Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

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

The conscious me is the only reality I know.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

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

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....     

Sorry, but your explanations fail to explain the reality of my freedom to consciously analyse your responses and point out your errors.
In essence, from your perspective, you are arguing with the unavoidable consequences of material reactions which could not have happened in any other way.
But in reality you are arguing with an entity of conscious awareness with the power to think for itself.

[torridon]

The conscious me is the only reality I know.

Yes, quite, that is pretty much the same for everyone.  However, can you say exactly where the conscious self is ? It's hard to answer, it seems sort of nebulously anywhere and everywhere within the bounds of the physical body, but perhaps it feels like there is a focal point just behind the eyes.  The observation that amputees report being able to experience phantom limbs that aren't actually there, sometimes feeling extreme pain in them, tells us that our body mapping and sense of self is a useful construction of mind, born of expectation.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Sorry, but your explanations fail to explain the reality of my freedom to consciously analyse your responses and point out your errors.

No, it fails to explain your perception of reality because your perception of reality doesn’t map to a more robust understanding of reality.

In essence, from your perspective, you are arguing with the unavoidable consequences of material reactions which could not have happened in any other way.

At one level of abstraction, that’s right.

But in reality you are arguing with an entity of conscious awareness with the power to think for itself.

At a different, more superficial level of abstraction that’s right too. The “me” that feels as though it has agency and autonomy behaves accordingly, no matter that a feeling is all it is.

Anyway, as you’ve just run away again from the questions you were actually asked here they are again in simpler form:

1. Do you have a justifying argument for your assertion that brains thinking for themselves is “totally impossible” that doesn’t instead just shift the burden of proof by demanding that other people tell you how brains do that?

2. If you can finally provide a positive answer to 1., do you have an argument for your assertion that “souls” do the thinking instead that exempts these supposed souls from the same argument for total impossibility (ie, avoids the infinite regress problem) that’s not effectively “it’s magic innit”? 

Unless you finally address and resolve these questions you’ll continue to waste your and everyone else here’s time.

[Alan Burns]

Yes, quite, that is pretty much the same for everyone.  However, can you say exactly where the conscious self is ? It's hard to answer, it seems sort of nebulously anywhere and everywhere within the bounds of the physical body, but perhaps it feels like there is a focal point just behind the eyes.  The observation that amputees report being able to experience phantom limbs that aren't actually there, sometimes feeling extreme pain in them, tells us that our body mapping and sense of self is a useful construction of mind, born of expectation.

I do not see the point you are making.
We can consciously contemplate the "phantom limb" scenario and see the reason behind the feeling of a phantom limb in terms of severed nerve endings.
I do nor see how this relates to the presence of your conscious entity of awareness.
The fact that we cannot identify a specific location for our conscious awareness just adds to the likelihood of its spiritual nature rather than it being a material entity.  A single entity of awareness defies any definition from discrete material reactions.  It comprises awareness of reactions - not the reactions themselves.

[Sebastian Toe]

I do not see the point you are making.
We can consciously contemplate the "phantom limb" scenario and see the reason behind the feeling of a phantom limb in terms of severed nerve endings.

Why can't they consciously contemplate the phantom limb away?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

No, it fails to explain your perception of reality because your perception of reality doesn’t map to a more robust understanding of reality.

At one level of abstraction, that’s right.

At a different, more superficial level of abstraction that’s right too. The “me” that feels as though it has agency and autonomy behaves accordingly, no matter that a feeling is all it is.

You are trying to invent two levels of reality in order to justify your materialistic scenario.
There is only one reality.
If our conscious ability to think things out is just a feeling obtained from a superficial level it would not work.  Our ability to consciously drive our thoughts to reach consciously verified conclusions is a reality - not a feeling - not "just the way it seems".

Anyway, as you’ve just run away again from the questions you were actually asked here they are again in simpler form:

1. Do you have a justifying argument for your assertion that brains thinking for themselves is “totally impossible” that doesn’t instead just shift the burden of proof by demanding that other people tell you how brains do that?

Until you can define conscious thoughts and what drives them in material terms the burden of proof lies entirely with you.

2. If you can finally provide a positive answer to 1., do you have an argument for your assertion that “souls” do the thinking instead that exempts these supposed souls from the same argument for total impossibility (ie, avoids the infinite regress problem) that’s not effectively “it’s magic innit”? 

All my thinking is done at the conscious level - from within my conscious awareness, otherwise I would have no control over it. My contention is that the entity of conscious awareness which defines my reality and from which I invoke my conscious thoughts, words and actions defies any material definition or description.  No need for any infinite regress because I am the only source of control.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I do not see the point you are making.

That’s because you don’t understand the concept of an analogy. Just as the mind can convince an amputee that he still has the limb and it’s painful, so the mind can convince you that you have autonomous control over your thoughts.

Both beliefs are false though.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You are trying to invent two levels of reality in order to justify your materialistic scenario.
There is only one reality.

No, there are lots of realities. One reality for the amputee for example is that he still has the missing limb and that it’s painful. Another reality though is that his mind is fooling him about that.

It gets worse: even if, ultimately, there is one “reality”, our understanding of such a thing is entirely limited by our (in)ability to understand such a thing. That’s why there are so many realities – epistemology works bottom up as we grope our way toward more and more robust understandings of the realities we perceive, and moreover evolution has no mandate to map our explanations for observed phenomena accurately.

In short, you're wrongly conflating reality with knowledge of reality here.   

If our conscious ability to think things out is just a feeling obtained from a superficial level it would not work.  Our ability to consciously drive our thoughts to reach consciously verified conclusions is a reality - not a feeling - not "just the way it seems".

Of course it would “work”. Why wouldn’t it?

Until you can define conscious thoughts and what drives them in material terms the burden of proof lies entirely with you.

Wrong again. You’re the one claiming brains cannot think for themselves, so it’s your burden of proof to justify your claim.

All my thinking is done at the conscious level - from within my conscious awareness, otherwise I would have no control over it. My contention is that the entity of conscious awareness which defines my reality and from which I invoke my conscious thoughts, words and actions defies any material definition or description.  No need for any infinite regress because I am the only source of control.

That’s a non sequitur, begging the question and circular reasoning rolled into one – a trifecta of false reasoning.

Try actually to answer this time:

1. Do you have a justifying argument for your assertion that brains thinking for themselves is “totally impossible” that doesn’t instead just shift the burden of proof by demanding that other people tell you how brains do that?

2. If you can finally provide a positive answer to 1., do you have an argument for your assertion that “souls” do the thinking instead that exempts these supposed souls from the same argument for total impossibility (ie, avoids the infinite regress problem) that’s not effectively “it’s magic innit”?

Again – unless you finally address and resolve these questions you’ll continue to waste your and everyone else here’s time.

[Sebastian Toe]

Until you can define conscious thoughts and what drives them in material terms the burden of proof lies entirely with you.

Until you can define "soul" in a rational way not requiring magic or wishful thinking in order for it to operate.

You don't even have the basics.
Eg
Where it comes from
How and when is it created
How does it communicate with your brain
Where does it reside when you are not awake
What does it do when not attached to your brain
How does it manipulate a physical brain
?


Then the burden of proof lies entirely with you.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

By the way, as you seem to struggle with the burden of proof concept too here’s Wiki to explain it to you:

“Holder of the burden[edit]

When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim, especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.[1]”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

The “claim” here is your claim that brains thinking for themselves is “totally impossible”. I dismiss that on the ground that you’ve provided no justification for it. The burden of proof therefore remains with you to justify your claim and, until you do, it can reasonably continue to be dismissed out of hand. 

See also Christopher Hitchens: "What may be asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence."

[torridon]

I do not see the point you are making.
We can consciously contemplate the "phantom limb" scenario and see the reason behind the feeling of a phantom limb in terms of severed nerve endings.
I do nor see how this relates to the presence of your conscious entity of awareness.
The fact that we cannot identify a specific location for our conscious awareness just adds to the likelihood of its spiritual nature rather than it being a material entity.  A single entity of awareness defies any definition from discrete material reactions.  It comprises awareness of reactions - not the reactions themselves.

The point is, that the 'conscious self' is a product of the mind; like an astral projection.  The fact that amputees experience parts of the body that do not exist is witness to this fact, and it is consistent with our understanding that perception is derived from within the mind and is based on expectation.  Our minds can easily 'adopt' limbs that aren't actually our limbs also, as evidenced by the rubber hand illusion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qsmkgi7FgEo

This inner projection aligns with what historically people have taken to be the soul.  It feels like an immaterial person inside the body, somehow.  But now we know this is all created by mind function.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

No, there are lots of realities. One reality for the amputee for example is that he still has the missing limb and that it’s painful. Another reality though is that his mind is fooling him about that.

It gets worse: even if, ultimately, there is one “reality”, our understanding of such a thing is entirely limited by our (in)ability to understand such a thing. That’s why there are so many realities – epistemology works bottom up as we grope our way toward more and more robust understandings of the realities we perceive, and moreover evolution has no mandate to map our explanations for observed phenomena accurately.

I am not talking about perceived reality - it is the reality which exists and we have one lifetime to discover it.

In short, you're wrongly conflating reality with knowledge of reality here.   

The more we know, the closer to reality we get

Of course it would “work”. Why wouldn’t it?

I think you are attributing far too much to the unguided reactions of subconscious brain activity.
You should realise that conscious guidance is essential to reach consciously validated conclusions

Wrong again. You’re the one claiming brains cannot think for themselves, so it’s your burden of proof to justify your claim.

Material brains can only react.
Thinking requires much more than mere reaction.

1. Do you have a justifying argument for your assertion that brains thinking for themselves is “totally impossible” that doesn’t instead just shift the burden of proof by demanding that other people tell you how brains do that?

The burden of proof lies with you in explaining how consciously verified conclusions can arise from uncontrollable material reactions.

2. If you can finally provide a positive answer to 1., do you have an argument for your assertion that “souls” do the thinking instead that exempts these supposed souls from the same argument for total impossibility (ie, avoids the infinite regress problem) that’s not effectively “it’s magic innit”?

No doubt your soul will think up some argument to justify your conclusion that controlling your own thoughts is a logical impossibility.

[Sebastian Toe]

.No doubt your soul will think up some argument to justify your conclusion that controlling your own thoughts is a logical impossibility.

No doubt your brain will continue to fantasise about your magic requiring, logically impossible, religious crutch which you call "soul".
Meanwhile, the rest of the world will continue in the true reality.

[Gordon]

I am not talking about perceived reality - it is the reality which exists and we have one lifetime to discover it.

Reification, pure and simple.

The more we know, the closer to reality we getI think you are attributing far too much to the unguided reactions of subconscious brain activity.

You don't have knowledge, Alan, you have blind faith that is fuelled by fallacies - hence what you 'think' here, given it is a mix of increduity and ignorance, is easily dismissed.

You should realise that conscious guidance is essential to reach consciously validated conclusionsMaterial brains can only react.[
Thinking requires much more than mere reaction.

But brains do it anyway, and often wthout any conscious thinking at all - it's biology doing its thing. All mental processes, be they conscious or unconscious, and no matter what they feel like, are just the workings of functioning 'material' biology

The burden of proof lies with you in explaining how consciously verified conclusions can arise from uncontrollable material reactions

.

Nope - nobody is required to justify anything in response to what you claim: all you're doing here is indulging in evasion fuelled by the addition of some straw. Until you can justify your 'soul' claim in terms that can be rationally engaged with, and while you indulge in hysterical perjoratives like "uncontrollable material reactions" that betray your ignorance and incredulity, then nobody needs take you seriously.   

No doubt your soul will think up some argument to justify your conclusion that controlling your own thoughts is a logical impossibility.

You have the unique ability to combine multiple fallacies in a single sentence either obviously or by implication: so here we have an obvious begging the question, and hiding in the background there is ignorance and incredulity. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I am not talking about perceived reality - it is the reality which exists and we have one lifetime to discover it.

All realities are “perceived” realities – to be otherwise you'd have to add omniscience to your list of fantastical claims.

Try to understand why.

The more we know, the closer to reality we get

Perhaps, but actually knowing more rather than just claiming to know more require tools and methods like reason and logic, which you variously abuse, ignore or disdain so as to protect your blind faith claims of knowing more.

I think you are attributing far too much to the unguided reactions of subconscious brain activity.

Why?

You should realise that conscious guidance is essential to reach consciously validated conclusions

Why should I “realise” something for which you’re unable to provide a justifying argument?

Material brains can only react.
Thinking requires much more than mere reaction.

Why do you think that?

The burden of proof lies with you in explaining how consciously verified conclusions can arise from uncontrollable material reactions.

Stop lying. You made the claim that brains thinking for themselves is “totally impossible’ so it’s your burden of proof to justify it. That’s not going to change until you do.

No doubt your soul will think up some argument to justify your conclusion that controlling your own thoughts is a logical impossibility.

Evasion noted. So, once again:

1. Do you have a justifying argument for your assertion that brains thinking for themselves is “totally impossible” that doesn’t instead just shift the burden of proof by demanding that other people tell you how brains do that?

2. If you can finally provide a positive answer to 1., do you have an argument for your assertion that “souls” do the thinking instead that exempts these supposed souls from the same argument for total impossibility (ie, avoids the infinite regress problem) that’s not effectively “it’s magic innit”?

Again – unless you finally address and resolve these questions you’ll continue to waste your and everyone else here’s time.

[Alan Burns]

Why?

It is up to you to explain why subconscious brain activity can achieve consciously verified conclusions without conscious guidance

Why should I “realise” something for which you’re unable to provide a justifying argument?

It is not difficult to realise that conscious guidance is essential to reach consciously verified conclusions

Why do you think that?

A material brain can only react to past events - so would be entirely driven by built in instincts or learnt experiences (as observed in other species).
Our ability to think things out requires consciously driven interaction not unavoidable reaction.

Stop lying. You made the claim that brains thinking for themselves is “totally impossible’ so it’s your burden of proof to justify it. That’s not going to change until you do.

If you are accusing me of lying you need to point out your reasons - I can't see any.
See above why material brains cannot think things out.

Evasion noted. So, once again:

1. Do you have a justifying argument for your assertion that brains thinking for themselves is “totally impossible” that doesn’t instead just shift the burden of proof by demanding that other people tell you how brains do that?

2. If you can finally provide a positive answer to 1., do you have an argument for your assertion that “souls” do the thinking instead that exempts these supposed souls from the same argument for total impossibility (ie, avoids the infinite regress problem) that’s not effectively “it’s magic innit”?

I have addressed these points several times - no need to keep repeating them.

[Maeght]

A material brain can only react to past events - so would be entirely driven by built in instincts or learnt experiences (as observed in other species).
Our ability to think things out requires consciously driven interaction not unavoidable reaction.

Why?

[Sebastian Toe]

It is up to you to explain why subconscious brain activity can achieve consciously verified conclusions without conscious guidanceIt is not difficult to realise that conscious guidance is essential to reach consciously verified conclusionsA material brain can only react to past events - so would be entirely driven by built in instincts or learnt experiences (as observed in other species).
Our ability to think things out requires consciously driven interaction not unavoidable reaction.If you are accusing me of lying you need to point out your reasons - I can't see any.
See above why material brains cannot think things out.I have addressed these points several times - no need to keep repeating them.

Have you ever tried thinking about anything without using your brain?
Even your version of thinking needs a brain.

[Alan Burns]

Have you ever tried thinking about anything without using your brain?
Even your version of thinking needs a brain.

To think things out you need to consciously interact with the physically defined workings of a material brain.

[Sebastian Toe]

To think things out you need to consciously interact with the physically defined workings of a material brain.

In what way?
Define the process.
I'm assuming that you have thought through the process.

[torridon]

To think things out you need to consciously interact with the physically defined workings of a material brain.

We don't 'interact' with the workings of the brain.  Thinking is the workings of the brain.

[Gordon]

To think things out you need to consciously interact with the physically defined workings of a material brain.

Don't be silly: our underlying personal traits are not something we 'interact' with: I have several food phobias that require no 'interaction' whatsoever.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

As so often I see you’ve just ignored various of the corrections I gave you – presumably to leave you free to repeat the same mistakes in future? Ah well.

It is up to you to explain why subconscious brain activity can achieve consciously verified conclusions without conscious guidance

“It’s totally impossible for brains to think for themselves” is called a “claim”. You understand that much right?

You are the one who makes that claim. You understand that much too right?

This means that the burden of proof rests with you to justify your claim for the reasons that have been set out for you, both by people here and by reference to third party sources.

You should now therefore understand this much too.

Until and unless you can do that, your claim can reasonably be dismissed out of hand with no obligation at all to set out for you an alternative explanation. Your insistence that people do this for you is a basic mistake in reasoning called shifting the burden of proof. 

You have no excuse now finally for not understanding this too.

It is not difficult to realise that conscious guidance is essential to reach consciously verified conclusions

That’s not an argument – it’s just an assertion.

Again therefore: WHY do you think that’s true? 

A material brain can only react to past events - so would be entirely driven by built in instincts or learnt experiences (as observed in other species).
Our ability to think things out requires consciously driven interaction not unavoidable reaction.

That’s not “observed in other species” in the blanket way you imply, but in any case WHY do you think “a material brain can only react to past events”?

Just repeating assertions isn’t making arguments. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

If you are accusing me of lying you need to point out your reasons - I can't see any.

It’s because I keep explaining to you WHY you’re wrong, and you reply only with WHAT you think.

This means either that you simply cannot grasp the difference between a “why” question and a “what" question, or that you’re dishonestly just avoiding any why question you’re given.

See above why material brains cannot think things out.

There is nothing above for WHY brains cannot think things out. You’ve just asserted it to be true by making another assertion with no explanation for WHY you think that assertion to be true either.

I have addressed these points several times - no need to keep repeating them.

You’ve done no such thing, so here they are again:

1. Do you have a justifying argument for your assertion that brains thinking for themselves is “totally impossible” that doesn’t instead just shift the burden of proof by demanding that other people tell you how brains do that?

2. If you can finally provide a positive answer to 1., do you have an argument for your assertion that “souls” do the thinking instead that exempts these supposed souls from the same argument for total impossibility (ie, avoids the infinite regress problem) that’s not effectively “it’s magic innit”?

Why not try at least to answer then this time with something other than unqualified assertions?

[SteveH]

47,998 comments, and you still haven't found God!