Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

In particular, I fail to comprehend how anyone can try to account for their gift of free will by claiming that it is "just the way it seems" rather than accepting it as being "just the way it is".

Actually I would argue that your version of 'free will' isn't even the way it seems. It may be the way is seems if you don't apply a single moment of rational thought or any honest introspection to it, but as soon as you do, like the notion of 'conscious control of thought processes' it just collapses in a jumbled heap of nonsensical contradiction.

Of course, I'm 'free' to do exactly what I want, but what I want to do is based on my character, i.e. my priorities, desired, hopes, fears, abilities, and so on. I have no 'freedom' to change those; I can't be free of being me, that would be absurd.

In short, I cannot even begin to imagine what it would be like to have 'free will' in the way you claim it is, because it's just doesn't make any sense. Might as well try to imagine a square circle.

And please spare me (any everybody else) from another trite comment from your endlessly repeated stock of phrases.

[Alan Burns]

Actually I would argue that your version of 'free will' isn't even the way it seems. It may be the way is seems if you don't apply a single moment of rational thought or any honest introspection to it, but as soon as you do, like the notion of 'conscious control of thought processes' it just collapses in a jumbled heap of nonsensical contradiction.

You appear to be analysing the concept of free will as an objective observer from outside your own consciousness.  How do you apply rational thought without conscious control?

[Stranger]

You appear to be analysing the concept of free will as an objective observer from outside your own consciousness.

And you appear (yet again) to be not even bothering to read the posts you reply to. I specifically mentioned introspection as well as rational thought, so no, I'm doing no such thing. It makes no more sense to me when I look inwards to my own thought processes, than it does from the point of view of a detached logical analysis. In fact, that was pretty much the entire point my post was making.

How do you apply rational thought without conscious control?

And the trite, mindless repetition just goes on and on and on and on and on and on.

How many times do I need to point out that "conscious control" is something that you've never properly defined and is again is a phrase that seems to fall apart into incoherent gibberish the moment one tries to apply the first hint of logical thought as to what it might actually mean? Can't you even remember four days ago: #44919?

Just mindlessly repeating gibberish, is not going to magically make it make sense one day.

Your total lack of attention to what people say, once again suggests to me that you don't really care very much, so I'll try again and ask what do you think you're achieving here? What's the point of all the endless repetition of the same junk phrases that have consistently failed to change anybody's mind to date? It's not like there's even anybody new here who might be taken in by them.

You can't even be arsed to think of any new ways to put it or even try to rephrase it a bit. Nothing but the endless tedium of thought-free repetition.

[Alan Burns]

And you appear (yet again) to be not even bothering to read the posts you reply to. I specifically mentioned introspection as well as rational thought, so no, I'm doing no such thing. It makes no more sense to me when I look inwards to my own thought processes, than it does from the point of view of a detached logical analysis. In fact, that was pretty much the entire point my post was making.

And the trite, mindless repetition just goes on and on and on and on and on and on.

How many times do I need to point out that "conscious control" is something that you've never properly defined and is again is a phrase that seems to fall apart into incoherent gibberish the moment one tries to apply the first hint of logical thought as to what it might actually mean? Can't you even remember four days ago: #44919?

Just mindlessly repeating gibberish, is not going to magically make it make sense one day.

Your total lack of attention to what people say, once again suggests to me that you don't really care very much, so I'll try again and ask what do you think you're achieving here? What's the point of all the endless repetition of the same junk phrases that have consistently failed to change anybody's mind to date? It's not like there's even anybody new here who might be taken in by them.

You can't even be arsed to think of any new ways to put it or even try to rephrase it a bit. Nothing but the endless tedium of thought-free repetition.

Perhaps it would help if you could give a convincing answer to the question:

How do you apply rational thought without conscious control?

[Stranger]

Perhaps it would help if you could give a convincing answer to the question:

How do you apply rational thought without conscious control?

FFS Alan, is it against your bizarre religion to read what has been said before attempting a reply?

It's not like it's the first time I've said it. I already pointed you at #44919 but also see, for example: #44890, #44899, and #44903.

Let's make this clear yet again for those who find reading posts and thinking about what they say a bit of a challenge: I have no idea what you mean when you say "conscious control". It's basically another gibberish phrase that looks as if it might mean something until it comes into contact with the first feather-light touch of rational thought, on which it collapses into a heap of absurdities, contradictions, circularity, and possible infinite regress.

And no, gibbering on with your other nonsense speak about 'the present' isn't going to help because that is equally meaningless.

This is another case of you apparently being too lazy to be arsed even to take a bit of time to learn about how to make logical arguments. One thing is that you must properly define your terms. You also threw 'automated processes' into the mix (#44909) without defining what you meant by it. I could have a better guess at what you meant by that (probably what Penrose failed to prove that minds couldn't be, see #44921) but it really shouldn't be up to me to be defining your terms.

It's also worth pointing out (for about the ten thousandth time) that even if you had defined 'conscious control' properly, it would not be up to other people to answer this question, it would be up to you to argue that rational thought would be impossible without it (burden of proof), yet another really basic principle that you seem too lazy to learn about.

Why not just stop the mindless repetition and start reading and thinking before replying? Is that really too much to ask from somebody who claims to have a doctorate and Mensa membership?

[Alan Burns]

Perhaps you can define conscious control as "that which is needed to think things out and come to logical conclusions".
It defies any logical definition in the way you request, but it must exist in reality in order for you to arrive at consciously verifiable conclusions.  The fact that you can't define it in the way you request does not mean that it does not exist.

[Stranger]

Perhaps you can define conscious control as "that which is needed to think things out and come to logical conclusions".

ROTFLMAO!

Okay, take your pick:

• It therefore means (according to the evidence we have) "sufficiently sophisticated brain".
• See circular reasoning.

It defies any logical definition in the way you request...

So it's useless in the context of logical reasoning and you need to either drop the pretence of having logic on your side and admit to blind faith or stop using it.

...but it must exist in reality in order for you to arrive at consciously verifiable conclusions.

Which is just restating the worthless way you tried to define it. All you've basically said is that there is something that is needed for logical thought and that logical thought cannot work without it. Hardly profound, is it? And, of course, it tells us exactly nothing about this 'something' that is required. All the evidence suggests my option 1 above.

[ekim]

Perhaps it would help if you could give a convincing answer to the question:

How do you apply rational thought without conscious control?

I think Stranger is asking you to define your terms so that he can answer.
If I am reading your question correctly, these quotes below your posting appear to be examples from people who have done just that, or maybe they have employed irrational thought unconsciously.

The truth will set you free  - John 8:32
Truth is not an abstraction, but a person - Edith Stein
Free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. - CS Lewis
Free will the highest truth about humanity - GK Chesterton

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Perhaps it would help if you could give a convincing answer to the question:

How do you apply rational thought without conscious control?

FFS sake Alan – how many effing times does this have to be explained to you? Will the rebuttal of your endlessly repeated mistake here ever sink in? Will it though?

Yet again, even leaving aside the incoherence of the question there are three possible categories of answer to how consciousness works:

1. A working, testable explanation of the status of a scientific theory; or

2. Some promising hypotheses and partial evidence for some of them, but there’s more work required to obtain a reasonable level of certainty; or

3. No idea. Zip. Nada. It’s a complete mystery.

Here’s the point though: whichever is it has NO RELEVANCE WHATSOEVER TO YOU CLAIMS “SOUL”, “CONSCIOUS CONTROL” ETC FOR WHICH YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE OR EXPLANATION AT ALL.

Look I’ve given you an analogy several times now to explain your mistake that you just ignore, but here it is again: imagine a couple of Vikings back in the day:   

Sven: "So how does thunder happen then?”     

Eric: “No idea.”

Sven: “There you go then – proof positive for Thor.”

Can you see what’s wrong with Sven’s “argument” here? Can you though? If you can, try to understand that this IS EXACTLY THE SAME ARGUMENT YOU’RE ATTEMPTING WHEN YOU DEMAND AN ANSWER TO HOW CONSCIOUSNESS WORKS AND, WHEN IT DOESN’T SATISFY YOU, CLAIM THAT AS EVIDENCE FOR A “SOUL”.

Just for once try to at least to address this problem with your argument will you rather than ignore it, only to return to it over and over again. Once again: ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE FOR ONE EXPLANATION IS NOT EVIDENCE FOR A DIFFERENT EXPLANATION.   

There you go – you have no excuse now ever to get this so wrong again have you. Have you? 
 

[Stranger]

Let's try to analyse what Alan has actually said. The main statement in recent posts is that there is something or other (that he calls 'conscious control') that is required for logical thought (L), let's call it X (because of the lack of a coherent definition). So Alan is saying that X is necessary for L. This translates directly into the implication

if L then X,

or

L ⇒ X.

He's also (not unreasonably), observing that logical thought does actually exist (even if he has trouble producing it himself or recognising it when he sees it). We now have the argument,

if L then X
L
therefore X,

or

L ⇒ X
L
∴ X.

This is a perfectly valid logical structure but clearly falls down when we try to analyse its soundness because of the undefined nature of X. That is, unless we interpret it in terms of what is obvious from the evidence, that it means a functioning brain of sufficient complexity.

From the rest of Alan's hand-waving and general verbiage, I think it reasonable to conclude that he thinks that X requires god-magic (G), so we then have

X ⇒ G
X
∴ G.

So, taken together, there is nothing invalid in the two deductions, it's their soundness that is highly questionable (to say the least) because not only is X undefined (except in a trivial or circular way - the trivial way making X ⇒ G obviously false) but it is actually very difficult to even imagine a definition that would make X ⇒ G unquestionably true. Even if Alan succeed in doing what Penrose failed to do (#44921), while a flock of pigs flew gracefully off into the sunset, we would still be left with the possibility of as yet unknown physics (which was actually what Penrose was trying to get to).

[Alan Burns]

The last two posts from Bluehillside and Stranger show ample evidence of their consciously controlled ability to perform mental gymnastics in order to rubbish my claim that we have the freedom to consciously control our thoughts.  I am tempted to say "I rest my case". 

[Stranger]

The last two posts from Bluehillside and Stranger show ample evidence of their consciously controlled ability to perform mental gymnastics in order to rubbish my claim that we have the freedom to consciously control our thoughts.  I am tempted to say "I rest my case". 

Here we go again....



The last post from Alan Burns shows ample evidence that he is unable to grasp the simplest of basic facts, let alone logical reasoning. The simple fact in question being that he hasn't defined 'conscious control', let alone the idiotic phrase 'consciously control our thoughts' (by consciously thinking about every thought before we think it, presumably...!?), reducing them. and everything Alan says about them, to meaningless gibberish.

Again, I'll ask the question: what do you imagine you're achieving here with all this mindless repetition? Are you actually trying to make yourself look like an idiot and your faith look absurd?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The last two posts from Bluehillside and Stranger show ample evidence of their consciously controlled ability to perform mental gymnastics in order to rubbish my claim that we have the freedom to consciously control our thoughts.  I am tempted to say "I rest my case". 

Except of course that the last two posts explain to you why your "case" is utterly fucking idiotic. Are you seriously so dead from the neck up or indoctrinated by blind faith that you can't see why?

Seriously though?

[Udayana]

The last two posts from Bluehillside and Stranger show ample evidence of their consciously controlled ability to perform mental gymnastics in order to rubbish my claim that we have the freedom to consciously control our thoughts.  I am tempted to say "I rest my case". 

LOL .. you can try and claim their posts as evidence ... however I suspect that if they did have the "freedom to consciously control" their thoughts, they would have chosen to ignore your nonsense rather than spend their time flogging a dead horse yet again...

[ekim]

The last two posts from Bluehillside and Stranger show ample evidence of their consciously controlled ability to perform mental gymnastics in order to rubbish my claim that we have the freedom to consciously control our thoughts.  I am tempted to say "I rest my case". 

So, what do you mean by 'control'?

You are not free from temptation then. 

[Alan Burns]

Again, I'll ask the question: what do you imagine you're achieving here with all this mindless repetition? Are you actually trying to make yourself look like an idiot and your faith look absurd?

All I am doing is witnessing to the truth that we have been given the gift of free will which we can use to choose between good and evil.  Without such freedom the concepts of good and evil become meaningless.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

All I am doing is witnessing to the truth that we have been given the gift of free will which we can use to choose between good and evil.

You've tried this lie before, and it doesn't work this time ether. If you want to claim to "witness" something then you need to establish first that there's something to be witnessed. You don't bother with that though (yet another fallacy: "begging the question") but you claim to witness it nonetheless.

What you actually do is just assert something, which is a very different matter.
 

Without such freedom the concepts of good and evil become meaningless.

No they don't and, even if they did, that's just another of the fallacies on which you rely (called the argumentum ad consequentiam). 

So now we've dispensed with that let's get back to your basic error: rather than try to refute the argument that falsifies your assertion “the fact that you can make an argument means I’m right”, each time it’s done in response you just parrot the same falsified assertion nonetheless (ie, “the fact that you can make an argument means I’m right”) on endless repeat.

Is that the long and short of it?   

And if that is right why on earth are you wasting your and everyone else’s time with this idiocy? 
 

[Stranger]

All I am doing is witnessing to the truth that we have been given the gift of free will which we can use to choose between good and evil.  Without such freedom the concepts of good and evil become meaningless.

[Alan Burns]

So, what do you mean by 'control'?

You are not free from temptation then. 

No one is free from temptation.
Our ability to consciously discern what is good or what is evil does not automatically lead us to do what we know to be good.  We all have the freedom to choose through conscious control of our thoughts, words and actions.

[Stranger]

...through conscious control of our thoughts...

Mindless, thought-free, meaningless gibberish, endlessly repeated by somebody who might as well be an automaton for all the thought that seems to go into his posts.

Yet again: are you trying to make yourself look like an idiot and your faith look absurd. I mean, if that really is your intention, then hats off to you, I find it difficult to imagine somebody making a better job of it.....

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

No one is free from temptation.
Our ability to consciously discern what is good or what is evil does not automatically lead us to do what we know to be good.  We all have the freedom to choose through conscious control of our thoughts, words and actions.

Just repeating the same palpable bollocks over and over again doesn't make it any less palpable bollocks. You do know that right?

Try "consciously controlling" your thoughts to not doing again though and let us know how you get on.

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

AB,

Just repeating the same palpable bollocks over and over again doesn't make it any less palpable bollocks. You do know that right?

Try "consciously controlling" your thoughts to not doing again though and let us know how you get on.

Come on, face it, you lot love it, That's why this thread is the ''Coronation Street'' of Religionethics.

[Alan Burns]

Mindless, thought-free, meaningless gibberish, endlessly repeated by somebody who might as well be an automaton for all the thought that seems to go into his posts.

Yet again: are you trying to make yourself look like an idiot and your faith look absurd. I mean, if that really is your intention, then hats off to you, I find it difficult to imagine somebody making a better job of it.....

You highlight the word "trying".  This is the very thing which confirms the power of consciously driven control.
You do not need a degree in logistics to realise that our ability to consciously try to do anything stems from our freedom to contemplate and to consciously choose what to do, think or say.  Your attempts to logically analyse the reality of consciously driven choices does not match up with the demonstrable freedom we all enjoy.

[torridon]

You highlight the word "trying".  This is the very thing which confirms the power of consciously driven control.
You do not need a degree in logistics to realise that our ability to consciously try to do anything stems from our freedom to contemplate and to consciously choose what to do, think or say.  Your attempts to logically analyse the reality of consciously driven choices does not match up with the demonstrable freedom we all enjoy.

Likewise a wolfpack working together tries to bring down a bison, or a pod of orca whales try to dislodge a seal from its ice floe.  If you don't try, you don't succeed, so they say.  This is not something that applies just to humans

[Alan Burns]

Likewise a wolfpack working together tries to bring down a bison, or a pod of orca whales try to dislodge a seal from its ice floe.  If you don't try, you don't succeed, so they say.  This is not something that applies just to humans

I would say that animals do not need to "try" to follow their biologically driven instincts - they just do it!