Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

I think that the idea behind a number of religions is that you have to persist with a method to free your consciousness from the drives, thoughts, emotions etc. present in the psyche (soul, for Christians).  Some see it as a process of purifying the 'soul/psyche' e.g. only the pure of heart will attain the heavenly state.  Some see it as attaining a conscious still centre of balance amidst the psyche's inner turmoil.  The end result is a consciousness free from physical and mental attachments which would include religious dogma and scientific models, concepts etc.

The aim to do something to free oneself from mental and physical attachments is a mental and physical attachment. And while I am an admirer of the elegance of a good paradox, it isn't an actual illustration ot its worth.

[torridon]

Until you can define the nature of what a thought is, you can't make such assumptions about our ability to choose a thought.  You get into this infinite regress by trying to make a conscious thought fit the same type of determinism we get in machines, but our conscious awareness can't be replicated by any machine type determinism.

Oh dear, this is just, small gap in knowledge, therefore irrational magic.

Thoughts may be hard to define but that shouldn't licence us to throw all reason out of the window.

Whatever a thought is, it cannot happen before it happens.  Even if it were some magic thing, you cannot think it before your think it.  Thoughts happen, and those thoughts typically lead on to more thoughts.

[Alan Burns]

There is only one type of determinism.

And it is totally irrelevant to this point.

Just think for a moment about your conscious decision to put these words in big capitals.  Was it an inevitable reaction pre defined in your sub conscious brain activity? Or was it a consciously taken decision made by you?  If the latter, what was the ultimate cause for this decision to take place? 

If your claim is correct - that there is only one type of determinism, there will be no ultimate cause for your decision to use big capitals, because it will just be the inevitable unavoidable consequence to all previous events.

The only way that you could claim responsibility for this act is to initiate it with a deliberate act of conscious will, which you are free to do by the power of your spiritual soul.

[Stranger]

Just think for a moment about your conscious decision to put these words in big capitals.  Was it an inevitable reaction pre defined in your sub conscious brain activity? Or was it a consciously taken decision made by you?

You have made no argument as to why it can't be both.

If your claim is correct - that there is only one type of determinism, there will be no ultimate cause for your decision to use big capitals, because it will just be the inevitable unavoidable consequence to all previous events.

Leaving aside the fact that your statement is self-contradictory, I'm not making a claim, I'm stating a fact. Determinism (at least in the sense we are talking about here) is the principle that every event takes place because of a set of reasons (logical antecedents) that could have resulted only in that event and no other.

That has nothing to do with it being a machine or being physical. Either an event is fully determined by its antecedents or it isn't - and if it isn't then the only other factor must be randomness (because if an event's reasons for happening do not fully specify just one event, then the choice as to which event actually happens cannot have any reason).

If you mean something else when you say 'determinism' then you are using the wrong word and you need to explain exactly what you mean by it.

The only way that you could claim responsibility for this act is to initiate it with a deliberate act of conscious will, which you are free to do by the power of your spiritual soul.

All of which means nothing at all until you can explain how the conscious will and this soul of yours actually works. You might as well have just typed "The only way that you could claim responsibility for this act is to initiate it with saslahrol ziyris gbegyg."

Where is the logical analysis of human free will you claimed to have done? Were you lying?

[Alan Burns]

You have made no argument as to why it can't be both.

Leaving aside the fact that your statement is self-contradictory, I'm not making a claim, I'm stating a fact. Determinism (at least in the sense we are talking about here) is the principle that every event takes place because of a set of reasons (logical antecedents) that could have resulted only in that event and no other.

That has nothing to do with it being a machine or being physical. Either an event is fully determined by its antecedents or it isn't - and if it isn't then the only other factor must be randomness (because if an event's reasons for happening do not fully specify just one event, then the choice as to which event actually happens cannot have any reason).

If you mean something else when you say 'determinism' then you are using the wrong word and you need to explain exactly what you mean by it.

All of which means nothing at all until you can explain how the conscious will and this soul of yours actually works. You might as well have just typed "The only way that you could claim responsibility for this act is to initiate it with saslahrol ziyris gbegyg."

Where is the logical analysis of human free will you claimed to have done? Were you lying?

All I can say is that your post adequately demonstrates your freedom to initiate deliberate acts of your own will

[Stranger]

All I can say is that your post adequately demonstrates your freedom to initiate deliberate acts of your own will

Something I've never disputed.

The question is how do such acts actually come about - something that you quite obviously don't know - you just like the idea that it's logic defying god-magic.

Can I take it that you were being 'economical with the truth' about the logical analysis of human free will?

[ekim]

The aim to do something to free oneself from mental and physical attachments is a mental and physical attachment. And while I am an admirer of the elegance of a good paradox, it isn't an actual illustration ot its worth.

Yes, it can be an attachment and it's quite easy to become addicted to a 'method'.  The way it is sometimes explained is, it like using a thorn to remove some thorns.  Once attained, it can be thrown.

[Alan Burns]

Something I've never disputed.

The question is how do such acts actually come about - something that you quite obviously don't know - you just like the idea that it's logic defying god-magic.

Can I take it that you were being 'economical with the truth' about the logical analysis of human free will?

So you do not dispute your freedom to initiate deliberate acts of your own will.  Such an act of willpower must have an originating event which is initiated by your conscious, deliberate intention to carry out the act.   If this originating event is just a deterministic physical reaction to previous physical events it cannot be seen as any form of freedom, because such reactions are just inevitable consequences governed entirely by the physical laws of nature and not driven by your conscious awareness.  The freedom to initiate a conscious act of will can only come from an event which is not the inevitable consequence to previous physical events, but which is initiated by something from outside the physical chains of cause and effect governed entirely by the laws of nature over which there can be no control.

[Sebastian Toe]

, but which is initiated by something from outside the physical chains of cause and effect governed entirely by the laws of nature over which there can be no control.

..being outside of the laws of nature it must therefore be outside of this universe. So where is it?

[Stranger]

So you do not dispute your freedom to initiate deliberate acts of your own will.

Of course not.

Such an act of willpower must have an originating event which is initiated by your conscious, deliberate intention to carry out the act.

The event that is initiated by my conscious, deliberate intention must actually happen after the decision making process is complete. What is important is how a conscious, deliberate intention is actually formed.

If this originating event is just a deterministic physical reaction to previous physical events it cannot be seen as any form of freedom, because such reactions are just inevitable consequences governed entirely by the physical laws of nature and not driven by your conscious awareness.

[some irrelevant words indicated]

The point is that there has to be a part of reality that is my conscious awareness. You keep on making it external to all of your 'arguments' - which is why what you say makes no logical sense.

Within that part of reality that is my conscious awareness (and it matters not one jot if it's a part of physical reality or is some non-physical soul) there are processes (thoughts, emotions, beliefs, values and so on) that come together to produce this 'event' or choice of which you speak.

It is the nature of those processes that is the important consideration (the one you keep avoiding) and they can only be deterministic (physical or 'spiritual' makes no difference) or contain some random element. Deterministic makes more sense in terms of my freedom to choose. What is a free choice except one that is determined by who I am; my experience, beliefs, values and so on...?

[Gordon]

So you do not dispute your freedom to initiate deliberate acts of your own will.  Such an act of willpower must have an originating event which is initiated by your conscious, deliberate intention to carry out the act.   If this originating event is just a deterministic physical reaction to previous physical events it cannot be seen as any form of freedom, because such reactions are just inevitable consequences governed entirely by the physical laws of nature and not driven by your conscious awareness.  The freedom to initiate a conscious act of will can only come from an event which is not the inevitable consequence to previous physical events, but which is initiated by something from outside the physical chains of cause and effect governed entirely by the laws of nature over which there can be no control.

Desperate stuff, Alan: as much as you'd like to think you (or rather your brain, and resultant thoughts) are somehow free of determinism makes no sense whatsoever (given the alternative).

[Alan Burns]

Of course not.

The event that is initiated by my conscious, deliberate intention must actually happen after the decision making process is complete. What is important is how a conscious, deliberate intention is actually formed.
[some irrelevant words indicated]

The point is that there has to be a part of reality that is my conscious awareness. You keep on making it external to all of your 'arguments' - which is why what you say makes no logical sense.

Within that part of reality that is my conscious awareness (and it matters not one jot if it's a part of physical reality or is some non-physical soul) there are processes (thoughts, emotions, beliefs, values and so on) that come together to produce this 'event' or choice of which you speak.

It is the nature of those processes that is the important consideration (the one you keep avoiding) and they can only be deterministic (physical or 'spiritual' makes no difference) or contain some random element. Deterministic makes more sense in terms of my freedom to choose. What is a free choice except one that is determined by who I am; my experience, beliefs, values and so on...?

You keep maintaining that the word physical is irrelevant.
But physical implies that the action or event must comply with the physical laws of science.
So to enable conscious interaction with this universe rather than simple reaction, we can't be shackled by the uncontrollable rules of physically defined reaction.  The freedom for us to consciously  interact can't be defined within the constraints of pre determined physically controlled reactions.
The material properties and physical laws of interaction within this universe can demonstrably be consciously manipulated to produce the human creativity which abounds on this planet.  We live in a universe which seems obviously designed to be manipulated by conscious interaction, but this freedom to consciously interact must come from outside the physical constraints of our material universe.

[Gordon]

You keep maintaining that the word physical is irrelevant.
But physical implies that the action or event must comply with the physical laws of science.
So to enable conscious interaction with this universe rather than simple reaction, we can't be shackled by the uncontrollable rules of physically defined reaction.  The freedom for us to consciously  interact can't be defined within the constraints of pre determined physically controlled reactions.
The material properties and physical laws of interaction within this universe can demonstrably be consciously manipulated to produce the human creativity which abounds on this planet.  We live in a universe which seems obviously designed to be manipulated by conscious interaction, but this freedom to consciously interact must come from outside the physical constraints of our material universe.

I suspect you've hit on a new fallacy, Alan: argumentum ad waffle.

[Sebastian Toe]

...... must come from outside the physical constraints of our material universe.

...so, where?

[torridon]

So you do not dispute your freedom to initiate deliberate acts of your own will.  Such an act of willpower must have an originating event which is initiated by your conscious, deliberate intention to carry out the act.   If this originating event is just a deterministic physical reaction to previous physical events it cannot be seen as any form of freedom, because such reactions are just inevitable consequences governed entirely by the physical laws of nature and not driven by your conscious awareness.  The freedom to initiate a conscious act of will can only come from an event which is not the inevitable consequence to previous physical events, but which is initiated by something from outside the physical chains of cause and effect governed entirely by the laws of nature over which there can be no control.

Well we know this is not correct. Stranger does not dispute initiating acts of will but it does not follow that the sole origin of an act is conscious intention.  For one, we already know that subconscious mind is the real driver of choice and action, conscious awareness, being more complex, follows after a short time.  Conscious awareness therefore cannot be the singular driver of action if it is merely consequential to what has already happened.  Secondly, the forming of an intention must be triggered by something prior in the chain of cause and effect otherwise it is by definition a random event and not one with any meaning or cause.  If you ever formed an intention for absolutely no reason then it is a random intention.  For it to have meaning, it must have an anteceding reason in the chain of cause and effect, and this must also be true for a 'supernatural soul'; any event that has no reason is a random event, by definition.

[Stranger]

Alan I responded to what you said and raised specific points, all of which you have totally ignored. I'm genuinely unsure if you're too afraid to think about them or that they have simply gone over your head.

In either case, what do you think that just going back to re-asserting the same points I've already addressed is going to achieve? If you don't understand something I've said, you can always ask for clarification.

Anyway, once more...

You keep maintaining that the word physical is irrelevant.

So it is, to the main point.

But physical implies that the action or event must comply with the physical laws of science.

And if a soul exists it will have to conform to some other set of laws or principles - otherwise it would represent random chaos.

So to enable conscious interaction with this universe rather than simple reaction, we can't be shackled by the uncontrollable rules of physically defined reaction.

Talking about "conscious interaction" is just avoiding the issue of how consciousness decides what it wants. There is a part of reality (physical or otherwise) that is your conscious awareness - it is how that works and makes its choices that is the issue - how it then interacts with everything else isn't relevant.

Unless you face up to the fact that a part of reality is you and that it has internal processes that produce your conscious choices and that these processes cannot just be made external to any consideration of 'free will' and conscious awareness, you are not even addressing the problem.

[Alan Burns]

Well we know this is not correct. Stranger does not dispute initiating acts of will but it does not follow that the sole origin of an act is conscious intention.  For one, we already know that subconscious mind is the real driver of choice and action, conscious awareness, being more complex, follows after a short time.  Conscious awareness therefore cannot be the singular driver of action if it is merely consequential to what has already happened.  Secondly, the forming of an intention must be triggered by something prior in the chain of cause and effect otherwise it is by definition a random event and not one with any meaning or cause.  If you ever formed an intention for absolutely no reason then it is a random intention.  For it to have meaning, it must have an anteceding reason in the chain of cause and effect, and this must also be true for a 'supernatural soul'; any event that has no reason is a random event, by definition.

No one can say how our conscious awareness works, but we can say what it does.  It perceives and it interacts.  It has nothing to do with random, and trying to shoe horn it to fit with our very limited knowledge of reality inevitably fails to explain its functionality.  Can't you simply accept the obvious reality that you have the amazing ability to deliberately change things by consciously driven interaction?

[Alan Burns]

Alan I responded to what you said and raised specific points, all of which you have totally ignored. I'm genuinely unsure if you're too afraid to think about them or that they have simply gone over your head.

In either case, what do you think that just going back to re-asserting the same points I've already addressed is going to achieve? If you don't understand something I've said, you can always ask for clarification.

Anyway, once more...

So it is, to the main point.

And if a soul exists it will have to conform to some other set of laws or principles - otherwise it would represent random chaos.

Talking about "conscious interaction" is just avoiding the issue of how consciousness decides what it wants. There is a part of reality (physical or otherwise) that is your conscious awareness - it is how that works and makes its choices that is the issue - how it then interacts with everything else isn't relevant.

Unless you face up to the fact that a part of reality is you and that it has internal processes that produce your conscious choices and that these processes cannot just be made external to any consideration of 'free will' and conscious awareness, you are not even addressing the problem.

If you refuse to accept that a consciously induced action can't be defined within a physically deterministic scenario,we can go no further with this exchange, so we will just have to agree to differ.

[Stranger]

No one can say how our conscious awareness works...

Indeed.

...but we can say what it does.  It perceives and it interacts.

Which are actually rather vague terms. What we know it does is to gather information, process it, and produce behaviour. None of which is, in principle, in conflict with the idea of a deterministic entity - in your terms, it's basically reacting. The only really odd thing is the subjective experience.

It has nothing to do with random, and trying to shoe horn it to fit with our very limited knowledge of reality inevitably fails to explain its functionality.

You've just said that we don't know how it works and that we have limited knowledge of reality, so shoehorning doesn't enter into it. We don't know enough to know for sure whether it can be implemented in a physical system.

However:

• We have no evidence for anything else and plenty of evidence that it is a physical system.
• It is totally unclear what part of the problem making it non-physical would help with - we are still stuck with determinism or randomness.

Can't you simply accept the obvious reality that you have the amazing ability to deliberately change things by consciously driven interaction?

Who said otherwise?

If you refuse to accept that a consciously induced action can't be defined within a physically deterministic scenario,we can go no further with this exchange, so we will just have to agree to differ.

[irrelevant term indicated]

You've offered absolutely no alternative to determinism (which means the same thing whether it's physical or not).

So, you don't know how consciousness works, you accept that we have a limited knowledge of reality, you can't offer an alternative to determinism that isn't randomness (which you reject), and yet from all this ignorance, you insist that consciousness can't be physical or deterministic.

That can be based on nothing but blind faith. Your claim of a "logical analysis of human free will" was clearly nonsense.

[torridon]

No one can say how our conscious awareness works, but we can say what it does.  It perceives and it interacts.  It has nothing to do with random, and trying to shoe horn it to fit with our very limited knowledge of reality inevitably fails to explain its functionality.  Can't you simply accept the obvious reality that you have the amazing ability to deliberately change things by consciously driven interaction?

I'm not in the business of 'accepting' things we know to be wrong.  Since Freud we have suspected that it is subconscious mind that is the seat of volition and all the relevant research since those time have endorsed that understanding. Conscious awareness clearly is involved in the process of decision making, particularly with longer more complex choices that require extended rumination, but it is clearly wrong to imagine conscious awareness as the instigator of a moment of choice and all preconscious processing somehow comes afterwards.  That lands you back in the irrational territory of being able to think a thought before thinking it.  The understanding we have accrued through study may be counterintuitive but it does make conceptual sense. 'Free' as in free will, only makes any sense in the superficial compatibilist sense.  'Free' in the deeper philosophical context, makes no sense.

[Alan Burns]

Indeed.

Which are actually rather vague terms. What we know it does is to gather information, process it, and produce behaviour. None of which is, in principle, in conflict with the idea of a deterministic entity - in your terms, it's basically reacting. The only really odd thing is the subjective experience.

You've just said that we don't know how it works and that we have limited knowledge of reality, so shoehorning doesn't enter into it. We don't know enough to know for sure whether it can be implemented in a physical system.

However:

• We have no evidence for anything else and plenty of evidence that it is a physical system.
• It is totally unclear what part of the problem making it non-physical would help with - we are still stuck with determinism or randomness.

Who said otherwise?
[irrelevant term indicated]

You've offered absolutely no alternative to determinism (which means the same thing whether it's physical or not).

So, you don't know how consciousness works, you accept that we have a limited knowledge of reality, you can't offer an alternative to determinism that isn't randomness (which you reject), and yet from all this ignorance, you insist that consciousness can't be physical or deterministic.

That can be based on nothing but blind faith. Your claim of a "logical analysis of human free will" was clearly nonsense.

The sticking point we have is your assertion that the word physical makes no difference.  The obvious implication is that physical implies that everything must comply with the physical laws of science defining the reactive behaviour of material particles.  If there is a non physical regime, that regime will not be determined to behave in accordance with physical laws, but will be determined by some other means, such as spiritually induced interaction.  We have no control over physical laws of science, but our conscious awareness indicates that we have control of our thoughts, words and actions.  It implies a huge difference.

[Alan Burns]

I'm not in the business of 'accepting' things we know to be wrong .......

How can you know that it is wrong?
Just because our scientific endeavours can't explain the reality of our ability to consciously interact with this world does not mean that we can't consciously interact.  I have just done it by consciously replying to your post.  Do you seriously believe that this reply was automated in my sub conscious before I was aware of it? 

[Stranger]

The sticking point we have is your assertion that the word physical makes no difference.  The obvious implication is that physical implies that everything must comply with the physical laws of science defining the reactive behaviour of material particles.

It makes no difference as a qualifier of determinism. As I have explained several times, determinism is the notion that every event is fully determined by the set of reasons (logical antecedents) why it happened. That's it. Nothing in that says what the system is, specifically. Nothing implies that the event or its reasons need to be physical.

The physical laws of nature may or may not represent a deterministic system (if you take quantum mechanical probabilities to be fundamental, then it doesn't - but the brain may still be deterministic for all practical purposes).

As I've also said before, to the extent a system is not deterministic, it has to be random, because if the exhaustive set of reasons for an event could have resulted in several different outcomes, then the choice between them must have been for no reason at all, which is random.

If there is a non physical regime, that regime will not be determined to behave in accordance with physical laws, but will be determined by some other means...

Yes but it is either a regime in which every event is fully determined by the set of reasons why it happened, and is therefore deterministic, or not, in which case it has some random elements.

...such as spiritually induced interaction.

Which is gibberish until you say how it works.

We have no control over physical laws of science, but our conscious awareness indicates that we have control of our thoughts, words and actions.  It implies a huge difference.

There you go again trying to make 'us' external to the system you're describing. The issue is not about what we control, it's about how we arrive at our decisions, how we work internally.

What is so hard to understand? When you make a conscious choice, there is a process that goes on inside your mind that results in that choice. The question is about how that process works - by the time you get to the point of exercising control, all the important stuff has already happened.

[Gordon]

How can you know that it is wrong?
Just because our scientific endeavours can't explain the reality of our ability to consciously interact with this world does not mean that we can't consciously interact.

Straw man: nobody is saying we don't interact even if the details how our brains do this aren't as yet fully understood.

I have just done it by consciously replying to your post.  Do you seriously believe that this reply was automated in my sub conscious before I was aware of it? 

Why not?

You read a post, something that you read in the post triggers a desire in your brain to respond, and from that other aspects of you conscious intellect kick-in (such as what language you use). It seems to be a wholly internal process, Alan, that occurs within you biology.

Your problem is, of course, your overarching desire to stick your God/soul notion in there somewhere.

[torridon]

How can you know that it is wrong?
Just because our scientific endeavours can't explain the reality of our ability to consciously interact with this world does not mean that we can't consciously interact.  I have just done it by consciously replying to your post.  Do you seriously believe that this reply was automated in my sub conscious before I was aware of it? 

Well yes, that is correct, broadly.  Subconscious always precedes full consciousness.  Subconscious is faster, less refined and more primitive than conscious.  Things start out in subconscious and propagate into our consciousness stream.  Understanding this has been used in human image recognition for instance where we can wire people up to sensors and detect when they have recognised something before they 'know' that they have recognised it. I often use a similar technique, for instance when I want to see if my name is included in a long list of names, rather than reading each name in turn I find I can scan the entire list and locate my name much more quickly that way.  We all are subject to various profound false intuitions, this is one of them, that we think we operate in 'real' time, when we are always subject to a time delay.  Another false intuition if that of direct experience - go look at a tree and we take if for granted that it is the tree that we are seeing; but actually we never actually get to see the tree at all but instead have an internal experience that is a constructed representation of the tree derived from visual primitives in the thalamus.  That we all live with these utterly false intuitions does not matter normally, they work very well.  If you want to construct theories of human behaviour though, we need to factor these curiosities in.