Searching for GOD...

[Maeght]

I wasn't originally asking the question of you Leonard, I was asking Alan to explain how some non material soul interacted to make decisions for us. But since you ave responded I think your post is quite correct in that we do not know how the brain makes a choice and that this is the area of expertise of neuroscience. We certainly do make choices - but the question is how free are those choices and how predetermined by out nature/nurture are they. They may appear to be free but may just as well be as predetermined by our nature and nurture as our apparently instinctive actions. We don't know. But I am interested to know how any decision process can be free of previous influences. Is this a question of definition of free will? As ever there seems to be two definitions for the phrase - one essentially is making a considered choice without been made by an outside force to do so, but the second is choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention or similar. I can fully accept that we do the former of course but it is the 'not determined by prior cause' that I cannot understand.

[ekim]

I wasn't originally asking the question of you Leonard, I was asking Alan to explain how some non material soul interacted to make decisions for us. But since you ave responded I think your post is quite correct in that we do not know how the brain makes a choice and that this is the area of expertise of neuroscience. We certainly do make choices - but the question is how free are those choices and how predetermined by out nature/nurture are they. They may appear to be free but may just as well be as predetermined by our nature and nurture as our apparently instinctive actions. We don't know. But I am interested to know how any decision process can be free of previous influences. Is this a question of definition of free will? As ever there seems to be two definitions for the phrase - one essentially is making a considered choice without been made by an outside force to do so, but the second is choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention or similar. I can fully accept that we do the former of course but it is the 'not determined by prior cause' that I cannot understand.

As this is a Christian topic, from a 'Jesus' perspective I don't see it as a question of 'not determined by prior cause'.  It is more about recognising or being conscious of what drives self considerations and instead of being driven by them, surrendering to God's Will.  An illustration is in Jesus' prayer just before his arrest and trial where the drive for self preservation arose into consciousness but he chose to let events take their course according to his God's Will:

"O God, if it is possible,  let this impending destiny be averted, but only if it conforms to your will.    If the only way for this fateful event to pass by is for me to experience it then let it be so."

[Outrider]

I know what you are saying, what I was asking was how would that actually work in practice, how would such a system actually work? On what basis would any choice be made?

The basis of the choice is simply the will of the person making it. Why is that so difficult to understand?

Because the evidence available suggest that our sense of 'choice' is an illusion, and that in fact we have no more choice than a computer programmed to make a mathematical determination between two constants - they have a decision to arrive at, but the conditions at the start of that process pre-determine the outcome.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I know what you are saying, what I was asking was how would that actually work in practice, how would such a system actually work? On what basis would any choice be made?

The basis of the choice is simply the will of the person making it. Why is that so difficult to understand?

Because the evidence available suggest that our sense of 'choice' is an illusion, and that in fact we have no more choice than a computer programmed to make a mathematical determination between two constants

And this is the guy who says we are self aware!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Once again Rider how are we ever going to prove scientifically we are conscious rather than the computer you are saying we are here? Either your self aware argument goes or your argument with Leonard is lost.

[Outrider]

And this is the guy who says we are self aware!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes. You see a conflict there, presumably, you might have to explain what that conflict is. We can be aware of things over which we have no control, that shouldn't come as a surprise to you.

Once again Rider how are we ever going to prove scientifically we are conscious rather than the computer you are saying we are here?

Why is it one or the other?

Either your self aware argument goes or your argument with Leonard is lost.

Or self-awareness and the lack of freedom in will are perfectly compatible.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And this is the guy who says we are self aware!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes. You see a conflict there, presumably, you might have to explain what that conflict is. We can be aware of things over which we have no control, that shouldn't come as a surprise to you.

Once again Rider how are we ever going to prove scientifically we are conscious rather than the computer you are saying we are here?

Why is it one or the other?

Either your self aware argument goes or your argument with Leonard is lost.

Or self-awareness and the lack of freedom in will are perfectly compatible.

O.

yes but how are you going to prove self awareness and at the same time argue we are just programmed machines.....

That's actually two problems.

[Outrider]

yes but how are you going to prove self awareness and at the same time argue we are just programmed machines.....

I'm not going to 'prove' it, I'm giving it sufficient weight to accept that it's valid. It's impossible to prove anything about reality given our inherently subjective understanding of it. Just one of the reasons I can't make definitive statements about anything's potential non-existence.

The available evidence suggests that we're deterministic machines, but that evidence is not absolute and so the conclusion is - as with all science - provisional.

That's actually two problems.

And they're both yours, it seems, rather than mine.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

yes but how are you going to prove self awareness and at the same time argue we are just programmed machines.....

I'm not going to 'prove' it, I'm giving it sufficient weight to accept that it's valid. It's impossible to prove anything about reality given our inherently subjective understanding of it. Just one of the reasons I can't make definitive statements about anything's potential non-existence.

The available evidence suggests that we're deterministic machines, but that evidence is not absolute and so the conclusion is - as with all science - provisional.

That's actually two problems.

And they're both yours, it seems, rather than mine.

O.

Not really, I have said we only know we are self aware ourselves. You want consciousness and want us to be
clever automata at the same time;

[Outrider]

Not really, I have said we only know we are self aware ourselves. You want consciousness and want us to be clever automata at the same time;

What I want is irrelevant, it's what the evidence suggests. We both accept solipsism, it seems, at the level of philosophical proof, it's where we go after that. You accept God on some basis that you've not been able to adequately communicate. I accept naturalism - provisionally - on the evidence I've put forward here and elsewhere.

I don't see an inherent conflict between awareness and a lack of free will, but you apparently do - what's the conflict?

O.

[Maeght]

I don't see there is any conflict between a) being conscious and self aware and b)our decisions and choices to being determined by our previous experiences and our nature. Where is the conflict?

[ekim]

I don't see there is any conflict between a) being conscious and self aware and b)our decisions and choices to being determined by our previous experiences and our nature. Where is the conflict?

I may be reading the discussion incorrectly but I think it revolves around O's reply "Because the evidence available suggest that our sense of 'choice' is an illusion, and that in fact we have no more choice than a computer programmed to make a mathematical determination between two constants - they have a decision to arrive at, but the conditions at the start of that process pre-determine the outcome.
which seems to imply that we are like computer programmes with no consciousness and no choice.  However, the external computer programmer was able to consciously choose the form which the programme took and can also reprogramme it.  Perhaps it is reasonable to say that humans are capable of choosing to reprogramme certain of their own inner programmes if they become aware of them.  If they remain unconscious of them, which is the purpose of conditioning processes, then the computer analogy is more appropriate, awareness is lost and so is choice.

[torridon]

If we want to run with a computing analogy, then we are being constantly reprogrammed, every minute of every day, by our interactions with the rest of the cosmos. The brain is always active even during sleep, constantly making new 'wiring' and deprecating the unimportant stuff.

[Alan Burns]

I don't see there is any conflict between a) being conscious and self aware and b)our decisions and choices to being determined by our previous experiences and our nature. Where is the conflict?

The conflict arises because our perception is that conscious awareness can overturn choices that would otherwise be driven by natural instinct and learnt experience.

From the Christian perspective, I am only too aware that every day I am faced with choices which involve either doing good for others or giving in to self centred temptation.

To say that we have no choice over our actions implies that there is no such thing as evil or sin and everything just happens naturally - like the recent shootings in Paris.  The reality is that the killers gave in to the ultimate self centred temptation of taking a short cut to heaven by getting killed in a Holy war, but by now they will have discovered that there is no short cut to get to heaven.

[Shaker]

To say that we have no choice over our actions implies that there is no such thing as evil or sin and everything just happens naturally - like the recent shootings in Paris.  The reality is that the killers gave in to the ultimate self centred temptation of taking a short cut to heaven by getting killed in a Holy war, but by now they will have discovered that there is no short cut to get to heaven.

That's not reality, that's your belief, two things which are more often than not at great variance. Your scenario would hold true only if you are right and they are wrong.

They, of course, could be right. Do I believe this? Do I buggery. But then, I don't believe a word of what you say either

[Maeght]

I don't see there is any conflict between a) being conscious and self aware and b)our decisions and choices to being determined by our previous experiences and our nature. Where is the conflict?

The conflict arises because our perception is that conscious awareness can overturn choices that would otherwise be driven by natural instinct and learnt experience.

From the Christian perspective, I am only too aware that every day I am faced with choices which involve either doing good for others or giving in to self centred temptation.

To say that we have no choice over our actions implies that there is no such thing as evil or sin and everything just happens naturally - like the recent shootings in Paris.  The reality is that the killers gave in to the ultimate self centred temptation of taking a short cut to heaven by getting killed in a Holy war, but by now they will have discovered that there is no short cut to get to heaven.

Exactly - you have to believe that we have free choices due to your theology of evil, sin etc but that doesn't mean that we do. Of course we make choices, no one disputes that, the question is to what extent are they predetermined by our nature/nurture. Note the inclusion of nurture - our 'programming' can change by exposure to information, study etc so our responses to a situation can change with time but that doesn't mean it is free.

[Maeght]

I don't see there is any conflict between a) being conscious and self aware and b)our decisions and choices to being determined by our previous experiences and our nature. Where is the conflict?

I may be reading the discussion incorrectly but I think it revolves around O's reply "Because the evidence available suggest that our sense of 'choice' is an illusion, and that in fact we have no more choice than a computer programmed to make a mathematical determination between two constants - they have a decision to arrive at, but the conditions at the start of that process pre-determine the outcome.
which seems to imply that we are like computer programmes with no consciousness and no choice.  However, the external computer programmer was able to consciously choose the form which the programme took and can also reprogramme it.  Perhaps it is reasonable to say that humans are capable of choosing to reprogramme certain of their own inner programmes if they become aware of them.  If they remain unconscious of them, which is the purpose of conditioning processes, then the computer analogy is more appropriate, awareness is lost and so is choice.

No, I think you have read the discussion correctly. I don't think 'we are like computer programmes with no consciousness' is correct though. We can still have consciousness with our choices being determined by the way our brains are programmed can't we?

[Alan Burns]

I don't see there is any conflict between a) being conscious and self aware and b)our decisions and choices to being determined by our previous experiences and our nature. Where is the conflict?

I may be reading the discussion incorrectly but I think it revolves around O's reply "Because the evidence available suggest that our sense of 'choice' is an illusion, and that in fact we have no more choice than a computer programmed to make a mathematical determination between two constants - they have a decision to arrive at, but the conditions at the start of that process pre-determine the outcome.
which seems to imply that we are like computer programmes with no consciousness and no choice.  However, the external computer programmer was able to consciously choose the form which the programme took and can also reprogramme it.  Perhaps it is reasonable to say that humans are capable of choosing to reprogramme certain of their own inner programmes if they become aware of them.  If they remain unconscious of them, which is the purpose of conditioning processes, then the computer analogy is more appropriate, awareness is lost and so is choice.

No, I think you have read the discussion correctly. I don't think 'we are like computer programmes with no consciousness' is correct though. We can still have consciousness with our choices being determined by the way our brains are programmed can't we?

But our conscious awareness is an integral part of what we are, and currently we have no definition of how conscious awareness works, so we are not able to conclude that it can co exist with deterministic brain activity.

[Maeght]

I don't see there is any conflict between a) being conscious and self aware and b)our decisions and choices to being determined by our previous experiences and our nature. Where is the conflict?

I may be reading the discussion incorrectly but I think it revolves around O's reply "Because the evidence available suggest that our sense of 'choice' is an illusion, and that in fact we have no more choice than a computer programmed to make a mathematical determination between two constants - they have a decision to arrive at, but the conditions at the start of that process pre-determine the outcome.
which seems to imply that we are like computer programmes with no consciousness and no choice.  However, the external computer programmer was able to consciously choose the form which the programme took and can also reprogramme it.  Perhaps it is reasonable to say that humans are capable of choosing to reprogramme certain of their own inner programmes if they become aware of them.  If they remain unconscious of them, which is the purpose of conditioning processes, then the computer analogy is more appropriate, awareness is lost and so is choice.

No, I think you have read the discussion correctly. I don't think 'we are like computer programmes with no consciousness' is correct though. We can still have consciousness with our choices being determined by the way our brains are programmed can't we?

But our conscious awareness is an integral part of what we are, and currently we have no definition of how conscious awareness works, so we are not able to conclude that it can co exist with deterministic brain activity.

And we equally cannot conclude that it can't - we can only look at the current evidence and form opinions based on what is most likely. This doesn't include, from my point of view, the idea of a soul which is independent of the brain since there is no evidence for such a thing and no method forthcoming of how such a system would actually operate. I could be wrong, but could you?

[Nearly Sane]

Given that Alan's claim is one not investigatible BR science due to the methodology of naturalism, I get to ask yet again, anyone got a methodology for this type of claim?

[Leonard James]

I know what you are saying, what I was asking was how would that actually work in practice, how would such a system actually work? On what basis would any choice be made?

The basis of the choice is simply the will of the person making it. Why is that so difficult to understand?

Because the evidence available suggest that our sense of 'choice' is an illusion, and that in fact we have no more choice than a computer programmed to make a mathematical determination between two constants - they have a decision to arrive at, but the conditions at the start of that process pre-determine the outcome.

O.

But a computer has to follow its programming ... we don't! We can make the opposite choice even if only to show that we can.

[jeremyp]

But a computer has to follow its programming ... we don't! We can make the opposite choice even if only to show that we can.

How do you know you're not programmed to make the opposite choice when you are trying to demonstrate your free will?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not really, I have said we only know we are self aware ourselves. You want consciousness and want us to be clever automata at the same time;

What I want is irrelevant, it's what the evidence suggests. We both accept solipsism, it seems, at the level of philosophical proof, it's where we go after that. You accept God on some basis that you've not been able to adequately communicate.........

I think you'll find it's called The moral argument and God himself.

[Leonard James]

But a computer has to follow its programming ... we don't! We can make the opposite choice even if only to show that we can.

How do you know you're not programmed to make the opposite choice when you are trying to demonstrate your free will?

Is it possible to write a programme in which a robot is aware of its own thoughts? I think not. If you can suggest a way, then I will consider it.

[torridon]

There are ongoing projects attempting to create synthetic brains in which the hardwire of the machine is closely modelled on mammalain brains. If we succeed in creating machine consciousness then self awareness would follow downstream. Strange to think that we would then have a thinking consciousness entity that was by any normal measure, not alive. What that means of course is that we need to review what we mean by 'life'.

[Outrider]

Not really, I have said we only know we are self aware ourselves. You want consciousness and want us to be clever automata at the same time;

What I want is irrelevant, it's what the evidence suggests. We both accept solipsism, it seems, at the level of philosophical proof, it's where we go after that. You accept God on some basis that you've not been able to adequately communicate.........

I think you'll find it's called The moral argument and God himself.

The moral argument - an arbitrary claim that there is an objective morality that must be grounded in a supernatural figure, despite the absence of any reason to think that morality is objective, and the demonstrable differentiation between many moral systems and the morality accredited to God in the novels.

As to 'God himself' - your citing God as an argument for God... really?

O.