Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You keep claiming that conscious manipulation of the data in your conscious awareness is a logical impossibility, yet in your post you said:

Because I can map the results to real world experience and thereby derive confidence that logically sound deductions are more robust that logically false ones.

Can be really done without conscious manipulation of your own thoughts?

As "conscious manipulation of the data in your conscious awareness" is a logically impossible, likely yes.

Try to remember that your incredulity about one epxlanation is NOT evidence for a different explanation.   

[Stranger]

As God intended

Another utterly baseless, unargued assertion.   

Are you really this logically illiterate? I mean, seriously? Do you have no idea at all how utterly silly your claims are? None?

[Alan Burns]

'conscious manipulation of thoughts' is meaningless gibberish.  How come despite many invitations to do so on this thread you've never given an example of how to manipulate a thought.

I give many examples of the results of conscious manipulation of our thought processes.
Only God knows how we actually achieve this manipulation.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Torri,

Apparent fine tuning hints that there must be a deeper understanding of physics to be had.  Which attitude furthers our knowledge, the scientist who says 'how curious, lets investigate', or creationists like Meyer who say 'there, told you so, Go Did It.  End of story'. ?

I've never understood the claim to "fine tuning". Why not just, "I appear to be well-adapted by evolution to the environment I inhabit" instead? "Fine tuning" is just Adams's puddle isn't it?

[Stranger]

Can this really be done without conscious manipulation of your own thoughts?

Undoubtedly, yes, because "conscious manipulation of your own thoughts" is logically impossible. This has been explained to you many times. You have never properly addressed it, yet you continue to mindlessly, robotically repeat it, as if it was some sort of magic spell to ward off the nasty logic...

[Stranger]

I give many examples of the results of conscious manipulation of our thought processes.

No you haven't. Please stop lying. You just assert, without the slightest hint of reasoning, that certain things are due to this impossible process. That isn't the same thing at all.

[torridon]

I give many examples of the results of conscious manipulation of our thought processes.
Only God knows how we actually achieve this manipulation.

I've never seen you post an example up.  Post one up now.

[Alan Burns]

Torri,

I've never understood the claim to "fine tuning". Why not just, "I appear to be well-adapted by evolution to the environment I inhabit" instead? "Fine tuning" is just Adams's puddle isn't it?

Fine tuning is evidence of intent to achieve a desired result.

[Alan Burns]

I've never seen you post an example up.  Post one up now.

This is an excellent example from Bluehillside:

 I can map the results to real world experience and thereby derive confidence that logically sound deductions are more robust that logically false ones.

[Stranger]

Fine tuning is evidence of intent to achieve a desired result.

False.

[Stranger]

This is an excellent example from Bluehillside:

 I can map the results to real world experience and thereby derive confidence that logically sound deductions are more robust that logically false ones.

There is zero evidence that this is the result of the impossible process of "conscious control of our own thought processes".

And you still haven't addressed the fact that "conscious control of our own thought processes" either means something even you dismissed as silly, i.e. that (because conscious control implies conscious thoughts) we can consciously think about each conscious thought before we think it, or it doesn't mean anything at all. At least it doesn't until you tell us what else you think it means. In other words:

Stop talking gibberish.

[Sebastian Toe]

As God intended

God intended that he wasn't required!?

I want some of what you're smoking!

[torridon]

Fine tuning is evidence of intent to achieve a desired result.

But apparent fine tuning in nature isn't.  It is evidence of natural selection at work.  No intent required

[Sebastian Toe]

Fine tuning is evidence of intent to achieve a desired result.

Who desired the result, cancer?

[Alan Burns]

Undoubtedly, yes, because "conscious manipulation of your own thoughts" is logically impossible. This has been explained to you many times. You have never properly addressed it, yet you continue to mindlessly, robotically repeat it, as if it was some sort of magic spell to ward off the nasty logic...

logic does not define reality

[Stranger]

logic does not define reality

It does a better job than your illogical, baseless fantasies, naive wishful thinking, and meaningless gibberish.

In fact logic is basically derived from the most fundamental principles of reality. In particular, that contradictions do not occur. Circles cannot also be square, for example. Your absurd assertions are every bit as impossible as a circle being square.

Being able to consciously decide what your next conscious thought will be is beyond stupid, yet you continue to use a phrase that implies exactly that, without ever even trying to explain it differently. It's not just absurd and illogical, it seems to show a wilful disregard of the truth and reality itself. Like you don't even care how absurd what you say is, so long as you can continue to desperately cling to your blind faith, for fear of having to face the truth and shatter your delusions...

[Alan Burns]

It does a better job than your illogical, baseless fantasies, naive wishful thinking, and meaningless gibberish.

In fact logic is basically derived from the most fundamental principles of reality. In particular, that contradictions do not occur. Circles cannot also be square, for example. Your absurd assertions are every bit as impossible as a circle being square.

Being able to consciously decide what your next conscious thought will be is beyond stupid, yet you continue to use a phrase that implies exactly that, without ever even trying to explain it differently. It's not just absurd and illogical, it seems to show a wilful disregard of the truth and reality itself. Like you don't even care how absurd what you say is, so long as you can continue to desperately cling to your blind faith, for fear of having to face the truth and shatter your delusions...

I have to admit that I find your consciously chosen words truly bizarre.
How can you possibly compose such a post and claim that you have no conscious control over what you choose to write?

Logic does not define reality.
If logic conflicts with reality it is flawed.

[Stranger]

I have to admit that I find your consciously chosen words truly bizarre.

By a strange coincidence, I find your continuing to completely ignore that the concept you keep referring to is nothing but meaningless gibberish - see #48210 - to be truly bizarre.

Define your terms or your posts are meaningless gobbledygook.

How can you possibly compose such a post and claim that you have no conscious control over what you choose to write?

The process may involve consciousness in some way but I quite obviously have no control over what occurs to me at each point. Things occur to you to say. You cannot control what those things are. Try some honest introspection.

Logic does not define reality.

What you are asserting is not reality. It doesn't even mean anything without a proper definition. Again, go back and look at #48210.

[Sebastian Toe]

If logic conflicts with reality it is flawed.

If a concept such as a "soul" which requires magic, to even begin to make some sort of sense....it is flawed.
Very, very flawed.

[torridon]

This is an excellent example from Bluehillside:

 I can map the results to real world experience and thereby derive confidence that logically sound deductions are more robust that logically false ones.

So what is wrong with 'analytical thinking'  or 'problem solving' ?  These are phrases more commonly used to describe this.  'Manipulating your thoughts' is gibberish. 

There have been many examples of observed problem solving in non-human species provided on this thread already.

[Alan Burns]

But apparent fine tuning in nature isn't.  It is evidence of natural selection at work.  No intent required

You can't apply natural selection to the fine tuning of the cosmological constant - unless you invent the multiverse with an infinite number of universes!

[Alan Burns]

Define your terms or your posts are meaningless gobbledygook.

Can you please explain how I can define my terms without making use of my "logically impossible" ability to exert conscious control of the thought processes involved.

[Alan Burns]

The process may involve consciousness in some way but I quite obviously have no control over what occurs to me at each point. Things occur to you to say. You cannot control what those things are. Try some honest introspection.

Are you seriously suggesting that I can invoke honest introspection without conscious control? 

[Stranger]

Can you please explain how I can define my terms without making use of my "logically impossible" ability to exert conscious control of the thought processes involved.

Are you seriously suggesting that I can invoke honest introspection without conscious control? 

You keep using this dimwitted and obvious avoidance strategy, it's infantile, grow up for fuck's sake! It's also dishonest because nobody has ever suggested you cannot make choices or do anything else that humans obviously can do.

And, as you continue to refuse to define what you mean, your questions are also meaningless gibberish. You might as well have posted:

"Can you please explain how I can define my terms without making use of my "logically impossible" ability to zigumphileumfa?"

"Are you seriously suggesting that I can invoke honest introspection without zigumphileumfa?  "

If you can't actually define what you mean, at least have the courage and honesty to admit it and stop running away.

[ekim]

Fine tuning is evidence of intent to achieve a desired result.

So, your intention or will is not free (from desire) after all.