Searching for GOD...

[BeRational]

But in all this you are in denial what is central to you, what defines you.  You are more than just pre defined reasons.  You are the reason.  You are in control of yourself.  This is God's amazing gift which makes each one of us unique individuals with the power to choose our own destiny in this world, and the next.

You keep using a god as a provider.

Please demonstrate a god.

If you cannot, then you cannot use it in the answer.

[Stranger]

But in all this you are in denial what is central to you, what defines you.

Nope, that is what you keep on doing. In particular, you keep trying to exclude everything from being a part of you. So if you make a choice entirely because of who you are and the circumstances (internal and external reasons) then somehow it isn't you that's making the choice.

The opposite is true: unless your choices are fully decided by what you are, then they can't be your choices.

You are more than just pre defined reasons.  You are the reason.  You are in control of yourself.

I am something, not nothing. You seem unable to grasp that there is stuff going on inside you and it must all be happening for reasons, even though it's internal to who you are. If this were not the case, you couldn't think or make any choices at all and if what was happening inside you wasn't entirely due to reasons, it would have to be random.

You can't ignore what is inside you and you can't pretend it isn't subject to logic. It can't magically do something not for reasons and for reasons at the same time and a reason can't be its own reason to happen without it actually being for no reason (random).

[Alan Burns]

Nope, that is what you keep on doing. In particular, you keep trying to exclude everything from being a part of you. So if you make a choice entirely because of who you are and the circumstances (internal and external reasons) then somehow it isn't you that's making the choice.

The opposite is true: unless your choices are fully decided by what you are, then they can't be your choices.

I am something, not nothing. You seem unable to grasp that there is stuff going on inside you and it must all be happening for reasons, even though it's internal to who you are. If this were not the case, you couldn't think or make any choices at all and if what was happening inside you wasn't entirely due to reasons, it would have to be random.

You can't ignore what is inside you and you can't pretend it isn't subject to logic. It can't magically do something not for reasons and for reasons at the same time and a reason can't be its own reason to happen without it actually being for no reason (random).

You can't seem to get away from the concept of endless chains of cause and effect (internal or external), the logic of which is entirely derived from physical determinism.

Can you not contemplate the existence of a defining cause which wilfully sets things in motion to facilitate the execution of what you consciously choose to do?

[Sebastian Toe]

You are in control of yourself. 

Where does the content of the will exist?
How is it accessed?

[Stranger]

You can't seem to get away from the concept of endless chains of cause and effect (internal or external), the logic of which is entirely derived from physical determinism.

It is not derived from physical determinism - it's derived from the fact that you can't have anything that happens that isn't entirely due to reasons for it to happen, without introducing something that isn't for any reason. There simply isn't a third option.

It's a simple logical necessity that has bugger all to do with physics and one you have never had the courage to face up to.

Can you not contemplate the existence of a defining cause which wilfully sets things in motion to facilitate the execution of what you consciously choose to do?

No because it doesn't make any sense. What you've said isn't an alternative, it's just a meaningless string of words that attempts to disguise the basic logic of the situation. A "defining cause" has to have some reason to happen or it must be random, and a conscious choice is either for reasons or not.

Rewording your assertion that the the logically self-contradictory can happen, won't make it any more believable.

Neither will it undermine the fact that the only way I can possibly make a free choice is if it's me that makes it. Which necessarily means that it is entirely due to who I am and the situation. If it isn't, it's not me that has made the choice. Not only is deterministic decision making compatible with freedom, it is necessary for freedom.

[Alan Burns]

It is not derived from physical determinism - it's derived from the fact that you can't have anything that happens that isn't entirely due to reasons for it to happen, without introducing something that isn't for any reason. There simply isn't a third option.

It's a simple logical necessity that has bugger all to do with physics and one you have never had the courage to face up to.

No because it doesn't make any sense. What you've said isn't an alternative, it's just a meaningless string of words that attempts to disguise the basic logic of the situation. A "defining cause" has to have some reason to happen or it must be random, and a conscious choice is either for reasons or not.

Rewording your assertion that the the logically self-contradictory can happen, won't make it any more believable.

Neither will it undermine the fact that the only way I can possibly make a free choice is if it's me that makes it. Which necessarily means that it is entirely due to who I am and the situation. If it isn't, it's not me that has made the choice. Not only is deterministic decision making compatible with freedom, it is necessary for freedom.

If you do not accept the possibility of a personally defined cause, then there is no choice in the matter.
Freedom cannot exist in any form.

[Stranger]

Ignoring for a moment the shameless argumentum ad consequentiam...

If you do not accept the possibility of a personally defined cause...

The phrase "personally defined cause" is totally devoid of meaning. I neither accept it nor reject it, it doesn't mean anything; it isn't even wrong.

...then there is no choice in the matter.
Freedom cannot exist in any form.

You've, once again, totally ignored the point. In order for there to be a choice and in order for anything to be free, said anything must be a part of reality (physical or otherwise) and therefore some processes within it must produce choices and said processes must proceed as a deterministic system ("predetermined") or not (involving randomness).

Externalising all the means by which we can make choices cannot set anything free - it just reduces us to nothing and hence we can have no freedom.

[torridon]

The detailed explanations you have given on this thread about the physical workings of human brain may well be applicable to animals, who's behaviour can easily be categorised under the headings of either instinct or learnt behaviour.  But human behaviour is categorically different.

From about 30,000 BC we have discovered the existence of cave paintings, mainly depicting animals.  There has been much speculation about the reasons and meanings behind these paintings, but there are no substantial conclusions on this.  However, their existence does prove two undeniable facts:

1 - The existence of these paintings proves that the humans who made these paintings were able to consciously perceive what was physically detected by their sensory organs.

2 - They had the consciously driven freedom physically record what they had seen.

This sets humans distinctly apart from other animals as there is no known evidence that animals have ever even attempted to physically depict what they have previously seen in some alternative media.  It was the start of mankind's unique creative abilities which has culminated in our vast treasures of artistic creativity.  A creativity which is driven by something other than the aimless, uncontrollable material reactions in the physically pre determined scenario.

I'd agree all that is a defining characteristic of humans; as we evolved over time we became more human-like and less ape-like and this included a highly developed aesthetic sense and creativity.  Modern humans have eliminated many risks to survival - we have health care systems in place, we are no longer subject to predation, so we have leisure time, a luxury you don't have if trying to stay alive to the next day is your priority.  I don't think humans have a monopoly on these characteristics just because we are the species that has developed them further.  Flowers evolved beauty not to appeal to humans, we were not around that long ago, floral beauty co-evolved with a nascent aesthethic sense in pollinating insects. The fabulous extravagant display of a peacock appeals to the discerning eye of a peahen; bower birds create nests that show levels of creativity that go beyond being merely functional places to sleep.  Humans have developed these traits to a greater degree than any other species I'd agree but I see no reason to conscript that observation to support a notion of humans beings as supernatural agents, that is well over the top.

[torridon]

It's not like it feels like in here. Myriads of conscious thoughts.

Maybe that manifests in your posting style.  I tend to focus on one or two issues whereas you are picking up on things from all over the place.

[torridon]

But in all this you are in denial what is central to you, what defines you.  You are more than just pre defined reasons.  You are the reason.  You are in control of yourself.  This is God's amazing gift which makes each one of us unique individuals with the power to choose our own destiny in this world, and the next.

We cannot be our own reason, that is illogical, as Stranger will tell you.  All that I am is a consequence of my prior formative development.  I can think of no aspect of myself that does not have roots in the past.  If there is some aspect of me not originating from something then that would be a random aspect.  This is simply the logic of what it is to be human being; it could not be any other way, and there is no evidence to suggest some other way.

[Nearly Sane]

Maybe that manifests in your posting style.  I tend to focus on one or two issues whereas you are picking up on things from all over the place.

posting would be way too slow for thoughts to manifest in that sense. It's positively glacial in comparison.



But any of that is unimportant in the question of people declaring what personhood is like forgotten as if it is entirely common. What you and Alan Burns say is 'correct' here seems alien to what 'I' experience.

[ekim]

Externalising all the means by which we can make choices cannot set anything free - it just reduces us to nothing and hence we can have no freedom.

.... which is probably at the basis of the via negativa theology ... I am nothing, God is all.  The freedom is from the constraints of the ego but not from the divine.

[wigginhall]

.... which is probably at the basis of the via negativa theology ... I am nothing, God is all.  The freedom is from the constraints of the ego but not from the divine.

Well, this seems to be very wild from the Christian point of view, which is inherently dualistic.   There has to be a gap between divine and non-divine, otherwise what is the point of Jesus?   There are some far-out Christians who get to a non-dual place, e.g., Meister Eckhart.  But the collapse of ego is more Eastern, and doesn't imply the divine, for example in Buddhism.  So there is a non-theistic transcendentalism.

[ekim]

Well, this seems to be very wild from the Christian point of view, which is inherently dualistic.   There has to be a gap between divine and non-divine, otherwise what is the point of Jesus?   There are some far-out Christians who get to a non-dual place, e.g., Meister Eckhart.  But the collapse of ego is more Eastern, and doesn't imply the divine, for example in Buddhism.  So there is a non-theistic transcendentalism.

I'm sure you are right about the 'Christian point of view' as you put it.  I think the via negativa is more associated with the Christian mystics like Meister Eckhart, Jakob Böhme, William Law etc., where the true nature of man is seen as divine, as a spark of the divine nature, divine Light, the inner Christ etc.  The path tends to be one of 'self' (ego) abnegation or surrender so that the divine nature is revealed and identified with.  As there is only one divine, union or one-ness is the realisation.

[wigginhall]

Yes, that's very like Sri Ramana Maharshi, in his book, Who am I?  But oneness need not be seen as divine.

[Alan Burns]

We cannot be our own reason, that is illogical, as Stranger will tell you.  All that I am is a consequence of my prior formative development.  I can think of no aspect of myself that does not have roots in the past.  If there is some aspect of me not originating from something then that would be a random aspect.  This is simply the logic of what it is to be human being; it could not be any other way, and there is no evidence to suggest some other way.

You have roots in the past, but you live in the present.  Your freedom to choose exists in the present, it is not dictated by the past.

And this freedom is not magical, it is miraculous.  Because miracles are real - magic is not.

[Gordon]

And this freedom is not magical, it is miraculous.  Because miracles are real - magic is not.

Words fail me!

[BeRational]

Words fail me!

Er game over I think.

All pretence of reason and logic completely gone.

[ippy]

Dr Jekyll & Mr Hyde, A B & N M?

ippy

[torridon]

You have roots in the past, but you live in the present.  Your freedom to choose exists in the present, it is not dictated by the past.

You're not getting it. The totality of all that I am in the present is always a consequence of the past.  That includes all my particular needs, fears, preferences in the present moment.  These things do not come out of thin air for no reason.  If I choose the apricot rather than the peach which actually looks better and which I normally prefer but I go for apricot because I want to demonstrate that I have free will, then it is my desire to demonstrate my free will which was the uppermost desire in me in that present moment.  I don't choose what desires to have or how strong they should be.  What I do, is act on my uppermost desire in the present moment.

[torridon]

And this freedom is not magical, it is miraculous.  Because miracles are real - magic is not.

Don't be silly.  Miracles are magic by another name, is all.  We are mostly adults in this room I would have thought, you will not impress with a disguised appeal to regress back to childhood fantasy beliefs.  We need evidence and reason, that is what we respond to.

[SusanDoris]

Don't be silly.  Miracles are magic by another name, is all.  We are mostly adults in this room I would have thought, you will not impress with a disguised appeal to regress back to childhood fantasy beliefs.  We need evidence and reason, that is what we respond to.

And we're never going to get it from AB!

[Stranger]

You have roots in the past, but you live in the present.  Your freedom to choose exists in the present, it is not dictated by the past.

If a choice magically pops into existence in the present, without a pre-existing cause or reason, then it must be random. This wittering about the present is just another way in which you are trying to sidestep the problem rather than face up to it.

And this freedom is not magical, it is miraculous.  Because miracles are real - magic is not.

 

[ekim]

Yes, that's very like Sri Ramana Maharshi, in his book, Who am I?  But oneness need not be seen as divine.

That brings us neatly back on to topic.
No, it doesn't need to, especially as the words like God and divine seem to attract the projection of many fantasies but no definitions.
Sri Ramana Maharshi puts it this way - 'It is enough that one surrenders oneself.  Surrender is to give oneself up to the original cause of one's being.  Do not delude yourself by imagining such source to be some God outside you.  One's source is within oneself.  Give yourself up to it.  That means you should seek the source and merge in it.' and Meister Eckhart puts it this way - 'The eye with which I see God, God sees me;  my eye and God's eye is one eye, one seeing, one realising and one love.'

[Sriram]

That brings us neatly back on to topic.
No, it doesn't need to, especially as the words like God and divine seem to attract the projection of many fantasies but no definitions.
Sri Ramana Maharshi puts it this way - 'It is enough that one surrenders oneself.  Surrender is to give oneself up to the original cause of one's being.  Do not delude yourself by imagining such source to be some God outside you.  One's source is within oneself.  Give yourself up to it.  That means you should seek the source and merge in it.' and Meister Eckhart puts it this way - 'The eye with which I see God, God sees me;  my eye and God's eye is one eye, one seeing, one realising and one love.'

Yes...as I have stated many times here....it is like the two birds in the Upanishads. Initially there are two birds. They appear different. One looks up to the other as Divine. But they eventually merge. After that there is no difference.

God is only a manner of looking up to something that you want to achieve. Once it is achieved there is no God. 'Divinity' is just a way of differentiating it from the Animal.  We are constantly a mix of animal and divine.

'The Divine' is not some distant supernatural being. I am not even sure if there is any equivalent word in Sanskrit.