Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

Yes, you know I do.

In that case, how can you come up with the correct conclusion?

[torridon]

Do you presume that all the thought processes which went into this post were entirely pre determined?  If so, you can have no control over the conclusions you come up with.  And presumably you must also conclude that other people can have no control over their consciously derived conclusions.

So if we do not control our own thoughts, how can you possibly conclude that you, or anyone else, is right?

I have never claimed that we draw conclusions by some sort of thought control; we do not 'choose' to find a proposition plausible; we either find it plausible or we don't find it plausible, end of story.   'Control' absolutely does not come into it.  A proposition will feel plausible if it matches well against our internal model at the moment when we consider it; but we cannot just choose to alter our internal model to suit, any more that we can just choose to believe that shadows are cast by objects obstructing light.

[Gordon]

In that case, how can you come up with the correct conclusion?

I suspect, Alan, that you are seeing determinism (your addition of 'Pre' is superfluous) with notions of fate, and that is a mistake. In addition I'm not sure that notions of 'correct' work either: people can make mistakes in their thinking, as you often demonstrate.

[SusanDoris]

Do you presume that all the thought processes which went into this post were entirely pre determined?  If so, you can have no control over the conclusions you come up with.  And presumably you must also conclude that other people can have no control over their consciously derived conclusions.

So if we do not control our own thoughts, how can you possibly conclude that you, or anyone else, is right?

I'm surprised you haven't noticed that for several million years, the human species, evolved as a branch of an ancestor ape species, has evolved with the brain functions and skills necessary to enable them to survive extremely successfully, to advance in knowledge and application of knowledge, to send Voyagers into space and to practise and perform tasks such as rescuing a group of boys from a cave miles away from the cave entrance. There are people world-wide with an enormous number of different skills who come forward to act in an altruistic way for their fellow humans.

You seem to classify all these abilities and skills as trivial because they are thought of and activated by the brain split seconds before the person is aware of them. This is an  evolved trait, not some passing trait which might or might not be passed on in the DNA and I find it sad to see that you, and unfortunately many others with your type of dogmatic, closed-minded beliefs cannot see  and understand the biology behind it and, most importantly, value it for what it is.

[Maeght]

In that case, how can you come up with the correct conclusion?

I don't really  understand your question

[Alan Burns]

I don't really  understand your question

When all your thought processes are pre determined according to physically controlled cause and effect events, then so are your conclusions.  So in effect you can take no responsibility or credit for any conclusion you make.

In order to come up with a personal conclusion or point of view, you must be able to have personal control over all the thought processes involved in coming up with the conclusion.

To sum up - it is a total nonsense to presume that we have no freedom to control our own thought processes.

[Stranger]

Do you presume that all the thought processes which went into this post were entirely pre determined?  If so, you can have no control over the conclusions you come up with.  And presumably you must also conclude that other people can have no control over their consciously derived conclusions.

I see you're still posting the same obviously wrong, thought-free nonsense.

No - being deterministic does not mean that I am not in control. It is the 'I' that is deterministic - there is nothing else that is in control.

So if we do not control our own thoughts, how can you possibly conclude that you, or anyone else, is right?

Being 'right' generally involves evaluating the available evidence. The conclusion is determined by the facts. Not being deterministic means being (to some extent) random (yes, it really does), which doesn't help with correctness.

 

[Maeght]

When all your thought processes are pre determined according to physically controlled cause and effect events, then so are your conclusions.

Yes.

So in effect you can take no responsibility or credit for any conclusion you make.

No, it is still a product of my brain, its just bot a free conclusion but one determined by my previous experiences and events.

In order to come up with a personal conclusion or point of view, you must be able to have personal control over all the thought processes involved in coming up with the conclusion.

No, it is still a product of my brain, its just bot a free conclusion but one determined by my previous experiences and events.

To sum up - it is a total nonsense to presume that we have no freedom to control our own thought processes.

That isn't a summing up of the earlier points but just another assertion of your position and belief.

You still haven't answered how you know that our apparent freedom isn't an illusion.

[torridon]

When all your thought processes are pre determined according to physically controlled cause and effect events, then so are your conclusions.  So in effect you can take no responsibility or credit for any conclusion you make.

In order to come up with a personal conclusion or point of view, you must be able to have personal control over all the thought processes involved in coming up with the conclusion...

We all have aspects that are unique and personal to us; clearly everyone is different, each mind is unique.  That doesn't mean that we have 'control' over what we are.  My favourite fruit is nectarine.  Can you explain how 'personal control' features in that ?

[ekim]

We all have aspects that are unique and personal to us; clearly everyone is different, each mind is unique.  That doesn't mean that we have 'control' over what we are.  My favourite fruit is nectarine.  Can you explain how 'personal control' features in that ?

I think from Alan's perspective the 'control' is over 'will' in sense of 'intention to act'.  You may have no control over your pleasures and pains because these are associated with accumulated memory (in its broadest sense).  If your favourite fruit is nectarine and you are offered a selection of fruits to choose from, would you be so addicted to always choose nectarine or is your 'intention to act' sufficiently free to consciously choose an alternative?   Sometimes such freedom from compulsion is something to work for, in your case it should be relatively easy as you are conscious of your predilection.  Many people have deep seated compulsions which they are not conscious of, and I would include religious beliefs, which makes 'free choice' more difficult to exercise.

[Maeght]

I think from Alan's perspective the 'control' is over 'will' in sense of 'intention to act'.  You may have no control over your pleasures and pains because these are associated with accumulated memory (in its broadest sense).  If your favourite fruit is nectarine and you are offered a selection of fruits to choose from, would you be so addicted to always choose nectarine or is your 'intention to act' sufficiently free to consciously choose an alternative?   Sometimes such freedom from compulsion is something to work for, in your case it should be relatively easy as you are conscious of your predilection.  Many people have deep seated compulsions which they are not conscious of, and I would include religious beliefs, which makes 'free choice' more difficult to exercise.

But if you chose nit to have a nectarine why would that be? Would that just be a random act or an act based on analysis of the situation the response to which is dependant on the way your brain is programmed at that moment, so not free, or what?

[Alan Burns]

I see you're still posting the same obviously wrong, thought-free nonsense.

No - being deterministic does not mean that I am not in control. It is the 'I' that is deterministic - there is nothing else that is in control.

Being 'right' generally involves evaluating the available evidence. The conclusion is determined by the facts. Not being deterministic means being (to some extent) random (yes, it really does), which doesn't help with correctness.

 

But none of this pertains to the ultimate source of what determines your written conclusions.
If these written conclusions of yours are determined by nothing but physically controlled chains of cause and effect, they are not your personal conclusions, because you have can have no personal control over them.  In order to make any claim over these conclusions of yours, you will have to show how they pertain to you, rather than uncontrollable chains of physically induced cause and effect.

[Alan Burns]

We all have aspects that are unique and personal to us; clearly everyone is different, each mind is unique.  That doesn't mean that we have 'control' over what we are.  My favourite fruit is nectarine.  Can you explain how 'personal control' features in that ?

We are not talking about trivial choices such as nectarines, but in your chosen words to reply to my post. 

Are these really your chosen words?

If so, what determines your choice?

If you continue to insist that your choice is pre determined by physical events beyond your control, you can have no personal claim over this response.  This is simple, straightforward logic.

To have any personal claim over the content of your posts, you must be able to exert some personal influence over their content.  This is where the conscious willpower of your human soul comes into force.

[ekim]

But if you chose nit to have a nectarine why would that be? Would that just be a random act or an act based on analysis of the situation the response to which is dependant on the way your brain is programmed at that moment, so not free, or what?

I think the question should be seen in the context of relative freedom rather than absolute freedom.  In the context of what I was suggesting it is more about the intention or will to break free from habits, compulsions, addictions etc.  To do this it is necessary to be conscious of those predispositions or programs, as you put it, and if you see that they impose upon your well being you have the possibility of perhaps creating an alternative programme or reducing the effect of the existing programme.  If you are not conscious of them then they remain subconscious reactions rather than conscious responses.

[Alan Burns]

I'm surprised you haven't noticed that for several million years ....

Susan,
It would appear that you have not fully understood the point I was making in the post you replied to.  I do value the many wonderful attributes which human's have, but these attributes in themselves are not relevant to the content of my post, which is to point out that any personal conclusions we come to are not derived from the physically controlled functions of our brain, but from a consciously controlled source - ......

[Stranger]

But none of this pertains to the ultimate source of what determines your written conclusions.

Of course it does. Human brains are sophisticated information gathering, processing, and decision making systems.

If these written conclusions of yours are determined by nothing but physically controlled chains of cause and effect, they are not your personal conclusions, because you have can have no personal control over them.

Drivel. Once again, it is me that is making the choices whether I am deterministic or not. Nobody is suggesting a powerless 'me' that is being pushed around by "chains of cause and effect".

In order to make any claim over these conclusions of yours, you will have to show how they pertain to you, rather than uncontrollable chains of physically induced cause and effect.

According to all the evidence, I am the chains of cause and effect in my brain.

Once again, you have no alternative explanation that doesn't boil down to "it's magic, innit" and you have no answer to the basic logic that says that to the extent we are not deterministic, we must be random.

We've been over this (what seems like) thousands of times and yet you don't even have the basic honesty to acknowledge that your 'points' have already been answered multiple times and by multiple people.

What is the point of mindlessly repeating yourself?

[torridon]

We are not talking about trivial choices such as nectarines, but in your chosen words to reply to my post. 

Are these really your chosen words?

If so, what determines your choice?

If you continue to insist that your choice is pre determined by physical events beyond your control, you can have no personal claim over this response.  This is simple, straightforward logic.

To have any personal claim over the content of your posts, you must be able to exert some personal influence over their content.  This is where the conscious willpower of your human soul comes into force.

But 'the conscious willpower of your human soul' is a black box that evades understanding.  Even if we had reason to believe a 'soul' exists, you cannot explain the mechanism by which it makes choices. My rationale actually engages with the real nature of human will and human choice and provides a conceptual explanation of it without resorting to fantasy.  Your explanation just isn't an explanation at all, it is superficial, merely an evasion of an opportunity to understand.

[Maeght]

I think the question should be seen in the context of relative freedom rather than absolute freedom.  In the context of what I was suggesting it is more about the intention or will to break free from habits, compulsions, addictions etc.  To do this it is necessary to be conscious of those predispositions or programs, as you put it, and if you see that they impose upon your well being you have the possibility of perhaps creating an alternative programme or reducing the effect of the existing programme.  If you are not conscious of them then they remain subconscious reactions rather than conscious responses.

Science seems to suggest, all be it tentatively at the moment, that our responses are determined sub consciously before we become aware of that in our conscious mind. We may be,aware and this may be a form of feedback to the subconscious but that doesn't mean we can change the subconscious decisions.

[Alan Burns]

Of course it does. Human brains are sophisticated information gathering, processing, and decision making systems.

Drivel. Once again, it is me that is making the choices whether I am deterministic or not. Nobody is suggesting a powerless 'me' that is being pushed around by "chains of cause and effect".

According to all the evidence, I am the chains of cause and effect in my brain.

Once again, you have no alternative explanation that doesn't boil down to "it's magic, innit" and you have no answer to the basic logic that says that to the extent we are not deterministic, we must be random.

We've been over this (what seems like) thousands of times and yet you don't even have the basic honesty to acknowledge that your 'points' have already been answered multiple times and by multiple people.

What is the point of mindlessly repeating yourself?

You claim that "you" are personally responsible for the conclusions you write.  And you accuse whatever comprises "me" of not having honesty to acknowledge the points you make.

Both these points infer that the "me" and "you" in this scenario must have consciously controlled influence over the physically determined events in  our material brains.  Without this controlled influence, your above claims are false, because our outcomes will be determined by physically determined events beyond any personal control.

[Nearly Sane]

You claim that "you" are personally responsible for the conclusions you write.  And you accuse whatever comprises "me" of not having honesty to acknowledge the points you make.

Both these points infer that the "me" and "you" in this scenario must have consciously controlled influence over the physically determined events in  our material brains.  Without this controlled influence, your above claims are false, because our outcomes will be determined by physically determined events beyond any personal control.

this is using language as prescriptive, as I've pointed out many times before, and you have ignored. Why is it that you ignore what people say? You are a bot.

[ekim]

Science seems to suggest, all be it tentatively at the moment, that our responses are determined sub consciously before we become aware of that in our conscious mind. We may be,aware and this may be a form of feedback to the subconscious but that doesn't mean we can change the subconscious decisions.

Don't tell Alcoholics Anonymous that.  I would suggest that if you have an intention to expand beyond what your subconscious programs restrict you to then you will need to find, perhaps, an inner stillness and create another alternative program.  If you want to walk on a tightrope across the Niagara Falls, you may not be able to eliminate the fear circuit but you can consciously train the mind and body to circumvent it, if you have sufficient will or intention to do so.  You would need to have belief in the possibility, have faith in a method and assiduously practise it.  I guess, much the same with the straight and narrow way to Heaven, to relate it to this topic.

[Alan Burns]

this is using language as prescriptive, as I've pointed out many times before, and you have ignored. Why is it that you ignore what people say? You are a bot.

I do not understand what you mean by prescriptive.

I do understand the simple logic that physical events are determined by the laws of physics, over which neither I nor anyone else has control.

[Nearly Sane]

I do not understand what you mean by prescriptive.

I do understand the simple logic that physical events are determined by the laws of physics, over which neither I nor anyone else has control.

Language doesn't define truth. Simple logic proves you wrong because you haven't been able to define freedom in a logically coherent fashion.

[Alan Burns]

But 'the conscious willpower of your human soul' is a black box that evades understanding.  Even if we had reason to believe a 'soul' exists, you cannot explain the mechanism by which it makes choices. My rationale actually engages with the real nature of human will and human choice and provides a conceptual explanation of it without resorting to fantasy.  Your explanation just isn't an explanation at all, it is superficial, merely an evasion of an opportunity to understand.

But in your scenario, you cannot explain how your conscious choices are determined by anything but the physically controlled chains of cause and effect, over which there can be no control other than the laws of physics.  So whatever conclusions you come to can't be attributed to you personally, because you have no control over them.

[Maeght]

Don't tell Alcoholics Anonymous that.  I would suggest that if you have an intention to expand beyond what your subconscious programs restrict you to then you will need to find, perhaps, an inner stillness and create another alternative program.  If you want to walk on a tightrope across the Niagara Falls, you may not be able to eliminate the fear circuit but you can consciously train the mind and body to circumvent it, if you have sufficient will or intention to do so.  You would need to have belief in the possibility, have faith in a method and assiduously practise it.  I guess, much the same with the straight and narrow way to Heaven, to relate it to this topic.

Not sure I totally understand your post but ..........I have said that your programming can be changed with training, learning and by having different experiences. It is whether you can control your responses at any one moment in time that I question.