Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

Which is not 'free' if you have no control over those wants.

Of course I have control.
I am currently implementing it to freely write this reply.

[Alan Burns]

That in no way at all demonstrates the self-contradictory nonsense you claim about "freedom".

In fact, if what you say about "freedom" was actually true, you wouldn't be able to make any choices at all. You've excluded the choice being made entirely for pre-existing reasons ("predetermined") and you've excluded randomness, so there is literally nothing left that could possibly make a choice.

You've made the choice-maker so small it's non-existent.

So why am I free to choose to write this reply which contradicts you?

[torridon]

Of course I have control.
I am currently implementing it to freely write this reply.

You are simply acting on the desire to write the reply; you aren't free to have a desire that you don't have and you aren't free to detest something that you love. You aren't free to believe something you don't believe; put a strawberry in your mouth and you aren't free to find it tastes of chocolate. Every word you say, every sentence you write is always the word or the sentence that had the most appeal at that moment, for this is how minds work, by constantly identifying the optimal path to take  given our current context every moment of our lives. It could not work any other way - any species or any individual that resolved choice by preferring the suboptimal over the optimal would not last, and in fact the suggestion even makes no sense; nature is incapable of producing such irrational outcomes.  The fundamental levels of our human experience are entirely indicative of determinism and entirely consistent with a deterministic account of nature.  Your strategy of cooking up denial by naively enlisting ambiguities of language (as in your last post) and mixing up different levels of conceptualisation isn't fooling anyone, except perhaps yourself.  Habitual denial is never a virtue, better to give an honest account, straight talking, tell it how it is.

[Alan Burns]

  Habitual denial is never a virtue ......

Being accused of habitual denial implies that I have the freedom to exercise such denial.

[Gordon]

So why am I free to choose to write this reply which contradicts you?

It's what you, with your individual traits and your consideration of what has been said previously in exchanges you've had in this thread, decided to say in the circumstances. You could have said otherwise, such as that you agreed with Stranger, but you didn't and there is nothing remotely remarkable about that, Alan - deciding what to write in a post is one of the routine things that the functioning biology of our species is capable of. In fact, I've just done the same thing, as did torridon too just a few moments ago.

So no, your reply doesn't contradict Stranger: your reply does, however, make you look extremely naive.

[Gordon]

Being accused of habitual denial implies that I have the freedom to exercise such denial.

So what!

You are able to think, albeit not very well in this regard. You also have the freedom to sing, although I can't comment on how well you do that.

[Stranger]

So why am I free to choose to write this reply which contradicts you?

Because you're wrong.

You wouldn't be able to make the choice if what you say about freedom was true (as I explained). On the other hand, if you are basically a deterministic system, then you would have the freedom you exhibit - as has been explained to you many, many times.

[torridon]

Being accused of habitual denial implies that I have the freedom to exercise such denial.

In the sense that you are 'free' to exercise denial, you are also 'free' to exercise honest engagement with others.  Start by reading the previous post #30402 and coming up with a response that shows insight and thoughtfulness rather than glib dismissal.  We deserve better than that.

[Alan Burns]

In the sense that you are 'free' to exercise denial, you are also 'free' to exercise honest engagement with others.  Start by reading the previous post #30402 and coming up with a response that shows insight and thoughtfulness rather than glib dismissal.  We deserve better than that.

Sorry, but no amount of your sincere, but convoluted reasoning can take away my obvious freedom to choose what I write.  My freedom exists.  It is reality.  You can't explain it away.

[Stranger]

Being accused of habitual denial implies that I have the freedom to exercise such denial.

Yes, and presumably you decided on pointless unargued denial and assertion for some reason. Perhaps because you thought one more assertion might change somebody's mind, or you couldn't be bothered to engage in the actual arguments, or...

The point is that you arrived at that choice because of who you are (the result of nature, nurture, and experience) applied to this online conversation. You couldn't have decided to not be yourself, or to think like somebody else. You can't be free from being yourself, it wouldn't even make sense.

That's why your freedom is compatible with determinism. In that case there is a "something" that can do as it wants and has the ability to choose.

If you insist that a choice can't be fully determined by pre-existing reasons (both internal to the chooser and external) there is nothing left to make a choice - the chooser has disappeared entirely. If you then insist on no randomness a choice will never get made.

What you are saying doesn't accord with our experiences of making choices, is contradictory, and logically impossible.

[Gordon]

Sorry, but no amount of your sincere, but convoluted reasoning can take away my obvious freedom to choose what I write.  My freedom exists.  It is reality.  You can't explain it away.

It's your brain silly: now quit digging.

[torridon]

Sorry, but no amount of your sincere, but convoluted reasoning can take away my obvious freedom to choose what I write.  My freedom exists.  It is reality.  You can't explain it away.

There is nothing 'convoluted' about recognising that we don't believe things we don't believe and we don't want things we don't want. As much should be blindingly obvious. That we cannot 'control' such things is clear undeniable evidence of our deterministic nature.  This is not convoluted, it is merely honest recognition of the nature of reality of being a conscious being.

[Alan Burns]

Yes, and presumably you decided on pointless unargued denial and assertion for some reason. Perhaps because you thought one more assertion might change somebody's mind, or you couldn't be bothered to engage in the actual arguments, or...

The point is that you arrived at that choice because of who you are (the result of nature, nurture, and experience) applied to this online conversation. You couldn't have decided to not be yourself, or to think like somebody else. You can't be free from being yourself, it wouldn't even make sense.

That's why your freedom is compatible with determinism. In that case there is a "something" that can do as it wants and has the ability to choose.

If you insist that a choice can't be fully determined by pre-existing reasons (both internal to the chooser and external) there is nothing left to make a choice - the chooser has disappeared entirely. If you then insist on no randomness a choice will never get made.

What you are saying doesn't accord with our experiences of making choices, is contradictory, and logically impossible.

My soul exists the present
My choices are made in the present.
If my choices are pre determined - there is no choice.
Simple.

[Stranger]

My soul exists the present
My choices are made in the present.

Totally irrelevant. You aren't even bothering to consider what is being said to you, are you?

Yes, choices are made in the present but that doesn't change the fact that they are either made entirely due to pre-existing reasons or not. If not, there is northing else but randomness.

If my choices are pre determined - there is no choice.
Simple.

Your version of 'choice' is contradictory, logically impossible, and not what we experience.

[torridon]

My soul exists the present
My choices are made in the present.
If my choices are pre determined - there is no choice.
Simple.

It might be simple; it might be simplistic.  But given we have no evidence for 'souls', that much is merely assertion on your part. What we do unarguably have is 'minds' and there are layers of subtlety regarding how minds work underlying our apparent everyday experience; Those layers of subtlety are not fictions dreamt up by irascible atheists, they are elements of the real understory below human experience. You might want to remain in ignorance of such subtleties and persist with the general insight level of a 10 year old.  But don't then claim to think deeply about such things.  Just admit you prefer to remain superficial.

[ekim]

Sorry, but no amount of your sincere, but convoluted reasoning can take away my obvious freedom to choose what I write.  My freedom exists.  It is reality.  You can't explain it away.

The question that remains though is what prompted you to choose to write what you did?  It is usually a want or a desire.  Perhaps it is better to see freedom as something to aspire to.  If you were in prison you may have a desire to be free.  When you are free then the desire ceases.  As a Christian you may desire to be free from sin.  When you are free the desire ceases.  You may choose to be desireless but then you will either be at the mercy of fate or, as a Christian, at the mercy of your God's Will.  You freedom is relative not absolute.

[Alan Burns]

There is nothing 'convoluted' about recognising that we don't believe things we don't believe and we don't want things we don't want. As much should be blindingly obvious. That we cannot 'control' such things is clear undeniable evidence of our deterministic nature.  This is not convoluted, it is merely honest recognition of the nature of reality of being a conscious being.

But without your freedom to guide and control your own thought processes, you would not be able to come up with any form of reasoning.  You display admirable ability to think things out, Torri, which in itself provides ample evidence that you have this freedom to control your own thought processes.

[Alan Burns]

Totally irrelevant. You aren't even bothering to consider what is being said to you, are you?

Yes, choices are made in the present but that doesn't change the fact that they are either made entirely due to pre-existing reasons or not. If not, there is northing else but randomness.

Your version of 'choice' is contradictory, logically impossible, and not what we experience.

Why can you not see the obvious - that choices are made by a conscious act of will occurring in the present?  Memories and reasons are consciously perceived in the present, but our ability to perceive them does not automatically invoke a conscious choice.

[torridon]

But without your freedom to guide and control your own thought processes, you would not be able to come up with any form of reasoning.  You display admirable ability to think things out, Torri, which in itself provides ample evidence that you have this freedom to control your own thought processes.

That isn't freedom, it is intelligence and integrity, not the same thing.  Corvids display reasoning ability which in some respects surpasses that of humans.  But we don't claim that corvids must therefore be free of the laws of nature.  Their inteliigence is a product of those laws of nature.

[torridon]

Why can you not see the obvious - that choices are made by a conscious act of will occurring in the present?  Memories and reasons are consciously perceived in the present, but our ability to perceive them does not automatically invoke a conscious choice.

We weigh up the options and identify that which best suits at the moment.  We don't need to be free of the laws of nature to do that.

[Stranger]

Why can you not see the obvious...

Why can't you?

...that choices are made by a conscious act of will occurring in the present?

Yes, I know.

Memories and reasons are consciously perceived in the present, but our ability to perceive them does not automatically invoke a conscious choice.

None of this changes the fact that either all the pre-existing reasons to make the choice (including the state of mind; the internal conscious state) can only result in one choice or not. If not, then any remaining choice has to be for no reason, so must be random.

That isn't convoluted logic, it's simple.

That does not assume a physical mind, it's just logic.

You cannot introduce a new 'reason' in the present moment because that must either be for pre-existing reason or not and hence random.

You cannot introduce the output of another choice-maker ("conscious will" or whatever) because it's the internal choice making process that we are considering.

You can't be free from being yourself - it doesn't make any sense. You make choices because of who you are and the circumstances - magic not required.

[torridon]

Why can you not see the obvious - that choices are made by a conscious act of will occurring in the present?  Memories and reasons are consciously perceived in the present, but our ability to perceive them does not automatically invoke a conscious choice.

so, given it is not 'automatic', how does your conscious will resolve choice ?

[Alan Burns]

The question that remains though is what prompted you to choose to write what you did?  It is usually a want or a desire.  Perhaps it is better to see freedom as something to aspire to.  If you were in prison you may have a desire to be free.  When you are free then the desire ceases.  As a Christian you may desire to be free from sin.  When you are free the desire ceases.  You may choose to be desireless but then you will either be at the mercy of fate or, as a Christian, at the mercy of your God's Will.  You freedom is relative not absolute.

Yes, I have conscious desires, as we all do.  And we have the freedom to choose how, when and where to satisfy those desires.  A freedom which emanates from something which cannot be defined from within the inevitable, pre defined reactions in physical chains of cause and effect.

As a Christian I have freely chosen to accept Jesus as my saviour, but in doing this, I still have conscious control of my own will.

[Alan Burns]

so, given it is not 'automatic', how does your conscious will resolve choice ?

I have the power consciously invoke a chosen option.  If my chosen option was pre defined by the physical state of my brain cells, it would not be a choice, but an inevitable reaction.

My chosen option can only be invoked by consciously controlled interaction with my physical brain cells.  It is not pre defined by physical reactions.

[Stranger]

I have the power consciously invoke a chosen option.

Which doesn't answer the question of how you arrive at a chosen option.

If my chosen option was pre defined by the physical state of my mind brain cells, it would not be a choice, but an inevitable reaction.

Corrected to remove your irrelevant obsession with the physical. What remains is just your favourite false dichotomy.

This has all been dealt with - you seem to have gone back to just just mindlessly repeating your simplistic mantras...