AB,
…elephant.
How did you get on? See, you couldn’t "control your thoughts" not to picture an elephant at all could you.
QED
The fact that you cannot conceive of a logical explanation does not mean that conscious control is an impossibility.
Well, it’s logically impossible still but if you want defenestrate logic entirely in favour of magic thinking then still all you have here is the fallacy of proving the negative. The fact that you cannot conceive of a logical explanation for a square circle does not mean that a square circle is an impossibility either if I choose to designate it a magic square circle.
Can you see now where you went wrong here?
The reality that we have conscious control of our thought processes is demonstrated in every post on this forum - it is demonstrated throughout human history.
That’s not “the” reality for the reasons I and others have explained to you at length and that you routinely just ignore. It’s just “a” reality in the sense that, say, people who think their epilepsy is caused by evil spirits is
a reality
for them, but there are still more robust (ie, reason- and evidence-based) explanations available.
Denying this reality by suggesting that all human writings are an unavoidable consequence dropping out of subconscious brain activity without the need for conscious control is a blatant attempt to try to force reality to fit in with our very limited human knowledge.
I know you have no grasp of irony, which is a pity given such a doozy of an example of it. Relying on reason and evidence to understand the world is precisely the attempt to eliminate the risk of “forcing reality to fit in”, whereas just denying that reason and evidence to protect an
a priori faith position as you do is exactly an attempt to force reality to fit in with that faith position.
And your convoluted attempts…
Why do you find plainly expressed arguments (that you then routinely ignore) to be “convoluted”?
…to deny this reality just provide more evidence for the reality that you do have conscious control of your own thoughts.
Bullshit. I could tell you again why it’s bullshit, but would there be any point as you’ll never be honest (or brave) enough to engage with the explanations?
You need to get to grips with the evidence of your own consciously driven abilities.
If you finally provide any such evidence I’ll be pleased to get to grips with it.
When do you propose to do that?
You are much more than an emergent property arising from physically controlled material reactions.
I hear the reason- and evidence-denying assertion. Now (finally) have a go at justifying with some
arguments of your own (and no, unqualified adjectives like "obvious" and "flawed" are not arguments at all).
Do not fear the truth, for the truth really does set you free.
See above re irony. On the basis of your behaviour here, the only one who fears “the truth” seems to be you.
So now you’ve ducked and dived again, let’s get back the question you were actually asked shall we?
Here it is again. Please try to answer it this time – either a yes or a no will be fine:
Do you agree that for most people who use keyboards the “obvious reality” is that their fingers actually touch the keys and therefore that, without examining them, the arguments for why they’re not doing that would appear to be “flawed”?
That is, can you see that at one workaday, colloquial level a reality is that they are touching the keys but that at the same time at a deeper, more reason- and evidence-based level of reality a different and more robust explanation entirely is available?
Forget your faith claims for now – as a basic proposition can you see how an “obvious” and useful type of reality and a more robust (albeit counter-instinctive) reality can exist at the same time?
