Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

But everyone has the freedom to consciously choose how to satisfy their wants.

But the same principle still applies.  In choosing how to satisfy your desire, what we are doing is identifying our preference in that particular context at that particular moment  So, if you are thirsty, say,  and want a drink, and maybe you have tea and coffee and lemonade available to choose from, well yes you might feel free in so far as there are no obvious external constraints limiting your choice, BUT, the choice we do eventually make is our preference at that moment in time, it is the drink we want most, and we cannot choose our wants or preferences; we discover them.  If I really would prefer lemonade, I cannot make myself want coffee instead any more than I can make myself believe that Harrogate is north of Glasgow if I believe it isn't.  All we are doing in making a choice is acting on our preference at the moment, and we do not choose what to prefer, we discover it and act on it.

[floo]

But everyone has the freedom to consciously choose how to satisfy their wants.

But even if that is correct, why should god be responsible?

[ekim]

I think a better example for you and Alan to debate than coffee and tea is the strong desire for revenge, an eye for an eye, versus forgiveness.

[Alan Burns]

But even if that is correct, why should god be responsible?

Because nature alone is not capable of enabling conscious choices.  As Torri inferred in a previous email, without the spiritual power given to us by, God there can be no form of freedom.

[floo]

Because nature alone is not capable of enabling conscious choices. As Torri inferred in a previous email, without the spiritual power given to us by, God there can be no form of freedom.

Why not?

[Alan Burns]

Or, alternatively,  a thought experiment. If we imagine we can go back in time to the point where we made a decision, and, therefore, everything being identical, could we make a different decision?

This act of driving my imagination requires me to make conscious choices!

[floo]

This act of driving my imagination requires me to make a conscious choices!

Animals of other species make conscious choices too, particularly some dogs, from what I have seen.

[Alan Burns]

Do they?

Just as I have the freedom to choose how to reply to emails - or even to not reply"

[torridon]

Just as I have the freedom to choose how to reply to emails - or even to not reply"

But however you actually respond, that reflects your defacto preference, and we do not choose our preferences.  How can anyone choose what to want except on the basis of what they want to want ?

[Enki]

This act of driving my imagination requires me to make conscious choices!

You haven't answered my question (contained in Post 20420), Alan.(Not that I'm surprised). So, I'll have to try to answer it myself.

Either
 
1) a different decision could not be made.

or:

2) a different decision could be made, in which case a further question arises:

What is the foundation for this different decision?

It can't be your imagination, Alan, because, at the moment of decision in this thought experiment, 'imagination' has already played its part. Your only alternatives, as far as I can see, are (a)something else which remains unexplained, or (b)the actual moment of decision is a result of some kind of random process(perhaps associated by (possible)quantum processes within the brain). Neither of these alternatives are explained in any way by your 'soul' because you have given no evidence

If your 'soul' idea had any purchase whatever in explaining (a) there would have to be some evidence for its existence, characteristics, location etc. as a starting point, something you have been noticeably unable to give. Incredulity and assertion are no substitute for this. Without such evidence it remains simply a conjecture.

If (b) was your preferred process then the 'soul' idea would have to be at the mercy of random processes, even if those processes were the result of some quantum probability wave emanating from the brain.

You pays yer money and takes yer choice. 

[Alan Burns]

You pays yer money and takes yer choice. 

precisely 

[Enki]

precisely 

And, predictably, you fell for it.

[ippy]

This act of driving my imagination requires me to make conscious choices!

Alan you make it up as you go along, anybody questions you about this, your reply amounts to no it's not me it's this little man that's attached to me, all without any sensible answer as to how your little man driver is attached to you or an explanation of how you know that there is is in fact a little man driver attached to you in the first place.

An absolutely barmy idea, do you really think we're all fools?

ippy

[Alan Burns]

Alan you make it up as you go along, anybody questions you about this, your reply amounts to no it's not me it's this little man that's attached to me, all without any sensible answer as to how your little man driver is attached to you or an explanation of how you know that there is is in fact a little man driver attached to you in the first place.

An absolutely barmy idea, do you really think we're all fools?

ippy

Ippy,
The little man at the controls is you.  Not the uncontrolled forces of nature.  You are your soul.

[Sebastian Toe]

Ippy,
The little man at the controls is you.  Not the uncontrolled forces of nature.  You are your soul.

When your soul gets to heaven. How will you know that you are you, without referencing your now dead and lifeless brain which holds all of your memories? I.e. That which makes 'you', you!

[torridon]

Ippy,
The little man at the controls is you.  Not the uncontrolled forces of nature.  You are your soul.

in which case the focal point of decision making in a hedgehog is a little hedgehog soul; and when a robin finally decides where to build its nest it is the little internal robin at the controls weighing options up.  Any progress yet on what these little souls are made of or how they get attached or where they are located or how they communicate with its host or on what basis they can make choices ?

[floo]

Ippy,
The little man at the controls is you.  Not the uncontrolled forces of nature.  You are your soul.

As we are only animals after all, animals of other species must have souls too.

[ippy]

Ippy,
The little man at the controls is you.  Not the uncontrolled forces of nature.  You are your soul.

Alan, this answer of yours is  a typical outside of reason barmy answer, this thread has demonstrated that's all you have to give, you don't even know why you believe whatever it is that you believe and you certainly haven't given anything here that could be interpreted as a rational reply to anyone.

ippy

[Alan Burns]

You haven't answered my question (contained in Post 20420), Alan.(Not that I'm surprised). So, I'll have to try to answer it myself.
What is the foundation for this different decision?

It can't be your imagination, Alan, because, at the moment of decision in this thought experiment, 'imagination' has already played its part. Your only alternatives, as far as I can see, are (a)something else which remains unexplained, or (b)the actual moment of decision is a result of some kind of random process(perhaps associated by (possible)quantum processes within the brain). Neither of these alternatives are explained in any way by your 'soul' because you have given no evidence

If your 'soul' idea had any purchase whatever in explaining (a) there would have to be some evidence for its existence, characteristics, location etc. as a starting point, something you have been noticeably unable to give. Incredulity and assertion are no substitute for this. Without such evidence it remains simply a conjecture.

If (b) was your preferred process then the 'soul' idea would have to be at the mercy of random processes, even if those processes were the result of some quantum probability wave emanating from the brain.

First, can I just reaffirm that there can be nothing random about conscious choice.  If there was, the human race would not survive very long, particularly on motorways!

Having said that, there are apparently random events going on in the human brain at the quantum level, but just because there is no discernable cause does not necessarily imply that they are random - just that the cause can't be identified. 

So there may well be a cause to an event at quantum level which is not random and not derived from previous physically determined events.

[Shaker]

First, can I just reaffirm that there can be nothing random about conscious choice.  If there was, the human race would not survive very long, particularly on motorways!

Having said that, there are apparently random events going on in the human brain at the quantum level, but just because there is no discernable cause does not necessarily imply that they are random - just that the cause can't be identified.

Which therefore means "don't know", not "Can I interest you in my favourite fairy tale", doesn't it?

So there may well be a cause to an event at quantum level which is not random and not derived from previous physically determined events.

"May be" means just that. So instead of "don't know" you promptly plug in "soul" to fill the gap.

Why?

[SusanDoris]

First, can I just reaffirm that there can be nothing random about conscious choice.  If there was, the human race would not survive very long, particularly on motorways!

Having said that, there are apparently random events going on in the human brain at the quantum level, but just because there is no discernable cause does not necessarily imply that they are random - just that the cause can't be identified. 

So there may well be a cause to an event at quantum level which is not random and not derived from previous physically determined events.

You have mentioned 'quantum level' twice in this post. What do you mean by it?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Susan,

You have mentioned 'quantum level' twice in this post. What do you mean by it?

He has absolutely no idea. Inasmuch as anything in the universe is "random" (or "maximally indeterminate" to use the jargon) then it happens at the quantum level, which used to be thought of as applying only at the sub-atomic level but has more recently been shown to function at higher levels of complexity. There's even some evidence that birds rely on it for navigation for example.

Anyways, what happens is that some religious people (Deepak Chopra is perhaps the most notorious of them) seize on quantum indeterminacy and then magic their way from that to "God" as if it somehow validates that speculation (but not leprechauns it seems). It's just a huge cheat, but it plays well for those who have nothing else in the locker to suggest as evidence for their personal faith beliefs.     

[Shaker]

Hi Susan,

He has absolutely no idea. Inasmuch as anything in the universe is "random" (or "maximally indeterminate" to use the jargon) then it happens at the quantum level, which used to be thought of as applying only at the sub-atomic level but has more recently been shown to function at higher levels of complexity. There's even some evidence that birds rely on it for navigation for example.

Anyways, what happens is that some religious people (Deepak Chopra is perhaps the most notorious of them) seize on quantum indeterminacy and then magic their way from that to "God" as if it somehow validates that speculation (but not leprechauns it seems). It's just a huge cheat, but it plays well for those who have nothing else in the locker to suggest as evidence for their personal faith beliefs.   

Exhibit A m'lud: Part Two of Kenneth Miller's Finding Darwin's God, in which the defendant, having given a quite brilliant and scientifically impeccable exposition of evolutionary theory in Part One, proceeds to use quantum indeterminacy as a gap in which to park the god of his Catholicism.

[SusanDoris]

I googled the book and then a review:
http://spectrummagazine.org/article/beth/2008/10/28/review-miller%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cfinding-darwin%E2%80%99s-god%E2%80%9D

I don't think I'll spend any time reading more on either.

P.S. Thank you for your post, bluehillside.

[torridon]

First, can I just reaffirm that there can be nothing random about conscious choice.  If there was, the human race would not survive very long, particularly on motorways!

There is nothing random about choice because choices are made for a reason, and therefore, the resulting choice is a consequence, determined by the reason. If anything happens for no reason whatsoever, then it is a random event. At the end of the day, this is merely definitional Alan, whatever is not determined, or consequential to something prior, is random, by definition; adding in 'spiritual' makes no difference to the concept.  Something that is random is not determined; something that is not determined is random.

Having said that, there are apparently random events going on in the human brain at the quantum level, but just because there is no discernable cause does not necessarily imply that they are random - just that the cause can't be identified. 

So there may well be a cause to an event at quantum level which is not random and not derived from previous physically determined events.

This is desperate stuff, you are mining our knowledgebase for any weaknesses no matter how tiny and trying to claim them as a home for your irrational ideas. We don't really understand what it would be like inside a black hole, so maybe 2 plus 2 would equal 27 there; this is essence of the nature of your claims.  Maybe, just maybe, at really high speeds and pressures, triangles could have 47 and a half sides. If there are random events at the quantum level, although probablistic, not quite the same thing, is a better term, then the same base definitional logic applies, a random quantum event would not qualify as willpower because willpower implies not random. 

You simply cannot some to terms with the base definitional concept of the nature of will.  Will is purposeful. Will therefore cannot be ultimately free; will has to serve a purpose and therefore cannot be free.  Will that was free of its purpose would not be will at all, it would be merely irrelevant random noise.