Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

Unfortunately, it doesn't really make a difference. Quite apart from the fact that it's unclear how a 'timeless' soul could contribute to decision making, the plain facts remain: at the point of making a choice, you have the external circumstances and the internal state of the mind (including a soul, for the sake of argument) and if those do not fully define the response, then there is nothing else left to influence it, so any remaining choice must be for no reason at all, which is random.

I perceive that the soul always exists in the present.  It can perceive the past through what is stored in our brain cells, but it is not defined by the past.   Our human will and conscious perception always exist and work in the present.  It is not entirely defined by the past.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I perceive that the soul always exists in the present.  It can perceive the past through what is stored in our brain cells, but it is not defined by the past.   Our human will and conscious perception always exist and work in the present.  It is not entirely defined by the past.

You can "perceive" anything you like Alan, but when it leads to incoherence then it's misperception.

[Stranger]

I perceive...

Your subjective perceptions really don't count for anything unless you can support them with reasoning and/or evidence.

...that the soul always exists in the present.  It can perceive the past through what is stored in our brain cells, but it is not defined by the past.   Our human will and conscious perception always exist and work in the present.

Which changes the logic not one iota. Once it comes to a decision, it has its current state (your basic nature and your current state of mind) and the circumstances to base its choice on and if those do not fully determine its choice, there is nothing else left to base it on, so any remaining choice must be random.

It is not entirely defined by the past.

Once again: if the soul is not 'defined' by its initial state and subsequent experience, there is nothing else left but randomness.

You can't escape the fact that if all the things that can possibly contribute to something, do not fully define it, then there is nothing left but random variation.

[ippy]

I perceive that the soul always exists in the present.  It can perceive the past through what is stored in our brain cells, but it is not defined by the past.   Our human will and conscious perception always exist and work in the present.  It is not entirely defined by the past.

We can all perceive anything we like Alan, anything as far fetched you like, but there, you're one of the greater exponents of that.

The very kindest of good wishes to you Alan, you need them, ippy

[floo]

I perceive that the soul always exists in the present.  It can perceive the past through what is stored in our brain cells, but it is not defined by the past.   Our human will and conscious perception always exist and work in the present.  It is not entirely defined by the past.

I have many perceptions, but have to acknowledge it is just the way I see things, I could be barking up the wrong tree.

[Alan Burns]

Your subjective perceptions really don't count for anything unless you can support them with reasoning and/or evidence.

Which changes the logic not one iota. Once it comes to a decision, it has its current state (your basic nature and your current state of mind) and the circumstances to base its choice on and if those do not fully determine its choice, there is nothing else left to base it on, so any remaining choice must be random.

Once again: if the soul is not 'defined' by its initial state and subsequent experience, there is nothing else left but randomness.

You can't escape the fact that if all the things that can possibly contribute to something, do not fully define it, then there is nothing left but random variation.

You seem to be stuck in the restricted logic of physically controlled determinism defined entirely by past events.  In order to make sense of the reality we exist in, there has to be a means of escape from the inevitable, uncontrollable chains of physically pre defined cause and effect in order to be able to implement the conscious choices we make.  We all have demonstrable, real time control of our conscious choices which can only be derived from something which is non physical.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

You can "perceive" anything you like Alan, but when it leads to incoherence then it's misperception.

But it certainly does not lead to incoherence.  It is a far better explanation of the reality of our existence than the alternative which denies our freedom to think, say and do what we want.

[torridon]

You seem to be stuck in the restricted logic of physically controlled determinism defined entirely by past events.  In order to make sense of the reality we exist in, there has to be a means of escape from the inevitable, uncontrollable chains of physically pre defined cause and effect in order to be able to implement the conscious choices we make.  We all have demonstrable, real time control of our conscious choices which can only be derived from something which is non physical.

It is not restricted logic, it is logic.  And logic is, as they say, inescapable, I'm afraid.

[torridon]

I perceive that the soul always exists in the present.  It can perceive the past through what is stored in our brain cells, but it is not defined by the past.   Our human will and conscious perception always exist and work in the present.  It is not entirely defined by the past.

All the evidence suggests that the present moment is a function of the previous moment.  OK in some exotic circumstances, that might not hold, perhaps in spatio-temporal quantum entanglememt; also there are some theorists that hold that determinism breaks down inside certain classes of black holes below the Cauchy horizon.  But we aren't in a black hole, so we are ordinarily subject to the rules of logic - I am in Luton now because I just caught the bus here, the house is warm now because the heating has been on, I am upset now because I someone just shouted at me.  Logic will apply uniformly, it cares not if I am a molecule of water vapour or a recalcitrant presbyterian from Fife, logic is logic is logic and that will mean that decisions made by an organic brain cannot be disconnected either temporally from the past or spatially from their environment. No man is an island, and that applies just as much to you as it does to me.

[Stranger]

Once again AB totally ignores the actual argument put to him and goes for (ironically) mindless repetition instead.

You seem to be stuck in the restricted logic of physically controlled determinism defined entirely by past events.

I'm not. I've presented logic - nothing else.

In order to make sense of the reality we exist in, there has to be a means of escape from the inevitable, uncontrollable chains of physically pre defined cause and effect in order to be able to implement the conscious choices we make.

No there does not. Our conscious choices are entirely consistent with determinism.

We all have demonstrable, real time control of our conscious choices...

For (what seems like) the ten millionth time: yes, I know.

...which can only be derived from something which is non physical.

Nonsense - for all the reasons already given.

I'll repeat what I said (since you ignored it): You can't escape the fact that if all the things that can possibly contribute to something, do not fully define it, then there is nothing left but random variation.

That applies to who we are and to our choices - there is nothing in it that assumes the physical.

What you are proposing - a choice that is neither deterministic nor random - is a basic logical contradiction. If you are going to accuse me of assuming physical again, you need to say where and how making different assumptions can make some sense of this contradiction you keep proposing.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But it certainly does not lead to incoherence.

Yes it does, for reasons that keep being explained to you and you keep ignoring. The choice is essentially binary: deterministic or random. When you posit a little man at the controls and call it “soul” there’s no escaping that. If this “soul” is deterministic then you’ve just relocated the process, and if it’s random it can’t function consistently. 

When pushed on this you tell us that you “haven’t got all the details worked out” as if just dropping this “it’s magic” into your narrative is fine, we should all look the other way and the juggernaut of your faith belief should be taken seriously notwithstanding.

It doesn’t wash though. You don’t get to throw “magic happens here” into the formula in the hope no-one notices. You need to tell us which this soul is – deterministic or random. Your only way out of that would be to set out some hitherto unknown branch of logic that would enable it to be both (or neither, or something).

Until and unless you can do that your problem isn’t that you’re wrong – it’s that you’re not even wrong.       

It is a far better explanation of the reality of our existence than the alternative which denies our freedom to think, say and do what we want.

It can’t be a “far better explanation” because it’s not an explanation of any kind. “It’s magic” explains nothing – it’s just white noise.

[Stranger]

It is a far better explanation of the reality of our existence than the alternative which denies our freedom to think, say and do what we want.

Just how many times do you need to be told that determinism does not deny "our freedom to think, say and do what we want"? It's been explained to you over and over and over again.

[torridon]

I perceive that the soul always exists in the present.  It can perceive the past through what is stored in our brain cells, but it is not defined by the past.   Our human will and conscious perception always exist and work in the present.  It is not entirely defined by the past.

Of course we all operate in the present moment, but why the resistance to understanding why the present moment derives from previous moments. It seems abundantly and unarguably true to me, and I have no conflicts in terms of thinking of myself as a product of the influences that have gone into forming me into what I am in the current moment.  On deep scales, I find I have a body plan featuring bilateral symmetry and a through gut indicating common ancestry with a fruit fly; it doesn't bother me. On shorter timescales I have the slight remnants of a Yorkshire accent that betray my childhood origins, another formative thing over which I have no control.  On more immediate and subtle scales, if I change my mind about something, then there must be a reason for my change of mind, maybe I just made a connection I hadn't seen before.  I don't see it as something to be frightened of, that there are reasons for things, and that our actions have consequences.  It seems abundantly clear to me that the present derives from the past and that this is true on all scales and true of all things.

[wigginhall]

AB's perceptions seem to become ultimate truths for him, yet it's well known that our perceptions about our own actions and motives are deceptive.   This is partly because there is a ton of unconscious stuff going on.   Ever heard of unconscious hostility, expressed indirectly?

So why should we trust AB's perceptions?  I don't know either.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

AB's perceptions seem to become ultimate truths for him, yet it's well known that our perceptions about our own actions and motives are deceptive.   This is partly because there is a ton of unconscious stuff going on.   Ever heard of unconscious hostility, expressed indirectly?

So why should we trust AB's perceptions?  I don't know either.

Essentially yes, no matter what the reason, logic, evidence etc that undoes him AB thinks his personal perception in some unexplained way trumps all of that. If ever someone invents an consciousness-otron that explains it all in exquisite detail, still not doubt he'd cling to "but my perception..." as if it was a rebuttal.

Cleary there's no good reason for anyone to agree with him. Perhaps the more significant question for him though is why he should trust his perceptions so implicitly?

[wigginhall]

Wiggs,

Essentially yes, no matter what the reason, logic, evidence etc that undoes him AB thinks his personal perception in some unexplained way trumps all of that. If ever someone invents an consciousness-otron that explains it all in exquisite detail, still not doubt he'd cling to "but my perception..." as if it was a rebuttal.

Cleary there's no good reason for anyone to agree with him. Perhaps the more significant question for him though is why he should trust his perceptions so implicitly?

I don't really believe him in any case, about his perceptions.   He has to manufacture them, in order to fit in with his religious ideas, which come first.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

I don't really believe him in any case, about his perceptions.   He has to manufacture them, in order to fit in with his religious ideas, which come first.

I’m not so sure. It’s impossible to tell with that level of obduracy, but I don’t get the impression that he deliberately makes stuff up in a conscious way. Rather he has a supervening narrative that adapts automatically any experience into a rationale for his “perceptions”: “I lost my car keys, I prayed for a bit, then I found them, therefore God”; “I feel like I make my own decisions, I have to have something non-material at the controls, therefore soul” sort of thing.

It’s very odd (and a bit frightening I find when seen close up) but it’s all he has. No matter what the logic or argument, his only reply is, “but my perception…”. Why he thinks anyone else should take his perceptions any more seriously than those of anyone else (or even seriously at all) is anyone’s guess though as it’s clearly not a question he’ll ever answer.

[Alan Burns]

It is not restricted logic, it is logic.  And logic is, as they say, inescapable, I'm afraid.

I can escape from it any time I want to by exercising my God given freedom to choose, thus proving the logic to be flawed by short sighted human thinking.

There can be no halfway measures in this.  Either everything we do, say or think is entirely driven by the uncontrollable forces of nature acting on material elements, or there is something else involved which is not driven by nature, but by something outside our physically controlled laws of nature.  So any accusations of personal incredulity from the unbelievers must be directed to nature itself, not to me personally, because nature must be in overall control.

[wigginhall]

I can escape from it any time I want to by exercising my God given freedom to choose, thus proving the logic to be flawed by short sighted human thinking.

There can be no halfway measures in this.  Either everything we do, say or think is entirely driven by the uncontrollable forces of nature acting on material elements, or there is something else involved which is not driven by nature, but by something outside our physically controlled laws of nature.  So any accusations of personal incredulity from the unbelievers must be directed to nature itself, not to me personally, because nature must be in overall control.

Well, I don't perceive the supernatural, I don't experience it, I don't see any evidence for it.    You seem to be saying that you do perceive the supernatural, so now we have a conflict.   You perceive it, I don't.   

[Gordon]

I can escape from it any time I want to by exercising my God given freedom to choose, thus proving the logic to be flawed by short sighted human thinking.

There can be no halfway measures in this.  Either everything we do, say or think is entirely driven by the uncontrollable forces of nature acting on material elements, or there is something else involved which is not driven by nature, but by something outside our physically controlled laws of nature.  So any accusations of personal incredulity from the unbelievers must be directed to nature itself, not to me personally, because nature must be in overall control.

Nope: it's you, Alan, since nature doesn't 'think' at all and you do (albeit badly in some respects).

You also seem desperate for something to be in overall 'control' (which you again mention) beyond yourself or the scope of human influence, and I suspect this is because you personally need to feel there is some form of plan or intention beyond us humans - I don't there are any good reasons think there is, since it seems to me that 'nature' just rolls on regardless.   

[torridon]

I can escape from it any time I want to by exercising my God given freedom to choose, thus proving the logic to be flawed by short sighted human thinking.

There can be no halfway measures in this.  Either everything we do, say or think is entirely driven by the uncontrollable forces of nature acting on material elements, or there is something else involved which is not driven by nature, but by something outside our physically controlled laws of nature.  So any accusations of personal incredulity from the unbelievers must be directed to nature itself, not to me personally, because nature must be in overall control.

All you are claiming here, is that this 'something else' must be illogical in order for it to able to bypass logic.  If it is a soul, then you are claiming that souls are illogical.  Well I'd go along with that, and it applies to the whole panoply of fantasy beliefs - gods, spirits, ghosts, angels, heaven, free will, souls, I don't buy into any of them not because there is no evidence for them, which there isn't, but more because they are intrinsically irrational in concept; baseless fantasies that persist in minds that value the appeal of beliefs over their epistemic truth.  This much is evident from your posts on this thread, you haven't been able to substantiate your ideas with reason, rather what shines through is actually your distaste for logic.  You should be careful what you wish for, as the old proverb goes. If we really could escape logic we could not exist; galaxies could not form, humans would not be able to think rationally or make appropriate choices.  It is a pointless wish, that humans could be free of logic and so make pointless irrational choices.  Things are far better as they are, we can learn to be accepting of reality rather than constantly denying it.

[Stranger]

I can escape from it any time I want to by exercising my God given freedom to choose, thus proving the logic to be flawed by short sighted human thinking.

I'm afraid the shortsighted human thinking here is yours. As has been pointed out multiple times before - your ability to do as you please proves nothing of the sort.

I take it that your condemnation of basic logic as "flawed by short sighted human thinking" means that you have now admitted that you don't care about ("human") logic and your previous claims of a "logical analysis" were simply untrue?

[floo]

Nope: it's you, Alan, since nature doesn't 'think' at all and you do (albeit badly in some respects).

You also seem desperate for something to be in overall 'control' (which you again mention) beyond yourself or the scope of human influence, and I suspect this is because you personally need to feel there is some form of plan or intention beyond us humans - I don't there are any good reasons think there is, since it seems to me that 'nature' just rolls on regardless.

I agree. Humans created gods because consciously or unconsciously they didn't relish the idea of being the ones in ultimate control of their destiny.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I can escape from it any time I want to by exercising my God given freedom to choose, thus proving the logic to be flawed by short sighted human thinking.

A statement of such draw-dropping idiocy that it's almost impossible to know where to begin. If you want to posit a god a priori, then you need some sort of logic to demonstrate the premise. Just asserting "God" and then placing it outside the constraints of logic is hopeless thinking.

[Alan Burns]

Nope: it's you, Alan, since nature doesn't 'think' at all and you do (albeit badly in some respects).

Precisely - our freedom to think can't come from anything in the physically deterministic world of nature.  I am responsible for my own thoughts, making whatever is "me" to be supernatural rather than natural (of nature).