Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

Torri,
You keep quoting examples of things we have no choice in, but I can easily counter these by giving countless examples of things in which we can have a conscious choice.  I do not see what you are trying to prove with these trivial examples.  Conscious choices do exist.  I can exercise my conscious choice over many things at a time I choose - we will continue to disagree on what determines our choices.  I can never accept the scenario you put forward because I am certain that my final choices are determined in real time by my own will, not by the inevitable consequences to past events.

We have no choice in what to like and what to dislike.  I have no choice in how much I like something or dislike something.  If we could have some freedom of choice in that, on what basis could we choose what to like or how much to like it ?  It is the relative strengths of such likes and dislikes, over which we have no control, that determine the choices we make. If we have no control over our values and preferences, how can we be 'free' in evaluating choices related to them ?  It makes no sense whatsoever.

[Alan Burns]

We have no choice in what to like and what to dislike.  I have no choice in how much I like something or dislike something.  If we could have some freedom of choice in that, on what basis could we choose what to like or how much to like it ?  It is the relative strengths of such likes and dislikes, over which we have no control, that determine the choices we make. If we have no control over our values and preferences, how can we be 'free' in evaluating choices related to them ?  It makes no sense whatsoever.

Neither does my choice to blow a raspberry at you (though you can't hear it) 

[floo]

Whilst we don't have a choice about how we feel about something, we do have a choice as to how we react to it.

[Alan Burns]

Whilst we don't have a choice about how we feel about something, we do have a choice as to how we react to it.

I agree

[torridon]

Neither does my choice to blow a raspberry at you (though you can't hear it) 

That would just mean that your desire to blow a raspberry was stronger than your desire to engage with an understanding of how minds work.  You cannot choose to feel strongly about something; we either do or we don't, but to claim we have choice in that makes no sense.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

My so called assertions are based on the fact that at the material level, all electro-chemical brain activity is entirely determined according to the laws of science, which leaves no room for any form of human free will to exist at the physical level.  This has lead many scientists to conclude that human free will is an illusion, and all our thoughts, words and actions are entirely pre determined by physical chains of cause and effect.

Well prior to making a decision to act or not act, we rely on a mix of intuition and a conscious debate in our mind to weigh up the pros and cons of potential consequences and how we feel about those consequences, based on perception, knowledge and experience inputs into our brain and whatever we identified as our preferences. We can interpret/understand/perceive in different ways based on what we have been exposed to in the past so two different people can interpret the same experience in different ways based on internal narratives caused by past experiences.

These considerations produce emotions that influence our decision-making. So yes, based on current info I think the internal debate before a decision is made and the resulting emotional impact on our decision-making is based on those prior inputs plus physiological/chemical inputs that then produce a decision. It isn't currently possible to isolate and identify every input and its source each time we have a thought or make a decision. Who knows if it will ever be possible, given the complexity of the brain and how much we still don't know.

Your question about energy is an interesting one, since any interaction with the physical brain should not break the basic premiss that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but spiritual interaction induced through the apparently indeterminate quantum events would not break these rules.

It depends on how different people choose to define their concept of a soul. If someone decides they like the concept of a supernatural soul, it does not need to conform to the currently identified rules about conservation of energy.

[Rhiannon]

Whilst we don't have a choice about how we feel about something, we do have a choice as to how we react to it.

Not true. To take an extreme position, a soldier with PTSD cannot choose his reaction to hearing fireworks. We are all pretty much like that - our reactions are instinctive and are based on past experience and current circumstance.

[floo]

Not true. To take an extreme position, a soldier with PTSD cannot choose his reaction to hearing fireworks. We are all pretty much like that - our reactions are instinctive and are based on past experience and current circumstance.

I disagree, we can get very angry about something, but deciding to retaliate is a conscious action.

[Stranger]

I perceive your logic to be flawed...

How do you perceive that without actually addressing the logic? It makes no sense just to say it.

...because you do not consider the possibility of the human soul being able to consciously invoke a choice at will.

Please stop repeating things that are untrue. I have made no assumption about what is involved in decision making - I have only considered the logic of coming to any choice via any means.

The phrase "human soul being able to consciously invoke a choice at will" isn't a way of making a choice, it's an assertion about what makes a choice.

It's just evasion.

You insist that even the spiritual power of the human soul (if it exists) is tied to inevitable, deterministic, unavoidable choices and is incapable of invoking its own will.

Once again - if something is going to "invoke its own will", it has to have made a choice as to what its will is going to be. This is not about how, it's about what. You need to address how a choice is made.

You obviously do not know the power of your own human soul.

You are obviously avoiding the point just as I predicted you would.

[Stranger]

Conscious choices do exist.  I can exercise my conscious choice over many things at a time I choose - we will continue to disagree on what determines our choices.  I can never accept the scenario you put forward because I am certain that my final choices are determined in real time by my own will, not by the inevitable consequences to past events.

It's basically a false dichotomy - your choices can be both determined in real time by your own will and (ultimately) the inevitable consequences of past events. There is no conflict between the two descriptions, they are just different levels of abstraction.

[SusanDoris]

I don't think so. AB's grandson is irrelevant to the debate on what influences our decisions. You bringing AB's grandson into the debate to express your fake concern for him seems an underhand way of debating.   

It seems you are going to continue to use the accusation that my  concern is fake. Well, be that as it may, I repeat - you are wrong in that assertion.

[Enki]

It seems to me that this word choice is an important little word here. I suggest that we have the ability to choose from the range of choices which are open to us in any given situation. It is how we choose which is at the nub of the problem. Torri, Stanger and others quite logically suggest that our choice is predicated on our nature, nurture and past experience basically, so that whatever choice we make is one that we must make at any given time. In other words, there are reasons for our choice, whether they be conscious, unconscious or any combination of the two. Alan, on the other hand, suggests that some sort of supernatural entity, which he calls a 'soul', is responsible for the actual act of choosing, but which not bound by our nature, nurture and past experience. He fails, however, to give any explanation on how this 'soul' then actually decides on its choice, leading to the inevitable conclusion that it decides randomly.

As I have said before, there is no evidence that a 'soul' exists. Furthermore I can see no reason why a 'soul' should exist. Hence, I find Alan's viewpoint rather illogical and rather pointless.  I'll go where the logic and evidence leads.

[Nearly Sane]

Good post, enki. No one I think is denying that a choice is made rather the question is whether there could be any other choice.

[wigginhall]

Yes, AB seems to be saying that the soul chooses a particular path for no reason!  I suppose he will give some gobbledygook about its choice not being determined but not random.   

[Rhiannon]

I disagree, we can get very angry about something, but deciding to retaliate is a conscious action.

But informed by past experiences etc. NS is right, there is a choice, but what other choice is there? Could I consciously choose to kill? No. Could I kill in the moment as a reaction to keep myself or loved ones safe? It’s possible and if so it would be instinctive. Neither reaction is a ‘choice’ as such.

[ippy]

Yes, AB seems to be saying that the soul chooses a particular path for no reason!  I suppose he will give some gobbledygook about its choice not being determined but not random.

How about, if Alan, shouts loud enough for long enough he'll have proved his point, there is such a thing as a soul?

Regards ippy

[Maeght]

I disagree, we can get very angry about something, but deciding to retaliate is a conscious action.

Evidence please.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

AB's position in #26936 was that the soul's choice or will is not random and was influenced by environment/nature/nurture but not defined by them. AB seems to have made a distinction between choices being "influenced" and being "defined". But it puts him in the position of not knowing the detail of how choices are made, same as the rest of us.

I find I will often make a different choice if I have to account for my actions to a 3rd party compared to where I don't have to account for my actions to a 3rd party. E.g. I sometimes have a personal trainer come to my house - it's easier to exercise than come up with a credible last minute excuse that a 3rd party will swallow as to why I am too busy to exercise.

[torridon]

AB's position in #26936 was that the soul's choice or will is not random and was influenced by environment/nature/nurture but not defined by them. AB seems to have made a distinction between choices being "influenced" and being "defined". But it puts him in the position of not knowing the detail of how choices are made, same as the rest of us....

Yes, Alan will say, 'just because I want to', in other words, defining a 'want' as a mysterious fundamental state that cannot be further diagnosed or dissected. I often find that I do things and am not quite sure why.  Most of what goes on in minds is under the hood and we are not always aware of the detail.  But there must be some detail there; somehow or other a decision has to be made, and that is what brains have evolved to do, to weigh things up and come to decisions that are in our best interests somehow or other.  Alan wants to keep that mystery in tact; I prefer to think about the fact that there has to be some mechanism at work, it cannot just be magic.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

AB's position in #26936 was that the soul's choice or will is not random and was influenced by environment/nature/nurture but not defined by them. AB seems to have made a distinction between choices being "influenced" and being "defined". But it puts him in the position of not knowing the detail of how choices are made, same as the rest of us.

That’s a false equivalence. The mechanics of materialistic decision-making may not be fully understood, but they are situated in a logically coherent model. Alan’s “soul” on the other hand is incoherent because it breaks the binary deterministic/random options. That is, it’s not that he’s wrong but that he’s not even wrong – there’s nothing to consider, just white noise.

I find I will often make a different choice if I have to account for my actions to a 3rd party compared to where I don't have to account for my actions to a 3rd party. E.g. I sometimes have a personal trainer come to my house - it's easier to exercise than come up with a credible last minute excuse that a 3rd party will swallow as to why I am too busy to exercise.

None of which is relevant to Alan’s basic problem. He’s essentially essaying an explanatory narrative with “magic happens here” in the middle of it – and if you give that house room, then you have no choice but to do the same about any other output resting on the same rhetorical device, leprechauns included.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Gabriella,

That’s a false equivalence.

No, it is not.

If you want false equivalence, try your association with your new-found faith in all things leprechauns with Alan's belief in God.

You are also wrong because you are assuming the truth of your position and thereby implication claiming that Alan is wrong.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

None of which is relevant to Alan’s basic problem. He’s essentially essaying an explanatory narrative with “magic happens here” in the middle of it

Which is a qualitative assessment of Alan's position. I think I'll dismiss it with an expression you're familiar with...

white noise

[Alan Burns]

Yes, AB seems to be saying that the soul chooses a particular path for no reason!  I suppose he will give some gobbledygook about its choice not being determined but not random.

I have never implied there is anything random about the human ability to choose.  It is other posters who have tried to imply that anything not pre determined must be random.  There is always a reason for a choice, but some people seem to think that the reason itself must be pre determined, which makes it no choice at all, but an inevitable, uncontrollable reaction entirely defined by past events.  I agree that the mechanically deterministic scenario can never come to any other conclusion but that everything must be pre determined, which is why I still maintain that our freedom to choose is evidence of the power of the human soul.

[bluehillside Retd.]

SotS,

Is there any point in correcting you again given your history of posting nonsense and then running away?

No, it is not.

If you want false equivalence, try your association with your new-found faith in all things leprechauns with Alan's belief in God.

You are also wrong because you are assuming the truth of your position and thereby implication claiming that Alan is wrong.

That’s a lot to get wrong in just a few words.

1. Yes it is, for the reasons I explained and you just ignored.

2. I don’t draw an equivalence between the claim “God” and the claim “leprechauns”. What I do say though is that when the arguments used to validate them are the same – ie, equivalent - then you have no choice but to accept those arguments as valid in both cases or as invalid in both cases. There’s no third option.

3. Re your “assuming the truth” nonsense I corrected you on this a while back and you just ran away remember? All I actually “assume” is that logic matters, and when Alan’s arguments align precisely to codified logical fallacies they are necessarily thereby wrong arguments.

It’s not that hard to grasp Sword. Really it isn’t.

Which is a qualitative assessment of Alan's position. I think I'll dismiss it with an expression you're familiar with...

white noise

Wrong again. When Alan has his deterministic vs random problem explained to him and on the rare occasions he feels like responding to it he tells us that he “hasn’t got all the details worked out” or similar of how this “soul” functions, but he insists it does anyway. That’s precisely equivalent to “magic happens here” – and he can’t just gloss over it as if it wasn’t.

Presumably I should say goodbye to you now as, now you’ve been corrected again, you’ll just vanish again?

[Stranger]

I have never implied there is anything random about the human ability to choose.  It is other posters who have tried to imply that anything not pre determined must be random.

Other posters have not "tired to imply" it - they have provided logical arguments that you have been utterly unable to even bring yourself to face, let alone provide a reasoned counterargument.

...I still maintain that our freedom to choose is evidence of the power of the human soul.

Which is fundamentally dishonest of you.