Searching for GOD...

[Outrider]

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 do need something to elevate your belief to the level of knowledge, though: what is that 'something'?

O.

[Gordon]

If the brain cells are physically damaged the communication between soul and body will obviously be hindered.

In asserting that you should be able to explain how 'soul to brain' communication works by describing the mechanism.

You are making a knowledge claim here about "communication between soul and body" and are indicating that cell damage would be a hindrance: in effect, there would a degradation of normal processes (whatever these are).

So, what are the facts that support what you say?

[Alan Burns]

If you can see a flaw, tell us what it is, FFS!

The obvious flaw is in your presumption that everything, natural or supernatural, material or spiritual, must comply with the mechanistic, time related, endless chains of cause and effect observed in material behaviour.

Our God given gift of free will frees us from being shackled to this materialistic scenario - allowing us to think and act according to our own will.

[Sebastian Toe]

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.

It wouldn't stop you consciously thinking though would it?

[Stranger]

The obvious flaw is in your presumption that everything, natural or supernatural, material or spiritual, must comply with the mechanistic, time related, endless chains of cause and effect observed in material behaviour.

I have made no such presumption. Please stop lying about my position. I have presented (multiple times) an argument that the operation of minds, requires time (or something that does the same job). Without time, there can be no choices, no acts, and no thoughts. From that, it follows directly that either our minds are deterministic systems or they aren't (and therefore, by definition, involve randomness).

Our God given gift of free will frees us from being shackled to this materialistic scenario - allowing us to think and act according to our own will.

Meaningless gibberish. And you're still lying about it being about 'materialistic scenario' rather than a logical argument. You need a logical counterargument, something you have so far failed to provide, not endlessly repeated, meaningless assertion. "It's magic, innit?" cannot save you from a logical contradiction.

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The answer to my question is absolutely relevant.

No, it’s absolutely irrelevant. Imagine that before we knew about germs your great, great etc granddad had asserted that diseases were caused by evil spirits. And let’s say too that he'd supported this claim with exactly the same shit arguments you try here to support your claim “soul”: “I can assure you that”, “it’s obvious that”, “without evil spirits there’d be no diseases – therefore evil spirits”, "lots of people believe in evil spirits, therefore evil spirits” and so endlessly on.

Now let’s say that, once all his shit arguments had been detonated, all he had left as his last throw of the dice was, “OK, so what does cause diseases then?”

And let’s say too that, no matter what the answer, he told us that he wasn’t satisfied, "therefore evil spirits".

Can you see what would be wrong with that?

Something?

Anything?

That’s right – the shit arguments for evil spirits would still be shit arguments for evil spirits regardless of the answer to his question. That is, dissatisfaction with the answers he was given for the causes of diseases (or even having no answer at all) would not somehow, magically reach in to his shit arguments for evil spirits and turn them into good arguments instead.   

This is the corner into which you’ve now painted yourself. Your arguments for “soul” are all absent ("it's obvious" etc) or shit – ie, logically false. And just asking endlessly, "OK, how does consciousness work then?” has no relevance at all to your problem of having only no or shit arguments to justify your claim “soul”.   

If you want your claim to be treated by reasoning people as not idiotic, you need to start and end with that. How would you resolve the infinite regression problem of a supposed “soul” without recourse to “but magic”, and without trying your usual “look, an elephant” diversionary tactic of asking about a different and irrelevant problem?

You can duck and dive and divert all you like, but until you finally at least try to resolve the logically impossibility of your “soul” conjecture your efforts here will remain worthless.   
   

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?

Still irrelevant – see above.

[Alan Burns]

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

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

It is defined by what it does.

"Conscious control of your own thought processes"  is that which allows you to consciously think things out and come to verified conclusions.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It is defined by what it does.

"Conscious control of your own thought processes"  is that which allows you to consciously think things out and come to verified conclusions.

So no need for an invisible third party hobgoblin you call a "soul" then?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

So no need for an invisible third party hobgoblin you call a "soul" then?

What other means do you suggest for achieving the conscious control needed to reach consciously verified conclusions?

[Gordon]

What other means do you suggest for achieving the conscious control needed to reach consciously verified conclusions?

Biology, Alan: that's all you need.

[Stranger]

It is defined by what it does.

"Conscious control of your own thought processes"  is that which allows you to consciously think things out and come to verified conclusions.

Oh do stop being such a child! You're supposed to be a Mensa member with a PhD. This kind of absurd question begging drivel should be seriously beneath you.

So now you're saying "conscious control of your own thought processes" really doesn't mean much at all, it's just a misleading and dishonest label?

All we know (from real evidence) is that we can think things through. The exact role of conciousness in that process is unknown, and it most certainly can't possibly be in total control of the process because that leads directly to the infinite regress.

It really is pathetic, childish, and dishonest to try to label something in a way that makes it seem like things are the way you want them to be. Doubly so after you've spent a whole lot of time arguing that they must be the way the label you've used suggests.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

What other means do you suggest for achieving the conscious control needed to reach consciously verified conclusions?

Minds, but it's not my problem to explain that in any case. Whatever the means may be, it cannot be a logically impossible one - which is where you run out of road.

I just spent some time explaining to you why "how do you explain X then?" is irrelevant for the purpose of rebutting the logical impossibility of your proposed answer. Did you even understand the mistake you make when you do this?       

[Alan Burns]

AB,

No, it’s absolutely irrelevant. Imagine that before we knew about germs your great, great etc granddad had asserted that diseases were caused by evil spirits. And let’s say too that he'd supported this claim with exactly the same shit arguments you try here to support your claim “soul”: “I can assure you that”, “it’s obvious that”, “without evil spirits there’d be no diseases – therefore evil spirits”, "lots of people believe in evil spirits, therefore evil spirits” and so endlessly on.

Now let’s say that, once all his shit arguments had been detonated, all he had left as his last throw of the dice was, “OK, so what does cause diseases then?”

And let’s say too that, no matter what the answer, he told us that he wasn’t satisfied, "therefore evil spirits".

Can you see what would be wrong with that?

Something?

Anything?

That’s right – the shit arguments for evil spirits would still be shit arguments for evil spirits regardless of the answer to his question. That is, dissatisfaction with the answers he was given for the causes of diseases (or even having no answer at all) would not somehow, magically reach in to his shit arguments for evil spirits and turn them into good arguments instead.   

This is the corner into which you’ve now painted yourself. Your arguments for “soul” are all absent ("it's obvious" etc) or shit – ie, logically false. And just asking endlessly, "OK, how does consciousness work then?” has no relevance at all to your problem of having only no or shit arguments to justify your claim “soul”.   

If you want your claim to be treated by reasoning people as not idiotic, you need to start and end with that. How would you resolve the infinite regression problem of a supposed “soul” without recourse to “but magic”, and without trying your usual “look, an elephant” diversionary tactic of asking about a different and irrelevant problem?

You can duck and dive and divert all you like, but until you finally at least try to resolve the logically impossibility of your “soul” conjecture your efforts here will remain worthless.   
   
Still irrelevant – see above.

This hypothetical example you have consciously thought up has no relevance to the basic issues in question.
You cannot compare the need for conscious control to achieve consciously verified conclusions with the suggested need for evil spirits to cause disease.

[Stranger]

What other means do you suggest for achieving the conscious control needed to reach consciously verified conclusions?

You have produced no evidence or argument whatsoever that suggests the need for anything apart from the brain. Nothing. All you've got left now is a misleading label you've dishonestly attempted to apply to the process to make it seem like it must be magical.

[Stranger]

You cannot compare the need for conscious control to achieve consciously verified conclusions with the suggested need for evil spirits to cause disease.

Every time you post "conscious control" now, it's even more meaningless than it was before you reduced it to a mere label for some not fully understood process.

You really do need to rethink your 'strategy'.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

This hypothetical example you have consciously thought up has no relevance to the basic issues in question.
You cannot compare the need for conscious control to achieve consciously verified conclusions with the suggested need for evil spirits to cause disease.

What the actual fuck is wrong with you? I’ve explained to you several times in the past how analogies actually work, and yet once again you’ve shown here that you still have no fucking clue about this. Why on earth don’t you at least try to engage when people give you explanations and corrections so you don’t soil yourself in public the next time it comes up?

Once again (with feeling): THERE WAS NO COMPARISON BETWEEN “CONSCIOUS CONTROL” AND CAUSES OF DISEASE. THE ACTUAL COMPARISON CONCERNED THE IDENTICAL STRUCTURE OF THE ARGUMENT IN BOTH CASES: IE, WHEN YOUR JUSTIFICATION FOR A CLAIM TO ONE SOLUTION IS LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE, BEING UNPERSUADED BY THE JUSTIFICATION FOR A DIFFERENT SOLUTION MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE TO THE LOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITY OF YOUR CLAIM.

FFS, write it down 100 times until it finally sinks in or something willya. 

[Sebastian Toe]

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.

What part does the physical brain play in your version of "conscious control"?
Do you verify your consciously controlled conclusions with or without your biological brain?

[Alan Burns]

The exact role of conciousness in that process is unknown, and it most certainly can't possibly be in total control of the process because that leads directly to the infinite regress.

I understand the materialistic view of consciousness is that it is an emergent property of material reactions, and as such it can have no influence over the physical reactions from which it emerges.  This in no way reflects the reality we all live in.

The entity of conscious awareness which is you and me has demonstrable control of our thoughts, words and actions.  I know you keep calling up the infinite regress argument whenever I mention conscious control - but you seem unable to comprehend the likelihood that we have the power to exert control without resort to the infinite regress argument which you have consciously thought up based upon inherently flawed logical arguments which deny the conscious freedom we all enjoy.

[torridon]

I understand the materialistic view of consciousness is that it is an emergent property of material reactions, and as such it can have no influence over the physical reactions from which it emerges.  This in no way reflects the reality we all live in.

That 'reality we all live in' is a construction and outcome of those processes from which consciousness emerges.  it is a constructed reality fabricated by subconscious mental processes that we have no control over.  All phenomenology derives ultimately from the excitation of billions of synaptic ion gradients that are in constant flux.  We do not consciously choose which synapses to alter, rather our consciousness derives from their alteration.  It could not be the other way round, emergence is about complex higher level phenomena deriving from simpler underlying ones.  This may be counterintuitive, at first, but no more counterintuitive than that we live on a spherical planet, an idea that we have all now gotten used to.  It should not be such a struggle to understand as you seem to have.

[Stranger]

I understand the materialistic view of consciousness is that it is an emergent property of material reactions, and as such it can have no influence over the physical reactions from which it emerges.

The "materialistic view of consciousness" doesn't matter to the underlying logical argument that undermines your absurd claims.

This in no way reflects the reality we all live in.

I see no conflict at all with the reality I live in.

The entity of conscious awareness which is you and me has demonstrable control of our thoughts, words and actions.

You're supposed to be a Christian. Why do you keep telling this lie over and over again? There can be no possible demonstration of your claims even if they were true.

I know you keep calling up the infinite regress argument whenever I mention conscious control - but you seem unable to comprehend the likelihood that we have the power to exert control without resort to the infinite regress argument which you have consciously thought up based upon inherently flawed logical arguments which deny the conscious freedom we all enjoy.

More infantile foot-stamping. More unjustified claims of "flawed logic".

I can't comprehend incomprehensible gibberish backed up by nothing but assertion and incredulity - which is all you seem capable of.

Look Alan, this is what has happened with this claim:

• You introduced the phrase "conscious control of our own thoughts".
• Myself and others pointed out the obvious infinite regress.
• You kept on denying it.
• I made it explicit by pointing out that it meant (#47660) "consciously decide what your next concious thought will be before you think it".
• You recognised the absurdity and called it silly (#47663) - apparently not realising that it was the obvious interpretation.
• When I finally got you to try to tell us what else you think iy meant (#47756), you descended into question begging or re-labelling (both favourite avoidence tactics of yours) by saying "It is defined by what it does."

Now you have two choices. Either (as suggested here) you still stand by some sort of real process of "conscious control of our thoughts" and your attempt to define it in terms of its effects, then make the whole thing into one big begging the question fallacy (silly mistake in logic), or, it's just an attempt to re-label what we do to make it sound like it needs god-magic, which would be just pathetic.

Either way, and after all the years you've been posting here, we still have exactly NOTHING from you in the way of sound reasoning or the slightest hint of any evidence to support your absurd and logically impossible claims about minds.

NOTHING.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because one's an active verb, and one's a passive one. The active one implies intent.

Which makes Goddodgers completely culpable.
I am rather talking of perception though. Of course it is perfectly possible to not realise indoctrination but then it is perfectly possible not to recognise one's misogyny or homophobia. I take the existence of Goddodging from my own experience and reading witnesses to it like St Augustine of Hippo who realised his own Goddodging and his road to discovering that was what he'd been up to for years. Such self realisation though involves introspection, a psychological approach and atheism tends to discount such things IMV except when it comes to involving the apparently perverse psychology insinuated upon believers.

[Nearly Sane]

Which makes Goddodgers completely culpable.
I am rather talking of perception though. Of course it is perfectly possible to not realise indoctrination but then it is perfectly possible not to recognise one's misogyny or homophobia. I take the existence of Goddodging from my own experience and reading witnesses to it like St Augustine of Hippo who realised his own Goddodging and his road to discovering that was what he'd been up to for years. Such self realisation though involves introspection, a psychological approach and atheism tends to discount such things IMV except when it comes to involving the apparently perverse psychology insinuated upon believers.

You still sexually assaulting children then?

[Stranger]

Which makes Goddodgers completely culpable.

It's sometimes difficult to decide which of your positions on here is the most absurd, but 'goddodging' has to be a strong contender. But then there's all that simulated universe crap........ 

[Alan Burns]

That 'reality we all live in' is a construction and outcome of those processes from which consciousness emerges.  it is a constructed reality fabricated by subconscious mental processes that we have no control over.  All phenomenology derives ultimately from the excitation of billions of synaptic ion gradients that are in constant flux.  We do not consciously choose which synapses to alter, rather our consciousness derives from their alteration.  It could not be the other way round, emergence is about complex higher level phenomena deriving from simpler underlying ones.  This may be counterintuitive, at first, but no more counterintuitive than that we live on a spherical planet, an idea that we have all now gotten used to.  It should not be such a struggle to understand as you seem to have.

An impressive, well thought out response Torri.
Your uncontrollable sub conscious brain activity must be working well!

[ekim]

An impressive, well thought out response Torri.
You uncontrollable sub conscious brain activity must be working well!

or .... An unimpressive, thoughtless response, by you Alan.
Your uncontrollable sub conscious brain activity must be working better!