Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

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

Quantum physics describes the behaviour of matter at the sub atomic level.  There is a marked difference between the predictable behaviour of matter at the atomic level and the apparently unpredictable events which can occur at the sub atomic level.  But in essence, the predictable properties of matter at the atomic level rely on the probability of quantum events with no apparent cause occurring at specific times and places.

[SusanDoris]

Quantum physics describes the behaviour of matter at the sub atomic level.  There is a marked difference between the predictable behaviour of matter at the atomic level and the apparently unpredictable events which can occur at the sub atomic level.  But in essence, the predictable properties of matter at the atomic level rely on the probability of quantum events with no apparent cause occurring at specific times and places.

How is that relevant to your assertions that you have a soul?

[Enki]

Quantum physics describes the behaviour of matter at the sub atomic level.  There is a marked difference between the predictable behaviour of matter at the atomic level and the apparently unpredictable events which can occur at the sub atomic level.  But in essence, the predictable properties of matter at the atomic level rely on the probability of quantum events with no apparent cause occurring at specific times and places.

First of all, quantum mechanics applies to both atomic and sub atomic particles.

It seems plants can enhance energy transport in photosynthesis by use of quantum mechanics, and experiments with the robin(and certain other birds) seems to show that their biological compasses make use of quantum entanglement.

So, it is theoretically possible that the brain can utilise quantum effects at its most basic level, but this remains highly speculative. One idea, for instance, is that quantum effects may be utilised by the brain's ion channels and EM fields. It is an idea which tries to solve the 'binding' problem(how does information encoded in disparate regions of our brain come together in our conscious mind). However the effect of decoherence(when classical physics takes over) is a major problem with any such idea. The idea of a 'soul' doesn't even enter into it.

As regards free will and the presence of a soul, the only thing which might be affected is the random probability effect of quantum mechanics, which, as I said in post 20436, would mean that:

"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."

[ippy]

How is that relevant to your assertions that you have a soul?

Too good a question Susan, I would think it's a good bet that that's another one Alan won't be answering.

Mind you there's some room for his kind of waffle in there somewhere.

ippy

[Alan Burns]

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.

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.

Torri,
I have said quite clearly that an act of human will is not random.  In order to comply with our perception of reality it is driven by our conscious awareness.  Yes, there is a reason, but in your scenario the reason does not stem from human conscious awareness, but from the uncontrolled consequences to physical  chains of cause and effect, relegating conscious awareness to just spectate upon pre defined events.  My post simply states that there is no reason to assume that events which are not derived from previous physical events must be random.  There is the reality of causes at the quantum level which are not derived from physical events, but from an as yet undefinable source.

[torridon]

Torri,
I have said quite clearly that an act of human will is not random.  In order to comply with our perception of reality it is driven by our conscious awareness.  Yes, there is a reason, but in your scenario the reason does not stem from human conscious awareness, but from the uncontrolled consequences to physical  chains of cause and effect, relegating conscious awareness to just spectate upon pre defined events.  My post simply states that there is no reason to assume that events which are not derived from previous physical events must be random.  There is the reality of causes at the quantum level which are not derived from physical events, but from an as yet undefinable source.

If will does not relate to previous events, then it is random, or irrelevant.  Will can only be meaningful if it is born of previous events.  Can you imagine a situation where will does not derive from previous events and yet is also meaningful and relevant ?  Post it up.

[Alan Burns]

If will does not relate to previous events, then it is random, or irrelevant.  Will can only be meaningful if it is born of previous events.  Can you imagine a situation where will does not derive from previous events and yet is also meaningful and relevant ?  Post it up.

You misunderstand.
Human will is certainly influenced by previous events - it is not divorced from them.  Our conscious awareness can contemplate previous events and choose at option based upon these events.  But in the physically determined  scenario there is no choice, no option, no control - just inevitable unavoidable consequences to previous chains of events.

[torridon]

You misunderstand.
Human will is certainly influenced by previous events - it is not divorced from them.  Our conscious awareness can contemplate previous events and choose at option based upon these events.  ....

and in 'choosing an option based upon these events' we are identifying which of the available options we most want; and we cannot choose our wants.  The notion that we can choose what to want is circular nonsense.

[Alan Burns]

and in 'choosing an option based upon these events' we are identifying which of the available options we most want; and we cannot choose our wants.  The notion that we can choose what to want is circular nonsense.

No it is not a nonsense.  If we have the ability to consciously choose what we want to do from several feasible options, this is not the same having a physical chain of deterministic events making the choice for us.

[Nearly Sane]

No it is not a nonsense.  If we have the ability to consciously choose what we want to do from several feasible options, this is not the same having a physical chain of deterministic events making the choice for us.

How can you choose what you want without wanting it? If you choose what you want then you have to choose what you want to choose. This then creates an infinite regress so your model is logically flawed. Note this has been pointed out to you many times in this thread, so why do you continue to ignore that and simply repeat what you must as a programmer realise is a logically flawed programme?

[Maeght]

No it is not a nonsense.  If we have the ability to consciously choose what we want to do from several feasible options, this is not the same having a physical chain of deterministic events making the choice for us.

This doesn't get us anywhere Alan . If the conscious choice is determined by previous events then it is not free. You can say we are free to choose from various options but cannot show that that is the case rather than it being an illusion of freedom with the final choice being inevitable.

[torridon]

No it is not a nonsense.  If we have the ability to consciously choose what we want to do from several feasible options, this is not the same having a physical chain of deterministic events making the choice for us.

My goodness you really seem to have some deep seated concept blindness about this simple point. We cannot want that which we do not want, as much really ought to be blindingly obvious; similarly we do not believe that which we do not believe.  Just try wanting something that you do not want  or believing something that you do not believe.  These things are impossible, not because brains are made of messy biological stuff rather than silicon chips, not because they are computationally too difficult, but rather because they are impossible in principle, in concept. What we want, what we believe, represents a tiny portion of the defacto state of the cosmos in the current instant and we cannot change the current state of the cosmos as to do so would require us to roll back time to alter the past so as to engineer a different present.  Not even you can do that.  You cannot want to be an atheist right now as that would require rolling back dozens of years of life experience that have been reinforcing your current state. The same principle applies in all situations, so if you have a trivial choice to make between alternatives all of which you like, the one you choose will be the one that you most want, and noone can choose to want what they most want. The making of a choice is an act of discovery, we are discovering what we most want in the particular situation; willpower is not some magic stuff that enables us to alter what we most want in a particular situation. Similarly with beliefs, I do not choose that Paris is in France, I discover that Paris is in France.  If you can alter the current state of the cosmos at will then also you would be able to will Paris to be in Germany.

[floo]

AB seems to be happy living in his own little religious bubble, which appears to be devoid of reality.

[Alan Burns]

Which therefore means "don't know", not "Can I interest you in my favourite fairy tale", doesn't it?
"May be" means just that. So instead of "don't know" you promptly plug in "soul" to fill the gap.

Why?

I do not claim to know for certain how the conscious will of the human soul interacts with the physical brain.
But I do know for certain that pre determined chains of physical cause and effect can't reproduce the conscious will of human beings, unless that conscious will is just an illusion.
So what I put forward is a feasible alternative to the unrealistic assumption that our conscious will is just an illusion.

[Shaker]

I do not claim to know for certain how the conscious will of the human soul interacts with the physical brain.

You do not claim how; you claim that - on absolutely no grounds whatever.

But I do know for certain

No, you do not.

So what I put forward is a feasible alternative to the unrealistic assumption that our conscious will is just an illusion.

Where is your "feasible alternative"? I haven't seen it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I do not claim to know for certain how the conscious will of the human soul interacts with the physical brain.

That’s the least of your problems. You also do not know at all how you’d even define “soul”, how you’d demonstrate its existence even in principle, and how you’d address the huge logical inconsistency it would give you of sitting outside the binary deterministic vs random options.

How such a thing would “interact” with anything is a bit like troubling yourself with how exactly leprechauns make their porridge in the morning.   

But I do know for certain that pre determined chains of physical cause and effect can't reproduce the conscious will of human beings, unless that conscious will is just an illusion.

You don’t know that at all, and the only available cogent reasoning suggests that the “free” of “free will” in the sense you attempt it is illusory. What you meant to say was that you don't like the answer, which is a very different matter. 

So what I put forward is a feasible alternative to the unrealistic assumption that our conscious will is just an illusion.

Two fails there: first, it’s not feasible at all (and nor can it be until you finally manage to address the problems with it outlined above); and second, there’s nothing “unrealistic” about the illusory nature of “genuine” free will, however much it may feel otherwise.

Apart from all that though…

[Maeght]

I do not claim to know for certain how the conscious will of the human soul interacts with the physical brain.
But I do know for certain that pre determined chains of physical cause and effect can't reproduce the conscious will of human beings, unless that conscious will is just an illusion.

Which is what we have been suggesting but which, until now, you have it seemed refused to even contemplate.

So what I put forward is a feasible alternative to the unrealistic assumption that our conscious will is just an illusion.

Nothing unrealistic about it and in the absence of any explanation of how the conscious will could reach a decision which isn't predetermined by previous events it seems the most likely explanation - unless of course your religious beliefs make that problematic.

[Alan Burns]

Which is what we have been suggesting but which, until now, you have it seemed refused to even contemplate.

Nothing unrealistic about it and in the absence of any explanation of how the conscious will could reach a decision which isn't predetermined by previous events it seems the most likely explanation - unless of course your religious beliefs make that problematic.

Not just religious beliefs, but any creative output from human beings - poets, novelists, artists, sculptors, composers, singers etc.  They all show evidence of human activity which is highly unlikely to have been generated by uncontrolable reactions to physical events in the human brain.  The materialist model does not allow any form of conscious control or manipulation - all is just pre determined unavoidable reaction.  And this is not what makes us human.

[wigginhall]

Not just religious beliefs, but any creative output from human beings - poets, novelists, artists, sculptors, composers, singers etc.  They all show evidence of human activity which is highly unlikely to have been generated by uncontrolable reactions to physical events in the human brain.  The materialist model does not allow any form of conscious control or manipulation - all is just pre determined unavoidable reaction.  And this is not what makes us human.

When you say 'highly unlikely', do you mean 'improbable' or 'I don't believe it', as 'unlikely' can mean both things.  If you are talking about probability, I don't think that you have given any calculations about this.   If you mean you don't believe it, this is not particularly significant really.   Many things in nature seem extraordinary after all.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Not just religious beliefs, but any creative output from human beings - poets, novelists, artists, sculptors, composers, singers etc.

That’s called a category error. These people deal in aesthetics – you on the other hand make makes claims of factual truths about the universe. Liking or not a poem or a painting is a matter of taste and opinion, but facts are not. 

They all show evidence of human activity which is highly unlikely to have been generated by uncontrolable reactions to physical events in the human brain.

No, it’s highly likely because that’s the only model we have that’s logically cogent and that fits the available evidence.
 

The materialist model does not allow any form of conscious control or manipulation - all is just pre determined unavoidable reaction.  And this is not what makes us human.

The “materialist model” is predicated on the assumption that the material is all we know of that’s reliably accessible and investigable. If you want to introduce your conjecture of the non-material then you have all your work of you to define it, to demonstrate it, and to explain it…

…which is when you always disappear.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

When you say 'highly unlikely', do you mean 'improbable' or 'I don't believe it', as 'unlikely' can mean both things.

Neither – what he actually means is, “I don’t like it because it detonates some prior beliefs I have about God, soul and free will”.

If you are talking about probability, I don't think that you have given any calculations about this.   If you mean you don't believe it, this is not particularly significant really.   Many things in nature seem extraordinary after all.

But he really, really thinks he’s right so – you know – that must count for something mustn’t it?

Mustn’t it?

[Alan Burns]

Wiggs,

Neither – what he actually means is, “I don’t like it because it detonates some prior beliefs I have about God, soul and free will”.

But he really, really thinks he’s right so – you know – that must count for something mustn’t it?

Mustn’t it?

But in the act of thinking I am right, does this not show evidence for my ability to consciously drive my brain into thinking this way?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But in the act of thinking I am right, does this not show evidence for my ability to consciously drive my brain into thinking this way?

No, because for that to be so there'd have to be a "you" separate from your brain in order to "drive" it (ie, Cartesian dualism) - something that you have no way to demonstrate, that's logically incoherent, and that's been undone by arguments from several disciplines.   

[Alan Burns]

AB,

That’s called a category error. These people deal in aesthetics – you on the other hand make makes claims of factual truths about the universe. Liking or not a poem or a painting is a matter of taste and opinion, but facts are not. 

I was not quoting examples of aesthetic appreciation, but examples of imaginative creativity which are not just inevitable reactions, but consciously guided actions needed to generate inspired works of art.

[Nearly Sane]

But in the act of thinking I am right, does this not show evidence for my ability to consciously drive my brain into thinking this way?

I see you are ignoring the infinite regress problem thus causes, Akan on order to think what you want to think, you would need to think what you want to think in order to think what you want to think...Etc etc.