Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

How can I conceive of a preferred conclusion if I am unable to invoke and control the thoughts needed to reach a conclusion?

But how can I stop and think for a moment if I have no conscious control of my thoughts?

See #51946.

Are you actually an anti-Catholic? Somebody who thinks the Pope is the antichrist, or something? Just trying to think of a model of your mind that would make your infantile repetition make some sense for somebody who has an IQ bigger than their shoe size...

[torridon]

And what do you believe to be that which can invoke and control the action of "bothering to actually think about it"?

'You' could invoke the action to think about things, but it seems you are too lazy to break from the mental habits of a lifetime, settling for repetition over growth.

[Alan Burns]

See #51946.

Are you actually an anti-Catholic? Somebody who thinks the Pope is the antichrist, or something? Just trying to think of a model of your mind that would make your infantile repetition make some sense for somebody who has an IQ bigger than their shoe size...

Where on earth does this accusation of anti Catholic come from?
If we did not have the gift of free will, it would render the entire message of the Christian Bible to be meaningless.

I have never had a feasible answer to the points I make - which is why I continue to repeat them - because I have the conscious freedom to do so, a freedom given to me by God, a freedom which nature alone can never give.  So I will continue to use this freedom to proclaim the truth that we all have God's miraculous gift of freedom which enables us to choose our own destiny.

[Gordon]

Where on earth does this accusation of anti Catholic come from?
If we did not have the gift of free will, it would render the entire message of the Christian Bible to be meaningless.

Then it is meaningless.

I have never had a feasible answer to the points I make - which is why I continue to repeat them - because I have the conscious freedom to do so, a freedom given to me by God, a freedom which nature alone can never give.  So I will continue to use this freedom to proclaim the truth that we all have God's miraculous gift of freedom which enables us to choose our own destiny.

You can't expect a coherent response if you keep making incoherent claims and repeatedly pose meaningless questions. As such, what you 'proclaim' is easily dismissed.

[Stranger]

Where on earth does this accusation of anti Catholic come from?

You appear to be engaged in making your faith (you do claim to be Catholic, don't you?) look as absurd as possible and to demonstrate that it can reduce someone with a PhD and Mensa membership to the intellectual level of a young, not too bright school kid.

I have never had a feasible answer to the points I make - which is why I continue to repeat them...

Your question contains a begging the question fallacy, and your continued attempts to make something of the fact that you won't accept the answers you have, are a clear attempt at an argument from ignorance fallacy.

Fallacies are novice, dimwitted mistakes in basic logic and your indifference to them leads to the conclusion that you are trying to rubbish your declared faith. If you really have the qualifications you claim, then learning the basics of critical thinking and how to avoid fallacies would be quick and easy for you. The fact that you have never (apparently) even tried, adds further weight to my hypothesis.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Where on earth does this accusation of anti Catholic come from?
If we did not have the gift of free will, it would render the entire message of the Christian Bible to be meaningless.

Assuming that to be true, so what? Given how often the arguentum ad consequentiam fallacy has been explained to you, you really shouldn’t be returning to it yet again now.

I have never had a feasible answer to the points I make - which is why I continue to repeat them - because I have the conscious freedom to do so, a freedom given to me by God, a freedom which nature alone can never give.  So I will continue to use this freedom to proclaim the truth that we all have God's miraculous gift of freedom which enables us to choose our own destiny.

These aren’t “points” – they’re just mindless faith claims that flatly contradict the reason and evidence to the contrary you persistently flout or ignore. So, once again:

how do you get from "materialistic explanations for consciousness are not plausible to me" to "therefore any possible materialistic explanation for consciousness is totally impossible"?   

[Alan Burns]

If you really have the qualifications you claim, then learning the basics of critical thinking and how to avoid fallacies would be quick and easy for you.

You have yet to explain how any form of critical thinking can take place without conscious control.

The fact that you have never (apparently) even tried, adds further weight to my hypothesis.

To "try" would imply that I have the conscious freedom to initiate the act of trying.  A freedom which you deny can exist.

[Gordon]

You have yet to explain how any form of critical thinking can take place without conscious control.

I'd say that would be because the notion that you have conscious control of your thoughts is nonsense and, as such, can just be dismissed: it is your claim to substantiate, and since your claim is inherently nonsensical then no detailed rebuttal can be provided, other than simply rejecting your claim as being meaningless. That others here don't actively engage with the substance of your claim, apart from dismissing it, must surely give you food for thought.

To "try" would imply that I have the conscious freedom to initiate the act of trying.  A freedom which you deny can exist.

To 'try', in your case, requires that you first remove your theogoggles - you'll get nowhere until you do.

[torridon]

You have yet to explain how any form of critical thinking can take place without conscious control.To "try" would imply that I have the conscious freedom to initiate the act of trying.  A freedom which you deny can exist.

Next door's cat keeps trying to catch birds in my garden.  I don't imagine, therefore, that it must have supernatural powers; attempting to bring desires to fruition is entirely natural, no laws of physics are broken, the behaviour is evidence of a normally functioning feline brain.  Likewise, trying to argue a point of view on a messageboard is evidence of a normally functioning human brain.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Next door's cat keeps trying to catch birds in my garden.  I don't imagine, therefore, that it must have supernatural powers; attempting to bring desires to fruition is entirely natural, no laws of physics are broken, the behaviour is evidence of a normally functioning feline brain.  Likewise, trying to argue a point of view on a messageboard is evidence of a normally functioning human brain.

I think we might be shaking hands with the naturalistic fallacy here where just because something is demonstrated in other species means it must be moral in humans.

[Nearly Sane]

I think we might be shaking hands with the naturalistic fallacy here where just because something is demonstrated in other species means it must be moral in humans.

Except Torridon isn',t talking about morality so your point is specious.

[Alan Burns]

I'd say that would be because the notion that you have conscious control of your thoughts is nonsense and, as such, can just be dismissed: it is your claim to substantiate, and since your claim is inherently nonsensical then no detailed rebuttal can be provided, other than simply rejecting your claim as being meaningless. That others here don't actively engage with the substance of your claim, apart from dismissing it, must surely give you food for thought.

Please explain, Gordon -
How do you reach the conclusion that my thoughts are nonsense if you have no control over your own thoughts?
How can anyone compose a detailed rebuttal of my thoughts if they can't control their own thoughts?

Yes of course my ability to contemplate other people's attempts to dismiss my reasoning gives me food for thought.  Thoughts which I can confidently use to reach the obvious conclusion that we do indeed have the freedom to consciously guide our own thoughts to reach verifiable conclusions.

[Stranger]

You have yet to explain how any form of critical thinking can take place without conscious control.
...
To "try" would imply that I have the conscious freedom to initiate the act of trying.  A freedom which you deny can exist.

You really can't be as moronic as this mindless repetition suggests. You also told two lies about what I have and haven't done.

Grow up.

[Alan Burns]

Next door's cat keeps trying to catch birds in my garden.  I don't imagine, therefore, that it must have supernatural powers; attempting to bring desires to fruition is entirely natural, no laws of physics are broken, the behaviour is evidence of a normally functioning feline brain.  Likewise, trying to argue a point of view on a messageboard is evidence of a normally functioning human brain.

I do not think you can equate natural animal instincts with the human ability to consciously engage with discussion boards.

[Stranger]

Yes of course my ability to contemplate other people's attempts to dismiss my reasoning gives me food for thought.  Thoughts which I can confidently use to reach the obvious conclusion that we do indeed have the freedom to consciously guide our own thoughts to reach verifiable conclusions.

More mindless nonsense. And you still haven't been arsed to properly explain what you mean by the gibberish phrase of 'conscious control of our own thoughts', you just gave up when I tried to get you to properly explain.

You also haven't addressed the fact that regardless of what consciousness might control, your idiotic version of 'free will' would still be impossible. Even if you made your nonsense phrase make sense, and we all agreed we had the ability, you would still not have addressed the impossibility of free will or that anything magic was needed.

It's a staggeringly dimwitted approach that wouldn't achieve your goal, even if it succeeded...

[ekim]

Yes of course my ability to contemplate other people's attempts to dismiss my reasoning gives me food for thought.  Thoughts which I can confidently use to reach the obvious conclusion that we do indeed have the freedom to consciously guide our own thoughts to reach verifiable conclusions.

Perhaps you need to ask yourself the question 'Why am I thinking this way?'  It may give you a clue to the desire which drives your thoughts and imposes upon your notion of free will.  For some, it is religious doctrine e.g. the desire for Heaven and the fear of Hell or the desire to submit to their God's Will rather than their own personal will.

[Gordon]

Please explain, Gordon -
How do you reach the conclusion that my thoughts are nonsense if you have no control over your own thoughts?
How can anyone compose a detailed rebuttal of my thoughts if they can't control their own thoughts?

I have the ability to focus on a subject that interests me and, no doubt, that involves personal traits which may involve my subconscious, and I am perfectly able to consider aspects of whatever the topic is. But I don't have conscious control over my thinking in the way that you envisage it: to think about what I should think about involves thinking about thinking what I should think about - ad infinitum.

Like all of us I also have thoughts which are unbidden by me - anyone who claims they have never experienced 'odd thoughts' is in denial. There are things, in my case foods, that prompt revulsion without any need to consider carefully how I should react to the sudden appearance of an egg mayonnaise sandwich - I automatically head in the opposite direction.

Yes of course my ability to contemplate other people's attempts to dismiss my reasoning gives me food for thought.  Thoughts which I can confidently use to reach the obvious conclusion that we do indeed have the freedom to consciously guide our own thoughts to reach verifiable conclusions.

Then why do I have an innate and automatic negative response to certain foods?

[torridon]

I do not think you can equate natural animal instincts with the human ability to consciously engage with discussion boards.

At some level, you can.  Cats act on their desires, so do humans, so do elephants and bats and ground squirrels.  The act of 'trying' to achieve your desires does not speak to some mysterious supernatural powers that only humans possess. Human minds may be more complex and nuanced than those of other creatures, but there is no reason to imagine they are supernatural.

[Alan Burns]

More mindless nonsense. And you still haven't been arsed to properly explain what you mean by the gibberish phrase of 'conscious control of our own thoughts', you just gave up when I tried to get you to properly explain.

You also haven't addressed the fact that regardless of what consciousness might control, your idiotic version of 'free will' would still be impossible. Even if you made your nonsense phrase make sense, and we all agreed we had the ability, you would still not have addressed the impossibility of free will or that anything magic was needed.

It's a staggeringly dimwitted approach that wouldn't achieve your goal, even if it succeeded...

It is not my goal.
It is a goal of human beings to seek and find the truth behind their existence.
It is a goal which would appear to be unique to the human species.
We would not have the ability to actively have control over any seeking if every moment of our existence is entirely predetermined by past events over which we have no control.

[Alan Burns]

Then why do I have an innate and automatic negative response to certain foods?

We do not have conscious control over our likes and dislikes.
We do have conscious control over how to respond to our likes and dislikes.
Your negative response to mayonnaise can take many forms, and you have the power to choose which type of negative response you wish to make.
Similarly you have the conscious freedom to choose how, when and where to satisfy your likes.

[Stranger]

We would not have the ability to actively have control over any seeking if every moment of our existence is entirely predetermined by past events over which we have no control.

Yet more thought-free nonsense.   

• You have not yet explained what you mean by the gibberish phrase "consciously control our own thought process."
• You have not made any logical connection between it and your impossible version of 'free will'.

Have you given up even trying to pretend that you have any reasoning or care at all about anything but trashing your declared faith and making it look ridiculous?

I give in. Have it your way. The pope is the antichrist and Catholicism is insane nonsense that can cripple the ability to think. Satisfied?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Please explain,…

Why do you keep asking people to explain something, then announce that the hypotheses and explanations you receive aren’t “plausible” to you, then jump with no connecting logic at all straight from that to “therefore any materialistic explanation for consciousness is totally impossible”?

What do you think this fundamentally ignorant or dishonest (or both) tactic will achieve, other that is than to show you to be ignorant or dishonest (or both)?
 

[Alan Burns]

how do you get from "materialistic explanations for consciousness are not plausible to me" to "therefore any possible materialistic explanation for consciousness is totally impossible"?   

There are no materialistic explanations for conscious self awareness.
The term, "emergent property" is just a meaningless label which offers no explanation for what comprises conscious awareness is or how it works.
You can try as you might to define a single entity of awareness from discrete material reactions, but such effort will be doomed to failure because awareness requires perception of material reactions - not the reactions alone.

The bottom line is that you need more than material reactions to perceive material reactions.  You need the human soul which is not of this material universe but can perceive and interact with this universe through the window of the human mind.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Why do you keep asking people to explain something, then announce that the hypotheses and explanations you receive aren’t “plausible” to you, ...
 

They just aren't plausible because they fail to reflect the reality we all live in.

[Enki]

How can I conceive of a preferred conclusion if I am unable to invoke and control the thoughts needed to reach a conclusion?

As far as we know the idea of 'myself' encompasses the brain, the mind and the body. Thinking seems to be the major part of this embodiment, whether unconscious or conscious.  There is no evidence of a  thinking 'you' outside of your thoughts. Hence, when you ask the question about 'you' being unable to control your thoughts, it doesn't make any sense because you are your thoughts. Therefore it is an impossible question to answer.