Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

My God given freedom to witness to the truth.

In one sentence you've managed to pack in four words that are either contentious or meaningless: 'God', 'freedom', 'witness' and 'truth'.

No wonder you struggle so much.

[torridon]

I am highlighting the impossibility for consciously controlled reasoning to emerge from a material brain entirely driven by physically controlled reactions over which we have no conscious control - we do not control the laws of physics. ..

You have it back to front. We do not control the laws of nature but rather our ability to contemplate and reason arises out of the laws of nature. We do not exert conscious control over our brain function, but rather our experience of consciousness is a product of brain function.  Understanding this seems a major stumbling block for you.

[Alan Burns]

..... assume that you do have the conscious control you think you have, and then use that assumption to throw at the arguments that have already falsified it?     

Do you fully understand what you are trying to say here?
How can I have the power to assume if I have no conscious control
How can I consciously use this assumption if I have no conscious control
How can I consciously throw anything at arguments if I have no conscious control

[Alan Burns]

You have it back to front. We do not control the laws of nature but rather our ability to contemplate and reason arises out of the laws of nature. We do not exert conscious control over our brain function, but rather our experience of consciousness is a product of brain function.  Understanding this seems a major stumbling block for you.

Please explain how an "experience of consciousness" can somehow arrive at this profound conclusion without being guided by conscious control.

And remember that your explanation must be done without having ability to exert conscious control - only experience it

[Maeght]

Do you fully understand what you are trying to say here?
How can I have the power to assume if I have no conscious control
How can I consciously use this assumption if I have no conscious control
How can I consciously throw anything at arguments if I have no conscious control

Your response is as a result of whatever process is involved in responding. There must be a process. You are saying that you have control over that process, others are suggesting not and that the process is a result of brain activity over which you have no control. There is a process whichever way it works so just saying that you are coming up with a response, assuming etc tells us nothing about whether you have control over that process or not.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

My God given freedom to witness to the truth.

Clearly I can’t put myself in your shoes, so I can’t be sure how I’d react in the same circumstances. I like to think that I’d have the honesty and courage to address the falsifying arguments I’d been given rather than just stick my fingers in my ears and repeat the same vapid mantra those arguments had falsified. You clearly think differently – maybe because you’re so profoundly emotionally wedded to your faith beliefs that you simply cannot entertain the possibility that your rationale for them could be holed beneath the waterline.

Who can say?

Anyway, the reasons your mantra is wrong have been set out here clearly and in many ways on many occasions. Deal with them or not as you wish, but please don’t ever pretend to yourself that they somehow go away just by repeating the same mistake over and over again. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Do you fully understand what you are trying to say here?
How can I have the power to assume if I have no conscious control 
How can I consciously use this assumption if I have no conscious control 
How can I consciously throw anything at arguments if I have no conscious control   

Your questions are invalid – they all assume a priori an independent “I” to do the “controlling” etc. That’s called dualism, and the arguments against it (from physics, from studies of brain damage, from reason etc) are set out here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_dualism

In any case though, let’s pretend for now that your questions are valid and that the answers to all of them are “don’t know”. What then do you think those answers would tell you about the validity or otherwise of your speculations “god”, “soul” etc?     

[Enki]

AB,
 

Your questions are invalid – they all assume a priori an independent “I” to do the “controlling” etc. That’s called dualism, and the arguments against it (from physics, from studies of brain damage, from reason etc) are set out here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_dualism

In any case though, let’s pretend for now that your questions are valid and that the answers to all of them are “don’t know”. What then do you think those answers would tell you about the validity or otherwise of your speculations “god”, “soul” etc?   

Hi Blue.

I think what you've said here is the nub of why Alan is so incredulous of any arguments which gainsay his cherished idea of a soul. When he uses the word 'I' he automatically assumes that everyone will understand and accept that he means some sort of soul idea which makes sense to him(and should to others) because he is completely wedded to his idea of God actually existing as a spiritual being and therefore an idea of a spiritual soul being simply an extension of this idea where God has given a spiritual soul to each human being, albeit with the added property of what he calls 'free will'. For him, the idea that the material brain can produce an illusion of self does not even register despite the evidence that this is so. Hence his incredulity.

[torridon]

Please explain how an "experience of consciousness" can somehow arrive at this profound conclusion without being guided by conscious control.

And remember that your explanation must be done without having ability to exert conscious control - only experience it

Any abstract reasoning we do requires that we are conscious in the first place. Clearly we are not going to solve a tricky maths problem whilst in a coma. However that doesn't license us to ignore the findings from the sciences of the mind which reveal that conscious mind emerges from non-conscious mental processes.  So, every thought you experience on the way to arriving at a conclusion has non-conscious origins, which we don't remember. 

Try this at home : sit down and try to recall a memory from childhood.  Did you consciously choose which memory to recall ?  Or did a memory somehow come to mind ?

[Alan Burns]

Any abstract reasoning we do requires that we are conscious in the first place. Clearly we are not going to solve a tricky maths problem whilst in a coma. However that doesn't license us to ignore the findings from the sciences of the mind which reveal that conscious mind emerges from non-conscious mental processes.  So, every thought you experience on the way to arriving at a conclusion has non-conscious origins, which we don't remember. 

Try this at home : sit down and try to recall a memory from childhood.  Did you consciously choose which memory to recall ?  Or did a memory somehow come to mind ?

To begin with, I need to consciously choose to sit down and make the effort to choose a memory - which makes your experiment meaningless.

Try this:
Just try to imagine that you do have full conscious control over your thought patterns.  How would it differ from "the experience" of conscious control which you have reason to believe emerges from non conscious origins.  Would it differ in any way?  If not, could this indicate that our perception of conscious control is a reality rather than just an experience?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Clearly I can’t put myself in your shoes .....

How I wish you could do this Blue - you would discover what is really important in your life, and what is trivial.  And you would discover the unique joy of being loved by the one who brought everything into being.

[torridon]

To begin with, I need to consciously choose to sit down and make the effort to choose a memory - which makes your experiment meaningless.

Try this:
Just try to imagine that you do have full conscious control over your thought patterns.  How would it differ from "the experience" of conscious control which you have reason to believe emerges from non conscious origins.  Would it differ in any way?  If not, could this indicate that our perception of conscious control is a reality rather than just an experience?

OK, so you still haven't grasped this.  Your conscious choice to sit down to try to recall a memory itself would have non-conscious origins.  This is the insight into how mind works that this thought experiment teaches.

[Gordon]

To begin with, I need to consciously choose to sit down and make the effort to choose a memory - which makes your experiment meaningless.

Try this:
Just try to imagine that you do have full conscious control over your thought patterns.  How would it differ from "the experience" of conscious control which you have reason to believe emerges from non conscious origins.  Would it differ in any way?  If not, could this indicate that our perception of conscious control is a reality rather than just an experience?

You're aren't getting this at all: the "try to imagine" bit itself may well be a consequence of a subconscious need driven by your personal traits.

It's as if you imagine there is a 'on' switch for thinking that you consciously decide to activate but, if so, you're failing to understand that your decision (to activate the switch) itself has antecedents that you won't be conscious of.

There is no gap here into which you can insert 'God' with out tying yourself up in illogical knots.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

How I wish you could do this Blue - you would discover what is really important in your life, and what is trivial.

Rather patronising don’t you think? What makes you think that I haven’t discovered what’s really important in my life already?

And you would discover the unique joy of being loved by the one who brought everything into being.

Yes, so the faith claim goes. Better the comforting lie than the non-solipsistic reality for you it seems. I’m not made that way though, and frankly I’m glad not to be.

Anyway, if ever you feel like putting on your big boy pants and daring to lift the lid on the box marked “Arguments” by all means come back and we can discuss why your reasoning fails.   

[Alan Burns]

Anyway, if ever you feel like putting on your big boy pants and daring to lift the lid on the box marked “Arguments” by all means come back and we can discuss why your reasoning fails.

And, sadly, you fail to see the contradiction in that your consciously driven ability to reason is incompatible with your conclusion that all our thoughts must somehow emerge from sub conscious brain activity beyond our conscious control.

Our freedom to think things out can lead us in two opposing directions - to think up reasons why we have come into existence without the need for God, or to think of reasons why we comprise more than the unguided forces of nature could ever achieve.

Both of these outcomes require the freedom to direct our thought processes to reach verifiable conclusions - which gives you a valuable clue to discern which outcome is correct.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

And, sadly, you fail to see the contradiction in that your consciously driven ability to reason is incompatible with your conclusion that all our thoughts must somehow emerge from sub conscious brain activity beyond our conscious control.

Our freedom to think things out can lead us in two opposing directions - to think up reasons why we have come into existence without the need for God, or to think of reasons why we comprise more than the unguided forces of nature could ever achieve.

Both of these outcomes require the freedom to direct our thought processes to reach verifiable conclusions - which gives you a valuable clue to discern which outcome is correct.

There is no contradiction for the reasons that have been explained to you countless times, but that you refuse to engage with nonetheless. It’s those arguments that falsify colloquial but irrational narratives like “consciously driven”, but as you keep repeating them nevertheless you’ll never know that.

Imagine I told you that I can hear a dragon living in my garage, therefore there’s a dragon living in my garage. You explained to me (many, many times) that it’s more likely the case that I’ve just left the lawn mower running, so my reasoning is flawed. Imagine too that I replied (over and over again) “so tell me how exactly how a lawn mower works then” and “sadly you fail to see the contradiction that there must be a dragon in my garage to fire up the lawn mower” and that I did this over and over again.

At what point would you just give up trying?         

[Alan Burns]

AB,

There is no contradiction for the reasons that have been explained to you countless times, but that you refuse to engage with nonetheless. It’s those arguments that falsify colloquial but irrational narratives like “consciously driven”, but as you keep repeating them nevertheless you’ll never know that.

Imagine I told you that I can hear a dragon living in my garage, therefore there’s a dragon living in my garage. You explained to me (many, many times) that it’s more likely the case that I’ve just left the lawn mower running, so my reasoning is flawed. Imagine too that I replied (over and over again) “so tell me how exactly how a lawn mower works then” and “sadly you fail to see the contradiction that there must be a dragon in my garage to fire up the lawn mower” and that I did this over and over again.
 

Your explanations would appear to claim that sub conscious brain can drive all the reactions needed for your conscious self to experience a sense of reasoning.  So if it is not consciously driven, what precisely does drive these subconscious events to arrive at a correct conclusion?  How does it know when it goes wrong? How do subconscious events prioritise what needs thinking about?  How did your subconscious brain activity choose to think up dragons and lawn mowers to explain itself?

[ekim]

Your explanations would appear to claim that sub conscious brain can drive all the reactions needed for your conscious self to experience a sense of reasoning.  So if it is not consciously driven, what precisely does drive these subconscious events to arrive at a correct conclusion?  How does it know when it goes wrong? How do subconscious events prioritise what needs thinking about?  How did your subconscious brain activity choose to think up dragons and lawn mowers to explain itself?

I would suggest that the subconscious driver is 'desire' e.g. the desire to convince you of your errors just as yours is the desire to validate your claim of 'free will'.  The strength of desire to achieve an outcome will drive prioritisation, and imagination combined with analogical expression will give rise to 'dragons and lawn mowers'.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Your explanations would appear to claim that sub conscious brain can drive all the reactions needed for your conscious self to experience a sense of reasoning.  So if it is not consciously driven, what precisely does drive these subconscious events to arrive at a correct conclusion?  How does it know when it goes wrong? How do subconscious events prioritise what needs thinking about?  How did your subconscious brain activity choose to think up dragons and lawn mowers to explain itself?

Dear god man. I post that you’re asking the equivalent of “so tell me how exactly how the lawn mower works then” and you reply with precisely the equivalent of “so tell me how exactly how the lawn mower works then”. Again! Have you really not understood anything at all that’s been said to you here over and over again and in oh so many different ways?

Really though?

How the materialist model of consciousness works doesn’t for this purpose matter. Really, it doesn’t. There’s a lot of evidence from neuroscience in particular that may perhaps provide partial answers, but still there are huge gaps in our knowledge. Maybe there always will be too. Who can say? 

OK, do you understand this now? We can even agree for the sake of discussion if you like that the answers to your questions (leaving aside for now the problem with eg “what drives subconscious events”, is that for the question to be valid at all, you’d need to establish first that a “driver” is even necessary) is “don’t know”. Let’s agree therefore that we can say something like, “consciousness as a phenomenon aligns well with known models of emergent properties, but currently we have insufficient data to know precisely how it works”.

All good still so far? OK, good. Now then: what in your opinion does this answer tell you about your various speculations you think fill this knowledge gap? Forget everything else, just for once try to answer this very simple question. What relevance to your various speculations does this answer have?     

[Dicky Underpants]

How I wish you could do this Blue - you would discover what is really important in your life, and what is trivial.  And you would discover the unique joy of being loved by the one who brought everything into being.

You suggesting that those of us who love great music and think it is important (for instance) can't distinguish between that and sucking on our favourite toffees?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Dear god man. I post that you’re asking the equivalent of “so tell me how exactly how the lawn mower works then”

The question I was posing was more in the vane of "how can it (subconscious brain activity) possibly work" to accomplish the reasoning you experience in your conscious awareness.  You make the presumption that it must be able to accomplish all the necessary steps needed to think things out without consciously guided control, because this is the only option in the materialist view.  Current neuroscience does not offer any feasible explanation of what comprises conscious awareness, what drives thought processes or human will other that vague correlation with physically observed brain activity.  If there is a spiritual element, neuroscience will be unable to detect it.  So despite your substantial efforts, I remain totally unconvinced by your attempts to convince me that I am wrong in belief in the power of the human soul.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The question I was posing was more in the vane of "how can it (subconscious brain activity) possibly work" to accomplish the reasoning you experience in your conscious awareness.

Makes no difference. Whether you ask how it actually works or how it could possibly work and the answer is “don’t know” to both, what relevance would that have to your speculations about “god” and “soul”?

You make the presumption that it must be able to accomplish all the necessary steps needed to think things out without consciously guided control, because this is the only option in the materialist view.

Actually more because I have no good reason to dismiss it (what with the argument from incredulity being a false one), but ok… 

Current neuroscience does not offer any feasible explanation of what comprises conscious awareness, what drives thought processes or human will other that vague correlation with physically observed brain activity.

Again, you need to justify the premises in your questions for them to be valid (why is “driving” necessary at all?) and in any case current neuroscience tells us quite a lot about consciousness. Even if it didn’t though, or even if its tentative finding so far turned out to be wrong, so what? How does that help you? 

If there is a spiritual element, neuroscience will be unable to detect it.

I have no idea what you mean by “spiritual element” and nor have you, but if you want to define it as something like, “something materialist methods can’t investigate” that would in principle be true, but also circular reasoning so of no use to you.

So despite your substantial efforts, I remain totally unconvinced by your attempts to convince me that I am wrong in belief in the power of the human soul.

Yes I know you remain that way, and you likely always will. Being totally unconvinced because you refuse point blank ever to address the arguments that might convince you is epistemologically worthless though. I may as well be totally unconvinced by your efforts to falsify my claim about a dragon in my garage because I refuse ever, ever to check the lawn mower. Again, so what though? 

As you just ran away from the question I keep asking you though, here it is again:

Regardless of the answers to your questions about what a materialist explanation for consciousness would be, what use would those answers be for validating your speculations about “god”, “soul” etc?

Tell you what. If you still refuse point blank to answer that, won’t you at least tell us why you won’t answer that?

[torridon]

Current neuroscience does not offer any feasible explanation of what comprises conscious awareness, what drives thought processes or human will other that vague correlation with physically observed brain activity.  If there is a spiritual element, neuroscience will be unable to detect it.  So despite your substantial efforts, I remain totally unconvinced by your attempts to convince me that I am wrong in belief in the power of the human soul.

Science cannot detect things defined as undetectable in the first place. If this spiritual thing is undetectable by our instruments, then it would be undetectable by the neurons in our brains also.  Your claim is illogical nonsense that speaks to a dogged fixation with magical thinking rather than anything remotely useful, like evidence based reasoning.

[Sebastian Toe]

Current neuroscience does not offer any feasible explanation of what comprises conscious awareness,........

Current speculation, wild imagination and wishful thinking of Alan Burns does not offer a feasible explanation of what comprises conscious awareness.

[Alan Burns]

Science cannot detect things defined as undetectable in the first place. If this spiritual thing is undetectable by our instruments, then it would be undetectable by the neurons in our brains also.  Your claim is illogical nonsense that speaks to a dogged fixation with magical thinking rather than anything remotely useful, like evidence based reasoning.

There is plenty of evidence for quantum activity in the human brain:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqk1oL42r5s

The source of such quantum events remains undetectable in modern science.