Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

It all depends on what you consider to be viable evidence.

Since your attitude so far seems to be that any bullshit, unargued assertion of evidence by you is actually unarguably evidence, and nothing anybody else cites as evidence or points out how what you say cannot be possibly be evidence of what you claim it is, I guess you mean evidence is "anything I assert".

That's one reason I wish you'd stop mindlessly repeating your silly mantras and avoidance tactics, and properly engage in answering what others are saying.

Cue avoidance tactic along the lines of "any proper engagement or consideration can only happen if I'm right"...

[Alan Burns]

Since your attitude so far seems to be that any bullshit, unargued assertion of evidence by you is actually unarguably evidence, and nothing anybody else cites as evidence or points out how what you say cannot be possibly be evidence of what you claim it is, I guess you mean evidence is "anything I assert".

That's one reason I wish you'd stop mindlessly repeating your silly mantras and avoidance tactics, and properly engage in answering what others are saying.

Cue avoidance tactic along the lines of "any proper engagement or consideration can only happen if I'm right"...

The evidence I present for our power to consciously guide our own thoughts is our demonstrable ability to reach consciously verified conclusions.
This is not an assertion - it is a simple truth.

So I ask again - if we are unable to consciously guide our own thought processes, then what is responsible for us being able to reach consciously verified conclusions, and how can the conscious verification work without conscious control?

[Nearly Sane]

The evidence I present for our power to consciously guide our own thoughts is our demonstrable ability to reach consciously verified conclusions.
This is not an assertion - it is a simple truth.

So I ask again - if we are unable to consciously guide our own thought processes, then what is responsible for us being able to reach consciously verified conclusions, and how can the conscious verification work without conscious control?

No, that's assertion. Asserting it's the truth does not make a difference.

[Stranger]

The evidence I present for our power to consciously guide our own thoughts is our demonstrable ability to reach consciously verified conclusions.
This is not an assertion - it is a simple truth.

No, it is not, and just mindlessly repeating this assertion, does not make any difference. You haven't even been clear what you mean by "consciously guide our own thoughts" and your changing wording makes makes it even more obscure.

Did you try my experiment yet (#51220)?

Superficially, it means consciously thinking about each conscious thought before we think it, which is obviously absurd. Some time ago, when I pointed this out, and asked for clarification, you provided none.

You seem incapable of departing from your silly mantras or even making them clearer, when asked.

The truth is that we don't know the full extent of "conscious control", or if it exits at all. It's only the way it feels, not the unquestionable truth.

The 'evidence' you offer is also absurd question begging. We are consciously aware of 'verified conclusions', but that is not evidence that it was the conscious mind that did the verification. Even if it was, the fact that we consciously verified something, does not imply conscious control.

Are you really too ignorant of critical thinking, too frightened to think about it logically, or just too dim, to see any of this? Really?

[Maeght]

The evidence I present for our power to consciously guide our own thoughts is our demonstrable ability to reach consciously verified conclusions.
This is not an assertion - it is a simple truth.

So I ask again - if we are unable to consciously guide our own thought processes, then what is responsible for us being able to reach consciously verified conclusions, and how can the conscious verification work without conscious control?

It's an assertion.

[torridon]

..
So I ask again - if we are unable to consciously guide our own thought processes, then what is responsible for us being able to reach consciously verified conclusions, and how can the conscious verification work without conscious control?

Simple answer is - that it is the subconscious mind that is responsible.  Our conscious thoughts are the products of non-conscious neural activity.

[Gordon]

So I ask again - if we are unable to consciously guide our own thought processes, then what is responsible for us being able to reach consciously verified conclusions, and how can the conscious verification work without conscious control?

We don't "consciously guide our own thought processes", which is illogical (as has been frequently pointed out to you), so your bleating on about "consciously verified conclusions" is simply nonsensical.

[Alan Burns]

Simple answer is - that it is the subconscious mind that is responsible.  Our conscious thoughts are the products of non-conscious neural activity.

But you cannot define a conscious thought in material terms.  You can point out correlation between measurable neural activity and thought processing, but this in no way defines what comprises our thoughts or what causes them.  If your postulated scenario is true, we could not have chosen to think say or do anything differently to what has already occurred, and everything we think, say or do in the future will have already been determined before it pops into our conscious awareness.

Is this the reality we live in?

No doubt you will choose to label this as personal incredulity, but any act of belief or non belief will itself be beyond our conscious control, so it is not feasible to label it as "personal" if you have no personal control over what you discern to be true.

Our personal freedom to guide and control our own lives is a God given gift which no amount of misguided, flawed logical thinking can take away.

[Nearly Sane]

But you cannot define a conscious thought in material terms.  You can point out correlation between measurable neural activity and thought processing, but this in no way defines what comprises our thoughts or what causes them.  If your postulated scenario is true, we could not have chosen to think say or do anything differently to what has already occurred, and everything we think, say or do in the future will have already been determined before it pops into our conscious awareness.

Is this the reality we live in?

No doubt you will choose to label this as personal incredulity, but any act of belief or non belief will itself be beyond our conscious control, so it is not feasible to label it as "personal" if you have no personal control over what you believe.

Our personal freedom to guide and control our own lives is a God given gift which no amount of misguided, flawed logical thinking can take away.

He asserted

[Alan Burns]

He asserted

Assertion is a deliberate act.
So how can I take personal responsibility for what unintentionally pops out from subconscious brain activity beyond my personal control?

[Stranger]

But you cannot define a conscious thought in material terms.  You can point out correlation between measurable neural activity and thought processing, but this in no way defines what comprises our thoughts or what causes them.  If your postulated scenario is true, we could not have chosen to think say or do anything differently to what has already occurred, and everything we think, say or do in the future will have already been determined before it pops into our conscious awareness.

Quite apart from this being a series of rather ignorant (uninformed) assertions you are still confusing 'free will' with 'conscious control'. They are not the same thing and are not even logically connected.

Try writing out 1000 times:

My notion of 'free will' has no logical connection with my notion of 'conscious control'.

No doubt you will choose to label this as personal incredulity,...

It is. You seem to know nothing of the subject and are incapable of thinking logically about it.

You could at least try to learn something about consciousness and what it might be doing:

Goole Scholar: "function of consciousness".

From the first link:

[Stranger]

Assertion is a deliberate act.
So how can I take personal responsibility for what unintentionally pops out from subconscious brain activity beyond my personal control?

Alan-bot idiotic avoidance strategy #1. 

[Nearly Sane]

Assertion is a deliberate act.
So how can I take personal responsibility for what unintentionally pops out from subconscious brain activity beyond my personal control?

Good to know you are accepting it's assertion.

As to your second question, it would be useful to address it to Torridon as he's talked about the subconscious and I haven't.


But your confusing two different perspectives in your question. This has been explained to you many times but you just ignore it. On one level, what you might describe as the 'reality we live in', you and I are 'touching' the screens to type, and yet we know that is actually not true. That doesn't stop is talking about touching things.

In your question you confuse how we talk about things on those different levels between a day to day approach, i.e. touching, and a logical scientific approach, i.e. not actually touching. The contrast between those 2 different perspectives does not show the one you want to be true to be so, rather it's just an expression of your desire.

Logically we don't have anything like your idea of free will, since ot makes no logical sense, but we also on a day to day basis talk as if we had such a thing, and as if responsibility makes sense because we have no choice but to do so. I've  picked posters up on this thread who don't believe in free will in the past for doing that switch in perspectives as it's confused thinking, just like you are doing here.

[Alan Burns]

.... you are still confusing 'free will' with 'conscious control'. They are not the same thing and are not even logically connected.

It would appear that you do not understand the notion of human free will.

In order to consciously choose between two or more viable options you need to be consciously aware of what the options are and what the implications of each option will be.  Once an option has been consciously chosen you then need the power to initiate the choice from within your conscious awareness.

Any notion of free will must start from within your conscious awareness and be initiated by an act of conscious control.

[jeremyp]

I am merely witnessing to the power of the human mind which goes beyond anything that can be explained within the limitations of physically determined reactions alone.

How does it go beyond anything that can be explained within the limitations of physically determined reactions?

[jeremyp]

That's a misuse of the term 'begs the question'.

Sorry, but that ship has sailed.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How does it go beyond anything that can be explained within the limitations of physically determined reactions?

Please then explain Consciousness within the limitations of physically determined reactions accounting for any explanatory gaps. Avoid the use of AI if possible.

[Nearly Sane]

Please then explain Consciousness within the limitations of physically determined reactions accounting for any explanatory gaps. Avoid the use of AI if possible.

Alan made the positive claim. As you are often keen to make sure that the people who make positive claims justify them, you should address your challenge to him unless you want to advertise your hypocrisy.

[jeremyp]

The evidence I present for our power to consciously guide our own thoughts is our demonstrable ability to reach consciously verified conclusions.
This is not an assertion - it is a simple truth.

Yes, but who or what are "we"? My claim is that we are the thought processes in our brains. Your claim is that there is some external undetectable entity. I think I am more likely to be right because we know that brains exist and we know that brains engage in complex activity. You just assert the existence of a soul without evidence.

So I ask again - if we are unable to consciously guide our own thought processes, then what is responsible for us being able to reach consciously verified conclusions, and how can the conscious verification work without conscious control?

I don't claim that we can't consciously guide our thought processes. For example, I have a doctor's appointment this afternoon. Knowing that, I can consciously decide to think about what time I need to get there, how I'm going to get there and when I need to leave. However, there are many external factors and subconscious factors that lead me to make my decision to think about my travel arrangements. There doesn't need to be any free will involved at all.

[jeremyp]

Please then explain Consciousness within the limitations of physically determined reactions accounting for any explanatory gaps. Avoid the use of AI if possible.

Please write something intelligible - in English if possible.

[Stranger]

It would appear that you do not understand the notion of human free will.

Says somebody who seems to know exactly nothing about it except how it subjectively feels.

Look, your impossible version of free will is "you could have done differently without that difference being random". This could apply (if it wasn't logically impossible) regardless of the role of consciousness, even if consciousness is just an epiphenomenon, with no actual control at all.

Conversely, even if consciousness had total control (also impossible), we could still have no (impossible) free will in that sense because all the contents off consciousness could be entirely the result of nature, nurture, and experience.

This is simple, simple, basic logic.

In order to consciously choose....

Begging the question fallacy, and totally irrelevant to boot...

[jeremyp]

Please then explain Consciousness within the limitations of physically determined reactions accounting for any explanatory gaps. Avoid the use of AI if possible.

I see NS was better able to decipher your post than I was and it turns out to be just another shifting of the burden of evidence attempt.

I'm not claiming to understand how consciousness arises from the processes in the brain. I claim it does because there is no evidence of anything else being involved. Alan claims there is something else involved but his sole argument for why there is something else involved is that he doesn't understand how our conscious thoughts can arise from physical processes in our brain. He is essentially saying "I don't understand it, therefore, it is false". The is called "the argument from personal incredulity" and it has no validity.

[Alan Burns]

Conversely, even if consciousness had total control (also impossible), we could still have no (impossible) free will in that sense because all the contents off consciousness could be entirely the result of nature, nurture, and experience.

No
Your conscious awareness comprises far more than nature, nurture, and experience.
You seem unable to grasp the true reality of what comprises you and the power you have to consciously interact rather than react with this world.
You may be consciously aware of nature, nurture and experience but they do not fully define you or what you choose to do with your life.
I have done my best to enlighten you to the amazing power given to you through your human soul, but you seem to be blinkered by your conviction that  at every moment in your life you could not possibly choose to do anything other than what is dictated by what you deem to be "nature, nurture and experience".  This may well be true for animals, but humans have the demonstrable power to consciously contemplate their reality and choose their own destiny.

[Nearly Sane]

No
Your conscious awareness comprises far more than nature, nurture, and experience.
You seem unable to grasp the true reality of what comprises you and the power you have to consciously interact rather than react with this world.
You may be consciously aware of nature, nurture and experience but they do not fully define you or what you choose to do with your life.
I have done my best to enlighten you to the amazing power given to you through your human soul, but you seem to be blinkered by your conviction that  at every moment in your life you could not possibly choose to do anything other than what is dictated by what you deem to be "nature, nurture and experience".  This may well be true for animals, but humans have the demonstrable power to consciously contemplate their reality and choose their own destiny.

More assertions, no argument, no evidence.

[Maeght]

No
Your conscious awareness comprises far more than nature, nurture, and experience.
You seem unable to grasp the true reality of what comprises you and the power you have to consciously interact rather than react with this world.
You may be consciously aware of nature, nurture and experience but they do not fully define you or what you choose to do with your life.
I have done my best to enlighten you to the amazing power given to you through your human soul, but you seem to be blinkered by your conviction that  at every moment in your life you could not possibly choose to do anything other than what is dictated by what you deem to be "nature, nurture and experience".  This may well be true for animals, but humans have the demonstrable power to consciously contemplate their reality and choose their own destiny.

He asserted.

This is all very familiar - sure I've posted this response several times before to this same post .........