Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

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

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

Drivel - see "verbiage".

No, you are just using trying to evade the question  of why you want to state a principle that beliefs aren't chosen but then special pleading about beliefs covering critical thinking being somehow different.

[Alan Burns]

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.

Of course human will has a determined cause, but the cause is in the present, not the past.  Our conscious awareness exists in the present, and our freedom to choose is intimately linked to this entity of awareness which determines you.  You need to break out of the physically determined cause and effect thinking in order to appreciate the concept and power of human will.

[Stranger]

No, you are just using trying to evade the question  of why you want to state a principle that beliefs aren't chosen but then special pleading about beliefs covering critical thinking being somehow different.

I don't regard the "beliefs aren't chosen" as a principle - it's a simplification and not the whole story (see #30117).

I'm not special pleading for beliefs based on critical thinking, there are multiple ways in which beliefs are formed, that's just one of them that has a proven track record for being useful.

You are doing the equivalent of saying that helium is no different from uranium because they are both due to the interactions of protons, neutrons and electrons.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't regard the "beliefs aren't chosen" as a principle - it's a simplification and not the whole story (see #30117).

I'm not special pleading for beliefs based on critical thinking, there are multiple ways in which beliefs are formed, that's just one of them that has a proven track record for being useful.

You are doing the equivalent of saying that helium is no different from uranium because they are both due to the interactions of protons, neutrons and electrons.

The 'not the whole story'  is just Alan's magic soul idea dressed up.

Do you think beliefs are chosen outside of determinism and/or random?

[Stranger]

Of course human will has a determined cause, but the cause is in the present, not the past.

There is literally nothing in the present that didn't come from the past.

Our conscious awareness exists in the present, and our freedom to choose is intimately linked to this entity of awareness which determines you.

Gibberish.

You need to break out of the physically determined cause and effect thinking in order to appreciate the concept and power of human will.

Any choice maker must be a deterministic system or involve randomness and that has bugger all to do with the physical universe - it's just logic.

If all the reasons that are relevant to a choice do not result in only one outcome, any remaining choice must be based on no reason at all and is therefore random.

[Nearly Sane]

There is literally nothing in the present that didn't come from the past.

Gibberish.

Any choice maker must be a deterministic system or involve randomness and that has bugger all to do with the physical universe - it's just logic.

If all the reasons that are relevant to a choice do not result in only one outcome, any remaining choice must be based on no reason at all and is therefore random.

Thank you for clearly stating my points in the argument against your special pleading about beliefs.

[Stranger]

The 'not the whole story'  is just Alan's magic soul idea dressed up.

Nonsense.

Do you think beliefs are chosen outside of determinism and/or random?

No.

I've explained what I mean at some length and you dismissed it as verbiage, so I'm not going to bother to explain it all again - go back and read it. Ask for clarification or address it directly in coherent sentences... or not.

[Stranger]

Thank you for clearly stating my points in the argument against your special pleading about beliefs.

The ones I didn't make.   

[Nearly Sane]

Nonsense.

No.

I've explained what I mean at some length and you dismissed it as verbiage, so I'm not going to bother to explain it all again - go back and read it. Ask for clarification or address it directly in coherent sentences... or not.

'Never mind the quality, feel the width'? Is this some sort of new fallacy? The fallacy of length? Oh wait, no, that one's been going on for millenia.

I've told you why I find your approach logically inconsistent. When you want to answer that , I will get back to you.

[Nearly Sane]

The ones I didn't make.   

So you didn't make the points that choice, and belief, are deterministic and/or random?

[Stranger]

'Never mind the quality, feel the width'? Is this some sort of new fallacy? The fallacy of length? Oh wait, no, that one's been going on for millenia.

I've told you why I find your approach logically inconsistent. When you want to answer tgat , I will get back to you.

I did answer it - you appear to be taking the tl;dr approach along with obviously rushed, often incoherent replies.

So you didn't make the points that choice, and belief, are deterministic and/or random?

Yes I did. All matter being quantum fields does not make chemistry and biology irrelevant.

I'm basically having exactly the same argument with you as I am with Alan, that the operation at the basic level does not contradict our ability to choose - to have the only sort of free will that makes sense or is worth having. It doesn't make descriptions of human interactions and thought processes like indoctrination, education, reasoned argument, or critical thinking, meaningless - any more than physics invalidates biology.

[Nearly Sane]

I did answer it - you appear to be taking the tl;dr approach along with obviously rushed, often incoherent replies.

Yes I did. All matter being quantum fields does not make chemistry and biology irrelevant.

I'm basically having exactly the same argument with you as I am with Alan, that the operation at the basic level does not contradict our ability to choose - to have the only sort of free will that makes sense or is worth having. It doesn't make descriptions of human interactions and thought processes like indoctrination, education, reasoned argument, or critical thinking, meaningless - any more than physics invalidates biology.

No, I am taking the approach that if your post is illogical, it doesn't take a lot of words to show why.

Quantum fields, making chemistry and biology irrelevant? To what? That would be you at the same bogof straw merchant that Vlad uses!

You aren't remotely having the same argument with me that you are having with Alan. What you are doing is arguing with yourself about your idea that beliefs are not chosen, with which I agree, with your idea that somehow you can criticise rationally which is a choice.

[Alan Burns]

If all the reasons that are relevant to a choice do not result in only one outcome, any remaining choice must be based on no reason at all and is therefore random.

Reasons may be determined by past events, but the reasons themselves exist in the present state of conscious awareness.  Our memories of past events exist in the present, as does our conscious awareness of reasons.  This is why human will is determined - not pre determined.  We are consciously aware of data, but data alone does not drive us.  Human will is determined by the present state of conscious awareness, not pre determined by data.  In order to fully understand human will you need to understand conscious awareness.

[Nearly Sane]

Reasons may be determined by past events, but the reasons themselves exist in the present state of conscious awareness.  Our memories of past events exist in the present, as does our conscious awareness of reasons.  This is why human will is determined - not pre determined.  We are consciously aware of data, but data alone does not drive us.  Human will is determined by the present state of conscious awareness, not pre determined by data.  In order to fully understand human will you need to understand conscious awareness.

And in what way is x  not determined?

[torridon]

Reasons may be determined by past events, but the reasons themselves exist in the present state of conscious awareness.  Our memories of past events exist in the present, as does our conscious awareness of reasons.  This is why human will is determined - not pre determined.  We are consciously aware of data, but data alone does not drive us.  Human will is determined by the present state of conscious awareness, not pre determined by data.  In order to fully understand human will you need to understand conscious awareness.

That you don't understand conscious awareness, or how it works in the context of decision making, is apparent; you've been asked for some description of how this works for several years on this thread alone and we've yet to see any detail forthcoming from you.  All we ever get, is how it doesn't work, but not how it does work. 

A choice is influenced by past events, but not determined by them, in your account.  In that case if a choice is finally determined by 'conscious will' in the 'present moment' you need to step up and say how it does it in terms of method. If the various influences pertaining to a choice are known and understood by conscious will, but they are effectively ignored in the final resolution of choice, then how is the choice resolved ? What factors resolve the choice if the relevant considerations are ultimately ignored ?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Quantum fields, making chemistry and biology irrelevant? To what? That would be you at the same bogof straw merchant that Vlad uses!

Eh?

[Nearly Sane]

Eh?

Buy one get one free (bogof)

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Buy one get one free (bogof)

Sorry...still..not understanding your banter, old chap

[Stranger]

No, I am taking the approach that if your post is illogical, it doesn't take a lot of words to show why.

Only if you don't actually bother to think about it.

Quantum fields, making chemistry and biology irrelevant? To what? That would be you at the same bogof straw merchant that Vlad uses!

Irrelevant as a valid description of what is going on in the world. Obviously they aren't and neither are the concepts of science, indoctrination, art, education, reasoned debate, silly name calling, and so on.

You aren't remotely having the same argument with me that you are having with Alan.

Okay, it's not exactly  but you seem to be making the same mistake. Alan is saying that choice would be impossible if determinism were true and you are saying that it is impossible because determinism is true. Both are ignoring relevant levels of abstraction and excluding everything from the 'self' that makes the choice.

What you are doing is arguing with yourself about your idea that beliefs are not chosen, with which I agree, with your idea that somehow you can criticise rationally which is a choice.

Not only do I not recognise that as a description of what I am saying, it doesn't really make sense.

All beliefs are not 'created equal' - otherwise, for one thing, there'd be no point in doing science.

[Stranger]

Reasons may be determined by past events, but the reasons themselves exist in the present state of conscious awareness.  Our memories of past events exist in the present, as does our conscious awareness of reasons.

Okay...

This is why human will is determined - not pre determined.

It really is a meaningless distinction, either choice making is deterministic or it isn't and involves randomness. You're attempt that follows just reinforces the point.

We are consciously aware of data, but data alone does not drive us.  Human will is determined by the present state of conscious awareness, not pre determined by data.

So how did the "present state of conscious awareness" come be be? If it's not the direct result of its nature, nurture, and experience (right up to the moment of the choice), then there must be some aspect of it that is there for no reason at all, which means random.

And once we have all the data and the "present state of conscious awareness", if combining them does not result in only one possible choice, then any remaining choice can be for no reasons and so must also be random.

You've not answered the logical question, you've just described it in different words and missed out the crucial bit.

In order to fully understand human will you need to understand conscious awareness.

Which you obviously don't because every time you get asked to explain it you can't and it ends up being more evasion, answering "determines by" instead of "determined how", or meaningless phrases that don't explain anything.

[Alan Burns]

And in what way is x  not determined?

If you read and understand my post, I have not claimed anything to be not determined.

It is a question of ultimate cause.

In in a physically determined scenario, there is no ultimate cause for an event, since all events are direct consequences to previous events.

But in the human mind we have conscious awareness of past events.  This awareness is not driven by the past events, it is conscious perception of an existing memory of past events.  Everything in our conscious awareness exists in the present, as does the consciously driven choice to invoke an act of will.  A choice is not inevitably driven by the past, it is consciously invoked within the present state of mind, and in order to do this it needs to be free from the  chains of physically pre determined cause and effect.

[torridon]

A choice is not inevitably driven by the past, it is consciously invoked within the present state of mind, and in order to do this it needs to be free from the  chains of physically pre determined cause and effect.

No such thing as physically pre determined cause and effect.  Cause and effect is a principle of logic.  'Physical' is irrelevant.

Still waiting for you to enlighten us as to how the 'present state of mind' resolves choice in your account ....

[Alan Burns]

That you don't understand conscious awareness, or how it works in the context of decision making, is apparent; you've been asked for some description of how this works for several years on this thread alone and we've yet to see any detail forthcoming from you.  All we ever get, is how it doesn't work, but not how it does work. 

A choice is influenced by past events, but not determined by them, in your account.  In that case if a choice is finally determined by 'conscious will' in the 'present moment' you need to step up and say how it does it in terms of method. If the various influences pertaining to a choice are known and understood by conscious will, but they are effectively ignored in the final resolution of choice, then how is the choice resolved ? What factors resolve the choice if the relevant considerations are ultimately ignored ?

Our conscious awareness is still a mystery in scientific terms, because a single entity of awareness can't be defined in terms of physical reactions alone.

But my conscious awareness determines everything about me.  It is what I am.  And I am aware of all the influences pertaining to a choice, but this awareness does not drive the choice.  I can be selective by deliberately ignoring some or all of the influences and choosing to do something just because it is what I want to do at that moment.

[torridon]

But my conscious awareness determines everything about me.  It is what I am.  And I am aware of all the influences pertaining to a choice, but this awareness does not drive the choice.  I can be selective by deliberately ignoring some or all of the influences and choosing to do something just because it is what I want to do at that moment.

So if you ignore other influences and go with 'what I want to do at that moment', all you are saying is that 'what I want to do at that moment' is the option that appeals the most.  You aren't saying anything radially different here to what I've been arguing for the last three years.  'what I want to do at that moment' is not some different category of option. At the moment of choice, we resolve the dilemma by identifying the option that appeals the most at the time.  I think I must have written this a hundred times already, have you not been reading the posts ?

[torridon]

Our conscious awareness is still a mystery in scientific terms, because a single entity of awareness can't be defined in terms of physical reactions alone.

There's no reason to suppose that is correct.  That's exactly what brains do - they integrate multiple streams of information flow into a singular flow of experience.  I have two eyes but I don't have double vision, the brain integrates the flows into a seamless singular flow of awareness.