Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I appreciate your efforts in trying to put me right, but in all this you are missing the most fundamental point.
Before you can start with rhetorical logic ...
Before you can consider axioms ...
Before you you can  establish a premise ...
Before you can engage in arguments ...
Before you can falsify ...
Before you can draw conclusions ...

You need to have the necessary data in your conscious awareness, and you need the power to consciously manipulate this data to enact the above goals and make sense in what you are trying to do.  And if your conclusions deny this fundamental power, you must have gone wrong somewhere in your mentally controlled manipulations.

You haven’t understood (again). Of course we need to have “conscious awareness”. What we don’t need though is a separate “you” (ie, a “soul”) that somehow decides what it wants the zombie you to do, and then by some unknown means communicates its instructions.

As I tried to explain to you (apparently without success) the claim “soul” is a premise that’s falsifiable, but you treat it as if it’s axiomatic in order to protect it from rational challenge. That’s where you keep going wrong. Just forget for a moment your notion that your little man at the controls idea is a necessary fact, must be true etc. Treat it instead as a premise – ie, in principle falsifiable – and then apply the arguments you’ve been given here countless time that do falsify it.

If you did this you’d quickly find that the whole edifice collapses in a heap of contradictions and fallacious thinking. That’s not though to say that your consequent belief “God” is misplaced – it is however to say that one of the key planks in your thinking to justify your belief in a god falls away.

[Alan Burns]

They don't 'deny', or refute, that we have a consciousness. What they refute is that it's 'free', what they refute is that it's the product of some disembodied 'soul' that operates on fundamentally different rules from everything else we understand in existence because... um... gods?

O.

Of course we all have conscious awareness - but do we have the freedom to control and manipulate what goes on in there, or are we just a spectator of what has been determined by the laws of particle physics?  Without this freedom to control, how can you come to any verifiable conclusions?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB

Of course we all have conscious awareness - but do we have the freedom to control and manipulate what goes on in there, or are we just a spectator of what has been determined by the laws of particle physics?  Without this freedom to control, how can you come to any verifiable conclusions?

   

Your question betrays your continuing misunderstanding. There need not be a “we” in the sense you imply – either pulling the levers, or standing by arms folded. We come to verifiable conclusions when the single, integrated, vastly complicated brain itself gives rise to consciousness capable of applying reason and logic. Try to understand this, at least in principle.   

[Outrider]

Of course we all have conscious awareness - but do we have the freedom to control and manipulate what goes on in there, or are we just a spectator of what has been determined by the laws of particle physics?  Without this freedom to control, how can you come to any verifiable conclusions?

Because the logic of the conclusion is not dependent upon a capacity to choose. If the evidence suggests we don't have a choice, then the conclusion is that we don't have a choice. The conclusion does not have to be something that's chosen, it is an inevitable that we will individually come to the right or wrong conclusion on that question.

O.

[Alan Burns]

AB
   

Your question betrays your continuing misunderstanding. There need not be a “we” in the sense you imply – either pulling the levers, or standing by arms folded. We come to verifiable conclusions when the single, integrated, vastly complicated brain itself gives rise to consciousness capable of applying reason and logic. Try to understand this, at least in principle.   

No matter how much complexity there is in a material brain, the functioning of a material brain will be entirely driven by chains of reactions dictated by the laws of particle physics.  So any concept of control or manipulation would be fully automated by unavoidable reactions to past events.  In other words, "you" are irrelevant.

To be capable of applying logic and reasoning to whatever knowledge resides in your conscious awareness, there needs to be consciously controlled manipulation of thought processes - not automated reactions.  The same applies to casting judgement on other people's reasoning and conclusions.  How can a verifiable judgement be reached within automated reactions?

[Alan Burns]

Because the logic of the conclusion is not dependent upon a capacity to choose. If the evidence suggests we don't have a choice, then the conclusion is that we don't have a choice. The conclusion does not have to be something that's chosen, it is an inevitable that we will individually come to the right or wrong conclusion on that question.

O.

And who (or what) is qualified to judge what is right or what is wrong?

[Outrider]

And who is qualified to judge what is right or what is wrong?

Us, collectively and individually. We each make that determination, and we're each tasked by society with trying to convince each other. What you believe inside your own head - your 'right' answers' - are entirely irrelevant unless you start promulgating them, exactly as mine are. Once we start trying to influence others by sharing our thoughts, though, we have a responsibility to try and be right, and to have a justification for thinking that we're right that goes beyond 'it satisfies me'.

You can be as right or wrong as you want if it makes you happy, but if you want the rest of the world to adopt your thinking as the next stage of science then you need to convince the rest of the world - so who's qualified to make that judgement, everyone you want to convince.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

No matter how much complexity there is in a material brain, the functioning of a material brain will be entirely driven by chains of reactions dictated by the laws of particle physics.  So any concept of control or manipulation would be fully automated by unavoidable reactions to past events.  In other words, "you" are irrelevant.

Given how often I’ve explained to you the fallacy of the argumentum ad consequentiam why do you keep committing it?

No, “you” are not irrelevant, but there’s no good reason to suppose there are two “yous” in play – a controlling “soul” and a zombie you to be “manipulated”. Your dislike for that reality is entirely irrelevant to it being reality.   

To be capable of applying logic and reasoning to whatever knowledge resides in your conscious awareness, there needs to be consciously controlled manipulation of thought processes - not automated reactions.  The same applies to casting judgement on other people's reasoning and conclusions.  How can a verifiable judgement be reached within automated reactions?

Utter nonsense for the reasons I’ve explained to you and you seem to be entirely incapable of addressing.

Look, try this: you remain lost in descriptions of phenomena (“for you to make this argument, there must be a controlling…” yada yada etc) rather than addressing the structure of the argument you’re attempting to do that. Forget that. Forget “soul”, “god”, “control”, “manipulate” etc. Forget all of it. Now change your focus entirely, and try to instead think of the structure of the argument you’re attempting to discuss these things.

If it helps you by all means populate the argument with something else, but at some point if you want the scales to fall you’ll need to grasp the difference between an axiom and a premise, and to understand why arguments that undo your premise cannot be falsified with arguments that are false (including the argumentum ad consequentiam).

Can you do that? Can you at least try to understand how rhetorical logic works such that you can discuss it in the abstract without getting hung up on a priori assumptions like “soul”?

Or do you not want the scales to fall at all for fear of what you might see if they did?         

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

And who (or what) is qualified to judge what is right or what is wrong?

It's "what", and that what is reason and logic. You are of course entitled to junk that for a personal truth (essentially, "in my head 2+2=5, therefore 2+2 does = 5") but as you claimed earlier to be interested in removing "false barriers" to other people agreeing with your truth, your only way to do that is to provide validating reason and logic of your own that aren't hopeless.

And if you can do that, why don't you?   

[torridon]

No matter how much complexity there is in a material brain, the functioning of a material brain will be entirely driven by chains of reactions dictated by the laws of particle physics.  So any concept of control or manipulation would be fully automated by unavoidable reactions to past events.  In other words, "you" are irrelevant.
..

Better to think of the 'you' as something that emerges from all that flow of thoughts.  There is no distinct entity inside orchestrating the functioning of our brains.  Brains just get on doing what brains do.  So, it is not so much as there is a 'me, ' driving your thoughts, but rather, we have a sense of 'me' that derives from all that mental cogitation.  We are defined by our thoughts, we are a product of our thoughts. When we stop thinking, as under general anesthetic, that 'me' totally ceases to exist.

[Alan Burns]

Better to think of the 'you' as something that emerges from all that flow of thoughts.  There is no distinct entity inside orchestrating the functioning of our brains.  Brains just get on doing what brains do.  So, it is not so much as there is a 'me, ' driving your thoughts, but rather, we have a sense of 'me' that derives from all that mental cogitation.  We are defined by our thoughts, we are a product of our thoughts. When we stop thinking, as under general anesthetic, that 'me' totally ceases to exist.

But the "me" or "you" is demonstrably capable of far more that what can emerge from the physically predetermined reactions in particle physics.  You vastly underestimate the role of our conscious awareness - it is not just an observer of the consequences of past physical reactions. 

[Nearly Sane]

But the "me" or "you" is demonstrably capable of far more that what can emerge from the physically predetermined reactions in particle physics. 

You do know that in order to demonstrate something you actually have to demonstrate it, and not just write 'demonstrably' in a sentence?

[torridon]

But the "me" or "you" is demonstrably capable of far more that what can emerge from the physically predetermined reactions in particle physics.  You vastly underestimate the role of our conscious awareness - it is not just an observer of the consequences of past physical reactions.

That's just your incredulity showing.  Could you calculate what is the limit that can in fact emerge out of the fundamental laws of nature ? Nobody knows this, not you, not I. What we do know, is that this planet had birthed a stream of increasingly complex brains/minds over the last 3.7 billion years from the earliest and simplest life forms through to the present day and we can account for most of this development without recourse to magical thinking.  To stall over human consciousness now represents a failure of will to understand after we have come this far.

[Alan Burns]

You do know that in order to demonstrate something you actually have to demonstrate it, and not just write 'demonstrably' in a sentence?

In writing this post I am demonstrating my conscious freedom to do so.

[Alan Burns]

That's just your incredulity showing.  Could you calculate what is the limit that can in fact emerge out of the fundamental laws of nature ? Nobody knows this, not you, not I. What we do know, is that this planet had birthed a stream of increasingly complex brains/minds over the last 3.7 billion years from the earliest and simplest life forms through to the present day and we can account for most of this development without recourse to magical thinking.  To stall over human consciousness now represents a failure of will to understand after we have come this far.

In this you fail to appreciate the unimaginable creativity emanating from an intelligent entity beyond human understanding.
We are all made in God's image - being able to use our gifts of free will and creativity to consciously manipulate this material universe - not just react to it.

[Sebastian Toe]

In writing this post I am demonstrating my conscious freedom to do so.

In writing this post I am demonstrating my biological brain working without recourse to magical, wishful thinking.

[torridon]

In this you fail to appreciate the unimaginable creativity emanating from an intelligent entity beyond human understanding.
We are all made in God's image - being able to use our gifts of free will and creativity to consciously manipulate this material universe - not just react to it.

More incredulity and baseless assertions. There is no evidence to support any of the above.

[torridon]

In writing this post I am demonstrating my conscious freedom to do so.

The only freedom manifested in that was that nobody stopped you from exercising your will.  This does not merit supernatural explanations.

[Nearly Sane]

In writing this post I am demonstrating my conscious freedom to do so.

There are people who are highly skilled at packing for long trips away and manage to get all they need into a tiny piece of hand luggage, and not because they lack personal hygeine standards. You remind me of them in your ability to pack such few words with such a miscellany of mistake, misrepresentation, and misunderstanding.

1. Your reply here was to a post of mine challenging your claim "But the "me" or "you" is demonstrably capable of far more that what can emerge from the physically predetermined reactions in particle physics". Instead of answering about that you have just ignored it and made a different claim.

2. Your new claim: 'In writing this post I am demonstrating my conscious freedom to do so', is one that no one on here outright disputes. You making it seems to indicate that you haven't actually read the many many many, so fucking many posts that talk about you having the 'freedom' to act as you want but not the 'freedom' to choose what you want.
The meaning of freedom in the sentence has been raised many times but it appears that you have no ability to understand that.


3. That you think that a subjective view of an act can be used to demonstrate it intersubjectively underlines a major problem with how you participate in discussions. You assert your personal experience as objective truth and yet would not accept a Muslim's personal experience as truth.


4. That you even think that your post in any way is going to be a demonstration to others here of your claim would be naive at best. There is nothing to stop it being generated by a bot.

5. Ironically of all the posters on here that I have seen, your posting is the most reminiscent of a bot, and often a not very well programmed one. Take your initial  'error' here on presenting an entirely different claim to the one challenged; that reads like either some bad programming, or some deliberate programming which stays when challenged, insert new claim.
The entirety of your posting reads as covered in point 2 as if you don't actually understand of the posts here but are a fairly basic programme which has a number of if statements which take the posts in a circle.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But the "me" or "you" is demonstrably capable of far more that what can emerge from the physically predetermined reactions in particle physics.

If you think that unqualified assertion is true, then you need actually to demonstrate it rather than just assert it to be so. You also need to do that with argument rather than by just repeating the vapid mantra of “the fact that I can type this…etc”.

Good luck though.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

In writing this post I am demonstrating my conscious freedom to do so.

Oh. Oh well – never mind then. Does it occur to you though that if your mission is to remove “false barriers” you’re very unlikely to do that here when you run away from arguments and rely instead on repeated evasiveness and idiocy to do the job for you?     

[jeremyp]

No matter how much complexity there is in a material brain, the functioning of a material brain will be entirely driven by chains of reactions dictated by the laws of particle physics. 

Correct. So there's no opportunity for some external entity like an immortal soul to interfere.

[Outrider]

In this you fail to appreciate the unimaginable creativity emanating from an intelligent entity beyond human understanding.

That it appears to be beyond your imagining doesn't automatically mean that it's beyond human understanding.

We are all made in God's image - being able to use our gifts of free will and creativity to consciously manipulate this material universe - not just react to it.

The evidence available does not support that - how come the evidence, which is there and can be seen and measured and touched is 'beyond human understanding and imagination', but your reputed god for which there is no hard evidence is not?

O.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

    In writing this post I am demonstrating my conscious freedom to do so.

Oh. Oh well – never mind then. Does it occur to you though that if your mission is to remove “false barriers” you’re very unlikely to do that here when you run away from arguments and rely instead on repeated evasiveness and idiocy to do the job for you?     

So by claiming to have the conscious freedom to write what I choose, I am being accused of evasiveness and idiocy.

Just to clarify - my concept of freedom means that under identical circumstances I could have used my God given gift of free will to have chosen differently.  In other words, my choices are not dictated by inevitable, unavoidable reactions to prior events, but by a means of consciously interacting with the laws of nature rather than simply reacting.  I fully understand that from a purely materialist view, I could not have chosen differently because a material brain has to function in accordance with the laws of physics.  What I am pointing out is that the perception of our freedom to choose and consciously guide our own thoughts is a reality - not just a feeling. 

I admit that I repeat my views many times.  This is because I have never had a feasible explanation for how value judgements can arise  from thought processes without the freedom to consciously contemplate what is perceived by our conscious awareness.  In the materialist model, how can the fall out from my material reactions be considered somehow inferior to the fall out from another person's reactions?  Who or what can possibly judge what is right without the consciously controlled freedom to think, apply logic and home in to conclusions?

You seem unable to accept any evidence other that that obtained from scientific knowledge derived from observation of material behaviour, so any conclusions derived from such evidence will inevitably be forced to fit in within the observed limitations of physically driven material reactions.  Yet even within this scientific knowledge there is evidence of unseen forces.  Quantum indeterminacy describes events which occur with no discernable cause.  You might presume that such events would be random, but if they were truly random we would not exist.  The stability and predictability we see at the molecular level is dependent on the probability of certain quantum events occurring at specific places and times - which must lead us to conclude that such events do have a cause which we are unable to detect by current scientific means.

So instead of seeking reasons to dismiss evidence for God and your own spiritual nature, I implore you to open up your amazing human mind to explore the possibility that there is more to reality than the limited scope of what can be discovered through human scientific investigation.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

So by claiming to have the conscious freedom to write what I choose, I am being accused of evasiveness and idiocy.

No. It’s by never addressing the arguments that falsify you and instead repeating the same mindless mantras (“The fact that I can….” etc) that those arguments deal with that you’re being accused of evasiveness and idiocy.

Rightly so.   

Just to clarify –

Must you? Oh well...

…my concept of freedom means that under identical circumstances I could have used my God given gift of free will to have chosen differently.  In other words, my choices are not dictated by inevitable, unavoidable reactions to prior events, but by a means of consciously interacting with the laws of nature rather than simply reacting.

You just jumped straight from “my concept” to a declaration of fact. Not that you’ll care, but that’s called the fallacy of reification. If you want to resolve the manifold problems and contradictions your personal "concept" gives you, then you need to find some arguments to do the job. And no – assertion isn’t argument.     

I fully understand that from a purely materialist view, I could not have chosen differently because a material brain has to function in accordance with the laws of physics.

Quite. As you have no evidence to indicate that there’s even such a thing as a non-material though, that’s the end of the story. At least for now.

What I am pointing out is that the perception of our freedom to choose and consciously guide our own thoughts is a reality - not just a feeling.

This a a lie you try a lot. You’re not “pointing out” anything; you’re just asserting it with no reasoning or evidence to support the claim Try to remember this in future. 

I admit that I repeat my views many times.  This is because I have never had a feasible explanation for how value judgements can arise  from thought processes without the freedom to consciously contemplate what is perceived by our conscious awareness.  In the materialist model, how can the fall out from my material reactions be considered somehow inferior to the fall out from another person's reactions?  Who or what can possibly judge what is right without the consciously controlled freedom to think, apply logic and home in to conclusions?

That you don’t know the answer to that doesn’t give you licence to insert whatever personal faith belief happens to appeal to you most. This is a textbook example of another fallacy called the argument from personal incredulity (also not that you care). Again, try to remember this in future – not understanding how consciousness works no more validates your claim “god” than not understanding how thunder happened validated the claim “Thor”. Can you see why that is?     

You seem unable to accept any evidence other that that obtained from scientific knowledge derived from observation of material behaviour, so any conclusions derived from such evidence will inevitably be forced to fit in within the observed limitations of physically driven material reactions.

Wrong again. I’m quite willing to accept evidence, no matter what it shows. Your mistake here though is to call your rag tag collection of opinions, biases, logical errors and comforting guesswork “evidence” when it’s no such thing.   

Yet even within this scientific knowledge there is evidence of unseen forces.  Quantum indeterminacy describes events which occur with no discernable cause.  You might presume that such events would be random, but if they were truly random we would not exist.  The stability and predictability we see at the molecular level is dependent on quantum events occurring at specific places and times - which must lead us to conclude that such events do have a cause which we are unable to detect by current scientific means.

That’s debatable (at best), but in any case your mistake here is to imply that there being “forces” unknown to science validates whatever other speculations you want to assert into facts with no reasoning or evidence to do the job. That science is delimited by unknowns tells us only that science is delimited by unknowns – not that anything that pops into your head must therefore also be true. Try to remember this in future too.       

So instead of seeking reasons to dismiss evidence for God and your own spiritual nature,…

What evidence? You haven’t provided any. Ever.

…I implore you to open up your amazing human mind to explore the possibility that there is more to reality than the limited scope of what can be discovered through human scientific investigation.

I’m very willing to do that in principle. What method of validation do you propose I employ to investigate and verify your and other unqualified assertion merchants’ claims of these supposed other realities?

Or am I just supposed to take your word for it, relying as you do only on either no argument at all or on obviously fallacious attempts at arguments (see above)?