Searching for GOD...

[ippy]

How can you claim that neural correlates signify actual causation?  Correlation does not mean causation.  You need to define the cause of neural activity itself to determine the source of causation.  But if you insist that all is physically determined, you will find no defining cause - just lots of pre determined physical reactions.  So to comply with your scenario, every key I have ever typed on this forum was pre destined since the beginning of time.  If you really believe this, the phrase "personal optimism" comes to mind.  Can you not see that every poster on the forum has the freedom to type what they consciously wish to type?  Or do you wish to stick to your theory that is is all automated in the sub conscious mind?

Quick Alan, hide under the table!

ippy

[torridon]

... To to comply with your scenario, every key I have ever typed on this forum was pre destined since the beginning of time.  If you really believe this, the phrase "personal optimism" comes to mind.  Can you not see that every poster on the forum has the freedom to type what they consciously wish to type?  Or do you wish to stick to your theory that is is all automated in the sub conscious mind?

Every poster has the freedom to type what they wish to type, but is that real freedom if no poster has control over what they wish for in the first place.  We are merely expressing our preferences but we do not decide what to prefer.  Can you just now decide to prefer to be an atheist ? Can you right now just decide to want a homosexual affair ? We have no control over our preferences, we are merely acting on them, whatever they are. We feel free because we don't want the things that we don't want, anyway, so we feel no constraint impinging on us, it is only when we feel transgressed by something blocking us from what we want that we feel aggrieved. We have the compatibilist's freedom to seek what we want within a broader deterministic framework over which we have no control.

[torridon]

How can you claim that neural correlates signify actual causation?  Correlation does not mean causation.  You need to define the cause of neural activity itself to determine the source of causation.... 

Correlation does not prove causation, but it usually means there is a cause and effect at work.  It rarely turns out to be coincidence.  Claiming neural correlates to be just coincidence is about as sensible as claiming that the roar of my car's engine is 'just correlation' to the mechanical working of it.  Sure, it could be some random noise of some other origin that just happens to coincide with working of the engine, but really ??  The rippling we see on brain scanning images is effectively the trace of information flow through a mind, to refuse to acknowledge that is just denying the obvious.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The rippling we see on brain scanning images is effectively the trace of information flow through a mind, to refuse to acknowledge that is just denying the obvious.

And what information is that? Torridon.
Aren't you equating consciousness with ''I am moving my left leg, I am moving my right leg?''. Focussing on the robot bit because, like Dennett, You have to explain what, say Searle calls consciousness, away?

[Nearly Sane]

Every poster has the freedom to type what they wish to type, but is that real freedom if no poster has control over what they wish for in the first place.  We are merely expressing our preferences but we do not decide what to prefer.  Can you just now decide to prefer to be an atheist ? Can you right now just decide to want a homosexual affair ? We have no control over our preferences, we are merely acting on them, whatever they are. We feel free because we don't want the things that we don't want, anyway, so we feel no constraint impinging on us, it is only when we feel transgressed by something blocking us from what we want that we feel aggrieved. We have the compatibilist's freedom to seek what we want within a broader deterministic framework over which we have no control.

As Schopenhauer put it 'Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills'

[Alan Burns]

Correlation does not prove causation, but it usually means there is a cause and effect at work.  It rarely turns out to be coincidence.  Claiming neural correlates to be just coincidence is about as sensible as claiming that the roar of my car's engine is 'just correlation' to the mechanical working of it.  Sure, it could be some random noise of some other origin that just happens to coincide with working of the engine, but really ??  The rippling we see on brain scanning images is effectively the trace of information flow through a mind, to refuse to acknowledge that is just denying the obvious.

Of course it is not coincidence.  Neural activity must play a part, but it does not give the complete explanation for consciousness.  If we can trace the cause and effect path of the neural activity, we may well reach a point where there is no apparent physical cause - where the interaction of the soul kicks in.  Without this interaction, we are just biological robots entirely under the control of natural forces.

[Alan Burns]

Every poster has the freedom to type what they wish to type, but is that real freedom if no poster has control over what they wish for in the first place.  We are merely expressing our preferences but we do not decide what to prefer.  Can you just now decide to prefer to be an atheist ? Can you right now just decide to want a homosexual affair ? We have no control over our preferences, we are merely acting on them, whatever they are. We feel free because we don't want the things that we don't want, anyway, so we feel no constraint impinging on us, it is only when we feel transgressed by something blocking us from what we want that we feel aggrieved. We have the compatibilist's freedom to seek what we want within a broader deterministic framework over which we have no control.

We can't control our preferences, but we can control how we indulge in them.

[Gordon]

We can't control our preferences, but we can control how we indulge in them.

You mean our biology gives us a degree of mental capacity that allows us to think about things: we know this already!

[floo]

We can't control our preferences, but we can control how we indulge in them.

That is how we have evolved, it doesn't mean any entity is responsible, however much you want that to be the case.

[torridon]

We can't control our preferences, but we can control how we indulge in them.

You're almost there now perhaps.  Just one more analogy should clinch it :

Consider if you meet a man from a repressive communist state. You might claim life is good because we are free in Britain. The communist might however point out that there are literally thousands of laws governing things you cannot do in Britain; it makes the 10 commandments look like a walk in the park. But nonetheles we feel free because by and large we don't want to do all those illegal things anyway.  We have an illusion of freedom because we are adapted to live within that context.  So it is with free will, we don't sense the restrictions on our freedom because we never want to do the things that we don't want to do.  So, we live our lives within an illusion of freedom within an overarching context of determinism.

[Alan Burns]

You're almost there now perhaps.  Just one more analogy should clinch it :

Consider if you meet a man from a repressive communist state. You might claim life is good because we are free in Britain. The communist might however point out that there are literally thousands of laws governing things you cannot do in Britain; it makes the 10 commandments look like a walk in the park. But nonetheles we feel free because by and large we don't want to do all those illegal things anyway.  We have an illusion of freedom because we are adapted to live within that context.  So it is with free will, we don't sense the restrictions on our freedom because we never want to do the things that we don't want to do.  So, we live our lives within an illusion of freedom within an overarching context of determinism.

Of course there are always boundaries and restrictions which apply, but can you not see that we have the freedom to choose what we want to do within those boundaries?  The physically deterministic model of our brain allows no such choice, just automated reactions to events.  I have many choices in the way I wish to express my Christian faith.  They are not sub consciously automated but driven by the power of my human soul to consciously interact with my brain to implement my choices.

[Nearly Sane]

Of course there are always boundaries and restrictions which apply, but can you not see that we have the freedom to choose what we want to do within those boundaries?  The physically deterministic model of our brain allows no such choice, just automated reactions to events.  I have many choices in the way I wish to express my Christian faith.  They are not sub consciously automated but driven by the power of my human soul to consciously interact with my brain to implement my choices.

Does it really feel to you as if you choose what you want?

[Alan Burns]

Does it really feel to you as if you choose what you want?

Absolutely!

[BeRational]

Absolutely!

Could you choose to be gay, or atheist?

[Alan Burns]

Could you choose to be gay, or atheist?

I have already said that we have no choice over our preferences.  But we have the freedom to choose how to indulge these preferences.

[Nearly Sane]

Absolutely!

That just seems completely out with my experience and makes ni logical sense since you have once again created an infinite regress. If I choose what I want, then I must in some sense make that choice because it is something that I want, since you believe you choose that you would then also have to choose whatever it was you wanted that made you choose what you wanted and so on ad infinitum.

[Nearly Sane]

I have already said that we have no choice over our preferences.  But we have the freedom to choose how to indulge these preferences.

The repetition of it doesn't make it any more coherent. What's the difference here between a preference and a want?

Oh and since BeRational asked about being an atheist you seem to be taking the position that I have no choice but to be an atheist, did you really mean to say that?

[Gordon]

I have already said that we have no choice over our preferences.  But we have the freedom to choose how to indulge these preferences.

So, if we have no choice over our 'preferences' (to use your term) then these 'preferences' act as constraints - would you agree?

[torridon]

Of course there are always boundaries and restrictions which apply, but can you not see that we have the freedom to choose what we want to do within those boundaries?  The physically deterministic model of our brain allows no such choice, just automated reactions to events.  I have many choices in the way I wish to express my Christian faith.  They are not sub consciously automated but driven by the power of my human soul to consciously interact with my brain to implement my choices.

Now you are contradicting your previous post #18133 wherein you recognised that you cannot control preferences.  This smacks of someone having their cake and eating it.  There may be boundaries to the options we face, but our choice within those boundaries is still the identifying of our preference and we cannot control our preferences.

[Alan Burns]

That just seems completely out with my experience and makes ni logical sense since you have once again created an infinite regress. If I choose what I want, then I must in some sense make that choice because it is something that I want, since you believe you choose that you would then also have to choose whatever it was you wanted that made you choose what you wanted and so on ad infinitum.

No  - my conscious self makes the choice.  That is the gift God has given us.

[Alan Burns]

The repetition of it doesn't make it any more coherent. What's the difference here between a preference and a want?

Oh and since BeRational asked about being an atheist you seem to be taking the position that I have no choice but to be an atheist, did you really mean to say that?

Having come to know God, being an atheist is not a viable choice.  But Atheists are still free to discover God if they make the effort to find Him.

[Nearly Sane]

Having come to know God, being an atheist is not a viable choice.  But Atheists are still free to discover God if they make the effort to find Him.

Which is a non sequitur to my post and doesn't answer the two questions. Again I get the feeling that you don't really read posts but just scan them and pick out a couple of words and make some random answer. .

[Nearly Sane]

No  - my conscious self makes the choice.  That is the gift God has given us.

Leaving aside the god bit, what is it that drives the choice apart from want/preference?

[Alan Burns]

Now you are contradicting your previous post #18133 wherein you recognised that you cannot control preferences.  This smacks of someone having their cake and eating it.  There may be boundaries to the options we face, but our choice within those boundaries is still the identifying of our preference and we cannot control our preferences.

The "preferences" you originally quoted in an earlier post were atheist and homosexual, which most would agree are not easily changed.  But within such basic preferences we have the ability to choose how to indulge in them.  My Christian faith does not compel me to write these posts - I choose to write them and I choose what to write.  I am in control of what I write - not the uncontrolled physically deterministic reactions in my brain.

[Nearly Sane]

The "preferences" you originally quoted in an earlier post were atheist and homosexual, which most would agree are not easily changed.  But within such basic preferences we have the ability to choose how to indulge in them.  My Christian faith does not compel me to write these posts - I choose to write them and I choose what to write.  I am in control of what I write - not the uncontrolled physically deterministic reactions in my brain.

So you are once again stating that being an atheist is not a choice.

Oh and it was BeRational who mentioned the gay/atheist thing, not Torridon but since you don't seem to really read posts, not surprising that you got that wrong. But that aside what is your classification of the want/preferences yo can choose and the ones you cannot? And how does that work? And di you have any evidence for it?