Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

But free will does not mean unrestricted choice.  It just means a choice which is not forced upon me by determinate events beyond my control.

Yes.

I could choose to pretend that I have no soul, but I choose not to.  That is free will.

You don't believe that you have no soul, its not a choice but a conclusion you have reached based on you nature/nurture and experiences. Your belief is restricted and determined by those prior influences/experiences.

Walk me through this little scenario Alan - I'm a simple soul (am, not have of course) so help me out here.

You make a choice about something at anyone moment. If you could re-enact that moment exactly - go back in time to the exact same moment with the exact same prior experiences, knowledge etc would you make exactly the same decision as before?

It is an interesting scenario, but impossible to enact because we do not have the ability to re create any given moment in time.  To me, my free will becomes apparent when I have to choose between:
 
a) what I know to be the correct option, or
b) what I would like to do for my own selfish reasons.

I become acutely aware of the temptation to choose option b), and I feel I need a great amount of willpower to choose option a).

But I am fully aware that the choice I make is generated from my self awareness and that I am in full control of the choice I am about to make.

[Outrider]

It is an interesting scenario, but impossible to enact because we do not have the ability to re create any given moment in time.  To me, my free will becomes apparent when I have to choose between:
 
a) what I know to be the correct option, or
b) what I would like to do for my own selfish reasons.

I become acutely aware of the temptation to choose option b), and I feel I need a great amount of willpower to choose option a).

But I am fully aware that the choice I make is generated from my self awareness and that I am in full control of the choice I am about to make.

And that control is based on what? It's will, we'd pretty much all agree on that, but whether that will is free of the conditions that led to it is extremely doubtful. If you have something that is 'free' of the pre-existing conditions, that isn't based on who you are at that moment (itself a result of previous events) and the circumstances, then it might be considered free but how does it qualify as will?

O.

[Nearly Sane]

You are correct in implying that we cannot choose what to believe, we can only believe in what we discern to be the truth.

Isn't any action based on what wwe believe we want to do? in which case how would that be free since as you say beliefs cannot be chosen.

[Alan Burns]

You are correct in implying that we cannot choose what to believe, we can only believe in what we discern to be the truth.

Isn't any action based on what wwe believe we want to do? in which case how would that be free since as you say beliefs cannot be chosen.

There is a difference between beliefs and wants.
We are free to choose what we want to do, from a number of limited choices.
We can only believe in what we perceive to be true.

[Nearly Sane]

There is a difference between beliefs and wants.
We are free to choose what we want to do, from a number of limited choices.
We can only believe in what we perceive to be true.

But you have to have a belief that you should take an action.

[Maeght]

It is an interesting scenario, but impossible to enact because we do not have the ability to re create any given moment in time.

That's why its a thought experiment.

With your model of no predermination and free will what do you think would happen if we could enact this scenario.

[Outrider]

We are free to choose what we want to do, from a number of limited choices.

No, we aren't. We are the product at a given moment of the nature we inherited and the sum total of the incidents that we have lived through - those incidents have shaped us, and at that given moment with those given experiences whilst there are conceivable possible choices, we are inevitably going to select a given one as the result of the various deterministic biological processes that make up our life.

O.

[Alan Burns]

We are free to choose what we want to do, from a number of limited choices.

No, we aren't. We are the product at a given moment of the nature we inherited and the sum total of the incidents that we have lived through - those incidents have shaped us, and at that given moment with those given experiences whilst there are conceivable possible choices, we are inevitably going to select a given one as the result of the various deterministic biological processes that make up our life.

O.

You seem to be arguing yourself out of existence.  If what constitutes "you" is just part of the continuum of matter in this universe with no individual power or contol, there seems to be no point in there being a "you".  My conception of reality is that I exist and I control my own destiny, and no amount of scientific evidence can change this most basic perception of my existence.

[Nearly Sane]

And argumentum ad consequentiam.

[Outrider]

You seem to be arguing yourself out of existence.  If what constitutes "you" is just part of the continuum of matter in this universe with no individual power or contol, there seems to be no point in there being a "you".

Who ever suggested there was a point? I'm not an adherent to the idea that there is any intrinsic purpose to life - I'm here, that's a happy accident, and I'll attempt to enjoy it the best I can while I'm here.

My conception of reality is that I exist and I control my own destiny, and no amount of scientific evidence can change this most basic perception of my existence.

If you aren't going to pay attention to the evidence, why bother discussing the nature of reality on a discussion forum? That's not intended as a 'F*** off' comment, it's a genuine question - what's the point, for you, in coming here, if you're predisposed to ignore evidence that contradicts your preconception?

O.

[Alan Burns]

If you aren't going to pay attention to the evidence, why bother discussing the nature of reality on a discussion forum? That's not intended as a 'F*** off' comment, it's a genuine question - what's the point, for you, in coming here, if you're predisposed to ignore evidence that contradicts your preconception?

O.

There are many things which science can teach me about the reality of my existence, but it can't detract from my most basic concept of reality - that I exist and that I control my body.

[Outrider]

There are many things which science can teach me about the reality of my existence, but it can't detract from my most basic concept of reality - that I exist and that I control my body.

That's just an alien concept to me - how can you look at the evidence, accept the evidence, realise the inevitable conclusion of that evidence and then say 'nope'?

O.

[Nearly Sane]

To be fair to Alan, if the approach is Cartesian, one could argue that any perception of evidence is based on the cogito. Alan enfolds freewill into the cogito in my view, so his basis for acknowledging evidence us based on the idea that there is an I with free will that exists and thinks.

It's not a position I share but if you did and thought you had reasoned your way to it, it would be consistent to think that it was based on fundamental evidence that could not be overturned without calling into question your understanding of evidence.

[Outrider]

To be fair to Alan, if the approach is Cartesian, one could argue that any perception of evidence is based on the cogito. Alan enfolds freewill into the cogito in my view, so his basis for acknowledging evidence us based on the idea that there is an I with free will that exists and thinks.

It's not a position I share but if you did and thought you had reasoned your way to it, it would be consistent to think that it was based on fundamental evidence that could not be overturned without calling into question your understanding of evidence.

That still wouldn't be derived from the available evidence, which accepts the subjective idea of 'I', but suggests that it's an emergent property of brain activity, nor does it overcome the fundamentally oxymoronic nature of the concept of 'free will'.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

My conception of reality is that I exist and I control my own destiny, and no amount of scientific evidence can change this most basic perception of my existence.

And there we have it: "...no amount of scientific evidence can change this...".

Fine, you can make whatever assertions you wish to make but you have no basis whatever for those who hear them not to think you to be entirely wrong given your indifference to the evidence that contradicts you. Why then bother with the proselytising given that you give the rest of us no choice but to point and laugh when you do it?

[Leonard James]

To be fair to Alan, if the approach is Cartesian, one could argue that any perception of evidence is based on the cogito. Alan enfolds freewill into the cogito in my view, so his basis for acknowledging evidence us based on the idea that there is an I with free will that exists and thinks.

It's not a position I share but if you did and thought you had reasoned your way to it, it would be consistent to think that it was based on fundamental evidence that could not be overturned without calling into question your understanding of evidence.

That still wouldn't be derived from the available evidence, which accepts the subjective idea of 'I', but suggests that it's an emergent property of brain activity, nor does it overcome the fundamentally oxymoronic nature of the concept of 'free will'.

O.

I have to agree with Alan on this one. For all practical purposes, "I" and my free will are emergent properties of my brain activity ... until/unless evidence is provided to the contrary.

[Outrider]

To be fair to Alan, if the approach is Cartesian, one could argue that any perception of evidence is based on the cogito. Alan enfolds freewill into the cogito in my view, so his basis for acknowledging evidence us based on the idea that there is an I with free will that exists and thinks.

It's not a position I share but if you did and thought you had reasoned your way to it, it would be consistent to think that it was based on fundamental evidence that could not be overturned without calling into question your understanding of evidence.

That still wouldn't be derived from the available evidence, which accepts the subjective idea of 'I', but suggests that it's an emergent property of brain activity, nor does it overcome the fundamentally oxymoronic nature of the concept of 'free will'.

O.

I have to agree with Alan on this one. For all practical purposes, "I" and my free will are emergent properties of my brain activity ... until/unless evidence is provided to the contrary.

Unless something's gone badly wrong, Alan was the one arguing something else...

O.

[Nearly Sane]

That still wouldn't be derived from the available evidence, which accepts the subjective idea of 'I', but suggests that it's an emergent property of brain activity, nor does it overcome the fundamentally oxymoronic nature of the concept of 'free will'.

O.

Surely though, your theory of knowledge is prior to what you can conclude from 'evidence' since what one determines as evidence is based on one's theory of knowledge. In Alan's case his internal experinces are the crucial part of the theory of knowledge because iof they are removed, he doesn't think he can hold any such theory.

[Nearly Sane]

I have to agree with Alan on this one. For all practical purposes, "I" and my free will are emergent properties of my brain activity ... until/unless evidence is provided to the contrary.

Except he isn't arguing that - he is arguing that they are not emergent and that exists  'I' non emergently as a soul and that is where free will comes from.

[Outrider]

That still wouldn't be derived from the available evidence, which accepts the subjective idea of 'I', but suggests that it's an emergent property of brain activity, nor does it overcome the fundamentally oxymoronic nature of the concept of 'free will'.

O.

Surely though, your theory of knowledge is prior to what you can conclude from 'evidence' since what one determines as evidence is based on one's theory of knowledge. In Alan's case his internal experinces are the crucial part of the theory of knowledge because iof they are removed, he doesn't think he can hold any such theory.

It's a progressive system whereby you refine the concept of knowledge and evidence as you are exposed to more and more of both of them - and, yes, that means that it's always provisional and imperfect.

How, though, are 'internal' experiences any different? All experiences are 'internal', our experience of light is not the sensory reaction to light, but rather the subjective understanding of the reaction of our eyes to light.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

It's a progressive system whereby you refine the concept of knowledge and evidence as you are exposed to more and more of both of them - and, yes, that means that it's always provisional and imperfect.

How, though, are 'internal' experiences any different? All experiences are 'internal', our experience of light is not the sensory reaction to light, but rather the subjective understanding of the reaction of our eyes to light.

O.

But in order to have a system, it has to be assumed what the base of it is. That everything is essentially internal is when used that way essentially the nuclear relativist option. It means that any theory of knowledeg is flawed. Alan's starting point is that he knows he exists because he knows ther is a thing called I that is thinking. In that he is simply following Descartes. After that he knows that 'I' has free will because it fits with the 'I' he bases his thinking on. Anything beyond that cannot challenge those original assumptions without calling into question itself since it is only of value to Alan because of the first assumptions.

[Outrider]

But in order to have a system, it has to be assumed what the base of it is. That everything is essentially internal is when used that way essentially the nuclear relativist option. It means that any theory of knowledge is flawed.

Yes, but unless you can somehow demonstrate an absolute external reference, that's always going to be the case. The nature of our subjective experience of reality is that it's always going to be provisional.

Alan's starting point is that he knows he exists because he knows ther is a thing called I that is thinking.

That's a starting point we share.

After that he knows that 'I' has free will because it fits with the 'I' he bases his thinking on.

And that's where it breaks down - that's not something he 'knows', that's something he assumes. Not only does an investigation of the available evidence not support it, but the notion itself is self-contradictory.

O.

[wigginhall]

I'm puzzled by Christians like Alan B., as they don't seem to talk about intelligent gravity.  But why not, if you are talking about mutations being caused by God, as otherwise too complex to explain naturalistically.   So is that saying that gravity is not complex, and is not caused by God?   Or gravity is complex, and is still not caused by God?

Gravity is simply one of the laws of nature brought into being by God.  I believe that intelligent intervention occurs in our universe by the power of free will (God's or man's) interacting with the natural laws of nature, not by overriding them.

I'm still intrigued by this.  You seem to be saying that gravity is created by God - but what happens when gravity operates?  When the apple falls from the tree, is God causing that?  Or observing it?   

And you say that God interacts with the laws of nature, but doesn't over-ride them.  How does this work with gravity?  For example, did God place the moon in position, so as to produce tides? 

[Nearly Sane]

But in order to have a system, it has to be assumed what the base of it is. That everything is essentially internal is when used that way essentially the nuclear relativist option. It means that any theory of knowledge is flawed.

Yes, but unless you can somehow demonstrate an absolute external reference, that's always going to be the case. The nature of our subjective experience of reality is that it's always going to be provisional.

Alan's starting point is that he knows he exists because he knows ther is a thing called I that is thinking.

That's a starting point we share.

After that he knows that 'I' has free will because it fits with the 'I' he bases his thinking on.

And that's where it breaks down - that's not something he 'knows', that's something he assumes. Not only does an investigation of the available evidence not support it, but the notion itself is self-contradictory.

O.

The point is that it has to be that you argue against and it cannot work for Alan on the basis of 'evidence' that is only recognised as such based on that original position.

Just to note I think the cogito assumes way too much and all that can be said is that there is thinking. The 'I' seems a construct just like the free will and in using the construct 'I', we smuggle in part of the free will position of Alan.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

My conception of reality is that I exist and I control my own destiny, and no amount of scientific evidence can change this most basic perception of my existence.

And there we have it: "...no amount of scientific evidence can change this...".

Fine, you can make whatever assertions you wish to make but you have no basis whatever for those who hear them not to think you to be entirely wrong given your indifference to the evidence that contradicts you. Why then bother with the proselytising given that you give the rest of us no choice but to point and laugh when you do it?

Science is itself a product of human perception and free will, so I do not see how it can ever be used to show that they do not exist.