Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

torri,

That sounds like a euphemistic use of the word 'evidence'. Proper evidence would be something that would help us differentiate between rival theories of cosmology, something that would convince NASA, say, or SETI. What you call evidence is something far less, more what I would call post hoc rationalisation, ie something you might come up with in order to justify a pre-existing belief.

A useful response I think to those who claim evidence for their religious beliefs is to ask them to define what they mean by “evidence” such that it wouldn’t apply just as well to conjectures in which they don’t believe. Thus AB might for example tell us that he couldn’t find his car keys one day, he prayed to his god, then he found them: therefore evidence for god! But what then if I told him I believed in the apache spirits of my ancestors, I too couldn’t find my car keys one day so I danced backwards round the totem in my garden and then I found them. Would he accept the same standard of evidence for my Apache spirit beliefs I wonder, or would he suddenly discover logic and rationalism to falsify my claim?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But it has nothing at all to do with random.

Of course it has. Either the little man at the controls you conjecture and call “soul” functions deterministically, or it functions randomly. There is no third option.
If it’s deterministic, it adds nothing to the story. If it’s random, it acts entirely inconsistently. 

The question is about the source of an act of free will - is it the inevitable, unavoidable consequence of the physical chains of cause and effect which date back to the beginning of the universe, or is it a wilful interaction in the human brain which provides evidence for the spiritual power of the human soul?

No, that’s not the question at all. First because it’s incoherent, and second because you’ve just reified your conjecture “human soul” for which you have no evidence of any kind.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Reality only exists in individual human perception,…

You’ve gone full on Bishop Berkeley here – the “brain in a vat” conjecture. Are you seriously suggesting that there is no “out there” universe that exists without you?

…so my reality is the only reality I know.

Then why try to argue that it’s other people’s reality too, especially when the only tools you have for the job are very bad arguments?

[ippy]

Neither do I. But it probably goes a long way to explaining why message boards don't get too many new members.

I wouldn't have thought whether someone uses facebook or not could hardly be considered contentious?

ippy

[Alan Burns]

AB,

You’ve gone full on Bishop Berkeley here – the “brain in a vat” conjecture. Are you seriously suggesting that there is no “out there” universe that exists without you?

Then why try to argue that it’s other people’s reality too, especially when the only tools you have for the job are very bad arguments?

Bad phrasing on my part 
should have said :Awareness of reality only exists in individual human perception,…

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Of course it has. Either the little man at the controls you conjecture and call “soul” functions deterministically, or it functions randomly. There is no third option.
If it’s deterministic, it adds nothing to the story. If it’s random, it acts entirely inconsistently. 

Of course an act of human will is not random.
I am saying that it is determined by something non physical and hence is not constrained by the scientifically predicted chains of physical cause and effect.

[torridon]

Bad phrasing on my part 
should have said :Awareness of reality only exists in individual human perception,…

Still room for improvement; all animals have awareness, that is what brains do, they take sensory information flows and fabricate experience (of reality) from them.  You really need to ditch your obsessive anthropocentrism to see the bigger picture of which humans are a part.

[torridon]

Of course an act of human will is not random.

If it is not random, then it is a consequence, or outcome, of what has gone before. An event that is not a consequence of previous events is a random event.  Throwing in 'physical' makes no difference whatsoever to the logic.

[Nearly Sane]

I note on The Uninhabitable Earth thread, Robinson suggesting she was going to read every page of this and it then being compared to War and Peace. On a quick random sampling, there was an average of around 43 words per post (not including quotes), multiply that by 19810, and you get 851,830 words which is about 300,000 more words than War and Peace.


And meanwhile my guitar gently weeps, your love lies bleeding, and the earth dies screaming.

[torridon]

 

[floo]

Reality only exists in individual human perception, so my reality is the only reality I know.

I agree, what is reality to you might not concur with the reality of someone else.

[floo]

I note on The Uninhabitable Earth thread, Robinson suggesting she was going to read every page of this and it then being compared to War and Peace. On a quick random sampling, there was an average of around 43 words per post (not including quotes), multiply that by 19810, and you get 851,830 words which is about 300,000 more words than War and Peace.


And meanwhile my guitar gently weeps, your love lies bleeding, and the earth dies screaming.

Flipping heck NS I am gobsmacked you could be bothered working that out. I have said it before, but will say it again, my husband would get on brilliantly with you. I am always getting told off for making a statement without presenting all the facts and figures to prove my case.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Bad phrasing on my part   
should have said :Awareness of reality only exists in individual human perception,…

And in the “perception” of other conscious animals. You might even argue that, say, a Venus flytrap is at some level “aware” when a fly lands on it.

Of course an act of human will is not random.

Then it’s deterministic. There is no third option.

I am saying that it is determined by something non physical and hence is not constrained by the scientifically predicted chains of physical cause and effect.

Yes I know that’s your speculation but the utter lack of logic or evidence for it isn’t even your biggest problem. Positing a “something” that’s neither deterministic nor random is incoherent, regardless of whether or not you label it “non-physical”. I may as well assert a non-physical four-sided triangle on the ground that it’s not bound by rules of logic.

[SusanDoris]

I note on The Uninhabitable Earth thread, Robinson suggesting she was going to read every page of this and it then being compared to War and Peace. On a quick random sampling, there was an average of around 43 words per post (not including quotes), multiply that by 19810, and you get 851,830 words which is about 300,000 more words than War and Peace.


And meanwhile my guitar gently weeps, your love lies bleeding, and the earth dies screaming.

[Alan Burns]

If it is not random, then it is a consequence, or outcome, of what has gone before. An event that is not a consequence of previous events is a random event.  Throwing in 'physical' makes no difference whatsoever to the logic.

It makes no difference to you because you assume that there is nothing else but physical.  In order to break into the predictable chains of physical cause and effect to facilitate our conscious ability to choose, you need something which derives from the non physical.  Otherwise our choice is not a choice - just an inevitable reaction.

[wigginhall]

It makes no difference to you because you assume that there is nothing else but physical.  In order to break into the predictable chains of physical cause and effect to facilitate our conscious ability to choose, you need something which derives from the non physical.  Otherwise our choice is not a choice - just an inevitable reaction.

So why isn't a non-physical event an inevitable reaction? 

[Alan Burns]

So why isn't a non-physical event an inevitable reaction?

Because it is defined by the conscious will of the human soul.

[wigginhall]

Because it is defined by the conscious will of the human soul.

So it's deterministic.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It makes no difference to you because you assume that there is nothing else but physical.

Nearly. Some of us work on the assumption of methodological naturalism – ie, in the absence of evidence for anything else we play the hand we’re observably dealt, but there’s no philosophical claim about the material being necessarily all there is.

In order to break into the predictable chains of physical cause and effect to facilitate our conscious ability to choose, you need something which derives from the non physical.

That’s called a non sequitur – another fallacy. You’re trying to make an argument from necessity here but it doesn’t fly because your premise (“our conscious ability to choose”) rests on a misunderstanding of how consciousness actually emerges from the subconscious.   

Otherwise our choice is not a choice - just an inevitable reaction.

Ultimately yes, albeit that it “feels” different.

Why is this so troubling for you?

[Alan Burns]

So it's deterministic.

Yes - spiritually determined.

[Shaker]

Yes - spiritually determined.

Adding a redundant meaningless word doesn't turn nonsense into sense.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Nearly. Some of us work on the assumption of methodological naturalism – ie, in the absence of evidence for anything else we play the hand we’re observably dealt, but there’s no philosophical claim about the material being necessarily all there is.

That’s called a non sequitur – another fallacy. You’re trying to make an argument from necessity here but it doesn’t fly because your premise (“our conscious ability to choose”) rests on a misunderstanding of how consciousness actually emerges from the subconscious.   

Ultimately yes, albeit that it “feels” different.

Why is this so troubling for you?

It is not troubling - just a logical conclusion.

Because all the evidence (in particular on this forum) indicates that we have the freedom to choose what we write.

And this freedom can't be defined by unavoidable physical reactions.

[floo]

Yes - spiritually determined.

In your opinion, and something you wish to be true. However, there could be other explanations, which have nothing to do with anything 'spiritual'.

[Alan Burns]

In your opinion, and something you wish to be true. However, there could be other explanations, which have nothing to do with anything 'spiritual'.

If you leave out the spiritual, you are left with unavoidable chain reactions of physical events.  And every criminal will have a cast iron alibi - nature did it!

[Shaker]

If you leave out the spiritual, you are left with unavoidable chain reactions of physical events.  And every criminal will have a cast iron alibi - nature did it!

I feel a Balls-Up Burns fallacy coming on ... yet again