Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

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?

Why? What relevance does the answer to that have to the arguments that show your explanation being logically impossible? 

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Why? What relevance does the answer to that have to the arguments that show your explanation being logically impossible?

Without conscious control of your thoughts any valid argument would be impossible to formulate.

[Alan Burns]

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 !

I have wrestled with many complex problems in my lifetime, and I can assure you that the solutions were entirely derived from consciously controlled thought processes - not from a miraculous eureka moment when a solution just pops into my head.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Without conscious control of your thoughts any valid argument would be impossible to formulate.

No it wouldn't, but that's not the point. The point is that whatever the explanation for consciousness is, it's logically impossible for it to be what you think it is. That's the end of the road therefore for your conjecture "soul".

Try to understand this. 

[Sebastian Toe]

I have wrestled with many complex problems in my lifetime, and I can assure you that the solutions were entirely derived from consciously controlled thought processes -

I.e. your "soul"!......

a miraculous

.......unevidenced, logically impossible, magic requiring solution that as far as logic determines ......

just pops into my head.

..to bolster your fragile take on reality

[Alan Burns]

AB,

No it wouldn't, but that's not the point. The point is that whatever the explanation for consciousness is, it's logically impossible for it to be what you think it is. That's the end of the road therefore for your conjecture "soul".

Try to understand this.

I am at a loss to understand how you can deny the conscious freedom needed to formulate and validate any logical argument.
Are you afraid of the consequences of accepting the demonstrable reality that you have the power to consciously control your thought processes?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I am at a loss to understand how you can deny the conscious freedom needed to formulate and validate any logical argument.

You shouldn’t be at a loss to understand that at all because it’s been explained to you countless times with no rebuttal from you other than your endlessly repeated expressions of incredulity. In any case though, that’s still not the point. Even if we didn’t have logically cogent hypotheses about consciousness, still that wouldn’t open the door one inch to a logically impossible one – ie, “soul”.

You can keep banging your head against this hard reasoning a much as you like, but it won’t change the fact that taking recourse in magic for your answer explains nothing at all. It’s just white noise.   

Are you afraid of the consequences of accepting the demonstrable reality that you have the power to consciously control your thought processes?

No. The consequences if that wasn’t logically impossible would be fascinating. Why though are you so afraid of the consequences of your speculation “soul” being logically impossible that you’ll never be honest enough even to try to address the arguments that falsify you? 

[torridon]

I have wrestled with many complex problems in my lifetime, and I can assure you that the solutions were entirely derived from consciously controlled thought processes - not from a miraculous eureka moment when a solution just pops into my head.

The example of a Eureka moment is just one such moment where this aspect of the workings of mind is apparent.  But when you habituate yourself to noticing how your mind works, you realise this is how it works all the time;mostly we just don't notice it, it is too subtle.  In a brainstorming session at work, we all try to come up with novel and creative solutions to the problems we face.  But what we cannot do, is choose which ideas should come to mind. We just get the ones we get, some good, some not so good.  We have no control over it, we cannot choose to have this idea, or that idea.

[Alan Burns]

Why though are you so afraid of the consequences of your speculation “soul” being logically impossible that you’ll never be honest enough even to try to address the arguments that falsify you?

How could I possibly be afraid of the reality which enables me to consciously control my own thoughts?
Yes - I fully understand how this does not fit in with the materialistic, time related cause and effect scenario, but it is my conscious ability to comprehend this logic which falsifies it.

[Alan Burns]

The example of a Eureka moment is just one such moment where this aspect of the workings of mind is apparent.  But when you habituate yourself to noticing how your mind works, you realise this is how it works all the time;mostly we just don't notice it, it is too subtle.  In a brainstorming session at work, we all try to come up with novel and creative solutions to the problems we face.  But what we cannot do, is choose which ideas should come to mind. We just get the ones we get, some good, some not so good.  We have no control over it, we cannot choose to have this idea, or that idea.

Just taking the phrase from your reply :  when you habituate yourself to noticing how your mind works, you realise this is how it works
How can you possibly habituate, notice or realise anything without conscious control of your thoughts?

[torridon]

Just taking the phrase from your reply :  when you habituate yourself to noticing how your mind works, you realise this is how it works
How can you possibly habituate, notice or realise anything without conscious control of your thoughts?

As previously explained, these things initiate at deeper levels of mind function that we have no conscious access to or control over. Can you recall the last time you chose which idea should come to mind next ?  Of course you can't, this claim makes no sense.

[Gordon]

Just taking the phrase from your reply :  when you habituate yourself to noticing how your mind works, you realise this is how it works
How can you possibly habituate, notice or realise anything without conscious control of your thoughts?

Easy-peasy - I recognise that I am phobic about certain foods and that my acute aversion is not the result of 'conscious control' of my thinking, since if it were I could 'consciously' think myself into liking something that I instrinsically detest. Place certain foods on a plate and present the plate to me and I will, literally, experience immediate revulsion that I cannot overcome, control or understand.

[ekim]

Just taking the phrase from your reply :  when you habituate yourself to noticing how your mind works, you realise this is how it works
How can you possibly habituate, notice or realise anything without conscious control of your thoughts?

Look at it another way, Alan. Thoughts and emotions often arise unbidden perhaps as a result of an external or internal stimulus.  There is no control as such.  What is possible, is that you can choose to direct your attention (consciousness) towards a thought form or emotional force or not.  Problems arise with this because of the many conditioning processes applied to us throughout life, one of which is repetition. Repetition attaches your consciousness to ideas and emotions and the freedom you think you have is lost. It is often lost to those who seek to trap your attention (consciousness) into serving them. Religions, politics and big business all use repetition to capture your attention (consciousness) as do self seeking celebrities and Internet influencers.  Is your consciousness free from the doctrine of Catholicism?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

How could I possibly be afraid of the reality which enables me to consciously control my own thoughts?

And the fallacy fest continues – this one is called the fallacy of the begging the question (not that you care of course). What you’re afraid of is the possibility that that’s not “the” reality at all, as we know that it can’t be because it’s logically impossible.
 

Yes - I fully understand how this does not fit in with the materialistic, time related cause and effect scenario,…

It certainly doesn’t but it doesn’t fit in with a logically coherent scenario either. That’s your problem – you have to abandon logic and reason entirely to settle instead for your “it’s magic innit” soul rather than follow the evidence where it leads, and await further information when it leads to a “don’t know”.   

…but it is my conscious ability to comprehend this logic which falsifies it.

No it isn’t. It can’t be for the reasons that keep being explained to you that you so dishonestly avoid.

[Alan Burns]

Is your consciousness free from the doctrine of Catholicism?

I am free to contemplate all the available evidence and consciously choose to follow what I have deduced to be the truth.
I am not indoctrinated.

[Alan Burns]

And the fallacy fest continues – this one is called the fallacy of the begging the question (not that you care of course). What you’re afraid of is the possibility that that’s not “the” reality at all, as we know that it can’t be because it’s logically impossible.
 

You continue to claim that our freedom to control and direct our thoughts is a logical impossibility.
I presume you came to this deduction by contemplating the evidence available within your conscious awareness and drawing what you believe to be logical conclusions.
Can you not see the obvious contradiction in this?

I have also contemplated the evidence available, but I suspect that I have allowed far more admissible evidence than you in coming to the logical conclusion that our freedom to contemplate such matters is evidence of the power of the human soul.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I am not indoctrinated.

How do you know that to be true? You give every indication of being, by some considerable margin, the most indoctrinated person I’ve ever encountered.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You continue to claim that our freedom to control and direct our thoughts is a logical impossibility.

That’s what the logic (rather than “I”) indicates, yes.

I presume you came to this deduction by contemplating the evidence available within your conscious awareness and drawing what you believe to be logical conclusions.
Can you not see the obvious contradiction in this?

There isn’t a contradiction because the “I” you fondly imagine to do the “controlling”, “decision-making” etc is a logical impossibility (for the reasons that have been explained to you probably hundreds of times but that you’re too frightened or dishonest to address).

I have also contemplated the evidence available, but I suspect that I have allowed far more admissible evidence than you in coming to the logical conclusion that our freedom to contemplate such matters is evidence of the power of the human soul.

Except what you call “admissible evidence” is simply assertion, false reasoning and unqualified speculation selected only in service of the confirmation bias you rely on to justify the blind faith beliefs into which you were, by all appearances, indoctrinated.

[Nearly Sane]

Only the truly indoctrinated deny the possibility of being indoctrinated

[ekim]

I am free to contemplate all the available evidence and consciously choose to follow what I have deduced to be the truth.
I am not indoctrinated.

Unfortunately if something is deduced is does not mean that it actually is the truth.  This is probably why there are so many challenges to your notion of 'available evidence'.  Remember it is the truth which will set you free from belief not what is deduced to be the truth.

[torridon]

I am free to contemplate all the available evidence and consciously choose to follow what I have deduced to be the truth.
I am not indoctrinated.

How do you explain that other people look at the same world and come to radically different conclusions about it ?

[Alan Burns]

How do you explain that other people look at the same world and come to radically different conclusions about it ?

This simply demonstrates their freedom to think about it and come to consciously validated conclusions.
Without this freedom would we not all come to the same conclusion - or no conclusion?

[Maeght]

This simply demonstrates their freedom to think about it and come to consciously validated conclusions.
Without this freedom would we not all come to the same conclusion - or no conclusion?

No, because we all have different experiences and differently wired brains.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

How do you know that to be true? You give every indication of being, by some considerable margin, the most indoctrinated person I’ve ever encountered.

I can assure you that I have all the mental faculties to recognise and reject any form of indoctrination

Have you ever considered the source of indoctrination?
Is it not the result of human free will to deliberately impose their ideas on others?
How could any form of indoctrination be initiated if there is no conscious control of human thoughts?

[Maeght]

I can assure you that I have all the mental faculties to recognise and reject any form of indoctrination

Have you ever considered the source of indoctrination?
Is it not the result of human free will to deliberately impose their ideas on others?
How could any form of indoctrination occur if there is no conscious control of human thoughts?

Indoctrination reprograms the brain to react in a particular way to later information/stimuli perhaps.