Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

How do you know that those conscious decisions are not just as influenced by instinct, experience etc?

My awareness reveals that I am influenced by them, but not driven by them.

[Shaker]

You cannot possibly assert that love can happen without a soul or free will because we do not have the opportunity to try it out.  You can't remove a person's soul.

Depends on the definition of the word soul, doesn't it?

[Shaker]

No, because robots have no self awareness.

... a quality with which you've not exactly been conspicuously blessed, Alan.

[Maeght]

How do you know that those conscious decisions are not just as influenced by instinct, experience etc?

My awareness reveals that I am influenced by them, but not driven by them.

You seem to be splitting hairs - influenced but not driven! You are drawing a distinction in order to preserve your need to believe all this due to your theology. Can you accept that you might be wrong on this?

[torridon]

Truly free will would be a disaster. It is far better for us that we have a will that is tied to serving our needs, which is actually the case.

Our free will works alonside our natural instincts.  We often know what is the right thing to do, but sometimes we use our free will to override it, because we want to.  Our free will is certainly not random.  It is guided, but we are in control.

What you want, is part of your nature.  Nobody gets to choose what to want. We are stuck with our hopes and fears, we do not fabricate them. That's not freedom, that's conditioning.

You seem to be implying that free will gives you the ability to do anything which is possible without any restraint.  I have no doubt that there are some people who think they can push the barriers and do exactly that, but the reality is that we are restrained by several factors - instict, experience, conscience, common sense, safety, etc.  But within these restraints we are still free to make conscious decisions, and some decisions might override one or two restraints but we do this consciously.  Without free will, all our decisions would be automated in a similar manner to the logic within a computer program (for example the IF,...THEN,...ELSE,... operation) without need for conscious awareness of the decision.

You recognise here then that there are constraints and limits to our will; its a limited freedom.  You calling that freedom puts me in mind of a prison officer telling the prisoner that he is free to do anything he wants within the prison compound - he can run, he can jump, he can play chess, he can pray to the heavens, he can say boo to a goose should he find one.  The prisoner's delight at these freedoms mirrors your delight in free will, ie its not really free at all, but you seem to think it is.

[Alan Burns]

Truly free will would be a disaster. It is far better for us that we have a will that is tied to serving our needs, which is actually the case.

Our free will works alonside our natural instincts.  We often know what is the right thing to do, but sometimes we use our free will to override it, because we want to.  Our free will is certainly not random.  It is guided, but we are in control.

What you want, is part of your nature.  Nobody gets to choose what to want. We are stuck with our hopes and fears, we do not fabricate them. That's not freedom, that's conditioning.

You seem to be implying that free will gives you the ability to do anything which is possible without any restraint.  I have no doubt that there are some people who think they can push the barriers and do exactly that, but the reality is that we are restrained by several factors - instict, experience, conscience, common sense, safety, etc.  But within these restraints we are still free to make conscious decisions, and some decisions might override one or two restraints but we do this consciously.  Without free will, all our decisions would be automated in a similar manner to the logic within a computer program (for example the IF,...THEN,...ELSE,... operation) without need for conscious awareness of the decision.

You recognise here then that there are constraints and limits to our will; its a limited freedom.  You calling that freedom puts me in mind of a prison officer telling the prisoner that he is free to do anything he wants within the prison compound - he can run, he can jump, he can play chess, he can pray to the heavens, he can say boo to a goose should he find one.  The prisoner's delight at these freedoms mirrors your delight in free will, ie its not really free at all, but you seem to think it is.

But the point I am making concerning free will is that it is an indication that we are not entirely subject to the deterministic laws of science.  Even if we only have a choice between two options, if the choice is made consciously it indicates that there is something within us that is not determined by science alone.  Whatever invokes the free will event must be triggered by our conscious awareness, which I postulate is the human soul and is not subject to the deterministic laws of science.

[torridon]

Truly free will would be a disaster. It is far better for us that we have a will that is tied to serving our needs, which is actually the case.

Our free will works alonside our natural instincts.  We often know what is the right thing to do, but sometimes we use our free will to override it, because we want to.  Our free will is certainly not random.  It is guided, but we are in control.

What you want, is part of your nature.  Nobody gets to choose what to want. We are stuck with our hopes and fears, we do not fabricate them. That's not freedom, that's conditioning.

You seem to be implying that free will gives you the ability to do anything which is possible without any restraint.  I have no doubt that there are some people who think they can push the barriers and do exactly that, but the reality is that we are restrained by several factors - instict, experience, conscience, common sense, safety, etc.  But within these restraints we are still free to make conscious decisions, and some decisions might override one or two restraints but we do this consciously.  Without free will, all our decisions would be automated in a similar manner to the logic within a computer program (for example the IF,...THEN,...ELSE,... operation) without need for conscious awareness of the decision.

You recognise here then that there are constraints and limits to our will; its a limited freedom.  You calling that freedom puts me in mind of a prison officer telling the prisoner that he is free to do anything he wants within the prison compound - he can run, he can jump, he can play chess, he can pray to the heavens, he can say boo to a goose should he find one.  The prisoner's delight at these freedoms mirrors your delight in free will, ie its not really free at all, but you seem to think it is.

But the point I am making concerning free will is that it is an indication that we are not entirely subject to the deterministic laws of science.  Even if we only have a choice between two options, if the choice is made consciously it indicates that there is something within us that is not determined by science alone.  Whatever invokes the free will event must be triggered by our conscious awareness, which I postulate is the human soul and is not subject to the deterministic laws of science.

Unsurprisingly, perhaps, I'm going to have to disagree with that. We are not subject to science, but we are subject to the laws of nature whether we like it or not.  Cut your finger, and you will bleed; we are made of biological matter; your brain is a biological computer that helps us make optimal choices; it takes inputs and comes up with solutions.  Try writing a computer program that takes inputs but the spec says the the output should be free of its inputs, it makes no sense.  The choices a brain makes are a function of its inputs and the way a brain does its calculations might be complex, but it is not magic, it is still flesh and blood obeying the laws of flesh and blood.  Your notion of a soul cuts no ice with me; there is no evidence for it; its never ever shown up on an fMRI scan and the logic behind it has more holes than a fisherman's net. I say, look at what we actually are, and try to understand that, rather than tieing yourself up in knots trying to splice some fantasy beliefs in.

[Alan Burns]

Unsurprisingly, perhaps, I'm going to have to disagree with that. We are not subject to science, but we are subject to the laws of nature whether we like it or not.  Cut your finger, and you will bleed; we are made of biological matter; your brain is a biological computer that helps us make optimal choices; it takes inputs and comes up with solutions.  Try writing a computer program that takes inputs but the spec says the the output should be free of its inputs, it makes no sense.  The choices a brain makes are a function of its inputs and the way a brain does its calculations might be complex, but it is not magic, it is still flesh and blood obeying the laws of flesh and blood.  Your notion of a soul cuts no ice with me; there is no evidence for it; its never ever shown up on an fMRI scan and the logic behind it has more holes than a fisherman's net. I say, look at what we actually are, and try to understand that, rather than tieing yourself up in knots trying to splice some fantasy beliefs in.

Your computer analogy may not be far from the truth.  The input data comes from various sources - (the human senses).  What it does with the data is determined mainly by built in logic (instinct and learnt experience from the memory banks).  But with all computer systems there is a keyboard and a screen.  The screen displays information about what is going on which can be perceived ( self awareness) and the keyboard allows live interaction (free will).  The viewer of the screen and the operator of the keyboard is your human soul.

[Maeght]

But the point I am making concerning free will is that it is an indication that we are not entirely subject to the deterministic laws of science.  Even if we only have a choice between two options, if the choice is made consciously it indicates that there is something within us that is not determined by science alone.  Whatever invokes the free will event must be triggered by our conscious awareness, which I postulate is the human soul and is not subject to the deterministic laws of science.

If that choice is made due to preconditioning and is the only possible choice you would ever make then that's not free will and says nothing about a soul. You haven't demonstrated that such a choice is not predetermined by nature/nurture. Good to see you are postulating though rather than asserting - some progress.

[wigginhall]

Unsurprisingly, perhaps, I'm going to have to disagree with that. We are not subject to science, but we are subject to the laws of nature whether we like it or not.  Cut your finger, and you will bleed; we are made of biological matter; your brain is a biological computer that helps us make optimal choices; it takes inputs and comes up with solutions.  Try writing a computer program that takes inputs but the spec says the the output should be free of its inputs, it makes no sense.  The choices a brain makes are a function of its inputs and the way a brain does its calculations might be complex, but it is not magic, it is still flesh and blood obeying the laws of flesh and blood.  Your notion of a soul cuts no ice with me; there is no evidence for it; its never ever shown up on an fMRI scan and the logic behind it has more holes than a fisherman's net. I say, look at what we actually are, and try to understand that, rather than tieing yourself up in knots trying to splice some fantasy beliefs in.

Your computer analogy may not be far from the truth.  The input data comes from various sources - (the human senses).  What it does with the data is determined mainly by built in logic (instinct and learnt experience from the memory banks).  But with all computer systems there is a keyboard and a screen.  The screen displays information about what is going on which can be perceived ( self awareness) and the keyboard allows live interaction (free will).  The viewer of the screen and the operator of the keyboard is your human soul.

Hurrah, the Cartesian theatre is alive and well!

"Descartes originally claimed that consciousness requires an immaterial soul, which interacts with the body via the pineal gland of the brain. Dennett says that, when the dualism is removed, what remains of Descartes' original model amounts to imagining a tiny theater in the brain where a homunculus (small person), now physical, performs the task of observing all the sensory data projected on a screen at a particular instant, making the decisions and sending out commands (cf. the homunculus argument)."   Wiki.

There is of  course, the old joke, and also a criticism, that we need another small person to watch the first small person, and so on, along the lines of big fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite them, and little fleas ....   I think that strong drink makes the little men nod off.

[torridon]

Unsurprisingly, perhaps, I'm going to have to disagree with that. We are not subject to science, but we are subject to the laws of nature whether we like it or not.  Cut your finger, and you will bleed; we are made of biological matter; your brain is a biological computer that helps us make optimal choices; it takes inputs and comes up with solutions.  Try writing a computer program that takes inputs but the spec says the the output should be free of its inputs, it makes no sense.  The choices a brain makes are a function of its inputs and the way a brain does its calculations might be complex, but it is not magic, it is still flesh and blood obeying the laws of flesh and blood.  Your notion of a soul cuts no ice with me; there is no evidence for it; its never ever shown up on an fMRI scan and the logic behind it has more holes than a fisherman's net. I say, look at what we actually are, and try to understand that, rather than tieing yourself up in knots trying to splice some fantasy beliefs in.

Your computer analogy may not be far from the truth.  The input data comes from various sources - (the human senses).  What it does with the data is determined mainly by built in logic (instinct and learnt experience from the memory banks).  But with all computer systems there is a keyboard and a screen.  The screen displays information about what is going on which can be perceived ( self awareness) and the keyboard allows live interaction (free will).  The viewer of the screen and the operator of the keyboard is your human soul.

Oi !

I didn't give you that computer analogy so you could use it against me 

Anyways, wake me up when when someone discovers some evidence for a soul.

[wigginhall]

One of the interesting arguments against the Cartesian theatre, is that consciousness is neither centralized nor unified, and instead of unity, we have disunity, or if you like, fragmentary processing, (or parallel processing).    Of course, we are able to centralize at times, or focus, but as Virginia Woolf wrote beautifully somewhere, at any one time, my mind is full of Spinoza and the smell of cooking, and where are the spare socks, and so on.

These ideas are reinforced by the notion of the unconscious, where experiences exist which I am not able or willing to become conscious.   But then they also do become conscious.   Nightmare on Elm St! 

[SusanDoris]

..if the choice is made consciously it indicates that there is something within us that is not determined by science alone.  Whatever invokes the free will event must be triggered by our conscious awareness, which I postulate is the human soul and is not subject to the deterministic laws of science.

Science does not 'determine' things - souls, free will, etc - it describes them.

And I suppose I'd better add that any description of a soul is useless!! There is no such thing as a soul, it is simply a word used to describe an aspect of the whole, totally integrated, person.

Susan

[wigginhall]

It's quite a sweet idea that Alan's soul sits in front of a monitor, watching all the inputs to the brain, and synthesizing them, and now and again, presses a button or pulls a gear lever, marked 'food' or 'drink' or 'sex' or 'TV'.   And when the monitor goes wrong, you have to call a technician, who will maybe replace for free, or more likely, just switch it off for a minute, and then switch it on.   Cheers mate, £300 to you. 

If only there was some evidence for it, but Alan knows, you see.

[Maeght]

I've often wondered how this free will would actually work - now I know. Thanks wigginhall.

[Alan Burns]

What exactly is your definition of a 'soul', Alan?

In simple terms, the soul is you and me.  Our bodies are just vehicles for the human soul.

[Sriram]

I've often wondered how this free will would actually work - now I know. Thanks wigginhall.

Why? Haven't you heard of the 'ghost in the machine' concept before?!

[Alan Burns]

Science does not 'determine' things - souls, free will, etc - it describes them.

Yes, you are right to correct me.  I was a bit sloppy with my terminology.  The point I was trying to make about the human being without free will is that scientific laws will determine all behaviour.

[Shaker]

What exactly is your definition of a 'soul', Alan?

In simple terms, the soul is you and me.  Our bodies are just vehicles for the human soul.

That's not a definition though, is it?

[Sriram]

What exactly is your definition of a 'soul', Alan?

In simple terms, the soul is you and me.  Our bodies are just vehicles for the human soul.

Yes...Alan. I agree with that.

[Shaker]

Well I never 

[Alan Burns]

What exactly is your definition of a 'soul', Alan?

In simple terms, the soul is you and me.  Our bodies are just vehicles for the human soul.

That's not a definition though, is it?

If you seek a definition in material terms, it is not possible.  The human soul can interact with this world, but it does not belong to this world.  Our true home is in heaven, not in this universe.

[Shaker]

I see.

[Maeght]

I've often wondered how this free will would actually work - now I know. Thanks wigginhall.

Why? Haven't you heard of the 'ghost in the machine' concept before?!

Of course.

[torridon]

What exactly is your definition of a 'soul', Alan?

In simple terms, the soul is you and me.  Our bodies are just vehicles for the human soul.

just like a goose's body is a vehicle for a goose's soul I suppose