Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

You appear to have dodged this simple question - so I ask you again:

So please enlighten me -
If logic is not derived from consciously controlled thought processes which lead to consciously verifiable conclusions, where does it derive from?

More comedy. Oh, and I missed begging the question. You assumed that "consciously controlled thought processes which lead to consciously verifiable conclusions" actually means anything. It really doesn't. We can't possibly consciously control our thought processes, it's ludicrous gibberish.

Oh, and how "logic is derived" (whatever the fuck you mean by that) doesn't really matter. Asking a question nobody can answer, and then claiming it's an argument for your nonsense, is the argument from ignorance fallacy.

So, the catalogue of your dimwitted logical blunders (fallacies and just nonsense) now stands at:
Personal incredulity.
Nonsense phrases.
Argument from ignorance.
Begging the question.

I was going to say "back to the drawing board" but that would imply that you'd made some effort to construct a logical argument to begin with. You don't appear to have ever done so. Your posts to date have been 100% logic-free.

[Stranger]

I fully agree that the complexity we perceive in the workings of the human brain is beyond our human comprehension.

But no amount of physically driven complexity can alter the fact that a material brain will be entirely driven by the laws of physics and chemistry - and we cannot control the laws of physics and chemistry.  So it is a simple logical deduction that the output from a material brain will be determined by uncontrollable material reactions.

So without the freedom to consciously control our thought processes - how do we consciously verify the correctness of the conclusions we make?

You can't even be bothered to think of new ways to phrase your foolishness. Clearly you've put exactly zero effort into your argument, so why should we bother to put any effort into responding?

[Gordon]

perhaps you can answer this simple question then:

So please enlighten me -
If logic is not derived from consciously controlled thought processes which lead to consciously verifiable conclusions, where does it derive from?

You seem to be marooned in 'not even wrong' territory.

[Maeght]

It is not a question of incredulity.
It is simply a total impossibility - derived from the simple logic that any consciously confirmed logical deduction requires guidance and control of the thought processes needed to reach and confirm such conclusions.  You imagine that such guidance and control can simply drop out from the uncontrollable material reactions occurring in a material brain.  Any reasoning or evidence you come up with must be a consequence of your ability to consciously compose and confirm such reasoning.  Why can't you understand this simple logic?  Are you afraid of the consequences of admitting that you do have the conscious freedom needed perform such reasoning?  Where you go wrong is not in the reasoning itself - it is perfectly sound reasoning which you use to conclude that our conscious freedom is a logical impossibility, but it is only a logical impossibility from the materialistic premise.

Do not be afraid - you are made in God's image.

No, it is incredulity.

[Maeght]

I fully agree that the complexity we perceive in the workings of the human brain is beyond our human comprehension.

But no amount of physically driven complexity can alter the fact that a material brain will be entirely driven by the laws of physics and chemistry - and we cannot control the laws of physics and chemistry.  So it is a simple logical deduction that the output from a material brain will be determined by uncontrollable material reactions.

So without the freedom to consciously control our thought processes - how do we consciously verify the correctness of the conclusions we make?

So it is beyond human comprehension yet you claim to know something about it.

[Alan Burns]

More comedy. Oh, and I missed begging the question. You assumed that "consciously controlled thought processes which lead to consciously verifiable conclusions" actually means anything. It really doesn't. We can't possibly consciously control our thought processes, it's ludicrous gibberish.

Oh, and how "logic is derived" (whatever the fuck you mean by that) doesn't really matter. Asking a question nobody can answer, and then claiming it's an argument for your nonsense, is the argument from ignorance fallacy.

So, the catalogue of your dimwitted logical blunders (fallacies and just nonsense) now stands at:
Personal incredulity.
Nonsense phrases.
Argument from ignorance.
Begging the question.

I was going to say "back to the drawing board" but that would imply that you'd made some effort to construct a logical argument to begin with. You don't appear to have ever done so. Your posts to date have been 100% logic-free.

Sorry I seemed to have missed your answer, so I ask again:

If logic is not derived from consciously controlled thought processes which lead to consciously verifiable conclusions, where does it derive from?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Once more, it’s not the job of anyone else to enlighten you. You think you’re enlightened anyway, albeit that that your justifying reasoning for that belief is hopelessly wrong. Yet again then: you’re the one claiming that consciousness cannot be a materialistic phenomenon so it’s your job to justify your claim. Whether you’re incredulous about the materialistic explanations you’re given is neither here nor there – your claim = your burden of proof.

Why is that basic principle so hard for you to grasp?     

There's no good reason (or at least none that you’ve proposed) to suppose that a materialistic consciousness can’t mark its own homework. The human brain is a vastly complex and largely mysterious organ with many interacting parts, and it's entirely possible that ideas generation and ideas evaluation are two of those parts. If you think that’s impossible nonetheless, then – finally – try at least to justify that claim with an argument of your own that isn’t “it’s magic innit”.   

Sorry, but "complexity" is not a very good answer to this question, so I ask once more:

If logic is not derived from consciously controlled thought processes which lead to consciously verifiable conclusions, where does it derive from?

[Stranger]

Sorry I seemed to have missed your answer, so I ask again:

If logic is not derived from consciously controlled thought processes which lead to consciously verifiable conclusions, where does it derive from?

You seem to be under the impression that repeatedly asking a gibberish question, whose answer could not possibly advance your case, no matter what it was, is doing anything but making you look incredibly stupid.

For the sake of argument, if I said my answer was "fuck knows", then what? If you say that that means that the gibberish of "logic is derived from consciously controlled thought processes which lead to consciously verifiable conclusions" must be true because of the lack of an alternative, then not only would you be indulging in a textbook argument from ignorance fallacy (dimwitted mistake in logic) but it would also be a meaningless claim because it's gibberish.
 

[Gordon]

If logic is not derived from consciously controlled thought processes which lead to consciously verifiable conclusions, where does it derive from?

Before you'll get a meaningful answer you first need to have asked a meaningful question - and you haven't.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

To me determinism suggests some kind of overall determined,
When scripture covers choice it is the choice between God and self or God's will or self will and it is difficult to see how a materialist narrative covers any of that.

Two words I feel are being stretched here are "Impossible" and " neurology"..........Happy new year, by the way.

[Stranger]

To me determinism suggests some kind of overall determined,
When scripture covers choice it is the choice between God and self or God's will or self will and it is difficult to see how a materialist narrative covers any of that.

Is ignorance of the meaning of 'determinism' some sort of tenet of the Christian faith (spent ages trying to get Alan to understand that it didn't mean 'determined by')?

Determinism - Wikipedia
Deterministic system - Wikipedia

Also worth pointing out that whether the universe is actually deterministic or not, has no impact on the impossibility of Alan's nonsense version of 'free will'. The alternative to determinism is the introduction of some randomness.

Two words I feel are being stretched here are "Impossible" and " neurology".....

As far as I can see the word 'neurology' has only been used once, by one poster, in recent months. I make no apology for using 'impossible' to describe self-contradictory claims.

...Happy new year, by the way.

And to you.   

[jeremyp]

Your concept of what comprises love is certainly different to mine.

Really?

I refer to the CS Lewis quote from my profile :
Free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having.

Be honest. Have you ever chosen to love somebody or not love them? Doesn't it just happen?

If you think you can just turn love on or off, then I am sorry to say that you never experienced real love.

[Outrider]

I fully agree that the complexity we perceive in the workings of the human brain is beyond our human comprehension.

OK.

But no amount of physically driven complexity can alter the fact that a material brain will be entirely driven by the laws of physics and chemistry - and we cannot control the laws of physics and chemistry.

Yes.

So it is a simple logical deduction that the output from a material brain will be determined by uncontrollable material reactions.

Yes.

So without the freedom to consciously control our thought processes - how do we consciously verify the correctness of the conclusions we make?

What makes you think that conscious verification is not just another of those uncontrolled processes? Your sense of self is not a cause of this, it's a product. You aren't causing your brain's activity, your brain's activity is causing you. You've just deduced it entirely yourself, in that passage.

O.

[ekim]

Sorry, but "complexity" is not a very good answer to this question, so I ask once more:

If logic is not derived from consciously controlled thought processes which lead to consciously verifiable conclusions, where does it derive from?

Logic, in the context of reasoning and inference, can be understood as arising from several sources beyond merely consciously controlled thought processes. Here are a few key perspectives on where logic might derive from:

    Innate Cognitive Structures: Some theorists suggest that certain logical structures are part of our cognitive makeup, shaped by evolutionary processes. Human beings may be hardwired with basic logical capacities, such as the ability to recognize patterns, cause and effect, or spatial relationships. These abilities are foundational for more complex logical thinking.

    Language and Social Interaction: Logical reasoning can also emerge from the way we communicate and interact with others. Language itself often embodies certain logical structures, such as consistency, coherence, and entailment, which we internalize through socialization. The use of language allows us to formalize thoughts and structures that would otherwise remain implicit.

    Mathematical and Abstract Formalism: Logic as a formal system can be thought of as emerging from abstract principles that are applied to mathematical or linguistic structures. This formalism is often independent of conscious thought and can exist as a set of abstract rules (such as propositional calculus or set theory) that are systematized over time.

    Perceptual and Phenomenal Experience: In some cases, logic may be tied to perceptual or sensory experiences. For example, we might reason logically about physical objects based on consistent, predictable patterns we encounter in the world (e.g., if A is larger than B, and B is larger than C, then A must be larger than C).

    Cultural and Historical Development: The systems of logic we use have evolved over centuries through cultural and intellectual traditions. The frameworks of deductive, inductive, and other logical systems were developed by philosophers, mathematicians, and scientists, building on foundational ideas in ways that are often not directly tied to individual conscious processes.

    Subconscious or Intuitive Processes: Logical reasoning may sometimes arise not from deliberate, conscious thought but from subconscious, intuitive processes. For example, a person may arrive at a solution without consciously working through each step, based on an internalized grasp of logical principles that have been learned through experience or education.

In essence, logic is often seen as a system of rules and principles that emerge from a combination of innate cognitive abilities, social learning, formal structures, and historical development. Its origins are not confined to consciously controlled processes but are deeply embedded in both individual and collective human experience.

ChatGPT

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

Logic, in the context of reasoning and inference, can be understood as arising from several sources beyond merely consciously controlled thought processes. Here are a few key perspectives on where logic might derive from:...

etc

Any one of which or something else entirely could be true. Unfortunately AB has decided that no potential explanation could be plausible to him, and has then jumped straight to “therefore totally impossible” with no argument from his incredulity to an objective fact. He seems to think he’s omniscient – ie, to think that no current hypotheses and nor any potential future one could be true – and so he can confidently assert that any possible materialistic explanation is “literally impossible”. Oh well…         

[Alan Burns]

You seem to be under the impression that repeatedly asking a gibberish question, whose answer could not possibly advance your case, no matter what it was, is doing anything but making you look incredibly stupid.

For the sake of argument, if I said my answer was "fuck knows", then what? If you say that that means that the gibberish of "logic is derived from consciously controlled thought processes which lead to consciously verifiable conclusions" must be true because of the lack of an alternative, then not only would you be indulging in a textbook argument from ignorance fallacy (dimwitted mistake in logic) but it would also be a meaningless claim because it's gibberish.

You claim that this statement:
"logic is derived from consciously controlled thought processes which lead to consciously verifiable conclusions"

is gibberish, but you do not give any reasoning why you claim it to be gibberish.
It may well be considered gibberish in your own conscious awareness, but how did this conclusion arise within your conscious awareness?
Did you consciously analyse the meaning of this statement and then consciously apply some logical deductions to arrive at what you deem to be a consciously verified correct conclusion?

But you claim such conscious control is a logical impossibility.  So is your perception of control just an illusion, or "just the way it seems"?
If your perception of control is an illusion, could the correctness of your perceived conclusion also be an illusion?

[Stranger]

Thanks for completely ignoring what I actually said, Alan.

You claim that this statement:
"logic is derived from consciously controlled thought processes which lead to consciously verifiable conclusions"

is gibberish, but you do not give any reasoning why you claim it to be gibberish.

That would be because I've explained it to you already, more times than I can comfortably comprehend, but, since you appear to be too bone idle and complacent to deign to even be arsed to rephrase it, it remains meaningless.

"Conscious control of our own thought process" seems to suggest that we can sit and consciously think about our thoughts before we actually think them, which, I'm sure you'd agree, is absurd.

So what the fuck do you mean by it?

Even if you make it mean something sensible, what consciousness does or does not do, is irrelevant. Your version of 'free will' is impossible regardless of how much consciousness is in control.

But, I've said that endless times before too. Honestly, it's like talking to a toddler, rather than somebody who has a PhD and is a member of Mensa...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You claim that this statement:
"logic is derived from consciously controlled thought processes which lead to consciously verifiable conclusions"

is gibberish, but you do not give any reasoning why you claim it to be gibberish.

It's gibberish because it’s incoherent.

It may well be considered gibberish in your own conscious awareness, but how did this conclusion arise within your conscious awareness?
Did you consciously analyse the meaning of this statement and then consciously apply some logical deductions to arrive at what you deem to be a consciously verified correct conclusion?

But you claim such conscious control is a logical impossibility.  So is your perception of control just an illusion, or "just the way it seems"?
If your perception of control is an illusion, could the correctness of your perceived conclusion also be an illusion?

Anything could be an “illusion”. Axiomatically, our models of reality are delimited by our abilities to model reality, and evolution has no brief to map accurately to "the" reality. That said though, the model of reality we all depend on to cross roads, invent medicines, love our families etc is at least a place-marker for reality that we treat as if it objectively is the reality. And that model includes the rules of reason and logic that you consistently ignore or abuse when they relate to your religious beliefs.         

[Alan Burns]

Really?
Be honest. Have you ever chosen to love somebody or not love them? Doesn't it just happen?

If you think you can just turn love on or off, then I am sorry to say that you never experienced real love.

Love is not just a state of mind.
It involves giving freely of oneself unconditionally for the benefit of others.

Two profound examples:
Maximilian Maria Kolbe was a Polish Catholic priest who volunteered to die in place of a man named Franciszek Gajowniczek in the German death camp of Auschwitz.

And the second is the quote from John 10:18 where Jesus prophesies He will lay down His life of His own free will for the benefit of all mankind.

[Gordon]

Love is not just a state of mind.
It involves giving freely of oneself unconditionally for the benefit of others.

Two profound examples:
Maximilian Maria Kolbe was a Polish Catholic priest who volunteered to die in place of a man named Franciszek Gajowniczek in the German death camp of Auschwitz.

And the second is the quote from John 10:18 where Jesus prophesies He will lay down His life of His own free will for the benefit of all mankind.

Altruism is just a state of mind/biology, Alan.

Your first example is probably noble: altruism can look like that, and your second is no more than an anecdote lacking provenance and is, thus, indistinguishable from fiction.

Some people are prepared to sacrifice themselves, though whether or not you would describe their motives as altruistic does rather depend on the details.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Love is not just a state of mind.

Yes it is "just" a state of mind.

So when you fell in love with your wife, did an invisible little spook inside your head think, “well, on the one hand she does seem a bit flighty and I’m not sure she won’t turn into her mother in a few years, but on the other she is a bit of a babe and she does make a lovely sandwich so, ok then, on balance I’ll choose to fall in love”, or did love just creep up on you one day unbidden – like it does for the rest of us?

[Alan Burns]

"Conscious control of our own thought process" seems to suggest that we can sit and consciously think about our thoughts before we actually think them, which, I'm sure you'd agree, is absurd.

It just means that we have control - that we can direct and manipulate our own thought processes to reach consciously intended goals.

Even if you make it mean something sensible, what consciousness does or does not do, is irrelevant. Your version of 'free will' is impossible regardless of how much consciousness is in control.

You vastly underestimate the role your conscious awareness.  It is the window into the reality of our existence.  Your concept of logic exists in your conscious awareness.  Your ability to understand logic occurs within your conscious awareness.  Your ability to perform logical analysis takes place in your conscious awareness.

[Stranger]

It just means that we have control - that we can direct and manipulate our own thought processes to reach consciously intended goals.

You're still just repeating yourself. How? I can try to concentrate on something, that at least is a choice (the role of consciousness in this sort of choice is unknown, however), but I definitely have very little control over how successful I'll be, and no control at all over what might occur to me.

None of that seems to amount to being able to "direct and manipulate our own thought processes to reach consciously intended goals". It's just not my experience. 

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Yes it is "just" a state of mind.

So when you fell in love with your wife, did an invisible little spook inside your head think, “well, on the one hand she does seem a bit flighty and I’m not sure she won’t turn into her mother in a few years, but on the other she is a bit of a babe and she does make a lovey sandwich so, ok then, on balance I’ll choose to fall in love”, or did love just creep up on you one day unbidden – like it does for the rest of us?

From 1 Corinthians 13: 4-7

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonour others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

[Stranger]

From 1 Corinthians 13: 4-7

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonour others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Brave Alan runs away from answering the question and cowers behind a pointless and totally irrelevant bible quote...