Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Philosophy, in all its guises. => Topic started by: Sriram on December 20, 2020, 02:21:11 PM
-
Hi everyone,
Nice video on Free Will.
https://www.bbc.com/reel/video/p086k2xk/the-strange-idea-that-we-are-not-in-control-of-our-minds
Cheers.
Sriram
-
The title of the film, "the strange idea that we are not in control of our minds", that alone, speaks volumes; that anybody would find it strange is a measure of how ingrained the notion of dualism still is. The desire to control something is a feature of mind, ie it is therefore a feature of itself, and the notion is circular.
-
Nice video on Free Will.
https://www.bbc.com/reel/video/p086k2xk/the-strange-idea-that-we-are-not-in-control-of-our-minds
I thought it was rather trite really. It seemed to be unsure even how it was defining free will. As somebody said in it; if you want to define free will as using conscious deliberation, then yes, it probably exists. That kind of skips over the issue though. As the endless discussion in the "Searching for God" thread shows, many people want to define it more along the lines of being able to have done differently (without any difference being random) which is simply incoherent.
It's the first in a series - the second one being about physics. I may well watch that later and comment further.
-
We usually think that the conscious mind (wakeful awareness) is the free will. If as Libet says, the unconscious mind takes decisions before the conscious mind is aware of it....that itself is enough to suggest that free will exits. The unconscious mind is not different from us.
In fact, the unconscious mind is what we really are IMO. The conscious mind is merely the process or mechanism by which the body is activated and made to do its task. Our identification with the conscious wakeful awareness, is the illusion.
-
Sriram,
We usually think that the conscious mind (wakeful awareness) is the free will. If as Libet says, the unconscious mind takes decisions before the conscious mind is aware of it....that itself is enough to suggest that free will exits.
That’s a non sequitur It doesn’t suggest “free” will in the non-deterministic sense at all.
The unconscious mind is not different from us.
Depends what you mean by “us” here, but essentially that’s right. There’s no good reason to assume “we” are other than our physical selves.
In fact, the unconscious mind is what we really are IMO. The conscious mind is merely the process or mechanism by which the body is activated and made to do its task.
Not really. The “conscious mind” – ie, the pre-frontal cortex – is the “executive” function. It manages reflexive behaviours like planning, decision-making, problem-solving, self-control, and acting with long-term goals in mind. Patients who suffer damage to the prefrontal cortex can still though display normal movement, sensory perception and intelligence.
They also suffer though deficiencies in the executive functions, along with personality changes, abnormalities in emotional responses, and general difficulties with functioning in their daily lives.
Our identification with the conscious wakeful awareness, is the illusion.
“Free” will in the colloquial sense of that term is the “illusion”.
-
In fact, the unconscious mind is what we really are IMO. The conscious mind is merely the process or mechanism by which the body is activated and made to do its task. Our identification with the conscious wakeful awareness, is the illusion.
I take it that you don't agree with the Advaita Vedanta view that the state of Turiya (pure consciousness)is what needs to be realised as the foundational Self or Atman.
-
I don't subscribe to any specific labels or schools.
-
Sriram,
I don't subscribe to any specific labels or schools.
"Woo" is a label.
-
Didn't 'Our Lord On High Hitch' sum up free will when he said, 'I have free will because I haven't got a choice'.
I have to admit after I heard him saying that it makes me think the argument for the idea has more to do with semantics rather than anything else it might have to do with reality.
ippy.
-
Didn't 'Our Lord On High Hitch' sum up free will when he said, 'I have free will because I haven't got a choice'.
I have to admit after I heard him saying that it makes me think the argument for the idea has more to do with semantics rather than anything else it might have to do with reality.
ippy.
I don't know the quote from Hitchens but it does sound very like this from Isaac Bashevis Singer
"We must believe in free will, we have no choice."
I think the point is that on a day today level, it's not a useful debate. In some contexts, it has impact.
-
Sriram,
"Woo" is a label.
I know it is for you. And that is the problem....! Microscopic thinking always focuses on labels and segregation.
-
I know it is for you. And that is the problem....! Microscopic thinking always focuses on labels and segregation.
Like your fixation with the label, 'scientism', for instance? ;)
-
Sriram,
I know it is for you. And that is the problem....!
Microscopic thinking always focuses on labels and segregation.
It’s not “the” problem, it’s your problem. Whether or not you call your various assertions and speculations “big picture” doesn’t remove your problem of there being no means to investigate or verify them. You might want to start with that rather than dismiss people who don’t just take your word for it for their supposed “microscopic thinking”. There's nothing "microscopic" about rationalism.
-
The physics of free will.....
https://www.bbc.com/reel/video/p086tg3k/the-physics-that-suggests-we-have-no-free-will
So...we are not really very sure if predeterminism is a fact or not...
Trying to understand everything in terms of physics is itself rather naive.
-
The physics of free will.....
https://www.bbc.com/reel/video/p086tg3k/the-physics-that-suggests-we-have-no-free-will
So...we are not really very sure if predeterminism is a fact or not...
No, but if the universe is not deterministic, then some things must be undetermined, i.e. random, which really doesn't help with most notions of free will.
Trying to understand everything in terms of physics is itself rather naive.
True - but if you want to ask fundamental questions about what sort of things can or can't happen in the universe, then physics is the subject you need.
-
Physics and mathematics are now examining more complex phenomena than matter.
https://grin.news/why-the-universe-might-be-conscious-e4f8c4f6432e
***********
This is a pathbreaking conversation with Dr. Johannes Kleiner, a mathematician and physicist at the Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy. He works at the cutting edge of an ever urgent question — is the universe conscious? He explains to Grin why the answer could well be, yes.
In the previous thirty years, many ideas have been put forward for how models of consciousness could be constructed. Some are based on empirical results from neuroscience or psychology, others are based on purely theoretical ideas. The vast majority of these models is not mathematical in nature, but rather formulated in terms of ordinary (scientific) language. However, in the recent decade, some models have been proposed that are more formal in nature, among them a model called ‘Integrated Information Theory’, which is very successful.
Mathematical models of consciousness allow us to calculate the conscious experience of all sorts of systems. And while a final verdict is still pending of which model of consciousness describes reality correctly, it is a possibility that the universe as a whole has some conscious experience.
The more integrated a system’s information processing is, the more consciousness it has.
************
Someone wanted to know what I mean by New Science. Well..... now you know.
-
Sriram,
The physics of free will.....
https://www.bbc.com/reel/video/p086tg3k/the-physics-that-suggests-we-have-no-free-will
So...we are not really very sure if predeterminism is a fact or not...
We’re not “really sure” about anything.
Trying to understand everything in terms of physics is itself rather naive.
Relativity and quantum mechanics are still both physics. In any case, “naďve” or not, physics is all we have at least to attempt the job. If you have some other process to justify your beliefs though, then why not tell us what it is?
-
Physics and mathematics are now examining more complex phenomena than matter.
https://grin.news/why-the-universe-might-be-conscious-e4f8c4f6432e
...
Someone wanted to know what I mean by New Science. Well..... now you know.
Yet another link about integrated information theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory). It isn't particularly new (it was proposed in 2004), it is entirely speculative, and I don't think it really says what you want it to.
-
Back to your comfort zone then......
-
Back to your comfort zone then......
Oh, the irony. IIT is interesting speculation that I have no problem with. The big problem is actually testing it. It is rather you that keep clinging to a comfort zone - specifically of thinking that you know things about consciousness and trying to twist every article that looks like it might match what you 'know'.
I suggest escaping from it and just accepting that there are things we just don't know, and many people, with many different approaches, trying to work them out.
-
Consciousness can be known only subjectively because it is the ultimate source of all subjectivity and personal experience.
Objective attempts at studying it can only help by pointing out the limitations in our current understanding of consciousness as merely a product of brain chemistry.
-
Sriram,
Back to your comfort zone then......
The only "comfort zone" on display here is your own - you continue to assert your various conjectures and speculations to be facts, but never manage to propose a method to investigate them. There are two possible responses to this:
1. Do not accept your claims of fact just on your say-so pending some means to investigate and verify them; or
2. Accept all epistemically equivalent claims of fact (unicorns, aliens on Alpha Centauri, whatever) as true too.
Option 2 is incoherent, so that leaves only option 1.
QED
-
Sriram,
Consciousness can be known only subjectively because it is the ultimate source of all subjectivity and personal experience.
Objective attempts at studying it can only help by pointing out the limitations in our current understanding of consciousness as merely a product of brain chemistry.
None of which gives you licence to assert anything else you like about consciousness and call it a fact.
-
Since consciousness is basically subjective, it cannot be observed or examined objectively. So, the constant attempt to find objective empirical evidence is a non-starter.
We have to therefore find ways of integrating experiential aspects of life with objective aspects.
The dubbing of all experiential phenomena as imaginary and unreliable, needs to change. We have to learn to separate the noise from the real phenomena.
-
Since consciousness is basically subjective, it cannot be observed or examined objectively. So, the constant attempt to find objective empirical evidence is a non-starter.
We have to therefore find ways of integrating experiential aspects of life with objective aspects.
The dubbing of all experiential phenomena as imaginary and unreliable, needs to change. We have to learn to separate the noise from the real phenomena.
One thing we can objectively test is how reliable the concious (subjective) mind is with regard to its perception of the objective world. The answer being very unreliable, easily distracted from important details, prone to endless biases and preconceived ideas, very easily fooled, and so on, and so on.
If we then add that to all the endless claims of phenomena that seem to exist only in the subjective or magically disappear when subjected to objective tests, that these claims often give contradictory views of the world, and all we can really conclude is that we can't reliably conclude anything at all if all we can rely on is the subjective.
-
One thing we can objectively test is how reliable the concious (subjective) mind is with regard to its perception of the objective world. The answer being very unreliable, easily distracted from important details, prone to endless biases and preconceived ideas, very easily fooled, and so on, and so on.
If we then add that to all the endless claims of phenomena that seem to exist only in the subjective or magically disappear when subjected to objective tests, that these claims often give contradictory views of the world, and all we can really conclude is that we can't reliably conclude anything at all if all we can rely on is the subjective.
You are confusing the mind with consciousness. The mind is the interface between the consciousness and the body. Consciousness is the Subject that undergoes experiences. The mind is the means by which this experience happens.
The mind is very complex and has many layers and this complicates matters. This is why mind control and meditations are advocated so that the noise and clutter can be reduced.
-
You are confusing the mind with consciousness. The mind is the interface between the consciousness and the body. Consciousness is the Subject that undergoes experiences. The mind is the means by which this experience happens.
What you were talking about in the post I replied to was "experiential aspects of life" and "experiential phenomena", so whether you want to separate out something that experiences from the sum total of experiences or not, is of little consequence to what I said.
-
You are confusing the mind with consciousness. The mind is the interface between the consciousness and the body.
Not quite correct. Consciousness is an aspect of mind, it is one of it's core functions and processes, but there are other aspects of mind also. When you are not conscious, your mind is still working, keeping bodily processes going, self-cleansing, memory pruning etc.
-
Not quite correct. Consciousness is an aspect of mind, it is one of it's core functions and processes, but there are other aspects of mind also. When you are not conscious, your mind is still working, keeping bodily processes going, self-cleansing, memory pruning etc.
We are now beginning to talk about the universe being conscious and about how consciousness could possibly generate the material world.
You are still going on and on with the old science idea of the brain generating the mind and the mind generating consciousness.... ::)
-
We are now beginning to talk about the universe being conscious and about how consciousness could possibly generate the material world.
Who is "we"?
-
Who is "we"?
:D Well...ok. The 'we' here (perhaps inappropriately) is a broad reference to the young scientists, philosophers and the general public of today.......as different from the old science folk.
-
We are now beginning to talk about the universe being conscious and about how consciousness could possibly generate the material world.
Integrated information theory (that your latest link referred to) does not lead to the idea that consciousness could create the material world. Not for the first time, you seem to be just latching on to anything at all that looks vaguely as if it might support what you think.
You are still going on and on with the old science idea of the brain generating the mind and the mind generating consciousness.... ::)
Once again, the rather childish pretence that those who disagree are "old science". IIT does say that the brain generates conciousness. The whole point of it is that you can mathematically analyse any physical system and calculate (at least in principle) how much consciousness it has, captured in a quantity called ϕ (phi).
-
The 'we' here (perhaps inappropriately) is a broad reference to the young scientists, philosophers and the general public of today.......as different from the old science folk.
And your evidence that there is such a shift amongst younger scientists and philosophers.....?
-
We are now beginning to talk about the universe being conscious and about how consciousness could possibly generate the material world.
You are still going on and on with the old science idea of the brain generating the mind and the mind generating consciousness.... ::)
Neuroscience is 'old science' ? Nah, you're way out of touch, neuroscience is one of the hottest research areas of recent years.
-
:D Well...ok. The 'we' here (perhaps inappropriately) is a broad reference to the young scientists, philosophers and the general public of today.......as different from the old science folk.
I'd imagine that 'young scientists', if they want to become 'old scientists' that is, will still work within with the limits of the ever-changing but nonetheless systematic 'scientific method' while 'young philosophers will publish and have their ideas critiqued - so how many of these young scientists and philosophers have published proposals in peer-reviewed scientific and philosophical literature regarding sources of consciousness that aren't biological.
What the general public thinks regarding consciousness is neither here nor there, unless those that have a view (and some may not see it as a subject that concerns them) can also provide a basis for their conclusions that isn't merely an expression their personal preferences, intuitions and biases.
-
'Old science' is not just about older people in terms of age. It is about how narrow ones perspective is....and how narrowly one defines science, its scope and its discoveries.
Many elderly people could have a broader perspective that is essential for 'New science'.
-
'Old science' is not just about older people in terms of age. It is about how narrow ones perspective is....and how narrowly one defines science, its scope and its discoveries.
Then your "new science" is just your own little fantasy. Nobody is changing the definition of science and people who step outside its scope are not doing science. New ideas and speculations are not a new feature of science.
Your problem is that you have a set of pre-existing beliefs that you desperately want to be true and you latch on to any speculation that seems to you (often incorrectly, like IIT) think are in line with those beliefs and then label it "new science" and try to put down people who point out the lack of evidence or the speculative nature of it as "old science".
Deciding the answer first and then clinging desperately to anything you think supports it is the opposite of doing science and the labelling of things you like as "new science" and those pointing out the problems as "old science" is silly and immature.
-
Sriram,
'Old science' is not just about older people in terms of age. It is about how narrow ones perspective is....and how narrowly one defines science, its scope and its discoveries.
Many elderly people could have a broader perspective that is essential for 'New science'.
Science is both a collection of knowledge and a verifiable method of discovery. The knowledge part changes as new discoveries are made, but the method doesn’t. There’s no so such thing as “old science” and “new science”, and the only “narrowness” in science is its demand that truth claims should be justified by its method if they're to be deemed "scientific".
If you don’t like the scientific method though, then find some other means to justify your various claims and assertions…
…which is the point at which you always disappear. Why is that?
-
You just don't get it...do you?!
You look through a microscope and find many new things. Fine! I appreciate that.
I however tell you that there are many aspects of reality that are beyond the scope of your microscope.
Then, you tell me that...'fine...if that is so, please show me all those aspects through my microscope and I will then believe it'.
Ridiculous isn't it?!
-
You just don't get it...do you?!
No, despite the fact people keep on explaining it to you, it's you who don't get it.
If your claim is that there are objective aspects of the world that are beyond the scope of science (and there certainly may be), then you're going to have to come up with some other way of investigating them and deciding what is probably true as opposed to guesses, wishful thinking, mistakes, illusions, and so on.
In short: if you think the scientific method is not the right tool to use, what can you offer instead?
Sriram likes the idea therefore it must be right, really isn't good enough.
-
You just don't get it...do you?!
You look through a microscope and find many new things. Fine! I appreciate that.
I however tell you that there are many aspects of reality that are beyond the scope of your microscope.
Then, you tell me that...'fine...if that is so, please show me all those aspects through my microscope and I will then believe it'.
Ridiculous isn't it?!
No Sriram, it's you that doesn't seem to get it. If you want to influence others you really need to produce some sort of convincing methodology and reasoning which doesn't simply rely upon your own subjective viewpoint.
Whenever you try to bring in science to reinforce your viewpoint you simply show your ability at cherrypicking or illustrate the limits of your understanding as has been shown by your ideas on ndes, evolution, epigenetics/ phenotypic plasticity etc.
Indeed, in this particular thread you attempt to use the very interesting hypothesis of IIT(as distinct from the functional approach) to explain consciousness, in order to support your idea that the whole universe is conscious, when it says no such thing,
I would suggest that a good New Year resolution for you would be to have a more balanced and less assertive approach to your no doubt heartfelt ideas. This would at least show a maturity which you seem, at the moment, to be lacking.
-
Ha! Ha! Ha!.... :D
What is cherry picking about....NDE's, phenotypic plasticity, epigenetics, unconscious mind, Copenhagen Interpretation of QM, anthropic principle, panpsychism, cosmopsychism, IIT, biofield, subjective nature of reality etc., that I bring up every now and then? (I have added a few more that you missed).
These are the areas that hint at the exotic nature of life and the universe. These point to those areas where, if we bother to understand and integrate them, we could have a better understanding of our mind, consciousness and life itself.....instead of the same rigmarole of convoluted 'explanations' born of scientism.
-
Sriram,
Dear god but you struggle. The extent to which these things “hint at” your various speculations is debatable but, even if they did, that’s all they’d do - hint. If you want to justify your claims of fact though, you still have a mountain to climb to find some method to do that that’s objectively investigable and verifiable. Thunder was once thought to “hint at” Thor. So what though?
-
What you keep referring to as 'objectively investigable and verifiable'...is what I am referring to as 'scientism'. The world doesn't fit into your requirements.
-
Sriram,
What you keep referring to as 'objectively investigable and verifiable'...is what I am referring to as 'scientism'. The world doesn't fit into your requirements.
Then you're actually illiterate as well as scientifically illiterate. Try looking up what "scientism" really means to see where you've gone wrong.
-
"the style, assumptions, techniques, practices, etc., typifying or regarded as typifying scientists".
That is your microscope...!
-
Sriram,
"the style, assumptions, techniques, practices, etc., typifying or regarded as typifying scientists".
That is your microscope...!
It's also a definition of science, not scientism.
Care to try again?
-
That is copied from the dictionary... It could be science too.
If it is wrongly or inappropriately applied it is scientism.
-
Sriram,
That is copied from the dictionary...
Yes, but not from the part of it that defines scientism.
It could be science too.
There’s no “too” – it’s only a definition of science.
If it is wrongly or inappropriately applied it is scientism.
Now you’re shifting ground. You gave a definition of science rather than scientism, and now you’re saying that if science is misapplied then it’s scientism. Let me help you here: scientism is the position that the universe is necessarily explicable in scientific terms. That may or may not be true, but it’s not a position I or anyone else here takes. What’s actually being said is that science provides discoveries that are verifiably true according to its methods. Your speculations on the other hand have no method of verification of any sort. Complaining that they’re not science-apt is fine if you like, but that leaves you with the problem that they’re not anything else apt either. And if you expect them to be treated differently from white noise or just guessing, that's a pretty major problem.
Can you see now why it's a pretty major problem?
-
Scientism is scientific principles applied inappropriately or over enthusiastically. Which you do all the time. It is a perception problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism#:~:text=Scientism%20is%20the%20promotion%20of,determine%20normative%20and%20epistemological%20values.
"The term scientism is generally used critically, implying an unwarranted application of science in situations considered not amenable to application of the scientific method or similar scientific standards."
-
Coming back to my post at 41 above....I have been bringing up many subjects precisely because they point to exotic aspects of our world. These areas if integrated, could lead to a better understanding of what we today call as spirituality... and the physical world.
The artificial separation of the world into the natural and the supernatural is absurd. The spiritual aspects merge into the physical and mental realities in a continuum.
-
Coming back to my post at 41 above....I have been bringing up many subjects precisely because they point to exotic aspects of our world. These areas if integrated, could lead to a better understanding of what we today call as spirituality... and the physical world.
For starters, they don't integrate. For example, many of the different ideas about consciousness that you've brought up contradict each other. What you post here is a hotchpotch of different ideas, that you often fail to understand yourself, that range from scientific conjectures, philosophy, to absurd woo. The only common factor being that you think that they point to something you desperately want to believe. Things really don't become more likely to be true just because you want them to.
The artificial separation of the world into the natural and the supernatural is absurd. The spiritual aspects merge into the physical and mental realities in a continuum.
The correct division is between those things we have some real evidence for, speculative ideas that can't yet be tested but are based in reason or what we have already discovered, and those that have no evidence and are based on nothing but blind faith, wishful thinking, or a deliberate or accidental misrepresentation of what is known.
Nothing is changing or can change about this. There is no 'new science' that is going to make any difference. If you want to learn about objective reality, you need to rely on objective evidence. You need testability and falsifiability.
-
Ha! Ha! Ha!.... :D
What is cherry picking about....NDE's, phenotypic plasticity, epigenetics, unconscious mind, Copenhagen Interpretation of QM, anthropic principle, panpsychism, cosmopsychism, IIT, biofield, subjective nature of reality etc., that I bring up every now and then? (I have added a few more that you missed).
These are the areas that hint at the exotic nature of life and the universe. These point to those areas where, if we bother to understand and integrate them, we could have a better understanding of our mind, consciousness and life itself.....instead of the same rigmarole of convoluted 'explanations' born of scientism.
No, I didn't miss them, Sriram. I simply wanted to save you further embarrassment by limiting the number of areas that you have dabbled in with your rather sticky fingers. :)
However as you have brought them up, I feel obliged to remind you of some of the problems:
A) NDEs - All you have are anecdotal accounts. Yes, they undoubtedly happen, but When it comes to validation of your pet theories, you have nothing of any substance. Indeed,
a person who has experienced a genuine NDE, has gone through three main stages:
1) Consciousness in the moments before losing consciousness. At this point there is brain activity
2) Unconsciousness, which may include a period when brain activity flat lines
3) Consciousness in the moments following No 2. Again there is obviously brain activity
This whole event is a process, and there is no evidence that NDEs are only or even a phenomenon related to No 2.
B) Phenotypic plasticity - see http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=17486.0 where your vague meanderings where brought to an abrupt halt by someone who has actually studied the subject(ProfessorDavey). See replies 15, 18, 23 and 30 in particular.
C) Epigenetics - see http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=16546.0 where you were challenged on your ideas by several posters, including one very pertinent one in reply 5.
D) Unconscious mind - a fact that is very well known and has been discussed in great detail on several threads, especially involving Alan Burns. As NTTS succinctly put it in reply 2 on this thread in relation to 'free will' :
" As the endless discussion in the "Searching for God" thread shows, many people want to define it more along the lines of being able to have done differently (without any difference being random) which is simply incoherent."
E) Copenhagen Interpretation of QM - which is itself open to interpretation and, in the light of further experiments and discoveries, does not substantiate the idea that measurement has to be done by a conscious entity. You also fail to mention other more modern interpretations.
F) Anthropic principle - basically a very vague, non scientific idea(it can't be falsified) which doesn't necessarily imply even human life. Even its weaker form is no more than self evident(that the current Universe is of the form that allows intelligent observers.)
G) Cosmopsychism - an hypothesis, as is the idea of multiverses which could give some credence as to why we live in a universe which seems to be fine tuned but isn't.
H) IIT - even its proponents(Koch and Tononi) do not attribute consciousness indiscriminately to all things. "For example, if there are no interactions, there is no consciousness whatsoever. For the IIT, a camera sensor as such is completely unconscious…" (Tononi, 2008). You also seem to ignore the reasoning of critics such as the philospher, Searle or the computer scientist, Scott Aaronson.
I) Biofield - I simply refer you to the thread on Biofields(which you started)
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=18038.0 and refer you to my response(Post 17) which you, very predictably, took exception to. Seems it's a classic case of you wishing to cherry pick, rather than take into account all that the article actually said.
J) Subjective nature of reality - I would direct you to the thread entitled 'tree in a forest' (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=16937.0) where the whole subject was discussed in some detail, and in which you met a range of views which didn't quite correlate with your own(I'm being kind). I direct you to replies by Jeremy(reply 23), Nearly Sane(reply 31), Bluehillside(replies 41 and 49), NTTS(replies 46 and 82), Gordon(reply 51), Outrider(replies 60 and 94), Bramble(replies 67 and 71)
K) Although you didn't mention this, I would also add 'Evolution'. I refer you to the thread(that you started) entitled 'Evolvability'and would point you in the direction of a reply by NTTS(post 15) in particular.
What seems to come through in all these threads is not that you are necessarily wrong, but that you have an inclination to ignore or to be averse to criticism and to learn from it. Far too often you seem to retire into your own closed personal position often without thinking through valid points made by others but simply carrying on regardless. I say that as a person who is not devoted to 'scientism' a term which Blue makes clear, and ask you again:
What method and reasoning would you use to convince me that your views hold merit? I basically asked you that in post 40, but, so far, you don't seem to be able to give an answer.
-
Well....you can see what I meant by microscopic thinking.... ::)
Thanks guys!
And thanks enki for keeping track of my old posts and threads. Feels nice! :)
-
Well....you can see what I meant by microscopic thinking.... ::)
Yes - you mean all the inconvenient facts about your own rather sloppy and clearly biased thinking. This has been somewhat obvious for some time. :)
-
Sriram,
Scientism is scientific principles applied inappropriately or over enthusiastically.
Yes, I’m fully aware of what “scientism” means – the point though is that you weren’t. When in Reply 44 I suggested you look it up so you’d stop making the same mistake, you replied in 45 with the wrong definition. It’s good that you’ve finally (apparently) grasped what the term actually means, but you might at least have the good grace to acknowledge the correction.
Which you do all the time.
And now you’ve resorted to flat out misrepresentation, Vlad style. I have never espoused scientism – to the contrary I’ve explicitly and repeatedly made clear that it’s not a position I hold. You really should withdraw that falsehood, though I don’t suppose you will.
It is a perception problem.
No it isn’t. The real problem is that you really, really want some things to be true but you have no means to justify your belief that they are true. Rather than confront the problem honestly your tactic is to criticise science for something it makes no claims to, then to inflate speculations, pseudo-science and plain wishful thinking into evidence for your fantastical claims. These things “point to”, “hint at” etc your truth claims only in the sense that Norse paganism “pointed to”, “hinted at” etc Thor causing thunder.
That’s your problem remember?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism#:~:text=Scientism%20is%20the%20promotion%20of,determine%20normative%20and%20epistemological%20values.
"The term scientism is generally used critically, implying an unwarranted application of science in situations considered not amenable to application of the scientific method or similar scientific standards."
Congratulations for getting there in the end. Can you now see why neither I nor anyone else here does that?
Oh, and how about addressing your major problem that, if science can’t justify your truth claims, you have nothing at all to put in its place that can?
-
SR <quote>The spiritual aspects merge into the physical and mental realities in a continuum.</quote>
Stranger <quote>If you want to learn about objective reality, you need to rely on objective evidence. You need testability and falsifiability.</quote>
enki <quote>What method and reasoning would you use to convince me that your views hold merit? </quote>
A comment on these extracts from recent posts.
From the point of view of 'mystics' from a variety of countries the 'spiritual' methods tend towards inner stillness so that consciousness is realised as being free from both the external objective world and the inner subjective condition of the psyche. To engage in 'spiritual' speculation, pursuit of objective evidence and reasoning only agitates the psyche and becomes counter productive to the 'spiritual' method. Religious persuasion, which often resorts to a carrot and stick approach e.g. heaven and hell, reincarnation into upper and lower conditions, similarly tends to be counter productive.
-
Sriram,
Well....you can see what I meant by microscopic thinking....
Yes we can, only we see what you mean by it better than you do. What you actually mean by it is something like, “thinking that does not justify the various truth claims I make, but I have no alternative thinking that can do that job either”.
Thanks guys!
You’re welcome.
-
Interesting (and long) article on 'free will' in today's Guardian: I haven't read it all as yet, but it seems worth a read for those interested in this subject.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/apr/27/the-clockwork-universe-is-free-will-an-illusion
-
Interesting (and long) article on 'free will' in today's Guardian: I haven't read it all as yet, but it seems worth a read for those interested in this subject.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/apr/27/the-clockwork-universe-is-free-will-an-illusion
Thank you for posting the link. I've listened all the way through and found it very interesting. Whatever the exact answers are, we as a species have very successfully survived so far thinking we have free will, so I reckon we should just go on understanding that the science will increase understanding of how our brains function but that if we just continue as normal, then we should be all right!.
-
Thank you for posting the link. I've listened all the way through and found it very interesting. Whatever the exact answers are, we as a species have very successfully survived so far thinking we have free will, so I reckon we should just go on understanding that the science will increase understanding of how our brains function but that if we just continue as normal, then we should be all right!.
We've survived very successfully believing in gods so fat so do you reckon we should just continue as normal?
-
We've survived very successfully believing in gods so fat so do you reckon we should just continue as normal?
Ah, but that is in spite of believing in God, I think!
-
Interesting (and long) article on 'free will' in today's Guardian: I haven't read it all as yet, but it seems worth a read for those interested in this subject.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/apr/27/the-clockwork-universe-is-free-will-an-illusion
Just take this quote from the article:
It’s that the experience of possessing free will – the feeling that we are the authors of our choices – is so utterly basic to everyone’s existence that it can be hard to get enough mental distance to see what’s going on.
In that one sentence lies the evidence for the fact that our consciously driven freedom is a reality, not an illusion.
The processes invoked in our ability to "get enough mental distance to see what’s going on" goes far beyond the trivial example of choosing between a banana or an apple. In short, our ability to contemplate the existence of free will is in itself ample evidence for the existence of free will. The difficulty highlighted in this article arises from trying to find an explanation for free will within the confines of existing human knowledge. Our knowledge of reality is limited by what our human senses and man made equipment can detect, and it is foolish to presume that such limited human knowledge can be used to conclude that our freedom to choose is an illusion. The consciously driven mental acrobatics needed to reach such a conclusion would be impossible if the conclusion was true - therein lies the paradox.
-
Just take this quote from the article:
It’s that the experience of possessing free will – the feeling that we are the authors of our choices – is so utterly basic to everyone’s existence that it can be hard to get enough mental distance to see what’s going on.
In that one sentence lies the evidence for the fact that our consciously driven freedom is a reality, not an illusion.
The processes invoked in our ability to "get enough mental distance to see what’s going on" goes far beyond the trivial example of choosing between a banana or an apple. In short, our ability to contemplate the existence of free will is in itself ample evidence for the existence of free will.
"It feels that way, so it must be true" is just as mind-numbingly stupid as it always has been and you clearly still don't have the first clue what evidence means.
The consciously driven mental acrobatics needed to reach such a conclusion would be impossible if the conclusion was true - therein lies the paradox.
What paradox? You never have been able to support this utterly silly, reasoning-free assertion.
::)
-
Just take this quote from the article:
It’s that the experience of possessing free will – the feeling that we are the authors of our choices – is so utterly basic to everyone’s existence that it can be hard to get enough mental distance to see what’s going on.
In that one sentence lies the evidence for the fact that our consciously driven freedom is a reality, not an illusion.
The processes invoked in our ability to "get enough mental distance to see what’s going on" goes far beyond the trivial example of choosing between a banana or an apple. In short, our ability to contemplate the existence of free will is in itself ample evidence for the existence of free will. The difficulty highlighted in this article arises from trying to find an explanation for free will within the confines of existing human knowledge. Our knowledge of reality is limited by what our human senses and man made equipment can detect, and it is foolish to presume that such limited human knowledge can be used to conclude that our freedom to choose is an illusion. The consciously driven mental acrobatics needed to reach such a conclusion would be impossible if the conclusion was true - therein lies the paradox.
There's only a paradox to explain for people who insist they have free will whilst understanding it is an inherently illogical concept. Once people understand that we act on our desires, such as they are, but do not choose which desires to have, the paradox vanishes, there is nothing of significance requiring explanation. That's the trouble you buy for yourself by importing on irrational concepts into your world view. 'God' being another example. Once God vanishes from your worldview all the contradictions that come with God based thinking, they all vanish too.
-
1. ... In short, our ability to contemplate the existence of free will is in itself ample evidence for the existence of free will. The difficulty highlighted in this article arises from trying to find an explanation for free will within the confines of existing human knowledge.
2. ....Our knowledge of reality is limited by what our human senses and man made equipment can detect, and it is foolish to presume that such limited human knowledge can be used to conclude that our freedom to choose is an illusion.
1. It could also be said that the ability to contemplate the existence of free will is evidence of the existence of the concept of free will.
2. As you have done in the past, this is an example of confusing 'free will' with 'free choice'. They are not really the same. Also your idea of freedom seems to imply absolute freedom, something usually reserved for the God with absolute power that you worship.
-
1. It could also be said that the ability to contemplate the existence of free will is evidence of the existence of the concept of free will.
2. As you have done in the past, this is an example of confusing 'free will' with 'free choice'. They are not really the same. Also your idea of freedom seems to imply absolute freedom, something usually reserved for the God with absolute power that you worship.
Yes, a god given gift which nature alone could never provide.
Free will - driven by the ever present state of your conscious self rather than the inevitable uncontrollable consequences to past events.
-
There's only a paradox to explain for people who insist they have free will whilst understanding it is an inherently illogical concept. Once people understand that we act on our desires, such as they are, but do not choose which desires to have, the paradox vanishes, there is nothing of significance requiring explanation. That's the trouble you buy for yourself by importing on irrational concepts into your world view. 'God' being another example. Once God vanishes from your worldview all the contradictions that come with God based thinking, they all vanish too.
But the consciously driven act of understanding defies the simplistic logic of pre determined consequences to past events.
-
"It feels that way, so it must be true" is just as mind-numbingly stupid as it always has been and you clearly still don't have the first clue what evidence means.
what is mind numbingly stupid is the presumption that our limited current human knowledge can be used to deny the reality of your freedom to make such a presumption.
-
But the consciously driven act of understanding defies the simplistic logic of pre determined consequences to past events.
Maybe it feels that way, but there is no evidence for it, is there ? Any 'understanding' that was not derived from the experiences that led to it would be a random state of mind. A random state of mind could not be 'understanding'.
-
Yes, a god given gift which nature alone could never provide.
Baseless assertion.
...ever present state of your conscious self...
Incoherent gibberish.
But the consciously driven act of understanding defies the simplistic logic of pre determined consequences to past events.
Another baseless assertion.
-
what is mind numbingly stupid is the presumption that our limited current human knowledge can be used to deny the reality of your freedom to make such a presumption.
Nobody is denying freedom in that sense.
-
Just take this quote from the article:
It’s that the experience of possessing free will – the feeling that we are the authors of our choices – is so utterly basic to everyone’s existence that it can be hard to get enough mental distance to see what’s going on.
In that one sentence lies the evidence for the fact that our consciously driven freedom is a reality, not an illusion.
The processes invoked in our ability to "get enough mental distance to see what’s going on" goes far beyond the trivial example of choosing between a banana or an apple. In short, our ability to contemplate the existence of free will is in itself ample evidence for the existence of free will. The difficulty highlighted in this article arises from trying to find an explanation for free will within the confines of existing human knowledge. Our knowledge of reality is limited by what our human senses and man made equipment can detect, and it is foolish to presume that such limited human knowledge can be used to conclude that our freedom to choose is an illusion. The consciously driven mental acrobatics needed to reach such a conclusion would be impossible if the conclusion was true - therein lies the paradox.
Here's another quote, Alan: where the "ghostly presence separate from the material world yet mysteriously still able to influence it" sounds a lot like your 'soul' notion but, as is also noted in the quote below, the problems then are a) where is this 'ghostly presence/soul' is located, and b) explaining how it operates - and of course you've failed to offer any coherent explanation for either of these two issues.
To have what’s known in the scholarly jargon as “contra-causal” free will – so that if you rewound the tape of history back to the moment of choice, you could make a different choice – you’d somehow have to slip outside physical reality. To make a choice that wasn’t merely the next link in the unbroken chain of causes, you’d have to be able to stand apart from the whole thing, a ghostly presence separate from the material world yet mysteriously still able to influence it. But of course you can’t actually get to this supposed place that’s external to the universe, separate from all the atoms that comprise it and the laws that govern them. You just are some of the atoms in the universe, governed by the same predictable laws as all the rest.
-
Maybe it feels that way, but there is no evidence for it, is there ?
Reality perhaps? But not if you try to modify reality to fit in with what can be defined by human knowledge.
Any 'understanding' that was not derived from the experiences that led to it would be a random state of mind. A random state of mind could not be 'understanding'.
What is understood is certainly derived from past experiences.
But the same cannot be said for the actions which initiate and drive the process of conscious understanding.
Do you have conscious control of the process - or is your conscious awareness just a spectator to the consequences of past events beyond your control?
-
Reality perhaps?
We are still waiting for the slightest hint of an argument from you as to why reality requires free will in the sense you mean... and waiting..... and waiting..... and waiting..... and waiting..... and waiting....
What is understood is certainly derived from past experiences.
But the same cannot be said for the actions which initiate and drive the process of conscious understanding.
Baseless assertion.
Do you have conscious control of the process - or is your conscious awareness just a spectator to the consequences of past events beyond your control?
False dichotomy.
-
Here's another quote, Alan: where the "ghostly presence separate from the material world yet mysteriously still able to influence it" sounds a lot like your 'soul' notion but, as is also noted in the quote below, the problems then are a) where is this 'ghostly presence/soul' is located, and b) explaining how it operates - and of course you've failed to offer any coherent explanation for either of these two issues.
Yes, I read this myself and was somewhat disappointed at the author's use of the concept of "ghost" rather than "soul". Regardless of the terminology, what is being postulated here is a possibility that the explanation of human free will lies beyond the confines of that which can be defined by physically defined reactions to past events. The fact that we cannot understand how it operates can't be used to deny the reality of its existence.
-
Yes, I read this myself and was somewhat disappointed at the author's use of the concept of "ghost" rather than "soul". Regardless of the terminology, what is being postulated here is a possibility that the explanation of human free will lies beyond the confines of that which can be defined by physically defined reactions to past events.
I don't think the author is viewing the 'ghost' idea as a possibility: it think the tone used suggests that it is a ridiculous notion. If you think otherwise you'll need to come up with some method that can detect these 'ghosts', show where the originate from and then explain how they operate in the affairs of humans.
The fact that we cannot understand how it operates can't be used to deny the reality of its existence.
That you concede you don't understand how these 'ghosts' might operate indicates that you aren't in a position to claim that they operate in 'reality' - you'll need to first demonstrate that they are 'real' before you can explain how the operate (and you need to avoid letting your personal incredulity get in the way of your thinking or falling into the dear old NPF).
-
Regardless of the terminology, what is being postulated here is a possibility that the explanation of human free will lies beyond the confines of that which can be defined by physically defined reactions to past events.
Except the problem with 'free will' in the sense you've suggesting is, as has been pointed out to you endlessly, a logical one, rather than (or as well as) a physical one.
The fact that we cannot understand how it operates can't be used to deny the reality of its existence.
And your baseless assertions, extensive collection of fallacies, and feelings on the matter, cannot be used to support a logically self-contradictory concept - no matter how often you call it a 'reality'.
-
Reality perhaps? But not if you try to modify reality to fit in with what can be defined by human knowledge.What is understood is certainly derived from past experiences.
But the same cannot be said for the actions which initiate and drive the process of conscious understanding.
Do you have conscious control of the process - or is your conscious awareness just a spectator to the consequences of past events beyond your control?
I've got a strong feeling this has already been covered elsewhere. Any desire you have, conscious or not, has roots, has origins, it must derive from something. If you form intentions or desires for no reason then you are just a random bot. Is that what life is like for you ? I don't think that's true for me and I have no reason to suspect it true of other persons. We all do things for reasons.
-
I've got a strong feeling this has already been covered elsewhere. Any desire you have, conscious or not, has roots, has origins, it must derive from something. If you form intentions or desires for no reason then you are just a random bot. Is that what life is like for you ? I don't think that's true for me and I have no reason to suspect it true of other persons. We all do things for reasons.
Of course we do things for reasons.
The question at hand concerns the ultimate source from which the reason emanates.
Does the conscious self have the capacity to formulate the reason - and the reasoning.
Or is the conscious self just a consequence of past events which are beyond conscious control - we can't control the past.
-
Of course we do things for reasons.
The question at hand concerns the ultimate source from which the reason emanates.
Does the conscious self have the capacity to formulate the reason - and the reasoning.
Or is the conscious self just a consequence of past events which are beyond conscious control - we can't control the past.
If something is the "ultimate source" of a reason, than it must happen for no reason (otherwise it isn't "ultimate") and somthing that happens for no reason is random.
You've set up another false dichotomy. The self is the way it is because of reasons (nature, nurture, and experience) none of which you can directly control. You are not 'free' to be somebody else formed by different nature, nurture, and experience and therefore want different things. It doesn't even make sense to be 'free' of being yourself.
In the end, as has been explained to you endlessly (and apparently pointlessly because you show no sign of being able to handle logic), we are free to do whatever we want to do most but we cannot change what it is that we want to do most - that's a product of who we are.
-
If something is the "ultimate source" of a reason, than it must happen for no reason (otherwise it isn't "ultimate") and somthing that happens for no reason is random.
You've set up another false dichotomy. The self is the way it is because of reasons (nature, nurture, and experience) none of which you can directly control. You are not 'free' to be somebody else formed by different nature, nurture, and experience and therefore want different things. It doesn't even make sense to be 'free' of being yourself.
In the end, as has been explained to you endlessly (and apparently pointlessly because you show no sign of being able to handle logic), we are free to do whatever we want to do most but we cannot change what it is that we want to do most - that's a product of who we are.
You are still limiting your sense of logic to be defined by what is perceived in the observation of physically controlled material reactions. You perceive that material reactions are predicted and defined by past events, and you extrapolate this to be applicable to all reality - even that which lies beyond our current understanding. You somehow perceive time to be a separate entity which exists in its own right, but time is a property of this material universe. Time began with the big bang. The direction of time is defined by material changes. Time will cease with the death of our material universe. Can your deterministic logic be applied to whatever exists outside our material universe where time as we know it ceases to operate? I put to you the possibility that the human soul exists in an ever present state of conscious awareness and can perceive and interact with the time dimension of our material universe. Of course I cannot claim this to be a fact, but it is an example of thinking outside the confined box of a physically controlled deterministic system which denies me the freedom to think.
-
Of course we do things for reasons.
The question at hand concerns the ultimate source from which the reason emanates.
Does the conscious self have the capacity to formulate the reason - and the reasoning.
Or is the conscious self just a consequence of past events which are beyond conscious control - we can't control the past.
Yes the 'conscious self', such as it is, must be a consequence of the factors that form it and we cannot control or change the past. This is reality Alan. Apart from anything else, we now know from cognitive science that conscious awareness is not instantaneous, it takes a certain amount of time to form, so any 'conscious' response to events is strictly speaking a memory of a response already made.
https://theconversation.com/what-youre-seeing-right-now-is-the-past-so-your-brain-is-predicting-the-present-131913 (https://theconversation.com/what-youre-seeing-right-now-is-the-past-so-your-brain-is-predicting-the-present-131913)
-
You are still limiting your sense of logic to be defined by what is perceived in the observation of physically controlled material reactions. You perceive that material reactions are predicted and defined by past events, and you extrapolate this to be applicable to all reality - even that which lies beyond our current understanding.
Nonsense. It's a logical argument (remember >this< (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10333.msg801201#msg801201)?) that applies to anything that changes over time - which our minds necessarily do.
You somehow perceive time to be a separate entity which exists in its own right, but time is a property of this material universe.
I don't perceive it as such and I know it is a property of the universe (strictly space-time is but I digress).
Can your deterministic logic be applied to whatever exists outside our material universe where time as we know it ceases to operate?
This is simply irrelevant because a functioning mind requires time. Specifically choice making, and hence any possible notion of free will, requires time because it requires change and if there is no time there can be no change.
I put to you the possibility that the human soul exists in an ever present state of conscious awareness and can perceive and interact with the time dimension of our material universe.
Just robotically and thoughtlessly repeating the meaninglessness phrase "ever present state of conscious awareness" is not going to suddenly make it mean something. It's as meaningless as saying "rodsensic yagmop tac" until you provide some logically meaningful (and non-circular) definition.
Of course I cannot claim this to be a fact, but it is an example of thinking...
No, it isn't even thinking - it's making up a meaningless phrase that sounds a bit like it might mean something in an attempt to get you out of hard logic. Thought, at least rational and logic thought, doesn't appear to have been involved at all.
...a physically controlled deterministic system which denies me the freedom to think.
Straw man. Both in the sense of "physically controlled" and in the sense that nobody is arguing that you aren't able to think whatever you want.
-
Following on from the Guardian 'long read' article I posted a link to yesterday, there have been a number of letters in response making various points and challenges.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/29/the-battle-for-free-will-in-the-face-of-determinism
-
This is simply irrelevant because a functioning mind requires time. Specifically choice making, and hence any possible notion of free will, requires time because it requires change and if there is no time there can be no change.
The conscious mind perceives time, but I question whether it requires time. The functioning physical brain requires time to operate, but I do not see the conscious self as being part of such mechanistic material function. The conscious self can certainly interact with the functioning brain to bring about acts of will, but what comprises the conscious self?
Just robotically and thoughtlessly repeating the meaninglessness phrase "ever present state of conscious awareness" is not going to suddenly make it mean something. It's as meaningless as saying "rodsensic yagmop tac" until you provide some logically meaningful (and non-circular) definition.
Why do you declare "ever present state of conscious awareness" to be meaningless? It is where you exist. It is your definitive "present". It is key to discovering your true self.
-
Following on from the Guardian 'long read' article I posted a link to yesterday, there have been a number of letters in response making various points and challenges.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/29/the-battle-for-free-will-in-the-face-of-determinism
Thanks for this, Gordon.
I was particularly impressed with this comment which puts forward one of my own arguments, put with much better articulation than I am capable of:
The problem with the assertion that free will is an illusion is that it carries inescapable consequences for the ability of our intelligence to arrive at an adequation of the truth. Notwithstanding that education, cultural background and character affect our cognitive reasoning, to have any hope of knowing anything truly, we must be capable of objectivity and therefore, by definition, free in our thought to some degree. If we are always deterministically fated to be led down a wired neural pathway towards a conclusion that we cannot escape, we have no real basis for assuming that it bears any relation to the actual nature of things.
If free will is an illusion, then so is true knowledge. And this would then also apply to our capacity to know the true nature of free will. Is Oliver Burkeman not fatally determined to arrive at the conclusion he has, regardless of whether it is actually true or not? In which case, I’m not sure we can really say his conclusion is true.
Khalid Naqib
Chilton, Buckinghamshire
-
The conscious mind perceives time, but I question whether it requires time. The functioning physical brain requires time to operate, but I do not see the conscious self as being part of such mechanistic material function.
That's totally irrelevant. If something makes a choice then it changes (from being undecided to having decided), hence anything that can possibly have any sort of 'free will' requires time.
Why do you declare "ever present state of conscious awareness" to be meaningless. It is where you exist. It is your definitive "present". It is key to discovering your true self.
I really do suggest you get a check-up; if this is a genuine question then your memory is clearly very poor indeed. The present either doesn't exist in any meaningful way (exact sense of single moment at a single point) or is logically irrelevant (colloquial sense).
-
I was particularly impressed with this comment which puts forward one of my own arguments, put with much better articulation than I am capable of:
The problem with the assertion that free will is an illusion is that it carries inescapable consequences for the ability of our intelligence to arrive at an adequation of the truth. Notwithstanding that education, cultural background and character affect our cognitive reasoning, to have any hope of knowing anything truly, we must be capable of objectivity and therefore, by definition, free in our thought to some degree. If we are always deterministically fated to be led down a wired neural pathway towards a conclusion that we cannot escape, we have no real basis for assuming that it bears any relation to the actual nature of things.
If free will is an illusion, then so is true knowledge. And this would then also apply to our capacity to know the true nature of free will. Is Oliver Burkeman not fatally determined to arrive at the conclusion he has, regardless of whether it is actually true or not? In which case, I’m not sure we can really say his conclusion is true.
Khalid Naqib
Chilton, Buckinghamshire
Impressed with a long-winded non sequitur - why am I not surprised?
-
That's totally irrelevant. If something makes a choice then it changes (from being undecided to having decided), hence anything that can possibly have any sort of 'free will' requires time.
No.
That which invokes a choice is not what changes. It is the perceived consequence of a choice which changes according to the desired outcome.
I really do suggest you get a check-up; if this is a genuine question then your memory is clearly very poor indeed. The present either doesn't exist in any meaningful way (exact sense of single moment at a single point) or is logically irrelevant (colloquial sense).
I do not need a scientific definition of "the present" to know that is where I exist.
-
Impressed with a long-winded non sequitur - why am I not surprised?
As often happens in this forum, you claim something to be a fallacy without explaining why it is a fallacy.
-
No.
That which invokes a choice is not what changes.
Oh do try thinking about this for once in your life! In invocation is an event, which also requires time - and change, from having not invoked something to having done so. This is just beyond stupid; you can't think, or act or choose, or invoke anything without time.
I didn't think it was even possible but your approach seems to have got even less logical, coherent, and reasonable than last time we had this sort of conversation.
It is the perceived consequence of a choice which changes according to the desired outcome.
Gibberish.
I do not need a scientific definition of "the present" to know that is where I exist.
This is beyond even the stupidity of "it seems that way so it must be that way". It doesn't even seem like we exist in "the present" in any meaningful way. We are constantly experiencing the passage of time. By the time we've finished a thought, the start is in the past.
-
As often happens in this forum, you claim something to be a fallacy without explaining why it is a fallacy.
The writer seems to be confusing determinism with fatalism. There is nothing about determinism that precludes discovering the truth, there is nothing about it that stops us interacting with the world, making deductions, and drawing conclusions.
Additionally, "free will" in the sense that we could have done differently in exactly the same circumstances (without randomness, which obviously wouldn't help) is logically self-contradictory and hence impossible to even imagine - let alone assess its implications. A world in which free will in that sense exists isn't even conceivable - it simply doesn't make sense.
-
The writer seems to be confusing determinism with fatalism. There is nothing about determinism that precludes discovering the truth, there is nothing about it that stops us interacting with the world, making deductions, and drawing conclusions.
So you keep claiming, but the question is this - What controls the process of making deductions and drawing conclusions? How can such control exist within our conscious awareness when everything we are aware of has already been determined by past events beyond our control? We can't control the past - so where does the control exist?
Additionally, "free will" in the sense that we could have done differently in exactly the same circumstances (without randomness, which obviously wouldn't help) is logically self-contradictory and hence impossible to even imagine - let alone assess its implications. A world in which free will in that sense exists isn't even conceivable - it simply doesn't make sense.
It does not make sense because you seem to be stuck in the rut of thinking of all reality being defined by endless chains of mechanistic cause and effect with no feasible means of interaction.
-
So you keep claiming, but the question is this - What controls the process of making deductions and drawing conclusions? How can such control exist within our conscious awareness when everything we are aware of has already been determined by past events beyond our control? We can't control the past - so where does the control exist?
In a functioning brain or mind if you prefer (which may or may not include a soul if we are totally open-minded about it). None of which, however, can possibly involve the self-contradictory idea of free will as the ability to have done differently without randomness - which is as illogical as a square circle.
And, no, you don't get to redefine the word 'control' to mean your favourite, self-contradictory fantasy.
It does not make sense because you seem to be stuck in the rut of thinking of all reality being defined by endless chains of mechanistic cause and effect...
It doesn't make sense because it's self-contradictory, for reasons that have been explained to you countless times by several people.
...with no feasible means of interaction.
More gibberish. ::)
Obviously you didn't take the time you've been away from this subject here to do any rational thinking about it or study deductive logic - so I guess asking you for the "sound logic" you so often claimed you had is still a total waste of time....?
-
So you keep claiming, but the question is this - What controls the process of making deductions and drawing conclusions? How can such control exist within our conscious awareness when everything we are aware of has already been determined by past events beyond our control?
It doesn't exist, really, it is a cognitive illusion. The experience of 'control within our conscious awareness' is a memory. The experience of 'control' is not something happening in real time. 'Real time' does not 'really' exist. See Albert E. for details. Our minds construct a handy perception of 'now' but it is not a physical reality.
-
It doesn't exist, really, it is a cognitive illusion. The experience of 'control within our conscious awareness' is a memory. The experience of 'control' is not something happening in real time. 'Real time' does not 'really' exist. See Albert E. for details. Our minds construct a handy perception of 'now' but it is not a physical reality.
I fully agree that the "now" is not a physical reality and that any physical source of control must only exist as a memory - which is precisely why I believe my fundamental ability to exert control of my thoughts, words and actions must derive from a non physical source, which defines the spiritual reality in which I perceive and act.
The only alternative would be to believe that your entire post was composed in your sub conscious before you were aware of it - and the act of belief itself would also have been a sub conscious act - which effectively renders such belief to have no credibility.
-
I fully agree that the "now" is not a physical reality and that any physical source of control must only exist as a memory - which is precisely why I believe my fundamental ability to exert control of my thoughts, words and actions must derive from a non physical source, which defines the spiritual reality in which I perceive and act...
I don't exert control over my thoughts in the sense of there being a distinction between 'me' and my thoughts as if they are separate entities. That's not how it works. We don't consciously choose which thought to think next, rather, thoughts arise in mind, emerging out of the flow of mental activity, sensations, impulses. I see no reason to invent some non-physical entity to act as some master-procurer of thoughts, it adds no value to understanding how minds work, in fact it only invites a shed load of far bigger conceptual problems that then require additional explanation.
-
The only alternative would be to believe that your entire post was composed in your sub conscious before you were aware of it - and the act of belief itself would also have been a sub conscious act - which effectively renders such belief to have no credibility.
Again, that is not how mind works. Nobody composes an entire post from start to finish in subconscious mind before then releasing it into conscious mind. It's not as if we all have two entirely separate minds and we are consciously managing the interface between them. Rather what happens is that words are being procured from memory as I work my way along a sentence, on a 'just in time' manner.
The validity of a belief does not relate to the issue of conscious/non conscious mind. it is just a matter of fact that we do most of our intense cognitive work whilst awake. That doesn't mean that lower levels of mind are somehow excluded from cognitive processes. In fact, sometimes we make breakthroughs in understanding whilst not being awake at all. This is why, when faced with a challenging problem to solve, we often say we'll 'sleep on it' - and in the morning, the solution is often clear - our minds have clarified a complex issue overnight without any conscious input whatsoever. That doesn't mean that the solution is invalid.
-
I fully agree that the "now" is not a physical reality and that any physical source of control must only exist as a memory - which is precisely why I believe my fundamental ability to exert control of my thoughts, words and actions must derive from a non physical source, which defines the spiritual reality in which I perceive and act.
The quaint and naive little fantasy story you tell yourself about how your mind works, which doesn't stand up to the slightest bit of logical thought or even the smallest attempt at honest introspection, does not constitute a reason to believe in the "non-physical", doubly so as the problems with it are logical and experiential rather than anything to do with the physical world.
The idea that 'you' exert control over your thoughts is also laughably silly - how do 'you' decide what your thoughts are going to be, by thinking about it perhaps?
The only alternative would be to believe that your entire post was composed in your sub conscious before you were aware of it...
Glaring non sequitur. The role of consciousness is entirely unconnected.
...and the act of belief itself would also have been a sub conscious act - which effectively denies such belief to have any credibility.
And yet another non sequitur - are you trying to see how much illogical nonsense you can cram into the fewest possible words? You have established no credible (!) connection between consciousness and credibility.
-
You have established no credible (!) connection between consciousness and credibility.
The concept of credibility only exists in your conscious awareness - what more connection do you need ???
-
The concept of credibility only exists in your conscious awareness - what more connection do you need ???
Seriously Alan, childish word games? You implied that the credibility of a belief was dependent on it originating in the conscious rather than the subconsciousness mind:-
The only alternative would be to believe that your entire post was composed in your sub conscious before you were aware of it - and the act of belief itself would also have been a sub conscious act - which effectively renders such belief to have no credibility.
-
Thanks for this, Gordon.
I was particularly impressed with this comment which puts forward one of my own arguments, put with much better articulation than I am capable of:
The problem with the assertion that free will is an illusion is that it carries inescapable consequences for the ability of our intelligence to arrive at an adequation of the truth. Notwithstanding that education, cultural background and character affect our cognitive reasoning, to have any hope of knowing anything truly, we must be capable of objectivity and therefore, by definition, free in our thought to some degree. If we are always deterministically fated to be led down a wired neural pathway towards a conclusion that we cannot escape, we have no real basis for assuming that it bears any relation to the actual nature of things.
If free will is an illusion, then so is true knowledge. And this would then also apply to our capacity to know the true nature of free will. Is Oliver Burkeman not fatally determined to arrive at the conclusion he has, regardless of whether it is actually true or not? In which case, I’m not sure we can really say his conclusion is true.
Khalid Naqib
Chilton, Buckinghamshire
Firstly, this is nothing more than an argument from adverse consequences. Just because Khalid Naqib doesn't like what he perceives to be the logical consequences of denying free will, doesn't mean there is free will.
Secondly, his characterisation of a deterministic brain is pejorative. Sure the neural pathways exist, but they are constantly changing as new information is ingested. They are not hardwired in the sense that a non programmable computer is hardwired.
-
After all these years of nonsense from AB, it seems that he really does think that if we think that the brain is a split second ahead of awareness, then every single thought and idea has been pre-determined since the human species evolved. I wonder if he ever stops to think for a minute that all words articulated or written - and then read - affect the brains of those who hear or read them, so that the thoughts that will be thought during the next five minutes are, yes, determined by the contents of the brain involved, but have not been waiting around in space to be thought.
But he won't take any notice of that, will he? And if he does, he'll have understood in his own unscientific version.
I realise this post is a waste of time, but I'll post it anyway!:)
-
Seriously Alan, childish word games? You implied that the credibility of a belief was dependent on it originating in the conscious rather than the subconsciousness mind:-
What mystifies me is how you can give credibility to anything without consciously driven contemplation.
-
After all these years of nonsense from AB, it seems that he really does think that if we think that the brain is a split second ahead of awareness, then every single thought and idea has been pre-determined since the human species evolved. I wonder if he ever stops to think for a minute that all words articulated or written - and then read - affect the brains of those who hear or read them, so that the thoughts that will be thought during the next five minutes are, yes, determined by the contents of the brain involved, but have not been waiting around in space to be thought.
But he won't take any notice of that, will he? And if he does, he'll have understood in his own unscientific version.
I realise this post is a waste of time, but I'll post it anyway!:)
What I am witnessing to, Susan, is our God given gift of freedom to choose our own destiny - a gift which can never be achieved from the consequences of physically driven reactions in a material brain over which there can be no control other than the laws of physics.
You may well regard my posts as a waste of time, together with people's replies. I do not expect instant conversions from my postings, but my hope is that they may plant a seed which will one day grow and enlighten people to discover their true God given nature and rejoice in using this amazing gift of human free will.
-
What mystifies me is how you can give credibility to anything without consciously driven interaction.
Are you even paying attention? You made the claim that a belief that originated in the subconscious would have no credibility - nothing you've said since I challenged it seems to even be addressing that point, let alone substantiating it.
-
Firstly, this is nothing more than an argument from adverse consequences. Just because Khalid Naqib doesn't like what he perceives to be the logical consequences of denying free will, doesn't mean there is free will.
There is nothing in his comment which suggests that the conclusions are based on personal likes or dislikes.
Secondly, his characterisation of a deterministic brain is pejorative. Sure the neural pathways exist, but they are constantly changing as new information is ingested. They are not hardwired in the sense that a non programmable computer is hardwired.
The "hardwiring" he refers to is the uncontrollable laws of physical reactions which are presumed to lead to logical conclusions without any means of consciously driven guidance.
-
What I am witnessing to asserting without any hint of reasoning or evidence, Susan...
FIFY.
...which can never be achieved from the consequences of physically driven reactions in a material brain over which there can be no control other than the laws of physics.
Not only an utterly baseless assertion but one that misrepresents the argument as being about the physical world.
I do not expect instant conversions from my postings, but my hope is that they may plant a seed which will one day grow and enlighten people to discover their true God given nature and rejoice in using this amazing gift of human free will.
If you're so keen on planting such 'seeds', Alan, then might I suggest that ignoring logic and misrepresenting other people's arguments, is not a good way to go about it?
-
There is nothing in his comment which suggests that the conclusions are based on personal likes or dislikes.
His whole argument is "if there was no free will there would be no real knowledge and that's bad therefore free will"
The "hardwiring" he refers to is the uncontrollable laws of physical reactions which are presumed to lead to logical conclusions without any means of consciously driven guidance.
Actually he was specifically referring to neural pathways.
-
What I am witnessing to, Susan, is our God given gift of freedom to choose our own destiny - a gift which can never be achieved from the consequences of physically driven reactions in a material brain over which there can be no control other than the laws of physics.
You may well regard my posts as a waste of time, together with people's replies. I do not expect instant conversions from my postings, but my hope is that they may plant a seed which will one day grow and enlighten people to discover their true God given nature and rejoice in using this amazing gift of human free will.
You might think you are 'witnessing', but witnessing doesn't cut it with people that value facts, evidence, reasoning. All I get is that your claims are inseparably wedded to a particular naivety about how minds work and you are not willing or able develop deeper insights into how your own mind works.
-
What I am witnessing to, Susan, is our God given gift of freedom to choose our own destiny - a gift which can never be achieved from the consequences of physically driven reactions in a material brain over which there can be no control other than the laws of physics.
You may well regard my posts as a waste of time, together with people's replies. I do not expect instant conversions from my postings, but my hope is that they may plant a seed which will one day grow and enlighten people to discover their true God given nature and rejoice in using this amazing gift of human free will.
Here you go again, Alan, confusing freedom of choice with free will. I don't think anybody is denying the ability to choose as this is what intelligence is. However, your choice of destiny is likely to be determined by your desire for such a destiny and your willfulness is likely to be driven by such a desire rather than being free from it. Your hope or desire is to 'plant seeds' and your will is attached to this desire rather than free from it.
-
You may well regard my posts as a waste of time, together with people's replies.
So you didn't even read my post with comprehension. I thought it was clear that I meant that writing my post was a waste of time. I do not consider \(most) other posts to be a waste of my time reading themI do not expect instant conversions from my postings, but my hope is that they may plant a seed which will one day grow and enlighten people to discover their true God given nature and rejoice in using this amazing gift of human free will.
And that, to me, is cringe-making stuff.
-
His whole argument is "if there was no free will there would be no real knowledge and that's bad therefore free will"
You need to see the difference between knowledge and information.
Information exists in a computer.
Knowledge resides in the human mind.
The conversion of information into knowledge requires the conscious freedom to contemplate the raw data and interpret it to be something meaningful - this is not just a reaction.
Actually he was specifically referring to neural pathways.
pathways which in a materialistic scenario will be defined by physically defined material reactions - hence no means of intelligently controlled guidance needed to reach a viable logical conclusion.
-
You need to see the difference between knowledge and information.
No I don't, not in this case: I just need to know that your man was making an argument from adverse consequences.
The conversion of information into knowledge requires the conscious freedom to contemplate the raw data and interpret it to be something meaningful - this is not just a reaction.pathways which in a materialistic scenario will be defined by physically defined material reactions - hence no means of intelligently controlled guidance needed to reach a viable logical conclusion.
And how does that relate to free will?
-
And that, to me, is cringe-making stuff.
What you label as cringe making stuff concerns the eternal salvation of human souls.
-
What you label as cringe making stuff concerns the eternal salvation of human souls.
Woo
-
What you label as cringe making stuff concerns the eternal salvation of human souls.
Given we have no evidence of 'souls'. human or otherwise. and no evidence of salvation granting gods, the idea is a complete non-starter; add to which it is also a contradiction in terms given the god elsewhere is claimed to be the embodiment of all encompassing love yet in fact reserves this salvation thing strictly for its acolytes and those individuals who are confused enough to accept the irrational claim of free will. I cannot for the life of me of understand why anyone imbued with a modicum of decency and blessed with a clear thinking mind would find such a bizarre diabolical entity worthy of worship.
-
pathways which in a materialistic scenario will be defined by physically defined material reactions - hence no means of intelligently controlled guidance needed to reach a viable logical conclusion.
The non sequitur seems to have become your favourite fallacy. If you write the word 'hence' it's conventional to precede it with the reasons for what follows.
Then again, you could just be implicitly applying your old favourite, the argument from personal incredulity and therefore missed out the step that would go something like "I can see no way in which the materialistic scenario can can produce intelligently controlled guidance, so it must be impossible".
-
What you label as cringe making stuff concerns the eternal salvation of human souls.
Theobabble.
-
What you label as cringe making stuff concerns the eternal salvation of human souls.
Meaningless words. Have a go at answering these questions:
Where are all the saved souls at the moment?
Where are the ones not saved?
Do they know they are saved?How do they know this?
If you believe they are situated somewhere near Earth or even in this galaxy, what happens to them when the sun vbecomes a white dwarf or something and life has long since become extinct?
I am very happy to know that the part of the total me that people label soul does not need saving and certainly wil not be!!
-
Given we have no evidence of 'souls'. human or otherwise. and no evidence of salvation granting gods, the idea is a complete non-starter; add to which it is also a contradiction in terms given the god elsewhere is claimed to be the embodiment of all encompassing love yet in fact reserves this salvation thing strictly for its acolytes and those individuals who are confused enough to accept the irrational claim of free will. I cannot for the life of me of understand why anyone imbued with a modicum of decency and blessed with a clear thinking mind would find such a bizarre diabolical entity worthy of worship.
You must be living in a different world to me Torri
The evidence for a loving God, the human soul, Heaven and eternal salvation is there in abundance for me and for many millions of clear thinkers throughout the world.
-
You must be living in a different world to me Torri
The evidence for a loving God, the human soul, Heaven and eternal salvation is there in abundance for me and for many millions of clear thinkers throughout the world.
I know it is, and that's the problem.
-
The evidence for a loving God, the human soul, Heaven and eternal salvation is there in abundance for me and for many millions of clear thinkers throughout the world.
That actually made me laugh out loud. When looking at your posts on the subject here, the last thing that comes to mind is clear thinking. Confusion, blind faith, and a stubborn refusal to learn anything, seem to be a better descriptions. You may well be capable of clear thinking in other subjects (almost certainly if you're telling the truth about your background) but you've provided none of it on this subject, let alone any hint of the smallest smidgen of actual evidence.
The same seems to be true of other theists who, one would have to assume, were capable of clear thinking in other subject areas. It seems that blind faith cripples the ability to think clearly and logically about the subject of said faith. I find that terrifying.
-
Meaningless words. Have a go at answering these questions:
Where are all the saved souls at the moment?
Where are the ones not saved?
Do they know they are saved?How do they know this?
If you believe they are situated somewhere near Earth or even in this galaxy, what happens to them when the sun vbecomes a white dwarf or something and life has long since become extinct?
The fact that you have the conscious freedom to speculate about such matters is a starting point for gaining faith.
Our human minds are not capable of "seeing" beyond what our physical senses give us, but human history shows a great propensity for the human mind to seek far beyond what our senses give. Nature alone could never provide such freedom, so why do we have it and how did it come to be?
The answers all lie in the divine revelations of scripture.
I am very happy to know that the part of the total me that people label soul does not need saving and certainly wil not be!!
As I implied in an earlier post, information resides in a material brain. Knowledge resides in the human soul. Whatever you "know" is not defined by mere material reaction, but by the miraculous power given to us in our spiritual soul.
-
Knowledge resides in the human soul.
Where in the soul does it reside?
-
The fact that you have the conscious freedom to speculate about such matters is a starting point for gaining faith.
So you keep baselessly asserting.
Nature alone could never provide such freedom...
Another utterly baseless assertion. You do get that mindlessly repeating baseless assertions is does not count as clear thinking,or even thinking, yes?
As I implied in an earlier post, information resides in a material brain. Knowledge resides in the human soul.
Drivel.
Whatever you "know" is not defined by mere material reaction, but by the miraculous power given to us in our spiritual soul.
Yet another baseless assertion. ::)
-
You must be living in a different world to me Torri
The evidence for a loving God, the human soul, Heaven and eternal salvation is there in abundance for me and for many millions of clear thinkers throughout the world.
If there were any real evidence, objective evidence, for any of these things, then we would already have science theories built on them. I'm sure you must know this, deep down, somewhere. In reality, faith based beliefs flourish in the absence of evidence.
-
The fact that you have the conscious freedom to speculate about such matters is a starting point for gaining faith.
Our human minds are not capable of "seeing" beyond what our physical senses give us, but human history shows a great propensity for the human mind to seek far beyond what our senses give. Nature alone could never provide such freedom, so why do we have it and how did it come to be?
The answers all lie in the divine revelations of scripture.As I implied in an earlier post, information resides in a material brain. Knowledge resides in the human soul. Whatever you "know" is not defined by mere material reaction, but by the miraculous power given to us in our spiritual soul.
As NTTS says, such thinking, from so many people and from so many different religions, all totally lacking any objectiv evidence, is terrifying. And they all rejoice when another child is indoctrinated, or another gullible adult persuaded to join them. So sad, when they have the wonders of reality, the real, testable, evidenced wonders of reality to learn about.
I would like to ask what AB and others think is the difference between belief in a God/god/gods/etc and aliensETs! But if mods think this is too off-topic, I shall quite understand and delete this section of the post.
-
I would like to ask what AB and others think is the difference between belief in a God/god/gods/etc and aliensETs! But if mods think this is too off-topic, I shall quite understand and delete this section of the post.
I know of no Alien which demonstrated its love by suffering torture and death to open the door to eternal salvation.
I know of no Alien who's resurrection from the dead sparked off the greatest change humanity has ever seen.
I know of no Alien with whom I can build up an intimate two way relationship through prayer.
I know of no Alien which has inspired the lives of countless people to dedicate their lives to the service of such Alien and to their fellow human beings
-
I would like to ask what AB and others think is the difference between belief in a God/god/gods/etc and aliensETs! But if mods think this is too off-topic, I shall quite understand and delete this section of the post.
The idea that aliens exist or have existed elsewhere (as opposed to UFOs being alien craft and that they've nothing better to do that draw patterns in fields, mutilate cattle, and abduct humans to stick probes up their bottoms) is far, far more reasonable than any god(s). It seems there are plenty of planets and the universe is a very, very big place.
-
I know of no Alien which demonstrated its love by suffering torture and death to open the door to eternal salvation.
I know of no Alien who's resurrection from the dead sparked off the greatest change humanity has ever seen.
I know of no Alien with whom I can build up an intimate two way relationship through prayer.
I know of no Alien which has inspired the lives of countless people to dedicate their lives to the service of such Alien and to their fellow human beings
That's just mind-numbingly saccharine!! :D I can't stand any more, but then it's my own fault, I did pose the question! *deep sighs*
Back to the crossword ...
-
I know of no Alien which demonstrated its love by suffering torture and death to open the door to eternal salvation.
One of the most absurd and self-contradictory notions I've ever heard from any religion. It would make your god into a bloodthirsty, vindictive, unjust, and cruel monster. Such a bizarre sadomasochistic act is not in the least bit loving.
I know of no Alien who's resurrection from the dead sparked off the greatest change humanity has ever seen.
I know of no Alien with whom I can build up an intimate two way relationship through prayer.
I know of no Alien which has inspired the lives of countless people to dedicate their lives to the service of such Alien and to their fellow human beings
And I know of no god(s) that have done any of those things either. Of course beliefs in god(s) -- all sorts of different and mutually contradictory ones -- and their associated myths have changed the world and many individuals in all sorts of ways (many of them for the worse).
-
One of the most absurd and self-contradictory notions I've ever heard from any religion. It would make your god into a bloodthirsty, vindictive, unjust, and cruel monster. Such a bizarre sadomasochistic act is not in the least bit loving.
God did not inflict this on Himself - it was the evil manifest through God's gift of free will given to His created beings. He did not create nature's puppets, but beings with their own freedom to choose between good and evil.
(back on topic :) )
-
God did not inflict this on Himself...
So if god had sent Jesus and nobody chose to torture him to death, then what...? Regardless, the requirement for anybody (some substitute) to suffer and die for us to be forgiven is itself manifestly unjust, doubly so as we're supposed to have to believe this insane nonsense for it to work. The fact that Jesus was only supposedly dead for three days makes it even more comical.
...it was the evil manifest through God's gift of free will given to His created beings. He did not create nature's puppets, but beings with their own freedom to choose between good and evil.
Quite apart from the logical impossibility of 'free will' to begin with, in your myth we obviously don't have anything remotely like a free choice between 'good' and 'evil' because, according to said myth, everybody sins and needs forgiveness. If it were anything like a genuine choice, then at least some people would take it. Hence the judgement that requires us to be forgiven is itself unjust, making the whole Jesus dying for us even more bizarre, absurd, bloodthirsty, and vindictive.
-
So if god had sent Jesus and nobody chose to torture him to death, then what...? Regardless, the requirement for anybody (some substitute) to suffer and die for us to be forgiven is itself manifestly unjust, doubly so as we're supposed to have to believe this insane nonsense for it to work. The fact that Jesus was only supposedly dead for three days makes it even more comical.
Quite apart from the logical impossibility of 'free will' to begin with, in your myth we obviously don't have anything remotely like a free choice between 'good' and 'evil' because, according to said myth, everybody sins and needs forgiveness. If it were anything like a genuine choice, then at least some people would take it. Hence the judgement that requires us to be forgiven is itself unjust, making the whole Jesus dying for us even more bizarre, absurd, bloodthirsty, and vindictive.
Yes, being human we all have failings - and we have the freedom to recognise and confess these failings to ourselves and to others and endeavour to correct them.
And there is freedom in being able to choose to accept Jesus as your Saviour - or to reject Him for whatever reason you choose.
It makes infinitely more sense of life than anything else I have come across in my sixty nine years on this earth.
I lay it (my life) down of my own free will. John 10:18
-
And there is freedom in being able to choose to accept Jesus as your Saviour - or to reject Him for whatever reason you choose.
However nobody is free to believe things they don't believe, or find implausible things to be plausible. And yet this constitutes God's arbitrary criterion for 'salvation', apparently. And this makes sense to you ?
-
Ignoring, for the sake of argument, the fundamental impossibility of the sort of 'free will' you've proposed...
Yes, being human we all have failings...
A design flaw, then, not a choice.
...and we have the freedom to recognise and confess these failings to ourselves and to others and endeavour to correct them.
Which isn't nearly the same thing as having the freedom to choose 'good' in the first place. Hence any god's judgement for our failings is unjust.
And there is freedom in being able to choose to accept Jesus as your Saviour - or to reject Him for whatever reason you choose.
Which is to accept, not only the existence of this god (for which there is not the slightest shred of evidence or reasoning) but its injustice, bloodthirstiness, vindictiveness, and bizarre sadomasochistic tendencies. I am not, as torridon has pointed out, free to choose to find the implausible to be plausible or the absurd to be reasonable. I cannot choose to be convinced by what I find to be ridiculously unconvincing.
It makes infinitely more sense of life than anything else I have come across in my sixty nine years on this earth.
Wow. You really are blind to all logic and reasoning when it comes to this subject, aren't you?
I lay it (my life) down of my own free will. John 10:18
How do you think quoting your favourite book of contradictory myths will help?
-
However nobody is free to believe things they don't believe, or find implausible things to be plausible. And yet this constitutes God's arbitrary criterion for 'salvation', apparently. And this makes sense to you ?
I fully agree that we can only believe in what we honestly perceive to be true - regardless of personal preference.
It is why I could not possibly loose my faith after the real experiences in life which have led me to God.
I also recognise that there are genuine problems for many people who cannot find faith - my advice would be to use their God given freedom to keep seeking the truth.
Knock and the door shall be opened unto you, seek and you will find.
-
I fully agree that we can only believe in what we honestly perceive to be true - regardless of personal preference.
It is why I could not possibly loose my faith after the real experiences in life which have led me to God.
I also recognise that there are genuine problems for many people who cannot find faith - my advice would be to use their God given freedom to keep seeking the truth.
Knock and the door shall be opened unto you, seek and you will find.
'Seeking truth' and 'finding faith' are not compatible. If you want to know what is true, you have to avoid 'faith' like the plague. You need an open mind, not the closed mind of a believer.
-
'Seeking truth' and 'finding faith' are not compatible. If you want to know what is true, you have to avoid 'faith' like the plague. You need an open mind, not the closed mind of a believer.
It is not the believer's mind which is closed.
Are you able to open your mind to the possibility of the supernatural - things which are beyond natural scientific explanation?
If not you will find there are many missing pieces to the jigsaw of life.
I know your view that opening up to such possibility can lead to all sorts of man made imaginary scenarios.
But the means to seek the truth is not to be led by your own imagination or what you want to believe.
Just try a sincere prayer to allow God to to lead you to the truth.
You will know the truth when you find it.
And be prepared to be surprised by joy. :)
The truth will set you free - John 8:32
-
It is not the believer's mind which is closed.
Are you able to open your mind to the possibility of the supernatural - things which are beyond natural scientific explanation?
If not you will find there are many missing pieces to the jigsaw of life.
I know your view that opening up to such possibility can lead to all sorts of man made imaginary scenarios.
But the means to seek the truth is not to be led by your own imagination or what you want to believe.
Just try a sincere prayer to allow God to to lead you to the truth.
You will know the truth when you find it.
And be prepared to be surprised by joy. :)
The truth will set you free - John 8:32
Already tried that, many, many times and nothing happened, and a time comes when you have to accept there is never going to be a response and you have to stop banging your head on the wall. Then you have to step back and ask, why does this God respond to some people and not others, and why does he 'lead' different people down different paths if there is supposed top be only one truth ? If there was just one God there there would be only one religion, but even with Christianity there are more branches than I've had hot dinners. Given there is no objective evidence for this God, I can only assume God to be a construct in the mind of the believer, induced through spiritual practices, that is the only satisfactory explanation for the phenomenon of religion.
-
It is not the believer's mind which is closed.
Yet another irony-meter bites the dust.
Are you able to open your mind to the possibility of the supernatural - things which are beyond natural scientific explanation?
Not without some reasonable and verifiable explanation of the 'supernatural', and if such as explanation was ever offered then the 'supernatural phenomena you are proselytising would have become 'natural' (having been explained): as it stands you are encouraging me to take self-evident woo seriously, and I'll decline the offer.
If not you will find there are many missing pieces to the jigsaw of life.
How can you know there really missing pieces if these pieces are, as you say, 'supernatural'?
I know your view that opening up to such possibility can lead to all sorts of man made imaginary scenarios.
There goes another irony-meter.
But the means to seek the truth is not to be led by your own imagination or what you want to believe.
And another.
Just try a sincere prayer to allow God to to lead you to the truth.
You will know the truth when you find it.
And be prepared to be surprised by joy. :)
Or not.
-
It is not the believer's mind which is closed.
This isn't my experience. Of course many believers are open-minded about many things but remain stubbornly closed-minded on subjects that relate to their faith. You are a prime example of somebody with a totally closed mind on the subject of 'free will' to the extent that you seem terrified to even learn enough about deductive logic to understand the fallacies you keep using or how to construct valid arguments - despite numerous claims about having 'sound logic' (which means both valid and based on true premises).
Are you able to open your mind to the possibility of the supernatural - things which are beyond natural scientific explanation?
To the possibility, of course. That doesn't mean that I see the slightest reason to take suggestions about it seriously, i.e. to regard them as at all probable.
If not you will find there are many missing pieces to the jigsaw of life.
Nobody knows everything and not knowing is far better than believing in baseless fantasies.
I know your view that opening up to such possibility can lead to all sorts of man made imaginary scenarios.
But the means to seek the truth is not to be led by your own imagination or what you want to believe.
It seems to be exactly the case for you. Your 'arguments' here seem to be based on nothing at all but what you desperately want to (continue to) believe. Of course you have (like most people) mainly latched on to other people's imaginations that have built a story over history.
Just try a sincere prayer to allow God to to lead you to the truth.
You will know the truth when you find it.
And be prepared to be surprised by joy. :)
This is a recipe for self-deception rather than a path to truth. For a start, which god? If you 'sincerely pray' and have some sort of emotional reaction (because you really want it to be real), you will clearly associate it with whatever god you had in mind at the time.
If somebody prays in a in a detached way, just to see what happens, and then says nothing did, the believers tend to come back with a no true Scotsman fallacy: you obviously weren't being sincere enough.
Basically, if you really want to believe something and you try really, really try to do so, you may well succeed - if you're prepared to give up on all those pesky things like objective evidence and sound reasoning and, especially in the case of most forms of Christianity, are prepared to turn a blind eye to the glaring contradictions.
-
It seems to be exactly the case for you. Your 'arguments' here seem to be based on nothing at all but what you desperately want to (continue to) believe. Of course you have (like most people) mainly latched on to other people's imaginations that have built a story over history.
My faith is not based on a desire to believe - it is based on real experiences and the experiences of many other people who have come to know God in many different ways. I have no doubt you would be able to demonstrate your God given freedom to think up reasons to dismiss such experiences as coincidences or illusions or misunderstandings - just as you have thought up reasons to dismiss the miracle of your own free will as an illusion.
However I will continue to use my own God given freedom to witness to the true reason for our existence.
-
My faith is not based on a desire to believe...
Given your complete inability to provide the slightest shred of evidence or sound reasoning to support your claims and the way you try to desperately ignore the problems with your attempts to do so, the obvious conclusion is a strong emotional desire to believe.
...it is based on real experiences and the experiences of many other people who have come to know God in many different ways.
Yes, I'm sure you have had religious experiences, so have many many people that believe in different and contradictory god(s) from yours (not to mention other fantastical claims). The thing is that whichever god you believe in, most people think you are wrong. In short, at least most religious believers have got it wrong, so why should an independent, rational observer take any of the claims seriously, given that none of them have evidence or reasoning, only 'experiences'?
I have no doubt you would be able to demonstrate your God given freedom to think up reasons to dismiss such experiences as coincidences or illusions or misunderstandings - just as you have thought up reasons to dismiss the miracle of your own free will as an illusion.
I and others have given you reasoning and logic. Your only responses have been assertions, gibberish, and fallacies. You won't even take the time to learn anything about logic (remember I linked to a free book?) or make any real attempt to address the problems people raise. How seriously do you really take this, if you can't even be arsed to learn about how logic works, even after you've repeatedly claimed to be using it? It suggests some combination of; fear, lack of confidence, lack of ability, lack of understanding, dishonesty, arrogance, or complacency. I may well have missed some other possibilities but what it doesn't suggest is commitment to communicating your point here and confidence that you can do so logically.
However I will continue to use my own God given freedom to witness to the true reason for our existence.
The evidence to date suggests that this means that you will just go on repeating the same nonsense over and over again, without the slightest hint of having really thought about it at all.
-
I and others have given you reasoning and logic. Your only responses have been assertions, gibberish, and fallacies. You won't even take the time to learn anything about logic (remember I linked to a free book?) or make any real attempt to address the problems people raise. How seriously do you really take this, if you can't even be arsed to learn about how logic works, even after you've repeatedly claimed to be using it? It suggests some combination of; fear, lack of confidence, lack of ability, lack of understanding, dishonesty, arrogance, or complacency. I may well have missed some other possibilities but what it doesn't suggest is commitment to communicating your point here and confidence that you can do so logically.
As I have explained previously -
I fully understand the logic you adhere to, and why you come to your conclusions.
But the fact is that the logic fails to explain the reality.
Your short sighted logic confines our lives to be a roller coaster ride driven by inevitable reactions to past events with no means of changing direction. You tell me that every choice I make could not possibly have been any different, yet you accuse me of such things as dishonesty, arrogance, or complacency. Your logic implies that such things as dishonesty, arrogance, or complacency are just inevitable consequences which could not possibly have occurred any other way. When you accuse me of these things, do you honestly believe that I could not possibly have chosen to do them differently? You need to come to terms with reality - the reality which identifies the real you and the real me as free spirits - not just lumps of reconstituted star debris driven by nothing but physically defined material reactions with no will of our own.
-
The evidence to date suggests that this means that you will just go on repeating the same nonsense over and over again, without the slightest hint of having really thought about it at all.
Surely I am a prophet!
As I have explained previously -
I fully understand the logic you adhere to, and why you come to your conclusions.
Obviously not. Firstly you don't seem to understand deductive logic as a subject, which is why (amongst other things) you fall into so many fallacies. Secondly, you clearly don't really understand the argument because you keep misrepresenting it and failing address the corrections or the objections to your own mistakes.
But the fact is that the logic fails to explain the reality.
Here we go again with a totally baseless assertion.
Your short sighted logic...
Another assertion of short-sightedness that you've never once manage to back up.
...confines our lives to be a roller coaster ride driven by inevitable reactions to past events with no means of changing direction.
Which is another false analogy or misrepresentation. It's not that you are forced along a track no matter what you might want or choose. It's that what you want and choose is because of reasons, i.e. the person you are, which got be be that way for reasons too (nature, nurture, and experience). Being 'free' of those things would mean being 'free' of being you, which is nonsensical. To the extent these things do not determine what you want or choose, you must be acting randomly (for reasons that have been explained to you multiple times by several people).
You tell me that every choice I make could not possibly have been any different, yet you accuse me of such things as dishonesty, arrogance, or complacency. Your logic implies that such things as dishonesty, arrogance, or complacency are just inevitable consequences which could not possibly have occurred any other way. When you accuse me of these things, do you honestly believe that I could not possibly have chosen to do them differently?
See above. Also, this is basically an argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy - as you would know if you could be arsed to learn about logic.
You need to come to terms with reality - the reality which identifies the real you and the real me as free spirits - not just lumps of reconstituted star debris driven by nothing but physically defined material reactions.
Another baseless assertion about reality and another misrepresentation of the argument against you. ::)
-
You tell me that every choice I make could not possibly have been any different
Ok think about it. Let's say you are presented with a choice. You consider all the information available to you and you make a choice.
Is it your opinion that, if you were presented with the exact same choice again and you had exactly the same information available to you, you'd potentially make a different choice?
-
Ok think about it. Let's say you are presented with a choice. You consider all the information available to you and you make a choice.
Is it your opinion that, if you were presented with the exact same choice again and you had exactly the same information available to you, you'd potentially make a different choice?
I have the freedom to make a different choice because I am not a robotic machine
-
As I have explained previously -
I fully understand the logic you adhere to, and why you come to your conclusions.
But the fact is that the logic fails to explain the reality.
It seems to me to explain the reality very well. No one that I know has been able to alter any decision made by going back to the exact moment of the decision. That would indeed lead to a chaotic roller coaster ride.
Your short sighted logic confines our lives to be a roller coaster ride driven by inevitable reactions to past events with no means of changing direction.
How so? Why should the logic of making a deterministic decision at a certain point not allow for the possibility of changing direction at another point?
You tell me that every choice I make could not possibly have been any different, yet you accuse me of such things as dishonesty, arrogance, or complacency. Your logic implies that such things as dishonesty, arrogance, or complacency are just inevitable consequences which could not possibly have occurred any other way.
That's what the idea of determinism entails.
When you accuse me of these things, do you honestly believe that I could not possibly have chosen to do them differently?
But, by pointing out these features, it might be that you could choose to do them differently in future, possibly influenced by the feedback on this forum.
You need to come to terms with reality - the reality which identifies the real you and the real me as free spirits - not just lumps of reconstituted star debris driven by nothing but physically defined material reactions with no will of our own.
"Will, generally, is the faculty of the mind that selects, at the moment of decision, a desire among the various desires present." Wiki. I see no reason to think that one's will isn't the result of material reactions within the brain. There is plenty of evidence to support the idea that will is as described above. So that does seem to be the reality. You, on the other hand, have given no evidence at all for your 'free spirits' or for your idea of a 'you' which is any more than a functioning brain.
It seems, from your entrenched position, that you see logic and evidence as your enemies. :)
-
I have the freedom to make a different choice because I am not a robotic machine
You certainly post like one. ::)
If you could choose differently in exactly the same circumstances with exactly the same in formation and in in exactly the same state of mind, then you'd be behaving, at least in part, for no reason at all (randomly). That isn't freedom.
-
Which is another false analogy or misrepresentation. It's not that you are forced along a track no matter what you might want or choose. It's that what you want and choose is because of reasons, i.e. the person you are, which got be be that way for reasons too (nature, nurture, and experience). Being 'free' of those things would mean being 'free' of being you, which is nonsensical. To the extent these things do not determine what you want or choose, you must be acting randomly (for reasons that have been explained to you multiple times by several people).
In a materialist scenario, what you label as nature, nurture and experience can only exist as pre programmed neural pathways in a material brain, which aptly verifies the analogy to a roller coaster with no means of changing direction.
The reality is that knowledge of nature, nurture and past experience will exist in my conscious awareness before I invoke a choice. They will influence my choice but I contest whether they totally dictate a conscious choice. Can you appreciate the difference between knowledge and information?
Then we have the scenario where you actively contemplate a situation and draw logical conclusions. Are nature, nurture and past experience alone sufficient to drive the entire conscious process of contemplation and making a valid conclusion? This is particularly problematic when you consider the postulation from Torridon that our apparently conscious choices are already defined before they emerge into our conscious awareness. It beggars belief to imagine how any valid logical conclusion can be achieved without any means to consciously direct the thought processes involved.
-
In a materialist scenario, what you label as nature, nurture and experience can only exist as pre programmed neural pathways in a material brain, which aptly verifies the analogy to a roller coaster with no means of changing direction.
You do love introducing terms that you regard as pejoratives, such as "pre-programmed" that are redundant since "neural pathways in a material brain" is sufficient: you are, yet again, conflating fatalism with determinism.
The reality is that knowledge of nature, nurture and past experience will exist in my conscious awareness before I invoke a choice. They will influence my choice but I contest whether they totally dictate a conscious choice. Can you appreciate the difference between knowledge and information?
You're again conflating things here, since the processing of information using the "neural pathways in a material brain" results in knowledge: they are both part of the same paradigm.
Then we have the scenario where you actively contemplate a situation and draw logical conclusions. Are nature, nurture and past experience alone sufficient to drive the entire conscious process of contemplation and making a valid conclusion?
Yes.
This is particularly problematic when you consider the postulation from Torridon that our apparently conscious choices are already defined before they emerge into our conscious awareness. It beggars belief to imagine how any valid logical conclusion can be achieved without any means to consciously direct the thought processes involved.
As I have mentioned before: I have an inherent revulsion to certain foods that I cannot overcome no matter how hard I might "consciously direct the thought processes involved".
-
Knowledge resides in the human soul.
How do you know that?
-
In a materialist scenario...
More misrepresentation.
...what you label as nature, nurture and experience can only exist as pre programmed neural pathways in a material brain, which aptly verifies the analogy to a roller coaster with no means of changing direction.
No, it doesn't. More evidence that you don't understand the argument.
The reality is that knowledge of nature, nurture and past experience will exist in my conscious awareness before I invoke a choice.
More misunderstanding and an utterly absurd claim. It's not about knowledge of nature, nurture, and experience, and certainly not in your conscious mind. You haven't anything like full knowledge of your nature, nurture, and experience. How could you? Your conscious memory (just like everybody else's) is far from complete and very far from fully accurate and that could only ever cover nurture and experience at the concious level, even if it were complete.
The point is that your whole personality, how you make choices, everything that makes you the person you are, both consciously and subconsciously must have come about through some combination of nature, nurture, and experience because there's nothing else that can have possibly made a difference (regardless of whether we are thinking about an entirely material person or including some non-material soul). If there's some part of you that isn't a result of those things, it must be just random.
Then we have the scenario where you actively contemplate a situation and draw logical conclusions.
And the way in which you do that is because of who you are, which is, in turn, because of nature, nurture, and experience. Have you not even heard of the nature versus nurture debate?
It beggars belief to imagine how any valid logical conclusion can be achieved without any means to consciously direct the thought processes involved.
Another argument from personal incredulity and also irrelevant. The extent to which conciousness is involved is simply irrelevant to the main point. You think the way you do because of the person you are and the experiences you've had - including what you've learnt or not learned about logic.
-
You're again conflating things here, since the processing of information using the "neural pathways in a material brain" results in knowledge: they are both part of the same paradigm.
You cannot claim this unless you can define what conscious knowledge comprises in material terms and how it differs from information being processed in a computer's memory.
Knowledge is awareness of information - not the information iteslf.
-
More misrepresentation.
No, it doesn't. More evidence that you don't understand the argument.
More misunderstanding and an utterly absurd claim. It's not about knowledge of nature, nurture, and experience, and certainly not in your conscious mind. You haven't anything like full knowledge of your nature, nurture, and experience. How could you? Your conscious memory (just like everybody else's) is far from complete and very far from fully accurate and that could only ever cover nurture and experience at the concious level, even if it were complete.
The point is that your whole personality, how you make choices, everything that makes you the person you are, both consciously and subconsciously must have come about through some combination of nature, nurture, and experience because there's nothing else that can have possibly made a difference (regardless of whether we are thinking about an entirely material person or including some non-material soul). If there's some part of you that isn't a result of those things, it must be just random.
And the way in which you do that is because of who you are, which is, in turn, because of nature, nurture, and experience. Have you not even heard of the nature versus nurture debate?
Another argument from personal incredulity and also irrelevant. The extent to which conciousness is involved is simply irrelevant to the main point. You think the way you do because of the person you are and the experiences you've had - including what you've learnt or not learned about logic.
No matter how you try, you still can't differentiate the obvious difference between reaction and choice. In your convoluted compatibalist version of determinism it still boils down to inevitable reactions as opposed to consciously driven choices. The two are incompatible and always will be. I hope and pray that you will one day come to appreciate the miraculous gift of free will which makes us truly human - and sets us free!
-
No matter how you try, you still can't differentiate the obvious difference between reaction and choice.
Neither can you. A choice is a reaction.
In your convoluted compatibalist version of determinism it still boils down to inevitable reactions as opposed to consciously driven choices.
False dichotomy fallacy. You have provided no actual reasoning as to why something can't be both. Actually, come to think of it, you've provided no actual reasoning full stop.
The two are incompatible and always will be.
Baseless assertion. And, of course, you simply ignored all the detail in my post that you clearly have no answers to and that showed, yet again, that you understand neither logic in general nor the specific argument you are up against.
-
You cannot claim this unless you can define what conscious knowledge comprises in material terms...
Back to the glaring double standards. You are allowed to present nothing but gibberish, fallacies, and contradictory, vague hand-waving, while everybody who disagrees has to fully define everything. Matthew 7:5 (https://biblehub.com/matthew/7-5.htm).
...and how it differs from information being processed in a computer's memory.
Knowledge is awareness of information - not the information iteslf.
You're just making definitions up to suit your own preconceived ideas again. Knowledge can be defined in several ways. Philosophically it's traditionally defined as "justified true belief". A belief is of course just information in your mind that you have classified as being a true representation of something.
-
You cannot claim this unless you can define what conscious knowledge comprises in material terms and how it differs from information being processed in a computer's memory.
Knowledge is awareness of information - not the information iteslf.
I am not a computer, Alan: I can process information so that it becomes knowledge on that basis that I am justified in assuming what the information implies, and all I need for that is functioning biology. My conclusions are, of course, provisional and might be wrong since I can make mistakes and they are subject to limitations in my understanding, such as having insufficient previous knowledge or relevant experience in certain scenarios. I'd say that information and knowledge are part of the same paradigm when it comes to people using their brains, and that your attempt at a false dichotomy here is rather obvious.
Of course I may also process information that I'm not consciously aware of that nevertheless may influence my personal traits and biases.
-
I am not a computer, Alan: I can process information so that it becomes knowledge on that basis that I am justified in assuming what the information implies, and all I need for that is functioning biology. My conclusions are, of course, provisional and might be wrong since I can make mistakes and they are subject to limitations in my understanding, such as having insufficient previous knowledge or relevant experience in certain scenarios. I'd say that information and knowledge are part of the same paradigm when it comes to people using their brains, and that your attempt at a false dichotomy here is rather obvious.
Of course I may also process information that I'm not consciously aware of that nevertheless may influence my personal traits and biases.
Very true Gordon - your are much more than a mere computer - you are not just a processor of information.
Computers are programmed to react to information, but they possess no knowledge.
The functioning biology in a material brain involves many millions of predictable material reactions, but individual material reactions alone do not define the single entity of conscious perception which turns information into verifiable knowledge. Yes, the functioning brain processes information so that it can become knowledge - just as a functioning video screen processes data in a format which can be perceived by a consciously aware human being (with more processing done by the eye and associated brain cells before it can be consciously perceived).
-
Very true Gordon - your are much more than a mere computer - you are not just a processor of information.
But I am a processor of information, it's just that I (like you) use biology instead of electronics: a biological computer, if you will.
Computers are programmed to react to information, but they possess no knowledge.
For humans, in order to acquire knowledge we need to process information: therefore, we too react to information.
The functioning biology in a material brain involves many millions of predictable material reactions, but individual material reactions alone do not define the single entity of conscious perception which turns information into verifiable knowledge.
Your 'single entity of consciousness' mantra seems to be drifting towards the fallacy of composition, again: it's just biology doing what it does.
Yes, the functioning brain processes information so that it can become knowledge - just as a functioning video screen processes data in a format which can be perceived by a consciously aware human being (with more processing done by the eye and associated brain cells before it can be consciously perceived).
Yipee - brains can be used to think about stuff arising from various information sources: we already know that, Alan.
-
But I am a processor of information, it's just that I (like you) use biology instead of electronics: a biological computer, if you will.
In this context, the word "biology" is just a meaningless label which tells you nothing about how information gets transformed into conscious knowledge.
For humans, in order to acquire knowledge we need to process information: therefore, we too react to information.
And how does a reaction generate conscious knowledge? In materialistic terms it can only generate further reactions.
Your 'single entity of consciousness' mantra seems to be drifting towards the fallacy of composition, again: it's just biology doing what it does.
Like a computer, a material brain can generate many individual reactions, but a single entity of consciousness is not defined by reactions, but awareness of reactions.
Therein lies the hard problem of consciousness which is still a mystery.
-
Computers are programmed to react to information, but they possess no knowledge.
Depends how you define knowledge (https://www.lexico.com/definition/knowledge) - one of the definitions is 'Information held on a computer system.' There are also, of course, knowledge-based systems (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge-based_systems). If we take the philosophical definition of (propositional) knowledge (justified true belief), then it's some information you have, that you believe (have it tagged as true in some way) and have some justification for - all of which is information. You don't need to be consciously thinking about France or Paris to know that Paris is the capital of France - it's information stored in your brain that you can access as needed.
As is so often the case, you seem to want to just make up definitions (choice, control, freedom, and so on) that reinforce your baseless faith.
The functioning biology in a material brain involves many millions of predictable material reactions, but individual material reactions alone do not define the single entity of conscious perception which turns information into verifiable knowledge.
Another baseless assertion.
-
In this context, the word "biology" is just a meaningless label which tells you nothing about how information gets transformed into conscious knowledge.
And your self-contradictory magic doesn't tell us that either. Matthew 7:5 (https://biblehub.com/matthew/7-5.htm) again. Biology exists. Your claims are logically impossible.
And how does a reaction generate conscious knowledge? In materialistic terms it can only generate further reactions.
Is 'conscious knowledge' going to become another of your pointless mantras? All it means is information that represents knowledge (some information you think is true and that you have a justification for) that you happen to be consciously thinking about at some time.
Like a computer, a material brain can generate many individual reactions, but a single entity of consciousness is not defined by reactions, but awareness of reactions.
Yet another baseless assertion.
-
I have the freedom to make a different choice because I am not a robotic machine
Would you ever make a different choice though?
-
Would you ever make a different choice though?
Of course I could have made a different choice under the same circumstances.
Because it is a choice, not a reaction.
I am able to use my God given freedom to choose rather than react.
The fact that I am free to speculate about this is sufficient to verify that I have the freedom to choose my own thoughts.
-
Of course I could have made a different choice under the same circumstances.
Because it is a choice, not a reaction.
I am able to use my God given freedom to choose rather than react.
The fact that I am free to speculate about this is sufficient to verify that I have the freedom to choose my own thoughts.
And you slip into your old infinite regress, since the choice of thoughts is a thought which is a choice which is a thought that is a choice which is...
-
Of course I could have made a different choice under the same circumstances.
If everything was the same, the only way you could choose differently would be by being random.
Because it is a choice, not a reaction.
False dichotomy fallacy. A choice is a reaction to a set of circumstances that leads to the choice.
I am able to use my God given freedom to choose rather than react.
Meaningless assertion.
The fact that I am free to speculate about this is sufficient to verify that I have the freedom to choose my own thoughts.
Contradictory drivel. How do you choose your own thought? By thinking about it? How about you try to think about it for once in your life?
-
And you slip into your old infinite regress, since the choice of thoughts is a thought which is a choice which is a thought that is a choice which is...
The regress stops with me - my conscious self. I can invoke my own thoughts because I am not just a biological machine with no will of my own.
-
Contradictory drivel. How do you choose your own thought? By thinking about it? How about you try to think about it for once in your life?
And what invokes the act of "trying" if I am just the result of endless chains of reaction?
-
The regress stops with me - my conscious self. I can invoke my own thoughts because I am not just a biological machine with no will of my own.
Just reasserting contradictory nonsense, is not going to make it any less nonsensical.
And what invokes the act of "trying" if I am just the result of endless chains of reaction?
Your mind. You'll either try or not as a reaction to the argument put to you. What you've done here is reacted with one of your endlessly repeated evasion tactics, which suggests fear or inability to actually take up the challenge.
-
The regress stops with me - my conscious self. I can invoke my own thoughts because I am not just a biological machine with no will of my own.
Your invocation of a thought is a thought. Calling it an invocation doesn't change that. And since it is a thought would by your logic need a further invocation/thought creates the infinite regress.
-
If everything was the same, the only way you could choose differently would be by being random.
So you keep saying, and in a world totally driven by past events you would be correct.
But my freedom to contradict you is my choice at this moment.
I could have chosen to ignore your post.
I could have chosen different words to reply.
I am not entirely driven by the past, because I have freedom to choose rather than react.
This is the reality I live in, and it is a reality which can't be written off by your presumption that we are totally driven by past events.
You need to realise that there is more to reality than a time dependent cause and effect scenario.
Our conscious selves exist and act in the present.
Our conscious selves define our present.
In a mechanistic cause and effect scenario there is no role for the conscious self, and there is no concept of the present.
-
Your mind. You'll either try or not as a reaction to the argument put to you. What you've done here is reacted with one of your endlessly repeated evasion tactics, which suggests fear or inability to actually take up the challenge.
It suggests that I have the freedom to contradict you based upon my own consciously driven thought processes rather than the unavoidable reaction to past events.
And in your scenario, what would make your unavoidable reactions somehow superior to my unavoidable reactions? Is the act of judgement also just another unavoidable reaction?
-
So you keep saying, and in a world totally driven by past events you would be correct.
But my freedom to contradict you is my choice at this moment.
I could have chosen to ignore your post.
I could have chosen different words to reply.
Yes - and you either chose to write this entirely for reasons or it involved some randomness. You need logic to counter that not endless, pointless baseless assertions and gibberish.
I am not entirely driven by the past, because I have freedom to choose rather than react.
Nonsensical assertion (again). Of course you can choose to do what you want but that is a reaction (in this case to what I wrote) and you couldn't choose what you wanted to do the most - that would be another infinite regress.
Our conscious selves exist and act in the present.
Our conscious selves define our present.
In a mechanistic cause and effect scenario there is no role for the conscious self, and there is no concept of the present.
More nonsensical foot-stamping. The problem with the present is that it's logically meaningless - regardless of 'mechanistic cause and effect'. You are either a creature of cause and effect or one that involves randomness. Asserting that we exist in a logically undefined 'present' means exactly nothing - it's just gibberish.
-
It suggests that I have the freedom to contradict you based upon my own consciously driven thought processes rather than the unavoidable reaction to past events.
False dichotomy fallacy (again).
And in your scenario, what would make your unavoidable reactions somehow superior to my unavoidable reactions? Is the act of judgement also just another unavoidable reaction?
The nature of the thought processes involved, of course. How would your self-contradictory nonsense version of 'freedom' in any way help in deciding which argument was 'superior'?
-
False dichotomy fallacy (again).
The nature of the thought processes involved, of course. How would your self-contradictory nonsense version of 'freedom' in any way help in deciding which argument was 'superior'?
When every event in a thought process is entirely driven by previous events, there can be no possibility for any objective judgement to take place. With thought patterns entirely dictated before we think them, how can they be verified as logical?
-
False dichotomy fallacy (again).
The nature of the thought processes involved, of course. How would your self-contradictory nonsense version of 'freedom' in any way help in deciding which argument was 'superior'?
When every event in a thought process is entirely driven by previous events, there can be no possibility for any objective judgement to take place.
Try answering the question I actually asked. This is just another assertion apparently based on nothing but a personal incredulity fallacy.
With thought patterns entirely dictated before we think them, how can they be verified as logical?
If our thoughts do not happen entirely for reasons, they can have nothing to do with logic. Again: how would your self-contradictory nonsense version of 'freedom' in any way help?
-
If our thoughts do not happen entirely for reasons, they can have nothing to do with logic. Again: how would your self-contradictory nonsense version of 'freedom' in any way help?
I put it to you that the consciously driven freedom to drive your own thought processes is essential to be able to come to any verifiable conclusion. Yes, there are reasons behind our thought processes. These reasons exist in our conscious awareness, but if such reasons are just unavoidable reactions to past events there can be no objective verification for the validity of any resulting conclusions.
-
I put it to you that the consciously driven freedom to drive your own thought processes is essential to be able to come to any verifiable conclusion. Yes, there are reasons behind our thought processes. These reasons exist in our conscious awareness, but if such reasons are just unavoidable reactions to past events there can be no objective verification for the validity of any resulting conclusions.
I'm assuming that the argumentum ad consequentiam is the fallacy du jour (though I suspect personal incredulity isn't that far behind).
-
I put it to you that the consciously driven freedom to drive your own thought processes is essential to be able to come to any verifiable conclusion.
And I reject it on the grounds that "consciously driven freedom to drive your own thought processes" is a nonsense phrase and, to the extent I can fit it to anything in reality, it's irrelevant. There is no dichotomy between concious choice and determinism.
Yes, there are reasons behind our thought processes. These reasons exist in our conscious awareness, but if such reasons are just unavoidable reactions to past events there can be no objective verification for the validity of any resulting conclusions.
Another totally baseless assertion. And you're still just expressing your own incredulity about the logical position, not telling us how your nonsense, self-contradictory version of 'freedom' would help in any way. Of course you can't actually do that because it is self-contradictory and therefore meaningless. Your inability to express how it would help, rather than just expressing incredulity about the alternative, should be telling you something...
-
So you keep saying, and in a world totally driven by past events you would be correct.
But my freedom to contradict you is my choice at this moment.
I could have chosen to ignore your post.
I could have chosen different words to reply.
I am not entirely driven by the past, because I have freedom to choose rather than react.
This is the reality I live in, and it is a reality which can't be written off by your presumption that we are totally driven by past events.
You need to realise that there is more to reality than a time dependent cause and effect scenario.
Our conscious selves exist and act in the present.
Our conscious selves define our present.
In a mechanistic cause and effect scenario there is no role for the conscious self, and there is no concept of the present.
We all have an intuition of living in the present moment. It is a sense that our minds create, it is not something with objective reality. This sums up all that your rationale boils down to - this is how it feels, so this is how it must be, notwithstanding the fact that science has track record in puncturing our handy illusions and hubristic beliefs. The Earth feels flat and it feels stationary, but we've all come to terms with the fact that is isn't, actually. We feel like we live in the present moment, but we don't, actually. I feel like my fingers are touching the keyboard to type these words, but they aren't, really. The common everyday perceptions that minds have evolved as a means to simplify matters mask an underlying reality that is often counter intuitive; these perceptions make complex reality more navigable for us. But that doesn't mean we lack the intellectual resource to build a rich abstract understanding of the reality from which our perceptions and beliefs arise. And this is all we've seen from you, a five year long foot stamp denying the validity or worth of any deeper insight. Free will, as a concept, is slowly going the same way as many of our other perceptions and beliefs; we are gradually coming to terms with the fact that a deterministic functioning brain must mean a deterministic mind, and that to be free of the principle of cause and effect would mean random behaviours. We've come to terms with the fact that the Earth is not flat and is nothing special, we've come to terms with the fact humans weren't 'placed' on Earth, objects of special divine creation, but evolved quite naturally within a primate lineage under particular selection pressures of the Pleistocene, and we can also come to terms with the loss of our intuition of free will, given time.
-
We all have an intuition of living in the present moment. It is a sense that our minds create, it is not something with objective reality. This sums up all that your rationale boils down to - this is how it feels, so this is how it must be, notwithstanding the fact that science has track record in puncturing our handy illusions and hubristic beliefs. The Earth feels flat and it feels stationary, but we've all come to terms with the fact that is isn't, actually. We feel like we live in the present moment, but we don't, actually. I feel like my fingers are touching the keyboard to type these words, but they aren't, really. The common everyday perceptions that minds have evolved as a means to simplify matters mask an underlying reality that is often counter intuitive; these perceptions make complex reality more navigable for us. But that doesn't mean we lack the intellectual resource to build a rich abstract understanding of the reality from which our perceptions and beliefs arise. And this is all we've seen from you, a five year long foot stamp denying the validity or worth of any deeper insight. Free will, as a concept, is slowly going the same way as many of our other perceptions and beliefs; we are gradually coming to terms with the fact that a deterministic functioning brain must mean a deterministic mind, and that to be free of the principle of cause and effect would mean random behaviours. We've come to terms with the fact that the Earth is not flat and is nothing special, we've come to terms with the fact humans weren't 'placed' on Earth, objects of special divine creation, but evolved quite naturally within a primate lineage under particular selection pressures of the Pleistocene, and we can also come to terms with the loss of our intuition of free will, given time.
Well said, as always.
Personally, I can only hope that enough members of AB's family see the glaring flaws and fallacies in his thinking.
-
We all have an intuition of living in the present moment. It is a sense that our minds create, it is not something with objective reality. This sums up all that your rationale boils down to - this is how it feels, so this is how it must be, notwithstanding the fact that science has track record in puncturing our handy illusions and hubristic beliefs. The Earth feels flat and it feels stationary, but we've all come to terms with the fact that is isn't, actually. We feel like we live in the present moment, but we don't, actually. I feel like my fingers are touching the keyboard to type these words, but they aren't, really. The common everyday perceptions that minds have evolved as a means to simplify matters mask an underlying reality that is often counter intuitive; these perceptions make complex reality more navigable for us. But that doesn't mean we lack the intellectual resource to build a rich abstract understanding of the reality from which our perceptions and beliefs arise. And this is all we've seen from you, a five year long foot stamp denying the validity or worth of any deeper insight. Free will, as a concept, is slowly going the same way as many of our other perceptions and beliefs; we are gradually coming to terms with the fact that a deterministic functioning brain must mean a deterministic mind, and that to be free of the principle of cause and effect would mean random behaviours. We've come to terms with the fact that the Earth is not flat and is nothing special, we've come to terms with the fact humans weren't 'placed' on Earth, objects of special divine creation, but evolved quite naturally within a primate lineage under particular selection pressures of the Pleistocene, and we can also come to terms with the loss of our intuition of free will, given time.
Yes. Reality is not something that we are able to or capable of perceiving. This is something that has been known for centuries.
That also introduces the doubt that what we perceive as an established scientific fact need not really be what we think it is.
The intuitive impression that the world is not what it seems and that there are hidden powers and forces beyond our comprehension that actually influence the world, is therefore not wrong! We may call it by whatever name and imagine it in whatever form... That is irrelevant.
-
Yes. Reality is not something that we are able to or capable of perceiving. This is something that has been known for centuries.
That also introduces the doubt that what we perceive as an established scientific fact need not really be what we think it is.
You seem to have entirely missed the point. It is through science (and reasoning in the case of 'free will') that we have found that some of our intuitive ideas are wrong.
The philosophical question of whether what we are dealing with is actually reality is a different matter. It's also rather pointless because if we're not dealing with reality, we might as well be, because it's still inescapable and consistent enough to be investigate through science and reasoning.
The intuitive impression that the world is not what it seems and that there are hidden powers and forces beyond our comprehension that actually influence the world, is therefore not wrong!
When you use the word 'therefore' it's kind of conventional to precede it with some sort of reasoning or justification for what follows. Baseless assertions are not reasoning or justifications.
-
We all have an intuition of living in the present moment. It is a sense that our minds create, it is not something with objective reality. This sums up all that your rationale boils down to - this is how it feels, so this is how it must be, notwithstanding the fact that science has track record in puncturing our handy illusions and hubristic beliefs. The Earth feels flat and it feels stationary, but we've all come to terms with the fact that is isn't, actually. We feel like we live in the present moment, but we don't, actually. I feel like my fingers are touching the keyboard to type these words, but they aren't, really. The common everyday perceptions that minds have evolved as a means to simplify matters mask an underlying reality that is often counter intuitive; these perceptions make complex reality more navigable for us. But that doesn't mean we lack the intellectual resource to build a rich abstract understanding of the reality from which our perceptions and beliefs arise. And this is all we've seen from you, a five year long foot stamp denying the validity or worth of any deeper insight. Free will, as a concept, is slowly going the same way as many of our other perceptions and beliefs; we are gradually coming to terms with the fact that a deterministic functioning brain must mean a deterministic mind, and that to be free of the principle of cause and effect would mean random behaviours. We've come to terms with the fact that the Earth is not flat and is nothing special, we've come to terms with the fact humans weren't 'placed' on Earth, objects of special divine creation, but evolved quite naturally within a primate lineage under particular selection pressures of the Pleistocene, and we can also come to terms with the loss of our intuition of free will, given time.
Thanks for another well written, well thought out response Torri
There is so much to comment on in this - it is difficult to know where to start!
I agree that science has shown the that our perception of reality can be mistaken in some cases - but certainly not all. We can at least agree that our human ability to think, to contemplate and to draw conclusions is a reality. It is these abilities which have facilitated our human endeavours to seek to know more about ourselves and the world we live in. Such abilities would appear to be unique to the human race with no evidence of any other species seeking such knowledge - or having the ability to seek such knowledge. You may well conclude that this unique ability can be explained by us having "bigger brains" to quote Richard Dawkins. My own view is that our unique abilities to think, to contemplate and to draw conclusions require the essential ability to consciously control and manipulate our thought patterns rather than have our thoughts entirely dictated by past events with no means of control. Your own post aptly demonstrates your own ability to consciously think things out and draw conclusions (even wrong conclusions ;) )
Can you honestly conclude that you can consciously compose such a post if every event in your brain is just an uncontrollable reaction to past events?
Or is there another explanation which is beyond our limited comprehension?
-
My own view is that our unique abilities to think, to contemplate and to draw conclusions require the essential ability to consciously control and manipulate our thought patterns rather than have our thoughts entirely dictated by past events with no means of control.
"With no means of control" is simply wrong. Nothing about determinism rules out control - and no, you don't get to redefine it to mean your self-contradictory version of 'freedom'.
The phrase "ability to consciously control and manipulate our thought patterns" is all but meaningless waffle. We can think and draw conclusions. Conciousness plays some sort of role but probably not as much as as it seems or that you'd like, however, its exact role is completely irrelevant to the basic argument about determinism.
Your own post aptly demonstrates your own ability to consciously think things out and draw conclusions (even wrong conclusions ;)
Nobody has ever questioned the ability to think things out and draw conclusions.
Can you honestly conclude that you can consciously compose such a post if every event in your brain is just an uncontrollable reaction to past events?
[misrepresentation struck out]
It's very easy to draw such a conclusion. Your only objections (once again) consist of incredulity with a side helping of misrepresentation.
-
"With no means of control" is simply wrong. Nothing about determinism rules out control - and no, you don't get to redefine it to mean your self-contradictory version of 'freedom'.
The phrase "ability to consciously control and manipulate our thought patterns" is all but meaningless waffle. We can think and draw conclusions. Conciousness plays some sort of role but probably not as much as as it seems or that you'd like, however, its exact role is completely irrelevant to the basic argument about determinism.
Nobody has ever questioned the ability to think things out and draw conclusions.
[misrepresentation struck out]
It's very easy to draw such a conclusion. Your only objections (once again) consist of incredulity with a side helping of misrepresentation.
But if everything is defined by inevitable chain reactions to past events, where is the source of control?
-
Thanks for another well written, well thought out response Torri
There is so much to comment on in this - it is difficult to know where to start!
I agree that science has shown the that our perception of reality can be mistaken in some cases - but certainly not all. We can at least agree that our human ability to think, to contemplate and to draw conclusions is a reality. It is these abilities which have facilitated our human endeavours to seek to know more about ourselves and the world we live in. Such abilities would appear to be unique to the human race with no evidence of any other species seeking such knowledge - or having the ability to seek such knowledge. You may well conclude that this unique ability can be explained by us having "bigger brains" to quote Richard Dawkins. My own view is that our unique abilities to think, to contemplate and to draw conclusions require the essential ability to consciously control and manipulate our thought patterns rather than have our thoughts entirely dictated by past events with no means of control. Your own post aptly demonstrates your own ability to consciously think things out and draw conclusions (even wrong conclusions ;)
Can you honestly conclude that you can consciously compose such a post if every event in your brain is just an uncontrollable reaction to past events?
Or is there another explanation which is beyond our limited comprehension?
Every event in my brain is 'uncontrollable'. When was the last time you controlled your brain function ? Can you alter the function of any of your synapses such that your brain function is changed ? The idea that we can control our brain function makes no sense; for that to be possible would imply that a brain needs a brain in order to control it, which means that the controlling brain needs a controlling brain controller to control it, and you end up vanishing in an infinite regress of controllers. That is all spurious conceptualising. The feeling of control is something that emerges out of brain function.
Likewise, the claim that our reactions are not inevitable is also baseless. When was the last time you saw something beautiful and chose to find it ugly. When was the last time you looked up at the sky and decided to see it as green ? We might make complex choices, but all such choices derive from fundamental reactions which are and must be, inevitable in nature. The resolving of a choice in a mind is the consequential outcome of billions of neural events in a brain, not a single one of which can we 'control'.
-
But if everything is defined by inevitable chain reactions to past events, where is the source of control?
Your mind. It controls your actions. That isn't affected by determinism. Your mind is a complex information gathering, processing, choice-making, and control device. What makes no sense is controlling your own thought process, which, apart from anything else, leads to an infinite regress.
And, as I said, you can't (as you've attempted in the past) just redefine the word to mean your impossible version of 'freedom'.
-
Your mind. It controls your actions. That isn't affected by determinism. Your mind is a complex information gathering, processing, choice-making, and control device. What makes no sense is controlling your own thought process, which, apart from anything else, leads to an infinite regress.
And, as I said, you can't (as you've attempted in the past) just redefine the word to mean your impossible version of 'freedom'.
If "the mind" is just a lump of matter being acted upon by reactions to past events which cannot be changed, there is no source of control. Any outcome will be an unintended consequence to events beyond any form of control.
In this scenario, how can conscious intent come to fruition?
You are trying to apply mechanistic, time related "cause and effect" logic to concepts such as conscious awareness and thought processes which are beyond human understanding.
I do not claim to understand how our conscious awareness and thought processes work - I just know what they do. They give me the freedom to choose my own destiny.
-
If "the mind" is just a lump of matter being acted upon by reactions to past events which cannot be changed, there is no source of control.
Baseless and nonsensical assertion. Control doesn't mean your impossible, contradictory magic. An animal's brain controls its movements, a thermostat controls the temperature of something. And it doesn't matter a jot to the logic if the mind is entirely matter or not. I do wish you'd stop misrepresenting the argument against you like this - it really isn't very honest of you.
Any outcome will be an unintended consequence to events beyond any form of control.
More nonsense. An intention is either something that arises entirely because of reasons (its antecedents) or it's (to some extent) random.
In this scenario, how can conscious intent come to fruition?
See above.
You are trying to apply mechanistic, time related "cause and effect" logic to concepts such as conscious awareness and thought processes...
As I said before, it is impossible for a mind to operate without time and logic dictates that that we are either dealing with determinism or some element of randomness. Endless foot-stamping, incredulity, and repetition isn't going to change that.
You said you had logic. Isn't it about time you attempted some?
...which are beyond human understanding.
Another baseless assertion.
I do not claim to understand how our conscious awareness and thought processes work - I just know what they do. They give me the freedom to choose my own destiny.
Nobody said otherwise, it's your absurd and self-contradictory definition of 'freedom' that's the problem.
-
Every event in my brain is 'uncontrollable'. When was the last time you controlled your brain function ?
I am doing it right now!
Can you alter the function of any of your synapses such that your brain function is changed ? The idea that we can control our brain function makes no sense; for that to be possible would imply that a brain needs a brain in order to control it,...
No. It needs a source of control which is not shackled to endless chains of uncontrollable cause and effect. Can we call this source the human soul?
which means that the controlling brain needs a controlling brain controller to control it, and you end up vanishing in an infinite regress of controllers.
It just need "you". You are the controller.
That is all spurious conceptualising. The feeling of control is something that emerges out of brain function.
But what I am writing right now is not just a feeling.
I am in control of the fingers typing on this keyboard as a result of my consciously driven intent to reply to your post in a meaningful way.
Likewise, the claim that our reactions are not inevitable is also baseless. When was the last time you saw something beautiful and chose to find it ugly. When was the last time you looked up at the sky and decided to see it as green ?
You are confusing facts and personal likes and dislikes with choices.
Our freedom to guide our thought processes to reach intended goals cannot change facts or personal preferences.
We might make complex choices, but all such choices derive from fundamental reactions which are and must be, inevitable in nature. The resolving of a choice in a mind is the consequential outcome of billions of neural events in a brain, not a single one of which can we 'control'.
Well whatever neuron is responsible for generating this post must be very clever (or perhaps dumb in your opinion ;) )
-
Baseless and nonsensical assertion. Control doesn't mean your impossible, contradictory magic. An animal's brain controls its movements, a thermostat controls the temperature of something. And it doesn't matter a jot to the logic if the mind is entirely matter or not. I do wish you'd stop misrepresenting the argument against you like this - it really isn't very honest of you.
I can see how an animal reacts to events in what we perceive to be a controlled, but predictable, manner. But we are not animals. We have the freedom to choose how to react. Neither are we a contraption (such as a thermostat) which has been consciously designed to extend the controlling function of the person who designed it.
-
I can see how an animal reacts to events in what we perceive to be a controlled, but predictable, manner.
Animals' brains do control (amongst other things) their movements. As I said, you don't get to redefine the English language in order to make the word 'control' mean your impossible, self-contradictory, magic version.
But we are not animals.
Simply untrue.
We have the freedom to choose how to react.
More foot-stamping. ::)
Are you ever going to even try to produce the logic you said you had...?
-
Of course I could have made a different choice under the same circumstances.
On what basis would you make a different choice? If you have exactly the same information, why would you make a different choice?
-
I am doing it right now!
Beyond absurd.
No. It needs a source of control which is not shackled to endless chains of uncontrollable cause and effect. Can we call this source the human soul?
Nonsensical assertion.
It just need "you". You are the controller.
Just saying 'you' is not an argument, it doesn't address the absurdity and infinite regress you've created for yourself.
But what I am writing right now is not just a feeling.
I am in control of the fingers typing on this keyboard as a result of my consciously driven intent to reply to your post in a meaningful way.
And you're either doing that entirely as the person you are (your personality as built up by nature, nurture, and experience), reacting to the situation you're in (reading and replying to a post) or something about it is random. And yet again: the role of your consciousness is irrelevant to the argument. Whether your reaction is entirely driven by your conscious mind, or your conscious mind only gets informed afterwards, or anything in between, doesn't make a jot of difference to the logic of the situation.
You talked about (non-human) animals being predictable - many of them are not nearly as predicable as your endlessly repeated stream of nonsense, gibberish, fallacies, and foot-stamping.
You are confusing facts and personal likes and dislikes with choices.
Our freedom to guide our thought processes to reach intended goals cannot change facts or personal preferences.
Guiding our own thought processes is still nonsense that leads to infinite regress, no matter how often you repeat it. You are doing what you want to do and you can no more choose to not want something you want, than you can choose to find something ugly that you actually find beautiful. And before you say you can choose to not do something you want to do, that is only ever because you want something else more.
Well whatever neuron is responsible for generating this post must be very clever (or perhaps dumb in your opinion ;) )
More misrepresentation. Nobody suggested a single neuron was responsible.
-
And yet again: the role of your consciousness is irrelevant to the argument. Whether your reaction is entirely driven by your conscious mind, or your conscious mind only gets informed afterwards, or anything in between, doesn't make a jot of difference to the logic of the situation.
But the role of conscious interaction makes a huge difference to the credibility of any argument you postulate.
How can you possibly claim your conscious awareness (ie the only reality you know) is irrelevant?
-
But the role of conscious interaction makes a huge difference to the credibility of any argument you postulate.
Back to the unsupported assertions. Why, and how do you know? We simply don't know the exact role of consciousness in our thought processes although there is some evidence that it's not as in charge of things as it subjectively feels - but a bit of honest introspection should tell you that anyway.
So, what's your detailed hypothesis about its role, exactly how does it influence credibility, and what supporting evidence or arguments do you have for it?
How can you possibly claim your conscious awareness (ie the only reality you know) is irrelevant?
I didn't say it was irrelevant full stop, I said it was irrelevant to the logic of "free-will". You seem to be endlessly trying to contrast "inevitable reactions" with conscious choices as if they are necessarily mutually exclusive and there is no possibility of something being both. You have never once provided any logical support for this view. Unless you can do so, it remains a false dichotomy fallacy.
-
Back to the unsupported assertions. Why, and how do you know? We simply don't know the exact role of consciousness in our thought processes although there is some evidence that it's not as in charge of things as it subjectively feels - but a bit of honest introspection should tell you that anyway.
So, what's your detailed hypothesis about its role, exactly how does it influence credibility, and what supporting evidence or arguments do you have for it?
It all relates to the mental processes involved in being able to reach a valid conclusion.
If you disregard the role of conscious awareness, there is nothing which can perceive a desired goal, and there is nothing to actively guide and validate the thoughts involved in reaching a goal. In fact, without conscious awareness there could be no thoughts! Do you understand the problem?
You are your conscious awareness - it defines the reality of your existence.
I didn't say it was irrelevant full stop, I said it was irrelevant to the logic of "free-will". You seem to be endlessly trying to contrast "inevitable reactions" with conscious choices as if they are necessarily mutually exclusive and there is no possibility of something being both. You have never once provided any logical support for this view. Unless you can do so, it remains a false dichotomy fallacy.
I believe you are using completely the wrong approach.
Try starting off by accepting that our ability to make consciously driven choices rather than unavoidable reactions is a reality. Then seek to find out why it is a reality.
-
It all relates to the mental processes involved in being able to reach a valid conclusion.
If you disregard the role of conscious awareness, there is nothing which can perceive a desired goal, and there is nothing to actively guide and validate the thoughts involved in reaching a goal. In fact, without conscious awareness there could be no thoughts! Do you understand the problem?
You are your conscious awareness - it defines the reality of your existence.I believe you are using completely the wrong approach.
Try starting off by accepting that our ability to make consciously driven choices rather than unavoidable reactions is a reality. Then seek to find out why it is a reality.
Here again you seem to be mixing ideas. In the first sentence you talk about a desired goal where desire is the driver and in the last sentence you imply that consciousness is the driver. It is possible for a person to consciously choose between two or more goals but the relative desires for those goals will more likely be the drivers which nullifies your idea of free will.
-
If you disregard the role of conscious awareness, there is nothing which can perceive a desired goal...
You will certainly be conscious of a desired goal but the reasons why it becomes the (most) desired goal are not actually under your control at all. All you can do is resolve any conflicting desires by weighing up how much you desire each one.
As has been pointed out before, many, many times, your wants and desires are what they are, they are not things you can change.
...and there is nothing to actively guide and validate the thoughts involved in reaching a goal.
As has also been pointed out, it is unclear to what extent and in what way consciousness is involved in those processes. If we take the multiple drafts view, for example, consciousness is more about how things are 'documented' in memory. Of course there will be feedback to future choices (stages in the same one) because memory is and important input (and also starts a fraction of a second ago).
However, I digress because you haven't addressed the point. This kind of vague hand waving is does not explain how the role of consciousness affects the credibility of an argument.
In fact, without conscious awareness there could be no thoughts! Do you understand the problem?
Depends how you define thoughts. Also, I didn't suggest that we could do what we do entirely without consciousness (although some philosophers would disagree) just that its exact role is not a factor in the argument about 'free will', in the way you mean, being impossible.
There is no dichotomy between an "inevitable reaction" and a "conscious choice" - regardless of what role consciousness plays in making the choice.
You are your conscious awareness...
I'm far, far more than that.
...it defines the reality of your existence.
Gibberish.
I believe you are using completely the wrong approach.
Try starting off by accepting that our ability to make consciously driven choices rather than unavoidable reactions is a reality. Then seek to find out why it is a reality.
As I said, I see no reason at all to choose between "consciously driven choice" and "unavoidable reaction". Until you can show in some way that they are mutually exclusive, this is just a false dichotomy fallacy.
You also seem to be suggesting that the best thing to do is start with blind faith and superficial intuition and then try to make some sort of sense of it. No thanks, you are a horrifying object lesson in what can happen when we abandon reasoning for blind faith.
-
Here again you seem to be mixing ideas. In the first sentence you talk about a desired goal where desire is the driver and in the last sentence you imply that consciousness is the driver. It is possible for a person to consciously choose between two or more goals but the relative desires for those goals will more likely be the drivers which nullifies your idea of free will.
Conscious awareness and desires are intrinsically connected. You can't have desires without conscious awareness. You may well be aware of many different desires at any one time, but your conscious awareness allows you to choose how, when and where to fulfil those desires.
-
Quote from: Alan Burns on Today at 04:47:02 PM
You are your conscious awareness...
I'm far, far more than that.
Quote from: Alan Burns on Today at 04:47:02 PM
...it defines the reality of your existence.
Gibberish.
Take away your conscious awareness and I am quite certain, from your point of view, you would cease to exist
-
I'm far, far more than that.
Gibberish.
Take away your conscious awareness and I am quite certain, from your point of view, you would cease to exist
If you took away your brain would you cease to exist?
-
I am doing it right now!No. It needs a source of control which is not shackled to endless chains of uncontrollable cause and effect. Can we call this source the human soul?It just need "you". You are the controller.But what I am writing right now is not just a feeling.
I am in control of the fingers typing on this keyboard as a result of my consciously driven intent to reply to your post in a meaningful way.
You are confusing facts and personal likes and dislikes with choices.
Our freedom to guide our thought processes to reach intended goals cannot change facts or personal preferences.Well whatever neuron is responsible for generating this post must be very clever (or perhaps dumb in your opinion ;) )
OK you just went for a cheap line by line dismissive response rather than engaging properly with commensurate depth and context. For instance :
"Every event in my brain is 'uncontrollable'. When was the last time you controlled your brain function ? "
I am doing it right now!"
Ill be generous and assume you didn't actually understand the question.
Everything we do is mediated through brain function, be it a dog wagging his tail or a journalist writing up copy, this is brain function in action. It isn't altering how brains work. I cannot just decide to process auditory signals in visual cortex. I cannot just decide to switch off my left hemisphere and do all my thinking in the right hemisphere so as to give the left a bit of a rest. it doesn't work like that and it couldn't work like that. The fact that I cannot see the sky as green is a manifestation of the reality that we cannot alter how our brains work. The fact that I cannot choose to like something I dislike is a manifestation of the reality that we cannot alter how our brains work. The choices we make are the consequential outcome of normal healthy brain function, they are not the outcome of us redirecting our brains to do things differently.
Bottom line, brain function is deterministic, therefore mind function is deterministic. This conclusion is simple incontrovertible logic. Our minds might not 'feel' deterministic, but our feelings themselves are the products of regular brain function.
-
Conscious awareness and desires are intrinsically connected. You can't have desires without conscious awareness.
I thought you said "conscious awareness" was unique to humans? Are you seriously trying to suggest that other animals don't have desires?
You may well be aware of many different desires at any one time, but your conscious awareness allows you to choose how, when and where to fulfil those desires.
Drivel. This has been explained to you over and over again. Just reasserting it, without addressing the answers you've had, is pointless. All you can possibly do is weigh up what you desire to do most. You cannot possibly choose that because you'd have no basis on which to do so. Either it would be random or you'd have to desire to desire one desire more than another, and so on, and off we go into another infinite regress.
All the infinite regresses you keep creating should be telling that your thinking is deeply flawed. Meaningless assertions like it's 'you' that makes a choice just emphasis your lack of thought on the subject.
-
Take away your conscious awareness and I am quite certain, from your point of view, you would cease to exist
And...? All that tells me is that it is a vital part of me. What you said was "You are your conscious awareness..." [emphasis added].
-
1....Conscious awareness and desires are intrinsically connected.
2....You can't have desires without conscious awareness.
3....You may well be aware of many different desires at any one time, but your conscious awareness allows you to choose how, when and where to fulfil those desires.
1.... If you say that, then this is the death knell of free will.
2.... What you should consider are the desires that lurk beneath the surface in the subconscious. Some are genetically inspired, some as a result of conditioning by parents, society, religious doctrine, political persuasion, consumerism and the latest fad 'Internet influencers'. Being aware of these may give you a chance of conscious detachment from those driving forces
3.... I should have thought that, as a Christian, you would follow Jesus' example of sacrificing 'self' driven desires, and surrendering to a God driven desire or Will. You may be free from one but determined by the other. You may have the ability to choose but it would seem that 'free will' persists only as an illusion.
-
OK you just went for a cheap line by line dismissive response rather than engaging properly with commensurate depth and context. For instance :
Ill be generous and assume you didn't actually understand the question.
Everything we do is mediated through brain function, be it a dog wagging his tail or a journalist writing up copy, this is brain function in action. It isn't altering how brains work. I cannot just decide to process auditory signals in visual cortex. I cannot just decide to switch off my left hemisphere and do all my thinking in the right hemisphere so as to give the left a bit of a rest. it doesn't work like that and it couldn't work like that. The fact that I cannot see the sky as green is a manifestation of the reality that we cannot alter how our brains work. The fact that I cannot choose to like something I dislike is a manifestation of the reality that we cannot alter how our brains work. The choices we make are the consequential outcome of normal healthy brain function, they are not the outcome of us redirecting our brains to do things differently.
Bottom line, brain function is deterministic, therefore mind function is deterministic. This conclusion is simple incontrovertible logic. Our minds might not 'feel' deterministic, but our feelings themselves are the products of regular brain function.
Yes, I entirely agree with your logic, but it is based upon the basic premiss that everything must be determined by past events, as they will be in a materialist scenario.
Human free will is about being able to make a consciously driven choice which is not just a predetermined reaction. And of course we can't make the sky look green. We can't choose the nature of what we perceive, but we do have freedom to choose what to perceive. But there is much more to it than this. We have freedom to think - to contemplate - to guide our thoughts - to reach conclusions. Can all our thoughts be just reactions? If so there can be no concept of conscious guidance - just a roller coaster ride along a pre destined path to a pre destined finish. If our thought processes are a series of uncontrollable material reactions the end result will have no credibility as a consciously derived conclusion. The ability for consciously driven control is essential for logical thought, but if conscious awareness lags behind the events which define our awareness there is no possibility for consciously driven contemplation. Hence there can be no feasible explanation for our unique ability to contemplate the reality of our existence in material terms. So when I say "I am doing it right now" it is not evidence of just material reactions in my brain, but evidence for my ability to consciously control the material reactions in my brain to give a considered meaningful response to your post.
-
Yes, I entirely agree with your logic, but it is based upon the basic premiss that everything must be determined by past events, as they will be in a materialist scenario.
False. It is not a premiss but a conclusion of reasoning that you have been given endless times before and never once been able to actually find a flaw in.
Human free will is about being able to make a consciously driven choice which is not just a predetermined reaction.
Which is (assuming no randomness) impossible, again for reasons you've been given and never once been able to find a logical fault with.
...we do have freedom to choose what to perceive.
Just silly.
But there is much more to it than this. We have freedom to think - to contemplate - to guide our thoughts - to reach conclusions. Can all our thoughts be just reactions? If so there can be no concept of conscious guidance...
Baseless assertion.
If our thought processes are a series of uncontrollable material reactions the end result will have no credibility as a consciously derived conclusion. The ability for consciously driven control is essential for logical thought, but if conscious awareness lags behind the events which define our awareness there is no possibility for consciously driven contemplation. Hence there can be no feasible explanation for our unique ability to contemplate the reality of our existence in material terms.
Logic- and thought-free foot-stamping.
So when I say "I am doing it right now" it is not evidence of just material reactions in my brain, but evidence for my ability to consciously control the material reactions in my brain to give a considered meaningful response to your post.
It's evidence of nothing but your inability or unwillingness to actually think about and respond to the arguments that have been made against your position and your stubborn determination to go on repeating the same mindless nonsense regardless.
-
Yes, I entirely agree with your logic, but it is based upon the basic premiss that everything must be determined by past events, as they will be in a materialist scenario.
Human free will is about being able to make a consciously driven choice which is not just a predetermined reaction. And of course we can't make the sky look green. We can't choose the nature of what we perceive, but we do have freedom to choose what to perceive. But there is much more to it than this. We have freedom to think - to contemplate - to guide our thoughts - to reach conclusions. Can all our thoughts be just reactions? If so there can be no concept of conscious guidance - just a roller coaster ride along a pre destined path to a pre destined finish. If our thought processes are a series of uncontrollable material reactions the end result will have no credibility as a consciously derived conclusion. The ability for consciously driven control is essential for logical thought, but if conscious awareness lags behind the events which define our awareness there is no possibility for consciously driven contemplation. Hence there can be no feasible explanation for our unique ability to contemplate the reality of our existence in material terms. So when I say "I am doing it right now" it is not evidence of just material reactions in my brain, but evidence for my ability to consciously control the material reactions in my brain to give a considered meaningful response to your post.
Utter hogwash.
Kindly explain why I cannot 'consciously drive' my thinking so that I can decide to eat mayonnaise when I have always been so utterly revulsed by it: I seem to have no options that could ever overcome my deep-seated instinctive and phobic reaction to this noxious substance.
-
Utter hogwash.
Kindly explain why I cannot 'consciously drive' my thinking so that I can decide to eat mayonnaise when I have always been so utterly revulsed by it: I seem to have no options that could ever overcome my deep-seated instinctive and phobic reaction to this noxious substance.
Oh, you're talking about mayonnaise.......I thought you meant Hogwash.
-
Yes, I entirely agree with your logic, but it is based upon the basic premiss that everything must be determined by past events, as they will be in a materialist scenario....
It is not a 'materialist scenario', it the the logical scenario; the only alternative would be an illogical scenario, and that's all your ponderings amount to. All of our experience points to an arrow of time within which all events play out. The present moment is always a consequence of events in previous moments. If this were not true, then the current moment is in a random state. This is what 'not determined by past events' means. Everything observes this simple reality, including humans. Observation confirms that humans make choices within that action - reaction cycle. We all have to become aware of a change of circumstance before we can respond to it. That is the arrow of time, cause and effect, playing out through the workings of human minds. Even if you insist on substituting 'soul' in place of 'mind', that will not alter the logic. A soul-made choice that was not a consequence of the causes that led to it would also be a random event, just as would a mind-made choice. It's nothing to do with 'physical' or 'material', it is simply the logic of choice, irrespective of whatever is doing the choosing.
You are like someone unable to face the fact that triangles are always limited to three sides, and out of desperation conjure up a bizarre procession of fake arguments against the reality of triangles - it's only in the materialist scenario - we only have limited human understanding - human souls somehow transcend the flow of time and are hence not subject to cause and effect. If it is illogical, it is wrong. Period.
-
And...? All that tells me is that it is a vital part of me. What you said was "You are your conscious awareness..." [emphasis added].
And the big question is -
What happens to the entity of spiritual awareness (which is you) when the biological machine it interacts with ceases to function?
We do not know for certain, but you will find some clues in the writings of the New Testament and subsequent commentaries.
-
It is not a 'materialist scenario', it the the logical scenario; the only alternative would be an illogical scenario, and that's all your ponderings amount to. All of our experience points to an arrow of time within which all events play out. The present moment is always a consequence of events in previous moments. If this were not true, then the current moment is in a random state. This is what 'not determined by past events' means. Everything observes this simple reality, including humans. Observation confirms that humans make choices within that action - reaction cycle. We all have to become aware of a change of circumstance before we can respond to it. That is the arrow of time, cause and effect, playing out through the workings of human minds. Even if you insist on substituting 'soul' in place of 'mind', that will not alter the logic. A soul-made choice that was not a consequence of the causes that led to it would also be a random event, just as would a mind-made choice. It's nothing to do with 'physical' or 'material', it is simply the logic of choice, irrespective of whatever is doing the choosing.
You are like someone unable to face the fact that triangles are always limited to three sides, and out of desperation conjure up a bizarre procession of fake arguments against the reality of triangles - it's only in the materialist scenario - we only have limited human understanding - human souls somehow transcend the flow of time and are hence not subject to cause and effect. If it is illogical, it is wrong. Period.
And unfortunately none of your detailed response can explain how such a detailed response can be derived entirely from material reactions beyond your conscious control.
-
And unfortunately none of your detailed response can explain how such a detailed response can be derived entirely from material reactions beyond your conscious control.
Unfortunately for you it makes a lot more sense to think it's the result reactions (determinism) than your impossible, self-contradictory magic. A logical answer is always going to beat an illogical and contradictory one.
Also, you just can't help yourself with the (apparently blatantly dishonest) misrepresentation, can you? It's not specifically about material reactions and neither does determinism rule out 'concious control'.
And the big question is -
What happens to the entity of spiritual awareness (which is you) when the biological machine it interacts with ceases to function?
We do not know for certain, but you will find some clues in the writings of the New Testament and subsequent commentaries.
You have given me no reason whatsoever to think I'm an "entity of spiritual awareness" or even defined what such a thing might be.
The big question really is why you keep running away from actually facing the logic of the situation. I suspect that you are simply too afraid of finding out that your blind faith doesn't stand up to a moment's rational thought. I mean, you're so scared of it you can't even stop yourself from continually misrepresenting it. It's like you have to pretend it's a different argument; one that you can at least bear to let into your mind even if you don't have any answers.
-
Unfortunately for you it makes a lot more sense to think it's the result reactions (determinism) than your impossible, self-contradictory magic. A logical answer is always going to beat an illogical and contradictory one.
Also, you just can't help yourself with the (apparently blatantly dishonest) misrepresentation, can you? It's not specifically about material reactions and neither does determinism rule out 'concious control'.
You have given me no reason whatsoever to think I'm an "entity of spiritual awareness" or even defined what such a thing might be.
The big question really is why you keep running away from actually facing the logic of the situation. I suspect that you are simply too afraid of finding out that your blind faith doesn't stand up to a moment's rational thought. I mean, you're so scared of it you can't even stop yourself from continually misrepresenting it. It's like you have to pretend it's a different argument; one that you can at least bear to let into your mind even if you don't have any answers.
It is not blind faith.
I am confident in my beliefs - more confident than you could ever imagine.
I have no fear whatsoever of me being convinced your own short sighted logic.
My faith is backed up in many ways which would appear to be beyond what you are prepared to acknowledge.
My conception of logic leads me to believe that I am am more, far more than anything which could be defined by material reactions alone.
There is no pretence in any of my arguments.
I hope and pray that all on this forum will come to know the truth behind their existence.
-
And unfortunately none of your detailed response can explain how such a detailed response can be derived entirely from material reactions beyond your conscious control.
I don't think anybody can fully explain how mind arises from matter, understanding that is a work in progress. But 'it must be magic' is inherently a non-explanation, an attitude problem and if everyone had such defeatist attitudes in the face of challenge we'd still be wearing animals skins and working with stone tools.
You seem perennially confused about the role of consciousness in decision making. In most situations the fractional lag due to slow neural functioning is insignificant. It might be a factor if you are a sports scientist trying to figure out why some people have better reaction times than others, but in most situations you can ignore it. I might take several months pondering which house to buy and a fractional lag in my thought processes is inconsequential in that.
But the fact remains that choices are resolved somehow and we would be utterly unable to resolve any choice were mind function not fundamentally deterministic. A non deterministic mind would be making random choices, not informed choices; having a non-deterministic mind would be a curse leading to early death. Choice depends on being able to measure rival possibilities against each other and that is not possible if you have a non-deterministic system of measuring. Imagine a market where the weighing scales had effectively variable operation. Customer A would be getting a different number of potatoes to customer B if the weighing scale were to vary in operation. The market would totally fail in such a scenario, it fundamentally depends on being able to measure objectively and consistently. A non-deterministic mind would likewise fail, it would be totally inoperable being unable to measure effectively. It is a good thing that I don't have a choice in finding whether the sky is green or blue. Likewise it is a good thing that I don't have any choice in believing whether Berlin is in Germany or Vietnam. I am only able to revolve choice because I cannot choose to alter how the external world impacts on me.
The process of making a choice is a process of discovering what your preference is in any given situation. The choice you make manifests what your defacto preference is. We cannot choose which preference to have, we discover it, just as we discover the colour of the sky by looking up. These things are not in our control, and it is good that it is so, we would not be here to discuss it otherwise.
-
I don't think anybody can fully explain how mind arises from matter, understanding that is a work in progress. But 'it must be magic' is inherently a non-explanation, an attitude problem and if everyone had such defeatist attitudes in the face of challenge we'd still be wearing animals skins and working with stone tools.
You seem perennially confused about the role of consciousness in decision making. In most situations the fractional lag due to slow neural functioning is insignificant. It might be a factor if you are a sports scientist trying to figure out why some people have better reaction times than others, but in most situations you can ignore it. I might take several months pondering which house to buy and a fractional lag in my thought processes is inconsequential in that.
But the fact remains that choices are resolved somehow and we would be utterly unable to resolve any choice were mind function not fundamentally deterministic. A non deterministic mind would be making random choices, not informed choices; having a non-deterministic mind would be a curse leading to early death. Choice depends on being able to measure rival possibilities against each other and that is not possible if you have a non-deterministic system of measuring. Imagine a market where the weighing scales had effectively variable operation. Customer A would be getting a different number of potatoes to customer B if the weighing scale were to vary in operation. The market would totally fail in such a scenario, it fundamentally depends on being able to measure objectively and consistently. A non-deterministic mind would likewise fail, it would be totally inoperable being unable to measure effectively. It is a good thing that I don't have a choice in finding whether the sky is green or blue. Likewise it is a good thing that I don't have any choice in believing whether Berlin is in Germany or Vietnam. I am only able to revolve choice because I cannot choose to alter how the external world impacts on me.
The process of making a choice is a process of discovering what your preference is in any given situation. The choice you make manifests what your defacto preference is. We cannot choose which preference to have, we discover it, just as we discover the colour of the sky by looking up. These things are not in our control, and it is good that it is so, we would not be here to discuss it otherwise.
Why do you keep using the word 'magic' as though we understand everything about how the natural world arose?
You have stated earlier that the world is not what it seems and that reality is beyond our grasp. We know that our bodies are largely empty space and the solid nature of the world is just an illusion brought about by the interactions of many different fields.
Is this not 'magic'?
-
It is not blind faith.
I am confident in my beliefs - more confident than you could ever imagine.
I have no fear whatsoever of me being convinced your own short sighted logic.
Yes, unfortunately overconfidence and a refusal to accept even the possibility of being wrong is a sure sign of blind faith and a closed mind. And, yet again, you keep on saying the logic is 'short sighted' but you've never once been able to show that it is, so it's just another baseless assertion - or another article of your blind faith.
My faith is backed up in many ways which would appear to be beyond what you are prepared to acknowledge.
All that you've posted here to support it have been baseless assertions, fallacies, and gibberish. If you posted something with any actual substance it would help. Why do you refuse to learn about logical reasoning and hence how to avoid fallacies and present valid arguments?
My conception of logic leads me to believe...
You don't get to have your own conception of logic.
...that I am am more, far more than anything which could be defined by material reactions alone.
You have never once posted the slightest hint of a shred of a scintilla of evidence or logic that would support this belief.
There is no pretence in any of my arguments.
You often misrepresent the argument against you, which is basically a pretence that it is something that it isn't.
-
Why do you keep using the word 'magic' as though we understand everything about how the natural world arose?
You have stated earlier that the world is not what it seems and that reality is beyond our grasp. We know that our bodies are largely empty space and the solid nature of the world is just an illusion brought about by the interactions of many different fields.
Is this not 'magic'?
No, I don't see why we should call that 'magic'. There is a difference between 'not yet fully understood' and 'impossible'. Our perceptual systems fabricate a simplified interface to the wider world that makes reality more easily navigable for beings with limited resource. A bit like a web browser provides simplified access to wider information - you can surf the net without having to understand anything at all about the underlying quantum electrodynamics or the infrastructure of the internet or logic gates or the artificial intelligence behind Google search algorithms. If you showed your smartphone to a cave man you could forgive him thinking it was magic; but it isn't. When people invoke 'supernatural', or Goddidit as explanation for something, they generally are not meaning 'not yet understood', generally they mean we will never understand it because it is the will of some 'being' with powers beyond understanding. That's pretty much indistinguishable from 'magic'
-
No, I don't see why we should call that 'magic'. There is a difference between 'not yet fully understood' and 'impossible'. Our perceptual systems fabricate a simplified interface to the wider world that makes reality more easily navigable for beings with limited resource. A bit like a web browser provides simplified access to wider information - you can surf the net without having to understand anything at all about the underlying quantum electrodynamics or the infrastructure of the internet or logic gates or the artificial intelligence behind Google search algorithms. If you showed your smartphone to a cave man you could forgive him thinking it was magic; but it isn't. When people invoke 'supernatural', or Goddidit as explanation for something, they generally are not meaning 'not yet understood', generally they mean we will never understand it because it is the will of some 'being' with powers beyond understanding. That's pretty much indistinguishable from 'magic'
You are not getting the point.
'Impossible' is just something we cannot imagine....until it actually happens. Some fields interacting and producing the illusion of a solid world in which conscious beings happen to evolve and live...is impossible! It is magic by your definition. Nevertheless it actually has happened!
The world really is 'magic'.
-
You are not getting the point.
'Impossible' is just something we cannot imagine....until it actually happens. Some fields interacting and producing the illusion of a solid world in which conscious beings happen to evolve and live...is impossible! It is magic by your definition. Nevertheless it actually has happened!
The world really is 'magic'.
Not sure I agree with your definitions there. 'Impossible' in that sense, is just an expression of incredulity; something difficult to imagine. It is not really 'impossible'. Something truly impossible can never happen.
-
And the big question is -
What happens to the entity of spiritual awareness (which is you) when the biological machine it interacts with ceases to function?
We do not know for certain, but you will find some clues in the writings of the New Testament and subsequent commentaries.
What do you think happens in that instance, what do those clues lead you to conclude?
On a linked question, what happens to the concious spiritual "you" when your biological brain temporarily ceases to operate e.g. during sleep, if rendered unconscious or in a coma?
-
You are not getting the point.
'Impossible' is just something we cannot imagine....until it actually happens. Some fields interacting and producing the illusion of a solid world in which conscious beings happen to evolve and live...is impossible! It is magic by your definition. Nevertheless it actually has happened!
The world really is 'magic'.
Surely if it's impossible it does not happen by definition
-
Surely if it's impossible it does not happen by definition
No. Possible and impossible are our limited perceptions. They are not absolute. Most of what we know today in terms of QM and relativity and QFT....would have been considered impossible few hundred years ago.
As Haldane has said....."My own suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we *can* suppose". So...what is really possible is beyond our comprehension.
What some people now consider as 'magic', may well be possible.
-
No. Possible and impossible are our limited perceptions.
Not really, no. Of course you can refer to something colloquially as 'impossible' because it's difficult but strictly speaking impossible means it can't happen. You can, of course, qualify it. A square circle is definitely impossible, travelling faster than light is impossible according to our current understanding, getting to the moon in 20 minutes is impossible with current technology.
The term magic is often applied to the arguments of some theists who point to something currently unexplained or counter-intuitive and say effectively "this is difficult to understand, therefore goddidit". If everybody took that view, science would never get anywhere. It's basically an argument from personal incredulity. They conclude that because science doesn't yet understand something it must be beyond science and require something 'supernatural' or 'magic'.
-
No. Possible and impossible are our limited perceptions. They are not absolute. Most of what we know today in terms of QM and relativity and QFT....would have been considered impossible few hundred years ago.
As Haldane has said....."My own suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we *can* suppose". So...what is really possible is beyond our comprehension.
What some people now consider as 'magic', may well be possible.
I don't agree. Just because you cannot see how something can happen that does not make it impossible.
If something is impossible (not just what you suspect it might be) then it CANNOT happen. If it did, it would not be impossible.
Do you mean impossible, or "I cannot think how it could happen".
I am not that bothered about what you can or cannot imagine. I suspect the Cosmos is not limited to what you can imagine.
Do you agree?
-
Not really, no. Of course you can refer to something colloquially as 'impossible' because it's difficult but strictly speaking impossible means it can't happen. You can, of course, qualify it. A square circle is definitely impossible, travelling faster than light is impossible according to our current understanding, getting to the moon in 20 minutes is impossible with current technology.
The term magic is often applied to the arguments of some theists who point to something currently unexplained or counter-intuitive and say effectively "this is difficult to understand, therefore goddidit". If everybody took that view, science would never get anywhere. It's basically an argument from personal incredulity. They conclude that because science doesn't yet understand something it must be beyond science and require something 'supernatural' or 'magic'.
No....that's not true. We are not saying that science is yet to explain something and therefore Godditit is a convenient way out. Of course not.
Many people in the world are able to sense hidden forces and hidden patterns in their lives. They are able to sense hidden guidance and unseen driving forces that take their life forward. This makes them accept that there are unseen forces and an unknown intelligence behind their lives.
Meanwhile....science keeps pottering around with the eternal material universe and coming up with convoluted explanations or non-explanations,about life in general. That is fine by itself. No problem.
But science also keeps telling people that all the unseen forces that they discern, are just imaginary and delusional and that there is no such hidden intelligence at work. It tells us what is possible and what is impossible in this world. This is the problem.
Talking of magic. As far as I am concerned...the fact that we are living on a piece of rock that is speeding around the universe....is magic! That we have evolved and are able to now communicate with one another across the globe...is magic.
-
I don't agree. Just because you cannot see how something can happen that does not make it impossible.
If something is impossible (not just what you suspect it might be) then it CANNOT happen. If it did, it would not be impossible.
Do you mean impossible, or "I cannot think how it could happen".
I am not that bothered about what you can or cannot imagine. I suspect the Cosmos is not limited to what you can imagine.
Do you agree?
I suspect the Cosmos is not limited to what you can imagine.
Yes...I agree. That is what I said.
-
I suspect the Cosmos is not limited to what you can imagine.
Yes...I agree. That is what I said.
I think you said Possible and Impossible are our limited perceptions?
I disagree. Possible and impossible are attributes of the Cosmos. Your opinions on them may be different.
So you should NOT declare something impossible if all you really mean is "I cannot think how it could happen".
-
No....that's not true. We are not saying that science is yet to explain something and therefore Godditit is a convenient way out. Of course not.
Who's 'we'? You may not be but some people do (Alan, for example).
Many people in the world are able to sense hidden forces and hidden patterns in their lives. They are able to sense hidden guidance and unseen driving forces that take their life forward. This makes them accept that there are unseen forces and an unknown intelligence behind their lives.
This is certainly what some people believe they can do but to conclude that they are actually doing it requires evidence. At it stands this is just a baseless assertion.
Meanwhile....science keeps pottering around with the eternal material universe and coming up with convoluted explanations or non-explanations,about life in general. That is fine by itself. No problem.
What science does is construct testable hypotheses and hence well tested theories. Whether you regard them as 'convoluted' matters not a jot.
But science also keeps telling people that all the unseen forces that they discern, are just imaginary and delusional and that there is no such hidden intelligence at work. It tells us what is possible and what is impossible in this world. This is the problem.
False. Science cannot deal with anything unless there is some means to test and potentially falsify it. It makes no generalised pronouncements on what is possible or impossible when it's outside of its scope.
Rational, thinking people, of course, will ask for evidence and/or reasoning for things like "unseen forces" and "hidden intelligence" before accepting them as factual (or even probable) in order to rule out mistakes, delusions, imagination, and so on. Claims like these are ten a penny and often contradict each other, so at least most of them must be wrong.
-
No....that's not true. We are not saying that science is yet to explain something and therefore Godditit is a convenient way out. Of course not.
Many people in the world are able to sense hidden forces and hidden patterns in their lives. They are able to sense hidden guidance and unseen driving forces that take their life forward. This makes them accept that there are unseen forces and an unknown intelligence behind their lives.
..
That sounds a typical manifestation of human cognitive bias at work, and hence why we do science in the first place to figure what is actually going on. Build an insentient machine, see if it can detect these 'hidden forces', and if it cannot, then the reasonable conclusion is that they don't exist, other than in the mind of the observer.
Human minds are chock full of such biases. For instance, if I stare in an unfocused way at my patterned carpet, sooner or later I can see a face in the carpet. Some people can see faces in clouds or in rock formations. This is cognitive bias at work, we are so preconditioned to discern faces within information that we often see them when they aren't there. No matter if I remind myself that I have multiple lines evidence suggesting there is no one living in my carpet, the illusion persists and this guy in the pattern keeps staring back at me, eyeball to eyeball, unblinking.
This goes a long way to explain the persistence of many of the world's beliefs and superstitions, and it goes a long way to explain why we have learned to distrust personal testimony that is not backed up by objective evidence. Often, things we feel we can 'sense', just aren't there, they are the outcome of hopes and expectations, many of which reside subconsciously in our minds all the time.
Recognising this helps explain why there are are so many unreasonable beliefs still prevalent in an age of (supposed) reason.
-
That sounds a typical manifestation of human cognitive bias at work, and hence why we do science in the first place to figure what is actually going on. Build an insentient machine, see if it can detect these 'hidden forces', and if it cannot, then the reasonable conclusion is that they don't exist, other than in the mind of the observer.
Human minds are chock full of such biases. For instance, if I stare in an unfocused way at my patterned carpet, sooner or later I can see a face in the carpet. Some people can see faces in clouds or in rock formations. This is cognitive bias at work, we are so preconditioned to discern faces within information that we often see them when they aren't there. No matter if I remind myself that I have multiple lines evidence suggesting there is no one living in my carpet, the illusion persists and this guy in the pattern keeps staring back at me, eyeball to eyeball, unblinking.
This goes a long way to explain the persistence of many of the world's beliefs and superstitions, and it goes a long way to explain why we have learned to distrust personal testimony that is not backed up by objective evidence. Often, things we feel we can 'sense', just aren't there, they are the outcome of hopes and expectations, many of which reside subconsciously in our minds all the time.
Recognising this helps explain why there are are so many unreasonable beliefs still prevalent in an age of (supposed) reason.
Yes...all that is known and understood. 'The mind is a monkey' is an old adage.....and the imagination, clutter and noise generated in the mind is well known since ancient times.
But it is also true that many profound truths can be understood once the mind is properly understood and disciplined. Most spiritual practices and yogic exercises are meant precisely to discipline the mind and to remove its clutter and imaginary tendencies.
Once that is done, the true nature of our consciousness and of our Self will be known and the need for knowledge of the external world will become irrelevant and will cease.
-
Yes...all that is known and understood. 'The mind is a monkey' is an old adage.....and the imagination, clutter and noise generated in the mind is well known since ancient times.
But it is also true that many profound truths can be understood once the mind is properly understood and disciplined. Most spiritual practices and yogic exercises are meant precisely to discipline the mind and to remove its clutter and imaginary tendencies.
Once that is done, the true nature of our consciousness and of our Self will be known and the need for knowledge of the external world will become irrelevant and will cease.
Ah, yes, the old personal testimony thing, again. It's true, why, because I know it to be true. No math, no evidence, just (unreliable) personal experience.
-
Ah, yes, the old personal testimony thing, again. It's true, why, because I know it to be true. No math, no evidence, just (unreliable) personal experience.
This is where we start diverging... The impression that maths and instruments and measurements are the only way to understand reality....is what is the issue.
-
But it is also true that many profound truths can be understood once the mind is properly understood and disciplined.
Another baseless assertion. How do you know that these are truths? How are they tested?
-
Another baseless assertion. How do you know that these are truths? How are they tested?
No...they cannot be tested ...not in the way you want anyway.
Think of it as similar to NDE's. Some researchers do manage to test them.
-
No...they cannot be tested ...not in the way you want anyway.
I'm inviting you to tell me how they can be tested. If there is no objective test, however, then to conclude that they are truths is irrational.
-
No...they cannot be tested ...not in the way you want anyway.
Think of it as similar to NDE's. Some researchers do manage to test them.
I they cannot be tested, how do we know they are true.
Because we guess it seems true?
What is my guess and my feelings are totally the opposite of yours?
How can we tell which if either are correct?
You just seem to have some warm fuzzy feelings, and what to think you have some 'truth'. You don't. You just have warm fuzzy feelings.
-
Implicit learning or unconscious learning is a natural ability some people have through which they are able to predict complex patterns. This ability makes them predisposed to a belief in hidden forces or a God.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/09/200909085942.htm
Some people just don't have this ability.
-
Implicit learning or unconscious learning is a natural ability some people have through which they are able to predict complex patterns. This ability makes them predisposed to a belief in hidden forces or a God.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/09/200909085942.htm
Some people just don't have this ability.
Which is interesting but rather unsurprising and definitely irrelevant to the actual existence of "hidden forces" or a god(s). The more sensitive you are to recognising patterns the more the risk of false positives.
-
We have already discussed these matters many times. You cannot prove to a stubborn and skeptical blind person that light exists.
This 'prove it' demand could go on forever..... I just can't prove it to you. Those who can sense it, will...
-
We have already discussed these matters many times. You cannot prove to a stubborn and skeptical blind person that light exists.
We have indeed discussed it many times and this 'argument' is still as silly (and insulting to blind people) as it was last time. It's trivially easy to provide convincing evidence for infrared, radio waves, microwaves, and so on, which everybody is blind to.
Blind people aren't stupid and neither are people wanting actual evidence.
I just can't prove it to you. Those who can sense it, will...
There is either objective evidence or you can't be sure that it isn't imaginary.
-
We have already discussed these matters many times. You cannot prove to a stubborn and skeptical blind person that light exists.
This 'prove it' demand could go on forever..... I just can't prove it to you. Those who can sense it, will...
WRONG!
I am colour blind and cannot distinguish between red and gree, but I am perfectly happy to believe that others can.
This is really easy to test.
-
Implicit learning or unconscious learning is a natural ability some people have through which they are able to predict complex patterns. This ability makes them predisposed to a belief in hidden forces or a God.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/09/200909085942.htm
Some people just don't have this ability.
So, you call my tendency to see faces in my patterned carpet, an 'ability'; I call it a cognitive bias. We have to understand our biases in order to avoid fallacious conclusions.
-
So, you call my tendency to see faces in my patterned carpet, an 'ability'; I call it a cognitive bias. We have to understand our biases in order to avoid fallacious conclusions.
No...the unconscious ability to predict patterns in the working of our lives, is not the same thing.
Think in terms of the unconscious mind that works behind and beyond our awareness....
-
No...the unconscious ability to predict patterns in the working of our lives, is not the same thing.
Think in terms of the unconscious mind that works behind and beyond our awareness....
I think you missed my point about me being convinced that the colours red and green exists and that people can distinguish between them.
How can I do that, when I cannot see them?
-
No...the unconscious ability to predict patterns in the working of our lives, is not the same thing.
Unsupported assertion. We are all over-sensitive to patterns (for good evolutionary reasons) which is why we see faces in clouds and so on. If the ability to detect patterns is above average, the incidence of false positives will also be above average. For the same good evolutionary reasons, we also have a tendency to ascribe agency to things when it doesn't exist.
-
I think you missed my point about me being convinced that the colours red and green exists and that people can distinguish between them.
How can I do that, when I cannot see them?
You are just trusting people. And once you can distinguish between colors, understanding color blindness is not difficult.
A born blind person understanding light is a different thing altogether.
My reply to torridon is about the unconscious mind that works behind our conscious awareness.
-
Unsupported assertion. We are all over-sensitive to patterns (for good evolutionary reasons) which is why we see faces in clouds and so on. If the ability to detect patterns is above average, the incidence of false positives will also be above average. For the same good evolutionary reasons, we also have a tendency to ascribe agency to things when it doesn't exist.
How do you even KNOW that these patterns are false?! You just believe that to be so because you can't detect them.
-
You are just trusting people. And once you can distinguish between colors, understanding color blindness is not difficult.
A born blind person understanding light is a different thing altogether.
My reply to torridon is about the unconscious mind that works behind our conscious awareness.
I think you are just avoiding the argument that undoes you. I can test for red and green to see if people can detect them. I can easily come up with a way to test if people can detect them.
In fact I do not even need to,as it is apparent when out with others that are not colour blind.
I am blind to X-Rays, but I am currently convinced they exist. Do you think they exist because you cannot see them either?
-
How do you even KNOW that these patterns are false?! You just believe that to be so because you can't detect them.
I didn't claim that I know they are false, just that without objective evidence we have no basis on which to conclude they are true.
The problem is that if you can't know that something is definitely a 'detection' rather than a false positive, it's more rational not to jump to the conclusion that it's a detection (burden of proof (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy))). I 'notice' patterns all the time, most of which can be simply explained by humans not being very good at intuitive probability and not coping with randomness very well.
-
No...the unconscious ability to predict patterns in the working of our lives, is not the same thing.
Think in terms of the unconscious mind that works behind and beyond our awareness....
Yes cognitive bias is largely unconscious, I'm not arguing it to be a conscious bias. Merely arguing that pattern recognition goes on unconsciously does not mean it is not biased. These biases derive from the fact that our minds did not evolve to show us 'reality', whatever that is, they evolved to keep us alive at minimum calorific cost. Big difference. Hence I can see faces in carpets that aren't actually there, it is merely a bias. This is why we do science to investigate the world, because we have come to realise the extent to which personal experience alone is skewed by unconscious biases.
-
I know all these are dead end arguments....but you must remember the ideas of panpsychism and cosmopsychism.
You think of the unconscious mind as just a back office of the conscious mind. It isn't. The unconscious mind is the actual workplace and the conscious mind is just the front office.
-
I know all these are dead end arguments....but you must remember the ideas of panpsychism and cosmopsychism.
So far neither conjecture has any supporting evidence.
You think of the unconscious mind as just a back office of the conscious mind. It isn't. The unconscious mind is the actual workplace and the conscious mind is just the front office.
Asserting a rather vague and unsupported analogy doesn't really help. Especially as the exact relationship between the concious and unconscious mind is not directly relevant.
-
You think of the unconscious mind as just a back office of the conscious mind. It isn't. The unconscious mind is the actual workplace and the conscious mind is just the front office.
I don't dispute that characterisation, particularly. I'd agree conscious mind derives from unconscious mind. But that doesn't mean unconscious mind is free of bias. Rather, the biases that manifest in conscious mind, like all things mental, they derive/emerge from non consious origins.
-
I don't dispute that characterisation, particularly. I'd agree conscious mind derives from unconscious mind. But that doesn't mean unconscious mind is free of bias. Rather, the biases that manifest in conscious mind, like all things mental, they derive/emerge from non consious origins.
The whole point I am making is that the unconscious mind is an unknown quantity. It is far bigger and far more complex than the conscious mind. What drives it and what its nature is ...is unknown. That is where Panpsychism and cosmopsychism come in.
The moment we realize that the unconscious mind is more powerful and controls our lives more than the conscious mind is aware of.....the entire issue of implicit patterns and hidden forces opens up.
Hidden forces and unseen patterns are not just some strange supernatural or mystical issues or imagined things. They are real!
-
The whole point I am making is that the unconscious mind is an unknown quantity. It is far bigger and far more complex than the conscious mind. What drives it and what its nature is ...is unknown.
It's not like we know nothing about it and there is plentiful evidence that its 'nature' is that it is something the brain does.
That is where Panpsychism and cosmopsychism come in.
Baseless assertion.
The moment we realize that the unconscious mind is more powerful and controls our lives more than the conscious mind is aware of.....the entire issue of implicit patterns and hidden forces opens up.
Such a 'realisation' doesn't change the fact that being more sensitive to patterns means more false positive and it doesn't tell us anything whatsoever about the veracity of claims of 'hidden forces'.
Hidden forces and unseen patterns are not just some strange supernatural or mystical issues or imagined things. They are real!
Another baseless assertion. ::)
-
The whole point I am making is that the unconscious mind is an unknown quantity. It is far bigger and far more complex than the conscious mind. What drives it and what its nature is ...is unknown. That is where Panpsychism and cosmopsychism come in.
The moment we realize that the unconscious mind is more powerful and controls our lives more than the conscious mind is aware of.....the entire issue of implicit patterns and hidden forces opens up.
Hidden forces and unseen patterns are not just some strange supernatural or mystical issues or imagined things. They are real!
Faces in carpets are not real. Your're not getting this - that seemingly esoteric or 'hidden' patterns that minds apparently discern but insentient machines do not discern are likely not real. This is why in science we build instruments to see if things are real or just an artefact of a mind fixated on seeing patterns and coming up with false positives. Insentient machines do not share our predispostions, biases, hopes, fears, prejudices etc.
-
Ok....thanks guys....
-
Ok....thanks guys....
This blind thing you mention. This is just daft.
Are you convinced things which you cannot see exist?
X Rays, atoms,electrons etc?
-
The impression I get from recent exchanges on this thread is of an independent observer trying to understand the workings of a biological machine - with no apparent recognition that said independent observer is actually that machine!
Can the observer and the machine it analyses really be the same thing?
And how does such capability to spend time and effort on examining their own existence arise from the presumption that we "evolved to keep us alive at minimum calorific cost" (to quote Torri.)
-
The impression I get from recent exchanges on this thread is of an independent observer trying to understand the workings of a biological machine - with no apparent recognition that said independent observer is actually that machine!
Can the observer and the machine it observes really be the same thing?
Clearly they can, because we do. In fact, you can observe yourself quite easily with the aid of a mirror.
What is more intriguing is the question "can we understand ourselves?" Perhaps the answer to that is that we can't in a complete sense.
And how does such capability to spend time and effort on examining their own existence arise from the presumption that we "evolved to keep us alive at minimum calorific cost" (to quote Torri.)
Well that's not true. We evolved to maximise our chance of reproduction. Calorific cost is only one factor out of many that might make us more or less successful at reproducing.
-
This blind thing you mention. This is just daft.
Are you convinced things which you cannot see exist?
X Rays, atoms,electrons etc?
You are not getting it. It is not that things that we can't see cannot exist. They can...and if we find out indirectly that they exist, we can acknowledge their existence. That is not what I am talking about.
My point is that born blind people cannot know of the existence of light even though it is all around them. They can (if they are stubborn enough) deny the existence of light and there is no way you can convince them of it.
It is similar with the existence of subtle forces and patterns that some people are unable to sense. If you don't have the faculty you just cannot sense it. Either you take it on faith (in the motives and abilities of other people) or just keep denying it.
Thanks...
-
Calorific cost is only one factor out of many that might make us more or less successful at reproducing.
Brains come at a huge cost, they are very expensive to run. Competition guarantees efficiencies, and variants that can do the same jobs at lower cost will win out over time. So brains have evolved to cut corners, and perception proceeds by a Bayesian prediction mechanism, this is both faster and cheaper than building perception from the ground up from raw sensory input. Which works fine in most respects, except for the occasional illusion eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_optical_illusions#/media/File:Poiuyt.svg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_optical_illusions#/media/File:Poiuyt.svg)
-
The impression I get from recent exchanges on this thread is of an independent observer trying to understand the workings of a biological machine - with no apparent recognition that said independent observer is actually that machine!
Can the observer and the machine it analyses really be the same thing?
And how does such capability to spend time and effort on examining their own existence arise from the presumption that we "evolved to keep us alive at minimum calorific cost" (to quote Torri.)
All vertebrates have some or other degree of self awareness. This is what the CNS is for, to keep you aware of how all parts of you are doing. Individuals with a richer sense of self, such as humans, will have enhanced ability to look after their selves, I don't see why this should be surprising.
-
You are not getting it.
That appears to be you.
It is not that things that we can't see cannot exist. They can...and if we find out indirectly that they exist, we can acknowledge their existence. That is not what I am talking about.
Yes and it's the "find out independently" that's the important point here.
My point is that born blind people cannot know of the existence of light even though it is all around them. They can (if they are stubborn enough) deny the existence of light and there is no way you can convince them of it.
It wouldn't be being stubborn, it would be being stupid and not open to objective evidence.
It is similar with the existence of subtle forces and patterns that some people are unable to sense. If you don't have the faculty you just cannot sense it. Either you take it on faith (in the motives and abilities of other people) or just keep denying it.
Blind people don't accept light on faith, I don't accept x-rays, infrared, or the existence of atoms on faith, even though I can't directly sense any of them. We accept these things because there is independent and objective evidence, not just people making unsupported assertions.
As soon as you can come up with even the first hint of objective evidence, your claims will become more than baseless assertions about what you think you might be detecting, with no check on it being a false positive.
If it's actually anything like a sense, it should be trivially easy to objectively test it by putting such people in the same situation, but unable to communicate with each other, and seeing if they 'detect' the same thing (which is a way a blind person could check claims of sight).
-
You are not getting it. It is not that things that we can't see cannot exist. They can...and if we find out indirectly that they exist, we can acknowledge their existence. That is not what I am talking about.
My point is that born blind people cannot know of the existence of light even though it is all around them. They can (if they are stubborn enough) deny the existence of light and there is no way you can convince them of it.
It is similar with the existence of subtle forces and patterns that some people are unable to sense. If you don't have the faculty you just cannot sense it. Either you take it on faith (in the motives and abilities of other people) or just keep denying it.
Thanks...
You cn always find people who are stubborn enough not to accept the evidence. In fact, there seem to be rather a lot of you around.
However, it certainly is possible to convince rational blind people of the existence of light. We just use other means of detecting it. For example, nobody has ever directly experienced radioactivity, but we can hear it by means of a geiger counter.
-
If it's actually anything like a sense, it should be trivially easy to objectively test it by putting such people in the same situation, but unable to communicate with each other, and seeing if they 'detect' the same thing (which is a way a blind person could check claims of sight).
Reminds me of an H. G. Wells short story 'Country of the Blind', I think it was titled. A sighted man stumbled into a country where everybody was blind. He kept telling them that he had vision. Eventually they found him so disturbing that they decided that he was mentally ill, that it was caused by the strange protuberances that he called 'eyes' and that the cure was to surgically remove them.
-
You are not getting it. It is not that things that we can't see cannot exist. They can...and if we find out indirectly that they exist, we can acknowledge their existence. That is not what I am talking about.
My point is that born blind people cannot know of the existence of light even though it is all around them. They can (if they are stubborn enough) deny the existence of light and there is no way you can convince them of it.
It is similar with the existence of subtle forces and patterns that some people are unable to sense. If you don't have the faculty you just cannot sense it. Either you take it on faith (in the motives and abilities of other people) or just keep denying it.
Thanks...
But I take nothing on faith. I think think faith should never be used.
If people are stubborn they can keep rejecting things, but they are not being reasonable and nor are they being skeptical.