Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

.NO IT DOES NOT! Will you finally at least try to get this through your skull? All it denies is YOUR PERSONAL AND IRRATIONAL DEFINITION OF “freedom”. 

You say my feeling of freedom is irrational, but your reason for classifying it as irrational is based entirely on the physically predetermined nature of a materialistic scenario.

You need to face up to the reality that these words I am posting do not emanate from a feeling, but from my conscious freedom to choose.

[Stranger]

So you assert,
But I have just done it!

Whereas what I said is backed up by logic (do you need it explained to you yet again?), this statement of yours is just a baseless assertion. How do you know that your choice was not entirely due to pre-existing reasons? How do you think your experience would have been different if it was? That's a question I have asked several times and one that you never answer.

My choice certainly was not random, it was deliberate.

If it wasn't random then it was entirely due to pre-existing reasons, that's what not being random means, and that is the only way it could possibly be deliberate.

So what determined my conscious choice to contradict you?

Your mind making a choice based on your lifetime of experience, your nature and nurture, and your state of mind, applied to what I wrote.

This isn't difficult - it's logical and straightforward and your alternative, self-contradictory idea of 'freedom' is as impossible as a square circle.

How about having some intellectual courage and honestly and actually address the logic that has been put to you instead of mindless, empty assertions and dishonest misrepresentations of said logic?

[jeremyp]

presumably this will be tested if we reach the magic number of 32768 ?

Or -32768

[Alan Burns]

Whereas what I said is backed up by logic (do you need it explained to you yet again?),

But what I am currently doing is backed up by the reality that I am consciously choosing to do it

this statement of yours is just a baseless assertion. How do you know that your choice was not entirely due to pre-existing reasons?

Because my conscious will is invoked by my present state of mind.  I am consciously aware of the past, but not controlled by it.

How do you think your experience would have been different if it was? That's a question I have asked several times and one that you never answer.

The difference being that I would have no conscious ability to choose if I was entirely driven by past events.

If it wasn't random then it was entirely due to pre-existing reasons, that's what not being random means, and that is the only way it could possibly be deliberate.

My conscious will exists in the present, not the past

Your mind making a choice based on your lifetime of experience, your nature and nurture, and your state of mind, applied to what I wrote.

In other words you imply I can have no choice in what I choose to do.
But the reality is that I am using my consciously driven freedom to write these words

This isn't difficult - it's logical and straightforward and your alternative, self-contradictory idea of 'freedom' is as impossible as a square circle.

My freedom to choose these words is certainly not random.

How about having some intellectual courage and honestly and actually address the logic that has been put to you instead of mindless, empty assertions and dishonest misrepresentations of said logic?

I witness to the truth that we all have God given freedom to choose.
It may well be illogical to our limited human capacity to think things out, but it is demonstrably real as evidenced in the words I choose to write.

[Stranger]

But what I am currently doing is backed up by the reality that I am consciously choosing to do it

FFS, I'm not disputing that you can consciously choose to do things - that tells us nothing about how conscious choice actually works.

Stop the thought-free pretence, please!

Because my conscious will is invoked by my present state of mind.  I am consciously aware of the past, but not controlled by it.

What you are aware of couldn't be less relevant. Your present state of mind either came about entirely due to pre-existing reasons or some part of it happened for no reason - which means that it was random.

Stop ignoring the logic.

The difference being that I would have no conscious ability to choose if I was entirely driven by past events.

Another baseless assertion - how do you know?

In other words you imply I can have no choice in what I choose to do.

No I do not. This is more dishonest misrepresentation.

But the reality is that I am using my consciously driven freedom to write these words

I do not dispute that - what I dispute is your nonsense, self-contradictory version of how that works, which is as impossible as a square circle.

It may well be illogical to our limited human capacity to think things out, but it is demonstrably real as evidenced in the words I choose to write.

The words you choose to write do not demonstrate that they are not entirely due to pre-existing reasons (or with some random element) - your claim that they demonstrate something else is utterly baseless.

If you admit that your claim is illogical "to our limited human capacity", then it's about time to admit that you have no rational argument and that you are making assertions based on nothing but blind faith.

[jjohnjil]

Yes, it may well be influenced by my awareness of past events, but I have the ability to invoke a choice based upon my consciously driven will at the moment I make the choice.  If my choice was entirely based on past events, it would just be an inevitable reaction based upon the unavoidable consequences to those events.

If the brain can't do that alone, then the spider walking around deciding where to make a web, has a soul too.

Or are you special pleading again!

[Alan Burns]

FFS, I'm not disputing that you can consciously choose to do things - that tells us nothing about how conscious choice actually works.

Agreed, but it is evidence that my conscious choices are not absolutely determined by past events.

Stop the thought-free pretence, please!

What you are aware of couldn't be less relevant. Your present state of mind either came about entirely due to pre-existing reasons or some part of it happened for no reason - which means that it was random.

I totally agree that it is not random, but my present state of mind is controlled by me, not by past events.  I am aware of past events but not controlled by them.

Stop ignoring the logic.

I will dispute any logic which tries to deny the reality of my conscious freedom to choose.

I do not dispute that - what I dispute is your nonsense, self-contradictory version of how that works, which is as impossible as a square circle.

It is obviously not impossible, because I am currently demonstrating my freedom to choose my words.  What is impossible is for my conscious freedom to be an illusion.

The words you choose to write do not demonstrate that they are not entirely due to pre-existing reasons (or with some random element) - your claim that they demonstrate something else is utterly baseless.

But the alternative logic you propose would deny that there is any definitive source for my conscious choice, because it depends on endless chains of inevitable cause and effect in which there can be no opportunity to invoke a conscious choice.

If you admit that your claim is illogical "to our limited human capacity", then it's about time to admit that you have no rational argument and that you are making assertions based on nothing but blind faith.

It is based upon the reality of my demonstrable ability to make consciously driven choices.

[torridon]

Agreed, but it is evidence that my conscious choices are not absolutely determined by past events.I totally agree that it is not random, but my present state of mind is controlled by me, not by past events.  I am aware of past events but not controlled by them.I will dispute any logic which tries to deny the reality of my conscious freedom to choose.It is obviously not impossible, because I am currently demonstrating my freedom to choose my words.  What is impossible is for my conscious freedom to be an illusion.But the alternative logic you propose would deny that there is any definitive source for my conscious choice, because it depends on endless chains of inevitable cause and effect in which there can be no opportunity to invoke a conscious choice.It is based upon the reality of my demonstrable ability to make consciously driven choices.

I do not 'control' my state of mind because my state of mind is me. It isn't something separate to me. I am my mind. If what you claim were true then I would be able to believe things I don't believe or love things that I hate. Such things are impossible.  You are profoundly wrong in your understanding of mind

[torridon]

You say my feeling of freedom is irrational, but your reason for classifying it as irrational is based entirely on the physically predetermined nature of a materialistic scenario.

You need to face up to the reality that these words I am posting do not emanate from a feeling, but from my conscious freedom to choose.

Makes no sense. Freedom is not a thing. Freedom is not a causal event. Things happen for reasons. Freedom is not a reason.

[Alan Burns]

Makes no sense. Freedom is not a thing. Freedom is not a causal event. Things happen for reasons. Freedom is not a reason.

The fact that freedom is difficult to explain does not imply that it does not exist.
I am consciously aware of reasons, but reasons alone do not invoke my conscious choice.  I still have freedom to choose.

[SteveH]

Every event has a pre-existant cause, but some pre-existant causes are our conscious choices. There! I've solved the problem! You're welcome.

[Stranger]

Agreed, but it is evidence that my conscious choices are not absolutely determined by past events.

No, it quite obviously isn't.

I'll ask again: what do you think would seem different if your choices were determined by past events?

I totally agree that it is not random...

You're not even bothering to read the posts properly any more, are you? I didn't say it doesn't have a random element - it's perfectly possible.

...but my present state of mind is controlled by me, not by past events.

Don't be silly.

I am aware of past events but not controlled by them.

Baseless assertion.

I will dispute any logic which tries to deny the reality of my conscious freedom to choose.

I have not argued against your freedom to choose.

It is obviously not impossible, because I am currently demonstrating my freedom to choose my words.

You would have freedom to choose your words if your choices were entirely due to pre-existing reasons - stop dishonestly misrepresenting the argument. What is totally impossible is to make a choice that is entirely due to pre-existing reasons (not random) but not entirely due to pre-existing reasons. It's a blatant contradiction.

But the alternative logic you propose would deny that there is any definitive source for my conscious choice...

Untrue.

[Stranger]

Every event has a pre-existant cause, but some pre-existant causes are our conscious choices. There! I've solved the problem! You're welcome.

 

A conscious choice doesn't just magically appear from nothing (if it did, it would be entirely random). Does the concious choice happen entirely due to pre-existing reasons or is partly random (there are no other options)?

[Gordon]

The fact that freedom is difficult to explain does not imply that it does not exist.
I am consciously aware of reasons, but reasons alone do not invoke my conscious choice.  I still have freedom to choose.

And what you 'choose' will be a direct consequence of whatever prior reason(s) and circumstances most influenced your thinking at the point of choosing: unless of course you go around making random choices.

[SteveH]

A conscious choice doesn't just magically appear from nothing (if it did, it would be entirely random). Does the concious choice happen entirely due to pre-existing reasons or is partly random (there are no other options)?

It happens due to pre-existing reasons, but is nevertheless my conscious choice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism

[Stranger]

It happens due to pre-existing reasons, but is nevertheless my conscious choice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism

I agree with that. Try explaining it to Alan.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You say my feeling of freedom is irrational, but your reason for classifying it as irrational is based entirely on the physically predetermined nature of a materialistic scenario.

You need to face up to the reality that these words I am posting do not emanate from a feeling, but from my conscious freedom to choose.

I find it impossible to tell whether you lie consciously, or whether you simply can’t process what’s said so misrepresent it as it as your unavoidable response. I did not of course say that your "feeling of freedom is irrational" at all. I couldn’t have been clearer about that, so why pretend otherwise?   

What I actually said is that while your feeling of freedom isn’t irrational, relying on the strength of that feeling for your explanation for it is. Why? Because it fundamentally rejects a priori all the reasoning and evidence that provide a more robust explanation for what’s going on. This was the question you just ignored again remember? 

You (presumably) “feel” the earth to be flat, yet you know that it isn’t. Why? Because you accept the reasoning and evidence that tells you that your feeling of flatness isn’t a reliable explanation for reality.

You (presumably) “feel” that your fingers touch the keyboard in front of you, yet you know that they don’t. Why? Because you accept the reasoning and evidence that tells you that your feeling of touch isn’t a reliable explanation for reality.

You (presumably) “feel” the blood you see in some of your veins to be blue, yet you know that it isn’t. Why? Because you accept the reasoning and evidence that tells you that your feeling of blueness isn’t a reliable explanation for reality.

You can therefore (presumably) grasp the general principle that depth of feelings about an experience do not validate an explanation for that experience. There is simply no logical path from, "I have a deep feeling about X" to, "therefore that depth of feeling must also explain X".

Yet for some reason known only to you, “I really feel deeply that I have absolute freedom, therefore my freedom must be absolute” is all you have and no amount of reasoning and evidence can be allowed to falsify that, presumably because it’s a cornerstone of your religious beliefs and so cannot be allowed to be challenged.

It’s fundamentally dishonest as an approach, but I can’t imagine that you’ll ever do the decent thing and actually answer the question you’ve been asked about how you'd get from strength of feeling to reliability of explanation will you.

Will you?

[Stranger]

The fact that freedom is difficult to explain does not imply that it does not exist.

Your definition of freedom isn't difficult to explain it's just self-contradictory and hence impossible.

I am consciously aware of reasons, but reasons alone do not invoke my conscious choice.

Baseless assertion.

I still have freedom to choose.

Yes, you do.

The problem you keep ignoring is how you make a choice. You talk as if there is some indivisible singularity of choice that is 'you' and that we aren't allowed to ask how it arrives at its choices. You are asking us to just accept that it's magic and it overcomes the obvious contradiction (impossibility) in a magic way using magical magic, so there!

Then you have the audacity to pretend that your ability to make choices is evidence of the magic - which is just plain silly. And for a final flourish of double standards, you accuse the rest of us of not having a full explanation of how consciousness is produced by the brain!

[Alan Burns]

If the brain can't do that alone, then the spider walking around deciding where to make a web, has a soul too.

Or are you special pleading again!

Spiders, along with all other non human creatures, appear to follow their biologically defined instincts.
The human race, however, seem unique in their ability to be able to consciously choose to override their instincts if they so wish.

[Gordon]

Spiders, along with all other non human creatures, appear to follow their biologically defined instincts.
The human race, however, seem unique in their ability to be able to consciously choose to override their instincts if they so wish.

So, spiders have the biological equipment to spin webs and we have the biological equipment for abstract thought - wow, hooda thunkit!

[SteveH]

https://www.flickr.com/photos/154641658@N06/45284818682/in/dateposted-public/

[Alan Burns]

AB,

I find it impossible to tell whether you lie consciously, or whether you simply can’t process what’s said so misrepresent it as it as your unavoidable response. I did not of course say that your "feeling of freedom is irrational" at all. I couldn’t have been clearer about that, so why pretend otherwise?   

What I actually said is that while your feeling of freedom isn’t irrational, relying on the strength of that feeling for your explanation for it is. Why? Because it fundamentally rejects a priori all the reasoning and evidence that provide a more robust explanation for what’s going on. This was the question you just ignored again remember? 

You (presumably) “feel” the earth to be flat, yet you know that it isn’t. Why? Because you accept the reasoning and evidence that tells you that your feeling of flatness isn’t a reliable explanation for reality.

You (presumably) “feel” that your fingers touch the keyboard in front of you, yet you know that they don’t. Why? Because you accept the reasoning and evidence that tells you that your feeling of touch isn’t a reliable explanation for reality.

You (presumably) “feel” the blood you see in some of your veins to be blue, yet you know that it isn’t. Why? Because you accept the reasoning and evidence that tells you that your feeling of blueness isn’t a reliable explanation for reality.

You can therefore (presumably) grasp the general principle that depth of feelings about an experience do not validate an explanation for that experience. There is simply no logical path from, "I have a deep feeling about X" to, "therefore that depth of feeling must also explain X".

Yet for some reason known only to you, “I really feel deeply that I have absolute freedom, therefore my freedom must be absolute” is all you have and no amount of reasoning and evidence can be allowed to falsify that, presumably because it’s a cornerstone of your religious beliefs and so cannot be allowed to be challenged.

It’s fundamentally dishonest as an approach, but I can’t imagine that you’ll ever do the decent thing and actually answer the question you’ve been asked about how you'd get from strength of feeling to reliability of explanation will you.

Will you?

The examples of apparently deceptive feelings you gave can easily be verified by evidence you quote.

But my freedom to consciously choose is verified by the evidence that I have done what I chose to do.  So for the presumption that my freedom to choose is "just the way it seems", you would need some method to verify that my intended choice was entirely predetermined by past events.  The problem here is in defining the cause of the conscious intention.  The logic you appear to rely on here is that there is nothing else visibly involved other than the predetermined electrochemical activity of the brain cells.  But the problem you have is in showing that a conscious intention is entirely defined by nothing but physically predetermined, uncontrollable brain activity.

[torridon]

Spiders, along with all other non human creatures, appear to follow their biologically defined instincts.
The human race, however, seem unique in their ability to be able to consciously choose to override their instincts if they so wish.

We could describe that as freedom from instinct ; a far more modest claim than being free from cause and effect. Humans have more sophisticated thought processes than spiders I think we can all agree on that. 'More sophisticated' does not equate to 'magic'

[torridon]

The examples of apparently deceptive feelings you gave can easily be verified by evidence you quote.

But my freedom to consciously choose is verified by the evidence that I have done what I chose to do.  So for the presumption that my freedom to choose is "just the way it seems", you would need some method to verify that my intended choice was entirely predetermined by past events.  The problem here is in defining the cause of the conscious intention.  The logic you appear to rely on here is that there is nothing else visibly involved other than the predetermined electrochemical activity of the brain cells.  But the problem you have is in showing that a conscious intention is entirely defined by nothing but physically predetermined, uncontrollable brain activity.

A characteristically evasive post from the master of slipperiness. That you do what you chose to do does NOT demonstrate that your choice was free of determining factors.

[Stranger]

But my freedom to consciously choose is verified by the evidence that I have done what I chose to do.

That is not what this is about. Repeating it is dishonest evasion. The issue is whether your conscious choice making is deterministic.

So for the presumption that my freedom to choose is "just the way it seems", you would need some method to verify that my intended choice was entirely predetermined by past events.  The problem here is in defining the cause of the conscious intention.  The logic you appear to rely on here is that there is nothing else visibly involved other than the predetermined electrochemical activity of the brain cells.  But the problem you have is in showing that a conscious intention is entirely defined by nothing but physically predetermined, uncontrollable brain activity.

No, that isn't the problem at all. It's not the science that has a problem. All the evidence we have is that consciousness is produced by the brain. There is no evidence for anything else being involved.

It is those who claim that there is something else that have the problem and the problem is a total lack of any evidence.

You, and others who proposed your nonsense version of free will, have an even bigger problem which is that your proposal is self-contradictory and hence impossible even if there is a magical soul.

You are proposing that something self-contradictory exists for which there is no evidence at all based on nothing but your own incredulity about a physical explanation and your faith (what you want to be true).