Searching for GOD...

[ippy]

enki,

He never will. "God is real. Free will requires god. We have free will. Therefore god is real. God is real. Free will requires god. We have free will. Therefore...etc" is all he has, so round and round he goes entirely oblivious to the problem his circular reasoning gives him.

How about just standing back for a moment and just have to observe, not respect but have a sort of grudging admiration of just how the power, the effect of indoctrination can be on some people like A B and N M for examples.

The circular stuff A B keeps on coming out with puts me in mind of those stage performances of some hypnotists I have seen in the past where they hypnotise someone to no longer recognise say number five, the hypnotist then seems to release the subject from being say, under, and then asks this subjected victim to count from one to ten and of course the number five is missing and the poor subject of this manipulation is unable to see anything wrong with their count of one to ten in spite of the, obvious to everyone else in the audience the missing number five.

This is just one way of trying to understand why A B seems to be  hanging on like grim death to his stated mantra, I'm not laying down my explanation as though this is it and there's no other answer it's just perhaps a part of an explanation of how largely irrational the majority of his posts can be.

Regards, ippy

[Alan Burns]

enki,

He never will. "God is real. Free will requires god. We have free will. Therefore god is real. God is real. Free will requires god. We have free will. Therefore...etc" is all he has, so round and round he goes entirely oblivious to the problem his circular reasoning gives him.

You should try starting off from acknowledging the truth that we do have free will, and see where that leads - instead of presuming that everything is entirely predetermined by endless chains of cause and effect.

[Nearly Sane]

You should try starting off from acknowledging the truth that we do have free will, and see where that leads - instead of presuming that everything is entirely predetermined by endless chains of cause and effect.

That's the most egregious begging the question.

[Alan Burns]

I didn't ask about reaction, I asked about awareness.  In case you've forgotten, you need to be aware of an issue before you can respond to it.

In the case of observed animal behaviour which you insist on quoting, you cannot presume that awareness is needed to produce the observed reaction.  Instinctive reactions do not need awareness in order to occur - they just need a programmed response to sensory data.

Response comes later. So, please try again, this time read what is written and respond to that, not something tangential.

In the case of human behaviour, response does come later after we have consciously chosen how to respond to our awareness.  You can't just presume that this is what occurs in the animal's case.  Surely you must recognise the difference between a reaction and a consciously chosen response.

What evidence is there to suggest that non-human animals lack inner awareness ? If there is a knock at the door, my dog responds, pricking up his ears, growling.  This evidence suggests that he was aware of the knock at the door, just as I was.  I find your endlessly repeated claims that my dog lacks that inner awareness bizarre, what other explanation could there be for his subsequent response ? Is his growling just an enormous coincidence ?

It can all be adequately explained by programmed reactions to sensory data.  Animal's reactions are predictable - not so with humans where our awareness allows us to consciously choose how, when, where or if to respond.

[Enki]

You should try starting off from acknowledging the truth that we do have free will, and see where that leads - instead of presuming that everything is entirely predetermined by endless chains of cause and effect.

I think that you have got it the wrong way round, Alan. I certainly don't 'presume' anything. It is where rational thought, evidence and logic seem to lead. The presumption is the provisional end product, not the starting line. However this tells me a lot about your thinking, in that you are the one who seems to start with a presumption, clings to it and builds a whole edifice around it, none of which has any evidence or logic to recommend it.

Tell me, Alan, how do I acknowledge something as true when I don't believe it to be so? Is this something that you are able to do?

[Stranger]

You should try starting off from acknowledging the truth that we do have free will, and see where that leads...

Except it's totally obvious that we don't have "free will" in the way you define it, because it's a meaningless, logical impossibility.

...instead of presuming that everything is entirely predetermined by endless chains of cause and effect.

It's not a presumption, it's the only logical possibility apart from introducing randomness.

[torridon]

In the case of observed animal behaviour which you insist on quoting, you cannot presume that awareness is needed to produce the observed reaction. 

I can presume exactly that, and I fail to see why anyone should not.  You have not provided any evidence to suggest otherwise, so why believe otherwise ?  Why would my dog respond to a knock at the door if it was unaware of the knock at the door ?  I don't know how to make this any simpler.  What evidence is there that would suggest my dog is not hearing and not seeing, irrespective of how it decides to respond to stimuli ?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You should try starting off from acknowledging the truth that we do have free will, and see where that leads - instead of presuming that everything is entirely predetermined by endless chains of cause and effect.

If you "start off" with the outcome you're trying to demonstrate then your premise and your conclusion are the same. That's called circular reasoning and it's very bad thinking.

Why don't you start off instead with explaining why your version of "free" will isn't logically impossible after all?

[Alan Burns]

I can presume exactly that, and I fail to see why anyone should not.  You have not provided any evidence to suggest otherwise, so why believe otherwise ?  Why would my dog respond to a knock at the door if it was unaware of the knock at the door ?  I don't know how to make this any simpler.  What evidence is there that would suggest my dog is not hearing and not seeing, irrespective of how it decides to respond to stimuli ?

You are still confusing instinctive reactions with conscious awareness.
Just think about it in terms of evolutionary process.  In a survival machine, an automated response to sensory data must surely be simpler and more effective than a consciously chosen response.  As you must surely understand, conscious awareness is not needed to produce a response to sensory data.

[Roses]

You are still confusing instinctive reactions with conscious awareness.
Just think about it in terms of evolutionary process.  In a survival machine, an automated response to sensory data must surely be simpler and more effective than a consciously chosen response.  As you must surely understand, conscious awareness is not needed to produce a response to sensory data.

I am of the opinion animals of other species, as well as the human animal, have conscious awareness, especially the dogs we have owned over the years.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You are still confusing instinctive reactions with conscious awareness.
Just think about it in terms of evolutionary process.  In a survival machine, an automated response to sensory data must surely be simpler and more effective than a consciously chosen response.  As you must surely understand, conscious awareness is not needed to produce a response to sensory data.

What makes you think we're not "survival machines" as you put it?

[torridon]

You are still confusing instinctive reactions with conscious awareness.
Just think about it in terms of evolutionary process.  In a survival machine, an automated response to sensory data must surely be simpler and more effective than a consciously chosen response.  As you must surely understand, conscious awareness is not needed to produce a response to sensory data.

You are avoiding the issue by conflating separate things.  My question was not about reactions, instinctive or otherwise; my point was about the nature of awareness.  There can be no response whatsoever if there is no awareness in the first place.

So, for the umpteenth time, what evidence is there to suggest that my dog is unaware of a knock at the door ?  Or, to put the same thing another way, why would my dog bark if it was unaware of the knock ?

[Alan Burns]

You are avoiding the issue by conflating separate things.  My question was not about reactions, instinctive or otherwise; my point was about the nature of awareness.  There can be no response whatsoever if there is no awareness in the first place.

So, for the umpteenth time, what evidence is there to suggest that my dog is unaware of a knock at the door ?

You are totally wrong.
Conscious awareness is not needed for instinctive reactions.

[torridon]

You are totally wrong.
Conscious awareness is not needed for instinctive reactions.

Have you ever seen any creature, anywhere, react to stimuli when it was unconcious ?  Of course you need to be conscious.

[Sebastian Toe]

You are still confusing instinctive reactions with conscious awareness.
Just think about it in terms of evolutionary process.  In a survival machine, an automated response to sensory data must surely be simpler and more effective than a consciously chosen response.  As you must surely understand, conscious awareness is not needed to produce a response to sensory data.

My dog has been taught that on response to a command she will recieve a reward.
I issue the command, she responds, she receives the reward.
Is that what you you mean by learned-behaviour?

[ekim]

As you must surely understand, conscious awareness is not needed to produce a response to sensory data.

I hope you never say that to a blind person who  is reliant upon a guide dog.

[Roses]

I hope you never say that to a blind person who  is reliant upon a guide dog.

Well said.

[Alan Burns]

Have you ever seen any creature, anywhere, react to stimuli when it was unconscious ?  Of course you need to be conscious.

When certain brain activity shuts down, responses to sensory data will not be activated.  Your problem is in assuming that conscious perception is somehow achieved by material reactions alone.  It is instinctive, programmed behaviour which can be achieved by material reactions.  Conscious perception in itself does not require or induce reaction.  It involves awareness of data - not reaction to it.  Our conscious awareness is the means to allow us freedom to choose how, when and where to react.  It is part of God's miraculous gift of life which we all enjoy, even though we take it so much for granted.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

When certain brain activity shuts down, responses to sensory data will not be activated.  Your problem is in assuming that conscious perception is somehow achieved by material reactions alone.  It is instinctive, programmed behaviour which can be achieved by material reactions.  Conscious perception in itself does not require or induce reaction.  It involves awareness of data - not reaction to it.  Our conscious awareness is the means to allow us freedom to choose how, when and where to react.  It is part of God's miraculous gift of life which we all enjoy, even though we take it so much for granted.

Scientifically illiterate bollocks rounded off with incoherent theobabble.

[SusanDoris]

AB,

Scientifically illiterate bollocks rounded off with incoherent theobabble.

Well put! How he can bear to see all this stuff written in public view on this forum and all totally lacking in any objective evidence is very wince-inducing.

[Alan Burns]

Well put! How he can bear to see all this stuff written in public view on this forum and all totally lacking in any objective evidence is very wince-inducing.

The objective evidence is evident in every post you consciously choose to write.

[Nearly Sane]

The objective evidence is evident in every post you consciously choose to write.

Assertion. A misunderstanding of objective. An empty use of a term 'consciously'. And all based on an illogical premise. Shite cubed 

[Alan Burns]

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/

The article you cite would appear to be written by a very intelligent alien investigating the biological functionality of human beings, and coming up with the conclusion that :

contrary to one's intuitive understanding, consciousness does not have an active, executive role in determining behaviour

Nowhere does the author acknowledge that he himself is a human being subject to the constraints implied by his own conclusions and apparently fails to comprehend how he can possibly come up with such an in depth analysis when he himself does not have an active, executive role in determining his own behaviour.

[Stranger]

The objective evidence is evident in every post you consciously choose to write.

Yet again: since nobody disputes our ability to compose posts on this forum, claiming it as evidence of your own, impossible, contradictory 'explanation' of it is either mind-numbingly stupid, shows in incredible lack of understanding of what evidence is, or is stunningly dishonest.

[SusanDoris]

Yet again: since nobody disputes our ability to compose posts on this forum, claiming it as evidence of your own, impossible, contradictory 'explanation' of it is either mind-numbingly stupid, shows in incredible lack of understanding of what evidence is, or is stunningly dishonest.

I find the adjective 'smug', combined with 'mind-numbingly',  springing to mind too!