Searching for GOD...

[ippy]

Maybe good Catholic's souls are housed in the halos around their heads.

What, like me?

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No, he just parodied AB’s position is all. AB’s modus operandi is the same as yours: he misrepresents the arguments against him, and then having created an imaginary explanatory gap he just inserts a superstitious belief he happens to have with no a supporting argument for it of any kind.

But you will admit that as an area of scholarship, consciousness has huge explanatory gaps unless of course you do a Dennett and produce a Consciousness Explained Away.

I think one of your troubles Mr B is that Chutzpah in an argument is all or most.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

But you will admit that as an area of scholarship, consciousness has huge explanatory gaps unless of course you do a Dennett and produce a Consciousness Explained Away.

“Admit” is the wrong word (‘agree” is fine), and yes “as an area of scholarship” of course it has. Think of evolution as an analogy though – no-one but the most ardent evidence-denier thinks that evolution as an observable phenomenon doesn’t happen (that's the “what”) but of course there are discussions and disagreements about the details of the “how” – the debate about punctuate equilibrium for example.

So with consciousness. Only a hard core evidence-denier would suggest that emergence as an explanatory model isn’t the only rational and coherent model for it we have. How it work in all its particulars though is full of unknowns still. Just asserting “soul”, “magic” or any other white noise though neither undermines the model not helps plug the explanatory gaps about the “how” we do have. That in short is where AB careers off the rails when he asserts that it can't be an emergent property because it isn't "fully defined" yet, while at the same time positing his answer "soul" for which he has no definition of any kind. 

I think one of your troubles Mr B is that Chutzpah in an argument is all or most.

Then, as ever, you think wrongly. See above.

[Alan Burns]

I see you still haven't grasped the fact that conscious awareness is the end product of thought processes not the driver of them.  Even since Freud we have been coming to understand that it is subconscious mind that is the real driver of behaviours, conscious awareness merely follows on in its wake.

I see you still haven't grasped the fact that adding in 'spiritually driven' before 'will' makes no difference to the logic of the situation.  Its just wordplay to avoid the logic of the situation.  A spiritually driven will that is free of relevant influences still produces random responses just as would a biologically driven will that is free of relevant considerations. A meaningful choice has to be a function of its determining factors or it is just a random event.  Adding in meaningless words like 'spiritual' does not buy us a free pass out of this base logic.

And you do not seem to understand the nature of human free will.
For example, when considering the question of souls in animals, you want to show there is no appreciable difference between humans and animals, so you consciously choose to quote the similarities between them.  Whereas I want to show the marked difference between humans and animals, so I deliberately choose to illustrate the unique attributes of humans.  The driving forces for these actions derive from conscious will of the human soul and can't be defined by the materially deterministic model of the human brain.  It is certainly not random, nor can it be pre defined by uncontrolled deterministic chains of events.  It is driven by conscious acts of human will.

[Sassy]

An interesting snippet from Wiggs recent link:

J. B. S. Haldane, who appeals to a similar line of reasoning in his 1927 book, Possible Worlds: "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."

So AB, For the benefit of those here, what would it be about the human being that God can convict them of sin?

They have truly shot themselves in the foot if they deny the very things that make them human and responsible for their own thoughts and actions. Do actions bring about the thought or does the thought from self bring about the actions?


Will man willing destroy his own self and his abilities be sacrificed to support a none belief in a God?

How sad and how they make all they are worthless in doing so.

[Gordon]

And you do not seem to understand the nature of human free will.

Does anyone? You're assuming we have 'free will', and I'm not sure we do - it just feels that way some of the time.

For example, when considering the question of souls in animals, you want to show there is no appreciable difference between humans and animals, so you consciously choose to quote the similarities between them.

We are just one of many species of animal: some other species are similar to us and others markedly aren't.

Whereas I want to show the marked difference between humans and animals, so I deliberately choose to illustrate the unique attributes of humans.

Only because you need to contrive a gap for your 'God/soul' to inhabit.

The driving forces for these actions derive from conscious will of the human soul and can't be defined by the materially deterministic model of the human brain.  It is certainly not random, nor can it be pre defined by uncontrolled deterministic chains of events.  It is driven by conscious acts of human will.

Now, and predictably, you add your  personal incredulity into the mix.

[Alan Burns]

So AB, For the benefit of those here, what would it be about the human being that God can convict them of sin?

They have truly shot themselves in the foot if they deny the very things that make them human and responsible for their own thoughts and actions. Do actions bring about the thought or does the thought from self bring about the actions?


Will man willing destroy his own self and his abilities be sacrificed to support a none belief in a God?

How sad and how they make all they are worthless in doing so.

It is truly sad that some people try to deny that they have been given this amazing gift of free will, giving them the freedom to decide their own destiny by simply choosing to accept Jesus as their saviour.

[Gordon]

It is truly sad that some people try to deny that they have been given this amazing gift of free will, giving them the freedom to decide their own destiny by simply choosing to accept Jesus as their saviour.

Or 'simply choosing' not to, in the absence of any good reasons to take the 'saviour' notion seriously.

[floo]

It is truly sad that some people try to deny that they have been given this amazing gift of free will, giving them the freedom to decide their own destiny by simply choosing to accept Jesus as their saviour.

It is more a case of there being no verifiable evidence to support that scenario.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

And you do not seem to understand the nature of human free will.

What torri does understand is what the evidence says and where it leads. By "understand" here what you actually mean is something like, "agree with my personal opinion on the matter that denies the evidence, opens up an imaginary explanatory gap, and provides some white noise called "soul" that presumes to fill that imaginary gap but actually answers nothing at all".

If you want your clams and assertions to be taken seriously you need first to identify the fault in the prevailing model of emergence, then posit an alternative that isn't incoherent, then the present the evidence for it for examination and testing.

So far as I can tell though, you are entirely unable to do any of those things.

[torridon]

And you do not seem to understand the nature of human free will.
For example, when considering the question of souls in animals, you want to show there is no appreciable difference between humans and animals, so you consciously choose to quote the similarities between them.  Whereas I want to show the marked difference between humans and animals, so I deliberately choose to illustrate the unique attributes of humans.  The driving forces for these actions derive from conscious will of the human soul and can't be defined by the materially deterministic model of the human brain.  It is certainly not random, nor can it be pre defined by uncontrolled deterministic chains of events.  It is driven by conscious acts of human will.

Oh dear, your usual hotch potch of baseless assertions, logical fallacies and misunderstandings.  I'm beginning to think this penny is never going to drop for you.  Just throwing in a few bolded words want, deliberate, conscious is not going to change the fundamental logic of the situation.  That we have wants, that we have consciousness, that we form intentions, these things do not qualify us as escaping the fundamental laws of nature or of logic. A meaningful choice is one that takes account of relevant considerations; a choice that is free of all relevant considerations is not a choice at all, it is merely a random event and this is true whether the decision is made biologically, spiritually, computationally or popsaquidigiously.

Your position on this is somewhat akin to the compatibilist account of free will, with added spiritual, thrown in for good measure. Consider an inmate exercising in the prison yard. He can do anything he wants in the prison compound, he can jump up and down, he can blow a raspberry, he can recite Shakespeare sonnets in a French accent, so, within the compounds of the prison, we could say he has several degrees of freedom.  And suppose this compound is large, so large that the walls are over the horizon, he may not be aware of his imprisonment.  The walls are so far away that he could set off running and never actually reach the walls. A compatibilist will say that this amounts to free will and this is analogous to the free will that we humans enjoy.  To a compatibilist, it is not so much the fundamental overarching truth of the situation that matters, what matters to the compatibilist is what is important, rather than what is true. For the prisoner in the compound, he has effective freedom as he is unaware of the restrictions on his liberty and that is what matters. 

So, of course, I would agree with you, like the prisoner in the compound we have seeming freedom, being unaware of those distant walls.  When we make a choice we are identifying our preference, but we do not, can not, choose what our preference is in the first place, just as also we cannot choose our beliefs. This is why we are not ultimately free, and also why ultimate freedom would in fact be meaningless.

[Alan Burns]

Oh dear, your usual hotch potch of baseless assertions, logical fallacies and misunderstandings.  I'm beginning to think this penny is never going to drop for you.  Just throwing in a few bolded words want, deliberate, conscious is not going to change the fundamental logic of the situation.  That we have wants, that we have consciousness, that we form intentions, these things do not qualify us as escaping the fundamental laws of nature or of logic. A meaningful choice is one that takes account of relevant considerations; a choice that is free of all relevant considerations is not a choice at all, it is merely a random event and this is true whether the decision is made biologically, spiritually, computationally or popsaquidigiously.

Your position on this is somewhat akin to the compatibilist account of free will, with added spiritual, thrown in for good measure. Consider an inmate exercising in the prison yard. He can do anything he wants in the prison compound, he can jump up and down, he can blow a raspberry, he can recite Shakespeare sonnets in a French accent, so, within the compounds of the prison, we could say he has several degrees of freedom.  And suppose this compound is large, so large that the walls are over the horizon, he may not be aware of his imprisonment.  The walls are so far away that he could set off running and never actually reach the walls. A compatibilist will say that this amounts to free will and this is analogous to the free will that we humans enjoy.  To a compatibilist, it is not so much the fundamental overarching truth of the situation that matters, what matters to the compatibilist is what is important, rather than what is true. For the prisoner in the compound, he has effective freedom as he is unaware of the restrictions on his liberty and that is what matters. 

So, of course, I would agree with you, like the prisoner in the compound we have seeming freedom, being unaware of those distant walls.  When we make a choice we are identifying our preference, but we do not, can not, choose what our preference is in the first place, just as also we cannot choose our beliefs. This is why we are not ultimately free, and also why ultimate freedom would in fact be meaningless.

I have never claimed that we have unrestricted freedom - this is just confusing the issue.  What we have is the freedom to consciously choose between several viable alternatives.  You claim that it all happens sub consciously and that the choices are already made before we become aware of them.  So you would claim that Ian Brady and Myra Hindley made no conscious choice over what they did to the children they murdered?  I think you have totally misunderstood this unique gift you have and are categorising yourself as no more than an animal whose actions are entirely determined by past events.  I only hope you will eventually realise that the freedom to consciously choose is a gift from God, not from nature, and that you will be able to recognise the conflicts between temptation and conscience and consciously make the right choices.

[floo]

One could argue any so called gift from god is like a game of Russian roulette!

[torridon]

I have never claimed that we have unrestricted freedom - this is just confusing the issue.  What we have is the freedom to consciously choose between several viable alternatives.  You claim that it all happens sub consciously and that the choices are already made before we become aware of them.  So you would claim that Ian Brady and Myra Hindley made no conscious choice over what they did to the children they murdered?  I think you have totally misunderstood this unique gift you have and are categorising yourself as no more than an animal whose actions are entirely determined by past events.  I only hope you will eventually realise that the freedom to consciously choose is a gift from God, not from nature, and that you will be able to recognise the conflicts between temptation and conscience and consciously make the right choices.

That it is a gift from god is merely your conjecture and as we have no real evidence for gods or souls or spirits or heavens or immortality or angels or devils, then I'm afraid your conjecture is just noise distracting from what could otherwise be a real exchange of ideas and from a deepening of understanding.  All goddidit claims are in the end an abdication of our potential to try to understand.

[Alan Burns]

That it is a gift from god is merely your conjecture and as we have no real evidence for gods or souls or spirits or heavens or immortality or angels or devils, then I'm afraid your conjecture is just noise distracting from what could otherwise be a real exchange of ideas and from a deepening of understanding.  All goddidit claims are in the end an abdication of our potential to try to understand.

Can you not see that the expression you use in this post "to try to understand" is itself an admission that we have the ability to guide our own thoughts?  The deterministic model of brain activity you posit has no such ability to guide - only to follow the uncontrollable path of physical cause and effect.

[wigginhall]

The phrase 'the uncontrollable path of cause and effect' sounds weird to me.    If the tides are affected by the moon's path, how is that uncontrolled?   I would have thought that the notion of cause and effect specifies which bit controls which other bit.   It's difficult to examine this in neural pathways, but I think it is being researched right now.

[SusanDoris]

On this thread, I am always pleased when the last post I read at that moment is not one of AB's! When the last is one of his, I have this sense of trying to fight my way out of an invisible trap or something similar.

[torridon]

Can you not see that the expression you use in this post "to try to understand" is itself an admission that we have the ability to guide our own thoughts?  The deterministic model of brain activity you posit has no such ability to guide - only to follow the uncontrollable path of physical cause and effect.

Eeerm, not quite.  The formation of desires, hopes and intentions is not incompatible with determinism. If I form a desire to eat a kebab, it is because I am hungry.  There is cause and effect at work, compatible with determinism.  Any desire or intention that we form arises out of perceived need of some sort or other, even if we aren't consciously aware of its origin. Our brain recognises need and produces motor action in response to satisfy that need. My curiosity leads me to try to understand. A wolf's hunger leads it to try to bring down a bison.  Both are examples of calorific expenditure in order to satisfy a perceived need.  No magic souls required.

[Alan Burns]

Eeerm, not quite.  The formation of desires, hopes and intentions is not incompatible with determinism. If I form a desire to eat a kebab, it is because I am hungry.  There is cause and effect at work, compatible with determinism.  Any desire or intention that we form arises out of perceived need of some sort or other, even if we aren't consciously aware of its origin. Our brain recognises need and produces motor action in response to satisfy that need. My curiosity leads me to try to understand. A wolf's hunger leads it to try to bring down a bison.  Both are examples of calorific expenditure in order to satisfy a perceived need.  No magic souls required.

You seem to be determined to categorise yourself in the same class as our animal friends.  Can you not see a difference between conscious human aspirations and basic animal instincts?  Is my desire to share my views on Christian faith just the inevitable consequence of uncontrolled physical chains of reactions in my brain? Nothing to do with my conscious awareness?

[Alan Burns]

The phrase 'the uncontrollable path of cause and effect' sounds weird to me.    If the tides are affected by the moon's path, how is that uncontrolled?   I would have thought that the notion of cause and effect specifies which bit controls which other bit.   It's difficult to examine this in neural pathways, but I think it is being researched right now.

Surely the word "control" implies that there is something with the power to exert control and not just initiate unavoidable reactions?  I concede that in the materialist view there can be nothing in control since everything is a consequence of cause and effect.  But the ability to consciously control and manipulate is evident in every human being, which implies that we do not live in a totally deterministic universe.  Control and manipulation do exist and we have the dictionary defined words to prove it.

[wigginhall]

Surely the word "control" implies that there is something with the power to exert control and not just initiate unavoidable reactions?  I concede that in the materialist view there can be nothing in control since everything is a consequence of cause and effect.  But the ability to consciously control and manipulate is evident in every human being, which implies that we do not live in a totally deterministic universe.  Control and manipulation do exist and we have the dictionary defined words to prove it.

Well, the moon exerts control over the tides, so they are not 'uncontrolled', but I see that you mean 'conscious control'.   Well, you seem to embrace a very dichotomous view of animals as unconscious and conscious, that is humans.  I would have thought there was a spectrum, and probably, humans are largely unconscious animals.

[Nearly Sane]

Well, the moon exerts control over the tides, so they are not 'uncontrolled', but I see that you mean 'conscious control'.   Well, you seem to embrace a very dichotomous view of animals as unconscious and conscious, that is humans.  I would have thought there was a spectrum, and probably, humans are largely unconscious animals.

Surely all of this depends on having a definition of conscious, the thing that Alan says because it doesn't exist, the definition that is, means his belief, but the definition that is doesn't exist, exists. But then Alan seems happy having the definition that isn't to be both his definition that isn't be the definition that is to show he is right and the definition that isn't to show he's right. Isn't that right, or isn't it right?

[torridon]

You seem to be determined to categorise yourself in the same class as our animal friends.  Can you not see a difference between conscious human aspirations and basic animal instincts?  Is my desire to share my views on Christian faith just the inevitable consequence of uncontrolled physical chains of reactions in my brain? Nothing to do with my conscious awareness?

Your conscious awareness itself is a construct of mind. It is not a prime mover, it is not a driver of change, it is not an instigator of action; rather it is an after effect, an after thought, an after the event virtual reality mashup that we all take for real time direct experience of reality implicitly even though it isn't. It was Freud who first started to realise that it is the subconscious mind that is the real engine of motivation and behaviour and all the work we have done in the cognitive sciences since has only confirmed that. 

The things that emerge into your conscious mind, such as your desire to share your faith do not come out of the blue, our preferences form within us as a result of our passage through life and I no more chose my liking for marmite than Ian Brady chose to be a psychopath. We are products of the forces that shape us. We all started out as a minimal information product encoded by the particular shape of a double helical acid molecule and the reason we develop differently is because of our each unique pathway through life, each encounter changing us.  You might like to think that you choose your own path, you freely choose to share your faith, but that thinking excludes consideration of where that want to share your faith came from in the first place. Nothing comes out of the blue, it arises of a consequence of things that have gone before.

[Alan Burns]

On this thread, I am always pleased when the last post I read at that moment is not one of AB's! When the last is one of his, I have this sense of trying to fight my way out of an invisible trap or something similar.

If my posts make you feel uncomfortable, then this gives me hope.  The Christian faith is not what we would choose for an easy life.  Peter never wanted to become a Christian disciple and leader - he wanted to carry on as a fisherman.  But choosing the easy option may not be he right option.  Embracing the Christian faith will reveal the true meaning for which we were brought into existence.  You will realise that we are not just an accident of the unguided, aimless forces of nature, but part of God's wonderful creation with a divine purpose.

[Sebastian Toe]

If my posts make you feel uncomfortable, then this gives me hope.  The Christian faith is not what we would choose for an easy life.  Peter never wanted to become a Christian disciple and leader - he wanted to carry on as a fisherman.  But choosing the easy option may not be he right option.

Who says that being a fisherman is an easy option?

A sanctimonious, supercilious twonk perhaps?