Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

If your actions are just inevitable reactions to previous events, you are not changing anything - you just become part of the world's deterministic chain of cause and effect, and any changes are not under your control, but driven entirely by nature.

You are talking nonsense, the world is in a state of constant change.  Nothing stays the same. We are all part of that.

[Stranger]

If your actions are just inevitable reactions to previous events, you are not changing anything...

Of course you are changing things: the way in which you react has effects.

...you just become part of the world's deterministic chain of cause and effect...

Within which things affect each other.

...and any changes are not under your control, but driven entirely by nature.

Nonsense - you are a part of nature that is exercising control over other parts of nature.

[Alan Burns]

No.

I get hungry. I order a pizza. A man delivers it on a moped, converting some hydrocarbons into carbon dioxide and waste heat as he does. It's a two way interaction between me and the rest of the Universe.

The only way for two way interaction to take place is to introduce consciously driven free will, otherwise every event is just an inevitable consequence to previous events, and in the example you give, the conversion of some hydrocarbons into carbon dioxide and waste heat is just part of the deterministically driven continuum of this universe.

[Alan Burns]

You are talking nonsense, the world is in a state of constant change.  Nothing stays the same. We are all part of that.

I did not say it does not change, I was just confirming that without our free will, we cannot accept responsibility for any change because we just become part of the material continuum of this universe.

[Stranger]

The only way for two way interaction to take place is to introduce consciously driven free will, otherwise every event is just an inevitable consequence to previous events, and in the example you give, the conversion of some hydrocarbons into carbon dioxide and waste heat is just part of the deterministically driven continuum of this universe.

Have you just given up thinking before posting? This is total nonsense. Every object in the universe is involved in two way interaction with its environment - even black holes emit (Hawking) radiation as well as absorb stuff.

There is simply no connection between a two way interaction and determinism or non-determinism.

[Alan Burns]

Have you just given up thinking before posting? This is total nonsense. Every object in the universe is involved in two way interaction with its environment - even black holes emit (Hawking) radiation as well as absorb stuff.

There is simply no connection between a two way interaction and determinism or non-determinism.

No
Objects and environments are just human labels for various bits of sub atomic elements which make up this universe, and any perceived interaction is again just a human label for the deterministically controlled behaviour of these sub atomic particles.

Setting aside the power of intervention from consciously driven free will, the universe is just on a one way trip to total entropy.  Everything will be just a direct consequence of previous events.  This is reaction, not interaction.

[torridon]

No
Objects and environments are just human labels for various bits of sub atomic elements which make up this universe, and any perceived interaction is again just a human label for the deterministically controlled behaviour of these sub atomic particles.

Setting aside the power of intervention from consciously driven free will, the universe is just on a one way trip to total entropy.  Everything will be just a direct consequence of previous events.  This is reaction, not interaction.

Making up your own definitions of words ? Reactions are interactions and vice versa. Two particles influencing each other via gravity or electromagnetism are said to be interacting.

[Alan Burns]

Making up your own definitions of words ? Reactions are interactions and vice versa. Two particles influencing each other via gravity or electromagnetism are said to be interacting.

I admit there is some ambiguity in the way the word "interaction" can be used.  My use of it relates to the way it is used in this short extract from the wiki entry on incompatibalism which uses it in the sense of being able to interact with an otherwise closed system:

Alternatively, libertarian view points based upon indeterminism have been proposed without the assumption of naturalism. At the time C. S. Lewis wrote Miracles,[6] quantum mechanics (and physical indeterminism) was only in the initial stages of acceptance, but still Lewis stated the logical possibility that, if the physical world was proved to be indeterministic, this would provide an entry (interaction) point into the traditionally viewed closed system, where a scientifically described physically probable/improbable event could be philosophically described as an action of a non-physical entity on physical reality. Lewis mentions this only in passing, making clear that his thesis does not depend on it in any way.

Others may use some form of Donald Davidson's anomalous monism to suggest that although the mind is in fact part of the physical world, it involves a different level of description of the same facts, so that although there are deterministic laws under the physical description, there are no such laws under the mental description, and thus our actions are free and not determined.

[Walter]

Anal Burns,

you are at serious risk of disappearing up your own arse hole.

[Robbie]

Like a genii returning to the bottle?  A good rub will bring the genii out again.

[torridon]

I admit there is some ambiguity in the way the word "interaction" can be used.  My use of it relates to the way it is used in this short extract from the wiki entry on incompatibalism which uses it in the sense of being able to interact with an otherwise closed system:

Alternatively, libertarian view points based upon indeterminism have been proposed without the assumption of naturalism. At the time C. S. Lewis wrote Miracles,[6] quantum mechanics (and physical indeterminism) was only in the initial stages of acceptance, but still Lewis stated the logical possibility that, if the physical world was proved to be indeterministic, this would provide an entry (interaction) point into the traditionally viewed closed system, where a scientifically described physically probable/improbable event could be philosophically described as an action of a non-physical entity on physical reality. Lewis mentions this only in passing, making clear that his thesis does not depend on it in any way.

Others may use some form of Donald Davidson's anomalous monism to suggest that although the mind is in fact part of the physical world, it involves a different level of description of the same facts, so that although there are deterministic laws under the physical description, there are no such laws under the mental description, and thus our actions are free and not determined.

Supposing there were some other realm of reality, a mental realm, say, that interacts with the known universe, I don't see that secures you a pass out of determinism as the same core logic paradox of free will is not solved by this invention.  If a choice is made in a mental realm it still will be subject to the deterministic nature of choice, ie to be meaningful it has to be made for a reason otherwise it is not a meaningful choice but merely a random irrelevant event.  'Meaningful' in the context of choice inherently implies a prior reason that the choice is beholden to.

This smacks of desperation to me, that people will invent whole other realms of reality to avoid coming to terms with and understanding our actual reality. In the end it gets you nowhere anyway.

[Stranger]

I admit there is some ambiguity in the way the word "interaction" can be used.  My use of it relates to the way it is used in this short extract from the wiki entry on incompatibalism which uses it in the sense of being able to interact with an otherwise closed system:

Which would just be a specific type of interaction. There is absolutely no justification (in the quote or anywhere else) for your absurd assertion that "the only way for two way interaction to take place is to introduce consciously driven free will".

None of which changes the LOGIC of the situation which means that whatever you imagine is interacting with the physical world be just as constrained by determinism or randomness as the physical world itself.

[Alan Burns]

Supposing there were some other realm of reality, a mental realm, say, that interacts with the known universe, I don't see that secures you a pass out of determinism as the same core logic paradox of free will is not solved by this invention.  If a choice is made in a mental realm it still will be subject to the deterministic nature of choice, ie to be meaningful it has to be made for a reason otherwise it is not a meaningful choice but merely a random irrelevant event.  'Meaningful' in the context of choice inherently implies a prior reason that the choice is beholden to.

This smacks of desperation to me, that people will invent whole other realms of reality to avoid coming to terms with and understanding our actual reality. In the end it gets you nowhere anyway.

But in the last paragraph you seem to admit that people have the apparent freedom to "invent whole other realms of reality".  Where does this power emanate from?  What is the cause?

[Stranger]

But in the last paragraph you seem to admit that people have the apparent freedom to "invent whole other realms of reality".  Where does this power emanate from?  What is the cause?

Evolution.

[torridon]

But in the last paragraph you seem to admit that people have the apparent freedom to "invent whole other realms of reality".  Where does this power emanate from?  What is the cause?

It comes from mind.  Where else ?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

#26532

If you then choose to credit some divine influence, you then have all your work cut out trying to provide even one scrap of objective evidence.

Actually, I don't, for the reasons you demonstrated in your post. You said

Do you have details of the person's medical history? Do you know if AB has? Can you rule out absolutely all possibilities of all possible treatments being the cause of the alleged lack of ability to walk an then miraculously becoming an ability to walk? In order to even begin to credit some prayer to some dead person called a saint  you would have to be able to eliminate every single medical and natural means of recovery with details of why and how you were eliminating them.

What is at stake here is the truth of the matter. Alan Burns may be right. He may be mistaken. There may be another miraculous explanation other than what he suggested.

However, you want to have your cake and eat it by saying

If you then choose to credit some divine influence, you then have all your work cut out trying to provide even one scrap of objective evidence.

Yet claiming

In order to even begin to credit some prayer to some dead person called a saint  you would have to be able to eliminate every single medical and natural means of recovery with details of why and how you were eliminating them.

Which in reality is just a precommitment to having to find a natural explanation, thereby wasting people's time with claims of wanting evidence!

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Ah a valiant attempt by SotS to reverse the burden of proof from the person who makes an extraordinary claim minus any methodology to investigate the claim.

Ah, a valiant attempt by Nearly Sane to not expect the person making the positive claim to back it up

sounds like you've been duped Alan , you should be ashamed of yourself for being so gullible .

The burden of proof lies with Walter to demonstrate his allegation that Alan has been gullible

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Sword,

You're as logically challenged as ever then I see. It's for the person making the claim to demonstrate it,

So ...

sounds like you've been duped Alan , you should be ashamed of yourself for being so gullible .

Let Walter demonstrate his claim that Alan has been duped and is gullible.

If I told you that a leprechaun sat on the end of my bed last night and sang me a lullaby would it be for you to tell me "what really happened" to cast doubt on the claim?

How does this relate to what Alan said?

If you made up the above, you are comparing something that is false with what Alan said, thereby assuming the conclusion to demonstrate it. If you didn't make up the above and are really claiming it, start a thread on it and go into some detail. There may be some interest!

[Walter]

Ah, a valiant attempt by Nearly Sane to not expect the person making the positive claim to back it up
The burden of proof lies with Walter to demonstrate his allegation that Alan has been gullible

you quite simply don't understand this burden of proof concept do you .

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

you quite simply don't understand this burden of proof concept do you .

It's you that does not understand burden of proof. Why can't you back up your assertion about Alan

sounds like you've been duped Alan , you should be ashamed of yourself for being so gullible .

[Walter]

It's you that does not understand burden of proof. Why can't you back up your assertion about Alan

you've proved my point again !!!!

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

you've proved my point again !!!!

And you keep on demonstrating that you cannot back up what you claim. #26530 again.

But I can't ignore the evidence I see before my eyes of a person able to walk unaided after being confined to a wheelchair for over two years

sounds like you've been duped Alan , you should be ashamed of yourself for being so gullible.

There is no ‘moral high ground’ on who can claim the truth of their position here. I want to see you justify your claim that Alan has been duped and in what way he has been gullible.

[Walter]

And you keep on demonstrating that you cannot back up what you claim. #26530 again.

There is no ‘moral high ground’ on who can claim the truth of their position here. I want to see you justify your claim that Alan has been duped and in what way he has been gullible.

nope, it's Alan you need to ask for justification . So don't ask me again .

[bluehillside Retd.]

SotS,

So ...

Quote from: Walter

sounds like you've been duped Alan , you should be ashamed of yourself for being so gullible .

Let Walter demonstrate his claim that Alan has been duped and is gullible.

Believing things for bad (or no) reasons is what “gullible” means. What else is there to demonstrate?

How does this relate to what Alan said?

It relates to what Alan said because it explains how the burden of proof works – something neither he nor you seem to grasp. “I really experienced God and you should believe that I did therefore” and, “I really experienced leprechauns and you should believe that I did therefore” are epistemically the same statement. 

If you made up the above, you are comparing something that is false with what Alan said, thereby assuming the conclusion to demonstrate it. If you didn't make up the above and are really claiming it, start a thread on it and go into some detail. There may be some interest! 

Whoosh! – see above. The point is that when Alan and I make an identical argument for our (very different) beliefs then you have no choice but to accept the argument for both claims or to reject it for both claims. A bad argument doesn’t somehow become a good one because you approve of its conclusion (or vice versa). 

[SusanDoris]

#26532
Actually, I don't, for the reasons you demonstrated in your post. You said
What is at stake here is the truth of the matter. Alan Burns may be right. He may be mistaken. There may be another miraculous explanation other than what he suggested.

However, you want to have your cake and eat it by saying

Yet claiming
Which in reality is just a precommitment to having to find a natural explanation, thereby wasting people's time with claims of wanting evidence!

No doubt you are congratulating yourself on a well-crafted
 reply? I am sure there are quite a few who will not agree with you, including me.