Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

There can be no half measures in this, Gordon.  Any degree of freedom, no matter how small, requires a departure from the physically pre determined control dictated by the constraints of a material universe.  Such a departure requiring a source from outside the pre destined nature of our material universe.

If there are no half-measures, Alan, then your position is doomed: there are no grounds to think that there are any 'degrees of freedom' from determinism since, if there were, randomness would pervade to a degree that the wheels would come off the bus randomly, and e normal routine of life would be chaotic on a day and daily basis - and it isn't to an intrusive degree. Anyway, irrespective of that, since your idea of 'free' is simplistic and flawed it is logic that undoes you.

While the unexpected happens now and then I can have a reasonable expectation about tomorrow - as such, I suspect you are dead wrong when you suggest a external 'source' (which seems to be a code for 'God', and all the nonsense associated with that idea).

[torridon]

You are effectively relegating our conscious awareness to be just a spectator of what has already been done before we know anything about it.

At the risk of yet again being accused of personal incredulity, and the "ad pop" argument, I have to say that this would be regarded as a load of b****cks by the vast majority of the human population.

For once perhaps, I'd agree with all of that. I don't doubt that most people would find the implications of brain research counter-intuitive and unsettling; most people on the planet alive today are still running around with some or other pre-Darwinian conceptualisation of what they are, and that is 150 years behind the curve already as far as science is concerned. Most advances in science are counter -intuitive at first; how many people get their head round time running at different speed in different places ?  And even that insight is 100 years old now.  Things is, to get from day to day in life, we don't need to understand such things, so it doesn't even touch on most people's lives; it's not important. 

But none of that renders it untrue; in fact it does make sense in the broader contexts of what we have come to understand through science.  That batsman swinging his bat, well yes, it is something we take for granted, we don't stop to think how awesome a thing is happening there that he can do all those equations of motion so effortlessly without even thinking about it. That suggests that we are the inheritors of mental skills forged in ancient times where our ancestors very survival depended on being able to calculate such things and act on insight as quickly as possible. In the arms races of perception and cognition, predators needed to identify resources and pounce, prey needed to identify threats and take evasive action as quickly as possible. To survive intense competition, the individuals that could summon executive action at the earliest point in the perception cycle would survive, others would get eaten or starve.  The ability to act on preconscious perception has been honed through the principal of survival of the fittest. Countless billions of creatures before us have struggled in the dramas of life and death such that we live our lives now endowed with mental abilities so sublimely honed that we have been traditionally inclined to imagine some divine magic must be responsible.  That we make choices and  act on preconscious perceptions, absolutely makes sense, in the bigger picture.  That batsman owes an awful lot to those that have gone before.

[Alan Burns]

More evasion. I have never denied your freedom to do as you want and we have had this type of exchange many times before, so it's quite clear that you are deliberately avoiding addressing my point.

You have never explicitly denied my freedom to do what I want, but you have not fully explained where this freedom can emanate from.

[Stranger]

You have never explicitly denied my freedom to do what I want, but you have not fully explained where this freedom can emanate from.

Your version of "freedom" is logically impossible, so it can't "emanate" from anything, even a non-physical soul.

As I've said before, real freedom comes from your choices being the result of the person you are (nature, nurture, and experience) and the circumstances in which the choice is made. That means that you have freedom. Your nonsense version of freedom doesn't make anything free because you've excluded everything from what finally chooses.

[Sebastian Toe]

You have never explicitly denied my freedom to do what I want, but you have not fully explained where this freedom can emanate from.

..and you have not fully explained how a soul works.
So to use a vaguely similar oft used statement from elsewhere in this thread,
If the workings of a "soul" cannot  be logically defined and consistent, then we cannot casually, logically or credulously assume that they actually exist.

[Alan Burns]

If there are no half-measures, Alan, then your position is doomed: there are no grounds to think that there are any 'degrees of freedom' from determinism since, if there were, randomness would pervade to a degree that the wheels would come off the bus randomly, and e normal routine of life would be chaotic on a day and daily basis - and it isn't to an intrusive degree. Anyway, irrespective of that, since your idea of 'free' is simplistic and flawed it is logic that undoes you.

While the unexpected happens now and then I can have a reasonable expectation about tomorrow - as such, I suspect you are dead wrong when you suggest a external 'source' (which seems to be a code for 'God', and all the nonsense associated with that idea).

You seem to be another one that does not understand that there can be no form of freedom within the confines of a physically determined scenario in which every event is entirely and unavoidably pre determined by the aimless laws of physics.  Such constraints would not allow me the freedom to consciously compose and type this reply.  Freedom to consciously compose does not have anything to do with random - it just implies that this freedom emanates from a consciously controlled source which is not pre defined by aimless physical reactions, but from consciously invoked events emanating from the will of my human soul.

[Alan Burns]

Your version of "freedom" is logically impossible, so it can't "emanate" from anything, even a non-physical soul.

As I've said before, real freedom comes from your choices being the result of the person you are (nature, nurture, and experience) and the circumstances in which the choice is made. That means that you have freedom. Your nonsense version of freedom doesn't make anything free because you've excluded everything from what finally chooses.

No - your version of freedom boils down to nothing more than mechanistic reaction.  This is not freedom.  You are not fully taking into consideration the concept of conscious awareness and its implications.  True freedom comes from consciously driven choices, not reactions.  I can be fully aware of the nature, nurture and experience involved in making the choice, but this awareness does not dictate the choice.  My consciously driven willpower invokes the final choice.

[Alan Burns]

For once perhaps, I'd agree with all of that. I don't doubt that most people would find the implications of brain research counter-intuitive and unsettling; most people on the planet alive today are still running around with some or other pre-Darwinian conceptualisation of what they are, and that is 150 years behind the curve already as far as science is concerned. Most advances in science are counter -intuitive at first; how many people get their head round time running at different speed in different places ?  And even that insight is 100 years old now.  Things is, to get from day to day in life, we don't need to understand such things, so it doesn't even touch on most people's lives; it's not important. 

But none of that renders it untrue; in fact it does make sense in the broader contexts of what we have come to understand through science.  That batsman swinging his bat, well yes, it is something we take for granted, we don't stop to think how awesome a thing is happening there that he can do all those equations of motion so effortlessly without even thinking about it. That suggests that we are the inheritors of mental skills forged in ancient times where our ancestors very survival depended on being able to calculate such things and act on insight as quickly as possible. In the arms races of perception and cognition, predators needed to identify resources and pounce, prey needed to identify threats and take evasive action as quickly as possible. To survive intense competition, the individuals that could summon executive action at the earliest point in the perception cycle would survive, others would get eaten or starve.  The ability to act on preconscious perception has been honed through the principal of survival of the fittest. Countless billions of creatures before us have struggled in the dramas of life and death such that we live our lives now endowed with mental abilities so sublimely honed that we have been traditionally inclined to imagine some divine magic must be responsible.  That we make choices and  act on preconscious perceptions, absolutely makes sense, in the bigger picture.  That batsman owes an awful lot to those that have gone before.

A batsman does not inherit his skills from his predecessors.  They are honed through constant practice and learnt experience.  The first time he tries to swing a bat at a ball it will be entirely under his own consciously driven control, and most likely will be unsuccessful.  Instinctive swinging will only come after years of practical experience using his own freedom to invoke controlled actions.

[Stranger]

No - your version of freedom boils down to nothing more than mechanistic reaction.  This is not freedom.

It's the only freedom that is logically possible.

You are not fully taking into consideration the concept of conscious awareness and its implications.  True freedom comes from consciously driven choices, not reactions.  I can be fully aware of the nature, nurture and experience involved in making the choice, but this awareness does not dictate the choice.  My consciously driven willpower invokes the final choice.

Once again you are just avoiding the point. Your "consciously driven willpower" has to come to its decision either entirely due to pre-existing reasons or, to the extent it isn't, it must be for no reason that means random.

Calling it "consciously driven" doesn't magically remove the need for it to decide somehow. This isn't complicated, it's simple: if you want a choice that is influenced by all the reasons (including the nature of the person making the choice) but not dictated by them, then by necessity, it involves something that is not dictated by any reasons and that means it is random.

Just think about it and stop pretending that adding words like "consciously driven" make a difference to the basic logic - it doesn't.

[Alan Burns]

It's the only freedom that is logically possible.

Once again you are just avoiding the point. Your "consciously driven willpower" has to come to its decision either entirely due to pre-existing reasons or, to the extent it isn't, it must be for no reason that means random.

Calling it "consciously driven" doesn't magically remove the need for it to decide somehow. This isn't complicated, it's simple: if you want a choice that is influenced by all the reasons (including the nature of the person making the choice) but not dictated by them, then by necessity, it involves something that is not dictated by any reasons and that means it is random.

Just think about it and stop pretending that adding words like "consciously driven" make a difference to the basic logic - it doesn't.

I have thought about it - using my consciously driven freedom to guide my thoughts, and come to the inevitable conclusion that you are absolutely wrong about the power of human will - it can override any of the parameters you presume dictates our conscious choices.

[torridon]

A batsman does not inherit his skills from his predecessors.  They are honed through constant practice and learnt experience.  The first time he tries to swing a bat at a ball it will be entirely under his own consciously driven control, and most likely will be unsuccessful.  Instinctive swinging will only come after years of practical experience using his own freedom to invoke controlled actions.

Oh dear;  all this illustrates is that you didn't bother to actually read the previous post, or if you did read it, you didn't understand it. I wasn't talking about learned life skills I was reflecting on the origins of subconscious perception, something we all have minds pre-wired for.  Is this why we keep going round in circles, because you don't actually engage with what is written so it never sinks in. So much easier to trot out one of your stock mantras rather than engage brain and break new ground. 

[torridon]

I have thought about it - using my consciously driven freedom to guide my thoughts, and come to the inevitable conclusion that you are absolutely wrong about the power of human will - it can override any of the parameters you presume dictates our conscious choices.

Wrong. Will cannot do that which is inherently un-doable.

[Stranger]

I have thought about it - using my consciously driven freedom to guide my thoughts, and come to the inevitable conclusion that you are absolutely wrong about the power of human will - it can override any of the parameters you presume dictates our conscious choices.

The only "parameter" I am using is logic. Are you saying that you think the "power of human will" is not subject to logic?

Or, if you've thought about it (which I frankly doubt), can you now answer the question of how it makes choices that are not entirely due to pre-existing reasons ("predetermined") without introducing something that isn't due to any reasons (randomness) - that is without meaningless phrases that just avoid the issue?

Or is it just that you haven't really thought about the problem at all and this is just the equivalent of "you're wrong, my god's magic, so there!"

[Gordon]

I have thought about it - using my consciously driven freedom to guide my thoughts, and come to the inevitable conclusion that you are absolutely wrong about the power of human will - it can override any of the parameters you presume dictates our conscious choices.

Nope - the problem you have, Alan, is that your desperate need for this 'freedom' (or indeed anything else) to come in a god-shaped package has overwhelmed you to the extent that you simply can't process anything that doesn't allow for 'god'.

[Alan Burns]

Oh dear;  all this illustrates is that you didn't bother to actually read the previous post, or if you did read it, you didn't understand it. I wasn't talking about learned life skills I was reflecting on the origins of subconscious perception, something we all have minds pre-wired for.  Is this why we keep going round in circles, because you don't actually engage with what is written so it never sinks in. So much easier to trot out one of your stock mantras rather than engage brain and break new ground. 

Sorry, but your previous post clearly indicated that a batsman can swing his bat without consciously thinking about how he does it.  I was just pointing out that this skill is learnt, not inherited as you suggested.  And in learning it he needs to consciously think about how he swings, so your example of the batsman's swing does not back up any of your theory.

[Alan Burns]

The only "parameter" I am using is logic. Are you saying that you think the "power of human will" is not subject to logic?

Or, if you've thought about it (which I frankly doubt), can you now answer the question of how it makes choices that are not entirely due to pre-existing reasons ("predetermined") without introducing something that isn't due to any reasons (randomness) - that is without meaningless phrases that just avoid the issue?

Or is it just that you haven't really thought about the problem at all and this is just the equivalent of "you're wrong, my god's magic, so there!"

You presume to know that a spiritual soul works under the same mechanistic cause and effect rules as material objects.  You are wrong, because I have the conscious freedom to say you are wrong.

[wigginhall]

But a lot of success in sport depends on hand/eye coordination, or foot/eye.   If you doubt this, find someone who isn't very good at football or cricket, and train them.   They can improve a bit, but they will not become another Messi.  This suggests that these skills are innate, and not thought through.   In fact, one of the dangers in sport is over-thinking.

[Alan Burns]

Nope - the problem you have, Alan, is that your desperate need for this 'freedom' (or indeed anything else) to come in a god-shaped package has overwhelmed you to the extent that you simply can't process anything that doesn't allow for 'god'.

My freedom is real, Gordon.  I am not constrained by the deterministic control of physical cause and effect over which there can be no control.  Neither are you.

[Alan Burns]

But a lot of success in sport depends on hand/eye coordination, or foot/eye.   If you doubt this, find someone who isn't very good at football or cricket, and train them.   They can improve a bit, but they will not become another Messi.  This suggests that these skills are innate, and not thought through.   In fact, one of the dangers in sport is over-thinking.

But you still have to learn those skills

[Stranger]

You presume to know that a spiritual soul works under the same mechanistic cause and effect rules as material objects.

Untrue. I have assumed nothing about the way it works just that every aspect of choice making (however it's carried out) must be for some reason or not for some reason. You can't get out of that without denying the logic of it - which you are clearly unable to do.

You are wrong, because I have the conscious freedom to say you are wrong.

Non sequitur. Once again you are doing the direct equivalent of lying. You are trying to dishonestly co-opt our experience as evidence of your own impossible nonsense version of 'freedom'. Everybody's explanation explains the experience we have - that's what they are all for.

[Stranger]

My freedom is real, Gordon.

Yes it is - but it is not what you call 'freedom', which is impossible, contradictory, wouldn't work, and wouldn't be freedom at all, even if it did.

I am not constrained by the deterministic control of physical cause and effect over which there can be no control.  Neither are you.

Baseless assertion.

[torridon]

Sorry, but your previous post clearly indicated that a batsman can swing his bat without consciously thinking about how he does it.  I was just pointing out that this skill is learnt, not inherited as you suggested.  And in learning it he needs to consciously think about how he swings, so your example of the batsman's swing does not back up any of your theory.

So, still not reading the post then.  I wasn't writing about skills, learned or otherwise.  I was writing about the origins and purpose of subconscious perception.  It is ignorant of you to respond in debates without engaging in any meaningful way with what has been written.

[wigginhall]

But you still have to learn those skills

Which ones?  Hand or foot/eye coordination is not learned.  Coaches can spot a good footballer when he is about 7, or in fact, before.  Some kids have it, and a lot don't.

[Gordon]

My freedom is real, Gordon.

You certainly have, and will experience, a degree of freedom, but it isn't 'freedom' as you portray it.
 

I am not constrained by the deterministic control of physical cause and effect over which there can be no control.  Neither are you.

Of course you are: we both are, and to pretend otherwise is silly.

[ippy]

Sorry, but your previous post clearly indicated that a batsman can swing his bat without consciously thinking about how he does it.  I was just pointing out that this skill is learnt, not inherited as you suggested.  And in learning it he needs to consciously think about how he swings, so your example of the batsman's swing does not back up any of your theory.

So none of the skill of people like, for instance, Louis Hamilton's skill is attributable to hereditary?

By chance his parents met, happened to have a child between them and then by chance this particular mix of genes just happened to produce Louis's particular brain/physical coordination and again by chance this particular mix just happened to combine giving Louis that extra compatibility needed that pushed him forward and put him among the leaders of formula 1 drivers.

There's plenty of us that would never acquire the skill necessary to win at formula 1 driving, no matter how much practice was performed.

It's well known that skilled people like Louis as well as in the above have various aspects of their ability for outperforming others where there's no evidence of detectable forethought by the skilled person involved although these skills are certainly evidentially there to be seen in front of your eyes and certainly there's no evidence available for the potty idea of the little man sitting inside the heads of these people guiding their skills.   

Commiserations to you Alan, ippy.