Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

My will is simply me.  It is what I do - consciously think, choose, communicate.  I am not just an inevitable end result of physical chains of reactions.  I an a conscious entity with a will of my own.

How could I possibly declare this (or assert it) without a will of my own?

it's not that you don't have a will; it is the case that your will must derive from something. If it has no derivation then your own will is a random phenomenon with no meaning.  If you feel a desire to respond to this post, then it is this your reading of my post that results in your desire to respond. Nothing comes out of the blue.

[Outrider]

My will is simply me.  It is what I do - consciously think, choose, communicate.

None of those are incompatible with a deterministic explanation.

I am not just an inevitable end result of physical chains of reactions.  I an a conscious entity with a will of my own.

Again, not incompatible with the understanding that brain activity is an inevitable result of prior conditions.

How could I possibly declare this (or assert it) without a will of my own?

Because when the conditions in your brain result in that output, what can you do but follow along?

O.

[Stranger]

My will is simply me.  It is what I do - consciously think, choose, communicate.

Nobody is arguing that you don't have a will. Why can't you actually pay some attention and address what is actually being said instead of what you imagine people are saying?

I am not just an inevitable end result of physical chains of reactions.

So you keep on asserting - without the slightest hint of logic or evidence to back it up (and yet again misrepresenting to the "problem" as being about the physical world).

I an a conscious entity with a will of my own.

How could I possibly declare this (or assert it) without a will of my own?

Again - nobody is denying this. What is missing is any hint from you as to why that cannot also be the "inevitable end result of chains of reactions".

Neither have you addressed the basic logical problem that to the extent your will may not be the "inevitable end result of chains of reactions", it must be random.

This has been explained to you countless times by many people, yet you never engage with what is said, you just endlessly repeat the same nonsense over and over again as if you aren't even reading the responses.

Are you trying to look stupid?

[Alan Burns]

Are you trying to look stupid?

Surely the stupidity lies in trying to accuse me of numerous acts of deliberation (assertions, ignoring posts, lies … etc) yet telling me that whatever I do has already been determined before I do it.

Can you ask yourself what is it that you are accusing?
Is it the internal neurological wiring of my brain?

[Stranger]

Surely the stupidity lies in trying to accuse me of numerous acts of deliberation (assertions, ignoring posts, lies … etc)...

Oh for fuck's sake - how many times do you need this explaining?

Nobody is denying your ability to think and act.

...yet telling me that whatever I do has already been determined before I do it.

This is again a misrepresentation and shows again that you're not paying attention. The way you express it here implies that you are not determining what to do - you are. It's just that you do things for reasons, not randomly. The logic has been put to you countless times and yet you continue to run away from it and deploy obvious evasion tactics like this, rather than actually address it.

It's obvious that you are doing this for reasons - probably that you dare not allow yourself to think about it properly because it would threaten your faith.

[Alan Burns]

Oh for fuck's sake - how many times do you need this explaining?

Nobody is denying your ability to think and act.

This is again a misrepresentation and shows again that you're not paying attention. The way you express it here implies that you are not determining what to do - you are. It's just that you do things for reasons, not randomly. The logic has been put to you countless times and yet you continue to run away from it and deploy obvious evasion tactics like this, rather than actually address it.

It's obvious that you are doing this for reasons - probably that you dare not allow yourself to think about it properly because it would threaten your faith.

But according to you, the reason for any event is determined by past events.  I have no control over past events, so the conclusion must be that I have no control - full stop.

So I ask again, what precisely is the source to which your accusations apply?

[Stranger]

But according to you, the reason for any event is determined by past events.  I have no control over past events, so the conclusion must be that I have no control - full stop.

So I ask again, what precisely is the source to which your accusations apply?

There is nothing about being a deterministic system that prevents you from having control (unless you dishonesty try to redefine the word as you have done before).

This "question" has been asked and answered countless times before. It's a very obvious evasion tactic. You are neither addressing the arguments against you nor making a logical or evidential case for your claims.

Even if you don't consciously recognise it, it seems blindingly obvious to me that you are too scared to address the actual issue.

[Alan Burns]

There is nothing about being a deterministic system that prevents you from having control (unless you dishonesty try to redefine the word as you have done before).

This "question" has been asked and answered countless times before. It's a very obvious evasion tactic. You are neither addressing the arguments against you nor making a logical or evidential case for your claims.

Even if you don't consciously recognise it, it seems blindingly obvious to me that you are too scared to address the actual issue.

The actual issue is that I am being accused of dishonesty and evasion, but I am also being told that everything I do is determined by the past, so as I am not capable of time travel, I can't possibly have any control over the past events which determine my actions.

So I have to ask again - what precisely is being held responsible for my apparent dishonesty and evasion?

[Stranger]

The actual issue is that I am being accused of dishonesty and evasion, but I am also being told that everything I do is determined by the past, so as I am not capable of time travel, I can't possibly have any control over the past events which determine my actions.

So I have to ask again - what precisely is being held responsible for my apparent dishonesty and evasion?

You are - and you're still running scared.

Nobody is claiming that your answer to this post will not be determined by how you think about it and how you decide to act. You will have that choice, and you'll either make it entirely because of reasons (your abilities, personality, inclinations at the time, and so on) or, if not, some part of it will be for no reason (random).

So, how about actually trying to make a sound case for your claims or trying to address the contradiction that has been pointed out to you about them, rather than continuing to try to distract from your inability to do so?

[Alan Burns]

You are - and you're still running scared.

Nobody is claiming that your answer to this post will not be determined by how you think about it and how you decide to act. You will have that choice, and you'll either make it entirely because of reasons (your abilities, personality, inclinations at the time, and so on) or, if not, some part of it will be for no reason (random).

So, how about actually trying to make a sound case for your claims or trying to address the contradiction that has been pointed out to you about them, rather than continuing to try to distract from your inability to do so?

The contradiction lies with you.
Your take on determinism means that reasons and thoughts are just consequences of past events, over which I have no control.

[Stranger]

The contradiction lies with you.
Your take on determinism means that reasons and thoughts are just consequences of past events, over which I have no control.

You've asserted this before but never actually pointed out where the supposed contradiction lies.

You're effectively trying, yet again, to use an appeal to consequences fallacy. I'll ask yet again: did it never once occur to you to study logic before attempting to claim that you were using it?

And you're still running away from trying to make your case or address the actual contradiction that has been explicitly pointed out to you multiple times and you continue to ignore.

[Outrider]

The contradiction lies with you.

There isn't a contradiction.

Your take on determinism means that reasons and thoughts are just consequences of past events, over which I have no control.

Which has implications for what we think of as 'self'.  We are that process of realising and becoming aware of the thoughts that are the result of prior events, we are passengers watching the journey of our own live flow through us.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Just out of interest – if someone offered you say, £10m in exchange for you finally actually trying at least to engage with the arguments that falsify you would you take it and stop with the endless evasion?

Here for example:

…Your take on determinism means that reasons and thoughts are just consequences of past events, over which I have no control.

…is the same car crash in reasoning you intone over and over again. There’s no “just” about it, and determinism makes sense the moment you finally grasp that “I” is a vastly complex and integrated set of processes, not a helpless driver at the controls looking on as the vehicle runs away with him.

As others have noted too, if you want to claim logic and reason for support then you need to understand at least the rudimentals of how these things work if you don’t want to keep going wrong every time you make the attempt. So how about for another £10m you actually grasp the structure of logical fallacies to begin with and once you have promise never, ever to attempt them again?

Just think: £20m quid! You could but a lot of “holy” books and magic crackers with that!

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The fact is that I find your explanations totally unconvincing…

Just out of interest would you say that that’s because:

a). You’ve offered logically robust counter-arguments of your own that falsify the explanations I’ve give you; or

b). You’ve just ignored the explanations and instead offered only either unqualified assertions or logical fallacies so as never to have to deal openly and honestly with the reasoning that undoes you?

[torridon]

The actual issue is that I am being accused of dishonesty and evasion, but I am also being told that everything I do is determined by the past, so as I am not capable of time travel, I can't possibly have any control over the past events which determine my actions.

No one claims we can control the past, that is a straw man.

However, we are aware of the past, that is what memory is, so you should be capable by now of understanding the arguments around free will and therefore could be capable of engagement rather than indulging the evasion, sophistry and trolling as above that is your hallmark.  If your preference to date has been for trolling rather than genuine engagement that does not mean that appeals to your conscience are necessarily futile.  What we do now, affects your future state of mind.

[Gordon]

The actual issue is that I am being accused of dishonesty and evasion, but I am also being told that everything I do is determined by the past, so as I am not capable of time travel, I can't possibly have any control over the past events which determine my actions.

Don't be silly, Alan.

So I have to ask again - what precisely is being held responsible for my apparent dishonesty and evasion?

It's your sloppy thinking, Alan.

In your efforts to preserve your faith you've created a personal narrative ('souls' etc) that so obviously fails on several fronts, where your frantic efforts to maintain your faith betray your reasoning errors. As yet you can't see this, since you've protected yourself with various mental defence mechanisms (denial, rationalisation etc) leading to your routine use of fallacies.

In order to realise just how sloppy your thinking is you would have to countenance the possibility that you are wrong, and you aren't prepared to risk that yet. I'm at a loss to understand why you don't just drop all the 'souls' and 'free will' stuff and leave yourself with your personal faith, since it seems to me that few other Christians burden themselves with add-on ideas that don't stand scrutiny.       

[Alan Burns]

There isn't a contradiction.

Which has implications for what we think of as 'self'.  We are that process of realising and becoming aware of the thoughts that are the result of prior events, we are passengers watching the journey of our own live flow through us.

O.

Which reduces my conscious self to being a spectator of what has already been determined without my conscious intervention.  So can I ask Stranger once again what he considers to be the target of his accusarions of evasion, assertion and lies?

[Stranger]

Which reduces my conscious self to being a spectator of what has already been determined without my conscious intervention.

The exact role of consciousness in deliberations is actually unknown but that is simply irrelevant. What you are doing here is assuming your conclusion that there is a "you" that is separate from all the deterministic chains of cause and effect and therefore counts as a "spectator". You have give no reason to take that idea seriously.

So can I ask Stranger once again what he considers to be the target of his accusarions of evasion, assertion and lies?

Only if you want to look stupid and/or scared (again). It's still you (your mind) and it's still obvious evasion.

Clearly you'd much rather quibble about (what you regard as) the consequences of what is being argued than either attempt to make a reasoned case for your own position, or try to refute the contradiction that has been pointed out in it.

The fact is that your interpretation of words like "freedom" and "responsibility" have been shown to be impossible contradictions and bleating on about it doesn't affect the reasoning one jot. You have been totally unable to make a case that your impossible versions exist and totally unable to point out any flaw in the reasoning that leads to the conclusion that they are impossible.

[torridon]

Which reduces my conscious self to being a spectator of what has already been determined without my conscious intervention.  So can I ask Stranger once again what he considers to be the target of his accusarions of evasion, assertion and lies?

Say what, you mean you cannot understand there might be a distinction between a 'self' and a 'conscious self'.  Since Freud we have understood that subconscious mind is broadly speaking the real driver, it's not exactly breaking news, so why the faux naivety ?

[Alan Burns]

 There’s no “just” about it, and determinism makes sense the moment you finally grasp that “I” is a vastly complex and integrated set of processes, not a helpless driver at the controls looking on as the vehicle runs away with him.

No matter how complex and integrated the processing, if every event is determined by past events, the end result can only be an inevitable reaction.
The only way to introduce any concept of personal control would be for such control to be determined from the present, not the past.

[Stranger]

No matter how complex and integrated the processing, if every event is determined by past events, the end result can only be an inevitable reaction.
The only way to introduce any concept of personal control would be for such control to be determined from the present, not the past.

Firstly, this is just your oft repeated argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy. Secondly, you still haven't said why our choices cannot be "inevitable reactions". Thirdly, you're trying to redefine words ("control") again, rather that put forward and logic or reasoning. And fourthly, "determined from the present" is still irrelevant gibberish.

You - the person you are - determines what it wants to do according to its personality, tastes, abilities, current state of mind, and so on - and sure you can say that happens "in the present" in some loose (and logically irrelevant) sense of the word - but in fact, all of those factors got the way they are because of the past. If that were not the case, then, in part, they got that way for no reason at all (random).

You've claimed "sound" logic but it looks as if you didn't even bother to find out what that means, let alone take any time to study valid and invalid logical arguments. How about a bit of honesty? How about admitting you have no sound reasoning and either go back to find out what it means and try to find some or stop the pretence that you have evidence or reasoning to back up what you say entirely?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

No matter how complex and integrated the processing, if every event is determined by past events, the end result can only be an inevitable reaction.
The only way to introduce any concept of personal control would be for such control to be determined from the present, not the past.

1. Argumetum ad consequentiam – one of your stable of logical fallacies. If you seriously want to claim logic for support why on earth wouldn’t you try at least to gain even a basic understanding of what rhetorical logic actually entails?

2. As ever, you confuse choice and “inevitable reaction”. There’s no reason at all for the experience of choice not to be a deterministic process.

3. “Personal control” as you put it is compatible with determinism. Only when you invent a separate “I” do you also a have to construct a modus operandi for it - which according to you is "miracles" (ie, “it’s magic innit”?).     

Fun as it is watching you crash and burn each time to try to make an argument, if only for your self respect why would you not at leat try to understand where you keep going wrong? Long ago and far away I even offered to give you a basic primer on logical argument though with typical charmlessness you just ignored the offer. Nonetheless, if you want me to explain the basics to you I’ll be happy to oblige.

Just let me know.

[Sriram]

A nice video on determinism...rather... non-determinism....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f72whGQ31Wg

[Stranger]

A nice video on determinism...rather... non-determinism....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f72whGQ31Wg

Relevance?

I didn't watch all the video because it looks like just another pop-science explanation of Bell's inequalities (which I've studied). A quick google didn't turn up much about the presenter (Arvin Ash) that wasn't in his own words but I did find an anti-quantum woo video (here - with a transcript) of his, saying that consciousness has no relevance and it has nothing to do with free will, so he can't be all bad.

[Alan Burns]

Firstly, this is just your oft repeated argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy. Secondly, you still haven't said why our choices cannot be "inevitable reactions". Thirdly, you're trying to redefine words ("control") again, rather that put forward and logic or reasoning. And fourthly, "determined from the present" is still irrelevant gibberish.

Any form of control requires a source of control, otherwise it is no different to any other chain reaction.  In your view of determinism where everything event is determined entirely from previous events there can be no definitive source of control.

You - the person you are - determines what it wants to do according to its personality, tastes, abilities, current state of mind, and so on - and sure you can say that happens "in the present" in some loose (and logically irrelevant) sense of the word - but in fact, all of those factors got the way they are because of the past. If that were not the case, then, in part, they got that way for no reason at all (random).

"personality, tastes, abilities, current state of mind, …." These just become meaningless labels in the context of the physically predetermined reactions in a material brain.  Their meaning in your conscious awareness has no particular relevance to the inevitable end reactions from physical chains of cause and effect.

You've claimed "sound" logic but it looks as if you didn't even bother to find out what that means, let alone take any time to study valid and invalid logical arguments. How about a bit of honesty? How about admitting you have no sound reasoning and either go back to find out what it means and try to find some or stop the pretence that you have evidence or reasoning to back up what you say entirely?

Any intelligent person would understand that a regime in which every event is caused by previous events offers zero scope for any personal accountability. I suspect you know as well as me that we are personally responsible for every post we make - a responsibility which is totally incompatible with the materialistic view of determinism you continue to portray.  The human mind is far more than a complex data processor.  It is life itself.  The only life you will ever have.  Our creator has given us all an amazing opportunity to achieve a fulfilment beyond our wildest dreams.