Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

So I take it that you continue believe you are just a biological robot entirely driven by unavoidable reactions to past events with no will of your own, and that you could not possibly have chosen to do anything other than highlight text in bold and change the colour to red.

It doesn't matter one iota what I believe Alan, the burden of proof for minds requiring god-magic is still all yours.

What I am trying to point out to you is the overwhelming evidence that we do have the power to consciously direct our own thought processes...

There cannot, even in principle, be evidence for something that is just a meaningless gibberish phrase you've made up and not defined. Also, just stamping your little foot and claiming something is "overwhelming evidence" does not make it so. You need to show your working.

The burden of proof for minds requiring god-magic is still all yours.

...consciously driven freedom choose...

More undefined gibberish. 

...which you consistently deny because the logic you freely ponder on deems it to be impossible.

Again, it doesn't matter one iota what I think is impossible or why, the burden of proof for minds requiring god-magic is still all yours.

If logic fails to reflect reality then the logic must be flawed.

True but entirely beside the point. The burden of proof for minds requiring god-magic is still all yours.

As all you seem to understand is endless repetition, is this beginning to sink in yet?

PS: Have you noticed that I've decided to change my approach, why have you never been arsed to do the same? Laziness and complacency, or just obstinate stupidity?

[torridon]

So I take it that you continue believe you are just a biological robot entirely driven by unavoidable reactions to past events with no will of your own, and that you could not possibly have chosen to do anything other than highlight text in bold and change the colour to red.  What I am trying to point out to you is the overwhelming evidence that we do have the power to consciously direct our own thought processes - we do have the consciously driven freedom choose - which you consistently deny because the logic you freely ponder on deems it to be impossible.  If logic fails to reflect reality then the logic must be flawed.

The choices we make reflect our preferences and we cannot choose which preferences to have.  It's quite simple, really.

[Stranger]

The choices we make reflect our preferences and we cannot choose which preferences to have.  It's quite simple, really.

Of course, but since people have been trying to explain the simple and obvious to Alan since god was a little boy, and he has made the clear claim that he has "sound logic" to support the idea that minds need god-magic to work, I suggest it's time to sit back, with a very large (infinite?) supply of popcorn, and wait for him to produce it, pausing only to point out every time he makes a simple logical blunder (fallacy).

Perhaps a running total? In his last post (#45373) I make it:

Shifting the burden of proof (basically the whole thing).

Straw man (accusing me of thinking I had no will of my own).

Argument by assertion (the claim of "overwhelming evidence").

Bullshit isn't a defined fallacy but the use of nonsense, undefined phrases like "consciously direct our own thought processes" is at least an ambiguity fallacy.

So, we can start with:

Shifting the burden of proof 1
Straw man 1
Assertion 1
Ambiguity 1

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stranger,

Of course, but since people have been trying to explain the simple and obvious to Alan since god was a little boy, and he has made the clear claim that he has "sound logic" to support the idea that minds need god-magic to work, I suggest it's time to sit back, with a very large (infinite?) supply of popcorn, and wait for him to produce it, pausing only to point out every time he makes a simple logical blunder (fallacy).

But he has produced it hasn't he - doesn't he always call his various assertions and declarations an "obvious truth" or some such (that, apparently, the rest of us fail to recognise)?

There you go then - in Alan's world just calling something an obvious truth is all the "sound logic" he thinks we need. Job done!

[Stranger]

But he has produced it hasn't he - doesn't he always call his various assertions and declarations an "obvious truth" or some such (that, apparently, the rest of us fail to recognise)?

There you go then - in Alan's world just calling something an obvious truth is all the "sound logic" he thinks we need. Job done!

It does indeed look as if he thinks that. But this is somebody who is a member of Mensa and has a doctorate (so he says), so he can't possibly be that stupid..........can he?

It still might be fun just to see the argument by assertion count just go up every time he posts - who knows, maybe he'll get it one day. Certainly the attempts at explaining things to him have failed, so he should really make an attempt to explain his 'reasoning' to us, without simply asserting it.

If he really has nothing else, then he'll have proved himself to be wrong without anybody else needing to explain anything....

[Alan Burns]

It doesn't matter one iota what I believe Alan, the burden of proof for minds requiring god-magic is still all yours.

There cannot, even in principle, be evidence for something that is just a meaningless gibberish phrase you've made up and not defined. Also, just stamping your little foot and claiming something is "overwhelming evidence" does not make it so. You need to show your working.

The burden of proof for minds requiring god-magic is still all yours.

More undefined gibberish. 

Again, it doesn't matter one iota what I think is impossible or why, the burden of proof for minds requiring god-magic is still all yours.

True but entirely beside the point. The burden of proof for minds requiring god-magic is still all yours.

As all you seem to understand is endless repetition, is this beginning to sink in yet?

PS: Have you noticed that I've decided to change my approach, why have you never been arsed to do the same? Laziness and complacency, or just obstinate stupidity?

Instead of the burden of proof, you should consider the burden of truth.
Can you not accept the simple truth that we all have the amazing God given gift of freedom to choose our own thoughts, words and actions?  Use it wisely.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Instead of the burden of proof, you should consider the burden of truth.

“Burden of truth” is a meaningless phrase, and in any case unless you finally trouble yourself with justifying arguments (with which the burden of proof is concerned) you have no means of knowing what the truth actually is.

Try to remember this.

Can you not accept the simple truth that we all have the amazing God given gift of freedom to choose our own thoughts, words and actions?  Use it wisely.

No, because you have no justification at all for asserting any of that actually to be “the simple truth”.

Try to remember this too.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

By the way Alan, as you keep repeating the mindless idiocy of “consciously control my thoughts” or some such, here’s a quick experiment to test that: in my next Reply I shall name something. I want you to “consciously control your thoughts” by not picturing that thing in your mind's eye.

Up for it?

OK then…

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Elephant.

So, how did you get on with "consciously controlling your thoughts" not to picture an elephant?

You couldn’t not picture an elephant could you. Can you see the problem now?
 

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Elephant.

So, how did you get on with "consciously controlling your thoughts" not to picture an elephant?

You couldn’t not picture an elephant could you. Can you see the problem now?

I was able to consciously control the colour of the elephant to be pink 

[torridon]

Can you not accept the simple truth that we all have the amazing God given gift of freedom to choose our own thoughts, words and actions

Because there is no evidence for it or for the alleged God that is supposed to have bestowed it.  It's quite simple really.

[Gordon]

Instead of the burden of proof, you should consider the burden of truth.
Can you not accept the simple truth that we all have the amazing God given gift of freedom to choose our own thoughts, words and actions?  Use it wisely.

'Burden of truth' eh - well that doesn't get you any further forward since if you unpack your new phrase you'll realise that this 'truth' might be considered as being a form of 'knowledge', and if so then this 'knowledge' requires some 'justification', and that any 'justification' might be thought of as a form of 'proof' (albeit the terms prove/proof should be used very carefully) - and any burden of proof/truth is for you to propose.

So your 'burden of truth' is really no more than tautology - and since you still haven't produced any justified knowledge in support of your notions of 'God' then your other point about this "amazing God given gift of freedom" is just you begging the question again.

[Stranger]

Instead of the burden of proof, you should consider the burden of truth.

Gibberish. You said you had sound logic. Were you lying, didn't understand the term, or you now realise you can't produce it?

How about an honest direct answer for once?

Can you not accept the simple truth that we all have the amazing God given gift of freedom to choose our own thoughts, words and actions?  Use it wisely.

Argument by assertion and ambiguity ("freedom to choose our own thoughts") fallacies.

Shifting the burden of proof 1
Straw man 1
Assertion 2
Ambiguity 2

That's 6 basic logic mistakes in two short posts.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I was able to consciously control the colour of the elephant to be pink   

Except of course:

1. No you weren’t. What actually happened was that a pink elephant happened not to occur to you at that moment; and
 
2. That’s not what you were asked to do in any case. Try again. Your claim is that you can “consciously control your thoughts” right? OK then, in that case consciously control your thoughts by deciding not to picture in your mind’s eye the next object I post.

Ready…?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Banana.

So how did that go? You decided to “consciously control your thoughts” by not picturing the next object I posted, and yet as soon as you saw the word “banana” the image flashed into your mind unbidden right? 

In other words, you had no conscious control over that at all.

Now can you see why your claim to “consciously control your thoughts” is in fact ludicrous?   

[Nearly Sane]

AB,

Banana.

So how did that go? You decided to “consciously control your thoughts” by not picturing the next object I posted, and yet as soon as you saw the word “banana” the image flashed into your mind unbidden right? 

In other words, you had no conscious control over that at all.

Now can you see why your claim to “consciously control your thoughts” is in fact ludicrous?   

Surely even if it's illustrated to Alan that he doesn't have control of some thoughts that doesn't invalidate a claim that there is 'control' of some thoughts?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Banana.

So how did that go? You decided to “consciously control your thoughts” by not picturing the next object I posted, and yet as soon as you saw the word “banana” the image flashed into your mind unbidden right? 

In other words, you had no conscious control over that at all.

Now can you see why your claim to “consciously control your thoughts” is in fact ludicrous?   

I am consciously controlling my thoughts to see the banana being peeled.
I am in conscious control of my thoughts.
As were you when you thought up this trivial example.

[Stranger]

I am consciously controlling my thoughts to see the banana being peeled.

Oh don't be so silly. You aren't consciously controlling your thoughts. You found yourself unable to control your thoughts is the way you were challenged to do, so you made a choice to imagine something instead.

"Conscious control of thoughts" is mind-numbingly stupid thing to say. What's it even supposed to mean exactly? You'd have to consciously think about every thought before you thought it to literally "consciously control your own thoughts"... and we'd be off on our merry way into an infinite regress of thoughts and never end up thinking anything.

Are you really too dim to see this? If that's not what you meant then what is?

ETA: Also worth pointing out again, that whatever the hell you do mean by this, I'm assuming that it's about the role of consciousness, which, as I keep pointing out is irrelevant to the involvement of god-magic and your nonsense version of freedom. It literally makes no difference at all because consciousness itself could be entirely deterministic and algorithmic.

You keep telling us how much you've thought about this subject but there is literally no evidence in your posts that you've ever even begun to seriously think about what is actually going on in your own mind.

Another argument by assertion and another ambiguity.

Shifting the burden of proof 1
Straw man 1
Assertion 3
Ambiguity 3

That's 8 silly mistakes in logic and not even the first hint of the merest glimmer of that sound logic you said you had, so again: were you lying, did you not understand the term, or do you now realise you can't do it?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I am consciously controlling my thoughts to see the banana being peeled.
I am in conscious control of my thoughts.
As were you when you thought up this trivial example.

Could you not try at least to be less epically dim witted here? You claimed to be able to “consciously control your thoughts”; I asked you to do that by controlling your thoughts such that you wouldn’t picture the next thing I posted; you then gleefully told me that you didn’t picture something else. So what? The question remains whether, despite having (supposedly) consciously controlled your thoughts not to picture the next thing I said, you pictured it anyway.

It’s as if I was stupid enough to claim to be able to “consciously control my thoughts”, you challenged me not to picture an apple, and I gleefully replied “but I didn’t picture a lemon” as if that had anything to do with it.

So what can you (or should you) learn from this salutary episode? What you should learn is that, no matter how much you claim to be able to “consciously control your thoughts”, when asked to do that it turned out that you couldn’t control them at all – you still pictured an elephant and a banana.

You’ve had your fun here, but that old son is game over.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Surely even if it's illustrated to Alan that he doesn't have control of some thoughts that doesn't invalidate a claim that there is 'control' of some thoughts?

Yes – AB could I suppose refine his ludicrous  claim of being able to “consciously control my thoughts” (as if in some way that supposed conscious control wouldn’t itself require some thinking of its own) to, “OK, by “my thoughts” I actually meant only the thoughts you don’t ask me to consciously control” but that doesn’t undo the ludicrousness of the base claim, and it would giv him a whole world of new problems in trying to decide which of his thoughts he can and cannot supposedly control (and why).   

[Alan Burns]

blue, stranger,

In reading your recent posts, I see overwhelming evidence of your own ability to consciously control your thoughts in composing your detailed replies.  If your conscious self is not responsible for composing these replies, please enlighten me.

[Stranger]

Surely even if it's illustrated to Alan that he doesn't have control of some thoughts that doesn't invalidate a claim that there is 'control' of some thoughts?

One of the problems is he throws this in as if it's something deep and important to his nonsense notion of 'free will' but then won't even say what he means by it. It could mean something trivial and irrelevant, like "I can decide to think about my plans for next week now" but that couldn't be less relevant to his point.

It's almost like it's meant to be a distraction from the empty void where his 'sound logic' is supposed to be.

[Stranger]

In reading your recent posts, I see overwhelming evidence of your own ability to consciously control your thoughts in composing your detailed replies. 

Argument by assertion as well as being totally idiotic.

ETA: Also repetition of the "consciously control your thoughts" ambiguity fallacy.

If your conscious self is not responsible for composing these replies, please enlighten me.

Shifting the burden of proof.

And yet again: the role of consciousness is irrelevant to proving god-magic or even that minds are non-algorithmic. Conciousness itself could be perfectly deterministic and algorithmic.

Totals:
Shifting the burden of proof 2
Straw man 1
Assertion 4
Ambiguity 4

That's 11 silly, basic mistakes in logic. Why can't you produce the 'sound logic' you claimed to have?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

In reading your recent posts, I see overwhelming evidence of your own ability to consciously control your thoughts in composing your detailed replies.

Do you have an argument to justify your assertion of “overwhelming evidence” for any such thing?

If your conscious self is not responsible for composing these replies, please enlighten me.

First, you cannot enlighten the unenlightenable.

Second, it’s not my job to try. You’re the one making the claim to be able to “consciously control my thoughts” (which you’ve now shown that you can’t do when asked by the way) so it’s your job to justify your claim. Where’s your justifying argument for it?

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Yes – AB could I suppose refine his ludicrous  claim of being able to “consciously control my thoughts” (as if in some way that supposed conscious control wouldn’t itself require some thinking of its own) to, “OK, by “my thoughts” I actually meant only the thoughts you don’t ask me to consciously control” but that doesn’t undo the ludicrousness of the base claim, and it would giv him a whole world of new problems in trying to decide which of his thoughts he can and cannot supposedly control (and why).

I didn't suggest it did. I was pointing out that your approach doesn't deal with that.