Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

Did you actually bother to think about this for a single microsecond before posting?

That would require the conscious control which you deny exists.

If your conscious mind is in control -
What is it that can verify whether the reasoning is correct or mistaken?
It can't be your subconscious if we have conscious control of our thoughts.
So does your conscious mind actually verify itself?
Is it self correcting?
How can your subconscious possibly know if the reasoning is correct?

If your conscious self is not in control of your carefully thought out conclusions - what is in control?

Quite apart from the utter stupidity of thinking we have conscious control of our thought process, both because of the infinite regress and direct experience that we have no such control, why would one part of our minds be inherently more reliable than another? What magic pixie dust is consciousness supposed to have that makes better?

We have only one conscious self.  I do not understand what you are getting at here.

In actual fact, of course, it's perfectly possible that consciousness plays some part in our reasoning process, but exactly what is difficult to say, at it's blindingly obvious that it's not in control of everything else.

Either your conscious self is in control of your thought processes or it is not.
The materialistic scenario denies any conscious control because conscious awareness emerges from material reactions which have already taken place.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

That would require the conscious control which you deny exists.

No it wouldn’t. Stop lying.

If your conscious self is not in control of your carefully thought out conclusions - what is in control?

There is no “control” in the juvenile sense you imply, and in any case almost all the work is done by your sub-conscious before you become consciously aware of it. 

We have only one conscious self.  I do not understand what you are getting at here.

Why not – it’s simple enough isn’t it? “You” consist of a single, integrated whole that comprises a suite of sub-systems involved in real-time feedback loops and validation processes (at least while you’re awake and conscious), verified objectively by observation of the real-world effects of our reasoning. You’ll notice that no infantile fairy tale about magic little invisible men at the controls is needed for this to be the case. You’ve been lied to about that. Sorry, but there it is.     

Either your conscious self is in control of your thought processes or it is not.

It’s not. It can’t be for reasons that should be obvious even to you by now.
 

The materialistic scenario denies any conscious control because conscious awareness emerges from material reactions which have already taken place.

Yes. The “materialistic scenario” is a second order issue though – the basic logic scenario precedes it, and it’s that which detonates your tedious fuckwittery about supposed “souls” etc.   

[Stranger]

That would require the conscious control which you deny exists.

Mindless, dimwitted assertion.

If your conscious self is not in control of your carefully thought out conclusions - what is in control?

In my case, my whole mind. In your case, apparently, mindless, thought-free, experience-, evidence-, and logic-denying, blind faith.

We have only one conscious self.  I do not understand what you are getting at here.

Clearly not (it was logic, after all). I meant why do you think your concious mind has some sort of magic ability to be correct about things that your subconscious mind, or a combination of conscious and subconscious, lacks?

Either your conscious self is in control of your thought processes or it is not.

Clearly not. Not only because of the infinite regress but also because we can tell that it isn't with a few moments of honest introspection.

The materialistic scenario denies any conscious control because conscious awareness emerges from material reactions which have already taken place.

The "materialistic scenario" is basically irrelevant. It is obvious from both logic and direct experience, that we do not have conscious control of our own thought processes.

[Alan Burns]

Clearly not. Not only because of the infinite regress but also because we can tell that it isn't with a few moments of honest introspection.

Pray tell me how I can perform this honest introspection if I have no conscious control?

The "materialistic scenario" is basically irrelevant. It is obvious from both logic and direct experience, that we do not have conscious control of our own thought processes.

I rest my case.

[Alan Burns]

Alan Burns type reply forthcoming,  to which there can be no arguement against... seemingly!

You don't need to know  how your subconscious does it, it just does.

Seb,

You are admirably demonstrating your ability to use your conscious control without knowing how it works.  You just do it!

[Stranger]

Pray tell me how I can perform this honest introspection if I have no conscious control?

Same way that you decided to post mindless drivel and abandoned even the pretence of using logic.

I rest my case.

  Are you really so deluded that you think you've made a case?

You are admirably demonstrating your ability to use your conscious control without knowing how it works.

Why to you need to tell so many lies?

[Sebastian Toe]

Seb,

You are admirably demonstrating your ability to use your conscious control without knowing how it works.  You just do it!

Alan, you are admirably demonstrating your deterministic brain working, emerging from your sub conscious without knowing how it works.
You just do it!

[Sriram]

The latter.  Cognitive scientists liken conscious mind to being just the tip of the iceberg; the vast majority of mind is hidden from view.

Great...that means that our conscious mind is a product of a consciousness that we know exists in the background, but we have no control over. Rather, that part of our unconscious mind controls us. It also probably controls our physiology.....maybe even our genetic expression. 

So..we are just puppets to unconscious processes.

[Gordon]

Alan

If, as you assert, we can consciously control our thoughts then, presumably, that includes the option to consciously decide to not have any active thoughts whatsover whilst we are awake and active.

Give it a try - you'll find that you can't do it.

[torridon]

Great...that means that our conscious mind is a product of a consciousness that we know exists in the background, but we have no control over. Rather, that part of our unconscious mind controls us. It also probably controls our physiology.....maybe even our genetic expression. 

So..we are just puppets to unconscious processes.

Sort of.  All conscious experience derives from non-conscious mental processes that 'we' have no control over, but rather 'we' are the product of.

If you've ever been to an orchestral music concert you'll be familiar with the general cacaphony that precedes the start of the concert as all the instrumentalists practice snippets of the score whilst waiting for the conductor to arrive on stage to general applause.  From the moment the conductor raises his baton that cacaphony is transformed into something beautiful, a unified coordinated sensory experience. To create conscious experience out of multimodal sensory inputs, our minds are doing something like that, that conductor works silently and tirelessly behind the scenes to create our stream of consciousness but we have no control over this conductor; rather we are the end result of his work.

[Sriram]

Alan

If, as you assert, we can consciously control our thoughts then, presumably, that includes the option to consciously decide to not have any active thoughts whatsover whilst we are awake and active.

Give it a try - you'll find that you can't do it.

It can be done through meditations and pranayama (breathing exercises).  In fact that is the aim of yoga and meditations....to restrict thoughts and emotions and use them only as necessary....instead of having a clutter. 

[Sriram]

Sort of.  All conscious experience derives from non-conscious mental processes that 'we' have no control over, but rather 'we' are the product of.

If you've ever been to an orchestral music concert you'll be familiar with the general cacaphony that precedes the start of the concert as all the instrumentalists practice snippets of the score whilst waiting for the conductor to arrive on stage to general applause.  From the moment the conductor raises his baton that cacaphony is transformed into something beautiful, a unified coordinated sensory experience. To create conscious experience out of multimodal sensory inputs, our minds are doing something like that, that conductor works silently and tirelessly behind the scenes to create our stream of consciousness but we have no control over this chap; rather we are the end result of his work.

And if we call this conductor as the Inner Consciousness...would that be correct?
 

[Gordon]

It can be done through meditations and pranayama (breathing exercises).  In fact that is the aim of yoga and meditations....to restrict thoughts and emotions and use them only as necessary....instead of having a clutter.

Which isn't the same thing as making a conscious decision not to think any thoughts.

[Alan Burns]

It is obvious from both logic and direct experience, that we do not have conscious control of our own thought processes.

So please tell me again how we can come up with this obvious conclusion without control of our thoughts?
Where does the "obvious" come from?

[torridon]

And if we call this conductor as the Inner Consciousness...would that be correct?

That depends on what you mean by 'Inner Consciousness'. it's not a term used in cognitive science, so probably doesn't map well.

[torridon]

So please tell me again how we can come up with this obvious conclusion without control of our thoughts?
Where does the "obvious" come from?

It is obvious, or evident, that the sky is blue. Well, the reality is more complex than that, colour perception is something that our minds create, and furthermore, we have no control over that process of perception.  When was the last time you chose to see the sky as blue ?  Likewise, we cannot choose to find an explanation of something to be satisfying or not; it is not something we 'control'.

[Stranger]

So please tell me again how we can come up with this obvious conclusion without control of our thoughts?

Back to the mindless dimwittery of "tell me again how arithmetic works if 2 isn't equal to 1?"   

Hell I could even do a better job of showing that 2 = 1 than you've done for your absurd claim that we can "consciously control our own thought processes". Far, far better....

a = b
∴ a² = ab
∴ a² - b² = ab - b²
∴ (a + b)(a - b) = b(a - b)
∴ a + b = b
∴ 2a = a
∴ 2 = 1

Clearly, there is an obvious flaw but then there is for your absurd claim too - and you haven't even made any attempt at all to justify it rationally (not even at the level of a bad one, like I just did for 1 = 2). All you've done amounts to no more than an infantile tantrum of just screaming that you're right and everybody else is wrong.

[Alan Burns]

It is obvious, or evident, that the sky is blue. Well, the reality is more complex than that, colour perception is something that our minds create, and furthermore, we have no control over that process of perception.  When was the last time you chose to see the sky as blue ?  Likewise, we cannot choose to find an explanation of something to be satisfying or not; it is not something we 'control'.

You cannot compare the apparently blue sky with the process of conscious control needed to think things out and come to valid conclusions.
Your analysis of what makes the sky appear blue is evidence of your ability to consciously contemplate something in your conscious awareness and come up with a logically derived conclusion.

What is obvious is your conscious control of the thought processes involved to reach a verified conclusion about the reality of the "blue" sky.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I rest my case.

If there weren’t rainbows there would be nowhere for leprechauns to leave their pots of gold.

Rainbows re real, therefore leprechauns are real.

I rest my case.

As we now know your “case” to be built entirely on lies, evasions, unqualified and logically impossible assertions and an awful lot of wilful ignorance your “case” for “god”, “soul”, “free” will etc is epistemically equivalent to my case for leprechauns.

Why do you bother?

[Alan Burns]

Hell I could even do a better job of showing that 2 = 1 than you've done for your absurd claim that we can "consciously control our own thought processes". Far, far better....

a = b
∴ a² = ab
∴ a² - b² = ab - b²
∴ (a + b)(a - b) = b(a - b)
∴ a + b = b
∴ 2a = a
∴ 2 = 1

Your ability to come up with this example just reinforces my conviction that you do have conscious control of your thought processes.

[Alan Burns]

AB,
.....  you have my sympathy nonetheless.     

I am sure your sympathy is incomparable with the sadness I feel for you and others who have not yet discovered God's love.

[Alan Burns]

...  and an awful lot of wilful ignorance ...

Please explain how I manage to achieve wilful ignorance if I have no conscious control of my will?

[Stranger]

Your ability to come up with this example just reinforces my conviction that you do have conscious control of your thought processes.

Your inability to even attempt to come up with any supporting logic or evidence combined with this kind of statement, just screams out to the world that you are trapped in a horrible fantasy of self-delusion that you seem helpless to escape from.

If your aim here was to put people off your faith, you have spectacularly succeed.

[Stranger]

Please explain how I manage to achieve wilful ignorance if I have no conscious control of my will?

"Please explain to me how arithmetic can work if 2 does not equal 1?" How many more times are you going to reinforce the stupidity of your position?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I am sure your sympathy is incomparable with the sadness I feel for you and others who have not yet discovered God's love.

As your justifications for the claim "god" remain entirely lies, evasions, unqualified and logically impossible assertions and an awful lot of wilful ignorance can you think of any good reason not to think you to be delusional about that?   

I can't, not least because you've never managed to produce one.

Why is that?