality and logic. That which is derived is an outcome of its derivation, not the other way round.  The claim that our conscious thoughts 'drive' things, yes, that is how it seems, but it is a rationale that lacks the subtlety of insight that 'how it seems' itself is a derived phenomenon.

[Outrider]

But can you not see that your ability to make such deductions can only be made if you have consciously driven control over the processes leading to the deduction.

It's just been demonstrated that isn't the case, so whether I might feel like that's the case or not is irrelevant, the facts are what they are.

It is impossible in an entirely materialistic scenario for such consciously driven control to exist for the reasons you have already given.

I think you're starting to get it - it's impossible, given the evidence that we have, to countenance the idea of conscious control of our thinking. Logically, given that our conscious awareness is thinking, the awareness as to be subsequent to the activity that gives rise to it.

Which is evidence that this control can only be achieved by means outside the capability of physical material reactions alone.

Or, conversely, that your feeling that you have control is illusory.

O.

[Alan Burns]

It's just been demonstrated that isn't the case, so whether I might feel like that's the case or not is irrelevant, the facts are what they are.

But the fact is that you are able to come to this logical deduction.  If this deduction is derived from your subconscious brain activity before you are aware of it, it is not a deduction, but an inevitable uncontrollable reaction with no personal control.

I think you're starting to get it - it's impossible, given the evidence that we have, to countenance the idea of conscious control of our thinking. Logically, given that our conscious awareness is thinking, the awareness as to be subsequent to the activity that gives rise to it.

I am not just starting to get it.  I reached the conclusion many years ago that our conscious freedom can't be derived from endless mechanistic chains of cause and effect.  I could have held up my hands and declared that it is just an illusion, but I have moved on to discover the hidden depth and power of the human soul.

Or, conversely, that your feeling that you have control is illusory.

Or conversely, you are living proof of God's miraculous power.

[Outrider]

But the fact is that you are able to come to this logical deduction.

And after that's happened, I become aware that I've come to that logical deduction.

If this deduction is derived from your subconscious brain activity before you are aware of it, it is not a deduction, but an inevitable uncontrollable reaction with no personal control.

Those two are not mutually exclusive - if I programme a computer to make logical deductions and it does so, that's deduction without 'personal control'.  Our brains are no different.

I am not just starting to get it.

Evidently.

I reached the conclusion many years ago that our conscious freedom can't be derived from endless mechanistic chains of cause and effect.

So you went in with the preconception of free will, and realised that it wasn't mechanistically viable - you're right, but you've then inferred away from the evidence and towards your preconception.  The evidence is that the evidence is, and if it doesn't support your preconception then that's grounds for questioning your preconception.  When, logically, your preconception is also fundamentally self-contradictory, I don't see any way that you can cleave to it.

I could have held up my hands and declared that it is just an illusion, but I have moved on to discover the hidden depth and power of the human soul.  Or conversely, you are living proof of God's miraculous power.

Which is faith-based declaration of 'I don't like the answer, so I'm going to pretend that it didn't happen'.  The science is in, consciousness lags being brain activity - our sense of self control is illusory.

O.

[Stranger]

I am not just starting to get it.  I reached the conclusion many years ago that our conscious freedom can't be derived from endless mechanistic chains of cause and effect.

A "conclusion" that you have never been able to provide the slightest hint of any reasoning or evidence to support. What's more, a "conclusion" that seems to have been based on an utterly false and illogical notion that chains of cause and effect are a problem that is only associated with the physical world. The end result it your locally absurd assertions that choice can be both free of cause and effect and free from randomness - which is a contradiction.

I could have held up my hands and declared that it is just an illusion, but I have moved on to discover the hidden depth and power of the human soul.

You mean that you've closed your mind to the extent that you will not even try to address the central contradiction in your position.

How much consciousness is involved in making choices is really a side issue - your own point of view is logically impossible under any circumstances. Choices must still be entirely the result of cause and effect (unless there is some randomness), no matter how conscious or otherwise, they are.

[Roses]

But the fact is that you are able to come to this logical deduction.  If this deduction is derived from your subconscious brain activity before you are aware of it, it is not a deduction, but an inevitable uncontrollable reaction with no personal control. I am not just starting to get it.  I reached the conclusion many years ago that our conscious freedom can't be derived from endless mechanistic chains of cause and effect.  I could have held up my hands and declared that it is just an illusion, but I have moved on to discover the hidden depth and power of the human soul.Or conversely, you are living proof of God's miraculous power.

As has been said many times, it might make sense to you but you have never ever provided any evidence, which backs up your POV.