Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

No, "conscious willpower" either results in a deterministic output (based on its inputs and stored state) or it doesn't.

If it doesn't, then there is some randomness involved because not deterministic means random.

Are you denying that logic?

All I am saying is that a conscious choice is not entirely dictated by historic events but by the real time ability of the human soul to wilfully invoke an action.  It is certainly not random.

[Stranger]

All I am saying is that a conscious choice is not entirely dictated by historic events but by the real time ability of the human soul to wilfully invoke an action.  It is certainly not random.

You are not facing up to the logic of the situation. Either it produces deterministic outputs or it doesn't. You can't have it not being deterministic unless you introduce randomness or deny the logic of the situation.

Which would you like to go for?

1/ Deterministic.
2/ Deterministic with some randomness.
3/ Totally random.
4/ Deny reason and logic.

[Alan Burns]

Avoidance Alan. 

You claim your position derives from your personal experience of having conscious agency.  But you cannot claim personal experience of being a mongoose or a bonobo so how could you know what their inner perceptions are like ?  All we can do is infer inner mind states from observation of their behaviours, which is the same we do for other people. And you seem to admit now that other animals learn so their behaviours are not so predictable as lower order creatures with no capacity to learn. Predictability is not a binary either/or, it admits of degrees.

So, given that observation suggests a diversity of cognitive and behavioural characteristics through the animal kingdom and given that we cannot be another animal to know what it is like to be it, what is your justification for your oft repeated inference that all non-human animals are essentially like computers with no inner sentience ?

I understand what you are saying, Torri, and I agree that neither of us can know what goes on in an animal's brain unless we can enter the mind of the animal.  My assumption (not assertion) that animals do not have the conscious free will of humans is just an observation based on the predictable behaviour of animals.  You may choose to disagree with this, but it does not alter the evidence I put forward for the existence of the human soul.

[Stranger]

...but it does not alter the evidence I put forward for the existence of the human soul.

Where was that?

[Alan Burns]

You are not facing up to the logic of the situation. Either it produces deterministic outputs or it doesn't. You can't have it not being deterministic unless you introduce randomness or deny the logic of the situation.

Which would you like to go for?

1/ Deterministic.
2/ Deterministic with some randomness.
3/ Totally random.
4/ Deny reason and logic.

A conscious choice is deterministic in the sense that it has a cause.  The cause deriving from the ability of the human soul to interact with the brain in order to implement the conscious decision.  You may ponder what it is that drives the decision.  It is the same thing which drives our conscious thought processes, and it is not random, and it is not driven by uncontrolled physical chains of events.

[torridon]

I understand what you are saying, Torri, and I agree that neither of us can know what goes on in an animal's brain unless we can enter the mind of the animal.  My assumption (not assertion) that animals do not have the conscious free will of humans is just an observation based on the predictable behaviour of animals...

I was not mentioning 'conscious free will', as you know, I would dispute 'free will' in humans, never mind other animals. I was asking you to justify your assumption that other animals have no inner sentience - feelings, sensations, emotions, thoughts, consciousness.  There is no evidence to support this position as far as I know.  What evidence there is from observation, suggests all creatures with a brain have some or other form of inner experience.  What justifies your contrary assumption ?

[torridon]

.. it does not alter the evidence I put forward for the existence of the human soul.

I must have missed that.  What evidence is there for souls ?

[Stranger]

A conscious choice is deterministic in the sense that it has a cause.  The cause deriving from the ability of the human soul to interact with the brain in order to implement the conscious decision.  You may ponder what it is that drives the decision.  It is the same thing which drives our conscious thought processes, and it is not random, and it is not driven by uncontrolled physical chains of events.

You are still waffling, rather than facing up to the question. Is a conscious, 'free will' choice deterministic?

It's a simple, logical question: either choices are inevitable, given the stored state (life history) and the inputs, or they are not (and there is some randomness). Obviously we can never know the stored state, all the inputs and the exact process - it's a question of principle.

It's about how you think "free will" works.

[Alan Burns]

Alan, what are the limits of your free will?

In terms of our ability to drive our thoughts it is only limited by one's own imagination.

[ekim]

You are still waffling, rather than facing up to the question. Is a conscious, 'free will' choice deterministic?

It's a simple, logical question: either choices are inevitable, given the stored state (life history) and the inputs, or they are not (and there is some randomness). Obviously we can never know the stored state, all the inputs and the exact process - it's a question of principle.

It's about how you think "free will" works.

I think, from Alan's Christian perspective, the question has an added element as there is a 'self' will which is determined by, amongst other things, the desire for 'self' survival and there is God's Will which is determined by his God.  The religion is based upon a choice between 'self' will and 'self' sacrifice in favour of surrender to God's Will.

[Stranger]

I think, from Alan's Christian perspective, the question has an added element as there is a 'self' will which is determined by, amongst other things, the desire for 'self' survival and there is God's Will which is determined by his God.  The religion is based upon a choice between 'self' will and 'self' sacrifice in favour of surrender to God's Will.

None of which answers the question.

Why is this so hard? Either our actions are a deterministic result of all our experience, initial state, and our current situation, or they are not. Adding a non-physical soul and inputs from god makes no difference to the question.

If our actions are not deterministic, then there is only randomness as an alternative (yet again: not deterministic means random).

[Alan Burns]

.... you have no idea what "quantum” means.

Can you please explain what you mean by this statement?

[ekim]

None of which answers the question.

Well, it does in the sense that all his actions appear to be determined, either by the 'contents' of his psyche (soul) or by his God.

[SusanDoris]

Can you please explain what you mean by this statement?

Surely it would be better if you explained what your definition of quantum is, especially in this context?

[Alan Burns]

And IF pixies pull apples off trees with very thin strings rather than gravity doing it, then…

See that's the thing when you just make shit up and call it a fact – you can make any claims for it you like, however ludicrous. 

I was just illustrating how the spiritual properties of the human soul can offer a better explanation of our perceived reality than the alternative materialist view, which implies that all our activity and thoughts are pre determined and any concept of free will must be an illusion.

[Stranger]

Well, it does in the sense that all his actions appear to be determined, either by the 'contents' of his psyche (soul) or by his God.

No, not even in a sense.

It's a much, much more basic question. I'm talking about how he thinks decisions work: if they are determined (by absolutely all the information available and the exact state of the 'soul') or not (so there is something not determined about them - which means random).

It's about how any choice is made (including the "'self' will and 'self' sacrifice in favour of surrender to God's Will" choice).

[Stranger]

I was just illustrating how the spiritual properties of the human soul can offer a better explanation of our perceived reality than the alternative materialist view, which implies that all our activity and thoughts are pre determined and any concept of free will must be an illusion.

Except that you haven't offered anything better at all. You have used circular arguments and you have pointedly refused to properly address the fact that adding a soul gains you nothing in terms of the deterministic or random choice.

According to your view, that determinism makes free will an illusion and that randomness plays no part, it is just as much an illusion with a soul as without.

[savillerow]

Msg 14186 AB "spiritual properties" "human soul" "better explanation" AB its all wordy salad cranked up to the max. Does this sort of stuff fly with your mates!!!!

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Can you please explain what you mean by this statement?

It means that you have no idea what “quantum” means.

Quantum mechanics is a branch of physics involving the fundamental theory of nature at small scales and low energies of atoms and subatomic particles. What you have done (yet again) is just assumed an interacting “soul”, found a branch of science that looks weird (indeed that’s contrary to the ordinary “perception” on which you normally place so much emphasis ironically enough), and effectively said, “well if weird and surprising stuff happens in nature, I can attach to that phenomenon weird and unexpected conjectures of my own” as if they were in some way related.

Notoriously someone called Deepak Chopra has attempted the same thing, though he gets blown out of the water whenever he runs up against a real physicist.

I was just illustrating how the spiritual properties of the human soul can offer a better explanation of our perceived reality than the alternative materialist view, which implies that all our activity and thoughts are pre determined and any concept of free will must be an illusion.

Your were “illustrating” no such thing. (Wearily), yet again:

- our understanding of consciousness is incomplete, but the phenomenon is entirely consistent with it being an emergent property of brains, just as other incompletely understood phenomena are also emergent properties (fluid dynamics and wetness for example). You no more have a reason to abandon that explanation therefore than you’d have a reason to abandon the natural childbirth explanation in favour of stork theory;

- the “control” function you say is necessary is described by the activities of the pre-frontal cortex. We and many other species have a pre-frontal cortex, and the evidence from neuroscience tells us unequivocally that they too experience fear, anxiety, altruism etc as we do;

- if nonetheless you want to invent something you call “soul” you’re immediately beset by problems of having no way to define it, no way to identify it, and no way to reconcile the logical contradictions inherent in a conjecture that must itself operate either as a function of cause and effect, or that fires off orders randomly. And “I don’t have all the details yet” is just dishonest when in fact what you mean is, “I have no details at all”; and

- for all I know, your claims “God”, “soul” might be right, just as my claim “leprechauns” might be right. So far at least, every argument you’ve made to explain why we should think you’re right has been wrong. Not “not watertight”, but flat out, stone cold, embarrassingly hopeless wrong. When eventually in response you retreat to “well, that’s my perception anyway” that’s fine for you, but it leaves you no basis whatever to proselytise for your personal beliefs being true for anyone else.

Is any of this sinking in yet?

Anything at all?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No Hillside.....What you are doing is taking little amiable fairy folk who frolic at the end of rainbows and imbue them with every attribute given to God by anyone at anytime. In other words a category fadiddle.

[ekim]

No, not even in a sense.

It's a much, much more basic question. I'm talking about how he thinks decisions work: if they are determined (by absolutely all the information available and the exact state of the 'soul') or not (so there is something not determined about them - which means random).

It's about how any choice is made (including the "'self' will and 'self' sacrifice in favour of surrender to God's Will" choice).

Alan can answer for himself of course but perhaps he would follow his saviour's model when confronted with imminent death and pray as he did ..... "O God, if it is possible,  let this impending destiny be averted, but only if it conforms to your will.    If the only way for this fateful event to pass by is for me to experience it then let it be so."  He expresses his preference but remains choice-less.

[floo]

I think humans are just higher up the animal food chain than other species, our brains are more evolved that is all. The idea of a 'soul', which is another name for consciousness, was given to us by the sky fairy is nonsense, imo.

[Enki]

Alan can answer for himself of course but perhaps he would follow his saviour's model when confronted with imminent death and pray as he did ..... "O God, if it is possible,  let this impending destiny be averted, but only if it conforms to your will.    If the only way for this fateful event to pass by is for me to experience it then let it be so."  He expresses his preference but remains choice-less.

We can all do that, of course, whether one believes in a god or not. If we are faced with a desperate situation over which we have no control, it is surely part of human nature to hope that we survive it rather than succumb to it, while understanding that whatever happens is out of our control.

[Stranger]

Alan can answer for himself of course but perhaps he would follow his saviour's model when confronted with imminent death and pray as he did ..... "O God, if it is possible,  let this impending destiny be averted, but only if it conforms to your will.    If the only way for this fateful event to pass by is for me to experience it then let it be so."  He expresses his preference but remains choice-less.

Which is completely irrelevant to the question. I seriously don't understand why you (and Alan, it would seem) find this basic, basic question so difficult to grasp.   

It's about how we decide to do anything. It's about any decision at all. It isn't about any specific decision and no specific decision can answer the question.

It's really, really simple: are our decisions inevitable, based on all our experience, our initial state (genetics and whatever characteristics a soul might have when god manufactures one) and all the things that are happening at the time, or not? If not, then the only alternative is that there is some random element to them.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think humans are just higher up the animal food chain than other species, our brains are more evolved that is all. The idea of a 'soul', which is another name for consciousness, was given to us by the sky fairy is nonsense, imo.

I'm afraid reductionism has no way of tackling consciousness until it actually can build one....and then how would anybody know it had?

you just have to look at the linguistic limits imposed on himself by Dennett who wants to round a triumphant career in tearing down language off with some tremendous synthesis to see that.