Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

And our intentions all have roots, they do not emerge out of nowhere, they are all part of the grand cycle of cause and effect, from which we can never be free; never be free, unless, that is, we run with a superficial view of the workings of mind. 'Why did I do that - just because I wanted to, end of story' - is a superficial understanding of the nature of volition and agency that ignores the fact that 'just because I wanted to' isn't in fact the end of the story, that story goes way back and we cannot be free of that derivation.

Yes, our intentions have roots, but roots exist in the past.  Our intentions exist in our present awareness and are subject to conscious control.  The roots of our intentions have influence, but they do not dictate our choices.  Everything you say in your posts is obviously composed in the present through conscious choice - it is not just a predetermined reaction to past events.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The reason that you can't perceive the difference between "determined" and "predetermined" lies in your presumption that everything is physically defined, and in doing so you are restricting yourselves to a very short sighted view of reality.

Wrong on several levels:

1. The reason is actually because there is no difference. If something is determined it happens because of prior events. Adding the suffix "pre" doesn't change that.

2. There is a presumption of materialism yes because, up to now at least, no-one has ever managed to demonstrate something other than the material. Just asserting something
as you do doesn't bring it into existence.

3. It's not a "short sighted view of reality" at all - it's just a refusal to accept your unqualified and irrational assertions about your personal reality, which itself is fundamentally impoverished and misguided for relying entirely on your feelings for ultimate truths rather than accepting the evidence from logic and science of deeper and different realities beneath.   

The difference between determined and predetermined is real and obvious.  It defines the difference between humans and robots.  It defines the difference between choice and reaction.

Incoherent nonsense, for reasons that have been explained to you countless times but that you ignore nonetheless. Why bother with it?

[Gordon]

Gordon, Blue,

The reason that you can't perceive the difference between "determined" and "predetermined" lies in your presumption that everything is physically defined, and in doing so you are restricting yourselves to a very short sighted view of reality.

Nope: 'determined' is sufficient. This is just one of your attempts to create a different class of something that you can then use to claim 'God': you tried the same trick with 'spiritual determinism', and we saw through that too.   

The difference between determined and predetermined is real and obvious.  It defines the difference between humans and robots.  It defines the difference between choice and reaction.

Just nonsense: by the way, you've yet to clarify whether my food phobia (see #31548) is an intrinsic part of the unconscious biological me that determines my conscious willed behaviour in restaurants, or whether it is my 'soul' that has the problem and is making 'me' picky over certain foods.   

[Robbie]

I'm sure I referred to Dr Rowe the Australian and that she was a world renown Dr of psychology?

It would be for you to investigate and find out first hand Gabriella, only if it were to come to you via myself I could easily be accused of information bias.

Regards ippy.

No you wouldn't. Dr Rowe has written several books, it's unrealistic to expect someone to read them all in one go and would be quite in order for you to provide a quotation.

Gabriella this may give you some insight into Dorothy Rowe's theories (& I post this with no bias):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/people/rowe.shtml

[SteveH]

Gordon, Blue,

http://www.aguter.plus.com/bristow/gordon_blue.htm

[ippy]

No you wouldn't. Dr Rowe has written several books, it's unrealistic to expect someone to read them all in one go and would be quite in order for you to provide a quotation.

Gabriella this may give you some insight into Dorothy Rowe's theories (& I post this with no bias):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/people/rowe.shtml

Gabriella recommended a psychologist in one of her posts, I recommended another psychologist in one of my posts Rob?

Regards ippy

[Robbie]

http://www.aguter.plus.com/bristow/gordon_blue.htm

When I saw 'Gordon, Blue' I thought the same  .

[Robbie]

Gabriella recommended a psychologist in one of her posts, I recommended another psychologist in one of my posts Rob?

Regards ippy

Yes Gabriella did suggest Magda Ossman, and provided a link, not expecting everyone to plough through all her writings.

[torridon]

Yes, our intentions have roots, but roots exist in the past.....

and that is why we cannot change them. To change our intentions in the current moment would mean revisiting the past where they formed.  If something convinced me that Paris was in France, I cannot just decide to be unconvinced of that in the present moment; that is not how mind works.   If I tasted some guava and found it delightful, I cannot just decide that guava is awful in the present moment; mind does not work like that.  All our competing desires are in constant churn and whatever we choose to do in the present moment reflects the state of that churn, we choose always the action that has the most appeal in the current moment, and we cannot arbitrarily just decide to like something we don't like or believe something we don't believe.  Something would have to happen to alter that pattern of emotions.  This is what is meant when we say that our choices reflect the person we have become; we cannot become someone else on demand; something has to happen to alter us, there needs to be a reason for the change.

[Alan Burns]

and that is why we cannot change them. To change our intentions in the current moment would mean revisiting the past where they formed.  If something convinced me that Paris was in France, I cannot just decide to be unconvinced of that in the present moment; that is not how mind works.   If I tasted some guava and found it delightful, I cannot just decide that guava is awful in the present moment; mind does not work like that.  All our competing desires are in constant churn and whatever we choose to do in the present moment reflects the state of that churn, we choose always the action that has the most appeal in the current moment, and we cannot arbitrarily just decide to like something we don't like or believe something we don't believe.  Something would have to happen to alter that pattern of emotions.  This is what is meant when we say that our choices reflect the person we have become; we cannot become someone else on demand; something has to happen to alter us, there needs to be a reason for the change.

Torri,
Please stop confusing yourself by quoting examples of facts or tastes in which we obviously have no choice.  We have no power to change an intention at the current moment, but we do have the conscious control to invoke whatever we choose to do at the current moment.  Some functions of our body such as heartbeat are automated.  Some such as breathing are automated with manual override, which facilitates our conscious choice of speech.  We have no choice over the taste of guava or any other food.  We have no choice over geographical facts.  But I do have conscious choice over what to write in this post, a choice which is determined by my conscious willpower.

[Alan Burns]

Nope: 'determined' is sufficient. This is just one of your attempts to create a different class of something that you can then use to claim 'God': you tried the same trick with 'spiritual determinism', and we saw through that too.   

You can't change the use of language to fit in with your personal beliefs or disbeliefs.  "Predetermined" and "determined" are different words with different meanings.  The former refers to an inevitable reaction.  The latter applies to a consciously driven choice.

Just nonsense: by the way, you've yet to clarify whether my food phobia (see #31548) is an intrinsic part of the unconscious biological me that determines my conscious willed behaviour in restaurants, or whether it is my 'soul' that has the problem and is making 'me' picky over certain foods.   

As I explained to Torri, we can't choose what things taste like to us.  But every word I type in this reply is consciously chosen by the willpower of my human soul, not by the uncontrollable physical reactions in my brain cells.

[Sebastian Toe]

"Forces of evil".
Any sign of a coherent definition?

[Alan Burns]

"Forces of evil".
Any sign of a coherent definition?

You could get a taste for this by reading CS Lewis's "Screwtape Letters" and his follow up "Screwtape proposes a toast".  In writing these works, Lewis later revealed how disturbed he felt in touching upon the reality of evil and how it works.

[Gordon]

You can't change the use of language to fit in with your personal beliefs or disbeliefs.  "Predetermined" and "determined" are different words with different meanings.

I'm not: 'determinism' covers the ground adequately.

The former refers to an inevitable reaction.

I suspect you are using it in the sense of fatalism, and that no human agency is ever possible: nobody is far as I can see is arguing that.

The latter applies to a consciously driven choice.As I explained to Torri, we can't choose what things taste like to us.  But every word I type in this reply is consciously chosen by the willpower of my human soul, not by the uncontrollable physical reactions in my brain cells.

Leaving aside the fallacies in the above, that is the way it feels to you: but then there are determinants that will influence what you think and feel, and how you express these in what you type. Try typing with personal conviction that 'Christianity is a steaming pile of hogwash' and actually mean it: I think that, as things stand, and while you could choose to type these words, I don't think you could choose to subscribe to the sentiment and really mean it - so you aren't as 'free' as you'd like to think you are.

[Alan Burns]

I'm not: 'determinism' covers the ground adequately.

So you assert.
I consciously choose to disagree for reasons I have given previously.

I suspect you are using it in the sense of fatalism, and that no human agency is ever possible: nobody is far as I can see is arguing that.

It depends what you mean by agency.  I see it as the freedom to invoke consciously driven choices.  The soul and its functionality is part of what makes us human.

Leaving aside the fallacies in the above, that is the way it feels to you: but then there are determinants that will influence what you think and feel, and how you express these in what you type. Try typing with personal conviction that 'Christianity is a steaming pile of hogwash' and actually mean it: I think that, as things stand, and while you could choose to type these words, I don't think you could choose to subscribe to the sentiment and really mean it - so you aren't as 'free' as you'd like to think you are.

I can't choose to change what I believe to be true, but I am free to choose the words which express my innermost convictions.

[Gordon]

It depends what you mean by agency.

That you can make some choices.

I see it as the freedom to invoke consciously driven choices.

Then I think you are over-egging the freedom: your choices would only be free of determinism if they were random, and I'm struggling to understand how you could, or would even want to, consciously make a random choice that was free from any determinants: I'm not sure you can. Your feeling of having 'free will' comes with conditions attached whether you like it or not.

The soul and its functionality is part of what makes us human.

Humans are biological animals, so 'human soul' is an oxymoron.

I can't choose to change what I believe to be true, but I am free to choose the words which express my innermost convictions.

Then you really aren't quite as free as you'd like to think you are.

[Sebastian Toe]

You could get a taste for this by reading CS Lewis's "Screwtape Letters" and his follow up "Screwtape proposes a toast".  In writing these works, Lewis later revealed how disturbed he felt in touching upon the reality of evil and how it works.

...or you could tell me what they are as you brought them into the conversations.
Unless you don't know, which would make your comments about them quite bizarre.

[Alan Burns]

Then I think you are over-egging the freedom: your choices would only be free of determinism if they were random, and I'm struggling to understand how you could, or would even want to, consciously make a random choice that was free from any determinants: I'm not sure you can. Your feeling of having 'free will' comes with conditions attached whether you like it or not.

How many times do I have to say this -
Choices are not free of determinism
They are determined by conscious human will, not purely by physically controlled reactions.
Nothing at all to do with random.

Humans are biological animals, so 'human soul' is an oxymoron.

Assertion.
Biology is just the study of the physical part of our human self.
It does not exclude the possibility of a human soul.

Then you really aren't quite as free as you'd like to think you are.

I am still free to choose the words to reply to your post.
Biology alone allows no degree of freedom - just the inevitable consequence of physically controlled reactions.

[torridon]

Torri,
Please stop confusing yourself by quoting examples of facts or tastes in which we obviously have no choice.  We have no power to change an intention at the current moment, but we do have the conscious control to invoke whatever we choose to do at the current moment....

You are contradicting yourself here within one sentence.  "Whatever we choose to to at the current moment" is our intention in the current moment.

For us to have a change of mind, there must be some reason for that, we cannot choose to change our intention for no reason, that would be random.  Something has to happen for a change of mind to occur.

[torridon]

But every word I type in this reply is consciously chosen by the willpower of my human soul, not by the uncontrollable physical reactions in my brain cells.

"Soul" is just unevidenced assertion that further muddies understanding.

Also, I think you have forgotten,or maybe even not grasped, the implications of the capital cities thought experiment, The words you choose reflect the person you are and you cannot be someone else.  Did you 'consciously choose' English words to express your sentiment rather than French words, or Swahili words ? I think not, you came out with English words because that reflects the person you are.  Nobody has the mental resources to hold 20,000 words in conscious mind as if you could consciously survey them and choose;  as you write your sentence, words are yielded up into conscious mind by subliminal subconscious process. You don't exercise 'conscious control' over that level of mind function; you cannot choose a word that you have forgotten for instance,

[Gordon]

Biology is just the study of the physical part of our human self.
It does not exclude the possibility of a human soul.

So what is the alternative method, if we regard biology as being out-of-scope, that is used to study 'souls'?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

How many times do I have to say this -
Choices are not free of determinism
They are determined by conscious human will, not purely by physically controlled reactions.
Nothing at all to do with random.

You can say it as often as you like, but it’s still wrong. If you want to invoke a “human will” that somehow floats free of the determined vs random logical dilemma than you’ll need to explain how it does work. Good luck with that though. 

Assertion.

You’re accusing someone else of assertion? Seriously? This from someone who asserts “soul” over and over again without once troubling to tell what it is, how it works, how you’d identify it etc? You old son are the king of assertion.

Anyway, Gordon’s point in any case rather was that “human soul” is a tautology. As your entirely unqualified assertion is not only “soul” but also that non-human animals apparently don’t have one he was quite right about that.   
 

Biology is just the study of the physical part of our human self.
It does not exclude the possibility of a human soul.

Will you finally please try at least to get this right? No scientific theory about anything will exclude the possibility of any speculation that’s not investigable using the tools and methods of science. Souls, leprechauns, orbiting teapots, storks delivering babies – it really doesn’t matter. Your ginormous problem remains though how to get from a possible to a probable – what method would you propose to investigate your remarkable (and fundamentally irrational ) claim of “soul”?   
 

I am still free to choose the words to reply to your post.
Biology alone allows no degree of freedom - just the inevitable consequence of physically controlled reactions.

If you think you’re “free” in the sense that your actions are not the outcome of prior events then you’re acting randomly. If you want to posit an invisible little man at the controls (for which there’s no evidence whatever) though which you think is actually doing the choosing, then you’ve just shifted the same determined vs random problem to that little man.

And if all you have in response about how your little man would resolve that is, “it’s magic” then you have nothing to say to people capable of thinking.       

[ippy]

Yes Gabriella did suggest Magda Ossman, and provided a link, not expecting everyone to plough through all her writings.

No link needed For Dorothy she's world famous, try her name on Google, she also did a lot of work broadcasting on the BBC, oh yes have a look at where someone in the BBC's R & E department edited some of her broadcasting work and in effect turned her works meaning through 180 degrees, she didn't sue but could have done, sorry can't remember what it was about.

Don't forget the BBC's 100% even handed on all subjects, cough cough.

Regards ippy

[Robbie]

I know about Dorothy and she has written loads of books. Stop being unreasonable. Anyone who wants to mention a source provides a link, I did. I don't understand why you didn't provide some sort of link if not chapter and verse, have you not actually read any of her work which I suspect?

Don't answer because thread has moved past all this so let's leave it, no point in it being bogged down unless Gabriella wants to mention again.

[jjohnjil]

How many times do I have to say this -
Choices are not free of determinism
They are determined by conscious human will, not purely by physically controlled reactions.
Nothing at all to do with random.Assertion.
Biology is just the study of the physical part of our human self.
It does not exclude the possibility of a human soul.I am still free to choose the words to reply to your post.
Biology alone allows no degree of freedom - just the inevitable consequence of physically controlled reactions.

Alan

I’m not religious in any way, so I don’t think of there being a soul in the driver’s seat, but I do understand where you’re coming from.

It does feel to me that there is something apart from the brain itself that oversees all the rest of my body’s functions.  Yes, there are all sorts of things that see to themselves, many signals racing around my body that I know nothing about, but ‘I’ feel as if I’m the pilot, and although most of everything is on auto-pilot. I can still change direction and take a different course if I want to.
 
As you believe in a god and souls, I can understand you thinking that something must be supernatural and actually is that pilot. 

I don’t understand the workings of the brain, very few people do, but I’m pretty sure this amazingly complex computer inside my head just works that way and it is, in fact, just all the experiences in my memory bank being called up continuously and makes me feel as if there is a real separate ‘I’ in control.

If I were religious, I’m sure I’d have the same explanation for it as you have, so I can’t criticise you for that.