Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

Your biology, Alan: you need to get used to this and stop all the silly fannying around.

Biology alone can't be the source of freedom, because biological activity on its own is entirely predetermined by the laws of physics.

[SusanDoris]

I did and you are wrong. Freedom is The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants. That is not only compatible with determinism it requires determinism - there needs to be a you that wants something for some reasons and is then able to act on those wants.

The only alternative to determinism is randomness because determinism means the absence of randomness and randomness can't make anybody or anything free.

Aaaahhh! Two very satisfyingly sensible and clear posts to end my reading of this topic for today. So much better than ending my visits to R&E with one of AB's daft posts.

[Alan Burns]

I did and you are wrong. Freedom is The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants. That is not only compatible with determinism it requires determinism - there needs to be a you that wants something for some reasons and is then able to act on those wants.

The only alternative to determinism is randomness because determinism means the absence of randomness and randomness can't make anybody or anything free.

Sorry, I should have said physical determinism.  Spiritually determined events give us the conscious freedom to choose, because they are not constrained by the uncontrollable laws of physics.

[Gordon]

Biology alone can't be the source of freedom,....

Of course you've already decided that there is 'a source of freedom', which is just you begging the question again. 

[Gordon]

Sorry, I should have said physical determinism.  Spiritually determined events give us the conscious freedom to choose, because they are not constrained by the uncontrollable laws of physics.

This is no more than nonsensical fantasy, Alan.

[Stranger]

Sorry, I should have said physical determinism.  Spiritually determined events give us the conscious freedom to choose, because they are not constrained by the uncontrollable laws of physics.

FFS, again! There is no such thing as physical or spiritual determinism a deterministic system is a deterministic system whether it's physical or not. Either the output is entirely due to the inputs and internal state ("predetermined") or there is some randomness.

Your only explanation of what you think the difference is has been the dishonest pretence that determined by (the conscious will or whatever) is an answer to the determined how question.

You've had that pointed out multiple times, you've never once actually addressed it, you just continue to repeat the same nonsense. Have some intellectual courage and honesty for once.

[torridon]

A conscious state just infers that the sensory organs are active and the peahen is able to react to the data produced.  Outwardly perceived activity is not proof of internal conscious awareness.

Well it would be a bizarre conclusion to draw that a creature appearing to be conscious was somehow not.  A finch flew into my living room window the other week and knocked itself out. I thought it was dead at first, lying still on its back, feet in the air, with its partner fluttering around, confused. But happily it wasn't dead - 10 minutes later it had recovered and was pecking around for food as if nothing had happened.  Clearly it had knocked itself out and lost consciousness temporarily.

When we lose consciousness there is no possibility of doing anything active at all. We are reduced to a piece of insentient meat.  There is no way a peahen could evaluate potential partners when it was not fully conscious, laying insentiently and motionless on its back with its legs in the air.  We could expect that the particular quality of a peahen's conscious experience will differ from ours, no doubt about that. But there can be no reasonable doubt that in order to discriminate between subtly varying potential mates the bird needs to be fully conscious; how could anything discriminate between options if it were not aware of them, and that is what consciousness is, awareness.

[Sebastian Toe]

That is what you think.
But in coming to this conclusion you need more than uncontrollable deterministic physical activity of the electrochemical activity in your brain cells.  You need the conscious freedom to guide this activity to produce the conclusion you perceive - a freedom which can't be derived from uncontrollable deterministic electrochemical brain activity.

That is what you think.
But in coming to this conclusion you need a working, functioning process that is able to work within a universally applicable logic environment.
 Not a logic-free, unexplained, magic-requiring "soul".
That type of "freedom" to which you ascribe is impossible. Once you realise that then you truly will be free!

[Alan Burns]

That is what you think.
But in coming to this conclusion you need a working, functioning process that is able to work within a universally applicable logic environment.
 Not a logic-free, unexplained, magic-requiring "soul".
That type of "freedom" to which you ascribe is impossible. Once you realise that then you truly will be free!

And what is a universally applicable logic environment - in physical terms?

Once you realise the constraints of physical determinism, you will know that physically controlled chains of cause and effect can never comprise freedom.

[Alan Burns]

Well it would be a bizarre conclusion to draw that a creature appearing to be conscious was somehow not.  A finch flew into my living room window the other week and knocked itself out. I thought it was dead at first, lying still on its back, feet in the air, with its partner fluttering around, confused. But happily it wasn't dead - 10 minutes later it had recovered and was pecking around for food as if nothing had happened.  Clearly it had knocked itself out and lost consciousness temporarily.

When we lose consciousness there is no possibility of doing anything active at all. We are reduced to a piece of insentient meat.  There is no way a peahen could evaluate potential partners when it was not fully conscious, laying insentiently and motionless on its back with its legs in the air.  We could expect that the particular quality of a peahen's conscious experience will differ from ours, no doubt about that. But there can be no reasonable doubt that in order to discriminate between subtly varying potential mates the bird needs to be fully conscious; how could anything discriminate between options if it were not aware of them, and that is what consciousness is, awareness.

A computer can be programmed to recognise the differences in image patterns and react accordingly.  No conscious awareness needed.

[Stranger]

And what is a universally applicable logic environment - in physical terms?

The physical is a subset of logical systems.

Once you realise the constraints of physical determinism...

Determinism is part of logic, not the physical - your continued use of the term "physical determinism" is dishonest.

[Alan Burns]

FFS, again! There is no such thing as physical or spiritual determinism a deterministic system is a deterministic system whether it's physical or not. Either the output is entirely due to the inputs and internal state ("predetermined") or there is some randomness.

Your only explanation of what you think the difference is has been the dishonest pretence that determined by (the conscious will or whatever) is an answer to the determined how question.

You've had that pointed out multiple times, you've never once actually addressed it, you just continue to repeat the same nonsense. Have some intellectual courage and honesty for once.

As I have explained several times, conscious human will is sufficient to make a consciously driven choice.  Indeed it is the only option when compared to physical determinism which offers no choice - just inevitable events driven by by physically defined reactions.

[Alan Burns]

The physical is a subset of logical systems.

Determinism is part of logic, not the physical - your continued use of the term "physical determinism" is dishonest.

But if physical determinism is all that exists, there is no room for freedom.

[Stranger]

As I have explained several times, conscious human will is sufficient to make a consciously driven choice.

You haven't explained anything at all. The above is a meaningless truism: "conscious human will" = "a consciously driven choice" - no kidding, Sherlock!

What you haven't addressed is how it arrives at its choices.

Indeed it is the only option when compared to physical determinism...

For the umpteenth time and for the hard-of-thinking, there is no such thing as physical determinism (except in the limited sense that the physical universe might be a specific instance of a deterministic system - it is not a different type of determinism).

But if physical determinism is all that exists, there is no room for freedom.

[Irrelevant word deleted for reasons given above.]

In order for there to be freedom, something has to be free to do as it wants, and in order for something to decide what it wants, it has to be able to do so according to what it is, and what it is must have come about somehow. All of which requires determinism.

[torridon]

A computer can be programmed to recognise the differences in image patterns and react accordingly.  No conscious awareness needed.

Maybe, but peahens and peacocks are not computers.  Really Alan, are you for real, you cannot tell the difference between a computer and a living creature ?  

[Sebastian Toe]

And what is a universally applicable logic environment - in physical terms?

Once you realise the constraints of physical determinism, you will know that physically controlled chains of cause and effect can never comprise freedom.

Logic does not require physical anything.
Once and only once you realise that, then we can gave a meaningful discussion.
Meanwhile your logic-free, undefined, magic-requiring soul will remain something which can be dismissed out of hand.

[Gordon]

But if physical determinism is all that exists, there is no room for freedom.

You are like someone at risk of drowning who, while screaming 'I'm here', ignores all the lifebelts being thrown within his grasp from various helpful onlookers in order to continue thrashing about in increasingly choppy waters.

If I were you, Alan, I'd start examining the lifebelts more closely instead of just ignoring them.   

[torridon]

But if physical determinism is all that exists, there is no room for freedom.

You wouldn't want freedom from logic though; you don't understand the consequences of a reality free from reason.  None of us would even be here to argue the toss.

[Alan Burns]

For the umpteenth time and for the hard-of-thinking, there is no such thing as physical determinism (except in the limited sense that the physical universe might be a specific instance of a deterministic system - it is not a different type of determinism).
[

Physical determinism is uncontrolled because we do not have control over the laws of physics.
Spiritual determinism is controlled by conscious human will.

[Alan Burns]

Maybe, but peahens and peacocks are not computers.  Really Alan, are you for real, you cannot tell the difference between a computer and a living creature ?

I am just demonstrating the logical possibility for instinctive reactions to take place without the need for conscious awareness.

[Alan Burns]

You wouldn't want freedom from logic though; you don't understand the consequences of a reality free from reason.  None of us would even be here to argue the toss.

Conscious human will is not free from logic or reason.  It is free to make a consciously driven choice.
Otherwise there could be no possibility of arguing anything, because we would not have the freedom to do so.

[Sebastian Toe]

Spiritual determinism is controlled by conscious human will.

How?

[torridon]

I am just demonstrating the logical possibility for instinctive reactions to take place without the need for conscious awareness.

I don't see where you are demonstrating that, you are merely making absurd claims without justification.  When I saw the finch lying unconscious on the ground, it's instinctive reactions stopped; OK its heart was still beating and it was still breathing, but it was not busy looking for food or building a nest, the instinctive behaviours we would associate with a finch.  What is the justification for your peculiar claim ?

[torridon]

Conscious human will is not free from logic or reason.  It is free to make a consciously driven choice.

But your claim is that it is free from the dictates of logic and reason.  Logic and reason say that any event is deterministic or it is not.  Not deterministic means random.  Your portrayal of consciously driven choice which is neither deterministic nor random is a conceptual impossibility.  Even a God, should he exist, could not do the logically impossible, never mind mere humans.

[Stranger]

Physical determinism is uncontrolled because we do not have control over the laws of physics.
Spiritual determinism is controlled by conscious human will.

Come on Alan, seriously? Do you never read what has been said? This has been explained multiple times and you've never faced up to it.

"Controlled by conscious will" tells us nothing at all about how the conscious will makes its choice and it's the actual choice making process that must be deterministic or not.

There are the inputs to a choice: the whole character of the person making it, her experience and state of mind, and all the circumstances of the choice. Then, somehow (in some magical spiritual realm or not), a choice is made and we have an output.

If the output depends only on the input, it is a deterministic process (if we could produce the exactly the same inputs, we'd get the same output), if not, then some part of the process must have been random.

There are no other options and it has nothing to do with the physical or whether it involves consciousness, because consciousness needs to work somehow too.

Conscious human will is not free from logic or reason.

Your version of conscious human will is self-contradictory because you keep on pretending that the above logic does not apply to it because it isn't physical - which is nonsense.

It is free to make a consciously driven choice.
Otherwise there could be no possibility of arguing anything, because we would not have the freedom to do so.

All of which is perfectly consistent with deterministic minds. And adding spiritual or physical to the determinism makes no difference at all (you're just making that up), there is only determinism or randomness, because the very definition of a deterministic system is that there is no randomness.