Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

AB,

This is epically dim stuff AB. Yet again: if you want to posit your conjecture “soul” to do the thinking for a sort of zombie “us” then that thinking must be a process too. And if you assert (for some so far unexplained reason) that brains cannot think for themselves, then you merely relocate the same (supposed) problem to your (supposed) “soul”. And that would initiate an infinite regress.

Thus your entire position becomes:

1. Brains cannot think for themselves (though I cannot justify that claim with reason or evidence).

No
You are completely ignoring the role of conscious awareness.
A material brain can work in just the same way as any man made computer, but it would have no will of its own because it will be entirely driven by physical reactions over which it can have no control.

2. Therefore something else (called a “soul”) must do it instead, only to get this “soul” off the same hook I assert to be the problem with brains, it's also magic.

For any form of freedom to exist, we need a means to break into the endless, unavoidable chains of physically controlled cause and effect events occurring within our material brains in order to achieve the conscious freedom we all enjoy as human beings.  I did not invent the concept of the soul - it has been evident throughout human history.

It’s hopeless for reasons that should be obvious even to you by now, but after all this time of falling to produce anything worthy of consideration (least of all the sound arguments you claimed to have but never produce no matter how many times you're asked for them) it seems to be all you have.   

It remains a mystery to me how you can be so oblivious to the blindingly obvious conscious freedom you employ to compose every one of your posts.

[Stranger]

Claiming my conjecture leads to "infinite regress" is no answer to how you managed to reach a consciously verified conclusion that conscious control of your thoughts must be a logical impossibility because, when you think about it, it leads to infinite regress.  Can you not see why this answer which you keep evading could at least be a tiny bit relevant?

Of course it isn't. Just asserting the same dimwitted nonsense over and over again, isn't going to change anything. And yet again, you have reduced "conscious control of our own thought processes" to the status of meaningless gibberish when you rejected the obvious (infinite regress) meaning, so you don't even have anything that could be termed a 'conjecture'.

What do you mean by "conscious control of our own thought processes"?

There needs to be a proper description of the proposed process. Not trite, meaningless drivel like "it's defined by what it does" or avoidance, like "you know what it means"; I really, really don't - not since you dismissed the obvious meaning as 'silly'.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Claiming my conjecture leads to "infinite regress" is no answer to how you managed to reach a consciously verified conclusion that conscious control of your thoughts must be a logical impossibility because, when you think about it, it leads to infinite regress.

That's right - it doesn't. Nor does it answer the questions "is one lasagne stacked on top of another lasagne still one lasagne?" and "What's Love Got To Do With It?". As all of these questions are irrelevant for the purpose of your infinite regress problem though, it doesn't matter   

Can you not see why this answer which you keep evading could at least be a tiny bit relevant?

No. Can you not see why it isn't?

Either your conjecture “soul” is logically impossible, or it isn’t.

It is logically impossible so that’s the end of that.

Endlessly demanding answers to how consciousness does work is entirely irrelevant – any answer at all to that question cannot change the logical impossibility of what you'd like the answer to be.

Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

[Stranger]

A material brain can work in just the same way as any man made computer, but it would have no will of its own because it will be entirely driven by physical reactions over which it can have no control.

Non sequitur.

For any form of freedom to exist, we need a means to break into the endless, unavoidable chains of physically controlled cause and effect events occurring within our material brains in order to achieve the conscious freedom we all enjoy as human beings.

Utterly baseless assertion, not to mention dishonest misrepresentation of the argument against you.

It remains a mystery to me how you can be so oblivious to the blindingly obvious conscious freedom you employ to compose every one of your posts.

"It's obvious, innit?" is not an argument.

Remember this:

My view that conscious awareness can't be generated from material reactions alone is not just personal incredulity.  It is based upon sound logic on which I could write many pages.

Why, after all this time, have we seen not the first hint of the merest suggestion of anything remotely resembling 'sound logic' from you?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

No
You are completely ignoring the role of conscious awareness.
A material brain can work in just the same way as any man made computer, but it would have no will of its own because it will be entirely driven by physical reactions over which it can have no control.

Wrong. "but it would have no will of its own because it will be entirely driven by physical reactions over which it can have no control" is just another fallacy, this one being the non sequitur.

Try again.

For any form of freedom to exist, we need a means to break into the endless, unavoidable chains of physically controlled cause and effect events occurring within our material brains in order to achieve the conscious freedom we all enjoy as human beings.  I did not invent the concept of the soul - it has been evident throughout human history.

Wrong. It's perfectly possible for there to be the experience of "freedom" (ie, agency) without the logically impossible version of it you'd like there to be. 
 

It remains a mystery to me how you can be so oblivious to the blindingly obvious conscious freedom you employ to compose every one of your posts.

What remains a mystery to you is epistemically worthless, and "blindingly obvious" is not an argument - even less so when the thing you call blindingly obvious is logically impossible.

Yet again, your poor reasoning is letting you down here. 

[Alan Burns]

That can't be right: if a temptation starts within your conscious mind, and you say that you consciously control your conscious thinking, then if you recognise an undersriable  temptation-related thought that you can't/ haven't consciously controlled for, then your whole schema collapses.

We may not have total control of what comes into our conscious mind.  What we do have the power to choose how to deal with it.  Without such power all hell could break loose (literally!)

[Alan Burns]

As all of these questions are irrelevant for the purpose of your infinite regress problem though, it doesn't matter   

"Infinite regress" is not my problem.
It is your flawed logic which leads to the concept of infinite regress.

You still have the problem of coming to terms with how you managed to get to the conclusion of infinite regress without the ability to consciously control and verify your own thoughts and conclusions.

[Stranger]

"Infinite regress" is not my problem.

False. If your 'argument' leads to a logical impossibility, that is very much your problem.

It is your flawed logic which leads to the concept of infinite regress.

You can't assert a logical argument into being flawed. You actually have to point out at least one flaw. You have never done that.

You still have the problem of coming to terms with how you managed to get to the conclusion of infinite regress without the ability to consciously control and verify your own thoughts and conclusions.

This is still irrelevant. No matter how it is actually done, the explanation cannot possibly be logically impossible or a meaningless mantra.

And you still haven't defined what you even mean!

What do you mean by "conscious control of our own thought processes"?

There needs to be a proper description of the proposed process. Not trite, meaningless drivel like "it's defined by what it does" or avoidance, like "you know what it means"; I really, really don't - not since you dismissed the obvious meaning as 'silly'.

[torridon]

We may not have total control of what comes into our conscious mind.  What we do have the power to choose how to deal with it.  Without such power all hell could break loose (literally!)

We deal with things in the way that we want to.  In all choices, we are simply acting on the desires that we have but we do not choose which desires to have, just as we do not choose which thought should come to mind.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

"Infinite regress" is not my problem.

It is when you relocate (what you perceive to be) a problem with brains thinking for themselves to something else (ie, a supposed “soul”) doing the thinking instead.
 

It is your flawed logic which leads to the concept of infinite regress.

My how you love to accuse others of “flawed logic” without ever managing to demonstrate the flaw. Logic that falsifies your blind faith claims isn’t thereby flawed.

Your blind faith claims on the other hand... 

You still have the problem of coming to terms with how you managed to get to the conclusion of infinite regress without the ability to consciously control and verify your own thoughts and conclusions.

No I don’t have that problem. If you want to discuss that on a separate thread then well and good but, in the context of your logically impossible claim “soul” that we’re trying but failing to get you to address here, it has no relevance at all.

Try at least to understand why this is will you?

[Stranger]

It is when you relocate (what you perceive to be) a problem with brains thinking for themselves to something else (ie, a supposed “soul”) doing the thinking instead.

Actually positing a soul does not itself lead to an infinite regress. The infinite regress exits in the claim that we can "consciously control our own thought processes" regardless of where he wants to locate it. It arises because "conscious control" (to the extent it means anything) implies a thought process itself, so if the thing one is trying to consciously control is ones own thoughts, then you've got these 'thought control' thoughts to control too, but then you need control those, so we have a control of thought control thoughts process that then requires more thoughts to control those, and so on ad infinitum.

What's more, when I put it to Alan that to consciously control his own thought processes, he'd have to consciously decide what his next concious thought would be before he thought it, he recognised the absurdity and called it 'silly' (#47663), and now he won't tell anybody what he actually thinks his phrase means, if not that.

Hence we are in exactly the same place as with his other favourite gibberish phrase "the ever present state of conscious awareness" which suffers from different logical impossibilities but whose meaning (to Alan) is a just as unexplained.

So we are (apparently) just supposed to accept (on blind faith, I guess) that these two phrases mean something (although their meanings seem to be a closely guarded secret, known only to Alan himself) and, what's more, accept that they are evidenced by everything that we write here on the forum.

I honestly don't think I could make up such an absurd position if I racked my brain for weeks trying to think of absurdities.

[Alan Burns]

Actually positing a soul does not itself lead to an infinite regress. The infinite regress exits in the claim that we can "consciously control our own thought processes" regardless of where he wants to locate it. It arises because "conscious control" (to the extent it means anything) implies a thought process itself, so if the thing one is trying to consciously control is ones own thoughts, then you've got these 'thought control' thoughts to control too, but then you need control those, so we have a control of thought control thoughts process that then requires more thoughts to control those, and so on ad infinitum.

What's more, when I put it to Alan that to consciously control his own thought processes, he'd have to consciously decide what his next concious thought would be before he thought it, he recognised the absurdity and called it 'silly' (#47663), and now he won't tell anybody what he actually thinks his phrase means, if not that.

Hence we are in exactly the same place as with his other favourite gibberish phrase "the ever present state of conscious awareness" which suffers from different logical impossibilities but whose meaning (to Alan) is a just as unexplained.

So we are (apparently) just supposed to accept (on blind faith, I guess) that these two phrases mean something (although their meanings seem to be a closely guarded secret, known only to Alan himself) and, what's more, accept that they are evidenced by everything that we write here on the forum.

I honestly don't think I could make up such an absurd position if I racked my brain for weeks trying to think of absurdities.

My take on conscious control of my thoughts is quite simple.
In order to solve problems, contemplate mysteries or come up with verified conclusions I need some way of manipulating the data which exists in my conscious awareness in order to reach consciously verified solutions.  My conscious ability to control my thought processes is the source of this manipulation.  I see no need for infinite regress.  And I see no other viable source of control other than my conscious self.  I am fully aware that this does not fit well with the concept of conscious awareness being an emergent property of material reactions - but this is the source of where we differ, because my conscious self comprises far more than anything which can be derived from material reactions alone.

[Stranger]

My take on conscious control of my thoughts is quite simple.

Yes, it is. You just keep asserting it without addressing the logical problems.

In order to solve problems, contemplate mysteries or come up with verified conclusions I need some way of manipulating the data which exists in my conscious awareness in order to reach consciously verified solutions.  My conscious ability to control my thought processes is the source of this manipulation.

That's just another assertion. Something that logically leads to an infinite regress cannot be the source of any sort of manipulation. Also, none of this tells me what it even means to consciously control our own thoughts, if it doesn't involve consciously thinking about each conscious thought before we think ir, which is clearly impossible.

We can make a choice (which, like any other choice, is just what we want to do most at the time - something we have no control over) to try to concentrate on some subject, but we have no conscious control over what thoughts will occur to us or even if we will be able to concentrate sufficiently on the subject. Thoughts occur as they occur, new insight happens when it happens. We obviously have no concious control over it.

I see no need for infinite regress.

Obviously you don't want to think about it. I explained why it would occur and you've basically ignored it and just made another baseless assertion that it isn't needed. You need explain how it's avoided. That means you need to address what I said. That, in turn, means you need to open your mind and at least try to concentrate.

And I see no other viable source of control other than my conscious self.

Then you obviously don't want to think about that either.

I am fully aware that this does not fit well with the concept of conscious awareness being an emergent property of material reactions - but this is the source of where we differ...

No, it isn't. My point is an entirely logical one. It has NOTHING to do with any theory of consciousness.

...because my conscious self comprises far more than anything which can be derived from material reactions alone.

Another baseless assertion.

Do you really not see a difference between a logical argument and mindless, thought-free assertion?

[Alan Burns]

Do you really not see a difference between a logical argument and mindless, thought-free assertion?

A logical argument cannot change reality.
Your logical argument is obviously flawed because, as you have implied numerous times - I have the power to think for myself, as did you in consciously compiling the logic for your flawed argument.

[Stranger]

A logical argument cannot change reality.

And reality is not defined by your mindless, reasoning-free, baseless assertions.

Your logical argument is obviously flawed because, as you have implied numerous times - I have the power to think for myself, as did you in consciously compiling the logic for your flawed argument.

It is dishonest, not to mention childish, to claim an argument is flawed unless you can actually point to a flaw.

Nobody has ever claimed that we can't think for ourselves but you have never shown any connection whatsoever to some mysterious, undefined, and apparently logically impossible ability to "consciously control our own thought processes". NONE.

In fact, since you dismissed its obvious meaning, it makes no more sense in an argument that mumbling "abracadabra" would.

The same is true of your other absurd phrase: "the ever present state of conscious awarenesses".

You refuse to properly answer any questions about them and you refuse to offer any sensible explanations of what they mean. You just endlessly repeat the same silly assertions over and over again.

It's not an argument and it most certainly is nothing remotely like the sound logic you claimed you had - was that just a lie?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Stranger,

Actually positing a soul does not itself lead to an infinite regress. The infinite regress exits in the claim that we can "consciously control our own thought processes" regardless of where he wants to locate it. It arises because "conscious control" (to the extent it means anything) implies a thought process itself, so if the thing one is trying to consciously control is ones own thoughts, then you've got these 'thought control' thoughts to control too, but then you need control those, so we have a control of thought control thoughts process that then requires more thoughts to control those, and so on ad infinitum.

Yes I know – that’s what I meant to say, and it’s why I put “ie, “soul”” in parenthesis though perhaps “eg “soul” would have been better.

What's more, when I put it to Alan that to consciously control his own thought processes, he'd have to consciously decide what his next concious thought would be before he thought it, he recognised the absurdity and called it 'silly' (#47663), and now he won't tell anybody what he actually thinks his phrase means, if not that.

Hence we are in exactly the same place as with his other favourite gibberish phrase "the ever present state of conscious awareness" which suffers from different logical impossibilities but whose meaning (to Alan) is a just as unexplained.

So we are (apparently) just supposed to accept (on blind faith, I guess) that these two phrases mean something (although their meanings seem to be a closely guarded secret, known only to Alan himself) and, what's more, accept that they are evidenced by everything that we write here on the forum.

I honestly don't think I could make up such an absurd position if I racked my brain for weeks trying to think of absurdities.

Yes – “conscious control of our thoughts” is AB’s “Brexit means Brexit” – superficially coherent, but actually entirely devoid of meaning when you try to examine it (which, presumably, is why he never even tries to do that).

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

My take on conscious control of my thoughts is quite simple.

“Simplistic”, not “simple”.

In order to solve problems, contemplate mysteries or come up with verified conclusions I need some way of manipulating the data which exists in my conscious awareness in order to reach consciously verified solutions.  My conscious ability to control my thought processes is the source of this manipulation.

No it isn’t, because “conscious control of my thought processes” is a logical impossibility for the reasons you keep being given and you keep running away from.

I see no need for infinite regress.

Why not, given that it’s the unavoidable outcome of relocating thinking to a (supposed) stand alone agency?

And I see no other viable source of control other than my conscious self.

What you do and don’t see is irrelevant. What is relevant though is that the explanation cannot be the logically impossible one you assert it to be.

I am fully aware that this does not fit well with the concept of conscious awareness being an emergent property of material reactions - but this is the source of where we differ, because my conscious self comprises far more than anything which can be derived from material reactions alone.

Mindless assertion. Why do you think that – aside that is from your personal incredulity about it?

[Gordon]

A logical argument cannot change reality.
Your logical argument is obviously flawed because, as you have implied numerous times - I have the power to think for myself, as did you in consciously compiling the logic for your flawed argument.

Logic is one thing, but your (in)ability to think logically is another thing entirely.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

A logical argument cannot change reality.

But it can falsify an impossible claim about reality. When the logic is unfalsifiable and the faith claim contradicts it, it’s the faith claim that’s wrong.

Try to understand this.   

Your logical argument is obviously flawed because, as you have implied numerous times - I have the power to think for myself, as did you in consciously compiling the logic for your flawed argument.

The logical argument isn’t flawed at all, so your superficial assertion about what thinking is must be.

If you want to demonstrate that the logic that falsifies you actually is flawed then you need to produce some more robust logic of your own. Relying instead on, “but that’s not the way it feels to me” is hopeless.   

[Stranger]

A logical argument cannot change reality.

There is also, of course, a deep irony here in that reality seems to be the last thing you want to think about. I actually described the reality of thinking about things and why it's clear that we don't have conscious control of the process, and what did you do? Totally ignored it. It's like you couldn't even bare to read it, let alone quote it and say why or how you disagree.

No. You just snipped out a tiny part of what I said so you could just repeat your silly assertions without having to go to all the trouble of thinking, let alone facing up to reality...

[Sriram]

It is amazing that scientists are the biggest fatalists.

[Enki]

A logical argument cannot change reality.
Your logical argument is obviously flawed because, as you have implied numerous times - I have the power to think for myself, as did you in consciously compiling the logic for your flawed argument.

As far as I know nobody has questioned the fact that we can think for ourselves. How on earth does that impinge upon logic being flawed? What has that got to do with your idea of a 'soul' guiding our thoughts(for which there is not the slightest evidence) or the illogical idea of having conscious control of our thoughts?

[Stranger]

It is amazing that scientists are the biggest fatalists.

It's amazing that if something can be misunderstood, we can pretty much rely on Sriram to misunderstand it.

[Alan Burns]

There is also, of course, a deep irony here in that reality seems to be the last thing you want to think about. I actually described the reality of thinking about things and why it's clear that we don't have conscious control of the process, and what did you do? Totally ignored it.

I deliberately ignored it by utilising my conscious control which you continue to consciously deny exists.

It's like you couldn't even bare to read it, let alone quote it and say why or how you disagree.

The reason I disagree is the fact that I can use my conscious control to deliberately disagree.

No. You just snipped out a tiny part of what I said so you could just repeat your silly assertions without having to go to all the trouble of thinking, let alone facing up to reality...

thinking?
Are you actually admitting that I have the conscious freedom to think?

It is you who has to face up to reality.

[Alan Burns]

As far as I know nobody has questioned the fact that we can think for ourselves. How on earth does that impinge upon logic being flawed? What has that got to do with your idea of a 'soul' guiding our thoughts(for which there is not the slightest evidence) or the illogical idea of having conscious control of our thoughts?

Without conscious control of our thoughts, and our ability to consciously verify the conclusions of our thoughts, how can any credibility be given to what amounts to be the uncontrollable outcome of physically defined reactions in a material brain?