Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

If you think "definition" is a materialistic concept, then yes it is. The problem that gives you though is finding some other means to free it from white noise. 

Yes it is. What else could it be?

Radio active decay is an example of randomness but not chaos.

''Definition'' is not a materialistic term.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

So far, so good. Keep going…

So let’s unpack the three mistakes in that sentence:

First, you’re relying again on your idiosyncratic and incoherent definition of “freedom” of “free from any constraints, including the constraints of cause and effect”. This is wrong. The conscious “we” have all sorts of freedoms in the sense of countless options available to us, but there’s no need for the substrate of cause and effect not to apply for that to be the case.

Second, “non material” is meaningless – in the sense you’re attempting it of “not bound by cause and effect” then it must be random which, as you now know, would mean chaotic.

Third, it’s circular: “I think “freedom” means “free from cause and effect”, therefore there must be a free from cause and effect space for it to exist”. It’s also an argumentum ad consequentiam by the way.   
 
But that “suggestion” has collapsed because its premises have failed – see above.

And now you’ve carefully iced your fallacy cake with some reification just to finish the job. You can’t be “in denial” of something that hasn't been demonstrated to exist, and the “amazing gift” part is a huge leap to assuming a gift giver.

0/10 See me in my study

You keep misquoting me.  Either that or misunderstanding me.
So to clarify:
I have never said or implied that freedom is free from cause and effect.  I said freedom is free from inevitable cause and effect.  By this I mean the uncontrollable chains of deterministic events derived from physical reactions.  So for any form of freedom to exist, there needs to be consciously directed interaction from outside this physical chain of reactions.  This interaction is not random, because our freedom to choose is directed by conscious human will, which is certainly not random.

It is all bound up in the relation between conscious awareness and and our freedom to make conscious choices which are not just the inevitable consequences to the endless strings of physical cause and effect.  Once you discover the source of conscious awareness you will also discover the source of human freedom.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Radio active decay is an example of randomness but not chaos.

"Random" in this context just means "not subject to any consistent rules or forces" So does "chaotic". Look up "chaos" on Wiki - it gives you "randomness" as one of the options.

''Definition'' is not a materialistic term.

Yes it is, or at least a naturalistic one. As for that matter is "evidence" as NS often reminds us.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You keep misquoting me.  Either that or misunderstanding me.
So to clarify:
I have never said or implied that freedom is free from cause and effect.  I said freedom is free from inevitable cause and effect.  By this I mean the uncontrollable chains of deterministic events derived from physical reactions.  So for any form of freedom to exist, there needs to be interaction from outside this physical chain of reactions.  This interaction is not random, because our freedom to choose is directed by conscious human will, which is certainly not random.

It is all bound up in the relation between conscious awareness and and our freedom to make conscious choices which are not just the inevitable consequences to the endless strings of physical cause and effect.  Once you discover the source of conscious awareness you will also discover the source of human freedom.

You seem either not to have read or not to have understood anything I said. Try reading my last reply to you again to see where you went wrong.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

You seem either not to have read or not to have understood anything I said. Try reading my last reply to you again to see where you went wrong.

I have read and understood it, which is why I made the reply above.  Have you read and understood my reply?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

"Random" in this context just means "not subject to any consistent rules or forces" So does "chaotic". Look up "chaos" on Wiki - it gives you "randomness" as one of the options.

Yes it is, or at least a naturalistic one. As for that matter is "evidence" as NS often reminds us.

There are can be a materialistic definition of the word definition but it would be wrong to claim that as the unique definition. Likewise with the word evidence.

[Shaker]

What's non-material evidence?

[Alan Burns]

My son has just finished his degree, got a good result, and I might say to him, go for it, the world is your oyster. I think this little vignette captures the real essence of our sense of freedom.  There are thousands of career options open to him from which he can choose; thousands of places where he could choose to live or go on holiday; as to choosing a nice little woman, well there are a couple of billion currently available. The breadth of choice available to humans is exhilarating, compared to, say, that available to a hedgehog or a fruit fly.  It is this knowledge of the immensity of the range of possibilities that gives us a sense of freedom; our choice range is often near infinite for most practical purposes. 

It is a great position to be in, to be able to satisfy your desires from amongst such a wide range of options.  It doesn't matter to us that the process of making of that choice might be deterministic in nature; all it means is that we are unable, in practice, to make choices that we don't want to make, and hell, why on earth would I want to choose something that I don't want anyway ? So our deterministic nature does not impinge on our happiness, and our sense of free will is never compromised.

Can you not see that we have the freedom to consciously drive our own thought processes to arrive at a decision?  If all our decisions are just inevitable reactions to previous events, there is no need for conscious awareness.

[Nearly Sane]

Can you not see that we have the freedom to consciously drive our own thought processes to arrive at a decision?  If all our decisions are just inevitable reactions to previous events, there is no need for conscious awareness.

So how outside of your thought processes, how do you choose to drive your thought processes! Surely it's a thought process to choose some thing? In which case you are as so often creating an infinite regress.

[Rhiannon]

Can you not see that we have the freedom to consciously drive our own thought processes to arrive at a decision?  If all our decisions are just inevitable reactions to previous events, there is no need for conscious awareness.

What factors do you consider when consciously making a decision?

[wigginhall]

What factors do you consider when consciously making a decision?

It's very unkind to ask questions which AB can't answer.   He wants to waffle on about conscious perception, but not anything too specific please.   As long as he can carry on making assertions with no empirical basis, everything is splendid in heaven, which, by the way, has no cause or effect.   It's just a pile of vacuous piffle.   

[wigginhall]

blue wrote:

Nope. The “shock of the new” is amenable to the tools and methods of experience – from new species to beetle to quasars, it doesn’t matter much. If ever something was discovered that was so outside our ability to process it then all we’d have is a “don’t know” because that’s the point at which our intellects had run out.

Quasars are a good example, as at first they were very puzzling, as they are very bright and very far away.   So there was speculation that they might be quite nearby, to account for their brightness.   But of course, eventually, it was possible to understand them.   

Black holes are also interesting, as they seemed very peculiar when first described, but they could be described in terms of existing forces.   

[Enki]

Can you not see that we have the freedom to consciously drive our own thought processes to arrive at a decision?  If all our decisions are just inevitable reactions to previous events, there is no need for conscious awareness.

Well one interesting theory as to why we have consciousness, and the role it plays, is the Attention Schema Theory. It is well explained here.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/06/how-consciousness-evolved/485558/

[floo]

Well one interesting theory as to why we have consciousness, and the role it plays, is the Attention Schema Theory. It is well explained here.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/06/how-consciousness-evolved/485558/

An interesting theory, it makes more sense than AB's 'logic', its god wot dun it!

[Nearly Sane]

There are can be a materialistic definition of the word definition but it would be wrong to claim that as the unique definition. Likewise with the word evidence.

So this non materialist evidence? Do you have a definition for it? You know along with the methodology you would need? The methodology which you have continually been asked for? The one that you have never provided?

[Rhiannon]

It's very unkind to ask questions which AB can't answer.   He wants to waffle on about conscious perception, but not anything too specific please.   As long as he can carry on making assertions with no empirical basis, everything is splendid in heaven, which, by the way, has no cause or effect.   It's just a pile of vacuous piffle.

I wish he'd have the courage to answer.

[Shaker]

I wish he'd have the courage to answer.

It would take particular courage for him to say what we all know to be the case already: "I have absolutely no evidence to support my stance; it's simply my belief."

[Nearly Sane]

It would take particular courage for him to say what we all know to be the case already: "I have absolutely no evidence to support my stance; it's simply my belief."

Surely that is just what 'we' think. Alan appears to me to utterly believe there is evidence, from his lack of a parking ticket to his finding of a contact lens - he sees it. That children die in pain of diseases seems to be unworthy of his consideration.

[floo]

Surely that is just what 'we' think. Alan appears to me to utterly believe there is evidence, from his lack of a parking ticket to his finding of a contact lens - he sees it. That children die in pain of diseases seems to be unworthy of his consideration.

As he seems like a decent guy, it is hard to understand his POV in that regard.

[Rhiannon]

It would take particular courage for him to say what we all know to be the case already: "I have absolutely no evidence to support my stance; it's simply my belief."

I'm not asking him for evidence of his belief. I just asked what factors he considers when making decisions.

[Rhiannon]

Surely that is just what 'we' think. Alan appears to me to utterly believe there is evidence, from his lack of a parking ticket to his finding of a contact lens - he sees it. That children die in pain of diseases seems to be unworthy of his consideration.

Because its all God's plan. Besides, not all of them will have been prayed for.

[floo]

Because its all God's plan. Besides, not all of them will have been prayed for.

In other words, the cop out explanation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So this non materialist evidence? Do you have a definition for it? You know along with the methodology you would need? The methodology which you have continually been asked for? The one that you have never provided?

Well you can do sums in your head without having anything concrete.
Secondly consider putting a frozen chicken in your bag in a supermarket. All the evidence is materially there but someone else does the self same thing with the self same materialist evidence no more no less but is charged and convicted with a crime. There has to be more to this persons case.

[Alan Burns]

What factors do you consider when consciously making a decision?

I consciously consider whatever options I choose to bring to mind then make a conscious decision - all driven by my own conscious awareness.

[Rhiannon]

I consciously consider whatever options I choose to bring to mind then make a conscious decision - all driven by my own conscious awareness.

Ok, we're getting somewhere. When consciously considering your options, you will make choices. What factors do you consciously consider when making your decision?