Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

All I am pointing out is that…

You cannot just claim to “point out” something that you cannot demonstrate to be the case in the first place.

You claimed a few posts ago to have a logical argument to justify your claims and assertions, and then fell apart immediately you tried to set it out. Why then is it that you still resolutely refuse to find out what logically sound arguments should actually look like – are you just too lazy to look it up, or too scared in case if you did you’d finally realise that you have no sound reasoning to support you?

Which is is? 

[Alan Burns]

This is just another thought-free, meaningless mantra. The situation is that you have a mind that was shaped by the past and can do as it wants. It is also still an appeal to consequences fallacy (easily avoidable mistake in logic).

A material brain can only do what the laws of physics and chemistry dictate.
To say that it can do what it wants is misleading to say the least.

You also continue to ignore the fact that a non-material mind would be subject to exactly the same logic: there can be nothing in control other than the uncontrollable consequences of physically and non-physically defined reactions. The self-contradictory version of 'control' you want to claim is simply impossible, physically or otherwise.

Your claim to know how anything non material operates is unfounded.
My argument is simply based on our demonstrable ability to consciously guide our thoughts to reach consciously verifiable conclusions - an ability which offers evidence of non materialistic behaviour and which you struggle to explain within a logical scenario derived from time based cause and effect events.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

A material brain can only do what the laws of physics and chemistry dictate.
To say that it can do what it wants is misleading to say the least.

Why do you think that?

We can do what we want inasmuch as no-one can stop you, but the experience of doing what we want is also consistent with the what “the laws of physics and chemistry dictate”. As so often before you’re falling into the trap of privileging the subjective over the objective – decision-making feels as if it’s free of underlying deterministic principles so you privilege that as your explanation over the objective reasoning that tells you it cannot be so.

Again, if you bothered to find out something about how logical deduction works you’d know this by now. 

Your claim to know how anything non material operates is unfounded.

No, he’s telling you that you’ve no good reasons to justify your assertion that there even is a “non-material”.

My argument is simply based on our demonstrable ability to consciously guide our thoughts to reach consciously verifiable conclusions - an ability which offers evidence of non materialistic behaviour and which you struggle to explain within a logical scenario derived from time based cause and effect events.

That’s not an argument, it’s an assertion – and a wrong one too because there is no such “demonstrable ability” no matter how much you assert it to be otherwise.

Learn something about logical argument and perhaps you’d avoid these howlers in future. Why wouldn’t you want to do that? 

[torridon]

All I am pointing out is that in a material entity there can be nothing in control other than the uncontrollable consequences of physically defined reactions.  You can label it as an evolved control system, but ultimately any material entity will be entirely determined by the uncontrollable laws of nature with no will of its own - just inevitable reactions. 

I can do what I like because I am in control.

We all have a will of our own, but we don't choose what will to have. Were I a dog, I would want to chase rabbits, were I bird i would want to fly; were I an artist I would want to paint pictures; were I a dentist I would want to fix people's teeth.  The idea that we could choose which desires to have is circular nonsense.

[Sriram]

Its like a computer game. All the situations and rules are fixed....but you can still win or lose.

[jeremyp]

A material brain can only do what the laws of physics and chemistry dictate.

What do you think the limits of the laws of physics dictating are?

[Alan Burns]

What do you think the limits of the laws of physics dictating are?

Ever increasing entropy

[Maeght]

Ever increasing entropy

In a closed system.

[Alan Burns]

In a closed system.

What defines a closed system?

[Maeght]

What defines a closed system?

In thermodynamics it is a system where no matter can be transferred in or out of the system.

Regardless of that - what did you mean by your answer?

[jeremyp]

Ever increasing entropy

How does that limit the brain's ability to think?

[Alan Burns]

How does that limit the brain's ability to think?

Unguided material reactions generate ever increasing chaos (entropy) - our ability to think, to reason and to draw verifiable conclusions suggests guidance beyond what nature alone can give.

[Gordon]

Unguided material reactions generate ever increasing chaos (entropy) - our ability to think, to reason and to draw verifiable conclusions suggests guidance beyond what nature alone can give.

It doesn't suggest that at all - that there are many examples of chaotic thinking (such as on this thread) would imply, if your thesis is correct, that this "guidance beyond what nature alone can give" is no better than good old-fashioned naturalistic biology, and would therefore be of no added value (but then since the idea is fallacious anyway, it can just be dismissed).

[Enki]

Unguided material reactions generate ever increasing chaos (entropy) - our ability to think, to reason and to draw verifiable conclusions suggests guidance beyond what nature alone can give.

I would have thought that the overwhelming evidence suggests that thoughts are the result of organised reactions and interactions happening within the brain according to physical laws. And the brain constantly needs energy sustenance just as all life on earth essentially needs the sustenance emanating from the sun. There is no reason and no evidence whatsoever to suggest any sort of 'guidance beyond what nature alone can give'. If you think differently, why not produce the evidence to support your conclusions?

[Alan Burns]

I would have thought that the overwhelming evidence suggests that thoughts are the result of organised reactions and interactions happening within the brain according to physical laws. And the brain constantly needs energy sustenance just as all life on earth essentially needs the sustenance emanating from the sun. There is no reason and no evidence whatsoever to suggest any sort of 'guidance beyond what nature alone can give'. If you think differently, why not produce the evidence to support your conclusions?

You suggest that our thoughts are the result of organised reactions
What do you propose could be the source responsible for this organising within an entirely material environment?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You suggest that our thoughts are the result of organised reactions
What do you propose could be the source responsible for this organising within an entirely material environment?

"Consistent" may have been more felicitous than "organised", but in any case - physics.

Glad to have cleared that up for you.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

"Consistent" may have been more felicitous than "organised", but in any case - physics.

Glad to have cleared that up for you.

So how do you give credence to what drops out from physical reactions beyond your conscious control?

[torridon]

So how do you give credence to what drops out from physical reactions beyond your conscious control?

If an explanation maps well to our internal model, then that is credence, right there. I have an internal model of what a lemon is; taking something yellow out of the fruit basket, my mind quickly resolves what it is through pattern recognition, sampling novel visual and tactile information against model using a least-errors approach.  Our awareness is produced in this process, it does not drive it.

[Alan Burns]

If an explanation maps well to our internal model, then that is credence, right there. I have an internal model of what a lemon is; taking something yellow out of the fruit basket, my mind quickly resolves what it is through pattern recognition, sampling novel visual and tactile information against model using a least-errors approach.  Our awareness is produced in this process, it does not drive it.

That in no way explains your ability to produce reasoned arguments and reach validated conclusions without having the freedom to guide your own thought processes.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

That in no way explains your ability to produce reasoned arguments and reach validated conclusions without having the freedom to guide your own thought processes.

Actually it provides a plausible explanatory model but, even if the answer was a “don’t know” instead, that would still provide not one jot of a tad of a smidgin of an iota of a justification for the logically impossible, magic-reliant story you continue to eructate every time you run out of road.

As keeps being explained to you, if you bothered to find out how even a basic logically sound argument should be structured you’d know why this is the case. Why won’t you do that?   

[Enki]

You suggest that our thoughts are the result of organised reactions
What do you propose could be the source responsible for this organising within an entirely material environment?

The development of a human brain is entirely in keeping with all physical laws as far as we are aware and is a product of evolution. And as all our thoughts are linked to electro-chemical activity within the brain, there is no need for any external non-natural(whatever that may mean) guidance to be involved.

Neuroplasticity is the brain's ability to reorganize itself by forming new neural connections. New information and experiences can lead to the brain organizing neural pathways. This process starts when we are babies and continues for the rest of our lives, although, as we age, it becomes less. So the pathways that our brains create, especially as a child, is the foundation of our thinking throughout our lives.

Now I would suggest it's time for you to answer the question that I asked you in post 49263 and to which you still have not responded:

'If you think differently, why not produce the evidence to support your conclusions?'

[torridon]

That in no way explains your ability to produce reasoned arguments and reach validated conclusions without having the freedom to guide your own thought processes.

Yes it does, at some level, the same fundamental processes are at work.  In abstract reasoning, our minds explore what-if scenarios, calling on memories and previous experiences until we reach a position that sits comfortably with our internal model.  Along the way, we become conscious of these thoughts as they flicker through mind.

[Alan Burns]

The development of a human brain is entirely in keeping with all physical laws as far as we are aware and is a product of evolution. And as all our thoughts are linked to electro-chemical activity within the brain, there is no need for any external non-natural(whatever that may mean) guidance to be involved.

Neuroplasticity is the brain's ability to reorganize itself by forming new neural connections. New information and experiences can lead to the brain organizing neural pathways. This process starts when we are babies and continues for the rest of our lives, although, as we age, it becomes less. So the pathways that our brains create, especially as a child, is the foundation of our thinking throughout our lives.

Now I would suggest it's time for you to answer the question that I asked you in post 49263 and to which you still have not responded:

'If you think differently, why not produce the evidence to support your conclusions?'

The evidence lies in your ability to think - to guide your own thoughts.
Can you not see how impossible it would be for reasoned arguments and verifiable conclusions to just drop out from the unavoidable, inevitable consequences of physically defined material reactions?  You can try to explain it all away by quoting the complexity of neural connections and pathways, but the bottom line is that in any material model we have no control over the physically defined material reactions in the human brain.  The only feasible explanation for our ability to guide our own thoughts comes from the miraculous power of our conscious awareness to interact rather than just react in order to give us the freedom we all enjoy.

[Sebastian Toe]

The evidence lies in your ability to think - to guide your own thoughts.
Can you not see how impossible it would be for reasoned arguments and verifiable conclusions to just drop out from the unavoidable, inevitable consequences of physically defined material reactions?  You can try to explain it all away by quoting the complexity of neural connections and pathways, but the bottom line is that in any material model we have no control over the physically defined material reactions in the human brain.  The only feasible explanation for our ability to guide our own thoughts comes from the miraculous power of our conscious awareness to interact rather than just react in order to give us the freedom we all enjoy.

All very nice.
Main issue you have, always had, and always will have is that your "soul" hypothesis needs magic in order to work.
Fail, 0/10.

[Gordon]

The evidence lies in your ability to think - to guide your own thoughts.
Can you not see how impossible it would be for reasoned arguments and verifiable conclusions to just drop out from the unavoidable, inevitable consequences of physically defined material reactions?  You can try to explain it all away by quoting the complexity of neural connections and pathways, but the bottom line is that in any material model we have no control over the physically defined material reactions in the human brain.  The only feasible explanation for our ability to guide our own thoughts comes from the miraculous power of our conscious awareness to interact rather than just react in order to give us the freedom we all enjoy.

As soon as you cite the 'miraculous', Alan, you are in essence creating a fiction in which your 'God/Soul notions' are portrayed by you as being a key component in how we function: and that you are doing that is fairly obvious. This 'control' you hanker after is probably no more than our own material biology doing it's thing without requiring any help from the 'miraculous': and that is a consequence you can't accept or process, since it undermines the faith beliefs you cling to.