Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

CBT is an evidence-based talking therapy recommended by NICE and available on the NHS. It works by identifying and challenging unhelpful thought patterns, such as ‘I’m useless’ or ‘Everybody hates me.’ Let’s say someone undergoes a course of treatment and manages to overcome their negative thought habit. Is this an example of them controlling their thoughts?

Well, if Alan actually stopped being so intellectually bone idle and defined what the fuck he meant by it, perhaps we would be able to make some sort of sensible comment.

He's supposed to have a doctorate. Just think how badly he'd have flunked that if his thesis was full of terms he didn't define.

[Stranger]

I have to ask the obvious question:
What is controlling the rational analysis if it is not your conscious mind?

Shifting the burden of proof and ambiguity (you still haven't defined what you mean by "consciously control out own thoughts") fallacies.

Totals:
Shifting the burden of proof 3
Straw man 2
Assertion 7
Ambiguity 5
Appeal to consequences 1
Begging the question 1

That's 19 basic logic mistakes in three days.

Where is the sound logic you claimed to have?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I have to ask the obvious question:
What is controlling the rational analysis if it is not your conscious mind?

I have to ask the more obvious question: what makes you think rational analysis has to be “controlled” at all?

And, in the unlikely event you finally even attempt to answer that, how would you propose a supposed controller operate without requiring some rational analysis ability of its own?     

[Alan Burns]

AB,

I have to ask the more obvious question: what makes you think rational analysis has to be “controlled” at all?

And, in the unlikely event you finally even attempt to answer that, how would you propose a supposed controller operate without requiring some rational analysis ability of its own?   

To analyse anything, you first need to bring it into your conscious awareness.
Then you need to consciously contemplate what it is you are attempting to analyse.
Then you would need to consciously conceive of a method of analysis.
Then you would need to consciously apply this method.
Then you would consciously assess whether the analysis was successful.

So please try removing the role of conscious control and see how you get on with defining how to apply rational analysis.
Over to you.

[Stranger]

To analyse anything, you first need to bring it into your conscious awareness.
Then you need to consciously contemplate what it is you are attempting to analyse.
Then you would need to consciously conceive of a method of analysis.
Then you would need to consciously apply this method.
Then you would consciously assess whether the analysis was successful.

Again, you're begging the question by assuming that consciousness is in control (in some, yet to be defined way), rather than being after the fact.

So please try removing the role of conscious control and see how you get on with defining how to apply rational analysis.

And again we have the undefined "conscious control". Another ambiguity.

Over to you.

No, you're the one with the claim of god-magic, so the burden of proof is entirely yours, so even if you'd proved something about consciousness and control, which you haven't (you haven't even been arsed to define what you mean yet), you'd still be light years away from your desired conclusion.

Shifting the burden of proof again.

Totals:
Shifting the burden of proof 4
Straw man 2
Assertion 7
Ambiguity 6
Appeal to consequences 1
Begging the question 2

That's 22 basic logic mistakes in three days.

Where is the sound logic you claimed to have?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

To analyse anything, you first need to bring it into your conscious awareness.

Wrong again. You don’t “bring it to your conscious awareness” like ordering from a menu. Thoughts emerge into your “awareness” (ie, pre-frontal cortex mainly) unbidden, just as images of an elephant and of a banana emerged into yours no matter that "you" didn't select them (and nor for that matter that you couldn’t stop them emerging either). 

Then you need to consciously contemplate what it is you are attempting to analyse.
Then you would need to consciously conceive of a method of analysis.
Then you would need to consciously apply this method.
Then you would consciously assess whether the analysis was successful.

There are several dubious and unqualified claims there but, even if we pretended for now that they were all true, why then would exactly the same suite of conditions not also apply to your supposed controller that supposedly does all that stuff?

See your problem here isn’t just that you’re wrong on the basic facts – it’s that, even if you were right, your “solution” of a stand-alone “controller” isn’t a solution at all – it just relocates exactly the conditions you think to be necessary to something else.     

So please try removing the role of conscious control and see how you get on with defining how to apply rational analysis.
Over to you.

So please try removing the role of conscious control from your supposed conscious controller and see how you get on with defining how to apply rational analysis.

Over to you.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Wrong again. You don’t “bring it to your conscious awareness” like ordering from a menu. Thoughts emerge into your “awareness” (ie, pre-frontal cortex mainly) unbidden, just as images of an elephant and of a banana emerged into yours no matter that "you" didn't select them (and nor for that matter that you couldn’t stop them emerging either). 

There are several dubious and unqualified claims there but, even if we pretended for now that they were all true, why then would exactly the same suite of conditions not also apply to your supposed controller that supposedly does all that stuff?

See your problem here isn’t just that you’re wrong on the basic facts – it’s that, even if you were right, your “solution” of a stand-alone “controller” isn’t a solution at all – it just relocates exactly the conditions you think to be necessary to something else.     

So please try removing the role of conscious control from your supposed conscious controller and see how you get on with defining how to apply rational analysis.

Over to you.

You have not come up with a feasible explanation of how rational analysis can be achieved without any form of conscious control.
To suggest that it all just emerges spontaneously from unguided sub conscious brain cell activity just beggars belief.
And you can once more accuse me of personal incredulity, but I am sure that my incredulity is entirely justified by the illogical presumption that rational analysis can be performed without any conscious control.

[Alan Burns]

So please try removing the role of conscious control from your supposed conscious controller and see how you get on with defining how to apply rational analysis.

A conscious  controller does not need another controller.
You seem to be stuck in the materialist "cause and effect" scenario in which there could be no possibility of rational analysis.

[Stranger]

You have not come up with a feasible explanation of how rational analysis can be achieved without any form of conscious control.

You have made the claims, Alan, it isn't up to others to satisfy you of an alternative. Shifting the burden of proof yet again. And you still haven't defined what conscious control even means, so another ambiguity fallacy.

To suggest that it all just emerges spontaneously from unguided sub conscious brain cell activity just beggars belief.

Argument from personal incredulity fallacy.

And you can once more accuse me of personal incredulity, but I am sure that my incredulity is entirely justified by the illogical presumption that rational analysis can be performed without any conscious control.

Bare assertion. You have provided no hint of the relevant logic.

Totals:
Shifting the burden of proof 5
Straw man 2
Assertion 8
Ambiguity 7
Appeal to consequences 1
Begging the question 2
Personal incredulity 1

That's 26 basic logic mistakes in three days.

Where is the sound logic you claimed to have?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You have not come up with a feasible explanation of how rational analysis can be achieved without any form of conscious control.

Actually I have (many times) but as you’re the one insisting that it’s impossible it’s also your job to tell us why – demanding that I explain it to you is called shifting the burden of proof (yet another fallacy). 

To suggest that it all just emerges spontaneously from unguided sub conscious brain cell activity just beggars belief.

Do you have an argument to justify that assertion?

And you can once more accuse me of personal incredulity, but I am sure that my incredulity is entirely justified by the illogical presumption that rational analysis can be performed without any conscious control.

No it isn't. If you want to claim something to be illogical (rather than just an example of your personal incredulity) then you need to justify that claim with some actual logic of your own. When do you propose to do that?

Oh, and as you just ran away from your problem again here it is once more: 

If you think “conscious control” is essential for decision-making, why isn’t it essential for a (supposed) stand-alone controller’s decision-making too?

[Stranger]

A conscious  controller does not need another controller.

Bare assertion yet again.

..."cause and effect" scenario in which there could be no possibility of rational analysis.

And again.

Totals:
Shifting the burden of proof 5
Straw man 2
Assertion 10
Ambiguity 7
Appeal to consequences 1
Begging the question 2
Personal incredulity 1

That's 28 basic logic mistakes in three days.

Where is the sound logic you claimed to have?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

A conscious  controller does not need another controller.

A "conscious controller" would (presumably) have to do some thinking of its own. You're incredulous about how a single, integrated mind could do that unaided, so you've conjured up a separate, stand-alone conscious controller to do the job without bothering to explain why that conscious controller wouldn't also need a separate, stand-alone conscious controller of its own to control its thoughts and so on through infinite regress. If ever you were honest enough to try to demonstrate your claim that it's impossible for conscious beings to think for themselves (ie to justify your personal incredulity) just relocating the "problem" to another entity wouldn't do that.   

You seem to be stuck in the materialist "cause and effect" scenario in which there could be no possibility of rational analysis.

Lying won't help you here either. I've never said there's "no possibility" of anything; you on the other hand declare that there's "no possibility" of people thinking without a stand alone "controller" to do it for them. That is, the only one here claiming the "no possibility" of something is you, not me so the burden of proof to justify that claim remains all yours - not mine.

Let me know if and when you ever intend to start though. 

[Alan Burns]

AB,

A "conscious controller" would (presumably) have to do some thinking of its own. You're incredulous about how a single, integrated mind could do that unaided, so you've conjured up a separate, stand-alone conscious controller to do the job without bothering to explain why that conscious controller wouldn't also need a separate, stand-alone conscious controller of its own to control its thoughts and so on through infinite regress. If ever you were honest enough to try to demonstrate your claim that it's impossible for conscious beings to think for themselves (ie to justify your personal incredulity) just relocating the "problem" to another entity wouldn't do that.   

Lying won't help you here either. I've never said there's "no possibility" of anything; you on the other hand declare that there's "no possibility" of people thinking without a stand alone "controller" to do it for them. That is, the only one here claiming the "no possibility" of something is you, not me so the burden of proof to justify that claim remains all yours - not mine.

Let me know if and when you ever intend to start though.

You still have not given a feasible explanation of how rational analysis can be achieved without and form of conscious control.
There are certainly many examples of man made machines performing what can be perceived as rational analysis, but these man made machines are just extensions of our human capability to perform rational analysis.  Can you cite any examples of rational analysis being performed without any human interaction?  ( And before you try to give examples of perceived animal behaviour - ask yourself if the animal involved was consciously aware of their rational analysis, or were they just being driven by their biological instincts?)

You seem to be very confused about the role of a consciously driven controller.  Why would a controller with the power to consciously invoke acts of will need another controller

[Gordon]

  Can you cite any examples of rational analysis being performed without any human interaction?  ( And before you try to give examples of perceived animal behaviour - ask yourself if the animal involved was consciously aware of their rational analysis, or were they just being driven by their biological instincts?)

Could it be that what you term 'rational analysis' is no more than a biological instinct that humans have provided they are awake and have a functioning brain? By the way, we too are animals.

You seem to be very confused about the role of a consciously driven controller.  Why would a controller with the power to consciously invoke acts of will need another controller

That would because your notion of a 'controller' would itself need its own controller and so on ad nauseum - therefore, given that all our mental processes are biological activities, your 'controller' idea is redundant nonsense.

You've also ignored the sub-conscious aspects of 'will'. I have mentioned that I have several food phobias and I'd contend that these are not the result of either conscious control or awareness nor any 'rational analysis' - they are instinctive personal traits that I cannot control, where my 'conscious awareness' consists only of intense feelings of instinctive and unreasoned revulsion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That would because your notion of a 'controller' would itself need its own controller and so on ad nauseum - therefore, given that all our mental processes are biological activities, your 'controller' idea is redundant nonsense.

Why would a controller have to have an infinite regress of controllers if it provided sufficient control of whatever it was controlling?

You are proposing that biology provides a controller and also that controllers need a controller ad infinitum. Doesn't make sense.

I think biology may be too general a term here and suffers from being naturalistic and therefore by definition, unconscious. Which I rather think is Alan's point.

It is not only Alan who questions this apparent flaw in naturalistic or physical solutions to consciousness but a host of philosophers.
The question being is consciousness actually a thing or is it all just a sophisticated form of intelligence?

[Gordon]

Why would a controller have to have an infinite regress of controllers if it provided sufficient control of whatever it was controlling?

No idea - the controller notion is Alan's and not mine - so ask him.

You are proposing that biology provides a controller and also that controllers need a controller ad infinitum. Doesn't make sense.

No I'm not - I think the 'controller' notion as espoused by Alan is nonsensical.

I think biology may be too general a term here and suffers from being naturalistic and therefore by definition, unconscious. Which I rather think is Alan's point.

I think Alan's point is that he craves something other than biology, such as the 'soul' interacting with brains he goes on about but has failed to substantiate.

It is not only Alan who questions this apparent flaw in naturalistic or physical solutions to consciousness but a host of philosophers.

They aren't posting here but Alan is.

The question being is consciousness actually a thing or is it all just a sophisticated form of intelligence?

What do you think it is?

[Stranger]

You still have not given a feasible explanation of how rational analysis can be achieved without and form of conscious control.

You haven't even said how you define 'conscious control' and, yet again, it's not up to anybody else to provide explanations. You have made the claim that human minds require god-magic and that you have sound logic to back it up. The burden of proof is all yours.

So, another shifting the burden of proof fallacy and another ambiguity.

You seem to be very confused about the role of a consciously driven controller.

Why would a controller with the power to consciously invoke acts of will need another controller

More ambiguity.

Totals:
Shifting the burden of proof 6
Straw man 2
Assertion 10
Ambiguity 9
Appeal to consequences 1
Begging the question 2
Personal incredulity 1

That's 31 basic logic mistakes in four days.

Where is the sound logic you claimed to have?

[Stranger]

Why would a controller have to have an infinite regress of controllers if it provided sufficient control of whatever it was controlling?

The point is that Alan is insisting that we need to "consciously control our own thought process", which. if taken on face value, would mean that we'd need to consciously think about every thought before we thought it, which is clearly impossible nonsense that would immediately lead to an infinite regress. He won't, or can't, explain what he means by it. He seems to think that just saying it and treating it as something that should be obvious, counts as some sort of logic.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No idea - the controller notion is Alan's and not mine - so ask him.

No I'm not - I think the 'controller' notion as espoused by Alan is nonsensical.

I think Alan's point is that he craves something other than biology, such as the 'soul' interacting with brains he goes on about but has failed to substantiate.

They aren't posting here but Alan is.

What do you think it is?

Biology is replete with controllers they are involved in feedback loops which form homeostatic mechanisms. They are as they say a physiological necessity so I dispute the idea of a controller as ''Alan's'' rather it is biology's great mechanism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The point is that Alan is insisting that we need to "consciously control our own thought process", which. if taken on face value, would mean that we'd need to consciously think about every thought before we thought it, which is clearly impossible nonsense that would immediately lead to an infinite regress. He won't, or can't, explain what he means by it. He seems to think that just saying it and treating it as something that should be obvious, counts as some sort of logic.

Still not getting the need for an infinite regress of control mechanisms i'm afraid. Other biological functions do not require more than one controller
or a controller controlling that controller ad infinitum why should the mind be any different? Which leads us back to the question what is conscious awareness for? Now the suggestion that consciousness is akin to someone tied up in a chair bound and gagged, unable to effect a thing needs to be explored I feel.

[Stranger]

Other biological functions do not require more than one controller
or a controller controlling that controller ad infinitum why should the mind be any different?

The point is that he's refused to accept the obvious answer that the brain does the work and wants, via some very confused and convoluted 'thinking' that he won't even explain, to put "consciously control our own thoughts" into the discussion, which leads to an infinite regress if you just take it at face value. He may mean something else by it, but he studiously ignores any request for a proper explanation - as he does everything that he doesn't have a ready answer to from his silly, illogical, decades old script.

Which leads us back to the question what is conscious awareness for?

I don't know, and neither does anybody else at this point.

Now the suggestion that consciousness is akin to someone tied up in a chair bound and gagged, unable to effect a thing needs to be explored I feel.

Who has suggested that?

[Outrider]

Still not getting the need for an infinite regress of control mechanisms i'm afraid. Other biological functions do not require more than one controller.

What do you mean 'biological'? What's being suggested is not a biological mechanism, it's a magic one.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You still have not given a feasible explanation of how rational analysis can be achieved without and form of conscious control.

“Feasible” is just your opinion on that matter, but in any case that’s fine – if you’re not persuaded then you’re not persuaded. That’s up to you. Now then – how would you propose to get from your “I’m not persuaded” to your “therefore it’s impossible”?

Take as long as you need.

There are certainly many examples of man made machines performing what can be perceived as rational analysis, but these man made machines are just extensions of our human capability to perform rational analysis.  Can you cite any examples of rational analysis being performed without any human interaction?

I assume you think referencing what current technology is capable of is relevant here, but I don’t know why.

(And before you try to give examples of perceived animal behaviour - ask yourself if the animal involved was consciously aware of their rational analysis, or were they just being driven by their biological instincts?)

“Rational analysis” is one of those vague, never defined terms you like to hide behind but if you mean by it phenomena like problem solving, deferred rewards, altruism, language etc then yes, lots on non-human animals do that.

You seem to be very confused…

Such a pity you have no understanding of the word “irony”…

…about the role of a consciously driven controller.  Why would a controller with the power to consciously invoke acts of will need another controller

Leaving aside again the utter incoherence of “the power to consciously invoke acts of will” if you arbitrarily want to declare humans not to have that “power” because a single, integrated mind would also supposedly need a stand-alone decision-maker, then (presumably) the same problem would apply to the stand-alone decision-maker, and so on forever. Why in other words just declare an insurmountable barrier to one option (albeit a claim you will never even try to  justify) but special plead the same insurmountable barrier away from another one?

And no, “because a soul is magic innit?” isn’t an answer – it’s the abandonment of an answer.           

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Still not getting the need for an infinite regress of control mechanisms i'm afraid.

For some reason AB has got it into his head that consciousness requires “a controller with the power to consciously invoke acts of will” and that this supposed “controller” must be separate from our corporeal selves. It’s utterly incoherent, but notwithstanding that I have no idea why he thinks either of these things to be true (no matter how often he’s been asked, he resolutely refuses to tell us).

If we take this tottering pile of idiocy at face value though, then (presumably) this supposed controller would itself also (according to AB) have the same problem of needing “the power to consciously invoke” its own “acts of will” and so on forever.

AB’s “solution” (so far as i can tell) is arbitrarily first to create the problem for humans, and then just as arbitrarily to remove from his notion “soul” because – erm – it’s magic innit? Or something.         

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,
 

For some reason AB has got it into his head that consciousness requires “a controller with the power to consciously invoke acts of will” and that this supposed “controller” must be separate from our corporeal selves. It’s utterly incoherent, but notwithstanding that I have no idea why he thinks either of these things to be true (no matter how often he’s been asked, he resolutely refuses to tell us).

If we take this tottering pile of idiocy at face value though, then (presumably) this supposed controller would itself also (according to AB) have the same problem of needing “the power to consciously invoke” its own “acts of will” and so on forever.

AB’s “solution” (so far as i can tell) is arbitrarily first to create the problem for humans, and then just as arbitrarily to remove from his notion “soul” because – erm – it’s magic innit? Or something.       

I take it that his point is that consciousness is unlike anything physically corporeal or what we would expect from physical corporality.
It is emerged or has emerged from physical corporality. It seems to me that stating that it must be physical is committing the fallacy of composition.

I myself are not convinced yet that consciousness is not a physical phenomena but would say that I'm also convinced either that consciousness is the same as intelligence or the sum of lots and lots of intelligence which again  seems like committing the fallacy of composition.