Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

If it's a binary choice I'll go with the latter; it seems to me true that things happen for a reason, and the latter recognises that. 

The former is based on fantasy, given we have no evidence for 'souls' as you like to paint them, and also from my own personal experience, I know that I cannot 'consciously control' my will.  I want the things I want, I don't the things I don't want and that is a founding truth on which all minds work.  You cannot choose to want something you don't want.

But I can choose to tell you that your thoughts on the matter just go round in circles, avoiding the obvious conclusion that your conscious will has the final choice in choosing what you want to do.

[torridon]

But I can choose to tell you that your thoughts on the matter just go round in circles, avoiding the obvious conclusion that your conscious will has the final choice in choosing what you want to do.

Your 'obvious' conclusion is actually a flawed conclusion.  Clearly if I have no control over what I want then I have no control over a 'final' choice either.  Adding in the word 'final', you see, alters the logic of the way minds work not one iota.  Whether it is a final choice, an intermediate choice, a provisional choice, an initial choice, it all makes no difference to the logic. At any moment, the action we take is that which has the most appeal in the current moment, and we cannot force  an unappealing possibility to suddenly become appealing.  This is a fundamental insight into how minds have evolved to resolve choice.  Your magic-black-box-for-humans-only concept would leave every other creature on the planet totally unable to resolve choices.

[Alan Burns]

Your 'obvious' conclusion is actually a flawed conclusion.  Clearly if I have no control over what I want then I have no control over a 'final' choice either.  Adding in the word 'final', you see, alters the logic of the way minds work not one iota.  Whether it is a final choice, an intermediate choice, a provisional choice, an initial choice, it all makes no difference to the logic. At any moment, the action we take is that which has the most appeal in the current moment, and we cannot force  an unappealing possibility to suddenly become appealing.  This is a fundamental insight into how minds have evolved to resolve choice.  Your magic-black-box-for-humans-only concept would leave every other creature on the planet totally unable to resolve choices.

But you ignore the abundant evidence that humans have the ability to consciously override their pre programmed animal instincts by using their gift of freedom to invoke choices.

[torridon]

But you ignore the abundant evidence that humans have the ability to consciously override their pre programmed animal instincts by using their gift of freedom to invoke choices.

It's not about 'animal instincts', that is simplistic and naive; it is also ignorant given the number of examples I've given on this thread alone of other animals exhibiting behaviours beyond what we would class as 'instinctive'. It is more profound than that, it is about the deep fundamentals of how minds work which are common and true for all higher species.  At this fundamental level humans are not categorically different, we just manage different levels of complexity and abstraction in our thought processes, but at the end of the day we still to resolve choice through the same neurological mechanisms that we inherited through our shared ancestry with all other creatures that also need to resolve choice.  Humans are more complex, is all; we are not magic; to imagine so displays a deep naivety about the reality of our nature.

[Maeght]

Frankly it amazes me to see how fellow human beings can consciously deny the reality of their God given freedom.

The irony being that without their God given freedom they would have no choice in the matter.

Of course it amazes you because it goes against your beliefs.

[Maeght]

But you ignore the abundant evidence that humans have the ability to consciously override their pre programmed animal instincts by using their gift of freedom to invoke choices.

They appear to, but how do you really know Alan that this is just an illusion? That is the key question and I fail to see how you can know this.

[Sebastian Toe]

And how did your response originate?
Was it just an inevitable, uncontrollable consequence driven by nothing but the physically pre determined reactions to past events?

In my subconcious, just before it emerged into my concious state.
"I" still made the choice though. No soul required.

[Alan Burns]

Of course it amazes you because it goes against your beliefs.

It also goes against my logical common sense that any human could consciously deny their freedom to choose.

[Nearly Sane]

It also goes against my logical common sense that any human could consciously deny their freedom to choose.

Since you haven't been able to define that freedom in a logically coherent way, your common sense is far from logical

[Alan Burns]

It's not about 'animal instincts', that is simplistic and naive; it is also ignorant given the number of examples I've given on this thread alone of other animals exhibiting behaviours beyond what we would class as 'instinctive'. It is more profound than that, it is about the deep fundamentals of how minds work which are common and true for all higher species.  At this fundamental level humans are not categorically different, we just manage different levels of complexity and abstraction in our thought processes, but at the end of the day we still to resolve choice through the same neurological mechanisms that we inherited through our shared ancestry with all other creatures that also need to resolve choice.  Humans are more complex, is all; we are not magic; to imagine so displays a deep naivety about the reality of our nature.

Additional physical complexity can never give humans the freedom to make conscious choices, because physical complexity will always be tied up with physically pre defined reactions controlled by nature, not by the self or the human mind.  To define everything in physical terms relegates all perception of freedom to be an illusion.

But in order to recognise an illusion, we need some degree of freedom to be able to think about it and categorise it as an illusion.  So is the act of consciously categorising our apparent freedom also an illusion?

[BeRational]

Additional physical complexity can never give humans the freedom to make conscious choices, because physical complexity will always be tied up with physically pre defined reactions controlled by nature, not by the self or the human mind.  To define everything in physical terms relegates all perception of freedom to be an illusion.

But in order to recognise an illusion, we need some degree of freedom to be able to think about it and categorise it as an illusion.  So is the act of consciously categorising our apparent freedom also an illusion?

Everything you see and hear IS an illusion. The brain conjures up the illusion of the outside world in order for you to operate in it.
You cannot see what is really there. The brain constructs the 'reality' in your head.

Please see this series from David Eagleman.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvPu2kYstcg

[Sriram]

Deterministic world doesn't mean you can't change things. In such a world people can be 'reprogrammed' to respond differently in situations by study, training, learning etc We are not permanently fixed in our responses over a period of time only at any one moment.

It is not clear at all that we have an element of self will at all.

"Deterministic world doesn't mean you can't change things."

Eh??!! 

[Maeght]

"Deterministic world doesn't mean you can't change things."

Eh??!! 

As I explained, in my view, you can change how your brain is programmed so the response to a similar situation can be different at different stages in your life but you cannot control your response at any one moment - it depends on the way your mind is programmed at that moment. Since my view is that our responses are determined by previous events of course, as we go through different events and experiences, the response can be different. Its not a difficult conceopt surely.

[Alan Burns]

As I explained, in my view, you can change how your brain is programmed so the response to a similar situation can be different at different stages in your life but you cannot control your response at any one moment - it depends on the way your mind is programmed at that moment. Since my view is that our responses are determined by previous events of course, as we go through different events and experiences, the response can be different. Its not a difficult conceopt surely.

And do you seriously believe that all the thought processes involved in you consciously composing this reply were entirely pre determined by your pre programmed brain functions?

[BeRational]

And do you seriously believe that all the thought processes involved in you consciously composing this reply were entirely pre determined by your pre programmed brain functions?

Did you watch any the video about the Brain by David Eagleman?

Dare you?

[Alan Burns]

Everything you see and hear IS an illusion. The brain conjures up the illusion of the outside world in order for you to operate in it.
You cannot see what is really there. The brain constructs the 'reality' in your head.

Please see this series from David Eagleman.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvPu2kYstcg

I watched this series on television.
Yes, we can conclude that our conscious interpretations of our sensory data do not reflect true reality, but this says nothing about our freedom to interpret such things.  My question is this:  - Is our apparent freedom to interpret an illusion?

[BeRational]

I watched this series on television.
Yes, we can conclude that our conscious interpretations of our sensory data do not reflect true reality, but this says nothing about our freedom to interpret such things.  My question is this:  - Is our apparent freedom to interpret an illusion?

Did he mention soul in any of his programmes on the brain.

Did you get that we operate slightly behind the actual event in time, as our brains have to edit the internal model to create a story?

Later in the series, you see how the brain makes decisions by competing models 'fighting' inside the brain, and one coming out on top.

All of what we perceive as reality, including our personal experience of being, is an emergent property of the brain and all the electrical signals.

We are in those signals somewhere.

[Alan Burns]

Did he mention soul in any of his programmes on the brain.

Did you get that we operate slightly behind the actual event in time, as our brains have to edit the internal model to create a story?

Later in the series, you see how the brain makes decisions by competing models 'fighting' inside the brain, and one coming out on top.

All of what we perceive as reality, including our personal experience of being, is an emergent property of the brain and all the electrical signals.

We are in those signals somewhere.

None of this is relevant to your obvious freedom to consciously compose this posting.

Or to David Eagleman's freedom to present his series of programs

[Alan Burns]

If we do not have the freedom to consciously control our own thought processes, any conclusions we come to will be beyond our control - so if such is the case, how can we possibly conclude that our thought processes are correct?

[torridon]

I watched this series on television.
Yes, we can conclude that our conscious interpretations of our sensory data do not reflect true reality, but this says nothing about our freedom to interpret such things.  My question is this:  - Is our apparent freedom to interpret an illusion?

The simple answer is - we cannot 'choose' how to interpret things, for the same reasons we cannot 'choose' what to believe or 'choose' what to like.  This famous illusion illustrates how profoundly true this is :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checker_shadow_illusion#/media/File:Grey_square_optical_illusion.svg

We see identical squares A and B as different colours, and no amount of willpower, no amount of determination, will give you the 'freedom' or the 'control' to see the colours correctly.  This illustrates a fundamental truth about mind mind works.  I think you still haven't grasped the deep significance of insights like this.

[Alan Burns]

The simple answer is - we cannot choose how to interpret things, for the same reasons we cannot choose what to believe or choose what to like.  This famous illusion illustrates how profoundly true this is :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checker_shadow_illusion#/media/File:Grey_square_optical_illusion.svg


We see identical squares A and B as different colours, and no amount of willpower will give you the 'freedom' or the 'control' to see the colours correctly.  This illustrates a fundamental truth about mind mind works.  I think you still haven't grasped the deep significance of insights like this.

Illusions are what they are - illusions.
Nothing to do with our freedom to control our own thought processes.

[torridon]

Illusions are what they are - illusions.
Nothing to do with our freedom to control our own thought processes.

Read the post again and try to grasp the significance of the example.  The illusion, is not some mental abberation, some curious blip; rather it illustrates something profound about how minds work all the time. If we could choose to see those squares correctly then I would agree with you, maybe true choice does exist after all.  The fact that we see them in a way that that is beyond our control illustrates that we have no real time control over our perceptions, over our interpretations, over our values.  This is why when we are faced with a choice, we always choose the option that appeals the most but we cannot control which option appeals the most to us any more than we can control the background shading of squares A and B. We have no control over how our minds work.

[Maeght]

And do you seriously believe that all the thought processes involved in you consciously composing this reply were entirely pre determined by your pre programmed brain functions?

Yes, you know I do.

[Maeght]

I watched this series on television.
Yes, we can conclude that our conscious interpretations of our sensory data do not reflect true reality, but this says nothing about our freedom to interpret such things.  My question is this:  - Is our apparent freedom to interpret an illusion?

I asked you how you know it isn't an illusion but you haven't answered.

[Alan Burns]

Read the post again and try to grasp the significance of the example.  The illusion, is not some mental abberation, some curious blip; rather it illustrates something profound about how minds work all the time. If we could choose to see those squares correctly then I would agree with you, maybe true choice does exist after all.  The fact that we see them in a way that that is beyond our control illustrates that we have no real time control over our perceptions, over our interpretations, over our values.  This is why when we are faced with a choice, we always choose the option that appeals the most but we cannot control which option appeals the most to us any more than we can control the background shading of squares A and B. We have no control over how our minds work.

Do you presume that all the thought processes which went into this post were entirely pre determined?  If so, you can have no control over the conclusions you come up with.  And presumably you must also conclude that other people can have no control over their consciously derived conclusions.

So if we do not control our own thoughts, how can you possibly conclude that you, or anyone else, is right?