Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

I think you're over-complicating it. It could just be a part of your brain.

In my understanding of Islam there is an idea that Muslims have a duty to seek knowledge and think. So you read a book that tells you to seek knowledge, you seek knowledge, and while continuously seeking you learn about different concepts of forgiveness and reasons for applying them, which is an input into your brain that influences/determines that your brain will consider that input when making a decision in any relevant situation.

I remember knowing the answer to questions such as the name of the book that an opening line is from e.g. “The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.” where the answer just popped into my head from something I had read in A'Level English and not looked at again for 20 years. But if I hadn't read it in the first place my brain could not have retrieved that information. Seeking knowledge is a choice you make, probably influenced/ determined by going to school and practising seeking knowledge. I'm still not sure what the difference is for you between your brain being influenced and being determined or defined.

My arguments are based upon what comprises conscious awareness and what drives our personal choices.  The two are intrinsically linked, and neither conscious awareness or free will can be explained in terms of material reactions alone.  If everything we do, think or say are just driven by material reactions, then everything must be pre determined.  For there to be the concept of influence followed by conscious choice, there has to be some factor which is not just driven by material reactions alone - which I presume to be the spiritual awareness and free will of the human soul.

[Alan Burns]

How would you be able to tell if they were or not? This is not evidence or logic.

It is.

It's been explained to you many times - what's confusing you?

No, it's following all the evidence we have and taking account of the logic that rules out non-deterministic, purposeful action. Why would you even think it's optimistic?

Because of my freedom to label it as optimistic.  (Just think about it)

[Stranger]

The two are intrinsically linked, and neither conscious awareness or free will can be explained in terms of material reactions alone.

Baseless assertion.

If everything we do, think or say are just driven by material reactions, then everything must be determined.

Argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy.

For there to be the concept of influence followed by conscious choice, there has to be some factor which is not just driven by material reactions alone...

Non sequitur.

...which I presume to be the spiritual awareness and free will of the human soul.

Assumption based on assertion and fallacies.

[Stranger]

Because of my freedom to label it as optimistic.  (Just think about it)

And you wonder why you get ridiculed!?

I've answered this point many, many times and you've totally ignored both those answers and my questions yet again. Your continued use of these transparent evasion tactics is duplicitous and ridiculous.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Your argument is wrong. I was discussing AB trying to distinguish between choices being "influenced" and "defined" not what made those choices.

No it isn’t and no you weren’t. What you actually did was to draw an equivalence between AB’s approach and the rationalist approach. I even copied and pasted for you where you did it (“But it puts him in the position of not knowing the detail of how choices are made, same as the rest of us.”). If you actually want to talk about something else with him that’s up to you, but your actual attempt at equivalence still fails for the reasons I explained and you ignored. 

You're wrong again. There is plenty to consider about how choices are made, hence the thread has run on for many pages with many interesting posts on how people think choices are made.

No, you are. What I actually said was:

“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.”

To which you replied:

“There is plenty to consider, hence the point of having a discussion that has run for pages.”

Do you see it now? There may be plenty to consider about decision-making, but not about the “soul” we were actually discussing for the reason I explained. Whether one page of white noise or 1,000 pages of white noise makes no difference – it’s still white noise. 

Oh look, you are still here, considering the arguments posted on this thread. As usual you make statements you can't back up. Feel free to start a thread on the concept of “&Y*T^&^T46tgyo3870t if you want to consider that and see how far you get. But my guess is you will still be here a few pages from now, contradicting your own statement that there is nothing worth considering.

Then, as ever, your guess would be wrong and (more relevantly) this analogy thing would still have you foxed. I wasn’t proposing  ““&Y*T^&^T46tgyo3870t” as worthy of discussion at all but merely as analogous to AB’s “soul” inasmuch as it’s incoherent. People having religious arguments for example are sometimes described as analogous to two bald men arguing over a comb. Would you then reply, “Well, you’d better start a discussion about two bald men and a comb then” or would you grasp that the force of an analogy isn’t about its content at all?

You do this a lot I’ve noticed – when you get out of your depth you lash out, playground style. Once I would have responded in kind but it seems to me that this behaviour suggests someone more damaged than bad so I’m a lot more sympathetic. If you want to try to respond to the actual points and without the dummy spitting go right ahead. I’m here for you.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

In my understanding of Islam there is an idea that Muslims have a duty to seek knowledge and think.

That would be funny if it wasn't so sad. Are the children in madrassars rocking back and forth reciting the Quran for their only source of knowledge fulfilling a duty to "seek knowledge"? How about those who would kill cartoonists, or prosecute "blasphemers", or ban books they don't like from their schools and places fo worship? Are they fulfilling this duty too?

Seeking knowledge and thinking may be your understanding Gabriella, but it's clearly not the understanding of a lot of people who share your faith.

[Alan Burns]

Baseless assertion.

Argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy.

Non sequitur.

Assumption based on assertion and fallacies.

No
My conclusions are based on logic and evidence

[BeRational]

No
My conclusions are based on logic and evidence

Then present the logic and the evidence.

Do not use any fallacies or assertions, and everything will be fine.

[Nearly Sane]

No
My conclusions are based on logic and evidence

  If they are then why is your idea of free will logically incoherent?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

No it isn’t and no you weren’t. What you actually did was to draw an equivalence between AB’s approach and the rationalist approach. I even copied and pasted for you where you did it (“But it puts him in the position of not knowing the detail of how choices are made, same as the rest of us.”). If you actually want to talk about something else with him that’s up to you, but your actual attempt at equivalence still fails for the reasons I explained and you ignored.

You're still wrong for the reasons explained. The line before the one you copied and pasted was about AB differentiating between "influenced" and "defined". You do this a lot - quote or link to something irrelevant in the hope that it doesn't look like you misunderstood the point that was originally made.   

No, you are. What I actually said was:

“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.”

To which you replied:

“There is plenty to consider, hence the point of having a discussion that has run for pages.”

Do you see it now? There may be plenty to consider about decision-making, but not about the “soul” we were actually discussing for the reason I explained. Whether one page of white noise or 1,000 pages of white noise makes no difference – it’s still white noise.

Glad you agree that Alan introducing a soul into the concept of choice still leaves plenty to consider. You hold the belief that you can choose your beliefs so we can discuss your beliefs here too if you feel left out.

Regardless of whether AB wants a separate soul, or someone believes that the concept of a soul is just part of the functioning of the brain, or someone wants to dispense entirely with the word "soul", there is plenty to consider in this discussion, which is why it has run on for so many pages, many of which have considered and analysed AB's concepts of a soul and free will.

Then, as ever, your guess would be wrong and (more relevantly) this analogy thing would still have you foxed. I wasn’t proposing  ““&Y*T^&^T46tgyo3870t” as worthy of discussion at all but merely as analogous to AB’s “soul” inasmuch as it’s incoherent. People having religious arguments for example are sometimes described as analogous to two bald men arguing over a comb. Would you then reply, “Well, you’d better start a discussion about two bald men and a comb then” or would you grasp that the force of an analogy isn’t about its content at all?

Except your analogy doesn't work - as usual. We seem to be having an interesting time arguing about why people think AB's concept of a soul is incoherent because his concept of a soul relates to the ideas of free will and choice. Off you go and try and create a similar discussion about ““&Y*T^&^T46tgyo3870t”. But if you run out of ideas, feel free to come back to this discussion.

You do this a lot I’ve noticed – when you get out of your depth you lash out, playground style. Once I would have responded in kind but it seems to me that this behaviour suggests someone more damaged than bad so I’m a lot more sympathetic. If you want to try to respond to the actual points and without the dummy spitting go right ahead. I’m here for you.

I don't have a problem if you want to believe I am damaged...or even bad. You keep telling yourself whatever makes you feel better about still being here joining in the discussion. I have noticed you have a need to keep trying to portray yourself as superior on here - it suggests you have self-esteem issues. We're all here for all of us. 

[Alan Burns]

  If they are then why is your idea of free will logically incoherent?

Free will is not my idea - it is God's gift.  And we are free to use it.

[BeRational]

Free will is not my idea - it is God's gift.  And we are free to use it.

You have not presented any logic, just assertion, which you must know by now has no value.

[Stranger]

No
My conclusions are based on logic and evidence

Jolly good.

Then how about paying some attention to the arguments that are presented to you, stopping ignoring the answers to your questions, stopping repeating 'arguments' and questions that have been addressed countless times before, and actually presenting this logic and evidence...?

[Stranger]

Free will is not my idea - it is God's gift.  And we are free to use it.

He asserted without any evidence or logical argument.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

My conclusions are based on logic and evidence

NO THEY"RE NOT!

In fact they're really, really really not for reasons that have been explained to you over and over and over again and that you just ignore. And unless you can grasp at least a very basic understanding of what logic actually entails then you'll keep making the same mistakes. 

Here's a link to an article in Wiki that lists logical fallacies:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

Why not print it out and have it by your computer so that, every time you try an argument, you can check it against the list to see whether it's false before you post it?

That way you'd leave the field clear to try an argument that isn't necessarily wrong.

So all you have to do now is to think of one. Good luck with it!

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

That would be funny if it wasn't so sad. Are the children in madrassars rocking back and forth reciting the Quran for their only source of knowledge fulfilling a duty to "seek knowledge"? How about those who would kill cartoonists, or prosecute "blasphemers", or ban books they don't like from their schools and places fo worship? Are they fulfilling this duty too?

Seeking knowledge and thinking may be your understanding Gabriella, but it's clearly not the understanding of a lot of people who share your faith.

Did you actually want to have a discussion about those people who share my faith who have a similar understanding to me abut seeking knowledge, in which case I suggest you start a new thread rather than derail this one?

Or did you just want to rant about those people who share my faith who have a different understanding? In which case I'll leave you to your simple pleasures.

[Nearly Sane]

Free will is not my idea - it is God's gift.  And we are free to use it.

  And you can't define it in a logically coherent fashion.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

You're still wrong for the reasons explained. The line before the one you copied and pasted was about AB differentiating between "influenced" and "defined". You do this a lot - quote or link to something irrelevant in the hope that it doesn't look like you misunderstood the point that was originally made.

Nope. Reply 27006 actually reads:

You:

“What equivalence?”

Me:

“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)”

You:

“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.”

Me:

“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.”

See? The “line before” (that you wrote remember?) concerns precisely “the soul's choice or will” so the whole issue was about this supposed “soul” and so wasn’t irrelevant at all.

I’m sorry this has backfired so spectacularly for you, but don’t blame the messenger here. 

Glad you agree that Alan introducing a soul into the concept of choice still leaves plenty to consider.

Why have you just lied about that when I clearly said precisely the opposite – ie, that the incoherence or white noise of "soul" offers nothing to consider?

You hold the belief that you can choose your beliefs so we can discuss your beliefs here too if you feel left out.

Oh dear. You can choose or not to accept where the arguments take you. Beliefs come later.   

Regardless of whether AB wants a separate soul, or someone believes that the concept of a soul is just part of the functioning of the brain, or someone wants to dispense entirely with the word "soul", there is plenty to consider in this discussion, which is why it has run on for so many pages, many of which have considered and analysed AB's concepts of a soul and free will.

That’s a mix of ground shifting and untruth. The ground shifting is steering us away from AB's “soul” into the general subject of decision making. The untruth is that the “running on for so many pages” has anything to do with considering and analysing AB’s “concept of a soul and free will”. AB’s “concept” was falsified very quickly – the number of pages involved since is just a function of his obduracy in refusing to address the falsifications. Suggesting that it’s connected with potential legitimacy of his conjectures is just wrong.

Except your analogy doesn't work - as usual. We seem to be having an interesting time arguing about why people think AB's concept of a soul is incoherent because his concept of a soul relates to the ideas of free will and choice. Off you go and try and create a similar discussion about ““&Y*T^&^T46tgyo3870t”. But if you run out of ideas, feel free to come back to this discussion.

Except it does – as usual. One example of white noise is equivalent to another example of white noise. That’s the point of the analogy. No-one is “having an interesting time arguing about why people think AB's concept of a soul is incoherent because his concept of a soul relates to the ideas of free will and choice” – that ship sailed almost immediately he launched it. The length of correspondence since is mostly repetition in the face of his granite-faced obduracy and misunderstanding.   

I don't have a problem if you want to believe I am damaged...or even bad. You keep telling yourself whatever makes you feel better about still being here joining in the discussion. I have noticed you have a need to keep trying to portray yourself as superior on here - it suggests you have self-esteem issues. We're all here for all of us.

I don’t “portray” myself as any such thing – what I actually do is portray logic as epistemically superior to bad arguments and assertions of faith. 

Ah well. I tried.

[Alan Burns]

You have not presented any logic, just assertion, which you must know by now has no value.

You do not need a logical analysis to appreciate the reality that you have the freedom to say, think and do what you consciously want to do.  Just because it can't be explained in material terms does not mean that it does not exist, but it does indicate that it could comprise more than just material reactions alone.

[Stranger]

You do not need a logical analysis to appreciate the reality that you have the freedom to say, think and do what you consciously want to do.

Pay attention! Your subjective experience of 'free will' is not in question. Everybody agrees that we have that experience.

Trying to use it as an argument for your point of view is dishonest.

Just because it can't be explained in material terms does not mean that it does not exist, but it does indicate that it could comprise more than just material reactions alone.

That it can't be explained in material terms is just your baseless assertion - hence there is no indication of anything.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You do not need a logical analysis to appreciate the reality that you have the freedom to say, think and do what you consciously want to do.  Just because it can't be explained in material terms does not mean that it does not exist, but it does indicate that it could comprise more than just material reactions alone.

You have a remarkable facility for cramming an awful lot of wrong into very few words.

First, you have jumped from claiming “logic and evidence” to “you do not need logical analysis”. Which is it: do you think you have validating logic, or do you think logic that would support your assertions is irrelevant?

Second, “does not mean that it does not exist” is the negative proof fallacy. No-one argues otherwise. The problem though is that the same applies for any other conjecture – an orbiting teapot included. 

Third, it indicates no such thing – incomplete data for a phenomenon does not imply an explanation for it that has no supporting data at all.

[SusanDoris]

admiration for the rational posts which do not disdain or patronise.

I'm afraid that doesn't often include Gabriella's.

[Alan Burns]

This is truly absurd, it is surreal. Someone of your gargantuan persistent bias accusing others of cherry picking ?  Oh please, just take of those massive blinkers and look at the world with open eyes and honesty.  There isn't any evidence for gods from amongst which one could cherry pick.  Your feelings on the matter are not evidence, they are just your feelings, they are not evidence.  If you truly had found some real evidence for god then no doubt you would have published already and you'd be more famous than Stephen Hawking already.  We'd have already read about it; theology would have become a branch of science already.  But you haven't, and there isn't.  Your personal biases do not constitute evidence for anyone that cares about truth.

Torri,
It is you, (and others), who need to remove their blinkers and see beyond the limitations of human scientific discovery and realise that there is more to life than the physically determined reactions in the human brain.  Your posts clearly show that you have the freedom to think and drive your own thought processes.  What drives and directs these thought processes?  If it is all a result of material reactions in your brain, the end result is just another inevitable reaction over which there can be no control.  Can you not see the obvious that it is "you" in control?  And you comprise far more than a series of electro chemical reactions driven entirely by the deterministic laws of nature.

[torridon]

Have you ever tried to analyse how your thoughts originate?  Are they really produced by the natural, uncontrollable forces of nature acting on and within the material elements of your brain?  You may of course label my argument as personal incredulity, but how it could be labelled as "personal" if my own thoughts are just uncontrollable consequences of nature acting within my own brain is a mystery to me.  I put it to you that your own analysis of this can be labelled as personal optimism in the extreme.

One thought often triggers another thought. New information often triggers a thought.  I start to feel cold, thinks - I must put turn heating up; I burn hand on hot stove - thinks - I must remember not to do that again.  What is so hard to understand about this.  Our thoughts are always triggered by something prior, and of course we cannot control the past.  Imagine how things would be if we could control the past; life would be unintelligible; that there is a unidirectional arrow of time is essential for meaning.

[torridon]

Torri,
It is you, (and others), who need to remove their blinkers and see beyond the limitations of human scientific discovery and realise that there is more to life than the physically determined reactions in the human brain.  Your posts clearly show that you have the freedom to think and drive your own thought processes.  What drives and directs these thought processes?  If it is all a result of material reactions in your brain, the end result is just another inevitable reaction over which there can be no control.  Can you not see the obvious that it is "you" in control?  And you comprise far more than a series of electro chemical reactions driven entirely by the deterministic laws of nature.

To imagine that we 'drive' our thoughts is not truly how it happens.  As has been explained to you hundreds of times already.  See previous post - thoughts happen, thoughts are triggered by some or other event.  Thoughts don't come out of nowhere, they arise in minds as a consequence of something prior.  Nobody can choose which thought to think, that is an absurd suggestion.