Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

My chosen option can only be invoked by consciously controlled interaction with my physical brain cells.  It is not pre defined by physical reactions.

Utterly irrelevant to the logic of the situation. Whether your brain does it by itself or something magic pokes it with a magical stick and makes it do something, the choice that was made must have been entirely for pre-existing reasons or not.

[Gordon]

I have the power consciously invoke a chosen option.  If my chosen option was pre defined by the physical state of my brain cells, it would not be a choice, but an inevitable reaction.

My chosen option can only be invoked by consciously controlled interaction with my physical brain cells.  It is not pre defined by physical reactions.

It feels like a choice: but it is not a choice that is free of influences, and where your reaction to these influences (consciously and unconsciously) does indeed feel like you are making a choice - but that is just how it feels.

Now - since I've been out and I'm thirsty, and the sun is still below the yard arm, should I have a can of ginger beer or pepsi? These are the only two options I fancy so, Alan, am I qualified to choose or do I need a 'soul' to do it for me (which highlights just how silly your 'soul' notion is)?

P.S ginger beer I think: twas ever thus!

[Alan Burns]

You can't be free from being yourself - it doesn't make any sense. You make choices because of who you are and the circumstances

I entirely agree with this.

The question is in the definition of what comprises the "you" in all this.
The secular view is that "you" comprise nothing more than inevitable chain reactions of physically controlled events in your brain cells.

But I contend that there is much more to "you" than this.

[Stranger]

The question is in the definition of what comprises the "you" in all this.
The secular view is that "you" comprise nothing more than inevitable chain reactions of physically controlled events in your brain cells.

But I contend that there is much more to "you" than this.

Yes, I know you do - but what you are ignoring is that whatever "you" are comprised of still has to make choices in a logically self-consistent way. You still have to make choices that are entirely due to pre-existing reasons (internal and external) or not. You can't have it both ways without abandoning logic.

[Alan Burns]

It feels like a choice: but it is not a choice that is free of influences, and where your reaction to these influences (consciously and unconsciously) does indeed feel like you are making a choice - but that is just how it feels.

Now - since I've been out and I'm thirsty, and the sun is still below the yard arm, should I have a can of ginger beer or pepsi? These are the only two options I fancy so, Alan, am I qualified to choose or do I need a 'soul' to do it for me (which highlights just how silly your 'soul' notion is)?

P.S ginger beer I think: twas ever thus!

But your consciously driven choices comprise much more than the trivial choice between ginger beer or pepsi.  You consciously composed this post, Gordon, choosing your own words to express your consciously chosen thought patterns.  Are the uncontrollable chains of physical reactions in your brain cells qualified to do this, or do you need the power of your soul?

[Alan Burns]

Utterly irrelevant to the logic of the situation. Whether your brain does it by itself or something magic pokes it with a magical stick and makes it do something, the choice that was made must have been entirely for pre-existing reasons or not.

But by claiming it is irrelevant, you are effectively saying that our conscious choices are no different to inevitable consequences from physically defined chain reactions over which there can be no control, because every event will be pre defined according to the laws of physics.  Yet you somehow claim that we do have freedom to make choices.  Where does this freedom emanate from?

[torridon]

I have the power consciously invoke a chosen option.  If my chosen option was pre defined by the physical state of my brain cells, it would not be a choice, but an inevitable reaction.

My chosen option can only be invoked by consciously controlled interaction with my physical brain cells.  It is not pre defined by physical reactions.

That wasn't answering the question, it was avoiding answering the question by saying how it doesn't work.

Try again, on what principle does conscious will resolve choice ?  How does it discern which option to take ?

[Stranger]

But by claiming it is irrelevant, you are effectively saying that our conscious choices are no different to inevitable consequences from physically defined chain reactions over which there can be no control, because every event will be pre defined according to the laws of physics.

Has it actually sunk in? I fear not but, yes, even if we have a soul our choices have to be made in a way that is logically no different to the physical - that's what I've been saying.

Ditching the physical restrictions doesn't change the logic. It doesn't allow a choice to be made entirely for pre-existing reasons and not entirely for pre-existing reasons at the same time.

Yet you somehow claim that we do have freedom to make choices.  Where does this freedom emanate from?

From your mind. What you keep ignoring is that there has to be a "something" that is free to make choices and it has to make those choices somehow. The only kind of freedom that makes sense is if you (the result of nature nurture and experience) together with the circumstances determines the choice. The choice is "predetermined" by who you are and the circumstances in which you make the choice.

[Alan Burns]

From your mind. What you keep ignoring is that there has to be a "something" that is free to make choices and it has to make those choices somehow. The only kind of freedom that makes sense is if you (the result of nature nurture and experience) together with the circumstances determines the choice. The choice is "predetermined" by who you are and the circumstances in which you make the choice.

So no freedom - just inevitable reaction to previous events.

I do not think you fully appreciate your conscious awareness and how it has the power to consciously interact, rather than just react.

[Stranger]

So no freedom - just inevitable reaction to previous events.

Only because you insist on a nonsense, self-contradictory, impossible notion of "freedom" that would turn us into specks of nothingness unable to choose at all.

I do not think you fully appreciate your conscious awareness and how it has the power to consciously interact, rather than just react.

Ignore the logic in favour of repeating the meaningless mantra.

Whether the brain chooses of whether something else does and then interacts with it couldn't be less relevant to the logic of choice making.

[ippy]

Only because you insist on a nonsense, self-contradictory, impossible notion of "freedom" that would turn us into specks of nothingness unable to choose at all.

Ignore the logic in favour of repeating the meaningless mantra.

Whether the brain chooses of whether something else does and then interacts with it couldn't be less relevant to the logic of choice making.

It looks to me the R C's have done a really good job to Alan, a really prime susceptible victim of indoctrination why else the continual monotonous repeat, repeating of the mantra that contradicts itself?

I doubt any victim of a successful indoctrination would be able to see that they had in fact been indoctrinated, it's part and parcel of the same thing.

Commiserations to you Alan, ippy 

[Alan Burns]

Only because you insist on a nonsense, self-contradictory, impossible notion of "freedom" that would turn us into specks of nothingness unable to choose at all.

Ignore the logic in favour of repeating the meaningless mantra.

Whether the brain chooses of whether something else does and then interacts with it couldn't be less relevant to the logic of choice making.

The obvious difference would be that a material brain functions in accordance with the physical laws of science. But a "something else" would function by different means - a means which could facilitate the consciously controlled interaction we all perceive - as opposed to the inevitable uncontrolled reactions of electro chemical activity in our physical brain cells. 

[ippy]

The obvious difference would be that a material brain functions in accordance with the physical laws of science. But a "something else" would function by different means - a means which could facilitate the consciously controlled interaction we all perceive - as opposed to the inevitable uncontrolled reactions of electro chemical activity in our physical brain cells.

A something else?

ippy

[Gordon]

The obvious difference would be that a material brain functions in accordance with the physical laws of science. But a "something else" would function by different means - a means which could facilitate the consciously controlled interaction we all perceive - as opposed to the inevitable uncontrolled reactions of electro chemical activity in our physical brain cells.

What means, and how does these means operate so as to allow investigation?

[SusanDoris]

A something else?

ippy

A measured response. I was thinking more on the lines of, that is completely ridiculous!

[Gordon]

But your consciously driven choices comprise much more than the trivial choice between ginger beer or pepsi.

Aside from your obvious evasion here in favour of a simplistic assertion, does it matter? After all if 'souls' are part of conscious decision making then, presumably, they are involved in all decisions (be they trivial or not), else 'souls' are selective as regards what decisions they pay a part in - which just adds to the complexity of the operational aspects of 'souls', for which you've yet to provide any sort of description.

You consciously composed this post, Gordon, choosing your own words to express your consciously chosen thought patterns.  Are the uncontrollable chains of physical reactions in your brain cells qualified to do this, or do you need the power of your soul?

The former, since the latter is so nonsensical it isn't a serious proposition: especially since you can't tell us anything about how these 'souls' operate in the first place.

[ippy]

What means, and how does these means operate so as to allow investigation?

Gordon you'll only get a tripe trip over his own tongue bollocks of an answer if any.

Regards ippy

[torridon]

The obvious difference would be that a material brain functions in accordance with the physical laws of science. But a "something else" would function by different means - a means which could facilitate the consciously controlled interaction we all perceive - as opposed to the inevitable uncontrolled reactions of electro chemical activity in our physical brain cells.

It would still need to operate within principles of logic though, such as cause and effect.  If it does not, you are merely painting 'souls' as something illogical.  That's something the rest of us realised long ago.

[Alan Burns]

It would still need to operate within principles of logic though, such as cause and effect.  If it does not, you are merely painting 'souls' as something illogical.  That's something the rest of us realised long ago.

From a materialist point of view, the illogical thing is the existence of consciously driven, creative interaction in a material universe.  Yes, the power of the human soul does seem illogical, but it exists.

[SteveH]

Determinism is true: everything is caused by something else, and God, being omniscient knows (or would know, if you're an atheist) exactly what is going to happen in every detail from eternity to eternity (quantum indeterminacy aside, but that only applies at the quantum level: at the everyday level, Newtonian physics applies). Therefore it was pre-determined that I would vote Labour at the last general election.
Free-will is true: I was predestined from all eternity to vote labour, but the pre-existing cause of my first of all voting and secondly voting Labour was my free (i.e. unconstrained) choice.
Does that make sense? If not, fire at will, but it would be appreciated if sarcasm could be avoided.

[torridon]

From a materialist point of view, the illogical thing is the existence of consciously driven, creative interaction in a material universe.  Yes, the power of the human soul does seem illogical, but it exists.

Just baseless assertion without any justification.  The rest of us have the integrity and insight to realise that "seems illogical" actually equates to "wrong".  Stop tieing yoursellf in knots trying to justify something impossible.

[Alan Burns]

Just baseless assertion without any justification.  The rest of us have the integrity and insight to realise that "seems illogical" actually equates to "wrong".  Stop tieing yoursellf in knots trying to justify something impossible.

I believe it is you who are trying to do the impossible - trying to wring conscious awareness, logic an reason out of material elements which can only produce physically controlled reactions.

[Stranger]

The obvious difference would be that a material brain functions in accordance with the physical laws of science. But a "something else" would function by different means...

Yes but, for what seems like the hundred thousandth time, the problem with your notion of 'freedom' is that it is self-contradictory. Self-contradiction can't be resolved by changing from the physical to "something else".

[Stranger]

I believe it is you who are trying to do the impossible - trying to wring conscious awareness, logic an reason out of material elements which can only produce physically controlled reactions.

It's counter-intuitive to get consciousness from deterministic, material systems, you have provided no reason to think it's impossible. On the other hand, your notion of freedom is absolutely logically impossible because it leads directly to a contradiction.

When will you get it into your head that your problem is logic, not physics?

[Stranger]

Determinism is true: everything is caused by something else, and God, being omniscient knows (or would know, if you're an atheist) exactly what is going to happen in every detail from eternity to eternity (quantum indeterminacy aside, but that only applies at the quantum level: at the everyday level, Newtonian physics applies). Therefore it was pre-determined that I would vote Labour at the last general election.
Free-will is true: I was predestined from all eternity to vote labour, but the pre-existing cause of my first of all voting and secondly voting Labour was my free (i.e. unconstrained) choice.
Does that make sense? If not, fire at will, but it would be appreciated if sarcasm could be avoided.

I think that's a reasonable summary (without nitpicking about the physics).