Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

Saying that free will doesn't exist because science has found no way to explain it yet, is just as bad as saying "God" exists because science can't explain certain other phenomena.

No, that is precisely the wrong way round. You are using the negative proof fallacy. You assert it exists, you have the burden of proof. Your personal experience is not evidence, just as Alan Burn's personal experience of his god is not evidence for his god.

[torridon]

It is not possible to explain how it works, but virtually every human being knows they have the ability to do what they want to do when they so wish.

and that nicely illustrates why we aren't free as you acknowledge implicitly here that we are tied to our wishes. Try this thought experiment - sit down and try to want something that you really don't want.  If you are honest about it you will realise that it cannot be done. Our will is not some primal creative force in the cosmos, it is merely the word we give to our motivation to get want we want but we cannot fabricate what we want out of thin air. Our desires form for a reason, all part of the great chain of cause and effect.

[Maeght]

Saying that free will doesn't exist because science has found no way to explain it yet, is just as bad as saying "God" exists because science can't explain certain other phenomena.

The statement has been made that free will exists and this has been questioned, a mechanism requested and scientific evidence presented that decisions which appear to be conscious result from the subconscious. No one who says we have free will has explained how any decision could be free of prior events nor presented anything which demonstrates free will. I think, as I have said, it is most likely that all our decisions and actions result from the way our brains are wired at that time which itself is a result of nature and nurture but could be wrong. I have also previously said that I think currently it is probably not possible to present anything which demonstrates free will since in any situation the choice could be uninfluenced by previous events without us realising or may not. The people who say we definitely have free will are the ones on this thread who seem to me to be making the stronger statement and who need to back that up. Alan in particular needs to believe in free will due to his theology.

[torridon]

As far as I know, Hoyle is the only person who has attempted to calculate the realistic probability of life being brought into existence by random forces.  It is not feasible to calculate the probability of random forces creating self awareness because we can't define how self awareness is generated from material properties.

Well you have a short memory then as i have already pointed this out to you that Hoyle, brilliant though he was, is 50 years out of date and people working in biogenesis research today see no such obstacles. Forces are not random anyhow, they are predictable.

[torridon]

Just to note that for the idea of free will to make sense, then it cannot be built on a traditional materialist methodology because  it negate how we view cause and effect. That doesn't mean it does not apply but that anyone touting it would have to accept that we would have an infinite number of uncaused causes so the idea of needing one to start it no longer makes sense. To be fair to Alan Burns, he sort of does accept the impact of this.

Over land above that what makes the very concept difficult is the point that Outrider has been making but I don't see much recognition of, in that if there is no action is not caused, what does that really mean? How do we will something without it being fully caused. If we have a set of choices and there is no or even partial cause, then what would make any decision more likely with it being free? It's not random in this definition so how could it be made. Removing cause and effect causes real problems for how this might happen

I would have thought that any event that occurs must either be a consequence of prior events (assuming a unidirectional arrow of time) or it must be random. I don't see the notion of 'will', free or otherwise, has any traction at this level of analysis, it is only useful in describing behaviours occuring at far higher levels of emergent complexity.  Having dispensed with 'will' as a primal creative force, I have my doubts about the existence of randomness also. I'm not sure we could have a largely deterministic cosmos that includes say 1% randomness, surely any randomness at all would kill off cause and effect.  And as we can't prove randomness I'm beginning to suspect that we indulge the idea out of prejudice, ie like 'supernatural', and 'god', it is another psychological ploy to avoid full determinism.

[Nearly Sane]

Indeed torridon, if will is not a conglomeration of effects, then what would be any reason for a choice. At base, this is back to Hume's point that reason does not motivate action.

[Nearly Sane]

It is not possible to explain how it works, but virtually every human being knows they have the ability to do what they want to do when they so wish.

argumentum ad populum, again, really?

[Alan Burns]

In my teenage years I was inspired into trying creative photography after being impressed by an article entitled "Imagine an image and print it".  The ability of human beings to imagine something and turn it into action is difficult to explain in terms of pre determined chemical activity over which we have no control.

There must be something within each human being which perceives and manipulates thoughts and optionally turns them into action.  This "something" can aptly be named the human soul.  No doubt the non believers will be able to dream up ever more complex scenarios of neurological brain activity which will attempt to explain everything, but this is just further evidence for the inventiveness inspired and driven be the non deterministic forces of the human soul.

[Maeght]

In my teenage years I was inspired into trying creative photography after being inspired by an article entitled "Imagine an image and print it".  The ability of human beings to imagine something and turn it into action is difficult to explain in terms of pre determined chemical activity over which we have no control.

Creativity is not difficult to explain if you posit a brain which responds in ways determined by our nature and nurture.

There must be something within each human being which perceives and manipulates thoughts and optionally turns them into action.  This "something" can aptly be named the human soul.

No it can't. It is most likely the brain.

No doubt the non believers will be able to dream up ever more complex scenarios of neurological brain activity which will explain everything, but this is just further evidence for the inventiveness inspired and driven be the non deterministic forces of the human soul.

No its not.

[ekim]

You can't have a conscious intelligence that is free of the brain's programming though; 'conscious intelligence' would be an aspect of brain function.

In some respect that's what this thread is basically about .... Is there an independent conscious intelligence which manipulates matter and energy into life forms which can interact with other forms of matter/energy or is conscious intelligence just a byproduct of matter and energy .... a kind of chicken and egg question.  Whether it can wholly be resolved by using the scientific method I don't know, but the methods employed within many religions are attempts to withdraw within, beyond mental and physical activities and identify with a consciousness free from those activities.  To link this to the thread's topic, perhaps it is Jesus' heavenly state within which he attains through metanoia (inwardly 'beyond mind').

[floo]

In my teenage years I was inspired into trying creative photography after being inspired by an article entitled "Imagine an image and print it".  The ability of human beings to imagine something and turn it into action is difficult to explain in terms of pre determined chemical activity over which we have no control.

There must be something within each human being which perceives and manipulates thoughts and optionally turns them into action.  This "something" can aptly be named the human soul.  No doubt the non believers will be able to dream up ever more complex scenarios of neurological brain activity which will explain everything, but this is just further evidence for the inventiveness inspired and driven be the non deterministic forces of the human soul.

The brain is a remarkable organ which is more evolved in the human of the species. In time other animal species brains might evolve to rival that of humans, who knows? You seem desperate to attribute human brain activity to a mythical 'soul' for which there is not the slightest bit of credible evidence.

[torridon]

In my teenage years I was inspired into trying creative photography after being inspired by an article entitled "Imagine an image and print it".  The ability of human beings to imagine something and turn it into action is difficult to explain in terms of pre determined chemical activity over which we have no control.

There must be something within each human being which perceives and manipulates thoughts and optionally turns them into action.  This "something" can aptly be named the human soul.  No doubt the non believers will be able to dream up ever more complex scenarios of neurological brain activity which will explain everything, but this is just further evidence for the inventiveness inspired and driven be the non deterministic forces of the human soul.

Inventiveness, creativity, imagination; these are all about cross-fertilisation of existing ideas. It is not possible to imagine a truly novel concept.  I can only imagine what saltfish tastes like, because I already know saltiness and I already know what fish is like. If you meet an alien from a salt-free planet  tomorrow would he be able to imagine what saltiness is like ?  That humans are unusually 'creative' in the animal kingdom is partly down to the facts that we are all synaesthetes, and also partly due to neoteny (my opinion, this), creativity being a characteristic of juveniles.

[ekim]

Expect of course that we can easily misinterpret our own experiences.

Yes, just as we can misinterpret and be mislead by the experiences of others, especially if we are not aware of their motives.

[Maeght]

Indeed, which is why the scientific method with peer review is so important.

[Alan Burns]

Inventiveness, creativity, imagination; these are all about cross-fertilisation of existing ideas. It is not possible to imagine a truly novel concept.  I can only imagine what saltfish tastes like, because I already know saltiness and I already know what fish is like. If you meet an alien from a salt-free planet  tomorrow would he be able to imagine what saltiness is like ?  That humans are unusually 'creative' in the animal kingdom is partly down to the facts that we are all synaesthetes, and also partly due to neoteny (my opinion, this), creativity being a characteristic of juveniles.

But you have the freedom to choose to imagine what saltfish tastes like.  There are a wealth of past experiences to call upon, but we can choose to call them into our imagination when we so wish.  What does a wish comprise of?  In the deterministic scenario there is no wish, just unavoidable reaction to previous events.

[torridon]

But you have the freedom to choose to imagine what saltfish tastes like.  There are a wealth of past experiences to call upon, but we can choose to call them into our imagination when we so wish.  What does a wish comprise of?  In the deterministic scenario there is no wish, just unavoidable reaction to previous events.

I don't think that is right.

Can you explain to your alien what saltiness is like ?  You cannot, because it isn't 'like' anything; it is just salty, end of story. Could you explain to a blind man what blueness is like ?

[Alan Burns]

I don't think that is right.

Can you explain to your alien what saltiness is like ?  You cannot, because it isn't 'like' anything; it is just salty, end of story. Could you explain to a blind man what blueness is like ?

I agree that perceptions can't be described, they can only be experienced.  But can we define what an experience of perception is?  If I try to define it as neurolologican activity I just go round in circles because there is no end recipient, just a lot of cause and effect reactions.

[Outrider]

It is not possible to explain how it works, but virtually every human being knows they have the ability to do what they want to do when they so wish.

There are humans today that 'know' the Christian depictions of God and Jesus are real. There are humans today that 'know' that Islamic depiction of Allah is real. There are humans today that 'know' that the Hindu depiction of Krishna is real.

Those are mutually exclusive concepts - what people think they know is not a reliable indicator of reality.

That our subjective impression of life feels like free will doesn't make it real.

One - just one - of the things that calls it into question is the fact that very idea itself is logically nonsensical.

O.

[Outrider]

Saying that free will doesn't exist because science has found no way to explain it yet, is just as bad as saying "God" exists because science can't explain certain other phenomena.

If that's what was happening you'd be right, but there are two threads to the argument. One is that the scientific evidence shows us that everything we can detect about thinking is deterministic, and we can see enough to explain thinking entirely - there is no 'gap' in the explanation. That does not preclude something else, but it means we have a viable deterministic explanation.

The other thread is that when reviewed logically the idea of free will doesn't makes sense, whether it's purely in the brain or there is a 'soul' or something else involved.

O.

[Outrider]

In my teenage years I was inspired into trying creative photography after being impressed by an article entitled "Imagine an image and print it".  The ability of human beings to imagine something and turn it into action is difficult to explain in terms of pre determined chemical activity over which we have no control.

I don't find that sort of thing difficult to explain at all, I'd like to think I've done the equivalent repeatedly in this thread. What I think you mean is that YOU find it difficult to explain, partly because you find it difficult to accept. That doesn't mean that it's wrong (any more than my finding it easy to accept makes it right).

There must be something within each human being which perceives and manipulates thoughts and optionally turns them into action.

It's called a brain.

This "something" can aptly be named the human soul.

Why would we hypothesise a soul when we have more than enough evidence to show that the brain both is involved in this, and is sufficient to explain this?

No doubt the non believers will be able to dream up ever more complex scenarios of neurological brain activity which will explain everything, but this is just further evidence for the inventiveness inspired and driven be the non deterministic forces of the human soul.

So the fact that we can answer your question, to you, is evidence that we're wrong and can't answer your question...

O.

[SusanDoris]

#5612 Outrider

Well said ... as usual of course!

[Alan Burns]

That our subjective impression of life feels like free will doesn't make it real.

One - just one - of the things that calls it into question is the fact that very idea itself is logically nonsensical.

O.

It is only nonsensical when you try to see it from a materialist viewpoint.

It makes perfect sense to realise that your free will eminates from the self awareness of the spiritual soul which perceives and interacts with human brain cells.  No other explanation makes any sense to me.

[Sebastian Toe]

It makes perfect sense to realise that your free will eminates from the self awareness of the spiritual soul which perceives and interacts with human brain cells. 

Does your soul only have knowledge of the universe via this interaction with what your brain perceives?

[Alan Burns]

So the fact that we can answer your question, to you, is evidence that we're wrong and can't answer your question...

O.

It is the convoluted attempt to answer my question which proves my point

[Alan Burns]

Does your soul only have knowledge of the universe via this interaction with what your brain perceives?

The soul is not of this universe, its true home is in heaven as we understand from biblical revelations.

So the human brain is the soul's window into this universe.  Any knowledge of this universe is perceived through the content of human brain cells.