Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

yes, but on what basis does your conscious awareness choose ?

I appreciate that from a materialist point of view there can be nothing other than deterministic physical actions which invoke our choices, but the spiritual dimension offers more freedom.

You do not seem to understand what I believe to be the nature of the human soul, so this is my view:

The spiritual awareness of the soul is not a physical thing built up from the data held in brain cells.  It is just conscious awareness of the content of the physical brain, and its interaction with the brain is controlled by the conscious awareness itself, not just by what it is aware of.  So the ultimate choice is based on the will of the conscious soul.

[Stranger]

The spiritual awareness of the soul is not a physical thing built up from the data held in brain cells.  It is just conscious awareness of the content of the physical brain, and its interaction with the brain is controlled by the conscious awareness itself, not just by what it is aware of.  So the ultimate choice is based on the will of the conscious soul.

None of which makes a jot of difference to the logic that this "conscious soul" must make its choices using deterministic processes (and perhaps some randomness). Making it non-physical doesn't free it from logic.

[torridon]

I appreciate that from a materialist point of view there can be nothing other than deterministic physical actions which invoke our choices, but the spiritual dimension offers more freedom.

You do not seem to understand what I believe to be the nature of the human soul, so this is my view:

The spiritual awareness of the soul is not a physical thing built up from the data held in brain cells.  It is just conscious awareness of the content of the physical brain, and its interaction with the brain is controlled by the conscious awareness itself, not just by what it is aware of.  So the ultimate choice is based on the will of the conscious soul.

Yes, and on what basis does the conscious soul form its 'will' ? Any decision making system must have some basis upon which to make decisions.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I appreciate that from a materialist point of view there can be nothing other than deterministic physical actions which invoke our choices, but the spiritual dimension offers more freedom.

But your problem is that you have no reason to think that there is a “spiritual dimension” in the first place. Once you just assume it though, then of course it offers “more freedom” – you can populate a world of illogic with any guesses you like and call them “true” to your heart’s content if you really want to.

You do not seem to understand what I believe to be the nature of the human soul, so this is my view:

The spiritual awareness of the soul is not a physical thing built up from the data held in brain cells.  It is just conscious awareness of the content of the physical brain, and its interaction with the brain is controlled by the conscious awareness itself, not just by what it is aware of.  So the ultimate choice is based on the will of the conscious soul.

Your problem here isn’t that others don’t understand it, but rather that they understand the problems with it better than you do: you have no good reason to abandon the current paradigm of explaining consciousness as an emergent property of brains, so there's no need for an alternative explanation at all; you have no coherent definition of ”soul”; you have no logic to support the notion of a “soul” as a necessary phenomenon; you have no evidence for a “soul” even if you knew what you meant by it; and you still have no way to free this "soul" from itself being deterministic in character if it isn't just to fire off decisions at random.

In short, your belief is just that – a belief, and moreover it’s one that flatly contradicts the available logic and evidence that we do have.

Incidentally, inasmuch as your notion that there must be a control mechanism to mediate the instinctive one, what you’re actually describing when you say “soul” is the pre-frontal cortex, which performs tasks broadly aligned to those you ascribe to this supposed “soul”. 

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

The spiritual awareness of the soul is not a physical thing built up from the data held in brain cells.  It is just conscious awareness of the content of the physical brain, and its interaction with the brain is controlled by the conscious awareness itself, not just by what it is aware of.  So the ultimate choice is based on the will of the conscious soul.

This is the whole problem.

What determines the will?

For example I had a pint earlier with a mate. I could have had a glass of sherry but I didn't. Why didn't I have sherry?

BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE SHERRY. I tip sherry into my mouth and it is UNPLEASANT.

My preferences are determined by my past experiences (and probably my genetics) hence when I approach the bar  I will never order a sherry even if it is available. So even though I have the choice to order it, it isn't really a choice because I don't like it.

Assuming you are heterosexual could you choose to love someone of the same sex?

Could you, using you "conscious" free will, choose to believe that Jesus was not divine?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

AB,

These things aren’t “unique” to our species at all. Even a cursory review of the behaviours of chimps, elephants, dolphins, crows and magpies and many other species will tell you that. Elephants for example will show every sign of grieving when a member of the herd dies – they return often to the body, they shed tears, they even try to bury the corpse. In short, like us they emote.   

Isn't this opening paragraph fallacious in being the naturalistic fallacy? That humanity is just a collection of features found in the natural world.
This approach completely ignores novelty, emergence etc and is just reductionist.

[Sassy]

I still miss two of my sisters, from way back, time makes it bearable, that's about it, life.

Kind regards ippy

It is difficult losing loved ones  ((Ippy)) my little sister was only 13 years old when she died and my other brother was 43. I still cry now though my sister has been gone since 1988. 29 years on the 25th of this month. My brothers died 11 years apart but a day apart. 16th and 17th January.

Nicholas James Sim, 20, from Udny in Aberdeenshire died in a crash on the Old Meldrum to Ellon Road at about 1945 GMT on Friday

My neices partner was killed in a car crash the same month he was just 20 he never saw his first child born.  My Nephew murdered he was 21 year old... I find it sad sometimes and sometimes overwhelming that so much heartache has happened. My friend killed in a car crash just 23 years old and another friend walked under a Lorry he was very depressed. I feel for many and I don't know why I am telling you. I feel so much for my niece and my other family who lost children. I hate January and February months...

[SusanDoris]

What's far worse for you Alan, you don't even realise how much of a fool you've made of yourself with your continual ludicrous assertive reposts of this nature.

ippy

And if he is proud of his continuing demonstration of being cocooned in his beliefs ... well,isn't pride supposed to be one of the deadly sins?!

[Alan Burns]

Aw come on you lot WAKE UP!

You are much more than a few molecules dancing to the deterministic tune of the Devil's secular world.

Rejoice in the free spirit God has given you and give thanks for it! 

[Gordon]

Aw come on you lot WAKE UP!

You are much more than a few molecules dancing to the deterministic tune of the Devil's secular world.

Rejoice in the free spirit God has given you and give thanks for it! 

Is this where we get to rattle our tambourines and exclaim 'hallelujah', whilst grinning maniacally?

[Stranger]

Aw come on you lot WAKE UP!

You are much more than a few molecules dancing to the deterministic tune of the Devil's secular world.

Rejoice in the free spirit God has given you and give thanks for it! 

Do you really think that (apparently) wilful ignorance and a refusal to engage with logical arguments are going to attract anybody to your point of view?

[SusanDoris]

I don't know about laughing maniacally, but AB in #14685 certainly appears to be smiling in what he might be considering is a benign sort of way, believing that he has the answer that he will meet this 'God' at the end of his life and any searching will be over. He's wrong!
But, well, it certainly will be over - i.e. life! 

[ekim]

You seem to be missing the point as badly as Alan. How it feels to us (thought through, or in the heat of a moment) is completely irrelevant to the basic logic. Any choice can only be arrived at by some combination of deterministic or random steps.

Either that, or you are misunderstanding what I am suggesting.  I started by saying 'both are determined'.  Randomness didn't come into it.  If there is something I am still missing, please say

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

(emphasis mine)

I don't know about laughing maniacally, but AB in #14685 certainly appears to be smiling in what he might be considering is a benign sort of way, believing that he has the answer that he will meet this 'God' at the end of his life and any searching will be over. He's wrong!

If Alan is wrong as you claim, then you will have no problem demonstrating why.

[Alan Burns]

Do you really think that (apparently) wilful ignorance and a refusal to engage with logical arguments are going to attract anybody to your point of view?

But can you not see that none of us could engage in logical discussions without the God given spirit of free will?

[Gordon]

(emphasis mine)If Alan is wrong as you claim, then you will have no problem demonstrating why.

Easy-peasy - his dependency on fallacies.

[Alan Burns]

In short, your belief is just that – a belief, and moreover it’s one that flatly contradicts the available logic and evidence that we do have.

Yet it fits in perfectly with my perception of reality.
The alternative materialist view that our apparent free choices are an illusion most certainly does not fit in.

[ekim]

Yes - but on what basis is that choice made? How is a decision reached on what is done for example - is it just random or based on previous experiences and knowledge. That is the point.

There are two alternatives say - what makes someone choose on over the other?

In the particular case mentioned, both are determined.  One is determined by a sudden discharge of an emotional state of anger with very little, if any, conscious choice involved.  The other is determined by the ability to establish a space or time gap between the emotional build up and the response so that a conscious choice can be made.  For some it might be a plotted revenge for others perhaps forgiveness.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Easy-peasy - his dependency on fallacies.

This doesn't answer the question.

I don't know about laughing maniacally, but AB in #14685 certainly appears to be smiling in what he might be considering is a benign sort of way, believing that he has the answer that he will meet this 'God' at the end of his life and any searching will be over. He's wrong!

If the statement He's wrong is true, demonstrate why.

[Gordon]

This doesn't answer the question.

Yes it does.

If the statement He's wrong is true, demonstrate why.

As you've often been told before, when a fallacy is used the attempted 'argument' simply fails: therefore it is incorrect by default, and is often incoherent too (hence 'not even wrong'), so 'wrong' would be an appropriate label.
 

[Alan Burns]

None of which makes a jot of difference to the logic that this "conscious soul" must make its choices using deterministic processes (and perhaps some randomness). Making it non-physical doesn't free it from logic.

So how come we are capable of doing something which is not logical, just because we want to?  The spirit of free will is driven by a conscious overriding will - not deterministic logic.

[Alan Burns]

Yes it does.
As you've often been told before, when a fallacy is used the attempted 'argument' simply fails: therefore it is incorrect by default, and is often incoherent too (hence 'not even wrong'), so 'wrong' would be an appropriate label.

Gordon,
Most of the fallacies you try to identify are labelled as such because they are not water-tight arguments, but this does not necessarily imply that what is being argued is wrong.  In many cases they are just indicators to what is likely to be true.  When discussing spiritual matters, it is not possible to express everything as hard irrefutable facts.

[Gordon]

Gordon,
Most of the fallacies you try to identify are labelled as such because they are not water-tight arguments, but this does not necessarily imply that what is being argued is wrong.

Yes it does: a fallacy negates the intended 'argument'.

In many cases they are just indicators to what is likely to be true.

Nope - fallacies are indicators of poor reasoning.

When discussing spiritual matters, it is not possible to express everything as hard irrefutable facts.

Yet you seem do this yourself when you assert 'souls'. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Easy-peasy - his dependency on fallacies.

That's 1000 points every time Gordon mentions the word fallacy.

[Stranger]

So how come we are capable of doing something which is not logical, just because we want to?  The spirit of free will is driven by a conscious overriding will - not deterministic logic.

You still don't get it at all, do you?

Look, forget what it feels like to be a soul (I'll accept its existence for the sake of this argument) because that's subjective and irrelevant to a logical examination of the subject. I'm not talking about making logical decisions.

Consider instead the soul-brain combination as a 'black box'. It has inputs (from our senses) and it produces outputs (behaviour) - it will also have a 'stored state' (memory and experience). It would also, one can assume, have had some kind of initial state (genetics for the brain and, well the soul is your field, so whatever initial state a soul may have).

Now, either the behaviour produced is actually a deterministic result of the initial state, all the subsequent experience and all the inputs, or it isn't. If it isn't, the only other thing that can possibly be a factor is some randomness (because not deterministic means random).