Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

Can you see that the next logical step would be to conclude that these consciously controlled activities must have been derived from a supernatural source if there is no possibility for a natural explanation?

Priceless: there is the humungous non sequitur that a 'logical step' can lead to the conclusion of a 'supernatural source' without actually showing us any supporting logic. Then there is your personal incredulity on show when you say "if there is no possibility for a natural explanation".

I don't understand why you persist with this approach since it gets mauled every time you repeat it: surely it would be easier for you to just say 'this is my personal faith' and leave it at that!

[Alan Burns]

You called the challenge I posted before─just try to consciously decide what your next concious thought will be before you think it─a "silly question" but that is the obvious interpretation of 'conscious control of our thought processes'.

If we have no conscious control of our thoughts - how can you possibly reach your consciously verified conclusion that conscious control is a logical impossibility?

[Stranger]

Just analysing what you are saying here:

Incredible. You seem to be incapable of correctly analysing anything to do with this subject.

Can you not see the obvious that in trying to understand something you must be consciously driving your conscious mind to reach this understanding?  Whether or not you succeed, you must be invoking your power to consciously control your thoughts in order to attempt any understanding.

See? Analysis 0, Vacuous Assertion 1.

Your freedom to think things out is no illusion.

Analysis 0, Vacuous Assertion 2.

You can stamp your little foot as hard as you like, but nobody is just going to accept your absurd, self-contradictory, impossible assertions just because you keep making them.

None of your favourite mantras:

"We can consciously control our own thought processes"
"The ever present state of conscious awareness"
"What you say is ample evidence of what I say"

Have any support whatsoever, and the first two appear to be total gibberish. Yet you still refuse to elaborate on any of them...

[Stranger]

If we have no conscious control of our thoughts - how can you possibly reach your consciously verified conclusion that conscious control is a logical impossibility?

More personal incredulity.   

[Alan Burns]

Priceless: there is the humungous non sequitur that a 'logical step' can lead to the conclusion of a 'supernatural source' without actually showing us any supporting logic. Then there is your personal incredulity on show when you say "if there is no possibility for a natural explanation".

I don't understand why you persist with this approach since it gets mauled every time you repeat it: surely it would be easier for you to just say 'this is my personal faith' and leave it at that!

Your consciously driven fallacy detector seems to be in full flow again, Gordon. 

[Alan Burns]

More personal incredulity.   

No
I was just pointing out the logical impossibility of reaching a consciously verified conclusion without having any conscious control of the thoughts used to reach said conclusion.

[Stranger]

No
I was just pointing out the logical impossibility of reaching a consciously verified conclusion without having any conscious control of the thoughts used to reach said conclusion.

I have explained (several times) why "conscious control of the thoughts" is logically impossible. All you have done in response is to make unsupported assertions.

If you want to be taken at all seriously, you need to grow the fuck up, stop the infantile foot-stamping, and address the actual arguments that have been put to you.

[Alan Burns]

I have explained (several times) why "conscious control of the thoughts" is logically impossible. All you have done in response is to make unsupported assertions.

You have never explained how you had the means to reach this conclusion without having conscious control of the thought processes needed to attain and verify it.

[Stranger]

You have never explained how you had the means to reach this conclusion without having conscious control of the thought processes needed to attain and verify it.

Yet again, this is about as sensible as saying "you have never explained how arithmetic works if 1 does not equal 2". Basically this is just more personal incredulity, not to mention hypocrisy on an industrial scale. You endlessly repeat your dimwitted mantras:

"We can consciously control our own thought processes"
"The ever present state of conscious awareness"
"What you say is ample evidence of what I say"

and never explain anything about them or address any of the arguments against them.

Matthew 7:5.

[Alan Burns]

Yet again, this is about as sensible as saying "you have never explained how arithmetic works if 1 does not equal 2". Basically this is just more personal incredulity, not to mention hypocrisy on an industrial scale.

You have things totally the wrong way round.
How can you possibly understand and explain how arithmetic works without conscious control of the thought processes involved?
Any logical conclusions, any understanding of how things work is entirely dependent on your ability to consciously direct your thoughts to reach verifiable conclusions and understanding.  Why can't you accept this obvious truth?  Are you afraid of the consequences of you having conscious control of your own thoughts?

[Alan Burns]

Matthew 7:5.

I think this bible verse is more applicable to you

[Stranger]

How can you possibly understand and explain how arithmetic works without conscious control of the thought processes involved?

As I keep saying, you can stamp your little foot as hard as you like. Unless you address the infinite regress involved in "conscious control of the thought processes", it remains impossible nonsense. The obvious interpretation is that we can consciously think about each conscious thought before we think it - this is clearly nonsense, as you agreed. So what the hell does it even mean?

Like all your other mindless mantras, you never say.

Any logical conclusions, any understanding of how things work is entirely dependent on your ability to consciously direct your thoughts to reach verifiable conclusions and understanding.

Argument by assertion fallacy (dimwitted logical mistake).

Why can't you accept this obvious truth?

Because it isn't one. Until you explain it, it's just meaningless gibberish.

Are you afraid of the consequences...

I think this bible verse is more applicable to you

Why? Who is the one here who is refusing to even explain their endlessly repeated phrases? I've been asking you about these for longer than I care to remember:

"We can consciously control our own thought processes"
"The ever present state of conscious awareness"
"What you say is ample evidence of what I say"

And you have utterly refused to explain any of them.

[Alan Burns]

Unless you address the infinite regress involved in "conscious control of the thought processes", it remains impossible nonsense.

It is you who claim it to be an infinite regress.
And you have never given a feasible explanation of how you came to consciously conclude it to be an infinite regress without having conscious control and verification of the thought processes involved in reaching this conclusion.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

How can you possibly understand and explain how arithmetic works without conscious control of the thought processes involved?

Dear god but you struggle. You're given the argument that explains why "conscious control of the thought processes involved" is logically impossible. In reply you just ignore the content of the argument, and assert instead that the fact that it can be made means there must be conscious control of the thought processes involved.   

It's equivalent to me claiming rainbows to be evidence for leprechauns, you explaining why they're not, and me just ignoring your explanation and responding "but the fact that you can see rainbows means there are leprechauns".

After repeating that, what, hundreds of times?, at what point would you conclude that I was so epically dim or so epically dishonest that no reasoning could ever reach me?   

 

[Stranger]

It is you who claim it to be an infinite regress.

I did not just claim it, Alan, I explained why it leads directly to an infinite regress. Just claiming shit, is your approach here, not mine. And yet again, you've run away from explaining what you think it even means if it doesn't involve consciously thinking about each conscious thought before we think it.

[Alan Burns]

"We can consciously control our own thought processes"
"The ever present state of conscious awareness"
"What you say is ample evidence of what I say"

And you have utterly refused to explain any of them.

I have explained them several times.  Here is a reminder -
Conscious control our own thought processes is essential for directing and reaching consciously verified conclusions.
Our conscious awareness defines the present.  It is where we exist.  It is where we perceive.  It is from where we invoke our thoughts, words and actions.
Every post on this forum offers ample evidence of our freedom to consciously control the thought processes needed to think about and compose what we write.

[Alan Burns]

I did not just claim it, Alan, I explained why it leads directly to an infinite regress.

But as I have repeatedly pointed out - how can you possibly come up with such an explanation without having any conscious control and verification of the thought processes involved in being able to offer it as an explanation?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Dear god but you struggle. You're given the argument that explains why "conscious control of the thought processes involved" is logically impossible. In reply you just ignore the content of the argument, and assert instead that the fact that it can be made means there must be conscious control of the thought processes involved.   

It's equivalent to me claiming rainbows to be evidence for leprechauns, you explaining why they're not, and me just ignoring your explanation and responding "but the fact that you can see rainbows means there are leprechauns".

After repeating that, what, hundreds of times?, at what point would you conclude that I was so epically dim or so epically dishonest that no reasoning could ever reach me?   

 

You cannot compare rainbows and leprechauns with the conscious control you have just implemented in thinking up this absurd comparison.

[Stranger]

I have explained them several times.  Here is a reminder -

So you don't understand the word 'explain'...?

Conscious control our own thought processes is essential for directing and reaching consciously verified conclusions.

That's not an explanation, it's an assertion that something (that leads to infinite regress) is required for something else.

Our conscious awareness defines the present.  It is where we exist.  It is where we perceive.  It is from where we invoke our thoughts, words and actions.

A series of meaningless assertions. It doesn't tell me how it escapes from the causal structure of time, which is what you seem to want to use it to do.

Every post on this forum offers ample evidence of our freedom to consciously control the thought processes needed to think about and compose what we write.

That's just repeating it. Not even the slightest pretence at explaining how they are evidence.

Do you really have so little grasp of what is required to put forward a logical case for something. Seriously?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I have explained them several times.

No you haven’t. You’ve asserted lots of things, but you’ve never explained anything.

Here is a reminder -
Conscious control our own thought processes is essential for directing and reaching consciously verified conclusions.

(Not true) assertion, not explanation.

Our conscious awareness defines the present.  It is where we exist.  It is where we perceive.  It is from where we invoke our thoughts, words and actions.

(Not true) assertion, not explanation.

Every post on this forum offers ample evidence of our freedom to consciously control the thought processes needed to think about and compose what we write.

(Not true) assertion, not explanation.

Perhaps your difficulty here is that you don’t understand the difference between an assertion and an explanation? To help you out, an assertion is WHAT you believe to be true (see above); an explanation is WHY you believe it to be true (see ...oh wait - you've never done that without collapsing into idiocy have you).

Why not after all your failed attempts at least try to give the latter a go instead?   

[Stranger]

But as I have repeatedly pointed out - how can you possibly come up with such an explanation without having any conscious control and verification of the thought processes involved in being able to offer it as an explanation?

Until you explain it, "conscious control of our thoughts" is just gibberish. You might as well have posted:

But as I have repeatedly pointed out - how can you possibly come up with such an explanation without having vadtesdeqripqur involved in being able to offer it as an explanation?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

No you haven’t. You’ve asserted lots of things, but you’ve never explained anything.

(Not true) sssertion, not explanation.

(Not true) asssertion, not explanation.

(Not true) assertion, not explanation.

Perhaps your difficulty here is that you don’t understand the difference between an assertion and an explanation? To help you out, an assertion is WHAT you believe to be true (see above); an explanation is WHY you believe it to be true (see ...oh wait - you've never done that without collapsing into idiocy have you).

Why not after all your failed attempts at least try to give the latter a go instead?   

I have explained why I consider our conscious ability to control our own thoughts is a reality rather than an "experience" or "just the way it seems".
The explanation is simply pointing out the logical impossibility of reaching consciously verified conclusions without having the power to consciously control our own thoughts.
I have never had any feasible explanation for how consciously verified conclusions can be reached without having conscious control of the thought processes involved.
You have consciously chosen to deny, ignore or ridicule such explanations in order to maintain your materialistic view that conscious control is a logical impossibility based upon your very limited knowledge of reality.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I have explained why I consider our conscious ability to control our own thoughts is a reality rather than an "experience" or "just the way it seems".

No you haven’t, or at least not without falling immediately into one or several logical fallacies.

The explanation is simply pointing out the logical impossibility of reaching consciously verified conclusions without having the power to consciously control our own thoughts.

But your “pointing out” is itself just another vapid assertion because you never justify it with an argument. It’s equivalent to me “pointing out” that, without rainbows, leprechauns would have nowhere to leave their pots of gold.

I have never had any feasible explanation for how consciously verified conclusions can be reached without having conscious control of the thought processes involved.

Whether or not that’s true, it’s irrelevant. If you want to claim “conscious control of the thought processes involved” then you need to address the immediate logical impossibility that claim presents. In other words, (supposed) absence of evidence for one explanation is not a justification for a different (supposed) explanation.

You really should have grasped this by now given how many times it’s been explained to you. 

You have consciously chosen to deny, ignore or ridicule such explanations in order to maintain your materialistic view that conscious control is a logical impossibility…

No, I’ve used logical argument that you cannot or will not rebut to justify my position that your assertions are logically impossible. That has nothing to do with a “materialistic view” – just with logic. You should stop lying about this.

… based upon your very limited knowledge of reality.

 

We all have “limited knowledge of reality”, but logically sound arguments to justify what we think we know are axiomatically more likely to be true than logically impossible ones.

That’s you problem, and your endless lying and evasiveness about that doesn’t change it.       

[Alan Burns]

We all have “limited knowledge of reality”, but logically sound arguments to justify what we think we know are axiomatically more likely to be true than logically impossible ones.

So how do you achieve a logically sound argument to justify what we think we know are axiomatically more likely to be true than logically impossible ones without conscious control and verification of the thoughts involved?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

So how do you achieve a logically sound argument to justify what we think we know are axiomatically more likely to be true than logically impossible ones without conscious control and verification of the thoughts involved?

I don’t need to. “…conscious control and verification of the thoughts involved” is your claim, and all I need to do to falsify it is to demonstrate its logical impossibility. I and others here have done that – many times in fact – without your rebuttal. Whatever the explanation for consciousness may be, that means that it cannot be what you assert it to be.

Rather than continually scurry back to your entirely irrelevant incredulity at the naturalistic hypotheses about consciousness, why not actually address the problem your claim of “conscious control of thoughts” gives you – ie, logical impossibility?