Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

Why does the mind work this way ? For an analogy, imagine the introduction of a self driving taxi some time in the future.  My bet would be that a taxi that featured a hologrammatic 'driver' that was apparently driving the vehicle would get more customers than one that didn't.  If you can understand that, then you are some way to understanding why our minds have evolved to create such a strong sense of self, something akiin that hologrammatic taxi driver, apparently in control.

The analogy does not work because a self driving taxi with a hologram driver will have no self awareness - and the true source of every action the taxi makes can be traced back to the free will of the humans who built and programmed it to achieve their conscious objective.

[Alan Burns]

Quote from: Alan Burns on July 01, 2023, 11:23:09 PM

    But it is a reality because we do have the ability to consciously control our thoughts to reach consciously verified conclusions.

Another baseless assertion.

It is based on reality.

[torridon]

The analogy does not work because a self driving taxi with a hologram driver will have no self awareness - and the true source of every action the taxi makes can be traced back to the free will of the humans who built and programmed it to achieve their conscious objective.

This is not really true of artificial intelligence - they are learning entities rather than programmed computers, hence the debate about them currently; no one really knows or can predict their output.  As to whether AIs will become self aware one day is anybody's guess; with the rise of artificial intelligence, quantum computing and biological computers it is hard to predict where we will be at in 5 years time, never mind a century or two.

[Stranger]

Why does the mind work this way ? For an analogy, imagine the introduction of a self driving taxi some time in the future.  My bet would be that a taxi that featured a hologrammatic 'driver' that was apparently driving the vehicle would get more customers than one that didn't.  If you can understand that, then you are some way to understanding why our minds have evolved to create such a strong sense of self, something akiin that hologrammatic taxi driver, apparently in control.

The analogy does not work because a self driving taxi with a hologram driver will have no self awareness - and the true source of every action the taxi makes can be traced back to the free will of the humans who built and programmed it to achieve their conscious objective.

But it is a reality because we do have the ability to consciously control our thoughts to reach consciously verified conclusions.

Another baseless assertion.

It is based on reality.

And yet another baseless assertion!  Why not take a break from the mindless, childish foot-stamping and endless other fallacies and try to think about this subject, just for once in your life!

[Alan Burns]

Then if you are aware of the problem of infinite regress how would you propose that a decision-making “soul” would not itself by your “reasoning” also require a mini-soul to do its thinking and so on forever?   

The concept of infinite regress is derived from your own attempt to make reality fit in with flawed logic based upon our limited human knowledge of how things work.  There is no need for a controller to control you.  Neither is there a need for you to be entirely controlled by past events beyond your conscious control.  You are in control.  This is the reality we all exist in.

Why do you think that’s a problem, aside that is from the problem of holing below the waterline your preference for how you would like decision-making to work to satisfy your religious beliefs?

I do not need to believe in my own ability to make decisions.  It is not a preference.  It is a reality.

[Stranger]

The concept of infinite regress is derived from your own attempt to make reality fit in with flawed logic based upon our limited human knowledge of how things work.

Yet again the empty accusation that the logic is 'flawed' without being able to point to even a hint of an actual flaw.   

Face it Alan, the only reason you regard it as flawed is because it doesn't fit with your reasoning- and evidence-free blind faith.

There is no need for a controller to control you.  Neither is there a need for you to be entirely controlled by past events beyond your conscious control.  You are in control.  This is the reality we all exist in.

I do not need to believe in my own ability to make decisions.  It is not a preference.  It is a reality.

Another reasoning-free, childish foot-stamp. Are you incapable of anything but vacuous assertions?

[Alan Burns]

Yet again the empty accusation that the logic is 'flawed' without being able to point to even a hint of an actual flaw.   

Face it Alan, the only reason you regard it as flawed is because it doesn't fit with your reasoning- and evidence-free blind faith.

The logic is flawed because it does not fit the reality that we all have the power to control our own thoughts.

[Stranger]

The logic is flawed because it does not fit the reality that we all have the power to control our own thoughts.

Yet another assertion, and an obviously false one, at that.

Of course we don't have control of our thoughts, at least not in any but the most trivial sense. I can decide what to think about, but how did I make that choice? Why did I want to think about x rather than y? I have no control over that. Once I decide to think about x, there is no control over what will occur to me at any given time. We can directly perceive that there is an obvious limit we come to where we are no longer exercising choice.

The whole idea is utterly absurd and can be exposed as a shallow fiction with the slightest bit of honest introspection, let alone rational analysis.

[Gordon]

The logic is flawed because it does not fit the reality that we all have the power to control our own thoughts.

Nonsense, pure and simple.

Your attempts to misrepresent and distort knowledge in order to manufacture a 'gap' for your 'God' are blindingly obvious - for some reason you want your religious beliefs to seem rational but then you are utterly insightless about the illogical implications of what you assert.

Maybe you should just stick to blind faith and stop troubling yourself with issues you clearly don't understand. 

[torridon]

The logic is flawed because it does not fit the reality that we all have the power to control our own thoughts.

We don't 'control our thoughts' in any fundamental sense.  The only way we control our thoughts is via other thought processes. You cannot see the circularity in that ?

[Sriram]

We all live under different circumstances  and cannot control the environment no doubt. But we do have control over what we think and how we behave. We wouldn't have civilized society if we couldn't control our instincts, emotions and thoughts.

Emotions and social norms (through religion and customs) help control instincts. Intellect helps control emotions.....and spirituality helps control the intellect. 

[Alan Burns]

Nonsense, pure and simple.

Your attempts to misrepresent and distort knowledge in order to manufacture a 'gap' for your 'God' are blindingly obvious - for some reason you want your religious beliefs to seem rational but then you are utterly insightless about the illogical implications of what you assert.

Maybe you should just stick to blind faith and stop troubling yourself with issues you clearly don't understand.

What is nonsense is the idea that at every moment in our lives we could not possibly have chosen to think say or do anything differently.
Our freedom is a reality, not an illusion.
How could you even contemplate or work out logic without the power to control and direct your own conscious thoughts?

[Alan Burns]

The whole idea is utterly absurd and can be exposed as a shallow fiction with the slightest bit of honest introspection, let alone rational analysis.

Please explain how you can invoke honest introspection and rational analysis without the power to control and direct your own thought processes.

[ekim]

What is nonsense is the idea that at every moment in our lives we could not possibly have chosen to think say or do anything differently.
Our freedom is a reality, not an illusion.
How could you even contemplate or work out logic without the power to control and direct your own conscious thoughts?

Another way of looking at the situation is to keep asking yourself why you have made a particular choice and you will probably see that there is a desire for a certain outcome, in which case your intention (will) is not free from desire.  Your 'saviour' demonstrated the situation before his crucifixion, in Matt 26:39 which  to me says this 'O God, if it is possible,  let this impending destiny be averted, but only if it conforms to your will.    If the only way for this fateful event to pass by is for me to experience it then let it be so.''  His choice was to free himself from a personal desire and submit to his God's Will.  This is probably why you pray 'Thy Will be done' not 'my will be done'.  This implies that you are not free from your God's Will but you have a choice over which will to submit to.

[Stranger]

What is nonsense is the idea that at every moment in our lives we could not possibly have chosen to think say or do anything differently.
Our freedom is a reality, not an illusion.
How could you even contemplate or work out logic without the power to control and direct your own conscious thoughts?

More mindless foot-stamping. 

Your impossible nonsense will not become rational or coherent just because you endlessly assert it.

Please explain how you can invoke honest introspection and rational analysis without the power to control and direct your own thought processes.

The same way you do anything else. However, you won't be able to so long as long as you don't want to, so something has to influence you be motivated. I really don't see why that hasn't happened yet as your 'arguments' are ripped to shreds on the floor and you seem to have devolved into just posting rants. I'd would have thought that would be enough to motivate you to learn about logic and do better.

Unfortunately, it appears that your faith really has crippled your ability to think rationally.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The concept of infinite regress is derived from your own attempt to make reality fit in with flawed logic based upon our limited human knowledge of how things work.

Ah, your old “flawed logic” line with no attempt to explain why you think the logic that undoes you is flawed. Why is that?

There is no need for a controller to control you.

So you’ve abandoned your notion of a controlling “soul” now then? Good – that’s some progress at least. Well done.

Neither is there a need for you to be entirely controlled by past events beyond your conscious control.  You are in control.  This is the reality we all exist in.

And your non-illogical explanation for how, given identical starting conditions, you or I could have made a different decision would be what exactly?

I do not need to believe in my own ability to make decisions.  It is not a preference.  It is a reality.

Sort of – it’s just a reality though in that it’s only a useful misdescription of an underlying reality that’s very different. In the same way it’s a useful reality that you touch the keys in front of you to type your various mistakes even though that misdescribes the deeper reality that two objects don’t actually touch at all.

This is where you keep going wrong. You’ve decided that a relatively superficial but colloquially useful reality must be the only reality because it’s “obvious” to you, and thus you reject out of hand any reasoning that identifies a deeper, more logically robust model of reality solely because it disagrees with your “obvious”. The kicker here is that in the case of decision-making the simple but wrong reality model you cling to supports your a priori religious beliefs so your mind is forever closed even to the possibility that you’re wrong, whereas (presumably) with no blind faith beliefs to protect you would accept the deeper reasoning that shows your equally “obvious” reality of touching your keyboard to be wrong.

In short, your religious faith has done terrible damage to your critical faculties and yet you’ll never even consider the arguments for why that’s the case.     

[Alan Burns]

More mindless foot-stamping. 

Your impossible nonsense will not become rational or coherent just because you endlessly assert it.

It is you doing the foot stamping! It is not impossible nonsense - it is reality.
The reality which gives us the power to control and direct our own conscious thoughts in order to reach consciously verified conclusions.

[Stranger]

It is you doing the foot stamping! It is not impossible nonsense - it is reality.

This is just getting silly. I have provided you with actual arguments as to why it's impossible. All you have done is mindlessly repeat "but it's reality!" Not the slightest hint of any reasoning to support it.

The reality which gives us the power to control and direct our own conscious thoughts in order to reach consciously verified conclusions.

There you go again.   

Get a grip, for fuck's sake. Do you really think you're going to convince anybody with endless unargued assertions?

[Alan Burns]

In short, your religious faith has done terrible damage to your critical faculties and yet you’ll never even consider the arguments for why that’s the case.   

I fail to see how anyone could possibly deploy their "critical faculties" without the conscious freedom to drive their own thought processes and consciously verify their own conclusions.

[Stranger]

I fail to see how anyone could possibly deploy their "critical faculties" without the conscious freedom to drive their own thought processes and consciously verify their own conclusions.

Personal incredulity fallacy and an impossible conclusion.   

[Alan Burns]

This is just getting silly. I have provided you with actual arguments as to why it's impossible. All you have done is mindlessly repeat "but it's reality!" Not the slightest hint of any reasoning to support it.

There you go again.   

Get a grip, for fuck's sake. Do you really think you're going to convince anybody with endless unargued assertions?

I am simply stating that in order to follow logical paths and reach verified conclusions you need conscious control of your thought processes.
Why is this so difficult for you to accept?

[Sebastian Toe]

I fail to see how anyone could possibly deploy their "critical faculties" without the conscious freedom to drive their own thought processes and consciously verify their own conclusions.

I've yet to see how any rational person could believe in your "soul" notion.
In fact I've yet to see a feasible explanation as to how the process of a soul which doesn't reside in this universe, stays in a timeless realm, is able to attach itself to one individual , read the brain patterns of said individual, translate and understand them in real time and then somehow manipulates the physical brain to follow commands.
I've also yet to see feasible explanations as to where how and when these souls are "created" how they attach to a person, when they attach to a person, how they exist after death etc.
There's more, so much more but for now .....
Would you as the resident forum soul expert care to share?
Remember, "it's magic" or any sneaky attempts to dress up " it's magic" will be dismissed out of hand.

[Outrider]

I am simply stating that in order to follow logical paths and reach verified conclusions you need conscious control of your thought processes. Why is this so difficult for you to accept?

Because it's manifestly not true. We have computers that are capable of following logical paths to reach verified conclusions, but I suspect you'd at least hesitate to ascribe consciousness to them, so we know that it's not a requirement.

That's not definitive on whether we do or not, but it shows that the evidence you've cited isn't sufficient to justify the conclusion you're arriving at.

O.

[Stranger]

I am simply stating that in order to follow logical paths and reach verified conclusions you need conscious control of your thought processes.
Why is this so difficult for you to accept?

Because it's a baseless argument by assertion with a logically impossible conclusion that contradicts our own direct experience. You really couldn't make it more absurd if you tried.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I fail to see…

Yes, we know.

… how anyone could possibly deploy their "critical faculties" without the conscious freedom to drive their own thought processes and consciously verify their own conclusions.

And this despite the countless times the logical impossibility of your magical fairy tale alternative has been explained to you?

Oh, and as in my last post I explained to you (yet again) where you go wrong why have you just ignored all that (yet again) as if nothing had been explained to you? Just repeating the same long-since falsified assertions over and over again like a broken speak-your-weight machine no matter the falsifying arguments just makes you look idiotic. Or delusional. Or dishonest. Or some combination of these things.   

If you genuinely think your faith beliefs have any substance at all and you want other people to agree with you about that, why would you adopt such a discrediting approach rather than support your case by trying at least to produce rebuttal arguments of you own? Just throwing about terms like “obvious” and “flawed” laced with multiple logical fallacies serves only to make you look foolish (at best) rather than persuasive.