Searching for GOD...

[jeremyp]

They are not solid.

Yes they are. Try kicking one with your bare foot. You'll soon be aware of how solid it is.

The sky is not blue.

Yes it is. You only have to look at it see that.

It just seems that way to us.

"Solid" is a word we use to describe when you can't push one thing made of atoms through another thing made of atoms. The fact that these things are really elaborate electric fields and it is the repulsion between electrons that stops things from being pushed through each other is the explanation of why things are solid, not a refutation that they are solid.

Blue is something our brains apply to the sensation we receive when our eyes look at stuff whose major electromagnetic emissions in the visible spectrum are within a certain frequency range. This applies to the sky as much as it does to the blue pigment representing the sky in a painting.

[BeRational]

Yes they are. Try kicking one with your bare foot. You'll soon be aware of how solid it is.Yes it is. You only have to look at it see that. "Solid" is a word we use to describe when you can't push one thing made of atoms through another thing made of atoms. The fact that these things are really elaborate electric fields and it is the repulsion between electrons that stops things from being pushed through each other is the explanation of why things are solid, not a refutation that they are solid.

Blue is something our brains apply to the sensation we receive when our eyes look at stuff whose major electromagnetic emissions in the visible spectrum are within a certain frequency range. This applies to the sky as much as it does to the blue pigment representing the sky in a painting.

Things as you say are really fields and not matter, so they are not solid.

Blue does not even exist in reality. Colour exists in your brain and is not a feature of reality. You could never talk to someone from another planet and describe something as blue.
You cannot even know what looks blue to you looks the same to others.

The point is, the way things seem to us in common sense, are not always as they are.

[SteveH]

Yes they are. Try kicking one with your bare foot. You'll soon be aware of how solid it is.Yes it is. You only have to look at it see that. "Solid" is a word we use to describe when you can't push one thing made of atoms through another thing made of atoms. The fact that these things are really elaborate electric fields and it is the repulsion between electrons that stops things from being pushed through each other is the explanation of why things are solid, not a refutation that they are solid.

Blue is something our brains apply to the sensation we receive when our eyes look at stuff whose major electromagnetic emissions in the visible spectrum are within a certain frequency range. This applies to the sky as much as it does to the blue pigment representing the sky in a painting.

Exactly. Nice to know there's someone else on this forum with a bit of sense.

[BeRational]

Exactly. Nice to know there's someone else on this forum with a bit of sense.

Atoms are mainly empty space, it is the electrons that give the impression of things being solid, but it is mainly empty space.

To a neutrino though it does not look solid at all due to the scale.

If it was solid how do they pass through?

[torridon]

You claim my perception of freewill is superficial, but the evidence for this claim lies in a presumption that my perception is entirely defined by physical brain activity alone.  However the evidence for the reality of my freewill surely lies in every action I consciously invoke - hence my postings on this thread.  Can you honestly claim that every post I make is entirely driven by nothing but physically predetermined reactions to previous events in my brain?  Yes - I know you will just write this off as personal incredulity, but how can it be personal if it is entirely driven by naturally occurring physical reactions?This assertion just presumes that the freewill of my human soul must be driven by something else.  Can you not understand the concept of will, and that it is the instigator of an act of will, not just a mechanism driven by something else?I have not come across any convincing evidence that I do not have the gift of freewill.

You must have a very short memory then given the number of times people have provided illustrations of why your claim of free will is irrational and self contradictory.  Human will always arises for a reason, we do not develop desires for no reason, that would be random, and choices we make reflect our uppermost desire in a moment of making a choice.  How can it be 'free' if we have no control over what we like or how much we like things.  This is a simple insight into the nature of life.  At a fundamental level we do not choose how we react to events; if I put a strawberry in my mouth I don't choose whether the sensation is pleasurable or not.  The choices we make reflect our preferences at the moment of making a choice, and if we have no control over competing preferences how can the choice be 'free' ?  Our preferences in the present moment invariably derive from the past, this is the reason for the evolution of memory - past experience informs our ability to make choices in the present and the choice we make reflects our uppermost preference in the present moment given that knowledge from the past.

[torridon]

Of course they're bloody well true. Yes, I know a wall is mostly empty space, but it is solid in the normal sense of the word, because it's hard and impenetrable. The air lets through more of the blue than any other oart of the spectrum, therefore the sky looks blue. As George Orwell once said, "some beliefs are so silly only an intellectual could hold them". This is a classic example of what he called "silly-cleverness".

That is tantamount to arguing in favour of a flat earth.  For most practical purposes I can imagine the Earth to be flat, I don't need to consider the curvature of the Earth to get to work in the morning.  Neither do I need to consider the curvature of spacetime on my morning commute.  That does not mean these things are not true.  We get by in daily life with simplified models of what reality is like, we need to conserve energy so handy simplistic approximations are a pragmatic trade off.  If, however, people start claiming those simplistic approximations are fundamental reality then it is fair to challenge that misconception.   That, in a nutshell, accounts for this thread; Alan likes to claim his experience of free will as some fundamental reality, whereas others point out that, well, its not really that simple, there are always underlying and precursor reasons for things if we care to examine in more depth.

[Alan Burns]

You must have a very short memory then given the number of times people have provided illustrations of why your claim of free will is irrational and self contradictory.  Human will always arises for a reason, we do not develop desires for no reason, that would be random, and choices we make reflect our uppermost desire in a moment of making a choice.  How can it be 'free' if we have no control over what we like or how much we like things.  This is a simple insight into the nature of life.  At a fundamental level we do not choose how we react to events; if I put a strawberry in my mouth I don't choose whether the sensation is pleasurable or not.  The choices we make reflect our preferences at the moment of making a choice, and if we have no control over competing preferences how can the choice be 'free' ?  Our preferences in the present moment invariably derive from the past, this is the reason for the evolution of memory - past experience informs our ability to make choices in the present and the choice we make reflects our uppermost preference in the present moment given that knowledge from the past.

But the illustrations you use are just examples of facts over which we have no choice.  We can't choose to contradict a fact which we know to be true, such as the sensation of taste from a strawberry.  Our choices involve the internal control of our brain functions which define our chosen actions.  We are aware of our preferences, but we have freedom to choose how, when and where to indulge in them or not.  It is not magic.  It is not random.  It is reality and it can't be explained in terms of physically pre defined reactions which effectively deny this freedom.  Any attempt to define our freedom to choose in terms of physical material reactions is doomed to failure, because any physical explanation denies the reality of this freedom.

[Enki]

But the illustrations you use are just examples of facts over which we have no choice.  We can't choose to contradict a fact which we know to be true, such as the sensation of taste from a strawberry.  Our choices involve the internal control of our brain functions which define our chosen actions.  We are aware of our preferences, but we have freedom to choose how, when and where to indulge in them or not.  It is not magic.  It is not random.  It is reality and it can't be explained in terms of physically pre defined reactions which effectively deny this freedom.  Any attempt to define our freedom to choose in terms of physical material reactions is doomed to failure, because any physical explanation denies the reality of this freedom.

Except that you consistently refuse to give reasons for our choosing of 'how, when and where'. At least you agree that it's not random, which means that there have to be reasons for our choices. Hence, if there are reasons, how could we make any other choice than the one we do actually make?  It doesn't make any difference as to whether your 'soul' or your brain is in charge, the above still applies.

[torridon]

But the illustrations you use are just examples of facts over which we have no choice.  We can't choose to contradict a fact which we know to be true, such as the sensation of taste from a strawberry.  Our choices involve the internal control of our brain functions which define our chosen actions.  We are aware of our preferences, but we have freedom to choose how, when and where to indulge in them or not.  It is not magic.  It is not random.  It is reality and it can't be explained in terms of physically pre defined reactions which effectively deny this freedom.  Any attempt to define our freedom to choose in terms of physical material reactions is doomed to failure, because any physical explanation denies the reality of this freedom.

It is not just that we have no control over external 'facts', we have no control over our encounters with external realities.  The taste of strawberry may be an external 'fact' in the sense that it can be defined in terms of chemicals, but our response to that taste - on a subjective scale of values - is also something we have no control over.  Hence some people like marmite whilst others hate it.  This subjective involuntary response is the signature of determinism as it manifests in human mind and our choices are made in the context of this underlying reality.  Whatever we choose to do in the next moment is by definition the thing that we most want to do in the next moment and given we have no control over what our tastes are or how strong our likes and dislikes are the conclusion can only be that our choices are deterministic. We can try to face up to this reality of our true nature, or we can do as you, flounder around looking for ways to deny it, hoping 'spiritual', or 'physical' or 'material' somehow gives us grounds for denial.  It doesn't.  Better surely, that we are honest about things.

[Alan Burns]

Except that you consistently refuse to give reasons for our choosing of 'how, when and where'. At least you agree that it's not random, which means that there have to be reasons for our choices. Hence, if there are reasons, how could we make any other choice than the one we do actually make?  It doesn't make any difference as to whether your 'soul' or your brain is in charge, the above still applies.

The reason obviously stems from a consciously driven act of will.  My conscious awareness is what defines me, and the ability of my conscious awareness to invoke a choice is a fundamental part of what defines me.  I do what my conscious awareness chooses.  To deny this ability to choose is tantamount to denying the reality of my own existence.

[SteveH]

Things as you say are really fields and not matter, so they are not solid.

Blue does not even exist in reality. Colour exists in your brain and is not a feature of reality. You could never talk to someone from another planet and describe something as blue.
You cannot even know what looks blue to you looks the same to others.

The point is, the way things seem to us in common sense, are not always as they are.

I think you're commiting the fallacy of false analogy.

[Alan Burns]

It is not just that we have no control over external 'facts', we have no control over our encounters with external realities.  The taste of strawberry may be an external 'fact' in the sense that it can be defined in terms of chemicals, but our response to that taste - on a subjective scale of values - is also something we have no control over.  Hence some people like marmite whilst others hate it.  This subjective involuntary response is the signature of determinism as it manifests in human mind and our choices are made in the context of this underlying reality.  Whatever we choose to do in the next moment is by definition the thing that we most want to do in the next moment and given we have no control over what our tastes are or how strong our likes and dislikes are the conclusion can only be that our choices are deterministic. We can try to face up to this reality of our true nature, or we can do as you, flounder around looking for ways to deny it, hoping 'spiritual', or 'physical' or 'material' somehow gives us grounds for denial.  It doesn't.  Better surely, that we are honest about things.

You continue to try to equate our conscious choices with things over which we have no choice.  I agree that we can't choose our preferences, or our likes and dislikes.  These are hard wired into us and we have no choice in them.  But to extrapolate this to infer that we have no choice in anything is not a logical deduction.  It is very easy to differentiate between things we have no choice in, and things which can be determined by our freedom to make a conscious choice.

[SteveH]

You continue to try to equate our conscious choices with things over which we have no choice.  I agree that we can't choose our preferences, or our likes and dislikes.  These are hard wired into us and we have no choice in them.  But to extrapolate this to infer that we have no choice in anything is not a logical deduction.  It is very easy to differentiate between things we have no choice in, and things which can be determined by our freedom to make a conscious choice.

This is true. We can choose between different likes, or choose to forego them for a period (in Lent, for example).

[Enki]

The reason obviously stems from a consciously driven act of will.  My conscious awareness is what defines me, and the ability of my conscious awareness to invoke a choice is a fundamental part of what defines me.  I do what my conscious awareness chooses.  To deny this ability to choose is tantamount to denying the reality of my own existence.

That doesn't answer the question. If your 'conscious awareness' is responsible for invoking a choice, then there has to be reasons for it to invoke that choice.(You have eliminated any random element). If there are reasons, I ask you again, how could we make any other choice than the one we do actually make?

[torridon]

You continue to try to equate our conscious choices with things over which we have no choice.  I agree that we can't choose our preferences, or our likes and dislikes.  These are hard wired into us and we have no choice in them.  But to extrapolate this to infer that we have no choice in anything is not a logical deduction.  It is very easy to differentiate between things we have no choice in, and things which can be determined by our freedom to make a conscious choice.

I'm not sure about 'hard wired'.  There is nothing hard wired about us, we have plasticity of mind.  The only thing that could reasonably be described in those terms is our DNA which is fixed at the moment of conception, and thereafter we develop individually as each of us follows a unique path through life.  The choices we make at any moment in time reflect the person we have become, to that moment in time and we cannot choose to be other on the spur of the moment. Plasticity of mind means we are changed over time by our encounters in life; we do not 'choose'  to become other by dint of willpower, we become other as a result of our interactions.  We cannot simply choose to change, without the motivation to change being there already.

[torridon]

This is true. We can choose between different likes, or choose to forego them for a period (in Lent, for example).

Yes, true, in a trivial, superficial sense.  Not true in any profound sense.

[SteveH]

That doesn't answer the question. If your 'conscious awareness' is responsible for invoking a choice, then there has to be reasons for it to invoke that choice.(You have eliminated any random element). If there are reasons, I ask you again, how could we make any other choice than the one we do actually make?

Maybe we can't, but the choice we do make is nevertheless our choice.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Yet despite all your detailed arguments to the contrary, I still have the freedom to contradict you and tell you are wrong, and the very act of consciously choosing to do this emanates from what exactly?

You’re either unable to process the arguments that undo you or obdurate – I really can’t work out which it is.

What my “detailed arguments” do is to rebut one at a time the arguments you attempt to validate your faith beliefs. That you have no counter-arguments to the rebuttals means they stand – so why then keep returning to the same failed arguments nonetheless?

As for “the very act of consciously choosing to do this emanates from what exactly”, I really don’t know what point you think you’re making given that the answer has been given to you countless times already. It “emanates” from unfathomably long and complex chains of causal events that themselves produce emergent properties such as consciousness. And necessarily consciousness only appears for functional purposes to involve “free” will that’s unfettered from prior events, even though more considered reasoning will tell you that that proposition is incoherent.

What you do though is to stop before you do the considered reasoning part, preferring instead to think that because you feel deeply that something is true than that belief must be an accurate guide to a fundamental truth. You also recognise though that to make that notion work you also have to invent an invisible little man at the controls you call "soul" who’s unbounded from logic so you have to invoke magical thinking instead so as to get you off that hook.

And that’s your problem. Superficial, “well that’s how it feels to me” truths have been inherited as an evolutionary compromise – they give us “good enough” truths necessary for our survival but they cannot on their own dig into substrates of underlying, more fundamental truths. For those we need thinking – sometimes hard thinking – and tools and methods and research and all sorts of things that give us richer understandings than our first impressions can.

Why you stick with the first impression explanation and reject the thought through ones (even though presumably you accept them when they inform other aspects of your life, like germs rather an imbalance in your humours causing disease) is a matter for you. It’s an awful indictment though I think of the hopeless position that you’re a priori faith beliefs cause you to adopt.                   

[Rhiannon]

This is true. We can choose between different likes, or choose to forego them for a period (in Lent, for example).

How much freedom do you have there though, in actually making that choice? You may feel morally and religiously obliged to observe Lent, so foregoing a like becomes a better option . If you broke the fast, how would you feel? Or you may not believe that Lent needs to be observed, in which case you can't choose to believe that it does.

[Rhiannon]

Maybe we can't, but the choice we do make is nevertheless our choice.

Yes, but driven by things that are outside our control - life experiences, beliefs, our personalities, genetic makeup, wealth, job, the country we live in...

[Enki]

Maybe we can't, but the choice we do make is nevertheless our choice.

And I agree completely. The word 'choice' according to the OED is 'the act of choosing between two or more possibilities.' Hence, as long as we are not constrained by outside agency, we make choices all the time. However, I am talking about the actual act of choosing here, and there are two possibilities( we decide randomly or for reasons). AB has eliminated any random element, so, in his argument, we are left with reasons for making a choice. My point is that making choices for reasons is deterministic, whether our choices are arrived at through conscious/unconscious activity within the brain or through AB's proposed 'soul'.

[Alan Burns]

And I agree completely. The word 'choice' according to the OED is 'the act of choosing between two or more possibilities.' Hence, as long as we are not constrained by outside agency, we make choices all the time. However, I am talking about the actual act of choosing here, and there are two possibilities( we decide randomly or for reasons). AB has eliminated any random element, so, in his argument, we are left with reasons for making a choice. My point is that making choices for reasons is deterministic, whether our choices are arrived at through conscious/unconscious activity within the brain or through AB's proposed 'soul'.

But where do reasons emanate from?  We are consciously aware of reasons before we choose to act upon them.  It is this buffer of conscious awareness which facilitates conscious choice rather than just undertaking unavoidable reaction.

[torridon]

But where do reasons emanate from?  We are consciously aware of reasons before we choose to act upon them.  It is this buffer of conscious awareness which facilitates conscious choice rather than just undertaking unavoidable reaction.

It always has to come down to weighing up alternatives to identify the option that has the most appeal in the moment.  And that we cannot force one option to be more appealing than another is consistent with a deterministic account of choice. We all resolve choices this way, it eventually comes to the same thing whether you are a forex trader considering a stop loss strategy or a robin choosing a nesting site. The difference between the robin and the trader is in terms of complexity managed and cognitive resources involved. All options are rendered on a scale of emotional values and we identify the one with the most appeal in the moment.

[Rhiannon]

But where do reasons emanate from?  We are consciously aware of reasons before we choose to act upon them.  It is this buffer of conscious awareness which facilitates conscious choice rather than just undertaking unavoidable reaction.

We aren't aware of the subconscious choices that we make, or the subconscious reasons why we make them.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But where do reasons emanate from?  We are consciously aware of reasons before we choose to act upon them.  It is this buffer of conscious awareness which facilitates conscious choice rather than just undertaking unavoidable reaction.

FFS!