Searching for GOD...

[Sebastian Toe]

I deliberately ignored it by utilising my

...brain, you utilised your brain.
Not a magic requiring, logic defying, unevidenced "soul".

The reason I disagree is the fact that I can use my

...brain, you can use your brain.
Not a logic defying, magic requiring, unevidenced "soul".

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

You have freedom to think, using your brain.

Not a quite frankly ridiculous fantasy ridden "soul".

It is you who has to face up to reality.

Your "reality"?

Most people prefer actual reality based on evidence, not the wishful thinking of some.

[Stranger]

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

...

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

...

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

It is you who has to face up to reality.

All I see in this is fear. If you actually thought you had a case. If you actually thought you could make an argument based on the 'sound logic' you claimed to have, you'd be 'consciously controlling' your thoughts to make a sound, irrefutable logical case.

All this infantile ranting, just suggests that you know (on some level at least) that you can't do that. You know you are wrong and you can't face it, so you assert and rant instead of even the pretence of argument.

You said you "deliberately ignored" what I said but why would you do that if you weren't afraid to face it? Where is the 'conscious control' to construct an brilliant, logical argument against it? Why would you not want to do that if you could?

Instead, you have no control, so you rant.

[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?

[Stranger]

Without conscious control of our thoughts [undefined, meaningless gibberish], and our ability to consciously verify the conclusions of our thoughts [vague hand-waving], how can any credibility be given to what amounts to be the uncontrollable outcome of physically defined reactions in a material brain [dishonest misrepresentation of arguments put to me]?

FIFY.   

[Stranger]

And again!

Without conscious control of our thoughts [undefined, meaningless gibberish], and our ability to consciously verify the conclusions of our thoughts [vague hand-waving], how can any credibility be given to what amounts to be the uncontrollable outcome of physically defined reactions in a material brain [dishonest misrepresentation of arguments put to me]?

FIFY again. You're welcome. 

[Alan Burns]

...brain, you utilised your brain.
Not a magic requiring, logic defying, unevidenced "soul".

A material brain would be driven entirely by unavoidable physical reactions to past events with no will of its own.
Does this accurately describe you?

[Alan Burns]

All I see in this is fear. If you actually thought you had a case. If you actually thought you could make an argument based on the 'sound logic' you claimed to have, you'd be 'consciously controlling' your thoughts to make a sound, irrefutable logical case.

It can be argued that it is logically impossible for a single entity of awareness to exist within discrete material reactions.
Would you even consider contemplating this as a logical argument, or would you fear that if you did, you would be contemplating evidence for the supernatural nature of our conscious awareness?

[Stranger]

It can be argued that it is logically impossible for a single entity of awareness to exist within discrete material reactions.

Can it? Off you go then, remembering to state your premises and properly define all your terms...

Would you even consider contemplating this as a logical argument...

Just as soon as you come up with something remotely resembling a logical argument, I'll consider it.

...or would you fear that if you did, you would be contemplating evidence for the supernatural nature of our conscious awareness?

No. I don't think that's possible, even in principle. This is one of the problems you face and one of the reasons you keep failing.

The best you could possibly hope to do is show that there is some conflict with known physical laws. There is no way to logically rule out unknown but entirely natural explanations. Your problem seems to be that you keep confusing physical limitations with logical ones, so you end up making logically impossible assertions about minds, rather than conflicts with physical laws. Unless you think that the 'supernatural' can do the logically impossible (like drawing a square circle), then that is no good to you. That's why you end up hiding behind meaningless phrases that you can't explain.

Anyway, you can ignore all that if you want - I was just pointing out where you seemed to have fallen down before.

I look forward to this argument that you said could be made...

[Stranger]

A material brain would be driven entirely by unavoidable physical reactions to past events with no will of its own.

Why would it have no will of its own? Just because it is the product of the past, doesn't stop it having hopes, fears, desires, ambitions, and so one. Why would it?

[Sriram]

Why would it have no will of its own? Just because it is the product of the past, doesn't stop it having hopes, fears, desires, ambitions, and so one. Why would it?

The brain has fear, hope, ambitions.....?!! Ha! Ha! Ha!  Good one! 

[ekim]

A material brain would be driven entirely by unavoidable physical reactions to past events with no will of its own.
Does this accurately describe you?

It seems to describe you. Your 'will' (intension to act or not act) is driven by a brain based desire to react to Seb's past comment. A general anaesthetic would probably cure you of that.

[Stranger]

The brain has fear, hope, ambitions.....?!! Ha! Ha! Ha!  Good one! 

 

[Sebastian Toe]

A material brain would be driven entirely by unavoidable physical reactions to past events with no will of its own.
Does this accurately describe you?

Thank you Alan for showing that you utilised your brain to respond to my post.
This proving that your brain is the driver for your actions and not your fantasy "soul".
No magic or logic free entity required.

[Alan Burns]

Can it? Off you go then, remembering to state your premises and properly define all your terms...

The burden of proof lies with you.
Can you offer a logical explanation for a single entity of awareness to exist within material reactions?

And following up on the question you evaded,

How can any credibility be given to the output from a material brain driven entirely by unavoidable physical reactions to past events?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It can be argued that it is logically impossible for a single entity of awareness to exist within discrete material reactions.

If you think that can be argued then, finally, actually argue it. So far all you’ve ever done is assert it, and then demand that other people tell you how consciousness works.

“Consciousness existing within a material paradigm is impossible” is your claim, so it’s your burden to justify it. Every time you respond to that with a question instead, your claim remains unargued. 
 

Would you even consider contemplating this as a logical argument,…

If ever you did make a logical argument I for one would consider it. Your refusal or inability ever to do so and your remarkably tenuous grasp of what logic actually entails in any case though gives me little hope that you’ll ever do that.

…or would you fear that if you did, you would be contemplating evidence for the supernatural nature of our conscious awareness?

No. Of course you’d have a huge task a priorito define and demonstrate a “supernatural” at all and then to establish a robust method to investigate it, but if you or anyone else ever did that it would be a fascinating discovery.

As things stand though all you have is vague assertions, either no arguments or terrible arguments, and false accusations about the motives of people much more capable of reasoning than you are. What do you think that will achieve?       

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The burden of proof lies with you.

Your ignorance of the burden of proof is remarkable. “Consciousness occurring in a material context is impossible” is your claim so it’s your burden of proof to demonstrate it. Even if the answer to your endless “how does consciousness work then?” instead was always a “don’t know”, it would still be your burden of proof to demonstrate its supposed material impossibility.

Can you offer a logical explanation for a single entity of awareness to exist within material reactions?

Why should anyone do that?

And following up on the question you evaded,

Stop lying. Explaining in reply why your question is irrelevant (which explanation you then routinely ignore) is not evading your irrelevant question.

How can any credibility be given to the output from a material brain driven entirely by unavoidable physical reactions to past events?

Easily, but the answer to that is irrelevant in any case. The relevant point is how you would address the infinite regress impossibility that your conjecture “soul” presents.

You’ll never address that of course, but it’s still your problem to address nonetheless.   

[Enki]

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?

I don't see why you use the word 'uncontrollable'. This suggests that there is something else apart from our brains which is there to control them and as there is no evidence for this whatever, the word 'uncontrollable' seems to be badly used in this context. We can only verify the 'conclusions of our thoughts' by the use of our brains, at least that is where all the evidence leads.

As to your idea of consciousness, it seems you have totally ignored my previous post(post 47801) where I gave an entirely feasible explanation as to how the conscious element of our brain informs(not controls) the brain(which, for the most part, is composed of unconscious processes). See the global workplace theory. I didn't say it was correct, only that it is feasible.

Finally, I don't see why processes involving physical reactions and interactions cannot be credible. You would have to tell me why they couldn't be. What are you proposing, apart from these processes, which are credible? Remember, if you are proposing something for which there is no evidence whatsoever, then it can be dismissed until that evidence is forthcoming.

Hence your 'soul' idea falls at this very first hurdle, and your 'controlling your thoughts' idea is illogical and therefore is not credible.

If you come up with a sound idea which has some degree of evidence supporting it, I would be the first to listen to what you have to say.

So, Alan, the onus is on you to come up with the goods.

Somehow I think that you'll simply come up with the same old meaningless mantra....

[Stranger]

The burden of proof lies with you.
Can you offer a logical explanation for a single entity of awareness to exist within material reactions?

So your total ignorance of logic is once again on display. This is a textbook argument from ignorance.

Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes the possibility that there may have been an insufficient investigation to prove that the proposition is either true or false. It also does not allow for the possibility that the answer is unknowable, only knowable in the future, or neither completely true nor completely false. In debates, appealing to ignorance is sometimes an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

You claimed "It can be argued that it is logically impossible for a single entity of awareness to exist within discrete material reactions." That is your proposition, not mine. I don't even know how you intend to define a "single entity of awareness", for fuck's sake!

I also went to the trouble of explaining the problem with showing, even in principle, that something is impossible in physical terms because of the problem of the possibility of unknown physical processes. That seems to be something else that you just decided to ignore, or perhaps, it went way over your head...?

How can any credibility be given to the output from a material brain driven entirely by unavoidable physical reactions to past events?

Again, I have no idea what you think the problem is. Why not? Brains have evolved to be reasonably good at thinking, just as hearts have evolved to be reasonably good devices for pumping blood. Brains have also benefited from cultural evolution and hence the work of previous generations.

What's the problem?

And, of course, it's irrelevant because it is you who is trying (and spectacularly failing) to show that it's impossible. Even if my answer was "I have no clue, it's a total mystery", you still wouldn't have made your case for god-magic.

You really do have to get it into your head that YOU are trying to prove something. It is therefore entirely up to YOU to make the case. Nobody else has to prove anything.

[Alan Burns]

The relevant point is how you would address the infinite regress impossibility that your conjecture “soul” presents.

The conjecture that the power of the soul gives us the demonstrable freedom which is denied by materialistic scenarios presents no infinite regress.  The soul is simply the source of conscious control - no infinite regress is needed or implied.  The infinite regress is what exists in your mind by trying to apply flawed logical arguments.  It does not exist in reality.  What does exist is your power to control and direct your own thought processes to reach validated conclusions (even though they are wrong  )

[Sriram]

So your total ignorance of logic is once again on display. This is a textbook argument from ignorance.

Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes the possibility that there may have been an insufficient investigation to prove that the proposition is either true or false. It also does not allow for the possibility that the answer is unknowable, only knowable in the future, or neither completely true nor completely false. In debates, appealing to ignorance is sometimes an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

You claimed "It can be argued that it is logically impossible for a single entity of awareness to exist within discrete material reactions." That is your proposition, not mine. I don't even know how you intend to define a "single entity of awareness", for fuck's sake!

I also went to the trouble of explaining the problem with showing, even in principle, that something is impossible in physical terms because of the problem of the possibility of unknown physical processes. That seems to be something else that you just decided to ignore, or perhaps, it went way over your head...?

Again, I have no idea what you think the problem is. Why not? Brains have evolved to be reasonably good at thinking, just as hearts have evolved to be reasonably good devices for pumping blood. Brains have also benefited from cultural evolution and hence the work of previous generations.

What's the problem?

And, of course, it's irrelevant because it is you who is trying (and spectacularly failing) to show that it's impossible. Even if my answer was "I have no clue, it's a total mystery", you still wouldn't have made your case for god-magic.

You really do have to get it into your head that YOU are trying to prove something. It is therefore entirely up to YOU to make the case. Nobody else has to prove anything.

You guys have this bag full of fallacies that you pull out like rabbits from a hat to justify all your ridiculous claims.....and of course..... the burden of proof is always with the other guy......naturally....!!!

[Stranger]

The conjecture that the power of the soul gives us the demonstrable freedom which is denied by materialistic scenarios presents no infinite regress.

Once again, you appear to be telling barefaced lies about this 'freedom' being demonstrable. How is it demonstrable? It can't possibly be. You have defined 'freedom' in terms of not deterministic and no randomness, i.e. that we could have done differently without the difference being random/

The only way to demonstrate that would be to literally wind back time, show you could have chosen differently and then (somehow) prove that the difference wasn't random.

That is obviously impossible, so please stop lying!

You can't claim it is a conjecture, Alan, or even a self-consistent fantasy, for that matter, because of the logical impossibility of "freedom" and "conscious control of our own thought processes" in they way you have defined them (or not defined, in the latter case.

The soul is simply the source of conscious control - no infinite regress is needed or implied.  The infinite regress is what exists in your mind by trying to apply flawed logical arguments.  It does not exist in reality.)

If I claimed a square circle was possible, and you kept on pointing out the logical contradictions, would you be convinced if I just made up a word, say cuvdirrat, and just claimed "cuvdirrat is the source of square circles - no contradiction is needed or implied. The contradictions exist only in your mind by trying to apply flawed logical arguments. It does not exist in reality."?

[Alan Burns]

I don't see why you use the word 'uncontrollable'. This suggests that there is something else apart from our brains which is there to control them and as there is no evidence for this whatever, the word 'uncontrollable' seems to be badly used in this context. We can only verify the 'conclusions of our thoughts' by the use of our brains, at least that is where all the evidence leads.

It is uncontrollable in the context that we have no control over the laws of physics which would define the reactions within a material brain.
So my question is what can initiate and control and judge the process of verification which we perceive in our conscious awareness?

As to your idea of consciousness, it seems you have totally ignored my previous post(post 47801) where I gave an entirely feasible explanation as to how the conscious element of our brain informs(not controls) the brain(which, for the most part, is composed of unconscious processes). See the global workplace theory. I didn't say it was correct, only that it is feasible.

At the heart of this argument is what comprises conscious awareness and how does it work.  In your explanation you seem to imply that conscious awareness is generated by material reactions which pass information on to other parts of the brain.  But if the information which is passed on already exists, what role does our conscious awareness actually take on?  My conjecture is that conscious awareness is not a material reaction, but awareness of material reactions and material states within our brain.  Then we come to the question of conscious thoughts - what they comprise, how they work and what they do.  You probably know my take on this from the many posts I have made, but the replies to my posts offer no real insight into the deep issues involved around conscious thought processes.  They comprise far more that inevitable, physically driven reactions to past events.

Finally, I don't see why processes involving physical reactions and interactions cannot be credible. You would have to tell me why they couldn't be. What are you proposing, apart from these processes, which are credible? Remember, if you are proposing something for which there is no evidence whatsoever, then it can be dismissed until that evidence is forthcoming.

How do you define and judge credibility with material reactions?  What is there to cast judgement on what is right or what is wrong in an entirely materialistic scenario?

Hence your 'soul' idea falls at this very first hurdle, and your 'controlling your thoughts' idea is illogical and therefore is not credible.

The concept of the human soul as has been perceived throughout human history offers the only feasible explanation

[Stranger]

You guys have this bag full of fallacies that you pull out like rabbits from a hat to justify all your ridiculous claims.....and of course..... the burden of proof is always with the other guy......naturally....!!!

The fact that you seem proud of your ignorance of logic speaks volumes. If you weren't so intellectually lazy and if you ever bothered to learn anything, it wouldn't take too long to learn about critical thinking and logic, then you'd be able to counter what is said or see that it was correct.

It is also dishonest of you to pretend that it 'us' who have a 'bag full of fallacies'. These are all in the public domain. Doing a quick search suggest that the argument from ignorance was identified by Locke in 1690, in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, although I expect it may well date back further.

It's hardly 'us' on this forum. 

[Stranger]

The concept of the human soul as has been perceived throughout human history offers the only feasible explanation

Its history is irrelevant. Baseless superstitions abound throughout history. If it's "the only feasible explanation", why can't you make the case for it?

What happened to the 'sound logic' you mentioned more than three yeas ago?

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The conjecture that the power of the soul gives us the demonstrable freedom which is denied by materialistic scenarios presents no infinite regress.

It initiates an infinite regress. If you think (for some so far entirely unargued reason) that brains cannot think for themselves, and so outsource thinking to something else (that you call “soul”) then that “soul” must also do some thinking of its own. And if (still for so far entirely unargued reasons) a single “entity” cannot think for itself then, by your “logic” that soul would then need another soul of its own, and so on forever.

Your only way out of that (when you don’t routinely just ignore it) of “but magic” is pathetic. 

The soul is simply the source of conscious control - no infinite regress is needed or implied.

Yes it would be – see above.

The infinite regress is what exists in your mind by trying to apply flawed logical arguments.  It does not exist in reality.  What does exist is your power to control and direct your own thought processes to reach validated conclusions (even though they are wrong    )

Blind faith claim noted, and the infinite regress problem isn’t a statement of an actual phenomenon – it’s the explanation for what your “soul” conjecture would in principle create if it were real. When logical arguments falsify blind faith claims that doesn’t mean the falsifying logic is wrong – it means the blind faith claims are wrong.

It’s a shame you’re too dishonest or too invested in very bad ideas to understand why this is, but that doesn’t change it nonetheless.