Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

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

I don't see what is confusing about that.  Observed behaviours are normally indicative of internal mind state.  Try to take food away from a dog, and the low growling, the raised hairs on its back, all reasonably indicate it is getting pretty angry.

[torridon]

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.

I don't think that is correct.  It is not just recently that the arrow of time started running, it is a fundamental universal principle. You might remember a few days back I set you a thought experiment - to explore why you would not choose to go to the supermarket dressed in a hijab; whereas other people in contrast quite obviously do make that choice.  I'd bet that the influencing factors in that choice are not found solely in the very recent past; the evidence would suggest that they stretch right back to before you were even born.

[Alan Burns]

I don't think that is correct.  It is not just recently that the arrow of time started running, it is a fundamental universal principle. You might remember a few days back I set you a thought experiment - to explore why you would not choose to go to the supermarket dressed in a hijab; whereas other people in contrast quite obviously do make that choice.  I'd bet that the influencing factors in that choice are not found solely in the very recent past; the evidence would suggest that they stretch right back to before you were even born.

But what determines my conscious choice to reply to your post?  There is certainly no historic precedence for it as there would be for those who choose to wear a hijab.  Once again you choose a trivial example which proves nothing about our freedom to choose.

[Stranger]

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

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.

The fact that you are not at all free is plain to see from the evidence in this thread.

Every logical argument that undermines your view cannot even be considered and you make no attempt at all to even pretend to address them in detail. Every inconvenient fact or observation can just be distorted to fit your inflexible views.

If ever there was somebody totally trapped by blind faith dogma, with no freedom to think at all, it is you...

[Stranger]

Once again you choose a trivial example which proves nothing about our freedom to choose.

And once again you totally ignore the fact that your ability to choose to do what you want is completely consistent with determinism or determinism with some randomness.

[torridon]

But what determines my conscious choice to reply to your post?  There is certainly no historic precedence for it as there would be for those who choose to wear a hijab.  Once again you choose a trivial example which proves nothing about our freedom to choose.

There is precedence; there's three years worth of postings on this thread alone, and that is on top of all your previous life experience which has fed into your current mind state when reading a post.  If you remove all prior influences then there is nothing to guide your choice, in other words any reply would be random, pointless, irrelevant without prior influence.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

You’re never one to use six words when 60 will do, but briefly:

I explained that AB’s "soul" wasn’t even at the table for discussions about decision-making, so your attempt at an equivalence was wrong. I’m not going to do it again. Childish accusations of your own tactics does you no credit.

Your childish tactics of denying that you got it wrong and misunderstood what I said is not going to work. Deal with it or not – I really don’t care either way – but have the decency to stop pretending.

As we already established and which is easily there to see, in my reply #269992 the line before "But it puts him in the position of not knowing the detail of how choices are made, same as the rest of us.”  was "AB seems to have made a distinction between choices being "influenced" and being "defined"".

We were discussing free will and how people make choices, and how making a distinction between choices being influenced or being defined doesn't get him any closer to understanding how the brain makes choices.

You do this a lot by the way - make assertions based on your perceptions and then insist your perceptions were correct even when it is explained to you why your perception was wrong. But I agree with the idea that you are more damaged than bad and you have my sympathy.

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

I only “jumped in” when you sought to draw a false epistemic equivalence between AB’s “soul” conjecture and reason-based discussion remember?

What I remember is you asserting this in the face of evidence that you misunderstood what I said. See above.

Wrong again. AB has consistently inserted “soul” as a mechanism to explain away his (false as it happens) perception of free will as requiring a supervening agent.

Just asserting this isn't convincing. Especially in the face of all the evidence that he was discussing free-will long before he started talking about a soul, as I pointed out by numbering several posts where the discussion of free-will occurred without any mention of a soul.

Not really. “The discussion” is essentially repetitions of the same arguments that AB is unwilling or unable to address. You may have noticed how often a post here will begin with, "You've had this explained over and over again..." and similar.

And the different examples and explanations used to explain the concepts and highlight what we don't yet know about the brain have been interesting. That Alan prefers to incorporate faith beliefs into his understanding is his apparent freedom, or rather I should say it is the determined outcome of his nature/nurture, emotions and random inputs.   

Then you have strange reasoning processes, and any tone you don’t like comes only eventually in frustration at posters who dissemble, insult, prevaricate, obfuscate, shift ground, duck and weave rather than address the arguments etc. Stick to the arguments though and I’m a delight 

I like the tone - it was Susan who had a problem with the tone.

I see this forum as being like boxing and we wouldn't be responding to each other if we didn't get something out of the interaction. Your frustration brought on by your perceptions of posters dissembling, insulting, prevaricating etc is something you will have to process and deal with as you see fit. More damaged than bad...sympathy...etc etc line seems quite useful here.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Your childish...

...is where I stopped reading. I explained your error, and you've been sliding around it ever since. As I said, I don't propose to explain it to you again.

As for copying and pasting the tactics I identify you deploying to repeat them back to me, that's the stuff of the playground.

[Alan Burns]

There is precedence; there's three years worth of postings on this thread alone, and that is on top of all your previous life experience which has fed into your current mind state when reading a post.  If you remove all prior influences then there is nothing to guide your choice, in other words any reply would be random, pointless, irrelevant without prior influence.

But as you say in your post, past events can guide my choice, they do not define it.  The conscious awareness of my human soul allows me to contemplate things in real time before consciously invoking a choice.  This contemplation is guided by my God given freedom to think - it is not entirely pre determined.

[Alan Burns]

The fact that you are not at all free is plain to see from the evidence in this thread.

Every logical argument that undermines your view cannot even be considered and you make no attempt at all to even pretend to address them in detail. Every inconvenient fact or observation can just be distorted to fit your inflexible views.

If ever there was somebody totally trapped by blind faith dogma, with no freedom to think at all, it is you...

Our exchanges aptly demonstrate that we both have freedom to think and put down our thoughts.  The fact that we disagree has no bearing on the evidence that we are exercising our freedom to think.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

...is where I stopped reading.

Of course you did...not surprisingly I don't believe you. You'll read the whole of this post too.

I explained your error, and you've been sliding around it ever since. As I said, I don't propose to explain it to you again.

And I explained your error. i can explain it to you again if you like. You just assert your perceptions even when you are given quoted lines and post numbers that show you to be wrong.

As for copying and pasting the tactics I identify you deploying to repeat them back to me, that's the stuff of the playground.

I just felt like keeping Susan happy. She has made a few observations about the tone in my posts but she loves your posts when you are disagreeing with people. So I use your words rather than mine when I disagree with you. That way if Susan complains about the tone in my posts, it's your tone that she is complaining about.   

[torridon]

But as you say in your post, past events can guide my choice, they do not define it.  The conscious awareness of my human soul allows me to contemplate things in real time before consciously invoking a choice.  This contemplation is guided by my God given freedom to think - it is not entirely pre determined.

That's not engaging, that is avoidance.  The logic is utterly simple : some or other of the influencing considerations must be responsible for swaying your choice one way or the other.  How else could anyone, or any thing, come to a decision if that were not the case ?  one or other influence must dominate the others for a choice to emerge.  If all influences are removed then there is no possibility of a meaningful choice, as any response in that case would be a random event.  Whatever choice results it has to be due to the dominant influence at the time and we cannot choose what to like and how much to like things.

[Stranger]

Our exchanges aptly demonstrate that we both have freedom to think and put down our thoughts.  The fact that we disagree has no bearing on the evidence that we are exercising our freedom to think.

What is actually obvious is that you are unable or unwilling to actually engage honestly with the arguments presented to you.

• You are again pretending that our ability to do as we wish is relevant evidence - without even acknowledging the argument that it isn't.
  
  
• Once again, you have totally ignored the logical argument that makes your point of view self-contradictory.

Will you ever show find the honesty and courage to face the arguments directly?

[SusanDoris]

Of course you did...not surprisingly I don't believe you. You'll read the whole of this post too.
And I explained your error. i can explain it to you again if you like. You just assert your perceptions even when you are given quoted lines and post numbers that show you to be wrong.
I just felt like keeping Susan happy. She has made a few observations about the tone in my posts but she loves your posts when you are disagreeing with people. So I use your words rather than mine when I disagree with you. That way if Susan complains about the tone in my posts, it's your tone that she is complaining about.

Wrong; it is the derision in your posts, kncluding this one,  that I observe and note.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Wrong; it is the derision in your posts, kncluding this one,  that I observe and note.

Don't worry Susan - I was expecting that response from you.

But that's ok - it works for me. I'll use some of BHS's words in my posts in response to him and you just go ahead and keep noting the words as derision when I use them but not derision when BHS uses them. At least we all know where we stand and there won't be any surprises.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Don't worry Susan - I was expecting that response from you.

But that's ok - it works for me. I'll use some of BHS's words in my posts in response to him and you just go ahead and keep noting the words as derision when I use them but not derision when BHS uses them. At least we all know where we stand and there won't be any surprises.

The difference between us is that when I think you make an error I tend to tell you what it is and why. You in response tend rely on adjectival prefixes like "empty", "childish" etc as if that in some way addresses the problem. It's equivalent to "2+2≠5" out and, "well you're fat then" back and it makes dialogue impossible.

[Alan Burns]

That's not engaging, that is avoidance.  The logic is utterly simple : some or other of the influencing considerations must be responsible for swaying your choice one way or the other.  How else could anyone, or any thing, come to a decision if that were not the case ?  one or other influence must dominate the others for a choice to emerge.  If all influences are removed then there is no possibility of a meaningful choice, as any response in that case would be a random event.  Whatever choice results it has to be due to the dominant influence at the time and we cannot choose what to like and how much to like things.

But as I have said before, the logic you put forward allows no freedom of conscious choice.  Leaving aside the undefinable consequences of random behaviour, every event is entirely defined by the consequences to previous events, which can be nothing other than inevitable, unavoidable reaction governed entirely by the laws of nature.  This is not the reality which you or I exist in.

We cannot choose what we like, but we can consciously choose how, when and where to indulge in what we like.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

The difference between us is that when I think you make an error I tend to tell you what it is and why.

I know you like to believe that is true but what usually happens is that you assert why you think I am wrong and you are right, and you ignore the evidence I present that you are wrong and why, or that shows you misunderstood and where, and you keep to your tactic of asserting that your perceptions are right.

You in response tend rely on adjectival prefixes like "empty", "childish" etc as if that in some way addresses the problem. It's equivalent to "2+2≠5" out and, "well you're fat then" back and it makes dialogue impossible.

I know you like to believe that is true but what usually happens is that you assert why you think I am wrong and childish and you are right, and you ignore the evidence I present that you are wrong and why etc etc...see above.

Dialogue does not appear to be impossible.

[Alan Burns]

What is actually obvious is that you are unable or unwilling to actually engage honestly with the arguments presented to you.

• You are again pretending that our ability to do as we wish is relevant evidence - without even acknowledging the argument that it isn't.
  
  
• Once again, you have totally ignored the logical argument that makes your point of view self-contradictory.

Will you ever show find the honesty and courage to face the arguments directly?

You betray your own logic in this post by accusing me of being unwilling to do something - this implies I have consciously driven control of my own will.

[BeRational]

You betray your own logic in this post by accusing me of being unwilling to do something - this implies I have consciously driven control of my own will.

Instead of just repetitive assertion, why don't you make a logical argument, and lets see if it can be broken?

Remember, I said logical, not assertion.

State your premises, then show the logical connections to your conclusion.

If yourpremises are correct, and the connections are correct, your conclusion must also be correct.

You cannot use a soul or a god in the argument, unless you can demonstrate they exist first though!

[ekim]

You betray your own logic in this post by accusing me of being unwilling to do something - this implies I have consciously driven control of my own will.

Not necessarily, it may be that you do not recognise that your willfulness is driven by church doctrine and supported by a religious vocabulary of words like soul, spirit and god, none of which you have defined.

[Stranger]

What is actually obvious is that you are unable or unwilling to actually engage honestly with the arguments presented to you.

• You are again pretending that our ability to do as we wish is relevant evidence - without even acknowledging the argument that it isn't.
  
  
• Once again, you have totally ignored the logical argument that makes your point of view self-contradictory.

Will you ever show find the honesty and courage to face the arguments directly?

You betray your own logic in this post by accusing me of being unwilling to do something - this implies I have consciously driven control of my own will.

This is unmitigated drivel - for the reasons that have been explained to you multiple times and is yet another instance of your dishonest pretence that I pointed out in point 1.

Once again I find myself asking if you will ever find the honesty and courage to face up to the arguments against you. Is running scared from logic and using transparent evasion tactics the impression you want to give of followers of your religion?

[Alan Burns]

Not necessarily, it may be that you do not recognise that your willfulness is driven by church doctrine and supported by a religious vocabulary of words like soul, spirit and god, none of which you have defined.

Some definitions:

Definition of soul - the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal
(Oxford English Dictionary)

Your soul is the part of you that consists of your mind, character, thoughts, and feelings. Many people believe that your soul continues existing after your body is dead.
(Collins Dictionary)

Definition of spirit - the non-physical part of a person which is the seat of emotions and character
(Oxford English Dictionary)

Your spirit is the part of you that is not physical and that consists of your character and feelings.
(Collins Dictionary)

God: the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
(Oxford English Dictionary)

God: the sole Supreme Being, eternal, spiritual, and transcendent, who is the Creator and ruler of all and is infinite in all attributes; the object of worship in monotheistic religions.
(Collins Dictionary)

[Nearly Sane]

Some definitions:

Definition of soul - the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal
(Oxford English Dictionary)

Your soul is the part of you that consists of your mind, character, thoughts, and feelings. Many people believe that your soul continues existing after your body is dead.
(Collins Dictionary)

Definition of spirit - the non-physical part of a person which is the seat of emotions and character
(Oxford English Dictionary)

Your spirit is the part of you that is not physical and that consists of your character and feelings.
(Collins Dictionary)

God: the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
(Oxford English Dictionary)

God: the sole Supreme Being, eternal, spiritual, and transcendent, who is the Creator and ruler of all and is infinite in all attributes; the object of worship in monotheistic religions.
(Collins Dictionary)

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/leprechaun

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/unicorn


https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fairy


https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/poltergeist

[Alan Burns]

You betray your own logic in this post by accusing me of being unwilling to do something - this implies I have consciously driven control of my own will.

This is unmitigated drivel - for the reasons that have been explained to you multiple times and is yet another instance of your dishonest pretence that I pointed out in point 1.

Once again I find myself asking if you will ever find the honesty and courage to face up to the arguments against you. Is running scared from logic and using transparent evasion tactics the impression you want to give of followers of your religion?

Sorry, but if my own will is pre determined by events, how can you possibly accuse me of being unwilling to do something?  Surely it is the events leading up to my apparent choice which you have to argue with?