Searching for GOD...

[SteveH]

If our "spiritual selves" were outside of time then they couldn't do anything at all. They couldn't make choices, they couldn't think, they couldn't control anything, and so on. They would be useless.

AB didn't say "outside of time"; he said "outside the timeline of our universe", which is not the same thing.

[Stranger]

AB didn't say "outside of time"; he said "outside the timeline of our universe", which is not the same thing.

This is actually true. I was basing my comment on the (very long) history of this 'debate' when we were addressing the problem that if the mind is not deterministic, then, by definition, it involves randomness. During that I pointed out that he could remove his proposed soul from our time dimension but then it couldn't do anything anything unless he proposed another time dimension for it to act in, and then he'd have the same problem. He ignored it and continued to witter on about an "ever present state of conscious awareness", which he continues to refuse to explain to this day.

Guess I should have repeated that point for completeness in this context.

[Sebastian Toe]

AB didn't say "outside of time"; he said "outside the timeline of our universe", which is not the same thing.

But your notion of freedom is not freedom, just inevitable uncontrollable reaction to a current state of existence.

The soul only exists in the present, consciously perceives the present and consciously interacts with the present.  Time is a dimension which exists in this material universe, and according to physicist Stephen Hawkins, time as we know it began with the Big Bang.  It is quite possible that the soul, not being of this universe, does not exist in time, but only perceives the passing of time through its perception of human sensory data.  As such it can't be subject to the same laws of cause and effect we see in our material universe, but will do everything in its own timeless existence.  This is just my postulated theory which may seem strange to you, but as Arthur C Clark once said - The truth, as always, will be far stranger.

[Alan Burns]

No evidence to support this assertion.  It is abundantly clear that our thought processes are indeed compatible with time related cause and effect. Our thoughts and actions always arise in reaction or response to something prior.

Which effectively reduces your thought processes to be inevitable reactions to past events beyond your conscious control - so how can you possibly verify the correctness of what emerges from these physically controlled reactions over which you have no conscious control?

It is abundantly clear that you and I have the ability to consciously control our thoughts in order to reach consciously verified conclusions.  This is totally incompatible with time related chains of physically determined cause and effect events.

[Stranger]

More thought-free repetition...

Which effectively reduces your thought processes to be inevitable reactions to past events beyond your conscious control...

  Argumentum ad consequentiam followed by a non sequitur.

...so how can you possibly verify the correctness of what emerges from these physically controlled reactions... over which you have no conscious control?

Using logic. There is nothing about determinism that rules out logical thought.

...over which you have no conscious control?

Determinism doesn't rule out conscious control either. Other logic and evidence rules out consciousness being in total control. You know, all the things you keep ignoring, apparently because you're too terrified to think about them. I can't think of another reason for you to so comprehensively ignore basic logical points. There is no hint of that inquiring mind or deep thought here.

It is abundantly clear that you and I have the ability to consciously control our thoughts in order to reach consciously verified conclusions.

No, it isn't. It's an utterly baseless, thought- and logic-free assertion.

This is totally incompatible with time related chains of physically determined cause and effect events.

It's incompatible with logical self-consistency. Yet again, you cannot claim something is physically impossible unless you are claiming omniscience or logical impossibility. If it's the latter (which this is) then any claim to have evidence or reasoning on your side is absurd. You can't have evidence or sound reasoning that leads to a contradiction. You can only claim blind, irrational faith.

[Alan Burns]

It's incompatible with logical self-consistency. Yet again, you cannot claim something is physically impossible unless you are claiming omniscience or logical impossibility. If it's the latter (which this is) then any claim to have evidence or reasoning on your side is absurd. You can't have evidence or sound reasoning that leads to a contradiction. You can only claim blind, irrational faith.

But how can you possibly access and process logic and reasoning within your conscious awareness without any form of conscious control?

[Alan Burns]

Seb,

You have managed to unearth a few earlier posts of mine which would seem to you to contradict some of my recent posts about the nature of the human soul.
What you have in fact brought to light is my ability to think about and refine my speculation on the nature of our spiritual selves.  It just reinforces the reality of my consciously controlled ability to contemplate what has gone before and draw further refined conclusions.  It is an excellent example of the conscious freedom we all enjoy.

[Stranger]

But how can you possibly access and process logic and reasoning within your conscious awareness without any form of conscious control?

More childish evasion.

Your question is utterly meaningless because you continue to refuse to say what you mean by 'conscious control of our own thought processes'.

[Maeght]

But how can you possibly access and process logic and reasoning within your conscious awareness without any form of conscious control?

You keep making this point but I'm not clear why you say that. Can you give your reasoning?

[Stranger]

What you have in fact brought to light is my ability to think about and refine my speculation on the nature of our spiritual selves.

Replacing one nonsensical phrase that you refuse to define with another nonsensical phrase that you refuse to define, is hardly refining anything. It just emphasises that you cannot make your argument in a coherent and logical way. You have to resort to 'magic' phrases that sound like they might mean something but apparently don't.

It just reinforces the reality of my consciously controlled ability...

It shows nothing but an ability to make up meaningless bullshit.

It is an excellent example of the conscious freedom we all enjoy.

Another meaningless and unargued assertion.   

[Alan Burns]

Quote from: Alan Burns on Today at 11:36:45 AM
But how can you possibly access and process logic and reasoning within your conscious awareness without any form of conscious control?

You keep making this point but I'm not clear why you say that. Can you give your reasoning?

From the materialistic perspective, our conscious awareness emerges from material reactions occurring within our brain cells.  So the reactions which generate and form our conscious awareness will have already occurred before we become aware of them.  In this scenario we can have no direct control over what enters our conscious awareness - including our thought processes.  At no point within the physically determined chains of cause and effect in a material brain can we invoke any form of consciously driven control - so in this materialistic scenario we must presume that all our thought processing must occur within our subconscious brain activity.  But this then leads on to the question of how we can validate the correctness of what emerges into our conscious awareness.

[Stranger]

From the materialistic perspective, our conscious awareness emerges from material reactions occurring within our brain cells.  So the reactions which generate and form our conscious awareness will have already occurred before we become aware of them.

Which directly corresponds to the experience of thoughts occurring to us, rather than the impossible infinite regress involved in consciously thinking about each conscious thought before it enters our conscious mind.

In this scenario we can have no direct control over what enters our conscious awareness - including our thought processes.

What is the 'we' supposed to refer to? You seem to be unable to get the idea of some separate 'you' that is somehow detached from cause and effect and is either in control or a 'spectator' (one of your other silly assertions).

The evidence and logic tells us that this is pure fantasy. We are what the past has made us. Everything that you identify as you is because of reasons (unless there is true randomness). That 'you' is in control. It can do exactly what it wants to do, but you can't be free from being you. Freedom from being ourselves is nonsensical, there is nothing left to set free.

At no point within the physically determined chains of cause and effect in a material brain can we invoke any form of consciously driven control...

The extent to which the conscious mind is involved in our choices is not fully known, but you're again just repeating your bullshit, undefined 'magic' phrase of the day.

This is the opposite of thinking deeply and having an inquiring mind.

But this then leads on to the question of how we can validate the correctness of what emerges into our conscious awareness.

Yet another repetition of an unargued assertion. Why do you think it's a problem? What is it about determinism that rules out logical thought? Show your working!

[Alan Burns]

This is the opposite of thinking deeply and having an inquiring mind.

So what do you think can invoke and control the acts involved with deep thinking and enquiring minds?

[Sebastian Toe]

Seb,

You have managed to unearth a few earlier posts of mine which would seem to you to contradict some of my recent posts about the nature of the human soul.
What you have in fact brought to light is my ability to think about and refine my speculation on the nature of our spiritual selves.  It just reinforces the reality of my consciously controlled ability to contemplate what has gone before and draw further refined conclusions.  It is an excellent example of the conscious freedom we all enjoy.

All well and good, now that you have had time to "refine" your thoughts, maybe you can say what your current definitions are then?

Does your soul reside outwith this universe?
The place where the soul resides, does time exist there?
Are souls created?

[Stranger]

So what do you think can invoke and control the acts involved with deep thinking and enquiring minds?

Yet again you are running away from all the substantive points and questions to mindlessly repeat a dimwitted question that I've already answered countless times before.

If you're not terrified of actually thinking about this subject and the answers you've already had, why would you do this?

ETA: It's also worth pointing out (again) that you have provided no answer to this question. Just endlessly repeating a nonsense phrase that you utterly refuse to explain or discuss in any way at all, does not answer anything.

[torridon]

But how can you possibly access and process logic and reasoning within your conscious awareness without any form of conscious control?

By using 'subconscious control'.  Maybe that is a somewhat flippant retort, and 'control' is not really the right word, but the point is that we have learned from cognitive neuroscience that it is subconscious mind that is the real driver of mental processes, and 'conscious mind' is more of an 'after-the-event memory of our thought processes without any real executive function.

[Alan Burns]

Yet again you are running away from all the substantive points and questions to mindlessly repeat a dimwitted question that I've already answered countless times before.

If you're not terrified of actually thinking about this subject and the answers you've already had, why would you do this?

You have never fully answered the "dimwitted" question I keep putting to you.
It would appear that it is you who seem terrified of supplying a satisfactory answer to:
What is it that can successfully  invoke and control the activities involved in deep thinking and enquiring minds?

ETA: It's also worth pointing out (again) that you have provided no answer to this question. Just endlessly repeating a nonsense phrase that you utterly refuse to explain or discuss in any way at all, does not answer anything.

Neither does your explanation.

How can you give credence to whatever emerges from physically controlled reactions in a material brain?

[Alan Burns]

By using 'subconscious control'.  Maybe that is a somewhat flippant retort, and 'control' is not really the right word, but the point is that we have learned from cognitive neuroscience that it is subconscious mind that is the real driver of mental processes, and 'conscious mind' is more of an 'after-the-event memory of our thought processes without any real executive function.

So I ask again -
How can you possibly verify the validity and correctness of whatever emerges from your subconscious brain activity?

[Alan Burns]

Which directly corresponds to the experience of thoughts occurring to us, rather than the impossible infinite regress involved in consciously thinking about each conscious thought before it enters our conscious mind.

You talk as if a thought is just an event which pops into our conscious awareness.

In reality our thoughts are processes which manipulate the data which exists in our conscious awareness in order to reach consciously intended goals.
The manipulation and choice of goals is done by you - not the past which is beyond our conscious control.

[Stranger]

You have never fully answered the "dimwitted" question I keep putting to you.
It would appear that it is you who seem terrified of supplying a satisfactory answer to:
What is it that can successfully  invoke and control the activities involved in deep thinking and enquiring minds?

It really is incredible how dishonest you can be. If you don't think my answers have been adequate, why won't you address what I said and point out the flaws, instead of just mindlessly repeating the same questions?

Your mind is in control, as I just pointed out in #48386, and you totally ignored.

In contrast you continue to refuse to explain what "conscious control of our own thought processes" means since you rejected the obvious interpretation. If I recall correctly, you made two totally inept attempts to do so, and, unlike you, I explained why I thought them inadequate. In fact neither were actually an explanation or definition.

Neither does your explanation.

Why not?

How can you give credence to whatever emerges from physically controlled reactions in a material brain?

By using logic. There is nothing about determinism that excludes logical minds. You have never once explained why you think there is a problem.

[Stranger]

You talk as if a thought is just an event which pops into our conscious awareness.

In what way is it not? Things occur to us. We do not, and cannot possibly, control what occurs to us at any moment in time. That leads immediately to an infinite regress because we'd have to think about what we want to occurs to us, then we'd have to see what occurs to us in our thoughts about what we want to occur to us, and son on, ad infinitum.

In reality our thoughts are processes which manipulate the data which exists in our conscious awareness in order to reach consciously intended goals.

Largely and necessarily unconscious processes for the reasons I have explained.

The manipulation and choice of goals is done by you - not the past which is beyond our conscious control.

There is no distinction. As I again said in #48386, everything you perceive as 'you' is necessarily the product of the past (unless there is actual randomness). It would help a lot if you could be arsed to read what has already been said, and have the intellectual courage to address it instead of mindlessly repeating yourself.

Of course we can decide what we want to try to concentrate on, but we've already been through the nature of choice many, many times. You can only choose what you want to do most and that is not something we have control over.

[Maeght]

You keep making this point but I'm not clear why you say that. Can you give your reasoning?

From the materialistic perspective, our conscious awareness emerges from material reactions occurring within our brain cells.  So the reactions which generate and form our conscious awareness will have already occurred before we become aware of them.  In this scenario we can have no direct control over what enters our conscious awareness - including our thought processes.  At no point within the physically determined chains of cause and effect in a material brain can we invoke any form of consciously driven control - so in this materialistic scenario we must presume that all our thought processing must occur within our subconscious brain activity.  But this then leads on to the question of how we can validate the correctness of what emerges into our conscious awareness.

You've laid out a materialistic model, so why is that not possible?

[Alan Burns]

Of course we can decide what we want to try to concentrate on, but we've already been through the nature of choice many, many times. You can only choose what you want to do most and that is not something we have control over.

You, and others, imply that it is the past which dictates our decisions - in which case they are reactions, not choices.
And the concept of trying would also be determined by a reaction to past events which negates any possible invocation from the conscious self.

This is not the reality we all exist in.
We make conscious choices which are determined by us - not by the past.
We are capable of consciously guiding our thoughts to reach our consciously chosen goals.
Out ability to try is invoked from within our conscious self - it is not a pre determined reaction to past events.
We have the freedom to choose our own destiny.

I hope and pray that you and many others on this forum will come to realise and appreciate the amazing power of our human souls which is beyond any human understanding.
 

[Sebastian Toe]

I hope and pray that you and many others on this forum will come to realise and appreciate the amazing power of our human souls which is beyond any human understanding.

You could start by explaining the "soul" basics.
That might help others understand.
Otherwise it only looks like you are a bot, endlessly repeating the same made up, magical fantasy.

Go on give it a go....
Where does the soul exist if it does not exist within our universe?
Is time an element of where they exist?
Are souls created? If they are what creates them, when and how are they "assigned" to each person?.
What is the control method exercised by the soul over the physical brain.
How does the soul read the brain patterns in order to understand what is physically happening to your body, eg the senses?

These are some very, very basic things that at least need a robust theory in order to understand your conjectures which might then lead to your audience coming over to your side.

Without that, all you have is magic, illogical fantasies.

[torridon]

So I ask again -
How can you possibly verify the validity and correctness of whatever emerges from your subconscious brain activity?

Already covered that in Reply #48390.  By the time (and we are only talking a fraction of a second, here) that it becomes part of our conscious mind, we have already subconsciously 'verified' it.  Natural selection has optimised subconscious neural processes for speed and efficiency.  By the time we become aware of our thoughts, our brain has already moved on.  Conscious mind is about the contruction of a continuing personal narrative and a sense of personhood and accountability but it lacks real causal authority.