Searching for GOD...

[Shaker]

No chance!

[torridon]

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

Easily, given you haven't been able to demonstrate 'free' in any meaningful sense, or 'gift'; both words are spurious additions clouding an understanding of how we make decisions.  The choice you make reflects the person you are at the moment of making a choice, it reflects the balance of desires and fears present in you. You cannot be 'free' of yourself, we cannot want things we do not want or believe things we do not believe.  The idea that we could be 'free' of these things is a nonsense that if it were indeed 'gifted' to us by some deity, it would in fact be a curse leading to the extinction of the human race in short order. There would be no benefit in being 'free' in a profound sense.

[Alan Burns]

Easily, given you haven't been able to demonstrate 'free' in any meaningful sense, or 'gift'; both words are spurious additions clouding an understanding of how we make decisions.  The choice you make reflects the person you are at the moment of making a choice, it reflects the balance of desires and fears present in you. You cannot be 'free' of yourself, we cannot want things we do not want or believe things we do not believe.  The idea that we could be 'free' of these things is a nonsense that if it were indeed 'gifted' to us by some deity, it would in fact be a curse leading to the extinction of the human race in short order. There would be no benefit in being 'free' in a profound sense.

Our free will is simply the freedom to consciously choose between two or more options.  If the hierarchy of our wants is physically predetermined then this just leads to reactions - not consciously driven choices.

[Alan Burns]

Use your brain, finally!

That would obviously require a consciously driven act of will.

[BeRational]

That would obviously require a consciously driven act of will.

Which the brain provides all on its own.

[SteveH]

This has all been said 100 times already, and no-one's changing their mind: isn't it time this tiresome thread was locked or even deleted?

[Alan Burns]

torri,

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

Of course I understand the evidence.

I understand that the evidence which is entirely based upon the observation of the physical electro chemical activity in the material brain will inevitably come up with a conclusion that all human behaviour is entirely attributable to pre defined physical reactions.

But the evidence which is ignored is the human ability to consciously invoke acts of will, and this evidence is written off as an illusion because it does not fit in with the materialistic scenario, even though the materialistic scenario does not fully define our human awareness or how it works.

I put it to you that it is not just a case for the materialistic scenario not being fully explained, but that it is inexplicable - because any materialistic explanation will effectively deny the reality of our freedom to make conscious choices and confer ultimate control to the laws of physics.

[ekim]

Our free will is simply the freedom to consciously choose between two or more options.  If our wants are physically predetermined they are just reactions - not consciously driven choices.

I think what you are failing to pick up on is that your decision will be determined by the options and is therefore not free from those options.  Your wants or desires are either based upon a remembered past of an imagined future or a combination of the two and the consciousness tends to flit between the two.  Your intention to act or not act (will/won't) are not necessarily sub/unconscious reactions but is nevertheless based upon the contents of the options.  It appears that you are trying to present a case of absolute freedom whereas it might be better if you saw the situation as relative freedom e.g. you may act from forgiveness rather than the emotion of blind revenge.  You are relatively free from one but attached to the other.  Usually it is your God with his 'omni' qualities who represents the absolute and I suspect that you do not consider yourself free from Him.

[Shaker]

This has all been said 100 times already, and no-one's changing their mind: isn't it time this tiresome thread was locked or even deleted?

Or ignored, if it's not up your cup of bag?

[Alan Burns]

I think what you are failing to pick up on is that your decision will be determined by the options and is therefore not free from those options.  Your wants or desires are either based upon a remembered past of an imagined future or a combination of the two and the consciousness tends to flit between the two.  Your intention to act or not act (will/won't) are not necessarily sub/unconscious reactions but is nevertheless based upon the contents of the options.  It appears that you are trying to present a case of absolute freedom whereas it might be better if you saw the situation as relative freedom e.g. you may act from forgiveness rather than the emotion of blind revenge.  You are relatively free from one but attached to the other.  Usually it is your God with his 'omni' qualities who represents the absolute and I suspect that you do not consider yourself free from Him.

I have never claimed that human free will infers absolute freedom.

The freedom to make a conscious choice between two or more options simply requires the ability to use our conscious awareness to consider the options available before consciously invoking the choice.  The freedom is denoted by it being a consciously driven choice rather than it being just the inevitable reaction to an endless chain of physically controlled cause and effect events.

[Gordon]

Of course I understand the evidence.

I understand that the evidence which is entirely based upon the observation of the physical electro chemical activity in the material brain will inevitably come up with a conclusion that all human behaviour is entirely attributable to pre defined physical reactions.

Evidence is naturalistic so it doesn't deal with supernatural claims: you'll need a bespoke method for that - do you have one?

But the evidence which is ignored is the human ability to consciously invoke acts of will, and this evidence is written off as an illusion because it does not fit in with the materialistic scenario, even though the materialistic scenario does not fully define our human awareness or how it works.

Neurology and psychology provide compelling evidence that brains are a sufficient explanation for mental activity but there you go 'defining' again so as to contrive a gap in which to insert your God. Why not 'define' mental activity as the outcome of our brain function just as naturally occurring adrenaline is an outcome of our endocrine system?

I put it to you that it is not just a case for the materialistic scenario not being fully explained, but that it is inexplicable - because any materialistic explanation will effectively deny the reality of our freedom to make conscious choices and confer ultimate control to the laws of physics.

I put it to you that you are indulging in your usual trait of systemic fallacious thinking.

[Sebastian Toe]

That would obviously require a consciously driven act of will.

No, it would obviously require you to use your brain.
In fact you are doing it now, oblivious to you though.
No soul required.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

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

You can't have it both ways, Blue.

Either I have the freedom to consciously choose my words - in which case I can rightly be accused of personal incredulity.

Or all my choices are in fact physically predetermined in subconscious brain activity, in which case there is no possibility for me being personally responsible for the choices I make.

[Alan Burns]

No, it would obviously require you to use your brain.
In fact you are doing it now, oblivious to you though.
No soul required.

Can you not see the error in your use of words here?
The phrase, "require you to use your brain" surely infers that the "you" in this phrase is the instigator of the action required to "use your brain".  To instigate such action requires freedom for the "you" to make a conscious choice to "use their brain" - a freedom which does not exist in the materialistic physically determined scenario.

[BeRational]

Can you not see the error in your use of words here?
The phrase, "require you to use your brain" surely infers that the "you" in this phrase is the instigator of the action required to "use your brain".  To instigate such action requires freedom for the "you" to make a conscious choice to "use their brain" - a freedom which does not exist in the materialistic physically determined scenario.

You are your brain.

[torridon]

Our free will is simply the freedom to consciously choose between two or more options.  If the hierarchy of our wants is physically predetermined then this just leads to reactions - not consciously driven choices.

Robins choose between two or more options in choosing a nesting site. Humans can choose between two or more options when ordering a drink at the bar.  Both are 'free' in the trivial sense, ie nobody is forcing us to pick one or the other.  Neither are free in the more profound sense, that in making a choice we are manifesting our will and we have no control over our will.  This is not so difficult.  Yes, we have free will in a trivial sense, but if you want to validate your claim to think deeply about things you need to progress beyond the merely superficial.

[Sebastian Toe]

Can you not see the error in your use of words here?
The phrase, "require you to use your brain" surely infers that the "you" in this phrase is the instigator of the action required to "use your brain".  To instigate such action requires freedom for the "you" to make a conscious choice to "use their brain" - a freedom which does not exist in the materialistic physically determined scenario.

"You" use your brain in the sense that "you" are defined by the unimaginable amount of synaptic reactions that are bubbling around in your physical brain.
Emerging to define the concious "you" which lags behind by fractions of a second.
Sufficient to survive, live, love a full and normal life.
No soul required.

[Alan Burns]

You are your brain.

But if the brain is entirely material based, the only control is in predetermined physical reactions - hence no possibility for the brain to invoke any choice of its own instigation.  Everything will be defined by predetermined reactions - no possibility of choice.

[Alan Burns]

Robins choose between two or more options in choosing a nesting site. Humans can choose between two or more options when ordering a drink at the bar.  Both are 'free' in the trivial sense, ie nobody is forcing us to pick one or the other.  Neither are free in the more profound sense, that in making a choice we are manifesting our will and we have no control over our will.  This is not so difficult.  Yes, we have free will in a trivial sense, but if you want to validate your claim to think deeply about things you need to progress beyond the merely superficial.

Robins react according to pre preprogramed instinct and learnt experiences - no choice just reaction.

[Alan Burns]

"You" use your brain in the sense that "you" are defined by the unimaginable amount of synaptic reactions that are bubbling around in your physical brain.
Emerging to define the concious "you" which lags behind by fractions of a second.
Sufficient to survive, live, love a full and normal life.
No soul required.

No amount of physical complexity or "unimaginable amount of synaptic reactions that are bubbling around in your physical brain" can change the basic underlying behaviour of physically predetermined cause and effect which denies any freedom of choice and inevitably reduces every outcome to be the result of predetermined physical reactions.  If consciously driven choice exists, it is not a predetermined result of material properties but is evidence of non material sources which can invoke a choice rather than a reaction.

[ippy]

You can't have it both ways, Blue.

Either I have the freedom to consciously choose my words - in which case I can rightly be accused of personal incredulity.

Or all my choices are in fact physically predetermined in subconscious brain activity, in which case there is no possibility for me being personally responsible for the choices I make.

Tell that one to the judge.

Commiserations Alan, ippy

[Gordon]

If consciously driven choice exists, it is not a predetermined result of material properties but is evidence of non material sources which can invoke a choice rather than a reaction.

So, what form does these non-material sources take: what are the main characteristics, how are these observed and measured and are professional scientists who study the brain and its functions investigating these non-material sources you speak of?

If they aren't then presumably they have urgent need of your advice.

[ekim]

I have never claimed that human free will infers absolute freedom.

The freedom to make a conscious choice between two or more options simply requires the ability to use our conscious awareness to consider the options available before consciously invoking the choice.  The freedom is denoted by it being a consciously driven choice rather than it being just the inevitable reaction to an endless chain of physically controlled cause and effect events.

OK, then if the human will is not absolutely free then the alternative is that it is determined by assessment of the options.  The Jesus way out of this was to sacrifice what he willed and surrender to the Will of his God even if it meant his death.  He became consciously choiceless.  I think you are also confusing consciousness with will.

[BeRational]

But if the brain is entirely material based, the only control is in predetermined physical reactions - hence no possibility for the brain to invoke any choice of its own instigation.  Everything will be defined by predetermined reactions - no possibility of choice.

How would that feel?

[BeRational]

Robins react according to pre preprogramed instinct and learnt experiences - no choice just reaction.

Yours might also just reaction, but it 'feels' like a choice.

Just like the sky looks blue, when it is not blue. Blue does NOT exist.