Searching for GOD...

[Maeght]

You seem unable to grasp the concept of the nature of our conscious awareness and what it is capable of.  At any one time we can be aware of many possible choices and many possible reasons for each choice.  Ultimately the decision of which (in any) of these choices is to be implemented is invoked by the property of our conscious awareness to interact with our brain.  Yes, there is a reason for invoking the choice, and this reason originates in the conscious awareness of our human soul, not in the endless chains of physical cause and effect which trace back to the beginning of time.

Oh dear, still no answer.

[Sebastian Toe]

You seem unable to grasp the concept of the nature of our conscious awareness and what it is capable of.  At any one time we can be aware of many possible choices and many possible reasons for each choice.  Ultimately the decision of which (in any) of these choices is to be implemented is invoked by the property of our conscious awareness to interact with our brain.  Yes, there is a reason for invoking the choice, and this reason originates in the conscious awareness of our human soul, not in the endless chains of physical cause and effect which trace back to the beginning of time.

You seem unable to grasp the concept of the nature of our subconscious and what it is capable of.
At any one time we can become aware of many possible choices and many possible reasons for each choice as they emerge into our consciousness. 
Ultimately the decision of which (in any) of these choices is to be implemented is invoked by the property of our subconscious. 
Yes, there is a reason for invoking the choice, and this reason originates in the subconscious, not in the fantasy inspired 'soul'.

[floo]

Maybe, not sure how that would answer my question though.

I was being tongue in cheek!

[Alan Burns]

You seem unable to grasp the concept of the nature of our subconscious and what it is capable of.
At any one time we can become aware of many possible choices and many possible reasons for each choice as they emerge into our consciousness. 
Ultimately the decision of which (in any) of these choices is to be implemented is invoked by the property of our subconscious. 
Yes, there is a reason for invoking the choice, and this reason originates in the subconscious, not in the fantasy inspired 'soul'.

I can assure you that it is my conscious awareness which is in full control of my conscious choices.  It is not just the way it seems, it is the way it is.   Anything which occurs in my sub conscious can't be deemed a choice - it is just an automated background task.  Your scenario effectively makes the words "choice", "control" and "manipulation" redundant.

[Gordon]

I can assure you that it is my conscious awareness which is in full control of my conscious choices.  It is not just the way it seems, it is the way it is.

No, Alan, it is the way it seems.

Anything which occurs in my sub conscious can't be deemed a choice - it is just an automated background task.

It can if it percolates through: but of course you can never know what has emerged from your subconscious (for obvious reasons).

Your scenario effectively makes the words "choice", "control" and "manipulation" redundant.

Leaving aside the hyperbole, this prospect clearly terrifies you since, for you, it would negate your recipe for your god.

[Sebastian Toe]

I can assure you that it is my conscious awareness which is in full control of my conscious choices.  It is not just the way it seems, it is the way it is.   Anything which occurs in my sub conscious can't be deemed a choice - it is just an automated background task.  Your scenario effectively makes the words "choice", "control" and "manipulation" redundant.

I can assure you that you are mistaken in your conclusions.

[torridon]

I can assure you that it is my conscious awareness which is in full control of my conscious choices.  It is not just the way it seems, it is the way it is.   Anything which occurs in my sub conscious can't be deemed a choice - it is just an automated background task.  Your scenario effectively makes the words "choice", "control" and "manipulation" redundant.

We have no control over what we believe, what we like, what we prefer. How can we therefore have any control at all.  We are at the mercy of these things and all we can do is exercise the preferences that we have. We have no control over them.

[floo]

We have no control over what we believe, what we like, what we prefer. How can we therefore have any control at all.  We are at the mercy of these things and all we can do is exercise the preferences that we have. We have no control over them.

For instance I can't help the weird fact I dislike music. I have no idea why as I come from a musical family, and my children are musical too.

[wigginhall]

Yes, I used to like music and now I don't.    I don't recollect consciously choosing either option.   I think one of the factors in the birth of existentialism, was the realization of how little control there is over life, which made it seem absurd, but then Sartre and Camus had not had the benefit of reading AB!   Look how much they missed.

[ekim]

How can a body reside in a soul?

It seems to me that Alan is mixing 'soul' and 'spirit'.  The Hebrew word for spirit is 'ruach' which is a symbolic word meaning 'air' which is both outside of the body and within the body as breath (Hebrew 'neshama' translated as 'soul').  In the context of this symbolism there is only one 'air', or in Biblical terms 'breath of God', but because man identifies with his physical and mental form he believes he possesses an individual 'soul' or 'spirit', whereas it is an omnipresent 'spirit' which can cause the body and mind to be inspired or cause it to expire.

[wigginhall]

Although AB reminds me of the Cartesian view of soul, which is somehow rather tenuously attached to the body.   This is quite different from Aristotle, who saw the soul as the body in action in a sense, or the life of the body.  But this also can lead to vitalism, which again ends up with a kind of ectoplasm floating around in the air. 

[Alan Burns]

We have no control over what we believe, what we like, what we prefer. How can we therefore have any control at all.  We are at the mercy of these things and all we can do is exercise the preferences that we have. We have no control over them.

Likes, dislikes and preferences are not choices.
We are all free to choose to do something we do not like if we so wish.

[ekim]

Likes, dislikes and preferences are not choices.
We are all free to choose to do something we do not like if we so wish.

I think what is being said though, Alan, is that likes and dislikes are the drivers of choices and those choices are not therefor free.  What would cause you to do something which you do not like to do?

[Alan Burns]

I think what is being said though, Alan, is that likes and dislikes are the drivers of choices and those choices are not therefor free.  What would cause you to do something which you do not like to do?

My God given freedom to choose

[torridon]

Likes, dislikes and preferences are not choices.
We are all free to choose to do something we do not like if we so wish.

not much of a freedom, really, is it ?  Would you pay for something that you don't want ?

[Sebastian Toe]

.  It is not just the way it seems, it is the way it is. 

Nope. It is just the way it seems.

[Sebastian Toe]

Anything which occurs in my sub conscious can't be deemed a choice - it is just an automated background task.  Your scenario effectively makes the words "choice", "control" and "manipulation" redundant.

No again.
You are making a choice. Just not the way that you think you are.
No soul required.

[floo]

No again.
You are making a choice. Just not the way that you think you are.
No soul required.

Agreed.

[Maeght]

I was being tongue in cheek!

Yeah, I know.

[Alan Burns]

not much of a freedom, really, is it ?  Would you pay for something that you don't want ?

Freedom is all or nothing.  If we have just the slightest bit of freedom, it would have to be free from the dictates of the endless cause and effect chains in a purely materialist world.

[torridon]

Freedom is all or nothing.  If we have just the slightest bit of freedom, it would have to be free from the dictates of the endless cause and effect chains in a purely materialist world.

I'm not sure the freedom to have something I don't want is a freedom worth having.  It's pointless.

Notions such as 'freedom', 'deliberate', 'control' are conceptualisations that have utility at certain levels of rationalisation.  Imagine a physicist doing his shopping, gets into an argument with the market stallholder about whether the two apples he just bought can touch. To the stallholder, of course they can touch, it's bleedin' obvious.  And this observation is valid not just for fruit and veg, it applies to all purveyors of domestic grocery produce.  But the physicist's conceptualisation involving a deeper understanding of atomic particles is valid at the fundamental levels of matter and energy.  The deeper understanding dissolves our everyday conceptualisations about touch and feel and weight, these concepts are useful to us, but they are born of the emergent phenomenology of minds and their associated expeditious abstractions rather than being fundamental truths.  I think the debate about free will parallels the debate between the physicist and the stall holder, they are talking to different levels of conceptualisation, and to understand the deeper concepts of reality such as cause and effect, we have to allow the everyday concepts like 'freedom', 'deliberate', 'control' to dissolve.  Of course we have control, of course we are free to make whatever choices we want, bleedin' obvious init ?  Just like touching apples together, that's how it feels.

[floo]

Freedom is all or nothing.  If we have just the slightest bit of freedom, it would have to be free from the dictates of the endless cause and effect chains in a purely materialist world.

If there are dire consequences if one is an unbeliever that is not freedom.

[ekim]

My God given freedom to choose

So then that choice is driven by either your belief that there is a 'God given freedom' or a gift from your God?

[Alan Burns]

I'm not sure the freedom to have something I don't want is a freedom worth having.  It's pointless.

Notions such as 'freedom', 'deliberate', 'control' are conceptualisations that have utility at certain levels of rationalisation.  Imagine a physicist doing his shopping, gets into an argument with the market stallholder about whether the two apples he just bought can touch. To the stallholder, of course they can touch, it's bleedin' obvious.  And this observation is valid not just for fruit and veg, it applies to all purveyors of domestic grocery produce.  But the physicist's conceptualisation involving a deeper understanding of atomic particles is valid at the fundamental levels of matter and energy.  The deeper understanding dissolves our everyday conceptualisations about touch and feel and weight, these concepts are useful to us, but they are born of the emergent phenomenology of minds and their associated expeditious abstractions rather than being fundamental truths.  I think the debate about free will parallels the debate between the physicist and the stall holder, they are talking to different levels of conceptualisation, and to understand the deeper concepts of reality such as cause and effect, we have to allow the everyday concepts like 'freedom', 'deliberate', 'control' to dissolve.  Of course we have control, of course we are free to make whatever choices we want, bleedin' obvious init ?  Just like touching apples together, that's how it feels.

But unlike the apples, the physicist has no definitive explanation for how our conscious awareness works or what it comprises.  All we have is correlation of brain activity, but this correlation does not define the properties of conscious awareness.  To draw conclusions from this little knowledge is not valid.  The spiritual properties of our conscious awareness and free thinking are beyond human scientific investigation.

[Alan Burns]

If there are dire consequences if one is an unbeliever that is not freedom.

Not if we have been given the freedom to avoid these consequences if we so wish.