Searching for GOD...

[ekim]

Gabriella,

Yes they are because, even as “a religious/ philosophical concept”, they collapse at the first hurdle of investigability. To think otherwise is to accept that “leprechauns” isn’t white noise either.

I think what Gabriella is getting at is that as a religious/philosophical concept it is not just formless white noise because it exists as a mental form just as an imagined leprechaun does and as such are not amenable to scientific investigation as a physical entity.  It might be possible to discuss 'soul' on a psychological basis, as 'soul' is a word used to translate the New Testament Greek word 'psyche', the Hebrew 'nephesh' and the Islamic 'naphs'.

[Alan Burns]

Blue,
Your entire reply in #31757 appears to be based on a misinterpretation or a misunderstanding of what I was trying to say.  Perhaps I was not explaining very well, so I will try again.

My arguments are not just based upon materialistic explanations being incomplete.

They are based upon the logical impossibility of ever achieving a materialistic explanation for the consciously driven freedom we all experience as human beings.  Because any materialistic explanation will inevitably be tied in to the physically predetermined behaviour of material reactions, which effectively denies any form of freedom and would imply that our perception of freedom is just an illusion, or to use your own words, "just the way it seems".

You mention honesty in your post.  Can you honestly believe that the entire content of all your detailed, well thought out posts is entirely predetermined in your subconscious before you become aware of it, and your apparent freedom to compose is "just the way it seems"?  If so, neither of us can take any personal credit or responsibility for what we write if it is all inevitably composed in our subconscious brain activity.  Any accusations of deliberate lies, ignoring, assertions etc would be meaningless.

None of your detailed arguments can ever deny the obvious truth that you and I have the freedom to consciously choose the words we post.  The meaning of your arguments is effectively overwritten by your freedom to compose such arguments.  A freedom which can't be denied, nor can it be derived entirely from the physically controlled behaviour of the electrochemical activity in our brain cells.  There is more to us than physically controlled biology could ever achieve.

[torridon]

My point being, that there are always reasons for things; all that varies, is our appetite to explore and uncover those reasons.  A choice to not explore them is a preference for ignorance over knowledge.

And the reason is ......
Our ability to consciously choose what we want to do.

And there will be a reason why that want arose.

Do we look to understand why that desire arose, or do we prefer to remain in ignorance ?  All things have roots; the only things that do not have antecedent roots are random events.

[torridon]

My arguments are not just based upon materialistic explanations being incomplete.

They are based upon the logical impossibility of ever achieving a materialistic explanation for the consciously driven freedom we all experience as human beings.  Because any materialistic explanation will inevitably be tied in to the physically predetermined behaviour of material reactions, which effectively denies any form of freedom and would imply that our perception of freedom is just an illusion, or to use your own words, "just the way it seems".

That is not a logical impossibility.  What is a logical impossibility is your position, namely that we can make meaningful choices free of any meaningful basis, or more simply, events can happen that are free of determining cause without being random.  This is a logical impossibility because random means not deterministic and deterministic means not random. You cannot be free without being random.

That choices occur clearly is not a logical impossibility as we can observe that happening, so it is up to us to understand how it happens, and merely splicing in a little magic is not true understanding.

[Sebastian Toe]

Can you honestly believe that the entire content of all your detailed, well thought out posts is entirely predetermined in your subconscious before you become aware of it, 

Yup.
You are your brain in it's entirety.
The sub and the concious together make up "you".
You do make choices, there is no get out clause. You are responsible for your actions (illness excepted).
No, entirely unevidenced, completely logic free, magic requiring "soul" required.

[SteveH]

So, why are some people grammar Nazis, and others not ?

Note question mark.

My point being, that there are always reasons for things; all that varies, is our appetite to explore and uncover those reasons.  A choice to not explore them is a preference for ignorance over knowledge.

Why didn't you say that in the first place, instead of speaking in riddles? If we can choose not to explore them, then clearly we have free-will.

[wigginhall]

Why didn't you say that in the first place, instead of speaking in riddles? If we can choose not to explore them, then clearly we have free-will.

But that's not Alan's point.   He seems to be saying that since the brain is a physical organ, choice must be effected by a supernatural force.   I must admit, I can't follow that.  To make it work, you have to presuppose that choices are not physical events, which have physical causes.   Well, I still don't get it.  I suppose it rests on a prior commitment to the supernatural.

I noticed a headline in New Scientist which seemed apt, "Brain imaging spots our abstract choices before we do".   They also talk about "decision-making circuitry".  There is plenty of research in this area.

[Enki]

I don't have your faith, dear Alan, dear Alan,
I don't have your faith, dear Alan, your faith.

        Well, I'll fix it, dear sceptic, dear sceptic, dear sceptic,
        Well, I'll fix it, dear sceptic, dear sceptic, I'll fix it.
 
With what will you fix it, dear Alan, dear Alan?
With what will you fix it, dear Alan, with what?

        With a soul, dear sceptic, dear sceptic, dear sceptic,
        With a soul, dear sceptic, dear sceptic, with a soul.

But where is this soul, dear Alan, dear Alan,
But where is this soul, dear Alan, but where?

        Can't tell you, dear sceptic, dear sceptic, dear sceptic,
        Can't tell you, dear sceptic, dear sceptic, can't tell you.

But how shall I recognise it, dear Alan, dear Alan?
But how shall I recognise it, dear Alan, but how?

        It's who we are, dear sceptic, dear sceptic, dear sceptic,
        It's who we are, dear sceptic, dear sceptic, it's me.

I thought I was my brain, dear Alan, dear Alan,
I thought I was my brain, dear Alan, my brain.

        Soul's the driver, dear sceptic, dear  sceptic, dear sceptic,
        Soul's the driver, dear sceptic, dear sceptic, it chooses.

How does it choose, dear Alan, dear Alan?
How does it choose, dear Alan, How?

        By willpower, dear sceptic, dear sceptic, dear sceptic,
        By willpower, dear sceptic, dear sceptic, by willpower.

Is this random or determined, dear Alan, dear Alan?
Is this random or determined, dear Alan, which is it?

        Not random, dear sceptic, dear sceptic, dear sceptic,
        Not random, dear sceptic, dear sceptic, not random

Then How is it determined, dear Alan, dear Alan?
Then How is it determined, dear Alan, how?

        By the soul, dear sceptic, dear sceptic, dear sceptic
        By the soul, dear sceptic, dear sceptic, by the soul.

Why should I believe you, dear Alan, dear Alan?
why should I believe you, dear Alan, why?

        Through faith, dear sceptic, dear sceptic, dear sceptic,
        Through faith, dear sceptic, dear sceptic, have faith.

But I don't have your faith, dear Alan, dear Alan,
I don't have your faith, dear Alan, your faith.

[wigginhall]

The soul is found in the septic tank.

[Alan Burns]

And the reason is ......
Our ability to consciously choose what we want to do.


And there will be a reason why that want arose.

Do we look to understand why that desire arose, or do we prefer to remain in ignorance ?  All things have roots; the only things that do not have antecedent roots are random events.

But what are the ultimate roots of your consciously determined choice?
Where do they emanate from?

Surely if the roots of our conscious choice are determined by endless chains of uncontrollable cause and effect, then our conscious choice will indeed be random, just as are the natural, uncontrollable, purposeless forces of nature.

Our human will guides our thoughts and invokes our conscious choices.  Nothing more.

[Sebastian Toe]

Our human will guides our thoughts and invokes our conscious choices.  Nothing more.

Again, if a person claims to be the reincarnated Christ, and absolutely believes that he is correct, then his soul is making that choice. Nothing more?

[torridon]

Surely if the roots of our conscious choice are determined by endless chains of uncontrollable cause and effect, then our conscious choice will indeed be random, just as are the natural, uncontrollable, purposeless forces of nature.

No, exactly the opposite is true.  It is because our choices are a consequence of cause and effect that they aren't random. 

[Alan Burns]

That is not a logical impossibility.

Why?

What is a logical impossibility is your position, namely that we can make meaningful choices free of any meaningful basis,

Our consciously invoked choices are guided and influenced, but not controlled, by our conscious awareness of past events.  They are not free of any meaningful basis.

or more simply, events can happen that are free of determining cause without being random.

The determining cause is your consciously driven will.  NOT RANDOM.
How many more times do I have to repeat this?

  This is a logical impossibility because random means not deterministic and deterministic means not random. You cannot be free without being random.

see above

That choices occur clearly is not a logical impossibility as we can observe that happening, so it is up to us to understand how it happens, and merely splicing in a little magic is not true understanding.

A choice is not a choice if it is predetermined by events beyond our consciously driven control.

[wigginhall]

The forces of nature are random?   So all the molecules of salt just happen to have sodium and chlorine in the right proportion?   It's a miracle!

[torridon]

Our human will guides our thoughts and invokes our conscious choices.  Nothing more.

No, there is more.  That will does not spring out of nowhere; like everything, it has roots, it derives from something prior.  If it had no roots, then our will would be random and that would yield incomprehensible chaos.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

I think what Gabriella is getting at is that as a religious/philosophical concept it is not just formless white noise because it exists as a mental form just as an imagined leprechaun does and as such are not amenable to scientific investigation as a physical entity.  It might be possible to discuss 'soul' on a psychological basis, as 'soul' is a word used to translate the New Testament Greek word 'psyche', the Hebrew 'nephesh' and the Islamic 'naphs'.

Which would be fine for those who like that sort of thing as a sort of abstract conceptual "what if?", but that's not what AB does. Rather he asserts into existence as an objective fact about the world "souls", and moreover insists that we all have them (though apparently other animals don't). This is a claim of objective reality, and if he wants therefore to play on that turf he should expect too to play by some rules to validate his claim. How should we define this "soul", how should we identify it and where, how should we investigate its properties etc? Instead all he has is "it's magic", it's is epistemically only as valuable as my assertion "leprechauns".     

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Your entire reply in #31757 appears to be based on a misinterpretation or a misunderstanding of what I was trying to say.  Perhaps I was not explaining very well, so I will try again.

To the contrary – you’ve “explained” (ok, asserted) it very well. That’s you problem – it’s because you’re so clearly wrong that your efforts are so easy to falsify. Look, I’ll do it for you again now if you like...

My arguments are not just based upon materialistic explanations being incomplete.

You don’t have any arguments. But ok…

They are based upon the logical impossibility of ever achieving a materialistic explanation for the consciously driven freedom we all experience as human beings.

Ah, but there you fall at the first hurdle again. Why would you think a materialistic explanation to be impossible rather than just difficult to achieve?

Because…

Oh-oh. Do I feel another non sequitur coming on?

…any materialistic explanation will inevitably be tied in to the physically predetermined behaviour of material reactions, which effectively denies any form of freedom and would imply that our perception of freedom is just an illusion, or to use your own words, "just the way it seems".

Yes indeedy I do. As I keep explaining and you keep ignoring, it doesn’t “deny any sort of freedom” at all. All it “denies” is the very peculiar, deeply irrational, personal definition of “freedom” you keep attempting here. A materialistic model of freedom still allows for plenty of it as part of the lived experience – I can readily “choose” either coffee or tea – but it allows no space for the only alternative, ie randomness. Only when you finally manage to grasp this will you see why you keep careering off the rails about his.   

You mention honesty in your post.  Can you honestly believe that the entire content of all your detailed, well thought out posts is entirely predetermined in your subconscious before you become aware of it, and your apparent freedom to compose is "just the way it seems"?  If so, neither of us can take any personal credit or responsibility for what we write if it is all inevitably composed in our subconscious brain activity.  Any accusations of deliberate lies, ignoring, assertions etc would be meaningless.

Oh dear. They’re not “meaningless” at all provided they’re bounded by one relatively superficial layer of reality. Whatever “meaningfulness” goldfish experience is still perfectly meaningful for them without ever knowing what’s under the table. That’s your problem – you’re a goldfish, whereas others of us accept the reasoning and evidence that tells us about different, deeper, richer, "under the table" levels of explanatory knowledge. Why is this so hard for you to understand?     

None of your detailed arguments can ever deny the obvious…

Groan – this’ll be obvious only to you Alan, and that’s because you can’t or won’t think about it except in the most superficial of terms.

…truth that you and I have the freedom to consciously choose the words we post.  The meaning of your arguments is effectively overwritten by your freedom to compose such arguments.  A freedom which can't be denied, nor can it be derived entirely from the physically controlled behaviour of the electrochemical activity in our brain cells.  There is more to us than physically controlled biology could ever achieve.

Except of course you have no reasoning or evidence of any kind to explain why your opinion about that should be taken more seriously than the reasoning and evidence from science especially that tells precisely the opposite story.

At some point surely even you should be able to grasp that, “this is how an experience feels to me” is a very, very bad argument for “so this feeling must be the explanation for my experience too". The earth feels flat to me too. So what?     

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

Still you don’t understand that the problem is all his – whatever he means by “effectively removes” etc is what he routinely dismisses out of hand. What he think does that is something you’d have to ask him.

So you assert. I need evidence - e.g. if you tell me what theory effectively removes conscious choice we can look for posts where he has routinely dismissed it.
 

And as I corrected you, no it doesn’t because I used the word “probabilistically”. Take 100 puzzles, or 1,000, or 1,000,000 each with half the pieces missing and compare the results with the same sample sizes of puzzles each with all the pieces missing. It’s simple enough.

You didn't correct me. This whole thing started in reply #31648 where you tried to compare the arguments in neuroscience about conscious vs unconscious choices to a jigsaw puzzle. You said "Even though a complete A-Z explanation of consciousness isn’t there we do at least have perhaps a coherent A-M explanation, whereas AB has only A – “it feels that way to me therefore that’s the complete explanation for it”.

To put it another way, which do you think to be the more likely to give you an accurate picture: a 100 piece jig-saw with half the pieces missing, or a 100 piece jig-saw with 99 of the pieces missing? I propose the former (while accepting that I could be wrong); AB asserts the latter (while denying any possibility of being wrong)."

And my response was along the lines that there wasn't enough information to make that claim. A jigsaw puzzle is a picture cut up into pieces. It doesn't need to be a picture of something anyone recognises, it could be abstract with random dots or shapes and the pieces, other than their shape need have no connection to the other pieces in terms of creating a recognisable picture. If you take a 100 or 1000 of those type of jigsaw puzzles you can't calculate a probability that 50% of the pieces will help you figure out what is on the other 50% or if there is a recognisable picture. You made an assumption that the jigsaw puzzle had a recognisable picture and I challenged that assumption.

If we are getting back to talking about the brain processes, which have very little to do with jigsaw puzzles, there is insufficient information - we don't understand a lot about what the brain interacts with and the process of how it makes choices relating to morals or related to decisions where the act or behaviour is perceived to have significant consequences. Neuroscientists and experimental psychologists working on studies about this are suggesting possible theories while stating there is a lot they don't know hence their theories about moral choices or decisions to act are tentative as they are based on brain activity they measured for simple actions such as lifting your finger.

Yes that was your point, and you misguidedly tried to criticise me for it remember?

You are being hypocritical - you criticised Alan for the same thing, even though so far all you have done is assert that he said anything about deepest truths or reality at the deepest level but have failed, despite me repeatedly asking, to come up with an example of Alan saying anything about deepest truths or realities.

Yes he has. He knows – really, really, really knows beyond even any possibility of being wrong. He’s been asked about this many times by the way, but he never bothers to answer. Maybe you’ll have better luck getting an answer out of him though.   

Another vague assertion from you with no evidence. He has also said he doesn't know what the soul is or how it interacts with the brain or how it works and something along the lines of only God has this knowledge or he is telling you how it feels to him. You have repeatedly stated that AB's explanations only go as far as AB claiming "it is magic". Of course that may be your idea of someone stating they know deepest truths or reality - but it doesn't sound very deep to me.

It would help if you could quote exactly what AB is claiming he "knows" and how that translates as claiming to know deepest truths or deepest realities. And more importantly if you can't present any evidence to back any claims you make about what Alan has said about deepest truths or reality, why should your claim be taken seriously just because you really, really, really believe it's what AB meant?   

Yet still it falls on deaf ears…

Up to you if you want to keep trying, or give up - it's your time you're spending and AB is free to post his beliefs on this forum.               

Yes they are because, even as “a religious/ philosophical concept”, they collapse at the first hurdle of investigability. To think otherwise is to accept that “leprechauns” isn’t white noise either.

A soul or a leprechaun can be discussed as concepts - people can describe what they think a soul is or what its attributes are and how it relates to the concepts of free will.

https://www.academia.edu/28486811/Five_Philosophers_Theories_on_Free_Will_Plato_Hobbes_Hume_Leibniz_and_Hegel 

They could presumably do the same about leprechauns, if anyone has any thoughts on leprechauns and free will.

[torridon]

Our consciously invoked choices are guided and influenced, but not controlled, by our conscious awareness of past events.  They are not free of any meaningful basis.The determining cause is your consciously driven will.  NOT RANDOM.

We are clearly influenced by factors, but we have to resolve a choice somehow; the final resolution of that choice is made by weighing rival factors against each other.  It has to come down to this at some level and this is what minds do, this is what minds evolved to do.  I'm sure some people would like to draw a little circle around that moment of resolving choice and saying therein lies mystery, it must be supernatural.  But it isn't supernatural, this is what all minds most fundamentally do, irrespective of whether you are a robin or a rabbi, your mind provides the mechanism for resolving final choice.

[Alan Burns]

No, exactly the opposite is true.  It is because our choices are a consequence of cause and effect that they aren't random.

But if the chains of cause and effect trace back to the chaotic origins of our universe, the end result can be nothing but random.  To use a frequently quoted phrase from your like minded colleagues, any apparent choice will be "just the way it seems", with the roots of the so called choice lying deep within the realms of our chaotic universe.

[wigginhall]

The way it seems often works pragmatically.   I can treat the earth as flat in many circumstances, although further study shows curvature.   I can treat objects as touching although closer inspection reveals they are not.  I don't see a problem.

[jjohnjil]

Gabriella

It's obvious that you know, damned well, that some information - about anything - must give you a better insight into it than no information at all!  You are not stupid, even if sometimes your rush to defend Alan's arguments could give that impression.

Even a jigsaw of random shaped dots will give you quite a good idea of what the missing piece contained, whereas when you don't have a single piece, you've no idea at all! 

To try to argue that because we don't have the complete answer to everything, we can just take a complete unevidenced guess at it and be just as near the truth, is being argumentative just for the sake of it.




 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella

It's obvious that you know, damned well, that some information - about anything - must give you a better insight into it than no information at all!  You are not stupid, even if sometimes your rush to defend Alan's arguments could give that impression.

What I said to BHS back in #31749 was "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."

Maybe you should have read the relevant posts before jumping in to defend BHS's arguments or you could give the impression of stupidity, which you are clearly not.

Even a jigsaw of random shaped dots will give you quite a good idea of what the missing piece contained, whereas when you don't have a single piece, you've no idea at all!

No it won't unless you can give me some kind of explanation of how that would work rather than just asserting it. If the images on the jigsaw are random there is no predictability of what will emerge on the missing pieces just because you have half the pieces as the half you do have does not determine the picture on the half you don't. I don't know why we're even talking about jigsaw puzzles.

To try to argue that because we don't have the complete answer to everything, we can just take a complete unevidenced guess at it and be just as near the truth, is being argumentative just for the sake of it.

I never argued that. But you are welcome to quote the post where you think I have argued that - I am happy to be convinced by evidence as your assertions just aren't cutting it.

[ekim]

ekim,

Which would be fine for those who like that sort of thing as a sort of abstract conceptual "what if?", but that's not what AB does. Rather he asserts into existence as an objective fact about the world "souls", and moreover insists that we all have them (though apparently other animals don't). This is a claim of objective reality, and if he wants therefore to play on that turf he should expect too to play by some rules to validate his claim. How should we define this "soul", how should we identify it and where, how should we investigate its properties etc? Instead all he has is "it's magic", it's is epistemically only as valuable as my assertion "leprechauns".   

Unfortunately if somebody has been conditioned by religious doctrine, this becomes the only rules.  If you don't play by them then you might be simply seen as one of Satan's little helpers trying to tempt the individual away from the true path.  Your questions "How should we define this "soul", how should we identify it and where, how should we investigate its properties etc?" are likely to be answered by "Read the relevant scripture, have faith and carry out the appropriate conditioning process."  Your questions are relevant to this topic as it could just as easily be titled 'Searching for Soul'.  Whether Alan is in a position to answer them, I don't know.

[torridon]

But if the chains of cause and effect trace back to the chaotic origins of our universe, the end result can be nothing but random.  To use a frequently quoted phrase from your like minded colleagues, any apparent choice will be "just the way it seems", with the roots of the so called choice lying deep within the realms of our chaotic universe.

As to the origins of the universe, we don't have enough data to know yet if it had a prior cause or is just one of many universes or maybe is eternal. Likewise, we cannot know if true randomness does exist.  For all practical considerations we will have to live without knowing such things. We can observe however the workings of the universe around us now and we see the principal of adequate determinism applies allowing life to happen and the unidirectional arrow of apparent time gives us a reality in which all our actions today inevitably have future consequences and the present moment is a direct consequence of previous moments.  This is our underlying reality and it applies every bit as much to choices made in a mind as to inanimate systems.  That things happen for a reason indicates that reality is fundamentally logical and we cannot be free of logic, we cannot be free to add 2 and 2 to make 27, such a freedom is illogical, inconceivable; this is the hallmark of the claim of free will, it is ultimately a logic defying self-contradictory absurdity.  So, do we try to think clearly and honestly about things, or do we fill our heads with gratifying absurdities instead ?