Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Why do you keep consciously choosing to accuse me of blind faith?

Blind faith is all you have, and “consciously deciding” cannot be what you think it is.

How can you possibly come to the conclusion that my faith is blind without any conscious control of your own thoughts?

Already explained (many times) and irrelevant in any case. Even if the reason- and evidence-based hypotheses we have about this turn out to be wrong, that does not open the door to a logically impossible alternative.

You consciously choose to dismiss, ridicule or find reasons to refute any evidence or reasons I put forward to justify my faith.

Your reasons are wrong and your evidence doesn’t exist.

Can you not see that in all this you are employing your own ability to consciously control the thought processes involved in order to try to justify your own (mistaken) belief that we have no conscious control of our thoughts?

Can you not see that this simply cannot be true without collapsing into magical thinking to get you off the hook of logical impossibility?

Oh, and as so often I see you’ve just ignored the substantive points that undid you.

Look, it’s simple enough: either you think “it’s magic innit” is a valid argument or you don’t. So far at least that’s all you have, but you’ve also just detonated even that by telling us that magic is illusory.   

So, having sunk your own canoe of fantasy and illogic what’s left to keep your blind faith beliefs afloat?   

[Alan Burns]

So, having sunk your own canoe of fantasy and illogic what’s left to keep your blind faith beliefs afloat?

God, my human soul and my gift of free will. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

God, my human soul and my gift of free will. 

I asked you what you had left to justify your blind faith claims (now you've detonated even your last refuge of "it's magic innit"), not what those blind faith claims are. 

[Alan Burns]

AB,

I asked you what you had left to justify your blind faith claims (now you've detonated even your last refuge of "it's magic innit"), not what those blind faith claims are.

They are not blind faith claims.
They are the most fundamental realities.

John 9:25 -
One thing I do know. I was blind but now I see!

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

They are not blind faith claims.

As you've produced neither the sound logic nor the evidence to justify them that you claimed to have, that's exactly what they are.

They are the most fundamental realities.

Not they’re not – they’re just blind faith claims. See above.

John 9:25 -
One thing I do know. I was blind but now I see!

Quoting the Bible as if it was authoritative in some way is also a blind faith claim.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

As you've produced neither the sound logic nor the evidence to justify them that you claimed to have, that's exactly what they are.

Sorry, I have to ask this yet again, because I have not yet had any reasonable answer:

How can you claim to judge what is or is not sound logic, or what constitutes valid evidence, when you claim to have no conscious control over what is going on in your mind?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Sorry, I have to ask this yet again, because I have not yet had any reasonable answer:

How can you claim to judge what is or is not sound logic, or what constitutes valid evidence, when you claim to have no conscious control over what is going on in your mind?

Most likely because my (mostly subconscious) mind is doing it as in integrated process – ie, my (mostly subconscious) mind is “me”, but even if that hypothesis is ever falsified still that wouldn't open a door to your logically impossible alternative.

In other words, falsifying one hypothesis does not validate a different conjecture (let alone a logically impossible one). You should know this by now.

Until and unless you can finally produce the sound logic and evidence you claim to have that would transform your logically impossible blind faith claims into not logically impossible factual claims, blind faith is all you have.   

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Most likely because my (mostly subconscious) mind is doing it as in integrated process – ie, my (mostly subconscious) mind is “me”, but even if that hypothesis is ever falsified still that wouldn't open a door to your logically impossible alternative.

In other words, falsifying one hypothesis does not validate a different conjecture (let alone a logically impossible one). You should know this by now.

Until and unless you can finally produce the sound logic and evidence you claim to have that would transform your logically impossible blind faith claims into not logically impossible factual claims, blind faith is all you have.   

No it is not.
I have the evidence of what my own consciously controlled mind can achieve, (which would appear to achieve much more than yours  )

Your claim of logical impossibility is apparently derived from your subconscious brain activity over which you have no conscious control - truly bizarre!

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

No it is not.
I have the evidence of what my own consciously controlled mind can achieve, (which would appear to achieve much more than yours    )

If you actually have the evidence you claim to have why not finally tell us what it is? And no, before you try it again "it's obvious" isn't evidence for anything.

Your claim of logical impossibility is apparently derived from your subconscious brain activity over which you have no conscious control - truly bizarre!

Yes it must seem that way to a non-thinker, as indeed do countless other counter-intuitive truths. Where the logic is derived from is though for this purpose irrelevant – it remains sound regardless of its origin. Your notion “soul” creates an infinite regress, and magical thinking does not provide you with a way out of that.     

[Alan Burns]

Yes it must seem that way to a non-thinker ....

Says the person who claims we have no conscious control over our thoughts!

You seem to be saying that we have to conclude that we can't control our own thoughts if we just think about it 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Says the person who claims we have no conscious control over our thoughts!

Yes, because you still ignore the reasoning and evidence that falsifies you despite it being given to you. You don't need to "control your thoughts" to do that though - it's indicative of a character who's critical faculties are disengaged when it comes to matters of faith.
 

You seem to be saying that we have to conclude that we can't control our own thoughts if we just think about it 

Yes. If you allowed yourself the experience of thinking about it you'd realise that "controlling our thoughts" in the way you imagine is impossible. 

Oh, and none of this has anything to do in any case with your failure to produce reasoning or evidence to transform your magic man conjecture from logically impossible to logically possible. You know, the point that's actually relevant but that you always run away from. 

[torridon]

How else can you verify anything?
Everything exists in your conscious awareness, including your thoughts and any concept of logic.

So, you cannot verify it other than by circular reasoning; you cannot therefore claim it is a 'verifiable truth' or an 'undeniable fact'. All you can truthfully claim, is that is how it seems, that our agency lies in our conscious mind seemingly pulling the levers of power and making decisions.  Well we all know that is how it feels, that is our common experience.  But there are plenty of reasons from cognitive science to believe that not to be the case in reality.  You don't even need a scientists lab or a PET scanner to gain relevant insight into these matters, a simple cognitive illusion is all you need, of which there are plenty.  Here is the most popular one, the shadowed checkerboard :



Squares marked A and B are exactly the same shade of grey, but they look quite different in our conscious minds, square A looks significantly darker than B.  But it isn't, it is exactly the same shade and anyone who has seen this image and understands it knows that it tells us something profound about how minds work. 

Try to see it correctly, use your power of conscious control to see it correctly as it is.  You cannot, no one can.  This tells us that we do not in fact have conscious control over how our minds work.  We cannot control or manipulate our thoughts, but rather the contents of our conscious minds are simply what preconscious processes deliver up to us and there ain't nothing we can do about it.

[Alan Burns]

Yes. If you allowed yourself the experience of thinking about it you'd realise that "controlling our thoughts" in the way you imagine is impossible. 

So can you please explain in simple terms how allowing yourself to think about something is different to conscious control of your thoughts.
What does the "allowing"?
And what does the "thinking"?
And what verifies the result?

[Alan Burns]

So, you cannot verify it other than by circular reasoning; you cannot therefore claim it is a 'verifiable truth' or an 'undeniable fact'. All you can truthfully claim, is that is how it seems, that our agency lies in our conscious mind seemingly pulling the levers of power and making decisions.  Well we all know that is how it feels, that is our common experience.  But there are plenty of reasons from cognitive science to believe that not to be the case in reality.  You don't even need a scientists lab or a PET scanner to gain relevant insight into these matters, a simple cognitive illusion is all you need, of which there are plenty.  Here is the most popular one, the shadowed checkerboard :



Squares marked A and B are exactly the same shade of grey, but they look quite different in our conscious minds, square A looks significantly darker than B.  But it isn't, it is exactly the same shade and anyone who has seen this image and understands it knows that it tells us something profound about how minds work. 

Try to see it correctly, use your power of conscious control to see it correctly as it is.  You cannot, no one can.  This tells us that we do not in fact have conscious control over how our minds work.  We cannot control or manipulate our thoughts, but rather the contents of our conscious minds are simply what preconscious processes deliver up to us and there ain't nothing we can do about it.

But I cannot but perceive that you have controlled and manipulated your thoughts to come up with this example
Do you not realise that a human being has deliberately composed this illustration to show an example of illusion using his/her own powers of conscious control?

[torridon]

But I cannot but perceive that you have controlled and manipulated your thoughts to come up with this example
Do you not realise that a human being has deliberately composed this illustration to show an example of illusion using his/her own powers of conscious control?

No, what this illusion demonstrates, is that the feeling of 'conscious control' is itself a product of lower levels of mind over which there is no control.  So I didn't manipulate my thoughts to come up with this example, I just had thoughts.  The idea came to me. The idea of 'manuipulating' thoughts is meaningless gibberish.

[Sebastian Toe]

But I cannot but perceive that you have controlled and manipulated your thoughts to come up with this example
Do you not realise that a human being has deliberately composed this illustration to show an example of illusion using his/her own powers of conscious control?

So why don't you use your own powers of conscious control to see past the illusion?

[Alan Burns]

No, what this illusion demonstrates, is that the feeling of 'conscious control' is itself a product of lower levels of mind over which there is no control.  So I didn't manipulate my thoughts to come up with this example, I just had thoughts.  The idea came to me. The idea of 'manuipulating' thoughts is meaningless gibberish.

The observation of an optical illusion does not involve conscious control.
Conscious control was certainly used by the person who deliberately created the illusion.
And conscious control can be used to see through the illusion and discover why it is an illusion.

[Maeght]

The observation of an optical illusion does not involve conscious control.
Conscious control was certainly used by the person who deliberately created the illusion.
And conscious control can be used to see through the illusion and discover why it is an illusion.

The question was why don't you use your own powers of conscious control to see past the illusion

[torridon]

The observation of an optical illusion does not involve conscious control.
Conscious control was certainly used by the person who deliberately created the illusion.
And conscious control can be used to see through the illusion and discover why it is an illusion.

The illusion demonstrates that none of us can consciouosly control how our minds work.  We cannot control how perception works, we cannot control how memory works, we cannot control how thoughts emerge into mind; we only know them when we have them.  I cannot look out on a grey day and choose to see the sky as blue.  I cannot choose to believe that Bojo is still PM.  I cannot choose what to like or not to like.  I cannot choose to remember something that I cannot remember.  These facts of our experience derive from the same roots in that the fundamental workings of our minds are inaccessible and out of reach to conscious control and the choices that we make in life are a consequence of things that we have no control over.

[Alan Burns]

The illusion demonstrates that none of us can consciouosly control how our minds work.  We cannot control how perception works, we cannot control how memory works, we cannot control how thoughts emerge into mind; we only know them when we have them.

You really do believe that you had no conscious control over coming up with these profound statements.
So how can you possibly verify their accuracy without the power to consciously assess what has just emerged into your conscious awareness?

  I cannot look out on a grey day and choose to see the sky as blue.
  I cannot choose to believe that Bojo is still PM.  I cannot choose what to like or not to like.
  I cannot choose to remember something that I cannot remember.

I totally agree.
And my ability to totally agree with these statements stems from my ability to consciously assess what you are saying and consciously verify whether it is correct.

These facts of our experience derive from the same roots in that the fundamental workings of our minds are inaccessible and out of reach to conscious control and the choices that we make in life are a consequence of things that we have no control over.

And I totally disagree with these statements because I have the power to consciously assess them and consciously conclude that they could never have been made without conscious control.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You really do believe that you had no conscious control over coming up with these profound statements.
So how can you possibly verify their accuracy without the power to consciously assess what has just emerged into your conscious awareness?

I totally agree.
And my ability to totally agree with these statements stems from my ability to consciously assess what you are saying and consciously verify whether it is correct.

And I totally disagree with these statements because I have the power to consciously assess them and consciously conclude that they could never have been made without conscious control.

Just out of interest, why do you just repeat the same idiocies over and over again like a broken speak-your-weight machine rather than try at least to engage with the arguments you’re given that explain to you why they’re idiocies?

Yet again: “conscious control of your thoughts” is a logical impossibility. That’s all you need to know to abandon this claim. How consciousness actually works is neither here nor there for this purpose – all you need to know is that it cannot be what you think it is.   

[torridon]

You really do believe that you had no conscious control over coming up with these profound statements.
So how can you possibly verify their accuracy without the power to consciously assess what has just emerged into your conscious awareness?
I totally agree.
And my ability to totally agree with these statements stems from my ability to consciously assess what you are saying and consciously verify whether it is correct.And I totally disagree with these statements because I have the power to consciously assess them and consciously conclude that they could never have been made without conscious control.

You can disagree of course, but you'd be wrong to. We can all 'assess' things, of course, no one disputes that, this is normal cognitive functioning.  What we cannot do, is alter the fundamental workings of mind out of which our assessments arise.  Hence people come to different conclusions

[Alan Burns]

You can disagree of course, but you'd be wrong to. We can all 'assess' things, of course, no one disputes that, this is normal cognitive functioning.  What we cannot do, is alter the fundamental workings of mind out of which our assessments arise.  Hence people come to different conclusions

And what determines which conclusions are true and which are false without having the ability to consciously verify what emerges into your conscious awareness.?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Just out of interest, why do you just repeat the same idiocies over and over again like a broken speak-your-weight machine rather than try at least to engage with the arguments you’re given that explain to you why they’re idiocies?

Yet again: “conscious control of your thoughts” is a logical impossibility. That’s all you need to know to abandon this claim. How consciousness actually works is neither here nor there for this purpose – all you need to know is that it cannot be what you think it is.   

And please explain how you had the ability to come to this profound logical conclusion that you have no conscious control of your thoughts without any conscious control of your thoughts?

[torridon]

And what determines which conclusions are true and which are false without having the ability to consciously verify what emerges into your conscious awareness.?

A feeling that a conclusion is right is something that emerges into conscious mind when an explanation is a close fit to our internal model.  Of course that doesn't mean it is right, in an objective sense, just that it feels right to us. 

If I run to catch a ball, the calculation of where the ball will land is not something I do consciously, that would be far too slow.  I have a feeling of where the ball will land and this is what guides my motor responses, rightly or wrongly.

Have you ever wrestled with a complex problem, and found the solution just comes to you in a moment of inspiration, perhaps after a good night's sleep ?  Your subconscious mind was working on the problem while you were asleep and it emerges into conscious mind when you wake up.  Eureka !

Have you ever struggled to figure out which house to buy ? Or which lady to marry ? Sometimes we go with 'it just feels right' but we can't put a finger on exactly why it feels right.  This is evidence that in complex and major life decisions, we trust to our subconscious mind which has more cognitive resource and scope than conscious mind which evolved as a prioritisation of the immediate, the here and the now.