Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

It can't be my will unless it is determined by me - and I got to be me because of reasons.

No matter how much you dislike it and how much it threatens your faith, there is no alternative to this, other than randomness. If something isn't entirely determined by what led to it, then it must, in part, not be due to anything that led to it (random).

You contradict yourself.  You claim that your choice is entirely determined by past events and as you have no control of the past, you can't take personal responsibility for anything you do.  It is not your will, just an inevitable consequence beyond your control, as all past events would also be inevitable consequences.  There can be no "you" in this scenario. 

[torridon]

If you read my post correctly, you would recall that I said it would not be your will if you had no control over the events which determine such a choice.  Surely you would accept that you have control over whether or not you throw the punch, so if you choose to throw it it is your will, your choice.

The choice we end up making reflects the strongest of the competing desires at the moment.  I don't have control over what desires form in me or how strong they are and neither do you.  This is how choice is resolved.  If we have 'control' over such things then I could want things I don't want and believe things I don't believe.  This proposition is an absurdity.

[Gordon]

You contradict yourself.  You claim that your choice is entirely determined by past events and as you have no control of the past, you can't take personal responsibility for anything you do.  It is not your will, just an inevitable consequence beyond your control, as all past events would also be inevitable consequences.  There can be no "you" in this scenario.

Nobody has said that choices are 'entirely driven by past events', which sounds like another of your straw men, because as has also been pointed out to you, they are also driven by what is going on inside your head, such as subconscious biases and traits that may influence your thinking about, say, the future consequences of how you might act. This is where mental defence mechanisms, as described by Freud (and his daughter), can also play a part, such as rationalisation, and I'd imagine most of us have encountered people who seem to be thinking in one of the ways described in the link below, and who are blissfully unaware that perhaps their thinking isn't quite as reasoned as they imagine it to be, which of course all of us are prone to at times.

https://psychcentral.com/lib/15-common-defense-mechanisms/

[Stranger]

You contradict yourself.  You claim that your choice is entirely determined by past events and as you have no control of the past...

No I didn't contradict myself. Past events (nature, nurture, and experience) have produced a person who is able to think and make choices. I cannot be free from being me, that is nonsensical - that's your triangular circle again.

...you can't take personal responsibility for anything you do.  It is not your will, just an inevitable consequence beyond your control, as all past events would also be inevitable consequences.  There can be no "you" in this scenario.

The reverse is true. There can't be a "you" unless it got there somehow and has certain characteristics that means it makes different choices from other people. You have no control over who you are; you can't want what you don't want, you can't hate what you love, or be free from being you in any way at all - and "you" is the product of the past.

There can't be a "you" that magically floats "free" of everything that led to it, without it being, at least partly, due to nothing at all (random).

[Alan Burns]

No I didn't contradict myself. Past events (nature, nurture, and experience) have produced a person who is able to think and make choices. I cannot be free from being me, that is nonsensical - that's your triangular circle again.

The reverse is true. There can't be a "you" unless it got there somehow and has certain characteristics that means it makes different choices from other people. You have no control over who you are; you can't want what you don't want, you can't hate what you love, or be free from being you in any way at all - and "you" is the product of the past.

There can't be a "you" that magically floats "free" of everything that led to it, without it being, at least partly, due to nothing at all (random).

In the purely materialistic scenario, labels such as choice, free, control, hate, love are entirely meaningless, because there can be no such thing as control, freedom, choice or conscious love or hate if every event is entirely determined by physical reactions to previous events.  The only determining factor is the law of physics, over which no one has control.  The "you" in all this would be just another meaningless label.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

In the purely materialistic scenario, labels such as choice, free, control, hate, love are entirely meaningless, because there can be no such thing as control, freedom, choice or conscious love or hate if every event is entirely determined by physical reactions to previous events.  The only determining factor is the law of physics, over which no one has control.  The "you" in all this would be just another meaningless label.

Wrongness on an epic scale.

First they’re not entirely meaningless in a deterministic paradigm at all. They’re as meaningful as people feel them to be, and there’s no need for magical and logically impossible thinking for that to be the case.

Second, even if you were right about that though all you’d be trying (yet again) would be a fallacy called the argumentum ad consequentiam. Meaninglessness (in your opinion) might disappoint your solipsism, but it would tell you nothing whatever about whether or not the universe is deterministic in character.

Third, as Stranger never tires of tell you, you big problem (admittedly from a crowded field of problems you have) is that your failure in reasoning has nothing to do with materialism vs non-materialism. You problem is one of logic – the deterministic vs random binary. Invoking magic to get you off that hook (which is what you do when you claim “soul”, just as I would if I claimed Aladdin’s genie) is fundamentally bad thinking. 

As I have no expectation that you’ll ever face up to the problems you give yourself though, if you insist on writing a book full of the same mistakes can I offer you a nice bottle of green ink to get you started?   

[Outrider]

In the purely materialistic scenario, labels such as choice, free, control, hate, love are entirely meaningless, because there can be no such thing as control, freedom, choice or conscious love or hate if every event is entirely determined by physical reactions to previous events.

Not meaningless, but to be interpreted given the context.

The only determining factor is the law of physics, over which no one has control.  The "you" in all this would be just another meaningless label.

If you want to interpret it in a nihilistic fashion, perhaps, yes.  You don't like that interpretation, which is understandable - not liking it, though, is not an argument against it.

O.

[Stranger]

In the purely materialistic scenario, labels such as choice, free, control, hate, love are entirely meaningless, because there can be no such thing as control, freedom, choice or conscious love or hate if every event is entirely determined by physical reactions to previous events.  The only determining factor is the law of physics, over which no one has control.  The "you" in all this would be just another meaningless label.

-sigh-

So, rather than actually address the logic, you've once again posted thought-free value judgements about what you regard as meaningful.

In fact it is your impossible triangular circle that is incompatible with any sort of meaning - if only because it doesn't make any sense from the get-go. The only way that things like choice, freedom, hate, and love can exist is as attributes of a functioning mind that has a functioning personality.

You didn't choose your personality, it has come about over the course of your lifetime and is the result (in some combination) of nature, nurture and experience. Even if we posit a soul, that doesn't change. It still had to have some initial state (when your god magicked it into existence) then have been shaped by nurture and experience.

Non-material souls make not a jot of difference to all of this because you still became the person you are either entirely because of reasons or not entirely because of reasons (which means some of it was for no reasons, that is, random). You make the choices you make because of the person you are applied to the situation, and if any part of the choice is not entirely due to those reasons, then it must, again to some extent, be for no reasons and therefore random.

You not liking that doesn't change the inescapable logic of the matter. Neither does repeating your logic-free mantras about the soul making choices in some mythical present or how the logic is "short-sighted" or any of the others that you never seem to tire of.

[Alan Burns]

-sigh-

So, rather than actually address the logic, you've once again posted thought-free value judgements about what you regard as meaningful.

In fact it is your impossible triangular circle that is incompatible with any sort of meaning - if only because it doesn't make any sense from the get-go. The only way that things like choice, freedom, hate, and love can exist is as attributes of a functioning mind that has a functioning personality.

You didn't choose your personality, it has come about over the course of your lifetime and is the result (in some combination) of nature, nurture and experience. Even if we posit a soul, that doesn't change. It still had to have some initial state (when your god magicked it into existence) then have been shaped by nurture and experience.

Non-material souls make not a jot of difference to all of this because you still became the person you are either entirely because of reasons or not entirely because of reasons (which means some of it was for no reasons, that is, random). You make the choices you make because of the person you are applied to the situation, and if any part of the choice is not entirely due to those reasons, then it must, again to some extent, be for no reasons and therefore random.

You not liking that doesn't change the inescapable logic of the matter. Neither does repeating your logic-free mantras about the soul making choices in some mythical present or how the logic is "short-sighted" or any of the others that you never seem to tire of.

Sorry, but this flawed, short sighted logic cannot support any meaningful attributes to what you term a "functioning personality".  All you have is endless chains of inevitable, uncontrollable reactions functioning according to the laws of physics, where event will be entirely predefined by previous events.  There can be no meaningful personal attributes in such a scenario.

Yet you have the ability to consciously identify and contemplate your own personal attributes and those in other people - an ability which is evidence for the freedom you consistently deny exists.

[Outrider]

Sorry, but this flawed, short sighted logic cannot support any meaningful attributes to what you term a "functioning personality".

... because?

All you have is endless chains of inevitable, uncontrollable reactions functioning according to the laws of physics, where event will be entirely predefined by previous events.

'All' this has is that... which is more than your explanation has.  It has evidence.

There can be no personal attributes in such a scenario.

Why not?  Have we not identified your personal trait of cleaving to personal faith in the absence logical support for your position?

Yet you have the ability to consciously identify and contemplate your own personal attributes and those in other people - an ability which is evidence for the freedom you consistently deny exists.

We have that, yes, but you've yet to establish how it is that you conclude that is any way evidence for a freedom that you've yet to establish is logically possible in the first place.

O.

[Stranger]

Sorry, but this flawed, short sighted logic...

Right on cue - did you even bother to read, let alone think about what I said? In what way exactly is the logic flawed or short-sighted?

...cannot support any meaningful attributes to what you term a "functioning personality".  All you have is endless chains of inevitable, uncontrollable reactions functioning according to the laws of physics, where event will be entirely predefined by previous events.  There can be no personal attributes in such a scenario.

This is just a baseless assertion. Where is your reasoning? Never mind not supporting it, in what way do you think it's even possible  to have any sort of personality that isn't the result of cause and effect?

Yet you have the ability to consciously identify and contemplate your own personal attributes and those in other people - an ability which is evidence for the freedom you consistently deny exists.

Seriously Alan, this has been covered so, so many times. What's the matter? Why just the silly, empty assertion, time after time after time? If you can follow the reasoning, why not address it? If you can't, why not ask for clarification or even admit it? If you have more than just an assertion, why not explain yourself?

In what way is this ability incompatible with what I've said? In what way can it possibly support your self-contradictory notion of "freedom"?

Try thinking a bit before your next post (and no, an idiotic assertion that asking you to think is asking you to do something that is incompatible with what I've said, doesn't count as thinking).

[wigginhall]

Sealioning is quite an art, and in Alan we have a maestro.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

Sealioning is quite an art, and in Alan we have a maestro.

I hadn't heard that term before. Perfect description.

[torridon]

Sorry, but this flawed, short sighted logic cannot support any meaningful attributes to what you term a "functioning personality".  All you have is endless chains of inevitable, uncontrollable reactions functioning according to the laws of physics, where event will be entirely predefined by previous events.  There can be no meaningful personal attributes in such a scenario.

Without determinism there would be no meaning in life. I put a chunk of chocolate in my mouth; I like the sensation.  In other words the taste of chocolate has pleasing emotional content; this has nothing to do with freedom.  Imagine a world where chocolate meeting taste buds did not produce consistent outcomes.  In an indeterministic world chocolate might taste of fish one day and toilet cleaner the next day.  We can only find meaning in life because of those 'chains of inevitable, uncontrollable reactions' that seem to be the bane of your life.

[Alan Burns]

Right on cue - did you even bother to read, let alone think about what I said? In what way exactly is the logic flawed or short-sighted?

It completely fails to fit with the reality in which we exist.

This is just a baseless assertion. Where is your reasoning? Never mind not supporting it, in what way do you think it's even possible  to have any sort of personality that isn't the result of cause and effect?

Your ability to consciously recognise and identify personal traits does not fit in with a "personality" entirely predetermined by endless uncontrollable chains of physical reactions.

Seriously Alan, this has been covered so, so many times. What's the matter? Why just the silly, empty assertion, time after time after time? If you can follow the reasoning, why not address it? If you can't, why not ask for clarification or even admit it? If you have more than just an assertion, why not explain yourself?

What can possibly be the defining cause of such repetitive assertions if my personality comprises nothing but consequences to chains of predefined material reactions?  Are you arguing with something defined solely by the laws of physics, or is there something else involved?  If so, what?

In what way is this ability incompatible with what I've said? In what way can it possibly support your self-contradictory notion of "freedom"?

My freedom to think and consciously compose this reply is totally incompatible with the scenario in which there is no control other than the laws of physics.

Try thinking a bit before your next post (and no, an idiotic assertion that asking you to think is asking you to do something that is incompatible with what I've said, doesn't count as thinking).

How could I possibly try thinking of anything if all my thoughts emerge from physically predetermined material reactions?

[Alan Burns]

Without determinism there would be no meaning in life. I put a chunk of chocolate in my mouth; I like the sensation.  In other words the taste of chocolate has pleasing emotional content; this has nothing to do with freedom.  Imagine a world where chocolate meeting taste buds did not produce consistent outcomes.  In an indeterministic world chocolate might taste of fish one day and toilet cleaner the next day.  We can only find meaning in life because of those 'chains of inevitable, uncontrollable reactions' that seem to be the bane of your life.

We have no conscious freedom to control the taste of chocolate, but we do have the freedom to resist eating it. 

[Gordon]

We have no conscious freedom to control the taste of chocolate, but we do have the freedom to resist eating it. 

That doesn't help you, Alan, since taste is a subjective experience and you have just conceded that you have no control over how chocolate tastes to you: so if you inherently dislike it you can't just decide to like it.

Bit of an own goal you scored there, Alan.

[Stranger]

It completely fails to fit with the reality in which we exist.

Baseless assertion. In what way? Where is your reasoning?

Your ability to consciously recognise and identify personal traits does not fit in with a "personality" entirely predetermined by endless uncontrollable chains of physically predetermined reactions.

Baseless assertion. In what way? Where is your reasoning? And you ignored my question.

What can possibly be the defining cause of such repetitive assertions if my personality comprises nothing but consequences to chains of predefined material reactions?

Back to the mindless mantras. 

What's a "defining cause"? How can a personality even exist if it isn't the result of cause and effect?

Are you arguing with something defined solely by the laws of physics, or is there something else involved?  If so, what?

The laws of physics are totally irrelevant.

My freedom to think and consciously compose this reply is totally incompatible with the scenario in which there is no control other than the laws of physics.

Baseless assertion. In what way? Where is your reasoning?

How could I possibly try thinking of anything if all my thoughts emerge from physically predetermined material reactions?

When you try to do something, is it because of reasons, or for no reason?

Why do you think mindless repetition is going to help your cause?

[Alan Burns]

That doesn't help you, Alan, since taste is a subjective experience and you have just conceded that you have no control over how chocolate tastes to you: so if you inherently dislike it you can't just decide to like it.

Bit of an own goal you scored there, Alan.

No
I just explained that we have the freedom to choose whether or not to eat it - not in how it tastes.  This is human freewill - freedom to consciously choose.

[Alan Burns]

The laws of physics are totally irrelevant.

They are totally relevant, because we have no control over how these laws operate on material elements, yet we do have control over what we choose do, think or say.

Such control would be entirely dictated by the laws of physics in an entirely materialist scenario - so if your logic is correct, our conversations involve one set of physical reactions arguing against another set of physical reactions.  Does this make sense to you?

[torridon]

They are totally relevant, because we have no control over how these laws operate on material elements, yet we do have control over what we choose do, think or say.

Such control would be entirely dictated by the laws of physics in an entirely materialist scenario - so if your logic is correct, our conversations involve one set of physical reactions arguing against another set of physical reactions.  Does this make sense to you?

No, because will itself is an emergent phenomenon ultimately deriving from the 'laws of physics'.  So although we feel free in choosing, those feelings and those choices are consistent with and a consequence of underlying natural law.  Will is not a fundamental force of nature, it is an emergent phenomenon of mind.

[torridon]

We have no conscious freedom to control the taste of chocolate, but we do have the freedom to resist eating it. 

You cannot control the influences that factor into a choice of whether to eat it or not though.

There may be many reasons to not indulge - it might put me off my meal that will be on the table in 10 minutes; I might be on a diet or worrying about my blood sugar; I might suspect my partner of wanting to kill me by injecting irrestible chocolate bars with cyanide.

So, all things considered, it might be that my preference on this occasion is to resist eating it.  If that turns out to be my preference, how could I be 'free' of the preference ? How would that work ?

[Outrider]

No
I just explained that we have the freedom to choose whether or not to eat it - not in how it tastes.  This is human freewill - freedom to consciously choose.

You claimed we have the freedom, you didn't:
a) demonstrate it
b) demonstrate how the science to which you've previously been referred as to how decision making works is wrong, or
c) explain how this fits into a logical framework in which the concept of 'free will' makes any sense whatsoever.

O.

[Gordon]

No
I just explained that we have the freedom to choose whether or not to eat it - not in how it tastes.  This is human freewill - freedom to consciously choose.

Nope - you are trying to jump over the step you are finding awkward to navigate: if, as you said, you have no control over how chocolate tastes to you then that is an example of a factor you have no conscious control over that will determine how likely you are to eat chocolate.

So, if you are someone who finds the taste of chocolate to be unpleasant you can indeed force yourself (consciously choose) to eat some but you can't change your inherent distaste of it, so that unless you have masochistic food tendencies or want to prove a pointless point the usual state of affairs is that your inherent distaste of chocolate (or in my case mayonnaise and similar noxious substances) will determine how likely you are to eat chocolate.

That you can force yourself to eat chocolate isn't the same thing as forcing yourself to like chocolate when you intrinsically don't, since as you conceded you can't control how chocolate tastes to you: which is a example of Schopenhauer's point that you can do what you will (force yourself to eat what you dislike), but you can't will what you will (as in actually decide to like what you essentially dislike).   

[Stranger]

Wow, Alan, all those requests to back up your "reasoning" and you just pick out this bit which has been explained to you countless times before. What do you think the point is of just posting the same nonsense over and over? Why won't you ever engage with the answers you're given?

They are totally relevant, because we have no control over how these laws operate on material elements, yet we do have control over what we choose do, think or say.

Yes, and the processes that underlie who you are, what you will, and how you exercise control, are either operating deterministically or not (and therefore involve randomness). The laws of physics don't matter because that is a logical constraint, not one that is a consequence of physics.

Such control would be entirely dictated by the laws of physics in an entirely materialist scenario - so if your logic is correct, our conversations involve one set of physical reactions arguing against another set of physical reactions.  Does this make sense to you?

Well it makes a great deal more sense than your absurd self-contradictory nonsense, yes.

But it really doesn't have anything to do with physics or a "materialist scenario". There is no logical alternative. Either our two minds are ultimately operating as deterministic systems (physical or otherwise) or they aren't, and if they aren't, then we have some element of randomness involved. Of course, that doesn't mean that the conversation doesn't involve conscious thought, consideration, and purposeful actions - there is no conflict between the two descriptions as you continually try to claim.