Searching for GOD...

[Roses]

He's a Troll , a very good one at that ! 😱

No I don't think AB is a troll as he really believes what he is posting to be true.

You only have to look in the mirror to see a troll, although you might have seven years bad luck when it shatters.

[Walter]

No I don't think AB is a troll as he really believes what he is posting to be true.

You only have to look in the mirror to see a troll, although you might have seven years bad luck when it shatters.

LR
Not bad . On the chuckle scale I'll give that one 4
Keep practicing 😝

[Roses]

LR
Not bad . On the chuckle scale I'll give that one 4
Keep practicing 😝

If you met me in person you might not be able to stop laughing, although of course the sight might be so horrific you would think you were an extra in a horror film

We are going to be put on the naughty stair for being off topic, there is only one cushion and I bags it.

[Walter]

Posting it on this thread is as god a place as any baring in mind all the other mind dulling shit that's on it 🐒

[Alan Burns]

Nobody is claiming otherwise. But for the 10 millionth time, the logic has nothing to do with physics - no matter how many times you dishonestly, or stupidly, misrepresent it.

It is entirely to do with physics, because we have no control over the laws of physics, therefore no freedom in whatever is determined by the laws of physics acting within chains of material reactions.

The mistake you constantly make is in your presumption that anything non material will be subject to the same time dependent chains of cause and effect as material elements.  Our consciously driven freedom to control our own thought processes in order to deduce conclusions is proof that we are not entirely subject to the uncontrollable chains of physical cause and effect.
Control certainly exists in our human brains.  It certainly comprises chains of physically defined cause and effect.  And it certainly has a source - which is not just another physical reaction but a consciously invoked event.

[Enki]

Thanks for another detailed response, Enki
For starters, I would like to pick up on this point.

In the physically controlled material model, there can be no possibility of conscious feedback if, as experiments have shown, subconscious brain activity predetermines the choice before we are consciously aware of it.  In such a scenario, we can only react in a pre-programmed way to sensory data with no possibility of consciously driven choice over the reaction.  The human soul, however, would by its spiritual nature not be restricted by the time dependent laws of cause and effect in the material model, and must be able to do whatever is needed to invoke an act of conscious will in the material body.

This is simply mind numbing assertion, yet again, Alan. You present not the slightest evidence to back it up. it comes over as no more and no less than your belief.

On the other hand, it might be of interest for you to read this thoughtful and well constructed article which to my mind gives a credible hypothesis for the significance of consciousness. If you haven't the time or the patience or the wherewithal to read the full article, then at least read the conclusions. It doesn't matter whether you agree  or disagree with it, but here is somebody who has given the whole subject a great deal of thought and research. I contrast this with your simplistic, myopic and repetitive approach which adds nothing to the subject, except the revelation that you seem to be hidebound by your particular faith.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4122207/

[ippy]

He's a Troll , a very good one at that ! 😱

Well yes lets say assertions can be accepted as evidence does that mean I can go to my bank or, thinking about it, any bank I like and tell them I'd like £200,000 paid out to me today and I'll be here tomorrow for another £200,000 and they'd pay me without the obvious?

I'd be happy with a couple of hundred each time on that basis, I'd have a job wiping the grin off of my face, if it worked.

Troll? I don't think so the poor bloke's been sucked in by the RC's hook line and sinker and can't get himself out, I think he really believes their, the RCC's, stuff? 

Regards, ippy.

[Stranger]

It is entirely to do with physics, because we have no control over the laws of physics, therefore no freedom in whatever is determined by the laws of physics acting within chains of material reactions.

Oh FFS, how many times do you need this explaining to you before you'll stop just mindlessly repeating yourself and attempt an answer? The point is that "you" is a part of chains of cause and effect, otherwise you'd just be doing random stuff.

It's actually impossible for "you" to have any meaningful control, or even take any purposeful action unless that is the case.

Every single mental event in any chain of thought (conscious or otherwise and physical or otherwise) is either entirely due to all the events that led up to it, or not. If not, then some part of it must be due to nothing that led up to it at all - which is necessarily random.

The mistake you constantly make is in your presumption that anything non material will be subject to the same time dependent chains of cause and effect as material elements.

You think about things and make choices over time, therefore the above logic applies. If you think not, it's about time you came up with a counterargument.

Our consciously driven freedom to control our own thought processes in order to deduce conclusions is proof that we are not entirely subject to the uncontrollable chains of physical cause and effect.

This is just absurd. It isn't proof of any such thing, it isn't even evidence, hell, it isn't even a vague hint that your conclusion might might have some small chance of being true.

Control certainly exists in our human brains.  It certainly comprises chains of physically defined cause and effect.  And it certainly has a source - which is not just another physical reaction but a consciously invoked event.

Baseless assertion and false dichotomy.

[Walter]

Well yes lets say assertions can be accepted as evidence does that mean I can go to my bank or, thinking about it, any bank I like and tell them I'd like £200,000 paid out to me today and I'll be here tomorrow for another £200,000 and they'd pay me without the obvious?

I'd be happy with a couple of hundred each time on that basis, I'd have a job wiping the grin off of my face, if it worked.

Troll? I don't think so the poor bloke's been sucked in by the RC's hook line and sinker and can't get himself out, I think he really believes their, the RCC's, stuff? 

Regards, ippy.

Beware ! Notice how he very rarely ever posts in any other thread . That's so he doesn't loose his focus and give the game away 👽

[Gordon]

Moderator:

Could we please, as we continue the interminable search for God, focus on discussing and dissecting the content of posts and not on discussing presumptions about the motivations of posters. 

[torridon]

It is entirely to do with physics, because we have no control over the laws of physics, therefore no freedom in whatever is determined by the laws of physics acting within chains of material reactions.

An elephant is 'free' to move its trunk up and down, left and right, just like I am free to move my hand up and down and left and right.

The 'free' in the above sentence does not imply supernatural powers in either elephant or man, neither does it imply we have control 'over' the laws of physics.

Both cases are examples of behaviour made possible by the laws of nature, they do not defy them.

Aren't you ever going to understand this ?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It is entirely to do with physics, because we have no control over the laws of physics,…

We can “control” them in the sense we can use and adapt them for our use. We cannot though change them – gravity is still gravity whether we like it or not. 

…therefore no freedom in whatever is determined by the laws of physics acting within chains of material reactions.

Oh dear. Our “freedom” is the experience of making choice. The biology (a branch of physics) that enables that experience though still happens at an underlying level on a deterministic basis.   

The mistake you constantly make is in your presumption that anything non material will be subject to the same time dependent chains of cause and effect as material elements.

No, the mistake you constantly make is to just assert there to be a non-material in the first place. Once you’ve done that you can magic your way to it functioning outside basic principles of logic if you want to but it’s all incoherent and unqualified guessing built on incoherent and unqualified guessing.   

Our consciously driven freedom to control our own thought processes in order to deduce conclusions is proof that we are not entirely subject to the uncontrollable chains of physical cause and effect.

Why are you so dishonest about this nonsense? You’ve had explained to you countless times that “our consciously driven freedom to control” as you mean it is logically impossible (which is why you have to invoke magic to get you off the hook) yet you’ll never address the problem. Why not?

Control certainly exists in our human brains.  It certainly comprises chains of physically defined cause and effect.  And it certainly has a source - which is not just another physical reaction but a consciously invoked event.

What do you even think this car crash of a sentence to mean? “Conscious invoking” is “another physical reaction” – and so far at least you’ve not even bothered to attempt one step toward demonstrating there to be a non-physical alternative.

[Alan Burns]

Oh FFS, how many times do you need this explaining to you before you'll stop just mindlessly repeating yourself and attempt an answer? The point is that "you" is a part of chains of cause and effect, otherwise you'd just be doing random stuff.

It's actually impossible for "you" to have any meaningful control, or even take any purposeful action unless that is the case.

Every single mental event in any chain of thought (conscious or otherwise and physical or otherwise) is either entirely due to all the events that led up to it, or not. If not, then some part of it must be due to nothing that led up to it at all - which is necessarily random.

If I am entirely determined by past events there can be no control - because I can't control what has already happened.  So what enables me to openly contradict this flawed logic?  What initiates this post I am currently composing?  I have freedom to contradict you - where does this freedom come from?  Can your logic allow me to have any control over the physical reactions occurring in my brain?

[Alan Burns]

Why are you so dishonest about this nonsense? You’ve had explained to you countless times that “our consciously driven freedom to control” as you mean it is logically impossible (which is why you have to invoke magic to get you off the hook) yet you’ll never address the problem. Why not?

Because if I consciously choose to address the problem, the conscious freedom I use will mean that what you deem to be a logical impossibility has actually happened.

[Nearly Sane]

Because if I consciously choose to address the problem, the conscious freedom I use will mean that what you deem to be a logical impossibility has actually happened.

I think you may just have produced a perfect circle.

[jeremyp]

It is an inevitable deduction based on the simple truth that we have no control over the laws of physics.

Yes, that's exactly what we've been telling you.

So if we are entirely driven by nothing but physically defined material reactions we become just an inevitable reaction (or emergence if you prefer) defined entirely by those physically controlled reactions.

Yes, but an immensely sophisticated material reaction.

In essence, it is a logical impossibility for physical reactions alone to come up with a viable explanation for how such an explanation can be formulated.

Sorry, I don't see how you get to that conclusion.

[Stranger]

If I am entirely determined by past events there can be no control - because I can't control what has already happened.

For about the 4,633,591st time:

The opposite is true. There is no way purposeful control can exist unless it is the result of the past that led to it. To have control, you have to do things for reasons, and those reasons come from the past. If any part of a controlling action is not due to anything at all that led up to it, it can only be random, and that cannot be purposeful.

So what enables me to openly contradict this flawed logic?  What initiates this post I am currently composing?  I have freedom to contradict you - where does this freedom come from?  Can your logic allow me to have any control over the physical reactions occurring in my brain?

You are the physical reactions occurring in your brain, it is them, i.e. you, who is exercising control.

Even if it isn't all physical - exactly the same logic must apply to any choice-making/controlling system or entity.

Now - how about you stop just repeating your script over and over, like some automaton, and exercise a bit of intelligent control over your posts and engage with the arguments?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Because if I consciously choose to address the problem, the conscious freedom I use will mean that what you deem to be a logical impossibility has actually happened.

No it wouldn't. The experience of choosing would feel exactly the same whether it was logic- and evidence-based deterministic in character as keeps being explained to you, or magic in character as you keep asserting (while never addressing the problems this assertion gives you).

[Alan Burns]

Yes, but an immensely sophisticated material reaction.

It is still a reaction - which by definition is not a choice.

[Alan Burns]

For about the 4,633,591st time:

The opposite is true. There is no way purposeful control can exist unless it is the result of the past that led to it. To have control, you have to do things for reasons, and those reasons come from the past. If any part of a controlling action is not due to anything at all that led up to it, it can only be random, and that cannot be purposeful.

To have control, you need a source of control - a controller.  Control is not just reaction to past events, over which we can have no control.  My conscious control comes from my consciously driven will.

[Alan Burns]

You are the physical reactions occurring in your brain, it is them, i.e. you, who is exercising control.

But I can't control past events.  You claim every event is a result of past events.  So no control - just reaction.

[Gordon]

To have control, you need a source of control - a controller.  Control is not just reaction to past events, over which we can have no control.  My conscious control comes from my consciously driven will.

Yet this 'consciously driven will' seems to be no more than just a function of your biology, no matter what odd ideas you have about it.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

No it wouldn't. The experience of choosing would feel exactly the same whether it was logic- and evidence-based deterministic in character as keeps being explained to you, or magic in character as you keep asserting (while never addressing the problems this assertion gives you).

But it is not just an experience of choosing.  It is what defines the word "choice".  It is demonstrable choice.  Demonstrated throughout the history of mankind's consciously driven acts of discovery and creativity.
And it is not magic.  It is God's miraculous gift of human freewill.

[Gordon]

But it is not just an experience of choosing.  It is what defines the word "choice".  It is demonstrable choice.  Demonstrated throughout the history of mankind's consciously driven acts of discovery and creativity.

Hooray for brains then!

And it is not magic.  It is God's miraculous gift of human freewill.

Which translates to, 'it's magic'.

[torridon]

To have control, you need a source of control - a controller.  Control is not just reaction to past events, over which we can have no control.  My conscious control comes from my consciously driven will.

So an elephant's control over its trunk comes from its consciously driven will then.

Fine.  Have you ever seen an elephant controlling its trunk when it was not conscious ?