Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

You are assuming that a spiritually determined event is constricted to the same rules of cause and effect as physically determined events.

No Alan, I am not. And, if you could have been arsed to read what I've said and think about it, you'd know that. What I am assuming is that whatever the hell you mean by "spiritually determined" is subject to the rules of logic. I'm assuming we haven't entered the world of the self-contradictory.

Can you not comprehend the ability of your conscious soul to initiate an event from will?

You have yet to provide even the hint of a morsel of an iota of reason for me to accept that there is such a thing as a soul.

However, I have never denied that people can do what they want, if that's what you mean by "initiate an event from will".

Once again, you did not address a single one of the points I made. I really don't understand how you think ignoring what people say to you is going to further your cause - it just makes you look stupid or arrogant.

[Alan Burns]

..you are speculating again aren't you!

It is not speculation, just an obvious conclusion that physical chains of cause and effect can't initiate conscious acts of will, because they can only produce inevitable reactions.

[Gordon]

It is not speculation, just an obvious conclusion that physical chains of cause and effect can't initiate conscious acts of will, because they can only produce inevitable reactions.

These apparent 'acts of will' are what it feels like no doubt, but these feelings are an aspect of your biology and are intrinsically part of the natural world (e.g. physical) and, as such, aren't immune from determinism. Your mistake I think is in trying to contrive something 'spiritual' which, by virtue of being a thought and/or feeling originating in your biology that you have a personal preference for, is just as much a part of the physical world as is the electricity that is currently powering my PC.

To mix metaphors, you've been hung out to dry, Alan, while you've industriously been painting yourself into a corner (and in doing so you've run out of both paint and corner). Give it up old chap: your nonsense has been well and truly rumbled!

[Stranger]

It is not speculation, just an obvious conclusion that physical chains of cause and effect can't initiate conscious acts of will, because they can only produce inevitable reactions.

I think you mean it's not just speculation. It's personal incredulity, speculation, and an unwillingness and/or an inability to face up to the logical constraints of the problem of explaining "conscious acts of will".

Your conclusion is not only very far from obvious, it's naive, simplistic, and illogical.

[torridon]

It is derived from the spiritual power of the human soul to make a conscious choice, rather than a deterministically driven reaction.  Determinism and choice are incompatible.  Do you deny your ability to choose?  If so you are in denial of an amazing human attribute.

Do you deny a robin's ability to choose a good nest site ? Do you deny a peahen's ability to choose the most appealing peacock as mate ? 
If so, you are in denial of an amazing avian attribute.  The mechanism of choice is basically the same in birds as it is in mammals like us. We weigh up the alternatives and choose whichever option we find to be the most appealing; but we don't decide what is appealing; not because it is impossible, but because that implies an incoherent scenario.  In both mammals and birds, choice is an emotional response to the options available and we cannot just decide to like something for no reason.

[Sebastian Toe]

It is not speculation, just an obvious conclusion that physical chains of cause and effect can't initiate conscious acts of will, because they can only produce inevitable reactions.

Tgat may be a conclusion but it is your speculative conclusion based on your speculation regarding a) a soul b) where it resides c) what rules it follows d) what determination is e) I can't be arsed listing the rest.....

[Alan Burns]

These apparent 'acts of will' are what it feels like no doubt, but these feelings are an aspect of your biology and are intrinsically part of the natural world (e.g. physical) and, as such, aren't immune from determinism. Your mistake I think is in trying to contrive something 'spiritual' which, by virtue of being a thought and/or feeling originating in your biology that you have a personal preference for, is just as much a part of the physical world as is the electricity that is currently powering my PC.

To mix metaphors, you've been hung out to dry, Alan, while you've industriously been painting yourself into a corner (and in doing so you've run out of both paint and corner). Give it up old chap: your nonsense has been well and truly rumbled!

While you continually use you gift of consciously driven freedom to respond to my posts, I can only claim that this is further evidence for your soul to initiate acts of will which are free from the deterministic physical chains of cause and effect over which we can have no control.

[Alan Burns]

Do you deny a robin's ability to choose a good nest site ?

programmed instinct based on survival

Do you deny a peahen's ability to choose the most appealing peacock as mate ?
 

programmed instinct based on survival

If so, you are in denial of an amazing avian attribute.  The mechanism of choice is basically the same in birds as it is in mammals like us.

No - we have the power to consciously override our basic instincts

We weigh up the alternatives and choose whichever option we find to be the most appealing; but we don't decide what is appealing; not because it is impossible, but because that implies an incoherent scenario.  In both mammals and birds, choice is an emotional response to the options available and we cannot just decide to like something for no reason.

animals do not choose - they react

[Gordon]

While you continually use you gift of consciously driven freedom to respond to my posts, I can only claim that this is further evidence for your soul to initiate acts of will which are free from the deterministic physical chains of cause and effect over which we can have no control.

You can claim until you are blue in the face, Alan - I find a working brain (such as it is) provides a sufficient explanation for my being able to type this.

[torridon]

programmed instinct based on survivalprogrammed instinct based on survivalNo - we have the power to consciously override our basic instinctsanimals do not choose - they react

The basic mechanism of choice is the same across all birds and mammals, this including primates like humans of course.  It all boils down to reaction at some level, we are responding to change that requires a response from us.  In mammalian brains such as ours the route from perception to motor response is mediated by the limbic system which transduces perceptions and needs into inner emotional states - this reflects the sentiment, true across all mammalian species, that we always choose that which we want, that which we desire the most in any given moment of decision.  It comes down to the same mechanism whether it is a human choosing a new car, or a robin choosing a new nesting site, it is a matter of weighing the alternatives expressed through the neural currency of the limbic system.  Neither robin nor human is able directly intervene in this mechanism, by say, flooding certain neural assemblies with endorphins to facilitate the liking of one option at the expense of another.  What we like, including what we like the most from a range of options, is the outcome of these neural processes, and we cannot artificially control them.  This is why we cannot just choose what to like.

[ekim]

The basic mechanism of choice is the same across all birds and mammals, this including primates like humans of course.  It all boils down to reaction at some level, we are responding to change that requires a response from us.  In mammalian brains such as ours the route from perception to motor response is mediated by the limbic system which transduces perceptions and needs into inner emotional states - this reflects the sentiment, true across all mammalian species, that we always choose that which we want, that which we desire the most in any given moment of decision.  It comes down to the same mechanism whether it is a human choosing a new car, or a robin choosing a new nesting site, it is a matter of weighing the alternatives expressed through the neural currency of the limbic system.  Neither robin nor human is able directly intervene in this mechanism, by say, flooding certain neural assemblies with endorphins to facilitate the liking of one option at the expense of another.  What we like, including what we like the most from a range of options, is the outcome of these neural processes, and we cannot artificially control them.  This is why we cannot just choose what to like.

However, looking at it from a Christian perspective, Jesus didn't like the prospect of a crucifixion and had opportunities of exhibiting animal reactions of fight, flight or hiding but allowed himself to be choiceless in the face of his God's Will.

[Gordon]

However, looking at it from a Christian perspective, Jesus didn't like the prospect of a crucifixion and had opportunities of exhibiting animal reactions of fight, flight or hiding but allowed himself to be choiceless in the face of his God's Will.

Or, assuming the story to be true, he had no realistic escape/avoidance choices available to him anyway.   

[torridon]

However, looking at it from a Christian perspective, Jesus didn't like the prospect of a crucifixion and had opportunities of exhibiting animal reactions of fight, flight or hiding but allowed himself to be choiceless in the face of his God's Will.

Morning Ekim, and christmas greetings to you.

I think we are all familiar with such types of conflictedness; often we are forced to choose between what we want to do (selfishly), and what we feel we 'ought' (unselfishly) to do.  We resolve such conflicts through the same underlying mechanism though.  We attach emotional values to the options and the route we go with is the one that wins out in that scale of inner values.  Doesn't require any magic, nor any illogic.

[ekim]

Or, assuming the story to be true, he had no realistic escape/avoidance choices available to him anyway.

If the story of Jesus is true, I think there were opportunities and encouragement from his disciples to avoid that fate.  The point was that, although desires and fears may arise without choice, with training the actions which follow may not need to be inevitably and instinctually and unconsciously reactive but simply consciously submissive to a higher power or idealism.  As I see the Jesus story, it is not about preservation of the body but identifying the soul and freeing it from its mortal chains.

[Stranger]

While you continually use you gift of consciously driven freedom to respond to my posts, I can only claim that this is further evidence for your soul to initiate acts of will which are free from the deterministic physical chains of cause and effect over which we can have no control.

Since every single proposal regarding consciousness and 'free will' is consistent with people's ability to take part in discussions like this, claiming it as evidence for your own ideas is tantamount to lying.

animals do not choose - they react

Humans are animals, non-human animals obviously do make choices, and a choice is a type of reaction. Your distinction is meaningless.

[ekim]

Morning Ekim, and christmas greetings to you.

I think we are all familiar with such types of conflictedness; often we are forced to choose between what we want to do (selfishly), and what we feel we 'ought' (unselfishly) to do.  We resolve such conflicts through the same underlying mechanism though.  We attach emotional values to the options and the route we go with is the one that wins out in that scale of inner values.  Doesn't require any magic, nor any illogic.

.... and Christmas greetings to you.  No magic nor illogic implied.  What you say seems to conflict with 'we cannot just choose what to like' as there are two 'likes'.  There is 'self love/like' and in this case 'God love/like' i.e. self preservation v self surrender, there is not necessarily an 'ought' involved.  I would have thought that the act of 'attaching emotional values to options' is a way of choosing.

[Alan Burns]

The basic mechanism of choice is the same across all birds and mammals, this including primates like humans of course.  It all boils down to reaction at some level, we are responding to change that requires a response from us.  In mammalian brains such as ours the route from perception to motor response is mediated by the limbic system which transduces perceptions and needs into inner emotional states - this reflects the sentiment, true across all mammalian species, that we always choose that which we want, that which we desire the most in any given moment of decision.  It comes down to the same mechanism whether it is a human choosing a new car, or a robin choosing a new nesting site, it is a matter of weighing the alternatives expressed through the neural currency of the limbic system.  Neither robin nor human is able directly intervene in this mechanism, by say, flooding certain neural assemblies with endorphins to facilitate the liking of one option at the expense of another.  What we like, including what we like the most from a range of options, is the outcome of these neural processes, and we cannot artificially control them.  This is why we cannot just choose what to like.

Happy Christmas Torri,
And thanks for another very detailed response.
However, no amount of technical description can take away my freedom to choose what I write, because whatever enables this freedom would appear to be beyond human comprehension.

[Sebastian Toe]

However, no amount of technical description can take away my freedom to choose what I write, because whatever enables this freedom would appear to be beyond human comprehension.

Just because it apoears beyond your comprehension doesn't make your alternative (and entirely speculative) alternate, real!

[torridon]

Christmas greetings to you too Alan.

Happy Christmas Torri,
And thanks for another very detailed response.
However, no amount of technical description can take away my freedom to choose what I write, because whatever enables this freedom would appear to be beyond human comprehension.

50 years ago, (or more) I might have agreed these things were 'beyond human comprehension'.  I dont think that is the case any more, now we are starting to unpick the mysteries of how minds work.

Add to that, 'freedom' is a just a feeling, and it is a relative concept.  It is not a thing.  If I drive down the road and there is a fallen tree blocking the road, that tree is a thing.  I can photograph it, GPS its location and let the council know.  However, freedom is not a thing; I don't normally drive along the road to work photographing all the non-trees that haven't blocked the road.  A sense of freedom derives from knowledge of what is lost when things get in our way and prevent us from getting what we want.  What is lost to us, in a deterministic account of behaviour, amounts to basically the ability to want things we don't want or to believe things we don't believe.  Since I don't want the things that I don't want, I feel no infringement of liberty anyway, my sense of freedom is therefore not compromised by living in a deterministic universe.

[Sriram]

In other words, the ultimate freedom in a deterministic world is not to want anything at all.  We just need to 'let go' and  go with the flow.  Wanting something that is not naturally possible is an aberration.

This is what religions/spirituality have always taught us. 

[Stranger]

However, no amount of technical description can take away my freedom to choose what I write...

 

Yet again: your freedom to choose what to write is fully compatible with you being a (physical) deterministic system.

...because whatever enables this freedom would appear to be beyond human comprehension.

We certainly don't have all the answers when it comes to consciousness and the mind, but the notion of 'freedom' can be, and has been, examined logically; it really isn't the most difficult part of the problem. It can seem that way because many people (yourself included) have an idea of 'free will' that simply doesn't make logical sense.

However conscious choices work, must be logically consistent. You are free to do what you want but you can't be 'free' from being yourself.

[Alan Burns]

Yet again: your freedom to choose what to write is fully compatible with you being a (physical) deterministic system.

We certainly don't have all the answers when it comes to consciousness and the mind, but the notion of 'freedom' can be, and has been, examined logically; it really isn't the most difficult part of the problem. It can seem that way because many people (yourself included) have an idea of 'free will' that simply doesn't make logical sense.

However conscious choices work, must be logically consistent. You are free to do what you want but you can't be 'free' from being yourself.

If you assume that conscious awareness is an entirely physically defined process, then I must conclude that we would have no freedom since we would be entirely derived from definable reactions to events.  But the reality is that I do have freedom - to choose my words, to drive my thoughts, to choose to accept Jesus as my Saviour, to continue to witness to our spiritual nature and our God given freedom.

[Enki]

In other words, the ultimate freedom in a deterministic world is not to want anything at all.  We just need to 'let go' and  go with the flow.  Wanting something that is not naturally possible is an aberration.

This is what religions/spirituality have always taught us.

You seem to be suggesting that 'wanting' is necessarily bound up with material things, although I might have you wrong on this. To 'want' something is far more than this. You might 'want' to 'let go and go with the flow'. This is no less a want than to be a millionaire. Wanting something that is not naturally possible is not an aberration at all, it is a perfectly natural reaction in all sorts of situations. To want to fly is not naturally possible, but it led to the invention of aeroplanes. To want to speak to someone or to be able to see someone a thousand miles away is not naturally possible, but it led to the invention of radio and television.

[Stranger]

If you assume that conscious awareness is an entirely physically defined process, then I must conclude that we would have no freedom since we would be entirely derived from definable reactions to events.  But the reality is that I do have freedom - to choose my words, to drive my thoughts, to choose to accept Jesus as my Saviour, to continue to witness to our spiritual nature and our God given freedom.

How many times do you need this explained?

You do what you want but that says nothing about how what you want at any moment was arrived at. Your entire personality, your hopes and wants and fears - everything that is you and drives your choices, is the product of the past (your nature and nurture).

You make choices for reasons and either those reasons fully determine your choices (you are deterministic) or not, and if not, then the choice between the possible outcomes from those reasons must be for no reason - which is random.

[torridon]

If you assume that conscious awareness is an entirely physically defined process, then I must conclude that we would have no freedom since we would be entirely derived from definable reactions to events.  But the reality is that I do have freedom - to choose my words, to drive my thoughts, to choose to accept Jesus as my Saviour, to continue to witness to our spiritual nature and our God given freedom.

See #25218

It is nothing surprising that we can feel free whilst being fully deterministic beings.  There is no conflict in that. We only feel unfree when something comes to our attention that is obstructing our freedom, that we find irritating.  Given that our lack of freedom derives from things that we don't want, it never bothers us. In any situation we choose what we most want, why would we choose otherwise ?  But therein lies our determinism.  I don't want to have a gay affair, so my inability to want it does not bother me in the slightest; hence my sense of freedom is not compromised by that particular defacto unfreedom.