Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

It is evidence that our will is determined and guided by our conscious mind to achieve a consciously chosen goal.

Your materialistic model reduces the role of our conscious awareness to be just a spectator of what has already been determined by the uncontrollable consequences of physical reactions - with no viable means of conscious verification.

How come then I can't overcome my food phobias - no matter how hard I might try to set a "consciously chosen goal" of consuming these foods, my inherent revulsion of them, which I'm quite clear that I can't control will win out every time?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Thanks for this, Steve

I had not come across the examples you gave, but they do reinforce the simple logical argument I have been putting forward on this thread:

Put simply - the ability to produce any logical argument offers ample evidence for the existence of the human free will needed to formulate an argument by conscious guidance of the thought processes involved.  Without such conscious guidance, there can be no credibility given to the consequences of uncontrollable reactions by material elements in the brain.

There’s no argument there, just asserted conclusions – that is, blind faith claims. If you want (finally) to make an argument, then you need to set out your premises and your reasoning that justify your conclusions.

If you don’t even understand how an argument should be constructed, what on earth makes you think you have any?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Strict philosophical materialism can only be a belief Hillside…

All truth statements are beliefs.

…since it hasn't been proved or evidenced…

Non sequitur. Truth statements that are proved or evidenced are still beliefs.

… nor is the entire material universe evidence for it unless you would like to prove it here while simultaneously claiming it isn't absolutely true.

Incoherent. What are you trying to say here?

Alternatively, if your post is a ruse to get me to 'come out and play' you seem to have succeeded.

Fun as it is watching you fall flat on your face again, enticing you to come out and play is the last thing I’d want to do.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

There’s no argument there, just asserted conclusions – that is, blind faith claims. If you want (finally) to make an argument, then you need to set out your premises and your reasoning that justify your conclusions.

If you don’t even understand how an argument should be constructed, what on earth makes you think you have any?

You do not seem to comprehend that in order to formulate any argument you need the conscious freedom to think about what the argument entails and consciously guide your thoughts to reach a verifiable conclusion.  You do this in every post you consciously compose, regardless of whether the argument is flawed or not.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You do not seem to comprehend that in order to formulate any argument you need the conscious freedom to think about what the argument entails and consciously guide your thoughts to reach a verifiable conclusion.  You do this in every post you consciously compose, regardless of whether the argument is flawed or not.

No, you actually don’t understand that you cannot just assert this to be the case with no justifying argument(s) to support it. If you seriously think “guiding our thoughts” is a possibility then – finally – you need to deal with the multiple logical contradictions that notion throws up.

You claim to have arguments that justify the assertions you make – why then do you never present those arguments here? 

[Alan Burns]

AB,

No, you actually don’t understand that you cannot just assert this to be the case with no justifying argument(s) to support it. If you seriously think “guiding our thoughts” is a possibility then – finally – you need to deal with the multiple logical contradictions that notion throws up.

The justification lies in our demonstrable ability to consciously guide our thoughts through reasoned arguments to reach consciously verified conclusions.  Without such ability of conscious control, you cannot claim any credence in what you say.
 - why can you not understand this reality?

You claim to have arguments that justify the assertions you make – why then do you never present those arguments here?

You appear to deliberately choose to ignore or ridicule any argument I make.
If I have no conscious control of my thoughts, how can I possibly choose to make the assertions you constantly accuse me of ?

[Maeght]

The justification lies in our demonstrable ability to consciously guide our thoughts through reasoned arguments to reach consciously verified conclusions.  Without such ability of conscious control, you cannot claim any credence in what you say.
 - why can you not understand this reality?You appear to deliberately choose to ignore or ridicule any argument I make.
If I have no conscious control of my thoughts, how can I possibly choose to make the assertions you constantly accuse me of ?

You have never shown that we have the ability to consciously guide our thoughts.

[Nearly Sane]

You have never shown that we have the ability to consciously guide our thoughts.

The idea is logically flawed as it creates an infinite regress as it's thoughts all the way down.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The justification lies in our demonstrable ability to consciously guide our thoughts through reasoned arguments to reach consciously verified conclusions.  Without such ability of conscious control, you cannot claim any credence in what you say….

That’s not an argument to justify the claim that we “have a demonstrable ability to guide our thoughts” at all. It’s just a description of the experience of thinking, not an explanation for it. 

- why can you not understand this reality?

Because what you call “this reality” is logically impossible nonsense that you're unable to render otherwise with the justification of sound reasoning.

You appear to deliberately choose to ignore or ridicule any argument I make.

No I don’t – I just point out that you haven’t made any arguments. Simply asserting a conclusion and calling it “obvious” or “that we all experience” etc isn’t an argument and that, sadly, is pretty much all you have to offer.     

If I have no conscious control of my thoughts, how can I possibly choose to make the assertions you constantly accuse me of ?

Shifting the burden of proof (another fallacy) won’t help you here. There are various possible answers to that but, even if there were none that would provide not one jot of a justification for your “guiding our thoughts” notion – which itself is self-negating because it would just create an infinite regress.   

As you claim to have sound reasoning but never produce it, why not at least try to understand how a logically cogent argument should be constructed and then try to construct one of your own?

[Alan Burns]

How come then I can't overcome my food phobias - no matter how hard I might try to set a "consciously chosen goal" of consuming these foods, my inherent revulsion of them, which I'm quite clear that I can't control will win out every time?

I fully agree that you can't choose to control your phobias.
But you can choose what to say about your phobias.
You have aptly demonstrated your freedom to choose the words which describe your phobia and your inability to control it.
You could have chosen different words, or you could have chosen not to write anything - the choice was yours to make.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I fully agree that you can't choose to control your phobias.
But you can choose what to say about your phobias.
You have aptly demonstrated your freedom to choose the words which describe your phobia and your inability to control it.
You could have chosen different words, or you could have chosen not to write anything - the choice was yours to make.

Yes it was, but "choice" here cannot mean what you think it to mean.

[ekim]

I fully agree that you can't choose to control your phobias.
But you can choose what to say about your phobias.
You have aptly demonstrated your freedom to choose the words which describe your phobia and your inability to control it.
You could have chosen different words, or you could have chosen not to write anything - the choice was yours to make.

.. or you could say that a phobia is the desire to put distance between himself and what is feared and this is stronger that the desire to reduce the distance between himself and what is feared.  Similarly his choice to reply to you could be said to be based upon the strength of desire to reply versus a desire not to reply.  In either case the ability to choose is not free from the underlying desire.

[torridon]

It is evidence that our will is determined and guided by our conscious mind to achieve a consciously chosen goal.

Your materialistic model reduces the role of our conscious awareness to be just a spectator of what has already been determined by the uncontrollable consequences of physical reactions - with no viable means of conscious verification.

That's more or less what the science says, so yes.  Science reveals that consciousness, strictly speaking, has no executive function and its real value lies in social and psychological factors.   Just because you don't like the findings of science are you going live in denial ?  That's not a healthy mental attitude.

[Gordon]

I fully agree that you can't choose to control your phobias.
But you can choose what to say about your phobias.
You have aptly demonstrated your freedom to choose the words which describe your phobia and your inability to control it.
You could have chosen different words, or you could have chosen not to write anything - the choice was yours to make.

Don't be so silly - I am describing an aspect of my person that I cannot control, and no matter how hard I might attempt to 'consciously control' my thoughts in certain food-related situations I am driven by baser instincts. If your theory was correct then I could 'consciously choose' not to feel revulsion, and I can't. Neither can I 'consciously choose' to find dancing (in any form) to be remotely entertaining, so presumably this is another personal trait that isn't amenable to 'conscious choice': so I think you are quite simply wrong.

That I can string a few words together is an entirely different phenomena, and nobody disagrees that we have sufficient intellectual capacity, coupled with education and experience, to do that and to choose which words to use: you are wrongly conflating this with baser subconscious aspects of our biology over which we have no conscious control, so it sounds to me that you are making a category error.

To add: it might also be the case that what words I choose, and how I use them to express particular sentiments, are also influenced by 'under the hood' desires that I am not consciously aware of. So it may be that I exhibit what appears to be 'free choice': but maybe that is just how it 'seems', and maybe how it seems is not how it actually 'is'.

[Alan Burns]

That's more or less what the science says, so yes.  Science reveals that consciousness, strictly speaking, has no executive function and its real value lies in social and psychological factors.   Just because you don't like the findings of science are you going live in denial ?  That's not a healthy mental attitude.

Science cannot define what comprises our thoughts or what determines them.
The fact that we can contemplate our existence and guide our thoughts to reach consciously verified conclusions suggests that our conscious awareness must play a substantial role in this process.  To suggest that it can all drop out from the consequences of uncontrollable physical reactions truly beggars belief.

[Gordon]

Science cannot define what comprises our thoughts or what determines them.

That would be biology, Alan: no active biology = no thoughts at all.

The fact that we can contemplate our existence and guide our thoughts to reach consciously verified conclusions suggests that our conscious awareness must play a substantial role in this process.  To suggest that it can all drop out from the consequences of uncontrollable physical reactions truly beggars belief.

The nature of our biology allows abstract thinking - but it's still just biology, including both the conscious stuff, the 'under the hood' stuff and the interaction between them.

Your personal incredulity is getting in the way again.

[Alan Burns]

That would be biology, Alan: no active biology = no thoughts at all.

NDEs (Near Death Experiences) have recorded numerous examples of people experiencing vivid reality while there was no measurable brain activity.

[Gordon]

NDEs (Near Death Experiences) have recorded numerous examples of people experiencing vivid reality while there was no measurable brain activity.

But they ain't actually dead, Alan, but if they were experiencing something then their brains were still functioning and, presumably, some cases involve physical trauma and intense treatment, such as the use of Ketamine. Therefore, what you cite in simplistic terms may not be a simple as it first appears.

What constitutes 'vivid reality'? After all, most of us have experienced dreams that can be vivid when we aren't conscious

You're clutching at straws.

[Maeght]

NDEs (Near Death Experiences) have recorded numerous examples of people experiencing vivid reality while there was no measurable brain activity.

Measurable is key there.

[Alan Burns]

Some profound witness stories from a gathering of 20,000 young people who have discovered God and found true meaning in their lives - contrasting with the shallow self centred nature of secular society.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUOmU3ItXgo

[Nearly Sane]

Some profound witness stories from a gathering of 20,000 young people who have discovered God and found true meaning in their lives - contrasting with the shallow self centred nature of secular society.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUOmU3ItXgo

Your last few words are just an empty assertion, anyway here's coverage of a few more witness stories


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-67749215

Note I don't think that religious people are worse than non religious people but your approach would be cherry pick8ng if it rose to that. Sadly it's just a mess of pottage.

[Enki]

NDEs (Near Death Experiences) have recorded numerous examples of people experiencing vivid reality while there was no measurable brain activity.

How do you know that's true, Alan?

Yes, NDEs undoubtedly happen, but your comment here is simply an assertion.

a person who has experienced a genuine NDE, has gone through three main stages:
1) Consciousness leading to unconsciousness. At this point there is brain activity
2) Unconsciousness, which may include a period when brain activity flat lines
3) Unconsciousness leading to consciousness in the moments following No 2. Again there is obviously brain activity
This whole event is a process, and there is no evidence that NDEs are only or even a phenomenon related to No 2.

If you are going to refer to NDEs, at least don't show your ignorance of the subject.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Science cannot define what comprises our thoughts or what determines them.

The scientific method has yet to produce a full explanation for consciousness – hence the phrase “the hard problem of consciousness”.

So what?
 

The fact that we can contemplate our existence and guide our thoughts to reach consciously verified conclusions…

It’s not a fact that we can “guide our thoughts” for the reasons that keep being explained to you without rebuttal. You seem to think that repeating endlessly 2+2=5 and ignoring every falsification you’re given will somehow make 2+2=5 into a fact. It won’t.

…suggests that our conscious awareness must play a substantial role in this process.

When your premise is false your conclusion if unjustified. You’d know this if you had some understanding of logical argument.

To suggest that it can all drop out from the consequences of uncontrollable physical reactions truly beggars belief.

Your belief Alan, not belief in general and you’ve just collapsed again into the argument from incredulity.

Why do you have no interest at all in how to frame a logically sound argument if not for fear that you’d then realise your faith beliefs are built on sand? 

[Maeght]

Some profound witness stories from a gathering of 20,000 young people who have discovered God and found true meaning in their lives - contrasting with the shallow self centred nature of secular society.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUOmU3ItXgo

People can be inspired by beliefs. Doesn't mean their beliefs are correct. Secular society is not about selfishness but is about a fairer society for all.

[Alan Burns]

It’s not a fact that we can “guide our thoughts” for the reasons that keep being explained to you without rebuttal.

So the onus is on you to clarify how we can process any logical argument to reach a consciously verified conclusion without any conscious guidance of the thought processes involved.