Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

AB,

As it's your claim, why don't you finally demonstrate any thinking at all to justify it?

Well, for a start  - from a materialist perspective, nothing can determine a cause of a material reaction other than a previous reaction.  So within the endless chains of physically determined reactions going on in your brain, what can possibly incentivise and guide these reactions to perform any form of perceived logical deduction other than an entity of conscious awareness with the power to perceive, control and verify the process of logical deduction?  Or do you believe that logical deductions can somehow occur naturally without any form of incentive or guidance or verification?  If the entity of conscious awareness does play some part in the process of logical deductions then you need to consider how this interaction can take place if conscious awareness emerges from material reactions which have already been determined.

[Stranger]

Well, for a start  - from a materialist perspective, nothing can determine a cause of a material reaction other than a previous reaction.

Actually, as has been explained, any system that exists in time (anything that can do anything that can't be done in zero time, like choose, contemplate, control, interact, etc.) can only do things that are either the result previous events or are at at least partly random.

This is a logical limitation, not a 'material' one. It would be good if you could bring yourself to stop lying about this.

So within the endless chains of physically determined reactions going on in your brain, what can possibly incentivise and guide these reactions to perform any form of perceived logical deduction...

Evolved and suitably trained brains. What is the problem? You never say.

...other than an entity of conscious awareness...

What the fuck is one of those? You need to define what this means exactly.

...with the power to perceive, control and verify...

All things that are impossible in zero time and hence they are all subject to the logic above.

Or do you believe that logical deductions can somehow occur naturally without any form of incentive or guidance or verification?

Who do you think is arguing against incentive, guidance, or verification?

If the entity of conscious awareness...

Logically meaningless waffle.

...does play some part in the process of logical deductions then you need to consider how this interaction can take place if conscious awareness emerges from material reactions which have already been determined.

Yet again you have neither produced any argument that indicates there would be any problem with previous reactions nor provided any alternative that would allow for anything else (apart from randomness).

And once again, this doesn't even look as if it might have been a logical deduction.

What are your premises?
What are the logical steps?
What exactly is the conclusion?

[Alan Burns]

Actually, as has been explained, any system that exists in time (anything that can do anything that can't be done in zero time, like choose, contemplate, control, interact, etc.) can only do things that are either the result previous events or are at at least partly random.

This is a logical limitation, not a 'material' one. It would be good if you could bring yourself to stop lying about this.

But you must acknowledge that the logic you use is entirely based upon observed material behaviour in the time line of our material universe.  So it is entirely bound up with the materialistic scenario.

[Stranger]

But you must acknowledge that the logic you use is entirely based upon observed material behaviour in the time line of our material universe. 

It is the basic logic of time-based activities, not any specific laws of physics. All the things you claim conscious minds can do, like contemplate, choose, control, and interact are necessarily time-based, because they cannot happen without some extension along a time dimension.

So it is entirely bound up with the materialistic scenario.

Only to the extent that your own claims about minds are. If I am basing my logic on "the materialistic scenario" (which I'm not because I'm not assuming specific laws, just time itself) then your claims about what minds do are also based "the materialistic scenario".

You can't claim that minds can do things that logically require time and then deny the basic logic of time. Not if you're being honest anyway.

[torridon]

None of the examples you have offered come anywhere near to explaining the reality of the freedom we all enjoy.

Why not ? I don't see any aspect of our lived experience that is exempted in the narratives or illustrations I have posted.  I guess you never read them, or if you did, you didn't read for comprehension, and were just looking on autopilot for a cheap way to rebuff. 

It is so sad that you cannot acknowledge or appreciate the amazing gift of freedom God has given us.

Irrelevant.

The freedom to pray, to worship or to love as God intended.

There is nothing to suggest we cannot pray, worship or love given a deterministic mind.  That you still be can saying things like this after hundreds of explanations beggars belief. It just says loud and clear that you still haven't understood this.  To be able to pray, worship or love requires a deterministic mind.  An indeterministic mind could not possibly do these things.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Well, for a start  - from a materialist perspective, nothing can determine a cause of a material reaction other than a previous reaction.

Actually typically countless interacting “previous reactions” from which various properties – such as consciousness – then emerge but ok.

So within the endless chains of physically determined reactions going on in your brain, what can possibly incentivise and guide these reactions to perform any form of perceived logical deduction other than an entity of conscious awareness with the power to perceive, control and verify the process of logical deduction?

What makes you think that something is needed to “incentivise and guide these reactions to perform any form of perceived logical deduction”? You’re still lost in the notion of a top-down “controller” rather than grasping the reason- and evidence-based bottom up model of emergent properties. Termites for example build structures of remarkable sophistication – they’re ventilated by a complex network of tunnels, and are magnetically oriented along a north-south axis to maintain optimal sun exposure. There’s no termite architect with a set of blueprints though – instead termites self-organise using very simple algorithmic processes of following pheromone cues left by their neighbours, repeated millions of times.

In other words, sophisticated termite mounds don't require something to “incentivise and guide these reactions” at all yet they exist nonetheless.

Please don’t bother replying with your usual stupidity of “how can you possibly compare termite mounds with the vastly complex human consciousness?” by the way. The point here is the principle – ie, that very simple components and processes can produce very complex phenomena with no direction or control involved.   

Or do you believe that logical deductions can somehow occur naturally without any form of incentive or guidance or verification?

Yes – see above. Why don't you?

If the entity of conscious awareness does play some part in the process of logical deductions then you need to consider how this interaction can take place if conscious awareness emerges from material reactions which have already been determined.

Why? The interaction of the conscious and sub-conscious mind is an interesting subject, but it has nothing to do with your problem of failing to justify your claim that a “controller” (let alone a logically impossible one) is necessary.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think the point I'm trying to make is that, as Pinker said: "Submitting all of one’s beliefs to the trials of reason and evidence is an unnatural skill, like literacy and numeracy, and must be instilled and cultivated."

I almost choked on my brunch when I saw that, but fair's fair, Pinker does have great hair.

[Stranger]

I almost choked on my brunch when I saw that...

Why? Even by your dismal standards, this is inane.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why? Even by your dismal standards, this is inane.

It is pious sounding enough but practically it has meant submitting one's beliefs to what Pinker believes or Dawkin's or whoever in a manner so habitual that that belief becomes ''reason and evidence.'' IMHO.

[Stranger]

It is pious sounding enough but practically it has meant submitting one's beliefs to what Pinker believes or Dawkin's or whoever in a manner so habitual that that belief becomes ''reason and evidence.'' IMHO.

Nonsense. Reason and evidence are not defined by Pinker, let alone by your obsession with Dawkins.

For example, I don't think any of the examples of common mistakes in reasoning cited by Pinker are actually things that he originated.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

It is pious sounding enough but practically it has meant submitting one's beliefs to what Pinker believes or Dawkin's or whoever in a manner so habitual that that belief becomes ''reason and evidence.'' IMHO.

What method other than reason and evidence would you propose to forge a path from subjective opinion to objective fact?

[Alan Burns]

What makes you think that something is needed to “incentivise and guide these reactions to perform any form of perceived logical deduction”? You’re still lost in the notion of a top-down “controller” rather than grasping the reason- and evidence-based bottom up model of emergent properties. Termites for example build structures of remarkable sophistication – they’re ventilated by a complex network of tunnels, and are magnetically oriented along a north-south axis to maintain optimal sun exposure. There’s no termite architect with a set of blueprints though – instead termites self-organise using very simple algorithmic processes of following pheromone cues left by their neighbours, repeated millions of times.

In other words, sophisticated termite mounds don't require something to “incentivise and guide these reactions” at all yet they exist nonetheless.

But there are human architects with a set of blueprints which offer examples of the top down capabilities of the conscious human mind being able to incentivise and guide their thoughts and actions to produce consciously intended results.

[Stranger]

But there are human architects with a set of blueprints which offer examples of the top down capabilities of the conscious human mind being able to incentivise and guide their thoughts and actions to produce consciously intended results.

Still waiting for the "simple logical deduction" you said you had.

Were you just bearing false witness again?

[Alan Burns]

There is nothing to suggest we cannot pray, worship or love given a deterministic mind.  That you still be can saying things like this after hundreds of explanations beggars belief. It just says loud and clear that you still haven't understood this.  To be able to pray, worship or love requires a deterministic mind.  An indeterministic mind could not possibly do these things.

The point I am making is that acts of love, worship and prayer must involve the freedom to be determined by our human soul rather than the consequences of physically determined material reactions which are beyond our conscious control.  Love not freely given is no love at all.

[Alan Burns]

Quote from: Alan Burns on October 11, 2023, 05:44:55 PM
So within the endless chains of physically determined reactions going on in your brain, what can possibly incentivise and guide these reactions to perform any form of perceived logical deduction...

Evolved and suitably trained brains. What is the problem? You never say.

You need to think deeply about how the random, inherently destructive forces of nature acting on a tiny fragment of exploded star debris could produce something capable of performing complex logical deductions.

Quote from: Alan Burns on October 11, 2023, 05:44:55 PM
...other than an entity of conscious awareness...

What the fuck is one of those? You need to define what this means exactly.

it means "you"

[Stranger]

The point I am making is that acts of love, worship and prayer must involve the freedom to be determined by our human soul rather than the consequences of physically determined material reactions which are beyond our conscious control.  Love not freely given is no love at all.

More inane, trite platitudes that ignore the logic that you cannot address.

You cannot "give love" without time. You cannot have time without the the logic of determinism versus randomness. Regardless of whether the "reactions" are physical or not is irrelevant.

You are just running away from basic logic to protect our absurd blind faith.

[Stranger]

You need to think deeply...

...about how the random, inherently destructive forces of nature acting on a tiny fragment of exploded star debris could produce something capable of performing complex logical deductions.

Vacuous, emotive language does not address the hard logic or the situation. And you are still dishonestly misrepresenting the logic as a physical limitation.

As soon as you have the ability to contemplate, choose, interact, or control─all things you claim for your 'soul'─then you need time. Once you have time you have the logic of determinism versus randomness and your impossible version of 'freedom' because nonsensical.

[torridon]

The point I am making is that acts of love, worship and prayer must involve the freedom to be determined by our human soul rather than the consequences of physically determined material reactions which are beyond our conscious control.  Love not freely given is no love at all.

however love given randomly would not be love.  If there is no reason giving rise to feelings of love then it is random; this is what you get if you disconnect your mind states for the reasons that gave rise to them.  Have you ever prayed to God ?  If so, was there a reason that led to the desire to pray, or was it just a random thing ?

[Alan Burns]

however love given randomly would not be love.  If there is no reason giving rise to feelings of love then it is random; this is what you get if you disconnect your mind states for the reasons that gave rise to them.  Have you ever prayed to God ?  If so, was there a reason that led to the desire to pray, or was it just a random thing ?

There is always a reason
The reason emanates from your conscious self - not from unavoidable reactions to past events.

[torridon]

There is always a reason
The reason emanates from your conscious self - not from unavoidable reactions to past events.

No, this makes no sense and there is no evidence for it. The reasons are always in the past. Reasons cannot appear in the present moment out of nowhere, as if a reason were its own reason.  You 'conscious self' is where awareness of these reasons forms and also where awareness of your resulting choices and actions also is manifest.

[Stranger]

There is always a reason
The reason emanates from your conscious self - not from unavoidable reactions to past events.

Thought- and reasoning-free evasion. Why does your "concious self" will one thing rather than another? What is the reason for the will?

Either it has reasons─that must exist before the will─or ii is for no reason and therefore random.

And...

Still waiting for the "simple logical deduction" you said you had.

Were you just bearing false witness again?

[jeremyp]

Love not freely given is no love at all.

Interesting. Have you ever fallen in love? Did you have any conscious control over who you fell in love with?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But there are human architects with a set of blueprints which offer examples of the top down capabilities of the conscious human mind being able to incentivise and guide their thoughts and actions to produce consciously intended results.

You’ve missed the point again. Your unqualified assertion is that the complexity of consciousness would be "impossible" without divine intervention, therefore divine intervention. I’ve explained to you the fundamental model of emergent properties – ie, that complex phenomena arise from simpler, self-organising component parts. Whether the phenomenon is termite mounds or consciousness, the basic principle is the same.

Thus your “consciousness is impossible without intervention” assertion has no rational support.

Now you’ve shifted ground to “but there are human architects with a set of blueprints”, which is true but irrelevant. That there are humans with blueprints for buildings does not imply that there must also therefore be a god with a blueprint for us, any more than it implies that there must be a termites with blueprints for termite mounds. If you want to argue for a designer god (rather than just assert it) you need to find a better argument than “OK, consciousness could be a natural phenomenon but that doesn’t mean there can't be a designer god anyway”.

Good luck with it though.       

[Alan Burns]

No, this makes no sense and there is no evidence for it. The reasons are always in the past. Reasons cannot appear in the present moment out of nowhere, as if a reason were its own reason.  You 'conscious self' is where awareness of these reasons forms and also where awareness of your resulting choices and actions also is manifest.

You are presuming that this material universe is a closed entity of cause and effect.
The reality is that there is substantial evidence for causes to be invoked from outside this closed entity in the form of human will and God's will whose origins cannot be understood or explained from within the observed laws of material behaviour within our universe.   You cannot fully understand the workings of the human mind from a materialistic perspective.  Our ability to consciously apply our will within this material universe is evidenced throughout the history of mankind.  We are not controlled by past events - we are in control of our own destiny.

[torridon]

You are presuming that this material universe is a closed entity of cause and effect.
The reality is that there is substantial evidence for causes to be invoked from outside this closed entity in the form of human will and God's will whose origins cannot be understood or explained from within the observed laws of material behaviour within our universe.   You cannot fully understand the workings of the human mind from a materialistic perspective.  Our ability to consciously apply our will within this material universe is evidenced throughout the history of mankind.  We are not controlled by past events - we are in control of our own destiny.

"substantial evidence for causes to be invoked from outside this closed entity in the form of human will and God's will "

Really ? where is this evidence. We don't have any evidence for God, otherwise we would already have built scientific theories based on the evidence discovered to date.

Human will ? Again, where is the evidence for human will originating from outwith the bounds of cause and effect ? All the examples you have given on this thread such as being able to love or pray are entirely consistent with the principle of cause and effect, indeed, they require it. 'Outwith the bounds of cause and effect', anyway, means random, and again, I don't see we could point to examples of either gods or humans exhibiting truly random behaviours.

If you have better examples, then post them up.