Searching for GOD...

[Leonard James]

I'm off again ... it's my soaps this time! See yaz all later.

[Nearly Sane]

As I see it, "I" am the sum total of my cerebral functions. "I" am the result of my brain gathering all the information from the senses and its memory bank and uniting it into one, thinking, decision-making entity.

And how and why would this break the assumption of cause and effect in the scientific methodology?

[Alan Burns]

Just how free is that choice?  It is easy to see how you might be bound to self will but what drives you to surrender to your God's will?  Is it doctrine or rewards of Heaven or fears of eternal damnation??

Simply love of God

[Alan Burns]

AB,

In which case either one would still be your "will".

Who is this "I" of whom you speak - the material Alan Burns, or the non-material little man at the controls you've conjectured into existence?

"I" is my spiritual soul, which has conscious perception and free will.

[Alan Burns]

This is why I gave up discussing this because it is clear that you need to believe in all this due to your theology and so twist and turn trying to show that free will exists. It is nothing to do with logic, science or evidence but purely a need due to religious beliefs and nothing anyone says will change that.

But I have the power to choose between right and wrong, between good and bad, between my will, or my wife's will, or my childrens's will, or what I perceive to be God's will.  This is not twisting the truth.  It is the truth.

[Nearly Sane]

But I have the power to choose between right and wrong, between good and bad, between my will, or my wife's will, or my childrens's will, or what I perceive to be God's will.  This is not twisting the truth.  It is the truth.

No
It's assertion.

[Nearly Sane]

"I" is my spiritual soul, which has conscious perception and free will.

And more assertion, Alan, yet again don't you even begin to question just asserting you are right?

[Maeght]

But I have the power to choose between right and wrong, between good and bad, between my will, or my wife's will, or my childrens's will, or what I perceive to be God's will.  This is not twisting the truth.  It is the truth.

We have gone over this many times Alan and so won't get into a long post. Just to recap that no one disagrees that we make apparent choices. Whether they are free from previous events which predetermine the choice is the question.

I would like to point out though that I did not use the phrase 'twisting the truth' I said you twist and turn trying to show free will exists - which is a different thing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Len,

Well "causes" rather than "forces" perhaps (you'd need a separate "you" to be forced) but if the stuff that causes you to behave as you do isn't your material brain, you'd need a "something" separate from that brain to do the deciding. AB just invents something he calls a "soul" to do the job (which is hugely problematic as an answer for the reasons I set out to him a few posts back) but I doubt you'd agree with him about that. What then is it that you think does the deciding for you, and where would it be?

See, intuitively we have strong sense of "I" - ie, the self - somehow living in but apart from our bodies but if the evidence from neuroscience is correct then we'd still have that sense even if there was no Cartesian mind/body separation. How then would you know whether there is a separate "I" rather than just the instinctive impression of it?

 

An interesting post weirdly enough I think if anyone can lead Len into a deeper reflection of statements it is Bluehillside. I think you have introduced a reduction into your statement though Blue but I shall be following this with interest.

[Leonard James]

And how and why would this break the assumption of cause and effect in the scientific methodology?

I have no idea! I don't really understand  what that means. 

[Nearly Sane]

I have no idea! I don't really understand  what that means. 

Science as a naturalistic methodology has an assumption of cause and effect. Putting in the idea of a non deterministic cause breaks that assumption (note a random event is not the same thing as free will).

If you want to position free will you are arguing against the basic methodology of sciencr

[Leonard James]

Science as a naturalistic methodology has an assumption of cause and effect. Putting in the idea of a non deterministic cause breaks that assumption (note a random event is not the same thing as free will).

If you want to position free will you are arguing against the basic methodology of sciencr

Oh! Well, I don't think I will lose any sleep over it. 

[Nearly Sane]

Oh! Well, I don't think I will lose any sleep over it. 

I don't suppose you will but it's why you are making the same argument as Sassy, Alan Burns and ~TW~ on stuff like this.

[Leonard James]

I don't suppose you will but it's why you are making the same argument as Sassy, Alan Burns and ~TW~ on stuff like this.

Good grief! I certainly don't agree with them on the "God" stuff.

[Nearly Sane]

Good grief! I certainly don't agree with them on the "God" stuff.

I know but it's the same 'my personal experience allows me to deny basic logic' argument. In your case arguably worse because the arguments you use against them are based on the assumption of naturalism and cause and effect, which you then ignore to say your personal experience, the very thing you argue against for validation, is your validation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Science as a naturalistic methodology has an assumption of cause and effect. Putting in the idea of a non deterministic cause breaks that assumption (note a random event is not the same thing as free will).

If you want to position free will you are arguing against the basic methodology of sciencr

Sane.....I'm not sure old son, but I think you might just be guilty of the dreaded methodological /philosophical materialist conflation.

Does science actually evidence a lack of a soul yet? Has science actually solved the problem posed by the P zombie yet ? I rather think not in both cases.

To be operating on an ''Oh but it will'' isn't good enough.

I think you might have to sit on the naughty step with the reductionist materialists like Hillside who let's face it has being doing a hell of a lot of gussying up on this thread..

[Leonard James]

I know but it's the same 'my personal experience allows me to deny basic logic' argument. In your case arguably worse because the arguments you use against them are based on the assumption of naturalism and cause and effect, which you then ignore to say your personal experience, the very thing you argue against for validation, is your validation.

I'm sorry, NS, but I just don't understand. Why is my argument for free will illogical?

[Nearly Sane]

I'm sorry, NS, but I just don't understand. Why is my argument for free will illogical?

Your argument is based on it is your personal experience. If Sassy or Alan B say they have personally experienced god, you state this isn't a sensible argument. Therefore it's illogical because you are allowing it as evidence for one but not the other.

[Leonard James]

Your argument is based on it is your personal experience. If Sassy or Alan B say they have personally experienced god, you state this isn't a sensible argument. Therefore it's illogical because you are allowing it as evidence for one but not the other.

My argument for free will is based on it being produced by evolution, not my personal experience.

[Nearly Sane]

My argument for free will is based on it being produced by evolution, not my personal experience.

Sort of like Alan B,  that's an assertion not an argument. The methodology  used to discuss evolution, science, is deterministic, so how does it produce something non deterministic and free from the process it follows?

I've only ever seen an argument from you in favour of free will because you assert you can choose things based on personal experience, please lay out your evidence for it based on evolution and the naturalistic deterministic method it uses.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sort of like Alan B,  that's an assertion not an argument. The methodology  used to discuss evolution, science, is deterministic, so how does it produce something non deterministic and free from the process it follows?

Science is deterministic...........but does science describe the whole of reality?    And what has that got to do with actions being determined by matter, rather than matter responding to consciousness which is what I guess Len and Co are proposing.

[Leonard James]

Sort of like Alan B,  that's an assertion not an argument. The methodology  used to discuss evolution, science, is deterministic, so how does it produce something non deterministic and free from the process it follows?

I've only ever seen an argument from you in favour of free will because you assert you can choose things based on personal experience, please lay out your evidence for it based on evolution and the naturalistic deterministic method it uses.

When a predator stalks a prey, being able to choose one course of action over another (flight or fight) can make the difference between the prey surviving and not surviving. Not being able to choose halves its survival chances.

[torridon]

When a predator stalks a prey, being able to choose one course of action over another (flight or fight) can make the difference between the prey surviving and not surviving. Not being able to choose halves its survival chances.

So the animal has a choice.  What is the difference between 'choice' and 'free choice' ?

[Nearly Sane]

When a predator stalks a prey, being able to choose one course of action over another (flight or fight) can make the difference between the prey surviving and not surviving. Not being able to choose halves its survival chances.

this doesn't make that 'free' I.e.not deterministic, and in using science you assume a determinism of cause and effect,I.e. that there is no cause that isn't part of an effect. Can you explain how evolution based on cause and effect, can deal with a non caused cause?

[Leonard James]

this doesn't make that 'free' I.e.not deterministic, and in using science you assume a determinism of cause and effect,I.e. that there is no cause that isn't part of an effect. Can you explain how evolution based on cause and effect, can deal with a non caused cause?

I'm afraid you confuse me with all these expressions.   

Evolution favours traits that enhance survival and reproduction. If the ability to choose fits the bill, then evolution will favour it when it arises.