Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

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?

I have dealt with this multiple times Alan (as have other people). Quite apart from anything else, this excuse is invalid unless you are accepting what (you think) I'm saying.

Become Alan's kind of Christian and you too can be afraid of logic and have to use dishonest evasion tactics...

[Nearly Sane]

I have dealt with this multiple times Alan (as have other people). Quite apart from anything else, this excuse is invalid unless you are accepting what (you think) I'm saying.

Become Alan's kind of Christian and you too can be afraid of logic and have to use dishonest evasion tactics...

As a quick suggestion, if you have dealt with an argument before, and I am not saying you haven't, a link to dealing with it helps, else it reads like an assertion.

[ekim]

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)

I assume then that these correspond to your definitions.  If we take 'soul' as 'consisting of your mind, character, thoughts and feelings', this appears to be quite similar to what psychologists study i.e. the New Testament Greek word for 'soul' ... psyche.  In this case, one could argue that what arises from your 'soul' is governed by your mind, character, thoughts and feelings rather than being free from them.   If 'will' is the intention to act or not act, are you saying that your free will acts out of character, thoughtlessly, mindlessly and without feeling?

[Alan Burns]

I assume then that these correspond to your definitions.  If we take 'soul' as 'consisting of your mind, character, thoughts and feelings', this appears to be quite similar to what psychologists study i.e. the New Testament Greek word for 'soul' ... psyche.  In this case, one could argue that what arises from your 'soul' is governed by your mind, character, thoughts and feelings rather than being free from them.   If 'will' is the intention to act or not act, are you saying that your free will acts out of character, thoughtlessly, mindlessly and without feeling?

Absolutely not.  Your freedom to choose is derived from your God given ability to consciously drive your own thought processes.  And as I said before, your conscious choices will be influenced by your personal character and feelings, but not entirely determined by them

[Nearly Sane]

Absolutely not.  Your freedom to choose is derived from your God given ability to consciously drive your own thought processes.  And as I said before, your conscious choices will be influenced by your personal character and feelings, but not entirely determined by them

logically incoherent

[Stranger]

Absolutely not.  Your freedom to choose is derived from your God given ability to consciously drive your own thought processes.  And as I said before, your conscious choices will be influenced by your personal character and feelings, but not entirely determined by them

logically incoherent

It actually only becomes logically incoherent when you add in his insistence that the remaining choice (whatever part of it he thinks isn't determined/influenced) isn't random.

As I pointed out before (#27195) being influenced by things but not determined by them can be implemented by determined probabilities (influence) and then a random choice within those constraints.

What he won't accept, and what makes it incoherent, is his (apparent) inability to grasp that not determined is what random means.

[Nearly Sane]

logically incoherent


It actually only becomes logically incoherent when you add in his insistence that the remaining choice (whatever part of it he thinks isn't determined/influenced) isn't random.

As I pointed out before (#27195) being influenced by things but not determined by them can be implemented by determined probabilities (influence) and then a random choice within those constraints.

What he won't accept, and what makes it incoherent, is his (apparent) inability to grasp that not determined is what random means.

No, the problem is you add something that it is neither determined nor random and despite being asked multiple times you have provided no definition of it making your statements logically incoherent.

[Stranger]

No, the problem is you add something that it is neither determined nor random...

That's what I said. The statement you replied to wasn't of itself logically incoherent because he didn't insist on the non-random bit. It's perfectly possible to have a choice that is "influenced by your personal character and feelings, but not entirely determined by them", if and only if you have a random element in the process.

[Nearly Sane]

logically incoherent


It actually only becomes logically incoherent when you add in his insistence that the remaining choice (whatever part of it he thinks isn't determined/influenced) isn't random.

As I pointed out before (#27195) being influenced by things but not determined by them can be implemented by determined probabilities (influence) and then a random choice within those constraints.

What he won't accept, and what makes it incoherent, is his (apparent) inability to grasp that not determined is what random means.

Nah, becomes incoherent in talking about freedom. Random isn't free.

[Nearly Sane]

That's what I said. The statement you replied to wasn't of itself logically incoherent because he didn't insist on the non-random bit. It's perfectly possible to have a choice that is "influenced by your personal character and feelings, but not entirely determined by them", if and only if you have a random element in the process.

See my post to that. We have to 1. Take into account some of what people gave said before, and even 2. Accepting randomness as another possible influence doesn't help make freedom in the sense of not determined coherent.

[ippy]

In my opinion Alan does understand the questions he's been asked over and over but has not chosen to answer, the big problem for him is loss of face and also he is fully aware that the moment he answers these questions he will be demonstrating a whole cascade of the falling down of his house of cards to everybody and 'ooer' what can he pretend to believe in after that?

Alan's a lot of things but he's not a halfwit, he does know the problem but it's a bit like being an alcoholic, untill you admit the problem to yourself, there's not much hope of rehabilitation.

ippy

[Alan Burns]

In my opinion Alan does understand the questions he's been asked over and over but has not chosen to answer, the big problem for him is loss of face and also he is fully aware that the moment he answers these questions he will be demonstrating a whole cascade of the falling down of his house of cards to everybody and 'ooer' what can he pretend to believe in after that?

Alan's a lot of things but he's not a halfwit, he does know the problem but it's a bit like being an alcoholic, untill you admit the problem to yourself, there's not much hope of rehabilitation.

I have no problem with knowing that I have full conscious control over what I choose to do, in real time, determined not by past events, but by my conscious will.  I can demonstrate this at any time by thinking up an action, then doing it.  No amount of convoluted human logic can take away the reality of this God given freedom.

[torridon]

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.

You've said that before but you never explore how the how, when and where are chosen.  There has to be a mechanism, an algorithm, or somesuch to arrive at the choice of how, when and where.  Truth is, it has to be the same principle at work - we weigh up the options to identify which possibility plays out best against our current set of inner values and preferences.  You should understand this, being a programmer, it comes with the nature of choice that there has to be a method to resolve the choice, and this holds, in principal, whether you are a program or a human or a soul or a mongoose.  If there is no meaningful method to resolve the options, the outcome will not be meaningful.

[ippy]

I have no problem with knowing that I have full conscious control over what I choose to do, in real time, determined not by past events, but by my conscious will.  I can demonstrate this at any time by thinking up an action, then doing it.  No amount of convoluted human logic can take away the reality of this God given freedom.

As I said previously, a bit like being an alcholic, once the problem is reconised etc.

Ippy

P S taking away a reality?

[Alan Burns]

You've said that before but you never explore how the how, when and where are chosen.  There has to be a mechanism, an algorithm, or somesuch to arrive at the choice of how, when and where.  Truth is, it has to be the same principle at work - we weigh up the options to identify which possibility plays out best against our current set of inner values and preferences.  You should understand this, being a programmer, it comes with the nature of choice that there has to be a method to resolve the choice, and this holds, in principal, whether you are a program or a human or a soul or a mongoose.  If there is no meaningful method to resolve the options, the outcome will not be meaningful.

I know that from my experience in being a programmer that there can be no escape from the programmed logic within a computer program.  But in the scenario you quote : "we weigh up the options to identify which possibility plays out best against our current set of inner values and preferences"  -  sometimes we do not bother weighing up the options ....   we can just choose do something at will (then deal with the consequences, asking yourself "Why on earth did I do that?").   I think it would be labelled as impulsive behaviour, and we are all capable of doing it, because we have the freedom to do so.  And it has nothing at all to do with randomness because it is a consciously driven act of will.

[Nearly Sane]

I know that from my experience in being a programmer that there can be no escape from the programmed logic within a computer program.  But in the scenario you quote : "we weigh up the options to identify which possibility plays out best against our current set of inner values and preferences"  -  sometimes we do not bother weighing up the options ....   we can just choose do something at will (then deal with the consequences, asking yourself "Why on earth did I do that?").   I think it would be labelled as impulsive behaviour, and we are all capable of doing it, because we have the freedom to do so.  And it has nothing at all to do with randomness because it is a consciously driven act of will.

So as a computer programmer, describe how a decision, any decision,can be made leaving aside determined or random factors?

[Alan Burns]

So as a computer programmer, describe how a decision, any decision,can be made leaving aside determined or random factors?

Of course I can't replicate human behaviour in a computer program because I can't give it self awareness or free will.

Just an example from my past -
I once chose to throw a brick at my best friend.  I did not have any reason to throw the brick other than it was what I wanted to do at the time.  It was done on impulse, but with a precision which hit him where I aimed it - on his head!  I had no idea why I chose to throw it, and immediately regretted it, and I consider this to be an illustrative example of using my gift of free will in the wrong way.  Fortunately there were no serious injuries, and we remained best friends.

[Nearly Sane]

Of course I can't replicate human behaviour in a computer program because I can't give it self awareness or free will.

Just an example from my past -
I once chose to throw a brick at my best friend.  I did not have any reason to throw the brick other than it was what I wanted to do at the time.  It was done on impulse, but with a precision which hit him where I aimed it - on his head!  I had no idea why I chose to throw it, and immediately regretted it, and I consider this to be an illustrative example of using my gift of free will in the wrong way.  Fortunately there were no serious injuries, and we remained best friends.

I have no idea what your example meant, though it seems to suggestbyou doubt that you consciously chose your actions. . But why didn't youu answer the question rather than answer another, not asked,  question? And can you at  least pay the courtesy of answering the question asked?

[torridon]

I know that from my experience in being a programmer that there can be no escape from the programmed logic within a computer program.  But in the scenario you quote : "we weigh up the options to identify which possibility plays out best against our current set of inner values and preferences"  -  sometimes we do not bother weighing up the options ....   we can just choose do something at will (then deal with the consequences, asking yourself "Why on earth did I do that?").   I think it would be labelled as impulsive behaviour, and we are all capable of doing it, because we have the freedom to do so.  And it has nothing at all to do with randomness because it is a consciously driven act of will.

All this demonstrates, is that 'will' is often subliminal.  But so what, nearly everything that goes on in a head is subliminal, conscious workspace is very limited.  If you are racing to return a serve, do you stop and get your calculator out to start solving equations of motion ?  No, our minds are solving complex problems all the time without our awareness of the calculation going on under the hood. If you date a woman, and you find you quite like her but can't quite put your finger on why, again, there is complex subliminal calculations going on under the hood, the detail of which might not make it into conscious workspace, so we content ourselves with the observation that there is the right 'chemistry'.

When we make a choice, there must be some method of prioritisation going on, otherwise a decision will not be made. The extent to which this process is conscious or subliminal is irrelevant to the underlying principal of what a choice is.  A choice has to be an outcome of a weighing up of priorities and options within a system of values.  A choice that does not reflect the relative strengths of is relevant considerations is not a choice at all, merely an irrelevant event.

That feeling of freedom, that we can do something merely because we feel like it, a spur of the moment fancy perhaps, that feeling might be a mystery in the sense that we are not privy to the underlying operation of mind, but that should not licence us to imagine that there is some magic happening there.  It is not magic, it is subliminal; it is no more magic than our ability to calculate that return of serve without even thinking about it.

[Gordon]

Of course I can't replicate human behaviour in a computer program because I can't give it self awareness or free will.

Just an example from my past -
I once chose to throw a brick at my best friend.  I did not have any reason to throw the brick other than it was what I wanted to do at the time.  It was done on impulse, but with a precision which hit him where I aimed it - on his head!  I had no idea why I chose to throw it, and immediately regretted it, and I consider this to be an illustrative example of using my gift of free will in the wrong way.  Fortunately there were no serious injuries, and we remained best friends.

You don't mention how old you were when this happened but I'm guessing you were a child. If so, could it be that the precursor of your throwing the brick was a combination of unconscious impulse coupled with immature thinking to the extent that you were unable to resist this risky behaviour at that age?

It does raise an interesting question though - was the 'soul' you claim to have just as impulsive and immature as you were at that time?   

[Stranger]

But as I have said before, the logic you put forward allows no freedom of conscious choice.

Untrue - for the reasons that have been explained to you and that you have totally ignored.

I have no problem with knowing that I have full conscious control over what I choose to do, in real time, determined not by past events, but by my conscious will.  I can demonstrate this at any time by thinking up an action, then doing it.  No amount of convoluted human logic can take away the reality of this God given freedom.

Once again, the apparently dishonest disregard for the fact that this has been dealt with many times before. How many times have you made assertions like this, how many times has it been pointed out to you that your ability to consciously choose to do something and then do it is completely consistent with you being deterministic, and how many times have you ignored that and just reasserted it as if it supported your point of view without ever acknowledging the counterargument?

Specifically, how many times have you ignored this question: how would you be able to tell if what you wanted to do at each moment was determined (by past events, your nature, nurture, and experience)?

If you have no answer to that question, then you have to concede that you being able to do as you consciously wish at any moment does not rule out determinism (all your choices been determined by your nature, nurture, experience, state of mind, and the circumstances of the choice).

[floo]

Absolutely not.  Your freedom to choose is derived from your God given ability to consciously drive your own thought processes.  And as I said before, your conscious choices will be influenced by your personal character and feelings, but not entirely determined by them

Another statement without any evidence to support it. 

[ekim]

(1) Absolutely not.  Your freedom to choose is derived from your God given ability to consciously drive your own thought processes.  And as I said before, your conscious choices will be influenced by your personal character and feelings, but not entirely determined by them

(2)..... I can demonstrate this at any time by thinking up an action, then doing it.  No amount of convoluted human logic can take away the reality of this God given freedom.
(3)..... I think it would be labelled as impulsive behaviour, and we are all capable of doing it, because we have the freedom to do so.  And it has nothing at all to do with randomness because it is a consciously driven act of will.
(4).....I once chose to throw a brick at my best friend.  I did not have any reason to throw the brick other than it was what I wanted to do at the time.  It was done on impulse

I have included some extracts from replies by you to others which might help in illustrating where you are confusing others. 
(1) If choices are influenced by personal character and feelings then the wilful act which follows is not free from those influences.
(2) Similarly by thinking up an action, that action is not free from those thought processes which will most likely be based upon past ideas including the idea of a God given freedom.
(3) Impulsive behaviour is not a consciously driven act.  It is impelled by the subconscious contents of your psyche.  You were impelled to act unconsciously not free to act consciously.
(4)If you wanted to throw the brick then it was driven by your want or desire to do so.  You don't necessarily need a reason to do so, just a subconscious irrational impulse.

[Alan Burns]

Untrue - for the reasons that have been explained to you and that you have totally ignored.

Once again, the apparently dishonest disregard for the fact that this has been dealt with many times before. How many times have you made assertions like this, how many times has it been pointed out to you that your ability to consciously choose to do something and then do it is completely consistent with you being deterministic, and how many times have you ignored that and just reasserted it as if it supported your point of view without ever acknowledging the counterargument?

Specifically, how many times have you ignored this question: how would you be able to tell if what you wanted to do at each moment was determined (by past events, your nature, nurture, and experience)?

If you have no answer to that question, then you have to concede that you being able to do as you consciously wish at any moment does not rule out determinism (all your choices been determined by your nature, nurture, experience, state of mind, and the circumstances of the choice).

Have you ever felt sorry for something you have done in the past?  Have you apologised for it?  Have you regretted anything you have done? 

The reason we feel sorry, make an apology or feel regret is because we know that we could have made a different choice.

And I feel certain that animals have no capacity in this area because they have no freedom of choice over what they do.

[floo]

Have you ever felt sorry for something you have done in the past?  Have you apologised for it?  Have you regretted anything you have done? 

The reason we feel sorry, make an apology or feel regret is because we know that we could have made a different choice.

And I feel certain that animals have no capacity in this area because they have no freedom of choice over what they do.

A dog can look guilty when it has done something it should not have done.