Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

..but he did as did you, as do you as does everyone here.
Demonstrated by their ability to post without resorting to mystical, magic requiring, logic free "souls".

We both demonstrated our ability to consciously think about what we chose to post.
An ability which is denied by Bluehillside and Stranger in order to try to shoe horn reality to fit in with a materialistic scenario.

[Gordon]

We both demonstrated our ability to consciously think about what we chose to post.

I think that is a false equivalence: your position is that there is a supernatural agent involved in consciousness and thinking, whereas those arguing against you don't. 

An ability which is denied by Bluehillside and Stranger in order to try to shoe horn reality to fit in with a materialistic scenario.

Which you don't like because 'God' is not required.

[torridon]

We both demonstrated our ability to consciously think about what we chose to post.
An ability which is denied by Bluehillside and Stranger in order to try to shoe horn reality to fit in with a materialistic scenario.

It's nothing to do with 'materialist scenario', but everything to do with a 'logical scenario'.  Your position is logically incoherent and so is impossible irrespective of whether thinking is a supernatural process or not.

[Alan Burns]

It's nothing to do with 'materialist scenario', but everything to do with a 'logical scenario'.  Your position is logically incoherent and so is impossible irrespective of whether thinking is a supernatural process or not.

But without the ability to consciously control your thoughts, how do you even perceive of a logical scenario and consciously apply it?
It is the materialist position which can be seen as logically incoherent.

[ekim]

But without the ability to consciously control your thoughts, how do you even perceive of a logical scenario and consciously apply it?
It is the materialist position which can be seen as logically incoherent.

As a matter of interest, how would Alzheimer's disease and  dementia feature in your thought control scenario?  Would you attribute the effects to Satanic influences?

[Sebastian Toe]

But without the ability to consciously control your thoughts, how do you even perceive of a logical scenario and consciously apply it?
It is the materialist position which can be seen as logically incoherent.

No, because your version of the act of thinking about something requires a magic , illogical, quite frankly, superstitious "soul" and everyone else's version which has at least research an study backing it up.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But you have never demonstrated how verified logical deductions can emerge from unguided subconscious brain activity

I tell you what – as I keep explaining to you why that’s irrelevant (because the incompleteness or absence of evidence for one explanation is NOT evidence for a different explanation) and you keep ignoring it, why don’t you finally try at least to explain why you think it is relevant?

It is you who have deemed it to be logically impossible.

No, it’s logic that “deems” that.

My logical deductions do not agree with yours.

You don’t have “logical deductions” – only illogical ones. That you just ignore that problem or take recourse in magic in the hope your illogicality will thereby go away doesn’t change that.

And if our logical deductions result from unguided biological reactions, how can any conscious judgement be made about whose logical deductions are correct?

Relevance?

Your "corrections" would appear to be entirely derived from your (false) presumption that we are unable to guide our own thought processes.

Stop lying. My corrections derive from the finding that your arguments are logically false. You could try to rebut that with counter-arguments of your own, but you never do that – presumably because you can’t. Instead you’re reduced to personal incredulity (“but how can…” etc) and “it’s magic innit”.

Why not finally find some honesty and try at least to address the problems you give yourself?   

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

We both demonstrated our ability to consciously think about what we chose to post.
An ability which is denied by Bluehillside and Stranger in order to try to shoe horn reality to fit in with a materialistic scenario.

Needless to Bluehillside and Stranger do no such thing. Bluehillside and Stranger merely explain to you (patiently, at length and frequently) WHY it is that your superficially persuasive understanding of reality is nonetheless fundamentally wrong.

The only "shoe horning" here is actually your endless abuse of or indifference to the arguments that explain why your superficially persuasive understanding of reality must be nonetheless be wrong so as to preserve your misunderstanding.       

[Alan Burns]

AB,

I tell you what – as I keep explaining to you why that’s irrelevant (because the incompleteness or absence of evidence for one explanation is NOT evidence for a different explanation) and you keep ignoring it, why don’t you finally try at least to explain why you think it is relevant?

No, it’s logic that “deems” that.

You don’t have “logical deductions” – only illogical ones. That you just ignore that problem or take recourse in magic in the hope your illogicality will thereby go away doesn’t change that.

Relevance?

Stop lying. My corrections derive from the finding that your arguments are logically false. You could try to rebut that with counter-arguments of your own, but you never do that – presumably because you can’t. Instead you’re reduced to personal incredulity (“but how can…” etc) and “it’s magic innit”.

Why not finally find some honesty and try at least to address the problems you give yourself?   

It would seem that you have dug yourself into a big hole in claiming that conscious control of our thought processes is a logical impossibility, and the more you try to justify it, the deeper you get by proving that you are in control of your own thought processes.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It would seem that you have dug yourself into a big hole in claiming that conscious control of our thought processes is a logical impossibility, and the more you try to justify it, the deeper you get by proving that you are in control of your own thought processes.

Stop lying.

Just out of interest, are you just as dishonest about everything else or have your religious convictions forced you to avoid or lie about every argument that falsifies just those convictions?

[Enki]

But without the ability to consciously control your thoughts, how do you even perceive of a logical scenario and consciously apply it?
It is the materialist position which can be seen as logically incoherent.

In your scenario, it seems that there is a 'you' which somehow controls your thoughts. As you have been told, this 'you' is subject to exactly the same problem, needing another you, ad infinitum. That is where the illogic lies.

On the materialist front I would suggest that it is entirely possible that the 'you' is basically the brain which organises rather than controls its thoughts, and this might well include, but is not necessarily limited by, a conscious element. Indeed, I think that the idea that consciousness is the brain's way of focussing information is not without merit.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Stop lying.

Just out of interest, are you just as dishonest about everything else or have your religious convictions forced you to avoid or lie about every argument that falsifies just those convictions?

Sorry Blue, but it is your ability to consciously try to formulate arguments to justify your case which makes it obvious that you are using the conscious control which you deny exists.  It is truly baffling to me how you can continue to strive to put forward these arguments without realising that you are using consciously thought up reasoning.  It is not my religious convictions which confirm this view - it is simple common sense logic.

[Alan Burns]

In your scenario, it seems that there is a 'you' which somehow controls your thoughts. As you have been told, this 'you' is subject to exactly the same problem, needing another you, ad infinitum. That is where the illogic lies.

On the materialist front I would suggest that it is entirely possible that the 'you' is basically the brain which organises rather than controls its thoughts, and this might well include, but is not necessarily limited by, a conscious element. Indeed, I think that the idea that consciousness is the brain's way of focussing information is not without merit.

It all boils down to the source of control - is it the conscious "you", or is it just inevitable consequences to the endless streams of physically defined material reactions?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Sorry Blue, but it is your ability to consciously try to formulate arguments to justify your case which makes it obvious that you are using the conscious control which you deny exists.

No it doesn’t for the reasons that keep being explained to you that you cannot or will not address.

It is truly baffling to me how you can continue to strive to put forward these arguments without realising that you are using consciously thought up reasoning.

What’s baffling to you is neither here nor there, and in any case until and unless you can rebut the logic that falsifies you then it continues to falsify you. 

It is not my religious convictions which confirm this view - it is simple common sense logic.

"Common" sense and logic are not the same thing, and often contradict each other – as here. If you actually have the logic you claim to have rather than endless expressions of what you deem to be common sense though, then why not finally tell us what that logic is?

Oh, and as you just ran away again from the question I asked you: WHY DO YOU THINK THE INCOMPLETENESS OR ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE FOR ONE EXPLANATION PROVIDES EVIDENCE FOR A DIFFERENT EXPLANATION?

[Sebastian Toe]

Sorry Blue, but it is your ability to consciously try to formulate arguments to justify your case which makes it obvious that you are using the conscious control which you deny exists. 

Nope, he's thinking, by using his brain.
Not using a logically impossible, made up, magic requiring "soul".

You are also using your brain Alan, and every post that you make, even although some of it is utter nonsense, proves that you are.

[Gordon]

It all boils down to the source of control - is it the conscious "you", or is it just inevitable consequences to the endless streams of physically defined material reactions?

Now that is an excellent use of tautology.

[Alan Burns]

Now that is an excellent use of tautology.

The difference is in the ultimate cause of acts of control.
The materialist view is that there is no ultimate cause - apart from the big bang of creation which set everything in motion.

My view is that I am the ultimate cause of the acts of conscious control - I can take full responsibility and accountability for every post I consciously compose and choose to publish.

[Alan Burns]

Oh, and as you just ran away again from the question I asked you: WHY DO YOU THINK THE INCOMPLETENESS OR ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE FOR ONE EXPLANATION PROVIDES EVIDENCE FOR A DIFFERENT EXPLANATION?

It is not incompleteness or lack of evidence - it is a total impossibility for your ability to formulate and apply logic to situations and then consciously verify the result WITHOUT ANY FORM OF CONSCIOUS CONTROL OF THE THOUGHT PROCESSES INVOLVED.

It is this impossibility which leads to a logical conclusion that there can be no materialistic explanation for the continued demonstration that you have such ability.

[Sebastian Toe]

It is not incompleteness or lack of evidence - it is a total impossibility for your ability to formulate and apply logic to situations and then consciously verify the result WITHOUT ANY FORM OF CONSCIOUS CONTROL OF THE THOUGHT PROCESSES INVOLVED.

What process is involved in verification in your reality?
How exactly do you verify your conclusions?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It is not incompleteness or lack of evidence - it is a total impossibility for your ability to formulate and apply logic to situations and then consciously verify the result WITHOUT ANY FORM OF CONSCIOUS CONTROL OF THE THOUGHT PROCESSES INVOLVED.

If you think something is totally impossible then you need to make an argument to justify that claim rather than just assert it to be so. To my knowledge you’ve never even attempted to do that no matter how many times you’ve been asked, so – so far at least – all we have is your unqualified assertion about that.

It gets worse: if you ever did manage to make an argument to justify the claim that a single, integrated, iterative thinking machine couldn’t readily verify its own conclusions, then you’d face exactly the same problem for whatever independent agency you conjured into existence to do the job instead, a “soul” included.

That’s your infinite regress problem remember?   

It is this impossibility which leads to a logical conclusion that there can be no materialistic explanation for the continued demonstration that you have such ability.

Epic fail. There is no “impossibility” – or at least none that you’ve managed so far to demonstrate.

In the unlikely even that you do ever try to justify your clam though, good luck with it. No doubt some prize or other would await you for being the first person ever to do so. 

Oh, and still by the way you’ve completely failed to explain why you think the incompleteness or absence of evidence for one explanation provides evidence for a different explanation. Why is that? 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The difference is in the ultimate cause of acts of control.
The materialist view is that there is no ultimate cause - apart from the big bang of creation which set everything in motion.

In principle at least, that's right.

My view is that I am the ultimate cause of the acts of conscious control - I can take full responsibility and accountability for every post I consciously compose and choose to publish.

But your view can reasonably be dismissed because it's both incoherent and logically false.

Try to understand why.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Stop lying.

How can anyone be accused of making a deliberate lie if we have no conscious control of the thought processes involved in formulating the perceived lie?

How do you consciously perceive and verify a lie has been made with no conscious control of your own thought processes involved in detecting a lie?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

How can anyone be accused of making a deliberate lie if we have no conscious control of the thought processes involved in formulating the perceived lie?

Easily for the reasons that have been explained to you countless times but that you're entirely unable or unwilling to address.

How do you consciously perceive and verify a lie has been made with no conscious control of your own thought processes involved in detecting a lie?

What the fuck is wrong with you?

Over and over and over again you've been asked to justify your assertion that brains cannot think for themselves, and over and over and over again you've failed to do that but asked instead the entirely irrelevant question about how people explain consciousness in a materialistic model. Yet again: even if the answer to that was as much a "don't know" as it would have been to "how to diseases happen then?" before germs were discovered, THAT WOULD PROVIDE FUCK ALL EVIDENCE FOR SOULS AND FOR EVIL SPIRITS ALIKE.

Write it down 1,0000 times until it sinks in. 

Have it tattooed in reverse writing on your forehead so you see it every time you look in a mirror.

Ask a grown up.

Ask a child for fuck's sake.

Just do SOMETHING finally to try at least to grasp your profound mistake in reasoning here.

Dear god....       

[torridon]

It all boils down to the source of control - is it the conscious "you", or is it just inevitable consequences to the endless streams of physically defined material reactions?

The 'conscious you' is not really a thing, though, it is a projection of mind. As a philosophical concept, this goes back at least to Hume, and likely earlier, and it is now supported by modern empirical science. So, it cannot really be an ultimate source, as it has origins and derivation.  Ascribing apparent executive agency to the conscious self is a fundamental component of how consciousness has evolved in humans, leading to a highly developed sense of personhood and consequent principles of personal accountability

[Enki]

It all boils down to the source of control - is it the conscious "you", or is it just inevitable consequences to the endless streams of physically defined material reactions?

The conscious 'you', according to the overwhelming evidence, is essentially one aspect of mental activity, and its source is within the brain. At its most basic level, yes, it is the result of  streams of physically defined material reactions and interactions, just as is the mental activity of any conscious animal. Hence there is no dichotomy as it is both.