Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

Me, I follow the evidence.

To deliberately follow the evidence would require the conscious control which you deny exists.

[Alan Burns]

Again, that wasn't exactly the claim. Spotting that something leads immediately to an infinite regress or that it is self-contradictory is not about knowledge of reality, it's about basic logic.

But there is no infinite regress when you realise that you are the source of the conscious control needed come to this flawed conclusion.

[Maeght]

To deliberately follow the evidence would require the conscious control which you deny exists.

No it wouldn't. It requires a reaction to the evidence but the fact that a reaction results doesn't mean it is a free one and that you had control over it.

[Stranger]

To deliberately follow the evidence would require the conscious control which you deny exists.

Yet another argument by assertion fallacy.

But there is no infinite regress when you realise that you are the source of the conscious control needed come to this flawed conclusion.

Oh, don't be so childishly silly! The logic is simple and obvious. Control of anything requires a thought process, so conscious control of our own thought processes requires us to think about how to exercise control over each thought. That requires a further thought process, so you then have to think about how to exercise that control. That, in turn, also requires a thought process, so you need to think about how to exercise control that, and so on, ad infinitum. Just saying "you are the source of the conscious control" to try and get out of that is simply idiotic.

It is also fundamentally dishonest─a form of lying or bearing false witness─to just call something 'flawed' without having a good reason that you can explain.

Do stop this childish foot-stamping, it's embarrassing.

[Sebastian Toe]

But there is no infinite regress when you realise that you are the source of the conscious control needed come to this flawed conclusion.

The only flawed conclusion that I can see here is the conclusion...."soul".


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.


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" would be flawed arguements.

[Alan Burns]

No it wouldn't. It requires a reaction to the evidence but the fact that a reaction results doesn't mean it is a free one and that you had control over it.

please explain how a "reaction" can be guided to produce a correct result.
And what can verify the correctness of the result?
another reaction?

Surely the evidence needs to be assessed - what guides the assessment?
And before the evidence is assessed, it needs to be gathered from somewhere.
What is responsible for searching and collating evidence?

And before all this - there needs to be a defined goal for what is being investigated.  What is it that you are trying to do?   Can the process be commenced without conscious intention.

Can all this happen by reactions over which we have no conscious control?

[Alan Burns]

Oh, don't be so childishly silly! The logic is simple and obvious. Control of anything requires a thought process, so conscious control of our own thought processes requires us to think about how to exercise control over each thought. That requires a further thought process, so you then have to think about how to exercise that control. That, in turn, also requires a thought process, so you need to think about how to exercise control that, and so on, ad infinitum. Just saying "you are the source of the conscious control" to try and get out of that is simply idiotic.

To come up with all this detailed argument is profound evidence of your own ability to consciously think things out - and come up with an inherently flawed conclusion - because it denies you the control you have just used.

[Alan Burns]

In fact I've yet to see a feasible explanation as to how the process of a soul ...

You do not need to know how the soul can exert control - you just do it.

[Sebastian Toe]

You do not need to know how the soul can exert control - you just do it.

You don't need to know  how material reactions can exert control, you just do it.

[Sebastian Toe]

please explain how a "reaction" can be guided to produce a correct result.
And what can verify the correctness of the result?
another reaction?

Surely the evidence needs to be assessed - what guides the assessment?

You don't need to know  how material reactions can do all that, you just do it.

[Sebastian Toe]

Can all this happen by reactions over which we have no conscious control?

We have control, just not how you describe it.
You don't need to know  how material reactions can exert control, you just do it.

[Maeght]

please explain how a "reaction" can be guided to produce a correct result.
And what can verify the correctness of the result?
another reaction?

Surely the evidence needs to be assessed - what guides the assessment?
And before the evidence is assessed, it needs to be gathered from somewhere.
What is responsible for searching and collating evidence?

And before all this - there needs to be a defined goal for what is being investigated.  What is it that you are trying to do?   Can the process be commenced without conscious intention.

Can all this happen by reactions over which we have no conscious control?

I didn't say a reaction was guided. We know that our brains are programmed by our experiences and the reaction I referred to is how the brain reacts to external stimuli due to that programming.

In this model there is no guiding and yes the process can commence without conscious intent or conscious control. We live in a soup of stimuli and are reacting to that all the time.

[torridon]

To come up with all this detailed argument is profound evidence of your own ability to consciously think things out - and come up with an inherently flawed conclusion - because it denies you the control you have just used.

Of course we can think things out (when conscious), but that observation does not negate the findings from the sciences of the mind, that all conscious thoughts and mental states derive from non-conscious origins. Conscious thoughts are an outcome of how minds work.

[Stranger]

please explain...

Argument from ignorance fallacy (dimwitted logical mistake). Even the total absence of any other explanation does not make some baseless fantasy any more believable. What's more, nobody needs to explain anything at all to see that your 'answers' are logically impossible.

[Stranger]

To come up with all this detailed argument is profound evidence of your own ability to consciously think things out - and come up with an inherently flawed conclusion - because it denies you the control you have just used.

More mindless, infantile foot-stamping, i.e. argument by assertion dimwitted logical mistake.

Also, you really should stop telling lies about evidence. Doesn't your god get all angry about 'bearing false witness'? Nothing anybody could possibly do could possibly be evidence for your impossible, absurd claims. Nothing. You can't have evidence for the impossible.

[Stranger]

You do not need to know how the soul can exert control - you just do it.

Even more mindless, infantile foot-stamping and argument by assertion dimwitted logical mistake.

[Alan Burns]

Of course we can think things out (when conscious), but that observation does not negate the findings from the sciences of the mind, that all conscious thoughts and mental states derive from non-conscious origins. Conscious thoughts are an outcome of how minds work.

That all depends on conscious thought being defined in material terms.

[Maeght]

That all depends on conscious thought being defined in material terms.

This is what I think you should be saying rather than just going on about apparent decisions etc indicating free will when they don't. You need to invoke a non material soul to break the infinite regression. There is no evidence for a soul though.

[torridon]

That all depends on conscious thought being defined in material terms.

As opposed to magical terms, yes

[Alan Burns]

Argument from ignorance fallacy (dimwitted logical mistake). Even the total absence of any other explanation does not make some baseless fantasy any more believable. What's more, nobody needs to explain anything at all to see that your 'answers' are logically impossible.

But in order for you to arrive at the consciously verified conclusion that my answers are logically impossible you need to :
1. Read and understand the content of my post which then enters your conscious awareness.
2. Contemplate what exists in your conscious awareness and assess its validity against your own take on the subject.
3. Once you have formed an opinion, you then compose a reply to express your opinion.

And you believe it is all done without any conscious control.

No doubt you will repeat the process in dealing with this post and in doing so you will provide yet more reasons for me to consciously asses that your conclusions are wrong.

[Sebastian Toe]

That all depends on conscious thought being defined in material terms.

You don't need to know  how material terms are defined, they just do the job.

[Sebastian Toe]

And you believe it is all done without any conscious control.

Not as you declare it to be.

Using deterministic principles and following the logic and research, yes.

By the way could you point to the equally researched papers on "souls" in order that a comparison be made.
In the interests of balance and fairness I think that is the least that you can do.

I'm sure that you don't want to be measuring well thought out peer reviewed data with , well magic...do you?

[Alan Burns]

Using deterministic principles and following the logic and research, yes.

What is it that can contemplate the existence and application of deterministic principles?
What is it that can follow logic and examine research?

could it be your conscious awareness?
of course not because conscious awareness can't do anything - it just becomes aware of what has already been done.
so what does it?

[Sebastian Toe]

What is it that can contemplate the existence and application of deterministic principles?
What is it that can follow logic and examine research?

could it be your conscious awareness?
of course not because conscious awareness can't do anything - it just becomes aware of what has already been done.
so what does it?

The following is an official Alan Burns type reply.
It therefore must be accepted without question!



You don't need to know  what does it, you just have to know that it does

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

That all depends on conscious thought being defined in material terms.

Actually it all depends on whether the logic for it is sound (which it is), but in any case what other terms would you propose – the white noise woo of "faith" that has no bridge from the subjective to the objective? Really?