Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

I am not arguing against our conscious mind being deterministic.

The question I am concerned with is what determines a conscious conclusion.
If it is determined by nothing but an endless string of uncontrollable reactions to past events, how can the conclusion be verified to be a correct one by your conscious awareness?  How can your conscious awareness guide these past events in order to reach a satisfactory conclusion?

Since your concern is fallacious it is also groundless: that you don't like the consequences of determinism is your problem, and that you come up with guff such as "How can your conscious awareness guide these past events in order to reach a satisfactory conclusion?" just illustrates how confused your thinking is.

[torridon]

I am not arguing against our conscious mind being deterministic.

The question I am concerned with is what determines a conscious conclusion.
If it is determined by nothing but an endless string of uncontrollable reactions to past events, how can the conclusion be verified to be a correct one by your conscious awareness?  How can your conscious awareness guide these past events in order to reach a satisfactory conclusion?

Clearly we cannot 'guide past events', no one suggests that. However, we retain a memory of past events and use that in forming an opinion on things happening in the present. You will find something feels 'correct' to the degree that it matches your internal model which has been built up from past experience. Clearly that does not mean your opinion is objectively correct, but it feels correct to you.

[ippy]

And this is where the oddness comes in.......all the problems of the world, most of them down to inertia and you guys have alighted on something like the church. Bypassing capitalism, communism, politics, consumerism etc.

I dare say you've been informed many times before but I'll take a guess it still hasn't sunk in yet.

Most people that are Secular Humanists understand the need for some form of ceremony at funerals, births, naming of children, marriage and some form of counselling from time to time in hospital, prisons and when serving in the forces etc.

Except most of us don't want to bend the ear of a holy Joe or Josephine at those times, nor do we particularity want to stop people having their holy Joes when they feel the need for them.

All most of us Secular Humanists want is to conduct our lives in these areas without some form of Jesus priest introducing his or her unwanted mantra at these sensitive times of our lives or inflicting their nonsense on our vulnerable young children in denominational schools.

Please feel free to be as religious as you like we feel happy to leave you alone to pursue your religious beliefs, even protect you if you're persecuted but keep it to yourselves and leave the rest of us including our children alone.

That's a rough outline of how I see Secular Humanism, we're not your enemy Vlad.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What makes you think that those of us who have concerns about the influence of religion don't have views about the other issues you mention?

aIm sure you do, but it is your focus on the influence on the church and the extent of your concern about that most people I think find a bit odd.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I dare say you've been informed many times before but I'll take a guess it still hasn't sunk in yet.

Most people that are Secular Humanists understand the need for some form of ceremony at funerals, births, naming of children, marriage and some form of counselling from time to time in hospital, prisons and when serving in the forces etc.

Except most of us don't want to bend the ear of a holy Joe or Josephine at those times, nor do we particularity want to stop people having their holy Joes when they feel the need for them.

All most of us Secular Humanists want is to conduct our lives in these areas without some form of Jesus priest introducing his or her unwanted mantra at these sensitive times of our lives or inflicting their nonsense on our vulnerable young children in denominational schools.

Please feel free to be as religious as you like we feel happy to leave you alone to pursue your religious beliefs, even protect you if you're persecuted but keep it to yourselves and leave the rest of us including our children alone.


That's a rough outline of how I see Secular Humanism, we're not your enemy Vlad.

As worthy as Secular Humanists might be I imagine that people would find anyone admitting to membership to be odd. Even Odder than the masons probably.

I was debating a right winger who claimed the BBC was indoctrinating Kids to be left wing through the GCSE bite size website. Fucking rubbish of course.........Same applies to your allegations.

[Stranger]

I am not arguing against our conscious mind being deterministic.

The question I am concerned with is what determines a conscious conclusion.

I'm really struggling to see this as anything but a barefaced lie to try to distract people. Every time you claim we could have done differently, you are claiming that our conscious minds are not deterministic.

The meanings of the of the words 'deterministic' and 'determinism' have been given to you countless times, from multiple references, you've never argued against them, yet you keep on making this idiotic claim. Deterministic does not just mean that it is determined by something. It's about how things happen not about what is involved.

This was corrected in #32591 and #32601 - that's two years ago, and it's been repeated multiple times since.

Are you completely incapable of learning anything, even as simple as the correct meaning of two words? If this isn't a deliberate and dishonest strategy, then either you are paying no attention or you have got serious problems with your memory.

If it is determined by nothing but an endless string of uncontrollable reactions to past events, how can the conclusion be verified to be a correct one by your conscious awareness?  How can your conscious awareness guide these past events in order to reach a satisfactory conclusion?

Why should it need to guide past events in order to verify something? There is nothing about determinism (using the word correctly) that stops conclusions from being verified. For verification we need logic or evidence. How would the nonsensical ability to have done differently without randomness help with verification?

Once again you are trying to conflate human thinking abilities with your nonsensical version of "freedom".

[ippy]

As worthy as Secular Humanists might be I imagine that people would find anyone admitting to membership to be odd. Even Odder than the masons probably.

I was debating a right winger who claimed the BBC was indoctrinating Kids to be left wing through the GCSE bite size website. Fucking rubbish of course.........Same applies to your allegations.

The BBC have not just started in the beginners class and surprisingly don't put up banners saying 'you should all be thinking left wing thoughts by now' and expect at the same time the general viewing and listening audience to not notice them trying to direct our thinking toward left wingism.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

You’re not “arguing” anything – you’re just asserting it.

I offer reasons for my consciously deduced conclusions.

You’re implying a need for an independent “something” to do the determining when the emergent property model of consciousness requires no such thing.

So please explain how this emergent property has the power to determine the conscious processing needed to achieve a viable conclusion.

Easily – it’s verified by the application of reason to observable phenomena. 

And how can whatever emerges from physical reactions apply anything to determine the consequences of the reactions it emerges from.

“Past events” don’t need to be “guided” – that’s just you begging the question (yet another fallacy).

Without any guidance, there can be no control or manipulation of whatever emerges from past events, which is why the consequences of unguided events can never achieve viable, verifiable conclusions

Oh, and even if the answers to all these question was “don’t know”, that would take you not one step forward in making an argument for your explanatory narrative. Try to remember that.

It is not a matter of "don't know"
It is a matter of logical impossibility

[Alan Burns]

I'm really struggling to see this as anything but a barefaced lie to try to distract people. Every time you claim we could have done differently, you are claiming that our conscious minds are not deterministic.

The processing of our thoughts is certainly determined.
Determined by the conscious will of human beings, which gives them the freedom to choose how to react to past events, rather than just react to them as a biological machine entirely controlled by unavoidable reactions to past events.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I offer reasons for my consciously deduced conclusions.

No you don’t.

So please explain how this emergent property has the power to determine the conscious processing needed to achieve a viable conclusion.

This is incoherent. Emergent properties don’t need to “have a power to determine the conscious processing” – the emergent property is the conscious processing. You’re still lost in your dualist assumption, and you need to break free of that if you’re to understand anything.
 

And how can whatever emerges from physical reactions apply anything to determine the consequences of the reactions it emerges from.

What are you even trying to say here? Consciously aware beings can use this property to test and verify the hypotheses and they develop.

Without any guidance, there can be no control or manipulation of whatever emerges from past events, which is why the consequences of unguided events can never achieve viable, verifyiable conclusions

Have you not read anything over the countless thousands of posts here that explain to you why this is so wrong?

It is not a matter of "don't know"
It is a matter of logical impossibility

A supposed “logical impossibility” you’ve never come even close to being able to demonstrate. We know you assert it because it suits some superstitious beliefs you hold dear, but if you want to justify your beliefs with reasons and arguments then – finally – you need to set out what they are.

[Sebastian Toe]

.So please explain how this emergent property has the power to determine the conscious processing needed to achieve a viable conclusion.

.So please explain how your soul has the power to determine the conscious processing needed to achieve any viable conclusion.

[Stranger]

The processing of our thoughts is certainly determined.
Determined by the conscious will of human beings...

Which does not mean the same thing as deterministic, which means: "Relating to the philosophical doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will."

This is very, very far from the first time this has been pointed out to you (#32591, #32601, #39517), yet it doesn't stop you repeating idiotic and/or dishonest statements like "I am not arguing against our conscious mind being deterministic."

As I said, either you're using this as a dishonest distraction tactic, you're not paying any attention at all to what is being said to you, you have serious memory problems, or you disagree with the accepted definitions but have never bothered to say why.

Perhaps you could bring yourself to take one tiny, baby step towards honestly engaging with the arguments against you by simply learning the meanings of the words 'deterministic' and 'determinism', in the context of arguments about 'free will'. Is that really asking too much?

I offer reasons for my consciously deduced conclusions.

Another blatant falsehood. You offer nothing but assertion, incredulity, and an assortment of other fallacies.

It is not a matter of "don't know"
It is a matter of logical impossibility

So where is the logic? You have shown no sign of having any grasp whatsoever of logic.

[Alan Burns]

.So please explain how your soul has the power to determine the conscious processing needed to achieve any viable conclusion.

As I have said previously, I do not know how the human soul does what it does.

But if there is no feasible explanation for how the natural forces of nature comprising only uncontrollable chains of physical reactions alone can generate logical analysis and conclusions, then this would constitute evidence of a possible supernatural explanation.

[Alan Burns]

Which does not mean the same thing as deterministic, which means: "Relating to the philosophical doctrine that all events, including

Just quoting a dictionary definition of a particular philosophical doctrine does not do anything to back up your argument against the existence of human freedom to make conscious choices rather than inevitable reactions to pre defined criteria.  The arguments I put forward are based upon ultimate causation rather than philosophical doctrine definitions.  I apologise if I have been confusing the meaning of the words determined and deterministic.

[Alan Burns]

Emergent properties don’t need to “have a power to determine the conscious processing” – the emergent property is the conscious processing.
 

You appear to be asserting that an emergent property of material reactions alone can somehow generate logical thought processes and consciously derived conclusions without any feasible explanation for how this can be a possible outcome from the consequences of uncontrollable chains of physically defined reactions.

The problem you need to confront is how the conscious awareness which emerges from material reactions can have any possible influence or control over the reactions from which it emerges.

[torridon]

You appear to be asserting that an emergent property of material reactions alone can somehow generate logical thought processes and consciously derived conclusions without any feasible explanation for how this can be a possible outcome from the consequences of uncontrollable chains of physically defined reactions.

There is no reason why it should not be possible.  If our thoughts do not derive from anything, then they are random, and if our thought processes were random, we would be incapable of reaching any conclusions at all. The past is indeed 'uncontrollable', get over it.

[SusanDoris]

There is no reason why it should not be possible.  If our thoughts do not derive from anything, then they are random, and if our thought processes were random, we would be incapable of reaching any conclusions at all.

Thank goodness for a rational post! After three lots of drivel by AB.it is necessary to have a rational one to counteract it!

[Stranger]

But if there is no feasible explanation for how the natural forces of nature comprising only uncontrollable chains of physical reactions alone can generate logical analysis and conclusions, then this would constitute evidence of a possible supernatural explanation.

Except you have gone no way towards establishing that there can be no such explanation and your own 'explanation' not only involves magic 'supernatural' but is inherently self-contradictory, and hence logically impossible (even with magic).

Just quoting a dictionary definition of a particular philosophical doctrine does not do anything to back up your argument against the existence of human freedom to make conscious choices rather than inevitable reactions to pre defined criteria.

No but determinism and deterministic (which also have a mathematical meaning) are useful words to use to mean that everything (including everything in the mind) is entirely the result of previous causes.

I apologise if I have been confusing the meaning of the words determined and deterministic.

Thank you, but will you please try to remember it this time?

You appear to be asserting that an emergent property of material reactions alone can somehow generate logical thought processes and consciously derived conclusions without any feasible explanation for how this can be a possible outcome from the consequences of uncontrollable chains of physically defined reactions.

That is what the evidence and reasoning are telling us. It is your claim that this is impossible and you said you had "sound logic", which is still notable only by its complete absence.

The problem you need to confront is how the conscious awareness which emerges from material reactions can have any possible influence or control over the reactions from which it emerges.

It's not even clear what you are trying to say here. Of course, if the conscious mind is a product of the brain then it is part of what the brain does. When you experience something or make a choice, that corresponds directly to physical changes in the brain that go on to affect future choices.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Thank goodness for a rational post! After three lots of drivel by AB.it is necessary to have a rational one to counteract it!

I don’t see why you contributed this. Why don’t you provide your objections rather than leaving a post which unflatteringly portrays you as some kind of handmaiden to an atheist, male, stale, priestly class?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There is no reason why it should not be possible.  If our thoughts do not derive from anything, then they are random, and if our thought processes were random, we would be incapable of reaching any conclusions at all. The past is indeed 'uncontrollable', get over it.

If you are saying that the universe could derive from nothing then how can you deny that from anything like a consciousness?

[torridon]

If you are saying that the universe could derive from nothing then how can you deny that from anything like a consciousness?

Eerm, didn't mention anything about a universe from nothing; merely pointing out that our thoughts have provenance, if that were not the case, our thoughts would be random.

[torridon]

I don’t see why you contributed this. Why don’t you provide your objections rather than leaving a post which unflatteringly portrays you as some kind of handmaiden to an atheist, male, stale, priestly class?

I don’t see why you contributed this. Why don’t you provide your objections rather than leaving a post which unflatteringly portrays you as some kind of troll ?

[Owlswing]

I don’t see why you contributed this. Why don’t you provide your objections rather than leaving a post which unflatteringly portrays you as some kind of troll?

Not "some kind of" - "the epitome of"!

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You appear to be asserting that an emergent property of material reactions alone can somehow generate logical thought processes and consciously derived conclusions without any feasible explanation for how this can be a possible outcome from the consequences of uncontrollable chains of physically defined reactions.

The problem you need to confront is how the conscious awareness which emerges from material reactions can have any possible influence or control over the reactions from which it emerges.

I’m not “asserting” it at all – I’m saying that it’s the explanatory model most congruent with what we know already about the characteristics of emergent properties.

Try to understand something: you keep demanding a “detailed” explanation for how consciousness as an emergent property would work and, when it’s not forthcoming, you use the gap in knowledge as your rationale to junk what we do have in favour of a narrative about which you have no information whatsoever. Can you see the problem with that?

Think of it this way: imagine that the “complete” explanation of consciousness is a finished house. Let’s say that we have the foundations in already, perhaps the brickwork up to the first storey, maybe the downstairs windows installed and so forth. What will the upper levels and the roof look like? Don’t know yet, but so far at least it all seems reasonably sturdy based on the state of knowledge we have so far.

Now let’s say that you come along with your “no no no, that’s not how a house is constructed”. “OK, fine” the builder says, “show us your version then”. And then, after repeated times of asking, the awful truth emerges: not only does your house have no windows, no walls, no foundations etc, your haven’t even found some tools to build it in the sense of a method even in principle to try your “design”.

That’s your problem. You keep asserting that it’s “impossible” that the rationalists’ part-built house could ever be a house that would stand up but never say why, while at the same time you simply assert that your house is the real one when you don’t even have the tools to build it.

Perhaps you should start with this problem rather than tout your personal incredulity as if it was an argument?

[Enki]

As I have said previously, I do not know how the human soul does what it does.

But if there is no feasible explanation for how the natural forces of nature comprising only uncontrollable chains of physical reactions alone can generate logical analysis and conclusions, then this would constitute evidence of a possible supernatural explanation.

Even though we cannot easily explain exactly how physical reactions/interactions can generate 'logical analysis and conclusions', we at least have a large body of evidence that suggests that our thoughts and feelings are a direct result of brain activity,

None of which constitutes jack shit towards your supernatural non evidential 'explanation' at all.