Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

If my posts make you feel uncomfortable, then this gives me hope.

Then you're fooling yourself.

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.

Did Peter say anything about the problem of some (but not all) Christians peddling fallacy-ridden bollocks? In your case, Alan, I'd check that out!

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I have never claimed that we have unrestricted freedom - this is just confusing the issue.

That's exactly what you claim. If you seriously think that "free" will is free of the constraints of cause and effect then it is "unrestricted". 

What else would restrict it?

[ippy]

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.

If you were to attempt some smilar psychical gymnastics that compared with your verbal gymnastics, you would need to be taken to a hospital, (taken, I doubt you'd be able to convey yourself), even then they'd have quite a challenge and probably wouldn't know where to start unravelling the knots you have tied yourself into Alan.

All your posts amount to persistently flying into the face of rational logic, fingers in the ears and just repeating goddit no matter how anyone puts things to you.

Barmy, have a good day Alan.

ippy

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

If my posts make you feel uncomfortable...

They do make me feel uncomfortable, but only on your behalf.

...then this gives me hope.

It shouldn't. It really, really shouldn't.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

That's exactly what you claim. If you seriously think that "free" will is free of the constraints of cause and effect then it is "unrestricted". 

What else would restrict it?

My claim is simply that we have freedom to consciously choose between several viable options, rather than have the option chosen for us by the physically deterministic forces of nature.  I have used my God given gift of free will to consciously choose to accept Jesus as my saviour.  I have never claimed that human free will does not have a cause.  Just that the cause is free from the restrictions of physical determinism.  Of course, if you claim that there can be nothing but physical determinism, then you will have to assume that all your perceived choices are an illusion.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

My claim is simply that we have freedom consciously choose between several viable options, rather than have the option chosen for us by the physically deterministic forces of nature.  I have used my God given gift of free will to consciously choose to accept Jesus as my saviour.  I have never claimed that human free will does not have a cause.  Just that the cause is free from the restrictions of physical determinism.  Of course, if you claim that there can be nothing but physical determinism, then you will have to assume that all your perceived choices are an illusion.

So your latest reverse ferret is that "free" will isn't free after all, but the constraint from which it's not free is actually non-physical determinism (whatever that would be).

Is that where you've arrived at now?

[Sebastian Toe]

.  Of course, if you claim that there can be nothing but physical determinism, then you will have to assume that all your perceived choices are an illusion.

Of course if it is an illusion which is indistinguishable from the free will that you describe. Where does that leave you?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

So your latest reverse ferret is that "free" will isn't free after all, but the constraint from which it's not free is actually non-physical determinism (whatever that would be).

Is that where you've arrived at now?

It is where I have been all the time.  We have spiritually derived freedom to make choices.

[Nearly Sane]

AB,

So your latest reverse ferret is that "free" will isn't free after all, but the constraint from which it's not free is actually non-physical determinism (whatever that would be).

Is that where you've arrived at now?

Alan has been asked this precisely throughout the thread. He was in particular asked it by Some Kind of Stranger on this exact point. I suspect Alan's not answering and evasion drove SKoS to set up a training school on a small atoll in the Marshall Islands to train people not to evade questions. He is still there. Alan is still here not answering after being asked many hundreds of times.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It is where I have been all the time.  We have spiritually derived freedom to make choices.

No it isn't. You pouffed "soul" into being all along, but to my knowledge this is the first time you've pouffed "non-material determinism" into existence. How in your head at least would that work?

[Nearly Sane]

It is where I have been all the time.  We have spiritually derived freedom to make choices.

indeed, still not answering in a logically coherent way. How dies freedom work outside of determinism/random ness? Note sticking 'spiritual' another word you have been unable to define in any logically coherent way in the sentence doesn't help, it makes it worse. Why are you unable to say what you mean in a logically coherent fashion?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi NS,

Alan has been asked this precisely throughout the thread. He was in particular asked it by Some Kind of Stranger on this exact point. I suspect Alan's not answering and evasion drove SKoS to set up a training school on a small atoll in the Marshall Islands to train people not to evade questions. He is still there. Alan is still here not answering after being asked many hundreds of times.

I've seem him ignore every request to address his "not deterministic/not random" incoherence but this is the first time I've seen him suggest that "free" will is deterministic after all, only a special kind of determinism – "non-material determinism" – is apparently at play. 

What on earth he means by it and how it would work is anyones guess, as is the problem that whether material of not a deterministic "free" will (presumably) wouldn't be free after all.

Oh well - confusion and incoherence piled upon confusion and incoherence is all he has in the locker it seems.   

[Nearly Sane]

Hi NS,

I've seem him ignore every request to address his "not deterministic/not random" incoherence but this is the first time I've seen him suggest that "free" will is deterministic after all, only a special kind of determinism – "non-material determinism" – is apparently at play. 

What on earth he means by it and how it would work is anyones guess, as is the problem that whether material of not a deterministic "free" will (presumably) wouldn't be free after all.

Oh well - confusion and incoherence piled upon confusion and incoherence is all he has in the locker it seems.

It makes no difference, as was pointed out by SKoS continually. You could call it May determinism, Corbyn determinism or even wanky cheese biscuits determinism  but it is still the same thing. Alan has offered no coherent definition of 'free'.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

It makes no difference, as was pointed out by SKoS continually. You could call it May determinism, Corbyn determinism or even wanky cheese biscuits determinism  but it is still the same thing. Alan has offered no coherent definition of 'free'.

Quite so, except of course if instead of May, Corbyn etc you call it spiritual then all bets are off - he can be as incoherent and logically inconsistent as he likes because "spiritual" means, like, you know, magic. 

Or something.

Innit.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Quite so, except of course if instead of May, Corbyn etc you call it spiritual then all bets are off - he can be as incoherent and logically inconsistent as he likes because "spiritual" means, like, you know, magic. 

Or something.

Innit.

I think this misses the point, it wouldn't matter if 'spiritual' was defined coherently, it still doesn't get round the issue of no logical coherence for the use of free.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I think this misses the point, it wouldn't matter if 'spiritual' was defined coherently, it still doesn't get round the issue of no logical coherence for the use of free.

Yes I know it misses the point for the grown ups (I said as much a while back) but not for AB. For him, terms' like "spiritual" are all that's needed to get him off the hook with no definition of any kind, coherent, incoherent or cheese and onion flavoured. And when someone points out this fairly obvious problem, he just tells us that - unlike him it seems - we're not seeing "the big picture".

So there it is. What's white noise to anyone else isn't white noise to him, and he's bewildered by the inability of the rest of us just to take his word for it that he alone sees this alleged big picture.   

[Alan Burns]

Why is it so difficult for you lot to get to grips with the concept that human free will is simply the freedom to consciously choose between several viable choices?  I have never suggested it is unrestricted or random - simply that it is free from the dictates of physically determined chains of cause and effect, which would render the apparent freedom to choose to be an illusion.

[Nearly Sane]

Why is it so difficult for you lot to get to grips with the concept that human free will is simply the freedom to consciously choose between several viable choices?  I have never suggested it is unrestricted or random - simply that it is free from the dictates of physically determined chains of cause and effect, which would render the apparent freedom to choose to be an illusion.

It's difficult because as has been pointed out to you many many many many tines, Alan, sticking physical/spiritual determined or wanky cheese biscuit determined, doesn't get you away from determined to sine definition of free. Why is that you continually ignore this point?

[Alan Burns]

Of course if it is an illusion which is indistinguishable from the free will that you describe. Where does that leave you?

My freedom to consciously guide my thoughts and actions are so much a part of me.  It is what defines me.  If it is all an illusion, then I myself must be an illusion.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Why is it so difficult for you lot to get to grips with the concept that human free will is simply the freedom to consciously choose between several viable choices?  I have never suggested it is unrestricted or random - simply that it is free from the dictates of physically determined chains of cause and effect, which would render the apparent freedom to choose to be an illusion.

Why is it so difficult for you to get to grips with the concept that determinism (regardless of the synonyms for “magic” you attach to it) means determinism.

And if something is determined, then it’s not free in the sense you’re attempting.

Inserting a conjecture you call “soul” that is itself subject to this new kind of magic determinism just moves the issue back one step. And if you add another homunculus to control this first one, you’re on the road to an infinite regress.

Is any of this sinking in yet?

Anything?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

My freedom to consciously guide my thoughts and actions are so much a part of me.  It is what defines me.  If it is all an illusion, then I myself must be an illusion.

Actually the "I" as you perceive it to be probably is, yes.

[Nearly Sane]

My freedom to consciously guide my thoughts and actions are so much a part of me.  It is what defines me.  If it is all an illusion, then I myself must be an illusion.

in what way can you freely guide your thoughts? Again as has been pointed out many many many many times, Alan, this leads to you guiding the choice to make the choice to make the choice etc etc... As ever until you deal with the pointing out of your logically incoherent positiin , you are just posting meaninglessness.

[Nearly Sane]

AB,

Actually the "I" as you perceive it to be probably is, yes.

But then as AB will no doubt point out what is the 'you' in that sentence if it is not also the 'I'?

[torridon]

My freedom to consciously guide my thoughts and actions are so much a part of me.  It is what defines me.  If it is all an illusion, then I myself must be an illusion.

Yes, that is probably right.  All experience is fabrication of mind, including our sense of self. Here is a blog post by Sam Harris on the illusion of self :

https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-illusion-of-the-self2

In the West we have been misled by centuries, nay millenia, of JudeoChristian teaching on the soul and we find it hard to shake off.  Buddhism by contrast has been way more insightful in these matters.

[Alan Burns]

And if something is determined, then it’s not free in the sense you’re attempting.

It is your own (and some others') interpretation of "free" which is causing so much confusion.
A physically determined choice is not really a choice but an unavoidable reaction.
A consciously determined choice can only be deemed a real choice if the conscious property is not entirely physical.  If conscious awareness is just a physically determined "emergent property" then there is no choice - just an unavoidable reaction.
So if everything is physically determined, all is just reaction and freedom has no meaning.
So my freedom to make conscious choices must derive from something non physical, otherwise it is just reaction.