Searching for GOD...

[Leonard James]

Dear Wigs,

That's a new one on me, geese have no soul.   I met a goose in Bath called Lucy, and she was adorable, and we looked after her for a while.  She was nicer than some humans I could mention.  She used to stand in the garden and look in the window, was that predictable?  No.   She exuded Northern soul.

Some atheists shout, where's yer bloody evidence, maybe that's a new road to travel, evolution and a sense of humour, wonder if our Leonard has the answer, he likes evolution.

Gonnagle.

[/b]

If you google "animal sense of humour" you will find some interesting scientific views. 

[Alan Burns]

I will never in a million years see matters of faith in the way Alan Burns does, at least I certainly hope not. However, to give the man his due, however much flak he takes from others about his take on religion he doesn't seem to loose his cool. One 'Christian', in particular, might take a leaf out of his book when they take offense at the slightest thing and respond very unpleasantly indeed. Take a BOW Alan.

Thanks for the compliment Floo.  I think God has blessed me with a very tollerant nature - when I was at school, bullies used to give up on me because I did not respond, it was no fun for them 

[Alan Burns]

We've gone over this many times with Alan it won't make any difference because Alan has to believe that we have soul's and free will to fit in with his theology.

And atheists have to believe that free will is an illusion in order to fit in with the deterministic nature of science.

[BeRational]

We've gone over this many times with Alan it won't make any difference because Alan has to believe that we have soul's and free will to fit in with his theology.

And atheists have to believe that free will is an illusion in order to fit in with the deterministic nature of science.

I don't. I am in the do not know camp.

[floo]

I will never in a million years see matters of faith in the way Alan Burns does, at least I certainly hope not. However, to give the man his due, however much flak he takes from others about his take on religion he doesn't seem to loose his cool. One 'Christian', in particular, might take a leaf out of his book when they take offense at the slightest thing and respond very unpleasantly indeed. Take a BOW Alan.

Thanks for the compliment Floo.  I think God has blessed me with a very tollerant nature - when I was at school, bullies used to give up on me because I did not respond, it was no fun for them 

Lucky you, I was badly bullied at my elementary school, they didn't let up even though I didn't hit them back as my father told me to do!

[torridon]

You are dodging my question.  Yes, the choices a goose makes might be more predictable than the choices a human makes, but I wasn't asking you about predictability in this case. And of course we cannot determine through empirical methods that other animals have some sort of inner experience analagous to ours. But that is the reasonable assumption that I am sure you make every day, unless you are a solipsist, which I doubt. 

So let's try that again :  do you think that a goose must have a soul in order to experience the inner sensation of fear ?

The point I was making about predictable behaviour is that it is an indication that the animal may not have free will, and all behaviour is generated by physical reactions.  If animal behaviour is predictable, it does not need a soul to explain its behaviour.  So we know the goose reacts on a predictable way which does not require a soul.

Predictability is not an either/or thing.  Predictability is a function of complexity; the responses of a fruit fly are much more easily predictable than those of a mouse; the responses of a mouse are much more easily predictable than those of a monkey; the responses of a monkey are much more easily predictable than those of a human.  To sustain this line of thinking you'd need to invent degrees of soul to support it.

[wigginhall]

We've gone over this many times with Alan it won't make any difference because Alan has to believe that we have soul's and free will to fit in with his theology.

And atheists have to believe that free will is an illusion in order to fit in with the deterministic nature of science.

Really?  I have some Buddhist friends who are atheists.  I will ask them if they are compelled to believe things; what they think about free will, and whether science is deterministic.  Oh, but there's no point, as you already know the answer.

[Shaker]

And atheists have to believe that free will is an illusion in order to fit in with the deterministic nature of science.

Another illusion of your own creation, Alan.

I don't believe that free will is an illusion; I believe that it very well could be, that there's a growing body of evidence which leans in that direction, and have no ideological, moral or philosophical committment to it not being an illusion. If it is, it is and that's all there is to it. Likewise if it isn't. At the moment nobody can say for sure. Like BeRational I have no choice, as 'twere, but to be in the "don't know" camp, while awaiting further interesting information.

Can you say the same, Alan?

[Alan Burns]

I don't believe that free will is an illusion; I believe that it very well could be, that there's a growing body of evidence which leans in that direction, and have no ideological, moral or philosophical committment to it not being an illusion. If it is, it is and that's all there is to it. Likewise if it isn't. At the moment nobody can say for sure. Like BeRational I have no choice, as 'twere, but to be in the "don't know" camp, while awaiting further interesting information.

Can you say the same, Alan?

I know I have free will.  I simply can't imagine how any other human being could ever doubt it (unless they are biological robots without a soul).

[Shaker]

I know I have free will.

No, you don't. You believe it, and furthermore, want to believe it. You have an emotional, ideological commitment to free will being a reality.

I simply can't imagine how any other human being could ever doubt it.

Because some people realise that wanting something to be the case and believing it to be the case is about as bad a guide to reality as you can get.

[Alan Burns]

]
No, you don't. You believe it, and furthermore, want to believe it. You have an emotional, ideological commitment to free will being a reality.

So just explain to me how I could want to believe in free will if I don't have it?

[Shaker]

So just explain to me how I could want to believe in free will if I don't have it?

I didn't say you don't have it. I don't know whether you do or you don't. Neither does anybody else. But your very obvious desperation to cling to the idea that you definitely do have it (which is something that nobody should claim to know) betrays a pretty clear fear on your part that if it could be shown to be an illusion, your world-view will be in absolute tatters.

[torridon]

You are dodging my question.  Yes, the choices a goose makes might be more predictable than the choices a human makes, but I wasn't asking you about predictability in this case. And of course we cannot determine through empirical methods that other animals have some sort of inner experience analagous to ours. But that is the reasonable assumption that I am sure you make every day, unless you are a solipsist, which I doubt. 

So let's try that again :  do you think that a goose must have a soul in order to experience the inner sensation of fear ?

The point I was making about predictable behaviour is that it is an indication that the animal may not have free will, and all behaviour is generated by physical reactions.  If animal behaviour is predictable, it does not need a soul to explain its behaviour.  So we know the goose reacts on a predictable way which does not require a soul.

You're backtracking now; in other posts, on many other occasions, you have contended that it is conscious perception that requires the invention of a soul. Perception requires a perceiver; experience requires an experiencer.  Now your position is that it is free will only which implies a soul, and you are happy to accept that for other animals, their inner experiential world of hunger, pain, excitement, fear and so forth, these are all aspects of consciousness created by a brain without the need for a soul ?

[torridon]

]
No, you don't. You believe it, and furthermore, want to believe it. You have an emotional, ideological commitment to free will being a reality.

So just explain to me how I could want to believe in free will if I don't have it?

The same way a person might 'want' to believe in God, and sets about 'searching' for God. People might want to believe in God and after life for all sorts of fairly obvious reasons; likewise people like to believe in free will because it is flattering, as if we are not products of nature, but something independent of it.

[Alan Burns]

You are dodging my question.  Yes, the choices a goose makes might be more predictable than the choices a human makes, but I wasn't asking you about predictability in this case. And of course we cannot determine through empirical methods that other animals have some sort of inner experience analagous to ours. But that is the reasonable assumption that I am sure you make every day, unless you are a solipsist, which I doubt. 

So let's try that again :  do you think that a goose must have a soul in order to experience the inner sensation of fear ?

The point I was making about predictable behaviour is that it is an indication that the animal may not have free will, and all behaviour is generated by physical reactions.  If animal behaviour is predictable, it does not need a soul to explain its behaviour.  So we know the goose reacts on a predictable way which does not require a soul.

You're backtracking now; in other posts, on many other occasions, you have contended that it is conscious perception that requires the invention of a soul. Perception requires a perceiver; experience requires an experiencer.  Now your position is that it is free will only which implies a soul, and you are happy to accept that for other animals, their inner experiential world of hunger, pain, excitement, fear and so forth, these are all aspects of consciousness created by a brain without the need for a soul ?

Conscious perception and free will go together.  If we do not have free will, there is no need for conscious perception because the perception would just be like a spectator with no scope for interaction.  Both conscious perception and free will have no feasible explanation in material science, which is why I firmly believe that they are properties of the human soul.

[torridon]

We've gone over this many times with Alan it won't make any difference because Alan has to believe that we have soul's and free will to fit in with his theology.

And atheists have to believe that free will is an illusion in order to fit in with the deterministic nature of science.

Like atheism, it is the default position; until such time as someone finds some evidence in support of the idea of free will then we should regard it as one more fanciful product of our cognitive biases rather than something to be taken seriously.

[Alan Burns]

The same way a person might 'want' to believe in God, and sets about 'searching' for God. People might want to believe in God and after life for all sorts of fairly obvious reasons; likewise people like to believe in free will because it is flattering, as if we are not products of nature, but something independent of it.

The point I was making is that the word 'want' can't really apply if free will does not exist.  To want something, you need to excercise free will.

[BashfulAnthony]

So just explain to me how I could want to believe in free will if I don't have it?

I didn't say you don't have it. I don't know whether you do or you don't. Neither does anybody else. But your very obvious desperation to cling to the idea that you definitely do have it (which is something that nobody should claim to know) betrays a pretty clear fear on your part that if it could be shown to be an illusion, your world-view will be in absolute tatters.

That's right:  cast doubts on someone's cherished beliefs; tread all over their beliefs.  Have you not an ounce of human consideration about you?  I dare say, there are a few aspects of your life you would not be prepared to enter into open debate about, lest you were "upset."

[Nearly Sane]

The same way a person might 'want' to believe in God, and sets about 'searching' for God. People might want to believe in God and after life for all sorts of fairly obvious reasons; likewise people like to believe in free will because it is flattering, as if we are not products of nature, but something independent of it.

The point I was making is that the word 'want' can't really apply if free will does not exist.  To want something, you need to excercise free will.

No, wanting something is almost the opposite of free will. Do you look at a slice of cake and then freely create the desire to eat it? If so how? Because if you could, you would need to freely create the desire to create the desire to want and so on ad infinitum. The model your position creates is an infinite regress.

[Nearly Sane]

So just explain to me how I could want to believe in free will if I don't have it?

I didn't say you don't have it. I don't know whether you do or you don't. Neither does anybody else. But your very obvious desperation to cling to the idea that you definitely do have it (which is something that nobody should claim to know) betrays a pretty clear fear on your part that if it could be shown to be an illusion, your world-view will be in absolute tatters.

That's right:  cast doubts on someone's cherished beliefs; tread all over their beliefs.  Have you not an ounce of human consideration about you?  I dare say, there are a few aspects of your life you would not be prepared to enter into open debate about, lest you were "upset."

Surely Alan by coming here is opening his statements to challenge?

[torridon]

You are dodging my question.  Yes, the choices a goose makes might be more predictable than the choices a human makes, but I wasn't asking you about predictability in this case. And of course we cannot determine through empirical methods that other animals have some sort of inner experience analagous to ours. But that is the reasonable assumption that I am sure you make every day, unless you are a solipsist, which I doubt. 

So let's try that again :  do you think that a goose must have a soul in order to experience the inner sensation of fear ?

The point I was making about predictable behaviour is that it is an indication that the animal may not have free will, and all behaviour is generated by physical reactions.  If animal behaviour is predictable, it does not need a soul to explain its behaviour.  So we know the goose reacts on a predictable way which does not require a soul.

You're backtracking now; in other posts, on many other occasions, you have contended that it is conscious perception that requires the invention of a soul. Perception requires a perceiver; experience requires an experiencer.  Now your position is that it is free will only which implies a soul, and you are happy to accept that for other animals, their inner experiential world of hunger, pain, excitement, fear and so forth, these are all aspects of consciousness created by a brain without the need for a soul ?

Conscious perception and free will go together.  If we do not have free will, there is no need for conscious perception because the perception would just be like a spectator with no scope for interaction.  Both conscious perception and free will have no feasible explanation in material science, which is why I firmly believe that they are properties of the human soul.

Your thinking is all over the place. Earlier today you were happy to accept that a goose has conscious perception (when it is awake) but no soul.  Now you are denying it again.   All higher animals, like us, have a consciouness stream, that is, unless you are a solipsist. Any creature without a stream of conscious experience would be dead in no time at all. You need to make your mind up.

[Nearly Sane]

We've gone over this many times with Alan it won't make any difference because Alan has to believe that we have soul's and free will to fit in with his theology.

And atheists have to believe that free will is an illusion in order to fit in with the deterministic nature of science.

Like atheism, it is the default position; until such time as someone finds some evidence in support of the idea of free will then we should regard it as one more fanciful product of our cognitive biases rather than something to be taken seriously.

I would suggest that the default position is that the idea of free will is unevidenced rather than it is an illusion

[torridon]

The same way a person might 'want' to believe in God, and sets about 'searching' for God. People might want to believe in God and after life for all sorts of fairly obvious reasons; likewise people like to believe in free will because it is flattering, as if we are not products of nature, but something independent of it.

The point I was making is that the word 'want' can't really apply if free will does not exist.  To want something, you need to excercise free will.

aw come on Alan, you're all over the place.  My dog wants to go for a walk now.  So your position is that a goose does not have free will but my dog does 

[Shaker]

Surely Alan by coming here is opening his statements to challenge?

Of course he is - R & E is not Alan's own private and personal echo chamber no matter how much he treats it as such. But you forget Bashful Anthony Syndrome, where challenge is a no-no.

[Alan Burns]

Your thinking is all over the place. Earlier today you were happy to accept that a goose has conscious perception (when it is awake) but no soul.  Now you are denying it again.   All higher animals, like us, have a consciouness stream, that is, unless you are a solipsist. Any creature without a stream of conscious experience would be dead in no time at all. You need to make your mind up.

I did not accept that a goose has conscious perception (at least not consciously!).  I was inferring that a goose can easily behave in a goose like way by just reacting to outside stimulae without need of conscious perception.  It is conscious perception which allows us to override our natural instinctive reactions by invoking free will.  A goose can perceive and react as in a biological robot with no need for conscious perception.