You put a lot of faith in your ability to produce logical arguments based upon your perception of the premises involved.
I've actually been trying (in vain) to get
you to produce the 'sound logic' or even 'valid arguments' you keep on claiming to have.
You have also claimed in previous posts that such logic is somehow devoid of the laws of physics acting on material elements.
I assume by this that you mean that the specific objections I have made to your position do not depend on physical laws? If so, then that is correct.
I also have to consider that your often quoted logic must be labelled as human logic because it entirely exists within the human mind and is derived by the human mind.
Human logic is all we have. I'll remind you again that it was
you who claimed to have logic to support your claims.
Human logic is an attempt to make sense of what we consciously perceive with our physical senses.
What we perceive with our physical senses is the behaviour of material elements being acted upon by the laws of physics.
So your oft quoted assertion that human logic is somehow devoid of the physical or material is entirely false - it is entirely derived from human perception of physically driven material behaviour.
Boy but you're confused. Why don't you go and look at the free book I pointed you at before, and learn something about logic? What you've said here is just nonsense. Logic is abstract, like mathematics.
So what could possibly be wrong with the logical conclusion that every event must be entirely defined by reaction to previous events - hence everything we "choose" to do, think or say must be an inevitable reaction to the past with no possibility that we could have chosen differently?
1. The initial premise that events must be reactions to the past is based upon the observation that changes take place due to predictable, physically driven reactions to past events.
As I've pointed out multiple times,
no it is not.
This premise ignores the possibility that there could be a non physical cause emanating from a source which exists outside the time dependent "cause and effect" chains of reactions observed in material behaviour.
As I've also pointed out multiple times, whether it's material or not is
totally irrelevant and if it doesn't exist in time (at least
a time dimension), it can't
do anything, and hence can't cause anything.
2. Can our consciously driven efforts to make sense of our perceived reality be driven entirely by the uncontrollable physical reactions occurring in the cells of a material brain? I put it to you that consciously driven control cannot be compatible with inevitable reactions.
You can put it to me if you want, but until you can provide the 'sound logic' you said you had, it's just hot air.
It is has been quoted on this thread that conscious awareness of our "choices" occurs after the choice have been defined by the reactions in our brain cells, which effectively denies the possibility of consciously driven thought processes.
Irrelevant.
3. The premise that all that comprises reality must conform to the consciously observed time dependent "cause and effect" rules of physical material behaviour is an unfounded presumption - not a premise.
I have never proposed that as a premiss - that's your own misrepresentation of what I said. And, yet again, it's
you that need a set of premises and an argument because it's
you who claimed to have 'sound logic'.
Have you just returned to this thread to repeat all the same mistakes you made last time?
