Searching for GOD...

[floo]

All I am implying is that if life does exist in other parts of the universe, it will be there through the will of God.

I am of the opinion that life in all its forms has nothing to do with any god.

[Alan Burns]

Which doesn't answer the question. The question I and others have asked so many times with no answer. Will this time be any different I wonder.

The English language coupled with current scientific knowledge has no way of explaining how acts of human will are initiated because there are no words to describe how spiritual interaction works.  I agree that many factors are involved, but the final choice is made by an act of conscious will, not an automated uncontrollable physical reaction.   Was Torri's original question initiated by an automated uncontrolled series of reactions to my post? Or was it deliberately thought out and formulated then typed by conscious manipulation and control of thoughts and actions?  It is the conscious self which is in control - not the uncontrollable forces of nature.  In a closed physically deterministic universe there can be no control or manipulation, just inevitable reaction to previous events.  To have control you need a source of control - a controller of events, not just a reactor to events.  The controller is you.

[Gordon]

The English language coupled with current scientific knowledge has no way of explaining how acts of human will are initiated because there are no words to describe how spiritual interaction works.

Since there is no evidence for 'spiritual interaction' I don't suppose the terminology is really an issue.

I agree that many factors are involved, but the final choice is made by an act of conscious will, not an automated uncontrollable physical reaction.

If thinking involves only our biology, which it seems to, then your 'uncontrollable' is just hyperbole since while it may be our choices aren't free neither are they random (as in 'uncontrollable').

Was Torri's original question initiated by an automated uncontrolled series of reactions to my post? Or was it deliberately thought out and formulated then typed by conscious manipulation and control of thoughts and actions?

You mean did Torri give some thought to the reply? Yes would seem to be the answer, since like the rest of us here Torridon has the biological equipment to be able to think: albeit some (like Torri) are better at thinking than are others.

It is the conscious self which is in control - not the uncontrollable forces of nature.

I'm sure 'uncontrollable' is a term that chimes with you: but for all the wrong reasons.

In a closed physically deterministic universe there can be no control or manipulation, just inevitable reaction to previous events.

You say that like it's a bad thing: a bad thing would be if stuff just happened randomly and bore no relationship to preceding conditions, but that isn't the case - so why not cut out the hyperbole, Alan.

To have control you need a source of control - a controller of events, not just a reactor to events.  The controller is you.

Sure is, provided you employ your thinking abilities within the context of taking account of the preceding and prevailing conditions and circumstances, along with your assessment of likely or preferred future states. Something you do naturally every time you, say, drive a car.

[Maeght]

The English language coupled with current scientific knowledge has no way of explaining how acts of human will are initiated because there are no words to describe how spiritual interaction works.  I agree that many factors are involved, but the final choice is made by an act of conscious will, not an automated uncontrollable physical reaction.

What you are being asked is how can any act be neither random nor predetermined, which is what you are saying. If you can't. answer that how can you claim it to be so?

Was Torri's original question initiated by an automated uncontrolled series of reactions to my post? Or was it deliberately thought out and formulated then typed by conscious manipulation and control of thoughts and actions?  It is the conscious self which is in control - not the uncontrollable forces of nature.  In a closed physically deterministic universe there can be no control or manipulation, just inevitable reaction to previous events.  To have control you need a source of control - a controller of events, not just a reactor to events.  The controller is you.

I've suggested before. Alan that you stop asking such questions as they really don't add anything and are just expressions of your personal incredulity and more assertions.

[Alan Burns]

Sure is, provided you employ your thinking abilities within the context of taking account of the preceding and prevailing conditions and circumstances, along with your assessment of likely or preferred future states. Something you do naturally every time you, say, drive a car.

So what drives your thoughts?

What dictates your preferred choices (as opposed to likes or dislikes)?

What is it that makes the conscious decisions while driving?
(how fast, when to overtake, when to brake, when to sound the horn)
They are not random - neither are they automated.  They are consciously driven.

[Maeght]

So what drives your thoughts?

What dictates your preferred choices (as opposed to likes or dislikes)?

What is it that makes the conscious decisions while driving?
(how fast, when to overtake, when to brake, when to sound the horn)
They are not random - neither are they automated.  They are consciously driven.

Think you've chosen s very bad example there Alan!

[torridon]

Of course it is not free from relevant considerations, but it is still a deliberate choice wilfully initiated from our conscious self.

Science does not define the conscious self, so it can't be used to explain how the conscious self initiates a deliberate act of will.

And where does the 'will of our conscious self' come from ? Either it has an origin in the past or it doesn't.  If there is no reason for it at all then it is random.  These are simply the meanings of the words involved.

[torridon]

What is it that makes the conscious decisions while driving?
(how fast, when to overtake, when to brake, when to sound the horn)
They are not random - neither are they automated.  They are consciously driven.

Wot Maeght said,  really bad choice for your case.  It is high speed situations where there is no time to think where consciousness is least relevant.

[torridon]

So what drives your thoughts?

What dictates your preferred choices (as opposed to likes or dislikes)?

I have no control over my likes or dislikes, that is a key insight.  Ditto 'preferred choices', it comes to the same thing, ultimately.

[Alan Burns]

I have no control over my likes or dislikes, that is a key insight.  Ditto 'preferred choices', ultimately.

No
Likes and dislikes are built in to our biology.
Preferred choices are consciously chosen.

[Alan Burns]

And where does the 'will of our conscious self' come from ? Either it has an origin in the past or it doesn't.  If there is no reason for it at all then it is random.  These are simply the meanings of the words involved.

When are our conscious decisions defined?
If it is the past, you will have to trace every event back to the Big Bang.

If the origin of a conscious choice comes from the spiritual soul, it originates when you make the spiritual push of the button.

[Shaker]

No
Likes and dislikes are built in to our biology.
Preferred choices are consciously chosen.

Seems like an entirely arbitrary, ad hoc faux distinction between 'likes and dislikes' (not consciously chosen, presumably) and 'preferred choices' (consciously chosen, you reckon), a distinction made up for your own purposes (i.e. crowbarring free bloody will in yet again).

I have to admit, I'm struggling to see the slightest difference whatever.

[Gordon]

So what drives your thoughts?

What do you mean by 'drives'? I'm not sure that my likes and dislikes are all that different from my thoughts in general - I know that I actively dislike (as in absolutely hate) both mayonnaise and so-called 'country music' but I can't say why: it just seems to be me being me.

What dictates your preferred choices (as opposed to likes or dislikes)?

I do, in the sense that it may seem like I'm choosing but it might just seem that way.

What is it that makes the conscious decisions while driving?
(how fast, when to overtake, when to brake, when to sound the horn)
They are not random - neither are they automated.  They are consciously driven.

I'm not sure that driving decisions are wholly conscious given that they are so dependent on practiced reactions to sensory feedback. I like to ride fast motorcycles as quickly as possible and it doesn't seem that I have the time to think profoundly when doing so - since if I did I might decide not to, and that would never do!

[ippy]

That story 'The Wizards of Oz', must form a part of where you acquired your love of magical ideas and stories from Alan, just assert anything you like and puff there it is, I can feel it.

There are so many things you keep telling us you know that you nor anyone else can possibly know.

ippy

[Alan Burns]

I'm not sure that driving decisions are wholly conscious given that they are so dependent on practiced reactions to sensory feedback. I like to ride fast motorcycles as quickly as possible and it doesn't seem that I have the time to think profoundly when doing so - since if I did I might decide not to, and that would never do!

When considering the question of physically determined events, there is no question about how much of your decisions are made consciously.  In the physically deterministic scenario you are on full autopilot with no possibility of consciously controlled interaction.  Do you believe this to be the case?  If not you will have to have a source for the conscious control which is not pre determined by uncontrollable physical chains of events.

[torridon]

No
Likes and dislikes are built in to our biology.
Preferred choices are consciously chosen.

There's no real difference in terms of the nature of choice, they are all still subject to the same insight that we cannot choose what we want. I might tend to prefer wine to beer, but on occasion I might opt for a beer.  That is what we commonly call free will, right ?  Maybe the weather is hot, maybe I am thirsty and want a long drink I can gulp down.  These are all factors that might lead me to want beer more than wine on the particular occasion.  The same fundamental insight still prevails in whatever moment : we try to get what we want but we cannot choose what to want in the first place. It matters not whether the mechanism of choice is 'physical' or 'spiritual' because the proposition that we could choose what to want is conceptually incoherent, containing an implicit infinite regress. If we could choose what to want, that implies we want to have a want, and how could we want to have a want other than by wanting to want to have a want.  By claiming that a spiritual soul makes choices all you achieve is that you propose the soul as the seat of this incoherent scenario; the only honest way out of this is to recognise the signature of determinism operating in the mechanism of choice; then the conceptual problems of regress evaporate and you have acquired a much more profound understanding of behaviour.

[Gordon]

When considering the question of physically determined events, there is no question about how much of your decisions are made consciously.  In the physically deterministic scenario you are on full autopilot with no possibility of consciously controlled interaction.  Do you believe this to be the case?  If not you will have to have a source for the conscious control which is not pre determined by uncontrollable physical chains of events.

It might seem, or feel to me, that I'm making choices but I don't think these choices are 'free' since there are dependencies involved, as must always be the case (even if some of these aren't obvious to me). So I don't think we are ever 'free' from, to adopt your hyperbole, the 'uncontrollable physical chains of events' - which is probably just as well, since the alternative sounds like a recipe for chaos.

[ekim]

It might seem, or feel to me, that I'm making choices but I don't think these choices are 'free' since there are dependencies involved, as must always be the case (even if some of these aren't obvious to me). So I don't think we are ever 'free' from, to adopt your hyperbole, the 'uncontrollable physical chains of events' - which is probably just as well, since the alternative sounds like a recipe for chaos.

Looking at it from the perspective of the (for want of a better word) mystic, it appears to be more about what you identify with.  Some identify with their physical body, some their energy, some their emotions, some their rationalising mind, some a collection of these forming a self centred ego etc., the mystic tends to identify with an observing consciousness free or detached from those other forms and forces, often referred to as transcendence.  Your thought 'we are never free from', the fear of chaos, and Alan's thoughts about souls etc shows how difficult it is to break free from e.g. the mind identity.

[Alan Burns]

There's no real difference in terms of the nature of choice, they are all still subject to the same insight that we cannot choose what we want. I might tend to prefer wine to beer, but on occasion I might opt for a beer.  That is what we commonly call free will, right ?  Maybe the weather is hot, maybe I am thirsty and want a long drink I can gulp down.  These are all factors that might lead me to want beer more than wine on the particular occasion.  The same fundamental insight still prevails in whatever moment : we try to get what we want but we cannot choose what to want in the first place. It matters not whether the mechanism of choice is 'physical' or 'spiritual' because the proposition that we could choose what to want is conceptually incoherent, containing an implicit infinite regress. If we could choose what to want, that implies we want to have a want, and how could we want to have a want other than by wanting to want to have a want.  By claiming that a spiritual soul makes choices all you achieve is that you propose the soul as the seat of this incoherent scenario; the only honest way out of this is to recognise the signature of determinism operating in the mechanism of choice; then the conceptual problems of regress evaporate and you have acquired a much more profound understanding of behaviour.

If you think of the soul in terms of materialistic determinism you will get the problem of infinite regress.  But my contention is that the soul can use its spiritual conscious will to initiate a want or desire which may well be influenced by historical events, but not dictated by them.   We have the power to think, to ponder, to contemplate prior to making a choice - a choice which is certainly determined, but not pre determined.

[ippy]

If you think of the soul in terms of materialistic determinism you will get the problem of infinite regress.  But my contention is that the soul can use its spiritual conscious will to initiate a want or desire which may well be influenced by historical events, but not dictated by them.   We have the power to think, to ponder, to contemplate prior to making a choice - a choice which is certainly determined, but not pre determined.

Mental gymnastcs in another attempt of yours to try justifying the irrational ideas  you're determind to convince yourself that you really believe.

Since you're locked into some sort of congregation there's probably some form of social pressure involved.

Very few are as far gone as you pretend to be Alan.

ippy

[torridon]

If you think of the soul in terms of materialistic determinism you will get the problem of infinite regress.  But my contention is that the soul can use its spiritual conscious will to initiate a want or desire which may well be influenced by historical events, but not dictated by them.   We have the power to think, to ponder, to contemplate prior to making a choice - a choice which is certainly determined, but not pre determined.

How could anything initiate a want ?  I don't think that is how it works, we cannot just decide to want something for no reason.  All you are claiming is that a spiritual soul can want something that it doesn't want.  That's nonsense.

[SusanDoris]

There is, I suppose, the very faint possibility that AB thinks that pre-determined means determined since life began ... ... his ideas are blinkered enough for that perhaps?

AB: Unless one of the more knowledgeable people here can put me right, the pre- bit of pre-determined refers to the split second pre-determined of the functioning human consciousness.

[ekim]

How could anything initiate a want ?  I don't think that is how it works, we cannot just decide to want something for no reason.  All you are claiming is that a spiritual soul can want something that it doesn't want.  That's nonsense.

Yes, it does sound nonsensical.  Perhaps Alan is looking at it along these lines.  If an individual has a desire for revenge, he is driven by that desire.  To exercise forgiveness he would need to free himself from that drive or let go of the desire for revenge.  This could be seen as initiating a desire to let go.  The desire for revenge could be seen as a subconscious drive and forgiveness a conscious action.  The Jesus method, when he was confronted by imminent torture and death, was to acknowledge his desire to avoid it, but to leave the outcome to what his God willed.  His freedom came from submission to a higher will.  'Forgive them for they know not what they do' is a conscious acknowledgement of the sub/un-conscious drives of others.

[ippy]

There is, I suppose, the very faint possibility that AB thinks that pre-determined means determined since life began ... ... his ideas are blinkered enough for that perhaps?

AB: Unless one of the more knowledgeable people here can put me right, the pre- bit of pre-determined refers to the split second pre-determined of the functioning human consciousness.

There is, I suppose, the very faint possibility that AB thinks?

Sorry Susan, couldn't resist, it wasn't me it must have been my sole, makes as much sense as soul, with my sense of timing it might have been pre ignition.

ippy

[wigginhall]

How could anything initiate a want ?  I don't think that is how it works, we cannot just decide to want something for no reason.  All you are claiming is that a spiritual soul can want something that it doesn't want.  That's nonsense.

AB seems to be saying that the soul is like God, it has no cause, and no antecedents.   It just exists sui generis, and can initiate  stuff without any preliminary action. 

Trouble is, this is pure assertion, as has been said many times.   We could ask him to show don't tell, but don't get your hopes up.