Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Philosophy, in all its guises. => Topic started by: Steve H on February 17, 2018, 09:16:23 AM
-
If free will is an illusion, as some people hold, and strict determinism is true, how can we know? How, indeed, can we know anything, since we were pre-destined from all eternity to believe or think we know whatever we believe or think we know to be true? I'm not a philosopher, and may be missing something obvious here, but I'm willing to be put right by good enough arguments for determinism. Therefore, I would appreciate serious, non-sarcastic answers.
-
This has been discussed extensively in the "Searching for God..." topic but it might be interesting to give it its own.
Firstly, the question of whether the universe is a deterministic system is an open one. However, the only alternative to strict determinism is to introduce a random element. To the extent something is not determined by its logical antecedents, it must be random.
Secondly, the way most people think of free with is logically incoherent. It is not possible (for the reason given above) for an action to be both purposeful and not determined.
However, having said that, it is my own view (heavily influenced by Daniel Dennett whose books actually changed my mind on the subject) that a more realistic notion of free will can be recovered (compatibilism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism)). I won't try to reproduce all the reasoning here (see Dennett's books Elbow Room and Freedom Evolves for more) but our brains have evolved to be very sophisticated information gathering, processing, and decision making systems. Our choices may, ultimately be determined but they are determined by all of our nature and nurture - by the people we are. I can see no realistic alternative that is any more 'free' than that.
The godlike perspective of being able to see the innermost workings of our minds and see the machinery of determinism is inaccessible to us and is not a useful level of detail. It is only relevant if you think there actually is a god who can see it - and if that is the case, the argument for free will being an excuse for evil evaporates and with it any notion of a just god sitting in judgement...
-
This has been discussed extensively in the "Searching for God..." topic but it might be interesting to give it its own.
Firstly, the question of whether the universe is a deterministic system is an open one. However, the only alternative to strict determinism is to introduce a random element. To the extent something is not determined by its logical antecedents, it must be random.
Secondly, the way most people think of free with is logically incoherent. It is not possible (for the reason given above) for an action to be both purposeful and not determined.
However, having said that, it is my own view (heavily influenced by Daniel Dennett whose books actually changed my mind on the subject) that a more realistic notion of free will can be recovered (compatibilism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism)). I won't try to reproduce all the reasoning here (see Dennett's books Elbow Room and Freedom Evolves for more) but our brains have evolved to be very sophisticated information gathering, processing, and decision making systems. Our choices may, ultimately be determined but they are determined by all of our nature and nurture - by the people we are. I can see no realistic alternative that is any more 'free' than that.
The godlike perspective of being able to see the innermost workings of our minds and see the machinery of determinism is inaccessible to us and is not a useful level of detail. It is only relevant if you think there actually is a god who can see it - and if that is the case, the argument for free will being an excuse for evil evaporates and with it any notion of a just god sitting in judgement...
The trouble with determinism is for me................novelty by which I mean new situations which require a reasonable response.
-
Stranger #1
Well put - seconded.
-
This has been discussed extensively in the "Searching for God..." topic but it might be interesting to give it its own.
Firstly, the question of whether the universe is a deterministic system is an open one. However, the only alternative to strict determinism is to introduce a random element. To the extent something is not determined by its logical antecedents, it must be random.
Secondly, the way most people think of free with is logically incoherent. It is not possible (for the reason given above) for an action to be both purposeful and not determined.
However, having said that, it is my own view (heavily influenced by Daniel Dennett whose books actually changed my mind on the subject) that a more realistic notion of free will can be recovered (compatibilism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism)). I won't try to reproduce all the reasoning here (see Dennett's books Elbow Room and Freedom Evolves for more) but our brains have evolved to be very sophisticated information gathering, processing, and decision making systems. Our choices may, ultimately be determined but they are determined by all of our nature and nurture - by the people we are. I can see no realistic alternative that is any more 'free' than that.
The godlike perspective of being able to see the innermost workings of our minds and see the machinery of determinism is inaccessible to us and is not a useful level of detail. It is only relevant if you think there actually is a god who can see it - and if that is the case, the argument for free will being an excuse for evil evaporates and with it any notion of a just god sitting in judgement...
Interesting article - thanks. I've come across compatibilism before.
-
So have I something I've pondered when in pondering mood.
Interesting thread.
-
If free will is an illusion, as some people hold, and strict determinism is true, how can we know? How, indeed, can we know anything, since we were pre-destined from all eternity to believe or think we know whatever we believe or think we know to be true? I'm not a philosopher, and may be missing something obvious here, but I'm willing to be put right by good enough arguments for determinism. Therefore, I would appreciate serious, non-sarcastic answers.
The problem with 'free will' is that in the context of making a choice, the notion of freedom becomes meaningless; a meaningful choice cannot be free of the relevant considerations.
So what you are getting at, is - is there also a problem with 'free knowledge'. Broadly I'd say, yes, the word 'free' is problematic in the context of knowledge. We are not free to believe what we want. I believe that Paris is in France; I do not have the freedom to believe that it is in Germany.
-
You don't believe Paris is in France, you know it is, which is a different thing altogether.
-
You don't believe Paris is in France, you know it is, which is a different thing altogether.
I think that makes little difference vis a vis concepts of determinism and freedom. The difference between knowing and believing is one of confidence, not freedom. If we experience something personally we are much more likely to believe it than if we hear something second hand. If I look up and see the sky is blue, I will believe that without hesitation; on the other hand if someone tells me that the murder rate has gone up in Sweden since an influx of migrants I would not accept that unquestioningly. The process of evaluating a truth claim varies from claim to claim but all such processes are going to be subject to the same underlying principle, that whether I find it convincing or not, is not a matter of choice or freedom. If something strikes me as unconvincing, I cannot force it to strike me as convincing, and vice versa.
-
You don't believe Paris is in France, you know it is, which is a different thing altogether.
I know what the capital of France is if that's any help .
this is NOT a sarcastic answer , no, I really do .
-
I know what the capital of France is if that's any help .
this is NOT a sarcastic answer , no, I really do .
So do I - F.
-
Hi Steve,
To have true free will every possible response to an event must be weighted equally - you are not being swayed in any particular direction - in fact it would be very difficult to make a choice. Whereas, if you feel that a specific response is required then this is cannot be free as something is directing the choice (past experiences, your mood at the moment or a combination of many things).
Regards Juan
-
Good day to Mr Toomany
-
Hi,
NDY. Just thought I would pay a visit and see what's going on.
Nothing seems to have changed much, but there again what would we do if all these issues were answered?
Regards Juan
-
Hi,
NDY. Just thought I would pay a visit and see what's going on.
Nothing seems to have changed much, but there again what would we do if all these issues were answered?
Regards Juan
It's a difficult one! If we answer the questions, then we stop like robots with no more jobs, we wind down and stop.
I hope at our best say the sane thing differently and/or better but even if it's just a bit weirder we go with it.
-
Good day to Mr Toomany
Hi again NS,
Forgot how to use the 'quote'
Good day to you too.
Regards Juan
-
I think that makes little difference vis a vis concepts of determinism and freedom. The difference between knowing and believing is one of confidence, not freedom. If we experience something personally we are much more likely to believe it than if we hear something second hand. If I look up and see the sky is blue, I will believe that without hesitation; on the other hand if someone tells me that the murder rate has gone up in Sweden since an influx of migrants I would not accept that unquestioningly. The process of evaluating a truth claim varies from claim to claim but all such processes are going to be subject to the same underlying principle, that whether I find it convincing or not, is not a matter of choice or freedom. If something strikes me as unconvincing, I cannot force it to strike me as convincing, and vice versa.
You seem to be confused about what our freedom of choice entails, because the examples you keep quoting are not examples of our ability to make conscious choices.
Freedom of choice has nothing to do with belief in anything. We can only believe what we deduce to be true (whether we like it or not) - it is not a free choice. Also, as you rightly pointed out in previous posts, we can't choose our likes or dislikes. For example, I can't choose to dislike beer, but I do have the freedom to choose how many pints I drink. And I can't choose my sexual orientation, but I have the freedom to choose my sexual partner, or to remain celibate if I so wish. And I have the freedom to choose to hop up and down on one leg, waving my hands in the air if I so wish.
-
You seem to be confused about what our freedom of choice entails, because the examples you keep quoting are not examples of our ability to make conscious choices.
Freedom of choice has nothing to do with belief in anything. We can only believe what we deduce to be true (whether we like it or not) - it is not a free choice. Also, as you rightly pointed out in previous posts, we can't choose our likes or dislikes. For example, I can't choose to dislike beer, but I do have the freedom to choose how many pints I drink. And I can't choose my sexual orientation, but I have the freedom to choose my sexual partner, or to remain celibate if I so wish. And I have the freedom to choose to hop up and down on one leg, waving my hands in the air if I so wish.
So any way of talking about what ypu means by free? Or are you just going to avoid this again as you have repeatedly?
For simplicity and repetition How does your 'free' will work, Alan? And can you even begin to describe what you mean? Because up to now you have offered nothing as a description of your claim, never mind evidence.
You don't even have the tiny basis of a hypothesis.
-
Hi Steve,
To have true free will every possible response to an event must be weighted equally - you are not being swayed in any particular direction - in fact it would be very difficult to make a choice. Whereas, if you feel that a specific response is required then this is cannot be free as something is directing the choice (past experiences, your mood at the moment or a combination of many things).
Regards Juan
Hi - I don't thnk we've met before.
True, but we'd still have limited free-will.
-
Hi - I don't thnk we've met before.
True, but we'd still have limited free-will.
what does free will mean? You seem not really to be answering that. In what way might it be 'free'!
-
So any way of talking about what ypu means by free? Or are you just going to avoid this again as you have repeatedly?
For simplicity and repetition How does your 'free' will work, Alan? And can you even begin to describe what you mean? Because up to now you have offered nothing as a description of your claim, never mind evidence.
By free I am simply implying freedom from physically pre determined chains of cause and effect events over which we can have no control.
-
By free I am simply implying freedom from physically pre determined chains of cause and effect events over which we can have no control.
Which as ever, given you are repeating yourself, is incoherent and not an answer.
-
Which as ever, given you are repeating yourself, is incoherent and not an answer.
It refers to the simple logic that if there is nothing but material reactions, there can be no freedom of any sort because everything will be entirely pre determined.
-
It refers to the simple logic that if there is nothing but material reactions, there can be no freedom of any sort because everything will be entirely pre determined.
That's further incoherence and assertion. Why are you continuing not to address the issues that gave been raised to you hundreds of times, Alan? His does a 'free' decision get made?
-
By free I am simply implying freedom from physically pre determined chains of cause and effect events over which we can have no control.
Morning Alan. Nothing like a free will argument to draw you back in is there ? Seems like you can't resist, clear evidence of determinism operating through you I think ;)
That feeling of 'control' is a phenomenon of human psychology; a case of high order emergence. In reality, I don't think we have control, we don't have freedom, it just feels that way to us, in reality our choices and reactions are manifestations of the working out of deeper principles over which we have no control.
What shall I do in the next moment ? There are so many choices available. I could go to the right, I could go to the left, I could take a lungful of fresh air, I could start an insurrection to bring the government down or I could search for a tomato soup recipe. So many possibilities open to me, isn't it great being a human, so much better than being a warthog or a banana.
But generally speaking I act on the thought that comes into my head, but I don't control which thoughts occur to me, neither do I control how I feel about those thoughts. At this level of understanding, notions of control and freedom dissolve. I like the taste of chocolate, but I don't choose to like it; I just do. I believe my son is studying philosophy; I don't choose to believe that, I just do. Our feelings of control and freedom emerge from a lower order deterministic substrate where our hopes and fears form. Those hopes. fears and preferences are the founding material from which our conscious choices are formed; we cannot choose those preferences, we act on them. The higher order feeling of control is an artefact of our psychology.
-
If we take Nature as an independent and isolated system....everything has to be determined. Initial conditions determine final outcomes and all that. Fine!
But if Nature is not isolated and there is interference from Consciousness, then we have a combination of determination and intervention. Like making canals to and from a river.....or even a new river path itself. We can divert the water where we want.
Some scientists have told us that consciousness could determine the working of the universe (refer other threads please). All the emergent properties and complexities in organisms need not be predetermined by the initial conditions during the Big Bang. They could be induced by consciousness at various stages.
I know many people think of consciousness itself as a emergent property of biological evolution....but that is the area of contention.
-
It refers to the simple logic that if there is nothing but material reactions, there can be no freedom of any sort because everything will be entirely pre determined.
::)
Back to your usual mindless mantra. The logic I gave in #1 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15220.msg718799#msg718799) didn't mention 'material' or 'physical' because they are irrelevant to the LOGIC.
You have been corrected on this multiple times, it's been explained multiple times. You have never once offered a coherent counterargument - you just repeat your foolish mantra about physical or material cause and effect with all the insight and intelligence of a poorly programmed robot (ironically).
If you're going to join this argument again - then tackle the actual logic. If you don't understand it, ask questions and don't pretend that you do.
If you think that the addition of 'physical' or 'material' constitutes a counterargument, then you don't understand it.
-
If we take Nature as an independent and isolated system....everything has to be determined. Initial conditions determine final outcomes and all that. Fine!
But if Nature is not isolated and there is interference from Consciousness, then we have a combination of determination and intervention.
You (like Alan) seem to be neglecting the fact that consciousness (even if it isn't part of 'Nature') has to work somehow. Conscious choices are events that are either fully determined by their logical antecedents (within the consciousness in question or its inputs) or not, and if not the remaining choice between alternatives must be random (because that's what not determined means).
Imagining consciousness is not part of 'Nature' doesn't change the logic.
-
Hi - I don't thnk we've met before.
True, but we'd still have limited free-will.
It's quite a while since I've been here and good to see the enthusiasm is still here, not to mention the members.
However small or insignificant or whimsical the impulse to make a choice still means that the choice was not Free. There must be something that tips the balance in favor of that choice, i.e. a cause.
It is very hard to imagine the mental process that could select one option from another (or many) that wasn't influenced in any way (why select any).
Regards Juan
-
Good to see you back again Juan ;)
-
Some scientists have told us that consciousness could determine the working of the universe (refer other threads please). All the emergent properties and complexities in organisms need not be predetermined by the initial conditions during the Big Bang. They could be induced by consciousness at various stages.
Good Morning to you.
This caught my eye since how reductionists treat emergence is one of my big bug bears.
Obviously as an Abrahamic monotheist I am going to identify the consciousness as divine consciousness.
The problem the reductionist has is that her philosophy has been geared to the location and arrangement of the basic particles of nature. As I see it this cannot possibly describe the process of emergence.
For me the very term emergence demands both an emergence out of something vis the previous organisational level and into something quite different,
The picture I carry then is intelligence emerges, somehow becomes consciousness, which is no longer mere consciousness but this consciousness emerges into a consciousness environment. Thus knowledge of God who has always been conscious is possible.
I can then identify your idea of ''induction by consciousness'' as akin to ''Divine intervention. I would be interested in how you feel about this.
Finally emergence for me is a problem for a philosophical reductionism since emergence of novelty is a problem for reductionism as it is a problem for determinism.
Reductionists I think get round it in two ways either to deny novel emergences like Dennett with consciousness or pass the emergent property off as a souped up version of the previous organisational level eg if we just stoke on a bit more intelligence it will look like consciousness.
-
Those hopes. fears and preferences are the founding material from which our conscious choices are formed; we cannot choose those preferences, we act on them. The higher order feeling of control is an artefact of our psychology.
Perhaps what Alan is getting at is that many desires which form the 'founding material' are subconscious drivers which can imprison the individual, but by becoming conscious of them one can become free of the compulsion to always act the same way. You may like chocolate, a like over which you have no control, but if you are consciously free to moderate your desire for it you could prevent it becoming a subconscious addiction and imprison you. The same could be said about compulsive thoughts, thinking patterns and concepts. If you are aware (conscious) of them then you have the possibility of being free from those attachments i.e. consciousness free from those attachments allows the will to act or not act more freely.
-
Perhaps what Alan is getting at is that many desires which form the 'founding material' are subconscious drivers which can imprison the individual, but by becoming conscious of them one can become free of the compulsion to always act the same way. You may like chocolate, a like over which you have no control, but if you are consciously free to moderate your desire for it you could prevent it becoming a subconscious addiction and imprison you. The same could be said about compulsive thoughts, thinking patterns and concepts. If you are aware (conscious) of them then you have the possibility of being free from those attachments i.e. consciousness free from those attachments allows the will to act or not act more freely.
Taken from the pages of self help manuals and psychology textbooks perhaps, well yes, that all makes some sense within that context and within that level of conceptualisation. It all still comes down to more primitive fundamentals at some point however; even if we do summon up the willpower to override previously unhelpful impulses, to 'free' ourselves from them, it just means that our desire to override dysfunctional habits has become stronger than our desire to indulge them. We are still acting on our defacto preference at any moment of choice.
-
Good Morning to you.
This caught my eye since how reductionists treat emergence is one of my big bug bears.
Obviously as an Abrahamic monotheist I am going to identify the consciousness as divine consciousness.
The problem the reductionist has is that her philosophy has been geared to the location and arrangement of the basic particles of nature. As I see it this cannot possibly describe the process of emergence.
For me the very term emergence demands both an emergence out of something vis the previous organisational level and into something quite different,
The picture I carry then is intelligence emerges, somehow becomes consciousness, which is no longer mere consciousness but this consciousness emerges into a consciousness environment. Thus knowledge of God who has always been conscious is possible.
I can then identify your idea of ''induction by consciousness'' as akin to ''Divine intervention. I would be interested in how you feel about this.
Finally emergence for me is a problem for a philosophical reductionism since emergence of novelty is a problem for reductionism as it is a problem for determinism.
Reductionists I think get round it in two ways either to deny novel emergences like Dennett with consciousness or pass the emergent property off as a souped up version of the previous organisational level eg if we just stoke on a bit more intelligence it will look like consciousness.
'Divine' consciousness is fine. No problem. What you call divine, some others would call as higher consciousness. Its about how we perceive it rather than what it really is....because what is beyond that we have no idea.
Once we agree on external intervention into the physical world.....then it goes beyond our reasoning and logic...because we have no idea what laws if any, that the external force is subject to. Does not matter what we call it.
-
Once we agree on external intervention into the physical world.....then it goes beyond our reasoning and logic...because we have no idea what laws if any, that the external force is subject to.
It doesn't have to be logical - it's magic, innit. ::)
-
::)
Back to your usual mindless mantra. The logic I gave in #1 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15220.msg718799#msg718799) didn't mention 'material' or 'physical' because they are irrelevant to the LOGIC.
You have been corrected on this multiple times, it's been explained multiple times. You have never once offered a coherent counterargument - you just repeat your foolish mantra about physical or material cause and effect with all the insight and intelligence of a poorly programmed robot (ironically).
If you're going to join this argument again - then tackle the actual logic. If you don't understand it, ask questions and don't pretend that you do.
If you think that the addition of 'physical' or 'material' constitutes a counterargument, then you don't understand it.
Of course I understand what you are saying, but can you not discern a potential difference between physical determinism, defined entirely by the aimless nature of scientific laws and material properties, and non-physical determinism which is driven by something outside nature and is not constrained by the uncontrollable forces of nature.
The enormous creative potential within every human being offers ample evidence that the driving forces behind this potential come from a source which is not restricted to the outcome of the aimless uncontrollable forces of nature.
-
Of course I understand what you are saying, but can you not discern a potential difference between physical determinism, defined entirely by the aimless nature of scientific laws and material properties, and non-physical determinism which is driven by something outside nature and is not constrained by the uncontrollable forces of nature.
Once again you show that you don't understand what determinism means.
Unlike you, I'm going to explain what I mean when I say you don't understand, rather than just make a baseless claim that you don't "discern a potential difference".
Determinism is a logical property of a system. Any system at all can have the property or not.
It is not a statement about the physical universe which may or may not be deterministic.
A system is deterministic if the logical antecedents (all the reasons why it happened) of any event fully specify that event and could not have resulted in any other event.
Now - if the logical antecedents of an event do not define just one outcome, but rather a range of possible outcomes, then the choice between those outcomes cannot be for any reason at all (otherwise it would have been included in the antecedents). Something that happens for not reason at all is random.
So - to the extent a system (any system at all - physical or otherwise) is not deterministic, it is random.
Your post does not address this at all. Your claim of understanding obviously untrue.
-
Once again you show that you don't understand what determinism means.
Unlike you, I'm going to explain what I mean when I say you don't understand, rather than just make a baseless claim that you don't "discern a potential difference".
Determinism is a logical property of a system. Any system at all can have the property or not.
It is not a statement about the physical universe which may or may not be deterministic.
A system is deterministic if the logical antecedents (all the reasons why it happened) of any event fully specify that event and could not have resulted in any other event.
Now - if the logical antecedents of an event do not define just one outcome, but rather a range of possible outcomes, then the choice between those outcomes cannot be for any reason at all (otherwise it would have been included in the antecedents). Something that happens for not reason at all is random.
So - to the extent a system (any system at all - physical or otherwise) is not deterministic, it is random.
Your post does not address this at all. Your claim of understanding obviously untrue.
I must agree with Kant in his criticism of the compatibalist view that free will and determinism are compatible - they are not and the explanations just amount to word garbage. The fact is that we are free to think about how things ought to be rather than just contemplate how things are. This is nothing at all to do with random but everything to do with our freedom to think.
-
I must agree with Kant in his criticism of the compatibalist view that free will and determinism are compatible - they are not and the explanations just amount to word garbage.
In what way do you think this is a reply to my post that you quoted?
Once again, you're running away from addressing the logic. Whether or not you think compatibilism is correct, you still can't escape the fact that to the extent a system is not deterministic, it is random.
The fact is that we are free to think about how things ought to be rather than just contemplate how things are.
In what way is that ability not compatible with determinism?
This is nothing at all to do with random but everything to do with our freedom to think.
Then address the logic that only leaves you only randomness or determinism.
-
It's quite a while since I've been here and good to see the enthusiasm is still here, not to mention the members.
However small or insignificant or whimsical the impulse to make a choice still means that the choice was not Free. There must be something that tips the balance in favor of that choice, i.e. a cause.
It is very hard to imagine the mental process that could select one option from another (or many) that wasn't influenced in any way (why select any).
Regards Juan
But if our apparent choices are bound by the deterministic nature of our universe, they are not choices at all but inevitable reactions. The key to this is to discover what comprises the "something that tips the balance in favour of that choice". Does it derive from something outside the physical chains of cause and effect which only the laws of nature control? To understand what tips the balance we must understand what comprises conscious perception, and this property still defies any material definition.
-
But if our apparent choices are bound the deterministic nature of our universe, they are not choices at all but inevitable reactions. The key to this is to discover what comprises the "something that tips the balance in favour of that choice". Does it derive from something outside the physical chains of cause and effect which only the laws of nature control? To understand what tips the balance we must understand what comprises conscious perception, and this property still defies any material definition.
Why are you continuing with this blatant dishonesty?
- It is by no means certain that the universe has a "deterministic nature".
- Saying "outside the physical chains of cause" is an utterly dishonest qualification - something is either the result of deterministic "cause and effect" or not - physical has bugger all to do with it.
- Saying that "conscious perception" "defies any material definition" is blantantly dishonest because it implies you have an alternative that isn't physical - which you haven't.
You clearly don't care about truth and honesty...
-
Why are you continuing with this blatant dishonesty?
- It is by no means certain that the universe has a "deterministic nature".
- Saying "outside the physical chains of cause" is an utterly dishonest qualification - something is either the result of deterministic "cause and effect" or not - physical has bugger all to do with it.
- Saying that "conscious perception" "defies any material definition" is blantantly dishonest because it implies you have an alternative that isn't physical - which you haven't.
You clearly don't care about truth and honesty...
As ever with Alan, I doubt that he's dishonest - just not thinking logically
-
Taken from the pages of self help manuals and psychology textbooks perhaps, well yes, that all makes some sense within that context and within that level of conceptualisation. It all still comes down to more primitive fundamentals at some point however; even if we do summon up the willpower to override previously unhelpful impulses, to 'free' ourselves from them, it just means that our desire to override dysfunctional habits has become stronger than our desire to indulge them. We are still acting on our defacto preference at any moment of choice.
Perhaps that is as free as it gets ... consciously choosing the desire to willingly expand beyond self imposed boundaries rather than subconsciously succumb to will-lessly being imprisoned by them or to wilfully reinforcing that prison. It may be that those who cannot see that possibility are imprisoned by the gravitational pull of their strongly held beliefs.
-
As ever with Alan, I doubt that he's dishonest - just not thinking logically
You may be right but I simply cannot grasp how somebody can have an argument put to them that undermines what they're saying, obviously have no counterargument, and yet continue to repeat the same stuff as if it's never been put to them. Not without a basic disregard for honesty, anyway.
I also don't see how the continued use of "no material definition" (by which I assume he means 'explanation') can be honest, when he obviously doesn't have any definition/explanation at all and hasn't presented an argument that could rule out the material.
-
You may be right but I simply cannot grasp how somebody can have an argument put to them that undermines what they're saying, obviously have no counterargument, and yet continue to repeat the same stuff as if it's never been put to them. Not without a basic disregard for honesty, anyway.
I also don't see how the continued use of "no material definition" (by which I assume he means 'explanation') can be honest, when he obviously doesn't have any definition/explanation at all and hasn't presented an argument that could rule out the material.
And I don't see how he can think like that either but it appears that he does, I did a post - link below - tp raise aspects of this where I don't feel that Alan and I perceive things on certain areas in the same way
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=13903.msg673953#msg673953
-
Good to see you back again Juan ;)
Thanks Torridon. I don't get as much time as I had before so I expect my visits will be sporadic.
Regards Juan
-
You may be right but I simply cannot grasp how somebody can have an argument put to them that undermines what they're saying, obviously have no counterargument, and yet continue to repeat the same stuff as if it's never been put to them. Not without a basic disregard for honesty, anyway.
I also don't see how the continued use of "no material definition" (by which I assume he means 'explanation') can be honest, when he obviously doesn't have any definition/explanation at all and hasn't presented an argument that could rule out the material.
I thought it was obvious that I was implying that it is the spiritual power of the human soul that offers an alternative, more feasible explanation to a material definition of self awareness and free will.
-
I thought it was obvious that I was implying that it is the spiritual power of the human soul that offers an alternative, more feasible explanation to a material definition of self awareness and free will.
Given there's no evidence for spiritual souls, it's a bit of a non-starter, and given that the vast majority of creatures manage to make choices without this soul, it's spurious, and given that just adding 'spiritual' into the context does not make an incoherent claim into a coherent one, it is a pointless exercise anyway. This is just escapism, you use baseless irrational fantasy beliefs as cover in a prolonged exercise in avoidance when by now you could be learning through observation and engagement.
-
I thought it was obvious that I was implying that it is the spiritual power of the human soul that offers an alternative, more feasible explanation to a material definition of self awareness and free will.
Except that "spiritual power of the human soul" is just a string of words without any concrete meaning, it is not a counterargument to the one I presented, and it certainly does not excuse you from what appears to be a blatant disregard for truth and honesty.
Even if we were to imagine for a moment that there is something non-physical that we might label with your words, it still doesn't offer an alternative way in which decisions can be made that isn't some combination of determinism and randomness.
Once again for the hard-of-thinking: the argument is LOGICAL and assumes only that the system involved is subject to logic, NOT that it is physical.
We are also still left with your dishonest use of the phrase "...we must understand what comprises conscious perception, and this property still defies any material definition". When you haven't actually got any understanding or 'definition' of it yourself and you haven't ruled out a material understanding or 'definition'.
Can you not understand that the implication that a material understanding is impossible and that you have an alternative understanding amounts to dishonesty?
-
Material determinism has nothing to say about morality although it is used to deny human moral responsibility.
If determinism is at base concerned with the movement of basic particles and their arrangements then determinism can only describe the behaviour of those not the morality. That therefore has to be determined independent of material determinism.
That means morality is akin to say maths or the scientific method unchanged by material processes but manifestly governed by their own internal rules which are proved by experience.
Material determinists have no warrant to comment on moral responsibility.
-
Material determinism has nothing to say about morality although it is used to deny human moral responsibility.
::) Somebody else wanting to attach 'material' to determinism as if it makes a difference. See #36 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15220.msg720045#msg720045).
Dennett actually makes the case for moral responsibility despite (possible) determinism via compatibilism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism).
If determinism is at base concerned with the movement of basic particles and their arrangements...
Determinism is a more general concept than that - again see #36 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15220.msg720045#msg720045).
...[morality] therefore has to be determined independent of material determinism.
Irrelevant term indicated.
That means morality is akin to say maths or the scientific method unchanged by material processes but manifestly governed by their own internal rules which are proved by experience.
No, it doesn't mean that at all. Morality does not contain a means of proof (mathematics) and is not a methodology (the scientific method).
Material determinists have no warrant to comment on moral responsibility.
Why not?
-
::) Somebody else wanting to attach 'material' to determinism as if it makes a difference. See #36 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15220.msg720045#msg720045).
Dennett actually makes the case for moral responsibility despite (possible) determinism via compatibilism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism).
Determinism is a more general concept than that - again see #36 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15220.msg720045#msg720045).
Irrelevant term indicated.
No, it doesn't mean that at all. Morality does not contain a means of proof (mathematics) and is not a methodology (the scientific method).
Why not?
If determinism is above the material then you undo your own arguments elsewhere
Point out if you will where I am denying determinism?
You are agreeing with me if you suggest that there is more to determinism than material.
-
No, it doesn't mean that at all. Morality does not contain a means of proof (mathematics) and is not a methodology (the scientific method).
Yes I haven't said that is untrue but that does not in itself counter my claim that morality is independent and not derived from any classic materialist view.
It also explains how you can have a morality and be right or wrong according to its rules.
A scientific morality is misplaced and doomed because the hunch that there are moral laws is correct but not that they are to do with materialist determinism.
-
If determinism is above the material then you undo your own arguments elsewhere
Who said anything about 'above'? Determinism is a logical property of systems.
Point out if you will where I am denying determinism?
I didn't say that you were.
You are agreeing with me if you suggest that there is more to determinism than material.
FFS - it's a logical property of systems - what's hard?
All Alan seems to be saying to me is that in all scientifically observed phenomena there is unconscious agency then when it comes to us other considerations need to be considered.
Why? And what about other animals?
A scientific morality is misplaced and doomed because the hunch that there are moral laws is correct but not that they are to do with materialist determinism.
I really have no idea what you are trying to argue against. You introduced morality into this discussion and it doesn't seem directly relevant to me. How about you start another thread and say what you mean?
-
Who said anything about 'above'? Determinism is a logical property of systems.
I didn't say that you were.
FFS - it's a logical property of systems - what's hard?
Why? And what about other animals?
I really have no idea what you are trying to argue against. You introduced morality into this discussion and it doesn't seem directly relevant to me. How about you start another thread and say what you mean?
What about other animals?
You seem to be the ones suggesting behaviour is determined by movement and arrangement of matter. We don't know what moral philosophy lies within animals do we?
-
What about other animals?
You said 'us', which I took to mean humans, and contrasted it with "unconscious agency" - do you regard other animals as being unconscious?
You seem to be the ones suggesting behaviour is determined by movement and arrangement of matter.
You have a quaint view of physics - but my argument here is that the only alternative to determinism is randomness for purely logical reasons.
-
You said 'us', which I took to mean humans, and contrasted it with "unconscious agency" - do you regard other animals as being unconscious?
You have a quaint view of physics - but my argument here is that the only alternative to determinism is randomness for purely logical reasons.
Firstly we experience our own consciousness. We assume it in other people, we accept it to various degrees in animals. What we cannot do is assume moral capability in animals. I hope that clears things up.
I am not arguing against determinism here am I all I am arguing against is the physicalist interpretation of it.
Novelty constitutes a random event.
-
Firstly we experience our own consciousness. We assume it in other people, we accept it to various degrees in animals.
Agreed.
What we cannot do is assume moral capability in animals. I hope that clears things up.
We'd be wrong to assume it but, from what I've read on the subject, there is some evidence for (for example) a sense of fairness in other apes and, to a lesser degree, in some other species.
I am not arguing against determinism here am I all I am arguing against is the physicalist interpretation of it.
That seems tangential to the subject here, so if you want to discuss it, I suggest another topic.
Novelty constitutes a random event.
A random event would constitute novelty - the other way round would depend on how exactly you define novelty.
-
Agreed.
We'd be wrong to assume it but, from what I've read on the subject, there is some evidence for (for example) a sense of fairness in other apes and, to a lesser degree, in some other species.
That seems tangential to the subject here, so if you want to discuss it, I suggest another topic.
A random event would constitute novelty - the other way round would depend on how exactly you define novelty.
How can a question about determinism be out of place on a thread about determinism?
That apes have a sense of fairness can only be trouble for the moral irrealism don't you think..
-
How can a question about determinism be out of place on a thread about determinism?
It's about free will and determinism - if minds are deterministic what is the relevance to free will if they are realized in a physical structure or in some non-material 'soul'? This seems to be Alan's hang up but he clearly doesn't understand what determinism means.
That apes have a sense of fairness can only be trouble for the normal irrealists don't you think..
If by 'irrealists' you mean those of us who don't think it's objective - I don't see how. It's indicative that it evolved in social animals.
-
How can a question about determinism be out of place on a thread about determinism?
That apes have a sense of fairness can only be trouble for the moral irrealism don't you think..
Does that mean that because apes, like us, have a sense of preferred food, that's a problem for food taste irrealism? And that marmite is objectively good or bad for a taste?
-
I suppose AB is trying to conflate determinism with materialism or physicalism, so then he can announce a non-determined system, which is variously called 'spiritual' or to do with a soul. However, it's not clear how this is a non-determined system, since we are not given further details. It sounds a bit like traditional views of God, who does not arrive at a decision, since all decisions are already latent in him (or something). However, this just pushes the issues further back.
But I think this has caused some controversy in theology - since in one sense, God is prior to all decisions and feelings, yet in another sense, is considerably anthropomorphized, so gets angry, punishes people, and regrets making humans in the first place! But there is also a cute version that God keeps experimenting, and we are one of the experiments, that didn't go all that well (not orthodox Christianity). Try again, eh?
-
Does that mean that because apes, like us, have a sense of preferred food, that's a problem for food taste irrealism? And that marmite is objectively good or bad for a taste?
Are you saying that morality is taste or like taste?
If it is taste then taste is an observed behaviour pattern of preference which is neutral there is no question that one ought to have a taste, ought to have one taste or another.
It would be sufficient to encompass taste in a scientific observation. A prefers B to C.
Such a report though is inadequate to describe moral behaviour
Issues also arise for science if A prefers B toC today but tomorrow prefers C to B.
-
Are you saying that morality is taste or like taste?
If it is taste then taste is an observed behaviour pattern of preference which is neutral there is no question that one ought to have a taste, ought to have one taste or another.
It would be sufficient to encompass taste in a scientific observation. A prefers B to C.
Such a report though is inadequate to describe moral behaviour
Issues also arise for science if A prefers B toC today but tomorrow prefers C to B.
Why do you think it is insufficient to describe moral behaviour? And your last sentence can surely apply to morality as well?
-
Why do you think it is insufficient to describe moral behaviour? And your last sentence can surely apply to morality as well?
Because there is no moral arbitration.
I can observe your preferences but put no judgment on them. That is not the role of science.
I can see that you like Marmite because I can design an experiment to look at your behaviour.
Indeed the Milgram experiment shows that our moral faculties are suspended if we are embarked upon a scientific experiment.
Roger is copulating with his wife. Roger is copulating with somebody else's wife. Science makes no judgment or arbitration.
If your morals are based on taste there is no arbitration. From whence are your morals arising?
-
Because there is no moral arbitration.
I can observe your preferences but put no judgment on them. That is not the role of science.
I can see that you like Marmite because I can design an experiment to look at your behaviour.
Indeed the Milgram experiment shows that our moral faculties are suspended if we are embarked upon a scientific experiment.
Roger is copulating with his wife. Roger is copulating with somebody else's wife. Science makes no judgment or arbitration.
If your morals are based on taste there is no arbitration. From whence are your morals arising?
This is quite good as free form poetry. But it isn't an argument. Why is moral arbitration, whatever that means, related to saying morality is something where someone expresses a preference? And how would it show that that was 'insufficient'.
What is the relevance of science in your post?
-
Except that "spiritual power of the human soul" is just a string of words without any concrete meaning, it is not a counterargument to the one I presented, and it certainly does not excuse you from what appears to be a blatant disregard for truth and honesty.
Even if we were to imagine for a moment that there is something non-physical that we might label with your words, it still doesn't offer an alternative way in which decisions can be made that isn't some combination of determinism and randomness.
Once again for the hard-of-thinking: the argument is LOGICAL and assumes only that the system involved is subject to logic, NOT that it is physical.
We are also still left with your dishonest use of the phrase "...we must understand what comprises conscious perception, and this property still defies any material definition". When you haven't actually got any understanding or 'definition' of it yourself and you haven't ruled out a material understanding or 'definition'.
Can you not understand that the implication that a material understanding is impossible and that you have an alternative understanding amounts to dishonesty?
It all boils down to what it is that determines our thought patterns and conscious actions. Is it an end result from physical chains of cause and effect events within our brain, or is it derived from whatever comprises our conscious awareness? Of course if you assume that conscious awareness comprises nothing but physical events, then everything must be determined from physical chains of cause and effect. But what is conscious awareness, and how can it interact with the physical properties of our brain? I do not know the answer to this, and neither does anyone else. I just know without any doubt that my thoughts and conscious actions are ultimately determined by me, not by the uncontrollable reactions to past events.
-
It all boils down to what it is that determines our thought patterns and conscious actions. Is it an end result from physical chains of cause and effect events within our brain, or is it derived from whatever comprises our conscious awareness? Of course if you assume that conscious awareness comprises nothing but physical events, then everything must be determined from physical chains of cause and effect. But what is conscious awareness, and how can it interact with the physical properties of our brain? I do not know the answer to this, and neither does anyone else. I just know without any doubt that my thoughts and conscious actions are ultimately determined by me, not by the uncontrollable reactions to past events.
Alan, that is a complete misrepresentation of Stranger's post. I suggest you reread it because it very clearly does not say this.
-
Alan, that is a complete misrepresentation of Stranger's post. I suggest you reread it because it very clearly does not say this.
I am just putting down my own thoughts on the topic which came to me after reading Stranger's post.
-
I just know without any doubt that my thoughts and conscious actions are ultimately determined by me, not by the uncontrollable reactions to past events.
Consider what is that 'me'. The 'me' that responds is itself a consequence of, a product of, all those past events. Given also that we cannot change the past, we cannot 'control' what we are in the present.
-
I am just putting down my own thoughts on the topic which came to me after reading Stranger's post.
Does that justify misrepresenting what he said?
-
Does that justify misrepresenting what he said?
I did not try to misrepresent anything - I just put down my own thoughts.
-
I did not try to misrepresent anything - I just put down my own thoughts.
And yet you managed to do it. Which is why I asked you to reread the post so you could try not to misrepresent Stranger. It seems basic courtesy to me that you should want to do that.
-
Consider what is that 'me'. The 'me' that responds is itself a consequence of, a product of, all those past events. Given also that we cannot change the past, we cannot 'control' what we are in the present.
So are you saying that control does not exist?
Are we entirely and uncontrollably defined by past events?
And I can't agree with your definition of "me". I am a conscious entity in control of a physical body, not just a consequence of past events!
-
I just put down my own thoughts.
While totally ignoring everything I said. What was the point? You didn't address my points and you didn't even say anything you haven't said thousands of times (or so it seems) before.
How about you read what I said, think about it and then write an actual response to it - or would that be asking for too much honesty?
-
And yet you managed to do it. Which is why I asked you to reread the post so you could try not to misrepresent Stranger. It seems basic courtesy to me that you should want to do that.
Sorry, but I genuinely do not understand your objection - I was just reiterating my own thought on the subject.
-
So are you saying that control does not exist?
Are we entirely and uncontrollably defined by past events?
And I can't agree with your definition of "me". I am a conscious entity in control of a physical body, not just a consequence of past events!
in what way aren't you a consequence of past events? You are arguing against determinism here, so we can take your statements that you weren't arguing against determinism to have been wrong.
-
Sorry, but I genuinely do not understand your objection - I was just reiterating my own thought on the subject.
Are you then acknowledging that you do not take notice of what others say in their posts, but just post your own thoughts?
-
While totally ignoring everything I said. What was the point? You didn't address my points and you didn't even say anything you haven't said thousands of times (or so it seems) before.
How about you read what I said, think about it and then write an actual response to it - or would that be asking for too much honesty?
I honestly found the points you were making were not relevant, so I wanted to re state my own view just to clarify my own position and get back to what I consider the essence of the subject in question.
And as an aside, do you consider my post to be just a logical reaction to your own post, or was there something else involved - could it possibly be my free will?
-
Sorry, but I genuinely do not understand your objection - I was just reiterating my own thought on the subject.
This is just wrong because in your post you made statements about what you were arguing against in Stranger's post that were not about what he argued and were a misrepresentation of it. Go back and read his post, and your's. As ever Alan I have no doubt you aren't lying but I do see a basic form of discourtesy in that you don't read the posts you reply to, but rather reply to an argument you think you should reply to. It's at best careless, but it makes discussion impossible with you if you ignore what people actually write!
-
I honestly found the points you were making were not relevant...
I actually pointed out a massive gaping logical hole at the heart of your so called "argument" and you think it's not relevant!
Even if you thought that was the case - why not explain why you think it was not relevant, instead of mindlessly repeating the same drivel you've stated endlessly in the past and that has been refuted just as many times by many people?
And as an aside, do you consider my post to be just a logical reaction to your own post, or was there something else involved - could it possibly be my free will?
You are showing no evidence of free will at all - you are behaving exactly like a mindless automaton with no ability to think for itself at all...
-
So are you saying that control does not exist?
Of course it does - and control systems need to be deterministic.
Are we entirely and uncontrollably defined by past events?
[prejudicial language indicated]
Unless there is a random element, that is the only logical option.
And I can't agree with your definition of "me". I am a conscious entity in control of a physical body, not just a consequence of past events!
Being "a conscious entity in control of a physical body" does not contradict you being deterministic - and being deterministic is the only logical way you can possibly make purposeful and meaningful choices.
-
So are you saying that control does not exist?
Are we entirely and uncontrollably defined by past events?
And I can't agree with your definition of "me". I am a conscious entity in control of a physical body, not just a consequence of past events!
The feeling of control is an emergent phenomenon whose discussion sits comfortably in higher realms such as psychology. At the more fundamental levels of reality, concepts of control and freedom dissolve. What control do we actually have if we cannot choose what to want or what to believe ? We are in a sense hostage to the past. I did not choose to start growing a backbone as a 10 day old foetus, nor did I choose the development path of becoming a white skinned hetero male nor did I choose to be born in Yorkshire. All broad brush stuff I'm sure you'll agree but later down the line we start to develop sentience and self awareness and characteristics traits that distinguish us from others in more subtle ways but the same principle applies, we ultimately do not choose what subtle and ephemeral characteristics to have but rather they form within us as a consequence of our passage through life. I just made myself a cup of tea two minutes ago. I did not choose to want a cup of tea, rather, the desire for a cuppa arose within me and I acted on it. This is what I mean by 'dissolve'. It makes no sense to claim that I could could choose to want something, because that implies there again must be some prior motivation for wanting to choose to want something. We never develop desire or need for no reason, there is always a reason for things; if this were not true we could not possibly be here discussing it.
-
The feeling of control is an emergent phenomenon whose discussion sits comfortably in higher realms such as psychology. At the more fundamental levels of reality, concepts of control and freedom dissolve. What control do we actually have if we cannot choose what to want or what to believe ? We are in a sense hostage to the past. I did not choose to start growing a backbone as a 10 day old foetus, nor did I choose the development path of becoming a white skinned hetero male nor did I choose to be born in Yorkshire. All broad brush stuff I'm sure you'll agree but later down the line we start to develop sentience and self awareness and characteristics traits that distinguish us from others in more subtle ways but the same principle applies, we ultimately do not choose what subtle and ephemeral characteristics to have but rather they form within us as a consequence of our passage through life. I just made myself a cup of tea two minutes ago. I did not choose to want a cup of tea, rather, the desire for a cuppa arose within me and I acted on it. This is what I mean by 'dissolve'. It makes no sense to claim that I could could choose to want something, because that implies there again must be some prior motivation for wanting to choose to want something. We never develop desire or need for no reason, there is always a reason for things; if this were not true we could not possibly be here discussing it.
The difference, though, is that you are identifying with a physical body and its associated mental states, whereas Alan identifies with a soul which wants for nothing as all is provided by his God. The only choice Alan has to make is to surrender to his God's control and allow his life to be determined by that God.
-
The feeling of control is an emergent phenomenon whose discussion sits comfortably in higher realms such as psychology. At the more fundamental levels of reality, concepts of control and freedom dissolve. What control do we actually have if we cannot choose what to want or what to believe ? We are in a sense hostage to the past. I did not choose to start growing a backbone as a 10 day old foetus, nor did I choose the development path of becoming a white skinned hetero male nor did I choose to be born in Yorkshire. All broad brush stuff I'm sure you'll agree but later down the line we start to develop sentience and self awareness and characteristics traits that distinguish us from others in more subtle ways but the same principle applies, we ultimately do not choose what subtle and ephemeral characteristics to have but rather they form within us as a consequence of our passage through life. I just made myself a cup of tea two minutes ago. I did not choose to want a cup of tea, rather, the desire for a cuppa arose within me and I acted on it. This is what I mean by 'dissolve'. It makes no sense to claim that I could could choose to want something, because that implies there again must be some prior motivation for wanting to choose to want something. We never develop desire or need for no reason, there is always a reason for things; if this were not true we could not possibly be here discussing it.
10 days post-conception, you were an embryo, not a foetus.
You had no control over your desire for a cup of tea, but you could control whether you acted on it by making one or not.
-
You had no control over your desire for a cup of tea, but you could control whether you acted on it by making one or not.
Then you have to consider what the 'you' refers to in your statement and how it makes choices. Once again, it can either do so for reasons or there can be a random element - but there are no other logical alternatives. To the extent the choice is no a direct, deterministic result of the reasons why it was made, it was made for no reason, which means random.
-
Then you have to consider what the 'you' refers to in your statement and how it makes choices. Once again, it can either do so for reasons or there can be a random element - but there are no other logical alternatives. To the extent the choice is no a direct, deterministic result of the reasons why it was made, it was made for no reason, which means random.
The fact that there were reasons for the choice (thirst, fondness for tea, advert break) for making tea when you did, and not coffee or some other drink doesn't alter the fact that it was your choice. Determinism rules - every event has a pre-existant cause (at the everyday level, that is: not at the quantum level, apparantly, though that doesn't alter things materially), but some of those pre-existant causes are our conscious choices.
-
10 days post-conception, you were an embryo, not a foetus.
You had no control over your desire for a cup of tea, but you could control whether you acted on it by making one or not.
Makes no difference really. You admit that we have no control over the desire to have a cup of tea, but then claim that we do have control over whether or not to act on it. That's just arbitrary. They are both desires, related desires in this case, and so the same principle applies. Whatever I choose to do in the next moment reflects my uppermost priority in the next moment. We cannot arbitrarily choose what to want or what to believe, we discern what our priority is and act on it; that may well be to have that tea, or it may be another choice, perhaps to postpone that tea because I have some more pressing priority in the moment.
-
...but some of those pre-existant causes are our conscious choices.
But a concious choice is made for some reasons (or is, to some extent, random) - you cannot simply regard it as an input (just a cause). Consciousness has inputs, an internal state, and outputs (choices) - it is either internally deterministic* (its outputs are determined by its inputs and internal state) or it has a genuine random element.
* Although almost certainly chaotic in the mathematical sense.
-
While totally ignoring everything I said. What was the point? You didn't address my points and you didn't even say anything you haven't said thousands of times (or so it seems) before.
You are accusing me of deliberately ignoring what you said in the post.
Considering what you say in your post about the logic of determinism, can you deduce the ultimate cause of my deliberate choice to ignore what you said in your post?
-
You are accusing me of deliberately ignoring what you said in the post.
Considering what you say in your post about the logic of determinism, can you define the ultimate cause of my deliberate choice to ignore what you said in your post?
You really are an intellectual coward of the first order - yet again blatantly avoiding addressing the point.
You're question makes no sense - can you define the 'ultimate cause' of the cold weather we're having? How many times are you going to repeat this pathetic argument about your replies being evidence of the magic nature of 'free will'? I mean, what do you think people are going to say? "Oh f**k - I never thought of the fact that you and I can choose what to type, what to ignore, and what to answer, that totally undermines my views..."?
Grow up!
-
It shows the bankruptcy of this position, reduced to parroting a few empty phrases. It's not possible to describe the 'spiritual' antecedents of any act or wish, so instead we get either silence, or empty verbiage.
-
You really are an intellectual coward of the first order - yet again blatantly avoiding addressing the point.
You're question makes no sense - can you define the 'ultimate cause' of the cold weather we're having? How many times are you going to repeat this pathetic argument about your replies being evidence of the magic nature of 'free will'? I mean, what do you think people are going to say? "Oh f**k - I never thought of the fact that you and I can choose what to type, what to ignore, and what to answer, that totally undermines my views..."?
Grow up!
But you are now ignoring my point.
I put it to you that I am the cause of my replies.
If I am not the cause, what is it that you are arguing with?
-
But you are now ignoring my point.
Untrue. I pointed out that the question made no sense and asked you a similar one - all of which you have ignored!
I put it to you that I am the cause of my replies.
If I am not the cause, what is it that you are arguing with?
Of course 'you' are to cause of your replies - that isn't the point.
How about going back and reading what has been said? If you genuinely can't understand it, I'll try to explain more...
-
But you are now ignoring my point.
I put it to you that I am the cause of my replies.
If I am not the cause, what is it that you are arguing with?
No he didn't ignore your point he said your question was stupid. And it is and you continue to ignore the points made to you showing your basic discourtesy. By the way, what would you question mean, what is an 'ultimate cause' and how would it happen without a cause?
-
No he didn't ignore your point he said your question was stupid. And it is and you continue to ignore the points made to you showing your basic discourtesy. By the way, what would you question mean, what is an 'ultimate cause' and how would it happen without a cause?
The ultimate cause of my posts stems from the conscious willpower of my soul.
Nothing else makes sense.
The only alternative scenario is that my replies are just the inevitable consequence of all the physical events which have taken place since the beginning of the universe.
I repeat - am not nature's robot.
-
The ultimate cause of my posts stems from the conscious willpower of my soul.
Nothing else makes sense.
The only alternative scenario is that my replies are just the inevitable consequence of all the physical events which have taken place since the beginning of the universe.
I repeat - am not nature's robot.
But how does that cause arise? If it doesn't have a prior cause, then it is just random. And your laying out one scenario and saying that is all you can think of is an argument from ignorance, followed up by you using physical in it which has been covered many times is specious in terms of determinism, and you then just dismiss it because you don't accept. You don't present arguments, you don't listen to arguments.
-
The ultimate cause of my posts stems from the conscious willpower of my soul.
Meaningless.
Nothing else makes sense.
Untrue.
The only alternative scenario is that my replies are just the inevitable consequence of all the physical events which have taken place since the beginning of the universe.
Back to the pointless mantra and the dishonest association of of determinism with the physical.
I repeat - am not nature's robot.
Pointless prejudicial language.
And you still don't have the intellectual courage to face up to the logic of the arguments presented to you. What sort of impression do you think you are giving (of yourself and your faith) by just regurgitating the same thing, in the same words, over and over and over again and over again - while totally ignoring the arguments put to you?
-
Of course 'you' are to cause of your replies - that isn't the point.
It is the point. I take ultimate responsibility for all my choices, because I am in control.
But what constitutes "me" or "you"?
Are we just all just part of the physically deterministic material universe? If so we are all indeed under the inevitable control of the natural consequences cause and effect which date back to the beginning of time.
-
But how does that cause arise? If it doesn't have a prior cause, then it is just random. And your laying out one scenario and saying that is all you can think of is an argument from ignorance, followed up by you using physical in it which has been covered many times is specious in terms of determinism, and you then just dismiss it because you don't accept. You don't present arguments, you don't listen to arguments.
Of course all my actions have a cause. I am the cause.
And to answer Stranger's point, yes there is a reason behind my conscious choices. The reason stems from the ability of my spiritual awareness to make a conscious choice.
The point I am making is that there is a difference between choice and reaction. I drive my choices. Nature drives reactions.
And if I am repeating my previous arguments it is because I have consciously chosen to do so of my own free will.
-
Of course all my actions have a cause. I am the cause.
And to answer Stranger's point, yes there is a reason behind my conscious choices. The reason stems from the ability of my spiritual willpower to make a conscious choice.
The point I am making is that there is a difference between choice and reaction. I drive my choices. Nature drives reactions.
And if I am repeating my previous arguments it is because I have consciously chosen to do so.
And again you don't appear to gave the basic courtesy to read what you are replying to.
Hiw dies any cause that is your choice happen if it isn't caused? If it is caused it is deternined. If it isn't it is random.
Before you reply, make sure you read that and don't repeat a reply that just ignores it, please.
-
Of course all my actions have a cause. I am the cause.
You are just deploying a mental block here it seems. Just saying 'I am the cause' is not throwing any light on the underlying reasons that lead to your choices. We do not make choices out of thin air, there must be a rationale to our choices otherwise our actions would be just random.
-
It is the point. I take ultimate responsibility for all my choices, because I am in control.
It isn't the point because nobody is disputing that 'you' are in control.
But what constitutes "me" or "you"?
Now, that is the point - but yet again, you will not actually face up to it and go off on one of your silly tangents again...
Are we just all just part of the physically deterministic material universe? If so we are all indeed under the inevitable control of the natural consequences cause and effect which date back to the beginning of time.
And if your consciousness is not part of the "physically deterministic material universe", then it must be part of some other, equally deterministic, system (unless it incorporates some random element) - which would make all your choices just as predetermined as they would be if you were entirely physical. That is what LOGIC tells us and that is why the term 'physical' is irrelevant.
-
Of course all my actions have a cause. I am the cause.
And to answer Stranger's point, yes there is a reason behind my conscious choices. The reason stems from the ability of my spiritual awareness to make a conscious choice.
And you once again RUN AWAY from facing the fact that whatever is making the choices, has to have an internal process that makes them, based on its inputs and its internal state. Labelling it "spiritual awareness" doesn't change that.
So this "spiritual awareness" either produces choices that are entirely defined by its internal state and its inputs (and is deterministic), or, to some extent, its output is not fully defined by its inputs and state, in which case the final choice between alternatives has to happen for no reason (its inputs and state are all the reasons available to it), and is therefore random.
How about having the courage to stop and think about that (and no, your ability to 'stop and think' does not mean that you are not a deterministic being)?
-
And if your consciousness is not part of the "physically deterministic material universe", then it must be part of some other, equally deterministic, system (unless it incorporates some random element) - which would make all your choices just as predetermined as they would be if you were entirely physical. That is what LOGIC tells us and that is why the term 'physical' is irrelevant.
But in this statement you are applying the same logical rules of physical cause cause and effect to the non physical, but you can't presume to know how the non physical works, and in particular whether it requires a plethora of pre determined reasons to define and implement what amounts to an inevitable conscious choice. You seem to ignore the concept of "conscious will" which is not just an inevitable consequence to the past (that would be reaction), but a real time attribute of consciously driven processes.
-
But in this statement you are applying the same logical rules of physical cause cause and effect to the non physical, but you can't presume to know how the non physical works, and in particular whether it requires a plethora of pre determined reasons to implement a conscious choice. You seem to ignore the concept of "conscious will" which is not just an inevitable consequence to the past (that would be reaction), but a real time attribute of consciously driven processes.
That's another egregious misrepresentation of a post which specifically points out that the conclusion is not based on induction from how the physical might behave but logic. Read the posts Alan, instead of as ever responding to something not said. Yet again a basic lack of courtesy!
-
And you once again RUN AWAY from facing the fact that whatever is making the choices, has to have an internal process that makes them, based on its inputs and its internal state. Labelling it "spiritual awareness" doesn't change that.
So this "spiritual awareness" either produces choices that are entirely defined by its internal state and its inputs (and is deterministic), or, to some extent, its output is not fully defined by its inputs and state, in which case the final choice between alternatives has to happen for no reason (its inputs and state are all the reasons available to it), and is therefore random.
How about having the courage to stop and think about that (and no, your ability to 'stop and think' does not mean that you are not a deterministic being)?
To me, my spiritual awareness simply makes me aware of the many different choices I am able to make at any given time, and allows me to decide which choice to make (if any) and when to make it, thus giving me real time control of my life on this earth, and in particular, allowing me to freely worship the one God who brought everything into existence.
-
You are just deploying a mental block here it seems. Just saying 'I am the cause' is not throwing any light on the underlying reasons that lead to your choices. We do not make choices out of thin air, there must be a rationale to our choices otherwise our actions would be just random.
I fully agree that conscious choices are not random.
But how do you differentiate between an inevitable reaction and a conscious choice?
-
But in this statement you are applying the same logical rules of physical cause cause and effect to the non physical, but you can't presume to know how the non physical works...
I am just applying LOGIC, Alan. There is absolutely NO assumption that we are dealing with PHYSICAL.
You seem to ignore the concept of "conscious will" which is not just an inevitable consequence to the past (that would be reaction), but a real time attribute of consciously driven processes.
Except that a "real time attribute of consciously driven processes" is just a jumble of words that doesn't address the problem of how decisions are arrived at.
To me, my spiritual awareness simply makes me aware of the many different choices I am able to make at any given time, and allows me to decide which choice to make (if any) and when to make it, thus giving me real time control of my life on this earth...[preaching deleted]
And yet again, you've totally ignored the logical reasoning in the post this is supposed to be a reply to. It's at least rude of you, if not dishonest.
You cannot just make the 'I' and the 'me' in that description external and ignore how it makes choices. That is not answering the question, it's running away from it.
Just because it's a conscious process, doesn't mean that it isn't subject to the logic that it (by which I mean YOU) only has its internal state (your state of mind, memories, experience, etc.) and its inputs (what you are currently experiencing) to base its choice on - and if those do not define just one choice, then there is nothing left to base the remaining choice on, so it must be made for no reason at all - which means the remaining choice is random.
Ultimately that logic is inescapable: all your conscious choices must be subject to that logic - no matter what it feels like to make them.
That has NOTHING TO DO WITH the PHYSICAL - it's just LOGIC.
-
I am just applying LOGIC, Alan. There is absolutely NO assumption that we are dealing with PHYSICAL.
But you are assuming that the logic you perceive through your physical senses can also apply to the non physical. Can our consciousness create its own reasons?
Except that a "real time attribute of consciously driven processes" is just a jumble of words that doesn't address the problem of how decisions are arrived at.
That is just your consciously chosen claim
And yet again, you've totally ignored the logical reasoning in the post this is supposed to be a reply to. It's at least rude of you, if not dishonest.
Is it rude or dishonest to stand up for what I honestly believe to be the truth?
You cannot just make the 'I' and the 'me' in that description external and ignore how it makes choices. That is not answering the question, it's running away from it.
I am describing my perception of reality
Just because it's a conscious process, doesn't mean that it isn't subject to the logic that it (by which I mean YOU) only has its internal state (your state of mind, memories, experience, etc.) and its inputs (what you are currently experiencing) to base its choice on - and if those do not define just one choice, then there is nothing left to base the remaining choice on, so it must be made for no reason at all - which means the remaining choice is random.
There is nothing random about my conscious awareness having the final say after perceiving all the background reasoning.
Ultimately that logic is inescapable: all your conscious choices must be subject to that logic - no matter what it feels like to make them.[/size]
I cannot escape the truth that I am capable of making conscious choices, and no amount of misguided intellectual thinking can change this.
That has NOTHING TO DO WITH the PHYSICAL - it's just LOGIC.
But how can you be so certain that your perceived logic can drive the will of the human soul?
-
But you are assuming that the logic you perceive through your physical senses can also apply to the non physical.
How long is it taking you to grasp this - logic transcends scientific notions like 'physical', 'material'. If I have two apples and then get another two apples I'll have four apples; but this logic does not just apply to fruity things. Adding a sprinkling of adjectives like 'physical', 'material','conscious', 'spiritual' cannot turn an irrational concept into a rational concept. Logic transcends.
-
I fully agree that conscious choices are not random.
But how do you differentiate between an inevitable reaction and a conscious choice?
Our 'conscious' choices derive from the accumulation of lower level reactions, which are, at the levels of physics and chemistry and neurology, inevitable. Whatever emerges at a higher level, it derives from the interactions of simpier constituents at a lower level.
-
I am just applying LOGIC, Alan. There is absolutely NO assumption that we are dealing with PHYSICAL.
Except that a "real time attribute of consciously driven processes" is just a jumble of words that doesn't address the problem of how decisions are arrived at.
And yet again, you've totally ignored the logical reasoning in the post this is supposed to be a reply to. It's at least rude of you, if not dishonest.
You cannot just make the 'I' and the 'me' in that description external and ignore how it makes choices. That is not answering the question, it's running away from it.
Just because it's a conscious process, doesn't mean that it isn't subject to the logic that it (by which I mean YOU) only has its internal state (your state of mind, memories, experience, etc.) and its inputs (what you are currently experiencing) to base its choice on - and if those do not define just one choice, then there is nothing left to base the remaining choice on, so it must be made for no reason at all - which means the remaining choice is random.
Ultimately that logic is inescapable: all your conscious choices must be subject to that logic - no matter what it feels like to make them.
That has NOTHING TO DO WITH the PHYSICAL - it's just LOGIC.
Come on now. In my time 'Treading the message boards' the words evidence, logic and reason have often been coopted into philosophical materialism.
-
To me, my spiritual awareness simply makes me aware of the many different choices I am able to make at any given time, and allows me to decide which choice to make (if any) and when to make it, thus giving me real time control of my life on this earth, and in particular, allowing me to freely worship the one God who brought everything into existence.
We all have awareness (usually) of options to choose from. The mechanism by which we arrive at a decision is fundamentally the same though, we weigh up our options and discern our preference, which option has the most appeal at the moment.
So how come, given the same situation, people make different choices ? It is because each of us is different; each of us develops a unique system of internal values and preferences, starting from pre-birth and continually updating each moment we are alive. The choice we make in any moment reflects our personal set of inner values, our inner context. We cannot just arbitrarily choose what set of values to have, they develop within us over time.
Private Fraser posted this yesterday about reading the Koran:
I could read it all now and have read a fair bit of it. It doesn't do anything for me. That was the point though the OT and NT didn't use to do anything for me and then it started to
Why would it be that person A can read the Koran and be moved by it whereas person B can read it and have a different reaction. The words are the same what changes is the person reading.
Why would it be that reading the OT and NT left him unmoved at one point in his life, but then it moved him at a later point ? His own inner context had changed over time.
When we make a choice we are always evaluating our options against an inner set of values and we don't 'choose' what those values are, they develop within us over time. Our inner context is always pre-existing. We cannot go back in time, this is why are choices are not truly free, they are always a reflection of our past trajectory.
Imagine a much simpler scenario. Suppose you go to dinner at a friend's and they give you something you've never tasted before. Do you choose whether to like it or not ? Or do you find that you like it or not ? We don't truly have any choice in how we react, our choices merely reflect our personal context, and even in this pared-down minimalist context bare bones scenario, even in that we do still have some context to evaluate a novel taste against - the fundamentals of taste sensation, bitter, sweet, salty, sour.
Our choices reflect our personal inner context, and that is not something we have willfull conscious control over, it develops subliminally over time.
-
I could read it all now and have read a fair bit of it. It doesn't do anything for me. That was the point though the OT and NT didn't use to do anything for me and then it started to
That it started to make sense is still a mystery to me.
You may come up with something like your context changed, or your needs changed but you seem to me to be ignoring that the OT and NT began to change my context.
That is true of any transformative encounter but in all cases one is transformed by the contents.
I just felt you were building up to a 'developing a need for an emotional crutch' argument.
-
But you are assuming that the logic you perceive through your physical senses can also apply to the non physical.
Do you understand what logic is and are you suggesting that basic logic does not apply to your magic world? What I am assuming is that the 'soul' (if one should exist) cannot contain contradictions - there are no square circles and no things that happen for reasons but don't happen for reasons at the same time.
Can our consciousness create its own reasons?
I'm sure it does - but it either does so for other reasons or for no reason (randomly) - or both, or a combination.
That is just your consciously chosen claim
It's actually an observation. Feel free explain the meaning if you wish.
Is it rude or dishonest to stand up for what I honestly believe to be the truth?
No but it's rude to ignore what people say and just repeat the same things they've already answered (how would you view that in a real conversation?) or dishonest in pretending that you have understood and answered when you haven't.
I am describing my perception of reality
I'm sure you are but by avoiding considering the internal processes of your conscious self, you are sidestepping the whole point of the topic and this discussion.
Our subjective 'perceptions' are of little relevance.
There is nothing random about my conscious awareness having the final say after perceiving all the background reasoning.
Fine - then there is no further choice to make. If all the reasons for a choice, when processed through your own conscious decision making process (which is defined by who you are) can result in only one outcome, then you are a fully deterministic being and all your choices are predetermined.
I cannot escape the truth that I am capable of making conscious choices, and no amount of misguided intellectual thinking can change this.
FFS - nobody is denying that you make conscious choices!
No amount of woolly, subjective, nice, comforting feelings of something magical but self-contradictory, can change the logic.
But how can you be so certain that your perceived logic can drive the will of the human soul?
Are you prepared to admit that your beliefs are illogical and self-contradictory? Because that is the alternative...
-
...philosophical materialism.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
-
zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
you've spelt it wrong Stranger. It should be:
lalalalalalalalalalalalalalaoolookabee.
-
That it started to make sense is still a mystery to me.
You may come up with something like your context changed, or your needs changed but you seem to me to be ignoring that the OT and NT began to change my context.
That is true of any transformative encounter but in all cases one is transformed by the contents.
I just felt you were building up to a 'developing a need for an emotional crutch' argument.
None of us is static,we are always in a state of development. The things that felt important to me 20 years ago are different to the things that feel important to me now. Information exchange is two-way. Every encounter I have changes me, and I change it.
-
None of us is static,we are always in a state of development. The things that felt important to me 20 years ago are different to the things that feel important to me now. Information exchange is two-way. Every encounter I have changes me, and I change it.
Nothing I couldn't agree with here. But feel you are ignoring my report of mysteriously being able to crack the code that had kept Christian literature a closed book to me both the conceptual and linguistic code.
-
Nothing I couldn't agree with here. But feel you are ignoring my report of mysteriously being able to crack the code that had kept Christian literature a closed book to me both the conceptual and linguistic code.
Sounds very subjective, Vlad.
How do you know that the results of your code-cracking have general application for the rest of us?
-
Nothing I couldn't agree with here. But feel you are ignoring my report of mysteriously being able to crack the code that had kept Christian literature a closed book to me both the conceptual and linguistic code.
How do we explain radicalisation ? I think people who experience sudden transformation are probably subliminally primed for change.
-
Sounds very subjective, Vlad.
How do you know that the results of your code-cracking have general application for the rest of us?
I can't help you with how I became able to code crack, that was the mysterious part.
-
Back to religion is the root of all evil again.
The main problem with thinking that you've actually cracked a code is not so much the specifics of some people's "revelation" but simply that there is no consistency. Those people who suddenly "see" something in religious texts do not come away with the same "message".
-
The main problem with thinking that you've actually cracked a code is not so much the specifics of some people's "revelation" but simply that there is no consistency. Those people who suddenly "see" something in religious texts do not come away with the same "message".
Who apart from me, whose experience is not mediated by the press or media, particularly atheist rant sites do you know?
-
How do we explain radicalisation ? I think people who experience sudden transformation are probably subliminally primed for change.
We know you are offering a whole seam of fresh steaming bollocks here because there is no way you would talk this way about anybody convinced at a Richard Dawkins session.
Think again Torridon.
-
Who apart from me, whose experience is not mediated by the press or media, particularly atheist rant sites do you know?
I know and have known believers in various faiths (including, rather oddly, a Christian who didn't believe in free will) but that's hardly the point - are you seriously trying to argue that everybody who has a religious "revelation" agrees?
Seriously?
-
I know and have known believers in various faiths (including, rather oddly, a Christian who didn't believe in free will) but that's hardly the point - are you seriously trying to argue that everybody who has a religious "revelation" agrees?
Seriously?
Probably more with each other than atheists. Are you seriously arguing that everyone who doesn't have a religious revelation agrees?
I guess what I am getting at is that your experiences of the stealth religion of new atheism put your experiences closer to my experiences of aspects of organised religion than to other atheists.
-
None of us is static,we are always in a state of development. The things that felt important to me 20 years ago are different to the things that feel important to me now. Information exchange is two-way. Every encounter I have changes me, and I change it.
That might depend upon how you personally define 'I'. If you identify with 'things that are important to you' which you have currently selected from all the changes you have experienced then what you say is probably correct. Alan, however, has identified with a 'soul' which may well be in essence changeless, timeless and simply aware. As an analogy, you have identified with the waves of change on the surface of a lake and he has identified with the lake which has both superficial elements and, shall we say, motionless depths. Perhaps there are 'encounters' which can change what one identifies with e.g. 'Be still and know that I am', as the saying goes.
-
Probably more with each other than atheists.
Praise be - a miracle! Those who have had a religious "revelation" agree that there is at least one god!
Are you seriously arguing that everyone who doesn't have a religious revelation agrees?
No - why should they? They aren't the one's who think they've had a message from god(s).
I guess what I am getting at is that your experiences of the stealth religion of new atheism put your experiences closer to my experiences of aspects of organised religion than to other atheists.
I have had no such experience.
-
Our subjective 'perceptions' are of little relevance.
Subjective perception is all we have.
Everything we will ever know derives from this.
It is entirely relevant.
-
Subjective perception is all we have.
Drivel. Logic and science have shown us time and time again that subjective impressions can be very misleading. Our subjective impression is that the world is flat and stationary.
Is that all you've got to say - once again ignoring the questions and the logic...?
-
Praise be - a miracle! Those who have had a religious "revelation" agree that there is at least one god!
No - why should they? They aren't the one's who think they've had a message from god(s).
I'm not getting it. What then is your issue is with differences of opinion or religion or what.
Do you not think a religious mistake is possible?, or that there are counterfeit ideas?, or spirits? After all what is a bad meme?
-
We know you are offering a whole seam of fresh steaming bollocks here because there is no way you would talk this way about anybody convinced at a Richard Dawkins session.
Think again Torridon.
You're being very quick to project your own agenda onto my words here.
Do you have an explanation for the phenomenon of radicalisation ?
A Dawkins session would not be like, say, a Billy Graham rally, would it.
Science is at heart, a dispassionate exercise. Quite the opposite of an evangelical rally; religions speak to the passions, to our moral centres. Science talks about what is, not about what ought.
-
I'm not getting it. What then is your issue is with differences of opinion or religion or what.
Do you not think a religious mistake is possible?, or that there are counterfeit ideas?, or spirits? After all what is a bad meme?
You have claimed to have "cracked a code" and hence received a message that you (I assume) think is a genuine message from your god. The point I am making is that that method of "discovering truth" is, at best, very unreliable, because different people get different, often contradictory, "messages".
-
Are you prepared to admit that your beliefs are illogical and self-contradictory? Because that is the alternative...
Of course I can't admit to what you deem to be illogical and self contradictory. My beliefs are perfectly logical to me, otherwise I could not possibly believe in them. The alternative to my belief in God and the human soul is a materialist scenario which takes away my freedom to say, think and do what I want, turning me into a material entity entirely controlled by natural reactions to past events, which to me is the most illogical scenario.
-
Of course I can't admit to what you deem to be illogical and self contradictory. My beliefs are perfectly logical to me, otherwise I could not possibly believe in them.
You're not being consistent. I've outlined the logic of my position without, I emphasis again, assuming that minds are physical. The only sensible ways you have of denying my conclusion are to argue that my logic is flawed, and say why, or to deny that basic logic is applicable.
Your previous statement ("But how can you be so certain that your perceived logic can drive the will of the human soul?") seems to imply the latter, but now you are denying that is what you meant.
Your other alternative is to point to a flaw in my reasoning, which you seem reluctant to even think enough about it to try.
The alternative to my belief in God and the human soul is a materialist scenario which takes away my freedom to say, think and do what I want...
No it isn't your only alternative and no it wouldn't take away that freedom.
For (what seems like) the ten thousandth time: nobody is suggesting that you can't do what you want.
...turning me into a material entity entirely controlled by natural reactions to past events...
Which wouldn't stop you doing what you want.
...which to me is the most illogical scenario.
Where is the actual logic to back this up?
-
My beliefs are perfectly logical to me...
Logic isn't a personal preference - it doesn't mean "seems intuitively sensible to me".
-
You have claimed to have "cracked a code" and hence received a message that you (I assume) think is a genuine message from your god. The point I am making is that that method of "discovering truth" is, at best, very unreliable, because different people get different, often contradictory, "messages".
Everybody though is in that boat.
-
Everybody though is in that boat.
In what way?
-
In what way?
Atheists have here own beliefs. You argued that Stranger. Do all atheists beliefs accord? I think not.
-
Atheists have here own beliefs. You argued that Stranger do all atheists beliefs accord? I think not.
What the hell has that got to do with anything?
If an atheist was using a method of deciding on some matter of objective fact that was as obviously as unreliable as religious "revelation" is, then they would have the same problem as you do - and I'd be just as critical of it.
I'm still not seeing this everybody in the same boat of which you spoke...
-
What the hell has that got to do with anything?
If an atheist was using a method of deciding on some matter of objective fact that was as obviously as unreliable as religious "revelation" is, then they would have the same problem as you do - and I'd be just as critical of it.
I'm still not seeing this everybody in the same boat of which you spoke...
Im sorry but how do you know your beliefs are reliable?
-
Im sorry but how do you know your beliefs are reliable?
While 100% certainty is not available (aside from logic and mathematics), having objective (intersubjective) evidence and/or sound reasoning seems to work well...
-
While 100% certainty is not available (aside from logic and mathematics), having objective (intersubjective) evidence and/or sound reasoning seems to work well...
Again what objective intersubjectivity evidence do you have and I don't. In terms of sound reasoning the several occasions in which I have exposed your cake and eat it beliefs tend to go counter to your claim.
-
Again what objective intersubjectivity evidence do you have and I don't.
No idea - but you seem to have lost track of the conversation (as you so often do). The point was that your "revelation" or "code cracking" is clearly not intersubjectively verifiable because people don't agree.
In terms of sound reasoning the several occasions in which I have exposed your cake and eat it beliefs tend to go counter to your claim.
All the times I recall you using the term "cake and eat it" have followed blatant misrepresentations of what I'd said, so I assume these occasions exist only in your fantasies and are not intersubjectively verifiable...
-
For (what seems like) the ten thousandth time: nobody is suggesting that you can't do what you want.
But the contention is what defines the want? How does it originate? What is it's source?
-
But the contention is what defines the want? How does it originate? What is it's source?
Once again ignoring the questions and most of what is put to you.... ho hum...
Why do you think a 'want' is particularly significant? Wants are just part of the internal processing of our minds and can arise for many reasons.
-
Once again ignoring the questions and most of what is put to you.... ho hum...
Why do you think a 'want' is particularly significant? Wants are just part of the internal processing of our minds and can arise for many reasons.
You may be confusing 'want' with instinctive reaction.
-
You may be confusing 'want' with instinctive reaction.
Dan't be silly.
Of course an "instinctive reaction" may produce a want but wants are much more general. You may, for example, want do take some course of action after carefully and thoughtfully considering your options in a complex situation.
-
But the contention is what defines the want? How does it originate? What is it's source?
It is usually fairly straightforward to see cause and effect. I want to have a drink because I have become dehydrated. I want to punch that guy on the nose because he called my mother a whore. My dog wants to go out for a walk because he needs to relieve himself. What is so hard about understanding this ? Occasionally our wants may have more subtle origins, but as often as not, its pretty damn obvious why they arise.
-
Dan't be silly.
Of course an "instinctive reaction" may produce a want but wants are much more general. You may, for example, want do take some course of action after carefully and thoughtfully considering your options in a complex situation.
And what is it that drives this careful and thoughtful consideration process?
-
And what is it that drives this careful and thoughtful consideration process?
Your brain, which is a machine honed by experience and genetics. The structure of your brain is determined by genetics and your previous experience both of which are external to you and may well be deterministic, due to the laws of physics being deterministic.
-
And what is it that drives this careful and thoughtful consideration process?
You are making less and less sense. It's what your mind does - and no, there is no contradiction with it being deterministic. If you think there is a logical reason why it can't be deterministic (apart from your incredulity) then spit it out and stop asking dumb questions...
-
You are making less and less sense. It's what your mind does - and no, there is no contradiction with it being deterministic. If you think there is a logical reason why it can't be deterministic (apart from your incredulity) then spit it out and stop asking dumb questions...
Yes, this is what the mind does.
But the mind is not a definable entity in scientific terms. We perceive our brains to be made up of material elements which are apparently driven entirely by natural consequences to previous events, but the mind is what we perceive to be our conscious awareness and its ability to induce thoughts and interact.
-
Yes, this is what the mind does.
But the mind is not a definable entity in scientific terms. We perceive our brains to be made up of material elements which are apparently driven entirely by natural consequences to previous events, but the mind is what we perceive to be our conscious awareness and its ability to induce thoughts and interact.
They are the same thing though. Like two sides of the same coin, a mind is the subjective aspect of a brain.
-
In this thread has choice been defined and explained in deterministic frames of language and reference?
-
But the mind is not a definable entity in scientific terms.
- sigh -
So now we're back to you claiming to know how consciousness works and everything about the laws of the physical universe. Publish your findings, claim your Nobel and stop wasting time on a forum.
Oh....... hang on...... except we've already established that you don't know those things - you just don't seem to grasp the dishonesty of making claims that you could only logically make if you did.
::)
We perceive our brains to be made up of material elements which are apparently driven entirely by natural consequences to previous events, but the mind is what we perceive to be our conscious awareness and its ability to induce thoughts and interact.
And......?
-
In this thread has choice been defined and explained in deterministic frames of language and reference?
What's "deterministic frames of language and reference" supposed to mean?
-
What's "deterministic frames of language and reference" supposed to mean?
How does determinism define choice?
-
How does determinism define choice?
Why would you think there's a specific defintion associated with determinism?
choice (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/choice) An act of choosing between two or more possibilities.
-
Why would you think there's a specific defintion associated with determinism?
choice (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/choice) An act of choosing between two or more possibilities.
But if the act is pre defined, there is no choice.
-
But if the act is pre defined, there is no choice.
There is a choice. Yes, if you have a perfect understanding of the state of the Universe at the time the choice is made, you could predict it.
Or put it another way: if it were possible for me to rewind the Universe to the point just before you made a choice and then run it forwards again, do you think you'd make a different choice the second time? If I kept doing it repeatedly, would you ever make a different choice?
-
But if the act is pre defined, there is no choice.
That isn't correct. There nay be a choice but there can be no other choice. It makes no difference since the idea of choice as you have trued to assert makes no sense.
-
But if the act is pre defined, there is no choice.
The act of making a choice is really a process of discerning your preference. Would you really want the freedom to choose something other than your preference ? That's not a freedom worth having.
-
The act of making a choice is really a process of discerning your preference. Would you really want the freedom to choose something other than your preference ? That's not a freedom worth having.
But if you claim that my preference is entirely pre defined by past events there can be no element of freedom, and my conscious choice becomes an inevitable reaction, so no choice at all.
-
That isn't correct. There may be a choice but there can be no other choice.
If there is no other choice how can it possibly be classed as a choice?
???
-
But if you claim that my preference is entirely pre defined by past events there can be no element of freedom, and my conscious choice becomes an inevitable reaction, so no choice at all.
If there is no other choice how can it possibly be classed as a choice?
???
You cannot just redefine the language to suit your superstition (it's another example of your apparent dishonesty). We absolutely do make choices - even if they are deterministic.
There is also the fact that you are not offering any logical alternative. You just post endless meaningless mantras about the "conscious will of the human soul" and such like, and you won't face up to the logic of the situation that to the extent something is not predetermined (happens for reasons), it is random (happens for no reason).
-
I like torridon's idea of preference, as clearly they are (usually) determined. In fact, the idea of a non-determined preference seems impossible. AB seems to float around in a world where choices are neither determined nor random, without specifying what this means, except via the nebulous word 'free'. So he is in a hall of mirrors, or a vicious circle.
But this is presumably because he is starting with his desired conclusion - he wants to crowbar God into the equation, and he thinks he can do this via free will. We are free, because God wants us to be. But what is this freedom?
-
But if you claim that my preference is entirely pre defined by past events there can be no element of freedom, and my conscious choice becomes an inevitable reaction, so no choice at all.
Yes when we weigh up our options, we are always looking to discern the best option available to us and the option we choose reflects what we think best suits our purpose at that moment. I never weigh up my options trying to figure out the worst one. Different people make different choices, this is because we weigh our options against an internal set of values that is personal to us. These personal values develop within us over time, we don't 'choose' them; if we could 'choose' what values to have how could we do that apart from by having another internal set of values to weigh up our internal set of values from ? Our values, preferences, fears and hopes develop within us over time, and this happens at broad scales, and also at the minutest scales.
I posted up a longer version of this in #113 if you are interested.
-
You cannot just redefine the language to suit your superstition (it's another example of your apparent dishonesty). We absolutely do make choices - even if they are deterministic.
There is also the fact that you are not offering any logical alternative. You just post endless meaningless mantras about the "conscious will of the human soul" and such like, and you won't face up to the logic of the situation that to the extent something is not predetermined (happens for reasons), it is random (happens for no reason).
Are you confusing decisions with choices?
Computers can be programmed to make logical decisions, but these are not the same as conscious choices.
-
Yes when we weigh up our options, we are always looking to discern the best option ...
But the processes of weighing up and discerning are not automatic - they are consciously driven.
-
I like torridon's idea of preference, as clearly they are (usually) determined. In fact, the idea of a non-determined preference seems impossible. AB seems to float around in a world where choices are neither determined nor random, without specifying what this means, except via the nebulous word 'free'. So he is in a hall of mirrors, or a vicious circle.
But this is presumably because he is starting with his desired conclusion - he wants to crowbar God into the equation, and he thinks he can do this via free will. We are free, because God wants us to be. But what is this freedom?
Freedom is simply the ability to consciously choose between two or more feasible options without being shackled by the chains of uncontrollable, pre determined chains of cause and effect events.
-
Freedom is simply the ability to consciously choose between two or more feasible options without being shackled by the chains of uncontrollable, pre determined chains of cause and effect events.
And what reason would a choice be made except determined, random or a combination of both? You keep not answering that.
-
You cannot just redefine the language to suit your superstition (it's another example of your apparent dishonesty). We absolutely do make choices - even if they are deterministic.
There is also the fact that you are not offering any logical alternative. You just post endless meaningless mantras about the "conscious will of the human soul" and such like, and you won't face up to the logic of the situation that to the extent something is not predetermined (happens for reasons), it is random (happens for no reason).
Are you confusing decisions with choices?
Computers can be programmed to make logical decisions, but these are not the same as conscious choices.
Once again, you are trying to dishonestly redefine the language. Choice just means selecting an option - a chess computer's job is to choose good chess moves.
However, that is a side issue that just gave you an excuse to avoid the main point about you having no logical alternative to determinism.
-
Freedom is simply the ability to consciously choose between two or more feasible options without being shackled by the chains of uncontrollable, pre determined chains of cause and effect events.
Progress! For once you didn't add 'physical' or 'material'.
Still just as self-contradictory though - why won't you face up to the logic?
-
And what reason would a choice be made except determined, random or a combination of both? You keep not answering that.
Determined by your conscious will, for whatever reason you choose.
-
Progress! For once you didn't add 'physical' or 'material'.
Still just as self-contradictory though - why won't you face up to the logic?
Because the logical path you consciously choose to follow is not the same logical path which I and many others believe leads to the truth
-
>:(
Determined by your conscious will, for whatever reason you choose.
and again you ignored the question.
-
Because the logical path you consciously choose to follow is not the same logical path which I and many others believe leads to the truth
So we all make different choices, why do you think that is ? Faced with the same fork in the road, I might choose to go left, whereas you might choose to go right. If our choices are not random, then there must be a determining factor that sways us one way or the other. It is impossible to make a choice that is both non-random and non-determined, it has to be one or the other
-
Because the logical path you consciously choose to follow is not the same logical path which I and many others believe leads to the truth
If you have a logical 'path' (argument) Alan - post it. Alternatively, you could provide a counterargument to the one I and others have put forward and leave the question open for your guesswork.
If you can do neither (and you have consistently run away from the challenge to date), then claiming that you have a different 'logical path' is simply untrue.
If you're going to ignore logic and just have blind faith despite the contradiction, then have the courage to admit it.
-
Determined by your conscious will, for whatever reason you choose.
And how does your conscious will choose the reason? For other reasons (meta-reasons) or randomly? You have to end up at random or determined by some reasons or you have an infinite regress of reasons.
-
If you have a logical 'path' (argument) Alan - post it. Alternatively, you could provide a counterargument to the one I and others have put forward and leave the question open for your guesswork.
If you can do neither (and you have consistently run away from the challenge to date), then claiming that you have a different 'logical path' is simply untrue.
If you're going to ignore logic and just have blind faith despite the contradiction, then have the courage to admit it.
You only need to investigate determinism on the internet to find out there are several different versions on offer, each with their own different logical justification. You seem to have adopted the compatibilist version, but there is cultural determinism, hard determinism (which denies any form of choice) and logical determinism. Also there is adequate determinism, based on statistical probabilities. And you will find yet more variations and logical views on the subject of human free will.
What I find strange in your take on the subject is your assumption that any spiritually determined action is subject to the same rules as pre determined physical actions. You can't make this assumption without knowing how spiritual determinism works, and in particular whether it is determined in real time by an act of will rather than pre determined by background logical processes.
-
What I find strange in your take on the subject is your assumption that any spiritually determined action is subject to the same rules as pre determined physical actions. You can't make this assumption without knowing how spiritual determinism works, and in particular whether it is determined in real time by an act of will rather than pre determined by background logical processes.
And what determines our will ?
Does it spring out of nowhere, in which case it is random, or do our desires and intentions result from something ?
It has to be one or the other.
-
And what determines our will ?
Whatever your soul wants at the time it actions it.
Does it spring out of nowhere, in which case it is random, or do our desires and intentions result from something ?
It has to be one or the other.
Not random
Not pre determined
But determined
-
Whatever your soul wants at the time it actions it.Not random
Not pre determined
But determined
I see you ignored the question - AGAIN.
-
I see you ignored the question - AGAIN.
I chose to answer it in the most honest, truthful way I can - determined by my God given freedom to choose.
-
I chose to answer it in the most honest, truthful way I can - determined by my God given freedom to choose.
So the most honest way you have to answer a question is to ignore it. You and your god were it to exist have a definition of honesty that I find dishonest.
-
Whatever your soul wants at the time it actions it.
And what determines what your soul wants at the time it actions it ?
if it is not random then it must result from something.
if it is not a consequence of something then it must be random.
-
You only need to investigate determinism on the internet to find out there are several different versions on offer, each with their own different logical justification. You seem to have adopted the compatibilist version, but there is cultural determinism, hard determinism (which denies any form of choice) and logical determinism. Also there is adequate determinism, based on statistical probabilities. And you will find yet more variations and logical views on the subject of human free will.
Looks a lot like a smokescreen as several of these are simply irrelevant. But anyway, which of these do you think relevant to this debate and which are you presenting as your logical 'path'?
What I find strange in your take on the subject is your assumption that any spiritually determined action is subject to the same rules as pre determined physical actions. You can't make this assumption without knowing how spiritual determinism works, and in particular whether it is determined in real time by an act of will rather than pre determined by background logical processes.
More empty words and a total failure to address the logic I've outlined multiple times. I find it increasingly hard to believe that you are being honest. This looks more and more like a strategy that just ignores the point long enough that you can get away with just repeating your empty assertions again.
Once again - things (including choices) happen for reasons. To the extent they are not determined by those reasons, they are determined by no reason - and determined by no reason means random.
There is no assumption about specific rules - just plain, simple logic.
Whatever your soul wants at the time it actions it.
What determines what the soul wants?
Not random
Not pre determined
But determined
That's self-contradictory.
-
I chose to answer it in the most honest, truthful way I can - determined by my God given freedom to choose.
Which just means that you are ignoring the logic of the situation and relying on blind faith despite the inherent contradiction. Why not just admit it?
-
Which just means that you are ignoring the logic of the situation and relying on blind faith despite the inherent contradiction. Why not just admit it?
It is not a contradiction.
It reflects the reality I perceive of what I and other human beings can do, which is to use their God given freedom to choose their own destiny.
-
It is not a contradiction.
So what part of this do you think is wrong:
Things (including choices) happen for reasons. To the extent they are not determined by those reasons, they are determined by no reason - and determined by no reason means random...?
-
It is not a contradiction.
It reflects the reality I perceive of what I and other human beings can do, which is to use their God given freedom to choose their own destiny.
It doesn't reflect my reality. I recognise that there are always precursor reasons why I want the things that I want.
-
So what part of this do you think is wrong:
Things (including choices) happen for reasons. To the extent they are not determined by those reasons, they are determined by no reason - and determined by no reason means random...?
Determined by the conscious will of my human soul, which will I continue to use to witness to the truth and power of our spiritual nature.
Why can't you understand what I mean by this?
-
Determined by the conscious will of my human soul, which will I continue to use to witness to the truth and power of our spiritual nature.
Why can't you understand what I mean by this?
Because you are not explaining the origin or nature of that will. Continued avoidance on your part
-
Because you are not explaining the origin or nature of that will. Continued avoidance on your part
It originates in the conscious will of my human soul, and the most important thing is I can demonstrably control it.
The only alternative is to presume that everything I do, or will ever do, is entirely pre determined by past events. If it is not, then there is something which has the power to intervene in order to carry out my conscious will. That something I believe to be the human soul.
-
It originates in the conscious will of my human soul, and the most important thing is I can demonstrably control it.
The only alternative is to presume that everything I do, or will ever do, is entirely pre determined by past events. If it is not, then there is something which has the power to intervene in order to carry out my conscious will. That something I believe to be the human soul.
Avoidance avoidance avoidance.
For three years now all you've been doing is repeating that the origin of your conscious will lies in your conscious will, which is patent nonsense.
Things do not originate in themselves. You are going round in circles.
-
So what part of this do you think is wrong:
Things (including choices) happen for reasons. To the extent they are not determined by those reasons, they are determined by no reason - and determined by no reason means random...?
Determined by the conscious will of my human soul, which will I continue to use to witness to the truth and power of our spiritual nature.
Once again running away from the question. What you are actually bearing witness to is your lack of courage to face the basic logical question.
Why can't you understand what I mean by this?
It's not that I don't understand it, it's that it isn't an answer to the question of how we make 'free choices'. It's just avoidance - you are telling us (without any justification) what you think makes choices, not how it makes choices.
-
It originates in the conscious will of my human soul, and the most important thing is I can demonstrably control it.
Doing what you want doesn't demonstrate anything significant at all. That ability is completely consistent with:
...everything I do, or will ever do, is entirely pre determined by past events.
Why not have the courage to face the logic or admit that you don't care about it?
-
Avoidance avoidance avoidance.
For three years now all you've been doing is repeating that the origin of your conscious will lies in your conscious will, which is patent nonsense.
Things do not originate in themselves. You are going round in circles.
I am just repeating my most basic concept of reality. And no amount of your theorising can change the truth that I am in control of what I do, think and say, and the origin of this control does not trace back ad infinitum. It originates in what constitutes me - my soul.
-
Doing what you want doesn't demonstrate anything significant at all. That ability is completely consistent with:
Why not have the courage to face the logic or admit that you don't care about it?
Please do not mis quote me by hiding the rest of this post - I am sure it is against the rules of this forum.
-
I am just repeating my most basic concept of reality. And no amount of your theorising can change the truth that I am in control of what I do, think and say...
Which is not in dispute.
...and the origin of this control does not trace back ad infinitum. It originates in what constitutes me - my soul.
But you do not control what constitutes you - you are what your nature, nurture, and life experience has made you.
Please do not mis quote me by hiding the rest of this post - I am sure it is against the rules of this forum.
I didn't misquote you - there was a link back to your post and I indicated where I had removed part of a sentence. My whole point was to juxtapose the two parts of your post and point out that what you think is a demonstration of something else was actually perfectly consistent with what you claimed was the alternative to it.
It's not as if you'd posted anything that you haven't posted endless times before. You've got a hell of a nerve to question my answers when you have repeatedly completely ignored all the main points that have been put to you, in favour of just repeating your dogmatic blind faith statements in the pretence that they are some sort of answer.
When will you have to guts to face up to the points put to you and answer them?
-
Which is not in dispute.
But you do not control what constitutes you - you are what your nature, nurture, and life experience has made you.
I didn't misquote you - there was a link back to your post and I indicated where I had removed part of a sentence. My whole point was to juxtapose the two parts of your post and point out that what you think is a demonstration of something else was actually perfectly consistent with what you claimed was the alternative to it.
It's not as if you'd posted anything that you haven't posted endless times before. You've got a hell of a nerve to question my answers when you have repeatedly completely ignored all the main points that have been put to you, in favour of just repeating your dogmatic blind faith statements in the pretence that they are some sort of answer.
When will you have to guts to face up to the points put to you and answer them?
I do not know what there is to answer that I have not already answered. You seem to believe that your logic is sound and can't be refuted. But I believe that I have control over my actions. I agree that this control can't be explained by human logic, and this is why I attribute my ability to exert conscious control to the power God has given me through the gift of free will in my human soul.
-
I do not know what there is to answer that I have not already answered. You seem to believe that your logic is sound and can't be refuted. But I believe that I have control over my actions. I agree that this control can't be explained by human logic, and this is why I attribute my ability to exert conscious control to the power God has given me through the gift of free will in my human soul.
Has anyone read 'Freedom Regained, The Possibility of Free Will' by Julian Baggini? Despite the title, Baggini is a world away from Alan's views. If anything his views would more align with those of Stranger and others here, even though what he is trying to do is actually re-define what free will actually means. For those who haven't read it, just a little from his chapter on the artist:
Thinking about the freedom of the artist should change how we see free will for everyone. First of all, artists help us to understand that to be free is for your choices to flow from you, whether they are entirely conscious or not. Second, to be free is to be able to generate highly personal outputs from the inputs of nature, nurture and society, not to be free from their influences, able to create from nothing. Free choices are ones where the individual contributes something indispensible to the choice, even if the ability to make that contribution is something that is in one sense simply the result of nature and all past experience - for what else could it be the result of? Third, to be free is to make choices in the knowledge that there are other options and without being forced or coerced one way or another. This can be the case even if, from a certain point of view, the choice you actually make is the only one you would ever have made in that situation.
-
I do not know what there is to answer that I have not already answered. You seem to believe that your logic is sound and can't be refuted.
You have been singularly unable to refute the logic or even make an attempt. The question you keep avoiding is how can you possibly make a choice that isn't deterministic or random (in some combination)?
You also don't seem to be paying any attention to what is actually being said to you, as your next sentence demonstrates yet again...
But I believe that I have control over my actions.
For (what seems like) the ten millionth time: nobody is questioning the fact that you have control over your actions..
I agree that this control can't be explained by human logic...
It can be explained by (human - which is the only kind that we have access to) logic - it's deterministic*: you are the product of your nature, nurture, and lifetime of experience and what you want to do is the result of those things - hence you can do what you want and still be a deterministic being.
...and this is why I attribute my ability to exert conscious control to the power God has given me through the gift of free will in my human soul.
If you are going to reject the only logical explanation, without even attempting to refute it, then you have to admit that you are placing faith above reasoning.
* Almost certainly chaotic in the mathematical sense and possibly with some random or pseudo-random element.
-
You have been singularly unable to refute the logic or even make an attempt. The question you keep avoiding is how can you possibly make a choice that isn't deterministic or random (in some combination)?
You also don't seem to be paying any attention to what is actually being said to you, as your next sentence demonstrates yet again...
For (what seems like) the ten millionth time: nobody is questioning the fact that you have control over your actions..
It can be explained by (human - which is the only kind that we have access to) logic - it's deterministic*: you are the product of your nature, nurture, and lifetime of experience and what you want to do is the result of those things - hence you can do what you want and still be a deterministic being.
If you are going to reject the only logical explanation, without even attempting to refute it, then you have to admit that you are placing faith above reasoning.
* Almost certainly chaotic in the mathematical sense and possibly with some random or pseudo-random element.
But it is not the only explanation.
I am using my faith to offer an alternative, more realistic explanation for our concept of free will, showing that our freedom to make a choice which is not pre determined is not an illusion.
-
But it is not the only explanation.
I am using my faith to offer an alternative, more realistic explanation for our concept of free will, showing that our freedom to make a choice which is not pre determined is not an illusion.
Good job job to see that people like you're on the way out with your soppy beliefs, 53% of the U K population non-religious last year, it'll be interesting to see this years figures when they come out, what d'you recon Alan?
This post of yours oh dear never mind.
Necessarily the very kindest of regards to you Alan, ippy
-
But it is not the only explanation.
I am using my faith to offer an alternative, more realistic explanation for our concept of free will, showing that our freedom to make a choice which is not pre determined is not an illusion.
Where did you demonstrate that your concepts around free will are not illusory ? Give us the post number so we can check out your reasoning. You keep insisting that a choice is not random and 'not random' means determined, so your claim is of a choice that is determined and not determined simultaneously. No one can demonstrate that which is undemonstratable. Are you planning to demonstrate how to draw a four sided triangle next ?
If you come to a fork in the road you have to go left or right; you could toss a coin and go with random; or you could examine the paths to try to discern which route looks most promising. In that case, there will be some factor that sways your eventual choice one way or the other; that will be the determining factor. We might still claim superficial freedom in the making of that choice, there was no policeman directing traffic, so in that trivial sense we are free. But in the deeper sense, we are never free of the things that influence us; we could not operate in a vacuum.
-
But it is not the only explanation.
I am using my faith to offer an alternative, more realistic explanation for our concept of free will, showing that our freedom to make a choice which is not pre determined is not an illusion.
No, you are using your faith to ignore the fact that you haven't presented a logically coherent concept of fee will. Your 'explanation' is worth as much as 'cheese toasties harvest all the young dudes' logically.
-
But it is not the only explanation.
You have been unable to either challenge the logic that says it is, or present an alternative.
I am using my faith to offer an alternative, more realistic explanation for our concept of free will...
That statement is simply untrue. You have offered no explanation at all as to how decisions get made. Using logically meaningless phrases such as the "will of the human soul" does not count as an explanation any more than "I make my choices by jiwnelhatlux".
...showing that our freedom to make a choice which is not pre determined is not an illusion.
Once again: I don't think your freedom to choose is an illusion in the sense that you can do whatever you want. However, what you decide you want must be determined by reasons or no reason (random), or a combination.
-
'not random' means determined,
But it does not necessarily mean pre determined.
I am simply making the point that whatever I choose has not been inevitably pre determined by everything which has taken place since the beginning of time. My conscious awareness has the divinely enabled ability to intervene in the otherwise pre determined chains of events in order to implement my conscious choice. I have the power to choose between good and evil, as has every other conscious human being.
-
But it does not necessarily mean pre determined.
Since the only things that can determine an action must be present prior to said action, yes it does.
I am simply making the point that whatever I choose has not been inevitably pre determined by everything which has taken place since the beginning of time.
It's not a point, it's an assertion that you have been unable to justify.
My conscious awareness has the divinely enabled ability to intervene in the otherwise pre determined chains of events in order to implement my conscious choice.
Once again sidestepping the point; which is how that "conscious awareness" makes up its mind how to intervene. Its choice must be determined by (pre-existing) reasons or by no reason (which means random) - or a combination.
I can see no way in which you haven't grasped this point, given your other posts. It's very difficult to see how you ignoring it and pretending that an outside "intervention" is an answer can anything other than dishonesty. Although I have to admit that you may be too frightened or too blinded by your faith to admit the problem to yourself...
-
Since the only things that can determine an action must be present prior to said action, yes it does.
It's not a point, it's an assertion that you have been unable to justify.
Once again sidestepping the point; which is how that "conscious awareness" makes up its mind how to intervene. Its choice must be determined by (pre-existing) reasons or by no reason (which means random) - or a combination.
I can see no way in which you haven't grasped this point, given your other posts. It's very difficult to see how you ignoring it and pretending that an outside "intervention" is an answer can anything other than dishonesty. Although I have to admit that you may be too frightened or too blinded by your faith to admit the problem to yourself...
Once again, I can only witness to the reality I perceive, which is that I have the willpower to make conscious choices which are not pre determined (otherwise it would not be a choice!).
-
Once again, I can only witness to the reality I perceive, which is that I have the willpower to make conscious choices which are not pre determined (otherwise it would not be a choice!).
And the reality I perceive is that the moment of making a choice is a moment of identifying which of the available options best suits my purpose; and given that I have no control over what values I have, over what my preferences are, over what my hopes and fears are, that feeling of freedom must be in a sense illusory. We cannot choose our values or preferences. How could I choose what values to have except by reference to a system of values ? You keep saying you have a god-given gift to be able to witness to your faith. Well you already want to do that, so what kind of freedom is it that gives you something you already have ? And conversely the freedom to want something that you don't want would likewise be a pointless freedom. The way things actually work, makes sense. People makes choices for reasons.
-
Once again AB runs away from facing the logic...
Once again, I can only witness to the reality I perceive, which is that I have the willpower to make conscious choices...
Up to this point in your sentence is fine: that is people's perception and it's as obvious as it is irrelevant.
However, the rest of your sentence:
...which are not pre determined...
is not something you can possibly directly perceive at all. It is something you are simply assuming is the case despite the logical argument that says that it can only be the case if there is some randomness involved. How do you think your experience would differ if the person you are and the way you think was fully determined by your history and your choices where fully determined by who you are?
The last bit:
...(otherwise it would not be a choice!).
is just playing a silly word game.
Cue AB totally ignoring the logic and the question, yet again.......
-
And the reality I perceive is that the moment of making a choice is a moment of identifying which of the available options best suits my purpose; and given that I have no control over what values I have, over what my preferences are, over what my hopes and fears are, that feeling of freedom must be in a sense illusory. We cannot choose our values or preferences. How could I choose what values to have except by reference to a system of values ? You keep saying you have a god-given gift to be able to witness to your faith. Well you already want to do that, so what kind of freedom is it that gives you something you already have ? And conversely the freedom to want something that you don't want would likewise be a pointless freedom. The way things actually work, makes sense. People makes choices for reasons.
Yes, my faith does prompt me to witness to the truth of this faith, but I still have the freedom to choose how I answer that prompt, or whether to be lazy and choose to ignore it. The choice is mine.
-
Yes, my faith does prompt me to witness to the truth of this faith, but I still have the freedom to choose how I answer that prompt, or whether to be lazy and choose to ignore it. The choice is mine.
Alan, this is an example of why I think you don't read what people post. No one has been arguing that the choice isn't yours and they have stated multiple times that the choice is yours. That isn't the issue so your post just reads as if you have ignored what's been written with all the discourtesy that involves, and repeated something that no one is arguing anyway.
-
Yes, my faith does prompt me to witness to the truth of this faith, but I still have the freedom to choose how I answer that prompt, or whether to be lazy and choose to ignore it. The choice is mine.
Nobody is suggesting that it isn't.
How about answering the actual points being made instead of the ones you wish had been made...?
-
Good point by Stranger above, that it's fair enough if AB says he believes that his choices are not determined by anything, but he keeps saying that he perceives this. How is that possible? I can't perceive any determining factors really, especially as many of them are unconscious and/or unknown. He must have X-ray eyes.
-
Cue AB totally ignoring the logic and the question, yet again.......
And so it came to pass.
-
Alan, this is an example of why I think you don't read what people post. No one has been arguing that the choice isn't yours and they have stated multiple times that the choice is yours. That isn't the issue so your post just reads as if you have ignored what's been written with all the discourtesy that involves, and repeated something that no one is arguing anyway.
The problem is that I am trying to answer two slightly differing points of view.
Torridon seems to claim that any conception of freedom to choose is an illusion.
Stranger claims that I have freedom, but this freedom itself is determined.
So if I tailor my reply to Torri saying that I have freedom to choose, I get rebuked by stranger because he points out that we have this freedom.
I can't win!
But in any case, I have to say that Stranger's idea of determined freedom seems to be a contradiction in terms. Freedom by definition can't be pre determined.
-
The problem is that I am trying to answer two slightly differing points of view.
Torridon seems to claim that any conception of freedom to choose is an illusion.
Stranger claims that I have freedom, but this freedom itself is determined.
So if I tailor my reply to Torri saying that I have freedom to choose, I get rebuked by stranger because he points out that we have this freedom.
I can't win!
But in any case, I have to say that Stranger's idea of determined freedom seems to be a contradiction in terms. Freedom by definition can't be pre determined.
I think you are mistaken here. Both torridon and Stranger believe you make a choice. Both think that it is determined. Ant 'difference' is just about slightly different questions. I would suggest that rather than try and point out differences, which to me don't exist you try And pit forward a case. Your above post reads like an attempt at evading yet again the logical incoherence of your idea.
-
The problem is that I am trying to answer two slightly differing points of view.
Torridon seems to claim that any conception of freedom to choose is an illusion.
Stranger claims that I have freedom, but this freedom itself is determined.
torridon will have to speak for himself but I see no difference in the detail of what we are saying. If you look at his post #214 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15220.msg721615#msg721615) where he says "And the reality I perceive is that the moment of making a choice is a moment of identifying which of the available options best suits my purpose; and given that I have no control over what values I have, over what my preferences are, over what my hopes and fears are, that feeling of freedom must be in a sense illusory. We cannot choose our values or preferences. How could I choose what values to have except by reference to a system of values ?" - I completely agree with his description of how choices are made - I just wouldn't have chosen to add that the freedom is "in a sense illusory" - although I see what he means.
Now (as I see it) we are both saying that we can choose to do what we like but we cannot choose the way we make that choice because it's made according to our values, desires, hopes, fears and so on (who we are) and we can't choose those.
To me, that makes the choice as free as it is possible to be and your 'alternative' is simply incoherent, illogical, and nonsensical.
But in any case, I have to say that Stranger's idea of determined freedom seems to be a contradiction in terms. Freedom by definition can't be pre determined.
Nonsense: "freedom (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/freedom) The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants." [my emphasis].
Being 'free' of what you want to do, makes no sense.
The extent to which you exclude influences from a choice, including all the things that make you the person you are and hence inclined to make different decisions from other people, is the extent to which the choice is without any influences, which once again, means random.
The only way to make the choice that you want, without any randomness, is if the choice is determined by what you want - and what you want is determined by who you are, which is determined by your nature, nurture, and lifetime experience.
-
The extent to which you exclude influences from a choice ....
Just to point out that I have never suggested that choices are devoid of influence.
Influence does not infer that the choice is pre determined, just that it can be influenced by certain factors, and after consciously driven consideration of these factors we make a final choice. Torridon and yourself may imply that this consciously driven consideration is itself a pre determined process, but I have to say that I perceive this as a process in which I (my spiritually aware self) have overall control.
-
The extent to which you exclude influences from a choice...
Just to point out that I have never suggested that choices are devoid of influence.
Wow - you have the nerve to edit my post down to that after what you said in #201 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15220.msg721544#msg721544)!?
Influence does not infer that the choice is pre determined, just that it can be influenced by certain factors, and after consciously driven consideration of these factors we make a final choice. Torridon and yourself may imply that this consciously driven consideration is itself a pre determined process, but I have to say that I perceive this as a process in which I (my spiritually aware self) have overall control.
I explained exactly why this makes no sense in the rest of my post and once again you've ignored it and pretended that repeating the things that have already been answered multiple times is an answer.
You have also ignored the fact that you cannot possibly directly perceive whether you (your "spiritually aware self" or whatever other meaningless label you want to use) and your deliberations are deterministic or not. How would you be able to tell if they were?
In order to have any integrity at all in this discussion, you need to face up to the logic that has been presented to you and either argue against it or admit that you don't care about logic.
-
Just to point out that I have never suggested that choices are devoid of influence.
Influence does not infer that the choice is pre determined, just that it can be influenced by certain factors, and after consciously driven consideration of these factors we make a final choice. Torridon and yourself may imply that this consciously driven consideration is itself a pre determined process, but I have to say that I perceive this as a process in which I (my spiritually aware self) have overall control.
And how does your 'spiritually aware self' make that final choice ? In terms of process I see no difference in principle between making a broad initial choice and a final particular choice; it comes to the same thing, we are evaluating our options to see which aligns best with our preferences as they stand at that moment in time. There may be a difference in terms of granularity, but not one of process or principle. What we do do, is evaluate our options to discern the best way to meet our needs; what we don't do, is to 'control' or alter what our preferences or needs are to suit the options.
-
And how does your 'spiritually aware self' make that final choice ? In terms of process I see no difference in principle between making a broad initial choice and a final particular choice; it comes to the same thing, we are evaluating our options to see which aligns best with our preferences as they stand at that moment in time. There may be a difference in terms of granularity, but not one of process or principle. What we do do, is evaluate our options to discern the best way to meet our needs; what we don't do, is to 'control' or alter what our preferences or needs are to suit the options.
Ultimately the conscious self does what it wants to do at a particular chosen moment in time. It is driven by the conscious self, not by outside agencies. What makes a person choose to climb a mountain other than the fact it is just what they want to do?
-
Ultimately the conscious self does what it wants to do at a particular chosen moment in time. It is driven by the conscious self, not by outside agencies....
Read the posts Alan, that is what the previous umpteen posts have been trying to get you to consider - how the 'conscious self' achieves that decision. Read the previous post and try again; engage with the substance of the discussion, consider - what is the process by which the 'conscious self' arrives at a decision
-
What makes a person choose to climb a mountain other than the fact it is just what they want to do?
If I form a desire to climb a mountain for absolutely no reason, then it is random; If it is not random, then there will be reasons why that desire formed. The vast majority of human mind is subconscious; so in all likelihood, the reasons for that desire arising are going to be at least in part somewhat subliminal. In reality, I doubt that true random ever really plays a part in the formation of our intentions; we are complex beings and there are always reasons underneath.
-
Ultimately the conscious self does what it wants to do at a particular chosen moment in time. It is driven by the conscious self, not by outside agencies. What makes a person choose to climb a mountain other than the fact it is just what they want to do?
I think that what you are describing is self will which is based upon personal desires or 'wants' as you call them which tend to be subconscious emotional drivers. In the example which you mention the determining factors could be pleasure, excitement, recognition of achievement. It is possible to be conscious of those drivers and intellectually modify them so that your intention to act or not act (will) upon mountain climbing can be judged as viable. You could perhaps say that you are then relatively free from being blindly driven, to being consciously selective, but you are not totally free from desire. The other aspect, from your Christian point of view, is, are you free from the will of your God, which is what 'self will' implies and 'sin' represents or are your actions determined by your God's Will? In either case, it is difficult to see where there is conscious free will.
-
Ultimately the conscious self does what it wants to do at a particular chosen moment in time. It is driven by the conscious self, not by outside agencies. What makes a person choose to climb a mountain other than the fact it is just what they want to do?
As has already been said, you need to actually read what has been said to you.
Nobody is suggesting an "outside agency" controls your decision making.
-
What makes a person choose to climb a mountain other than the fact it is just what they want to do?
Hi Alan,
Why will " it is just what they want to do" not enough.
Juan
-
If I form a desire to climb a mountain for absolutely no reason, then it is random; ......
A person climbs a mountain because they want to.
There is nothing random about that.
But where does that want originate?
And what is it that triggers the want into action?
The fact is that they are not pre destined to climb the mountain.
They have the freedom to choose whether to climb it or not.
That freedom to choose is directed by the conscious self - it is not random.
-
As has already been said, you need to actually read what has been said to you.
Nobody is suggesting an "outside agency" controls your decision making.
So what precisely do you define to be the controller of the decision making?
-
So what precisely do you define to be the controller of the decision making?
I've lost count of how many times I've answered this question. Why don't you actually read what has been written and respond to it, instead of ignoring everybody, repeating your blind faith, self-contradictory dogma, and asking questions that have been answered multiple times before?
At the moment, you are doing the intellectual equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes tight shut, and yelling "LA LA LA LA...".
-
A person climbs a mountain because they want to.
There is nothing random about that.
But where does that want originate?
And what is it that triggers the want into action?
The fact is that they are not pre destined to climb the mountain.
They have the freedom to choose whether to climb it or not.
That freedom to choose is directed by the conscious self - it is not random.
The word 'triggers' here is significant. A want, such as a desire to climb a mountain, does not occur spontaneously out of thin air, there are reasons underpinning it. This is the nature of reality; one thought leads to another, action causes reaction, all things are
interconnected, no man is an island. This means that any event could be traced back to its antecedent causes in principle, though not always in practice. The world of biology is messy, but the underlying principles of cause and effect will still pertain, so we can assume that mind states such as longing to reach that peak arise subject to the same base principals and that desire will compete with other desires such as to stay home with a mug of cocoa. Whichever desire proves the strongest wins the day.
-
So what precisely do you define to be the controller of the decision making?
There is no 'controller' of a neural decision making system, that is flawed conceptualisation. If there were to be a 'controller' then it would need its own decision making system with its own internal 'controller' with which the control the decision making.
Doesn't work like that. Decisions emerge out of principles of competition and democracy between rival components of a system. 20 years ago we imagined that the queen ant controlled the ant colony, causing various ants to assume roles so that the colony as a whole functioned well. Now we understand that top down hierarchical principal is flawed, the queen does not exert control, but rather colony level decisions arise out of the interactions of the individuals within the colony. It is known as emergence, and the principles learned from this, such as recruitment, now inform how we model decision making in a brain, with rival neural assemblies engaging in recruitment until one faction gains significant advantage over its rivals, such as what happens when you decide to stay home with a mug of cocoa rather than go out and climb that mountain. Whichever neural assembly recruits the most wins the day.
-
There is no 'controller' of a neural decision making system, that is flawed conceptualisation. If there were to be a 'controller' then it would need its own decision making system with its own internal 'controller' with which the control the decision making.
Doesn't work like that. Decisions emerge out of principles of competition and democracy between rival components of a system. 20 years ago we imagined that the queen ant controlled the ant colony, causing various ants to assume roles so that the colony as a whole functioned well. Now we understand that top down hierarchical principal is flawed, the queen does not exert control, but rather colony level decisions arise out of the interactions of the individuals within the colony. It is known as emergence, and the principles learned from this, such as recruitment, now inform how we model decision making in a brain, with rival neural assemblies engaging in recruitment until one faction gains significant advantage over its rivals, such as what happens when you decide to stay home with a mug of cocoa rather than go out and climb that mountain. Whichever neural assembly recruits the most wins the day.
Of course there can be no controller in a purely material entity which can only generate endless streams of physical cause and effect events. Everything comes down to inevitable reactions. But then we have the element of conscious awareness to bring into consideration. The question is this - Is our conscious awareness just aware of the consequences of these physically determined chains of cause and effect, or does it have active intervention capability? If so, what induces the conscious act of intervention? To me there seems to be something incongruous about the concept of our conscious awareness actively trying to analyse its own existence if everything is just driven by physically induced reactions.
-
Hi Alan,
Why will " it is just what they want to do" not enough.
Juan
Hi Juan,
In a nutshell -
My contention is where and how this "want" originates. If we are all just comprised entirely of material elements, anything we do, think or say will be just a consequence of the material reactions taking place in our brain cells. We know that material reactions are generally caused by previous physical events, (disregarding for the time being the quantum uncertainty element which is assumed to be random). And the consequent reactions to these events are governed by the laws of physics. So from a materialist point of view, any specific "want" arising in the brain is just an inevitable consequence of all previous physical events that have ever taken place. But if we have the freedom to control and activate our "wants", this freedom to control must be derived from something non physical - providing evidence for the existence of the human soul to enable our freedom to make and enable conscious choices
-
But then we have the element of conscious awareness to bring into consideration. The question is this - Is our conscious awareness just aware of the consequences of these physically determined chains of cause and effect, or does it have active intervention capability?
What an utterly bizarre question. It's actually not at all clear what you are talking about. On the one hand, a "conscious awareness" would tend to imply just the awareness part of our experience but you seem to use it just to mean "consciousness", which fits more with the question but then we have to ask where on earth did you get the idea of a consciousness that can't do anything?
If so, what induces the conscious act of intervention?
This has been explained to you over and over and over again. Why are you being so rude and discourteous by just ignoring the answers you get?
Conscious response can only be the result of the people we are reacting to the situation at hand. The people we are is the result of our nature, nurture and experience.
All of that is either fully deterministic or includes some random element because there is no logical alternative.
Postulating a non-physical 'soul' makes no difference to that logic.
To me there seems to be something incongruous about the concept of our conscious awareness actively trying to analyse its own existence if everything is just driven by physically induced reactions.
Why?
-
Wow - you have the nerve to edit my post down to that after what you said in #201 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15220.msg721544#msg721544)!?
But my edit did not change the apparent meaning of what you were saying.
-
Conscious response can only be the result of the people we are reacting to the situation at hand. The people we are is the result of our nature, nurture and experience.
All of that is either fully deterministic or includes some random element because there is no logical alternative.
Postulating a non-physical 'soul' makes no difference to that logic.
It makes all the difference in the world, because physical reactions are definitively defined by the laws of physics. Spiritually induced events (if they exist) are not confined or constrained by the laws of physics until the event occurs - then the laws of physics will take over. So it is a logical assumption that spiritually induced events are capable of producing different results in the deterministic scenario.
-
It makes all the difference in the world, because physical reactions are definitively defined by the laws of physics. Spiritually induced events (if they exist) are not confined or constrained by the laws of physics until the event occurs - then the laws of physics will take over. So it is a logical assumption that spiritually induced events are capable of producing different results in the deterministic scenario.
How many times? What do you think you are gaining by this stubborn and dishonest (I just can't see how you can be doing this honestly) refusal to even acknowledge the arguments as they have been presented to you?
Even if you have a non-physical soul, it either does things that are determined by reasons or aren't and are (to the extent that they aren't so determined) random.
-
But my edit did not change the apparent meaning of what you were saying.
You edited out the bit that addressed the 'points' you posted in response. That is, at the very least, rude and discourteous. It could easily be seen as dishonest because somebody reading just your post might assume I hadn't already addressed your points.
What do you think you are achieving by totally ignoring the replies you get and just repeating yourself?
-
Because physical reactions can't analyse themselves.
He asserted. ::)
-
How many times? What do you think you are gaining by this stubborn and dishonest (I just can't see how you can be doing this honestly) refusal to even acknowledge the arguments as they have been presented to you?
Even if you have a non-physical soul, it either does things that are determined by reasons or aren't and are (to the extent that they aren't so determined) random.
The only reasons which apply in the physically determined scenario are defined entirely by the laws of physics.
The reasons which apply in the spiritual scenario will be defined by our conscious awareness, which I believe to be a spiritual property of the human soul.
-
How many times? What do you think you are gaining by this stubborn and dishonest (I just can't see how you can be doing this honestly) refusal to even acknowledge the arguments as they have been presented to you?
Even if you have a non-physical soul, it either does things that are determined by reasons or aren't and are (to the extent that they aren't so determined) random.
The only reasons which apply in the physically determined scenario are defined entirely by the laws of physics.
The reasons which apply in the spiritual scenario will be defined by our conscious awareness, which I believe to be a spiritual property of the human soul.
Why did you ignore this: Even if you have a non-physical soul, it either does things that are determined by reasons or aren't and are (to the extent that they aren't so determined) random?
Once again: if this "conscious awareness" does anything, it either does so entirely due to reasons (determinsim) or not entirely due to reasons - which means that, to the extent that is actions are not due to reasons, they are due to no reason - which means random.
FFS Alan - grow a backbone and at least acknowledge this argument and stop posting as if nonbody has even posted it!
-
Of course there can be no controller in a purely material entity which can only generate endless streams of physical cause and effect events. Everything comes down to inevitable reactions. But then we have the element of conscious awareness to bring into consideration. The question is this - Is our conscious awareness just aware of the consequences of these physically determined chains of cause and effect, or does it have active intervention capability? ....
Conscious awareness is not some separate 'thing' to 'intervene', it is a phenomenon of nature that evolved hundreds of millions of years ago. It is silly to think of it as some separate system of intervention. And even if it were, it still gets you nowhere in terms of explanation as all you end up with is some parallel 'spiritual' realm of cause and effect running alongside the real one. It's all spurious, baseless and pointless.
-
What is it Alan your whole world falls apart if you acknowledge Stranger's or B H's posts, have I got that right, or is this yet another post that goes on to the, rather tall by now, unanswered pile?
Necessarily good and kind wishes to you Alan, ippy
P S It's so sad for you Alan you just can't face the facts.
-
Descartes wrestled with the idea of a separate consciousness or soul. Of course, the problem then is how the soul and body interact, and nobody, as far as I can see, has come up with a solution. It seems unlikely that anyone will, since if the soul is deemed to be immaterial, then how does this connect with the material? Answers on a postcard please.
However, there are modern formulations of dualism, for example, Chalmers, the consciousness man, but again, as far as I can see, nobody has suggested a solution to the interaction problem.
There have also been models such as Freud's, who argued that ideas can determine each other, or mental events if you like, but not that ideas are immaterial. Freud is interesting as he was a neurologist, but quite early on, rejected neurological analyses of people's thinking. In other words, he didn't want to say to a patient that you were depressed because your orbitofrontal cortex is exhibiting abnormal patterns.
-
The only reasons which apply in the physically determined scenario are defined entirely by the laws of physics.
The reasons which apply in the spiritual scenario will be defined by our conscious awareness, which I believe to be a spiritual property of the human soul.
Why did you ignore this: Even if you have a non-physical soul, it either does things that are determined by reasons or aren't and are (to the extent that they aren't so determined) random?
Once again: if this "conscious awareness" does anything, it either does so entirely due to reasons (determinsim) or not entirely due to reasons - which means that, to the extent that is actions are not due to reasons, they are due to no reason - which means random.
FFS Alan - grow a backbone and at least acknowledge this argument and stop posting as if nonbody has even posted it!
If you read my post which you are quoting you will find that I am not denying that there are reasons for our choices - I have never denied this. All I am saying is that the determinism defined by the laws of physics acting within the physical elements of our brains implies a much more restricted regime that any determinism resulting from the consciously driven reasoning of the human soul. I suspect the area of contention between us is the spiritual nature of our conscious awareness and the assumptions of what comprises our conscious reasoning.
-
If you read my post which you are quoting you will find that I am not denying that there are reasons for our choices - I have never denied this.
Seriously? If you read my posts (that will be the day!) you will see that I (and other people) am saying that to the extent the reasons do not completely determine the choice, the choice is not determined by any reason - and not determined by any reason means random.
How many times does it need to be repeated before you have the courage to acknowledge it and not repeat the same stuff over again?
All I am saying is that the determinism defined by the laws of physics acting within the physical elements of our brains implies a much more restricted regime that any determinism resulting from the consciously driven reasoning of the human soul. I suspect the area of contention between us is the spiritual nature of our conscious awareness and the assumptions of what comprises our conscious reasoning.
Meaningless nonsense. Determinism means that every event is the only possible result of its antecedents. You don't get different types due to physical laws or magic la la land. In whatever system you propose, either every event is the only possible result of its antecedents (and you have determinism) or not (and you have some randomness).
-
Seriously? If you read my posts (that will be the day!) you will see that I (and other people) am saying that to the extent the reasons do not completely determine the choice, the choice is not determined by any reason - and not determined by any reason means random.
How many times does it need to be repeated before you have the courage to acknowledge it and not repeat the same stuff over again?
Meaningless nonsense. Determinism means that every event is the only possible result of its antecedents. You don't get different types due to physical laws or magic la la land. In whatever system you propose, either every event is the only possible result of its antecedents (and you have determinism) or not (and you have some randomness).
So you are effectively saying that all my posts (and yours, and everyone else's) are entirely pre determined before we make them. I beg to disagree for the reasons I have already stated.
-
So you are effectively saying that all my posts (and yours, and everyone else's) are entirely pre determined before we make them.
That is the only logical option, unless there is some genuine random element. I have stated why multiple times and you haven't addressed my argument.
I beg to disagree for the reasons I have already stated.
You haven't stated any reasons that make any sense and you've once again totally ignored the logic that I've presented.
So, do you have a logical refutation, do you not care about logic, have you not understood, or are you too scared to face up to it?
-
If you read my post which you are quoting you will find that I am not denying that there are reasons for our choices - I have never denied this. All I am saying is that the determinism defined by the laws of physics acting within the physical elements of our brains implies a much more restricted regime that any determinism resulting from the consciously driven reasoning of the human soul. I suspect the area of contention between us is the spiritual nature of our conscious awareness and the assumptions of what comprises our conscious reasoning.
Can you spell out what the spiritual nature of our conscious awareness is? You must have some idea about it. I don't mean another paraphrase such as 'consciously driven reasoning', by the way. Since you are advocating something immaterial, how does it function?
-
Can you spell out what the spiritual nature of our conscious awareness is? You must have some idea about it. I don't mean another paraphrase such as 'consciously driven reasoning', by the way. Since you are advocating something immaterial, how does it function?
I do not profess to know hows it functions. I just know that there must be a single entity of awareness (me or you) which is capable of perceiving and interacting with the state of millions of brain cells.
-
You haven't stated any reasons that make any sense and you've once again totally ignored the logic that I've presented.
But according to your logic, the act you perceive of me of totally ignoring this logic was entirely pre determined, but it appears that I am being accused of deliberately ignoring the logic. If it was entirely pre determined, how can it be deliberate?
-
But according to your logic, the act you perceive of me of totally ignoring this logic was entirely pre determined, but it appears that I am being accused of deliberately ignoring the logic. If it was entirely pre determined, how can it be deliberate?
For the reasons that have been carefully explained to you multiple times by myself, torridon, and others.
Once again, you are employing every tactic you can to avoid facing up to the logic. I see no way in which this can be anything but dishonesty. You seem to think you are here, in part anyway, to bear witness. Perhaps you should reflect on what your (apparent?) dishonesty is telling others about your faith...
-
If you read my post which you are quoting you will find that I am not denying that there are reasons for our choices - I have never denied this. All I am saying is that the determinism defined by the laws of physics acting within the physical elements of our brains implies a much more restricted regime that any determinism resulting from the consciously driven reasoning of the human soul. I suspect the area of contention between us is the spiritual nature of our conscious awareness and the assumptions of what comprises our conscious reasoning.
Could it be that free-will, like consciousness, is an emergent property of big brains?
-
For the reasons that have been carefully explained to you multiple times by myself, torridon, and others.
Once again, you are employing every tactic you can to avoid facing up to the logic. I see no way in which this can be anything but dishonesty. You seem to think you are here, in part anyway, to bear witness. Perhaps you should reflect on what your (apparent?) dishonesty is telling others about your faith...
If your chosen logic leads to the conclusion that I do not have the freedom to consciously choose my thoughts word and actions, then the logic is wrong. And the Christian faith entirely supports the reality that human beings have freedom to choose, otherwise there would be no point in being a Christian since we are called to freely choose Jesus Christ as our Saviour. There are at least ten differing published variations of determinism theory, each with their own logical justifications. It is by no means an exact science.
And may I point out again that your accusation of my personal dishonesty does not fit with your theoretical logic that everything I do is entirely pre determined, which effectively removes any personal responsibility for my actions.
-
Could it be that free-will, like consciousness, is an emergent property of big brains?
There is no verifiable evidence that consciousness or free will can be defined as emergent properties of material entities. And since any emergent property is entirely derived from material events, it must be determinant in the same manner as any material entity.
-
Once again, Alan - anything but face the argument I've presented!
If your chosen logic leads to the conclusion that I do not have the freedom to consciously choose my thoughts word and actions, then the logic is wrong.
How many times do I need to repeat that I do not dispute that you can consciously choose what you say and do, before you stop dishonestly implying that I disagree?
And the Christian faith entirely supports the reality that human beings have freedom to choose, otherwise there would be no point in being a Christian since we are called to freely choose Jesus Christ as our Saviour.
I've met at least one Christian who'd give you an argument. However, I've no idea why you think your unsupported, blind faith is at all relevant to the logic.
There are at least ten differing published variations of determinism theory, each with their own logical justifications. It is by no means an exact science.
Smokescreen to avoid facing the logic - again! I have defined exactly what I mean and the logic that applies.
You posted a list of 'variations' of determinism before (#182 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15220.msg721469#msg721469)) and none of them are actually different types at all. For example, you included adequate determinism which is just the idea that quantum indeterminacy can be ignored in most macro systems, cultural determinism which emphasises the influence of culture over genetics in human character, hard determinism which is basically incompatibilism (the view that determinism is not compatible with free will), and so on. I asked you which one you thought was relevant to the discussion and you ignored the question (what a surprise!).
In the unlikely event that anybody is genuinely confused, see deterministic system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterministic_system) for the exact sense in which I am using the term. All the other 'types' are just to do with applicability and consequences.
And may I point out again that your accusation of my personal dishonesty does not fit with your theoretical logic that everything I do is entirely pre determined, which effectively removes any personal responsibility for my actions.
So, basically you are admitting dishonesty but claiming determinism as an excuse...?
You keep on misrepresenting what I've said and employing any tactic you can to avoid facing up to the logic I (and others) have been presenting. What do you think that is telling people about you and your faith?
-
Yes, my faith does prompt me to witness to the truth of this faith, but I still have the freedom to choose how I answer that prompt, or whether to be lazy and choose to ignore it. The choice is mine.
The same principle still applies though, the way you answer that prompt will be your favoured route from among the options that you are aware of. Likewise if I want a drink, there are several to choose from, the one I eventually choose will be the one that appeals the most at that moment. Just as I do not choose what to like, also, I do not choose what to like the most. It is the same thing.
-
I do not profess to know hows it functions. I just know that there must be a single entity of awareness (me or you) which is capable of perceiving and interacting with the state of millions of brain cells.
Well, I just know that there isn't. What happens now?
-
Well, I just know that there isn't. What happens now?
I predict that AB will not answer your interesting and sensible question, but will continue in his discourteous way of trying to flag up his own daft ideas. And that,, to me, comes across as smugness.
-
I just know that there must be a single entity of awareness (me or you)
Can you explain why you think 'a single entity of awareness' is personal. You and I both have awareness, just as we both move, breathe, eat and so on, but these are universal characteristics of human beings. Unless we are the same person how can awareness itself be me and also you? Surely we say 'I am aware' or 'I have awareness' because the sense of self is not the same as the awareness that is an attribute of selfhood. If you are a single entity of awareness then what happens to you when you go to into deep sleep? Do you disappear? How could awareness itself have the personal characteristics you attribute to yourself that might distinguish you from me? Does awareness have a taste for strong cheese? Does it sin? Or have free will? Or is it you that has and does these things? If so, is there an entity that has or does such things or are there just such things that seem to come with a sense of ownership attached?
-
Well, I just know that there isn't. What happens now?
You're a dry old bugger at times Wiggie, try your best to keep it up, yet another good one.
Regards ippy
-
You're a dry old bugger at times Wiggie, try your best to keep it up, yet another good one.
Regards ippy
Well, thank you ever so, but I also mean it. I don't think there is a single point of awareness, or in AB's lingo, I don't 'perceive' it. I'm just curious as to what happens next, since AB tends to rely on assertions about his own perceptions, which he seems to think settle any argument. So what if someone else has different perceptions? I suppose they're deluded.
-
Well, thank you ever so, but I also mean it. I don't think there is a single point of awareness, or in AB's lingo, I don't 'perceive' it. I'm just curious as to what happens next, since AB tends to rely on assertions about his own perceptions, which he seems to think settle any argument. So what if someone else has different perceptions? I suppose they're deluded.
Your reply was appropriate, succinct, nail on the head, a very pleasant put down of the 'Assertionist in Chief' of the forum, pricking his bubble, (a spoonerism of some kind would be good with that last one).
I got the full benefit of your post the moment I read it, it proves the point of something I like to achieve, but not often enough, where it isn't always necessary to write out a lengthy sermon/thesis, to say a hell of a lot.
I've a feeling that this slightly more polished version of Vlad, the one you addressed your post to wont be answering that post of yours, surly it'll at least make A B think, let's hope he can unstick his needle.
Regards ippy
-
There is no verifiable evidence that consciousness or free will can be defined as emergent properties of material entities. And since any emergent property is entirely derived from material events, it must be determinant in the same manner as any material entity.
Alan, you never answered my question.
Just ti recap: let's say you make a choice. Then God magically rewinds time to just before the point where you made your choice. Do you think there's any possibility that you would make a different choice the second time around?
-
Alan, you never answered my question.
Just ti recap: let's say you make a choice. Then God magically rewinds time to just before the point where you made your choice. Do you think there's any possibility that you would make a different choice the second time around?
He can't make himself answer you he knows if he did, with a truthfull answer, he would be unravelling himself, that's why he wont answer you j p.
So much for his daft faith ideas.
Regards ippy
-
Alan, you never answered my question.
Just ti recap: let's say you make a choice. Then God magically rewinds time to just before the point where you made your choice. Do you think there's any possibility that you would make a different choice the second time around?
It all depends how I feel at the time I make the conscious choice. If my choices were entirely pre determined by past events, then turning back the clock would just result in a repeat performance, but that would mean we were all just the equivalent of clockwork robots, reacting in accordance with our built in program. The reality I perceive is that my conscious choices are ultimately determined by me, not just by past events.
-
It all depends how I feel at the time I make the conscious choice. If my choices were entirely pre determined by past events, then turning back the clock would just result in a repeat performance, but that would mean we were all just the equivalent of clockwork robots, reacting in accordance with our built in program. The reality I perceive is that my conscious choices are ultimately determined by me, not just by past events.
But the point is that if time was actually rewound, absolutely everything would be the same - including your own state of mind. If you say that you might choose differently, then there cannot possibly be any reason why you would do so, which means you are admitting a random component in your choice.
-
But the point is that if time was actually rewound, absolutely everything would be the same - including your own state of mind. If you say that you might choose differently, then there cannot possibly be any reason why you would do so, which means you are admitting a random component in your choice.
I am simply admitting that my will is not entirely determined by past events, and it is certainly not random. My freedom to choose is determined by the willpower of my human soul, not by past events. But the hypothetical scenario could never be proven one way or the other because it is not possible to turn back time.
-
It all depends how I feel at the time I make the conscious choice. If my choices were entirely pre determined by past events, then turning back the clock would just result in a repeat performance, but that would mean we were all just the equivalent of clockwork robots, reacting in accordance with our built in program. The reality I perceive is that my conscious choices are ultimately determined by me, not just by past events.
What you are, at any moment in time, is determined by past events; ie including your state of mind. Whatever else could there possibly be that could influence our state of mind, apart from other things. There isn't anything else apart from other things.
-
But the hypothetical scenario could never be proven one way or the other because it is not possible to turn back time.
It is however, and important thought experiment because it exposes your silly avoidance of the point. If time was rewound, then everything, including the state of your 'soul' (assuming for a moment that you have one) would be the same - so if you cling to the notion that you might choose differently, you can only be doing so randomly. If not, then you (including your soul) are fully deterministic.