Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

But what if you have to make a decision...

Just to be clear: I'm applying the logic of determinism directly to the all the contents of our minds. Every thought that occurs to you, every word of your internal monologue, every mood and emotion, every whim, and every choice, either happens entirely deterministically or it involves some randomness.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nonsense. You're trying to ignore the internal working of the mind and speaking as if this 'you' somehow floats free of all logical constraints (exactly the same mistake Alan keeps making). How the mind works internally the whole point. Without knowing any detail we can still say that it is either a deterministic system or it isn't (and therefore involves randomness by definition). It can't be a deterministic system and not be one at the same time.

I have no horse in the deterministic race but I have given a situation which is quite logical, seemingly non deterministic and not random either. Again. Please show your working how you get Randomness totally equivalent to non deterministic.

As for you hiding behind ''The internal workings of the mind''. I'll pretend I never noticed that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just to be clear: I'm applying the logic of determinism directly to the all the contents of our minds. Every thought that occurs to you, every word of your internal monologue, every mood and emotion, every whim, and every choice, either happens entirely deterministically or it involves some randomness.

Let's have that logic then rather than this.

[Nearly Sane]

I have no horse in the deterministic race but I have given a situation which is quite logical, seemingly non deterministic and not random either. Again. Please show your working how you get Randomness totally equivalent to non deterministic.

As for you hiding behind ''The internal workings of the mind''. I'll pretend I never noticed that.

Since you have not defined free will stating that you have shown it to be logically possible is specious.

[Stranger]

Let's have that logic then rather than this.

I've just given it to you, multiple times, what are you confused about?

[Stranger]

As for you hiding behind ''The internal workings of the mind''. I'll pretend I never noticed that.

You don't half get confused. I'm not hiding behind it, I'm explicitly trying to talk about it, it's you who seems to want to ignore it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You don't half get confused. I'm not hiding behind it, I'm explicitly trying to talk about it, it's you who seems to want to ignore it.

I'm not stopping you. We disagree on whether non determinism is exclusively random though. I have put forward a logical case where it might not be you have yet to demonstrate how non determinism has to be random and then show that the mind is exclusively deterministic.

How are you defining mind here?

[Nearly Sane]

I'm not stopping you. We disagree on whether non determinism is exclusively random though. I have put forward a logical case where it might not be you have yet to demonstrate how non determinism has to be random and then show that the mind is exclusively deterministic.

How are you defining mind here?

You have not put a logical case. You mentioned a term, didn't define it, and put no logical case.

[Stranger]

I have put forward a logical case where it might not be...

No you haven't. All you did was totally ignore how 'free will' or the mind (the 'you' in your description) actually works and makes choices.

...you have yet to demonstrate how non determinism has to be random and then show that the mind is exclusively deterministic.

I didn't claim that the mind is exclusively deterministic, just that if it isn't it involves randomness. I've also expressed the full argument about non-determinism being random multiple times (#42524 and follow the link, #42519, #42503, also go back to #40759 and consider S to be everything in your mind).

If you don't understand something, then ask. If you don't agree then post a counterargument.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Since you have not defined free will stating that you have shown it to be logically possible is specious.

I have given an example where free will operates. Although the big problem for it lies in whether self determination is the same as free will. It is free because it is not driven by antecedent because there cannot be any on meeting something completely novel and unlike anything else.

[Nearly Sane]

I have given an example where free will operates. Although the big problem for it lies in whether self determination is the same as free will. It is free because it is not driven by antecedent because there cannot be any on meeting something completely novel and unlike anything else.

No, as already covered with no definition, your claim to show it is logical coherent is specious.

[Stranger]

I have given an example where free will operates.

No you haven't. You've simply asserted that there is situation in which something totally undefined that you've labelled 'free will' operates. Unless you define how it works and sidesteps the logic, it's no more than meaningless white noise.

It is free because it is not driven by antecedent because there cannot be any on meeting something completely novel and unlike anything else.

What utter drivel. Of course there are antecedents: the entire nature, nurture, and experience (right up to the second of the encounter with something novel) of the person involved and the exact details of the encounter. And, yet again, to the extent a choice is not entirely due to its antecedents, it must be due to nothing (random).

[Alan Burns]

Still waiting for anything that even looks like logic, let alone the 'sound logic' you claimed you had.

I used my sound logic many years ago to reach precisely the same conclusion as you - that it is a logical impossibility to have made any other choice than the one you made.

But instead of diminishing my faith, it strengthened it - because I know beyond any doubt that I am able to make conscious choices which are not entirely predetermined by the past.  Therefore every conscious choice I make is evidence of the miraculous power of my human soul.  Virtually every human being on this planet is also aware of this reality that they have freedom to choose, but sadly many just take it for granted without realising just what an amazing gift this is, or there are some who use their conscious freedom to try to explain it away as an illusion.

So I used this amazing freedom to choose to invite God into my life.
Everyone on this forum has the same freedom to choose - you can choose to invite God into your life, or you can choose to think of reasons not to do so - the choice is yours to make.

May God bless us, keep us from all evil and bring us to everlasting life.

[torridon]

So I used this amazing freedom to choose to invite God into my life.
Everyone on this forum has the same freedom to choose - you can choose to invite God into your life, or you can choose to think of reasons not to do so - the choice is yours to make.

I tried that; nothing happened. Does that mean I am saved ?

[torridon]

But instead of diminishing my faith, it strengthened it - because I know beyond any doubt that I am able to make conscious choices which are not entirely predetermined by the past.  Therefore every conscious choice I make is evidence of the miraculous power of my human soul.  Virtually every human being on this planet is also aware of this reality that they have freedom to choose, but sadly many just take it for granted without realising just what an amazing gift this is, or there are some who use their conscious freedom to try to explain it away as an illusion.

Your choice has to be determined by something for it to be not random. You have to be cognizant of the relevant factors first before you can arrive at a choice.  That locates choice making within the flow of cause and effect.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I used my sound logic many years ago to reach precisely the same conclusion as you - that it is a logical impossibility to have made any other choice than the one you made.

In a deterministic universe, that would be right yes…the common perception of “choice” doesn’t change that.

But instead of diminishing my faith, it strengthened it - because I know beyond any doubt that I am able to make conscious choices which are not entirely predetermined by the past.

You have no cogent reasoning to support your contention that you “know” that rather than just believe it to be true.     

Therefore…

You can't have a “therefore” when its premise has failed.

…every conscious choice I make is evidence of the miraculous power of my human soul.  Virtually every human being on this planet is also aware of this reality that they have freedom to choose, but sadly many just take it for granted without realising just what an amazing gift this is, or there are some who use their conscious freedom to try to explain it away as an illusion.

So I used this amazing freedom to choose to invite God into my life.
Everyone on this forum has the same freedom to choose - you can choose to invite God into your life, or you can choose to think of reasons not to do so - the choice is yours to make.

Theobabble.

May God bless us, keep us from all evil and bring us to everlasting life.

And may Colin, the grand Nabob of the leprechauns never cause a camel to spit in your eye.

[Stranger]

I used my sound logic many years ago to reach precisely the same conclusion as you - that it is a logical impossibility to have made any other choice than the one you made.

So why do you keep claiming here that you can support your nonsense version of freedom using sound logic and valid arguments?

But instead of diminishing my faith, it strengthened it - because I know beyond any doubt that I am able to make conscious choices which are not entirely predetermined by the past.

You know no such thing. You chose intuition and personal incredulity (one of your favourite fallacies) over logic and reason. Blind faith, in other words.

Therefore every conscious choice I make is evidence of the miraculous power of my human soul.

Now it's the turn of begging the question. It can only be evidence if we first accept the conclusion based on nothing but your incredulity and blind faith.

Virtually every human being on this planet is also aware of this reality that they have freedom to choose...

Now an argumentum ad populum to add to the collection.

...or there are some who use their conscious freedom to try to explain it away as an illusion.

You mean those who would rather believe reasoning and logic, rather than incredulity, blind faith, and baseless superstition?

Everyone on this forum has the same freedom to choose - you can choose to invite God into your life, or you can choose to think of reasons not to do so - the choice is yours to make.

Yet again: nobody needs a reason not to do so until and unless you give us any reason at all to believe your god even exists which, despite all your posts, you have totally failed to do. In fact, the more you post illogical nonsense and claim it to be sound reasoning the more you give the impression that what you believe is baseless, mind-rotting superstition.

[ekim]

So I used this amazing freedom to choose to invite God into my life.

Why?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What utter drivel. Of course there are antecedents: the entire nature, nurture, and experience (right up to the second of the encounter with something novel) of the person involved and the exact details of the encounter. And, yet again, to the extent a choice is not entirely due to its antecedents, it must be due to nothing (random).

There is no experience that would act as an antecedent since there is nothing like what would be encountered. The choice would be binary and clear to open oneself to this new entity or reject it.

You have yet to demonstrate any of your assertions including Randomness being totally equivalent to non determined.

As I say, Self determination is probably a form of determinism. So I don't really have any motivation to bet the house on non determinism.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

There is no experience that would act as an antecedent since there is nothing like what would be encountered. The choice would be binary and clear to open oneself to this new entity or reject it.

Been a while since you tried the begging the question fallacy. What makes you think you’d have “encountered” something in the first place? 

You have yet to demonstrate any of your assertions including Randomness being totally equivalent to non determined.

No he hasn’t - there is not third option, unless you think “it’s magic innit” is an explanation. 

As I say, Self determination is probably a form of determinism. So I don't really have any motivation to bet the house on non determinism.

Incoherent gibberish.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What utter drivel. Of course there are antecedents: the entire nature, nurture, and experience (right up to the second of the encounter with something novel) of the person involved and the exact details of the encounter. And, yet again, to the extent a choice is not entirely due to its antecedents, it must be due to nothing (random).

having reflected on this we do, in my opinion, have a God shaped hole. Atheists past have talked also of the abyss funnily enough. This might explain the sense of ''there must be something greater'' That said we don't properly know what it is we are looking for till we find it. And then that is when the choice for which nothing in the empirical universe can prepare us for confronts us. That choice is down to the self.

[Stranger]

There is no experience that would act as an antecedent since there is nothing like what would be encountered.

Don't be so silly. A person reacts to anything new according to the person they are (their personality), their state of mind at the time, and the exact nature of the new experience.

How did the person get to be the person they are? Well, we're into the nature versus nurture debate but we can be confident that it is some combination, we add in the lifetime of experiences right up to the moment of some encounter with something new to get their exact state of mind and either all those possible influences mean that there can only be one reaction to the specific new experience, or not. If not, then, since we have taken into account every possible influence, any other uncertainty must be due to nothing and therefore random.

Of course we can't predict the reaction in practice because minds are far, far too complicated, and probably chaotic (in the mathematical sense) but that doesn't change the principle.

You have yet to demonstrate any of your assertions including Randomness being totally equivalent to non determined.

I've put the argument to you multiple times and you've just ignored it and keep denying I've done it. If you think the argument is wrong, tell me why. If you didn't understand it, then ask questions. Just denying that I've made a case just makes you look dim or in denial.

[Stranger]

having reflected on this we do, in my opinion, have a God shaped hole.

In my opinion you're talking utter bollocks based wishful thinking and blind faith - perhaps with a side helping of evasion (you seem not to want to face the argument about determinism).

That choice is down to the self.

And the self is the way it is either entirely deterministically (nature, nurture, and experience) or it involved some randomness.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Don't be so silly. A person reacts to anything new according to the person they are (their personality), their state of mind at the time, and the exact nature of the new experience.

How did the person get to be the person they are? Well, we're into the nature versus nurture debate but we can be confident that it is some combination, we add in the lifetime of experiences right up to the moment of some encounter with something new to get their exact state of mind and either all those possible influences mean that there can only be one reaction to the specific new experience, or not. If not, then, since we have taken into account every possible influence, any other uncertainty must be due to nothing and therefore random.

Of course we can't predict the reaction in practice because minds are far, far too complicated, and probably chaotic (in the mathematical sense) but that doesn't change the principle.

I've put the argument to you multiple times and you've just ignored it and keep denying I've done it. If you think the argument is wrong, tell me why. If you didn't understand it, then ask questions. Just denying that I've made a case just makes you look dim or in denial.

Your argument is self defeating if you are including experience as a factor in the construction of the self. We are not complete until we have had all our experiences in your model.

Therefore an experience which is unlike any previous is not predicated on what we are since there is nothing there to handle it. We are therefore brought to a decision by this new experience.

[Stranger]

Your argument is self defeating if you are including experience as a factor in the construction of the self. We are not complete until we have had all our experiences in your model.

How is it self-defeating? Every experience changes us a little bit.

Therefore an experience which is unlike any previous is not predicated on what we are since there is nothing there to handle it. We are therefore brought to a decision by this new experience.

Gibberish. We have to make that decision somehow and if it isn't deterministically, based on who we are, our state of mind, and the experience itself, then there is nothing left and any further uncertainty can only be accounted for by randomness.

Go back to the thought experiment I mentioned before (#42519): imagine we could rewind time and face exactly the same situation, in exactly the same state of mind, with exactly the same nature, nurture, and experience. Now, do your think the outcome could have been different or not? If not, then we have determinism. If so, then, since everything is exactly the same, the difference cannot be due to any reason (they are all the same), so must be random.