Searching for GOD...

[Sriram]

Yes, broadly speaking, that is why brains evolved.  Brains don't exist in isolation of course, there are millions of interconnected neurons throughout the body, so in a sense we are distributed intelligence entities, but it is the brain that focuses and coordinates and perceives and resolves.  I'm pretty sure I do most of my thinking in my brain; it might be influenced by my gut and by my heart etc, but it is the brain that is the master coordinator of all this wherein choices are made.

'Yes'.....??!!  You actually think the microprocessor in your computer is deciding what you write??!!

[torridon]

'Yes'.....??!!  You actually think the microprocessor in your computer is deciding what you write??!!

Sorry, perhaps I misread your question.  It is the microprocessor in my head that decides what to write.  That is where thoughts, in the main, happen.

[Sriram]

Sorry, perhaps I misread your question.  It is the microprocessor in my head that decides what to write.  That is where thoughts, in the main, happen.

You misunderstand again. Just as the microprocessor in your computer does not decide what you write here....similarly the microprocessor in your head (the brain) also does not decide what you write or do. 

YOU are different from your brain. Your brain is just a platform that you use...just like your computer.

You have not addressed my point at 36999....about 'you' using your brain to think.

[Stranger]

When you try to do something, is it for reasons or (partly or wholly) for no reason?

And before you say it (yet again); when you form a reason in illogical gibberish "the present state of your conscious awareness" is that because of reasons or (partly or wholly) for no reason?

The reason exists in your present state of conscious awareness, which does not exist in the past.

If you can't even be bothered to read what people post, let alone think about any of it, no wonder your posts are foolish and repetitive.

To repeat the question you just ignored: when this reason poofs into existence in the undefined and meaningless thingy called the "present state of conscious awareness", does it do so because of reasons or (partly or wholly) for no reason?

[Stranger]

You misunderstand again. Just as the microprocessor in your computer does not decide what you write here....similarly the microprocessor in your head (the brain) also does not decide what you write or do. 

YOU are different from your brain. Your brain is just a platform that you use...just like your computer.

Back to argument by baseless asssertion, I see.   

[Alan Burns]

The reason exists in your present state of conscious awareness, which does not exist in the past.


If you can't even be bothered to read what people post, let alone think about any of it, no wonder your posts are foolish and repetitive.

To repeat the question you just ignored: when this reason poofs into existence in the undefined and meaningless thingy called the "present state of conscious awareness", does it do so because of reasons or (partly or wholly) for no reason?

Reasons for conscious choice exist in your present state of conscious awareness.
Perhaps you are confusing reasons with predetermined reactions.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

You misunderstand again. Just as the microprocessor in your computer does not decide what you write here....similarly the microprocessor in your head (the brain) also does not decide what you write or do.

YOU are different from your brain. Your brain is just a platform that you use...just like your computer.

You have not addressed my point at 36999....about 'you' using your brain to think.

You’re very confused. Mind is an emergent property of the meat computer called “brain”. Minds “decide” – to that extent “you” are your mind. Minds don’t “use brains” – they’re a property of brains. Given a “microprocessor in your computer” of sufficient complexity (ie, vastly more than we can create artificially just now) there’s no reason to think that a mind wouldn't emerge from that too.

[torridon]

You misunderstand again. Just as the microprocessor in your computer does not decide what you write here....similarly the microprocessor in your head (the brain) also does not decide what you write or do. 

YOU are different from your brain. Your brain is just a platform that you use...just like your computer...

Yes I know that is how you would represent things, and to some extent, that is how many people would colloquially conceptualise it, as in 'use your brain'.  But it doesn't really make any sense in the context of a modern understanding of brain function which sees all intentionality, emotions, thoughts, perceptions and memory as being mediated through brain function as this is what the evidence suggests.  If there was some other mechanism for perception and cognition, then brains would be redundant and they would not exist, having no reason to exist,

[Alan Burns]

Back to argument by baseless asssertion, I see.   

You continue to ignore the role of conscious awareness in our human behaviour.
Microprocessors have no conscious awareness and just behave in accordance with physically predetermined reactions within the machine.
Conscious awareness is not a tangible entity in itself - it is awareness of the tangible entities contained within our human brain.  Our conscious awareness always exists within its own present state.  It perceives time and events from the state of neuron activity in our brain.  In effect it is a spectator of time, not necessarily an intergral part of our time dependent material universe.

[Alan Burns]

Sriram,

You’re very confused. Mind is an emergent property of the meat computer called “brain”. Minds “decide” – to that extent “you” are your mind. Minds don’t “use brains” – they’re a property of brains. Given a “microprocessor in your computer” of sufficient complexity (ie, vastly more than we can create artificially just now) there’s no reason to think that a mind wouldn't emerge from that too.

But emergent properties can't exert control over the material they "emerge" from.  My conscious awareness, however, does have the capacity to control.  How else could I possibly type this post?

[Enki]

'Yes'.....??!!  You actually think the microprocessor in your computer is deciding what you write??!!

If you think that the brain isn't deciding what you write then all you have to do is put forward your alternative hypothesis, and show, with evidential support of course, why you think that your view is more convincing.

[Alan Burns]

Yes I know that is how you would represent things, and to some extent, that is how many people would colloquially conceptualise it, as in 'use your brain'.  But it doesn't really make any sense in the context of a modern understanding of brain function which sees all intentionality, emotions, thoughts, perceptions and memory as being mediated through brain function as this is what the evidence suggests.  If there was some other mechanism for perception and cognition, then brains would be redundant and they would not exist, having no reason to exist,

A computer and screen is needed to process information into a tangible form for our human senses to perceive.  The material brain is just another step in the need for processing information into a tangible form for the conscious awareness of our human soul to perceive.
Our brains are our soul's window into this material universe. 

[Nearly Sane]

If you don't think that the brain isn't deciding what you write then all you have to do is put forward your alternative hypothesis, and show, with evidential support of course, why you think that your view is more convincing.

I think you have too many negatives in there?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But emergent properties can't exert control over the material they "emerge" from.  My conscious awareness, however, does have the capacity to control.  How else could I possible type this post?

How do you think you "exert control" over your brain when "you" essentially are your brain? If you like Marmite, try "exerting control" to tell your brain that you don't like it at all.

How did you get on?     

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

A computer and screen is needed to process information into a tangible form for our human senses to perceive.  The material brain is just another step in the need for processing information into a tangible form for the conscious awareness of our human soul to perceive.
Our brains are our soul's window into this material universe.

Incoherent, logically impossible and unqualified assertions noted.

[Stranger]

Reasons for conscious choice exist in your present state of conscious awareness.
Perhaps you are confusing reasons with predetermined reactions.

Perhaps you are (yet again) refusing to think about it. Not only is the "present" still utterly devoid of any relevant definition, you aren't answering the question. When a reason appears in this "present state of conscious awareness" (if you ever get around to defining it) does it appear for reasons or not entirely for reasons.

When you decide on a reason to act, do you do so randomly, if not, there must have been some set of reasons that existed prior your decision.

Just using "the present" without defining it in a way that is meaningful is just dishonest evasion. Why are you so scared of entering into a logical discussion about this?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

How do you think you "exert control" over your brain when "you" essentially are your brain? If you like Marmite, try "exerting control" to tell your brain that you don't like it at all.

How did you get on?   

Of course I can't make my material brain like something.  That is not control.  However, my conscious control can easily be demonstrated by forcing myself to eat something I do not like.

[Stranger]

You continue to ignore the role of conscious awareness in our human behaviour.

No, I don't.

Conscious awareness is not a tangible entity in itself - it is awareness of the tangible entities contained within our human brain.  Our conscious awareness always exists within its own present state.  It perceives time and events from the state of neuron activity in our brain.

Its "own present state" is gibberish until you properly define what it means (without circularity or more meaningless hand-waving).

In effect it is a spectator of time, not necessarily an intergral part of our time dependent material universe.

How does it manage to spectate without having any time over which to do it? This is just more meaningless hand-waving. What's more it's entirely contrary to what choice making is actually like. We think about things over a period of time and arrive at conclusions for reasons that either existed before we started or are gleaned during the process. No part of it is detached from time.

Making it detached from the material universe makes not one jot of a difference to the logic. If the choice is not entirely the result of all the events that led up to it (physical or otherwise) then some part of it is not due to any of them and is therefore random.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Of course I can't make my material brain like something.  That is not control.  However, my conscious control can easily be demonstrated by forcing myself to eat something I do not like.

Stop digging! If you force yourself to eat something you don't like that "want" to eat it came from somewhere. Either it was the result of a deterministic chain of events or it happened randomly. You can't just claim magic and call it "soul" to get you off that hook.     

[Stranger]

Of course I can't make my material brain like something.  That is not control.  However, my conscious control can easily be demonstrated by forcing myself to eat something I do not like.

Which demonstrates nothing other than you (your brain) had enough reasons to eat something you don't like to overcome your dislike. This is entirely consistent with your mind being a deterministic system (and please don't pretend that "deterministic" just means determined by something, again).

[Alan Burns]

No, I don't.

Its "own present state" is gibberish until you properly define what it means (without circularity or more meaningless hand-waving).

How does it manage to spectate without having any time over which to do it? This is just more meaningless hand-waving. What's more it's entirely contrary to what choice making is actually like. We think about things over a period of time and arrive at conclusions for reasons that either existed before we started or are gleaned during the process. No part of it is detached from time.

Making it detached from the material universe makes not one jot of a difference to the logic. If the choice is not entirely the result of all the events that led up to it (physical or otherwise) then some part of it is not due to any of them and is therefore random.

Our conscious awareness is not detached from this material universe.  It obviously connects with it and interacts with it via the amazing machine which is our material body.  The logic you continually try to assert takes no account of the ability for our conscious awareness to exert conscious control from its own state, not from the pre existing state of our material brain.  The capabilities of our conscious awareness provide the definitive difference between choice and reaction.

[Enki]

I think you have too many negatives in there?

Point taken, and corrected.

[Stranger]

The logic you continually try to assert takes no account of the ability for our conscious awareness to exert conscious control from its own state, not from the pre existing state of our material brain.

Which changes nothing about the logic. Either this state of conscious awareness is behaving as a deterministic system or it isn't (and therefore involves randomness). As I've pointed out many, many times, the logic has nothing to do with the material universe.

As your conscious state changes over time, does it do so entirely because of reasons, or partly due to no reason?

The capabilities of our conscious awareness provide the definitive difference between choice and reaction.

Those would be the capabilities that you can't define and the supposed difference between choice and reaction, that you also can't define. So not very definitive, really.

[torridon]

A computer and screen is needed to process information into a tangible form for our human senses to perceive.  The material brain is just another step in the need for processing information into a tangible form for the conscious awareness of our human soul to perceive.
Our brains are our soul's window into this material universe.

So if a brain is a window, then a hedgehog's brain must be a hedgehog's window, and a snake's brain is the snake's window.

This follows from your (unsubstantiated) claim.

[torridon]

Of course I can't make my material brain like something.  That is not control.  However, my conscious control can easily be demonstrated by forcing myself to eat something I do not like.

That does not present a problem for a deterministic account of mind.  You would have had some reason to force yourself to eat it, otherwise your behaviour would be random.  If you don't accept that 'conscious will' is random, then that means implicitly that you believe you had a reason, and that reason/desire supervened over your dislike of the food.  We make such compromise choices all the time, it does not require supernatural abilities, we are still just identifying the course of action with the greatest overall appeal and we cannot choose how much something appeals to us.