Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

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?

Yet again, this is just dimwittery on an epic scale. Until you've addressed the logical impossibility of 'conscious control of our own thought process', i.e. said how you avoid the infinite regress, asking how we can do anything without it is madness.

[Sebastian Toe]

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?

We have control, just not the magic control that you so very desperately wish was true.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

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?       

You have things the wrong way round, Blue.

Before you can begin to achieve a logically sound argument to justify what we think we know are axiomatically more likely to be true than logically impossible ones you need the ability to contemplate what exists in your conscious awareness and manipulate your thought processes to achieve your perceived goal.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You have things the wrong way round, Blue.

Before you can begin to achieve a logically sound argument to justify what we think we know are axiomatically more likely to be true than logically impossible ones you need the ability to contemplate what exists in your conscious awareness and manipulate your thought processes to achieve your perceived goal.

Except of course it’s the argument itself that demonstrates why that cannot be the case. You cannot just dismiss that argument (ie, your infinite regress problem) with an a priori faith belief – to do that you need to falsify it with more robust reasoning of your own. 

Perhaps if you bothered trying at least to do that you’d have something of worth to say. 

[Stranger]

You have things the wrong way round, Blue.

That's your problem, actually. You are starting from the conclusion (that we need conscious control of our own thoughts) despite its impossibility.

Before you can begin to achieve a logically sound argument to justify what we think we know are axiomatically more likely to be true than logically impossible ones you need the ability to contemplate what exists in your conscious awareness and manipulate your thought processes to achieve your perceived goal.

Vacuous assertion. The notion of "conscious control of our own thoughts" has been logically refuted by showing that it leads to an infinite regress. It's seriously unhinged behaviour to go on insisting that we need it without even attempting to address the refutation.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I tell you what - as you seem determined never to address the argument that falsifies you why don't I get you started at least? That way, all you have to do is to complete the rebuttal. Fair enough? OK then:

"Dear blue - yes, I understand that prima facie introducing a stand alone agency (that I call "soul") to do the decision-making thinking merely relocates our decision-making thinking to that agency and so on forever in an infinite regress. Thus the claim "soul" has no explanatory value. I do however have sound arguments to resolve that problem, which I set out as follows:

1.

2.

3...."

Right then, it's put up or shut up time. Away you go...       

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Except of course it’s the argument itself that demonstrates why that cannot be the case. You cannot just dismiss that argument (ie, your infinite regress problem) with an a priori faith belief – to do that you need to falsify it with more robust reasoning of your own. 

But before you can attempt the argument you know you have to employ your conscious control to formulate and verify it - which ultimately shows that the argument is falsified before you even start.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But before you can reach the argument you know you have to employ your conscious control to formulate and verify it - which ultimately shows that the argument is falsified before you even start.

Except (yet again) it's the argument itself that demonstrates why that cannot be the case.

Why are you unable or unwilling to comprehend this? 

[Stranger]

But before you can reach the argument you know you have to employ your conscious control to formulate and verify it...

This is nothing more than a statement of your blind, irrational faith, or argument by assertion fallacy.

...which ultimately shows that the argument is falsified before you even start.

And this a begging the question fallacy.

Have you seriously just given up on even trying to pretend that you have any logical reasons for your blind faith?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Your mantra of “If you can produce an argument that demonstrates me to be wrong, that means I’m right” is just an assertion. It’s a “what” statement of blind faith, and it therefore has no meaningful information content.

The argument that falsifies you (outsourcing thinking to a supposed agency just relocates the process and so begins an infinite regress) on the other hand is a “why” statement – it justifies its position rather than just asserts it. Thus it has meaningful information content.

By privileging the former over the latter, you abandon having something worthwhile to say.

Try to understand this.     

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Except (yet again) it's the argument itself that demonstrates why that cannot be the case.

Why are you unable or unwilling to comprehend this?

Because the argument would not exist without employing conscious control to formulate and verify it.
This simple fact renders the argument to be falsified.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Because the argument would not exist without employing conscious control to formulate and verify it.

Could you try at least to be less idiotic about this. Yet again: it’s the argument itself that demonstrates this to be wrong. You have to start with that, not with the a priori faith belief. 

This simple fact renders the argument to be falsified.

It’s not a simple fact. It’s illogical idiocy.

If you can’t rebut the argument for why it’s illogical idiocy (which it seems you can’t) then illogical idiocy it must remain.

Try to understand why this is the case.   

[Stranger]

Because the argument would not exist without employing conscious control to formulate and verify it.
This simple fact renders the argument to be falsified.

It's not a fact, Alan, it's a statement of your own blind faith. You are assuming your conclusion, i.e. using a begging the question fallacy.

[torridon]

Just analysing what you are saying here:

a failure of will to understand

In this expression you are conceding that you have a "will to understand" something, but in trying to invoke this will you are failing to understand what is in question.  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...

No, 'controlling your thoughts' is a nonsense phraseology, as has been explained countless times. The thoughts we have are an expression of and a consequence of our will.  We do not choose our will, and neither do we choose which thoughts arise in mind as a consequence of our will.

[Alan Burns]

It's not a fact, Alan, it's a statement of your own blind faith. You are assuming your conclusion, i.e. using a begging the question fallacy.

Do you honestly believe that it is blind faith to believe that conscious guidance is essential to reach any consciously validated conclusion?

I ask again how it is possible to come to a conclusion that conscious control of thought processes is a logical impossibility without the freedom to guide your thoughts to reach and validate such a conclusion?  Did you deliberately set out discover reasons to achieve this conclusion?

[Sebastian Toe]

Do you honestly believe that it is blind faith to believe that conscious guidance is essential to reach any consciously validated conclusion?

For your magic-requiring version of "conscious guidance",  yes.

I ask again how it is possible to come to a conclusion that conscious control of thought processes is a logical impossibility

By using your biological brain.
No magic required.
The rest of your post is not relevant to a grown up discussion.

[Gordon]

Do you honestly believe that it is blind faith to believe that conscious guidance is essential to reach any consciously validated conclusion?

So we now have 'conscious guidance' to get to a 'consciously validated conclusion': deploying words and phrases like this might make you feel that you are making some kind of profound point, but you really aren't.

Not only are you avoiding the logical problem inherent in your thinking, which has been pointed out to you numerous time, these words and phrases are just code for 'therefore God', and as soon as you try to shoehorn the supernatural into how our biology works you're leaving the realms of logic, reason and evidence behind and are indulging in infantile and magical thinking - which is why it is so easy to dismiss what you say.

I ask again how it is possible to come to a conclusion that conscious control of thought processes is a logical impossibility without the freedom to guide your thoughts to reach and validate such a conclusion?  Did you deliberately set out discover reasons to achieve this conclusion?

Because your notion of any of us having "the freedom to guide your thoughts to reach and validate such a conclusion" is nonsensical to the extent that it can be instantly dismissed since it is predicated on ignorance, superstition and denial.

[Stranger]

Do you honestly believe that it is blind faith to believe that conscious guidance is essential to reach any consciously validated conclusion?

In the sense of actual conscious control of our own thought processes, yes, absolutely. In fact it's worse than just blind faith because it now doesn't mean anything at all. It's literally meaningless babble (like 'the ever present state of conscious awareness'  or 'dacwik xob aq nipregnen').

When I put the infinite regress to you by taking it literally, i.e. that we consciously think about each conscious thought before we think it, even you noticed the absurdity. Since you dismissed that, it now means exactly nothing.

It's just become another of your pointless 'magic' mantras that you endlessly repeat and refuse to answer questions about - or give utterly absurd non-answers to (#47690 - looks like you don't even understand the concept of an explanation).

I ask again how it is possible to come to a conclusion that conscious control of thought processes is a logical impossibility without the freedom to guide your thoughts to reach and validate such a conclusion?

For the same reason it's possible to do arithmetic without assuming 1 = 2.

Did you deliberately set out discover reasons to achieve this conclusion?

No. It was pretty damn obvious that it was impossible nonsense the moment you posted the idiotic phrase in the first place. The point now, though, is that since you dismissed its obvious meaning, 'conscious control of own thought processes' is just gibberish. It means nothing at all until you provide an alternative meaning to 'consciously thinking about each thought before we think it'.

You could start with that, to move forward. Just remember this time that an assertion that it's needed to achieve something else is not a definition or an explanation.

(Not holding my breath.)

[Alan Burns]

Because your notion of any of us having "the freedom to guide your thoughts to reach and validate such a conclusion" is nonsensical to the extent that it can be instantly dismissed since it is predicated on ignorance, superstition and denial.

Gordon,
How can you reach a conclusion that my views are nonsensical without employing your ability to consciously contemplate what I have said and think about reasons to refute it?  Can you honestly claim that you can do this without the ability to consciously control your thought processes?  You claim that it can be instantly dismissed - presumably because you believe I am blinded to the logical arguments by my faith beliefs.  But in doing this you are employing your consciously guided thoughts to come up with this reason to try to dismiss my argument.  You do not need faith to acknowledge the reality of your freedom to guide and manipulate your own thoughts to achieve a consciously desired goal.

[Stranger]

...the ability to consciously control your thought processes?

Meaningless gibberish.

But in doing this you are employing your consciously guided thoughts to come up with this reason to try to dismiss my argument.  You do not need faith to acknowledge the reality of your freedom to guide and manipulate your own thoughts to achieve a consciously desired goal.

Argument by assertion fallacy.

[Gordon]

Gordon,
How can you reach a conclusion that my views are nonsensical without employing your ability to consciously contemplate what I have said and think about reasons to refute it?

Nobody is claiming that any of us lack the ability to think and review: but that can be done without supernatural intervention, and that you think there is supernatural intervention in our mental processes is implicit in everything you say, and that is glaringly nonsensical.

Can you honestly claim that you can do this without the ability to consciously control your thought processes?

I can certainly follow a train of thought, especially in reacting to ideas, observations and events, but I don't have 'conscious control' over what thoughts I may have next since that would involve thinking about what to think, preceded by thinking about thinking what I should think - and so on, etc etc etc etc etc: it's a silly idea, since if it were so I'd never get beyond thinking about thinking for ever more.   
 

You claim that it can be instantly dismissed - presumably because you believe I am blinded to the logical arguments by my faith beliefs.

Yep.

But in doing this you are employing your consciously guided thoughts to come up with this reason to try to dismiss my argument.  You do not need faith to acknowledge the reality of your freedom to guide and manipulate your own thoughts to achieve a consciously desired goal.

Don't be silly - your "acknowledge the reality of your freedom to guide and manipulate your own thoughts to achieve a consciously desired goal." IS a faith belief, and I'm surprised you seemingly lack the ability to recognise this yourself - but I suppose that is the 'blind' bit of blind faith.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

How…

Just to explain to you (again): each time you ignore the problem of the logical impossibility of your “conscious control of our thoughts” nonsense and instead ask a “how” question, you just:

1. Leave entirely untouched the problem of the logical impossibility of your “conscious control of our thoughts” nonsense; and

2. Express only your personal incredulity about the naturalistic hypotheses for consciousness you’re given.   

If you want to demonstrate that your “conscious control of our thoughts” nonsense isn’t nonsense after all, then you need to find a rebuttal argument about that – not about something else. As you just ignored it last time, I’ll get you started again:

"Dear blue - yes, I understand that prima facie introducing a stand alone agency (that I call "soul") to do the decision-making thinking merely relocates our decision-making thinking to that agency and so would begins an infinite regress. Thus the claim "soul" has no explanatory value. I do however have sound arguments to resolve that problem, which I set out as follows:

1.

2.

3...."

Once again, it's put up or shut up time. Good luck with it...       

[Alan Burns]

Just to explain to you (again): each time you ignore the problem of the logical impossibility of your “conscious control of our thoughts” nonsense and instead ask a “how” question, you just:

I do not need to know "how" my conscious control works to know that my freedom to consciously control my thoughts is a reality.

You have come to the conclusion that our freedom to control our thoughts is a logical impossibility.
How did you get to this profound knowledge?
Was it by contemplating what exists in your conscious awareness, then consciously thinking about it and drawing conclusions?
So how can this process be a logical impossibility?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I do not need to know "how" my conscious control works…

But you are claiming that you do know the “how”: a “soul” does it right? But the problem with that claim is that it’s logically impossible because it leads inexorably to an infinite regress. And your only way out of that (effectively, “but magic”) is worthless.
   

…to know that my freedom to consciously control my thoughts is a reality.

No, you cannot "know” something to be a reality when it’s logically impossible without invoking magic. 

You have come to the conclusion that our freedom to control our thoughts is a logical impossibility.

Yes.

How did you get to this profound knowledge?

By the application of logical argument (that you just ignore).

Was it by contemplating what exists in your conscious awareness, then consciously thinking about it and drawing conclusions?

As that would be logically impossible, no.

So how can this process be a logical impossibility?

(Wearily) because it triggers an infinite regress and your only attempted escape from that is the epistemically worthless “but magic”.

So, as you’ve ignored it yet again here’s what you need to do if you’re claim isn’t to be dismissed out of hand:

"Dear blue - yes, I understand that prima facie introducing a stand alone agency (that I call "soul") to do the decision-making thinking merely relocates our decision-making thinking to that agency and so would begins an infinite regress. Thus the claim "soul" has no explanatory value. I do however have sound arguments to resolve that problem, which I set out as follows:

1.

2.

3...."

Once again, put up or shut up. Good luck with it...       

[Stranger]

I do not need to know "how" my conscious control works to know that my freedom to consciously control my thoughts is a reality.

Since you have rejected the obvious interpretation 'conscious control of our own thoughts', i.e. that we can consciously think about each conscious thought before we think it, and have provided no alternative definition, the claim that you know it to be a reality is nothing but mindless gibberish.

You have descended into complete incoherence. All the 'arguments' you put forward lead back to one or other of your collection of meaningless mantras.