Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

I entirely agree that to contemplate this with our limited knowledge of reality will lead to the inevitable conclusion that our freedom to consciously control our own thought processes is a logical impossibility.  But the fact that we are able to consciously reach such a conclusion defies the conclusion itself.  The only conclusion we can have is that we do not know enough about reality to be able to make such a conclusion.

in what way does it defy the conclusion?

And you seem to be saying that logically the conclusion is a logical impossibility, and that logically that makes the opposite true at the same time.

[Outrider]

I entirely agree that to contemplate this with our limited knowledge of reality will lead to the inevitable conclusion that our freedom to consciously control our own thought processes is a logical impossibility.

So it's the logical conclusion, but you don't hold to it.

But the fact that we are able to consciously reach such a conclusion defies the conclusion itself.

How? How does 'consciousness' result in 'therefore cause and effect no longer applies'?

The only conclusion we can have is that we do not know enough about reality to be able to make such a conclusion.

No. The only conclusion we can have is that, with the information available, it seems as though consciousness arises from material processes. That's not just consistent with the observations, but it doesn't have any demonstrable gaps or holes. If further information comes to light, sure, we can re-evaluate, but the conclusion for now at least is that consciousness is a material process like digestion.

O.

[Stranger]

I entirely agree that to contemplate this with our limited knowledge of reality will lead to the inevitable conclusion that our freedom to consciously control our own thought processes is a logical impossibility.

Good grief, do you never pay any attention to anything? "Consciously control our own thought processes" leads immediately to an infinite regress, but it wouldn't matter a jot to the impossibly of your nonsense version of free will even if it made sense.

There is no logical connection between the role of consciousness and the impossibility of your self-contradictory notion of free will.

None, zero, zilch, nada, zip, diddly-squat, nothing.

They are both impossible nonsense, but for entirely different reasons.

But the fact that we are able to consciously reach such a conclusion defies the conclusion itself.  The only conclusion we can have is that we do not know enough about reality to be able to make such a conclusion.

This is just more logic- and thought-free simplistic acceptence of how things subjectively seem. "It seems this way, therefore it is this way." We know that this 'reasoning' is flawed from any number of other examples in which things are just not as they seem.

Another quote from Seth:

"A conscious intention is as real as a visual experience of colour. Neither corresponds directly to any definite property of the world – there is no ‘real red’ or ‘real blue’ out there, just as there is no spooky free will in here – but they both contribute in important ways to guiding our behaviour..."

[torridon]

Our freedom to talk about it is all the proof you need to know that your free will is a reality.
No amount of convoluted critical thinking can take away this simple truth.

The freedom to talk about these things owes to the fact that no one is stopping us - this is a reflection on the society live in, where freedom of speech is generally held to be a good thing.

This says nothing in support of the phiiosphical position of free will which is logically incoherent. Everything we say owes to what we want to say, and this is not something we can be free of.

[torridon]

I have yet to see a feasible explanation for how critical thinking can take place without our freedom to consciously guide the thought processes involved in reaching consciously verified conclusions.  A freedom which your flawed logic denies.  How can you possibly give credence to the inevitable consequences of whatever drops out from physically driven brain cells?

And yet our thoughts are indeed manifestations of all the 'physically driven brain cells'. Incredulity at the findings of science does not licence 'it must be magic', which is all your position boils down to.

[Nearly Sane]

The freedom to talk about these things owes to the fact that no one is stopping us - this is a reflection on the society live in, where freedom of speech is generally held to be a good thing.

This says nothing in support of the phiiosphical position of free will which is logically incoherent. Everything we say owes to what we want to say, and this is not something we can be free of.

If we argue it is a good thing  we argue Alan's idea of free will is correct

[Stranger]

If we argue it is a good thing  we argue Alan's idea of free will is correct

Your reasoning is....... missing.

Also, since Alan's version of free will is self-contradictory, it means that we can logically derive literally anything is true from it, and its negation. So, if Alan is right, his God exists and does not exist. We have any version of free will you care to name and we don't have the same version. Unicorns exist and they don't exist. Square circles exist and are impossible. Everything is good and everything is evil.

The last, of course, meaning that you cannot possibly derive a meaningful version of 'good' from Alan's fantasy world, somewhat undermining the missing argument, whatever it is.

Principle of explosion.

[Nearly Sane]

Your reasoning is....... missing.

Also, since Alan's version of free will is self-contradictory, it means that we can logically derive literally anything is true from it, and its negation. So, if Alan is right, his God exists and does not exist. We have any version of free will you care to name and we don't have the same version. Unicorns exist and they don't exist. Square circles exist and are impossible. Everything is good and everything is evil.

The last, of course, meaning that you cannot possibly derive a meaningful version of 'good' from Alan's fantasy world, somewhat undermining the missing argument, whatever it is.

Principle of explosion.

So, I think you are completely confused by the Principle of Explosion. It doesn't make you right for denying it which seems to be your position. Hard to tell because you are not writing clearly.

You also seem to think I'm justifying Alan's ideas which my post doesn't. Rather it points that 'good' in that approach is based on  an acceptance of Alan's badly thought out ideas.

[Stranger]

So, I think you are completely confused by the Principle of Explosion.

Feel free to explain.

It doesn't make you right for denying it which seems to be your position.

Eh? Denying what?

Hard to tell because you are not writing clearly.

I'm not writing clearly?

You also seem to think I'm justifying Alan's ideas which my post doesn't. Rather it points that 'good' in that approach is based on  an acceptance of Alan's badly thought out ideas.

You can't get to 'good' from Alan's self-contradictory version of free will, because, however you define it, you can prove it is also 'bad' from the contradiction, so saying 'good' cannot possibly be accepting Alan's version of free will.

[jeremyp]

If we argue it is a good thing  we argue Alan's idea of free will is correct

Nonsense

[Alan Burns]

How? How does 'consciousness' result in 'therefore cause and effect no longer applies'?

It is not just consciousness alone which is in question, but what determines what occurs within our conscious awareness.

If consciousness is solely a consequence of time related cause and effect events then whatever emerges into our conscious awareness will have already been determined by past events beyond our conscious control.  So in this scenario we can have no conscious control over what we perceive to be logical deductions and verified conclusions.  Also, there would be no conscious control involved in arriving at judgements over what is deemed to be correct. 

In arriving at valid deductions and conclusions there must be some means of controlling the processes involved - so in the materialistic time related "cause and effect" scenario what is responsible for ensuring the correctness of every step involved in arriving at a conclusion and what  performs the judgement over whether a conclusion is valid?

To sum up:
If our conscious self is not in control - what is in control? - and what validates the effectiveness of the control needed to reach consciously perceived conclusions?

[Alan Burns]

Also, since Alan's version of free will is self-contradictory, it means that we can logically derive literally anything is true from it, and its negation. So, if Alan is right, his God exists and does not exist. We have any version of free will you care to name and we don't have the same version. Unicorns exist and they don't exist. Square circles exist and are impossible. Everything is good and everything is evil.

You are totally mistaken about the concept of free will.

It is simply our freedom to consciously control what we do, think or say.

We do not have the freedom to change reality.
We do not have the freedom to choose what we want to be true.

[Stranger]

It is not just consciousness alone which is in question, but what determines what occurs within our conscious awareness.

If consciousness is solely a consequence of time related cause and effect events then whatever emerges into our conscious awareness will have already been determined by past events beyond our conscious control.  So in this scenario we can have no conscious control over what we perceive to be logical deductions and verified conclusions.  Also, there would be no conscious control involved in arriving at judgements over what is deemed to be correct. 

In arriving at valid deductions and conclusions there must be some means of controlling the processes involved - so in the materialistic time related "cause and effect" scenario what is responsible for ensuring the correctness of every step involved in arriving at a conclusion and what  performs the judgement over whether a conclusion is valid?

To sum up:
If our conscious self is not in control - what is in control? - and what validates the effectiveness of the control needed to reach consciously perceived conclusions?

What on earth makes you think that repeating the same old, empty-headed drivel is going to achieve? You must have posted this dimwitted script goodness knows how many times, what's the point?

Yet again for the hard-of-thinking: You are in control, i.e. the person that the past has made you. You cannot be free of being you, it's an insane idea. You do what you want and what you want is the result of who you are, and who you are is the result of nature,nurture, and experience.

You cannot break out of cause and effect determinism without introducing mindless randomness.

[Stranger]

You are totally mistaken about the concept of free will.

It is simply our freedom to consciously control what we do, think or say.

Even if "consciously control what we do, think or say", wasn't a blindingly obvious infinite regress, that isn't the problem with the nonsense version of free will you keep claiming.

You can't have the ability to have done differently in exactly the same situation, without that difference being random, because there cannot be a reason for it if everything is exactly the same.

We do not have the freedom to change reality.
We do not have the freedom to choose what we want to be true.

How about you stop trying?

[Alan Burns]

What on earth makes you think that repeating the same old, empty-headed drivel is going to achieve? You must have posted this dimwitted script goodness knows how many times, what's the point?

Yet again for the hard-of-thinking: You are in control, i.e. the person that the past has made you. You cannot be free of being you, it's an insane idea. You do what you want and what you want is the result of who you are, and who you are is the result of nature,nurture, and experience.

You cannot break out of cause and effect determinism without introducing mindless randomness.

You are contradicting yourself.
If you are in control, it is your conscious self which is in control - not the past events beyond your conscious control.  You are your conscious self.

So I ask again - in a time related cause and effect scenario where every event will be an inevitable uncontrollable reaction to past events, what is in control of thought processes needed to reach consciously verified conclusions?  How is this control achieved?

[Outrider]

It is not just consciousness alone which is in question, but what determines what occurs within our conscious awareness.

If consciousness is solely a consequence of time related cause and effect events then whatever emerges into our conscious awareness will have already been determined by past events beyond our conscious control.

Yes.

So in this scenario we can have no conscious control over what we perceive to be logical deductions and verified conclusions.

Yes.

Also, there would be no conscious control involved in arriving at judgements over what is deemed to be correct.

Yes. 

In arriving at valid deductions and conclusions there must be some means of controlling the processes involved - so in the materialistic time related "cause and effect" scenario what is responsible for ensuring the correctness of every step involved in arriving at a conclusion and what  performs the judgement over whether a conclusion is valid?

What? Why does there have to be conscious control? There is a system - a biological algorithm, if you like - that arises from our intrinsic, inherited characteristics and our experiences, which 'programmes' us to respond in a particular way. For some of us that includes the ability to spot logical fallacies, for instance.

To sum up: If our conscious self is not in control - what is in control?

Our subconscious.

and what validates the effectiveness of the control needed to reach consciously perceived conclusions?

That conscious perception and justification of our conclusion isn't control, it's post event realisation - yes, the subconscious activity that leads to it is part of the elaborate feedback processing of our minds, but the fact that we become consciously aware of it doesn't elevate it in some way to something else, it's still a brain process that's already happened unbidden.

O.

[Stranger]

Alan, are you a real human, or the poorly coded chatbot that your posts suggest?

The mindless, thought-free, nonsensical, pointless repetition just goes on and on...

You are contradicting yourself.

No. The only contradictions are your twin absurdities of "conscious control of our own thoughts" and your impossible, self-contradictory concept of free will.

If you are in control, it is your conscious self which is in control....

Drivel. A human mind is much more than its consciousness.

You are your conscious self.

Drivel, see above.

How is this control achieved?

You are not free to redefine the word 'control' to suit your mindless nonsense. The human brain (mind) is the relevant control system because it is that that is talking in the inputs and producing the outputs. The fact that the way your mind works is the result of the past, does not change that.

[torridon]

You are contradicting yourself.
If you are in control, it is your conscious self which is in control - not the past events beyond your conscious control.  You are your conscious self.

So I ask again - in a time related cause and effect scenario where every event will be an inevitable uncontrollable reaction to past events, what is in control of thought processes needed to reach consciously verified conclusions?  How is this control achieved?

It is deeper levels of mind that are 'in control', processing inputs and producing outputs and part of those outputs is your conscious self, a mental projection that situates our sense of being, agency and personhood.  A bit like a self driving taxi of the future that features a hologrammatic driver, the hologram does not actually do the driving, but serves the purpose of appearing to be in control when in fact real control lies in the underlying software.

[Alan Burns]

What? Why does there have to be conscious control? There is a system - a biological algorithm, if you like - that arises from our intrinsic, inherited characteristics and our experiences, which 'programmes' us to respond in a particular way.

So in this scenario of unavoidable reactions to past events, what deems the consequences of your biological algorithms to be superior to mine?  What makes and guides the judgement?

[Outrider]

So in this scenario of unavoidable reactions to past events, what deems the consequences of your biological algorithms to be superior to mine?

Logical consistency. Effectiveness. Accuracy. Exactly the things that would make them better if, somehow, conscious control were real - the arguments are either valid or they're not, regardless of whether we're in some sort of conscious control of creating them.

What makes and guides the judgement?

History - in the sense of inclinations we inherit, and the changes wrought upon those inclinations by our lifetime of experiences.

O.

[Alan Burns]

You are not free to redefine the word 'control' to suit your mindless nonsense. The human brain (mind) is the relevant control system because it is that that is talking in the inputs and producing the outputs. The fact that the way your mind works is the result of the past, does not change that.

You are so tied up with advanced logical theory that you fail to see the blindingly obvious impossibility for any form of rational thinking to somehow emerge from unavoidable, inevitable reactions to past events.  Conscious control of thought processes is essential for any form of rational thinking to be performed.

[jeremyp]

It is not just consciousness alone which is in question, but what determines what occurs within our conscious awareness.

If consciousness is solely a consequence of time related cause and effect events then whatever emerges into our conscious awareness will have already been determined by past events beyond our conscious control.  So in this scenario we can have no conscious control over what we perceive to be logical deductions and verified conclusions.  Also, there would be no conscious control involved in arriving at judgements over what is deemed to be correct. 

In arriving at valid deductions and conclusions there must be some means of controlling the processes involved - so in the materialistic time related "cause and effect" scenario what is responsible for ensuring the correctness of every step involved in arriving at a conclusion and what  performs the judgement over whether a conclusion is valid?

To sum up:
If our conscious self is not in control - what is in control? - and what validates the effectiveness of the control needed to reach consciously perceived conclusions?

Our conscious self is in control. It's jut that our conscious self is a deterministic (probably) "machine" built from neurones and their connections.

[Stranger]

You are so tied up with advanced logical theory that you fail to see the blindingly obvious impossibility for any form of rational thinking to somehow emerge from unavoidable, inevitable reactions to past events.  Conscious control of thought processes is essential for any form of rational thinking to be performed.

Somebody really needs to update the Alan-bot.   

The logic is not at all advanced, it's really rather straightforward. There is no "blindingly obvious impossibility", otherwise you'd be able to argue for it instead of all the childish foot-stamping. Your view is a shallow, simplistic impression you get if you never think about it much and never do any honest introspection.

There are actually many things that are far more "blindingly obvious", and provably wrong.

[Alan Burns]

The logic is not at all advanced, it's really rather straightforward. There is no "blindingly obvious impossibility", otherwise you'd be able to argue for it instead of all the childish foot-stamping. Your view is a shallow, simplistic impression you get if you never think about it much and never do any honest introspection.

The logic is simple.
Time related cause and effect reactions are what they are - uncontrollable reactions cannot provide the control needed to drive rational thought processes to reach consciously verified conclusions

There is no feasible explanation for how rational thought processes can emerge from uncontrolled material reactions..

[Stranger]

The logic is simple.
Time related cause and effect reactions are what they are - uncontrollable reactions cannot provide the control needed to drive rational thought processes to reach consciously verified conclusions

There is no feasible explanation for how rational thought processes can emerge from uncontrolled material reactions..

Alan-bot's stuck in a loop. As you were told last time you posted this crap, it isn't logic, it just assertion, apparently based on an incredulity fallacy.