Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

Alan

This might come as a shock but for practical purposes you can control what you imagine: if I ask you to imagine walking across a field on a sunny summer afternoon I'm certain you (e.g. the biology comprising 'you') can do it.

I can choose to do it, or I can choose to ignore it.  This power to choose must emanate from a source which is not under the control of natural deterministic cause and effect events, otherwise there would be no choice.

[Stranger]

This power to choose must emanate from a source which is not under the control of natural deterministic cause and effect events, otherwise there would be no choice.

But you have offered no evidence and no reasoning to back up this silly claim. You don't know how conscious choice works so you don't know that it can't result from "natural deterministic cause and effect events".

And you continue to ignore the fact that any soul you invent would also have to be under the control of deterministic cause and effect events (unless it's random which you keep denying).

[torridon]

I can choose to do it, or I can choose to ignore it.  This power to choose must emanate from a source which is not under the control of natural deterministic cause and effect events, otherwise there would be no choice.

We make choices that reflect our preference. Do we choose what preferences to have ? On what basis would we choose our preferences, if not on some prior preference ?

[Gordon]

I can choose to do it, or I can choose to ignore it.  This power to choose must emanate from a source which is not under the control of natural deterministic cause and effect events, otherwise there would be no choice.

I see you're still stuck in the corner you've painted yourself into.

Anyway you haven't replied to the other element in my post post regarding you being asked to consider your response should science develop a provisional naturalistic explanation for consciousness. Since your faith seems so dependent on your assumptions regarding the role of the divine in consciousness then such an explanation would surely challenge your current views - so, Alan, how would you respond?

[Alan Burns]

But you have offered no evidence and no reasoning to back up this silly claim. You don't know how conscious choice works so you don't know that it can't result from "natural deterministic cause and effect events".

What I am pointing out is that the scientifically defined behaviour of all material entities (including the human brain) can't encompass any form of choice, since every event will be an inevitable consequence of previous physical events.  To have any form of choice, control or manipulation you need something which can consciously interact, not just react.

[Gordon]

What I am pointing out is that the scientifically defined behaviour of all material entities (including the human brain) can't encompass any form of choice, since every event will be an inevitable consequence of previous physical events.  To have any form of choice, control or manipulation you need something which can consciously interact, not just react.

You already have something that fits the bill: you'll find it lurking within your skull.

[Alan Burns]

I see you're still stuck in the corner you've painted yourself into.

Anyway you haven't replied to the other element in my post post regarding you being asked to consider your response should science develop a provisional naturalistic explanation for consciousness. Since your faith seems so dependent on your assumptions regarding the role of the divine in consciousness then such an explanation would surely challenge your current views - so, Alan, how would you respond?

If there was a naturalistic explanation for consciousness I would have no choice in the way I respond because it would all be defined by naturalistic cause and effect events in my brain.  But the fact is that I am free to respond to your scenario in any way I like, and this freedom to choose my response can't emanate from naturalistic chains of cause and effect.

[Nearly Sane]

If there was a naturalistic explanation for consciousness I would have no choice in the way I respond because it would all be defined by naturalistic cause and effect events in my brain.  But the fact is that I am free to respond to your scenario in any way I like, and this freedom to choose my response can't emanate from naturalistic chains of cause and effect.

Stop calling your assertions facts. It's dishonest.

[Alan Burns]

We make choices that reflect our preference. Do we choose what preferences to have ? On what basis would we choose our preferences, if not on some prior preference ?

We can't choose our preferences, but we can choose to override them if we so wish.

[Gordon]

If there was a naturalistic explanation for consciousness I would have no choice in the way I respond because it would all be defined by naturalistic cause and effect events in my brain.  But the fact is that I am free to respond to your scenario in any way I like, and this freedom to choose my response can't emanate from naturalistic chains of cause and effect.

Which is your personal incredulity getting in the way again, Alan, since this is just assertion employed to protect you from any potential threats to your personal brand of faith: you seem oblivious to your fallacious reasoning.

[Alan Burns]

Which is your personal incredulity getting in the way again, Alan, since this is just assertion employed to protect you from any potential threats to your personal brand of faith: you seem oblivious to your fallacious reasoning.

My reasoning is not based on personal incredulity.  It is based on the physical impossibility for any material entity, including the human brain, to escape from the inevitable chain reactions of all events being caused by previous physical events.  The materialist scenario is that every event in this universe must be a consequence of previous physical events.  So no control, choice or manipulation - just inevitable reactions to previous events.  Any form of choice, manipulation or control must therefore come from a source outside the deterministic nature of our physical universe.

God has given us the ability to interact with this universe, not just react to it.

[Stranger]

What I am pointing out is that the scientifically defined behaviour of all material entities (including the human brain) can't encompass any form of choice, since every event will be an inevitable consequence of previous physical events.  To have any form of choice, control or manipulation you need something which can consciously interact, not just react.

Choice is defined as "an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities" - so deterministic systems can make choices (computers, non-human animals) and you are wrong.

Of course when I asked before how you defined "choice" you defined it as something can only come from non-material magic, making your whole silly game of words circular (on top of the personal incredulity).

[Maeght]

What I am pointing out is that the scientifically defined behaviour of all material entities (including the human brain) can't encompass any form of choice, since every event will be an inevitable consequence of previous physical events.  To have any form of choice, control or manipulation you need something which can consciously interact, not just react.

How do you know that our apparent choices are not just reactions? You don't - which is what this 'debate' is all about surely.

[Gordon]

My reasoning is not based on personal incredulity.

Yes it is, see below.

It is based on the physical impossibility for any material entity, including the human brain, to escape from the inevitable chain reactions of all events being caused by previous physical events.  The materialist scenario is that every event in this universe must be a consequence of previous physical events.  So no control, choice or manipulation - just inevitable reactions to previous events.  Any form of choice, manipulation or control must therefore come from a source outside the deterministic nature of our physical universe.

Which you've yet again demonstrated, as per the above, and let's not forget all the other fallacies you regularly chuck into the mix.

[Alan Burns]

Choice is defined as "an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities" - so deterministic systems can make choices (computers, non-human animals) and you are wrong.

Of course when I asked before how you defined "choice" you defined it as something can only come from non-material magic, making your whole silly game of words circular (on top of the personal incredulity).

I can program a computer to make a decision based on its internal logic, but the computer has no power to consciously override that decision.

[Stranger]

My reasoning is not based on personal incredulity.

It quite obviously is.

It is based on the physical impossibility for any material entity, including the human brain, to escape from the inevitable chain reactions of all events being caused by previous physical events.  The materialist scenario is that every event in this universe must be a consequence of previous physical events.  So no control, choice or manipulation - just inevitable reactions to previous events.  Any form of choice, manipulation or control must therefore come from a source outside the deterministic nature of our physical universe.

You haven't provided any evidence or argument that conscious choice cannot arise from deterministic systems - all you have done is asserted it from personal incredulity.

Neither have you offered any alternative to determinism for making choices. Just blathering on about a 'soul' that is "free from material chains of cause and effect" isn't any more of an explanation than "it's magic!".

You haven't said how the soul arrives at its choices.

I can program a computer to make a decision based on its internal logic, but the computer has no power to consciously override that decision.

Irrelevant.

[torridon]

We can't choose our preferences, but we can choose to override them if we so wish.

So we might have a preference to override our (normal) preference in that case. You can't escape it Alan.

[Alan Burns]

You haven't provided any evidence or argument that conscious choice cannot arise from deterministic systems - all you have done is asserted it from personal incredulity.

But there is overwhelming evidence from scientists who declare that conscious choice cannot arise from the deterministic nature of our universe (just google "free will is an illusion" to find this evidence).

[Stranger]

So no control, choice or manipulation - just inevitable reactions to previous events.

Except that non-human animals and human made systems quite clearly do control, choose and manipulate in any ordinary sense of the words. How do you know that all control, choice and manipulation isn't deterministic (without resorting to personal incredulity or redefining the words to make your argument circular)?

But there is overwhelming evidence from scientists who declare that conscious choice cannot arise from the deterministic nature of our universe (just google "free will is an illusion" to find this evidence).

No there isn't. The debate about "free will" is a separate issue (that depends crucially on how you define it). Nobody says that humans don't make choices or that we don't experience consciousness.

And again, you haven't offered any alternative to determinism for making choices.

[torridon]

But there is overwhelming evidence from scientists who declare that conscious choice cannot arise from the deterministic nature of our universe (just google "free will is an illusion" to find this evidence).

 .. and it is cognitive science that reveals that consciousness of a choice made lags slightly behind the (subconscious) decision.  We are not just making this stuff up you know.

[Sebastian Toe]

But if I did choose to use my imagination as requested, that would be proof that I am able to control what I imagine.  So where would this control emanate from?

Irrelevant dodging.
Can you apply your imagination to the scenario or not?

[Stranger]

But there is overwhelming evidence from scientists who declare that conscious choice cannot arise from the deterministic nature of our universe (just google "free will is an illusion" to find this evidence).

Just to add to this. The problem with "free will" is logical, as well as a scientific. The idea of "free will" that many people seem to have (including you, from your inability to see that the determinism-randomness dichotomy isn't about the material universe) is simply inconsistent and self-contradictory.

[Stranger]

If however, one adopts a more realistic definition of the term "free will"...

Compatibilists often define an instance of "free will" as one in which the agent had freedom to act according to their own motivation. That is, the agent was not coerced or restrained. Arthur Schopenhauer famously said "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills."^[8]

In other words, although an agent may often be free to act according to a motive, the nature of that motive is determined. Also note that this definition of free will does not rely on the truth or falsity of causal determinism.^[2] This view also makes free will close to autonomy, the ability to live according to one's own rules, as opposed to being submitted to external domination.

[Maeght]

But there is overwhelming evidence from scientists who declare that conscious choice cannot arise from the deterministic nature of our universe (just google "free will is an illusion" to find this evidence).

Have done and the results don't seem to back up what you say. Could you provide references to this please?

[wigginhall]

Just to add to this. The problem with "free will" is logical, as well as a scientific. The idea of "free will" that many people seem to have (including you, from your inability to see that the determinism-randomness dichotomy isn't about the material universe) is simply inconsistent and self-contradictory.

Presumably, theists such as AB will argue assert that God is uncaused; therefore, they might also say that the soul is uncaused, and free will also.   Although, possibly the soul is 'created' by God, hence caused by God, so here there is some determinism, and free will is created by the soul, ditto.   But this ignores the ability of AB to move the goal-posts at will, in fact, there is a complete bonfire of goalposts.  Nobody knows how the soul operates, since nobody knows what it is, except an unspecified 'something'.  Of course, this is very useful, since it allows AB to contradict himself, misrepresent other people, and so on.   Just like that.