Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

You chaps deserve some sort of virtual medal for fighting the good fight and still arguing this pointless nonsense. Or at any rate an extra-large drink of your choice and a bigger than usual slab of Christmas cake 

But the act of arguing against the concept of our conscious freedom is itself evidence for your freedom to consciously put your points forward.  I see no way that all your posts are entirely pre determined by past events with no possibility for consciously driven control.

[Shaker]

But the act of arguing against the concept of our conscious freedom is itself evidence for your freedom to consciously put your points forward.  I see no way that all your posts are entirely pre determined by past events with no possibility for consciously driven control.

It ill becomes you to refer seeing anything, as this thread demonstrates.

[Stranger]

But the act of arguing against the concept of our conscious freedom is itself evidence for your freedom to consciously put your points forward.  I see no way that all your posts are entirely pre determined by past events with no possibility for consciously driven control.

Definite proof that you haven't been reading and understanding what has been said to you.

[Gordon]

But the act of arguing against the concept of our conscious freedom is itself evidence for your freedom to consciously put your points forward.  I see no way that all your posts are entirely pre determined by past events with no possibility for consciously driven control.

How do you know that I'm not, given my participation to date in this Jarndyce vs Jarndyce of threads, now compelled out of a sense of intellectual outrage to take every opportunity to remind you where you are going wrong - and that I can do no other?   

[Maeght]

As I have said several times - my conscious choice can be influenced by previous events, but it is not unavoidably dictated by them.

I know you've said it but you don't know it is true and cannot demonstrate that it is.

[Maeght]

But the act of arguing against the concept of our conscious freedom is itself evidence for your freedom to consciously put your points forward.

Of course its not.

[floo]

But the act of arguing against the concept of our conscious freedom is itself evidence for your freedom to consciously put your points forward.  I see no way that all your posts are entirely pre determined by past events with no possibility for consciously driven control.

Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean you are right.

[Sebastian Toe]

I made the conscious choice to attend the seminar.  It was my own choice.  I was sorely tempted not to go, because I did not want to leave my brand new silver TR7 soft top parked at night in a rough council estate in Middlesbrough.  And I was quite happy with my life as it was - I did not want to change it.  But I felt drawn to attend.  Looking back, I feel sure God was guiding me to attend, but I still had the freedom to say no.  I am eternally grateful that I said yes. (I also met my future wife at these seminars). 

You chose to attend an event. Determined by events in the past of which you had knowledge.
If you had not been aware of the event would you have been worrying about where to park your car?
Deterministic, ironically!

[torridon]

There is nothing in the CPU to perceive what is going on inside it.  The only perception involved is within the human who perceives the executed results from the CPU.  But there must be something within you which can perceive what is going on in your cortex.

That was avoiding the question, not addressing it.

Put it another way : if, as you keep claiming, there is a soul and this soul has its own perceptual system, its own consciousness, its own will and it operates by looking at my perceptual system, my mind, my will, my consciousness to discover what I am experiencing and thinking and wanting, so that sometimes it can override what I want, then that means there are two me's : me, the biological mind, and me, the soul.  How can I be two people ?

[ekim]

Put it another way : if, as you keep claiming, there is a soul and this soul has its own perceptual system, its own consciousness, its own will and it operates by looking at my perceptual system, my mind, my will, my consciousness to discover what I am experiencing and thinking and wanting, so that sometimes it can override what I want, then that means there are two me's : me, the biological mind, and me, the soul.  How can I be two people ?

I think what he is getting at is not so much two people but two identities.  One is the true identity which to him is a God given conscious soul and the other is false identity which is a man made selfish self.  It is a question of identity.  Some people predominantly identify with their body, some with their energy, some with their emotions, some with their intellectualising mind for example.  Schizophrenics may have multiple identities.  Alan appears to identify with a 'soul' which has attributes of his choosing.

[Alan Burns]

That was avoiding the question, not addressing it.

Put it another way : if, as you keep claiming, there is a soul and this soul has its own perceptual system, its own consciousness, its own will and it operates by looking at my perceptual system, my mind, my will, my consciousness to discover what I am experiencing and thinking and wanting, so that sometimes it can override what I want, then that means there are two me's : me, the biological mind, and me, the soul.  How can I be two people ?

You are one person, your soul.   The physical body is just a very complex biological machine driven by you, with no mind of its own.  Perception, conscious awareness and wilful interaction are things which can't be defined in physical terms.

[Alan Burns]

You chose to attend an event. Determined by events in the past of which you had knowledge.
If you had not been aware of the event would you have been worrying about where to park your car?
Deterministic, ironically!

As I said - there are influencing factors, but I consciously make the final choice.

[Sebastian Toe]

You are one person, your soul.   The physical body is just a very complex biological machine driven by you, with no mind of its own.  Perception, conscious awareness and wilful interaction are things which can't be defined in physical terms.

Can your soul work without the body?

[Sebastian Toe]

As I said - there are

  ....deterministic....

factors, but I consciously make the final choice.

[Stranger]

...I consciously make the final choice.

Which says exactly nothing about whether your conscious, final choice was predetermined by the past or not.

[SusanDoris]

My experience today has been 'this page can't be displayed' until just now. I have read carefully through all the new posts. Gordon asked you if you think you could be wrong. You have not answered that question.
So I ask it to: Do you believe that you could be wrong in all this stuff you keep trotting out?

[Alan Burns]

Which is totally consistent with your conscious choices being predetermined by the past.   

It just wasn't true when you said you'd read and understood the comments made to you, was it?

I understand them, but I totally disagree with the conclusions you draw.

[Alan Burns]

Can your soul work without the body?

It can certainly exist without the physical body, but I would assume that it will lose contact with this world.  The bible alludes to us having a heavenly body, to which I would assume that our spiritual soul gets transferred.

[Stranger]

I understand them...

I don't believe you.

...but I totally disagree with the conclusions you draw.

I have made the point (several times) that you being able to do what you want is irrelevant to whether what you want is predetermined or not. If you think my argument is flawed, why aren't you saying why you think it's flawed, instead of just repeating that you can do what you want as if it's relevant?

[Gordon]

It can certainly exist without the physical body, but I would assume that it will lose contact with this world.  The bible alludes to us having a heavenly body, to which I would assume that our spiritual soul gets transferred.

You can assume until the cows come home, Alan, but assumptions ain't necessarily knowledge: yet you proceed as if you have knowledge, but we both know you don't.

What the bible says is only relevant if it can be tested - so how do we test for this 'heavenly body'?

[Alan Burns]

I don't believe you.

I have made the point (several times) that you being able to do what you want is irrelevant to whether what you want is predetermined or not. If you think my argument is flawed, why aren't you saying why you think it's flawed, instead of just repeating that you can do what you want as if it's relevant?

It is flawed because you can't seem to acknowledge the existence of your own conscious willpower which can initiate acts of will which are not entirely pre determined by past events.  Our conscious awareness is not just a spectator.  The power to interact at will can't be defined by physical determinism because it is initiated by an event which is free from the constraints of previous physical events - it is spiritually induced from the conscious awareness of the human soul.

[Sebastian Toe]

It can certainly exist without the physical body, but I would assume that it will lose contact with this world.  The bible alludes to us having a heavenly body, to which I would assume that our spiritual soul gets transferred.

Does that mean that the heavenly body must have a functioning deterministic brain?
If not then what?

[Gordon]

It is flawed because you can't seem to acknowledge the existence of your own conscious willpower which can initiate acts of will which are not entirely pre determined by past events.  Our conscious awareness is not just a spectator.  The power to interact at will can't be defined by physical determinism because it is initiated by an event which is free from the constraints of previous physical events - it is spiritually induced from the conscious awareness of the human soul.

Yet more repetitive and meaningless theobabble, Alan.

[Stranger]

It is flawed because you can't seem to acknowledge the existence of your own conscious willpower which can initiate acts of will which are not entirely pre determined by past events.

Me not acknowledging your unsupported assertion is not a flaw in reasoning. I do acknowledge conscious willpower but you have provided no argument to support the view that it cannot be entirely predetermined. Perhaps more importantly, you have provided no alternative to predetermination.

Whenever I point that out, your response has just been to reassert that you can consciously choose what you want to do - which is not what I'm disputing.

Do you get the difference now? I know you can do what you consciously decide to do - I do not dispute it. But that says nothing about whether what you consciously decide to do is predetermined or not.

Our conscious awareness is not just a spectator.

I have never suggested that it might be.

The power to interact at will can't be defined by physical determinism because it is initiated by an event which is free from the constraints of previous physical events...

Yet more evidence that you aren't reading and understanding. YET AGAIN: adding 'physical' makes no difference to the meaning of 'determinism', neither is it relevant to previous events.

Either what you want to do is deterministically derived from previous events or not - being spiritually deterministically derived from previous spiritual events would be just as predetermined as the physical case.

Again, if you think that's wrong - argue against it - don't just mindlessly repeat the same phrases.

...it is spiritually induced from the conscious awareness of the human soul.

Which is just a string of words that define nothing at all. You've basically told us that conscious awareness works by being conscious and aware - with the meaningless 'spiritual' thrown in for good measure.

This is what you need to think about:

If ALL the reasons why you made a choice (all your nature and nurture; all of the person you are, applied to the situation at hand, at one exact point in time) could only have led to one choice, then the choice was deterministic (predetermined by the past). If not; if ALL the reasons could have resulted in a range of choices, then there cannot have been any reason at all for your choice of just one of them - and something that happens for no reason is random.

So, you have determinism (possibly) combined with randomness. What is your alternative?

[torridon]

It is flawed because you can't seem to acknowledge the existence of your own conscious willpower which can initiate acts of will which are not entirely pre determined by past events...

Maybe that is because an act of will that is not for any reason is random.

This is simply a matter of definition and simple, obvious, logic.  It is not a matter of opinion.  Time to engage brain, Alan.