Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

No. We've covered this blatant evasion tactic before (something else you're pretending to have forgotten, I suppose). Why not grow a backbone, face up to what is being said, and stop running away?

ETA:-

And by the way, I didn't accuse you of deliberate contradiction - it's hard to tell if it's deliberate or not as you keep running away from addressing the point.

Neither is it my opinion that you "can have no personal control" over "physically pre determined events" - that's your opinion.

[Alan Burns]

No. We've covered this blatant evasion tactic before (something else you're pretending to have forgotten, I suppose). Why not grow a backbone, face up to what is being said, and stop running away?

So assuming your scenario to be correct, you will need to remind me how I can wilfully change my physically pre determined conclusions to match your physically pre determined conclusions in order to satisfy your physically pre determined judgement on what you have pre determined to be right.

[Stranger]

Wow - a post from A.B. that I don't disagree with!

No. We've covered this blatant evasion tactic before (something else you're pretending to have forgotten, I suppose). Why not grow a backbone, face up to what is being said, and stop running away?

So assuming your scenario to be correct, you will need to remind me how I can wilfully change my physically pre determined conclusions to match your physically pre determined conclusions in order to satisfy your physically pre determined judgement on what you have pre determined to be right.

[Useless words deleted.]

No sign of a backbone, then - just more distraction and evasion.

You really should see someone about your memory.

I see we can add appeal to ridicule to the (very long) list of your favoured fallacies.

There is absolutely nothing about minds being deterministic systems that prevents the exchange of views and one person being convinced by another person's arguments. What do you think the actual problem is?

How about growing that backbone and facing the real logical contradiction in your own idea?

[wigginhall]

I suppose Alan doesn't think that brains can produce mental events.  Why this is, apart from his incredulity, I haven't a clue.

[Alan Burns]

I suppose Alan doesn't think that brains can produce mental events.  Why this is, apart from his incredulity, I haven't a clue.

What it produces all depends who or what is in control of the brain.

[Alan Burns]

There is absolutely nothing about minds being deterministic systems that prevents the exchange of views and one person being convinced by another person's arguments. What do you think the actual problem is?

To be personally convinced, I would need to have conscious control of my patterns of thought to determine which of the alternative scenarios reflects a consciously perceived idea of the truth.  So in an entirely physically pre determined scenario, what can possibly induce the thought patterns in my brain to home in on a consciously chosen option?  In particular, how can this happen if all my thoughts are pre determined in my sub conscious before I become aware of them?  How can I even consciously start to peruse your postulated problem if all my thoughts are physically pre determined within the sub conscious activity in my brain?

[Gordon]

To be personally convinced, I would need to have conscious control of my patterns of thought to determine which of the alternative scenarios reflects a consciously perceived idea of the truth.

You don't: so get used to it!

So in an entirely physically pre determined scenario, what can possibly induce the thought patterns in my brain to home in on a consciously chosen option?

Lots of stuff: and the 'pre' you keep using is redundant, so please stop it.

In particular, how can this happen if all my thoughts are pre determined in my sub conscious before I become aware of them?

You'll never know, since you aren't aware of them: again get used to it, and your thinking (conscious and sub/unconscious) doesn't occur in isolation.

How can I even consciously start to peruse your postulated problem if all my thoughts are physically pre determined within the sub conscious activity in my brain?

You can think you know but what you think isn't under your full control, but enough is for you to get through an average day: so get used to it (and please stop with the 'pre' nonsense).

[Stranger]

To be personally convinced, I would need to have conscious control of my patterns of thought to determine which of the alternative scenarios reflects a consciously perceived idea of the truth.  So in an entirely physically pre determined scenario, what can possibly induce the thought patterns in my brain to home in on a consciously chosen option?

[Irrelevant words deleted.]

Firstly, this just expresses your personal incredulity about the physical brain being able to produce consciousness.

Secondly, when you "home in on a consciously chosen option" you are using the available facts, together with your own judgements and experiences to arrive at a conclusion. In other words those things (which amount to your current situation, current state of mind, basic nature, and lifetime of experience) determine the choice. This is not only consistent with you being deterministic, being deterministic is the only way it could work.

In particular, how can this happen if all my thoughts are pre determined in my sub conscious before I become aware of them?  How can I even consciously start to peruse your postulated problem if all my thoughts are physically pre determined within the sub conscious activity in my brain?

You're now conflating two different problems. The interaction between the conscious and subconscious mind is of little relevance to your assertion that we need a magically self-contradictory soul in order to make our choices not (pre)determined and without randomness.

[torridon]

What it produces all depends who or what is in control of the brain.

Makes no sense.

The brain is the organ of 'control'.  There'd be no point in having a brain if it needed another 'brain' to control it.

[Alan Burns]

You don't: so get used to it!

Lots of stuff: and the 'pre' you keep using is redundant, so please stop it.

You'll never know, since you aren't aware of them: again get used to it, and your thinking (conscious and sub/unconscious) doesn't occur in isolation.

You can think you know but what you think isn't under your full control, but enough is for you to get through an average day: so get used to it (and please stop with the 'pre' nonsense).

You have given no credence to my post and offered no feasible alternative explanation, Gordon.

And you must see the significance of "pre determined" over just "determined".

As I have explained - physical reactions are predictably pre determined, and in the purely materialistic scenario there can nothing but pre defined physical reactions - hence everything is entirely and predictably pre determined according to the laws of physics.  If you see anything wrong with this logic, please point it out instead of just labelling it as wrong.

But in writing this post, every letter I type is actively being determined by my conscious will.  I am actively determining what I write, and this activation is occurring now as I write it.  To try to presume that it was all predictably pre determined is nonsense.  So there is an obvious conclusion that my activation of these keys is being derived from a source which is not tied to the endless chains of predictable cause and effect. 

[Gordon]

You have given no credence to my post and offered no feasible alternative explanation, Gordon.

Correct, and I don't need to offer an alternative to palpable nonsense.

And you must see the significance of "pre determined" over just "determined".

I certainly do: it is a contrived but failed attempt by you to justify your faith position.

As I have explained - physical reactions are predictably pre determined, and in the purely materialistic scenario there can nothing but pre defined physical reactions - hence everything is entirely and predictably pre determined according to the laws of physics.  If you see anything wrong with this logic, please point it out instead of just labelling it as wrong.

It's not even wrong, Alan, but it is fallacious (for the usual reasons).

But in writing this post, every letter I type is actively being determined by my conscious will.  I am actively determining what I write, and this activation is occurring now as I write it.  To try to presume that it was all predictably pre determined is nonsense.  So there is an obvious conclusion that my activation of these keys is being derived from a source which is not tied to the endless chains of predictable cause and effect.

The source is you Alan: or more precisely the activity in the organ between your ears.

[Alan Burns]

Makes no sense.

The brain is the organ of 'control'.  There'd be no point in having a brain if it needed another 'brain' to control it.

The brain is a very complex biological machine, but biology alone only explains the physical working of the machine - it offers no explanation of conscious awareness and freedom to choose, because these are the prerogative of the controller of the machine, not the machine itself.

[Gordon]

The brain is a very complex biological machine, but biology alone only explains the physical working of the machine - it offers no explanation of conscious awareness and freedom to choose, because these are the prerogative of the controller of the machine, not the machine itself.

For crying out loud, Alan: what bit of the 'controller' and the 'machine' are one and the same are you not getting!

[torridon]

The brain is a very complex biological machine, but biology alone only explains the physical working of the machine - it offers no explanation of conscious awareness and freedom to choose, because these are the prerogative of the controller of the machine, not the machine itself.

Still makes no sense.

All you are saying is you cannot understand how a brain creates conscious awareness, therefore it must have another brain to do that.  You're evading the challenge of understanding with one of your magic black boxes.

[Alan Burns]

Correct, and I don't need to offer an alternative to palpable nonsense.

I certainly do: it is a contrived but failed attempt by you to justify your faith position.

It is based on logic, not faith, and you have not provided any alternative logic.

It's not even wrong, Alan, but it is fallacious (for the usual reasons).

But again, you just try to label it as wrong without any alternative logic

The source is you Alan: or more precisely the activity in the organ between your ears.

It certainly is me, Gordon, but I am demonstrably more than anything which can be achieved through physically pre determined electro chemical activity alone.

[wigginhall]

Yeah, but the magic black box is brilliant, cos no-one can understand it or describe it!   Suck on that, atheists.

[Stranger]

And you must see the significance of "pre determined" over just "determined".

In this context there is no difference. You only want to make a distinction because you want to use "determined by" as an excuse for not considering the determined how question.

You want to say that choice are determined because they are determined by the "conscious will of the human soul" (or some such meaningless nonsense) and hence avoid the whole question of how this "conscious will of the human soul" makes its choice. It's either serious confusion or serious dishonesty on your part.

As I have explained - physical reactions are predictably pre determined, and in the purely materialistic scenario there can nothing but pre defined physical reactions - hence everything is entirely and predictably pre determined according to the laws of physics.  If you see anything wrong with this logic, please point it out instead of just labelling it as wrong.

It's not that it's wrong, it's that any non-random decision making system is subject to exactly the same logic. The system may not be physical and the laws may not be the laws of physics but, as long as you exclude any random element, everything must be just as (pre)determined.

That is why the 'physical' or 'material' is irrelevant to the logic.

But in writing this post, every letter I type is actively being determined by my conscious will.  I am actively determining what I write, and this activation is occurring now as I write it.  To try to presume that it was all predictably pre determined is nonsense.

Baseless assertion.

[Alan Burns]

For crying out loud, Alan: what bit of the 'controller' and the 'machine' are one and the same are you not getting!

A machine could never give the response you have just written.  It needs activation from the consciously controlled will which emanates from you, not from the laws of physics predictably reacting to physical events.

[Stranger]

It is based on logic, not faith...

This is patently untrue. Do you actually have any idea what logic is?

...and you have not provided any alternative logic.

You have been given endless logical arguments as to why your view is contradictory. You have been pointed at the evidence that the brain is all there is and why that is not in any way contradicted by our experiences.

[Gordon]

It is based on logic, not faith, and you have not provided any alternative logic.

Don't be silly. You're avoiding logic like the plague and, as I said, I'm not required to provide an alternative to illogical nonsense, and in any case you've had your reasoning errors pointed out to you numerous times. 

But again, you just try to label it as wrong without any alternative logicIt certainly is me, Gordon, but I am demonstrably more than anything which can be achieved through physically pre determined electro chemical activity alone.

Again: don't be silly: when presented with fallacious nonsense the only reasonable response is to treat it with the contempt it deserves, especially given your propensity to trot out the same old nonsense repeatedly, and having been corrected repeatedly.   

[torridon]

A machine could never give the response you have just written.  It needs activation from the consciously controlled will which emanates from you, not from the laws of physics predictably reacting to physical events.

You cannot consciously control your will.  Try wanting something you don't want.  It's no more possible than believing something you don't believe.

[Stranger]

A machine could never give the response you have just written.

He asserted, without the hint of a jot of evidence or reasoning to back it up.

It needs activation from the consciously controlled will which emanates from you, not from the laws of physics predictably reacting to physical events.

Blatant begging the question fallacy.

[Alan Burns]

In this context there is no difference. You only want to make a distinction because you want to use "determined by" as an excuse for not considering the determined how question.

You want to say that choice are determined because they are determined by the "conscious will of the human soul" (or some such meaningless nonsense) and hence avoid the whole question of how this "conscious will of the human soul" makes its choice. It's either serious confusion or serious dishonesty on your part.

It's not that it's wrong, it's that any non-random decision making system is subject to exactly the same logic. The system may not be physical and the laws may not be the laws of physics but, as long as you exclude any random element, everything must be just as (pre)determined.

That is why the 'physical' or 'material' is irrelevant to the logic.

Baseless assertion.

But you seem to class anything produced from the non physical to be defined by the same cause and effect chains as physically induced reactions.  How do you know this?

Can you not grasp the concept of a consciously invoked act of human will being the source which interacts with the physical brain elements to achieve its perceived goal?  Is this not our perception of reality?

[Gordon]

A machine could never give the response you have just written.  It needs activation from the consciously controlled will which emanates from you, not from the laws of physics predictably reacting to physical events.

Don't be daft: all I needed to do was think about how to respond to you. No magic needed, Alan, just biology doing what it does. By the way your post, as quoted above, is fallacious and is, therefore, easily dismissed.

[Stranger]

But you seem to class anything produced from the non physical to be defined by the same cause and effect chains as physically induced reactions.  How do you know this?

FFS, we've done all this before! All I am assuming is that anything non-physical is subject to logic. If it is a decision making process then it is either a deterministic system or it isn't. If it is, it is every bit as (pre)determined as the physical, and if it isn't, it has (by definition) some random element.

Can you not grasp the concept of a consciously invoked act of human will being the source which interacts with the physical brain elements to achieve its perceived goal?

As I just said in the post you are supposedly replying to, that is just avoiding the point of how the "human will" arrives at its choice.

Is this not our perception of reality?

No.