Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

And you seem still not to be able to tell the difference between pre determined and determined.

Which is what, in your view?

[Alan Burns]

Which is what, in your view?

In my view, pre determined is the unavoidable, inevitable end reaction dictated entirely by all the inevitable physical chains of cause and effect which have previously taken place.

Determined, in the case of human free will, is the result of a previous act of will initiated by the physical interaction of the conscious will of the human soul with our physical brain.

[Stranger]

In my view, pre determined is the unavoidable, inevitable end reaction dictated entirely by all the inevitable physical chains of cause and effect which have previously taken place.

Determined, in the case of human free will, is the result of a previous act of will initiated by the physical interaction of the conscious will of the human soul with our physical brain.

Meaningless waffle that spectacularly misses the point.

The point is determinism. Determinism is a property of a system (physical or otherwise) - it means (yet again) that the logical antecedents of any event (the reasons why it happened) can only result in one outcome.

The only alternative to determinism is to introduce a random element - because if the logical antecedents (reasons) for an event do not fully defiine the outcome, then there can be no reasons for the choice between possible outcomes - which means random.

A computer program is a deterministic system.

The physical universe may or may not be a deterministic system.

Your proposed 'soul' is a system - and the logic applies just as much to that system as anything physical; it's a logical constraint of any system.

How about thinking about and responding to this for a change - instead of your usual inane denial or silly question about how you can think about it if you haven't got a soul...?
 

[Alan Burns]

Meaningless waffle that spectacularly misses the point.

The point is determinism. Determinism is a property of a system (physical or otherwise) - it means (yet again) that the logical antecedents of any event (the reasons why it happened) can only result in one outcome.

But in the case in question we have a choice of outcomes, the choice being determined by the conscious will of the human soul.

To understand this you may wish to consider what is meant by the term "want".  In an entirely deterministic system, there is no room for the concept of "want".  Things just happen.  The "want" of anything derives from our conscious will, not by pre determined events which just happen.  We do not fully understand what comprises our conscious will, because there is no conceivable physical explanation for what it is or how it works, we just know that we have it because it is part of our human experience.

[Stranger]

But in the case in question we have a choice of outcomes, the choice being determined by the conscious will of the human soul.

As I said - your proposed soul must be some sort of system obeying some set of rules (otherwise it would be random chaos). The 'conscious will of the human soul' would be the output of the 'soul' system - to which the logic I outlined (and you've again ignored) must apply.

To understand this you may wish to consider what is meant by the term "want".  In an entirely deterministic system, there is no room for the concept of "want".

Utter nonsense. A 'want' is part of the internal processing of the 'mind' system (whether or not the mind is entirely physical or there is a soul involved and whether or not it is fully deterministic).

We do not fully understand what comprises our conscious will, because there is no conceivable physical explanation for what it is or how it works...

Blind faith assertion.

...we just know that we have it because it is part of our human experience.

Nothing I have said is in any way inconsistent with our experience.

Now - will you please address the logic of determinism and stop just ignoring it?

[Alan Burns]

Now - will you please address the logic of determinism and stop just ignoring it?

But in order to do what you ask, I would need to invoke the power of my conscious will to do it.  And in doing so I would be demonstrating that I have made a conscious choice to do it (or to ignore it).   Can you not see that whatever I choose to do is not pre determined, but determined at that moment by a conscious act of will?

[Stranger]

But in order to do what you ask, I would need to invoke the power of my conscious will to do it.  And in doing so I would be demonstrating that I have made a conscious choice to do it (or to ignore it).   Can you not see that whatever I choose to do is not pre determined, but determined at that moment by a conscious act of will?

The logic I asked you to consider clearly shows that your choice (which is the result of you mind system; physical or otherwise) is either a deterministic one or one that contains some random element.

There is no third option; "determined at that moment by a conscious act of will" does not address the point of how it gets determined (how the system produces its output).

If you disagree, then address the logic and stop posting obviously evasive and inanely silly nonsense like this.

[torridon]

But in the case in question we have a choice of outcomes, the choice being determined by the conscious will of the human soul.

To understand this you may wish to consider what is meant by the term "want".  In an entirely deterministic system, there is no room for the concept of "want".  Things just happen.  The "want" of anything derives from our conscious will, not by pre determined events which just happen.

No justification for those assertions. Wants are compatible with determinism, and the truth of this is evident from the insight that we cannot choose our desires. The 'want' of anything, as you put it, it the expression of will and that will does not spring out of nowhere, otherwise it would be random. Will is formed by circumstances leading up to it.  I want to punch that guy on the nose, why, because he insulted my mother.  My dog wants to eat, why, because he is hungry.  If you ever did form will for absolutely no reason whatsoever, then it would be random, by definition.  Will, conscious or otherwise, is entirely compatible with determinism, it is a product of it.

[torridon]

But in order to do what you ask, I would need to invoke the power of my conscious will to do it.  And in doing so I would be demonstrating that I have made a conscious choice to do it (or to ignore it).   Can you not see that whatever I choose to do is not pre determined, but determined at that moment by a conscious act of will?

A 'moment of conscious will' of course, is not an instant in time.  The making of a choice in terms of brain function is a process involving billions of neurochemical events as rival neural assemblies vie with each other to gain momentum.  This is a process, it takes time, and the outcome of it is a decision made.  When you make a decision are you consciously controlling each and every one of those events ?

[Alan Burns]

There is no third option; "determined at that moment by a conscious act of will" does not address the point of how it gets determined (how the system produces its output).

We do not know how conscious acts of will work.  We just know what they do.  My conscious will does what I want it to do.  That is just what it does.

[Alan Burns]

No justification for those assertions. Wants are compatible with determinism, and the truth of this is evident from the insight that we cannot choose our desires. The 'want' of anything, as you put it, it the expression of will and that will does not spring out of nowhere, otherwise it would be random. Will is formed by circumstances leading up to it.  I want to punch that guy on the nose, why, because he insulted my mother.  My dog wants to eat, why, because he is hungry.  If you ever did form will for absolutely no reason whatsoever, then it would be random, by definition.  Will, conscious or otherwise, is entirely compatible with determinism, it is a product of it.

But your thinking relates to a mechanical cause and effect scenario.
My conscious will works in real time.  At any moment in time I have the power to invoke an act of will just because I want to - not because it has been pre determined since the beginning of time.

[Alan Burns]

A 'moment of conscious will' of course, is not an instant in time.  The making of a choice in terms of brain function is a process involving billions of neurochemical events as rival neural assemblies vie with each other to gain momentum.  This is a process, it takes time, and the outcome of it is a decision made.  When you make a decision are you consciously controlling each and every one of those events ?

Yes, there are lots of physical elements in the brain which take time to act, but the interaction which invokes acts of will must be at the centre of all this activity.  Just as the pilot of an aeroplane interacts via his control panel - he is not in direct control of every working element in the plane. Once you consciously make a choice, the physical elements of the brain take over to implement the choice.

[Stranger]

We do not know how conscious acts of will work.  We just know what they do.  My conscious will does what I want it to do.  That is just what it does.

And you still haven't addressed the logic I presented.

The 'conscious will' must be some sort of system that produces choices, following some sort of logical rules (otherwise it would be random chaos, which it obviously isn't) - so the logic applies.

Either all the logical antecedents to (reasons for) a choice could only have resulted in one outcome (determinism) or they could have resulted in more than one, in which case there can be no reason at all for the choice between the alternatives, which means random.

It really is time you faced up to this and either provide a logical refutation or admit that you can't.

[Alan Burns]

And you still haven't addressed the logic I presented.

The 'conscious will' must be some sort of system that produces choices, following some sort of logical rules (otherwise it would be random chaos, which it obviously isn't) - so the logic applies.

Either all the logical antecedents to (reasons for) a choice could only have resulted in one outcome (determinism) or they could have resulted in more than one, in which case there can be no reason at all for the choice between the alternatives, which means random.

It really is time you faced up to this and either provide a logical refutation or admit that you can't.

The determining reason for a conscious choice simply comes from the will of the person concerned at the time they consciously make the choice.  To say it is entirely pre determined is just not the reality of the situation.  To fully understand this you have to consider just what comprises conscious awareness and what it is capable of.   If you try to define conscious awareness in terms of mechanistic cause and effect you will inevitably come to the conclusions you are making, but there is far more to the reality than you assume.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

… but there is far more to the reality than you assume.

The reason I suspect that some get so frustrated with you Alan is that, apparently with a straight face, you blithely post a sentiment like this entirely unaware of the irony of it. The issue isn’t just that you attempt claims that are incoherent and arguments for them that are logical wreckage – others to do that too. Nor even is it your obdurate refusal or inability ever, ever, ever even to attempt to engage with the arguments that undo you, preferring instead to slide around them by repeating endlessly idiocies and irrelevancies (and then to have the sheer front to tell us that you haven't seen any arguments that would cause you to change your mind when evidently no argument, however good, could ever be allowed to do that because you're so heavily invested in your mistakes). No, it’s that you then manage to convince yourself that the vapid, intellectually impoverished, explanation-void, nursery level inanities you assert somehow offer “more of reality” than the coherent, logical, tested findings of materialist science that you so readily dismiss. That reality flies rockets to Mars; your reality flies aeroplanes into buildings.

Why? Because that’s what happens when the ludicrousnesses of faith beliefs are taken seriously by those with the means to enact them, and it stinks.

You’ve had the binary “determined vs random” problem you’ve given yourself explained to you – what, hundreds of times now? Not once have you even tried to deal with it – essentially your only answer to what this would mean for a supposed “soul” is, “it’s magic innit.” What does this say about you and about your (at best) mediaeval beliefs do you think?           

[Stranger]

The determining reason for a conscious choice simply comes from the will of the person concerned at the time they consciously make the choice.

That isn't an answer. The "will of the person" has to decide somehow - it is that internal decision making system to which the logic I outlined must apply.

To say it is entirely pre determined is just not the reality of the situation.

• This appears to be a blind faith assertion - how do you know?
• If it isn't, then the only other ingredient must be randomness - back to the logic I've presented and you've again totally ignored.

To fully understand this you have to consider just what comprises conscious awareness and what it is capable of.

If you know the answers to these questions, do share, publish and look forward to your Nobel Prize.

What we do know is that whatever the answers are, they must be subject to logic.

If you try to define conscious awareness in terms of mechanistic cause and effect you will inevitably come to the conclusions you are making, but there is far more to the reality than you assume.

This is dishonest. The logic I have presented makes no reference at all to the nature of the system under consideration - only that it is subject to logic.

Now - are you going to have the courage to directly address the argument I presented or not?

[torridon]

But your thinking relates to a mechanical cause and effect scenario.
My conscious will works in real time.

We've already demonstrated how conscious will does not work in real time, and in fact such a proposition would fly in the face of our most fundamental principles of natural law, for instance, information cannot travel faster than the speed of light.  That consciousness could work in 'real time' is an absolute impossibility, and we know from empirical study that it does not in fact break such fundamental natural law.  Consciousness is always retrospective.

At any moment in time I have the power to invoke an act of will just because I want to....

and where does that 'want to' come from ?  If it arises for no reason whatsoever, then it is random.  This is simply what the words mean. If you are claiming that a soul is something in which desires can arise for no reason whatsoever without being random then you are portraying souls as something literally incomprehensible

[ekim]

My conscious will works in real time.  At any moment in time I have the power to invoke an act of will just because I want to - not because it has been pre determined since the beginning of time.

What you are describing is self will and the power is willfulness, the source of which is likely to be all the thoughts and emotions which you have accumulated over time and it is these which have the determining effect and from which you are not free.  Your religion encourages you to sacrifice self will in favour of your God's will  .... Thy Will be done ....  In doing so, what arises is determined by your God, even if it appears to you as spontaneous or random or whatever word you choose.  I would suggest that what you are engaged in, on this topic, is a conflict of self wills which has long ago distracted from its title 'Searching for God'.  You could now ask yourself how to be free from this conflict rather than attached to it. 

[wigginhall]

I was just imagining being party to the inane stuff which Alan describes here.   Gordon Bennett, it would be like being chained up in a kindergarten and fed a diet of illogical nonsense.   I suppose it could be used as torture, anyone would confess to anything, given 24 hours of this stuff.   

[SusanDoris]

My opinion of AB's posts is that they are smug, self-satisfied, arrogant, inane word salads. He is presented with courteous, clear arguments and explanations and blandly ignores them all, which I think is very bad mannered on his part.

It is, again in my opinion,  bordering on criminal that he does not learn, as I do, from the thousands of interesting, excellent responses he has received. More fool him.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

My opinion of AB's posts is that they are smug, self-satisfied, arrogant, inane word salads. He is presented with courteous, clear arguments and explanations and blandly ignores them all, which I think is very bad mannered on his part.

It is, again in my opinion,  bordering on criminal that he does not learn, as I do, from the thousands of interesting, excellent responses he has received. More fool him.

This post is an example of cheerleading, posseing and bandwagonning.

[Nearly Sane]

My opinion of AB's posts is that they are smug, self-satisfied, arrogant, inane word salads. He is presented with courteous, clear arguments and explanations and blandly ignores them all, which I think is very bad mannered on his part.

It is, again in my opinion,  bordering on criminal that he does not learn, as I do, from the thousands of interesting, excellent responses he has received. More fool him.

'botrdering on criminal'? What crime?

[Nearly Sane]

Nice one, Walter!!

In which you support calling someone a criminal because you disagree with them

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

In which you support calling someone a criminal because you disagree with them

It's just a colloquailism - when a football commentator says, "missing that penalty was criminal" he doesn't mean it literally.

And nor did Susan.

Next you'll be asking, "what needle?", "where's the haystack?". 

[SusanDoris]

In which you support calling someone a criminal because you disagree with them

Nooooo! Just being a bit flippant in the face of AB's obtuse ideas!

and just to be clear, I did not call AB personally criminal, I spoke in general terms, using the neutral pronoun 'it' at the beginning of the ssentence.

P.S, ?thank you, bluehillside!