Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

I have addressed this several times, so apologies for having to repeat myself.

I have never claimed that our freedom to choose is not determined.  What I have said is that it is not pre determined by physical events of cause and effect in material elements over which we can have no form of control, since it will be just an inevitable, uncontrollable reaction to previous physical events.  What I have claimed is that the conscious will of the human soul can perceive and interact with the physical brain cells in order to implement an act of will which is determined by our conscious will, not by the uncontrollable forces of nature.

If you think it is determined there is no freedom in the sense you argue for. I will call the podiatrist for you and see if your foot can be saved.

[Maeght]

I have addressed this several times, so apologies for having to repeat myself.

I have never claimed that our freedom to choose is not determined.  What I have said is that it is not pre determined by physical events of cause and effect in material elements over which we can have no form of control, since it will be just an inevitable, uncontrollable reaction to previous physical events.  What I have claimed is that the conscious will of the human soul can perceive and interact with the physical brain cells in order to implement an act of will which is determined by our conscious will, not by the uncontrollable forces of nature.

But as ever that is not answering the question. What I am asking is, is the act of will predetermined or random? On what does the conscious will base any decision?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

What I have said is that it is not pre determined by physical events of cause and effect in material elements over which we can have no form of control, since it will be just an inevitable, uncontrollable reaction to previous physical events.

As you seem to have missed it, here’s my Reply 22694 again:

“I see that you're still doggedly ignoring every argument that undoes you in favour of asserting and re-asserting your personal faith convictions.

Perhaps it'll save time at least if in future you grasp that, each time you reply with a sentence constructed as, "but if X, then Y" you've missed the point. The consequences of an argument tell you nothing about whether the argument itself is robust.

You're welcome.”

This is exactly the argument you’ve just attempted. The clue is in your use of “since”: being “...just an inevitable…” etc tells you nothing whatever about whether the arguments for a deterministic universe are sound. The only thing it actually tells you (and us) is that you don't like the arguments' implications. 

Incidentally, when your arguments are falsified for the most part you just ignore the problem. Sometimes however you’ll suggest that while they may not be “watertight” they still have force.

That’s also wrong. It’s not that they’re not “watertight” at all, it’s that they’re wrong. Flat wrong. As wrong as 2+2=5 is wrong. You cannot then pretend otherwise and rely still on the equivalent of 2+2=5 on the basis that it’s not “watertight” but still somehow of value.

You're welcome. Again.

[Walter]

Blue,
 I'm unclear what you hope to achieve with this to-ing and fro-ing with AB . It's obvious he is unable to understand.
It's like trying to teach a fish to ride a bike . At some point you simply have to give up . And that's no discredit to you , you have performed admirably

[SusanDoris]

Blue,
 I'm unclear what you hope to achieve with this to-ing and fro-ing with AB . It's obvious he is unable to understand.
It's like trying to teach a fish to ride a bike . At some point you simply have to give up . And that's no discredit to you , you have performed admirably

But, as I mentioned several hundred posts back probably , it is essential that AB does not have the last word when this topic finally ends.  Even if one person, when browsing the internet,lands on the forum and thinks that AB has had the last word, well, that just simply will not do.

[torridon]

Torri,
The terms physical and material are entirely relevant....

No you are wrong on that. You're like a racehorse that repeatedly refuses at this first fence, you need to get over this to progress.  You are clinging to some quaint nineteenth century version of science as a world of particles, but we have moved on well beyond that understanding.  Is the potential energy in a high altitude dam made of particles ? Is the curvature of spacetime made of matter ? is a quantum field physical ?

The terms physical and material are not relevant because these are merely manifestations of underlying principles and it is the underlying principles that you are failing to grapple with. 

If you form a desire, or an intention to act, then there must be a reason for that, otherwise it is a random desire or intention

That desire is a consequence of something prior. This is simply the inescapable logic of the nature of choice. It matters not whether the desire forms in the mind of an AI synth or the brain of a chartered accountant or a 'soul', the same logic will apply because conceptual logic transcends any particular manifestation, like 'physical'.  This is not about particles, it is about the arrow of time, it is about cause and effect.  If you are claiming a soul is something that does not respect these underlying notions, then you are defining a soul as something incomprehensible, irrational, meaningless.

[floo]

This thread has run out of steam, imo.

[Maeght]

This thread has run out of steam, imo.

Its been going round and round in circles for a long time but no one wants to leave the last word to someone else.

[floo]

Its been going round and round in circles for a long time but no one wants to leave the last word to someone else.

Maybe Sass should have the last word as she started the thread.

[Maeght]

Maybe Sass should have the last word as she started the thread.

Good idea. But would everyone agree not to respond no matter what?

[Nearly Sane]

This thread has run out of steam, imo.

I presume you mean that it's repetitive and I agree to a great extent. I quite often skip over posts, but as Rhiannon has said there is a lot of good stuff on here, and there continues to be interesting posts. I always read torridon's posting as even where the subject has been covered in detail, he continues to come up with different approaches, all with his usual clarity and grace.


 The thread is a microcosm, or rather a 'mediocosm' of the board. Many of the discussions could almost be replaced by an OP that listed a set of pro and con arguments and people just cite the argument number but then you lose the point of why I continue to come here. Those posts where the argument is dressed in prose finery and made up with the artistry of the well turned phrase that illustrate the wonder of humanity.

[Walter]

I presume you mean that it's repetitive and I agree to a great extent. I quite often skip over posts, but as Rhiannon has said there is a lot of good stuff on here, and there continues to be interesting posts. I always read torridon's posting as even where the subject has been covered in detail, he continues to come up with different approaches, all with his usual clarity and grace.


 The thread is a microcosm, or rather a 'mediocosm' of the board. Many of the discussions could almost be replaced by an OP that listed a set of pro and con arguments and people just cite the argument number but then you lose the point of why I continue to come here. Those posts where the argument is dressed in prose finery and made up with the artistry of the well turned phrase that illustrate the wonder of humanity.

chuffin' 'ell, I'm welling up .

[SusanDoris]

Good idea. But would everyone agree not to respond no matter what?

NO!!!

[Maeght]

NO!!!

No its not a good ides ir No you wouldn't resist responding?

[Rhiannon]

I love this thread. 

[Walter]

I love this thread. 

I think you've just put a STOP to it.

[Maeght]

No its not a good ides ir No you wouldn't resist responding?

Let me try that again!

'No' its not a good idea or 'No' you wouldn't resist responding?

[SusanDoris]

Not really! I'd check daily on the last post and if it was one of AB's, I'd be putting in a post to ensure that the world at large did not think AB's cotton-woolly, fluffy pink cloud ideas are ight!!

[Maeght]

Not really! I'd check daily on the last post and if it was one of AB's, I'd be putting in a post to ensure that the world at large did not think AB's cotton-woolly, fluffy pink cloud ideas are ight!!

I don't think anyone in the world at large would think that even if they were popping in to take a look at our utterances, whuch I doubt.

[Alan Burns]

No you are wrong on that. You're like a racehorse that repeatedly refuses at this first fence, you need to get over this to progress.  You are clinging to some quaint nineteenth century version of science as a world of particles, but we have moved on well beyond that understanding.  Is the potential energy in a high altitude dam made of particles ? Is the curvature of spacetime made of matter ? is a quantum field physical ?

The terms physical and material are not relevant because these are merely manifestations of underlying principles and it is the underlying principles that you are failing to grapple with. 

If you form a desire, or an intention to act, then there must be a reason for that, otherwise it is a random desire or intention

That desire is a consequence of something prior. This is simply the inescapable logic of the nature of choice. It matters not whether the desire forms in the mind of an AI synth or the brain of a chartered accountant or a 'soul', the same logic will apply because conceptual logic transcends any particular manifestation, like 'physical'.  This is not about particles, it is about the arrow of time, it is about cause and effect.  If you are claiming a soul is something that does not respect these underlying notions, then you are defining a soul as something incomprehensible, irrational, meaningless.

Our freedom to choose is simply illustrated by the fact that we have the ability to deliberately tell a lie.  Before we commit the act, we will be well aware of what we are about to do, and it will take a deliberate act of will to do it.  And we know we have the conscious freedom to either tell a lie or to tell the truth.  After telling the lie, we may well regret it, knowing that we could and should have told the truth.  Can you not see that this scenario is no automated pre determined action dictated by the uncontrollable forces of nature.  It is the person who has control, and the freedom to choose.  A freedom which nature alone can't provide.

[floo]

Our freedom to choose is simply illustrated by the fact that we have the ability to deliberately tell a lie.  Before we commit the act, we will be well aware of what we are about to do, and it will take a deliberate act of will to do it.  And we know we have the conscious freedom to either tell a lie or to tell the truth.  After telling the lie, we may well regret it, knowing that we could and should have told the truth.  Can you not see that this scenario is no automated pre determined action dictated by the uncontrollable forces of nature.  It is the person who has control, and the freedom to choose.  A freedom which nature alone can't provide.

So are you saying the ability to lie is bestowed on us by god?

[BeRational]

AB

A freedom which nature alone can't provide.

Yes it can

[Gordon]

Our freedom to choose is simply illustrated by the fact that we have the ability to deliberately tell a lie.  Before we commit the act, we will be well aware of what we are about to do, and it will take a deliberate act of will to do it.  And we know we have the conscious freedom to either tell a lie or to tell the truth.  After telling the lie, we may well regret it, knowing that we could and should have told the truth.  Can you not see that this scenario is no automated pre determined action dictated by the uncontrollable forces of nature.  It is the person who has control, and the freedom to choose.  A freedom which nature alone can't provide.

Very nice: but it doesn't get around the problem of any precursors to telling the lie. Seems to me people don't randomly tell lies.

[Outrider]

Our freedom to choose is simply illustrated by the fact that we have the ability to deliberately tell a lie.

I think you fail to understand what 'freedom' means. That we can lie just means that there are choices to be made, it says nothing of our freedom in making them. If we are predestined by the flow of events to lie at a particular point in time that doesn't in any way mean that it's not a lie.

Before we commit the act, we will be well aware of what we are about to do, and it will take a deliberate act of will to do it.

Perhaps, there will certainly be instances where this is the case. That act of will is the result of our brains processing the situation, based on the events to which it's previously been subject and the basic structure that developed during natal development. That's all deterministic.

And we know we have the conscious freedom to either tell a lie or to tell the truth.

No, we know that we feel we have the freedom, but we don't know if that feeling is justified.

Can you not see that this scenario is no automated pre determined action dictated by the uncontrollable forces of nature.

No. I can't see why you think that deciding to lie at a particular point shows any freedom that telling the truth doesn't, it just means that for that particular scenario circumstance has programmed us to lie.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think you fail to understand what 'freedom' means. That we can lie just means that there are choices to be made, it says nothing of our freedom in making them. If we are predestined by the flow of events to lie at a particular point in time that doesn't in any way mean that it's not a lie.

Perhaps, there will certainly be instances where this is the case. That act of will is the result of our brains processing the situation, based on the events to which it's previously been subject and the basic structure that developed during natal development. That's all deterministic.

No, we know that we feel we have the freedom, but we don't know if that feeling is justified.

No. I can't see why you think that deciding to lie at a particular point shows any freedom that telling the truth doesn't, it just means that for that particular scenario circumstance has programmed us to lie.

O.

I'm wondering where determinism puts intelligence and reasoning.....sounds like you're wanting your cake and eat it.