Searching for GOD...

[Outrider]

All of which just convinces me further that you have conscious control over what you choose to write.

All of which suggests that you've somehow failed to understand what was said, but I'm not sure I can make it any simpler.  We can show that people's thoughts happen to the, before they become aware of them.  That belies the idea of conscious control over them.

Thoughts are either the direct result of prior events (deterministic) in which case they are not free, or they are independent of what went before (random) and therefore not will.  Free will is an oxymoron.

If you can read and understand that, but still believe that we have free will, it has to show that you can't consciously control your will - if you understand it, you have no recourse to cleave to your free will argument.

O.

[Sriram]

All of which suggests that you've somehow failed to understand what was said, but I'm not sure I can make it any simpler.  We can show that people's thoughts happen to the, before they become aware of them.  That belies the idea of conscious control over them.

Thoughts are either the direct result of prior events (deterministic) in which case they are not free, or they are independent of what went before (random) and therefore not will.  Free will is an oxymoron.

If you can read and understand that, but still believe that we have free will, it has to show that you can't consciously control your will - if you understand it, you have no recourse to cleave to your free will argument.

O.

But this kind of rigid predeterminism is not different from the ancient 'everything is written' philosophy. 

We come back to the question of what randomness is.  There is nothing truly random.  It is just something we are unable to understand at present. Maybe such random factors are just the Unconscious mind intervening in our affairs. 

Just as a Virtual Reality game has its predetermined aspects but also has those windows where 'free will' can be employed, similarly life also can be predetermined but also have enough room for free will. 

[Outrider]

But this kind of rigid predeterminism is not different from the ancient 'everything is written' philosophy.

In what sense?  It doesn't require (or preclude, admittedly) a 'writer' of that destiny, but it does suggest that the ultimate outcome of any sequence of events is unalterable, yes. 

We come back to the question of what randomness is.  There is nothing truly random.  It is just something we are unable to understand at present.

That's my personal intuition, as well, but I try to differentiate between what I feel is the case and what I can demonstrate.  In the logical case for free will, thoughts are either predicated on prior events or they are not - if they are not, then they're random.

Maybe such random factors are just the Unconscious mind intervening in our affairs.

Individual events within that 'unconscious mind' however, are either determined or random - our unconscious mind is a conglomerate of those options.

Just as a Virtual Reality game has its predetermined aspects but also has those windows where 'free will' can be employed, similarly life also can be predetermined but also have enough room for free will.

Not really - a game has rules,  just as our thinking does.  The fact the game could respond to, say, four or five different inputs at a given point doesn't change whether or not we have the capacity to actually choose between them or whether in that time, in that place, in that frame of mind and that physical state, there is no way for us to do other than what we will.

O.

[Sriram]

We do not know what the Unconscious mind is.  Our individual unconscious mind could be connected to a much larger Common Consciousness .....which generates these so called 'random' events.  In this sense, it probably coordinates and unifies all life forms within the ecosystem. 

[Outrider]

We do not know what the Unconscious mind is.  Our individual unconscious mind could be connected to a much larger Common Consciousness .....which generates these so called 'random' events.  In this sense, it probably coordinates and unifies all life forms within the ecosystem.

It could be a cosmic chicken dropping inspirational spiritual feathers which interact with the spiritual antennae in our feet, but in the absence of any evidence for such a thing, is there a remit to inlud it in our conception.

We know that thinking involves neural activity.  We can chart neural activity, and demonstrate with a high degree of confidence how it responds in an entirely deterministic way to a  combination of body hormones, sensory inputs and neurological feedback.  We detect no obvious activity with unexplained instigation.  We can chart with a growing degree of confidence how specific pieces of neural activity relate to conscious thought, and how that lags behind the associated unconscious activity that leads to it.

We don't have a complete picture of very much, but we can have a reasonable degree of certainty that we know the mechanisms of thought and thinking, we know the range of inputs and outputs, we know the sequence.  There is no place in there were any unexplained phenomena need extra-physical explanations or justifications.

You say that we don't know what the unconscious mind is, but we have a pretty good idea - it's a part of the brain that operates prior to the feedback elements that represent conscious awareness, and as such is not mechanically any different to any other part of the mind.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

We do not know what the Unconscious mind is.  Our individual unconscious mind could be connected to a much larger Common Consciousness .....which generates these so called 'random' events.  In this sense, it probably coordinates and unifies all life forms within the ecosystem.

Anything could be. Your (often repeated) mistake is to elide a "could be" into an "is" with no logical path from the former to the latter.

Tooth fairies could leave money under children's pillows and hypnotise their parents into thinking they do it. So?   

[ippy]

Sriram,

Anything could be. Your (often repeated) mistake is to elide a "could be" into an "is" with no logical path from the former to the latter.

Tooth fairies could leave money under children's pillows and hypnotise their parents into thinking they do it. So?

You've hit the nail full square on the head Blue, a good one.

Regards, ippy.

[Sriram]

It could be a cosmic chicken dropping inspirational spiritual feathers which interact with the spiritual antennae in our feet, but in the absence of any evidence for such a thing, is there a remit to inlud it in our conception.

We know that thinking involves neural activity.  We can chart neural activity, and demonstrate with a high degree of confidence how it responds in an entirely deterministic way to a  combination of body hormones, sensory inputs and neurological feedback.  We detect no obvious activity with unexplained instigation.  We can chart with a growing degree of confidence how specific pieces of neural activity relate to conscious thought, and how that lags behind the associated unconscious activity that leads to it.

We don't have a complete picture of very much, but we can have a reasonable degree of certainty that we know the mechanisms of thought and thinking, we know the range of inputs and outputs, we know the sequence.  There is no place in there were any unexplained phenomena need extra-physical explanations or justifications.

You say that we don't know what the unconscious mind is, but we have a pretty good idea - it's a part of the brain that operates prior to the feedback elements that represent conscious awareness, and as such is not mechanically any different to any other part of the mind.

O.

Well....the fact that the ecosystem functions as one unit is enough reason to hypothesize that there is some sort of a common consciousness. In fact, even what is generally claimed as 'Natural Selection' is a reason to suspect some sort of a coordinating intelligence. Attributing everything to random and chance factors is such a...... cop out! 

If we can hypothesize that a strange thing such as Dark Matter exists everywhere, due to some mathematically calculated mass of all matter in the universe.....I don't see why a common consciousness is so improbable and 'out of this world'!!!   

[Stranger]

Well....the fact that the ecosystem functions as one unit is enough reason to hypothesize that there is some sort of a common consciousness.

In what way do you think it functions as one unit (other than everything being interdependent, which is sort of inevitable) and how is that a reason for this hypothesis? How could we test this hypothesis (if it's not testable, it's not a hypothesis)?

In fact, even what is generally claimed as 'Natural Selection' is a reason to suspect some sort of a coordinating intelligence. Attributing everything to random and chance factors is such a...... cop out! 

Natural selection is a real process that is both inevitable, given the nature of life, and is directly observable. Only part of it is 'random' (with respect to the process itself). It provides no basis whatsoever to suspect a coordinating intelligence - quite the opposite.

If we can hypothesize that a strange thing such as Dark Matter exists everywhere, due to some mathematically calculated mass of all matter in the universe.....I don't see why a common consciousness is so improbable and 'out of this world'!!!   

There is solid evidence for dark matter (not just the "mathematically calculated mass of all matter in the universe") and it really isn't all that strange. There is no evidence at all (that I've seen) for "common consciousness".

You really would do well to learn at least the basics about things you intend talking about - in this case natural selection and dark matter. You keep on making the same mistakes about the same subjects over and over again. Why do you refuse to ever learn anything?

[Outrider]

Well....the fact that the ecosystem functions as one unit is enough reason to hypothesize that there is some sort of a common consciousness.

To exactly the same extent that a river maintaining a fixed depth is evidence of a 'common consciousness' - there are a range of feedback loops within natural systems, that the organisms within the ecosystem have evolved to supplement, that create that balance, but there is no evidence of, or need for, a common consciousness to explain it.

In fact, even what is generally claimed as 'Natural Selection' is a reason to suspect some sort of a coordinating intelligence.

If you think that, I don't think you understand 'natural selection'.  Shorter animals die out, leaving taller animals to reproduce leading to a gradual increase in the average height of a populace doesn't lead to the conclusion 'therefore there must be a hivemind'.

Attributing everything to random and chance factors is such a...... cop out!

A cop out of what?  How is making up possibilities for which there is no evidence because you don't like the answer 'natural selection of random variation within species' not a cop out?

If we can hypothesize that a strange thing such as Dark Matter exists everywhere, due to some mathematically calculated mass of all matter in the universe.....I don't see why a common consciousness is so improbable and 'out of this world'!!!

The answer is right there in your question.  We hypothesize dark matter (and dark energy) BECAUSE we have a disparity between what we can account for with our current understanding, and our mathematical calculations of how that should behave: our current model doesn't match up to the evidence, so we need to hypothesise what might account for the difference.  It is not impossible that there is a common consciousness, but that's not the benchmark that we're setting.  It's not enough for it not to be impossible, there has to be a reason to accept that it's likely or evidenced; there is no need for common consciousness to explain the available phenomena, no need to explain something that isn't currently accounted for in the models.

It may, at some point in the future, transpire that there always was a common consciousness and that someone will find a way to demonstrate it, but for now it's exactly as well evidenced as Cthulhu, Gandalf and Darth Vader, and so it's accepted as a reality to exactly the same extent.

O.

O.

[jeremyp]

Well....the fact that the ecosystem functions as one unit is enough reason to hypothesize that there is some sort of a common consciousness.

My computer functions as one unit. Does it have any sort of consciousness?

In fact, even what is generally claimed as 'Natural Selection' is a reason to suspect some sort of a coordinating intelligence. Attributing everything to random and chance factors is such a...... cop out! 

Since natural selection doesn't attribute everything to random and chance factors, that's a bullet dodged.

If we can hypothesize that a strange thing such as Dark Matter exists everywhere, due to some mathematically calculated mass of all matter in the universe.....I don't see why a common consciousness is so improbable and 'out of this world'!!!   

Because we can mathematically calculate the mass of all matter in the Universe based on physical law and observations. We can't do that with your hypothetical consciousness.

[ippy]

Well....the fact that the ecosystem functions as one unit is enough reason to hypothesize that there is some sort of a common consciousness. In fact, even what is generally claimed as 'Natural Selection' is a reason to suspect some sort of a coordinating intelligence. Attributing everything to random and chance factors is such a...... cop out! 

If we can hypothesize that a strange thing such as Dark Matter exists everywhere, due to some mathematically calculated mass of all matter in the universe.....I don't see why a common consciousness is so improbable and 'out of this world'!!!   

I was just wondering Sriram, how did your last palm reading go, was it good news?

Regards, ippy.   

[ekim]

All of which just convinces me further that you have conscious control over what you choose to write.

This might be of interest to you Alan:-

https://tinyurl.com/y4yx47f6

[ippy]

This might be of interest to you Alan:-

https://tinyurl.com/y4yx47f6

It'll be surprising for those that know Alan B personally when they see him with all of his internal organs hanging on the outside of his body after he has turned himself inside out again trying to insert his fantasy world god into your link subject, mind you he is used to doing this, I suppose it's the odd times that make life the most awkward for him assuming everything is where it should be on the even times?

I would imagine his nearest and dearest are used to seeing him with everything hanging on the outside from time to time by now? 

Regards, ippy.

[Alan Burns]

This might be of interest to you Alan:-

https://tinyurl.com/y4yx47f6

Thanks for this interesting article which throws substantial doubt concerning claims that our conscious choices are predetermined before we become consciously aware of them.
(and sourced from msn news with no religious bias)

[Alan Burns]

All of which suggests that you've somehow failed to understand what was said, but I'm not sure I can make it any simpler.  We can show that people's thoughts happen to the, before they become aware of them.  That belies the idea of conscious control over them.

Yet I have demonstrable freedom to consciously challenge the idea that our thoughts are entirely predetermined by natural physical activity in our brain cells.  The concept of nature challenging nature is truly bizarre.

Thoughts are either the direct result of prior events (deterministic) in which case they are not free, or they are independent of what went before (random) and therefore not will.  Free will is an oxymoron.

But you appear to deliberately ignore the third possibility of conscious awareness being a spiritual property, existing and acting in its own present, which is aware of the past, but not controlled by the past.

If you can read and understand that, but still believe that we have free will, it has to show that you can't consciously control your will - if you understand it, you have no recourse to cleave to your free will argument.

O.

My demonstrable ability to consciously challenge, deny, affirm, seek, deduce, believe, pray … etc provides all the evidence needed to confirm the reality of my freedom to guide my own thoughts.

[Stranger]

Thanks for this interesting article which throws substantial doubt concerning claims that our conscious choices are predetermined before we become consciously aware of them.
(and sourced from msn news with no religious bias)

It does nothing, however, to deal with the logical impossibility of choices being not entirely determined by what led to them, and not involving randomness. The point at which consciousness happens and the degree of its involvement are irrelevant to that.

Being not end entirely determined by what led up to a choice means that the choice involves randomness.

The concept of nature challenging nature is truly bizarre.

Why? It makes infinitely more sense than a logical impossibility.

But you appear to deliberately ignore the third possibility of conscious awareness being a spiritual property, existing and acting in its own present, which is aware of the past, but not controlled by the past.

It's not a third possibility, Alan, it's meaningless word salad.

My demonstrable ability to consciously challenge, deny, affirm, seek, deduce, believe, pray … etc provides all the evidence needed to confirm the reality of my freedom to guide my own thoughts.

Drivel.

[torridon]

Yet I have demonstrable freedom to consciously challenge the idea that our thoughts are entirely predetermined by natural physical activity in our brain cells... 

Any freedom you demonstrate is merely the absence of any external coercion that would otherwise have prevented you from challenging Outrider.  This does not demonstrate that your thoughts are free from any derivation, free from preconscious neural processing, or free from the principle of cause and effect.  Your thoughts are the consequence of whatever led to them and you've demonstrated nothing to suggest otherwise.

[Sebastian Toe]

Yet I have demonstrable freedom to consciously challenge the idea that our thoughts are entirely predetermined by natural physical activity in our brain cells.  The concept of nature challenging nature is truly bizarre.But you appear to deliberately ignore the third possibility of conscious awareness being a spiritual property, existing and acting in its own present, which is aware of the past, but not controlled by the past.My demonstrable ability to consciously challenge, deny, affirm, seek, deduce, believe, pray … etc provides all the evidence needed to confirm the reality of my freedom to guide my own thoughts.

All of your reply, adequately showing the results of a purely biological brain, working within deterministic principles.
No soul required.

[Roses]

All of your reply, adequately showing the results of a purely biological brain, working within deterministic principles.
No soul required.

I agree with your post.

[Outrider]

Yet I have demonstrable freedom to consciously challenge the idea that our thoughts are entirely predetermined by natural physical activity in our brain cells.

No, you have the demonstrable sensation of freedom, but you don't demonstrably have actual freedom - you've not anywhere explained how you can be free and have it qualify as will, you've not in any way explained how this freedom circumvents the findings of the material science with regards to the order of sensation and activity in the brain.

But you appear to deliberately ignore the third possibility of conscious awareness being a spiritual property, existing and acting in its own present, which is aware of the past, but not controlled by the past.

Yes, I've ignored it, because you've not presented any evidence for me to review to lead me to think that 'spiritual' is a thing.  I can pull out mystic deterministic 'thoughton' particles that are defiantly and irrefutably deterministic particles that carry thinking, but unless I can in some way demonstrate a reason for anyone to accept them then they are just a claim without evidence, which can be dismissed without evidence.

My demonstrable ability to consciously challenge, deny, affirm, seek, deduce, believe, pray … etc provides all the evidence needed to confirm the reality of my freedom to guide my own thoughts.

It may provide you all the evidence you need, but I suspect that's because you aren't actually interested in the evidence.  Those are evidence of the how you feel, not how you actually are.

O.

[Enki]

In response to Outrider, who said in post 36450:

Thoughts are either the direct result of prior events (deterministic) in which case they are not free, or they are independent of what went before (random) and therefore not will.  Free will is an oxymoron.

Alan responded(in post 36465) with:

But you appear to deliberately ignore the third possibility of conscious awareness being a spiritual property, existing and acting in its own present, which is aware of the past, but not controlled by the past.

How is this a third way, Alan? I can understand completely Outrider's statement. It makes sense and is completely logical. The only other alternative I can think of is that our thoughts could be, to some extent, a mixture of both. However you suggest some sort of third way, but, and it's a big but, you don't bother to explain it. How does it work, Alan? It's no good simply repeating that there is this spiritual property and leaving it at that. That explains nothing. It's no good simply saying that it exists and acts in its own present. That simply says where it exists and acts. I want to know the part that you miss out. How does it come to its conclusions if they are neither deterministic nor random?

 

[Alan Burns]

How is this a third way, Alan? I can understand completely Outrider's statement. It makes sense and is completely logical.

Outrider could never have made such a statement without the consciously driven freedom to do so.  Can you not see the absurdity in the alternative scenario of it being entirely predetermined by uncontrollable physically predefined reactions in a material brain?

The only other alternative I can think of is that our thoughts could be, to some extent, a mixture of both.

If there is such a mixture, you would have to concede the existence of something capable of consciously driven interaction within the chains of physical cause and effect.

However you suggest some sort of third way, but, and it's a big but, you don't bother to explain it. How does it work, Alan?

I do not presume to know how the human soul works.  I just witness to the reality that the capabilities of the human mind human mind go far beyond anything that can be defined by material reactions alone.

It's no good simply repeating that there is this spiritual property and leaving it at that. That explains nothing. It's no good simply saying that it exists and acts in its own present. That simply says where it exists and acts. I want to know the part that you miss out. How does it come to its conclusions if they are neither deterministic nor random?

Our conclusions are determined by the mental processes of the human mind, but what drives these processes?  If they are entirely predetermined by physically controlled chains of material reactions, they cannot be regarded as mentally driven conclusions, just inevitable reactions.

[torridon]

Outrider could never have made such a statement without the consciously driven freedom to do so.  Can you not see the absurdity in the alternative scenario of it being entirely predetermined by uncontrollable physically predefined reactions in a material brain?

Can you not see the absurdity in the claim that mind states can be free from any formative influence or provenance without being random ?  Not just absurd, it's definitionally impossible.

[Stranger]

Outrider could never have made such a statement without the consciously driven freedom to do so.

And so the silly, empty mantras just go on and on and on and on. Never do you have the intellectual honesty and courage to face up to the impossible contradiction at the heart of what you call "freedom". Not being the result of chains of cause and effect means random. FFS face it, or at least try and argue with it (without using the other empty mantra about souls existing in some mythical "present" that you never try to define).

Can you not see the absurdity in the alternative scenario of it being entirely predetermined by uncontrollable physically predefined reactions in a material brain?

No, because it isn't in the least bit absurd. Quite unlike the dishonest way you describe it ("predetermined", "uncontrollable", "predefined") and your own self-contradictory view.