Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

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.

But, eeerrrm, we don't have any choice in what we want, remember ?  Wanting something is itself an outcome of the machinations of mind over which we have no control.  You're going round in circles by not understanding this fundamentally simple point.

[Walter]

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.
 
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.

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

there is definitely an organ located in his skull but I don't think its the one you were thinking of

[Alan Burns]

But, eeerrrm, we don't have any choice in what we want, remember ? 

Of course I remember you making this claim several times, but it does not change the fact that I am able to consciously choose from the many possible things I might want to do at any one time.  At the moment I choose to do it, of course it is the thing I want to do, and the choice was freely chosen by me at that moment, it was not the inevitable reaction to physically deterministic chains of cause and effect events.

[torridon]

Of course I remember you making this claim several times, but it does not change the fact that I am able to consciously choose from the many possible things I might want to do at any one time.  At the moment I choose to do it, of course it is the thing I want to do, and the choice was freely chosen by me at that moment, it was not the inevitable reaction to physically deterministic chains of cause and effect events.

"freely chosen" makes no sense.

On what basis could anyone choose what to want ?

[Alan Burns]

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

I entirely agree.
We use our brain to implement our conscious choices.  We are in control.

[Alan Burns]

"freely chosen" makes no sense.

On what basis could anyone choose what to want ?

You do not seem to understand the conscious will of the human soul.

[torridon]

You do not seem to understand the conscious will of the human soul.

Neither do you it seems, if you cannot answer such a simple question.

On what basis could you choose what to want ?

[Alan Burns]

Neither do you it seems, if you cannot answer such a simple question.

On what basis could you choose what to want ?

Whatever the basis - it remains a choice, not an uncontrolled reaction.

[ekim]

Neither do you it seems, if you cannot answer such a simple question.

On what basis could you choose what to want ?

Perhaps he means a choice between desires e.g. between the desire for revenge and the desire to exhibit forgiveness.  The former is impulsive and the latter arises from inner stillness.

[Maeght]

But that is not what the question us about, it is whether choices are pre determined, random or something else..

[SusanDoris]

there is definitely an organ located in his skull but I don't think its the one you were thinking of

The thought just popped into my mind - I wonder if AB has ever read the 'Darwin Awards'?!
I hasten to point out that the thought was random, but determined by having read lots of other things this morning!

[BeRational]

Whatever the basis - it remains a choice, not an uncontrolled reaction.

If you do not know the basis, then you DO NOT KNOW the basis.

[floo]

Whatever the basis - it remains a choice, not an uncontrolled reaction.

If you can't explain the basis, your comment is speculation, not fact.

[Maeght]

Whatever the basis - it remains a choice, not an uncontrolled reaction.

If you cannot say waht that the basis of the choice is then you cannot assert this.

[Alan Burns]

If you do not know the basis, then you DO NOT KNOW the basis.

The basis is my God given freedom to invoke a conscious choice.

[Alan Burns]

The thought just popped into my mind - I wonder if AB has ever read the 'Darwin Awards'?!
I hasten to point out that the thought was random, but determined by having read lots of other things this morning!

It was determined by your conscious will, Susan.

[Nearly Sane]

The basis is my God given freedom to invoke a conscious choice.

Which since you have already admitted you cannot explain or understand makes the above assertion which includes a begging the question so much verbal white noise. You seem unable to write a logically coherent sentence about this.

[floo]

The basis is my God given freedom to invoke a conscious choice.

You assert it is god given, but have no evidence to substantiate your claim.

[Nearly Sane]

It was determined by your conscious will, Susan.

and more logical incoherence and ignoring of the question. If a thought occurred to Susan then how would she choose that without being aware of it first as a possible choice. Yet again Alan because of your inability to express this in any coherent fashion, you have created an infinite regress

[Nearly Sane]

You assert it is god given, but have no evidence to substantiate your claim.

Which is a mere side point to his inability to explain how 'it' would work.

[Alan Burns]

Which since you have already admitted you cannot explain or understand makes the above assertion which includes a begging the question so much verbal white noise. You seem unable to write a logically coherent sentence about this.

But I just demonstrated that I have the conscious will to compose this post and send it, and
I had the freedom to choose my own words. 

I do not need to explain how it works - I can demonstrate that it works.

[Nearly Sane]

But I just demonstrated that I have the conscious will to compose this post and send it, and
I had the freedom to choose my own words. 

I do not need to explain how it works - I can demonstrate that it works.

you have to explain how logically this is not simply determined ,random or both. Your continued inability to show that you even understand the very basic issue despite all the multitude of attempts to walk you through it make your posts worthless.

[SusanDoris]

But I just demonstrated that I have the conscious will to compose this post and send it, and
I had the freedom to choose my own words. 

I do not need to explain how it works - I can demonstrate that it works.

I bet there are quite a few in the Darwin Awards list who think the way you do. As a matter of interest, have you ever read them?

[Maeght]

But I just demonstrated that I have the conscious will to compose this post and send it, and
I had the freedom to choose my own words. 

I do not need to explain how it works - I can demonstrate that it works.

No you haven't. Your words could be as a direct result of previous experiences therefore predetermined. You have demonstrated nothing.

[wigginhall]

Alan says, 'I do not have to explain how it works', well, yes, probably because he can't.   Then all the stuff about 'I have demonstrated it' is a palpable fraud.   He is pulling a fast one, but I suppose this is how some theists operate.   Again, Tommy Cooper comes to mind.