Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

Your assertion is the exact opposite of the truth. The way in which you define "freedom" is impossible because it is self-contradictory. It cannot be the basis of all those things because it can no more exist than a triangular circle.

Yours is one "explanation" for the human mind that we can be 100% sure isn't true. It is falsified by failing the test of logical self-consistency.

Your concept of freedom would appear to be freedom from constraint.
My concept of freedom is freedom to think.

My thoughts do not just bubble up into conscious awareness.  I consciously drive my thought processes - that is what thinking is.

[Stranger]

My thoughts do not just bubble up into conscious awareness.  I consciously drive my thought processes - that is what thinking is.

It doesn't matter to the logic how much of the process is conscious or not - however thoughts obviously do "bubble up into conscious awareness". You can't consciously choose what occurs to your conscious mind next - that would be another infinite regress.

As for being misrepresented -
I am constantly bombarded with the mantra "if it is not determined it must be random" despite me never having claimed that human choice is not determined.

My contention is simply that what determines a conscious choice involves more than physical reaction.  And from this I get accused of invoking magic!

Seriously Alan, have you been paying no attention whatsoever or is this just way over your head? This has been answered time and time and time again. Why do you never address the answers? Why go back to the mindless repetition?

You have just misrepresented the argument against you yet again.

For about the 10,000th time: It makes no difference what determines a choice, the logic is about is how a choice is made. It is either entirely the result of what led up to it (the mind is a deterministic system) or it isn't, which means it involves randomness.

Physical reactions have nothing to do with the logic. How about addressing the real argument, just for a change?

Why does this seem like trying to teach calculus to a parrot?

[Outrider]

I was just pointing out that the use of words such as "prefer" and "considered" are indicative of conscious rather than subconscious brain activity.

Not intrinsically.  We tend to interpret them that way, perhaps, because we tend to be raised to think that we're in control of ourselves from outside of ourselves, somehow - it could just as easily be, from a logical review of the possibilities, that we subconsciously prefer things we've subconsciously considered and only become actively aware of that after the fact.

I am constantly bombarded with the mantra "if it is not determined it must be random" despite me never having claimed that human choice is not determined.

The problem is that you want the thing that is making the choice to have some element of that choice that isn't an inevitable consequence of prior events, as I understand it.  That element, however small, is something that you need to explain in order for us to understand your model; and if it's not dependent upon prior events then, to our minds, the other option is randomness.  If there's a third path, what is it?

My contention is simply that what determines a conscious choice involves more than physical reaction.  And from this I get accused of invoking magic!

If it involves something more than physical activity, then where's the element of thought processes that occurs without a currently identified precursor?  Individual neurons can be mapped and tracked, and we see the physical phenomena that cause them to react; we can then track that neural activity in broad regions of the brain to specific types of mental activity (speech, vision, rational thinking etc.).  Whilst that process is not absolutely mapped and understood, I'm not aware of anything that suggests we have inexplicable brain activity.  Where does this 'non-physical' element come into the equation?

O.

[Alan Burns]

The way in which you define "freedom" is impossible because it is self-contradictory. It cannot be the basis of all those things because it can no more exist than a triangular circle.

Yours is one "explanation" for the human mind that we can be 100% sure isn't true. It is falsified by failing the test of logical self-consistency.

I see nothing illogical in my ability to make a conscious choice which is not entirely predetermined by past events, but determined by the conscious will of my human soul.

What is illogical is the concept that everything is entirely predetermined by uncontrollable physically defined material reactions  This would in effect lead to the bizarre conclusion that this post of mine was predestined to happen since the beginning of time.

We will no doubt discover the reality of our human soul when the material body ceases to function.

[Roses]

I see nothing illogical in my ability to make a conscious choice which is not entirely predetermined by past events, but determined by the conscious will of my human soul.

What is illogical is the concept that everything is entirely predetermined by uncontrollable physically defined material reactions  This would in effect lead to the bizarre conclusion that this post of mine was predestined to happen since the beginning of time.

We will no doubt discover the reality of our human soul when the material body ceases to function.

Much more likely there is nothing to discover, once we die we stay dead.

[Outrider]

I see nothing illogical in my ability to make a conscious choice which is not entirely predetermined by past events, but determined by the conscious will of my human soul.

It's not inherently illogical; that conscious will, though, is itself either a deterministic effect of some corollary of physics or it's random (or a complex composite of the two)

What is illogical is the concept that everything is entirely predetermined by uncontrollable physically defined material reactions  This would in effect lead to the bizarre conclusion that this post of mine was predestined to happen since the beginning of time.

Why is that illogical? Predestined implies something deciding in the first instance, which is perhaps begging the question, but I don't see anything illogical in the idea that any given effect is the inevitable consequence of a deterministic set of prior events.

We will no doubt discover the reality of our human soul when the material body ceases to function.

I'd suggest the existence of this forum implies that, at the very least, there is a great deal of doubt about whether anything of us will be in any situation to be aware of the reality of anything when our bodies cease to function.  Certainly I doubt that.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I was just pointing out that the use of words such as "prefer" and "considered" are indicative of conscious rather than subconscious brain activity.

Wrongly. As ever, you’re just assuming that the everyday, colloquial use of these terms must also explain the experience of “prefer”, “consider” etc when – as keeps being explained to you – they cannot without collapsing into logical contradiction.   

As for being misrepresented -
I am constantly bombarded with the mantra "if it is not determined it must be random" despite me never having claimed that human choice is not determined.

That’s cheating. You think it’s “determined” only in the sense of a logic-free little man at the control doing the determining, rather than the logically coherent position that events are determined by prior events. 

My contention is simply that what determines a conscious choice involves more than physical reaction.

First you assert it as a fact rather than as just a “contention”, and second even if it was just a contention you’d still have all your work ahead of you first to define and to demonstrate that there even is a non-physical. Until you can do that, “it’s non-physical innit” is epistemically identical to “it’s magic innit”.

And from this I get accused of invoking magic!

Yes of course you do, and rightly so – see above. If you want to resolve the determined vs binary problem by conjuring up an invisible little man at the controls for which you have no evidence at all, about which you have no information of any kind, and that somehow is not itself bound by the same logical constraints that apply to anything else then in what sense are you not saying “it’s magic innit”? 

[Alan Burns]

I'd suggest the existence of this forum implies that, at the very least, there is a great deal of doubt about whether anything of us will be in any situation to be aware of the reality of anything when our bodies cease to function.  Certainly I doubt that.

O.

Yes, this forum certainly contains much evidence of people being able to consciously doubt their own spiritual nature, but what does a conscious doubt comprise?  Can it be defined by a specific pattern of electro chemical activity? or is it evidence of the spiritual nature of our conscious awareness?

[Roses]

Yes, this forum certainly contains much evidence of people being able to consciously doubt their own spiritual nature, but what does a conscious doubt comprise?  Can it be defined by a specific pattern of electro chemical activity? or is it evidence of the spiritual nature of our conscious awareness?

The former is more logical than the latter, imo.

[Alan Burns]

Why is that illogical? Predestined implies something deciding in the first instance, which is perhaps begging the question, but I don't see anything illogical in the idea that any given effect is the inevitable consequence of a deterministic set of prior events.

What deems it to be illogical is the reality of control and manipulation in this world.  These words imply a definable source - the existence of a controller or a manipulator.  But in a physically predetermined scenario the can be no such sources and everything just becomes inevitable reaction.

[Stranger]

I see nothing illogical in my ability to make a conscious choice which is not entirely predetermined by past events, but determined by the conscious will of my human soul.

What is illogical is the concept that everything is entirely predetermined by uncontrollable physically defined material reactions  This would in effect lead to the bizarre conclusion that this post of mine was predestined to happen since the beginning of time.

Back in mindless repetition mode, I see. What's the point? You've once again either totally ignored the actual argument or chosen to deliberately and dishonestly misrepresent it, that is, unless you're just too dim to understand it...

[Stranger]

Can it be defined by a specific pattern of electro chemical activity?

That's what the evidence is telling us, yes.

...or is it evidence of the spiritual nature of our conscious awareness?

No.

[Enki]

Yes, this forum certainly contains much evidence of people being able to consciously doubt their own spiritual nature, but what does a conscious doubt comprise?  Can it be defined by a specific pattern of electro chemical activity? or is it evidence of the spiritual nature of our conscious awareness?

Bad use of 'spiritual' as far as I am concerned.  I have no reason to doubt my spiritual nature. I see it as  being a result of the physical  workings of my brain, and this would also include the unconscious.

[Outrider]

Yes, this forum certainly contains much evidence of people being able to consciously doubt their own spiritual nature, but what does a conscious doubt comprise?  Can it be defined by a specific pattern of electro chemical activity? or is it evidence of the spiritual nature of our conscious awareness?

It's people realising after the fact that their subconscious has concluded it hasn't been given enough evidence to support the propositions 'soul' or 'afterlife'.

Can it be defined as a specific pattern of electro-chemical activity - certainly it can.  Should it be? Is that accurate? So far as we can tell, yes - doubt, as all though, involves electrochemical brain activity, influenced in part by some physical activity such as hormone levels and the like.  Is there anything else involved - we're waiting on any evidence being offered, but it doesn't seem as though there needs to be, no.

O.

[Outrider]

What deems it to be illogical is the reality of control and manipulation in this world.  These words imply a definable source - the existence of a controller or a manipulator.

Imply, but not prove.  Whereas, if you don't presume naturally occurring activity to be 'control' or 'manipulation' but just activity, suddenly even the implication goes away.

But in a physically predetermined scenario the can be no such sources and everything just becomes inevitable reaction.

Yes. And...  Again, it's the way that you're phrasing it, but the implication there is that the argument is somehow invalid BECAUSE it leads to this implication.  You say that's not your intent, and I'll take you at your word on that, but this phrasing makes it seem as though that's what you mean, at least how it reads to me.

O.

[Gordon]

What deems it to be illogical is the reality of control and manipulation in this world.  These words imply a definable source - the existence of a controller or a manipulator.  But in a physically predetermined scenario the can be no such sources and everything just becomes inevitable reaction.

You have a rare talent, Alan: you can pack multiple fallacies into just a few sentences.

[Alan Burns]

That's what the evidence is telling us, yes.
.

Outside the human mind, evidence indicates that all that can be generated by electro chemical activity is externally observed reactions - there is no evidence of it generating internal conscious perception.

The only evidence you have is the absence of anything else which can be detected by human senses or man made equipment in examination of human brains.  In reality there is no definition of what comprises "conscious doubt" in material terms.  You are presuming a material explanation with no evidence other than being unable to detect anything but electro chemical activity.  If there is a specific pattern of electro chemical activity which can be associated with conscious doubt, you still have the problem of how this activity gets interpreted into what we perceive within our human awareness.

[Stranger]

In reality there is no definition of what comprises "conscious doubt" in material terms.

FIFY

You are presuming a material explanation with no evidence other than being unable to detect anything but electro chemical activity.

...and, just for starters, that consciousness is always associated with brains, and that damage to the brain damages the mind, that chemicals can take away consciousness (general anaesthetic).

If there is a specific pattern of electro chemical activity which can be associated with conscious doubt, you still have the problem of how this activity gets interpreted into what we perceive within our human awareness.

Matthew 7:5 springs to mind for some reason.

Once you have an explanation that doesn't involve an impossible contradiction perhaps you'll be in a better position to criticise science.

[Gordon]

Outside the human mind, evidence indicates that all that can be generated by electro chemical activity is externally observed reactions - there is no evidence of it generating internal conscious perception.

The only evidence you have is the absence of anything else which can be detected by human senses or man made equipment in examination of human brains.  In reality there is no definition of what comprises "conscious doubt" in material terms.  You are presuming a material explanation with no evidence other than being unable to detect anything but electro chemical activity.  If there is a specific pattern of electro chemical activity which can be associated with conscious doubt, you still have the problem of how this activity gets interpreted into what we perceive within our human awareness.

This kind of stuff really is desperate bollocks, Alan.

[Alan Burns]

Once you have an explanation that doesn't involve an impossible contradiction perhaps you'll be in a better position to criticise science.

I am not criticising science.  I am just pointing out obvious limitations.  If you are only able to investigate material behaviour, you will inevitably conclude that everything that exists in reality will be defined by material behaviour if you rely solely on such investigation.

Perhaps an analysis of human behaviour will be more enlightening.

[Stranger]

Perhaps an analysis of human behaviour will be more enlightening.

Perhaps engaging with the arguments and stopping the endless, mindless repetition would be more constructive.

[Christine]

This is what I think this bit of this thread boils down to:

Alan notices that some people “want” to do “bad” things, like getting drunk and having sex with random men, but don’t.  That means the person has some mystical appendage called a soul that overrides the bad want and stops the person from acting on their desires.  Therefore, the Catholic Christian God.

When posters challenge his simplistic, incoherent and/or fallacy-packed statements, he doesn’t think about it and try to explain his points differently because, in my opinion, based on reading years’ worth of this stuff, he can’t.  I can’t offer a suggestion as to why he can’t, but if he could, he surely would.

I would love somebody to give me an explanation for how and why we exist that doesn’t mean we’re ultimately meaningless, transient beings, tortured with self-awareness for no reason.  This is not it.  At least with scientific enquiry and discovery you get the idea you know more when you’ve finished trying to understand it, and what you now know might actually be real (real in relation to the life I appear to be living, I mean, blimey, it’s a minefield…).

[torridon]

Outside the human mind, evidence indicates that all that can be generated by electro chemical activity is externally observed reactions - there is no evidence of it generating internal conscious perception.

Of course, there is plenty such evidence.  My dog has eyes and it gets around without bumping into things, so that is evidence that he is experiencing visual perception.  He barks when there is a knock at the door, that is evidence that he is experiencing auditory perception.  And it's not just my dog, there are plenty more.  You don't need supernatural powers to see and hear, this is why (in part) brains evolved and pretty much all animals have brains.

[torridon]

I am not criticising science.  I am just pointing out obvious limitations.  If you are only able to investigate material behaviour, you will inevitably conclude that everything that exists in reality will be defined by material behaviour if you rely solely on such investigation.

Perhaps an analysis of human behaviour will be more enlightening.

Since when did science confine itself to material behaviour ?  Is the potential energy in a high altitude dam 'material' ?

[Alan Burns]

Of course, there is plenty such evidence.  My dog has eyes and it gets around without bumping into things, so that is evidence that he is experiencing visual perception.

No.
It is evidence that a dog can react to data from image recognition by programmed instinct.

  He barks when there is a knock at the door, that is evidence that he is experiencing auditory perception.

No.
It is evidence that a dog can react to sounds in an instinctive pre programmed way

  And it's not just my dog, there are plenty more.  You don't need supernatural powers to see and hear, this is why (in part) brains evolved and pretty much all animals have brains.

You do not need supernatural powers to react to sensory data according to instinct or learnt experience.

However, conscious perception of sensory data requires no detectable reaction, just awareness.