Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

But the perception of past experiences, memories and thoughts is experienced in our conscious awareness.  They are not just binary switches which guide the neurons in our brain to determine a conscious choice - it is consciousness itself which guides the choice.  And this conscious awareness is in essence what comprises you.....

But you know that is not quite right, as we've explained to you so many times.  Since you seem to have a short memory, I'll remind you again that consciousness per se is not in the driving seat of action, it is subconscious mind where real choice and agency lie; consciousness is a retrospective phenomenological construct of lower orders of mind.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Ok, I'll build it from  there, as you put it.

Of course we have the freedom to choose. What follows next is on what basis we are able to exercise that freedom. It is surely completely logical that it is on the basis of our nature, nurture, past experiences, memories and thoughts which stem from them. This is not a reactive but an interactive process which, evidentially, seems to take place in the brain. The alternative is to bring in something else, which can logically only influence the exercise of our freedoms in random ways. Hence, we have your idea of a 'soul' which influences our decisions. If you reject the idea of your 'soul' being only able to  effect decisions randomly, then it necessitates that you give an alternative explanation on how  this 'soul' has any part to play in the way we are able to exercise our freedoms. You have never, as far as I can tell, given any insight at all on how this 'soul' of yours does this.

Obviously, therefore, in the absence of any evidence that such an entity actually exists, and despite your various assertions which carry no weight whatever, I am inclined to think there is no such thing as your 'soul' at all.

I remember Leonard also seemed to argue for the existence of free-will, but without attributing it to a God or a soul. Leonard used to say he was exercising his free-will, rather than his soul doing it. He didn't believe in a soul.

Alan asserts a soul to perceive or be consciously aware of brain activity and instruct the brain, because he feels as if he can perform acts of free will that override instinctive or determined reactions.

As opposed to saying what various other posters have said - that they do not know if free will exists or not as there is no evidence for its existence and subjective feelings don't count as evidence.

Alan's response to requests for evidence that are not based on subjective feelings, has been to assert that free will, constrained by his instincts, experiences, conscience, and sense etc, allows him to do something he wants to do even if he thinks he should not do it, but can't explain what generated the feeling of "wanting to do it" that his free will was acting on. He said even if the number of choices available to him or his wants were constrained by nature/nurture, he still ended up choosing one of the available choices through the mechanism of free will, and his free-will choice was not determined apparently but was influenced.

Am still not sure what the difference is between "influenced" and "determined" and how his free-will choosing between wants determined by nature/nurture while being influenced is free. Alan seems to have a concept of "free" that isn't completely free but is influenced.

Incidentally, my nature/nurture leads me to perceive that for hundreds of posts Alan has been interested enough in the concept of a soul that makes influenced decisions to be on here proclaiming his faith in souls and free-will that is not completely free. My nature/nurture also perceives other posters being interested enough in these concepts to point out over thousands of posts that he can't know souls or free-will exists and that without evidence "don't know" is the default position.

[torridon]

So why are we not seeing other mammalian species seeking the truth behind their existence?
No matter how many technical terms you use to categorise brain activity, if you disregard the human soul, all you are left with are chains of deterministic reactions entirely defined by the uncontrollable forces of nature.

All species have their own characteristics; being 'spiritual' is perhaps a defining characteristic of homo sapiens; we don't know so much about the myriad of other homo species of the past, Homo Habilis, Rudolfensis, Ergaster, Erectus, Antecessor, Heidelbergensis, Neanderthalensis etc etc. I would imagine some of these would have had spiritual aspects and beliefs and,  of course, superstitions.   I would fully expect that in an evolutionary line that was becoming gradually more aware of its mortality.  It mitigates against depression brought on by existential anxiety.

[Alan Burns]

But you know that is not quite right, as we've explained to you so many times.  Since you seem to have a short memory, I'll remind you again that consciousness per se is not in the driving seat of action, it is subconscious mind where real choice and agency lie; consciousness is a retrospective phenomenological construct of lower orders of mind.

I know you have said this, but this renders our conscious awareness to be a mere spectator over what we have chosen to do.  Is this an example of re defining reality to fit in with your theory?

[torridon]

I know you have said this, but this renders our conscious awareness to be a mere spectator over what we have chosen to do.  Is this an example of re defining reality to fit in with your theory?

no, read the posts Alan, this is what the evidence suggests.

Remember what you were saying about science being disciplined ?  This is what you seem to have quickly forgotten; we follow where the evidence leads, not where we would like it to lead.

[Alan Burns]

no, read the posts Alan, this is what the evidence suggests.

Remember what you were saying about science being disciplined ?  This is what you seem to have quickly forgotten; we follow where the evidence leads, not where we would like it to lead.

But in this you are only considering the somewhat limited scientific evidence we have on how the brain works, and you appear to be ignoring the evidence of your own perception of what determines your acts of human will.

[torridon]

But in this you are only considering the somewhat limited scientific evidence we have on how the brain works, and you appear to be ignoring the evidence of your own perception of what determines your acts of human will.

Novel findings from science are often counterintuitive, so what do we do, ignore them because it runs counter to our intuitions ?  If we all did that we'd still all be flat-earthers, never mind exotic stuff like time dilation and quantum entanglement.  It is for us to try to understand, not to try to deny.  This is what makes us human.

[wigginhall]

That's an important point, about the counter-intuitive nature of science.  Since the time of Freud, and in fact before that, we've been aware that our motives are hidden from ourselves, and may be less positive than we'd like to think.   Similarly, our perceptions about our own actions and decisions exist on the surface, and have to be taken with a pinch of salt, or a large handful.   But then AB seems to take his own perceptions as infallible, lucky man to be so in love with his own experience.

[Alan Burns]

Novel findings from science are often counterintuitive, so what do we do, ignore them because it runs counter to our intuitions ?  If we all did that we'd still all be flat-earthers, never mind exotic stuff like time dilation and quantum entanglement.  It is for us to try to understand, not to try to deny.  This is what makes us human.

But can you not see that when I consciously choose to press the "e" on the keyboard it actually gets pressed!  Is this not evidence against your conclusion that the pressing of the "e" was a subconscious choice?

It is our freedom to make conscious choices which makes us human.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Except it hasn't. The line before was about AB's distinction between choices being influenced as opposed to defined. I’m sohe (or you) find some way of dragiing it back from rry this has backfired so spectacularly for you, but don’t blame the messenger here.

Nope. You got something wrong, I explained why it was wrong, now you’re shifting ground. AB was talking about something he calls “soul”, and I explained that any role it might play in “choices”, “defined” or anything else is off the table a priori until he (or you) find some was of dragging it back from incoherence. Deal with it or not – I really don’t care either way – but have the decency to stop pretending it was about something else so as to get off the hook. 

I haven't lied about what you said. As usual you misunderstood what I said. AB introducing a soul, which is separate from the brain, and using it to argue for the concept of free will (which is why he needed a soul separate from the brain) offers a lot to consider about free-will and a ghost in the system.

Asking for evidence of AB's concept has led to a lot of interesting discussion. Your idea about choosing or not where the arguments take you and your belief that people choose their beliefs could also lead to interesting discussions if you were asked to provide evidence for your belief.

Yes you have. Not for one moment did I suggest that AB’s idea “soul” offered anything worthy of consideration, and nor could it axiomatically until and unless it was no longer incoherent.

If you want to have discussions about the nature of “free” will that have nothing to do with conjectures about “soul” that’s fine, but it’s a different matter. Again, actually address that or not as you wish, but ineligibility of the conjecture "soul" to that is still the point I was actually discussing.

If you want people to consider your idea in more detail, I suggest starting another thread as a lot of posters seem busy engaging with and asking for evidence for Alan's concept of a soul giving humans free-will.

No they’re not. What they (and I) are actually doing is explaining to him that the free will bit is a second order matter because his notion “soul” hasn’t even got its epistemic trousers off yet.

When he was asked how this “soul” would have anything to do with exercising will (free or otherwise) he readily tells us that he has no idea. It’s just magic apparently.

Are you suggesting posters are bored posting on here or bored reading posts about free-will but continue to post and read? I find the posts interesting so you're clearly wrong about "no-one" having an interesting time.

I’m suggesting that posters here are deeply frustrated by AB’s refusal or inability ever to engage head on with the arguments that undo him. That they keep trying to break down his obduracy nonetheless is testament to their patience I think.   

OIC. Are you saying you're damaged too and therefore deserving of a lot more sympathy. I thought you were trying to portray yourself as too superior to be damaged, but if I got that wrong then you have my apologies. And my sympathy.

Very funny. If anyone can find a logical path from what I actually said (“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”) to your response to it I’ll give them a whole English pound.

[Maeght]

But can you not see that when I consciously choose to press the "e" on the keyboard it actually gets pressed!  Is this not evidence against your conclusion that the pressing of the "e" was a subconscious choice?

It is our freedom to make conscious choices which makes us human.

The idea that our actions appear to be consciously thought of but are actually determined by our subconscious has been discussed many times on here. You may not agree with it but why do you persist in posting as above as if you have never had this idea laid out to you?

[torridon]

But can you not see that when I consciously choose to press the "e" on the keyboard it actually gets pressed!  Is this not evidence against your conclusion that the pressing of the "e" was a subconscious choice?

It is our freedom to make conscious choices which makes us human.

It just means the choice to press "e" occurred marginally before our conscious awareness of the choice just made.  It takes a little time to construct conscious awareness, it is a complex process.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But can you not see that when I consciously choose to press the "e" on the keyboard it actually gets pressed!  Is this not evidence against your conclusion that the pressing of the "e" was a subconscious choice?

It is our freedom to make conscious choices which makes us human.

That's a very nice example of when your "perception" lets you down. You perceive that you touch the key to "press" it right? But what science tells us is that you never actually touch it at all (because of the repellent effect of electrons from memory) so there's always a tiny gap between your finger and the key.

Can you see now why privileging feelings, perceptions etc over evidence can very easily lead you to the wrong answer entirely?

[Alan Burns]

The idea that our actions appear to be consciously thought of but are actually determined by our subconscious has been discussed many times on here. You may not agree with it but why do you persist in posting as above as if you have never had this idea laid out to you?

Well, if pressing the "e" originates in my sub conscious, what do you suppose invokes this sub conscious choice?  Was it just a pre determined consequence defined by every event since the beginning of time?  If not, it must have been invoked as a consequence to some specific event, because it is certainly not random.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

That's a very nice example of when your "perception" lets you down. You perceive that you touch the key to "press" it right? But what science tells us is that you never actually touch it at all (because of the repellent effect of electrons from memory) so there's always a tiny gap between your finger and the key.

Can you see now why privileging feelings, perceptions etc over evidence can very easily lead you to the wrong answer entirely?

Whether the finger actually touches the key is totally irrelevant to the fact that I consciously chose that key to be pressed. 

The fact is that I chose to press the key, and it gets depressed, which confirms the choice I make.

The big question is : What invokes the conscious choice?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

Nope. You got something wrong, I explained why it was wrong, now you’re shifting ground. AB was talking about something he calls “soul”, and I explained that any role it might play in “choices”, “defined” or anything else is off the table a priori until he (or you) find some was of dragging it back from incoherence. Deal with it or not – I really don’t care either way – but have the decency to stop pretending it was about something else so as to get off the hook.

Nope. You got it wrong - I'm not shifting ground - you misunderstood what I said. My line before the one you quoted was about the distinction between being influenced and being determined. Deal with it or not – I really don’t care either way – but have the decency to stop pretending it was about something else so as to get off the hook.

Yes you have. Not for one moment did I suggest that AB’s idea “soul” offered anything worthy of consideration, and nor could it axiomatically until and unless it was no longer incoherent.

If you want to have discussions about the nature of “free” will that have nothing to do with conjectures about “soul” that’s fine, but it’s a different matter. Again, actually address that or not as you wish, but ineligibility of the conjecture "soul" to that is still the point I was actually discussing.

I was having a discussion about free-will when you jumped in. Feel free to join in about how we don't know if free-will exists or not and if someone wants to postulate a ghost in the system, how there is no evidence for it. Whether it is called a ghost in the system or a soul is irrelevant to the discussion about how choices are made.

No they’re not. What they (and I) are actually doing is explaining to him that the free will bit is a second order matter because his notion “soul” hasn’t even got its epistemic trousers off yet.

Nope. He came up with a soul to explain his notion of free-will. Free-will was the main thrust of the discussion apart from the bits where AB tried to convince posters that he knows the existence of God. Read #276 on page 8 where AB first mentions free-will. Everyone discusses that for some time and AB doesn't get onto the subject of a soul until #976 when he says in response to Shaker's post that AB's arrangement of genetic material makes AB human "My God given soul makes me human.  It gives me perception of my brain activity and enables me to acts of free will.  Yes you can label this as assertion, but I am certain that you will eventually discover that it is an assertion of the truth." 

When he was asked how this “soul” would have anything to do with exercising will (free or otherwise) he readily tells us that he has no idea. It’s just magic apparently.

Yes I agree that he says he doesn't know. In #1025 Torridon asks for a meaning of soul. Ekim also asks the same question in #1028. AB provides a dictionary definition and then doesn't elaborate on souls again until he says in #1085 "The point I was making about predictable behaviour is that it is an indication that the animal may not have free will, and all behaviour is generated by physical reactions.  If animal behaviour is predictable, it does not need a soul to explain its behaviour.  So we know the goose reacts on a predictable way which does not require a soul."

And then the discussion moved back to free-will. When I jumped in a t #26933 about what AB was actually claiming I said "If i’ve understood him correctly, he believes that electrochemical activity taking place in his mind - producing his thoughts - are influenced by some other unseen part of him related to something spiritual or supernatural he calls his soul."

Torridon says in #26952 "Your free will is not a reality it is an assertion. The logic that Stranger and others offer demonstrates that your assertions about it are wrong.  The deterministic framework of understanding makes complete sense, yours is nonsense."

And the discussion continues about free-will, with Alan asserting it exists because he feels it and other people arguing that feelings are not evidence for free-will.
 

I’m suggesting that posters here are deeply frustrated by AB’s refusal or inability ever to engage head on with the arguments that undo him. That they keep trying to break down his obduracy nonetheless is testament to their patience I think.

That's a sweeping generalisation, Some posters might be frustrated. Some posters might find the discussions it throws up interesting. 

Very funny. If anyone can find a logical path from what I actually said (“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”) to your response to it I’ll give them a whole English pound.

#27054 you said to me "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 originally assumed that you were trying to portray yourself as being superior by not being bad or not being damaged and offering your sympathy. But when you clarified that you don't think of yourself as superior, I assumed that meant that you thought yourself as more damaged than bad, similar to other posters you label more damaged than bad but were still offering your sympathy to me. You also have my sympathy.

By the way Susan - did you notice any hint of disdain or patronisation in BHS's post #27054? You did say in #27071 that you only had admiration for the rational posts which do not disdain or patronise and I am concerned that BHS might feel hurt that you did not have admiration for his post. Or alternatively, like me, he might not give a toss.

[Alan Burns]

It just means the choice to press "e" occurred marginally before our conscious awareness of the choice just made.  It takes a little time to construct conscious awareness, it is a complex process.

But what invokes the choice?

[torridon]

But what invokes the choice?

IMO there will always be a prior reason for it. Some sort of trigger

[Enki]

But the perception of past experiences, memories and thoughts is experienced in our conscious awareness.  They are not just binary switches which guide the neurons in our brain to determine a conscious choice - it is consciousness itself which guides the choice.  And this conscious awareness is in essence what comprises you.  And I have previously postulated that conscious awareness can never be defined by material reactions alone, because it is a spiritual property of the human soul.

Even if, for the purpose of argument, I ignore Torri's completely valid and important point about the subconscious mind, my response to you is this.

Whether you deem your conscious awareness to be a spiritual property of your 'soul'(for which there is no evidence), or, as I do, to be a property of the brain(for which there is a great deal of evidence), makes no difference at all. Your choice, even taking into account conscious awareness, is still deterministic, being a result of your nature, nurture, experience, memories and thoughts. For this 'soul' to have any other effect, the quality of its self awareness would have to be dependent on something in order to influence the mind, which would mean it is deterministic, or else it would simply introduce a pure random element into your thinking.

If you really think that this 'soul' has a non deterministic influence, don't you think that it's about time that you told us what it is?

[Enki]

I remember Leonard also seemed to argue for the existence of free-will, but without attributing it to a God or a soul. Leonard used to say he was exercising his free-will, rather than his soul doing it. He didn't believe in a soul.

Alan asserts a soul to perceive or be consciously aware of brain activity and instruct the brain, because he feels as if he can perform acts of free will that override instinctive or determined reactions.

As opposed to saying what various other posters have said - that they do not know if free will exists or not as there is no evidence for its existence and subjective feelings don't count as evidence.

Alan's response to requests for evidence that are not based on subjective feelings, has been to assert that free will, constrained by his instincts, experiences, conscience, and sense etc, allows him to do something he wants to do even if he thinks he should not do it, but can't explain what generated the feeling of "wanting to do it" that his free will was acting on. He said even if the number of choices available to him or his wants were constrained by nature/nurture, he still ended up choosing one of the available choices through the mechanism of free will, and his free-will choice was not determined apparently but was influenced.

Am still not sure what the difference is between "influenced" and "determined" and how his free-will choosing between wants determined by nature/nurture while being influenced is free. Alan seems to have a concept of "free" that isn't completely free but is influenced.

Incidentally, my nature/nurture leads me to perceive that for hundreds of posts Alan has been interested enough in the concept of a soul that makes influenced decisions to be on here proclaiming his faith in souls and free-will that is not completely free. My nature/nurture also perceives other posters being interested enough in these concepts to point out over thousands of posts that he can't know souls or free-will exists and that without evidence "don't know" is the default position.

Gabriella,

Haven't any more time today, but I will give your thoughtful post a response tomorrow, hopefully.

[Alan Burns]

Even if, for the purpose of argument, I ignore Torri's completely valid and important point about the subconscious mind, my response to you is this.

Whether you deem your conscious awareness to be a spiritual property of your 'soul'(for which there is no evidence), or, as I do, to be a property of the brain(for which there is a great deal of evidence), makes no difference at all. Your choice, even taking into account conscious awareness, is still deterministic, being a result of your nature, nurture, experience, memories and thoughts. For this 'soul' to have any other effect, the quality of its self awareness would have to be dependent on something in order to influence the mind, which would mean it is deterministic, or else it would simply introduce a pure random element into your thinking.

If you really think that this 'soul' has a non deterministic influence, don't you think that it's about time that you told us what it is?

If the soul does not invoke my conscious choice to press the "e" key on the keyboard, then what does invoke it?  And how is it determined within the sub conscious before I have even chosen to press it?

[Maeght]

Well, if pressing the "e" originates in my sub conscious, what do you suppose invokes this sub conscious choice?  Was it just a pre determined consequence defined by every event since the beginning of time?  If not, it must have been invoked as a consequence to some specific event, because it is certainly not random.

You have missed my point. I am not discussing the process - there is no point - what I am asking is why do you post as if the discussion is new to you? You have asked these questions before and people have answered. You may not accept the answers but why just keep asking the same questions over and over and over?

[SusanDoris]

Yes you can label this as assertion, but I am certain that you will eventually discover that it is an assertion of the truth."  [/i

What is your evidence for this? What method can be used to ascertain whether it is true?]

(I think I am correct in thinking that the quoted words are yours, but it was a bit difficult to sort out.)

[Stranger]

The fact is that I chose to press the key, and it gets depressed, which confirms the choice I make.

The big question is : What invokes the conscious choice?

Why do you keep asking this sort of question when you simply ignore all the answers you get and just ask the same thing over and over again?

How is that an honest approach to debate?

[torridon]

If the soul does not invoke my conscious choice to press the "e" key on the keyboard, then what does invoke it?  And how is it determined within the sub conscious before I have even chosen to press it?

A desire to press the key arises as a consequence of something prior.  Its really profoundly simple.  Everything is interconnected; no man is an island; everything I do has consequences, these are base principles of our shared reality. If you form a desire to do something, there must be a reason for that, otherwise it would be random.