Searching for GOD...

[ippy]

That's fine. Some people use this forum to have a discussion rather than just make a statement. Some say diversity increases richness.

,

Picking words, semantics etc to pieces doesn't amount to a discussion for me Gabriella.

Regards ippy

[torridon]

I don't think AB is running solely on "how it seems". I think he is deciding how much of reason that leads to "don't know" he wants to incorporate into his outlook on life,

I don't understand your point about "richer insights". Are they "richer insights" because that's how it seems to you or is there an objective standard for "richer insights" i.e. an evidence-based definition of what constitutes or defines something as "richer"?

Richer insights flow from admitting collective knowledge.  We all have our private views and understandings, but we are poorer if we do not take into account the experience of others.  In the particular context of the free will discussion running on this thread, Alan's insistence that his choices are free because they feel free requires an ignorance of the findings from many branches of science and in particular cognitive neuroscience that reveal a subtler understanding of the phenomena of conscious mind.  In other words he is valuing his own apparent personal experience of life over the collective insights from research.

[torridon]

So does the word "deliberate" becomes redundant in your view?

There's nothing supernatural about 'deliberate'. When a pride of lions bring down a wildebeest, it is not by accident, they have formed a collective intention to deliberately bring down the poor creature so they can eat.  It is not just humans that do 'deliberate', but somehow that seems to be the basis of your contentions that humans are supernatural.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Richer insights flow from admitting collective knowledge.  We all have our private views and understandings, but we are poorer if we do not take into account the experience of others.  In the particular context of the free will discussion running on this thread, Alan's insistence that his choices are free because they feel free requires an ignorance of the findings from many branches of science and in particular cognitive neuroscience that reveal a subtler understanding of the phenomena of conscious mind.  In other words he is valuing his own apparent personal experience of life over the collective insights from research.

You need to define “richer” rather than restate your beliefs. Is “richer” a subjective or objective assessment? Is it “richer” because that’s how it seems to you?

[Alan Burns]

Richer insights flow from admitting collective knowledge.  We all have our private views and understandings, but we are poorer if we do not take into account the experience of others.  In the particular context of the free will discussion running on this thread, Alan's insistence that his choices are free because they feel free requires an ignorance of the findings from many branches of science and in particular cognitive neuroscience that reveal a subtler understanding of the phenomena of conscious mind.  In other words he is valuing his own apparent personal experience of life over the collective insights from research.

On the one hand you claim that everything we do and think is defined in our subconscious before we become consciously aware of it.
Yet in this one post you speak of such things as "private views", "understandings", "not taking into account", "insistence", "ignorance of findings", "subtler understanding", "valuing".  Can you not see that all these words indicate recognition of our freedom to consciously drive our own thoughts.

[Alan Burns]

There's nothing supernatural about 'deliberate'. When a pride of lions bring down a wildebeest, it is not by accident, they have formed a collective intention to deliberately bring down the poor creature so they can eat.  It is not just humans that do 'deliberate', but somehow that seems to be the basis of your contentions that humans are supernatural.

As I have pointed out many times before - animal behaviours can be ascribed to a predictable reactions based upon instinct and learnt experiences needed for survival.  The word deliberate is redundant in this situation because it is simply a natural reaction.

[floo]

As I have pointed out many times before - animal behaviours can be ascribed to a predictable reactions based upon instinct and learnt experiences needed for survival.  The word deliberate is redundant in this situation because it is simply a natural reaction.

Humans are animals too.

[Enki]

As I have pointed out many times before - animal behaviours can be ascribed to a predictable reactions based upon instinct and learnt experiences needed for survival.  The word deliberate is redundant in this situation because it is simply a natural reaction.

In which case your use of the word 'deliberate' could also be classed as redundant for human animals also, as thoughts and actions can be ascribed to theoretically predictable reactions(I much prefer the word 'interactions') also based upon instinct and learnt experiences, albeit that much more complex.

[wigginhall]

Richer insights flow from admitting collective knowledge.  We all have our private views and understandings, but we are poorer if we do not take into account the experience of others.  In the particular context of the free will discussion running on this thread, Alan's insistence that his choices are free because they feel free requires an ignorance of the findings from many branches of science and in particular cognitive neuroscience that reveal a subtler understanding of the phenomena of conscious mind.  In other words he is valuing his own apparent personal experience of life over the collective insights from research.

I think also there is a strong sense of the counter-intuitive about many scientific discoveries.   An obvious example is that the earth goes round the sun, since it looks as if it's the reverse, but there are many others.   I think the 'contact' one has been mentioned on this thread  - that when we sit down, we're not in contact with the chair, since the electrons repel.   Another obvious example is the 'design' appearance which natural stuff often has, and which of course led people to assume a designer.

Well, it seems that consciousness is rather similar, since so many decisions occur pre-consciously.    Well, appearances are truly deceptive.

[Maeght]

On the one hand you claim that everything we do and think is defined in our subconscious before we become consciously aware of it.
Yet in this one post you speak of such things as "private views", "understandings", "not taking into account", "insistence", "ignorance of findings", "subtler understanding", "valuing".  Can you not see that all these words indicate recognition of our freedom to consciously drive our own thoughts.

They indicate that a thought process takes place, but not that that thought process is free.

[Maeght]

As I have pointed out many times before - animal behaviours can be ascribed to a predictable reactions based upon instinct and learnt experiences needed for survival.  The word deliberate is redundant in this situation because it is simply a natural reaction.

There is nothing in the word deliberate which suggest a free choice, only that a thought process has taken place and that there is an awareness of the process.

[Alan Burns]

There is nothing in the word deliberate which suggest a free choice, only that a thought process has taken place and that there is an awareness of the process.

From the online dictionary:
adjective: deliberate

    1.
    done consciously and intentionally.

Which would indicate that there is more to it than a mere awareness of the process.

[Alan Burns]

They indicate that a thought process takes place, but not that that thought process is free.

If we do not have freedom to deliberately control our own thoughts, every term highlighted from Torri's post becomes meaningless.

[Maeght]

From the online dictionary:
adjective: deliberate

    1.
    done consciously and intentionally.

Which would indicate that there is more to it than a mere awareness of the process.

Yes, thanks. I gave that definition in post 25807

It indicates a thought process and awareness but does not indicate that that process is free.

[Maeght]

If we do not have freedom to deliberately control our own thoughts, every term highlighted from Torri's post becomes meaningless.

They describe a process but not whether that process is free. No one disputes that a thought process takes place.

[wigginhall]

Somebody tell me what 'free' means here.

[Sassy]

That refers to breeding between members of the same species ]/quote]

It has been a while so I am posting a reply as I have read.

I guess you believe there are not different breeds of some species?

Moot point you make when we are talking about interbreeding. Intelligence is not just about understanding a subject it is being able to think and understand outside the box regarding the subject and being able to reason what works and what doesn't.  Insults are not a sign of intelligence rather a lack and actually insulting someone as an answer bad manners.

Since when was reproductive behaviour the defining hallmark of animality or the lack thereof?

Behaviour full-stop and our abilities are what makes us NOT animals.Hence animals breed anywhere. For the world to see, Only the bad behaved of humans act like animals.

 Unsurprisingly you've hit on yet another subject you know nothing about but don't mind embarrassing yourself with.

No embarrassment at all. You are only able to repeat what you have read. Whilst someone of us, like the writers can think for ourselves and work things out without being told what to think. Hence you never get what is beyond your comprehension and ability when people can think for themselves and evaluate everything for themselves, too.

Possibly August.

  I guess some of us have more self -respect and would not want to frighten the wild life.

[Alan Burns]

Somebody tell me what 'free' means here.

It is simply explained in considering the difference between the freedom to choose and an inevitable reaction.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

I'm retired from this mb but matron has given me permission to look in just to say that, surely, your first love should actually be "soul" music shouldn't it?

This made me think about why I like the blues, but do not like soul music.  And the answer certainly does pertain to the soul, because I find that soul music exposes the very self centred and indulgent qualities of the human soul, whereas the blues shows the more humble side of our selves.

[wigginhall]

It is simply explained in considering the difference between the freedom to choose and an inevitable reaction.

So 'free' means 'freedom'.   Ah, that makes it perfectly clear.

[torridon]

You need to define “richer” rather than restate your beliefs. Is “richer” a subjective or objective assessment? Is it “richer” because that’s how it seems to you?

By richer, I mean fuller in breadth and depth of detail.  The notion of free will for instance, leads to the the 'lock 'em up and throw away the key attitude in criminal justice terms.  In free will, wrong doers are just 'bad' people, end of story, it is disinterested in the why's and wherefore's that lead up to the present moment, how the past informs the present.  If we close our minds to the understanding that there are reasons for things, we miss out on much that we are capable of

[torridon]

As I have pointed out many times before - animal behaviours can be ascribed to a predictable reactions based upon instinct and learnt experiences needed for survival.  The word deliberate is redundant in this situation because it is simply a natural reaction.

Predictability is a sliding scale, not an either/or.  A creature that has little learning capacity is more predictable than one that that learns new behaviours during the course of its life.  The same is true of individuals.  Predicting what a lion will do in the next moment would be a far harder calculation than what an earthworm would do; likewise predicting a human choice is probably far harder than predictiing a lion.  Having said that, humans are far more predictable than is commonly thought.  Take a look at your posting history for a prime example of predictability 

[torridon]

On the one hand you claim that everything we do and think is defined in our subconscious before we become consciously aware of it.
Yet in this one post you speak of such things as "private views", "understandings", "not taking into account", "insistence", "ignorance of findings", "subtler understanding", "valuing".  Can you not see that all these words indicate recognition of our freedom to consciously drive our own thoughts.

Well, no, not really; as has been pointed out already, consciousness is not the driver of thought, it is more like a memory, or end-product.  All our thoughts start, seeded from the subliminal depths of preconscious mind and emerge into out consciousness stream.  So we are not aware, under normal functioning, of what goes before.

[wigginhall]

By richer, I mean fuller in breadth and depth of detail.  The notion of free will for instance, leads to the the 'lock 'em up and throw away the key attitude in criminal justice terms.  In free will, wrong doers are just 'bad' people, end of story, it is disinterested in the why's and wherefore's that lead up to the present moment, how the past informs the present.  If we close our minds to the understanding that there are reasons for things, we miss out on on much that we are capable of

Interesting point, as a greater understanding of human motivation has led to a 'richer' approach to justice.   We don't just lock 'em up now, there is an attempt to assess the mental state of defendants, and we get notions such as diminished responsibility.  In fact, some people are not even in a fit state to be interviewed.    Contrast that with hanging 12 year old kids for pickpocketing, (18th century, also described in Dickens).   

[Nearly Sane]

Interesting point, as a greater understanding of human motivation has led to a 'richer' approach to justice.   We don't just lock 'em up now, there is an attempt to assess the mental state of defendants, and we get notions such as diminished responsibility.  In fact, some people are not even in a fit state to be interviewed.    Contrast that with hanging 12 year old kids for pickpocketing, (18th century, also described in Dickens).

Though if things are deterministic we had no choice but to do that. It's not richer as such amd ths is where I agree with Gabriella it's the wrong sort of claim