Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

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.

More pointless, unargued baseless assertions. 

I have done my best to enlighten you to the amazing power given to you through your human soul....

Really? If mindless, unargued assertion is doing your best to 'enlighten' me, then you must be really, really dim. I suspect, instead, that you're just being lazy.

I've suggested may times that you learn some critical thinking so you can do better, but I either get ignored or you use one of your lazy, thought-free diversion tactics along the lines of "for any critical thinking to happen, I must be right".

...but you seem to be blinkered by your conviction....

Irony overload!!

...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 lazy and baseless assertion (and humans are animals). And you keep using the word 'demonstrable' but you've never once demonstrated it or even explained how it could possibly be demonstrated, even in principle. More lazy, illogical, subjective nonsense, that a moment of logical thought would show you wrong it is.

All anybody else can see is what you end up doing. You cannot possibly demonstrate that you could have done differently, let alone that any difference wasn't random. FFS, even a reasonably intelligent child could see that!

You are making a total fool of yourself. Why not grow the fuck up and learn how to argue with logic and evidence, instead of endlessly repeating the same dimwitted assertions.

[ekim]

This begs the question of what determines our desire, and how does this desire get fulfilled?
And what controls the mental gymnastics needed to come up with these ideas?
Are we just slaves to the uncontrollable consequences of material reactions - or could there be something more?

Here are possible answers to your 4 questions:

Desire could be seen as the result of an attraction to pleasure or happiness or the avoidance of suffering and unhappiness.  In religious terms - attaining to Heaven and avoidance of Hell.

The fulfilment of the desire could be seen, figuratively, as the result of reducing the space between the desired pleasurable objective  and your present condition or maximising that space in the case of a feared condition.

I'm not sure that 'control' would be the right word.  The relative strength of desires and fears are more likely to be the driving force and this can be influenced by the ability to introduce imagination into the equation.

As regards your question about being slaves to these reactions, I think if you look at human history, it has become very difficult to transcend them, particularly as there are those who use desire and fear to influence or create a mass mind. This has the effect of creating even greater slavery and addiction.

[Alan Burns]

All anybody else can see is what you end up doing. You cannot possibly demonstrate that you could have done differently, let alone that any difference wasn't random. FFS, even a reasonably intelligent child could see that!

Let us contemplate the scenario where every event in our life is entirely dictated by past events beyond our conscious control.
I know I have asked this several times but I have not yet had a feasible answer:

In this scenario, what can possibly be accountable for guiding our thoughts to reach verifiable conclusions?

The fact that we do have the ability to reach verified conclusions is evidence of our freedom to consciously guide our thoughts to reach consciously chosen goals and come to valid conclusions. 

[Nearly Sane]

Let us contemplate the scenario where every event in our life is entirely dictated by past events beyond our conscious control.
I know I have asked this several times but I have not yet had a feasible answer:

In this scenario, what can possibly be accountable for guiding our thoughts to reach verifiable conclusions?

The fact that we do have the ability to reach verified conclusions is evidence of our freedom to consciously guide our thoughts to reach consciously chosen goals and come to valid conclusions.

No, it isn't.

It's also not a fact, but that's a whole other issue.

[Maeght]

Let us contemplate the scenario where every event in our life is entirely dictated by past events beyond our conscious control.
I know I have asked this several times but I have not yet had a feasible answer:

In this scenario, what can possibly be accountable for guiding our thoughts to reach verifiable conclusions?

Nature and nurture. How the brain is wired.

The fact that we do have the ability to reach verified conclusions is evidence of our freedom to consciously guide our thoughts to reach consciously chosen goals and come to valid conclusions.

It's not a fact and isn't evidence for 'freedom'.

[torridon]

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?
..

Yes it is the reality we live in, or at least, that is how is seems to me.  I've never been able to choose which thought should occur to me next.  Thoughts occur, they 'pop into our conscious awareness', as you say, but we do not consciously choose them. 'Choosing' which thought should come next would itself be a thought process, and so this would be an infinite regress; it does not really work that way. If we could choose our thoughts, then why did we have to wait two thousand years for Newton to come along with a unified theory of gravity. His thought was triggered by something, perhaps by the falling of an apple.  If we could simply choose to have these thoughts then why did Aristotle not choose to have it ?

[Stranger]

Seriously Alan, more lazy thought-free nonsense...?

Let us contemplate the scenario where every event in our life is entirely dictated by past events beyond our conscious control.

You mean the case in which the past has formed you and how you make your choices according to who the past has made you, rather than the one that involves an impossible contradiction?

I know I have asked this several times but I have not yet had a feasible answer:

Since you seem to be lazily regurgitating your decades old script, rather than bothering to think about anything anybody else says, I expect that you are just rejecting any answers you get that don't agree with you as not being 'feasible'.

You've actually had many answers that are totally consistent with everything we observe, and are therefore clearly feasible. What you mean is that you don't like them as they conflict with your blind faith.

In this scenario, what can possibly be accountable for guiding our thoughts to reach verifiable conclusions?

Your brain. A sophisticated, evolved organ used for thinking, using its accumulated education, knowledge, and experience.

The fact that we do have the ability to reach verified conclusions is evidence of our freedom to consciously guide our thoughts to reach consciously chosen goals and come to valid conclusions.

Another lazy, thought-free, baseless assertion, endlessly repeated as if by a mindless bot. There is zero evidence that the conscious mind is in control of the process, it's clearly impossible that it's in total control, and plenty of indicative evidence that it isn't in control at all.

Hence, our ability is not even the most tentative of evidence, let alone an actual demonstration (which was supposed to be the point, given the part of my post you quoted) of either 'conscious control' or your absurd version of free will. And you still don't seem to have got it into your head that these two are different claims, see #51235 and #51245, which (what a surprise!) you never properly addressed, but just posted pointless, lazy thought-free contradiction.

Are you ever going to apply your supposedly Mensa level intelligence to this and stop with the mindless chatbot level responses, or even read and properly respond even as a normal human, giving at least some attention to the points raised?

[Gordon]

Let us contemplate the scenario where every event in our life is entirely dictated by past events beyond our conscious control.
I know I have asked this several times but I have not yet had a feasible answer:

In principle, yes.

In this scenario, what can possibly be accountable for guiding our thoughts to reach verifiable conclusions?

This bit of your mantra (the 'accountable' and 'verifiable' nonsense) is a non sequitur.

The fact that we do have the ability to reach verified conclusions is evidence of our freedom to consciously guide our thoughts to reach consciously chosen goals and come to valid conclusions.

This isn't a fact - it just feels that way to you because it fits your personal traits and preferences, but what you feel makes no logical sense. For example, how does the existence of irrational fears, and the often instant and intrusive thoughts that can follow in certain circumstances (in my case food phobias), fit your outlook? I experience no feelings of 'verification' should I encounter noxious substances posing as food and nor do I feel 'accountable' for my immediate reaction, since no deliberation is involved - it just happens to me. 

[jeremyp]

Let us contemplate the scenario where every event in our life is entirely dictated by past events beyond our conscious control.
I know I have asked this several times but I have not yet had a feasible answer:

In this scenario, what can possibly be accountable for guiding our thoughts to reach verifiable conclusions?

The answer to that question is us. However, we are the product of our brains and their organisation and activity.

The fact that we do have the ability to reach verified conclusions is evidence of our freedom to consciously guide our thoughts to reach consciously chosen goals and come to valid conclusions.

Let me ask you a question. If you had your life again from scratch and all the events you experienced were exactly the same, what makes you think you would do anything differently than the first time?

[Alan Burns]

This isn't a fact - it just feels that way to you because it fits your personal traits and preferences, but what you feel makes no logical sense. For example, how does the existence of irrational fears, and the often instant and intrusive thoughts that can follow in certain circumstances (in my case food phobias), fit your outlook? I experience no feelings of 'verification' should I encounter noxious substances posing as food and nor do I feel 'accountable' for my immediate reaction, since no deliberation is involved - it just happens to me.

The example you quote is a natural phobia which is beyond your conscious control.

My post was concerning our ability to consciously guide our thought processes to reach a consciously chosen goal which involves verifiable conclusions.

One example being Darwin's development of his theory of evolution.
It involves being consciously aware of many aspects of life forms, then contemplating these observations and deliberately guiding his thought processes to reach verifiable conclusions about how species evolved over time through the process of natural selection.  It all happens within the context of conscious awareness and conscious control of thought processes.  Remove the ability of conscious control and he would have as much chance of reaching his goal as a blindfolded driver reaching London on the M1.

[Nearly Sane]

The example you quote is a natural phobia which is beyond your conscious control.

My post was concerning our ability to consciously guide our thought processes to reach a consciously chosen goal which involves verifiable conclusions.

One example being Darwin's development of his theory of evolution.
It involves being consciously aware of many aspects of life forms, then contemplating these observations and deliberately guiding his thought processes to reach verifiable conclusions about how species evolved over time through the process of natural selection.  It all happens within the context of conscious awareness and conscious control of thought processes.  Remove the ability of conscious control and he would have as much chance of reaching his goal as a blindfolded driver reaching London on the M1.

Hard solipsism

[Stranger]

My post was concerning our ability to consciously guide our thought processes to reach a consciously chosen goal which involves verifiable conclusions.

One example being Darwin's development of his theory of evolution.
It involves being consciously aware of many aspects of life forms, then contemplating these observations and deliberately guiding his thought processes to reach verifiable conclusions about how species evolved over time through the process of natural selection.  It all happens within the context of conscious awareness and conscious control of thought processes.  Remove the ability of conscious control and he would have as much chance of reaching his goal as a blindfolded driver reaching London on the M1.

Yet another lazy, evidence- and thought-free assertion of how you want to believe things work. Applying a baseless and impossible idea to a random example, doesn't make it any less baseless and impossible.

Do you really not see the difference between baseless assertions and a rational argument? Seriously?

In fact torridon's post #51255 (that you just ignored) contains an accurate account of how thought processes work.

This is clearly true for any problem solving. Thoughts occur to you, you don't, an cannot possibly, consciously choose what occurs to you because that would be another thought process that would rely on what happens to occur to you, and we'd be off into an infinite regress.

You must have had the experience of working on a problem, not getting far with it, but then, sometimes the next day, something different or a new approach will occur to you, and you make further progress?

That's why I say that you appear to have not even of done any basic introspection. It's perfectly obvious that, at the very least, your subconscious mind is doing most of the work.

I've even had the experience of solving a complex technical problem in my sleep. I spent most of a day working on it and got next to nowhere, gave up for the day, consciously forgot about it, had a nice dinner, couple of glasses of wine, went to sleep. When I woke up the next day and remembered the problem, I immediately had a new solution without a single moment of conscious contemplation. It was exactly right. Problem entirely solved.

[Gordon]

The example you quote is a natural phobia which is beyond your conscious control.

True, but then, and unfortunately for you, that seems to apply to all my other thoughts as well. In less acute terms I have an active dislike of all forms of dancing: that seems intrinsic to 'me' and requires no 'accountability', 'conscious guiding' or 'verification' whatsoever.

My post was concerning our ability to consciously guide our thought processes to reach a consciously chosen goal which involves verifiable conclusions.

So - did I consciously choose to dislike dancing for which the evidence is my dislike of dancing? Even you must be able to see the problems with that approach.

One example being Darwin's development of his theory of evolution.
It involves being consciously aware of many aspects of life forms, then contemplating these observations and deliberately guiding his thought processes to reach verifiable conclusions about how species evolved over time through the process of natural selection.  It all happens within the context of conscious awareness and conscious control of thought processes.  Remove the ability of conscious control and he would have as much chance of reaching his goal as a blindfolded driver reaching London on the M1.

That we can, as a species, do a bit of reasoning is not news: it's just how our evolved biology works.

[Aruntraveller]

did I consciously choose to dislike dancing for which the evidence is my dislike of dancing?

Nah - it was your dislike of sequins!

[Gordon]

Nah - it was your dislike of sequins!

That too

[Alan Burns]

When I woke up the next day and remembered the problem, I immediately had a new solution without a single moment of conscious contemplation. It was exactly right. Problem entirely solved.

And how did you manage to verify that it was exactly right without conscious contemplation?

[Spud]

Is this still the discussion about whether free will exists?

[jeremyp]

Is this still the discussion about whether free will exists?

No, that was resolved 243 pages ago. We came to the conclusion that free will is an incoherent concept and can't exist. None of those people who asserted its existence could provide any evidence to show that they were correct or refute the consensus.

[Alan Burns]

No, that was resolved 243 pages ago. We came to the conclusion that free will is an incoherent concept and can't exist. None of those people who asserted its existence could provide any evidence to show that they were correct or refute the consensus.

The evidence for human free will is truly in abundance, but a tiny minority of people try to deny its existence because it offers evidence for the power of our human soul.

[Nearly Sane]

The evidence for human free will is truly in abundance, but a tiny minority of people try to deny its existence because it offers evidence for the power of our human soul.

Then why not present the 'evidence' - note your incredulity isn't evidence. You haven't even managed a logically coherent definition of your version of free will.

Nice attempt to use the ad populum fallacy, and to accuse everyone challenging you of lying.

[Stranger]

And how did you manage to verify that it was exactly right without conscious contemplation?

Experiment.

And please stop being so fucking lazy (unless you want to admit you actually are as unintelligent as your posts suggest).

Clipping out a small part of a long post so you can just mindlessly repeat one of your silly assertions or mindless questions and move on, is either stupid, lazy, or simply dishonest.

Even the bit you clipped out ignored the fact that I did something you said required the impossible nonsense of 'conscious control' entirely unconsciously, That's quite apart from totally ignoring the point about thought occurring to us rather than consciously choosing them.

The evidence for human free will is truly in abundance, but a tiny minority of people try to deny its existence because it offers evidence for the power of our human soul.

Simply untrue. This is either a lie or another example of stupidity or laziness (ignoring all the times your supposed 'evidence' has been shown to be nothing of the sort).

[Maeght]

The evidence for human free will is truly in abundance, but a tiny minority of people try to deny its existence because it offers evidence for the power of our human soul.

You do keep making these assertions. It's almost as if you can't help yourself.

[Sebastian Toe]

And how did you manage to verify that it was exactly right without conscious contemplation?

How do YOU manage to consciously contemplate without recourse to entities that require magic to exist nevermind process thoughts?

[Sebastian Toe]

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.

I'm fascinated to know if your soul is able to think independently whilst you are unconscious?

[Alan Burns]

How do YOU manage to consciously contemplate without recourse to entities that require magic to exist nevermind process thoughts?

It is not magic.  Magic is an illusion.
Our ability to guide our own thoughts is no illusion.
It is verified by our conscious ability to validate our conclusions.
Our freedom to consciously contemplate and draw verifiable conclusions and cast judgements is a miraculous gift from God - not from the uncontrollable laws of nature.