Searching for GOD...

[floo]

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.

And many of us would not see it that way.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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

And truly I have the power of prophecy! Did I not say it would be so? Bow down and tremble before me all ye who doubted the word of bluehillside!

[Nearly Sane]

And truly I have the power of prophecy! Did I not say it would be so? Bow down and tremble before me all ye who doubted the word of bluehillside!

If posters don't reply in some sort of set time you have in your head  I don't see that as running away. There are many reasons for a non response at any time

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

If posters don't reply in some sort of set time you have in your head  I don't see that as running away. There are many reasons for a non response at any time

You do know that I was joking right?

Mind you, that said SotS does have form here for posting condescending nonsense, getting corrected, then vanishing. Let's see if he repeats the the pattern.

[torridon]

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.

In other words, it can't be deterministic because I don't feel deterministic, therefore magic 

I guess robins must be using their robin soul when choosing a nesting site; ants must be using their ant soul when choosing which pheromone trail to follow.  How about an ant colony when it makes its emergent choice about a new nest site ? Is it using it's ant colony soul ?

Hoisting magic in renders brains redundant; all those thousands of millions of years of slow evolution when souls were there all along to do just the same job with a wave of the hand 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

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.
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.

What equivalence?

There is plenty to consider, hence the point of having a discussion that has run for pages. If there is nothing for you to consider, that's fine.

Depending on my mood and time available I am happy to consider beliefs in souls and leprechauns - depends on what people come up with that makes for a potentially interesting discussion.

So going back to the considering - AB, you are suggesting a soul that makes choices that are influenced but not defined by nature/nurture etc. So I'm wondering what your distinction is between your soul's will being "influenced" and being "defined"?

Are you suggesting that the soul, despite being influenced one way, can make a decision that is not influenced/determined by anything, other than I assume the available options? How is a choice that is not influenced by anything different from random choice?

Plus, are you suggesting that the soul's available options to choose from is a product of the brain thinking, and the choices your soul makes are a product of your emotions about those available choices?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

What equivalence?

This one:

“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.” (emphasis added)

There is plenty to consider, hence the point of having a discussion that has run for pages. If there is nothing for you to consider, that's fine.

That’s a non sequitur. That the same arguments that undo AB have been posted many times and he’s ignored them many times does not imply that his conjecture “soul” therefore offers something to consider for the reason I explained: it’s incoherent.

Depending on my mood and time available I am happy to consider beliefs in souls and leprechauns - depends on what people come up with that makes for a potentially interesting discussion.

No doubt, but the point was about what happens when a bad argument is deployed to validate a belief – you can’t then deny the same bad argument for a different belief entirely.

So going back to the considering - AB, you are suggesting a soul that makes choices that are influenced but not defined by nature/nurture etc. So I'm wondering what your distinction is between your soul's will being "influenced" and being "defined"?

Are you suggesting that the soul, despite being influenced one way, can make a decision that is not influenced/determined by anything, other than I assume the available options? How is a choice that is not influenced by anything different from random choice?

Plus, are you suggesting that the soul's available options to choose from is a product of the brain thinking, and the choices your soul makes are a product of your emotions about those available choices?

This part seems to be addressed to AB rather than to me?

[Stranger]

Gabriella,

You seem to have confused who is arguing for what. AB is arguing that this 'soul' can somehow make a choice that is neither determined, random, nor some combination of the two.

This makes no sense because either all the factors that go into a decision process fully define only one choice or not. If they do, then the choice is deterministic. If not, there can be no remaining factors that haven't already been considered, so any remaining choice must be for no reason, which means random.

AB won't even face up to that logic - he keeps on avoiding the point. He also seems incapable of understanding that whatever combination may be involved would still feel like making a free choice - indeed, it is as free a choice as is logically possible. We can do what we want but we can't change who we are and how we make choices.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stranger,

You seem to have confused who is arguing for what. AB is arguing that this 'soul' can somehow make a choice that is neither determined, random, nor some combination of the two.

This makes no sense because either all the factors that go into a decision process fully define only one choice or not. If they do, then the choice is deterministic. If not, there can be no remaining factors that haven't already been considered, so any remaining choice must be for no reason, which means random.

AB won't even face up to that logic - he keeps on avoiding the point. He also seems incapable of understanding that whatever combination may be involved would still feel like making a free choice - indeed, it is as free a choice as is logically possible. We can do what we want but we can't change who we are and how we make choices.

A good summary. His notion is that, to be "free", decision making must be free of the antecedent properties that would constrain or bound it. He then just magics a freedom that's incoherent - neither deterministic nor random - and expects others to take the idea seriously.

I liked torri's analogy a while back of the prison whose wall were so far away that the prisoner would barely be aware of their existence (or not aware at all). He'd feel perfectly free from cradle to grave, but all the while wouldn't have "slipp'd the surly bonds" of cause and effect nonetheless. AB doesn't like that though, so he resorts consistently to an argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy ("but that would mean..." etc) to try to get off the hook.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,
This one:

“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.” (emphasis added)

I disagree that it's a false equivalence. But feel free to assert that AB's distinction between choices being "influenced" and "defined" putting him in the position of not knowing the detail of how choices are made, same as the rest of us, is a false equivalence.

That’s a non sequitur. That the same arguments that undo AB have been posted many times and he’s ignored them many times does not imply that his conjecture “soul” therefore offers something to consider for the reason I explained: it’s incoherent.

You don't have to consider it and people who want to consider it will do so. The discussion has resulted in some interesting posts about decision-making so I'm happy to dip in and out of it. Any time you get bored with its incoherence you are free to not participate.

No doubt, but the point was about what happens when a bad argument is deployed to validate a belief – you can’t then deny the same bad argument for a different belief entirely.

I'll bear that in mind when someone wants to discuss a different belief. 

This part seems to be addressed to AB rather than to me?

Yes - I am interested in figuring out how far he is going with his particular concept of a soul.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

You seem to have confused who is arguing for what. AB is arguing that this 'soul' can somehow make a choice that is neither determined, random, nor some combination of the two.

I know AB is arguing this - that's why I asked him the question "Are you suggesting that the soul, despite being influenced one way, can make a decision that is not influenced/determined by anything, other than I assume the available options? How is a choice that is not influenced by anything different from random choice?"

I am trying to understand what he means by "influenced but not defined" and what he sees as the difference between "influenced" and "determined" and "random".

This makes no sense because either all the factors that go into a decision process fully define only one choice or not. If they do, then the choice is deterministic. If not, there can be no remaining factors that haven't already been considered, so any remaining choice must be for no reason, which means random.

AB won't even face up to that logic - he keeps on avoiding the point. He also seems incapable of understanding that whatever combination may be involved would still feel like making a free choice - indeed, it is as free a choice as is logically possible. We can do what we want but we can't change who we are and how we make choices.

This thread has run on for many pages and I haven't bothered participating for a long time. Now that I am participating I'm trying to understand how influence manifests itself in AB's concept of a soul making decisions. I don't have any questions relating to your arguments so it's more interesting at the moment asking AB for his views.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

I disagree that it's a false equivalence.

So we’ve gone straight from “what equivalence?” to, “ I disagree that it’s a false equivalence” with no, “Oh OK, thanks for reminding me of what I said” in between? Oh well.

But feel free to assert that AB's distinction between choices being "influenced" and "defined" putting him in the position of not knowing the detail of how choices are made, same as the rest of us, is a false equivalence.

I didn’t assert it, I argued it (albeit that you just ignored the argument). Again: it’s a false equivalence because one is logically coherent, the other isn’t. You can have “not worked out all the details” for the former, but not of the latter. To be even in “details” territory you need first a logically consistent epistemic framework. Just now what he has is the equivalent of "not having worked out all the details" of, “&Y*T^&^T46tgyo3870t”. That’s why AB’s “soul” is just white noise.   

You don't have to consider it and people who want to consider it will do so. The discussion has resulted in some interesting posts about decision-making so I'm happy to dip in and out of it. Any time you get bored with its incoherence you are free to not participate.

You’ve just shifted ground. Your argument was that the length of the exchanges here implied that AB offered something worth considering (“There is plenty to consider, hence the point of having a discussion that has run for pages”). That’s a non sequitur for the reason I explained.

Whether I get “bored with its incoherence” is a different matter. Why though wouldn’t anyone be bored with incoherence? If I posted, “green ramblings elephant furiously” often enough wouldn’t you get bored with it too?

I'll bear that in mind when someone wants to discuss a different belief.

You don’t need to – rather it was en explanation of why AB rules himself out of any meaningful discussion every time he tries a logically false argument to validate his beliefs.

Which is essentially all he has – that and assertions of personal faith.

Yes - I am interested in figuring out how far he is going with his particular concept of a soul.

But not interested in figuring out how far I’m going with my concept of “&Y*T^&^T46tgyo3870t?

Seems a bit unfair.

[Alan Burns]

In other words, it can't be deterministic because I don't feel deterministic, therefore magic 

I guess robins must be using their robin soul when choosing a nesting site; ants must be using their ant soul when choosing which pheromone trail to follow.  How about an ant colony when it makes its emergent choice about a new nest site ? Is it using it's ant colony soul ?

Hoisting magic in renders brains redundant; all those thousands of millions of years of slow evolution when souls were there all along to do just the same job with a wave of the hand 

Quoting examples of instinctive animal behaviour says nothing about the concept of having freedom to choose.  Animal behaviour can certainly be explained in terms of events which are physically deterministic.  Human behaviour comprises countless examples of exercising a freedom of choice which can't be explained by mere instinct or learnt experiences.

[torridon]

Quoting examples of instinctive animal behaviour says nothing about the concept of having freedom to choose.  Animal behaviour can certainly be explained in terms of events which are physically deterministic.  Human behaviour comprises countless examples of exercising a freedom of choice which can't be explained by mere instinct or learnt experiences.

The mechanism of choice of choice is fundamentally the same.  The individual weighs up the alternatives against its criteria and chooses the best match; this is going to be true whether you are a robin, a rabbi or a robot.  Humans might have greater cognitive range than robins (well, most of them), but that merely acknowledges that there are degrees of specialisation unique to different brains, but at some level the mechanisms of choice come down to the same thing.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Quoting examples of instinctive animal behaviour says nothing about the concept of having freedom to choose.  Animal behaviour can certainly be explained in terms of events which are physically deterministic.  Human behaviour comprises countless examples of exercising a freedom of choice which can't be explained by mere instinct or learnt experiences.

A while ago I saw an interview with a flat earth proponent who, no matter what questions he was asked, just dreamt up ever-more fantastical explanations to make the problems go away. Why does the earth look curved from an aeroplane? That’s because the glass in the windows is curved so distorts the true picture etc.

AB is very like this I think. When the complex, problem solving characteristics of other species is pointed out he can’t allow them to have his magical “soul” too so he just decides that they’re only “instinctive” to make the problem go away. Never mind the vast body of evidence from those who work in the relevant disciplines that many species are capable of sophisticated, original, problem solving thought that requires many of the properties of conscious awareness (deferred reward etc). Just assert them to be “instinctive” and the problem evaporates just like that, Tommy Cooper style.

It’s all bonkers, and a bit weird too I find.

[Alan Burns]

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.

What about the concept of forgiveness?

Forgiveness is a state of mind which requires no outward physical reaction, but it does involve a conscious choice.  And it is difficult to see how it could be instinctive.  Can forgiveness be defined in terms of physically determined patterns of electro chemical brain activity?  Or is it a conscious state of mind derived from within the human soul?

[Gordon]

What about the concept of forgiveness.

Forgiveness is a state of mind which requires no outward physical reaction, but it does require a conscious choice.

As in someone thinking through the various aspects involved: luckily we have biology that can do that.

And it is difficult to see how it could be instinctive.

I'd have thought 'considered' would be a better term.

Can forgiveness be defined in terms of physically determined patterns of electro chemical brain activity?

Yes, although why you insist on 'defining' everything beats me: perhaps you just like the word.

Or is it a conscious state of mind derived from within the human soul?

No, since there are no good reasons to think 'souls' are in any sense real.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

What about the concept of forgiveness?

What about the property of anything? Forgiveness, revenge, love, whatever – none of these things get you out of the determined vs random cleft stick.

Forgiveness is a state of mind which requires no outward physical reaction, but it does involve a conscious choice.  And it is difficult to see how it could be instinctive.

But it’s not difficult to see how it’s a naturalistic phenomenon with no (logically incoherent) little man at the controls required.

Can forgiveness be defined in terms of physically determined patterns of electro chemical brain activity?

It’s “explained, not “defined” and contextually at least yes.   

Or is it a conscious state of mind derived from within the human soul?

Or from unicorns firing arrows with messages attached? See, when you plummet into the world of incoherence you can posit any white noise you like – “soul” included. You’re still in not even wrong territory when you do it though.

[Rhiannon]

Quoting examples of instinctive animal behaviour says nothing about the concept of having freedom to choose.  Animal behaviour can certainly be explained in terms of events which are physically deterministic.  Human behaviour comprises countless examples of exercising a freedom of choice which can't be explained by mere instinct or learnt experiences.

You are an animal too. Why can’t you face that?

[Rhiannon]

What about the concept of forgiveness?

Forgiveness is a state of mind which requires no outward physical reaction, but it does involve a conscious choice.  And it is difficult to see how it could be instinctive.  Can forgiveness be defined in terms of physically determined patterns of electro chemical brain activity?  Or is it a conscious state of mind derived from within the human soul?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/in-one-lifespan/201206/beyond-revenge-the-evolution-the-forgiveness-instinct

[bluehillside Retd.]

Rhi,

You are an animal too. Why can’t you face that?

Because he can’t bear the thought that Jesus might not want him for a sunbeam after all.

[floo]

Rhi,

Because he can’t bear the thought that Jesus might not want him for a sunbeam after all.

 

[Alan Burns]

But it’s not difficult to see how it’s a naturalistic phenomenon with no (logically incoherent) little man at the controls required.

Without the concept which you describe as "a little man at the controls", there is nothing else in control but the natural unguided, purposeless laws of nature which act upon and within the material elements of your brain.  Can this control really enable the state of mind which we perceive to be forgiveness?  Or does it need some other form of control which can be consciously guided?

[Alan Burns]

You are an animal too. Why can’t you face that?

I am God's creation, as are the animals.  The difference is that God has enabled me, and other humans, to become aware of their creator.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

You don't have to consider it and people who want to consider it will do so. The discussion has resulted in some interesting posts about decision-making so I'm happy to dip in and out of it. Any time you get bored with its incoherence you are free to not participate.

You’ve just shifted ground. Your argument was that the length of the exchanges here implied that AB offered something worth considering (“There is plenty to consider, hence the point of having a discussion that has run for pages”). That’s a non sequitur for the reason I explained.

Whether I get “bored with its incoherence” is a different matter. Why though wouldn’t anyone be bored with incoherence? If I posted, “green ramblings elephant furiously” often enough wouldn’t you get bored with it too?

Gabriella has made a good point here.

bluehillside Retd: If you really thought Alan Burns was doing the equivalent of posting green ramblings elephant furiously, not only would you be bored of it, you wouldn't give it the time of day and erm ... stay retired?

Be honest. You (and I suspect SusanDoris, Walter and a few others) are scared shitless that Alan Burns may be right. Where would that leave your indefensible faith in arguments for disbelief? You would have no excuse and nowhere to go.

Alan Burns' posts on here convict you and that is why you have to be here constantly opposing them.