Searching for GOD...

[Sebastian Toe]

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.

The point that I am making is that just because AB cannot imagine that there will ever be a feasible explanation......
You then cannot just pop in "the soul does the thinking" which in itself , as you have readily admitted has no explanation.....and expect anyone to accept your alternative!

Don't you see that?

[Alan Burns]

The point that I am making is that just because AB cannot imagine that there will ever be a feasible explanation......
You then cannot just pop in "the soul does the thinking" which in itself , as you have readily admitted has no explanation.....and expect anyone to accept your alternative!

Don't you see that?

A material brain cannot be held to account for how we use God's gift of free will.
If free will is a reality, it will be the human soul as depicted in the Christian bible which will be held to account.

We are all free to accept Jesus as our Saviour.
We have only one lifetime to choose our destiny.

[torridon]

A material brain cannot be held to account for how we use God's gift of free will.
If free will is a reality, it will be the human soul as depicted in the Christian bible which will be held to account.

We are all free to accept Jesus as our Saviour.
We have only one lifetime to choose our destiny.

Assertion without evidence.  You know what that deserves, by now.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

A material brain cannot be held to account for how we use God's gift of free will.
If free will is a reality, it will be the human soul as depicted in the Christian bible which will be held to account.

We are all free to accept Jesus as our Saviour.
We have only one lifetime to choose our destiny.

Too many fallacies there to be worth listing individually.

I set out a couple of posts back why your approach of dismissing out of hand the explanation with some detail to justify an explanation with no detail is a bad idea. Do you intend to ignore that as you ignore so much else?   

[Stranger]

A material brain cannot be held to account for how we use God's gift of free will.
If free will is a reality, it will be the human soul as depicted in the Christian bible which will be held to account.

We are all free to accept Jesus as our Saviour.
We have only one lifetime to choose our destiny.

Your statements of unreasoned and unevidenced blind faith do not constitute "sound logic". Remember that "sound logic" is what you claimed to have, so why post these baseless fantasies, rather than said "sound logic"?

[Sebastian Toe]

A material brain cannot be held to account for how we use God's gift of free will.

But if that is how God designed it, then it will be held to account.
Who are you to question God's design?

[ippy]

A material brain cannot be held to account for how we use God's gift of free will.
If free will is a reality, it will be the human soul as depicted in the Christian bible which will be held to account.

We are all free to accept Jesus as our Saviour.
We have only one lifetime to choose our destiny.

More sad than laughable.

Commiserations Alan, ippy

[Alan Burns]

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.

I think you are over simplifying the thought processes involved with memory recall.

In our memory banks, we hold a lifetime of stored data, but not all of it will exist in our present state of awareness.
Consider this process:
A problem or creative idea forms in our mind.
The data needed to process this needs to be selectively recalled into our conscious awareness.
The data is then consciously integrated with the problem or idea in order to reach a satisfactory conclusion.

It is all done by directives from above - our present state of conscious awareness.
It is inconceivable that all this just bubbles up from past events beyond our control in the "bottom up" approach

[Stranger]

It is all done by directives from above - our present state of conscious awareness.
It is inconceivable that all this just bubbles up from past events in the "bottom up" approach

Firstly, the slightest bit of honest introspection will tell you that it isn't all directed "from above" at all. You can't consciously control the next thought that enters your conscious mind, that would be an infinite regress. You said a "problem or creative idea forms in our mind", where from? You didn't consciously choose it from the entirety of all problems or creative ideas, not even from all the ones you know about. You can't choose what is going to occur to you as you contemplate a problem, and what isn't, they just do.

Secondly, it's totally irrelevant anyway, because even if it was all done consciously, that doesn't address the problem of determinism versus randomness; being able to have done differently without randomness is still nonsensical regardless of the role of consciousness. Whenever you are asked to address this you witter on about other subjects entirely.

And, yet again "present state of conscious awareness" is logically meaningless no matter how many times you repeat it. All thoughts occur over periods of time. There is no such thing as "the present" in any sense that makes any logically significant difference.

[torridon]

I think you are over simplifying the thought processes involved with memory recall.

In our memory banks, we hold a lifetime of stored data, but not all of it will exist in our present state of awareness.
Consider this process:
A problem or creative idea forms in our mind.
The data needed to process this needs to be selectively recalled into our conscious awareness.
The data is then consciously integrated with the problem or idea in order to reach a satisfactory conclusion.

It is all done by directives from above - our present state of conscious awareness.
It is inconceivable that all this just bubbles up from past events beyond our control in the "bottom up" approach

I know it feels like our conscious minds are in the driving seat, so to speak. That is how we tend to describe our mental processes, casually.  But a little understanding of the sciences of the mind, or alternatively a little introspection will reveal a more subtle understanding of mind function, and things do indeed 'bubble up' from underneath.  But it is all so subtle, and quick, we don't necessarily realise this. The contents of conscious mind are constructed by subliminal non-conscious processes of mind, and the outcome of a process cannot also be the driver of the same process, that does not work, logically.  The claim that we could choose which thought to think next fails, logically, because choosing the thought would itself be a thought process. The only way to truly understand this is via a bottom up model of conscious mind.

[Alan Burns]

Secondly, it's totally irrelevant anyway, because even if it was all done consciously, that doesn't address the problem of determinism versus randomness; being able to have done differently without randomness is still nonsensical regardless of the role of consciousness. Whenever you are asked to address this you witter on about other subjects entirely.

Not being able to have done differently without randomness ties us to being just an unavoidable mechanistic reaction to past events.

However, the abundant evidence found in human creativity, free thinking abilities, and capacities for achievements beyond normal expectations indicates that there is more to our humanity than mere reactions to the past.  Our ability to selectively recall past events, experiences and knowledge into our present state of conscious awareness allows us the conscious freedom to choose what we do with all this data.  No amount of flawed thinking based upon our limited knowledge of reality can deny us the freedom we all enjoy.

[Alan Burns]

I know it feels like our conscious minds are in the driving seat, so to speak. That is how we tend to describe our mental processes, casually.  But a little understanding of the sciences of the mind, or alternatively a little introspection will reveal a more subtle understanding of mind function, and things do indeed 'bubble up' from underneath.  But it is all so subtle, and quick, we don't necessarily realise this. The contents of conscious mind are constructed by subliminal non-conscious processes of mind, and the outcome of a process cannot also be the driver of the same process, that does not work, logically.  The claim that we could choose which thought to think next fails, logically, because choosing the thought would itself be a thought process. The only way to truly understand this is via a bottom up model of conscious mind.

Can't you see that the process of conscious introspection needed to reveal your somewhat limited understanding of how the mind works is itself evidence of your conscious freedom?

[Stranger]

Not being able to have done differently without randomness ties us to being just an unavoidable mechanistic reaction to past events.

An appeal to consequences fallacy (that means illogical thinking).

However, the abundant evidence found in human creativity, free thinking abilities, and capacities for achievements beyond normal expectations indicates that there is more to our humanity than mere reactions to the past.

Baseless assertion - how does it indicate it? Looks rather like a personal incredulity fallacy (that means illogical thinking).

Our ability to selectively recall past events, experiences and knowledge...

As I already pointed out, we don't do the selection consciously, what occurs to us or not is not under our conscious control.

...into our present state of conscious awareness...

Even if you repeat this drivel a million times the "present state of conscious awareness" will remain logically nonsensical.

...allows us the conscious freedom to choose what we do with all this data.  No amount of flawed thinking based upon our limited knowledge of reality can deny us the freedom we all enjoy.

Nobody denies this sort of "freedom" (to do as we wish), so this is a straw man fallacy (that means illogical thinking).

Where is the "sound logic" you said you had? Why won't you admit you can't produce any?

[Stranger]

Can't you see that the process of conscious introspection needed to reveal your somewhat limited understanding of how the mind works is itself evidence of your conscious freedom?

"Concious freedom" (in the sense we experience it) is not the same thing as being able to have done differently without randomness. The process of introspection (which you seem too afraid to even directly address) does not require the nonsensical ability to have done differently without randomness.

[torridon]

Can't you see that the process of conscious introspection needed to reveal your somewhat limited understanding of how the mind works is itself evidence of your conscious freedom?

In a casual sense, OK, but not in any deeper sense, as already explained.  For instance, the claim that we could choose which thought to have next implies that we can think a thought before we think it.  This is clearly nonsense.

[Alan Burns]

As I already pointed out, we don't do the selection consciously, what occurs to us or not is not under our conscious control.

Of course it is under our conscious control.

When we analyse a problem, we consciously identify what is needed to form a solution.  We then consciously retrieve the data or information which has been consciously identified.  Then we consciously process the data to achieve the consciously intended goal of solving the problem.

Remove the conscious input from this and what is left?
Nothing.

[Alan Burns]

In a casual sense, OK, but not in any deeper sense, as already explained.  For instance, the claim that we could choose which thought to have next implies that we can think a thought before we think it.  This is clearly nonsense.

And the result of your deeper sense of thinking about it implies that these deep thoughts were already determined before you thought them. 

[torridon]

And the result of your deeper sense of thinking about it implies that these deep thoughts were already determined before you consciously thought them. 

FIFY

All our conscious thoughts derive from sub-conscious origins and they emerge into consciousness.  The claim that our thoughts have no provenance is identical to the claim that our thoughts are random. If you agree that we are not random, then you have to let go of your insistence on a top down model of thought processes.

[torridon]

Of course it is under our conscious control.

When we analyse a problem, we consciously identify what is needed to form a solution.  We then consciously retrieve the data or information which has been consciously identified.  Then we consciously process the data to achieve the consciously intended goal of solving the problem.

Remove the conscious input from this and what is left?
Nothing.

Conscious mind is like the tip of the iceberg of the mind, the vast majority of the workings of mind go on under the hood.  We've understood this since Freud, it is not something new.

[Stranger]

Of course it is under our conscious control.

When we analyse a problem, we consciously identify what is needed to form a solution.  We then consciously retrieve the data or information which has been consciously identified.  Then we consciously process the data to achieve the consciously intended goal of solving the problem.

Sorry, but this is obvious nonsense - you can only possibly work with what occurs to you at the time and that is not under your conscious control.

When writing this post, I can't consciously choose what is going to occur to me to say and what I might use to illustrate the point, I'm stuck with choosing between those things that have occurred to me while thinking about it this morning. If I look back later, something entirely different may occur to me that I could have said.

Being able to consciously choose what is going to occur to you (enter your conscious mind) is obviously logically impossible because of the infinite regress.

You claimed to have worked in programming so you must have tackled some reasonable complicated problems. Are you honestly going to say that you had immediate conscious access to all the possible ideas about how to solve it, so you could simply choose the best? Have you never thought long and hard about something only to have the answer, or a better one, occur to you later?

And you're still studiously ignoring the point that the role of consciousness is just something else you seem to have no grasp of, it doesn't matter one jot to your central claim of being able to have done differently without randomness, which is still logically impossible no matter how much conscious control you have convinced yourself you have.

[Alan Burns]

You claimed to have worked in programming so you must have tackled some reasonable complicated problems. Are you honestly going to say that you had immediate conscious access to all the possible ideas about how to solve it, so you could simply choose the best? Have you never thought long and hard about something only to have the answer, or a better one, occur to you later?

And you're still studiously ignoring the point that the role of consciousness is just something else you seem to have no grasp of, it doesn't matter one jot to your central claim of being able to have done differently without randomness, which is still logically impossible no matter how much conscious control you have convinced yourself you have.

I do not see how this can deny the essential role of conscious control over our thought processes.

For my PhD I did research into methods of computer aided optimum design.
I did extensive studies of past methods used.
I sought ways of improving on these methods with particular emphasis on design methods suitable for structural steelwork.
I came up with my own method entitled "a combinatorial backtrack programming algorithm using a two tier search" and applied it successfully to several different types of steel structure.
I know beyond any possible doubt that I could not have achieved this without having the conscious freedom to select an objective, analyse what is needed to achieve the objective, then consciously manipulate what I had drawn in to my conscious awareness in order to reach my chosen objective.  To imagine that all this just bubbles up from past events within our subconscious activity just beggars belief.

[Stranger]

I do not see how this can deny the essential role of conscious control over our thought processes.

Your really not listening, are you? To the extent "conscious control" means anything (i.e. that we use our conscious mind and apply it making choices and working on problem), it is something nobody denies.

However, the idea that it is in total control and everything is top-down as you suggested is obvious nonsense for the reasons I set out and you've just ignored. You cannot consciously control either what occurs to you and when, nor can you consciously control the next thought that enters your conscious mind (that's an infinite regress).

Telling me what you studied and that you couldn't have done it without your conscious mind is irrelevant and the whole role of consciousness is irrelevant to the idea of being able to have done differently without randomness.

You keep on using ambiguous phrases like "conscious freedom" as it were the same thing as the nonsensical ability to have done differently without randomness. You have made no specific argument whatsoever that either addresses the inherent contradiction or links it in any way to anything that humans do. All you've presented is incredulity and appeals to consequences.

Where is your "sound logic"?

[torridon]

I do not see how this can deny the essential role of conscious control over our thought processes.

For my PhD I did research into methods of computer aided optimum design.
I did extensive studies of past methods used.
I sought ways of improving on these methods with particular emphasis on design methods suitable for structural steelwork.
I came up with my own method entitled "a combinatorial backtrack programming algorithm using a two tier search" and applied it successfully to several different types of steel structure.
I know beyond any possible doubt that I could not have achieved this without having the conscious freedom to select an objective, analyse what is needed to achieve the objective, then consciously manipulate what I had drawn in to my conscious awareness in order to reach my chosen objective.  To imagine that all this just bubbles up from past events within our subconscious activity just beggars belief.

So, you worked with the best ideas you had.  Why didn't you choose to have better ideas ?

[Alan Burns]

You keep on using ambiguous phrases like "conscious freedom" as it were the same thing as the nonsensical ability to have done differently without randomness. You have made no specific argument whatsoever that either addresses the inherent contradiction or links it in any way to anything that humans do. All you've presented is incredulity and appeals to consequences.

The words "conscious freedom" simply means that our conscious control is not shackled to comprise mere reactions to past events.
You have previously said that our choices are reactions.
What I am saying is that the achievements of our human mind are not mere reactions, but consciously directed thought processes emanating from a source beyond the limited comprehension of what we can perceive from our physical senses.

[Alan Burns]

So, you worked with the best ideas you had.  Why didn't you choose to have better ideas ?

I could have chosen to go to the pub - perhaps that would have been a better idea!