Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

Yes, we can't choose our likes and dislikes.  But we still have the God given freedom to override these to do something just because we consciously choose to do it.

Nope: I am unable to freely choose to eat mayonnaise.

[Stranger]

But as I said previously, the fact that we do something is not sufficient evidence to claim that it was the only possible option over which we had no choice.  It is what we consciously chose to do at that moment in time, but this fact does not in itself imply that we had no choice in what we did.

Come on Alan, think! You are whatever process it is that chooses - so of course you have a choice but you can't choose to choose in a different way to the way you make choices. That would entail you choosing to be somebody else.

But your phrase "It is how the internal mechanisms of conscious contemplation works" implies that you are looking at conscious contemplation as just a physically driven mechanistic process...

I am not making any assumptions about conscious contemplation works but however it does work, the output must either be entirely due to the input (including the internal state) or not. There isn't a third option no matter how it works.

...over which we can have no control.

You keep on about processes "over which we can have no control" when it's exactly how you make choices in order to exercise control that is the subject of discussion. You really aren't thinking about this at all.

My perception of reality begs to differ with this simplistic view.

My perception of reality begs to differ with your simplistic and magical thinking that not only doesn't match my experience but makes no sense and is self-contradictory.

[Sebastian Toe]

But your phrase "It is how the internal mechanisms of conscious contemplation works" implies that you are looking at conscious contemplation as just a physically driven mechanistic process over which we can have no control.  My perception of reality begs to differ with this simplistic view.

It only implies that to you because you are unable or unwilling to grasp the point being made.
How does your non-physical internal contemplation mechanism work?
There you go. Straightforward question.
Excluding all things physical, implied or otherwise, how does it work?

[torridon]

But as I said previously, the fact that we do something is not sufficient evidence to claim that it was the only possible option over which we had no choice.  It is what we consciously chose to do at that moment in time, but this fact does not in itself imply that we had no choice in what we did.

In making a choice we are acting on our greatest desire (in the moment).  If we have no control over which desire is the strongest, where is the freedom in that ?

[Stranger]

Yes, we can't choose our likes and dislikes.  But we still have the God given freedom to override these to do something just because we consciously choose to do it.

But you're just ignoring why you might choose to override your likes and dislikes. There is no "just because" we choose, you either make that choice for some reasons or for no reason. You keep trying to separate the notion of 'you' from any reasoning about how you make choices.

If you decide to override a like or dislike it will be because there is something else that is more important to you at the time - and that, in turn, will be because of the way you prioritise things and, perhaps, how you were feeling at the time, which will, in turn, be because of recent experiences and experience and beliefs that you have built up over your lifetime, and so on. There is no 'escape' from the chains of (internal) cause and effect because such an 'escape' would be an escape from being yourself, which makes no sense at all.

It really does have nothing to do with whether you are physical or not. The very idea of being a functioning mind who makes choices necessitates the cause and effect. Without it there is no 'you' that can make a choice.

[Alan Burns]

It only implies that to you because you are unable or unwilling to grasp the point being made.
How does your non-physical internal contemplation mechanism work?
There you go. Straightforward question.
Excluding all things physical, implied or otherwise, how does it work?

Well, if my conclusions are just the end result of a series of physically controlled events in my brain, I can take no personal responsibility because I have no capacity to influence the outcome.  The only possible way for me to take responsibility would be for me to have influence on the outcome, and the only way to do this is by conscious interaction with the physical processes.

[Sebastian Toe]

Well, if my conclusions are just the end result of a series of physically controlled events in my brain, I can take no personal responsibility because I have no capacity to influence the outcome.  The only possible way for me to take responsibility would be for me to have influence on the outcome, and the only way to do this is by conscious interaction with the physical processes.

How does that answer my question?

[torridon]

Well, if my conclusions are just the end result of a series of physically controlled events in my brain, I can take no personal responsibility because I have no capacity to influence the outcome.  The only possible way for me to take responsibility would be for me to have influence on the outcome, and the only way to do this is by conscious interaction with the physical processes.

That is a circular ad consequentiam that fails to address Seb's question.

It also shows you are stuck in this mindset of conscious will 'interacting' with 'physical' processes.  That is flawed conceptualisation of the way mind works.  For one thing it completely fails to factor in the insight that 'conscious' is itself a product of other subliminal machinations of mind. Our sense of responsibility for choices made is a feature of conscious mind; it is a feeling, like a sense of comfort or a sense of direction or a sense of balance or a sense of right and wrong or a sense of humour or a sense of integrity or feelings of pain or loss or happiness; these are all characteristics of conscious mind and all such are constructions of lower levels of mind.  That we feel a sense of responsibility for choices made is a sign of healthy mind function; it is not evidence for an entirely separate realm of fundamental reality undiscovered by science.

[Stranger]

Well, if my conclusions are just the end result of a series of physically controlled events in my brain, I can take no personal responsibility because I have no capacity to influence the outcome.

This assertion doesn't even refer to anything. If you are physical, there is nothing else; you are the events that choose. There is no separate 'you' that has no influence.

The only possible way for me to take responsibility would be for me to have influence on the outcome, and the only way to do this is by conscious interaction with the physical processes.

Once again the pretence that it is the physical that forces the cause and effect nature of choice making. The only way in which your choice can not be the result of series of logically controlled events (reasons - see #30679) is if you introduce something that happens with no cause (for no reason), which must be random by definition. Magic souls could not change that without introducing a logical contradiction.

When will you face up to that instead of ignoring or evading the point?

[Alan Burns]

This assertion doesn't even refer to anything. If you are physical, there is nothing else; you are the events that choose. There is no separate 'you' that has no influence.

Once again the pretence that it is the physical that forces the cause and effect nature of choice making. The only way in which your choice can not be the result of series of logically controlled events (reasons - see #30679) is if you introduce something that happens with no cause (for no reason), which must be random by definition. Magic souls could not change that without introducing a logical contradiction.

When will you face up to that instead of ignoring or evading the point?

But in an entirely physical scenario, there can be no such thing as logically controlled events.  Control does not exist within a physically deterministic world.  Everything is the result of uncontrollable physical reactions.

[torridon]

But in an entirely physical scenario, there can be no such thing as logically controlled events.  Control does not exist within a physically deterministic world.  Everything is the result of uncontrollable physical reactions.

The phrase 'entirely physical scenario' is a bit of a nonsense.  Is an elephant entirely physical ?  Can an elephant 'control' its trunk ?

[jeremyp]

But in an entirely physical scenario, there can be no such thing as logically controlled events.  Control does not exist within a physically deterministic world.  Everything is the result of uncontrollable physical reactions.

Yers, but “I don’t like it that way” is not a reason to assert that it is false.

[Alan Burns]

Yers, but “I don’t like it that way” is not a reason to assert that it is false.

The point is that in the physical scenario, there can be no "I" or "you" to make any assertion, because an assertion is a deliberate action, not an inevitable reaction.

[Alan Burns]

The phrase 'entirely physical scenario' is a bit of a nonsense.  Is an elephant entirely physical ?  Can an elephant 'control' its trunk ?

If an elephant, or anything else, is entirely physical it will have no control - just pre programmed reactions.

[jeremyp]

The point is that in the physical scenario, there can be no "I" or "you" to make any assertion, because an assertion is a deliberate action, not an inevitable reaction.

This is still you arguing it must be wrong because you don’t Like it that way. Maybe the conscious self is an illusion generated by your brain. Do you have any means to falsify that claim?  I don’t so in my opinion, it can’t be ruled out no matter how much I don’t want it to be true.

[torridon]

If an elephant, or anything else, is entirely physical it will have no control - just pre programmed reactions.

The phrase 'entirely physical' is meaningless.  Elephants seem to be able to control their trunks.  Elephants don't have immaterial souls.  How do you explain the contradiction your thinking leads to ?

[wigginhall]

I would think that control is a criterion for defining living things.  Rocks don't determine where they roll, but elephants do to an extent.  Yes, I know that Alan will now talk about conscious control, which apparently only humans have, but this is part of his crackpot ideas.

[Stranger]

But in an entirely physical scenario, there can be no such thing as logically controlled events.

Just when I thought this couldn't get more silly. Physically controlled events (your phrase) are an instance of logically controlled events because the physical world works in a logically consistent manner.

You didn't even bother to read what I said, did you?

Control does not exist within a physically deterministic world.  Everything is the result of uncontrollable physical reactions.

This is just thought-free prejudicial language. Any system that is coherent enough (free of randomness) for something to make a choice must have causality - choices have to happen for reasons.

Making the system non-physical makes no difference to the notion of control. The idea that is does is just a bizarre mental block you don't seem to be able to get over.

[wigginhall]

The point is that in the physical scenario, there can be no "I" or "you" to make any assertion, because an assertion is a deliberate action, not an inevitable reaction.

This is palpably incorrect.  The I and you may be mental constructs, generated in the brain.  The fact that you don't like that idea doesn't count against it.

[Alan Burns]

This is palpably incorrect.  The I and you may be mental constructs, generated in the brain.  The fact that you don't like that idea doesn't count against it.

If the brain is entirely material, there will be nothing but inevitable physically controlled activity going on between the neurons.  The words "mental constructs" do not change this basic physically controlled scenario.

[Alan Burns]

This is still you arguing it must be wrong because you don’t Like it that way. Maybe the conscious self is an illusion generated by your brain. Do you have any means to falsify that claim?  I don’t so in my opinion, it can’t be ruled out no matter how much I don’t want it to be true.

My argument is entirely logical.  If I comprise nothing but material elements, I am entirely under the control of the physically predetermined behaviour of these elements.  None of us can change the laws of physics, so in order to introduce any form of personal control into my material body, I would need the power to consciously interact with these physical processes - otherwise I am entirely subject to uncontrollable physical reactions.

[Alan Burns]

Just when I thought this couldn't get more silly. Physically controlled events (your phrase) are an instance of logically controlled events because the physical world works in a logically consistent manner.

You didn't even bother to read what I said, did you?

This is just thought-free prejudicial language. Any system that is coherent enough (free of randomness) for something to make a choice must have causality - choices have to happen for reasons.

Making the system non-physical makes no difference to the notion of control. The idea that is does is just a bizarre mental block you don't seem to be able to get over.

But in all this, you have no explanation for how you can introduce any form of control into physically predetermined reactions.  Can you control the laws of physics?

And within the meterialistic scenario, the only reason for any event is a physically defined reaction to previous events.

[Gordon]

My argument is entirely logical.  If I comprise nothing but material elements, I am entirely under the control of the physically predetermined behaviour of these elements.  None of us can change the laws of physics, so in order to introduce any form of personal control into my material body, I would need the power to consciously interact with these physical processes - otherwise I am entirely subject to uncontrollable physical reactions.

I see you are wandering towards the fallacy of composition, again.

I'd give up on 'god', Alan, for your particular beliefs in it are screwing up your thinking.

[Alan Burns]

I see you are wandering towards the fallacy of composition, again.

No.
You can't change the basic laws of physics.  They underpin everything in the materialist scenario.  No amount of complexity can change the physically predetermined behaviour of material reactions.

[Sebastian Toe]

Well, if my conclusions are just the end result of a series of physically controlled events in my brain, I can take no personal responsibility because I have no capacity to influence the outcome.  The only possible way for me to take responsibility would be for me to have influence on the outcome, and the only way to do this is by conscious interaction with the physical processes.

One more time, for the hard of thinking.


How does your non-physical internal contemplation mechanism work?
There you go. Straightforward question.
Excluding all things physical, implied or otherwise.
In fact, exclude the word physical from your reply as it has no bearing whatsoever on the internal workings of your non physical internal contemplation mechanisms.

How does it work?