Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Steve H,

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

Who (or what) is "we"?

[SteveH]

Steve H,

Who (or what) is "we"?

FFS! (to quote you a post or two ago.)

[bluehillside Retd.]

Steve H,

FFS! (to quote you a post or two ago.)

What is it that's confusing you here? At one level our sense of self provides a working understanding of who "we" are, but there are far deeper levels of fundamentally interconnected particles and forces into which "we" fit. That we make choices in the prosaic sense tells us nothing about substrates of reality that sit beneath that.       

[BeRational]

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

My point was to show that things are not always as they seem.
Alan thinks it obvious that he has a soul, but cannot demonstrate it in any way.

[Alan Burns]

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

But a conscious choice, by definition, is done within our conscious awareness.  I know that Torri claims that the choice occurs in our subconscious before we become aware of it, but that beggars belief when you consider what conscious choices you make - particularly in posting on this forum.  I accept full responsibility for what I consciously choose to post.  I do not write it all off as inevitable subconscious activity which happens before I am aware of it.

[Shaker]

But a conscious choice, by definition, is done within our conscious awareness.  I know that Torri claims that the choice occurs in our subconscious before we become aware of it

Torri doesn't claim it; Torri is accurately reporting on what neuroscience is currently telling us ... more and more, come to that.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But a conscious choice, by definition, is done within our conscious awareness.  I know that Torri claims that the choice occurs in our subconscious before we become aware of it, but that beggars belief when you consider what conscious choices you make - particularly in posting on this forum.  I accept full responsibility for what I consciously choose to post.  I do not write it all off as inevitable subconscious activity which happens before I am aware of it.

That something happens to "beggar" your belief is just yet another outing for the argument from personal incredulity, one of your favourite fallacies. Why bother?   

[Alan Burns]

Steve H,

What is it that's confusing you here? At one level our sense of self provides a working understanding of who "we" are, but there are far deeper levels of fundamentally interconnected particles and forces into which "we" fit. That we make choices in the prosaic sense tells us nothing about substrates of reality that sit beneath that.     

And do you honestly believe that every word you choose to write is generated entirely from substrates of reality which sit beneath your conscious awareness?  You need to come to terms with the oneness of your being which defines who you are and which is ultimately responsible for what you do.  You are much more than just a collection of interacting particles under the control of nothing but the laws of physics.

[Shaker]

Argumentum ad cupcake with knobs on.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

And do you honestly believe that every word you choose to write is generated entirely from substrates of reality which sit beneath your conscious awareness?

As that's what the most robust reasoning and evidence available to me indicates, yes. Why wouldn't I? Why don't you?

You need to come to terms with the oneness of your being which defines who you are and which is ultimately responsible for what you do.  You are much more than just a collection of interacting particles under the control of nothing but the laws of physics.

So you assert. Now all you have to do is to show some workings for your so-far entirely unqualified claims, not least because they so fundamentally contradict the evidence to which both of us have access. Good luck with it though.

[Gordon]

And do you honestly believe that every word you choose to write is generated entirely from substrates of reality which sit beneath your conscious awareness?

Yep, since if not I would think and behave randomly and that would be chaotic.

You need to come to terms with the oneness of your being which defines who you are and which is ultimately responsible for what you do.

'Oneness of your being' eh! That sounds like desperate woo to me, and while I feel responsible for my actions (or lack of) there are circumstances, influences and preferences that apply that are outwith my full control or awareness: so I happen to love motorcycles and Fender guitars but I hate dancing and mayonnaise.   

You are much more than just a collection of interacting particles under the control of nothing but the laws of physics.

I don't think I am, and I don't think you are either, but being 'interacting particles' that are 'under the control of nothing but the laws of physics' does seem sufficient to allow me to live what feels like a meaningful life: you don't like the idea of course, since it doesn't involve your preferred 'God'.

[wigginhall]

It's funny how Alan says "The laws of physics" as if it was Beelzebub.   It shows the horror of being a physical being for some theists, not sure why.

[Shaker]

The world, the flesh and the Devil?

[wigginhall]

Yeah, but it's very old isn't it?   Maybe a denial of being physical, and mortal, limited.  A lot of religious stuff is so grandiose.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

It's funny how Alan says "The laws of physics" as if it was Beelzebub.   It shows the horror of being a physical being for some theists, not sure why.

Quite so. What's curious too is that he keeps asserting that we are "greater" than the material, that there's a lack of imagination required not to accept his assertions whereas pretty obviously I think it's the other way around. His "it feels this way to me, therefore that's the most fundamental truth of it" narrative seems to me to be deeply unimaginative and impoverished. No-one denies our sense of self - but it's added to and enriched I think when we place it in the contexts that physics and chemistry and neuroscience and cosmology and and and... open up for us. It's the old "a garden is no less beautiful for knowing about photosynthesis" line again I suppose, but the point stands.       

[SusanDoris]

Argumentum ad cupcake with knobs on.

[torridon]

But a conscious choice, by definition, is done within our conscious awareness.  I know that Torri claims that the choice occurs in our subconscious before we become aware of it, but that beggars belief when you consider what conscious choices you make - particularly in posting on this forum.  I accept full responsibility for what I consciously choose to post.  I do not write it all off as inevitable subconscious activity which happens before I am aware of it.

That is just your incredulity showing though.  Your incredulity at what we have discovered is not evidence for the contrary; it is merely your incredulity, something personal to you, a measure of how far you have to go to internalise and understand such concepts and catch up. No doubt it would have been the same when we figured out the Earth was round, not flat.  There would have been no shortage of people denying it on the basis that it offended against our deepest intuitions about reality; it meant that people in Sydney Australia after all would be spending all their days upside down, how bonkers is that.  And yet the science does not go away, it grows and gathers strength, and it is for us to keep up with new revelations that grate against our intuitions and develop new conceptualisations that are true to the evidence. Your incredulity is not evidence for the contrary.

[bluehillside Retd.]

torri,

That is just your incredulity showing though.  Your incredulity at what we have discovered is not evidence for the contrary; it is merely your incredulity, something personal to you, a measure of how far you have to go to internalise and understand such concepts and catch up. No doubt it would have been the same when we figured out the Earth was round, not flat.  There would have been no shortage of people denying it on the basis that it offended against our deepest intuitions about reality; it meant that people in Sydney Australia after all would be spending all their days upside down, how bonkers is that.  And yet the science does not go away, it grows and gathers strength, and it is for us to keep up with new revelations that grate against our intuitions and develop new conceptualisations that are true to the evidence. Your incredulity is not evidence for the contrary.

Or to put it another way: AB's failure to understand the evidence does not invalidate the evidence.

[Enki]

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.

Reasons, it seems to me, emanate or rather emerge from the workings of the brain. We might well be consciously aware of them, but they are just as likely in certain situations to emerge from the unconscious, especially, for instance, in creative activities. For example the writer, Diana Athill wrote:

In the early 1960s nine stories "happened" to me. I say "happened" because I did not decide to write them, but suddenly felt a peculiar sort of itch, whch produced them,

Guardian 22nd June 2013

I think Julian Baggini has it about right when he suggests that the 'idea that a choice cannot be free unless at the moment of choice you could have chosen other than you did.' is a myth.

It is not possible to make sense of this alleged capacity in a way that does not reduce choice to a random or capricious process. At the moment of any choice, the one you made was the only one you could have made. The feeling that you could have done otherwise is illusory. But this does not mean that it was not free.

p209 'Freedom Regained' by Julian Baggini

This suggests clearly  that whether it be  conscious or unconscious activity within the brain, there are always reasons for our choices.

On this basis, therefore, it does not matter whether you are talking about unconscious brain activity,  conscious awareness or even whether your 'soul' is making all the decisions(even though there is not the slightest evidence that this 'soul'  actually exists), you make your choices because of reasons. In other words it has to be a deterministic process.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

That something happens to "beggar" your belief is just yet another outing for the argument from personal incredulity, one of your favourite fallacies. Why bother?

I still fail to see how you can accuse someone of personal incredulity and at the same time presume that all their choices are pre determined in their subconscious before they become aware of them.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I still fail to see how you can accuse someone of personal incredulity and at the same time presume that all their choices are pre determined in their subconscious before they become aware of them.

Possibly the answer is in the first five words of that post?

[Gordon]

I still fail to see how you can accuse someone of personal incredulity and at the same time presume that all their choices are pre determined in their subconscious before they become aware of them.

Then may I suggest, Alan, that you concern yourself more with neurology and psychology and dispense with the theology.

[Alan Burns]

Then may I suggest, Alan, that you concern yourself more with neurology and psychology and dispense with the theology.

And how could I consciously choose to do that without the gift of freewill?

[Sebastian Toe]

And how could I consciously choose to do that without the gift of freewill?

Use your brain, finally!

[Gordon]

And how could I consciously choose to do that without the gift of freewill?

You could try using your brain, Alan: it allows you to think, albeit not very well at times.

For example the 'gift of free will' you mentioned is just more fallacious thinking dressed up in hyperbole: your problem is, I feel, that you've decided 'God' a priori so that you insert it into everything you say, here as the giver' of 'the gift of 'free will', and you are unable to process anything that doesn't involve or create space for your 'God', hence you manufacture gaps and contrivances (like 'spiritual determinism').

Perhaps you should try putting 'God' to one side and look again at neurology and psychology sans theoglasses.