Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

The ability to choose has nothing to do with randomness.

I know. What you don't get (despite our previous discussion, that you would do well to go back to) is that, logically, any event is either determined in some way or is random. Random means not determined.

You need to asses what it is that actually invokes a conscious choice.

How does a "conscious choice" work?

The part of you that makes this choice is a part of reality (whether it's physical or not) and it has to have some internal processes that make the choice. Unless you can define what those processes are and you have a complete knowledge of the physical universe, you simply cannot conclude that a "conscious choice" cannot take place in a purely physical system.

I maintain that I (my conscious self) has the freedom to choose, which implies that I am not controlled by the reactions to deterministic events.

To the extent it isn't determined, it is random. This is just logic - whether your "conscious self" is physical or not, makes not a jot of difference.

[Enki]

As I said, the truth will set you free.
Free from the uncontrollable shackles of scientifically defined determinism.

What truth? What you seem to describe as 'truth' I have no reason to accept because you never give any reasoning or evidence to back it up. By simply asserting your viewpoint as some sort of unassailable 'truth' doesn't make it so. It might make you feel 'incredulous'that any contrary viewpoint is at least equally valid, but that's your problem, not mine.

As far as idea of the 'uncontrollable shackles of scientifically defined determinism' is concerned, if that were correct, there would be no difference in the amount of 'freedom' we would experience, either you or me. Simply by believing that we have the freedom to choose, rather than having the illusion that we have the freedom to choose, would not change a thing. I would still demand  the evidence to back up your ideas before accepting them, and you would still simply assert your beliefs as before. Remember though, in the deterministic scenario, we are not passive robots as you seem to suggest. Everything we think and do would have an effect on deterministic outcomes. We would be part of this deterministic chain, not a passive adjunct to it.

[Nearly Sane]

What truth? What you seem to describe as 'truth' I have no reason to accept because you never give any reasoning or evidence to back it up. By simply asserting your viewpoint as some sort of unassailable 'truth' doesn't make it so. It might make you feel 'incredulous'that any contrary viewpoint is at least equally valid, but that's your problem, not mine.

As far as idea of the 'uncontrollable shackles of scientifically defined determinism' is concerned, if that were correct, there would be no difference in the amount of 'freedom' we would experience, either you or me. Simply by believing that we have the freedom to choose, rather than having the illusion that we have the freedom to choose, would not change a thing. I would still demand  the evidence to back up your ideas before accepting them, and you would still simply assert your beliefs as before. Remember though, in the deterministic scenario, we are not passive robots as you seem to suggest. Everything we think and do would have an effect on deterministic outcomes. We would be part of this deterministic chain, not a passive adjunct to it.

As effectively would a rock falling down a cliff. Information is processed. That's all we would do. Complexity does not change that, so the split of something being not 'passive' is meaningless

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Why then maintain it?

You keep asking this question. I'll say again: Perhaps Alan Burns disagrees with you! You said

What you keep ignoring though is that you have no evidence whatever for your conjecture, and the evidence we do have flatly contradicts it.

The central problem: Evidence on its own is meaningless. It needs a worldview to interpret it. And since your worldview is that the natural is all we know of that’s reliably accessible and investigable(*1), it makes an assumption about that which is being investigated. In short, your approach is circular.

Why should your approach be treated more favourable than Alan's, when all the things you want from his position are not present in your own position?

(*1) The god of suffering, #121

[Enki]

As effectively would a rock falling down a cliff. Information is processed. That's all we would do. Complexity does not change that, so the split of something being not 'passive' is meaningless

Exactly.

[Nearly Sane]

Exactly.

Then why say we are not passive robots as if it has any meaning, since you think we are the equivalents of a rock falling down a cliff?

[Nearly Sane]

You keep asking this question. I'll say again: Perhaps Alan Burns disagrees with you! You said The central problem: Evidence on its own is meaningless. It needs a worldview to interpret it. And since your worldview is that the natural is all we know of that’s reliably accessible and investigable(*1), it makes an assumption about that which is being investigated. In short, your approach is circular.

Why should your approach be treated more favourable than Alan's, when all the things you want from his position are not present in your own position?

(*1) The god of suffering, #121

And having just played the nuclear card you have said Alan's view has as much worth as a believer in Zeus.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

And having just played the nuclear card you have said Alan's view has as much worth as a believer in Zeus.

I mentioned Alan's approach. You have addressed your interpretation of what you think is his conclusion from the approach.

If you're going to make comparisons, a common frame of reference is needed.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

The central problem: Evidence on its own is meaningless. It needs a worldview to interpret it. And since your worldview is that the natural is all we know of that’s reliably accessible and investigable(*1), it makes an assumption about that which is being investigated. In short, your approach is circular.

It’s no such thing. Certain propositions are testable such that they provide solutions in the world we appear to occupy. That’s why for example headaches get better after we take aspirin, but not when we wave sage leaves about. That’s not for one moment to suggest that “the world we appear to occupy” is some kind of absolute truth, but it does provide a working model that’s useful in that it allows us to navigate the life we experience.

Why should your approach be treated more favourable than Alan's, when all the things you want from his position are not present in your own position?

(*1) The god of suffering, #121

Because there’s no feedback from Alan’s conjectures that would validate them such that they can be distinguished from just guessing. You may as well ask me why my approach of leprechaunism should be treated as less favourably too – after all, it’s epistemically equivalent to Alan’s claim of “God”.

[Nearly Sane]

I mentioned Alan's approach. You have addressed your interpretation of what you think is his conclusion from the approach.

If you're going to make comparisons, a common frame of reference is needed.

Err no, I haven't said anything about his approach itself, just pointed out that your relativist approach means no approach has any more worth. It's a comment on your approach.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

I mentioned Alan's approach. You have addressed your interpretation of what you think is his conclusion from the approach.

If you're going to make comparisons, a common frame of reference is needed.

Alan’s “approach” consists only of un-argued assertions and logically false reasoning. The last thing we need is to use that as a common frame of reference.

[Alan Burns]

What we have is the best there could be; we have apparent freedom of choice.  Total freedom would be meaningless and undesirable, that would be a chaotic world. What we are doing when we make a choice is expressing our preference, but we don't choose what our preferences are, and this is why our choices are not ultimately totally free. A choice that was not informed by a preference would be a meaningless choice, hence a world of chaos.

I never implied that we had total freedom.  Just that we have the ability to consciously choose between two or more feasible alternatives.

There is no half way house in this.  We are either totally controlled by deterministic reactions to events, or we are not.  If we are not totally controlled, then there has to be something which can intervene in the "cause and effect" chain to implement this limited control.

[Enki]

Then why say we are not passive robots as if it has any meaning, since you think we are the equivalents of a rock falling down a cliff?

I was simply making the point to Alan that, if it is true that there is no such thing as free will, then to suggest that we are some sort of robot, (which suggests to me that we have no input other than our reactions to deterministic events) is only seeing part of the picture. As fas as I know he has never expressed the idea that it could be that we help formulate some of these deterministic events. Of course, I could be wrong and he has thought about this aspect. The fact that it is obvious to you is neither here nor there, and if you think it wasn't even worth saying, then so be it. 

[Nearly Sane]

I was simply making the point to Alan that, if it is true that there is no such thing as free will, then to suggest that we are some sort of robot, (which suggests to me that we have no input other than our reactions to deterministic events) is only seeing part of the picture. As fas as I know he has never expressed the idea that it could be that we help formulate some of these deterministic events. Of course, I could be wrong and he has thought about this aspect. The fact that it is obvious to you is neither here nor there, and if you think it wasn't even worth saying, then so be it.

But if we are not any different from a rock then what part of your picture is Alan missing?

[torridon]

I never implied that we had total freedom.  Just that we have the ability to consciously choose between two or more feasible alternatives.

There is no half way house in this.  We are either totally controlled by deterministic reactions to events, or we are not.  If we are not totally controlled, then there has to be something which can intervene in the "cause and effect" chain to implement this limited control.

'Consciously' is a bit of a red herring.  Strictly speaking, conscious awareness follows after the choice just made.  Conscious awareness is the endpoint of all subliminal preconscious processing involved in decision making.  But nonetheless, the underlying point remains, that when we make a choice we are expressing a preference, and we do not choose our preferences. What our preference is at any moment in time, is a function of cause and effect.  We cannot just decide to like something for no reason.  Try wanting to have a homosexual affair tomorrow afternoon if you don't believe me.

[Enki]

But if we are not any different from a rock then what part of your picture is Alan missing?

That we are an integral and active part of the deterministic picture, as I have tried to explain.

[Nearly Sane]

That we are an integral and active part of the deterministic picture, as I have tried to explain.

has he ever suggested that in the absence of free will, we are not?

[Enki]

has he ever suggested that in the absence of free will, we are not?

No,  but  refer back to my post 14289.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Incidentally Sword, I’m a bit surprised that you returned to the “alternative worldview” error given that you were corrected on it so comprehensively a while back.
 
Just to remind you, the issue here is essentially the difference between subjective and objective truths. You can have any worldview you like including, as Nearly says, a belief in Zeus if you want to. What these worldviews provide though is only subjective truths: Zeus, God, Colin the Leprechaun etc are true for the people who believe in them, but not – so far at least – for anyone else.

If you do want to build a bridge from the subjective to the objective though, you need common and consistent inter-subjective experience. I can do that with natural phenomena – if you and I jump out of the window, we’ll have an identical experience – so we call these truths objective. You on the other hand have no equivalent test for “God” (or indeed for Zeus).

And that’s your problem. Ironically, it’s the self-referential claim “God” that’s circular, and so epistemically worthless. You’d need to find some way of breaking out of that if you wanted anyone else to treat your claim as something other than just guessing.

[Stranger]

There is no half way house in this.  We are either totally controlled by deterministic reactions to events, or we are not.  If we are not totally controlled, then there has to be something which can intervene in the "cause and effect" chain to implement this limited control.

You are still totally ignoring the question of how this "something" can make any decisions. You seem to be fantasizing that as soon as you make it non-material it is magically free from all the constraints of logic and self-consistency.

If something arrives at a choice, it must be either as a result of deterministic processes, randomness or some combination of the two. Being non-physical doesn't make any difference to the logic.

[Alan Burns]

Consciousness - which is an emergent property of the physical "you".

I have pointed this out to you several times:

Since emergent properties are entirely dependent on the physical activity of whatever they emerge from, any emergent property must be able to be defined in physical terms.  No one has been able to define how conscious awareness works in physical terms, so you cannot just assume that it is an emergent property.  The difficulty comes in having to define a recipient of information in terms of physical reactions, which ends up going round in circles because perception is not definable as a reaction.

I have to maintain that conscious awareness is a property of the spiritual "you".  And of course you are unable to prove this by scientific analysis which by definition is limited to what can be discovered by physical investigation.  But the evidence for these spiritual properties lies in your awareness of your own existence, and your ability to consciously choose your own destiny.

[Shaker]

You are still totally ignoring the question of how this "something" can make any decisions.

... as well as this question: "Are you genuinely not aware that you churn out one fallacy after another, or do you know but simply don't care?"

[Alan Burns]

You are still totally ignoring the question of how this "something" can make any decisions. You seem to be fantasizing that as soon as you make it non-material it is magically free from all the constraints of logic and self-consistency.

If something arrives at a choice, it must be either as a result of deterministic processes, randomness or some combination of the two. Being non-physical doesn't make any difference to the logic.

Our choice can be influenced, but not dictated by logic, instinct and experience.  Ultimately we have manual override on the choices we make by the spiritual property known as "will".  And it is certainly not random.

[Stranger]

I have pointed this out to you several times:

Since emergent properties are entirely dependent on the physical activity of whatever they emerge from, any emergent property must be able to be defined in physical terms.  No one has been able to define how conscious awareness works in physical terms, so you cannot just assume that it is an emergent property.  The difficulty comes in having to define a recipient of information in terms of physical reactions, which ends up going round in circles because perception is not definable as a reaction.

Why do you keep repeating this drivel, when you have already conceded that you cannot define "conscious awareness" in any terms, physical or otherwise?

Unless you are claiming to know exactly how conscious awareness works and everything that is possible in physical terms (something nobody sane actually claims to know) - your argument is nothing but irrational drivel, based on wishful thinking.

[Gordon]

The central problem: Evidence on its own is meaningless. It needs a worldview to interpret it.

No it doesn't: it needs a method, where this includes the characteristics of what constitutes 'evidence' and details of how it is recognised, collected, analysed etc. 'Worldviews', whatever they are, don't come into it.

As far as I can see no method exists for those making claims of the divine.