Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

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.

OK, its clear to me now, part of the problem is the vocabulary, I think you either misunderstand or misuse the terminology, hence we end up talking at cross purposes to some extent. Conscious perception, as opposed to subconscious perception, is about perception that has made it into our stream of conscious experience.  Subconscious perception includes things that we have seen or heard, but without realising it, subliminal advertising for example. A goose has conscious perception, so does a warthog, so does a haddock, there is no particular reason to think otherwise, and they make choices that are informed by their conscious experience. notwithstanding the complication of consciousness lag.

If you accept that clarification as valid, then presumably you agree that inner experiences - hopes, pleasures, fears, temptations, hunger, drowsiness, pains, thirst for instance -  all these sensations are created by brains as part of the natural production of consciousness without the need for a soul as these things are universal to some degree or other amongst all animals. And to that extent, there is no need to posit a 'perceiver' inside us, watching our stream of consciousness.

[Maeght]

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.

Since you haven't denied it can we take it that what I said was correct?

Of course our soul and its free will is absolutely central to our humanity.  Without it there could be no love, because love not freely given is worth nothing at all.  And the most important love of all is my love for Jesus Christ.

So you do have to believe in freewill and a soul due to your theology - fine, just so long as that's clear.

I don't agree that love requires freewill or a soul though - and your bit about love being worth nothing shows again its all to do with your underlying theology thatyou have to believe that sort of thing and can't except that love could just be a product of chemical activity in the brain in response to stimuli.

[savillerow]

HB "rip the s*** out of it" Er no, its full of common sense, logic, rationality and science. Thanks for being open minded.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

HB "rip the s*** out of it" Er no, its full of common sense, logic, rationality and science. Thanks for being open minded.

Look I've said i'll watch three episodes( That's three hours !!! ) and report back. Already caught
A quarter of an hour of it. Have done a wee bit of research on it and almost immediately came across Jeff Dee's involvement. A transhumanist who wants humanity abolished by computerised implants. Wonderfully whacky.

[Shaker]

It's an experience Shaker which your philosophy has no answer to nor erasure over.

No shortage of answers, Vladster. None at all.

[Shaker]

So you do have to believe in freewill and a soul due to your theology - fine, just so long as that's clear.

To me it was never in doubt 

I don't agree that love requires freewill or a soul though - and your bit about love being worth nothing shows again its all to do with your underlying theology thatyou have to believe that sort of thing and can't except that love could just be a product of chemical activity in the brain in response to stimuli.

Some people are absolutely horrified by this - I should know, I've heard enough of them say it. They genuinely seem to believe that if love (or, indeed, anything else ...) is a pattern of electro-chemical brain activity without any element of woo-woo - the myth, magic, mystery and miracle that some people seem to thrive on -, that makes it worthless.

I completely fail to understand this mindset. The experience is precisely and exactly the same, isn't it? Why wouldn't love (a) be exactly the same in feel anyway and (b) be an incredible example of what the most complex and sophisticated arrangement of matter we know about to date can do? That would strike me as an incredible thing, absolutely overwhelming ... but I guess some people are so constituted that the real universe as it is is too small for their desires. Hence religion.

[Leonard James]

... love not freely given is worth nothing at all. 

So if the rich give begrudgingly to the poor because "God" has told them they should, it is worth nothing to him?

Making the difference between life and death to the poor is worth nothing to "God"?

A strange  kind of love is that.

[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.

Since you haven't denied it can we take it that what I said was correct?

Of course our soul and its free will is absolutely central to our humanity.  Without it there could be no love, because love not freely given is worth nothing at all.  And the most important love of all is my love for Jesus Christ.

It might be central to your understanding of humanity, but that won't make it correct, and neither does it make it a way of thinking that is suitable for everyone.  You might love Jesus, other people develop similar feelings of love for the prophet Mohammed. You might like to think that you need a soul to love but I don't think I have a soul but that doesn't stop me loving my children. You believe free will is also central to this; I rather think you simply haven't thought through what truly free will would mean in reality; a child born with truly free will would not survive into adulthood, or at least not without being incarcerated in a secure psychiatric unit for his own and others' safety.  Truly free will would be a disaster. It is far better for us that we have a will that is tied to serving our needs, which is actually the case.

[Leonard James]

All children are born with free will. They can either obey their parents or accept the punishment for not doing so.

When they grow into adults, it is the law that they must respect or accept the punishment for disobeying it.

[torridon]

All children are born with free will. They can either obey their parents or accept the punishment for not doing so.

When they grow into adults, it is the law that they must respect or accept the punishment for disobeying it.

At that level, chimpanzees also have free will; dominant male chimps punish younger miscreants when they break their social rules. Alan likes to imagine free will as something that sets humans apart from other creatures, as if we are not part of nature. I think we are part of nature, and to call our will 'free' is to misunderstand human nature; what we really have is a greater degree of complexity in our decision making, and we mistake complexity for freedom.

[Maeght]

All children are born with free will. They can either obey their parents or accept the punishment for not doing so.

When they grow into adults, it is the law that they must respect or accept the punishment for disobeying it.

Are children free to make any decision or choice without being influenced by their nature and their upbringing?

Interesting programme  on BBC4 last night about the brain and emotions which showed young children simply mimicking adults in terms of emotions and behaviour until they got to an age where they developed empathy which then, along with other emotions, influenced their choices and behaviour. Empathy was seen to be activity in the brain which matched that which that person would have if in the same situation as the person they were observing. For example watching someone being hit triggered the same reaction in the brain (as shown in a brain scan) as if you had been hit. This empathy develops as a result of experiences we have been through so we have something to reference against. The programme also showed/discussed how much our seemingly rational decisions are really influenced by our emotional responses. All this was taking place in the brain - but of course those who believe in an external consciousness will say the brain is processing this not being the source of it. All interesting stuff and just shows how complex it all is.

[Leonard James]

Are children free to make any decision or choice without being influenced by their nature and their upbringing?

No, of course not. Both nature and nurture influence them, but they are still able to choose one way or the other. Obviously the younger the child the less nurture is going to affect it, but the choice is something personal and individual.

[Maeght]

Are children free to make any decision or choice without being influenced by their nature and their upbringing?

No, of course not. Both nature and nurture influence them, but they are still able to choose one way or the other. Obviously the younger the child the less nurture is going to affect it, but the choice is something personal and individual.

So is that free will?

[Alan Burns]

Some people are absolutely horrified by this - I should know, I've heard enough of them say it. They genuinely seem to believe that if love (or, indeed, anything else ...) is a pattern of electro-chemical brain activity without any element of woo-woo - the myth, magic, mystery and miracle that some people seem to thrive on -, that makes it worthless.

I completely fail to understand this mindset. The experience is precisely and exactly the same, isn't it? Why wouldn't love (a) be exactly the same in feel anyway and (b) be an incredible example of what the most complex and sophisticated arrangement of matter we know about to date can do? That would strike me as an incredible thing, absolutely overwhelming ... but I guess some people are so constituted that the real universe as it is is too small for their desires. Hence religion.

You cannot possibly assert that love can happen without a soul or free will because we do not have the opportunity to try it out.  You can't remove a person's soul.

[Alan Burns]

Truly free will would be a disaster. It is far better for us that we have a will that is tied to serving our needs, which is actually the case.

Our free will works alongside our natural instincts.  We often know what is the right thing to do, but sometimes we use our free will to override it, because we want to.  Our free will is certainly not random.  It is guided, but we are in control.

[Maeght]

Truly free will would be a disaster. It is far better for us that we have a will that is tied to serving our needs, which is actually the case.

Our free will works alonside our natural instincts.  We often know what is the right thing to do, but sometimes we use our free will to override it, because we want to.  Our free will is certainly not random.  It is guided, but we are in control.

If it is guided then it's not free is it?

[torridon]

Are children free to make any decision or choice without being influenced by their nature and their upbringing?

No, of course not. Both nature and nurture influence them, but they are still able to choose one way or the other. Obviously the younger the child the less nurture is going to affect it, but the choice is something personal and individual.

If it is influenced, then it is not free of influence is it ? To be truly free would mean being free of all influences; as it is no living thing can ever be free of its DNA, nor can we choose our parents or choose which culture to be born into.  Things inform our nature and the choices we make are inevitably conditioned by our nature. That's not freedom. What we do have, is a greater range of choice of responses and a more nuanced sophisticated ability to weigh up rival choices, but that isn't freedom, it is complexity.

[Alan Burns]

Truly free will would be a disaster. It is far better for us that we have a will that is tied to serving our needs, which is actually the case.

Our free will works alonside our natural instincts.  We often know what is the right thing to do, but sometimes we use our free will to override it, because we want to.  Our free will is certainly not random.  It is guided, but we are in control.

If it is guided then it's not free is it?

It is guided, but not automated.  We are free to accept or reject the guidance given by logic, instict and experience.

[torridon]

Truly free will would be a disaster. It is far better for us that we have a will that is tied to serving our needs, which is actually the case.

Our free will works alonside our natural instincts.  We often know what is the right thing to do, but sometimes we use our free will to override it, because we want to.  Our free will is certainly not random.  It is guided, but we are in control.

What you want, is part of your nature.  Nobody gets to choose what to want. We are stuck with our hopes and fears, we do not fabricate them. That's not freedom, that's conditioning.

[Maeght]

Truly free will would be a disaster. It is far better for us that we have a will that is tied to serving our needs, which is actually the case.

Our free will works alonside our natural instincts.  We often know what is the right thing to do, but sometimes we use our free will to override it, because we want to.  Our free will is certainly not random.  It is guided, but we are in control.

If it is guided then it's not free is it?

It is guided, but not automated.  We are free to accept or reject the guidance given by logic, instict and experience.

How can you be sure of that?

[Alan Burns]

Truly free will would be a disaster. It is far better for us that we have a will that is tied to serving our needs, which is actually the case.

Our free will works alonside our natural instincts.  We often know what is the right thing to do, but sometimes we use our free will to override it, because we want to.  Our free will is certainly not random.  It is guided, but we are in control.

What you want, is part of your nature.  Nobody gets to choose what to want. We are stuck with our hopes and fears, we do not fabricate them. That's not freedom, that's conditioning.

You seem to be implying that free will gives you the ability to do anything which is possible without any restraint.  I have no doubt that there are some people who think they can push the barriers and do exactly that, but the reality is that we are restrained by several factors - instict, experience, conscience, common sense, safety, etc.  But within these restraints we are still free to make conscious decisions, and some decisions might override one or two restraints but we do this consciously.  Without free will, all our decisions would be automated in a similar manner to the logic within a computer program (for example the IF,...THEN,...ELSE,... operation) without need for conscious awareness of the decision.

[Alan Burns]

... love not freely given is worth nothing at all. 

So if the rich give begrudgingly to the poor because "God" has told them they should, it is worth nothing to him?

Making the difference between life and death to the poor is worth nothing to "God"?

A strange  kind of love is that.

Of course it will be beneficial to the poor who receive it, but if it is given begrudgingly it will do the giver no good, because in the long term it will generate resentment and other negative feelings.  I think it was St Paul who said that doing good deeds without love is worthless (to the giver).

[Maeght]

Truly free will would be a disaster. It is far better for us that we have a will that is tied to serving our needs, which is actually the case.

Our free will works alonside our natural instincts.  We often know what is the right thing to do, but sometimes we use our free will to override it, because we want to.  Our free will is certainly not random.  It is guided, but we are in control.

What you want, is part of your nature.  Nobody gets to choose what to want. We are stuck with our hopes and fears, we do not fabricate them. That's not freedom, that's conditioning.

You seem to be implying that free will gives you the ability to do anything which is possible without any restraint.  I have no doubt that there are some people who think they can push the barriers and do exactly that, but the reality is that we are restrained by several factors - instict, experience, conscience, common sense, safety, etc.  But within these restraints we are still free to make conscious decisions, and some decisions might override one or two restraints but we do this consciously.  Without free will, all our decisions would be automated in a similar manner to the logic within a computer program (for example the IF,...THEN,...ELSE,... operation) without need for conscious awareness of the decision.

How do you know that those conscious decisions are not just as influenced by instinct, experience etc?

[Alan Burns]

I invoke actions of free will during most of my conscious life - I am not a robot driven solely by events which have already been determined.

If you were, would you know it?

No, because robots have no self awareness.

[ekim]

Are children free to make any decision or choice without being influenced by their nature and their upbringing?

No, of course not. Both nature and nurture influence them, but they are still able to choose one way or the other. Obviously the younger the child the less nurture is going to affect it, but the choice is something personal and individual.

If it is influenced, then it is not free of influence is it ? To be truly free would mean being free of all influences; as it is no living thing can ever be free of its DNA, nor can we choose our parents or choose which culture to be born into.  Things inform our nature and the choices we make are inevitably conditioned by our nature. That's not freedom. What we do have, is a greater range of choice of responses and a more nuanced sophisticated ability to weigh up rival choices, but that isn't freedom, it is complexity.

Yes, that's the way it appears to be.  The small child is generally at the mercy of its surroundings and made more complex, than perhaps its animal counterpart, by human society.  It is born into an environment of fully fledged 'selfs/egos' and has to learn its own 'self' development in order to survive.  This forges an additional set of chains to reduce the individual's conscious freedom.  The idea of a number of 'spiritual/religious' methods is to free the consciousness from its 'mind forged manacles' and physical nature.  Some call it transcendence, some call ascension.