Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

Correlation can't be used to define cause.

We can now add 'correlation' to words you don't fully understand.

[SteveH]

We can now add 'correlation' to words you don't fully understand.

Where's the misunderstanding? Correlation does not equate to causation - everyone knows that. If you want to accuse someone of misunderstanding something, it'd be helpful if you explained why you thought so: otherwise, people might be tempted to thing that you're bluffing.

[torridon]

Once again the trivial examples you quote are matters of truth over which we can have no choice and displays your lack of understanding in the concept of choice.  Truth is determined, not chosen.  Where we do have choice is in the control and implementation of our thoughts, words and actions.  Without this freedom, nothing we do can be deemed as our personal responsibility, because if we have no consciously driven choices, it is beyond our personal control.

I have to keep giving you simple cases because you still haven't grasped the relevant principles upon which mind works. I have no 'control' over whether to experience the sky as blue, likewise I have no 'control' over whether I like the taste of Edam.  This is a founding insight into the nature of our reality and it is consistent with a deterministic account nature. We do not  'control' what we like and we do not 'control' what we believe; the choices we make reflect those defacto preferences and beliefs over which we have no control. When we make a choice we identify the option that suits our preferences best but we cannot and do not somehow bend our preferences in that process. At every moment of every day we all follow the path that seems optimal to us at the time, but we do not control what seems optimal to us, so where exactly is the 'freedom' in that ?

[Gordon]

Where's the misunderstanding? Correlation does not equate to causation - everyone knows that. If you want to accuse someone of misunderstanding something, it'd be helpful if you explained why you thought so: otherwise, people might be tempted to thing that you're bluffing.

Not bluffing at all: correlation is a measure of association and not causation, as Alan correctly noted, and its calculation was a regular feature of the academic part of my career history over many years of using the various relevant statistical tests (Pearson's, multiple regression etc).

However, Alan's mention of correlation in his response to one of my posts was wrong in that I mentioned specific instance cases, such as the example I gave of a neurosurgeon waking an anaesthetised patient during brain surgery to ensure that, for example, their speech remains intact as the surgery progresses, whereas the calculation of correlation would require a series of data involving whatever variables were being investigated to see if they were associated, how strong the association was (between r= -1 to r= +1) and the probability (p) that the result of the test was statistically significant.

Even then care must be taken since that two variables can be calculated to establish a strong statistically significant correlation doesn't mean that they are actually related: a well known joke example is that as global warming has progressively increased the number of pirates has steadily decreased, therefore one strategy to tackle global warming would be to encourage piracy. 

[Stranger]

You keep droning on about the impossibility of free-will, and repeating this argument, but it's a bit more complicated than that. See the "Compatiblism" section of this article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

I agree with compatibilism - I'm arguing against Alan's nonsense version of free will.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No; what attracts people to forums like this is why people go to zoos*.

* Courtesy H. L. Mencken.

Antitheist calls theists animals.

[Stranger]

So in a physically determined scenario, what else can control our thoughts, words and actions other than the physical laws of nature?

It's not an either or, it's both. All the evidence is that we are physical systems. We are in control because of the physical laws.

Once again you're obsessing with the physical when it's logic that undoes your nonsense, fantasy version of freedom and control. We simply can't make choices that are not entirely due to pre-existing reasoning without introducing randomness. It's cause and effect (physical or otherwise) or randomness - those are the only logical possibilities.

Your version of freedom is impossible.

[Alan Burns]

I have to keep giving you simple cases because you still haven't grasped the relevant principles upon which mind works. I have no 'control' over whether to experience the sky as blue, likewise I have no 'control' over whether I like the taste of Edam.

But we do have control over what we choose to eat eat what to look at.
The examples you keep giving show you have no insight into the nature of conscious control.

[Alan Burns]

It's not an either or, it's both. All the evidence is that we are physical systems. We are in control because of the physical laws.

Once again you're obsessing with the physical when it's logic that undoes your nonsense, fantasy version of freedom and control. We simply can't make choices that are not entirely due to pre-existing reasoning without introducing randomness. It's cause and effect (physical or otherwise) or randomness - those are the only logical possibilities.

Your version of freedom is impossible.

Yes, impossible if our choices are the end result of physically determined chains of events.

But the freedom I have to compose this post aptly demonstrates that there is something more than mere physical causes, because I have no control over physically pre defined cause and effect, but I do have conscious control over what I am currently writing.

Where do you suppose this conscious control emanates from?

And remember that a material  brain will be entirely controlled by physically pre defined chains of cause and effect.

[Gordon]

Where do you suppose this conscious control emanates from?

From the organ located between your ears, Alan.

[Shaker]

From the organ located between your ears, Alan.

Hope over experience ...

[Stranger]

Yes, impossible if our choices are the end result of physically determined chains of events.

No Alan, my argument has nothing whatsoever to do with the physical. Either you make choices entirely because of pre-existing reasons, or you don't. That must be the case whatever pixie dust you try to introduce into the process.

But the freedom I have to compose this post aptly demonstrates that there is something more than mere physical causes...

It demonstrates nothing of the sort.

...because I have no control over physically pre defined cause and effect, but I do have conscious control over what I am currently writing.

You have given no reason (apart from incredulity and trying to redefine the word 'control') why a physical system can't have conscious control.

Where do you suppose this conscious control emanates from?

Your brain.

And remember that a material  brain will be entirely controlled by physically pre defined chains of cause and effect.

That is just silly. The chains of cuase and effect are how the brain works, they aren't separate and external to it.

Once again, as you keep ignoring or misrepresenting it, no matter how your mind works or what it's made of, it can't make a choice that is not entirely due to pre-existing reasons (not 'predetermined') without introducing something that isn't due to pre-existing reasons (randomness).

It's impossible because of logic, not physics.

[Maeght]

Yes, impossible if our choices are the end result of physically determined chains of events.

But the freedom I have to compose this post aptly demonstrates that there is something more than mere physical causes, because I have no control over physically pre defined cause and effect, but I do have conscious control over what I am currently writing.

Where do you suppose this conscious control emanates from?

And remember that a material  brain will be entirely controlled by physically pre defined chains of cause and effect.

Round and round we go. Each repeating postsover and over. I wonder why.

[wigginhall]

Ah, but you see, with the supernatural we don't have to bother with all that logicalistic stuff.  God just poofs my soul into existence, and then my soul just poofs thoughts into existence.   So anything can cause anything, it's brilliant.

[Udayana]

Ah, but you see, with the supernatural we don't have to bother with all that logicalistic stuff.  God just poofs my soul into existence, and then my soul just poofs thoughts into existence.   So anything can cause anything, it's brilliant.

I like it ... but what if you poof a universe in which logic is essential?

[Rhiannon]

IIRC Freud thought religiously ritualized acts had their origin in obsessional behaviour - repetitive actions that (presumably) give the actor a semblance of control and thus reduce stress.

So that's ritual taken care off. What about non-ritualized belief?

[torridon]

But we do have control over what we choose to eat eat what to look at.
The examples you keep giving show you have no insight into the nature of conscious control.

Our choices still respect the underlying principle; when you choose something to eat or choose something to look at, that thing is the thing that you want to eat, or look at, and we cannot control what we want or what we believe. The action you take in the next moment will be the thing that you most want to do.  This is the way that minds work and it could not conceivably be any other way. Suppose we could choose what to want, on what basis could we possibly choose what to want other than what we wanted to want. Can you not see the illogic in your claim ?  It makes zero sense.

[torridon]

But the freedom I have to compose this post aptly demonstrates that there is something more than mere physical causes, because I have no control over physically pre defined cause and effect, but I do have conscious control over what I am currently writing.

You might have control over what you are writing, but you have no control over what you want to write in the first place. None of us can want something that we don't want; it is an incoherent claim.

[Alan Burns]

From the organ located between your ears, Alan.

You keep coming up with simplistic answers to complex problems, Gordon.
Such as "the brain does it" or "biology does it".
But you seem reluctant to engage in the mechanics of how our brains or biology can implement consciously driven choice or control within a material object which is entirely under the deterministic control of physical cause and effect which can only result in inevitable, unavoidable reactions.

[wigginhall]

You keep coming up with simplistic answers to complex problems, Gordon.
Such as "the brain does it" or "biology does it".
But you seem reluctant to engage in the mechanics of how our brains or biology can implement consciously driven choice or control within a material object which is entirely under the deterministic control of physical cause and effect which can only result in inevitable, unavoidable reactions.

Whereas your fulsome descriptions of how the soul works are much appreciated.

[Gordon]

You keep coming up with simplistic answers to complex problems, Gordon.

I didn't say that neurology wasn't complex: that is why it continues to be studied. However, as far as I know though nobody has a hypothesis that involves thinking occuring anywhere else in the body other than the brain - so the brain it is when it comes to thinking (and not the pancreas of lungs).

Such as "the brain does it" or "biology does it".

Which is the case: which is why I said it,

But you seem reluctant to engage in the mechanics of how our brains or biology can implement consciously driven choice or control within a material object which is entirely under the deterministic control of physical cause and effect which can only result in inevitable, unavoidable reactions.

Well come up with the 'mechanics' of how these 'souls' work instead of your usual fallacious bollocks (with added hyperbole) and perhaps then there will be something to 'engage' with. Meantime it is biology all the way down.

[Stranger]

You keep coming up with simplistic answers to complex problems, Gordon.
Such as "the brain does it" or "biology does it".
But you seem reluctant to engage in the mechanics of how our brains or biology can implement consciously driven choice or control within a material object which is entirely under the deterministic control of physical cause and effect which can only result in inevitable, unavoidable reactions.

Oh the irony.

You have provided exactly no details of how your magic soul thingy works, you've repeatedly run away from facing the fundamental contradiction in your version of 'freedom' by pretending that it's based on physical assumptions and your only objections to what the evidence is telling us (that it is the brain) have been incredulity and prejudicial  language ("uncontrollable", "unavoidable").

It's about time you stopped coming up with simplistic answers to complex problems and started thinking about the problem, instead of effectively saying that you can't imagine how it can be the brain so it must be magic and it works by magical magicness and it can magically defy logic.

[wigginhall]

There is plenty written on the neurology of thinking, but as stated, Alan prefers his magicalistic magicity.

[Alan Burns]

I didn't say that neurology wasn't complex: that is why it continues to be studied. However, as far as I know though nobody has a hypothesis that involves thinking occuring anywhere else in the body other than the brain - so the brain it is when it comes to thinking (and not the pancreas of lungs).

Which is the case: which is why I said it,

Well come up with the 'mechanics' of how these 'souls' work instead of your usual fallacious bollocks (with added hyperbole) and perhaps then there will be something to 'engage' with. Meantime it is biology all the way down.

But biology does not have any feasible mechanism to facilitate our human freedom to perform consciously driven acts of will.

a short clip from the wiki entry on incompatibalism:

Others may use some form of Donald Davidson's anomalous monism to suggest that although the mind is in fact part of the physical world, it involves a different level of description of the same facts, so that although there are deterministic laws under the physical description, there are no such laws under the mental description, and thus our actions are free and not determined.

[Nearly Sane]

But biology does not have any feasible mechanism to facilitate our human freedom to perform consciously driven acts of will.

a short clip from the wiki entry on incompatibalism:

Others may use some form of Donald Davidson's anomalous monism to suggest that although the mind is in fact part of the physical world, it involves a different level of description of the same facts, so that although there are deterministic laws under the physical description, there are no such laws under the mental description, and thus our actions are free and not determined.

long post begs da question