Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

In a similar vein, can our obvious ability to make conscious choices be disproved by misguided  attempts to redefine reality to fit in with limited human knowledge?

I do not dispute our ability to make conscious choices but they cannot be made in a self-contradictory way. If they are not fully determined by their logical antecedents, then to the extent they are not, they must be random. That is as obvious as 1 + 1 = 2 if you actually think about it.

[Stranger]

See my reply to Susan. You are using the same approach as Alan used choice as prescriptive rather than descriptive. It's why I phrased it as in a sense indictrinated. We no more chose our beliefs than Alan.

As I said, indoctrination is about uncritically accepting beliefs. Finding the language to describe the situation is difficult but if we say that we have no free will or that we are necessarily indoctrinated, then it implies (to me, at least) fatalism rather than determinism - the "well I have no real choice, so I won't think about it" attitude.

For all practical purposes, and in the only way that makes any logical sense, we have free will.

[Nearly Sane]

As I said, indoctrination is about uncritically accepting beliefs. Finding the language to describe the situation is difficult but if we say that we have no free will or that we are necessarily indoctrinated, then it implies (to me, at least) fatalism rather than determinism - the "well I have no real choice, so I won't think about it" attitude.

For all practical purposes, and in the only way that makes any logical sense, we have free will.

No, sorry, it doesn't imply fatalism. If I were to be catalyst however it would not be a choice. Again the point is ippy uses indoctrinated to say Alan has no choice but to have the beliefs that he has but since none of us choose our beliefs, that's a false distinction.


ETA: The idea of being critical of beliefs is just a further belief. You c believe you are being critical but it's your belief that you are doing that and that is determined. The problem is that as with Alan you are switching between a philosophical examination of the idea of free will to a day to day usage and expecting the language to work consistently. Just as with Alan's attempts it doesn't work.

[Alan Burns]

No, it doesn't, it's (obviously) a more general term. An if-then-else programming construct clearly makes a choice (based on the contents of the if statement.

I have spent most of my working life programming computers.
I would never describe an if-then-else statement as making a choice.
It is simply a pre defined action based upon prior values.  Computers make programmed decisions, not choices.

[ippy]

The word indoctrinated implies an agency. Since to the best of our knowledge and evidence, such an agency does not exist, we know a very great deal about how our brains work, so we have learnt about them ourselves, not been indoctrinated.
If the agency implied is part of the education system, then if we happen to feel we have been indoctrinated, we can investigate for ourselves and decide not to be if we choose.

I would classify any of those unfortunate enough to be brought up within anything like grabbing distance of the R C church, would be highly likely to be on a percentage basis be candidates for the recruiting tentacles that church extends out.

I'm fairly certain we have a least a couple of prime examples of indoctrination that post here, why else would anyone promote anything without some sort of back up for their assertions?

Regards ippy

[Stranger]

No, sorry, it doesn't imply fatalism. If I were to be catalyst however it would not be a choice. Again the point is ippy uses indoctrinated to say Alan has no choice but to have the beliefs that he has but since none of us choose our beliefs, that's a false distinction.

Indoctrination is a particular type of 'training' the discourages critical thinking - so I still maintain that it does not apply to everyone in any sense.

ETA: The idea of being critical of beliefs is just a further belief. You c believe you are being critical but it's your belief that you are doing that and that is determined. The problem is that as with Alan you are switching between a philosophical examination of the idea of free will to a day to day usage and expecting the language to work consistently. Just as with Alan's attempts it doesn't work.

As is often the case, natural language is too imprecise to be consistent. However both you an Alan seem to be referring to a 'you' from which everything has been removed, it's just in your case, this speck of nothingness has no choice (how could it, but who would care?) and in Alan's it (magically and illogically) does.

You cannot externalise everything - 'we' do have choices, it's just that the 'we' actually has to refer to something capable of making them, that is our personalities and intellect: the result of nature, nurture, and experience.

[ekim]

It goes back to Schopenhaur, we are free to act on what we want, but we aren't free to choose what to want. 

It's often a bit more complicated than that.  There may be a collection of conflicting desires and fears from which to choose and it sometimes takes  training to create a balanced position of relative freedom so that a choice can be made rather than automatically succumbing to the strongest desire.  To relate this to the topic, from some of the last words attributed to Jesus, he felt sorrowful and wanted to avoid what he saw was his fate but instead of fleeing he accepted the Will of  his God whatever the outcome.  In this perspective there is no determinism v randomness.  All is determined by God and aligning with that Will, rather than exercising self will based upon personal desires or fears, becomes the determination.  That's about as free as it gets.

[Nearly Sane]

Indoctrination is a particular type of 'training' the discourages critical thinking - so I still maintain that it does not apply to everyone in any sense.

As is often the case, natural language is too imprecise to be consistent. However both you an Alan seem to be referring to a 'you' from which everything has been removed, it's just in your case, this speck of nothingness has no choice (how could it, but who would care?) and in Alan's it (magically and illogically) does.

You cannot externalise everything - 'we' do have choices, it's just that the 'we' actually has to refer to something capable of making them, that is our personalities and intellect: the result of nature, nurture, and experience.

My use of indoctrination was metaphorical as already covered. And I am not taking away everything from the 'I'. Just pointing out that it makes no sense to use indoctrinated as regards belief being incident when belief is unchosen. Your beliefs are no more chosen than Alan's. You seem to be creating a special category of belief in critical thinking which somehow subverts the logic of your position. It's just as much saying 'magic, innit' as Alan's soul idea.

[Alan Burns]

You've added yet another redundant term here: we now have both 'actively' (which means what exactly?) and you are hanging on to 'physically' too I seen - this is arrant nonsense, Alan.

I use the word "actively" to distinguish between a physically pre determined action, which in effect is a reaction, and a conscious choice which is activated by human willpower.

[Stranger]

I use the word "actively" to distinguish between a physically pre determined action, which in effect is a reaction, and a conscious choice which is activated by human willpower.

Once again switching from how a choice is made to what makes the choice and pretending that the deterministic system or randomness 'problem' has gone away. It hasn't you're just blatantly evading the question again.

The deterministic system or randomness question has nothing to do with the physical universe - it's just logic.

[ippy]

Indoctrination is about accepting beliefs uncritically, so no, we aren't all indoctrinated in any sense I can see.

In fact, as I've probably said before, the godlike point of view of the details of our brains being (probably) deterministic is all but irrelevant unless you actually think there is a god that can access it.

I'm sure I referred to indoctrination as a method that only works on a percentage basis and it could be an explanation for Sword and A B's locked on rails blinkered view of life, there doesn't have to a complicated reason for every victim of unreason.

Regards ippy

[Stranger]

Just pointing out that it makes no sense to use indoctrinated as regards belief being incident when belief is unchosen. Your beliefs are no more chosen than Alan's. You seem to be creating a special category of belief in critical thinking which somehow subverts the logic of your position. It's just as much saying 'magic, innit' as Alan's soul idea.

No, you're muddling up levels of abstraction. The terms critical thinking and indoctrination (along with scientific education, artistic talent, religious faith, and so on, and so on) belong at the level of interacting, functioning human minds, that form beliefs and make choices. The level at which we are (probably) deterministic (almost certainly chaotic) systems is not useful in that context. You don't try to explain the operation of a word processor by applying quantum mechanics to the semiconductors in the machine it's running on - the whole vocabulary and set of relevant concepts is different.

The problem of mixed levels of abstraction is because Alan's 'argument' is that the a deterministic system can't give rise to the world of functioning human minds.

[Nearly Sane]

No, you're muddling up levels of abstraction. The terms critical thinking and indoctrination (along with scientific education, artistic talent, religious faith, and so on, and so on) belong at the level of interacting, functioning human minds, that form beliefs and make choices. The level at which we are (probably) deterministic (almost certainly chaotic) systems is not useful in that context. You don't try to explain the operation of a word processor by applying quantum mechanics to the semiconductors in the machine it's running on - the whole vocabulary and set of relevant concepts is different.

The problem of mixed levels of abstraction is because Alan's 'argument' is that the a deterministic system can't give rise to the world of functioning human minds.

No, the terms are being mixed up but that's the nature of the discourse. You are picking Alan up on it but not others. In the sense that you, torridon or I are talking about not being able to chose belief, then anyone at any level talking about their having a greater ability to choose belief by using the terms such as indictrination, or in your case critical thinking are where the mix up happens.

[torridon]

Conversion is not a free choice.  We can only convert to what we sincerely believe to be the true faith after making the effort to discern it.  Our freedom can be used to guide our thought processes to discern the truth.  And having found it we are free to choose how to indulge our faith.

So how do you explain the diversity of choices that people make ? Suppose two people, both young catholics, decide to spend a week in a seminary with a view to getting a taster of what a life of priesthood would be like.  At the end of the week, one decides to go for it, the other decides priesthood is not the right path for him, and leaves, with a thank you.

I don't have any problems understanding why different people make different choices; I see each individual as being uniquely fashioned as a consequence of his unique passage through life and a 'final choice' is resolved by identifying the option that has most appeal at that moment. You don't accept this rationale, so what is your explanation for the diversity of choices ? What is your mechanism that a 'soul' can use to resolve a 'final choice' ?

[wigginhall]

Alan has to say that human will is not determined by anything, despite having it pointed out that that indicates randomness.  He has to have will floating like this, just as God appears to float without cause or beginning.  So will is not physically grounded, it has no prior causes, it's magical.

[Stranger]

No, the terms are being mixed up but that's the nature of the discourse. You are picking Alan up on it but not others. In the sense that you, torridon or I are talking about not being able to chose belief, then anyone at any level talking about their having a greater ability to choose belief by using the terms such as indictrination, or in your case critical thinking are where the mix up happens.

Indoctrination is an attempt, by one or more minds, to instil a belief in another mind in such a way that it will not be questioned. It's a description of a human interaction and its result. You are mixing up the levels of abstraction by saying that pointing out such a process is not valid because we are all deterministic systems anyway.

You are doing something similar to Alan in trying to simplistically read the characteristics of the 'substrate' up the the higher level systems it supports.

Of course all our beliefs are a result of some combination of nature and experience but some people's experience can contain indoctrination or some other specific formative experience that makes questioning certain beliefs less likely. Pointing that out might even result in a change in the person concerned (one way or another) - it becomes part of their experience. Nothing about underlying determinism rules any of that out or makes the pointing out of indoctrination invalid.

[Nearly Sane]

Indoctrination is an attempt, by one or more minds, to instil a belief in another mind in such a way that it will not be questioned. It's a description of a human interaction and its result. You are mixing up the levels of abstraction by saying that pointing out such a process is not valid because we are all deterministic systems anyway.

You are doing something similar to Alan in trying to simplistically read the characteristics of the 'substrate' up the the higher level systems it supports.

Of course all our beliefs are a result of some combination of nature and experience but some people's experience can contain indoctrination or some other specific formative experience that makes questioning certain beliefs less likely. Pointing that out might even result in a change in the person concerned (one way or another) - it becomes part of their experience. Nothing about underlying determinism rules any of that out or makes the pointing out of indoctrination invalid.

Are you actually reading the posts you are replying to here?  You have gone down the whole idea of language being prescriptive rather than descriptive. Keeping going back to a specific definition of indoctrination when I have covered what I am using it as a metaphor is as if you just aren't reading the p posts.

You are right in one sense that I am doing something similar to Alan but you are getting the similarity wrong. I'm not arguing up from the substrate, I arguing down from the principle. You are just avoiding the impact of your stated principle that beliefs are not chosen. What you are doing is reversing Alan's argumentum ad consequentiam to allow for an inconsistency between the principle and the substrate that is illogical.

[Stranger]

You have gone down the whole idea of language being prescriptive rather than descriptive. Keeping going back to a specific definition of indoctrination when I have covered what I am using it as a metaphor is as if you just aren't reading the p posts.

Seems to be a bad metaphor and you don't really seem able to say what you do mean.

You are right in one sense that I am doing something similar to Alan but you are getting the similarity wrong. I'm not arguing up from the substrate, I arguing down from the principle. You are just avoiding the impact of your stated principle that beliefs are not chosen.

Saying that beliefs are not chosen is not the whole story. Of course beliefs can't be arbitrarily chosen, you can't just decide to find something convincing or not but we can (if we make the the definition of 'we' big enough to do anything at all) decide to what extent we consider information that is contrary to beliefs we hold or what to take into account when forming new beliefs.

You are speaking as if we have a bunch of beliefs dumped on us and we can do nothing about it (fatalism again). Indoctrination (or some other formative experience) can affect our ability to question our beliefs in the light of new evidence or new arguments.

Hence pointing out such a situation is not made invalid because "we can't choose our beliefs".

What you are doing is reversing Alan's argumentum ad consequentiam to allow for an inconsistency between the principle and the substrate that is illogical.

Sorry, no idea what that means. The strict, simple, fatalistic-like principle of "we can't choose our beliefs" being similar to indoctrination seems consistent with a deterministic substrate but requires the infinitesimal version of 'we' and ignores the complexities inherent a larger definition of 'we' and in the higher level system in general.

[Shaker]

I am quite certain that the vast majority of the human population would not need to read a 300 page thesis to verify the fact that 1 + 1 = 2

That's a problem.

That's because what you and whatever-his-name-is-this-week don't think; don't examine; don't wonder; don't pick apart thought and wonder why human brains work in the way that that they generally do. "1 + 1 = 2" is great in normal everyday life. We couldn't get along without it.

Not quite everybody is willing to be so blithe, though. Some people are not willing to accept the so-called "obvious" at face value and are willing - even eager - to dig further.

Some people instinctively mistrust the "self evidently so" and the "obviously" and the "stands to reason". We're not all that lazy and slack and incurious.

[Nearly Sane]

Seems to be a bad metaphor and you don't really seem able to say what you do mean.

Saying that beliefs are not chosen is not the whole story. Of course beliefs can't be arbitrarily chosen, you can't just decide to find something convincing or not but we can (if we make the the definition of 'we' big enough to do anything at all) decide to what extent we consider information that is contrary to beliefs we hold or what to take into account when forming new beliefs.

You are speaking as if we have a bunch of beliefs dumped on us and we can do nothing about it (fatalism again). Indoctrination (or some other formative experience) can affect our ability to question our beliefs in the light of new evidence or new arguments.

Hence pointing out such a situation is not made invalid because "we can't choose our beliefs".

Sorry, no idea what that means. The strict, simple, fatalistic-like principle of "we can't choose our beliefs" being similar to indoctrination seems consistent with a deterministic substrate but requires the infinitesimal version of 'we' and ignores the complexities inherent a larger definition of 'we' and in the higher level system in general.

Again this reads like you are just inserting a 'magic' solution in to avoid what is the logical conclusion of your principle. The extent to which we consider information, or to phrase it so that it follows your principle in, the belief in the extent to consider information is by logic determined too.

[Stranger]

Again this reads like you are just inserting a 'magic' solution in to avoid what is the logical conclusion of your principle.

No idea where you think the magic is. I'm not even sure what you mean by my principle.

The extent to which we consider information, or to phrase it so that it follows your principle in, the belief in the extent to consider information is by logic determined too.

Maybe need to edit that for clarity but yes (if I've understood) - everything is deterministic (or random - whether physics is actually deterministic is an open question). However part of that system is me and you, and so part of it is us making choices, interacting with each other, having discussions, being (perhaps) indoctrinated, and forming beliefs. Further, since the details are unavailable to us, it's of little practical use to know that it is all deterministic. Specifically it doesn't somehow invalidate talking about choice, motives, indoctrination, persuasion, education, and all the other things that describe the world of interacting humans and how they come to their beliefs, it's just a higher level of abstraction that is more relevant for almost all purposes.

[Nearly Sane]

No idea where you think the magic is. I'm not even sure what you mean by my principle.

Maybe need to edit that for clarity but yes (if I've understood) - everything is deterministic (or random - whether physics is actually deterministic is an open question). However part of that system is me and you, and so part of it is us making choices, interacting with each other, having discussions, being (perhaps) indoctrinated, and forming beliefs. Further, since the details are unavailable to us, it's of little practical use to know that it is all deterministic. Specifically it doesn't somehow invalidate talking about choice, motives, indoctrination, persuasion, education, and all the other things that describe the world of interacting humans and how they come to their beliefs, it's just a higher level of abstraction that is more relevant for almost all purposes.

I'm struggling to believe that you don't understand that simply creating a category of something, in this case belief, that doesn't follow rules you apply generally to explain things, might not be just explaining by 'magic'. After all it's the exact same approach you have used with Alan.


As for the second part, the lower level of abstraction cannot work differently from the higher level of abstraction. Yes, we can talk about free will in a more 'relaxed ' day-to-day' sense there but it cannot make sense to talk about beliefs being caused in exactly the same way and not being choices, which is what the indoctrination approach does. You don't get to say that your beliefs are critically assessed as if that somehow makes them different from all unchosen beliefs without special pleading.

[Stranger]

I'm struggling to believe that you don't understand that simply creating a category of something, in this case belief, that doesn't follow rules you apply generally to explain things, might not be just explaining by 'magic'.

What category do you think I've created that doesn't follow rules that I apply generally?

As for the second part, the lower level of abstraction cannot work differently from the higher level of abstraction.

New phenomena can arise at greater levels of complexity due to the interactions of the simpler parts - it's called 'emergence'.

Yes, we can talk about free will in a more 'relaxed ' day-to-day' sense...

There doesn't have to be anything 'relaxed' about it, it's a question of getting a logically consistent definition. If we recognise that a part of the (deterministic) universe is us (let go of the infinitesimal notion of us that externalises everything), then we can say that it is free to do as it wants, which is a perfectly good definition of free will.

...but it cannot make sense to talk about beliefs being caused in exactly the same way and not being choices, which is what the indoctrination approach does.

Beliefs aren't caused in exactly the same way unless you think that the "same way" is the interaction of quantum fields (the most fundamental notion we have at present) but using that 'logic', there is nothing else at all. You've effectively thrown out all the levels of abstraction and emergence in between: particles, forces, atomic structure, chemistry, evolution, biology, physiology, psychology, and the entire human experience - all of which introduce useful and meaningful concepts.

You don't get to say that your beliefs are critically assessed as if that somehow makes them different from all unchosen beliefs without special pleading.

I do my best but I don't recall making that specific claim. I said that indoctrination was a about accepting beliefs uncritically and, for the record, I didn't make the claim that Alan was indoctrinated, I don't know enough about him to know.

That aside, critical thinking has proved to be a useful human tool and there is no justification for dismissing it because everything is (probably) deterministic and all beliefs are caused in the 'same way'. In all the ways that are relevant and important beliefs aren't caused in the same way.

[Nearly Sane]

What category do you think I've created that doesn't follow rules that I apply generally?

New phenomena can arise at greater levels of complexity due to the interactions of the simpler parts - it's called 'emergence'.

There doesn't have to be anything 'relaxed' about it, it's a question of getting a logically consistent definition. If we recognise that a part of the (deterministic) universe is us (let go of the infinitesimal notion of us that externalises everything), then we can say that it is free to do as it wants, which is a perfectly good definition of free will.

Beliefs aren't caused in exactly the same way unless you think that the "same way" is the interaction of quantum fields (the most fundamental notion we have at present) but using that 'logic', there is nothing else at all. You've effectively thrown out all the levels of abstraction and emergence in between: particles, forces, atomic structure, chemistry, evolution, biology, physiology, psychology, and the entire human experience - all of which introduce useful and meaningful concepts.

I do my best but I don't recall making that specific claim. I said that indoctrination was a about accepting beliefs uncritically and, for the record, I didn't make the claim that Alan was indoctrinated, I don't know enough about him to know.

That aside, critical thinking has proved to be a useful human tool and there is no justification for dismissing it because everything is (probably) deterministic and all beliefs are caused in the 'same way'. In all the ways that are relevant and important beliefs aren't caused in the same way.

Are you trying to kill me with verbiage? You are the one special pleading about some beliefs being different about the principle that you state of not choosing beliefs? All the 'particles, forces, atomic structure, chemistry, evolution, biology, physiology, psychology, and the entire human experience' is just hand waving to avoid having logical consistency about not choosing beliefs.

[Stranger]

Are you trying to kill me with verbiage?

I'm trying to engage you in a reasoned discussion, but whatever...

You are the one special pleading about some beliefs being different about the principle that you state of not choosing beliefs?

There's a question mark at the end but it doesn't look like a question or even a coherent sentence.

All the 'particles, forces, atomic structure, chemistry, evolution, biology, physiology, psychology, and the entire human experience' is just hand waving to avoid having logical consistency about not choosing beliefs.

Drivel - see "verbiage".