Searching for GOD...

[Outrider]

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

Then how do you claim to 'know' that? If you don't have an explanatory mechanism that can be tested, what other method do you have for elevating the possibility to the certainty of knowledge?

O.

[Sebastian Toe]

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

I do not need to know "how" consciousness emirates from my biological brain which has worked out that your version of "soul" can only work when magic is invoked in order to perpetuate your logically impossible version of reality.

[Alan Burns]

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

So how do you apply a logical argument without using conscious control?

[Stranger]

So how do you apply a logical argument without using conscious control?

Seriously Alan, what do you think you'll achieve by endless repetition of the same question that has been answered multiple times by several people? Do you imagine one of us will suddenly change their mind because you've repeated it 101 times, rather than just 100?

It is blindingly obvious we have no concious control of our own thoughts, even you dismissed it when I expressed it as consciously thinking about each conscious thought before we think it. What you actually mean by it, if not that, is a question worth repeating because you haven't even attempted to answer it yet. Seems like something else you are too afraid to think about.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

So how do you apply a logical argument without using conscious control?

You don't, or at least you don't if by "conscious control" you mean your logical impossible "conscious control of your thoughts".

Look, here's what we know about your position so far:

1. You have no arguments (sound or otherwise) to demonstrate that decision making isn't a function solely of mind with no separate agent required;

2. You have no arguments (sound or otherwise) to demonstrate that a third party (ie, a "soul") to which you've relocated decision making nonetheless wouldn't thereby initiate just an infinite regress; and

3. Accordingly, you have nothing of value to say.

Why then are you wasting everyone's time here?     

[Gordon]

Of course the ultimate irony here is that Alan doesn't think he is in conscious control of his thoughts at all - he's allocating that to an extenal supernatural agent.

It's as if he's discovered a lost script from 'The Goons Show' circa late 1950's, albeit nobody is laughing this time.

[Alan Burns]

Seriously Alan, what do you think you'll achieve by endless repetition of the same question that has been answered multiple times by several people? Do you imagine one of us will suddenly change their mind because you've repeated it 101 times, rather than just 100?

It is blindingly obvious we have no concious control of our own thoughts, even you dismissed it when I expressed it as consciously thinking about each conscious thought before we think it. What you actually mean by it, if not that, is a question worth repeating because you haven't even attempted to answer it yet. Seems like something else you are too afraid to think about.

You have not answered the question:

So how do you apply a logical argument without using conscious control?

You have just provided yet more evidence of your own ability to consciously compose another rebuttal of my simple witness to the reality of your ability to consciously control your own thoughts.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

You don't, or at least you don't if by "conscious control" you mean your logical impossible "conscious control of your thoughts".

Look, here's what we know about your position so far:

1. You have no arguments (sound or otherwise) to demonstrate that decision making isn't a function solely of mind with no separate agent required;

2. You have no arguments (sound or otherwise) to demonstrate that a third party (ie, a "soul") to which you've relocated decision making nonetheless wouldn't thereby initiate just an infinite regress; and

3. Accordingly, you have nothing of value to say.

Why then are you wasting everyone's time here?   

You have not answered the question:

So how do you apply a logical argument without using conscious control?

You have just provided yet more evidence of your own ability to consciously compose another rebuttal of my simple witness to the reality of your ability to consciously control your own thoughts.

[Alan Burns]

Of course the ultimate irony here is that Alan doesn't think he is in conscious control of his thoughts at all - he's allocating that to an extenal supernatural agent.

I can assure you, Gordon, that my posts are all consciously composed using my gift of freedom to control my own thought processes.

[Alan Burns]

Then how do you claim to 'know' that? If you don't have an explanatory mechanism that can be tested, what other method do you have for elevating the possibility to the certainty of knowledge?

I do not need any explanatory mechanism to know that I have the conscious ability to control my own thoughts in order to reach consciously verified conclusion.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You have not answered the question:

So how do you apply a logical argument without using conscious control?

Because the answer to that has no relevance at all to addressing the logical impossibility of your "conscious control of our thoughts" nonsense. You need to address the actual problem with your claim, not demand that others address your incredulity about different claims. 

You have just provided yet more evidence of your own ability to consciously compose another rebuttal of my simple witness to the reality of your ability to consciously control your own thoughts.

Stop lying.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I do not need any explanatory mechanism to know that I have the conscious ability to control my own thoughts in order to reach consciously verified conclusion.

You don't know that at all because:

1. It's logically impossible for the reasons that are given to you and that you always run away from; and

2. Even if 1. were not true, you have no way to investigate and verify a truth claims that rests only on "but magic".

You can stop lying about this now. 

[Stranger]

You have not answered the question:

So how do you apply a logical argument without using conscious control?

Since you have denied that 'conscious control of our own thought processes' means what  it says, it is now meaningless, so that makes the question meaningless too.

You have just provided yet more evidence of your own ability to consciously compose another rebuttal of my simple witness to the reality of your ability to consciously control your own thoughts.

Why do you keep telling this blatant lie?

[Stranger]

I do not need any explanatory mechanism to know that I have the conscious ability to control my own thoughts in order to reach consciously verified conclusion.

Oh FFS, grow up! This is just stupid, petulant, infantile foot-stamping. If all you've got is mindless, unargued assertion, what do you think the point is? Do you genuinely think you're going to change anybody's mind by mindless, robotic repetition? Are you thinking that if you manage to repeat it 1000 is will work? Or is it that you think each time you 'witness' to it, you'll be earning heavenly brownie points or something? Is your god really as shallow as that?

[Alan Burns]

Because the answer to that has no relevance at all to addressing the logical impossibility of your "conscious control of our thoughts" nonsense. You need to address the actual problem with your claim, not demand that others address your incredulity about different claims. 

The answer to my question is absolutely relevant.
Unless you can answer this you cannot claim to have come to a verified conclusion that conscious control of our thoughts is a logical impossibility.

So how do you apply a logical argument without using conscious control?

[Sebastian Toe]

So how do you apply a logical argument without using conscious control?

You use subconscious biological process which emerges into your conscious awareness.
You don't therefore need any magic logic-excluding "soul".

And before you ask, I have applied the Burns reasoning method, which states that I don't need to know exactly how it works but I know that it does.

[Stranger]

The answer to my question is absolutely relevant.

It's absolutely not.

First of all basic logic (a subject that seemingly continues to be a total mystery to you). Asking for an alternative explanation in order to try to support yours (even if you had one, which you don't), is an argument from ignorance fallacy. So, even if the answer was "we have no idea" (which it isn't), then it still wouldn't give credence to your own (even if it was just without evidence, rather than nonsensical and logically impossible).

Secondly, it is now totally meaningless. "Concious control" normally implies conscious thought to decide on how one wants something to happen. If you apply that to "conscious control of our own thought processes", that directly implies that we can consciously think about our conscious thought before we think them. Even you can see that is absurd. Since you have not supplied an alternative definition, it has now become meaningless, so your question has become meaningless.

Unless you can answer this you cannot claim to have come to a verified conclusion that conscious control of our thoughts is a logical impossibility.

This appears to be a barefaced lie or extreme stupidity.

So how do you apply a logical argument without using conscious control?

Is now meaningless in the context.

[Alan Burns]

It's absolutely not.

First of all basic logic (a subject that seemingly continues to be a total mystery to you). Asking for an alternative explanation in order to try to support yours (even if you had one, which you don't), is an argument from ignorance fallacy. So, even if the answer was "we have no idea" (which it isn't), then it still wouldn't give credence to your own (even if it was just without evidence, rather than nonsensical and logically impossible).

Secondly, it is now totally meaningless. "Concious control" normally implies conscious thought to decide on how one wants something to happen. If you apply that to "conscious control of our own thought processes", that directly implies that we can consciously think about our conscious thought before we think them. Even you can see that is absurd. Since you have not supplied an alternative definition, it has now become meaningless, so your question has become meaningless.

This appears to be a barefaced lie or extreme stupidity.

Is now meaningless in the context.

You are putting your faith in logic which is obviously flawed because it denies our demonstrable ability to consciously control our thoughts.
This ability is perfectly demonstrated in your conscious attempts to conceive of and apply the flawed logic you espouse.

[Gordon]

I can assure you, Gordon, that my posts are all consciously composed using my gift of freedom to control my own thought processes.

Alan

This is getting silly now - there is no 'gift' and if you could really do what you are desperate to do, which is to 'consciuosly control' your though processes, then you'd do nothing at all - for you would be stuck in a neverending loop of needing to think about thinking about what to think next.

It doesn't fly yet, ironically, you seem unable to think this through given the problems your assertion raises, which have been highlighted to you numerous times.

[ekim]

I can assure you, Gordon, that my posts are all consciously composed using my gift of freedom to control my own thought processes.

Just as a matter of interest, do you see a person suffering from Alzheimer's Disease as somebody who has had that gift withdrawn by God or that control of thought processes are dependent upon (rather than free from) effective brain cell activity?

[Sebastian Toe]

Just as a matter of interest, do you see a person suffering from Alzheimer's Disease as somebody who has had that gift withdrawn by God or that control of thought processes are dependent upon (rather than free from) effective brain cell activity?

Ouch

[Stranger]

Wow, Alan. You haven't addressed anything I actually said (too scared to think about it?) and just returned, yet again, to your oft repeated and refuted dimwittery.

You are putting your faith in logic which is obviously flawed...

Argument by assertion fallacy. Where is the obvious flaw?

...because it denies our demonstrable ability to consciously control our thoughts.

If it's demonstrable, why can't you demonstrate it and explain how what you did is actually a demonstration? Since (as I pointed out) the phrase "conscious control of our own thoughts' is now meaningless in this context (as you denied the obvious interpretation), you are first going to have to say what you think it even means.

This ability is perfectly demonstrated in your conscious attempts to conceive of and apply the flawed logic you espouse.

This is a just another vacuous, dimwitted assertion.

FFS, stop being so fucking intellectually lazy. Try reading a post before replying with mindless, dimwitted, thought-free repetition.

[Alan Burns]

Just as a matter of interest, do you see a person suffering from Alzheimer's Disease as somebody who has had that gift withdrawn by God or that control of thought processes are dependent upon (rather than free from) effective brain cell activity?

Brain cell activity is certainly part of the process of interaction between the conscious self and the material body.
If the brain cells are physically damaged the communication between soul and body will obviously be hindered.

[Alan Burns]

Where is the obvious flaw?

I have used my conscious ability to contemplate the factors and premiss you use to formulate the logic you espouse.
I can see the obvious flaw - why can't you?

[Stranger]

I have used my conscious ability to contemplate the factors and premiss you use to formulate the logic you espouse.

Have you? I see no evidence that you have.

I can see the obvious flaw - why can't you?

Perhaps because you seem to regard it as a closely guarded secret that you never explain to us...? What's the matter with you? If you can see a flaw, tell us what it is, FFS!

And you're still studiously ignoring the huge great elephant in the room:

Since you denied the obvious interpretation (#47663):

"Concious control of our own thought processes" is meaningless.

Until you define what it means, you're spouting gibberish.