Searching for GOD...

[BeRational]

Does the fact that I have the freedom to consciously reject your logic not prove your logic to be flawed?

No.

You should  understand this by now.

[Stranger]

Does the fact that I have the freedom to consciously reject your logic not prove your logic to be flawed?

No.

Unless you have serious memory problems or are simply not bothering to read the replies you get, I can honestly think of no way of interpreting this except as blatant and dishonest evasion.

You have asked this question (and similar ones) countless times and I have answered it, and explained why, over and over again. Why would you repeat it other than to avoid addressing the points I raised and the argument I have presented? I also note that you edited this bit out of my post before replying to it:

If you can't see a flaw in the argument but are rejecting it anyway - have the courage to admit it.

How about some honesty and courage?

[torridon]

Does the fact that I have the freedom to consciously reject your logic not prove your logic to be flawed?

It's a free country, so they say.

On the other hand your response is extremely predictable, so not much freedom in evidence there.  You always end up doing what you want and you have no freedom to alter what you want.

[Alan Burns]

No.

Unless you have serious memory problems or are simply not bothering to read the replies you get, I can honestly think of no way of interpreting this except as blatant and dishonest evasion.

You have asked this question (and similar ones) countless times and I have answered it, and explained why, over and over again. Why would you repeat it other than to avoid addressing the points I raised and the argument I have presented? I also note that you edited this bit out of my post before replying to it:

How about some honesty and courage?

The flaw in your argument is obvious to me, because I have demonstrable freedom to invoke conscious choices at will.  Of course you can say my choices are determined, but not entirely pre determined otherwise they would be unavoidable reactions.  No amount of theoretical logic can change the truth.  If the logic can't explain the obvious truth, it is flawed.

[Stranger]

The flaw in your argument is obvious to me...

And yet you can't actually point it out...

...because I have demonstrable freedom to invoke conscious choices at will.

There is nothing in your ability to do as you want that is inconsistent with your choices being deterministic (predetermined). If you think there is a conflict, point it out. Just repeating this without even acknowledging the answers you've had (multiple times, from several people) is tantamount to lying.

Of course you can say my choices are determined, but not entirely pre determined otherwise they would be unavoidable reactions.

Appeal to consequences fallacy - yet again. Something else you are pretending hasn't been pointed out to you. If you think the answers you are getting are flawed, point out where; stop the dishonest pretence.

No amount of theoretical logic can change the truth.  If the logic can't explain the obvious truth, it is flawed.

There is no conflict with any obvious truth - just your empty assertions and multiple fallacies.

You say the flaw in my argument is obvious and yet you will not actually face the details of it and say where you think the flaw is. How about you stop pretending, have some courage and either tackle it in detail or admit you can't?

[SusanDoris]

The flaw in your argument is obvious to me, because I have demonstrable freedom to invoke conscious choices at will.  Of course you can say my choices are determined, but not entirely pre determined otherwise they would be unavoidable reactions.  No amount of theoretical logic can change the truth.  If the logic can't explain the obvious truth, it is flawed.

I wonder whether to despair when I think of the thousands, probably hundreds of thousands, who believe the bland,, inane, woolly-thinking words you keep posting.  I am certainly horrified when I think of all the children currently being indoctrinated with this nonsense.

[Gordon]

The flaw in your argument is obvious to me, because I have demonstrable freedom to invoke conscious choices at will.  Of course you can say my choices are determined, but not entirely pre determined otherwise they would be unavoidable reactions.  No amount of theoretical logic can change the truth.  If the logic can't explain the obvious truth, it is flawed.

I wouldn't say that, Alan: your replies are so utterly predictable they seem to be unavoidable reactions and confirm that with regard to your theistic views you are a stranger to logic.

[torridon]

The flaw in your argument is obvious to me, because I have demonstrable freedom to invoke conscious choices at will.  Of course you can say my choices are determined, but not entirely pre determined otherwise they would be unavoidable reactions.  No amount of theoretical logic can change the truth.  If the logic can't explain the obvious truth, it is flawed.

I think you (and I) have demonstrable apparent freedom, but not total freedom.  In principal your (conscious) choice was predictable; however it is not fully predictable in practice.  To do that, we would need to know starting conditions and a computer the size of the universe, probably.  So, for all practical purposes, we can consider the choice made was 'free', but not in principal.

[Alan Burns]

I wouldn't say that, Alan: your replies are so utterly predictable they seem to be unavoidable reactions and confirm that with regard to your theistic views you are a stranger to logic.

You might well imply that the general theme of my replies is somewhat predictable, but is every word I type entirely pre defined?  I think not.

My honesty will never allow me to concur with any so called logic which removes my demonstrable freedom to make conscious choices driven by my own willpower in real time.  An ability which will never be explained by physically induced reactions alone.

[Alan Burns]

I think you (and I) have demonstrable apparent freedom, but not total freedom.  In principal your (conscious) choice was predictable; however it is not fully predictable in practice.  To do that, we would need to know starting conditions and a computer the size of the universe, probably.  So, for all practical purposes, we can consider the choice made was 'free', but not in principal.

I have never claimed to have total freedom.  All our conscious choices have constraints. But not total constraints otherwise they would not be conscious choices, but entirely predictable reactions.  Physical reactions in material elements can never produce any degree of freedom of choice.  And no matter what size of computer you could construct, it could never replicate conscious choice, because despite what we see in science fiction, you can't generate self awareness in a computer

[torridon]

I have never claimed to have total freedom.  All our conscious choices have constraints. But not total constraints otherwise they would not be conscious choices, but entirely predictable reactions.  Physical reactions in material elements can never produce any degree of freedom of choice.  And no matter what size of computer you could construct, it could never replicate conscious choice, because despite what we see in science fiction, you can't generate self awareness in a computer yet

FIFY

[Alan Burns]

I wonder whether to despair when I think of the thousands, probably hundreds of thousands, who believe the bland,, inane, woolly-thinking words you keep posting.  I am certainly horrified when I think of all the children currently being indoctrinated with this nonsense.

The fact that you can feel horrified is ample evidence for your human soul, because being horrified is a state of mind within your conscious awareness which can't be defined by material elements alone.

[Stranger]

You might well imply that the general theme of my replies is somewhat predictable, but is every word I type entirely pre defined?  I think not.

I guess it's pointless asking again - but how do you think you could tell?

My honesty will never allow me to concur with any so called logic which removes my demonstrable freedom to make conscious choices driven by my own willpower in real time.

You talk about honesty, yet you will not even face up to the arguments that have been presented to you - preferring, so it would seem, to just pretend that they didn't exist. You refuse to even acknowledge that the argument has been put to you that your freedom to exercise your will "in real time" is completely consistent with your being deterministic (your will being predetermined).

I find it difficult to interpret simply ignoring counterarguments as an honest approach to debate.

An ability which will never be explained by physically induced reactions alone.

Back to the unsupported assertions...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Does the fact that I have the freedom to consciously reject your logic not prove your logic to be flawed?

No. That would be idiotic for the reasons that have been explained to you dozens or perhaps scores of times that you resolutely ignore as if they didn't exist.

The functional appearance of "free" will and an absolute free will are not the same thing at all. For your "I" to have the freedom you posit there'd have to be an executive "I" somehow separate from but in some mysterious way interacting with the no-executive brain. That "I" would then have to square the circle of itself somehow being neither deterministic nor random - ie the incoherence in which you've landed yourself.

As there's no need for a separate "I" in a self-aware organism, no evidence at all for its existence, no data of any kind about it, and no way out of its inhtrent incoherence all you have is a very bad idea underpinned with lorry-loads of denial and obduracy.

And that's not a happy place for you to be.

Really it isn't.         

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

My honesty...

That's very funny.

How about demonstrating some of this supposed honesty then and finally addressing the logic that undoes you, or better yet showing us some of these sound logical arguments you claim to have but never quite seem to find the time to produce (even though you do it seems have plenty of time to repeat the very bad ones)?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

And no matter what size of computer you could construct, it could never replicate conscious choice, because despite what we see in science fiction, you can't generate self awareness in a computer

And you make this astonishing claim of unknowable certainty how exactly?

What if the universe itself is the "computer" - with every possible bit of information contained within it, what need would there be for your "it's magic innit" fantasies to fill the data gap?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

That's very funny.

How about demonstrating some of this supposed honesty then and finally addressing the logic that undoes you, or better yet showing us some of these sound logical arguments you claim to have but never quite seem to find the time to produce (even though you do it seems have plenty of time to repeat the very bad ones)?

The logic which is apparently meant to undo me is based on the assumption that whatever comprises my will is itself pre determined by past events.  But if my will is a spiritual property of the conscious awareness of my human soul, I am not constrained by past events, but influenced by them.  That is how awareness works.  It is conscious of past events, but not driven by them.  It is quite simple to understand.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The logic which is apparently meant to undo me is based on the assumption that whatever comprises my will is itself pre determined by past events.

That’s not an assumption – it’s what the only cogent reasoning and evidence we have indicates.

But if my will is a spiritual property of the conscious awareness of my human soul, I am not constrained by past events, but influenced by them.

But if you wanted that to fly you’d have to tell us what you mean by “spiritual property”, then what you mean by “soul”, then tell us how either claim could be investigated and verified, then explain how you’d get out of the cleft stick incoherence of being neither deterministic nor random.

That is how awareness works.

Don’t be silly. All that is is how your personal (and incoherent) conjecture about awareness works. As it flatly contradicts all the evidence we have about the subject though, why should anyone take you seriously?

It is conscious of past events, but not driven by them.

Then it’s random, and so functionally impossible.

It is quite simple to understand.

Only if you think, “it’s magic” is easy to understand.

Problem is though it isn’t easy to understand at all because – so far at least – you’ve demonstrated nothing to understand. 

[torridon]

The fact that you can feel horrified is ample evidence for your human soul, because being horrified is a state of mind within your conscious awareness which can't be defined by material elements alone.

So when I say boo to a goose, it's horror, or maybe fear, or perhaps just plain surprise or confusion, it is experiencing mind states that 'can't be defined by material elements alone' ?

[torridon]

The logic which is apparently meant to undo me is based on the assumption that whatever comprises my will is itself pre determined by past events.  But if my will is a spiritual property of the conscious awareness of my human soul, I am not constrained by past events, but influenced by them.  That is how awareness works.  It is conscious of past events, but not driven by them.  It is quite simple to understand.

Your understanding is subtly wrong though.  Everything is driven by past events; maybe 'driven' is not the best term; formed, or derived, might be more accurate.  Everything in the present moment is a memory of what has gone before, even our conscious awareness, which we habitually take to be in real time, is not actually, like everything else it is a memory of what has gone before,

Suppose you look at the sun.  You aren't seeing it in real time, you are seeing it as it used to be, 8 minutes ago, and yet we all take it as if it were there and true, right now.

Now suppose you look at a stop watch in your hand; you want to time something to the second perhaps.  Again, you aren't actually seeing it in real time, you are seeing it as it used to be half a second ago. 

The neurological lag is insignificant when looking at the sun, as the distance to the centre of the solar system is a much bigger factor in the overall delay.  When looking t your stop watch, most of the delay proportionately is accounted for by the slow propagation of visual information through cortex which is much slower than the speed of light.

This lag applies to all aspects of mind, including our awareness of a choice just made.

[Stranger]

The logic which is apparently meant to undo me is based on the assumption that whatever comprises my will is itself pre determined by past events.

Nonsense. Once again you are demonstrating that you aren't even bothering to read and understand what is being said to you. The logic is based simply on the idea that a choice is made and that either all the considerations that go into the choice fully define the outcome or not. Depending on the answer to that we get a fully deterministic system or one that involves some randomness.

But if my will is a spiritual property of the conscious awareness of my human soul, I am not constrained by past events, but influenced by them.  That is how awareness works.  It is conscious of past events, but not driven by them.  It is quite simple to understand.

What you've said is quite simple, the problem is that you will not accept the logical conclusion that follows from it. What you've actually said here is just that a choice involves some randomness, because that is the only way in which it can be "not constrained by past events, but influenced by them". What you are describing is deterministically driven probabilities (influence) that are then subject to random variation (not constrained).

As has been pointed out before: to the extent something is not constrained, it is random.

[Alan Burns]

So when I say boo to a goose, it's horror, or maybe fear, or perhaps just plain surprise or confusion, it is experiencing mind states that 'can't be defined by material elements alone' ?

You are confusing externally perceived reactions (which are seen to be instinctive) with internal states of mind. 

[Alan Burns]

Your understanding is subtly wrong though.  Everything is driven by past events; maybe 'driven' is not the best term; formed, or derived, might be more accurate.  Everything in the present moment is a memory of what has gone before, even our conscious awareness, which we habitually take to be in real time, is not actually, like everything else it is a memory of what has gone before,

Suppose you look at the sun.  You aren't seeing it in real time, you are seeing it as it used to be, 8 minutes ago, and yet we all take it as if it were there and true, right now.

Now suppose you look at a stop watch in your hand; you want to time something to the second perhaps.  Again, you aren't actually seeing it in real time, you are seeing it as it used to be half a second ago. 

The neurological lag is insignificant when looking at the sun, as the distance to the centre of the solar system is a much bigger factor in the overall delay.  When looking t your stop watch, most of the delay proportionately is accounted for by the slow propagation of visual information through cortex which is much slower than the speed of light.

This lag applies to all aspects of mind, including our awareness of a choice just made.

Of course there will be inevitable time lags within the biological workings of our human brain.  But that is not the point.  The question is, what is it that initiates an act of freely chosen conscious choice?  If the conscious awareness of the soul invokes physical events in our brain through something like quantum interaction, there are bound to be time lags involved with the physical parts of the process.  So in this sense our consciously driven choices will be driven by past events, but only in the very recent past - not by cause and effect which drifts back to the beginning of time.

[floo]

Of course there will be inevitable time lags within the biological workings of our human brain.  But that is not the point.  The question is, what is it that initiates an act of freely chosen conscious choice?  If the conscious awareness of the soul invokes physical events in our brain through something like quantum interaction, there are bound to be time lags involved with the physical parts of the process.  So in this sense our consciously driven choices will be driven by past events, but only in the very recent past - not by cause and effect which drifts back to the beginning of time.

Everything is initiated by our brain. In my opinion  there is no such thing as a 'soul', if you regard it as something activated by a god character.

[Gordon]

So in this sense our consciously driven choices will be driven by past events, but only in the very recent past - not by cause and effect which drifts back to the beginning of time.

Events in the past had their own precursors too, Alan: unless all events are random (which would be chaos). There is no escape from the arrow of time even if the influence of some (but not all) historical precursor conditions and influences weaken as time passes.