Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

If this is the case, please explain how your brain is coming up with value judgements on the posts I make?

Intellectual review: we have biology that supports that sort of mental process, where our personal traits (including those we may not be conscious of) may play a part.

Can such value judgements be accomplished by sub conscious brain activity devoid of consciously controlled interaction?

Yep - I have several intrinsic food fads (or phobias, if you will) that have nothing to do with conscious deliberation (I believe I have often mentioned mayonnaise in this regard). 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

If this is the case, please explain how your brain is coming up with value judgements on the posts I make?
Can such value judgements be accomplished by sub conscious brain activity devoid of consciously controlled interaction?

As you cannot or will not provide cogent logic to justify your beliefs, I’m trying now different ways to explain the very simple arguments to you – albeit with no success so far. I see for example that you just ignored the question about how you think “free” will as a determinative process would feel any different as an experience from your version of it. Why have you just ignored that too?

Oh well, you do you I guess. As for your latest diversionary question, there are in principle three ways to answer that:

1. A complete scientific model, every available t crossed and i dotted etc; or

2. A partial model in which significant inroads have been made into building the foundations of understanding, but there’s still a long way to go to complete the picture; or

3. Absolutely no idea.

(It’s actually answer 2 by the way, but that’s not relevant). Now then, in response TO ANY OF THESE ANSWERS what should you infer? Should it be:

1. That you therefore have grounds to dismiss a materialistic explanation? or

2. That any of these answers in any possible way validates your supernatural claims? or

3. Neither of the above?

The correct answer here is 3 REGARDLESS OF WHICH ANSWER YOU RECEIVE.

Can you work out why?

[Stranger]

If this is the case, please explain how your brain is coming up with value judgements on the posts I make?
Can such value judgements be accomplished by sub conscious brain activity devoid of consciously controlled interaction?

It simply doesn't matter if it's a total mystery because the role of consciousness is irrelevant to either the contradiction inherent in the idea that we could have done differently in exactly the same circumstances (so for no possible reason) without randomness, or to your total failure to answer the question as to why that nonsensical ability would be required to reason, come to conclusions, and write posts.

Utterly irrelevant.

Where is your "sound logic"? That means a set of acceptable premises and a valid argument.

If you can't provide anything that is even in the form of a sound argument, why won't you just admit it?

[Outrider]

The idea that you could not have made any other choices during the process of arriving at a logical conclusion renders any logical conclusion to be an unavoidable reaction, without any means of consciously driven validation.

Yes.  That in no way makes the conclusion any less valid.

Can you not see the problem with verifying the credibility of any such conclusion?  You would need to show that each unavoidable step in the process of arriving at any logical conclusion was somehow infallible.

That's how logic works.  If the conclusion at each stage is not an inevitable consequence of whatever premises are in place at that stage, the logic is not sound - that's both the strength and the limitation of pure logic.

O.

[Alan Burns]

It simply doesn't matter if it's a total mystery because the role of consciousness is irrelevant to either the contradiction inherent in the idea that we could have done differently in exactly the same circumstances (so for no possible reason) without randomness, or to your total failure to answer the question as to why that nonsensical ability would be required to reason, come to conclusions, and write posts.

You seem to be stuck in the groove of not being able to envisage the freedom we all enjoy.  A freedom which does not tie us to past events, but frees us to choose our own path in life.  I fully agree that in a materialistic scenario, the same circumstances would produce the same result, but to extrapolate this limitation and to apply it to the working of the human mind fails to fit in with reality, because human achievements and potential capabilities far exceed anything which can be generated from past events alone. 

[torridon]

You seem to be stuck in the groove of not being able to envisage the freedom we all enjoy.  A freedom which does not tie us to past events, but frees us to choose our own path in life.  I fully agree that in a materialistic scenario, the same circumstances would produce the same result, but to extrapolate this limitation and to apply it to the working of the human mind fails to fit in with reality, because human achievements and potential capabilities far exceed anything which can be generated from past events alone.

You contradict yourself yet again in the above, to wit, 'I fully agree that in a materialistic scenario, the same circumstances would produce the same result', shortly followed by 'fails to fit in with reality, because ...'.  If you can see that a rational understanding produces the same outcome as your contradictory irrational claims then what reason is there to endorse your position ?

That point aside, I think maybe what you are struggling to express is about creativity, rather than freedom.  Creationists like to claim that evolution is impossible because new species requires 'new information'. Maybe you make a similar mistake, imagining that human creativity implies freedom from the past in a way that would be impossible for other species.  Beethoven radically overturned the formats of classical composition that preceded him; so we might colloquially say he was 'free to choose his own path in life'. Einstein radically overturned Newton's view of space and time.  Do these advances represent 'new information' requiring some supernatural disconnect from the past that is not enjoyed by rabbits or robins or penguins ?  I think such instances of creativity can be accommodated with a deterministic account of nature quite happily without recourse to supernatural claims.

[Gordon]

You seem to be stuck in the groove of not being able to envisage the freedom we all enjoy.  A freedom which does not tie us to past events, but frees us to choose our own path in life.  I fully agree that in a materialistic scenario, the same circumstances would produce the same result, but to extrapolate this limitation and to apply it to the working of the human mind fails to fit in with reality, because human achievements and potential capabilities far exceed anything which can be generated from past events alone.

Cartesian dualism lives in you, Alan: and that you imagine the human mind cannot be just a part of a "materialistic scenario", such as our biology, is just an attempt to create a handy gap for this 'God' of yours to inhabit, since you are clearly dependent on the notion that 'God' must be a part of any explanation of human capabilities - yet you can't explain how we can verify your claim.

So you end up claiming that "reality" must involve some kind of supernatural agency about which you can say nothing meaningful - that doesn't sound very 'real' to me, but it does sound like the thoughts of someone whose personal incredulity overwhelms their thinking: you're leading yourself up your very own carefully constructed garden path, Alan.     

[Stranger]

So, Alan, you have no answers, so it's Back to the childish foot-stamping. 

You seem to be stuck in the groove of not being able to envisage the freedom we all enjoy.

Me stuck in a groove? Says the guy who endless and mindlessly repeats his logic- and reasoning-free script that has been torn to shreds countless times and never properly engages with counterarguments or properly answers questions.

Matthew 7:5

Here comes the script again...

A freedom which does not tie us to past events, but frees us to choose our own path in life.

Logically, to the extent we are "free" from the past, we can only act randomly - that's what being free from the past means.

I fully agree that in a materialistic scenario, the same circumstances would produce the same result...

The argument against you is logical and has nothing to do with the "materialistic scenario" - please stop the blatant misrepresentation.

Exodus 20:16

What's more, if you could resolve the logical problem, you could no longer claim that it couldn't be physical because we don't know everything about the physical world. Your "argument" collapses in every single way.

...but to extrapolate this limitation and to apply it to the working of the human mind fails to fit in with reality, because human achievements and potential capabilities far exceed anything which can be generated from past events alone. 

Baseless assertion. In what way do "human achievements" require the ability to have done differently with no randomness?

You can't assert reality into conforming to your fantasies - doubly so when you previously claimed to have logic. Stamping your little foot and just insisting over and over again that our experience or human history is evidence for you illogical nonsense, will not actually make it so - and it most certainly is not "sound logic".

Since you still haven't answered the questions I've asked, let's try again.

Can you or can you not resolve the purely logical contradiction that if we could have done differently in exactly the same circumstances then there can be no possible reason why, so it must be random?

Can you or can you not answer the question about your claims of evidence in what people post: in what way does anything that anybody posts indicate that they could have done differently without randomness? If you can't answer, will you stop making the claim.

You claimed you had sound logic. Where is it? Were you lying? Did you not understand the implication?

If you can't produce any logic, and you are basically an honest person, why won't you just admit it?

[Outrider]

You seem to be stuck in the groove of not being able to envisage the freedom we all enjoy.

If the available evidence doesn't change, why would the conclusion from that evidence change?

A freedom which does not tie us to past events, but frees us to choose our own path in life.  I fully agree that in a materialistic scenario, the same circumstances would produce the same result, but to extrapolate this limitation and to apply it to the working of the human mind fails to fit in with reality, because human achievements and potential capabilities far exceed anything which can be generated from past events alone.

So you've asserted once more, but you've demonstrated why you think this is so.  Obviously there are a number of us who, currently, consider it perfectly possible for the immense complexity of the human brain to come up with the range of human achievements and potentials, so if you want that to change you need to justify your contention.  Your implication here is that it is dependent upon acceptance of some 'non-material' component to human consciousness - fine, you can posit that as an idea, but you need to support it with evidence or it has exactly as much weight as the idea that we are driven by little demonic haemonculi.

O.

O.

[Sriram]

Actually, when a person dies, the brain is relegated to being a mere piece of rotting flesh, like other parts. Nothing to suggest that the brain by itself or the whole body, is capable of anything at all.

Quite obviously there is something in a person when he is alive, that makes use of the brain in such a way that such remarkable achievements are possible.

Its not the brain but the life force or the living element within the body that makes all human capability possible.

[Stranger]

Actually, when a person dies, the brain is relegated to being a mere piece of rotting flesh, like other parts. Nothing to suggest that the brain by itself or the whole body, is capable of anything at all.

Yeah, my kettle died recently and there was nothing to suggest the lump of metal and plastic was capable of boiling water by itself at all.

Quite obviously there is something in a person when he is alive, that makes use of the brain in such a way that such remarkable achievements are possible.

There must have been something in my kettle too, that made use of the metal and plastic in such a way as to boil water.

Its not the brain but the life force or the living element within the body that makes all human capability possible.

It's not the kettle but the boiling water force within it...

"It's obvious, innit?" really, really isn't very convincing when placed against evidence and logic.

Vitalism is long dead!

[Outrider]

Actually, when a person dies, the brain is relegated to being a mere piece of rotting flesh, like other parts. Nothing to suggest that the brain by itself or the whole body, is capable of anything at all.

Quite obviously there is something in a person when he is alive, that makes use of the brain in such a way that such remarkable achievements are possible.

Its not the brain but the life force or the living element within the body that makes all human capability possible.

Or, perhaps, it's the pattern of neuroelectrical activity within that brain, and thus when that brain becomes rotting flesh and neuroelectrical activity that makes us what we are stops, we die - no 'life force' or 'living element'.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Actually, when a person dies, the brain is relegated to being a mere piece of rotting flesh, like other parts. Nothing to suggest that the brain by itself or the whole body, is capable of anything at all.

Not when it’s dead, no.

Quite obviously there is something in a person when he is alive, that makes use of the brain in such a way that such remarkable achievements are possible.

No, that’s AB’s basic mistake. There’s not something that “makes use of the brain” – “you” ARE your brain.   

Its not the brain but the life force or the living element within the body that makes all human capability possible.

Ooh, “life force” eh? Well, just as soon as you can identify it, find some means of investigating it and of reliably testing your findings I suggest you publish the details in the peer-reviewed journals. The Lancet might be a good place to start. Your Nobel prize for medicine will be assured I’d have thought, and just think – you alone will have been responsible for a whole new and fascinating branch of medicine. There will be colleges named after you training up armies of lifeforceologists! Fantastic!

[Alan Burns]

If the available evidence doesn't change, why would the conclusion from that evidence change?

The available evidence is me.
I am not controlled by the past.
The past is gone, finished.
Could I have made this statement if I was controlled by the past?
The answer has to be a big resounding NO.
The cause is determined by my own conscious will, I am not an effect. I am the definitive cause.

(And yes, this is obviously an assertion.  An assertion made by my own conscious will)

[bluehillside Retd.]

The available evidence is me.

That’s not “evidence” for something, it’s just a statement that something exists.
 

I am not controlled by the past.

“Your” decisions are in the past.
 

The past is gone, finished.

Just as the cue hitting the white ball is “gone, finished”. The black ball still lands in the pocket thought.

Could I have made this statement if I was controlled by the past?

You're not “controlled” by the past, in a real sense you ARE the past.

The answer has to be a big resounding NO.

Only if you don’t understand the question.

The cause is determined by my own conscious will, I am not an effect. I am the definitive cause.

As that’s logically impossible without randomness, clearly not

(And yes, this is obviously an assertion.

And so epistemically worthless.

An assertion made by my own conscious will)

See above.

Any news by the way on what you’d infer from the potential answers to your last question, or do you intend to run away from that too?

[ippy]

Yeah, my kettle died recently and there was nothing to suggest the lump of metal and plastic was capable of boiling water by itself at all.

There must have been something in my kettle too, that made use of the metal and plastic in such a way as to boil water.

It's not the kettle but the boiling water force within it...

"It's obvious, innit?" really, really isn't very convincing when placed against evidence and logic.

Vitalism is long dead!

I'm having some trouble with my car N T S,____________________?

Regards, ippy?

[torridon]

The available evidence is me.
I am not controlled by the past.
The past is gone, finished.
Could I have made this statement if I was controlled by the past?
The answer has to be a big resounding NO.
The cause is determined by my own conscious will, I am not an effect. I am the definitive cause.

(And yes, this is obviously an assertion.  An assertion made by my own conscious will)

You are not controlled by the past, but you are, like everything, an outcome of the past.  A disconnection would imply randomness, and you keep on insisting your choices are not random.  Go figure.

[Sriram]

Or, perhaps, it's the pattern of neuroelectrical activity within that brain, and thus when that brain becomes rotting flesh and neuroelectrical activity that makes us what we are stops, we die - no 'life force' or 'living element'.

O.

But that is just a contention.  It is like saying that a car is 'alive' because of its mechanical and electrical parts. Those are just the mechanisms. In reality, it is the human behind the wheel (or behind its GPS and software) who makes the car 'alive'.

We have no examples of anything 'coming alive' without intelligent intervention.  Giving the example of living organisms makes the argument circular.

The point is that, there is a valid argument for the presence of some elemental life force or entity that activates the body and mind. Merely highlighting the mechanisms as the source of life is insufficient. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

But that is just a contention.  It is like saying that a car is 'alive' because of its mechanical and electrical parts. Those are just the mechanisms. In reality, it is the human behind the wheel (or behind its GPS and software) who makes the car 'alive'.

No it isn’t. It’s actually like saying that life is entirely consistent with what we know about emergent properties.

We have no examples of anything 'coming alive' without intelligent intervention.

Yes we have – everything that’s alive.

Giving the example of living organisms makes the argument circular.

That’s not what circular reasoning means.

The point is that, there is a valid argument for the presence of some elemental life force or entity that activates the body and mind.

Is that so? In that case, tell us what that argument is. Please try to remember that “argument” and “assertion” are not synonyms.

Merely highlighting the mechanisms as the source of life is insufficient.

Why?

[Stranger]

The available evidence is me.

How you feel about things (which is all you've offered), is not necessarily how they are, and how they are cannot possibly be logically impossible, no matter how much you feel they must be and no matter how much blind faith you've invested in them being like that.

I am not controlled by the past.

No, you are what the past has made you. Unless everything that you are came from the past, it must logically be, to that extent, random.

Could I have made this statement if I was controlled by the past?
The answer has to be a big resounding NO.

You definitely could have if you are the result of the past. If you think not, then you need to actually answer the question: in what way does anything that anybody posts indicate that they could have done differently without randomness?

Otherwise, you're just foot-stamping again.

The cause is determined by my own conscious will, I am not an effect. I am the definitive cause.

More foot-stamping. You cannot logically be a pure cause, without being an effect, unless you are random.

And yes, this is obviously an assertion.

One that you keep making but can provide not the slightest hint of evidence or reasoning to support. This despite the grandiose, and apparently completely untrue, claims of "logical analysis" and "sound logic".

An assertion made by my own conscious will

Possibly. Yet again, for the hard-of-thinking: there is no contradiction between not being able to have done differently and being what you consciously will.

And you are still running away from answering the questions:

Can you or can you not resolve the purely logical contradiction that if we could have done differently in exactly the same circumstances then there can be no possible reason why, so it must be random?

You claimed you had sound logic. Where is it? Were you lying? Did you not understand the implication?

If you can't produce any logic, and you are basically an honest person, why won't you just admit it?

[Stranger]

The point is that, there is a valid argument for the presence of some elemental life force or entity that activates the body and mind.

A valid argument eh? Where is it? And why has science long since abandoned the idea?

[Outrider]

But that is just a contention.  It is like saying that a car is 'alive' because of its mechanical and electrical parts. Those are just the mechanisms. In reality, it is the human behind the wheel (or behind its GPS and software) who makes the car 'alive'.

No, cars are never alive.  What, exactly, constitutes 'life' is a question I've never seen a definitive answer on; there are common characteristics, but given the fine distinctions in chemistry, biology and just existence in general whenever you come up with a firm definition you're fairly quickly going to hit a borderline case.  We are not a body, we are the pattern of information occuring in the brain within that body - break the body, and the pattern remains, we remain, but if you disrupt the pattern you fundamentally change, break or even stop the person.

We have no examples of anything 'coming alive' without intelligent intervention.

We have no examples of anything 'coming alive' at all - we have things that are alive, and we have things that aren't, and we have things that might be depending on how you phrase your definition.

The point is that, there is a valid argument for the presence of some elemental life force or entity that activates the body and mind.

Not that I've seen here, or indeed anywhere else.

Merely highlighting the mechanisms as the source of life is insufficient.

For whom?

O.

[Outrider]

The available evidence is me. I am not controlled by the past.

You spontaneously generated an understanding of English?  You developed motor skills instantly, with no recourse to recursive trial and error.  Everything you are, everything you do, is the accumulated effect of a lifetime of experiences on whatever intrinsic possibilities were inherent in your nascent brain structure.  You are the inevitable result of that body being born into that place at that time, and undergoing that life of experiences to be here denying that reality in the face of the self-evident nature of an examined reality.

The past is gone, finished.

Depends on your conception of space-time - it seems more likely that it's still there, we just can't reach it.

Could I have made this statement if I was controlled by the past?

Could you have made any other?

The answer has to be a big resounding NO.

Well, you would say that, wouldn't you?

The cause is determined by my own conscious will, I am not an effect. I am the definitive cause.

So are you suggesting that when you repeatedly make these assertions with any validating evidence of explanatory mechanisms that it's entirely your choice, and not that you can't do anything else?  If so, do everyone a favour and choose to do something different.  Choose to give us the logical basis for your theory - not your questionable logic for why my framework can't be right, but the underlying logic for yours.  Choose to explain how you reconcile the fundamentally incompatible nature of freedom and will with your unfathomable 'third path'.

(And yes, this is obviously an assertion.  An assertion made by my own conscious will)

So if you know it's just an assertion, why a)are you incapable of accepting that it could be wrong, b) apparently ignoring the fact the evidence doesn't support it and c) not offering us something to support it?

O.

[Sriram]

No, cars are never alive.  What, exactly, constitutes 'life' is a question I've never seen a definitive answer on; there are common characteristics, but given the fine distinctions in chemistry, biology and just existence in general whenever you come up with a firm definition you're fairly quickly going to hit a borderline case.  We are not a body, we are the pattern of information occuring in the brain within that body - break the body, and the pattern remains, we remain, but if you disrupt the pattern you fundamentally change, break or even stop the person.


O.

Since we have no definitive answer on what constitutes Life, your contention that it is just a 'pattern of information' ...is merely an opinion. 

[Outrider]

Since we have no definitive answer on what constitutes Life, your contention that it is just a 'pattern of information' ...is merely an opinion.

I have apparently not been clear enough; we don't have a firm definition of life, regardless of whether it applies to us, amphibians, amoebae or other things.

We, humans, people, though, are not bodies, we are patterns of information; we generally consider ourselves to be alive, but whatever definition of life that ends up being has to fit that pattern of information definition of us, too.

O.