Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

Why don't you, then?

This has been explained to you multiple time and I'll happily do so again just as soon as you prove that you have the freedom you claim and tackle the logic I presented.

Reminder: if all the factors that go into making a choice do not fully define the outcome, then there are no factors left that can be used to choose between any remaining options, so that part of the choice must happen for no reason, which means random.

And as I have explained multiple times, you are ignoring the ultimate deciding factor of your conscious will, which takes into account any influencing factors, but has the overall power to initiate the conscious choice - which is influenced by, but not dictated by these other factors.

I have never suggested that a choice is made for no reason. The reason is simply determined by a consciously driven act of will.  Nothing random about it.

And I will continue to use my freedom to demonstrate that I am not just the deterministic consequences of the electro chemical activity in my brain cells.  I am me, with my God given power of free will to consciously interact with this world, and not just react to it.

[floo]

And as I have explained multiple times, you are ignoring the ultimate deciding factor of your conscious will, which takes into account any influencing factors, but has the overall power to initiate the conscious choice - which is influenced by, but not dictated by these other factors.

I have never suggested that a choice is made for no reason. The reason is simply determined by a consciously driven act of will.  Nothing random about it.

And I will continue to use my freedom to demonstrate that I am not just the deterministic consequences of the electro chemical activity in my brain cells. I am me, with my God given power of free will to consciously interact with this world, and not just react to it.

As you have said many times, and as has been pointed out to you, it is a BELIEF, not a fact which can be substantiated.

[Stranger]

And as I have explained multiple times, you are ignoring the ultimate deciding factor of your conscious will...

No Alan, I'm not ignoring it, what I said must apply to it because it applies to anything at all that makes a choice.

...which takes into account any influencing factors, but has the overall power to initiate the conscious choice - which is influenced by, but not dictated by these other factors.

Now you are ignoring what I said. Once it has taken into account all the influences (including its own nature, nurture, and experience), it then has to make a final choice and it can either do so because of those influences, in which case the choice is fully determined by them, or because of nothing at all (we already considered all the possible factors), which means random.

So once again, you've run away from the logic, rather than face it.

And I will continue to use my freedom to demonstrate that I am not just the deterministic consequences of the electro chemical activity in my brain cells.

Simply impossible. There is absolutely nothing at all you can do that would demonstrate that you are not deterministic. You need to have the honesty to face up to that.

[Alan Burns]

Simply impossible. There is absolutely nothing at all you can do that would demonstrate that you are not deterministic. You need to have the honesty to face up to that.

And once again, you are asking me to do what is impossible, by asking me to have the honesty to face up to your inherently flawed logic, which does not allow me to do what you ask.   You are asking me to make a consciously driven choice to deny my freedom to choose. 

[ekim]

So once again, you've run away from the logic, rather than face it.

Ah, that could mean that he is using his God given free will to act illogically. 

[ippy]

Ah, that could mean that he is using his God given free will to act illogically. 

Check mate or catch 22?

I suppose if anyone's thinking is illogical it would also be illogical for the illogical thinker to know if they were being logical or not?

Regards ippy

[Stranger]

And once again, you are asking me to do what is impossible, by asking me to have the honesty to face up to your inherently flawed logic, which does not allow me to do what you ask.   You are asking me to make a consciously driven choice to deny my freedom to choose. 

I do not question for a moment, and I have never once said that you are not free to make any conscious choice you like, so I am obviously not asking you to deny your freedom to choose.  I'd be grateful if you'd stop lying about what I've said.

You called my logic "inherently flawed" and yet you cannot actually point out the flaw and are having to resort to transparent evasion and dishonesty.

[SusanDoris]

Ah, that could mean that he is using his God given free will to act illogically. 

Don't give him any excuses!!!
I continue to admire greatly the patient arguments presentedd by other posters. I also continue to consolidate my understanding of the workings of the brain!!

[torridon]

Just going back to the example of blinking - what possible physical explanation can be used to define how, when and where we choose to blink our left eyelid?  As soon as you come up with a physical explanation, it becomes an inevitable uncontrollable event over which there could have been no escape.

Not sure that blinking will get you out of determinism, it is largely autonomic anyway, people blink on average 15 times a minute without stopping to think about it.  However, unlike beating your heart, you can deliberately choose to blink. If you choose to blink, it might be reasonable to ask why, and there may be an answer to that question, or we may not be able to say why, perhaps we just wanted to.  And that is where your thesis stops, as if just wanting to is an irreducible inexplicable primary state of mind.  The deterministic account of just wanting to however opens up the possibility of understanding that is far greater in reach and depth;  there will be roots to all things and all things are interconnected.  If you did choose to blink, but cannot say why, that is only because the vast majority of the machinations of mind are not available for easy analysis and description. An urge forms within us to act, we don't always know the origin of the urge, but we can be pretty sure there will be some derivation for it through the pathways of cause and effect operating through the messy world of biological minds.

[Alan Burns]

I do not question for a moment, and I have never once said that you are not free to make any conscious choice you like, so I am obviously not asking you to deny your freedom to choose.  I'd be grateful if you'd stop lying about what I've said.

You called my logic "inherently flawed" and yet you cannot actually point out the flaw and are having to resort to transparent evasion and dishonesty.

Sorry, but in a deterministic scenario, there is no freedom to choose.

If you insist that I have this freedom, where does this freedom emanate from?

For freedom to exist it must have a definitive source which has the power to make a conscious choice.  Otherwise it is just another deterministic reaction.

[Alan Burns]

Not sure that blinking will get you out of determinism, it is largely autonomic anyway, people blink on average 15 times a minute without stopping to think about it.  However, unlike beating your heart, you can deliberately choose to blink. If you choose to blink, it might be reasonable to ask why, and there may be an answer to that question, or we may not be able to say why, perhaps we just wanted to.  And that is where your thesis stops, as if just wanting to is an irreducible inexplicable primary state of mind.  The deterministic account of just wanting to however opens up the possibility of understanding that is far greater in reach and depth;  there will be roots to all things and all things are interconnected.  If you did choose to blink, but cannot say why, that is only because the vast majority of the machinations of mind are not available for easy analysis and description. An urge forms within us to act, we don't always know the origin of the urge, but we can be pretty sure there will be some derivation for it through the pathways of cause and effect operating through the messy world of biological minds.

You seem to be clutching at straws to try to explain how we can choose to do something just because we want to do it, and for no other reason.  And the problem you have is that this choice can be made by anyone, regardless of their background or nurture.  And the choice can be repeated at will, for no other reason apart from our conscious will to do it.  To try to explain this in terms of deterministic electro chemical activity in the brain is certainly a challenge for non believers, but it has a very simple explanation for those who believe in the free will of the human soul.

[Alan Burns]

Don't give him any excuses!!!
I continue to admire greatly the patient arguments presented by other posters. I also continue to consolidate my understanding of the workings of the brain!!

But in the physical workings of the human brain, there is nothing but endless chains of scientifically defined chains of cause and effect.  Can you not see that you comprise far more than this?

[BeRational]

But in the physical workings of the human brain, there is nothing but endless chains of scientifically defined chains of cause and effect.  Can you not see that you comprise far more than this?

No.

It just feels like that inside a brain.

You are what your brain is, there is nothing more.

[SusanDoris]

But in the physical workings of the human brain, there is nothing but endless chains of scientifically defined chains of cause and effect.  Can you not see that you comprise far more than this?

I comprise all the trillions of physical cells which constantly die and are replaced at various rates. The cells of all types which are present in my brain produce all the thoughts and feelings that I have ever had. Gradually, more of the cells fail to replace themselves and some becomefaulty and when that happens, i.e. not enough cells are available to redress the balance, life ends. There will be no cells left to do all the imagining that they do in life.

Your posts show more and more how deluded you are about life and reality.

[Stranger]

Sorry, but in a deterministic scenario, there is no freedom to choose.

Of course there is. You can do everything you think you can do. You can apply your priorities, hopes, fears, beliefs, and so on, to the information you receive and make choices based on who you are and the circumstances you find yourself in.

What else is there to freedom? What do you want to be able to do that determinism stops you (would stop you) from doing?

You already admit that all the factors involved: the circumstances, your nature, nurture and experience - all influence choice, so almost everything about decision making would be exactly the same as determinism anyway. It's actually quite bizarre how people react to taking this influence to its logical conclusion.

The problem is that on the one had you insist that there can be no randomness, which means that all aspects of a choice must happen for reasons, but then you say that all the reasons do not, by themselves, define the exact choice. But that then means that some aspect of the choice, or some part of the process, isn't for any reason, which contradicts the no randomness insistence you started with.

Are you seriously unable to see the contradiction?

To the extent a choice is made for its reasons, it is deterministic - and to the extent its reasons do not define a single choice, it is random.

[torridon]

You seem to be clutching at straws to try to explain how we can choose to do something just because we want to do it, and for no other reason.  And the problem you have is that this choice can be made by anyone, regardless of their background or nurture.  And the choice can be repeated at will, for no other reason apart from our conscious will to do it.  To try to explain this in terms of deterministic electro chemical activity in the brain is certainly a challenge for non believers, but it has a very simple explanation for those who believe in the free will of the human soul.

Your explanation isn't an explanation at all though.  Why did you just blink ?  Just because I wanted to is a shallow retort, lacking any insight; it is a dead end, a black box, a mystery, we don't go there, it isn't an explanation, it is an evasion of an explanation.  Why did an elderly man decide to shoot dozens of random people in Las Vegas last year ?  Just because we was a bad man, end of story ? Did God give him a really bad soul for some reason ?  This sort of thinking is blinkered and superficial.  In events like this, the first question on everyone's minds, is why, why did he do it, and that points to the fact that deep down, we all know there are reasons for things, and that will include reasons why I just formed a desire to blink for no apparent reason.  The choice is between being satisfied with a very superficial account of the nature of belng, or do we scratch the surface and engage with the greater complexity that  lies below.

[torridon]

But in the physical workings of the human brain, there is nothing but endless chains of scientifically defined chains of cause and effect.  Can you not see that you comprise far more than this?

At one level, I am a collection of trillions of carbon and oxygen atoms, none of which are alive and none of which know they are currently being part of me.  At a higher level I am a collection of trillions of autonomic eukaryotic cells, each of which is a wonder of biological complexity. At a higher level still I am an integrated system of human eukaryota, non human bacteria and non human viruses all coordinated into larger structures, bodily organs all interoperating though a paradigm of coordinated distributed intelligence.  At a higher level than this, I am a husband and father, a programmer, a hill walker, a Yorkshire tyke, an Englishman, a bit of a wanderer and vagabond to boot.  All these characterisations are valid at their own level and to understand the whole pyramid of conceptualisations we need to get our head around one fundamental concept, emergence.

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

The person in me, the tyke, the wanderer, it derives from what is below, it is not something ontologically separate.

[SusanDoris]

AB

As Stranger says:

"What do you want to be able to do that determinism stops you (would stop you) from doing?"

What is the answer?

You already admit that all the factors involved: the circumstances, your nature, nurture and experience - all influence choice, so almost everything about decision making would be exactly the same as determinism anyway

[Enki]

Blinked my left eyelid, Alan, I decided on 3 times. Why did I blink it, Alan? Because you suggested it. Why 3 times? Because the phrase 'best of three' came into my head. From my point of view, all sound deterministic reasons, which in this case seemed to fulfill some of the ideas that I have already put forward in post 27118:

Your choice, even taking into account conscious awareness, is still deterministic, being a result of your nature, nurture, experience, memories and thoughts.

1) It is in my nature to occasionally do silly pointless things, as long as little effort is needed, no harm follows and I can get a sense of amusement from it.

2) The memory of the phrase, 'best of three' came into my head, almost certainly unconsciously.

3) It was instigated from your thoughts, as conveyed in message 27880, which activated my thoughts, and, hence, my action.

No 'soul' needed, and, of course, no evidence that one exists.

[Alan Burns]

I comprise all the trillions of physical cells which constantly die and are replaced at various rates. The cells of all types which are present in my brain produce all the thoughts and feelings that I have ever had. Gradually, more of the cells fail to replace themselves and some becomefaulty and when that happens, i.e. not enough cells are available to redress the balance, life ends. There will be no cells left to do all the imagining that they do in life.

Yes, the brain cells do get replaced at various rates, just as do parts of a machine.  The only continuity in the system is the driver of the machine.  But when the machine finally breaks down altogether, what happens to the driver?

[Alan Burns]

Of course there is. You can do everything you think you can do. You can apply your priorities, hopes, fears, beliefs, and so on, to the information you receive and make choices based on who you are and the circumstances you find yourself in.

What else is there to freedom? What do you want to be able to do that determinism stops you (would stop you) from doing?

You already admit that all the factors involved: the circumstances, your nature, nurture and experience - all influence choice, so almost everything about decision making would be exactly the same as determinism anyway. It's actually quite bizarre how people react to taking this influence to its logical conclusion.

The problem is that on the one had you insist that there can be no randomness, which means that all aspects of a choice must happen for reasons, but then you say that all the reasons do not, by themselves, define the exact choice. But that then means that some aspect of the choice, or some part of the process, isn't for any reason, which contradicts the no randomness insistence you started with.

Are you seriously unable to see the contradiction?

To the extent a choice is made for its reasons, it is deterministic - and to the extent its reasons do not define a single choice, it is random.

The so called freedom you offer is nothing more that what happens in a computer program which makes decisions based upon pre defined data values and parameters.  The only aspect of freedom in this scenario is in the conscious awareness of the computer programmer, who has the freedom to choose the data values and parameters which trigger the computer's response.

[Alan Burns]

At one level, I am a collection of trillions of carbon and oxygen atoms, none of which are alive and none of which know they are currently being part of me.  At a higher level I am a collection of trillions of autonomic eukaryotic cells, each of which is a wonder of biological complexity. At a higher level still I am an integrated system of human eukaryota, non human bacteria and non human viruses all coordinated into larger structures, bodily organs all interoperating though a paradigm of coordinated distributed intelligence.  At a higher level than this, I am a husband and father, a programmer, a hill walker, a Yorkshire tyke, an Englishman, a bit of a wanderer and vagabond to boot.  All these characterisations are valid at their own level and to understand the whole pyramid of conceptualisations we need to get our head around one fundamental concept, emergence.

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

The person in me, the tyke, the wanderer, it derives from what is below, it is not something ontologically separate.

All I can say is that I am at a loss to understand how any intelligent person can come to the conclusion that they comprise nothing but the deterministically controlled events of material elements.  Emergent properties are just an externally perceived complexity of atomic elements just doing their own thing.  There is nothing internally complex in emergent properties.

[Alan Burns]

AB

As Stranger says:

"What do you want to be able to do that determinism stops you (would stop you) from doing?"

What is the answer?

You already admit that all the factors involved: the circumstances, your nature, nurture and experience - all influence choice, so almost everything about decision making would be exactly the same as determinism anyway

But after I contemplate all the influencing factors, I still have the freedom to choose.

[Stranger]

The so called freedom you offer is nothing more that what happens in a computer program which makes decisions based upon pre defined data values and parameters.  The only aspect of freedom in this scenario is in the conscious awareness of the computer programmer, who has the freedom to choose the data values and parameters which trigger the computer's response.

Alan once again refuses to address the actual points or face up to the logic.

The so called freedom you offer is doesn't even make sense.

[Stranger]

But after I contemplate all the influencing factors, I still have the freedom to choose.

But you are one of the factors. Once gain you are refusing to face up to the logic.

If everything that can influence a choice (including you; your personality, mood, nature, nurture, and experience) don't result in just one option, then there is nothing left that can decide the matter - so any remaining choice is random by definition.

As soon as you insist there is nothing random about a choice, you are defining yourself as a deterministic system - that's what the term means - see: Deterministic system

...a deterministic system is a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system. A deterministic model will thus always produce the same output from a given starting condition or initial state.