Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

All I am doing is pointing to substantial evidence of our conscious ability to drive our own thoughts.  How can this possibly construed as lying?

Because you haven't pointed to any evidence.

[torridon]

All I am doing is pointing to substantial evidence of our conscious ability to drive our own thoughts.

Not in a manner that is free from precursors, you haven't.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

No one can reason their way into any position if they did not have the conscious freedom to do so.

At one, relatively superficial level of abstraction that's true. At a more logically robust level though it's utter balls.

And where did your sealion idea emanate from?  Was it another inevitable reaction bubbling up from your subconscious brain activity?

Actually from Wiggs since you ask.

[Alan Burns]

FFS did you even read what I said, let alone give it any of your "conscious awareness"?

Yet again: Everybody involved in this discussion knows what humans experience and knows what humans are capable of. What is under discussion is explanations of how those things come about. You cannot claim that the things everybody is offering explanations for are evidence for your explanation. Good grief, this isn't difficult!

It is doubly dishonest when you cannot resolve a blatant contradiction in your own proposed explanation.

But an explanation which presumes that all our conscious choices are pre determined before we are consciously aware of them does not make sense, because in order to reach such a conclusion it is essential to be able to drive your own thought processes.  Without this ability, whatever conclusions you reach will have no validity.  For any conclusion to be viable, you need the ability to consciously validate it - otherwise it will be just an unavoidable, meaningless reaction.

[Alan Burns]

Actually from Wiggs since you ask.

And do you seriously think the sealion idea just emanated from the subconscious brain activity of Wiggs before he became aware of it?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

otherwise it will be just an unavoidable,...

At one level, effectively yes...

...meaningless...

No it's as meaningful to you and me as a goldfish's reality is a meaningful to a goldfish.

... reaction.

And you're attempting an argmentum ad consequentiam again, one of the countless logical errors you're prone to.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

It's a form of lying because when people explain to you why this claim is evidence-denying and logically impossible you just ignore the explanation and repeat the same mistake over and over again.

No.
I use my conscious ability to understand and analyse what has been said, and then conclude that it does not come near to explaining the human ability to consciously think and draw conclusions.  This is not lying.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

And do you seriously think the sealion idea just emanated from the subconscious brain activity of Wiggs before he became aware of it?

It "emanated" from whichever source he discovered it, and then it "emanated" as a stored memory from his subconscious when he wrote a post here.

[torridon]

And do you seriously think the sealion idea just emanated from the subconscious brain activity of Wiggs before he became aware of it?

Strictly speaking, yes, given that conscious awareness is the end point of the neural processes that go into constructing awareness.  If you were paying attention, you'd already understand this. Consciousness is the 'finished product', the directors cut, if you like.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

No.
I use my conscious ability to understand and analyse what has been said, and then conclude that it does not come near to explaining the human ability to consciously think and draw conclusions.  This is not lying.

Yes. The lying is never engaging with the argument that falsifies you. Your cheat is to say that, no matter what that argument is, the fact that someone could write it must mean that you're right. It's the equivalent of sticking you fingers in your ears and shouting "la la la" and thinking you've thereby won the argument.

That's the dishonesty - try taking your fingers out of your ears and attempt at least to grasp why you're so wrong. But then you can't do that can you because you're terrified of what you might learn.   

[Stranger]

But an explanation which presumes that all our conscious choices are pre determined before we are consciously aware of them does not make sense, because in order to reach such a conclusion it is essential to be able to drive your own thought processes.

The role of consciousness is really beside the point. You've once again thrown together some words without any apparent thought(!). How do you "drive your own thought processes"? What does that mean that is incompatible with everything happening entirely due to the things that led to them?

The "you" has to consist of something and it has to make its "driving" choices either entirely due to what led up to the choices or not, which means there is some randomness, for reasons I've explained endless times and you've just ignored.

Without this ability, whatever conclusions you reach will have no validity.

You haven't actually defined an ability.

For any conclusion to be viable, you need the ability to consciously validate it - otherwise it will be just an unavoidable, meaningless reaction.

There you go again. How does "conscious validation" work? How is it incompatible with everything happening entirely because of the reasons that led to it? How do you avoid randomness if that is not the case?

You seem to have two major blind spots: you can't seem to get that consciousness might happen after the fact and not be as involved as it seems, and you don't seem to understand that just because something is your own "conscious choice" doesn't mean that it can't have happened entirely due to the reasons that led to it.

Until you dare to think about those things you won't get anywhere.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stranger,

Until you dare to think about those things you won't get anywhere.

He never will - the risk of what he might learn is too scary.

[Stranger]

No.
I use my conscious ability to understand and analyse what has been said...

I see very little evidence of this.

...and then conclude that it does not come near to explaining the human ability to consciously think and draw conclusions.  This is not lying.

Your personal incredulity about other people's explanations of phenomena does not entitle you to claim that said phenomena are evidence for your own explanation. That is still lying.

It is doubly dishonest because you never address the logical contradiction in your own explanation. However, the fact that your explanation is self-contradictory, doesn't mean that the phenomena are evidence for my explanation - see?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

It "emanated" from whichever source he discovered it, and then it "emanated" as a stored memory from his subconscious when he wrote a post here.

So you are seriously suggesting it had nothing to do with a conscious choice.?

[Alan Burns]

Strictly speaking, yes, given that conscious awareness is the end point of the neural processes that go into constructing awareness.  If you were paying attention, you'd already understand this. Consciousness is the 'finished product', the directors cut, if you like.

Yes, I have been consciously paying attention - which is why I have to come to the inevitable conclusion that the act of paying attention is a consciously driven process.  I fully understand what you are trying to imply, but it would be impossible for such an explanation to convince me, because it is "me" that you would have to convince - not the subconscious brain activity over which I have no control.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

So you are seriously suggesting it had nothing to do with a conscious choice.?

Why are you so dishonest? Of course it was a "conscious choice", but no the logically impossible version of it you keep peddling. At a relatively superficial level we can be said to "make" choices all the time, and that model serves us well enough for most practical purposes. If you want a more robust grasp of the nature of consciousness though, you have to reject the superficial in favour of an explanation that's not logically impossible and that doesn't rely on magic to get you off that hook.

You're basically a flat earther of the mind - "are you seriously suggesting that the world isn't flat as we all know it feels that way?"   

[Stranger]

Yes, I have been consciously paying attention...

I fully understand what you are trying to imply...

I don't think I believe you. You show no sign of having understood or even thought much about the arguments put to you.

...but it would be impossible for such an explanation to convince me, because it is "me" that you would have to convince - not the subconscious brain activity over which I have no control.

If you had understood you wouldn't post nonsense like this. You have provided no evidence and no reasoning to suggest that the "me" is anything more than the sum total of all your conscious and subconscious brain activity. Neither have you made any argument (other than trite word redefinitions) that said "me" has no control.

And yet agian - your notion of "freedom" is self-contradictory.

[Gordon]

Yes, I have been consciously paying attention - which is why I have to come to the inevitable conclusion that the act of paying attention is a consciously driven process.  I fully understand what you are trying to imply, but it would be impossible for such an explanation to convince me, because it is "me" that you would have to convince - not the subconscious brain activity over which I have no control.

Having read this tripe, and taking into account the plethora of posts that have pointed out to you where you are going wrong, all I can say is thank god I never contracted the form of religion that you suffer from.

[torridon]

Yes, I have been consciously paying attention - which is why I have to come to the inevitable conclusion that the act of paying attention is a consciously driven process.  I fully understand what you are trying to imply, but it would be impossible for such an explanation to convince me, because it is "me" that you would have to convince - not the subconscious brain activity over which I have no control.

That 'me' of which you speak straddles both subconscious and conscious domains of mind, and ever since Freud the evidence has been growing that it is the subconscious mind that is the seat of executive function that determines choice and the conscious 'me' is essentially a flattering post hoc construction of mind that provides for our sense of personhood, agency and morality.

When I was a kid, I used to visit the cinema and in the intermission, advertisers used cunning methods to sell to peoples' subconscious, most notoriously they would splice in shots of coca cola one frame every 25 or so with the intention of making the audience feel strangely thirsty.  At that level, the audience does not register the cola images consciously but they are registered subconsciously.  It was known as subliminal advertising and has long since been banned.  This demonstrates one example of the subtlety of conscious mind; the fact that we are not consciously aware of the spliced images is empirical evidence that awareness is a post hoc construction of mind that derives from more primitive mind states and cannot therefore really be the 'driver' of thought processes that we casually imagine it to be.

Your insistence on the primacy of conscious self is undermined by a more subtle understanding of the nature of mind.

[Alan Burns]

I don't think I believe you. You show no sign of having understood or even thought much about the arguments put to you.

If you had understood you wouldn't post nonsense like this. You have provided no evidence and no reasoning to suggest that the "me" is anything more than the sum total of all your conscious and subconscious brain activity. Neither have you made any argument (other than trite word redefinitions) that said "me" has no control.

And yet agian - your notion of "freedom" is self-contradictory.

But my freedom is what allows me to consciously choose to contradict you, and my posts are evidence of this freedom.  Your short sighted logic can't take away this freedom.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But my freedom is what allows me to consciously choose to contradict you, and my posts are evidence of this freedom.  Your short sighted logic can't take away this freedom.

More dishonesty. That "but" tells us immediately that you're going to put your fingers in your ears again and go "la la la".

Why bother though?

[Alan Burns]

That 'me' of which you speak straddles both subconscious and conscious domains of mind, and ever since Freud the evidence has been growing that it is the subconscious mind that is the seat of executive function that determines choice and the conscious 'me' is essentially a flattering post hoc construction of mind that provides for our sense of personhood, agency and morality.

When I was a kid, I used to visit the cinema and in the intermission, advertisers used cunning methods to sell to peoples' subconscious, most notoriously they would splice in shots of coca cola one frame every 25 or so with the intention of making the audience feel strangely thirsty.  At that level, the audience does not register the cola images consciously but they are registered subconsciously.  It was known as subliminal advertising and has long since been banned.  This demonstrates one example of the subtlety of conscious mind; the fact that we are not consciously aware of the spliced images is empirical evidence that awareness is a post hoc construction of mind that derives from more primitive mind states and cannot therefore really be the 'driver' of thought processes that we casually imagine it to be.

Your insistence on the primacy of conscious self is undermined by a more subtle understanding of the nature of mind.

I am aware of this technique of auto suggestion.  But that is what it is - a suggestion slipped into our subconscious.  Control of our choices is still enacted at the conscious level, which allows us to override the autosuggestion coming from our subconscious if we so wish.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

More dishonesty. That "but" tells us immediately that you're going to put your fingers in your ears again and go "la la la".

Why bother though?

Another attempt at ridicule for simply witnessing to the reality of my freedom to choose - and your consciously chosen words are yet more evidence of your own freedom to choose what form of ridicule to use.  Or did the words,  "la la la" just slip out from your physically predetermined subconscious brain activity before you knew it?

[torridon]

I am aware of this technique of auto suggestion.  But that is what it is - a suggestion slipped into our subconscious.  Control of our choices is still enacted at the conscious level, which allows us to override the autosuggestion coming from our subconscious if we so wish.

Your sentence here ends with the words 'if we so wish'.  Can you really not see the contradiction that you expose in pretty much every post you write.  Our desires (what we 'so wish') are not something we have control over.  If I went and bought a coke in the interval it was because I so wished and that wish might well have arisen due to circumstances below the level of my awareness.  Maybe I chose to not go buy a coke because I am watching my calorie intake, but yet again the relative importance to me of watching my calories is not something I choose to feel in some sort of vacuum.  The choice we end up making is the dominant desire out of all the competing desires.  It has to be this way, there is no other way to resolve choice.  Simply inventing an immaterial soul as the engine of decision making does not buy you a way out of this simple straightforward inviolable principle of logic.

[Alan Burns]

Your sentence here ends with the words 'if we so wish'.  Can you really not see the contradiction that you expose in pretty much every post you write.  Our desires (what we 'so wish') are not something we have control over.  If I went and bought a coke in the interval it was because I so wished and that wish might well have arisen due to circumstances below the level of my awareness.  Maybe I chose to not go buy a coke because I am watching my calorie intake, but yet again the relative importance to me of watching my calories is not something I choose to feel in some sort of vacuum.  The choice we end up making is the dominant desire out of all the competing desires.  It has to be this way, there is no other way to resolve choice.  Simply inventing an immaterial soul as the engine of decision making does not buy you a way out of this simple straightforward inviolable principle of logic.

But can you not see that a conscious choice is resolved at the conscious level, under the overriding control of our conscious awareness? We are consciously aware of our desires, but they do not dictate our choice.  We have conscious control - not automated subconscious reaction.