Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

If I could 'guide the contents of my conscious mind', then I could look at a tree and decide to see a penguin.  I could put a lemon in my mouth and decide to experience it as chocolate.

Of course you cannot change the content of what is detected by our physical senses.
You are, however, free to pretend a tree is a penguin if you so wish - just as you were free to think up this bizarre example.

[Nearly Sane]

Of course you cannot change the content of what is detected by our physical senses.
You are, however, free to pretend a tree is a penguin if you so wish - just as you were free to think up this bizarre example.

Are you 'free' not to believe in your god?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The evidence you and many on this forum try to ignore is your own capability to guide the contents of your conscious mind to formulate reasoned arguments and draw validated conclusions.

You’ve provided no evidence at all for “your own capability to guide the contents of your conscious mind” so the only thing that’s being ignored here is you still ignoring repeated requests to provide some.

The problem you fail to acknowledge is the limitations of what can be achieved by physical reactions alone without any means of conscious guidance.

As above – what limitations do you think there to be, and why do you think that?

In the materialistic scenario you have to presume that our conscious awareness is an emergent property of material reactions.  So the material reactions responsible for our conscious awareness will have already occurred before our awareness kicks in.

It's “deduce from the best available evidence” rather than your pejorative “presume”, but essentially yes.

Awareness will be the end result of the physical brain activity with no feasible means to interact with the reactions from which our conscious awareness emerges.

No – it’s more likely that there are feedback and iteration processes between the conscious and the sub-conscious parts of mind, but essentially it’s an integrated whole with no need for a magic little man at the controls. 

So how I am currently able to contemplate this scenario and draw these conclusions without any conscious interaction with the thought processes involved?  I am constantly being accused of personal incredulity - but how can it be labelled "personal" if my apparent incredulity is generated by unavoidable material reactions beyond my conscious control?

It’s personal incredulity when you run out of logical road (ie, very quickly) and tell us that the evidence-based hypotheses you're given “beggar” your personal god beliefs.

I am not appealing to magic.

That’s precisely what you do. The moment someone asks you anything at all about your supposed “soul” “it’s magic innit” is all you have. You can gussy that up as “mystery” or some such but you’re still claiming magic – which is why you have nothing of worth to say here. If you think magic/mystery is an acceptable explanation, we may as well say the same about consciousness or indeed the universe itself and save the trouble of inventing agencies (“soul”/”god”) that add nothing at all to that “explanation”.   

I am just witnessing to our God given gift of free will which allows us to think, to contemplate, to draw valid conclusions, to analyse, to choose between good and evil, to believe, to cast judgement, to pray, to worship, to love ....

“Witnessing to” and “just asserting logical impossibilities with no justifying arguments for them” are not the same thing. You really should know this by now.

Remove this gift and we would be driven entirely by automated reactions generated from biological instincts and learnt experience with no will of our own.

You still have no justification for the claim “gift”, and this is just another attempt at the argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy.

Yet again: why won’t you bother to find out how logical arguments should be constructed so you could finally attempt one here?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You are, however, free to pretend a tree is a penguin if you so wish...

But then you wouldn't actually believe it to be a penguin because you'd know you were pretending.

0/10 Try again. 

[Alan Burns]

Are you 'free' not to believe in your god?

We cannot change what we know to be true.

[Outrider]

We cannot change what we know to be true.

We cannot control what we believe, directly, but what we believe is not necessarily something that we can claim to know, and can be something distinctly separate from any 'truth'. Certainly, if you lack the capacity to put together a coherent argument in support of your point, questions have to be asked about what your basis is for claiming 'knowledge' rather than belief.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

We cannot change what we know to be true.

The stupidity is deep here. “Knowing” something describes a belief that something is true. A belief is only as true as the grounds for believing it to be true – and your grounds for thinking you "know" the claims “god”, “soul” etc to be true are hopeless for the reasons you keep ignoring.

If you were honest enough to engage in good faith with the arguments here you’d be capable of changing your beliefs about what you currently believe to be true. That would be too painful for you though, so you won’t do it. Ever.   

[Nearly Sane]

We cannot change what we know to be true.

I know that for me I haven't seen a logically coherent definition of god. That's a much lesser claim to knowledge than your's since it's subjective. And yet you think it's ok if your god punishes me for that. Hmmm....

[ProfessorDavey]

We cannot change what we know to be true.

Then why can you believe a tree is a penguin when you know that it is a tree to be true.

[Sebastian Toe]

I am quite certain that our spiritual memories will be intact when we come before God.  NDEs suggest that our spiritual memories are far more vivid and accurate that anything we can get from the biological working of our material brain.  A common NDE experience involves vivid memories of our entire lives flashing before us in a moment of time.

But Alan. We need a description, (similar to the one that you demand of "physical" science regarding consciousness, ) of the basis for this spiritual memory, where it resides, how your soul interacts with it, what is its capacity, can you access it at will etc?
You must surely have given this thought when building your "soul reality"?

Because if you can't come up with those types of answer then your spiritual memory will get the same treatment that you give "physical science's" view of consciousness.
Would you be surprised if that wasn't the case?

[Alan Burns]

No – it’s more likely that there are feedback and iteration processes between the conscious and the sub-conscious parts of mind ...

In the material model, the emergent property (conscious awareness) is not a physical entity so it will have no means of feeding back to the material workings of the brain.

[Gordon]

In the material model, the emergent property (conscious awareness) is not a physical entity so it will have no means of feeding back to the material workings of the brain.

So - you have concluded that 'conscious awareness' involves no (material) brain cells/activity?

Didn't know you had your own EEG machine and some kind of research protocol, but I'll look forward to reading your write up in one of the more prestigious peer-reviewed journals to which experts in the field contribute.

[Alan Burns]

Then why can you believe a tree is a penguin when you know that it is a tree to be true.

It was Torridon who suggested I could use my free will to believe a tree is a penguin.
I corrected him by saying that I could only pretend a tree is a penguin if I so wished.
Pretence is not belief.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

[In the material model, the emergent property (conscious awareness) is not a physical entity so it will have no means of feeding back to the material workings of the brain.

Oh dear. Consciousness (so the evidence suggests) is an emergent property of the complex interactions between the conscious and the sub-conscious parts of mind.

Yet again, if you bothered either to address the arguments you’re given here or at least to learn something about logical argument you might have a chance of not falling in a heap over and over again.

Why won’t you do that?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I corrected him...

Hysterical. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Just out of interest, why won’t you find out something about how logically sound arguments should be constructed? Is it:

A. Because you can’t be bothered;

B. Because you’re frightened of the possible consequences if you did;

C. Because you just don’t understand the question; or

D. Something else?

You literally only need answer this with one letter so I really can’t make it any simpler or less onerous for you to do.

[Alan Burns]

So - you have concluded that 'conscious awareness' involves no (material) brain cells/activity?

Conscious awareness requires a means of perceiving material reactions.
A single entity of awareness cannot be defined by material reactions alone.

[Gordon]

Conscious awareness requires a means of perceiving material reactions.
A single entity of awareness cannot be defined by material reactions alone.

Nope - perceiving is a material reaction: something our material brains routinely do.

You seem to imagine that there is some form of 'immaterial neurology' going on, which is a smashing oxymoron: but I suggest you stop making stuff up as you go along (unless, of course, you're into creating fiction).

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Conscious awareness requires a means of perceiving material reactions.

If by “material reactions” you actually mean something like “thoughts that rise unbidden from the subconscious”, then yes.

A single entity of awareness cannot be defined by material reactions alone.

Non sequitur – your conclusion doesn’t follow from your premise. You'd know this if you had some understanding of logical argument. Again then: why won’t you find out something about how logically sound arguments should be constructed? Is it:

A. Because you can’t be bothered;

B. Because you’re frightened of the possible consequences if you did;

C. Because you just don’t understand the question; or

D. Something else?

You literally only need answer this with one letter so I really can’t make it any simpler or less onerous for you to do.

[Alan Burns]

Nope - perceiving is a material reaction: something our material brains routinely do.

A material reaction can only cause further material reactions - there is nothing in material science that can define perception of physical reactions.

[Gordon]

A material reaction can only cause further material reactions - there is nothing in material science that can define perception of physical reactions.

Best guess though is that it's material reactions all the way down: maybe stop worrying about definitions, which probably doesn't matter as much as you'd like to think so. Maybe just enjoy the perceptual experiences (those that you become aware of that is).

[torridon]

We cannot change what we know to be true.

And that's determinism, right there.  None of us are free of it.

[Alan Burns]

And that's determinism, right there.  None of us are free of it.

I have never claimed that we are free from determinism.
My contention lies in what determines our human will.
You claim it it determined by the laws of nature which are beyond our personal control.
I witness to the obvious truth that we are in control of our own destiny by the God given power of our human soul.

[Gordon]

I witness to the obvious truth that we are in control of our own destiny by the God given power of our human soul.

Obvious fantasy more like.

[torridon]

I have never claimed that we are free from determinism.
My contention lies in what determines our human will.
You claim it it determined by the laws of nature which are beyond our personal control.
I witness to the obvious truth that we are in control of our own destiny by the God given power of our human soul.

That's not an obvious truth, it is merely your viewpoint.  If human will is determined by the human soul then what determines the will of the human soul ?  Yoi are merely interjecting an unevidenced magical being into the loop, and this offers no real insight or understanding.  You may as well suggest that the Sun is pulled across the sky by invisible angels.  This sort of thinking gets us nowhere.