What would it take you to be convinced God existed?

[Royce]

It is not offensive, Zero. I am not convinced that chemical reaction cause thought and not that thought causes chemical reactions.

Nor am I convinced that only physical objective universe exists and that the subjective does not exist in reality.

I believe that the are three levels of reality, the physical, the mental or subjective and the spiritual.

I can not except that thought is merely the result of random chemical reactions. If the reactions are not random then some force is acting upon them, directing and controling them and this force would be thought, IMO. I just don't believe nor can I make myself believe that random chemical reactions can be as creative, ingenious and sometimes logical as the human mind is. This may be a failing on my part. I don't think so.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
I've never seen you contribute much, except coming around to give me crap.

That's because I contribute in many threads that have nothing to do with God or religion. Try visiting those threads and contribute.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
That's bacause I contribute in many threads that have nothing to do with God or religion. Try visiting those threads and contribute.

So know I have to post where you want me to? Please, stop it already, I feel like you are stalking me, and have made a hair out of my hair clippings from the barber shop. You only come into these threads to give me a hard time, and I don't care why, so long as you STOP.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
So know I have to post where you want me to? Please, stop it already, I feel like you are stalking me, and have made a hair out of my hair clippings from the barber shop. You only come into these threads to give me a hard time, and I don't care why, so long as you STOP.

Lol. That's it. Twist what I'm saying again. I'm not asking you to do anything. I'm defending myself from your comment that I don't contribute anything. Anyone who wants to see that you are wrong on that can go read other threads. But whoever wants to see such things will have to put aside their bitter obcession with "god" and religion and visit other topics to see it. I'm just defending myself, nothing more.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
Lol. That's it. Twist what I'm saying again. I'm not asking you to do anything. I'm defending myself from your comment that I don't contribute anything. Anyone who wants to see that you are wrong on that can go read other threads. But whoever wants to see such things will have to put aside their bitter obcession with "god" and religion and visit other topics to see it. I'm just defending myself, nothing more.

Why are you defending yourself? All you had to do was not post something off-topic in this thread to specifically comment about my posting. That would have avoided all this, don't you think?

Now, can we drop this and get back on topic, please?

 

[radagast]

Royce,
Though I hate the idea of intruding on Zero's and Fliptions 'discussion' [you'd think they were married...], the question arises, if consciousness and thought are more than the sum of the pattern of electrochemical reactions in the brain, then what are they. Obviously they would have to be able to exert influence over matter, to trigger the electrochemical events in the brain, and it begs the question why would structural problems in the brain (Alzheimers, for instance) interfere with thoughts and consciousness, if the thoughts caused the actions in the brain? Would it be (meditated by) a fifth force? Just some thoughts to chew on.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce
It is not offensive, Zero. I am not convinced that chemical reaction cause thought and not that thought causes chemical reactions.

Nor am I convinced that only physical objective universe exists and that the subjective does not exist in reality.

I believe that the are three levels of reality, the physical, the mental or subjective and the spiritual.

I can not except that thought is merely the result of random chemical reactions. If the reactions are not random then some force is acting upon them, directing and controling them and this force would be thought, IMO. I just don't believe nor can I make myself believe that random chemical reactions can be as creative, ingenious and sometimes logical as the human mind is. This may be a failing on my part. I don't think so.

Who said anything was random? That is the sort of strawman argument that ruins it for me, you know?

 

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Royce
It is not offensive, Zero. I am not convinced that chemical reaction cause thought and not that thought causes chemical reactions.

Nor am I convinced that only physical objective universe exists and that the subjective does not exist in reality.

I believe that the are three levels of reality, the physical, the mental or subjective and the spiritual.

I can not except that thought is merely the result of random chemical reactions. If the reactions are not random then some force is acting upon them, directing and controling them and this force would be thought, IMO. I just don't believe nor can I make myself believe that random chemical reactions can be as creative, ingenious and sometimes logical as the human mind is. This may be a failing on my part. I don't think so.

I am sympathetic to your argument, Royce. Discerning the nature of the relationship between consciousness and physical activity in the brain seems to be easily the biggest problem confronting science. Anyone who claims it is a trivial fact that brain states cause states of consciousness is obviously not well versed in cognitive science, because it is far from trivial to establish such a relationship. Indeed, science is still in the beginning stages where it's just trying to put together a good framework of how neural activity is even correlated with consciousness, and even this has proved to be much more difficult than one might think.

However, one thing I think we can rule out is a subjective state having a causal relationship up on the physical brain. Philosophically, this is introduces a dualism where somehow 'mind' can interact with and causally affect 'matter,' which raises a host of troublesome questions. More importantly, it has been shown that neural activity precedes conscious thought. For instance, when you decide to reach out your hand to pick up a glass, this decision is characterized by a spike of local activity in the area of the motor cortex responsible for controlling your arm. The interesting thing is that this spike in activity actually precedes your conscious awareness (or thought) of your decision to pick up the glass. So it is impossible, at least in this case, for the subjective thought to have a causal effect on the physical brain (unless this causal effect somehow goes backwards in time ).

This shouldn't be too hard for you to reconcile. 'Random' chemical reactions can be plenty creative, logical, and downright ingenious, just within the framework provided by the laws of physics. Look at the human body. Do you suppose that there is some metaphysical thinker guiding the complex chemical interactions of the body? The complexity of the body is comparable (very roughly) to that of the brain; if you don't feel compelled to think that thoughts must somehow guide embryological development or cell replication, you shouldn't feel compelled to think that thoughts must be having a causal action on the brain.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
Why are you defending yourself? All you had to do was not post something off-topic in this thread to specifically comment about my posting. That would have avoided all this, don't you think?

Now, can we drop this and get back on topic, please?

Nice setup. But it took you 3 pages to tell me this was off topic? I'm moving on now.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
I am sympathetic to your argument, Royce. Discerning the nature of the relationship between consciousness and physical activity in the brain seems to be easily the biggest problem confronting science. Anyone who claims it is a trivial fact that brain states cause states of consciousness is obviously not well versed in cognitive science, because it is far from trivial to establish such a relationship. Indeed, science is still in the beginning stages where it's just trying to put together a good framework of how neural activity is even correlated with consciousness, and even this has proved to be much more difficult than one might think.

This is a very good post hypnagogue. This one as well as the earlier one defending Les's point to Zero. Both are excellent posts. I apologize if it seems I have dragged things down a bit but I do tend to get frustrated when I don't see more post like yours. I too can relate to Royce's view and it's good to see someone in this forum finally admit that the "brain creates consciousness" idea isn't as simple as 1, 2, 3 the way it is pretended to be here much of the time. But I also think you make good rational points to the contrary that people (like Royce and myself of course) would need to do research and discuss more. These discussions would be much anticipated and enjoyed by yours truly.

 

[Zero]

Ok, even if we stipulate the consciousness exists outside of the physical realm(which I think is unsupported nonsense), that doesn't bring you any closer to the proof of the existence of anything else outside the physical, does it?

 

[Zantra]

What will it take to make me believe?

Well let me put this to rest. I think I speak for all the non-believers when I say it will take physical, undisputable proof. Not subjective experience, not viewpoints, not "spiritual enlightenment". Proof, visual, and undeniable. Absolutely nothing less than that. That can be in many forms. A signed copy of the bible, An UNAMBIGUOUS sign from god which leaves NO DOUBT that it is him and not some other phenomenon. Anything in the Bible is disputable and open to a wide variety of interpetations, so that is not proof. An actual religious item verified by carbon dating. Recently there was an item in the news about a box that was "alleged" to contain the ashes of jesus' brother or something. It was verified as a fake by experts. There is not one single shred of physical evidence to support the orgin of christ, and that is what bothers me.

PROOF. That's what it takes. So talk until you're blue in the face, but unless you can produce EVIDENCE, you're wasting you time. I'm not flexible in that criteria, and neither, I believe, are any of the other non-religious people..

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Zantra
What will it take to make me believe?

Well let me put this to rest. I think I speak for all the non-believers when I say it will take physical, undisputable proof. Not subjective experience, not viewpoints, not "spiritual enlightenment". Proof, visual, and undeniable. Absolutely nothing less than that. That can be in many forms. A signed copy of the bible, An UNAMBIGUOUS sign from god which leaves NO DOUBT that it is him and not some other phenomenon. Anything in the Bible is disputable and open to a wide variety of interpetations, so that is not proof. An actual religious item verified by carbon dating. Recently there was an item in the news about a box that was "alleged" to contain the ashes of jesus' brother or something. It was verified as a fake by experts. There is not one single shred of physical evidence to support the orgin of christ, and that is what bothers me.

PROOF. That's what it takes. So talk until you're blue in the face, but unless you can produce EVIDENCE, you're wasting you time. I'm not flexible in that criteria, and neither, I believe, are any of the other non-religious people..

Great post. I would simply add two things to it:

1) Even if we prove that something exists of a 'magical nature', there will always be the chance of it being sufficiently advanced science, including mind control to force us to believe.

2) The standards of proof are accepted in every other forum on PF. You cannot say that you thought long and hard about the social ramifications of a math problem, and decide to change the answer to suit a belief. If you claim that the moon is made of blue cheese, no one accepts that answer because 'all measurements are subjective'. So why should the standard be any different for religious thinking?

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by Zero
Who said anything was random? That is the sort of strawman argument that ruins it for me, you know?

Please read the second sentence in my post. It is either random chemical reactions, which I say is improbable due to the creativity of the human mind/brain, or it is not random reactions implying that there is some force controlling or directing the reactions and I surmise that that force may be thought.

Originally posted by radagast
...the question arises, if consciousness and thought are more than the sum of the pattern of electrochemical reactions in the brain, then what are they. Obviously they would have to be able to exert influence over matter, to trigger the electrochemical events in the brain, and it begs the question why would structural problems in the brain (Alzheimers, for instance) interfere with thoughts and consciousness, if the thoughts caused the actions in the brain? Would it be (meditated by) a fifth force? Just some thoughts to chew on.

I don't know Glenn nor doe anyone else I think. Is it posible that the physical and/or chemical structure of the brain must be intact for thoughts to be come conscious to us and then accomplish their purpose?

Originally posted by hypnagogue
However, one thing I think we can rule out is a subjective state having a causal relationship up on the physical brain. Philosophically, this is introduces a dualism where somehow 'mind' can interact with and causally affect 'matter,' which raises a host of troublesome questions. More importantly, it has been shown that neural activity precedes conscious thought. For instance, when you decide to reach out your hand to pick up a glass, this decision is characterized by a spike of local activity in the area of the motor cortex responsible for controlling your arm. The interesting thing is that this spike in activity actually precedes your conscious awareness (or thought) of your decision to pick up the glass. So it is impossible, at least in this case, for the subjective thought to have a causal effect on the physical brain (unless this causal effect somehow goes backwards in time ).

Why can we rule out the subjective state having a causal relationship with the physical brain or body. Pychosamatic (sp?) illnesses and good old Frued's hysteria symptoms were/are all evidence of subjective disorders causing the physical to malfunction.

Is it possible that the pure subjective thought occurs - causes the chemical reactions to take place which then cause us to become conscious of the thought and finally to pick up the glass? Surely it is far more complicated than we think. Possibly the structure of the brain is necessary for the subjective to influence and control the chemical reactions at the molecular level.

You are saying that we are robots without free will, control or purpose responding to acausal random chemical reactions. Seems to me that life is chaotic enough without that randomness controling even our thoughts intents and purposes. If it isn't random then what controls it? Thought?

Zero, I just read your last post while trying to compile this post.
No, it proves nothing. It only makes it possible which takes it then out of the realm of fairytales back into philosophy and meta-physics.

 

[Royce]

Zandra, that absolute indisputable proof is what happened to me. I cannot and will never attempt to prove anything to you or anyone else.
The proof must come to you or you will not accept it. If and when it comes it will be internal and personel. Try to keep and open mind. I am merely speculating, questioning and presenting another view point. I am also having fun.

Zero, there is nothing magical or mystical about belief in God or that God created the universe. If God did create the natural universe wouldn't God then be a natural part of it as well as it being a natural part of him. Quit looking for ghosts, fairies and spooks. Look at nature, at the universe. It is wonderful enough without adding magic and mystisism.

What about the social ramifications of Einstein's cosmological constant to force his equations to show a atatic universe? What about fieman's doing away with the infinities in Hiesenberg's equations because they were useless the way they were. Give me a break, Zero, If your going to claim righeousness on your side your going to have to find a better example than science. History is full of hoaxes, mistakes and outright fraud and plagerism. Science is a human endevore after all and even scientist are human.
Science is not the temple of truth, honesty, integrity, wisdom and righeousness you would have us all believe.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce
Please read the second sentence in my post. It is either random chemical reactions, which I say is improbable due to the creativity of the human mind/brain, or it is not random reactions implying that there is some force controlling or directing the reactions and I surmise that that force may be thought.

It isn't either/or. The third option is that the physical structure of the brain, in combination with the known laws of physics and chemistry, combine to form a framework for how thought works. Not random, but not controlled by a conscious force either. It is the same way that a river flows along the channel it exists in. It doesn't flow randomly, but there is no conscious design either.

Zero, I just read your last post while trying to compile this post.
No, it proves nothing. It only makes it possible which takes it then out of the realm of fairytales back into philosophy and meta-physics.

Which is a starting point, but since you and many other are already at that point without any proof, why would you then be able to produce any more evidence than you can now?

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by Zero
It isn't either/or. The third option is that the physical structure of the brain, in combination with the known laws of physics and chemistry, combine to form a framework for how thought works. Not random, but not controlled by a conscious force either. It is the same way that a river flows along the channel it exists in. It doesn't flow randomly, but there is no conscious design either.

But in reality the river makes it's channel not the other way around. Look at the Grand Canyon. It is the river that made it not the canyon making the river.

Which is a starting point, but since you and many other are already at that point without any proof, why would you then be able to produce any more evidence than you can now?

I can not provide any evidence or proof at all. I can only speculate and question. Possibly I can form a working hypothesis from which to go further in my/our speculations and questions. It may not be scientific but it is a valid form of reasoning. This again takes it out of the realm of pure faith and your fairy tales. This in reality is all that I am trying to do. I am exersising and stretching my brain/mind just as in a good game of chess. I am having fun

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Zero

Which is a starting point, but since you and many other are already at that point without any proof, why would you then be able to produce any more evidence than you can now?

But Zero, it is enough evidene (subjective though it is) for him. Just as the title of this thread, it is what was needed to convince him.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce
But in reality the river makes it's channel not the other way around. Look at the Grand Canyon. It is the river that made it not the canyon making the river.

Are you saying that the river consciously decides which way it will go? My point is that it's path is determined by gravity, erosion, geography...lot's or purely physical laws govern things, including consciousness.

I can not provide any evidence or proof at all. I can only speculate and question. Possibly I can form a working hypothesis from which to go further in my/our speculations and questions. It may not be scientific but it is a valid form of reasoning. This again takes it out of the realm of pure faith and your fairy tales. This in reality is all that I am trying to do. I am exersising and stretching my brain/mind just as in a good game of chess. I am having fun

Uh huh...speculation is great, I suppose. So long as you recognise it as such, knock yourself out!

 

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Royce
Why can we rule out the subjective state having a causal relationship with the physical brain or body. Pychosamatic (sp?) illnesses and good old Frued's hysteria symptoms were/are all evidence of subjective disorders causing the physical to malfunction.

Strictly speaking, these phenomena are not evidence of the subjecive having a causative effect on the physical. They are only evidence that the things we experience subjectively are highly correlated with the physical events and phenomena of our body. For instance, it is said that depressed people are more susceptible to illness. Why? Is it the subjective experience that causes the susceptibility to illness, or is it that the subjective experience is indicative of a disorder in the physical organization of the brain that propogates throughout the body and winds up somehow suppressing the immune system?

The flaw with your argument is that psychosomatic illnesses and the like are equally explicable assuming the subjective experience has a direct causal power, or assuming that the subjective experience is an epiphenomenon that expresses or mirrors the state and condition of the underlying physical substrate but itself has no causal powers. In fact, the evidence in my last post seems to indicate it is the latter; the causal chain of reaction that culminates with you lifting your arm is initiated before you yourself are aware that you have made such a decision. It therefore seems more likely that your conscious experience of choosing to lift your arm is a depiction of the causal chain of neural activity rather than a participant in the causal chain.

Is it possible that the pure subjective thought occurs - causes the chemical reactions to take place which then cause us to become conscious of the thought and finally to pick up the glass? Surely it is far more complicated than we think. Possibly the structure of the brain is necessary for the subjective to influence and control the chemical reactions at the molecular level.

You are saying that we are robots without free will, control or purpose responding to acausal random chemical reactions. Seems to me that life is chaotic enough without that randomness controling even our thoughts intents and purposes. If it isn't random then what controls it? Thought?

So you are proposing that an initial thought takes place, initiates the neural activity, which in turn causes our consciousness of that thought? If we are not conscious of this 'pure subjective thought,' then what have you gained? It essentially functions the same as the physicalist description. Either way, the power is out of our conscious hands. One paradigm attributes it to dead, unseeing chemical reactions, the other to dead, unseeing 'thought.'

I don't pretend that science tells us, or even can tell us, all there is to be known about consciousness. Not for a second. But it sure can tell us a lot, and it would be foolish not to take into account the understanding we can develop of consciousness through scientific inquiry.

I don't understand why people equate a physical description of the processes of consciousness with an interpretation that we are dead, robotic, purposeless, without control, without wonder. Well, let me qualify that; I understand it, but I think further thought will show you that a physical understanding of human consciousness is not irrenconcilable with a full appreciation for the human condition: our purposefulness, creativity, and yes, even our control over ourselves. I think I'll expand on this in a future post since it is such a basic and, I think, misunderstood component of this argument.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by radagast
But Zero, it is enough evidene (subjective though it is) for him. Just as the title of this thread, it is what was needed to convince him.

Yep...

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
*snip*

I don't pretend that science tells us, or even can tell us, all there is to be known about consciousness. Not for a second. But it sure can tell us a lot, and it would be foolish not to take into account the understanding we can develop of consciousness through scientific inquiry.

I would sort of disagree with you on this. I think science is the only possible way to discover all there is to know, even if some things are unknowable. If someone can show that a 'metaphysical' event exists, and can be repeated in laboratory conditions, then it becames science, even if we never quite figure out the explanation for HOW it happens.

 

[hypnagogue]

This is an epistemological question. As it stands the scientific method is the most reliable method of inquiry we have, but as you say, it leaves certain propositions unknowable. That doesn't mean that they are themselves inherently unknowable. What possible method could throw light on these things that science can't? I don't know. But it would probably be shortsighted to imply that science is the end-all of knowledge. If anyone wants to contest this, they would have to prove that science is the only avenue to knowledge, which is itself impossible to prove given current accepted methods of proof. So it remains an open question.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
This is an epistemological question. As it stands the scientific method is the most reliable method of inquiry we have, but as you say, it leaves certain propositions unknowable. That doesn't mean that they are themselves inherently unknowable. What possible method could throw light on these things that science can't? I don't know. But it would probably be shortsighted to imply that science is the end-all of knowledge. If anyone wants to contest this, they would have to prove that science is the only avenue to knowledge, which is itself impossible to prove given current accepted methods of proof. So it remains an open question.

Guess what? I own a piece of the "original equipment." So I don't necessarily need science, or you, or anyone else to tell me how to think. Consciousness is the very essence of "my being," and it's through consciousness that I come to know the world and everything about it.

So which came first? Consciousness? Or, this "human endeavor" we call science, which has evolved as a result of consciousness? Hmm ... It would seem that question has already been answered.

 

[hypnagogue]

no offense, but I don't see how what you said is relevant at all to the post of mine you quoted. I wasn't telling anyone how to think.. if anything the opposite.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
no offense, but I don't see how what you said is relevant at all to the post of mine you quoted. I wasn't telling anyone how to think.. if anything the opposite.

Just a general statement that seemed to coincide with what your'e saying. Except that you're right, I probably could have said it without quoting you. I was just trying to reiterate that the idea of consciousness is much more personal than what any scientific observation could describe it to be. Sorry.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Zero
I would sort of disagree with you on this. I think science is the only possible way to discover all there is to know, even if some things are unknowable. If someone can show that a 'metaphysical' event exists, and can be repeated in laboratory conditions, then it becames science, even if we never quite figure out the explanation for HOW it happens.

Uhmmmm.

So quantum-mechanics and Big Bang cosmology are fields of pure metaphysics, since we can't know causes there?

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Royce
ZanTra, that absolute indisputable proof is what happened to me. I cannot and will never attempt to prove anything to you or anyone else.
The proof must come to you or you will not accept it. If and when it comes it will be internal and personel. Try to keep and open mind. I am merely speculating, questioning and presenting another view point. I am also having fun.

Ok so you're saying God came to you personally and said "hey I'm real"? Because that's what it would take for me. I don't mean any kind of abstract esoteric,internal experience. I mean something that can be verified by the 5 senses. Elsewise it's jut a dream.

I've heard the same schpiel time and time again. And those same people swore christ was coming in 2000, and that I should be prepared
*looks at watch* Still waiting..I guess no one said he was a "punction God eh?

 

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Zantra
Ok so you're saying God came to you personally and said "hey I'm real"? Because that's what it would take for me. I don't mean any kind of abstract esoteric,internal experience. I mean something that can be verified by the 5 senses. Elsewise it's jut a dream.

What makes your 5 senses such an authority on judging reality?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
What makes your 5 senses such an authority on judging reality?

Because his 5 senses are more or less analogous to mine and yours, and anything he can see, hear, etc., he can show us, or have us listen to as well.

 

[Royce]

But our 5 senses are known to be limited and fallable as well qs our interpetation of what our senses are showing us.

I am not predicting that Jesus or God will come back to this world anytime soon. Nor will it be a dream if he comes to you internally. You will know it and know the truth of it or what would be the point.

Strictly speaking, these phenomena are not evidence of the subjecive having a causative effect on the physical. They are only evidence that the things we experience subjectively are highly correlated with the physical events and phenomena of our body. For instance, it is said that depressed people are more susceptible to illness. Why? Is it the subjective experience that causes the susceptibility to illness, or is it that the subjective experience is indicative of a disorder in the physical organization of the brain that propogates throughout the body and winds up somehow suppressing the immune system?

This sound very much like the typical dodge that science takes when something happens that they cannot explain and will not admit that they can never explain with their physical science.

An emotional or psychololigal trauma with no physical trauma present can and does have physical effects on the body. People have become crippled ,blind, deaf, dumb for various lengths of time and recovered just as fast and mysteriously as they became effected. This is obvious and clinical evidence of the subjective effecting the physical. I am surprised that you refuse to admit this phenomina is real.

I am of a either or mind set about this topic. Either the chemical activitiy is random or it is not random.

If it is pure random without cause, control or direction by us, our thoughts then we have no control over our thoughts and actions. This is what is meant as being robots without will or choice. To me this is absurd.
If these chemical reactions are not random this implys and necessates control and direction. This is what thought, will, purpose, and intention does, control the direction of the reactions or nerve impulses.

It is or it isn't. I see no room for a third alternative at this time. We are either in control of our thoughts and actions or we are not. Either we are intelligent humans with free will or we are not and are controlled by random chemical reactions. This makes us robots.
What possible third possiblity could there be?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce

It is or it isn't. I see no room for a third alternative at this time. We are either in control of our thoughts and actions or we are not. Either we are intelligent humans with free will or we are not and are controlled by random chemical reactions. This makes us robots.
What possible third possiblity could there be?

That's your fault, not ours. You continuously say 'random', we continuously explain that it is not, and you continue to say random. How is that possible? Did you forget what I posted, did you just not understand it, or is a reality-based explanation son frightening that you block it out?

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by Zero
It isn't either/or. The third option is that the physical structure of the brain, in combination with the known laws of physics and chemistry, combine to form a framework for how thought works. Not random, but not controlled by a conscious force either. It is the same way that a river flows along the channel it exists in. It doesn't flow randomly, but there is no conscious design either.

The third option is still deterministic and not within our human control. Unless the physical structure of our brain changes as we think in response to or along with creating new thoughts there is no room for new creative thoughts because the physical structure of our brain is hardwired and the know laws of physics and chemistry cannot change.
If the structure of our brain does change with each thought then what drives this change.
Your third alternative is just a rewording of the first alternative. The result is the same.

Either the physical and chemical activity is drive by our thoughts or it drives our thoughts. Since the physical and chemical properties of our brains cannot be willfully changed then our thoughts are determined by physics and chemistry on not by our will. Thus our thoughts are determined and we are robots of physics and chemistry.

We are at the very basic, deepest level of philosophy here. We are debating or discussing consciousness and thought itself and how it may or may not come about. Right along with it and inseperable with it is freewill vs determinism. This has been debated for centuries by greater minds than you or me.

Whether the action is random or controlled and directed by the physical structure of our brains and the laws of physics and chemistry, or whether the action is controlled and directed by our will and our thoughts is the basic question here. Either we are controlled or we control is the secondary issue.

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
What makes your 5 senses such an authority on judging reality?

Well unles you're psychic, those are the only senses nature has afforded to you Are we about to sidetrack into some discussion on everything as we know it being a dreamworld concocted by our minds to escape the true reality? Because I saw the Matrix-been there, done that. I mean I deal strictly in reality. While it's not absolutely impossible for this to be, it's about as likely as the explanation that we are all actually robots controlled by aliens and Elvis is/was their leader...

We can only go by what our mind registers from our external sense about the surrounding world. Nothing else can be considered "real" as it is not something that can be verified through trial and error, or confirmed by a 2nd source, IE someone else. Real is what the electtrical impulses transmitted to our brain via our senses percieve it to be. And until it's proven otherwise, I'm prepared to accept that.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce
The third option is still deterministic and not within our human control. Unless the physical structure of our brain changes as we think in response to or along with creating new thoughts there is no room for new creative thoughts because the physical structure of our brain is hardwired and the know laws of physics and chemistry cannot change.
If the structure of our brain does change with each thought then what drives this change.
Your third alternative is just a rewording of the first alternative. The result is the same.

Either the physical and chemical activity is drive by our thoughts or it drives our thoughts. Since the physical and chemical properties of our brains cannot be willfully changed then our thoughts are determined by physics and chemistry on not by our will. Thus our thoughts are determined and we are robots of physics and chemistry.

We are at the very basic, deepest level of philosophy here. We are debating or discussing consciousness and thought itself and how it may or may not come about. Right along with it and inseperable with it is freewill vs determinism. This has been debated for centuries by greater minds than you or me.

Whether the action is random or controlled and directed by the physical structure of our brains and the laws of physics and chemistry, or whether the action is controlled and directed by our will and our thoughts is the basic question here. Either we are controlled or we control is the secondary issue.

First off, what's wrong with determinism? We are sort of stuck with it. Your problem with it strikes me as very emotional.("Oh no, I'm not going to be a robot, no SIR!')

Ok, call the third option 'restricted free will', and go from there. It is what all evidence suggests on every level, anyways. Consciousness is not a completely random process, because it is created by the physical workings of the brain. However, there is a semi-random 'wiggle-room' or different pathways a thought can take in the brain. It is like bring forced to stay on the road in your car, but having a few different roads to choose from.

And this 'basic question' doesn't have anything to do with much except what appears to me to be fear and control issues for you, and nothing external or based on logic.