Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

......... Spectacular bollocks. Again. If you seriously think that the “only feasible explanation” is a personal faith claim for which you have no definition, no explanation, no reasoned argument and no evidence of any kind then you’re even more lost to “the truth” as you put it than I suspected.

And that's very, very lost indeed.

All I can say is the truth sets us free.

Your model of an emergent property entirely driven by the deterministic physical reactions of our brain cells to past events most certainly does not depict any form of freedom, nor does it reflect the true source of all our exchanges in this forum.

[torridon]

I perceive two types of complexity.  There is the naturally produced complexity which we see in chemical compounds which is prevalent throughout the known universe and which have no specific functionality in its own right.  And there is the very specific complexity which we see in the life forms on this earth.  I know you will claim that both types of complexity are naturally produced, but I look upon the latter as an amazing example of God's creative power which has nurtured life into existence over many millions of years.

All very simpiistic.  I know historically we have tended to group stuff into living/non living categories, yes, a useful rule of thumb.  But we now understand reality to be far more complicated than that. Ever since we realised that viruses didn't quite fit the profile of living or inanimate we have been having to evolve our understanding and we now see things in terms of a spectrum of complexity wherein for instance the complexities of chemistry build upon the complexities of the standard model of particle physics, biology builds on the complexity inherent in biochemistry, ecosystems build on the complexity inherent in biology and so forth.  Even a rock is not a truly inanimate thing as we once might have imagined, as revealed by quantum theory it is an ongoing process, just a more monotonous one than say a waterfall or a honeybee.  There is no basis for your divine 'specific complexity', that is just spurious religious overlay which clouds and obscures proper understanding.

[torridon]

What I am saying is that our conscious choices are determined (not pre determined) by our conscious will.  This is the reality which I and presumably the vast majority of the human population perceive.  If our choices are entirely pre determined by past events, they are not choices, but unavoidable reactions.  I know you keep insisting that this is what the available scientific evidence points to, but it does not reflect reality.  If you look at the evidence of human behaviour throughout history, it all points to the truth that we are free to make conscious choices which are not entirely pre determined by past events.  To try to deny this truth in order to fit in with limited human scientific knowledge is short sighted and dangerous, because it effectively exonerates any personal wrong doing by allowing anyone to claim that their actions could not possibly have been avoided.  The only feasible explanation for our freedom to make conscious choices lies in the power of our God given soul to interact with our physical brains to facilitate real choice rather than pre determined reaction.

The evidence from human history points to the fact that people do what they want to do, which is exactly what I've been saying.  Nobody has any choice over deciding what things to want; not least because such to even claim such is inherently irrational.  What our conscious will is, is a consequence of whatever it is that gives rise to it.  If nothing gives rise to it, then it is random.  This is entirely consistent with my own personal experience of being a living thing - there are always reasons for why I want things and why I don't want things.  If I want to eat pasta tonight, it is to do with what I have been eating over the last few days; if I want to sleep now it is because I am tired.  If I am upset now it is because I have had some bad news.  There is always a because, even if we can't quite identify it.  This is all entirely consistent with a deterministic understanding of reality.  There is no way that you, I or anyone else can want something for absolutely no prior reason without it being random. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

All I can say is…

No, that’s not all you can say at all. What you could say is something like, “OK, I see the arguments that rebut my attempts at reason and I shall either counter-argue or accept and not repeat my errors as follows…“

You never do that though, preferring instead either to ignore the rebuttals (as you’ve just done yet again) or to misrepresent them. Why is that – what does your continued avoidance say about you do you think?

…the truth sets us free.

Then why are you so terrified of finding out that "the truth" as you put it might not be what you think it is?

Your model of an emergent property entirely driven by the deterministic physical reactions of our brain cells to past events most certainly does not depict any form of freedom, nor does it reflect the true source of all our exchanges in this forum.

Yes I know you’re fond of un-argued and un-evidenced faith assertions of this kind, but that doesn’t change the inconvenient logic and evidence that undermine them. Of course it “depicts” freedom, but not the utterly irrational, incoherent version of it you keep asserting. It’s really not that hard to grasp Alan if only you weren’t so scared even of trying.

[ekim]

  Even a rock is not a truly inanimate thing

Did you mean that, as it implies that a rock has life or in AB's terms a soul?

[BeRational]

Did you mean that, as it implies that a rock has life or in AB's terms a soul?

I would think it implies that it is constantly moving and not fixed.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

Did you mean that, as it implies that a rock has life or in AB's terms a soul?

No, it just implies that a rock is a process rather than in stasis.

[Nearly Sane]

Did you mean that, as it implies that a rock has life or in AB's terms a soul?

AB doesn't think that all living things have a soul. Indeed he thinks that the vast majority do not.

[ekim]

The evidence from human history points to the fact that people do what they want to do, which is exactly what I've been saying.  Nobody has any choice over deciding what things to want; not least because such to even claim such is inherently irrational.  What our conscious will is, is a consequence of whatever it is that gives rise to it.  If nothing gives rise to it, then it is random.  This is entirely consistent with my own personal experience of being a living thing - there are always reasons for why I want things and why I don't want things.  If I want to eat pasta tonight, it is to do with what I have been eating over the last few days; if I want to sleep now it is because I am tired.  If I am upset now it is because I have had some bad news.  There is always a because, even if we can't quite identify it.  This is all entirely consistent with a deterministic understanding of reality.  There is no way that you, I or anyone else can want something for absolutely no prior reason without it being random.

From a Christian and possibly a Muslim perspective the choice is between what the individual wants and what God wants i.e. surrendering self wants determined by self centredness and submitting to those determined by God centredness.

[Rhiannon]

All I can say is the truth sets us free.

Your model of an emergent property entirely driven by the deterministic physical reactions of our brain cells to past events most certainly does not depict any form of freedom, nor does it reflect the true source of all our exchanges in this forum.

How are you free, Alan? How does your truth set you free?

[Rhiannon]

Did you mean that, as it implies that a rock has life or in AB's terms a soul?

I don’t see how you got there. Why would something animate in even the slightest way be possessed of a soul?

[ippy]

AB,

No, that’s not all you can say at all. What you could say is something like, “OK, I see the arguments that rebut my attempts at reason and I shall either counter-argue or accept and not repeat my errors as follows…“

You never do that though, preferring instead either to ignore the rebuttals (as you’ve just done yet again) or to misrepresent them. Why is that – what does your continued avoidance say about you do you think?

Then why are you so terrified of finding out that "the truth" as you put it might not be what you think it is?

Yes I know you’re fond of un-argued and un-evidenced faith assertions of this kind, but that doesn’t change the inconvenient logic and evidence that undermine them. Of course it “depicts” freedom, but not the utterly irrational, incoherent version of it you keep asserting. It’s really not that hard to grasp Alan if only you weren’t so scared even of trying.

You're right Blue, it's fear of admitting to the unraveling of the knowledge he likes to think he has.

Regards ippy.

[Alan Burns]

The evidence from human history points to the fact that people do what they want to do, which is exactly what I've been saying.  Nobody has any choice over deciding what things to want; not least because such to even claim such is inherently irrational.  What our conscious will is, is a consequence of whatever it is that gives rise to it.  If nothing gives rise to it, then it is random.  This is entirely consistent with my own personal experience of being a living thing - there are always reasons for why I want things and why I don't want things.  If I want to eat pasta tonight, it is to do with what I have been eating over the last few days; if I want to sleep now it is because I am tired.  If I am upset now it is because I have had some bad news.  There is always a because, even if we can't quite identify it.  This is all entirely consistent with a deterministic understanding of reality.  There is no way that you, I or anyone else can want something for absolutely no prior reason without it being random.

So how can you differentiate between conscious choice and unavoidable reaction? 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

So how can you differentiate between conscious choice and unavoidable reaction?

The same way you can differentiate between whether your fingers actually touch the keyboard and there being a tiny gap between them – by abandoning the notion that the way things seem is necessarily a sound explanation for the way things are, and by applying the tools of reason and evidence.

[Alan Burns]

Yes I know you’re fond of un-argued and un-evidenced faith assertions of this kind, but that doesn’t change the inconvenient logic and evidence that undermine them. Of course it “depicts” freedom, but not the utterly irrational, incoherent version of it you keep asserting. It’s really not that hard to grasp Alan if only you weren’t so scared even of trying.

The only form of freedom identified in your posts is depicted by your phrase, "that's just the way it seems", inferring that our freedom to choose is just an illusion - which is the inevitable conclusion if you insist that all our thoughts, words and deeds are entirely derived from the deterministic electro chemical activity in our brains.

Can you not see that every one of your posts provides substantial evidence of your freedom to consciously compose detailed replies?  It is not difficult to realise that such behaviour originates from something far deeper and more profound than anything produced by physically induced reactions alone.  Our freedom to consciously compose, to make conscious choices, to create, to manipulate, to love, to cherish, to hate, to lie, to cheat, to despise, to help .....etc  is the reality we live in.  It is what life is about.  Without these freedoms, life would be just a meaningless journey along a pre determined path of unavoidable reactions.

[Alan Burns]

How are you free, Alan? How does your truth set you free?

Simply by admitting to the truth that we comprise much more than can be achieved by a biological machine entirely driven by the physically pre determined reactions to past events.  Our freedom is a reality which can't be derived from nature alone.

[torridon]

So how can you differentiate between conscious choice and unavoidable reaction?

A conscious choice is constituted from billions of 'unavoidable reactions'.  Even when we are sleeping our brains are active to the tune of billions of events per second; we cannot control these events, it is these events that constitute, among other things, the thoughts that occur to us, the intentions we form.  When we make a choice, there is a sampling going on, we sample the strength of rival desires to identify which action to effect in the next moment.  That of course is a grand simplification, and consciousness introduces yet more complexity as consciousness is a retrospective construction of preconscious levels of mind so our 'conscious choice' although it feels as if in real time, it is in fact a memory of a choice just made moments ago.  We have no conscious access to preconscious states of mind, we cannot know them, we cannot control them and the resulting desires and intentions we form result from all that subconscious and preconscious activity.

[ippy]

Simply by admitting to the truth that we comprise much more than can be achieved by a biological machine entirely driven by the physically pre determined reactions to past events.  Our freedom is a reality which can't be derived from nature alone.

'Our freedom is a reality which can't be derived from nature alone', there's nothing wrong with saying or believing that A B, you, nor can anyone else know that; there is a rather obvious flaw in what you say ie, evidence, the lack of as usual, these assertions of yours continue to fail for that reason they're mearly baseless assertions.

More much needed commiserations to you Alan, ippy.

P S just my thoughts as I sit here relaxing for a mo, I really can't think of anything much more useless than all of this religion mythology nonsense you must be wasting so much of your time on, the main reason I post here is because I find this type of delusion so strange and unnessary, yet people insist on following these beliefs?

[ekim]

I don’t see how you got there. Why would something animate in even the slightest way be possessed of a soul?

From the Oxford dictionary: animate ... Bring to life, alive or having life .... Origin: Late Middle English: from Latin animat- ‘instilled with life’, from the verb animare, from anima ‘life, soul’.  The 'soul' has a Germanic origin and meant 'life'.  Bearing in mind that most religions have a distant origin I think it is reasonable to try to get back to what was being represented by the word at the time rather than what it has degenerated into now. 

[torridon]

Can you not see that every one of your posts provides substantial evidence of your freedom to consciously compose detailed replies?  It is not difficult to realise that such behaviour originates from something far deeper and more profound than anything produced by physically induced reactions alone.  Our freedom to consciously compose, to make conscious choices, to create, to manipulate, to love, to cherish, to hate, to lie, to cheat, to despise, to help .....etc  is the reality we live in.  It is what life is about.  Without these freedoms, life would be just a meaningless journey along a pre determined path of unavoidable reactions.

That's how it seems, granted.  But how it seems, is a construction of mind.  For a quick run through how it is, see 28741

[Nearly Sane]

From the Oxford dictionary: animate ... Bring to life, alive or having life .... Origin: Late Middle English: from Latin animat- ‘instilled with life’, from the verb animare, from anima ‘life, soul’.  The 'soul' has a Germanic origin and meant 'life'.  Bearing in mind that most religions have a distant origin I think it is reasonable to try to get back to what was being represented by the word at the time rather than what it has degenerated into now.

surely it would be better in talking about what AB means which you included to take what he says into account? And this is not his position.

[wigginhall]

I don't even think that that is how it seems, (on freedom).   I mean, most of my thoughts and feelings arrive in my mind, without my help, at least consciously.   There is no freedom here, so what?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The only form of freedom identified in your posts is depicted by your phrase, "that's just the way it seems", inferring that our freedom to choose is just an illusion - which is the inevitable conclusion if you insist that all our thoughts, words and deeds are entirely derived from the deterministic electro chemical activity in our brains.

It’s “implying”, not “inferring” and essentially yes – it’s necessarily “illusory” inasmuch as the alternative is incoherent. Just inventing a little man at the controls and when questioned about it telling us the equivalent of, “it’s magic” is just bad thinking. Again.   

Can you not see that…

Every time you begin a sentence with these words I know that you’re about to make another un-argued and un-evidenced assertion. Let’s see shall we?

…every one of your posts provides substantial evidence of your freedom to consciously compose detailed replies?

Bingo! And truly I have the power of foresight….

When will it ever sink in for you that that “freedom” is necessarily bounded by deterministic cause and effect because, if it were otherwise, all you’d have is randomness and chaos? I know that unravels the nice warm knitted cardi of religious faith you’ve wrapped yourself in for decades, but that doesn’t change the reality of it I’m afraid. 

It is not difficult to realise that…

That’s very funny…

…such behaviour originates from something far deeper and more profound than anything produced by physically induced reactions alone.

You reveal here your fundamental failure to grasp the characteristics of emergent properties. Are you really so frightened of your personal truths being detonated that you won’t even try to read a little about the subject? Really though?

Our freedom to consciously compose, to make conscious choices, to create, to manipulate, to love, to cherish, to hate, to lie, to cheat, to despise, to help .....etc  is the reality we live in.  It is what life is about.

And how exactly would you propose to decide on the wants your subconscious generates that give rise to these apparent decisions?

Without these freedoms, life would be just a meaningless journey along a pre determined path of unavoidable reactions.

Look, I’ve explained to you several times in recent posts alone what the argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy entails, and for that matter why the supposed consequence you happen to dislike is a false one in any case. Are you blind so can’t see these explanations? Can your brain just not process them so you ignore them? What convolutions do you go through to avoid ever, ever addressing the problems you give yourself so as to prefer instead repeating the same mistakes over and over again?

What though?

Simply by admitting to the truth that we comprise much more than can be achieved by a biological machine entirely driven by the physically pre determined reactions to past events.  Our freedom is a reality which can't be derived from nature alone.

And that’s the fallacy of reification again – you cannot “admit to the truth” of something when the person claiming that truth is unable to express it in coherent form, unable to make a cogent argument for it and unable to produce even one shred of evidence for it that would even leave a scratch on the evidence that contradicts it.

Why then do you bother with it?

[ekim]

surely it would be better in talking about what AB means which you included to take what he says into account? And this is not his position.

Well that seems to be the way this thread has developed.  It seems more about Alan and his vague use of words like soul and spirit and less about the topic 'Searching for God' in association with the Christian religion.  Unless there is some agreed definition as to what those key words mean in the context of the religion the discussion will continue to go around in circles.  If Alan knows what he understands by those words then he should state it for clarity purposes.

[Nearly Sane]

Well that seems to be the way this thread has developed.  It seems more about Alan and his vague use of words like soul and spirit and less about the topic 'Searching for God' in association with the Christian religion.  Unless there is some agreed definition as to what those key words mean in the context of the religion the discussion will continue to go around in circles.  If Alan knows what he understands by those words then he should state it for clarity purposes.

And again surely he has? He doesn't think something living has a soul by virtue of it being a living thing. He has repeatedly stated that only humans have souls. That he is not very clear on how these work or what it means doesn't mean that we should ignore that for Alan, the vast majority of living things have no soul