Searching for GOD...

[Sriram]

I think you are mixing up 'logical' with 'intuitive'.  When Aristarchus proposed a heliocentric solar system people would have found it 'illogical', any idiot could look up and see the Sun and all other celestial objects transiting across the sky.  But it wasn't really illogical, it was counter-intuitive. Likewise, it may be that multiverse theory is logical despite it being counter-intuitive to us currently.  To expand our minds, to ditch our mental blocks and grasp the bigger picture, we don't abandon logic, but we do have to be prepared to abandon our intuitions.  There is a difference.

You have to define logic first. There is no one thing called logic that is universally applicable in all cases for all time. Logic depends on the matter under discussion and our current knowledge about that subject.  Logic is just what seems reasonable at that time. Nothing more.

[Alan Burns]

No, the same principle applies, you are just not engaging with the concepts involved.  The choice of how to indulge our desires is resolved by identifying the option which has the most appeal and we have no control over how much external things appeal to us.  The choice of how to honour our beliefs is likewise resolved by identifying the option which has the most appeal and we have no control over how much external things appeal to us.  If we could choose how external encounters affected us on what basis could we possibly choose ?  if I stub my toe I don't get to choose whether or not it hurts.  If I look up at the sky, I don't 'decide' to experience it as blue.  Life is not like that, that is not how mind works.  The choice of which piece of fruit to take from the basket is resolved by identifying the one that holds the most appeal and I have no more freedom to force an unappealing item to be appealing than I have to see the sky as green.  This is really not so difficult.

Torri,
The fact that you keep quoting trivial examples in which we obviously have no choice, such as the colour of the sky, indicates that you do not appear to discern what a consciously driven choice involves.  Yes, we can consciously consider what is most appealing to us, but after this consideration we still have the choice of whether or not to invoke it.  The only alternative is a fully automated robot with no will of its own.  This is really not so difficult.

[Sebastian Toe]

Torri,
 Yes, we can consciously consider what is most appealing to us, but after this consideration we still have the choice of whether or not to invoke it.

The choice is made subconciously and emerges into our concious self in such a short time later, we don't really notice that it happened that way.
No soul required.

This is really not so difficult.

[torridon]

Torri,
The fact that you keep quoting trivial examples in which we obviously have no choice, such as the colour of the sky, indicates that you do not appear to discern what a consciously driven choice involves.  Yes, we can consciously consider what is most appealing to us, but after this consideration we still have the choice of whether or not to invoke it.  The only alternative is a fully automated robot with no will of its own.  This is really not so difficult.

I'm having to resort to simple and obvious examples because you can't seem to understand and seem stuck in a very superficial understanding.  I'm illustrating the fundamental principle upon which minds have evolved to resolve choice.  Every encounter with the wider world is an information exchange in which we are changed by the world and the wider world is changed by us.  There aren't two fundamental mechanisms at work, one for broad brush choice wherein you admit we have no control over our desires and a separate one for choosing a detailed option within a 'viable range' where we somehow do have control over which detailed option is the appealing one.  It is the same mechanism, it cannot be different, that makes no sense. Our preferences and needs change constantly as we go through life and when confronted with a new choice to make we do not alter ourselves to fit the options, rather we assess the options against our internal model, what we have become.  I might look at that basket of fruit and see the apricot looks more appealing, yes, and I might choose that because of it's simple appeal; but I might still decide to choose something else because of some other, maybe less obvious factors; in that case the other thing had on balance more appeal; there are often multiple factors involved in making a choice and we may not even be consciously aware of how they impact on our decision making process.  This is the fundamentals of how choice is resolved by minds.  We do not have control over our needs and desires, they evolve within us day by day moment by moment out of the interaction between us and the wider world.

[Shaker]

Yes, we can consciously consider what is most appealing to us, but after this consideration we still have the choice of whether or not to invoke it.

Really? I can't. How do you do it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm having to resort to simple and obvious examples because you can't seem to understand and seem stuck in a very superficial understanding.  I'm illustrating the fundamental principle upon which minds have evolved to resolve choice.  Every encounter with the wider world is an information exchange in which we are changed by the world and the wider world is changed by us.  There aren't two fundamental mechanisms at work, one for broad brush choice wherein you admit we have no control over our desires and a separate one for choosing a detailed option within a 'viable range' where we somehow do have control over which detailed option is the appealing one.  It is the same mechanism, it cannot be different, that makes no sense. Our preferences and needs change constantly as we go through life and when confronted with a new choice to make we do not alter ourselves to fit the options, rather we assess the options against our internal model, what we have become.  I might look at that basket of fruit and see the apricot looks more appealing, yes, and I might choose that because of it's simple appeal; but I might still decide to choose something else because of some other, maybe less obvious factors; in that case the other thing had on balance more appeal; there are often multiple factors involved in making a choice and we may not even be consciously aware of how they impact on our decision making process.  This is the fundamentals of how choice is resolved by minds.  We do not have control over our needs and desires, they evolve within us day by day moment by moment out of the interaction between us and the wider world.

I'm having to resort to simple and obvious examples because you can't seem to understand and seem stuck in a very superficial understanding.  I'm illustrating the fundamental principle upon which minds have evolved to resolve choice.  Every encounter with the wider world is an information exchange in which we are changed by the world and the wider world is changed by us.  There aren't two fundamental mechanisms at work, one for broad brush choice wherein you admit we have no control over our desires and a separate one for choosing a detailed option within a 'viable range' where we somehow do have control over which detailed option is the appealing one.  It is the same mechanism, it cannot be different, that makes no sense. Our preferences and needs change constantly as we go through life and when confronted with a new choice to make we do not alter ourselves to fit the options, rather we assess the options against our internal model, what we have become.  I might look at that basket of fruit and see the apricot looks more appealing, yes, and I might choose that because of it's simple appeal; but I might still decide to choose something else because of some other, maybe less obvious factors; in that case the other thing had on balance more appeal; there are often multiple factors involved in making a choice and we may not even be consciously aware of how they impact on our decision making process.  This is the fundamentals of how choice is resolved by minds.  We do not have control over our needs and desires, they evolve within us day by day moment by moment out of the interaction between us and the wider world.

I get the feeling still that you haven't seen Alan's obvious point that the ''determinism'' of the so called natural forces that hold atoms and any matter together and the ''determinism'' of human experience and making the choices we do are different......in other words I think he, rightly, suspects you of materialism.

The main fault behind that of course are the logical gaps and a rejection of the most obvious meaning of the term emergence.

To get back on point I'm sure Alan would be quite happy to acknowledge causes for the search for God but then again I don't want to put words in peoples' mouths.

[torridon]

I get the feeling still that you haven't seen Alan's obvious point that the ''determinism'' of the so called natural forces that hold atoms and any matter together and the ''determinism'' of human experience and making the choices we do are different......in other words I think he, rightly, suspects you of materialism.

There isn't a separate class of determinism, material determinism.  That's what Alan likes to imagine, and I like to dispute.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There isn't a separate class of determinism, material determinism.  That's what Alan likes to imagine, and I like to dispute.

Ah this is where we differ atoms and matter has no choice or experience or even knowledge of making choices and how you go about and end up making them.

Something has emerged you see.

[torridon]

Ah this is where we differ atoms and matter has no choice or experience or even knowledge of making choices and how you go about and end up making them.

Something has emerged you see.

Yes something has emerged; I see it as a wonder of nature that apparent free will can emerge from a deterministic substrate of reality.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes something has emerged; I see it as a wonder of nature that apparent free will can emerge from a deterministic substrate of reality.

I sense you see a point behind the term ''wonder of nature''.

[torridon]

I sense you see a point behind the term ''wonder of nature''.

Well, yes. We live in a reality filled with wonder.  Thing is, do we look at such things and see them as unfathomable mysteries, forever beyond all understanding.  Or do we beaver away at them, trying to understand them, perhaps robbing them of some of their mystery in the process.

[ippy]

I sense you see a point behind the term ''wonder of nature''.

It'd be good if just some of us were able to see it and recognise when they've been buried in an exchange of words, wouldn't it Vlad.

Regards ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well, yes. We live in a reality filled with wonder.  Thing is, do we look at such things and see them as unfathomable mysteries, forever beyond all understanding.  Or do we beaver away at them, trying to understand them, perhaps robbing them of some of their mystery in the process.

Not sure about what I see as your implication that understanding only derives from ''beavering away''.
That oversimplifies the human experience of nature.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It'd be good if just some of us were able to see it and recognise when they've been buried in an exchange of words, wouldn't it Vlad.

Regards ippy

I'm sorry I don't know what you are trying to say .

[Shaker]

Well, yes. We live in a reality filled with wonder.  Thing is, do we look at such things and see them as unfathomable mysteries, forever beyond all understanding.  Or do we beaver away at them, trying to understand them, perhaps robbing them of some of their mystery in the process.

The New Mysterians are very big on the former, I gather.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The New Mysterians are very big on the former, I gather.

I really enjoyed them on Captain Scarlet

[Shaker]

I really enjoyed them on Captain Scarlet

Keep watching the kiddies' telly, Vlad.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Keep watching the kiddies' telly, Vlad.

It was what we call ''a joke''. I understand you  have them in Leicester along the lines of ''Did you here about the guy from Syston who choked to death on his Brew XI?''

Anyway. Since Dennett has bugfuckered his way out of explaining consciousness by explaining it away I stand slightly away from the voice of the mysterians with Searle and wait for the materialists to come up with a comprehensive scientific explanation for it.

[Shaker]

It was what we call ''a joke''.

The royal we, evidently.

I understand you  have them in Leicester along the lines of ''Did you here about the guy from Syston who choked to death on his Brew XI?''

I remember spending a month in Syston one day.

Since Dennett has bugfuckered his way out of explaining consciousness by explaining it away I stand slightly away from the voice of the mysterians with Searle and wait for the materialists to come up with a comprehensive scientific explanation for it.

You may have a long wait; but as I explained to the egregious Burns earlier, "It's, well, like, magic, like, innit" is no proxy for "I don't know. Keep at it".

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The royal we, evidently.
I remember spending a month in Syston one day.
You may have a long wait; but as I explained to the egregious Burns earlier, "It's, well, like, magic, like, innit" is no proxy for "I don't know. Keep at it".

Love Syston comment.

Has Alan actually said those words?

''I don't know but I'm keeping at it'' is a statement of faith is it not?

[Shaker]

Love Syston comment.

Has Alan actually said those words?

I'm paraphrasing but essentially, yes. God is magic. An unevidenced but supposed, alleged, putative, posited being that you can't define doing things that you can't understand by means that you can't explain - aka God - is magic. What else would it be?

''I don't know but I'm keeping at it'' is a statement of faith is it not?

No. I know you lot love to see faith everywhere including and especially where it doesn't exist, but no, it isn't.

It would be a statement of faith to say, as some have/do, "I'm confident that science will figure it out one day." I am not one of those people.  That's dogmatism - in other words, faith. I don't do either. If something will be figured out at some undetermined point in the future - in my lifetime or after, including long after - is unknown to me. Because it's unknown. I don't know. I don't know that it's possible to know. That's OK.

Duh. Not difficult, Vladdychops.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No. I know you lot love to see faith everywhere including and especially where it doesn't exist, but no, it isn't.

You mean yes it is a statement of faith that you are on the right track BUT HAVE no way of knowing that.

Thankyou.

[Shaker]

You mean yes it is a statement of faith that you are on the right track BUT HAVE no way of knowing that.

Thankyou.

No. Try again, this time reading what I actually said instead of what you want to think I wrote for your early hay-baling purposes.

No [...] no it isn't

You mean yes

Christ, it's no wonder people think you're such a monumental fucking liar. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No. Try again, this time reading what I actually said instead of what you want to think I wrote for your early hay-baling purposes.

Christ, it's no wonder people think you're such a monumental fucking liar.

It looks like we'll have to agree to differ on this.

[Shaker]

It looks like we'll have to agree to differ on this.

If we're agreed that you're either an idiot with the reading comprehension of a gnat with learning difficulties, or a conscious and deliberate liar, sure.