Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

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.

But in your scenario there is no complexity below - all there is in this secular view are scientifically defined reactions to previous events.  No amount of human analysis can change this basic underlying mechanistic behaviour which in effect reduces us all to biological robots under the entire control of natural forces with no freedom of our own.  Yes, there is most definitely a greater complexity which lies below, but it goes far beyond the scientifically determined behaviour of material elements.

[Stranger]

No amount of human analysis can change this basic underlying mechanistic behaviour which in effect reduces us all to biological robots under the entire control of natural forces with no freedom of our own.

No amount of you robotically repeating your pointless, self-contradictory script can change the fact that you are unable to offer any alternative that isn't logically self-contradictory and as empty as "it's magic, innit".

And we do have "freedom of our own" because we can do whatever we like.

Yes, there is most definitely a greater complexity which lies below, but it goes far beyond the scientifically determined behaviour of material elements.

You do love your baseless assertions...

[Alan Burns]

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.

You have no way of proving the last point you make about always producing the same output from a given starting condition because we can't turn back time.   This may well be true for material based entities, but as I have previously indicated, you do not appreciate what power you have been given through the spiritual qualities of your human soul - which has the overriding last say in your consciously driven choices.

[Stranger]

You have no way of proving the last point you make about always producing the same output from a given starting condition because we can't turn back time.

That was a quote from the wiki article - it's a direct, logical consequence of having no randomness. You really can't have it both ways without throwing out logic itself.

No randomness means deterministic, which means that the same inputs and state produce the same outputs.

This may well be true for material based entities, but as I have previously indicated, you do not appreciate what power you have been given through the spiritual qualities of your human soul - which has the overriding last say in your consciously driven choices.

This has no meaning beyond "it's magic innit". You are just (yet again) ignoring the logic and pretending that some meaningless waffle, that others aren't appreciating but that you never explain, gives you a reason.

Come on - grow that backbone and admit you can't argue with the logic but don't care because of your faith. At least that would be honest.

[Alan Burns]

And we do have "freedom of our own" because we can do whatever we like.

But you continue to assert that whatever we do is entirely pre determined by past events.  So we can't do whatever we like, because according to you, the "like" is itself is pre determined - this is not freedom.

To make our freedom a reality, our choices are determined by the conscious will of the human soul which is not entirely defined by past physical events.

[Stranger]

But you continue to assert that whatever we do is entirely pre determined by past events.

No - I have provided is a logical argument that tells us that what we do is either fully deterministic (predetermined) or is partially random.

So we can't do whatever we like, because according to you, the "like" is itself is pre determined...

That doesn't make sense. If what you like is predetermined, then you can do what you like and what you do can still be still predetermined.

...this is not freedom.

Well, if being able to do whatever you like doesn't mean freedom to you, then I guess it doesn't but it is still the only sort of 'freedom' that is logically possible.

To make our freedom a reality, our choices are determined by the conscious will of the human soul which is not entirely defined by past physical events.

Meaningless waffle to avoid the logic (again).

[Alan Burns]

That was a quote from the wiki article - it's a direct, logical consequence of having no randomness. You really can't have it both ways without throwing out logic itself.

No randomness means deterministic, which means that the same inputs and state produce the same outputs.

This has no meaning beyond "it's magic innit". You are just (yet again) ignoring the logic and pretending that some meaningless waffle, that others aren't appreciating but that you never explain, gives you a reason.

Come on - grow that backbone and admit you can't argue with the logic but don't care because of your faith. At least that would be honest.

And once more you ask me to consciously admit to a flawed logical argument which defies the reality I perceive, which is that I (my God given soul) am in control of my conscious choices - and that I am not entirely driven by past events over which I can have no control.

[Alan Burns]

No - I have provided is a logical argument that tells us that what we do is either fully deterministic (predetermined) or is partially random.

I have never denied that a conscious choice is determined.  It is what determines our conscious choice which is in question.  It is certainly not random or even partially random.  A conscious choice is very precise and is triggered by the conscious will of the person making the choice.  But how is conscious will defined within the deterministic activity of basic sub atomic particles?

[Stranger]

FFS Alan, how about stopping with the robotic repetition of the same script that has been taken apart countless times before?

Here we go again...

And once more you ask me to consciously admit to a flawed logical argument...

Flawed in a way you are unable to point out, it would seem. If there's a flaw, what is it?

...which defies the reality I perceive...

Drivel. How exactly, would your perception be different if you were deterministic?

...which is that I (my God given soul) am in control of my conscious choices...

I have never denied that you are in control - the soul bit is just an assertion.

...and that I am not entirely driven by past events over which I can have no control.

As is that.

[Stranger]

Seriously Alan - again!? Do you have memory problems?

I have never denied that a conscious choice is determined.  It is what determines our conscious choice which is in question.

You've ignored what I said and addressed something you'd rather I'd said...

No that isn't the question at all. It's the process by which it is determined that is the question. Specifically, if it is deterministic.

It is certainly not random or even partially random.

See #27949 and the link therein.

A conscious choice is very precise and is triggered by the conscious will of the person making the choice.

Yes, it is.

But how is conscious will defined within the deterministic activity of basic sub atomic particles?

Wrong level of abstraction - torridon has posted quite a lot about this, irrc.

Is it actually your plan to just bore everybody into submission by just 'forgetting' all the answers you've been given every few days and then just regurgitating the same script over and over again?

[Alan Burns]

Drivel. How exactly, would your perception be different if you were deterministic?

What we perceive is certainly deterministic.
Our interpretation of what we perceive is not entirely deterministic, because each individual has their own capacity for interpreting things in their own way.  This is our conscious freedom which allows us not only to discern our own interpretations, but allows us to act upon these interpretations in our own way.

[Stranger]

What we perceive is certainly deterministic.
Our interpretation of what we perceive is not entirely deterministic, because each individual has their own capacity for interpreting things in their own way.  This is our conscious freedom which allows us not only to discern our own interpretations, but allows us to act upon these interpretations in our own way.

You didn't answer my question (why am I not surprised?).

The statement "our interpretation of what we perceive is not entirely deterministic" is an unsupported assertion and none of what follows is incompatible with people's minds being deterministic.

[torridon]

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.

We are more than the sum of our parts, we could say, I'd go with you on that, it's a nice way to reference the concept of emergence.  But it is beyond bonkers to claim that we are not therefore made of our parts at all. Everything we have discovered through study and everything in my own personal subjective experience of being a living thing endorses the view that we are unitary autonomous complex biological systems whose high end complexity and intelligence derives intimately from the immense interacting complexity of the parts of the system.

[torridon]

I have never denied that a conscious choice is determined.  It is what determines our conscious choice which is in question.  It is certainly not random or even partially random.  A conscious choice is very precise and is triggered by the conscious will of the person making the choice.  But how is conscious will defined within the deterministic activity of basic sub atomic particles?

The conscious will itself is not some irreducible primary state of mind, it is derivative.  We want things for reasons, those reasons are the origins of will in the present moment.  If you wanted something for no reason whatsoever, it would be random.  For conscious will to be not random, it must be derivative.

[torridon]

What we perceive is certainly deterministic.
Our interpretation of what we perceive is not entirely deterministic, because each individual has their own capacity for interpreting things in their own way.  This is our conscious freedom which allows us not only to discern our own interpretations, but allows us to act upon these interpretations in our own way.

Muddled thinking. Perception is interpretation.  Just to remind you, again, the dress that broke the internet :

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/weird-news/white-and-gold-or-blue-and-black-the-dress-has-confused-the-internet-but-science-has-the-answer-10074228.html

is a nice example of how colour perception is subjective interpretation.  That perception varies from individual to individual says nothing about determinism.

[SteveH]

Muddled thinking. Perception is interpretation.  Just to remind you, again, the dress that broke the internet :

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/weird-news/white-and-gold-or-blue-and-black-the-dress-has-confused-the-internet-but-science-has-the-answer-10074228.html

is a nice example of how colour perception is subjective interpretation.  That perception varies from individual to individual says nothing about determinism.

It is nothing of the sort. It is a very unusual and rare case, caused by special circumstances. Most of the time, people with normal vision agree about what colour objects are, because it's objective, related to the wavelength of the light. Hard cases make bad law.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Steve H,

It is nothing of the sort. It is a very unusual and rare case, caused by special circumstances. Most of the time, people with normal vision agree about what colour objects are, because it's objective, related to the wavelength of the light. Hard cases make bad law.

How would you know that what you have spent a lifetime referring to as "red" is the same thing that I have spent a lifetime referring to as "red"?

[floo]

Even people with normal colour vision will perceive colours differently, imo.

[Alan Burns]

We are more than the sum of our parts, we could say, I'd go with you on that, it's a nice way to reference the concept of emergence.  But it is beyond bonkers to claim that we are not therefore made of our parts at all. Everything we have discovered through study and everything in my own personal subjective experience of being a living thing endorses the view that we are unitary autonomous complex biological systems whose high end complexity and intelligence derives intimately from the immense interacting complexity of the parts of the system.

You claim to have personal subjective experience of things.  But what is it that transforms the objective deterministic reactions to our sensory inputs into a subjective experience?  How can any form of subjectivity exist within an entirely objectively defined scenario of physically controlled cause and effect chains of events?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Steve H,

How would you know that what you have spent a lifetime referring to as "red" is the same thing that I have spent a lifetime referring to as "red"?

In a physicalist or informationist universe, experiences like these should ultimately be transferrable and notionally the same otherwise you are shaking hands with dualism and a true for me universe..

[SteveH]

Steve H,

How would you know that what you have spent a lifetime referring to as "red" is the same thing that I have spent a lifetime referring to as "red"?

I don't, but since the hypothesis that they may look different to each of us is intrinsically unfalsifiable, it's a useless hypothesis, is it not?

[torridon]

It is nothing of the sort. It is a very unusual and rare case, caused by special circumstances. Most of the time, people with normal vision agree about what colour objects are, because it's objective, related to the wavelength of the light. Hard cases make bad law.

Light wavelengths may arguably to be objective.  Colour perception is a subjective neural interpretation of light waves.  Colours aren't distances, they are a handy interpretation of wavelengths, the light itself isn't colourful.

[torridon]

You claim to have personal subjective experience of things.  But what is it that transforms the objective deterministic reactions to our sensory inputs into a subjective experience?  How can any form of subjectivity exist within an entirely objectively defined scenario of physically controlled cause and effect chains of events?

Everything that exists has a subjective aspect, as well as objective aspects.  One essential defining characteristic of mind is that it is subjective, the objective aspect of it is 'brain'.  The same thing but viewed from different aspects.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Steve H,

I don't, but since the hypothesis that they may look different to each of us is intrinsically unfalsifiable, it's a useless hypothesis, is it not?

As is the hypothesis that we all interpret light wavelengths in the same way.

[bluehillside Retd.]

In a physicalist or informationist universe, experiences like these should ultimately be transferrable and notionally the same otherwise you are shaking hands with dualism and a true for me universe..

If anyone can salvage a cogent thought from that wreckage would they let me know please?

Ta.