Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

Your second paragraph is correct but ignores the important (to this discussion) fact that our assessments, mood, and personal decisions are produced somehow and it can only be a combination of deterministic and random processes.

Agreed! It is not purely deterministic.

You seem to be missing the point as spectacularly as Alan is.

To the extent it isn't deterministic, it is random. I don't know about you, but I don't think the addition of randomness adds to our freedom - quite the reverse.

[Leonard James]

Agreed! It is not purely deterministic.


You seem to be missing the point as spectacularly as Alan is.

To the extent it isn't deterministic, it is random. I don't know about you, but I don't think the addition of randomness adds to our freedom - quite the reverse.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand. The randomness I am referring to is that which we encounter every day of our lives. There is no pre-ordained pattern to it, and we have to decide personally how we are going to react to it at any given moment. We do so by using our ability to choose our actions.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Len,

I'm sorry, but I don't understand. The randomness I am referring to is that which we encounter every day of our lives. There is no pre-ordained pattern to it, and we have to decide personally how we are going to react to it at any given moment. We do so by using our ability to choose our actions.

But Len you're making Alan's mistake for him: sure it feels like there's a "me" somehow driving the separate stuff my body is made from, but that's an illusion. There's no "we" just floating around somewhere (where would it be by the way?) to decide anything - just the emergent property of consciousness that does all the work. You might for example say in response something like, "well I always have my first chilled amontillado of the day about now but just to prove you wrong I'll have a sangria instead to show that I have proper free will" but that option would also be the result of the unfathomably long chain of cause and effect that led you to that point.

[Leonard James]

Len,

But Len you're making Alan's mistake for him: sure it feels like there's a "me" somehow driving the separate stuff my body is made from, but that's an illusion. There's no "we" just floating around somewhere (where would it be by the way?) to decide anything - just the emergent property of consciousness that does all the work. You might for example say in response something like, "well I always have my first chilled amontillado of the day about now but just to prove you wrong I'll have a sangria instead to show that I have proper free will" but that option would also be the result of the unfathomably long chain of cause and effect that led you to that point.

You misunderstand me (or I have given the wrong impression).

I don't for one moment consider myself as a separate entity from my physical body. My brain is "me", and it is perfectly capable of deciding and directing my body to act in the way I do.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Leonard,

No, your mind is you, your brain is just that lump between your ears, got it! if you have could you explain it to me

Gonnagle.

[Stranger]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand. The randomness I am referring to is that which we encounter every day of our lives. There is no pre-ordained pattern to it, and we have to decide personally how we are going to react to it at any given moment. We do so by using our ability to choose our actions.

The point under discussion is how our ability to choose our actions actually works. We are talking about the internal processing that our brains (or Alan's souls) do, in order to arrive at a particular choice, in a given circumstance.

Alan has claimed that it can't be done in the context of what he calls the "scientifically deterministic" but that it would need a non-material soul. I am pointing out that even if he changes the "platform" from material/physical to something else, he is still stuck with deterministic or random processes because a non-deterministic, non-random process is a logical contradiction.

Something either has a cause or it doesn't - if it doesn't, then it will be random (because nothing causes it to be one thing rather than another). You can combine the two and have random variation within caused limits (for example) but you can't magic up a purposeful, directed event that isn't determined by other events.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Len,

You misunderstand me (or I have given the wrong impression).

I don't for one moment consider myself as a separate entity from my physical body. My brain is "me", and it is perfectly capable of deciding and directing my body to act in the way I do.

If I do then I apologise my friend. I'm not sure how you think that the "you" that is your body is also capable of "directing" your body except in the mechanistic sense that nerve impulses are sent from the brain to muscles etc, but more to the point I'm still sensing that you think that your "deciding" is somehow free of the cause and effect principle - i.e., you have "free" will in the sense that Alan thinks you have it because that's the way it feels.

Is that right?

[torridon]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand. The randomness I am referring to is that which we encounter every day of our lives. There is no pre-ordained pattern to it, and we have to decide personally how we are going to react to it at any given moment. We do so by using our ability to choose our actions.

and our evolved ability to choose derives from base laws of nature. all of which must obey base laws of logic.  At base, any event is either random or it is determined. It is one or the other, there is no halfway house, one is the opposite of the other.  Alan denies this basic law of logic by invoking his unfalsifiable spiritual realm to claim a third way, neither random, nor determined, but willed.  This is merely fallacious logic dressed in religio-babble to make it sound superficially plausible.

[Leonard James]

Len,

If I do then I apologise my friend. I'm not sure how you think that the "you" that is your body is also capable of "directing" your body except in the mechanistic sense that nerve impulses are sent from the brain to muscles etc, but more to the point I'm still sensing that you think that your "deciding" is somehow free of the cause and effect principle - i.e., you have "free" will in the sense that Alan thinks you have it because that's the way it feels.

Is that right?

I am going to use the word "I" in this, but remember that I am referring to my brain, the motivating component of my body..

When I make a decision to do something it is usually because I have thought about it and decided how best to act. Whatever the process involved, I am still able to decide how I act at the moment of acting. I can choose whether act according to my decision or not.

Obviously I will usually do what I think is right, but I can use my free will and do something else if I want to demonstrate that I can. That is what I consider free will.

[BeRational]

I am going to use the word "I" in this, but remember that I am referring to my brain, the motivating component of my body..

When I make a decision to do something it is usually because I have thought about it and decided how best to act. Whatever the process involved, I am still able to decide how I act at the moment of acting. I can choose whether act according to my decision or not.

Obviously I will usually do what I think is right, but I can use my free will and do something else if I want to demonstrate that I can. That is what I consider free will.

I think what is being said is that it 'feels' like freewill (how could it not), but the result is from a long chain of cause and effect. The feeling is what free will feels like in our brain.

You think you see the colour blue, but you don't really, as blue does not exist. Your brain conjures up a feeling of light at that wavelength and you 'see' blue.

[Alan Burns]

Yes, you are.

But how do you think the "I" in that sentence works and how do you know it can't be physical?

If it was physical, the only thing in control would be the laws of science, not me.  Therefore the "I" which controls my thoughts, words and actions must be non physical.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Alan,

If it was physical, the only thing in control would be the laws of science, not me.  Therefore the "I" which controls my thoughts, words and actions must be non physical.

You might want to look up the meaning of non sequitur about now.

[Stranger]

If it was physical, the only thing in control would be the laws of science, not me.  Therefore the "I" which controls my thoughts, words and actions must be non physical.

If it was non-physical, the the only thing in control would be the laws of the non-physical, not me.  Therefore the "I" which controls my thoughts, words and actions must be physical.

That makes just as much (non)sense. It's the laws of logic that are your problem.

What is it about the non-physical that makes the difference?

I keep on asking, you keep on ignoring....

[Alan Burns]

What is it about the non-physical that makes the difference?[/size]

I keep on asking, you keep on ignoring....

Essentially it defines the difference between a person and a machine.  Take away the non physical soul, and you are left with nothing but a biological machine.

[Gordon]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand. The randomness I am referring to is that which we encounter every day of our lives. There is no pre-ordained pattern to it, and we have to decide personally how we are going to react to it at any given moment. We do so by using our ability to choose our actions.

That we may not have free will sounds counter-intuitive, and for everyday purposes we operate as if we have, but that doesn't mean it is truly 'free' and while it seems that we really are 'willing' a particular outcome this is by no means certain even in everyday trivia.

For instance, since the sun is approaching the yard-arm, I might decide on a lunchtime beer and the fridge currently contains cans of both Guinness and Fosters, since I've no plans to go out right now the only options are what is in the fridge, which is a consequence of what was chosen when last buying - so my choice of drink this lunchtime is already limited to the constraints over the contents of the fridge, which was determined by my personal inclinations when shopping,on  what was available to be purchased, or if I was tempted by any special offers, and if so why was say the Fosters cheaper than usual  etc etc etc etc etc.

If I'm indecisive, this involves my thinking since I'm not expressing a preference today: why should I have a preference anyway, but then again why shouldn't I have one, I don't today but I did yesterday, so why not? Must be something to do with how my brain is working today, which doesn't seem the same as it was yesterday, so it isn't a steady state even when it comes down to choosing lunchtime drinks on different days.

If I try to resolve the dilemma by selecting a drink randomly by tossing a coin this is pseudo-random, since not only is the scope of my choice predetermined by the contents of the fridge, it would also be possible with enough information (height, weight speed etc) to predict which way the coin would fall. So, at the point I decide to toss a coin the result is already determined even though I'm not yet aware of it - so even when I think I'm making a random choice I'm not really since there are constraints and conditions that apply even before I consider approaching the fridge.     

This probably a clunky example but the point is that, as far as I can see, there are always factors that will influence how I choose even when I think I'm doing so freely on even mundane matters since I'm not divorced from any conditions that precede, influence or constrain my available choices, whether I'm aware of them or not. Thus my choices aren't really 'free' and I can't just 'will' certain outcomes: now which is is to be today Guinness or Fosters, that is the question!

[Alan Burns]

Alan,

You might want to look up the meaning of non sequitur about now.

It might be non sequitur according to your way of thinking, but to me it is totally sequitur.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Alan,

It might be non sequitur according to your way of thinking, but to me it is totally sequitur.

It's not "my way of thinking" - it's basic logic. When the conclusion does not follow from the premise, then you've committed a non sequitur. It's also basic logic by the way that logically fallacious arguments are always wrong, which is a problem for you because pretty much every argument you attempt relies on one or several logical fallacies.

And what's the problem with being a "biological machine" as you put it, other that is than that reality would contradict your religious faith beliefs?

[Alan Burns]

This probably a clunky example but the point is that, as far as I can see, there are always factors that will influence how I choose even when I think I'm doing so freely on even mundane matters since I'm not divorced from any conditions that precede, influence or constrain my available choices, whether I'm aware of them or not. Thus my choices aren't really 'free' and I can't just 'will' certain outcomes: now which is is to be today Guinness or Fosters, that is the question!

I agree that lots of things may influence or constrain the choices I make, but these do not dictate my choices.  It is still the "I" which has the final say.

[Alan Burns]

And what's the problem with being a "biological machine"

Machines do not possess self awareness - they do not need it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Alan,

I agree that lots of things may influence or constrain the choices I make, but these do not dictate my choices.  It is still the "I" which has the final say.

An "I" you have still to demonstrate exists as something other than an emergent property of the material you. I understand that you lighted upon the idea of a separate you decades ago, but it was a bad idea then only made worse in the intervening years by the findings of neuroscience in particular. However much you assert it into being, you're epistemically a flat earther and will continue to be until finally you can make a cogent, non-fallacious argument for your faith belief.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Alan,

Machines do not possess self awareness - they do not need it.

They do when they're complex enough to have the emergent property of consciousness - however much you arbitrarily distinguish our species from the rest for this purpose.

[Gordon]

I agree that lots of things may influence or constrain the choices I make, but these do not dictate my choices.  It is still the "I" which has the final say.

Of course they do: you can't 'dictate' anything outwith the constraints and any preceding factors that apply, which includes how your own biology works.

I suspect your 'I' involves you over-egging the pudding again, since you want it to mean more than it actually does.
 

[Stranger]

Machines do not possess self awareness - they do not need it.

What is it about the non-physical that makes the difference?

[Leonard James]

I think what is being said is that it 'feels' like freewill (how could it not), but the result is from a long chain of cause and effect. The feeling is what free will feels like in our brain.

You think you see the colour blue, but you don't really, as blue does not exist. Your brain conjures up a feeling of light at that wavelength and you 'see' blue.

That is how our brains have evolved to deal with life. Technical explanations make no difference to the system whatever.

[Stranger]

Essentially it defines the difference between a person and a machine.  Take away the non physical soul, and you are left with nothing but a biological machine.

Just to be clear, that is what you are asserting is the result of some difference that you haven't explained.