Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

To claim that consciousness is irrelevant to any logical analysis is truly bizarre!

And have you forgotten already that it's just been shown that you don't understand what a "logical analysis" even entails? How you can just go back to you absurd and discredited script after it's been shown that your claims of using logic are nothing but an empty sham, is quite beyond me...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

And none of this comes close to explaining how you can possibly conduct any meaningful logical analysis if all your choices are predetermined before they enter your conscious awareness.  The short sighted logic put forward removes "you" from the equation.

Why have you just ignored everything that’s just been explained to you? You’ve been told very clearly that logically sound and unsound arguments are codified and are justified by practical experience. When you aren’t resting just on unqualified assertions and you do attempt an argument to justify them you always – and I mean always – collapse into arguments that are demonstrably therefore unsound. False. Wrong. Mistaken. 

But instead of dealing with problem, you just resort straight back into fallacy – the argument from personal incredulity (“I can’t imagine how X works, therefore Y must be the answer”). Explaining to you your inability to construct logically sound arguments to justify your beliefs does not explain how something else works because it makes no claim to doing so – that’s just your attempt at a diversion from your problem. And if you think logic being “man-made”, being limited by having “dictionary definitions” etc is problematic then give up with it. Stop always getting it wrong as if in some mysterious way logically false arguments become logically sound ones when they lead to a faith belief you prefer and finally do the honest thing and tell us (ideally in the faith sharing area) that you have some faith beliefs that you have no coherent way of justifying.

No-one would think less of you for doing that, and for what it’s worth you might even salvage something at least of your reputation here for relentless dishonesty. Of course your problem with unqualified faith claims about your god, souls, satan etc is that they are precisely as credible as my unqualified faith claims about leprechauns, but as that was always the case anyway there’s no net loss from you suddenly discovering honesty as a way to behave.

NB, if your reply begins “But” then we’ll know the rest can safely be ignored as yet another avoidance of the problems you’ve given yourself.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Luke 10:21 :
“I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children."

There is more to life than your highly theoretical view of logic can ever reveal.

Alan this really is outrageous behaviour. You are the one who claims to know about logic and that you can use it to justify your position. You should either post this logic as you have been invited to or drop your claims to have such a thing.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Why have you just ignored everything that’s just been explained to you?

I have not ignored it.
I have shown the limitations of such explanations.
I have pointed out that our freedom to consciously control and direct our thought processes is essential to reach any meaningful conclusions or conduct a sound logical analysis.  You seem to put this view down to my personal incredulity, but it is truly a logical impossibility to perform logical analysis and draw meaningful conclusions without such conscious freedom.

[Outrider]

I have not ignored it.

It certainly seems that way.

I have pointed out that our freedom to consciously control and direct our thought processes is essential to reach any meaningful conclusions or conduct a sound logical analysis.

No, you've claimed that but you've not shown why sound logic requires some degree of freedom - of all modes of thought, logic is the one that definitively doesn't need any freedom from constraint, that's the point of logic. Logic works because, when applied correctly, it flows irrefutably and inevitably from premise to conclusion, it doesn't need to be in any way free of any constraints.

You seem to put this view down to my personal incredulity, but it is truly a logical impossibility to perform logical analysis and draw meaningful conclusions without such conscious freedom.

If it's a logical implausibility, then show us the logical flow, show us how the premise 'Thought is entirely deterministic' ends in the consequence that we cannot perform logical analysis and draw meaningful conclusions.

O.

[Alan Burns]

You're as bad as Boris the Liar, aren't you? This is more misrepresentation. Choices are not predetermined, they are determined by the process of thinking about them and coming to a conclusion. Either that process is operating as a deterministic system or not, and if not, it necessarily involves randomness.

Once more I have to point out that I have never disputed the fact that choices are determined.
You claim they are determined as an inevitable consequence to past events.
I claim they are determined by a conscious act of human will operating within the conscious awareness of your present state of mind.  The deterministic system you keep referring to allows no freedom to control or direct our own thought processes, yet we all experience the conscious process of thinking about things.  I fully agree that when you try to analyse things logically, our apparent freedom becomes a logical impossibility. 

So we have two possibilities:
1) Our apparent freedom is an illusion and everything is just a consequential, unavoidable reaction to past events.

2) Or our freedom is a reality derived from the miraculous power of the human soul to consciously interact with this material world.

[Stranger]

I have not ignored it.

You most certainly have - is there no end to your dishonesty?

I have shown the limitations of such explanations.

You have shown nothing of the sort.

I have pointed out that our freedom to consciously control and direct our thought processes is essential to reach any meaningful conclusions or conduct a sound logical analysis.

You've just asserted it - and even that baseless assertion ignores the actual argument against you and contains nothing but vacuous waffle.

You seem to put this view down to my personal incredulity, but it is truly a logical impossibility to perform logical analysis and draw meaningful conclusions without such conscious freedom.

More baseless assertion. You have provided no logic and it's been shown that you don't even understand what logic is.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I have not ignored it.

Yes you have. I told you where and why you go wrong with logic, and instead of dealing with that you asked whether that explanation could address a different matter entirely. No, explaining why you get everything wrong when you attempt an argument no more explains consciousness than the plans for my house explain the intricacies of Morris dancing.

So why not actually – and finally – address your problem with constructing a logically sound argument?   

I have shown the limitations of such explanations.

No you haven’t. If you think that explanations of how logic works have limitations, then don’t attempt fallacious versions of it to justify your claims. 

I have pointed out that our freedom to consciously control and direct our thought processes is essential to reach any meaningful conclusions or conduct a sound logical analysis.

No, you’ve asserted it – not “pointed it out” at all. Moreover, that’s a different discussion entirely to whether or not your attempts at using logic always collapse into fallacy. Why not deal with the problem we were actually discussing rather than divert to the conversation you would prefer to have?     

You seem to put this view down to my personal incredulity…

More dishonesty. Your personal incredulity as a logically false argument occurs when you try the construction, “I can’t imagine how X works, therefore Y must be the explanation” (when Y incidentally lacks any supporting logic or information at all). 

…but it is truly a logical impossibility to perform logical analysis and draw meaningful conclusions without such conscious freedom.

Using the prefix “truly” is not an argument, it’s just an assertion. You’ve had explained to you countless times why your use of “freedom” is logically impossible, yet you return to it as a dog returns to its vomit over and over again without ever addressing the problem of logically impossibility. Why such dishonesty?

[Alan Burns]

If it's a logical implausibility, then show us the logical flow, show us how the premise 'Thought is entirely deterministic' ends in the consequence that we cannot perform logical analysis and draw meaningful conclusions.

O.

The question revolves around what determines a thought process.
Stanger has implied that conscious awareness is irrelevant to logic, but what is logic outside conscious awareness?  Can the concept of logic exist outside the human mind?  What is it that drives a logical analysis?  What is it that comes to a conclusion?

The fact is that the processes going on in the human mind defy any attempt to quantify them or analyse their origins. I cannot explain it using scientific terms or logical analysis.  I can only witness to what it does and the freedom it gives us to interact with this world and to contemplate the reality of our own existence.  Such freedom and ability to contemplate things indicate that there is more to human life than what can be achieved from predetermined reactions in a material brain.

[Stranger]

Once more I have to point out that I have never disputed the fact that choices are determined.

Do stop with the stupid and dishonest word games.

You claim they are determined as an inevitable consequence to past events.
I claim they are determined by a conscious act of human will...

Why can't it be both?

...operating within the conscious awareness of your present state of mind.

This is still meaningless gibberish.

The deterministic system you keep referring to allows no freedom to control or direct our own thought processes...

Drivel.

...yet we all experience the conscious process of thinking about things.

Something nobody is denying.

I fully agree that when you try to analyse things logically, our apparent freedom becomes a logical impossibility. 

It doesn't actually - this is just more misrepresentation. You really are so arrogant that you pay no attention whatsoever to what people are actually saying, do you?

So we have two possibilities:
1) Our apparent freedom is an illusion and everything is just a consequential, unavoidable reaction to past events.

For about the ten-millionth time: the freedom we experience is simply being unconstrained by external forces. There is nothing at all about it that is incompatible with our minds being deterministic systems.

2) Or our freedom is a reality derived from the miraculous power of the human soul to consciously interact with this material world.

You have given no logical reason whatsoever to take this fantasy of yours seriously.

[Alan Burns]

Using the prefix “truly” is not an argument, it’s just an assertion. You’ve had explained to you countless times why your use of “freedom” is logically impossible, yet you return to it as a dog returns to its vomit over and over again without ever addressing the problem of logically impossibility. Why such dishonesty?

Whether or not you agree with my views is irrelevant to the fact that I have freedom to express them, which demonstrates that such freedom can't be a logical impossibility.

[Stranger]

The question revolves around what determines a thought process.
Stanger has implied that conscious awareness is irrelevant to logic, but what is logic outside conscious awareness?  Can the concept of logic exist outside the human mind?  What is it that drives a logical analysis?  What is it that comes to a conclusion?

The human mind.

What I have argued is that the exact role of the conscious or subconscious processes make no difference to the logic of choice-making being either entirely deterministic (no, what you are proposing is not deterministic - please stop the idiotic word games) or involves randomness.

The fact is that the processes going on in the human mind defy any attempt to quantify them or analyse their origins. I cannot explain it using scientific terms or logical analysis.  I can only witness to what it does and the freedom it gives us to interact with this world and to contemplate the reality of our own existence.  Such freedom and ability to contemplate things indicate that there is more to human life than what can be achieved from predetermined reactions in a material brain.

Baseless waffle.

[Stranger]

Whether or not you agree with my views is irrelevant to the fact that I have freedom to express them, which demonstrates that such freedom can't be a logical impossibility.

I thought your god didn't like people bearing false witness. Nobody has said that our ability to express our views is logically impossible - to imply that they have is a barefaced lie.

It is your contradictory and utterly baseless assertions about how said ability works that are logically impossible.

[Outrider]

The question revolves around what determines a thought process. Stanger has implied that conscious awareness is irrelevant to logic, but what is logic outside conscious awareness?

Logic is a systemic dynamic from premise to conclusion in irrefutable and inevitable steps - it's a form of processing that computers, which are generally considered not to be conscious, can conduct.  Therefore I wouldn't say that - and I'm not sure that Stranger intended it to be interpreted as, but I'll let him confirm for himself - that conscious awareness is irrelevant to logic inasmuch as it's not an intrinsic requirement.

Can the concept of logic exist outside the human mind?

That's a slightly different question to 'can logic exist outside the human mind' I'd say that logic certainly can, in theory the concept of logic could, but you'd need another conscious species (alien, perhaps).

What is it that drives a logical analysis?

Rules.

What is it that comes to a conclusion?

The processor.

The fact is that the processes going on in the human mind defy any attempt to quantify them or analyse their origins.

No, although our current understanding of them is limited, they are not intrinsically or inevitably mysterious.

I cannot explain it using scientific terms or logical analysis.

If you can't show a logical flow then you can't claim that 'logically' you have a conclusion.  There are other mechanisms to arrive at a conclusion, but you've not established that one.

I can only witness to what it does and the freedom it gives us to interact with this world and to contemplate the reality of our own existence.

Which are neither evidence for or against the possibilities.

Such freedom and ability to contemplate things indicate that there is more to human life than what can be achieved from predetermined reactions in a material brain.

Or that your conception of what materialism is capable of underestimates reality.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

So we have two possibilities:

1)   Our apparent freedom is an illusion and everything is just a consequential, unavoidable reaction to past events.

2) Or our freedom is a reality derived from the miraculous power of the human soul to consciously interact with this material world.

Wrong again. What we actually have is:

1. Reason and evidence-based deductions about what consciousness is and how it works; or

2. Anything else that pops into anyone’s head.

You cannot just set up a deterministic model vs (your choice of a) “god” etc as if they were competing and binary options. Once you reject option 1., anything goes – that’s what “miraculous” implies because my leprechauns operating “miraculously” are epistemically the same as your souls operating "miraculously". To assert otherwise is to ascribe special privileges to your faith beliefs that – so far at least – you’ve never managed to justify with an argument that isn’t flat wrong.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Wrong again. What we actually have is:

1. Reason and evidence-based deductions about what consciousness is and how it works; or

2. Anything else that pops into anyone’s head.

You cannot just set up a deterministic model vs (your choice of a) “god” etc as if they were competing and binary options. Once you reject option 1., anything goes – that’s what “miraculous” implies because my leprechauns operating “miraculously” are epistemically the same as your souls operating "miraculously". To assert otherwise is to ascribe special privileges to your faith beliefs that – so far at least – you’ve never managed to justify with an argument that isn’t flat wrong.

What I quoted were two deterministic models.
One being determined by nothing but the uncontrollable physical chain reactions of material elements, the other determined by a power which consciously interacts with, rather than reacts to this material world.
The latter reflects the reality we all perceive - the former does not.

[Alan Burns]

Logic is a systemic dynamic from premise to conclusion in irrefutable and inevitable steps - it's a form of processing that computers, which are generally considered not to be conscious, can conduct.  Therefore I wouldn't say that - and I'm not sure that Stranger intended it to be interpreted as, but I'll let him confirm for himself - that conscious awareness is irrelevant to logic inasmuch as it's not an intrinsic requirement.

Computer processing is simply an extension of mankind's ability to consciously process and manipulate information to achieve specific goals.  All computer programs have an essential requirement from the consciously driven will of a human programmer.  They are not conscious in their own right, but they all owe their existence and power to the workings of human free will.  They are a reflection of their creator, as I believe human life is a reflection of God's power and creativity and free will.

[Gordon]

What I quoted were two deterministic models.
One being determined by nothing but the uncontrollable physical chain reactions of material elements, the other determined by a power which consciously interacts with, rather than reacts to this material world.
The latter reflects the reality we all perceive - the former does not.

For crying out loud, Alan: stop now, both your 'models' are fallacious nonsense.

[Alan Burns]

For crying out loud, Alan: stop now, both your 'models' are fallacious nonsense.

That is your (biased) opinion.  I can see no fallacy in what I posted.

[ippy]

Luke 10:21 :
“I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children."

This is just another example of the not so unusual underhanded side of religions, all this is, is just one more reminder for the Catholics in this case, to grab as many vulnerable young children as possible because  they know they're the most likely to fall victim to and become the next lot of fully indoctrinated recruits for the club, a religious club in this case.

I suspect this method of recruitment more than likely parallels the way you were indoctrinated into their club and that's also more than likely the reason you're you're either completely unable or refuse to answer questions, the sorts of questions the ones where you know if you answer they will completely undo that indoctrinational Catholic knot you've managed to get yourself trapped in.

Commiserations Alan, ippy.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

What I quoted were two deterministic models.
One being determined by nothing but the uncontrollable physical chain reactions of material elements, the other determined by a power which consciously interacts with, rather than reacts to this material world.

Wrong again. If you want to introduce “miraculous” as a meaningful constituent of your model then you need to show how that would work deterministically. You’re back to the cartoon with “miracle happens here” in the middle of the formula.

Just now you’re akin to someone saying, “babies can only come from one of two sources:

1.   Pregnant women; or

2.   Storks”

Once you reject the pregnant women option, anything goes – not just storks.   

The latter reflects the reality we all perceive - the former does not.

The latter portrays a (not “the”) reality that we all perceive, just as keys touching the keyboard portrays a reality we all perceive. Fortunately though we now have the reasoning and tools available to realise that, in both cases, there are more robust explanations for what’s actually happening.

[Alan Burns]

I thought your god didn't like people bearing false witness. Nobody has said that our ability to express our views is logically impossible - to imply that they have is a barefaced lie.

It is your contradictory and utterly baseless assertions about how said ability works that are logically impossible.

But the point is that I have the freedom to choose to express my views.  It is not impossible - because I do it.
I am not bearing false witness.  I am witnessing to the truth of our God given freedom.

[Stranger]

What I quoted were two deterministic models.

For fuck's sake Alan, will you stop your idiotic pretence that deterministic just means "determined by...". You've been corrected endless times (for example, #32591 and #32601) and it's just blatantly dishonest to continue.

deterministic systems - "...a deterministic system is a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system. A deterministic model will thus always produce the same output from a given starting condition or initial state."

deterministic - "Relating to the philosophical doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will."

Wiki redirects deterministic to Determinism - "Determinism is the philosophical theory that all events, including moral choices, are determined completely by previously existing causes."

One being determined by nothing but the uncontrollable physical chain reactions of material elements, the other determined by a power which consciously interacts with, rather than reacts to this material world.
The latter reflects the reality we all perceive - the former does not.

Your contradictory assertions about the latter make it self-contradictory nonsense that cannot possibly be perceived by anybody any more than we could see a square circle. It really is mind-numbingly stupid of you to just go on asserting that what we experience is the same as your nonsense assertions about choice - it simply isn't.

Given that I assume you want to persuade people to your point of view, I fail to see why you think totally ignoring what they say and just robotically repeating what has been previously exposed as both dishonest and flawed, is going to help at all. You're just making yourself and your faith look arrogant and stupid.

[Gordon]

That is your (biased) opinion.  I can see no fallacy in what I posted.

Then you need to spend time learning about fallacies, and perhaps then you'd learn to avoid falling into them face-first.

As is often the case your posts manage to roll fallacies together - so we get arguments from ignorance that stray into consequences, and are usually expressed with much hyperbole and equivocation, and then you constantly beg the question: and, of course, all this is wrapped up in your trademark personal incredulity.

[torridon]

Whether or not you agree with my views is irrelevant to the fact that I have freedom to express them, which demonstrates that such freedom can't be a logical impossibility.

The only valid freedom in that sentiment is your freedom from coercion.  The claim that a choice (eg as in how to express yours views) cannot be free of the principle of cause and effect without being random is a logical impossibility.