Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

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....!!!     

We don’t “pull fallacies out of a hat” – we just identify them when people produce them to justify their claims. Fallacious arguments are wrong arguments, which means that justifications that rely on them are invalid.

Your history here of relying on fallacious arguments (that you run away from when they’re explained to you) tells us that you either don’t or won’t understand this.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

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.

Just one sentence of this supposed sound logic would be fine thanks. Why haven't you managed to produce even that?   

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Just one sentence of this supposed sound logic would be fine thanks. Why haven't you managed to produce even that?   

Material reactions do not generate awareness.
All they can do is generate more reactions.
Complexity does not define awareness.
No matter how complex a series of reactions, the end result will just be another reaction or series of reactions.
I am fully aware that expert opinion believes that conscious awareness is somehow generated from material reactions, but the evidence for this is entirely based upon correlation with no definition of what causes awareness or how it can be generated.

You may like to read this interesting article by Frank Jackson entitled Epiphenomenal Qualia
http://thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Course_Websites/Contemporary/Readings/Jackson.pdf

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Material reactions do not generate awareness.
All they can do is generate more reactions.

And there’s no reason that, given sufficient complexity, we shouldn’t experience these “reactions” as agency.

Try again.

Complexity does not define awareness.

No-one said it does.

Try again.

No matter how complex a series of reactions, the end result will just be another reaction or series of reactions.

And you think that’s a problem for the materialist why?

Try again.

I an fully aware that expert opinion believes that conscious awareness is somehow generated from material reactions, but the evidence for this is entirely based upon correlation with no definition of what causes awareness or how it can be generated.

It’s no more “based on correlation” than any other explanatory theory is to one degree or another based on correlation, and in any case “expert opinion” is based on reason and evidence, not just axiomatic correlation. Your “soul” speculation on the other hand has neither reason nor evidence to support it.

Try again.

You may like to read this interesting article by Frank Jackson entitled Epiphenomenal Qualia
http://thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Course_Websites/Contemporary/Readings/Jackson.pdf

How do you think that supports your unargued claims and assertions?

Try again.

[Stranger]

AB,

Just one sentence of this supposed sound logic would be fine thanks. Why haven't you managed to produce even that?   

Material reactions do not generate awareness.
All they can do is generate more reactions.
Complexity does not define awareness.
No matter how complex a series of reactions, the end result will just be another reaction or series of reactions.
I an fully aware that expert opinion believes that conscious awareness is somehow generated from material reactions, but the evidence for this is entirely based upon correlation with no definition of what causes awareness or how it can be generated.

You may like to read this interesting article by Frank Jackson entitled Epiphenomenal Qualia
http://thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Course_Websites/Contemporary/Readings/Jackson.pdf

Epic fail.

Sound logic requires true premises and a valid logical structure that deduces the conclusion from said premises. Hence, the very first thing you would need is a full statement of your premises (together with full and clear definition of all non-standard terms or concepts that they might contain).

I mean, I don't expect you to actually attempt it. You seem to have zero grasp of logic and don't seem to even care. You also have a track record of simply ignoring anything that you would find hard to address - or just repost your irrelevant and baseless assertions and/or your meaningless mantras and pretend that they constitute an answer.

I just thought I'd point this out for the record.

[Alan Burns]

Sound logic requires true premises and a valid logical structure that deduces the conclusion from said premises. Hence, the very first thing you would need is a full statement of your premises (together with full and clear definition of all non-standard terms or concepts that they might contain).

All of which requires a considerable ability to consciously direct your thoughts in order to produce detailed evidence for the consciously validated logical conclusions.
An ability which you have deduced to be a logical impossibility   

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

All of which requires a considerable ability to consciously direct your thoughts in order to produce detailed evidence for the consciously validated logical conclusions.
An ability which you have deduced to be a logical impossibility   

1. No they don't.

2. If nonetheless you seriously think "consciously directing your thoughts" isn't a logical impossibility, why then do you still refuse to "consciously control your thoughts" actually to producing the sound arguments you claim to have rather than to posting the same vapid, unargued, long-since and mutiply falsified assertions you tried a couple of posts ago?

What's stopping you from doing the (logically inpossible) thing you claim to be able to do? 

[Stranger]

I mean, I don't expect you to actually attempt it. You seem to have zero grasp of logic and don't seem to even care. You also have a track record of simply ignoring anything that you would find hard to address - or just repost your irrelevant and baseless assertions and/or your meaningless mantras and pretend that they constitute an answer.

All of which requires a considerable ability to consciously direct your thoughts in order to produce detailed evidence for the consciously validated logical conclusions.
An ability which you have deduced to be a logical impossibility   

I am a true prophet!   

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

PS And why for that matter will you never address the infinite regress problem your "soul" speculation would produce if it was true?

[Stranger]

An ability which you have deduced to be a logical impossibility   

Just to be clear here, because you seem to be struggling so much to understand even the most simple of statements:

Nobody here is denying anything that humans can clearly do.

Trying to pretend that we are is dishonest - that is to say, a barefaced lie.

We are disagreeing with your utterly unsupported and logically impossible assertions about how we achieve what we do. This is why it is also a LIE to say that our answers are evidence for your aforementioned assertions or to claim that they are 'demonstrable'.

[ekim]

I am a true prophet!   

So, what do you think of soul music?

[ekim]

All of which requires a considerable ability to consciously direct your thoughts in order to produce detailed evidence for the consciously validated logical conclusions.
An ability which you have deduced to be a logical impossibility   

I can see that the major surgery performed upon you by Bluehillside and Stranger has not been successful.  Let's try psychology using the Jesus method of metanoia (beyond mind) where you allow conscious inner stillness to be your centre of attention (consciousness).  This means that you will need to let go of all thought forms like concepts, ideas, doctrine etc. and mental forces like desires and fears.  You may see then that you don't direct thoughts but they appear to arise and you either give them your attention or not according to your desire to do so.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

PS And why for that matter will you never address the infinite regress problem your "soul" speculation would produce if it was true?

there is no infinite regress.
Why can't you accept the simple, observable reality that we all have conscious control of our thoughts?
A logical impossibility in humanly conceived logic, but a reality.

[Alan Burns]

Just to be clear here, because you seem to be struggling so much to understand even the most simple of statements:

Nobody here is denying anything that humans can clearly do.

Trying to pretend that we are is dishonest - that is to say, a barefaced lie.

We are disagreeing with your utterly unsupported and logically impossible assertions about how we achieve what we do. This is why it is also a LIE to say that our answers are evidence for your aforementioned assertions or to claim that they are 'demonstrable'.

So if we have no conscious control of our thought processes, what is in control?  And how can we consciously determine if we get get it right?  What comprises the ability to judge?

[Stranger]

Why can't you accept the simple, observable reality that we all have conscious control of our thoughts?

Because it isn't observable at all, it's a nonsensical, dimwitted, impossible, baseless assertion. For fuck's sake, not even anybody else's consciousness is observable, let alone the impossible nonsense of conscious control of our own thought processes.

[Stranger]

So if we have no conscious control of our thought processes [meaningless undefined gibberish], what is in control?

Try asking something that makes logical sense. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

there is no infinite regress.

Your speculation “soul” would create an infinite regress for the reason I and others keep explaining and you keep ignoring. Yet again: if you think a “single entity of consciousness” can’t think for itself and so you must outsource thinking to a different “single entity of consciousness” that you call “soul”, then you need to explain why that “soul” wouldn’t then require another agency to do its thinking and so on forever.

If you won’t ever even try to address your problem here, won’t you even tell us why you won’t address it?

Do you not understand it?

Are you too dishonest to answer it?

What?   

Why can't you accept the simple, observable reality that we all have conscious control of our thoughts?

Because it’s not a “simple, observable reality” at all. It’s a simplistic, superficially appealing but logically impossible narrative that may be persuasive for non-reasoning people but worthless for people possessed of critical faculties. 

A logical impossibility in humanly conceived logic, but a reality.

A logical impossibility tells you that, at best, you have a personal, subjective version of reality but you fundamentally cannot have an understanding of reality at a soundly reasoned level.   

Yet again: when logic and faith beliefs contradict each other, it’s the faith beliefs that are wrong

Perhaps if you wrote that down 1,000 times or until it finally sank in that would help you?

[Alan Burns]

Because it’s not a “simple, observable reality” at all. It’s a simplistic, superficially appealing but logically impossible narrative that's persuasive for non-reasoning people but worthless for people possessed of critical faculties. 

You have yet to explain how we can utilise our critical faculties without the power to control our own thoughts.

[Alan Burns]

Try asking something that makes logical sense. 

My question made perfect sense - why can't you answer it?
What controls your own thought processes?
What can be held accountable for their accuracy?
What is the ultimate judge of being right or wrong?

If not your conscious self, then what?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You have yet to explain how we can utilise our critical faculties without the power to control our own thoughts.

But – as you really, really should know by now – it's not my job to explain anything here.

You're the one who says a "single entity of consciousness" cannot think for itself, so it's your job to justify your claim.

You're the one who says a supposed "soul" is also a "single entity of consciousness" but that that "soul" wouldn't also create an infinite regress, so it's your job to justify your claim.

Your'e the one who claims to have "sound arguments" to justify your claims, so it's your job to produce them rather to shift the burden of proof.

All I have to do on the other hand is to identify your mistakes in reasoning - a trivially easy thing to do. 

Try to understand this.

So, yet again: how would you propose to resolve the infinite regress problem your speculation "soul" produces? 

     

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

My question made perfect sense - why can't you answer it?
What controls your own thought processes?
What can be held accountable for their accuracy?
What is the ultimate judge of being right or wrong?

If not your conscious self, then what?

All either irrelevant or incoherent (or both).

The only question that needs to be answerted here concerns your claim about a supposed "soul" not creating an impossible infinite regress.

Good luck with it though.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

But – as you really, really should know by now – it's not my job to explain anything here.

You're the one who says a "single entity of consciousness" cannot think for itself, so it's your job to justify your claim.

I never said that.
The single entity of conscious awareness is you - it is where you exist, and where you control and initiate your thoughts words and actions.
It is your soul.

You're the one who says a supposed "soul" is also a "single entity of consciousness" but that that "soul" wouldn't also create an infinite regress, so it's your job to justify your claim.

there is only one single entity of awareness - you

So, yet again: how would you propose to resolve the infinite regress problem your speculation "soul" produces? 
     

The infinite regress resides in your conscious awareness - not mine
It is your problem to see where you went wrong in coming up with this logically impossible scenario.
Until you discover your error, you will never be able to explain how we can utilise our critical faculties without the power to control our own thoughts.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

All either irrelevant or incoherent (or both).

The questions are not irrelevant
They are not incoherent.
Why won't you answer them?

What controls your own thought processes?
What can be held accountable for their accuracy?
What is the ultimate judge of being right or wrong?

If not your conscious self, then what?

[Gordon]

The questions are not irrelevant
They are not incoherent.
Why won't you answer them?

What controls your own thought processes?

Your brain, which includes the sub/uncounscious activity.

What can be held accountable for their accuracy?

External criteria that has an evidential basis, or just your subjective response (right or wrong).

What is the ultimate judge of being right or wrong?

Nothing - 'right' and 'wrong' are primarily subjective opinion.

If not your conscious self, then what?[/b]

The bits of your mental activity/brain that operate separately from consciousness.

[torridon]

The questions are not irrelevant
They are not incoherent.
Why won't you answer them?

What controls your own thought processes?
What can be held accountable for their accuracy?
What is the ultimate judge of being right or wrong?

If not your conscious self, then what?

The 'conscious self' does not control thought processes as it is a projection of deeper levels of mind.  Rather think of it as a domain where conscious thoughts occur. We cannot control the processes that give rise to our sense of self and neither can we control the processes that give rise to the thoughts that emerge into mind.