Searching for GOD...

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

Thank you.

He said “any theory” etc, not “the parts of any theory” etc.   

I‘m struggling with all the negatives there, but if you’re saying what I think you’re saying then yes he has. The phrase he used after “any theory” was something like, “that effectively removes” etc. How he decides what does and doesn’t “effectively remove” his personal convictions about consciousness is a matter for him, but presumably he thinks that some theories do. If not, why bother telling us that he denies them?

I think he was talking about a hypothetical situation. If a theory came along that effectively removed the possibility that he can consciously choose his actions he would deny that theory. I don't think he meant he would discard everything in the theory, just the part that ruled out the possibility of conscious choice.       

Yes he has. See above.

Disagree - see above.     
 

Possibly you missed the “probabilistically” I used when describing the axiom? Of course half the pieces of a jig-saw that look like a post box could in fact turn out to be a fire engine, but the opportunities to get the wrong answer when you have no pieces at all are by magnitudes greater than when you have some of them. That’s how science works – it’s cumulative, building on the findings it has so far to research and identify new ones. Yes occasionally a black swan finding will fundamentally cause the prior theory to be junked, but more often they’re adapted or added to as the picture becomes clearer. Gravitational theory is still a partially understood for example, but its predictions about gravitational waves could then be researched and validated. “It’s pixies holding stuff down with strings” on the other hand (the epistemic equivalent of “it’s a magic soul”) cannot be falsified by gravitational theory because there’s nothing to investigate. Whether a pixicologist would consider gravitational theory to have “effectively removed the obvious truth about pixies” would though be a matter for him.

I really don't know how to calculate a probability about jigsaw puzzles without some kind of historic data about those specific jigsaw puzzles. Yes I would hope more pieces would help me figure it out but it would be more a hope that I could justify my wild guesses based on the 50% I already had on the assumption that it had some connection to the missing 50%. I have no way of knowing if my assumption is a valid assumption.         

Now you’ve just collapsed back into your previous mistake. Clearly and explicitly, I referred to AB’s assertions about deepest truths. At no time have I said, implied or otherwise suggested that I think there to be a means to identify such things, even if they exist at all To the contrary, I’ve consistently explained why such claims of certainty are unsustainable – ie, the unknown unknowns problem. How would we ever know that there’s not an unknown unknown that would prove us wrong? How for that matter would a god?

I really don’t know how to put this any more clearly for you – any references I’ve made to “deepest” refer only to claims that AB has made, NOT to anything I’ve said. Are we clear now?

Putting aside the difference in the way different people use the words "truths" and "reality", I just did a forum search on the word "deepest" and the results do not show AB using the word "deepest" in his posts. As far as I can tell he hasn't made any claims about deepest reality or truths. Unless you can find something and give me the post number?       

And does it make these “choices” consequent on prior events (determined) or arbitrarily (random)?

It's choosing from what's available and what's available will always be connected to something that happened previously (a prior event) as we explain the world we live in using the concept of time. The claim about conscious acts of will as an initiator for actions doesn't rule out that the acts of will arise out of mostly unconscious brain processes.

In experiments it appears to depend on what markers are chosen to indicate activity in the brain prior to performing voluntary acts. Benjamin Libet's 1983 study observed that a marker for brain potential related to movement preparation occurs before participants report to be aware of their movement intention.  Consciousness about a movement decision arises only after the decision has been made by unconscious neural processes. The validity of using that marker is controversial today, and other markers are being used in studies to try to ascertain how and when conscious considerations influence decisions and actions.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3746176/

[Alan Burns]

So, can 'souls' tell lies?

Of course.
We are free to choose.
A deliberate lie is a sin against one of the ten commandments.
It is our soul which is ultimately held to account for our sins, and our good deeds, and it determines our choice to accept or reject Jesus as our saviour.
Have you not read the Christian bible?

But in the physically predetermined scenario there is no choice, so the possibility of doing anything deliberately does not exist.  But is this the reality?

[Gordon]

Of course.
We are free to choose.
A deliberate lie is a sin against one of the ten commandments.
It is our soul which is ultimately held to account for our sins, and our good deeds, and it determines our choice to accept or reject Jesus as our saviour.
Have you not read the Christian bible?

But in the physically predetermined scenario there is no choice, so the possibility of doing anything deliberately does not exist.  But is this the reality?

I suspect you're just conflating 'souls' with what brains do.

[Sebastian Toe]

But a physically impaired brain could also have influence in such a claim.  In such a case it would not be a deliberate choice, but the result of delusions caused by the physical impairment.

How could an impaired brain influence such a decision?

[Sebastian Toe]

The soul has freedom to choose.  Such a claim could be a deliberate lie.

It could also be the truth?

[ippy]

I suspect you're just conflating 'souls' with what brains do.

Quite and there's no substantive evidence to the contrary, none, it simply does not exist.

ippy 

[Alan Burns]

I suspect you're just conflating 'souls' with what brains do.

But behaviour in a material brain will be entirely driven by the uncontrollable physical laws of nature.  Our brain is a very sophisticated instrument in which much of the functionality is effectively on automatic pilot, but to enable our freedom to make conscious choices, there is manual override which can only be provided by something capable of conscious interaction within the physical working of the brain.

[Gordon]

But behaviour in a material brain will be entirely driven by the uncontrollable physical laws of nature.  Our brain is a very sophisticated instrument in which much of the functionality is effectively on automatic pilot, but to enable our freedom to make conscious choices, there is manual override which can only be provided by something capable of conscious interaction within the physical working of the brain.

Face it, Alan: it's all brain whether you like it or not.

[Sebastian Toe]

But behaviour in a material brain will be entirely driven by the uncontrollable physical laws of nature.  Our brain is a very sophisticated instrument in which much of the functionality is effectively on automatic pilot, but to enable our freedom to make conscious choices, there is manual override which can only be provided by something capable of conscious interaction within the physical working of the brain.

An override which is seemingly unable to override, according to you!

[torridon]

But behaviour in a material brain will be entirely driven by the uncontrollable physical laws of nature.  Our brain is a very sophisticated instrument in which much of the functionality is effectively on automatic pilot, but to enable our freedom to make conscious choices, there is manual override which can only be provided by something capable of conscious interaction within the physical working of the brain.

Making choices is what brains evolved to do.  Making choices is what brains do. You are just substituting something challenging to figure out (brains) with something impossible to figure out (souls).

No chance I'm afraid.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

I think he was talking about a hypothetical situation. If a theory came along that effectively removed the possibility that he can consciously choose his actions he would deny that theory. I don't think he meant he would discard everything in the theory, just the part that ruled out the possibility of conscious choice.

I have no idea whether he was talking about a hypothetical (and nor have you) and nor do I have any idea whether by “any theory” he actually meant  “the parts of any theory” (and nor do you). These are though differences without significance to the point, which is that if he decides that a theory (either in whole or in part) “effectively removes” in his words (or would at some hypothetical time effectively remove) what he believes as an article of faith to be an “obvious truth” (albeit an unqualified and irrational one) then he necessarily “denies” (or would deny) that theory (or part of it) regardless of how robust it might be. That’s the point – for him his faith belief trumps all, no matter the quality evidence that falsifies it. His is the very definition of a closed mind.                 

Disagree - see above.

Nope. See above.     
 

I really don't know how to calculate a probability about jigsaw puzzles without some kind of historic data about those specific jigsaw puzzles. Yes I would hope more pieces would help me figure it out but it would be more a hope that I could justify my wild guesses based on the 50% I already had on the assumption that it had some connection to the missing 50%. I have no way of knowing if my assumption is a valid assumption.

You don’t need to calculate it. It’s axiomatically true that having some parts of an explanation is more like likely to lead to further discoveries than having no parts of an explanation. Verifiable explanations are bridgeheads to further discoveries – guesses about souls and storks and pixies and the like are not. There is no part of human experience in any field that I can think of where this doesn't hold true, from jig-saw puzzles to the Large Hadron Collider.             

Putting aside the difference in the way different people use the words "truths" and "reality", I just did a forum search on the word "deepest" and the results do not show AB using the word "deepest" in his posts. As far as I can tell he hasn't made any claims about deepest reality or truths. Unless you can find something and give me the post number?

First, that’s just an evasion of the correction I made. You started by upbraiding me for claiming “deepest” truths when I made no such claim, and I’ve explained several times now that I was referring specifically and explicitly only to the status AB attaches to his assertions. Could you at least acknowledge your (repeated) error here and apologise for it?

Second, if you want to shift ground to the precise terminology he’s used that’s fine in any case. At various times he’s used terms like “absolute”, “ultimate”, “nothing could ever change my mind”, “I’m certain about my beliefs” etc. Indeed he’s done so when asked directly whether he’d even consider the possibility of being wrong (though to be fair he usually just ignores the question while demanding that others accept the possibility of being wrong, something his interlocutors do in any case). If you don’t like “deepest” for some reason as a catch all description of what he says by all means think of a different word but as I’ve explained to him many times that feelings about what we experience do not necessarily provide reliable explanations for those experiences only for him to reply with effectively, “I feel at my deepest level that my explanations are correct, therefore my explanations are correct” you’d be hard pushed to find a more accurate one.             

It's choosing from what's available and what's available will always be connected to something that happened previously (a prior event) as we explain the world we live in using the concept of time. The claim about conscious acts of will as an initiator for actions doesn't rule out that the acts of will arise out of mostly unconscious brain processes.

In experiments it appears to depend on what markers are chosen to indicate activity in the brain prior to performing voluntary acts. Benjamin Libet's 1983 study observed that a marker for brain potential related to movement preparation occurs before participants report to be aware of their movement intention.  Consciousness about a movement decision arises only after the decision has been made by unconscious neural processes. The validity of using that marker is controversial today, and other markers are being used in studies to try to ascertain how and when conscious considerations influence decisions and actions.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3746176/

But what’s doing this “choosing” though, and how? It’s an issue about logic, not about brain physiology. If you want to posit an independent decision-maker somehow interacting with the subconscious then it too would have to be making it’s decisions using a method of some kind. What is it if it’s neither determined nor random? 

[Alan Burns]

Face it, Alan: it's all brain whether you like it or not.

It is not a question of what you or I like.
If it was a material brain, I would have no choice in the matter.
But I have the freedom to consciously choose to contradict your opinion.  This is not just a physically predefined reaction.  My freedom to choose is real.  And so is yours.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I think this can work but only if you don't have a set defined standard of beauty, which many people do have, and acquire young , not just from family but from the culture that they experience around them. Some of us can unlearn those definitions and many of us do, but applying it to the self can be harder than applying it to others because it feels alien.

There are standards other than beauty that can also be subjective - successful, strong, good - and they can get equally messed up. Our ability to use language and create stories about 'reality' can be a force for great good in our lives but it can also be a source of nightmares.

My brain seems to interpret a definition and then my conscious brain decides whether I want to adopt it or challenge it. It chooses which definitions that I learned as a child or even as an adult need to be challenged in order to not sabotage the goals I have chosen. I consciously choose goals based on what I assess is likely to make me feel happy with myself / content/ feeling a sense of self-worth. At least that's what my experience feels like.

For example - I have some grey or white strands of hair coming through but I don't think I am likely to feel happy with myself if I see signs of getting old as a bad thing. I figured out i.e. using my conscious mind that growing old is inevitable therefore paying too much attention to the way I look and comparing the way I look to the standards set by the beauty industry (whose goal is to make money by persuading people they are deficient in some way and then persuading people to buy something that is sold as a means to correct that deficiency) is likely to make me unhappy for the remaining time I am alive on this planet - I will feel bad and will also be poorer by spending money on cosmetics and treatments and hair dye.

Therefore, unless I enjoy feeling unhappy, logically I need to have my own definition of beauty whereby signs of aging are part of my beauty. None of those thoughts feel like something my sub-conscious is driving, but it does feel like something my conscious brain has chosen and I consciously choose actions that correspond with that thought process. I am not saying that I always think consciously about things - sometimes I react based on unconscious processes, but when I do think about it consciously I consciously modify the conversations in my brain in order to meet my goals.

[Sebastian Toe]

It is not a question of what you or I like.
If it was a material brain, I would have no choice in the matter.
But I have the freedom to consciously choose to contradict your opinion.  This is not just a physically predefined reaction.  My freedom to choose is real.  And so is yours.

So why does the "resurected Jesus" person's soul not freely choose to override his physically predetermined brain's reactions?

[Alan Burns]

But what’s doing this “choosing” though, and how? It’s an issue about logic, not about brain physiology. If you want to posit an independent decision-maker somehow interacting with the subconscious then it too would have to be making it’s decisions using a method of some kind. What is it if it’s neither determined nor random?

You still can't seem to get to grips with the reality that our conscious awareness has the capacity to invoke a choice determined by the power of our human will.  You are stuck in the materially deterministic scenario in which there can be no definitive cause for conscious choice - just inevitable consequence to previous events.

[Gordon]

You still can't seem to get to grips with the reality that our conscious awareness has the capacity to invoke a choice determined by the power of our human will.

In other words we can think about stuff: we already know that.

You are stuck in the materially deterministic scenario in which there can be no definitive cause for conscious choice - just inevitable consequence to previous events.

Leaving aside your usual hyperbole, Alan, it is no bad thing that we live in a deterministic universe since the alternative would be chaotic.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You still can't seem to get to grips with the reality that our conscious awareness has the capacity to invoke a choice determined by the power of our human will.  You are stuck in the materially deterministic scenario in which there can be no definitive cause for conscious choice - just inevitable consequence to previous events.

As I and others have explained to you many times now why this is wrong only for you to ignore the explanations and repeat your mistakes, why don’t you try to work out for yourself why this fails?

[Alan Burns]

In other words we can think about stuff: we already know that.

Leaving aside your usual hyperbole, Alan, it is no bad thing that we live in a deterministic universe since the alternative would be chaotic.

No
The alternative allows consciously driven interaction and manipulation, giving us the capacity to create, to compose, to imagine, to investigate, to speculate, to discover, to believe, to pray .....

Quite the opposite of the random chaos which would ensue from a Godless, soulless, material universe driven by purposeless unguided forces.

[Gordon]

No
The alternative allows consciously driven interaction and manipulation, giving us the capacity to create, to compose, to imagine, to investigate, to speculate, to discover, to believe, to pray .....

Aren't brains useful things to have!

Quite the opposite of the random chaos which would ensue from a Godless, soulless, material universe driven by purposeless unguided forces.

That would be an argument from consequences, Alan, underpinned by your trademark incredulity and spiced up with an added dash of hyperbole.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

No
The alternative allows consciously driven interaction and manipulation, giving us the capacity to create, to compose, to imagine, to investigate, to speculate, to discover, to believe, to pray .....

Quite the opposite of the random chaos which would ensue from a Godless, soulless, material universe driven by purposeless unguided forces.

You once told us that you think about things, yet you post this kind of stuff apparently seriously. So which is true: that you actually believe what you post, or that you think about things? It can't be both.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

As I and others have explained to you many times now why this is wrong only for you to ignore the explanations and repeat your mistakes, why don’t you try to work out for yourself why this fails?

No.
It is your materialistic explanation which fails.
It fails to to provide a definitive explanation for my conscious ability to choose.
My conscious choices are certainly not random.
Nor are they entirely predetermined beyond my control.
I am free to choose - this is a simple reality for which there is no physical explanation.
The truth really does set you free, so why not just rejoice in your God given freedom instead of trying to deny it?

[torridon]

No
The alternative allows consciously driven interaction and manipulation, giving us the capacity to create, to compose, to imagine, to investigate, to speculate, to discover, to believe, to pray .....

Quite the opposite of the random chaos which would ensue from a Godless, soulless, material universe driven by purposeless unguided forces.

You've got that the wrong way round.  It is only because of sufficient determinism that meaning and purpose can arise. You ought to get out more, go check an episode of Blue Planet or pretty much anything by the BBC Natural History Unit.  It is a wonderful world out there full of rich diversity, none of which would be at all possible without determinism.  Things happen for a reason, this is the baseline message of determinism; without this there would be no life, no love, no laughter, just a random incomprehensible chaos wherein no life could arise and no meaning could be found.

[Gordon]

No.
It is your materialistic explanation which fails.
It fails to to provide a definitive explanation for my conscious ability to choose.
My conscious choices are certainly not random.
Nor are they entirely predetermined beyond my control.
I am free to choose - this is a simple reality for which there is no physical explanation.
The truth really does set you free, so why not just rejoice in your God given freedom instead of trying to deny it?

Because, Alan, the version of 'freedom' you are advancing is incoherent nonsense: it is you rationalising in an attempt to accommodate your take on 'God'.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

You once told us that you think about things, yet you post this kind of stuff apparently seriously. So which is true: that you actually believe what you post, or that you think about things? It can't be both.

We all have the capacity to think about things.  We have the capacity to deduce things.  We have the capacity to come to conclusions.  But what drives this process?  If the driving process is just the predetermined physical activity in our brain cells, we can't assume responsibility for any of the results.  For our thought processes to make any sense, we need the conscious control which can only be provided by our God given freedom, not by the predetermined consequences of physical activity.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

I have no idea whether he was talking about a hypothetical (and nor have you) and nor do I have any idea whether by “any theory” he actually meant  “the parts of any theory” (and nor do you). These are though differences without significance to the point, which is that if he decides that a theory (either in whole or in part) “effectively removes” in his words (or would at some hypothetical time effectively remove) what he believes as an article of faith to be an “obvious truth” (albeit an unqualified and irrational one) then he necessarily “denies” (or would deny) that theory (or part of it) regardless of how robust it might be. That’s the point – for him his faith belief trumps all, no matter the quality evidence that falsifies it. His is the very definition of a closed mind.

I challenged you on your statement that "he consistently dismisses in its entirely the scientific evidence we do have because it provides an incomplete explanation for consciousness." because to me he has not consistently dismissed etc etc in his posts but he has inserted a soul into the incomplete explanations. My view was that his statement about theories doesn't translate into him actually consistently dismissing etc etc as the theories don't effectively remove his views on free will. Whether he has a closed mind to any particular robust theory is a different argument - and one I would assess on a case by case basis. If you have some evidence that he has denied a robust theory that rules out his article of faith, then I am happy to consider it. I can't predict the future about whether AB will or will not be persuaded by a robust theory and modify his beliefs or what he perceives as an article of faith.

You don’t need to calculate it. It’s axiomatically true that having some parts of an explanation is more like likely to lead to further discoveries than having no parts of an explanation. Verifiable explanations are bridgeheads to further discoveries – guesses about souls and storks and pixies and the like are not. There is no part of human experience in any field that I can think of where this doesn't hold true, from jig-saw puzzles to the Large Hadron Collider. 

If we are no longer talking about half a jigsaw puzzle allowing you to predict the missing half, then yes I agree that having more parts to an explanation is more helpful to figuring out ways to test for missing parts of the explanation.             

First, that’s just an evasion of the correction I made. You started by upbraiding me for claiming “deepest” truths when I made no such claim, and I’ve explained several times now that I was referring specifically and explicitly only to the status AB attaches to his assertions. Could you at least acknowledge your (repeated) error here and apologise for it?

No, what I said was that you don't know what reality is at the deepest level. My point was that no one knows what reality is at the deepest level so talking about reality at the deepest level or stating that someone thinks they know what is was meaningless. I could be wrong but AB has not, as far as I can read, claimed to know what reality is at its deepest level or used the words "deepest truths" and yet you were stating to him "Except it’s not “obviously true” at all. That’s just an irrational belief you happen to hold built on the odd notion that your “deepest feelings” about something must therefore explain reality at the deepest level."

Second, if you want to shift ground to the precise terminology he’s used that’s fine in any case. At various times he’s used terms like “absolute”, “ultimate”, “nothing could ever change my mind”, “I’m certain about my beliefs” etc. Indeed he’s done so when asked directly whether he’d even consider the possibility of being wrong (though to be fair he usually just ignores the question while demanding that others accept the possibility of being wrong, something his interlocutors do in any case). If you don’t like “deepest” for some reason as a catch all description of what he says by all means think of a different word but as I’ve explained to him many times that feelings about what we experience do not necessarily provide reliable explanations for those experiences only for him to reply with effectively, “I feel at my deepest level that my explanations are correct, therefore my explanations are correct” you’d be hard pushed to find a more accurate one.

I've argued this point with you before - I think beliefs are different from reality and facts. AB can hold onto his beliefs and claim they are facts but he has no objective evidence for them, only subjective evidence such as his personal experience, and I personally don't find that persuasive, so regardless of any claim of fact - my view is that it can't be proved as fact without objective evidence. It's up to other individuals if they are persuaded that it is true in the absence of objective evidence.               

But what’s doing this “choosing” though, and how? It’s an issue about logic, not about brain physiology. If you want to posit an independent decision-maker somehow interacting with the subconscious then it too would have to be making it’s decisions using a method of some kind. What is it if it’s neither determined nor random?

The decision-maker could be a mix of a conscious and unconscious brain process - the process or method is currently unknown as there is not enough information on everything that my brain interacts with to produce thoughts. I think my brain process is influenced by many things e.g. genetics, chemistry, environment, interpretations of inputs, assessment of alignment with goals I have made, a sense of self-awareness, an acknowledgement of others sense of self-awareness. I don't know where a soul fits in or what a soul is - it's a religious concept and can't be tested for to fit it into the studies about the brain in neuroscience and experimental psychology.