Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

My critical thinking leads me to a logical conclusion that the consequences of unavoidable physical reactions alone can never generate reasoned thought processes.  The essential missing ingredient is a means of consciously controlled interaction within the physically determined chains of cause and effect.

Firstly, you don't seem to have the slightest understanding of what critical thinking or logic even mean. Secondly, you can't just assert that a conclusion is logical (even if you put it in bold italics), you actually have to set out the logic. Thirdly, you are yet again dishonestly misrepresenting the argument as being about physical world. Fourthly, the fact that we don't have a complete model of how consciousness arises, doesn't make logically impossible, self-contradictory magic any more believable. And fifthly (and yet again), if you could resolve the logical contradiction in your view, you couldn't then claim that there can be no physical explanation without claiming to know everything about physics.

So, once again, you said it was a logical conclusion, so where is the logic itself? What are your premises and what are the steps that get you to your conclusion?

[Roses]

AB's idea of logic doesn't equate with that of many others.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

How on earth you can come up with such detailed critique of my faith position and my reasons for justifying it and still believe you are entirely driven by nothing but unavoidable physical reactions to past events truly beggars belief.

I believe it because that’s what the only available cogent reasoning and evidence tells me.

Which has the stronger case -
My personal incredulity
Or your personal optimism. ?

That’s called a false dilemma. It should be:

“Which has the stronger case -
My personal incredulity
Or reason and evidence?”

My critical thinking leads me to a logical conclusion that the consequences of unavoidable physical reactions alone can never generate reasoned thought processes.

What critical thinking? That’s just an assertion – if you want to claim it to be supported by critical thinking, then you need to say what that critical thinking is.

The essential missing ingredient is a means of consciously controlled interaction within the physically determined chains of cause and effect.

Of course it isn’t – that’s just a repetition of the begging the question fallacy. You only need a “means of consciously controlled interaction” if you can establish first that consciousness cannot be materialistic (the assertion you just made with no supporting logic or critical thinking of any kind). 

Are you beginning to grasp the size of the problem you’ve given yourself here? You make an entirely unsupported assertion, then are forced to build a whole set of logic- and evidence-denying sub-claims to make it “work”. If you have any interest at all in what’s true, then you need to start at the beginning by explaining why you think consciousness can’t be materialistic rather than just assert it to be so. And if you can't do that (and you can't) then the whole tottering edifice of your religious beliefs collapses.

[Alan Burns]

Then your critical thinking is, to use a technical term, fucked.

So presumably, Gordon, you must have a logical explanation for how the unavoidable consequences of the physical reactions occurring in your brain could have generated this technical response to my post.  Or are you relying on the postulated theories of so called experts in this subject?  If the latter, I need to point out that there are two opposing bodies of expert opinion on the subject of the existence of human free will - the freedom to have made a conscious choice rather than an inevitable reaction under the same circumstances.  It is apparent that the majority of replies to my posts have concurred the expert opinion in favour of there being no free will.  But there are numerous arguments which come to the logical conclusion that human free will is a reality - which have been conveniently ignored.  The issue is not as cut and dried as some posters try to make out.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/memory-medic/201606/free-will-is-not-illusion

[Stranger]

So presumably, Gordon, you must have a logical explanation for how the unavoidable consequences of the physical reactions occurring in your brain could have generated this technical response to my post.

Straight in with an argument from ignorance. Your own view is, quite part from lacking any evidence, self-contradictory, and hence, logically impossible, and, even if it wasn't, has no more explanatory power than "it's magic, innit?" There is no need for anybody else to provide a complete explanation to counter baseless, self-contradictory nonsense, supported by nothing but assertions and fallacies.

Or are you relying on the postulated theories of so called experts in this subject?

The arguments have been set out explicitly here - they are on this thread, and you have never once managed to counter them.

If the latter, I need to point out that there are two opposing bodies of expert opinion on the subject of the existence of human free will - the freedom to have made a conscious choice rather than an inevitable reaction under the same circumstances.  It is apparent that the majority of replies to my posts have concurred the expert opinion in favour of there being no free will.  But there are numerous arguments which come to the logical conclusion that human free will is a reality - which have been conveniently ignored.  The issue is not as cut and dried as some posters try to make out.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/memory-medic/201606/free-will-is-not-illusion

This article seems concerned about the role of the consciousness versus the unconscious mind, which is totally irrelevant to the arguments that have been made here.

And we are still waiting for you to produce the sound logic you said you had....

[Alan Burns]

This article seems concerned about the role of the consciousness versus the unconscious mind, which is totally irrelevant to the arguments that have been made here.

What you consistently fail to address is how the existing state of your conscious mind can interact with the past events which you claim defines what we think, say or do.  To claim that the conscious mind is itself an inevitable consequence to past events reduces it to being a spectator of what has already been defined - and the article in question specifically refutes this claim.

To resolve the issue we need to be able to define what comprises the conscious mind and how it works .... over to you.

[Stranger]

What you consistently fail to address is how the existing state of your conscious mind can interact with the past events which you claim defines what we think, say or do.  To claim that the conscious mind is itself an inevitable consequence to past events reduces it to being a spectator of what has already been defined - and the article in question specifically refutes this claim.

Drivel. A spectator is something you could take away and nothing about the process would change. I have never made that claim about the concious mind. That it and its contents, are entirely the result of the past is the only alternative to randomness, for reasons that have been explained to you multiple times. That doesn't make it a spectator, it is an important part of the mind and how it works.

The article is about the idea that consciousness is entirely retrospective - which is, as I said, irrelevant to the basic logic of the situation regarding determinism or randomness.

To resolve the issue we need to be able to define what comprises the conscious mind and how it works .... over to you.

I need to do nothing of the sort. It is you who are trying to make an argument here (what is it about theists and the burden of proof?), namely, that "free will" exists in the sense that we could have done differently without randomness, and (assuming you could ever get over the basic logical self-contradiction) that that would be impossible in the material world (rather than just impossible, full stop).

You said you had sound logic, where is it?

[Gordon]

So presumably, Gordon, you must have a logical explanation for how the unavoidable consequences of the physical reactions occurring in your brain could have generated this technical response to my post.  Or are you relying on the postulated theories of so called experts in this subject?  If the latter, I need to point out that there are two opposing bodies of expert opinion on the subject of the existence of human free will - the freedom to have made a conscious choice rather than an inevitable reaction under the same circumstances.  It is apparent that the majority of replies to my posts have concurred the expert opinion in favour of there being no free will.  But there are numerous arguments which come to the logical conclusion that human free will is a reality - which have been conveniently ignored.  The issue is not as cut and dried as some posters try to make out.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/memory-medic/201606/free-will-is-not-illusion

There you go again straight into fallacy-land: may I remind you that the burden of proof that free will is due to the actions of this 'human soul' is yours and not mine.

P.S. your link doesn't conclude that 'human souls' are at work, and in the conclusion this guy states "More promising research would aim at discovering ways that a material brain might generate free will.", so I'm not sure why you cited this.

[Alan Burns]

P.S. your link doesn't conclude that 'human souls' are at work, and in the conclusion this guy states "More promising research would aim at discovering ways that a material brain might generate free will.", so I'm not sure why you cited this.

I cited this because it highlights the ultimate problem in defining free will from a source without religious bias.
The writer indicates where the problem lies without being able to offer a feasible explanation, but mistakenly presumes that a material explanation might be possible from further research.

The paradox is that if a material brain is capable of generating "free will" it ceases to be free will and becomes an inevitable consequence of past material reactions.  The spiritual power of the human soul as depicted in the divine revelations of scripture offers a far more feasible explanation.

[Roses]

I cited this because it highlights the ultimate problem in defining free will from a source without religious bias.
The writer indicates where the problem lies without being able to offer a feasible explanation, but mistakenly presumes that a material explanation might be possible from further research.

The paradox is that if a material brain is capable of generating "free will" it ceases to be free will and becomes an inevitable consequence of past material reactions.  The spiritual power of the human soul as depicted in the divine revelations of scripture offers a far more feasible explanation.

[/b][/i][/u]

A much less than credible one, imo.

[torridon]

What you consistently fail to address is how the existing state of your conscious mind can interact with the past events which you claim defines what we think, say or do.  To claim that the conscious mind is itself an inevitable consequence to past events reduces it to being a spectator of what has already been defined - and the article in question specifically refutes this claim.

If there is no reason for a current state of mind, then the mind is random.  What exactly is so hard to understand about this ?

[Stranger]

The paradox is that if a material brain is capable of generating "free will" it ceases to be free will and becomes an inevitable consequence of past material reactions.

You really can't stop yourself from lying about this, can you? The argument has nothing to do with the material world. Either will is an inevitable consequence of the past or it involves randomness - regardless of the material world - merely because a anything that makes a choice is something that changes its state over time (#40759).

The spiritual power of the human soul as depicted in the divine revelations of scripture offers a far more feasible explanation.

No "it's magic, innit?" is not an answer at all - and it doesn't help with the fact that your way of defining "free will" is logically self-contradictory.

Where is the "sound logic" you said you had?

[Gordon]

I cited this because it highlights the ultimate problem in defining free will from a source without religious bias.

Don't be silly: first we have your hyperbole of 'the ultimate problem', and then the implied presumption that a religious bias is in any sense relevant and, of course, you're begging the question here in assuming 'free will', and especially since your depiction of 'free will' is illogical nonsense anyway.     

The writer indicates where the problem lies without being able to offer a feasible explanation, but mistakenly presumes that a material explanation might be possible from further research.

Even sillier, Alan: that what presents as the feeling of having 'free will' is a mental event is a reasonable hypothesis worthy of further study - I'm surprised you aren't bothered that as part of further study he isn't explicitly advocating a spot of 'soul'-searching.

The paradox is that if a material brain is capable of generating "free will" it ceases to be free will and becomes an inevitable consequence of past material reactions.

Only in the minds of those susceptible to the argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy (with the usual added dashes of incredulity and ignorance).
 

The spiritual power of the human soul as depicted in the divine revelations of scripture offers a far more feasible explanation.

Only to the purveyors of nonsensical theobollocks (such as yourself).

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

So presumably, Gordon, you must have...

Nope, not his problem - you're trying to shift the burden of proof again. You are the one claiming a materialistic explanation for consciousness to be "impossible", so it's your job to provide some critical thinking or logic to justify that assertion. So far at least, all we have though is the assertion but no critical thinking or logic of any kind to support it. Whether Gordon (or anyone else) has a complete explanation, a partial explanation or no explanation at all for a materialistic model is neither here nor there. If you can't justify your claim, then you should withdraw it. No ifs, no buts. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

So finally and once and for all, answer the question: do you or do you not have an argument (ie critical thinking in the form of logic or evidence) that would justify your assertion that a materialistic explanation for consciousness is “impossible”?

To save you the trouble of your usual evasions:

1. Repeated unqualified assertion of the claim is not an argument for your contention.

2. Your personal incredulity about the materialistic explanation for consciousness is not an argument for your contention.

3. Telling us that laptops aren’t self-aware is not an argument for your contention.

4. Calling the experience of decision-making “the" reality of the process of decision-making is not an argument for your contention.

5. Demanding from others a complete explanation for the materialistic model of consciousness and then complaining that it’s incomplete is not an argument for your contention.

6. Complaining that you don’t like the implications if consciousness is materialistic (the argumentum ad consequentiam) is not an argument for your contention.

If after all this time you still think you have an argument that justifies your assertion, tell us what it is.

If you now concede that you don’t have an argument that justifies your assertion, just say so and withdraw it. 

[SusanDoris]

I note, with a total lack of surprise, that AB has failed to attempt any response to my post. Perhaps it was not worded strongly enough to make a dent in the impenetrable barrier between AB and logic, etc.

[Alan Burns]

You really can't stop yourself from lying about this, can you? The argument has nothing to do with the material world. Either will is an inevitable consequence of the past or it involves randomness - regardless of the material world - merely because a anything that makes a choice is something that changes its state over time

Once more you fail to accept or recognise the fact that your deterministic scenario is entirely based upon perceived material behaviour which comprises entirely of time dependent cause and effect reactions in material elements.

A spiritual entity such as the human soul would not be subject to the same time dependent cause and effect events, but but is demonstrably able to consciously invoke events determined by its own power of conscious will to interact with this material world.

My hope is that you and everyone else on this forum will discover the truth when they reach their spiritual home. 

[torridon]

Once more you fail to accept or recognise the fact that your deterministic scenario is entirely based upon perceived material behaviour which comprises entirely of time dependent cause and effect reactions in material elements.

A spiritual entity such as the human soul would not be subject to the same time dependent cause and effect events, but but is demonstrably able to consciously invoke events determined by its own power of conscious will to interact with this material world.

My hope is that you and everyone else on this forum will discover the truth when they reach their spiritual home. 

One day, you might come to your senses and regret that you have posted up so much dire stuff as this on the internet, and you won't be able to take it down. I'd be dying of embarrassment if I'd left a trail of such hopeless unmitigated nonsense online.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Once more you fail to accept or recognise the fact that your deterministic scenario is entirely based upon perceived material behaviour which comprises entirely of time dependent cause and effect reactions in material elements.

No-one fails to accept or recognise that. That’s what you find when you observe the only evidence that’s available to you.

A spiritual entity such as the human soul would not be subject to the same time dependent cause and effect events,…

Yes, if you’re going to inject reason- and evidence-denying magic into the discourse then it needn’t be subject to anything. You can make up any nonsense you like and defend it with, “bit it’s magic innit”.

…but but is demonstrably able to consciously invoke events determined by its own power of conscious will to interact with this material world.

That’s just dishonest. If you want to claim a “demonstrably” you need actually to demonstrate it (you know, using that critical thinking you claimed to have but never produce), not just assert it to be so.

My hope is that you and everyone else on this forum will discover the truth when they reach their spiritual home.

You can hope for anything you like, but so far at least you’ve given no thinking person even a single sound reason to think there’s such a thing as “spiritual”, let alone a “spiritual home”.

That’s the problem you keep avoiding remember?

[Stranger]

Once more you fail to accept or recognise the fact that your deterministic scenario is entirely based upon perceived material behaviour which comprises entirely of time dependent cause and effect reactions in material elements.

That will be because it isn't. It is based solely on the fact that a choice is a change in state at a point in time. That is unavoidable, regardless of physics. If you think a choice can be made without a change of state in time (from not having decided to having made a choice), then feel free to explain it (and, no, repeating the gibberish about the "present" doesn't explain anything), otherwise this is statement of yours is just dishonest misrepresentation.

A spiritual entity such as the human soul would not be subject to the same time dependent cause and effect events...

If it doesn't change its state over time, then it can't be involved with any choice-making, if it does, the logic of cause and effect applies regardless of whether it's physical or spiritual or anything else.

As usual, this has all been gone over with you before, you've never been able to answer the point but you just go on repeating the same drivel as if it had never been addressed. That not an honest approach.

...but but is demonstrably able to consciously invoke events determined by its own power of conscious will to interact with this material world.

How is it demonstrable? Where is the demonstration? And please don't repeat to idiotic assertion that every post demonstrates it because that has been addressed just a few posts ago and you totally ignored the answers.

My hope is that you and everyone else on this forum will discover the truth when they reach their spiritual home. 

My hope is that one day you'll grow up and start arguing like an adult, with the high level of intelligence you claim to have, and some basic sense of honesty. Rather than childishly ignoring all the answers and arguments that are put to you and just endlessly repeating the same nonsense without the slightest sign that you have applied any intelligent thought to them at all.

Where is the "sound logic" you claimed to have?

[Alan Burns]

AB

why don't you, just for once in this thread, actually listen to what the patient, rational answers to you have been and emerge from the huge cottonwool barrier that you have erected around you, built on and added to over the years to protect you from reality, and actually think about what has been said?
The continuous monologue of completely blinkered, and in my opinion, smug, drivel you post is really painful to observe. The reason I do observe  it - in the answers to you - is that I admire nd value highly the intelligence and thoughtfulness of those replies.

It is also in my opinion very discourteous to ignore what is said to you and repeat endlessly the same monologue.

.
Apologies for the late reply Susan.

I am sad that you do not like my posts.
I fully appreciate and understand the detailed and sincerely compiled replies I get, but after discovering God in my life and accepting Jesus as my saviour, there is nothing on this earth that could possibly take away my faith in God.  I cannot understand how people can put their trust and faith in nothing but the material entities we perceive on this earth.  There is far more to human life than the predetermined behaviour of material reactions can ever generate.  My Christian faith has nothing to do with cotton wool.  It involves a battle with the evil which dominates this world.  It is not an easy task to witness to my faith, because the ever increasing secular society is dominated by the scales of deception conceived by the evil powers which hide the truth.  We are all spiritual beings with the power to choose our destiny.  I hope and pray that you and all on this forum will perceive the truth, for the truth really does set us free.

[torridon]

I fully appreciate and understand the detailed and sincerely compiled replies I get, but after discovering God in my life and accepting Jesus as my saviour, there is nothing on this earth that could possibly take away my faith in God.  I cannot understand how people can put their trust and faith in nothing but the material entities we perceive on this earth.  There is far more to human life than the predetermined behaviour of material reactions can ever generate.  My Christian faith has nothing to do with cotton wool.  It involves a battle with the evil which dominates this world.  It is not an easy task to witness to my faith, because the ever increasing secular society is dominated by the scales of deception conceived by the evil powers which hide the truth.  We are all spiritual beings with the power to choose our destiny.  I hope and pray that you and all on this forum will perceive the truth, for the truth really does set us free.

More self contradictory self aggrandizing nonsense.  If evil exists in a god-created world, it is by god's will, remember nothing exists except by god's will in the christian ideology. So not only are you working against your own god, the full extent of your 'battle with evil' seems to consist of disingenuous trolling of people on the internet who think differently to you.  You don't fool anyone.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Then your critical thinking is, to use a technical term, fucked.

Nice to see you can be counted on to raise the tone of debate sir.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

More self contradictory self aggrandizing nonsense.  If evil exists in a god-created world, it is by god's will, remember nothing exists except by god's will in the christian ideology. So not only are you working against your own god, the full extent of your 'battle with evil' seems to consist of disingenuous trolling of people on the internet who think differently to you.  You don't fool anyone.

You are just excusing yourself from responsibility.
Sin is against God. Since there is nothing like God there is no object, experience or cause that can prepare or determine anything or anybody for a positive or negative interaction with God.

[torridon]

You are just excusing yourself from responsibility.
Sin is against God. Since there is nothing like God there is no object, experience or cause that can prepare or determine anything or anybody for a positive or negative interaction with God.

The post you responded to was intended for Alan who likes to invoke the Devil whose deceptions are the ultimate cause of confusion and therefore 'sin' in the minds of men and women. I have to remind him of the inherent contradiction in this from time to time.