Searching for GOD...

[Walter]

I'm catching up again. Yesterday ALL DAY 'this page can't be displayed and all this morning too. It's so annoying.

have you tried launching it through the bedroom window SD?

[Sriram]

I can live with your naming the unconscious mind a soul, simply because we haven't yet established how the unconscious mind's mechanisms work and indeed it could be something that may be, say, being pushed or pulled around by something from the quantum world we don't know nobody knows, but using words like soul with all of its history its links with ancient times where it would have been the words of soothsayers etc, along with perhaps the suggestion of sacrificing a goat.

Wouldn't it be better to refer to things we don't know or may never know as just that, rather than using words like soul that really time should have passed by long ago, they don't really mean anything and don't really help with a discussion of this kind.

Regards ippy

I agree that some words come with lot of baggage and could convey meanings that are irrelevant today. But at the same time the words are of colloquial use and carry an emotional meaning. They cannot be brushed off so easily.  They can however change their meaning with changing times.

I am not actually calling the Unconscious mind the soul. Since we have very little knowledge of these things I am just saying that the unconscious mind is connected to the soul or Self....whatever they may be.  These matters could turn out to be far bigger and much more complex than we can imagine.

[wigginhall]

Is that the four question marks of incredulity?

After a bit, you get the stigmata of incredulity.   Large weals come up on the body, if someone talks about evolution, complexity in nature, emergence, the brain, to indicate one's skepticism.   But if you keep saying 'how can you possibly claim that ...', the weals die away for a while.   But they come back.

[Sebastian Toe]

How can you possibly claim that all this happens in the sub conscious?

..because that is currently where the evidence leads us.

That's actual evidence.
 Not wishful thinking evidence, not speculative evidence and especially not incredulity evidence.

[SusanDoris]

author=Walter link=topic=10333.msg712669#msg712669 date=1515078272]
have you tried launching it through the bedroom window SD?

]
No, I just sigh and go to the other forums!! Or I turn on my 'Ancient Greeks' by Edith Hill talking book. This needs to be listened to in small doses because it is so packed with information.

[Alan Burns]

..because that is currently where the evidence leads us.

That's actual evidence.
 Not wishful thinking evidence, not speculative evidence and especially not incredulity evidence.

But it is evidence which denies my power to consciously choose, therefore it must be flawed.

[wigginhall]

But it is evidence which denies my power to consciously choose, therefore it must be flawed.

I don't follow this.   There isn't a contradiction between the idea of unconscious (or subconscious) choices and decisions being made, and the experience of conscious choice.   The point about the unconscious choices is that by definition we don't experience them, but when/if they become conscious, we do.    But then some choices probably remain covert.

I think there is a lot of research into the interface between covert and overt decision making, no doubt very complicated stuff.

[torridon]

But it is evidence which denies my power to consciously choose, therefore it must be flawed.

Perhaps we are over-valuing the word 'consciously' here.  All our thoughts originate subconsciously and emerge more fully formed into conscious mind a split second later.  The difference is very subtle, so subtle, we don't even notice it normally. Also, what exactly is meant by a thought ? it could be many things.  The only situations where consciousness lag is an issue is where timing is important - if a child steps into the road while you are driving, we will react to that near instantly, before we have had time to think about it. Our minds race ahead and take action.  On issues where instant reaction is irrelevant, buying a house, say, consciousness lag is a non-issue.  Our choices still reflect our internal values however, and these are not things we can just decide to arbitrarily alter.

[wigginhall]

It's not either/or.  There are covert processes going on, and overt processes, and they interact.   I don't know why anyone would say that the overt (conscious) stuff is more important, except of course, it's what we are aware of, and we are not aware of the covert stuff.   

[Sebastian Toe]

But it is evidence which denies my power to consciously choose, therefore it must be flawed.

No, it is your thinking and or understanding and or wishful bypassing of reality that must be flawed.

[wigginhall]

Alan is hanging on to his ideas about conscious choice, and has to resist notions of unconscious choice, as presumably, the latter challenges his ideological position.   Actually, I'm not sure where this goes  -  we have conscious choice, because of the soul, and the soul is given by God, so this means err, what?

[Alan Burns]

I don't follow this.   There isn't a contradiction between the idea of unconscious (or subconscious) choices and decisions being made, and the experience of conscious choice.   The point about the unconscious choices is that by definition we don't experience them, but when/if they become conscious, we do.    But then some choices probably remain covert.

I think there is a lot of research into the interface between covert and overt decision making, no doubt very complicated stuff.

The contradiction lies in the difference between choice and reaction.  The physically determinate scenario defines everything in terms of inevitable, uncontrollable reactions to previous events.  In this scenario there can be no such thing as choice, because there is nothing which can do the choosing other than the uncontrollable laws of nature which define how material entities react.  This is not complicated stuff - it is just a logical deduction based on the known laws of material science. 

The complications come when we try to shoe horn the reality of our ability to make conscious choices to fit in with limited human scientific knowledge, and from this we ultimately have to deny our freedom to make choices and conclude that everything is entirely pre determined by past events.

 

[Nearly Sane]

But it is evidence which denies my power to consciously choose, therefore it must be flawed.

Ah Alan writes the perfect post to show his thralldom to Dunning Kruger.

[Alan Burns]

Alan is hanging on to his ideas about conscious choice, and has to resist notions of unconscious choice, as presumably, the latter challenges his ideological position.   Actually, I'm not sure where this goes  -  we have conscious choice, because of the soul, and the soul is given by God, so this means err, what?

If you can understand the message of the new testament, it means that God has given each one of us the freedom to choose our own destiny.

[wigginhall]

The contradiction lies in the difference between choice and reaction.  The physically determinate scenario defines everything in terms of inevitable, uncontrollable reactions to previous events.  In this scenario there can be no such thing as choice, because there is nothing which can do the choosing other than the uncontrollable laws of nature which define how material entities react.  This is not complicated stuff - it is just a logical deduction based on the known laws of material science. 

The complications come when we try to shoe horn the reality of our ability to make conscious choices to fit in with limited human scientific knowledge, and from this we ultimately have to deny our freedom to make choices and conclude that everything is entirely pre determined by past events.

Well, the cognitive scientists and neuroscientists and psychologists are doing research into decision making, as we speak, and the relative balance of covert and overt processes.   They were early pioneers in the  empirical investigation of the role of unconscious choices, although of course, Freud talked about it a century ago, but didn't have brain scans at  his disposal.

As against that, you have, well, guesswork.

[Nearly Sane]

If you can understand the message of the new testament, it means that God has given each one of us the freedom to choose our own destiny.

Well since you gave stated that how any of this freedom was a mystery, you are stating you don't understand it. Or were you lying then? Or are you making two contradictory claims?

[Gordon]

If you can understand the message of the new testament, it means that God has given each one of us the freedom to choose our own destiny.

No, Alan, this is what you think is meant by the NT contents, and whether those who wrote the NT meant what you think is another complication: both they and you might be wrong.

Nice to see you using a different fallacy for a change, since what you say here is just an argument from authority.

[Sebastian Toe]

If you can understand the message of the new testament, it means that God has given each one of us the freedom to choose our own destiny.

You do know that you are free to choose your destiny without the need for an unevidenced, speculative, magical soul?
Don't you?

[torridon]

The contradiction lies in the difference between choice and reaction.  The physically determinate scenario defines everything in terms of inevitable, uncontrollable reactions to previous events.  In this scenario there can be no such thing as choice, because there is nothing which can do the choosing other than the uncontrollable laws of nature which define how material entities react.  This is not complicated stuff - it is just a logical deduction based on the known laws of material science. 

The complications come when we try to shoe horn the reality of our ability to make conscious choices to fit in with limited human scientific knowledge, and from this we ultimately have to deny our freedom to make choices and conclude that everything is entirely pre determined by past events.

It doesn't follow that everything is entirely pre determined by past events, because we cannot rule out randomness if it exists, and quite how the next instant of time crystallises depends on your interpretation of quantum theory, which is still subject to debate.

A moment of choice is a reaction; something changes and we have to react optimally to that; that is why we have minds.  Our minds are non stop learning devices; like Google DeepMind that recently defeated the world's best Go player, biological minds never stop learning, and the choices we make are the product of a lifetime's honing; we make the best choice we can in any given situation. The idea that we could somehow bypass that mechanism and make choices on some other undefined basis makes no sense.  That would be a recipe for madness. A choice that is not made for a reason is not a choice at all, merely a random irrelevant event.

[Maeght]

Isn't subconscious a better term than unconscious when referring to levels of awareness?

[ekim]

Isn't subconscious a better term than unconscious when referring to levels of awareness?

It probably depends upon which brand of psychology you subscribe to.  If I remember rightly, the subconscious referred to those aspects of the psyche which have been a conscious experience but are now below the threshold of daily awareness but are capable of resurfacing, like desires, fears, memories, thoughts.  The unconscious is that which has never entered into the field of consciousness but perhaps has the potential to do so.  They are not so much levels of awareness but levels of unawareness.  In the past the subconscious was perhaps thought of as the underworld or Hades.

[Alan Burns]

It doesn't follow that everything is entirely pre determined by past events, because we cannot rule out randomness if it exists .....

I do not think random is applicable to a conscious choice when to overtake!

[Alan Burns]

A moment of choice is a reaction; something changes and we have to react optimally to that; that is why we have minds.  Our minds are non stop learning devices; like Google DeepMind that recently defeated the world's best Go player, biological minds never stop learning, and the choices we make are the product of a lifetime's honing; we make the best choice we can in any given situation. The idea that we could somehow bypass that mechanism and make choices on some other undefined basis makes no sense.  That would be a recipe for madness. A choice that is not made for a reason is not a choice at all, merely a random irrelevant event.

But if a perceived conscious choice is just a reaction originating in the sub conscious, how can our conscious awareness have any say in the choice?  Surely in the example of overtaking, our conscious awareness must be involved real time with whatever invokes the choice?  And as I said in my earlier post - ultimately, after all the practical considerations on feasibility and need, we have the final say in the matter by being able to choose whether we want to do it or not.  This is the essence of human free will.

[torridon]

I do not think random is applicable to a conscious choice when to overtake!

Yes, now we are getting somewhere 

We weigh up (perhaps subliminally/preconsciously/subconsciously/non-consciously/consciously*) the issues and make an informed decision when to overtake.  We would soon eliminate ourselves from the gene pool if our choice of when to overtake was not a consequence of the relevant considerations.

* take your pick, it makes little difference to the outcome

[Gordon]

But if a perceived conscious choice is just a reaction originating in the sub conscious, how can our conscious awareness have any say in the choice?

When you are driving you apply some thought to the process, and this may well involve non-conscious assessments of the driving circumstances - this is no great surprise.
 

Surely in the example of overtaking, our conscious awareness must be involved real time with whatever invokes the choice?

You do like to over-egg the pudding: your 'invokes the choice' seems to be no different from 'uses knowledge, judgment and experience (where some elements may be non-conscious)'. I recall no 'and remember to get your soul into gear' instructions when learning to drive.

And as I said in my earlier post - ultimately, after all the practical considerations on feasibility and need, we have the final say in the matter by being able to choose whether we want to do it or not.  This is the essence of human free will.

Nope - it is the 'essence' of using the organ located in your skull.