Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

If you are going to state that 'perception is achieved by perceiving ... ' then clearly your conceptualising of the situation is circular.  Further, there is no reason to suppose that perception cannot be defined in 'material' entities.  To the best of our knowledge, perception and consciousness evolved over 500 million years ago in marine vertebrates in Cambrian oceans and it has become such a central aspect of life that all higher life forms since have featured these phenomena in some or other form. We have to move on from thinking in fixed Victorian notions of matter towards seeing matter as a substrate for information exchange, and it is this information flow through cortex, be it human cortex or penguin cortex or fruit fly cortex, that is experience.

You can't claim any animals have the conscious perception we experience as humans.  This is just an assumption based upon external observation.  We can't see things from within the mind of an animal.  If all animals exhibit the predictable behaviour defined by instinct and learnt experience it is evidence only of their ability to process information - not to consciously perceive it.

[torridon]

And I must repeat -
Physically determined infers an inevitable consequence over which we can have no control.
Spiritually determined is what I believe is essential to facilitate the existence of human will.

Spiritually determined, is still is determined though.  'Spiritually' makes no difference, if it is still deterministic at the end of the day.

[torridon]

You can't claim any animals have the conscious perception we experience as humans.  This is just an assumption based upon external observation.  We can't see things from within the mind of an animal.  If all animals exhibit the predictable behaviour defined by instinct and learnt experience it is evidence only of their ability to process information - not to perceive it.

Conscious perception will doubtless vary in quality from species to species; also from individual to individual and from moment to moment.

For an example of this, remember the dress that broke the internet ?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/weird-news/white-and-gold-or-blue-and-black-the-dress-has-confused-the-internet-but-science-has-the-answer-10074228.html

Conscious perception clearly varies from individual to individual.  But there is no reason to suspect that conscious perception is entirely absent in other species.

[Sebastian Toe]

You can't claim any animals have the conscious perception we experience as humans.  This is just an assumption based upon external observation.  We can't see things from within the mind of an animal.  If all animals exhibit the predictable behaviour defined by instinct and learnt experience it is evidence only of their ability to process information - not to consciously perceive it.

You can't claim any animals do not have the conscious perception we experience as humans. 
This is just speculation based on your clawing need to posit 'soul'.
  We can't see things from within the mind of an animal. 
If some animals exhibit self awareness for example then your speculation is a busted flush. 

[Alan Burns]

Conscious perception will doubtless vary in quality from species to species; also from individual to individual and from moment to moment.

For an example of this, remember the dress that broke the internet ?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/weird-news/white-and-gold-or-blue-and-black-the-dress-has-confused-the-internet-but-science-has-the-answer-10074228.html

Conscious perception clearly varies from individual to individual.  But there is no reason to suspect that conscious perception is entirely absent in other species.

Of course the result of what we perceive will be entirely dependent on the way the information gets processed before we perceive it.  If there are physical problems in processing it, the perceived result will be different.  The important fact is that conscious perception does occur.

[Alan Burns]

You can't claim any animals do not have the conscious perception we experience as humans. 
This is just speculation based on your clawing need to posit 'soul'.
  We can't see things from within the mind of an animal. 
If some animals exhibit self awareness for example then your speculation is a busted flush.

But I do not know of any animal which can describe what it perceives. 

[wigginhall]

But I do not know of any animal which can describe what it perceives.

This is incorrect.   For example, honeybees are famous for being able to communicate about sources of food, including where they are, and what quality they are, and how far away.   Of course, this is a tightly restricted communication system, but then nobody is claiming parity with human language.   See also ants, and chemical communication.

I appreciate that you will now move the goalposts, as your criteria are infinitely elastic.

[Alan Burns]

Spiritually determined, is still is determined though.  'Spiritually' makes no difference, if it is still deterministic at the end of the day.

It makes all the difference in what defines the ultimate source of our determinism.  It differentiates nature's puppets from God's chosen race to whom He has made Himself known and offered the gift of eternal salvation.

[wigginhall]

It makes all the difference in what defines the ultimate source of our determinism.  It differentiates nature's puppets from God's chosen race to whom He has made Himself known and offered the gift of eternal salvation.

It's not just any old determinism, it's a special God-driven one, which makes you glow with beatific something or other.    Chosen race? 

[Alan Burns]

This is incorrect.   For example, honeybees are famous for being able to communicate about sources of food, including where they are, and what quality they are, and how far away.   Of course, this is a tightly restricted communication system, but then nobody is claiming parity with human language. 

I appreciate that you will now move the goalposts, as your criteria are infinitely elastic.

I suspect that you are confusing instinctive reactions with conscious perception.

[wigginhall]

I suspect that you are confusing instinctive reactions with conscious perception.

I appreciate that you will now move the goalposts. 

[Alan Burns]

It's not just any old determinism, it's a special God-driven one, which makes you glow with beatific something or other.    Chosen race?

So are you claiming to be one of nature's puppets, entirely driven by natural deterministic reactions to previous chains of physical cause and effect?

[wigginhall]

So are you claiming to be one of nature's puppets, entirely driven by natural deterministic reactions to previous chains of physical cause and effect?

It seems preferable to being a prey to such weird assertions and incredulity as you. 

[Sebastian Toe]

But I do not know of any animal which can describe what it perceives.

Not the point being made.
Howver you have aptly demonstrated what one other poster has pointed out that you are good at - goalpost moving!

[Stranger]

And I must repeat -
Physically determined infers an inevitable consequence over which we can have no control.
Spiritually determined is what I believe is essential to facilitate the existence of human will.

Does your god forbid you to think about what people have said to you?

Either what happens happens because because of the set of reasons (physical, spiritual, vaxlokikal or any other nonsense you might make up) why it happened (deterministic) or not and some part of the choice was for no reason at all (random).

Physical has bugger all to do with the logic.

[Enki]

It makes all the difference in what defines the ultimate source of our determinism.  It differentiates nature's puppets from God's chosen race to whom He has made Himself known and offered the gift of eternal salvation.

I think your idea of animals being nature's puppets in contrast to 'God's chosen race'(presumably human beings, although they aren't exactly a race but a species) is quite simplistic and naive. However I have to say that when you spout out your well worn, hackneyed and repetitive tract of 'to whom He has made Himself known and offered the gift of eternal salvation.', I have to admit to a brief feeling that I am reading the words of such a puppet as you describe. No matter, this feeling will pass, and I will once again hope to realise that I am conversing with a fellow human being who simply has totally different views to my own. Strangely I never get the same brief feelings when observing other animals.

[torridon]

So are you claiming to be one of nature's puppets, entirely driven by natural deterministic reactions to previous chains of physical cause and effect?

and you claiming to be one of God's puppets driven by spiritual deterministic reactions to previous chains of spiritual cause and effect.  Not a whole lot of difference at the end of the day.

[Stranger]

So are you claiming to be one of nature's puppets, entirely driven by natural deterministic reactions to previous chains of physical cause and effect?

You have offered absolutely no alternative, other than illogical nonsense, or being a puppet of some other (spiritual) deterministic reactions to previous chains of cause and effect.

But what does "nature's puppets" actually mean? When we come to a choice, we process the facts available to us, using all of our life's experience, all of what our nature and nurture have made us, and make choices that truly reflect the people we are.

What can possibly be more free than being able to do exactly what we, as the people we are, want to do?

Your 'arguments' are not only logically absurd, they offer us no more freedom.

[wigginhall]

I was watching the Miniaturist last night, a film about Calvinist Holland, where gays lived in fear of their lives.    If caught, they were drowned.    Ah well, I suppose at least they were killed by God's chosen race.

[Nearly Sane]

I was watching the Miniaturist last night, a film about Calvinist Holland, where gays lived in fear of their lives.    If caught, they were drowned.    Ah well, I suppose at least they were killed by God's chosen race.

Who  thought free will was blasphemy

[wigginhall]

Who  thought free will was blasphemy

Well, it's an interesting point of theology that grace is not willed.   In other words, I can't get to God by my own efforts.   I suppose the Reformation set up a divide, since Catholics do seem to acknowledge some kind of 'works', whereby I can sort of get in God's good books.   The Proddies emphasized that 'no man is good'.    Weird parallel with some Buddhists, who say that there is no merit in meditating  or doing good or anything really.

[Nearly Sane]

Well, it's an interesting point of theology that grace is not willed.   In other words, I can't get to God by my own efforts.   I suppose the Reformation set up a divide, since Catholics do seem to acknowledge some kind of 'works', whereby I can sort of get in God's good books.   The Proddies emphasized that 'no man is good'.    Weird parallel with some Buddhists, who say that there is no merit in meditating  or doing good or anything really.

Surely though we aren't talking run of the mill Prods here. This is special elect Prods?

[wigginhall]

Yeah, true.  I don't know what Anglicans say about this.   Vlad, where are you?

I am guessing that Anglicans are compatibilists, i.e. that free will is compatible with divine determinism. 

[wigginhall]

One point for Alan - if I find your ideas boring, how can I change that by free will?

[SusanDoris]

One point for Alan - if I find your ideas boring, how can I change that by free will?

Nice one! I wonder what cringe-making answer AB will produce?