Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Which part of the explanation of the difference between comparing two coherent concepts and a comparing a coherent concept with white noise incoherence is it that confusing you?

As nice as that sounds what has it to do with making the fallacy of composition by assuming that because the components of conciousness are physical consciousness has to be?

or that a composite necessity is an absurdity?

[Stranger]

Can you please remind me just what was your explanation for well reasoned thoughts to drop out of subconscious brain activity without the need for conscious control?

Shifting the burden of proof.

Totals:
Shifting the burden of proof 7
Straw man 2
Assertion 10
Ambiguity 9
Appeal to consequences 1
Begging the question 2
Personal incredulity 1

That's 32 basic logic mistakes in five days.

Where is the sound logic you claimed to have?

You also seem to have totally 'forgotten' (again) that the role of consciousness doesn't matter to your claim of god-magic because consciousness alone does not imply the sort of 'free will' you want to get to. Even if you succeed in defining "conscious control of thoughts" and managed to prove it, then it could still all be physical, deterministic, and algorithmic.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

As nice as that sounds what has it to do with making the fallacy of composition by assuming that because the components of conciousness are physical consciousness has to be?

or that a composite necessity is an absurdity?

Let’s say that you went to a cricket match and stood up to get a better view and I then told you that in that case it follows that if everyone stood up they’d all get a better view. You (presumably) would reply, “but you’re committing the fallacy of composition here”.

Now let’s say that you went to another cricket match and also stood up to get a better view, only this time I told you "in that case y0586*^&%865k".

Would you still say that I’d committed the fallacy of composition, or would you instead just tell me that I was incoherent so there was nothing a priori to examine for its logical un/soundness?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Let’s say that you went to a cricket match and stood up to get a better view and I then told you that in that case it follows that if everyone stood up they’d all get a better view. You (presumably) would reply, “but you’re committing the fallacy of composition here”.

Now let’s say that you went to another cricket match and also stood up to get a better view, only this time I told you "in that case y0586*^&%865k".

Would you still say that I’d committed the fallacy of composition, or would you instead just tell me that I was incoherent so there was nothing a priori to examine for its logical un/soundness?

Flannel.
If you say consciousness must be physical because its components are you are committing the fallacy of composition.
A composite universe cannot be a necessary entity.
Since the universe emerges and is dependent on it's components.

If you say that necessity can emerge then you have to abandon
The notion of an emergent being the sum of it's components.

Either ways Hillside you are screwed.

Have a nice day.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Flannel.

Whoosh!

If you say consciousness must be physical because its components are you are committing the fallacy of composition.

Lucky I don’t say that then isn’t it. What I actually say is that my default (ie, not “must be” at all) is that it’s physical because there’s no other coherent state that it could be (ie, not because its components are at all).

Try to remember this, and to stop misrepresenting it. 
 

A composite universe cannot be a necessary entity.

So you assert – WHY do you assert it though?
 

Since the universe emerges and is dependent on it's components.

If you say that necessity can emerge then you have to abandon
The notion of an emergent being the sum of it's components.

More lying doesn’t help you here. I’ve repeatedly told you that emergent phenomena are not the “sum of their components” at all – they’re MORE than the sum of their components (ie, "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts" in common parlance).

Given how often it’s been explained to you, this shouldn’t be so hard for you to grasp.

Either ways Hillside you are screwed.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Irony

Have a nice day.

Always.

[Alan Burns]

Shifting the burden of proof.

Totals:
Shifting the burden of proof 7
Straw man 2
Assertion 10
Ambiguity 9
Appeal to consequences 1
Begging the question 2
Personal incredulity 1

That's 32 basic logic mistakes in five days.

Where is the sound logic you claimed to have?

You also seem to have totally 'forgotten' (again) that the role of consciousness doesn't matter to your claim of god-magic because consciousness alone does not imply the sort of 'free will' you want to get to. Even if you succeed in defining "conscious control of thoughts" and managed to prove it, then it could still all be physical, deterministic, and algorithmic.

Despite your detailed fallacy detection efforts, you have offered no feasible alternative explanation for how detailed reasoning and the ability to draw verifiable conclusions can be achieved without the ability to consciously manipulate whatever exists in your conscious awareness.  The "no magic" model offers no possibility for manipulation of whatever emerges into your conscious awareness - which will be defined from material reactions which have already occurred.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Despite your detailed fallacy detection efforts, you have offered no feasible alternative explanation for how detailed reasoning and the ability to draw verifiable conclusions can be achieved without the ability to consciously manipulate whatever exists in your conscious awareness.  The "no magic" model offers no possibility for manipulation of whatever emerges into your conscious awareness - which will be defined from material reactions which have already occurred.

Your reliance on the shifting of the burden of proof fallacy is noted. Again.

Now then, back to the question: how do you justify your leap from “I don’t understand how consciousness could be naturalistic” to “naturalistic consciousness is therefore impossible”?

[Sebastian Toe]

Despite your detailed fallacy detection efforts, you have offered no feasible alternative explanation for how detailed reasoning and the ability to draw verifiable conclusions can be achieved without the ability to consciously manipulate whatever exists in your conscious awareness.  The "no magic" model offers no possibility for manipulation of whatever emerges into your conscious awareness - which will be defined from material reactions which have already occurred.

Perhaps you could remind everyone as to your feasible explanation of how a "soul" which resides outwith spacetime can consciously manipulate our physical brain...in the " present", without recourse to magic.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Your reliance on the shifting of the burden of proof fallacy is noted. Again.

Now then, back to the question: how do you justify your leap from “I don’t understand how consciousness could be naturalistic” to “naturalistic consciousness is therefore impossible”?

For consciousness to be "naturalistic", are you prepared to concede that you have no ability to consciously manipulate whatever enters your conscious awareness?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Whoosh!

Lucky I don’t say that then isn’t it. What I actually say is that my default (ie, not “must be” at all) is that it’s physical because there’s no other coherent state that it could be (ie, not because its components are at all).

Try to remember this, and to stop misrepresenting it. 
 
So you assert – WHY do you assert it though?
 
More lying doesn’t help you here. I’ve repeatedly told you that emergent phenomena are not the “sum of their components” at all – they’re MORE than the sum of their components (ie, "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts" in common parlance).

Given how often it’s been explained to you, this shouldn’t be so hard for you to grasp.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Irony

Always.

Your'e still not getting it. An emergent entity is contingent on what it emerges from whether it is the sum of the components or more than the sum of the components.

[Sebastian Toe]

Your'e still not getting it. An emergent entity is contingent on what it emerges from whether it is the sum of the components or more than the sum of the components.

Is consciousness an emergent entity?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

For consciousness to be "naturalistic", are you prepared to concede that you have no ability to consciously manipulate whatever enters your conscious awareness?

“Consciously manipulating thoughts” is an arrant idiocy for reasons that have been explained to you countless times (eg because conscious manipulation would itself require thinking) but in any case what I “concede” is neither here nor there. I don't need to concede or to explain anything here: You’re the one telling us that you don’t understand how consciousness could be naturalistic, therefore naturalistic consciousness is impossible remember? Your claim = your burden of proof.

When do you intend to start? 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Why have you just ignored all the corrections I gave you?

Your'e still not getting it. An emergent entity is contingent on what it emerges from whether it is the sum of the components or more than the sum of the components.

Why do you think that all the parts of the universe are contingent, and why for that matter do you think an "entity" that emerges from constituent parts couldn't have properties (now you know that the emergent whole is greater than the sum of its parts) that enable its own existence nonetheless – see hypotheses about quantum borrowing for example:
 
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191002102750.htm 

Oh, and while you're about it, how would you propose to justify inserting a god confronted with the same questions as your answer without the special pleading of "It's magic innit"? 

Good luck with it though.     

[Alan Burns]

AB,

“Consciously manipulating thoughts” is an arrant idiocy for reasons that have been explained to you countless times (eg because conscious manipulation would itself require thinking) but in any case what I “concede” is neither here nor there. I don't need to concede or to explain anything here: You’re the one telling us that you don’t understand how consciousness could be naturalistic, therefore naturalistic consciousness is impossible remember? Your claim = your burden of proof.

When do you intend to start?

You appear to be evading this simple question:
For consciousness to be "naturalistic", are you prepared to concede that you have no ability to consciously manipulate whatever enters your conscious awareness?

Do you have trouble understanding what I mean by "consciously manipulating thoughts"?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You appear to be evading this simple question:
For consciousness to be "naturalistic", are you prepared to concede that you have no ability to consciously manipulate whatever enters your conscious awareness?

You’re accusing some else of evading a question?

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Irony

Yet again (and try to concentrate here) “ability to consciously control thoughts” is self-negating idiocy so there’s nothing to “concede”, but in any case the prior question you’re definitely avoiding is how you’d propose to justify jumping straight from “I don’t understand how consciousness could be naturalistic” to “naturalistic consciousness is therefore impossible” with no connecting logic at all.   

Do you have trouble understanding what I mean by "consciously manipulating thoughts"?

Yes. And so do you, or at least you do if you can’t explain even to yourself how something supposedly necessary to “consciously manipulate thoughts” wouldn’t be having thoughts of its own, which it in turn would (according to your unqualified assertion) necessarily need something else to “consciously control” its thoughts and so on forever.

Your answer to that – basically, “it’s magic innit” – is no answer at all.       

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Why have you just ignored all the corrections I gave you?

Why do you think that all the parts of the universe are contingent, and why for that matter do you think an "entity" that emerges from constituent parts couldn't have properties (now you know that the emergent whole is greater than the sum of its parts) that enable its own existence nonetheless – see hypotheses about quantum borrowing for example:
 
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191002102750.htm 

Oh, and while you're about it, how would you propose to justify inserting a god confronted with the same questions as your answer without the special pleading of "It's magic innit"? 

Good luck with it though.   

My position is that we can use the word universe to describe that which could be observed and studied by science. We can also use it to describe the sum of entities that are contingent and the necessary entity with no confusion between the contingent and necessary.(The old oranges plus bananas scenario).
God of course comes at the end of the argument from contingency. To quote Aquinus he ends with the line 'And this we call God' and that's the link with the God of the bible and the necessary entity.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

My position is that we can use the word universe to describe that which could be observed and studied by science.

Well that's a first – I didn’t know you were an advocate for scientism (how do you know that “the universe” wouldn’t also include parts that couldn’t be observed and studied by science?) but ok…

We can also use it to describe the sum of entities that are contingent and the necessary entity with no confusion between the contingent and necessary.(The old oranges plus bananas scenario).

No, we can also describe it as likely a lot more than “the sum of (its) entities”, that being the basic property of emergent phenomena as I keep explaining to you but again ok…

God of course comes at the end of the argument from contingency.

“God” of course does no such thing.

To quote Aquinus he ends with the line 'And this we call God' and that's the link with the God of the bible and the necessary entity.

Your assertions and declarations are noted, but that’s all they are – plenty of “whats” but no “whys”. What you’re being asked to do though (so far with no success at all) is to justify them with some arguments. Why not for example start by finally telling us why you think the universe must be contingent on something else without lapsing again into the fallacy of composition?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,



“God” of course does no such thing.

No Atheism does no such thing. God is a very good name for the necessary being.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No Atheism does no such thing.

Atheism makes no such claim - nor does Morris dancing.

God is a very good name for the necessary being.

And Colin is a very good name for the king of the leprechauns.

So?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

You’re accusing some else of evading a question?

I am accusing you of not giving a straight answer to this question:

For consciousness to be "naturalistic", are you prepared to concede that you have no ability to consciously manipulate whatever enters your conscious awareness?

You and others on this forum seem to think I am in the wrong to mention the concept of "conscious control of thoughts" without giving a full definition of what it actually means.  Yet our criminal justice system is entirely based on the fact that we must take personal responsibility for all our thoughts, words and actions.  If you deny that the concept of conscious control of our thoughts is a reality - your are implying that none of us can be held personally responsible for whatever we choose to do, think or say.  Your really do need to come to terms with the fact that our freedom to choose is a demonstrable reality which can't be taken away by the short sighted, flawed logic emanating from the materialist's view.

[Sebastian Toe]

I am accusing you of not giving a straight answer to this question:

Can you give a straight answer to this question, already asked?

Perhaps you could remind everyone as to your feasible explanation of how a "soul" which resides outwith spacetime can consciously manipulate our physical brain...in the " present", without recourse to magic.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I am accusing you of not giving a straight answer to this question:

For consciousness to be "naturalistic", are you prepared to concede that you have no ability to consciously manipulate whatever enters your conscious awareness?

And I’m explaining to you that your “question” is so freighted with misunderstanding, undefined terminology and unqualified assumption that it’s impossible for anyone to answer it. It’s incoherent – a bit like me demanding that you tell me what time the Brigadoon Post Office opens, and then getting all upset with you when you patiently and repeatedly explain to me that the question is absurd (and why). 

You and others on this forum seem to think I am in the wrong to mention the concept of "conscious control of thoughts" without giving a full definition of what it actually means.

Yes – or indeed any definition of that, however incomplete.

Yet our criminal justice system is entirely based on the fact that we must take personal responsibility for all our thoughts, words and actions.

But our criminal justice system also doesn’t concern itself with superstitious nonsense like supposed “souls” remember? As has been explained to you countless times without rebuttal, at the everyday, colloquial, practical level of abstraction “we” are responsible for our actions, and that’s all the justice system needs. At a deeper, more logically and evidentially robust level of abstraction however, notions of “free” will evaporate like the mist as nonsensical.

If you deny that the concept of conscious control of our thoughts is a reality - your are implying that none of us can be held personally responsible for whatever we choose to do, think or say.

Wrong again – see above. Lots of explanations that are useful for everyday purposes don’t work at all at a more cogent level, but each operates alongside the other quite readily nonetheless.

Funny that.

Not that you give a damn about the numerous logical fallacies you rely on by the way, but fyi you've just crashed into another example of the argumentum ad consequentiam.   

Your really do need to come to terms with the fact that our freedom to choose is a demonstrable reality which can't be taken away by the short sighted, flawed logic emanating from the materialist's view.

No, it’s you who really need to come to terms with the fact that just calling something “short sighted, flawed logic emanating from the materialist's view” does not thereby make it “short sighted, flawed logic emanating from the materialist's view”. To falsify logic rather than just dismiss it out of hand, you need sound logical arguments of your own for rebuttal purposes. So far at least you’ve never managed to produce any (despite claiming to have “sound logic” of your own waiting in the wings), which leads only to the inference that you hit upon some dim-witted and entirely unsupportable bad ideas when you were a young and have now become so heavily invested in them that rather than address your mistakes you prefer instead just to flounder about with endless abject drivel on an internet discussion board.       

[torridon]

..Yet our criminal justice system is entirely based on the fact that we must take personal responsibility for all our thoughts, words and actions.  If you deny that the concept of conscious control of our thoughts is a reality - your are implying that none of us can be held personally responsible for whatever we choose to do, think or say.  ..

Argumentum ad consequentiam.

Pretty sure Stranger will be along soon to flag this up, yet another fallacy in your reasoning.

He's keeping a tally, you know, and it's not looking good

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Argumentum ad consequentiam.

Pretty sure Stranger will be along soon to flag this up, yet another fallacy in your reasoning.

He's keeping a tally, you know, and it's not looking good

Do you ever review your own stuff?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Do you ever review your own stuff?

More than you do apparently, but why do you ask - do you think AB didn't just crash into another argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy?