Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

No matter how much terminology and technical jargon you use to try to describe the emergence of conscious awareness from material reactions, the end result will always be another set of reactions with no real explanation for how they comprise conscious awareness.

Well we have made and are continuing to make substantive progress in understanding consciousness.  You are like those nay sayers who insisted men would never fly; that was back in the day before civil aviation. And what alternative is there to understanding ?  Your claims consist in magical thinking, definitionally lacking in any explanatory power.  To indulge magical thinking in preference to seeking understanding is strictly for those who value ignorance over knowledge.

[SusanDoris]

My own perception is that my thought processes go deeper than yours.
Have you stopped to think just where your freedom to think things out originates?
You seem to be obsessed with proclaiming the initial conclusions of your thought processes without considering how your ability to reach such conclusions can possibly take place within the scenario dictated by your initial conclusions.

Well, I've seen some arrogance over the past fifteen years on message boards, but I think that one probably counts as one of the most blatant.
Apart from the fact that it's more drivel of course.

[Stranger]

My own perception is that my thought processes go deeper than yours.

In that case:

• Why do you refuse to properly engage with the counterarguments?
  
  
• Why the endless repetition of the same things, in the same words, when they've been addressed endless times and you've just ignored the answers?
  
  
• Why can't you set out your case logically as you claimed you could?
  
  
• Why all the unsupported assertions?
  
  
• Why the endless fallacies?
  
  
• Why don't you seem to care that you are relying on these well known mistakes in reasoning?
  
  
• Why are there so many questions and points that you just ignore?
  
  
• Why the staggering double standard of criticising others for not having a complete explanation when you have given only nonsense and contradictory magic?
  
  
• Why the obvious distraction tactics and endless misrepresentation?

You edited out most of my post you were replying to. In it I said I couldn't see a single valid step in what seems to be your 'reasoning' and pointed out (not for the first time) some of the mistakes it looks like you've made. So why didn't you put me right, and point out that those weren't your arguments or why they weren't mistakes?

You seem to have a deliberate policy to never fully set out your argument as a series of steps that can be properly assessed. That doesn't suggest somebody who has thought deeply about a subject, but rather somebody who wants to avoid subjecting their ideas to proper scrutiny.

Have you stopped to think just where your freedom to think things out originates?

Even this is sloppy thinking (and/or expression), given your assertions about "freedom". Are you asking me have I thought about why I have an impossible contradictory version of freedom, or are you using the word in its normal sense?

You seem to be obsessed with proclaiming the initial conclusions of your thought processes without considering how your ability to reach such conclusions can possibly take place within the scenario dictated by your initial conclusions.

Which brings us right back to one of the questions that you never answer. What is it, exactly about human thoughts that require the ability to have done differently (without randomness)? There is nothing about my conclusion that tells me that I couldn't have reached it within a fully deterministic mind. If you see a contradiction, then, perhaps, after all this time, after so many times of asking, you can finally produce some logical reasoning? And, remember, this isn't a question about the role of consciousness, unless and until you've logically established a connection.

[Alan Burns]

Which brings us right back to one of the questions that you never answer. What is it, exactly about human thoughts that require the ability to have done differently (without randomness)? There is nothing about my conclusion that tells me that I couldn't have reached it within a fully deterministic mind. If you see a contradiction, then, perhaps, after all this time, after so many times of asking, you can finally produce some logical reasoning? And, remember, this isn't a question about the role of consciousness, unless and until you've logically established a connection.

Why can't you see the obvious flaw in your thinking?
If every event in your thinking process is entirely a consequence to past events, where is the essential freedom needed to manipulate your thought processes in order to reach valid conclusions?
Where is any concept of freedom when everything we do, say or think is entirely shackled to past events?
You claim it has nothing to do with the role of consciousness.
But your thoughts exist and act within consciousness - not in inevitable uncontrollable physical reactions.

[torridon]

Why can't you see the obvious flaw in your thinking?
If every event in your thinking process is entirely a consequence to past events, where is the essential freedom needed to manipulate your thought processes in order to reach valid conclusions?
..

Why can't you see the obvious flaw in your thinking?

You don't need 'freedom' to think, you need to have the desire to think.  Freedom is not causal, it is merely circumstantial, you are free to contemplate stuff so long as no one is stopping you.  We do things because we want to, not because we are free to.

[Alan Burns]

Why can't you see the obvious flaw in your thinking?

You don't need 'freedom' to think, you need to have the desire to think.  Freedom is not causal, it is merely circumstantial, you are free to contemplate stuff so long as no one is stopping you.  We do things because we want to, not because we are free to.

And what drives your thought processes?
If our thoughts are just inevitable reactions to past events, how can they ever reach a valid conclusion?
You can't even define a thought in material terms.
Neither can you define a desire or conscious want.
Thoughts exist in your conscious awareness - and so does the source of manipulation.

[Stranger]

Why can't you see the obvious flaw in your thinking?

Either because there isn't one or you're totally incapable of pointing it out.

If every event in your thinking process is entirely a consequence to past events, where is the essential freedom needed to manipulate your thought processes in order to reach valid conclusions?

That doesn't even mean anything. What is "the essential freedom" and what does the apparently nonsensical phrase "manipulate your thought processes" mean? How does any of this connect how we think to the ability to have done differently (without randomness).

Where is any concept of freedom when everything we do, say or think is entirely shackled to past events?

They aren't "shackled" by past events, that an utterly stupid misrepresentation. The concept of freedom lies in being able to do whatever you want to do.

You claim it has nothing to do with the role of consciousness.
But your thoughts exist and act within consciousness - not in inevitable uncontrollable physical reactions.

Once again the dishonest misrepresentation ("physical") and the silly prejudicial language ("uncontrollable") and once again you've provided not the slightest hint of a reason to think that this is a real dilemma.

What is it about consciousness that stops it being a reaction as well?

None of this even begins to answer my question, which was: "What is it, exactly about human thoughts that require the ability to have done differently (without randomness)?" You haven't even attempted to link anything humans do to said ability.

This is why I don't think you've given this any real thought at all. Instead of thinking about and addressing my point, you've just regurgitated another bit of your endlessly repeated script, all of which has been addressed my times by many people.

[Stranger]

If our thoughts are just inevitable reactions to past events, how can they ever reach a valid conclusion?

More thought-free repetition.

More questions you never answer: Why would a conclusion not be valid if it was an "inevitable reaction"? How would the ability to have concluded differently, in exactly the same circumstances, so for no possible reason, help with making it valid?

You can't even define a thought in material terms.
Neither can you define a desire or conscious want.

More staggering hypocrisy.

All in all, more evidence that you haven't thought this through at all, let alone deeply or logically.

[Gordon]

And what drives your thought processes?
If our thoughts are just inevitable reactions to past events, how can they ever reach a valid conclusion?
You can't even define a thought in material terms.
Neither can you define a desire or conscious want.
Thoughts exist in your conscious awareness - and so does the source of manipulation.

This is just nonsensical theobabble, Alan.

Presumably the idea of you being viewed as just another credulous hallelujah merchant doesn't appeal to you, so in an effort to make your faith appear rational (to you) you've contrived your own narrative involving 'human souls', 'free will' and 'conscious awareness' and are insightless as regards the illogical and irrational consequences of your fallacious narrative in spite of having the various problems explained to you on numerous occasions.

So I conclude that at base, having dispensed with your 'human souls', 'free will' and 'conscious awareness' nonsense, that you probably are just another credulous hallelujah merchant.     

[Sebastian Toe]

You can't even define a thought in material terms.
Neither can you define a desire or conscious want.

What is your definition of those, in 'soul' terms?

[Sebastian Toe]

Thoughts exist in your conscious awareness - and so does the source of manipulation.

Can you define how you get from source to action?

[Outrider]

No matter how much terminology and technical jargon you use to try to describe the emergence of conscious awareness from material reactions, the end result will always be another set of reactions with no real explanation for how they comprise conscious awareness.

No, it'll be an explanation that you can't or won't accept; given that you've got neither an explanation nor a conceivably logical viability for your own chosen suggestion, that seems a little rich.

O.

[Alan Burns]

That doesn't even mean anything. What is "the essential freedom" and what does the apparently nonsensical phrase "manipulate your thought processes" mean? How does any of this connect how we think to the ability to have done differently (without randomness).

If we are unable to have made a different choice or pondered a different thought then our choices and thoughts must be predetermined before we make them.  So no freedom to think.  No conscious manipulation.  Just inevitable reaction.  This is not the reality you or I live in.

[torridon]

And what drives your thought processes?
..

We could say, your will drives thought processes.  What drives your will ?  Your will does not appear out of nowhere, it derives from things.  I want to write this post because I read yours a moment or two ago. One thing leads to another, as they say.  I've already explained this umpteen times before, what do you find hard to understand about it ?

[torridon]

If our thoughts are just inevitable reactions to past events, how can they ever reach a valid conclusion?
..

The correctness of the conclusion does not depend on whether the intermediate steps are inevitable or not; it depends on whether they are correct or not.   If you write a computer program with a bug in the code, it is going to produce the wrong result.  If you fix the bug and rerun it, it will produce the correct result.  In both cases, the computer is behaving as a deterministic system.

[Alan Burns]

The correctness of the conclusion does not depend on whether the intermediate steps are inevitable or not; it depends on whether they are correct or not.   If you write a computer program with a bug in the code, it is going to produce the wrong result.  If you fix the bug and rerun it, it will produce the correct result.  In both cases, the computer is behaving as a deterministic system.

The computer may well be deterministic, but alone it is not capable of debugging itself.
Who or what judges whether a conclusion is correct or the program produces a correct result?

[torridon]

The computer may well be deterministic, but alone it is not capable of debugging itself.
Who or what judges whether a conclusion is correct or the program produces a correct result?

Neither of these points are relevant vis a vis the soundness of the claim that the inevitability of the intermediate steps would somehow render the resulting conclusion invalid.

In fact, we can make a much stronger claim if we frame it the other way round - we can state that if the intermediate steps are not inevitable then the conclusion will almost certainly be invalid.  Try putting in a random number into your programmed sequence of operations, the end result is almost bound to be incorrect.   This cuts to the core of why the free will claim is irrational.

[Alan Burns]

Neither of these points are relevant vis a vis the soundness of the claim that the inevitability of the intermediate steps would somehow render the resulting conclusion invalid.

In fact, we can make a much stronger claim if we frame it the other way round - we can state that if the intermediate steps are not inevitable then the conclusion will almost certainly be invalid.  Try putting in a random number into your programmed sequence of operations, the end result is almost bound to be incorrect.   This cuts to the core of why the free will claim is irrational.

Our ability to consciously judge correctness is certainly nothing to do with random.
Neither can it be deemed to be just the end result of automated reactions.
To perform judgement you need conscious freedom to judge.

[Stranger]

If we are unable to have made a different choice or pondered a different thought then our choices and thoughts must be predetermined before we make them.

This is nonsense for reasons that have already been explained to you (and you ignored). Our minds are determining what we ponder and choose at the time.

So no freedom to think.

Only if you redefine the word "freedom". We are free to think as we wish, whether what we wish is the result of a deterministic system or not.

No conscious manipulation.

How have you concluded that (aside from redefining the word 'manipulation' to require your nonsense version of freedom)? Why can't everything that happens in the conscious mind be operating as a deterministic system?

Just inevitable reaction.

There's no "just" about it.

This is not the reality you or I live in.

Drivel.

Aside from the misrepresentation and attempts to redefine words, you have not given a single, solitary, logical reason why our experience requires the ability to have done differently (without randomness). All you keep doing is wording things in a way that emphasises your own personal incredulity. There is no solid logical content at all in what you've just posted.

[Stranger]

To perform judgement you need conscious freedom to judge.

What is it about judgement that requires that it could have been different in exactly the same circumstances and therefore for no possible reason?

How can a difference that is for no possible reason not be random?

[Alan Burns]

This is nonsense for reasons that have already been explained to you (and you ignored). Our minds are determining what we ponder and choose at the time.

No matter how you word it, if you persist in claiming that we could not have chosen differently at the time we made the choice then that choice was not a choice but a predetermined reaction. It would be an inevitable reaction to all the events leading up to the alleged choice.  Hence everything we say, think or do will be driven by past events beyond our control.  Can you honestly claim this to be your living reality?  I certainly can't.

[Alan Burns]

What is it about judgement that requires that it could have been different in exactly the same circumstances and therefore for no possible reason?

It is the processes leading up to an act of judgment which require consciously driven control.
What determines the judgement?
In your deterministic scenario where every event is entirely determined by prior events, what can possibly be responsible for an act of judgement?
You need consciously driven freedom to analyse what you are judging. 

[torridon]

No matter how you word it, if you persist in claiming that we could not have chosen differently at the time we made the choice then that choice was not a choice but a predetermined reaction. It would be an inevitable reaction to all the events leading up to the alleged choice.  Hence everything we say, think or do will be driven by past events beyond our control.  Can you honestly claim this to be your living reality?  I certainly can't.

Any break in those chains of inevitability would manifest as random events.  Does your world consist of random chaos ?  Mine certainly doesn't, it seems sort of orderly, predictable.

[Stranger]

No matter how you word it, if you persist in claiming that we could not have chosen differently at the time we made the choice then that choice was not a choice but a predetermined reaction. It would be an inevitable reaction to all the events leading up to the alleged choice.

This is a false dilemma fallacy that only works if you redefine the word 'choice' to mean your nonsensical version of 'freedom', in which case it's a begging the question fallacy.

We make our choices according to who we are, our state of mind, and the circumstances. If we could have done differently, it must, in part, be because of nothing at all to do with who we are, our state of mind, and the circumstances, which adds randomness, not freedom.

Hence everything we say, think or do will be driven by past events beyond our control.

Who you are and the way you think is beyond your control. You can't suddenly choose to be somebody else with different abilities and different ways of thinking. Being 'free' from yourself is nonsensical.

Can you honestly claim this to be your living reality?  I certainly can't.

Of course it is. Sure, I made the same shallow, simplistic, thoughtless assumptions that you seem to be desperately clinging to, before I first read a bit about it, started to think about things logically, and did some honest introspection. Then I realised just how simplistic and contradictory it all was.

[Stranger]

What is it about judgement that requires that it could have been different in exactly the same circumstances and therefore for no possible reason?

It is the processes leading up to an act of judgment which require consciously driven control.
...
You need consciously driven freedom to analyse what you are judging.

I've asked you about the ability to have done differently for no possible reason and you're wittering about things being "consciously driven" yet again, without establishing any actual link between the aforementioned ability and anything we actually do.

How about trying to answer the question for once?

(Your questions are irrelevant and have been answered many times before.)