Searching for GOD...

[floo]

I think science is where it is at, not religion.

[Gordon]

The justification lies in our perception of reality and how it fits in with the revelations of the Christian bible, but does not fit in with the secular science which tells us we have no free will.

Then, unsurprisingly, given its origins in antiquity, the Christian bible is a poor fit with current knowledge: it seems you take it too seriously.

[floo]

The authors of the Bible can be forgiven for seeing things the way they did not having the knowledge we have today, thanks to scientific discoveries. The same cannot be said for Biblical literalists who ignore science if it doesn't uphold their faith.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The justification lies in our perception of reality...

That's your perception Alan, not "our". And as personal perceptions of reality are very often wrong, that's an awful flimsy plank on which to stand your belief.

...and how it fits in with the revelations of the Christian bible,...

Except of course you've been unable to demonstrate that they are "revelations" at all rather than just ancient folk lore.

...but does not fit in with the secular science which tells us we have no free will.

Well yes, because the science better describes the available evidence than could tribal and credulous iron age authors.

Would I be right in thinking that you're quite happy to use the fruits of this "secular science" when, say, you need medical care, but somehow you think it's gone wrong when its findings contradict your personal faith beliefs?

[Nearly Sane]

Just to note that science doesn't tell us we have no free will and further that so far Alan has been unable to give any logically consistent definition of free will.

[Stranger]

Just to note that science doesn't tell us we have no free will and further that so far Alan has been unable to give any logically consistent definition of free will.

A consistent definition is needed before we can even begin to consider whether we have such a thing. To be fair, I don't think Alan is alone in having no logically consistent notion of "free will". His problem with not understanding the deterministic/random choice seems to be common.

[Nearly Sane]

A consistent definition is needed before we can even begin to consider whether we have such a thing. To be fair, I don't think Alan is alone in having no logically consistent notion of "free will". His problem with not understanding the deterministic/random choice seems to be common.

Agreed, I think there is further confusion added by the use of terms such as 'conscious awareness' by Alan as interchangeable with free will but also having that not consistently defined either.

[Alan Burns]

Agreed, I think there is further confusion added by the use of terms such as 'conscious awareness' by Alan as interchangeable with free will but also having that not consistently defined either.

Conscious awareness and free will are inextricably linked because the definition of a free will event would be an action initiated by the thought processes occurring in conscious awareness.  This is in conflict with the idea that conscious awareness is an emergent property of the physical brain activity, because any awareness in this property will be entirely dictated by the deterministic behaviour of the physical brain.  Our perception of reality indicates that it is conscious awareness which can exert control of the physical brain, not the other way round.  I hope all this makes sense.

[Stranger]

Conscious awareness and free will are inextricably linked because the definition of a free will event would be an action initiated by the thought processes occurring in conscious awareness.

That isn't a definition. You tried to define one vague term by using other, equally vague terms.

This is in conflict with the idea that conscious awareness is an emergent property of the physical brain activity, because any awareness in this property will be entirely dictated by the deterministic behaviour of the physical brain.

It has to be deterministic anyway - see #14701.

Our perception of reality indicates that it is conscious awareness which can exert control of the physical brain, not the other way round.

Where is the evidence or reasoning for this assertion?

I hope all this makes sense.

It makes it clear that you are still very confused.

[Nearly Sane]

Conscious awareness and free will are inextricably linked because the definition of a free will event would be an action initiated by the thought processes occurring in conscious awareness.  This is in conflict with the idea that conscious awareness is an emergent property of the physical brain activity, because any awareness in this property will be entirely dictated by the deterministic behaviour of the physical brain.  Our perception of reality indicates that it is conscious awareness which can exert control of the physical brain, not the other way round.  I hope all this makes sense.

Apart from the circularity and begging the question here, you still have not dealt with the problem of what something is if it isn't deterministic or random. It makes no internal sense never mind any external sense.  And stop using the 'our perception of reality' since you have already had it pointed out it isn't what others  perceive. The repetition of this, which is another example of begging the question and a tacit argumentum ad populum, then becomes lying.

[ippy]

Alan how come you think you can assert your way out of any rational argument offered to you; that in effect is what you're doing.

Ekim had you right Alan, when he said, in effect, you're looking for heavenly brownie points in keeping up this nonsense, as if there was any such thing as heavenly.

Thinking about it Alan you can always assert up the heavenly.

ippy

[Enki]

You shouldn't just assume things are necessarily the same for other people, Alan. For instance, my perception of reality isn't the same as your perception of reality, despite you using the word 'our', which you have used more than once. You think you can work out what 'the human soul' does, but I don't because I have no belief in your version of a human soul, so why use the word, 'we'?

[wigginhall]

Conscious awareness and free will are inextricably linked because the definition of a free will event would be an action initiated by the thought processes occurring in conscious awareness.  This is in conflict with the idea that conscious awareness is an emergent property of the physical brain activity, because any awareness in this property will be entirely dictated by the deterministic behaviour of the physical brain.  Our perception of reality indicates that it is conscious awareness which can exert control of the physical brain, not the other way round.  I hope all this makes sense.

Well, this sounds quite like panpsychism, I think, the idea that awareness is universally present, or really that the universe is a mind.    Presumably, if the brain suffers irreparable damage, say in a car crash, conscious awareness is not affected.   AB could try an experiment, and have his brain surgically removed, to see if his awareness goes on. 

[SusanDoris]

Of course we can't fully answer this question because we do not know what comprises the human soul.  We can work out what it does in terms of giving us awareness and free will, but the true nature of the human soul does not come from this deterministic material world.  Our true home will be in heaven.

I think I shall have to request DolphinUK to work out how to make Synthetic Dave scan ahead of where it's reading, so that I can mute it before reading sentences like that last one of yours here. This will save me from feeling I've accidentally fallen   yet again into a hole filled with cottonwool.

[torridon]

Well, this sounds quite like panpsychism, I think, the idea that awareness is universally present, or really that the universe is a mind.    Presumably, if the brain suffers irreparable damage, say in a car crash, conscious awareness is not affected.   AB could try an experiment, and have his brain surgically removed, to see if his awareness goes on.

In place of a brain, I think Alan has a window in his head, and with that removed, end of awareness.  I never could figure out why something god given and supernatural would be dependent on a moist messy window in the first place.  Surely if this soul can look at the mass of neruons in a brain, it could also look directly and bypass the brain altogether.   AB also still has to explain how an antelope can be aware of its environment just using a brain but without a soul. 

[torridon]

Conscious awareness and free will are inextricably linked because the definition of a free will event would be an action initiated by the thought processes occurring in conscious awareness.  This is in conflict with the idea that conscious awareness is an emergent property of the physical brain activity, because any awareness in this property will be entirely dictated by the deterministic behaviour of the physical brain.  Our perception of reality indicates that it is conscious awareness which can exert control of the physical brain, not the other way round.  I hope all this makes sense.

No it doesn't make sense. For a steer as to why, try reading some of the 15000 posts on this thread explaining why it doesn't make sense.

[Alan Burns]

No it doesn't make sense. For a steer as to why, try reading some of the 15000 posts on this thread explaining why it doesn't make sense.

Sorry, but none of the posts on this thread have been able to convince me that I do not control my own brain.  It is me, this conscious awareness which is my soul, that is composing the content of these posts.

[Nearly Sane]

Sorry, but none of the posts on this thread have been able to convince me that I do not control my own brain.  It is me, this conscious awareness which is my soul, that is composing the content of these posts.

That's a non sequitur, and a shifting the burden of proof and a begging the question, followed up by an assertion including another begging the question.

You not only are not making sense, you are also continually ignoring what is actually written in posts.

[Alan Burns]

That's a non sequitur, and a shifting the burden of proof and a begging the question, followed up by an assertion including another begging the question.

You not only are not making sense, you are also continually ignoring what is actually written in posts.

Well it makes sense to me.

[Gordon]

Well it makes sense to me.

Then you are fooling yourself, Alan.

[Nearly Sane]

Well it makes sense to me.

Then farewell to me interacting with you since you seem happy to ignore and lie about what people say because it makes you happy.

[Alan Burns]

AB also still has to explain how an antelope can be aware of its environment just using a brain but without a soul.

It does not have to be aware of its environment in order to react to its sensory data input.  Computers can react to data, but they do not have conscious awareness of it.

[ekim]

Well it makes sense to me.

We are the Borg.  Resistance is futile.  You WILL be assimilated.

[Alan Burns]

Then farewell to me interacting with you since you seem happy to ignore and lie about what people say because it makes you happy.

I do not deliberately ignore posts, and I have not deliberately lied.  I am sorry that I do not have time to answer all posts, so I try to answer points which I consider to be important.  And I stand by what I perceive to be true - not because it makes me happy.

[torridon]

It does not have to be aware of its environment in order to react to its sensory data input.  Computers can react to data, but they do not have conscious awareness of it.

Any antelope that was unaware of its environment would be a dead antelope in no time at all.  Antelopes are not like computers. Take a walk down to PC World and look at the laptops. The take a trip to a wildlife park and watch the animals.  See if you can spot any differences.