Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

Souls are completely compatible with determinism, but not with the deterministic nature in the reactive properties of material based entities ......

Err ?

Maybe you could think that through and try again.  I think you are just making stuff up here and it is unintelligible.  If souls are compatible with determinism then they are compatible with things that have a deterministic nature.

[torridon]

The question is in what determines your conscious will.  In your scenario, there can be no entity within you which can exert conscious control or choice - all is just inevitable reaction.  You seem to be unable to grasp the concept of your thoughts being deliberately directed by conscious willpower.....

I have given examples illustrating how will is derived from previous events.  Noticeably, you haven't been able to demonstrate how the will of a soul is derived.

[Alan Burns]

    If it is directed from subconscious it can't be deliberate.

Oh yes it can.

I do not think you have grasped the meaning of deliberate:

from online dictionary,

deliberate
adjective
    1.    done consciously and intentionally.

[Alan Burns]

I have given examples illustrating how will is derived from previous events.  Noticeably, you haven't been able to demonstrate how the will of a soul is derived.

Human will may well be influenced by previous events, but not dictated by them.

[Alan Burns]

Err ?

Maybe you could think that through and try again.  I think you are just making stuff up here and it is unintelligible.  If souls are compatible with determinism then they are compatible with things that have a deterministic nature.

Which includes spiritually determined events.

[Sebastian Toe]

I do not think you have grasped the meaning of deliberate:

from online dictionary,

deliberate
adjective
    1.    done consciously and intentionally.

Maybe you do not understand the meaning?

I can play that game!


From Dictionary .com
adjective
1.
carefully weighed or considered; studied; intentional

Cambridge dictionary
deliberate
adjective UK ​ /dɪˈlɪb.ər.ət/ US ​ /dɪˈlɪb.ɚ.ət/
​
B2 (often of something bad) intentional or planned:
a deliberate attack/insult/lie
We made a deliberate decision to live apart for a while

Collins dictionary

1. adjective
If you do something that is deliberate, you planned or decided to do it beforehand, and so it happens on purpose rather than by chance.

Therese dictionary; legal definition

Deliberate
Willful; purposeful; determined after thoughtful evaluation of all relevant factors; dispassionate. To act with a particular intent, which is derived from a careful consideration of factors that influence the choice to be made.

Yourdictionary

adjective
The definition of deliberate is doing something on purpose and with careful thought.

Macmillan dictionary

ADJECTIVE     deliberate pronunciation in British English
 /dɪˈlɪb(ə)rət/

1 intended, not done by chance or by accident

[torridon]

Human will may well be influenced by previous events, but not dictated by them.

That is not an answer, it is an evasion.  I suggested you give us an example of how the will of a soul is derived and all you have given is what it is not.

Neural networks provide a mechanism for resolving competing desires in biological systems; you need to provide a rationale for how souls would do this, if not in detail, then at least conceptually.  If the will of a soul is influenced, but not dictated by relevant considerations, then on what basis does a soul arrive at it's final decision ? What other factors apart from the relevant considerations can be used in order for a soul to make up its mind ?

[Gordon]

Which includes spiritually determined events.

That you've yet to demonstrate is anything other than your own fictitious fantasy.

[Maeght]

Human will may well be influenced by previous events, but not dictated by them.

So in a situation where you have two options, A & B. Previous events would strongly indicate that A is the best option. What could make the human will determine that B is the way to go?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So in a situation where you have two options, A & B. Previous events would strongly indicate that A is the best option. What could make the human will determine that B is the way to go?

If you think there is only one type of fact then it should be a short job to define it. Nobody seems to want to.
This immediately leads US into the suspicion that the definition is materialist based and since materialism cannot be demonstrated a materialist doesn't  want to define what a fact is.

As it happens there are more Moral realists than Hillside wants to let on.
If facts are what is real then moral philosophers are presenting facts.

Any way we have let Hillside turdpolish his argument that we cannot distinguish faith from guessing an argument which is roundly blown by neuroscience.

[Outrider]

The question is in what determines your conscious will. In your scenario, there can be no entity within you which can exert conscious control or choice - all is just inevitable reaction.

You appear to be conflating consciousness with freedom - you can be conscious of your will without it being free.

You seem to be unable to grasp the concept of your thoughts being deliberately directed by conscious willpower.

No, we get the concept, we just don't see any mechanism by which it would work - you're inventing an evidenceless 'soul' concept to fill a non-existent gap in the physics of neurological activity.

The entity within you which exerts control is not random, neither is it uncontrollable reaction.

Regardless of where it is, regardless of what form it takes, there are two options: either it 'makes decisions' based upon prior criteria, or it delivers random results. There is no other option.

O.

[Alan Burns]

That is not an answer, it is an evasion.  I suggested you give us an example of how the will of a soul is derived and all you have given is what it is not.

Neural networks provide a mechanism for resolving competing desires in biological systems; you need to provide a rationale for how souls would do this, if not in detail, then at least conceptually.  If the will of a soul is influenced, but not dictated by relevant considerations, then on what basis does a soul arrive at it's final decision ? What other factors apart from the relevant considerations can be used in order for a soul to make up its mind ?

Your last phrase sums it up well.  To  make up your mind requires a conscious act of will.  The problem you have is that there is no viable definition for how our conscious awareness works, or what it comprises, or what it is capable of doing.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.  What you are doing is trying to shoe-horn reality to fit in with limited human scientific discovery, but it does not fit.  You seem to be drawing the dangerous conclusion that we are not accountable for our own decisions and behaviour since it must all be dictated by the uncontrollable, physically defined reactions to previous events.  Your conclusions reduce human beings to biological machines driven entirely by the laws of nature over which we have no control.  But in doing this, you are in denial of your most precious gift - the ability to consciously interact with this world.  We are not just machines, we each have a conscious entity within us which can control what we do.  And we will all be held to account for how we use this gift.

[Maeght]

If you think there is only one type of fact then it should be a short job to define it. Nobody seems to want to.
This immediately leads US into the suspicion that the definition is materialist based and since materialism cannot be demonstrated a materialist doesn't  want to define what a fact is.

As it happens there are more Moral realists than Hillside wants to let on.
If facts are what is real then moral philosophers are presenting facts.

Any way we have let Hillside turdpolish his argument that we cannot distinguish faith from guessing an argument which is roundly blown by neuroscience.

Not sure what this has to do with my post.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not sure what this has to do with my post.

Sorry. This was intended for the Blind faith thread.

[Shaker]

Your last phrase sums it up well.  To  make up your mind requires a conscious act of will.  The problem you have is that there is no viable definition for how our conscious awareness works, or what it comprises, or what it is capable of doing.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.  What you are doing is trying to shoe-horn reality to fit in with limited human scientific discovery, but it does not fit.  You seem to be drawing the dangerous conclusion that we are not accountable for our own decisions and behaviour since it must all be dictated by the uncontrollable, physically defined reactions to previous events.  Your conclusions reduce human beings to biological machines driven entirely by the laws of nature over which we have no control.  But in doing this, you are in denial of your most precious gift - the ability to consciously interact with this world.  We are not just machines, we each have a conscious entity within us which can control what we do.  And we will all be held to account for how we use this gift.

Fallacy, bald assertion and threat.

It can only be Burns.

[torridon]

Your last phrase sums it up well.  To  make up your mind requires a conscious act of will.  The problem you have is that there is no viable definition for how our conscious awareness works, or what it comprises, or what it is capable of doing.

So, for the umpteenth time, you've decided to duck the issue again.  It's not about the mysteries of consciousness, it's not about 'physical' or 'material', it is a problem of concept.

A 'want' is derivative. A 'want' is a consequence of something prior.  If you ever did want something for no reason whatsoever, then it is random.

You need to show how a soul could have a want that is not derivative and is not random.  In the real world, we want things for a reason.

[torridon]

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.  What you are doing is trying to shoe-horn reality to fit in with limited human scientific discovery, but it does not fit.  You seem to be drawing the dangerous conclusion that we are not accountable for our own decisions and behaviour since it must all be dictated by the uncontrollable, physically defined reactions to previous events.  Your conclusions reduce human beings to biological machines driven entirely by the laws of nature over which we have no control.  But in doing this, you are in denial of your most precious gift - the ability to consciously interact with this world.  We are not just machines, we each have a conscious entity within us which can control what we do.  And we will all be held to account for how we use this gift.

It's not to do with limited scientific discovery, it is about logic.  You posit a soul that arrives at decisions taking into account relevant considerations but you cannot say how else it could arrive at a final decision if the relevant considerations are not the be-all and end-all of the matter.  What else could there be ?

[Outrider]

To  make up your mind requires a conscious act of will.  The problem you have is that there is no viable definition for how our conscious awareness works, or what it comprises, or what it is capable of doing.

No, our problem is that in that gap you try to wedge 'soul'. "I don't know" does not equal "therefore souls". If you want to posit souls, you need to demonstrate a mechanism, provide some evidence that there is something impacting the system that is, as yet, unaccounted for.

Then for the 'free' part of your free will argument, you still need to explain how something can be independent of the prior conditions and yet not random.

You seem to be drawing the dangerous conclusion that we are not accountable for our own decisions and behaviour since it must all be dictated by the uncontrollable, physically defined reactions to previous events.

Unless you have evidence for something else, that's the logical conclusion.

Your conclusions reduce human beings to biological machines driven entirely by the laws of nature over which we have no control.

Reduce? No, this illuminates the marvellous complexity and subtlety that biological machines can achieve.

But in doing this, you are in denial of your most precious gift - the ability to consciously interact with this world.

Again you are failing to distinguish between free will and consciousness. I'm conscious of rain, but I can't will it to stop.

We are not just machines, we each have a conscious entity within us which can control what we do.  And we will all be held to account for how we use this gift.

Asserting that again doesn't make the flaws in your argument go away. How can you be so fixated on consciousness and yet so unaware of the gap in your reasoning?

O.

[ippy]

I do not think you have grasped the meaning of deliberate:

from online dictionary,

deliberate
adjective
    1.    done consciously and intentionally.

Perhaps while you're there with you nose in the dictionary Alan, have a look at bullshit and another good one for you to look at would be  illusory.

ippy

[wigginhall]

Hello, 'we will all be held to account', from AB.  There is the sting in the tail, never mind all these arguments and discussions, when the chips are down, God will give you a good kicking, if you don't comply.   Ooer, scary.   

[Alan Burns]

It's not to do with limited scientific discovery, it is about logic.  You posit a soul that arrives at decisions taking into account relevant considerations but you cannot say how else it could arrive at a final decision if the relevant considerations are not the be-all and end-all of the matter.  What else could there be ?

Freedom to consciously choose, rather than just react.  This is the reality which your "logic" can't cope with.

[Alan Burns]

Again you are failing to distinguish between free will and consciousness. I'm conscious of rain, but I can't will it to stop.

But you can choose to stay in the rain and get wet, or you can choose to find shelter, or you can choose to buy an umbrella, or you can choose to put up your hood (if you have one).  The choice is all yours.

[floo]

But you can choose to stay in the rain and get wet, or you can choose to find shelter, or you can choose to buy an umbrella, or you can choose to put up your hood (if you have one).  The choice is all yours.

So can a dog or cat choose to find shelter from the rain.

[Alan Burns]

So, for the umpteenth time, you've decided to duck the issue again. ....

And what is it precisely that you deem to have ducked the issue?
Is it the uncontrollable material reactions of the sub atomic particles in my brain?
Or is it my conscious self which controls my thoughts which I consciously decide to type out on my keyboard?

[Alan Burns]

So can a dog or cat choose to find shelter from the rain.

Without being able to enter the mind of a dog or a cat, I would assume that it would have no choice but to follow its instinctive, highly predictable reaction to whatever prevails.