Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

To put it simply, the more you contrive to make these arguments to say that I am wrong, the  more evidence I perceive to confirm that I am right about my belief in the conscious freedom needed to make such arguments.

Just thinking about this get out go jail free card you routinely try when all else fails. Your position (that the making of an argument must itself mean there’s an independent “driver” at work) is called an assertion – ie a claim with no reasoning or evidence to support it. Like any other such assertion, while it may be your subjective opinion on the matter there’s no logical path from the assertion to a justification for it. Its wrongheadedness is explained in the arguments you’re so terrified of addressing, but unless you ever do that then unqualified assertion is all you have.     

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Just thinking about this get out go jail free card you routinely try when all else fails.

You you admit to thinking about my post.
Was it really you guiding this thinking, or was it just a feeling that it was "you"?

Your position (that the making of an argument must itself mean there’s an independent “driver” at work) is called an assertion – ie a claim with no reasoning or evidence to support it.

For something to be asserted, there needs to be a source responsible for such an assertion.
Does this source get traced back through endless chains of uncontrollable physically defined reactions to the beginning of time?
Or is the source of said "assertion" the conscious "me"?
If it was "me", how could I possibly invoke said assertion within a brain entirely defined by the laws of particle physics?

Like any other such assertion, while it may be your subjective opinion on the matter there’s no logical path from the assertion to a justification for it. Its wrongheadedness is explained in the arguments you’re so terrified of addressing, but unless you ever do that then unqualified assertion is all you have.   

Your arguments do not terrify me, because the "me" has the power to consciously contemplate said arguments and come to the inevitable conclusion that such arguments could not be derived from physical reactions alone, because physical reactions have no power to control themselves.  Valid conclusions can't be derived from uncontrollable reactions.  If you try to justify your presumptions about the capability of physical reactions by comparing them to the workings of a computer, just remember that a computer program is simply an extension of the programmer's ability to consciously manipulate physical reactions to achieve a desired result.

[BeRational]

You you admit to thinking about my post.
Was it really you guiding this thinking, or was it just a feeling that it was "you"?For something to be asserted, there needs to be a source responsible for such an assertion.
Does this source get traced back through endless chains of uncontrollable physically defined reactions to the beginning of time?
Or is the source of said "assertion" the conscious "me"?
If it was "me", how could I possibly invoke said assertion within a brain entirely defined by the laws of particle physics?Your arguments do not terrify me, because the "me" has the power to consciously contemplate said arguments and come to the inevitable conclusion that such arguments could not be derived from physical reactions alone, because physical reactions have no power to control themselves.  Valid conclusions can't be derived from uncontrollable reactions.  If you try to justify your presumptions about the capability of physical reactions by comparing them to the workings of a computer, just remember that a computer program is simply an extension of the programmer's ability to consciously manipulate physical reactions to achieve a desired result.

I just don't think you understand, so any further replies are not worthwhile.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You you admit to thinking about my post.

“admit”? You have a facility to slipping in unwarranted pejoratives, presumably in the hope no-one notices. Do you “admit” to experiencing the sky as blue? (It isn’t.) Do you “admit” to hard objects striking each other making sound? (They don’t.)

I readily describe the experience of considering your post as “thinking”, just as I describe my experience of the sky as being blue. When you make the mistake of thinking that your senses provide the full explanation for the phenomena they’re sensing though (as you always do), then you just end up with wrongheadedness.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand?     

Was it really you guiding this thinking, or was it just a feeling that it was "you"?

At a superficial level, it was my perception of “me”; at a rational, reasoned, evidence-based level however “me” is just the conscious mind doing its thing, and there’s no evidence either for a separate entity to do the “guiding” and nor for any known process by which that could happen. More importantly still, theres no necessity for it for the deterministic model to provide exactly the sense of "me" that you have in any case.     

Again, why is this so difficult for you to understand?     

For something to be asserted, there needs to be a source responsible for such an assertion.
Does this source get traced back through endless chains of uncontrollable physically defined reactions to the beginning of time?

Effectively, yes.

Or is the source of said "assertion" the conscious "me"?

Not in the sense I think you’re attempting “me” (as some kind of entity somehow floating free of deterministic processes), no.   

If it was "me", how could I possibly invoke said assertion within a brain entirely defined by the laws of particle physics?

Easily at least conceptually when you consider what “me” actually entails, rather than the way it feels just as a sensory experience.

Your arguments do not terrify me,…

Then why on earth will you never, ever address them?

…because the "me" has the power to consciously contemplate said arguments and come to the inevitable conclusion that such arguments could not be derived from physical reactions alone, because physical reactions have no power to control themselves.  Valid conclusions can't be derived from uncontrollable reactions.  If you try to justify your presumptions about the capability of physical reactions by comparing them to the workings of a computer, just remember that a computer program is simply an extension of the programmer's ability to consciously manipulate physical reactions to achieve a desired result.

All of which mindless drivel has been exploded here and countless times on this mb in the past. Yet again, your perception of “conscious control” has no more explanatory value than your perception of the sky being blue.

We all experience thinking and, at a simplistic level, the sense of agency independent of underlying processes is a good enough narrative for day-to-day use. Some of us though are capable of grasping that that narrative collapses very quickly under challenge because it requires various supernatural whatnots to be invented to explain away its contradictions.

You seem to be able to construct coherent sentences (more or less), so presumably there’s some intelligence at least at work here. Why then can’t you just for once park the adolescent reasoning and try to consider at least the arguments that show it to be wrong rather than repeat endlessly de facto versions of the argument from personal incredulity?

What’s stopping you, other that is from fear of what you might find out if you had a sudden rush of honesty to the head?     

[Owlswing]

AB,

“admit”? You have a facility to slipping in unwarranted pejoratives, presumably in the hope no one notices. Do you “admit” to experiencing the sky as blue? (It isn’t.) Do you “admit” too hard objects striking each other making sound? (They don’t.)

I readily describe the experience of considering your post as “thinking”, just as I describe my experience of the sky as being blue. When you make the mistake of thinking that your senses provide the full explanation for the phenomena they’re sensing though (as you always do), then you just end up with wrongheadedness.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand?     

At a superficial level, it was “me”; at a rational, reasoned, evidence-based level, however, “me” is just the conscious mind doing its thing, and there’s no evidence either for a separate entity to do the “guiding”, or for any known process by which that could happen. More importantly, still, there's no necessity for it for the deterministic model to provide exactly the sense of "me" that you have.     

Again, why is this so difficult for you to understand?     

Effectively, yes.

Not in the sense I think you’re attempting “me” (as some kind of entity somehow floating free of deterministic processes), no.   

Easily at least conceptually when you consider what “me” actually entails, rather than the way it feels just as a sensory experience.

Then why on earth will you never, ever address them?

All of which mindless drivel has been exploded here and countless times on this mb in the past. Yet again, your perception of “conscious control” has no more explanatory value than your perception of the sky being blue.

We all experience thinking and, at a simplistic level, the sense of agency independent of underlying processes is a good enough narrative for day-to-day use. Some of us though are capable of grasping that that narrative collapses very quickly under challenge because it requires various supernatural whatnots to be invented to explain away its contradictions.

You seem to be able to construct coherent sentences more or less, so presumably, there’s some intelligence at east at work here. Why then can’t you just for once park the adolescent reasoning and try to consider at least the argument that shows it to be wrong rather than repeat endlessly de facto versions of the arguments from personal incredulity?

What’s stopping you, other that is from fear of what you might find out if you had a sudden rush of honesty to the head?     

Because he believes the contents Bible and believes in God!

In some applications, this prevents him from understanding the truth about anthing!

[Alan Burns]

Because he believes the contents Bible and believes in God!

In some applications, this prevents him from understanding the truth about anthing!

You seem to have it the wrong way round.
You do not need to believe in God in order to know that you have the power to consciously control your own thought processes.

Bluehillside suggests that I should try to delve deeper into the evidence which he claims will show that all my thoughts, words and actions must be determined by chains of reactions governed by the laws of physics which are beyond my conscious control.  Can you not see the obvious absurdity in this?  You have a materially deterministic brain somehow trying to delve deeper into its own workings.  The reality is that in order to examine the workings of a material brain, you need an independent intelligent entity to do the consciously controlled delving.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You seem to have it the wrong way round.

No he hasn’t.

You do not need to believe in God in order to know that you have the power to consciously control your own thought processes.

You don’t know that at all – you assert it to be so (because the notion is fundamental to your religious beliefs) but there are no good reasons for thinking your assertion to be correct.

Bluehillside suggests that I should try to delve deeper into the evidence which he claims will show that all my thoughts, words and actions must be determined by chains of reactions governed by the laws of physics which are beyond my conscious control.

Yes. Why don’t you though?

Can you not see the obvious absurdity in this?

Argument from personal incredulity.

Yet again.

You have a materially deterministic brain somehow trying to delve deeper into its own workings.

Yes. That’s what the emergent properties of consciousness and self-awareness enable us to do. Rather wonderful isn’t it.

The reality is that in order to examine the workings of a material brain, you need an independent intelligent entity to do the consciously controlled delving.

And the same mindless assertion to finish. That’s not “the reality” at all -  it’s just your personal reality resting on your odd conviction that sensory perception gives you a more robust explanation than reason and evidence (though only sometimes when needed to validate your religious belief, but not otherwise – perceiving the sky as blue for example).     

[Alan Burns]

I readily describe the experience of considering your post as “thinking”, just as I describe my experience of the sky as being blue. When you make the mistake of thinking that your senses provide the full explanation for the phenomena they’re sensing though (as you always do), then you just end up with wrongheadedness.

You try to associate our perception of thoughts with the perception of colour.

The obvious difference is that you have no control of colour, but you do have control of your thoughts.

[Alan Burns]

You don’t know that at all – you assert it to be so (because the notion is fundamental to your religious beliefs) but there are no good reasons for thinking your assertion to be correct.

To sum up your argument as I see it -

If you think about it, you should realise that you do not have any personal power to think - you can only perceive that you are thinking 

[Enki]

Alan,

Just one day ago, as part of a response to one of your posts, I said this(post 42599).

How many times have you started your assertion with words like "Can you not see..."? You often try this tack of appealing to our judgement to be able to see something simply because you feel it is impossible or absurd. These are simply expressions of your incredulity  and your appeals almost always fail because you give no reason to think something is wrong or absurd.

Today, as part of your post 42605, you say this:

Bluehillside suggests that I should try to delve deeper into the evidence which he claims will show that all my thoughts, words and actions must be determined by chains of reactions governed by the laws of physics which are beyond my conscious control.  Can you not see the obvious absurdity in this?  You have a materially deterministic brain somehow trying to delve deeper into its own workings.  The reality is that in order to examine the workings of a material brain, you need an independent intelligent entity to do the consciously controlled delving.

The same hackneyed, incredulous approach, the same assertions, the same total lack of reasoned argument. It is such a counterproductive approach that I can only assume you do this to bolster your own faith pretensions rather than convince  people like Blue, who always uses reasoned arguments to make his points.

[SusanDoris]

I think that is a well said and interesting post, enki, but I also think that the chances of AB responding with any kind of indication that he has taken in even a single syllable is unlikely.

During previous months, when there was no action on this topic, I managed to distance myself far enough away from it so that now I only look at the last post, and that only if it is by someone sensible!

 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You try to associate our perception of thoughts with the perception of colour.

The obvious difference is that you have no control of colour, but you do have control of your thoughts.

Whoosh (1). You’ve completely missed the point. The beliefs that the sky is blue and that we have “control of our thoughts” are analogous. They’re both explanatory narratives based only on sensory perceptions. The way things seem to be at an experiential level does not though mean that that’s the way things actually are.

Again, why is this so difficult for you to grasp – even conceptually?     

To sum up your argument as I see it -

If you think about it, you should realise that you do not have any personal power to think - you can only perceive that you are thinking   

Whoosh (2). The process of thinking (ie, of our brains processing information) feels like there’s an independent “me” at the controls, but a “me” independent of determinative causes is a logical impossibility.   

Once again, why is this so difficult for you to grasp – even conceptually?     

I really can’t tell whether you’re unable to understand the arguments, or just refuse to address them because their consequences would be too scary for you. There’s a rhetorical device called steel manning – basically the opposite of straw manning. With steel manning you set out the best version you can of your opponent’s arguments, and then see whether you can rebut those best versions. Why not give that a try? Why not try honestly to describe the points that the way things seem is not necessarily the way things are, that non-determinative processes would be random, that there’s neither meaningful definition nor any evidence at all for a supposed “soul” etc, and then try to show those arguments to be wrong?

I would of course be willing to do the same for you if you’d like to make some arguments of your own, but a succession of “but can’t you see…”, “the reality is...” etc type assertions are not arguments, so I have nothing to steel man.       

[Alan Burns]

. The process of thinking (ie, of our brains processing information) feels like there’s an independent “me” at the controls, but a “me” independent of determinative causes is a logical impossibility.   
     

I have never claimed that our freedom to think is independent of determinative causes.

My contention lies with the cause.

If all our thoughts are determined by physical reactions, we can have no personal control over the outcome - we just experience it.
So any attempt at thinking about anything will just be an experience controlled by the laws of physics.
How can you possibly give credence to a thought process over which you have no personal control?

For logical thought processes to have any meaningful conclusion, you need a means of conscious control to reach a verifiable result.
The means of control is you - your conscious self.  Not the uncontrollable reactions in particle physics.

[Alan Burns]

The same hackneyed, incredulous approach, the same assertions, the same total lack of reasoned argument. It is such a counterproductive approach that I can only assume you do this to bolster your own faith pretensions rather than convince  people like Blue, who always uses reasoned arguments to make his points.

I do this because my incredulity is not based on personal preference.  It is based upon impossibility.  The impossibility of unguidable material reactions to generate meaningful thought processes to reach a consciously verifiable conclusion.

As I previously pointed out - comparison with computer programs is not valid because such programs are an extension of the conscious power of a computer programmer to deliberately manipulate material reactions to reach a desired result.  Conscious human control is the ultimate source of any computer output.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I have never claimed that our freedom to think is independent of determinative causes.

But you have claimed that the experience of such “freedom” is somehow independent of its antecedent events – basically that there’s some magical process that can pick and choose from a menu of options. That’s your problem. 

My contention lies with the cause.

If all our thoughts are determined by physical reactions, we can have no personal control over the outcome - we just experience it.

Essentially, at a deeper level of abstraction than just the way thigs seem, yes. 

So any attempt at thinking about anything will just be an experience controlled by the laws of physics.

Wow – are you finally getting it?

How can you possibly give credence to a thought process over which you have no personal control?

Aw, now you just collapsed back into another argument from personal incredulity. I give “credence” to the workaday perception of free will not being its explanation because that’s what the available reasoning and evidence tells me. Why don’t you?     

For logical thought processes to have any meaningful conclusion, you need a means of conscious control to reach a verifiable result.

And your justification for that unqualified, reason-denying assertion would be what?

The means of control is you - your conscious self.  Not the uncontrollable reactions in particle physics.

Ditto.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

But you have claimed that the experience of such “freedom” is somehow independent of its antecedent events – basically that there’s some magical process that can pick and choose from a menu of options. That’s your problem. 

The antecedents can influence, but not dictate.
We have conscious awareness of such antecedents but the do not dictate our thoughts.

Put it this way,

A desired outcome is evidence of conscious control of events needed to reach such a desired outcome.
It is also evidence of a perceived goal which is needed to consciously define and verify the desired outcome.
Without conscious control, we have no road map to reach a desired outcome.
Our conscious awareness is not just a spectator, but an essential participator required to invoke whatever events are needed to achieve our consciously held desire.  Where can such essential interaction occur within endless chains of physically defined cause and effect which are beyond conscious control?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The antecedents can influence, but not dictate.

I don’t know what’s wrong with you, I really don’t. The antecedents do “dictate” (ie, determine) in the sense that they produce outcomes, just as the antecedents in any system do. Whether the system is a simple lever or a hugely complex consciousness makes no difference to that basic principle.

Why can’t you understand this very simple point?     

We have conscious awareness of such antecedents but the do not dictate our thoughts.

Dear god but you struggle. This is a type of circular reasoning (yet another fallacy by the way). You presuppose an “our” independent of one set of thoughts, that itself then exercises a different set of thoughts to make its choices, like someone ordering from a menu. Even leaving aside for now the problem this give you of the separate “our” needing its own thought processes to do the choosing, this is a fundamentally wrongheaded grasp of what’s happening. “Our”, “I”, “me” etc are useful constructions that give us our sense of self and of agency, but they’re nonetheless jus manifestation of a single, integrated whole. Just carving out bits of that because you don’t like the implications of it is beyond stupid – forgivable perhaps when you had the thought age 14, but not so now.       

Put it this way,…

Groan. Not again with the same dim-witted incomprehension surely?

A desired outcome is evidence of conscious control of events needed to reach such a desired outcome.

No it isn’t. Or at least not in the sense you intend. I “desire” tea rather than coffee, but that sense of preference is itself just processes playing out. There’s no necessity for a wee magic man at the controls (with no rational processes of any kind of its own) for that to be the case however much you may wish that was the case.

It is also evidence of a perceived goal which is needed to consciously define and verify the desired outcome.

Nope. See above.

Without conscious control, we have no road map to reach a desired outcome.

There’s no “road map” needed, and the “desired outcome” is just what a fundamentally determinative process feels like as a lived experience.     

Our conscious awareness is not just a spectator, but an essential participator required to invoke whatever events are needed to achieve our consciously held desire.  Where can such essential interaction occur within endless chains of physically defined cause and effect which are beyond conscious control?

Actually “we” essentially are “spectators”, and you’re still utterly lost in the juvenilia of thinking there’s some kind of mystical, stand alone “we” at play that by some entirely unknown process can reach into and manipulate our cognitive functions.   

Look, I just invited you to try at least to describe the arguments that undo you to show that you at least grasp them even if you can’t rebut them. Instead, and typically, all you’ve done is to ignore the arguments and to repeat exactly the same un-argued assertions over and over again. And here’s the problem this gives you: in any debate with reasoned argument on one side and unqualified assertions on the other, guess which wins?

So, if you seriously want to find a way out of that hole here it is: after all these – what, years? - of reason-free assertions with no arguments at all to justify them, you need finally to attempt at least some arguments of your own. “Surelys”, “must bes”, "do your seriouslys” etc though are not arguments – but, so far at least, that’s all you have.     

[Sebastian Toe]

The antecedents can influence, but not dictate.
We have conscious awareness of such antecedents but the do not dictate our thoughts.

Put it this way,

A desired outcome is evidence of conscious control of events needed to reach such a desired outcome.
It is also evidence of a perceived goal which is needed to consciously define and verify the desired outcome.
Without conscious control, we have no road map to reach a desired outcome.
Our conscious awareness is not just a spectator, but an essential participator required to invoke whatever events are needed to achieve our consciously held desire.  Where can such essential interaction occur within endless chains of physically defined cause and effect which are beyond conscious control?

I'm curious, how does a "soul" determine that it consciously desires to run around clucking like a chicken
when you hear the Birdie Song,  at the behest of a hypnotist?
Surely it must have taken note of all of the inputs available and then made that decision?
Why?

[Alan Burns]

I'm curious, how does a "soul" determine that it consciously desires to run around clucking like a chicken
when you hear the Birdie Song,  at the behest of a hypnotist?
Surely it must have taken note of all of the inputs available and then made that decision?
Why?

I presume that the hypnotist employs a technique to override the victim's own control of bodily functions and effectively becomes the temporary controller.

[Enki]

I do this because my incredulity is not based on personal preference.  It is based upon impossibility.  The impossibility of unguidable material reactions to generate meaningful thought processes to reach a consciously verifiable conclusion.

As I previously pointed out - comparison with computer programs is not valid because such programs are an extension of the conscious power of a computer programmer to deliberately manipulate material reactions to reach a desired result.  Conscious human control is the ultimate source of any computer output.

That sounds mighty like a personal preference to me. The fact that you think it to be impossible, of course, doesn't mean it is.

As there is good reason and evidence to suggest that cognitive function is a result of complex brain processes which involves the unconscious as well as the conscious, that the same or similar processes are present in many other animals and that there is no evidence at all of a 'soul' or similar 'driver' of any kind, it begins to look as if your idea of 'impossibility' is simply a result of your own incredulity, especially as you give no reason or evidence to back up your own claims.

As I have not compared cognitive function to the idea of a program produced by a computer programmer, I see no reason to comment on this part at all.

[torridon]

If all our thoughts are determined by physical reactions, we can have no personal control over the outcome - we just experience it.
So any attempt at thinking about anything will just be an experience controlled by the laws of physics.
..

I think you are on the right lines there.

Your liver is the organ where blood filtration happens.  Your heart is the organ where pumping happens.  Your lungs are where oxygenation happens.  Your brain is the organ where thinking happens, it is where thoughts occur. You cannot control your fundamental brain function any more than you can control your kidney function. Mental phenomena are things we experience, we do not choose to have them, we do not control them.

[Gordon]

I presume that the hypnotist employs a technique to override the victim's own control of bodily functions and effectively becomes the temporary controller.

Or simply takes advantage of, and exploits, how the brain normally operates in certain circumstances where that varies, such as in going to sleep, staying awake for long periods or taking certain drugs: brains are easily fooled too, such as by illusions.

I doubt that represents a hypnotist being a "temporary controller" though and if you think that then clearly you'd have to conclude that this divinely-gifted 'soul' thing you claim we have must be flawed if it can be so easily fooled.

[Stranger]

I do this because my incredulity is not based on personal preference.  It is based upon impossibility.  The impossibility of unguidable material reactions to generate meaningful thought processes to reach a consciously verifiable conclusion.

Still spouting the same inane assertions, I see. Where is the impossibility? You cannot just assert something into being impossible. Show your working.

[Stranger]

The antecedents can influence, but not dictate.
We have conscious awareness of such antecedents but the do not dictate our thoughts.

Then our thoughts must be (to the extent they are not so dictated) random (for all the reasons you keep on just ignoring).

A desired outcome is evidence of conscious control of events needed to reach such a desired outcome.
It is also evidence of a perceived goal which is needed to consciously define and verify the desired outcome.
Without conscious control, we have no road map to reach a desired outcome.
Our conscious awareness is not just a spectator, but an essential participator required to invoke whatever events are needed to achieve our consciously held desire.

Irrelevant waffle. The role of consciousness doesn't matter to the logic and you have shown no contradiction between 'conscious control' and determinism.

Where can such essential interaction occur within endless chains of physically defined cause and effect which are beyond conscious control?

[Misrepresentation struck out]

What are you even asking? The chains of cause and effect are the processes of goal setting, choice-making, and so on. To the extent 'conscious control' is a thing, it is a process of cause and effect.

[torridon]

I do this because my incredulity is not based on personal preference.  It is based upon impossibilitymy personal incredulity.  The impossibility of unguidable material reactions to generate meaningful thought processes to reach a consciously verifiable conclusion.
...

There you go, FIFY.

The 'impossibility' you see is no more impossible than the impossibility of people in Australia living their entire lives upside down and not even noticing - this being the naïve thinking of a flat earther who is unable to make that conceptual leap of understanding from flat Earth to a round Earth.  This is where you are at; like a race horse refusing to make that jump, you are stalled, either unable or unwilling to make that conceptual leap of understanding that mind does, in fact, arise from matter.