Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

'Human soul' is an oxymoron, Alan, ...

You could not be more wrong in this, Gordon.  Our soul makes us human, gives us our unique identity, and frees us from the physical deterministic control of this material universe.

[Alan Burns]

'Choice' simply means 'the act of choosing between two or more possibilities'. Nowhere does the word 'choice' actually describe how the action of choosing comes about. Why on earth then 'obliterate the word 'choice' from the English language?'

I was just illustrating the fact that Torri's idea of choice is merely an unavoidable reaction dictated entirely by previous physical events.  Would you say that a billiard ball chooses to roll after it is hit by the cue?  Choice must involve consciously controlled interaction, otherwise it is not a choice but just a reaction.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I was just illustrating the fact that Torri's idea of choice is merely an unavoidable reaction dictated entirely by previous physical events.  Would you say that a billiard ball chooses to roll after it is hit by the cue?  Choice must involve consciously controlled interaction, otherwise it is not a choice but just a reaction.

Why are you persisting with this stupidity? Of course choice is still choice, but it cannot be the utterly irrational version of it you keep asserting to be the case. Our choices are necessarily bounded by the inescapable fact of underlying determinism because there's no alternative. Just claiming magic and calling it "soul" because you don't like that is hopeless thinking, so persuades no-one possessed of a functioning imtellect.

[Gordon]

You could not be more wrong in this, Gordon.  Our soul makes us human, gives us our unique identity, and frees us from the physical deterministic control of this material universe.

So according to you being human involves having something that isn't human, and that this something somehow vaccinates us so that we become immune to precursors and influences: this is utter nonsense Alan.

Does it concern that that, as far as I'm aware, those who study neurology and consciousness don't have a hypothesis involving 'souls'?   

[Enki]

I was just illustrating the fact that Torri's idea of choice is merely an unavoidable reaction dictated entirely by previous physical events.  Would you say that a billiard ball chooses to roll after it is hit by the cue?  Choice must involve consciously controlled interaction, otherwise it is not a choice but just a reaction.

As far as I know, a billiard ball is incapable of the act of choosing. There is only one thing that it is capable of doing in that situation, which means that choice doesn't come into it. Hence I think this is a bad analogy.

On the other hand any animal, allowing for the fact that it is not constrained by outside forces, may well have a multiplicity of choices in any given situation. The word 'choice'. as it is defined in the dictionary, therefore, is not a problem.

I think your mistake was to separate out the word 'choice' when I think you what you were referring to was 'free choice' and your particular take on what you think that means.

[Alan Burns]

As far as I know, a billiard ball is incapable of the act of choosing. There is only one thing that it is capable of doing in that situation, which means that choice doesn't come into it. Hence I think this is a bad analogy.

On the other hand any animal, allowing for the fact that it is not constrained by outside forces, may well have a multiplicity of choices in any given situation. The word 'choice'. as it is defined in the dictionary, therefore, is not a problem.

I think your mistake was to separate out the word 'choice' when I think you what you were referring to was 'free choice' and your particular take on what you think that means.

No, you are wrong.  Any conscious choice between two or more feasible alternatives must be free of physically induced determinism, otherwise it can't be classified as a choice.  Past events influence a conscious choice, but they do not dictate it - otherwise it is nothing more than a reaction.

[SusanDoris]

No, you are wrong.  Any conscious choice between two or more feasible alternatives must be free of physically induced determinism, otherwise it can't be classified as a choice.  Past events influence a conscious choice, but they do not dictate it - otherwise it is nothing more than a reaction.

As usual, I sit here wondering how you can continue to type all this stuff which makes no sense at all.

[Enki]

No, you are wrong.  Any conscious choice between two or more feasible alternatives must be free of physically induced determinism, otherwise it can't be classified as a choice.  Past events influence a conscious choice, but they do not dictate it - otherwise it is nothing more than a reaction.

This has nothing to do with the idea that the meaning of 'choice'  is 'the act of choosing between two or more possibilities'. It doesn't matter whether the act involves a conscious, unconscious, physical or non physical process.  May I remind you that it was you who suggested that Torri might want the word 'choice'(not conscious choice, not free choice, but 'choice' by itself) obliterated from the English language. Stick to the facts. It looks as though your billiard ball analogy has left the room.

[Alan Burns]

So according to you being human involves having something that isn't human, and that this something somehow vaccinates us so that we become immune to precursors and influences:

You must surely recognise that precursors and influences can help us to make a conscious choice - but they do not dictate it, nor is the choice totally immune from them.

[Alan Burns]

This has nothing to do with the idea that the meaning of 'choice'  is 'the act of choosing between two or more possibilities'. It doesn't matter whether the act involves a conscious, unconscious, physical or non physical process.  May I remind you that it was you who suggested that Torri might want the word 'choice'(not conscious choice, not free choice, but 'choice' by itself) obliterated from the English language. Stick to the facts. It looks as though your billiard ball analogy has left the room.

No - the billiard ball analogy is perfectly valid for any action which is entirely and unavoidably dictated by prior events.  By definition, a choice involves something which has the conscious ability to choose between two or more viable alternatives.  If the conscious entity does not have this ability, the resulting action must be just as inevitable as in the billiard ball analogy.

[Alan Burns]

As far as I know, a billiard ball is incapable of the act of choosing.

Yes, and this is precisely where the materialist scenario becomes unstuck in being able to define the concept of choice.  In a human brain where there is nothing but physical materials, the path of every electron buzzing round our neuron network will be dictated in exactly the same way as the path of the billiard ball, so the collective result of all this activity will be defined by millions of these actions, each of which has no choice in the path being taken.  To facilitate choice, there has to be some means of control over the paths being taken, which is where the consciously driven willpower of our human soul comes in.

[Maeght]

Yes, and this is precisely where the materialist scenario becomes unstuck in being able to define the concept of choice.  In a human brain where there is nothing but physical materials, the path of every electron buzzing round our neuron network will be dictated in exactly the same way as the path of the billiard ball, so the collective result of all this activity will be defined by millions of these actions, each of which has no choice in the path being taken.  To facilitate choice, there has to be some means of control over the paths being taken, which is where the consciously driven willpower of our human soul comes in.

Only iof the choice is free and not predetermined by previous events - which is the whole point of the discussion. Call it apparent choice if you want to be pedantic. Choices do not have to be free from predetermination.

[Enki]

Yes, and this is precisely where the materialist scenario becomes unstuck in being able to define the concept of choice.  In a human brain where there is nothing but physical materials, the path of every electron buzzing round our neuron network will be dictated in exactly the same way as the path of the billiard ball, so the collective result of all this activity will be defined by millions of these actions, each of which has no choice in the path being taken.  To facilitate choice, there has to be some means of control over the paths being taken, which is where the consciously driven willpower of our human soul comes in.

No, it doesn't come unstuck.

1) A billiard ball in your scenario can only do one thing, Alan. It does not have the potential to do anything else. No choice involved. It is simple and straightforward.

2) A person makes a choice. This is a result of a huge number of interactive processes, any one of which might well be defined as similar to the billiard ball, but the sum total of those immensely complex processes is that a choice is made from a range of potentials, unlike the billiard ball. See Blue's thoughts on the idea of emergence.

Hence, the difference is that the billiard ball has only one course of action, whilst a person making a choice has more than one course of action. The fact that for whatever reason(s) a choice is made, (whether deterministically or not), does not take away from the fact that, according to the definition of the word, the parameters have been fulfilled.  Choice simply means the act of choosing between two or more possibilities. it says nothing about how that choosing might come about.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Yes, and this is precisely where the materialist scenario becomes unstuck in being able to define the concept of choice.  In a human brain where there is nothing but physical materials, the path of every electron buzzing round our neuron network will be dictated in exactly the same way as the path of the billiard ball, so the collective result of all this activity will be defined by millions of these actions, each of which has no choice in the path being taken.  To facilitate choice, there has to be some means of control over the paths being taken, which is where the consciously driven willpower of our human soul comes in.

Flat wrong. Again.

There doesn't have to be "control" as you put it at all, let alone the children's nursery story conjecture of a "soul". All there has to be is processes that are themselves the product of prior events (eg, wants that emerge from the subconscious).

Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

[SteveH]

You could not be more wrong in this, Gordon.  Our soul makes us human, gives us our unique identity, and frees us from the physical deterministic control of this material universe.

Just out of interest - and I don't necessarily disagree with you - do you think the soul is an independently-existing thing, or an emergent property of mind, itself an emergent property of the brain?

[torridon]

Yes, and this is precisely where the materialist scenario becomes unstuck in being able to define the concept of choice.  In a human brain where there is nothing but physical materials, the path of every electron buzzing round our neuron network will be dictated in exactly the same way as the path of the billiard ball, so the collective result of all this activity will be defined by millions of these actions, each of which has no choice in the path being taken.  To facilitate choice, there has to be some means of control over the paths being taken, which is where the consciously driven willpower of our human soul comes in.

And this is precisely where the supernaturalist scenario becomes unstuck in being able to define the concept of free will in any coherent way.  It is not possible to make a choice that is not a consequence of its relevant factors without being random. What you are claiming for a supernaturalist account of choice is not just wrong, it is literally inconceivable. Better surely, to accept the 'materialist' account, although it doesn't feel intuitive in some ways, it is logically consistent. 

[torridon]

But we still have the freedom to change our minds

  .. and so does every rabbit, robin and raccoon.  All creatures change their minds constantly in response to internal and external change.  this is what minds do, respond nimbly to changed circumstances. 

You might like to think humans are different, in that we can change our minds just because we want to; we can act on a whim, an impulse, and maybe it seems these things have no origin. But they too do have origins, in our subconscious.  Neuroscientists have a nice analogy for this, it is known as the dolphin model of cognition.  Envisage dolphins in the ocean, they speed about busily mostly just under the surface and occasionally leap out of the ocean for a fleeting moment.  Our thoughts are like that, they emerge fleetingly from the ocean of our subconscious, where they can become part of our known experienced stream of consciousness.  All our thoughts, our hopes and fears, even seemingly spontaneous choices, they do have origins, just we are not usually aware of them.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Flat wrong. Again.

There doesn't have to be "control" as you put it at all, let alone the children's nursery story conjecture of a "soul". All there has to be is processes that are themselves the product of prior events (eg, wants that emerge from the subconscious).

Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

So there can be no such thing as conscious control?

[Alan Burns]

Just out of interest - and I don't necessarily disagree with you - do you think the soul is an independently-existing thing, or an emergent property of mind, itself an emergent property of the brain?

The soul has to be an independent entity from the physical material of this universe in order to enable the ability to invoke acts of consciously driven free will. If we were just an emergent property of material entities, we would be entirely driven by the physical laws of science which allow no freedom. 
The question to contemplate is this:
Are we in control of our material bodies, or does the material body control us?

[Alan Burns]

And this is precisely where the supernaturalist scenario becomes unstuck in being able to define the concept of free will in any coherent way.  It is not possible to make a choice that is not a consequence of its relevant factors without being random. What you are claiming for a supernaturalist account of choice is not just wrong, it is literally inconceivable. Better surely, to accept the 'materialist' account, although it doesn't feel intuitive in some ways, it is logically consistent.

But this takes no account of the reality that our conscious awareness  has the ability to contemplate any factors involved before invoking the consciously chosen action.  Your scenario involves nothing but pre determined inevitable reactions to previous events controlled entirely by the laws of nature.

[Alan Burns]

  .. and so does every rabbit, robin and raccoon.  All creatures change their minds constantly in response to internal and external change.  this is what minds do, respond nimbly to changed circumstances. 

But the animals you quote are driven purely by their survival instinct.

[torridon]

But this takes no account of the reality that our conscious awareness  has the ability to contemplate any factors involved before invoking the consciously chosen action.  Your scenario involves nothing but pre determined inevitable reactions to previous events controlled entirely by the laws of nature.

Yes we can contemplate the relevant factors, and the resulting choice reflects the determining factor.  If this were not the case, our choice would be random.

[torridon]

But the animals you quote are driven purely by their survival instinct.

That's a simplification.  All creatures, humans included, are more complex than that.  The survival instinct is ubiquitous, but it is not the only instinct.

[Alan Burns]

No, it doesn't come unstuck.

1) A billiard ball in your scenario can only do one thing, Alan. It does not have the potential to do anything else. No choice involved. It is simple and straightforward.
..........

And in the materialist scenario, every electron in your brain can only do one thing - dictated entirely by previous physical events.

[Alan Burns]

Yes we can contemplate the relevant factors, and the resulting choice reflects the determining factor.  If this were not the case, our choice would be random.

Not random. but determined by the conscious will of the human soul - otherwise it would be just an inevitable uncontrollable reaction.