Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

It is you who insists on quoting "determined vs random" problem .  I have never denied that our choices are determined.  My contention is that they are not physically predetermined, because if they were, there is no choice.

There you go again - it's been explained to why this is wrong endless times, yet you don't address the answers you've been given, you just repeat the same thing over and over and over again.

Do you actually understand what a discussion is? Do you get that this is supposed to be a discussion forum?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stranger,

There you go again - it's been explained to why this is wrong endless times, yet you don't address the answers you've been given, you just repeat the same thing over and over and over again.

Do you actually understand what a discussion is? Do you get that this is supposed to be a discussion forum?

I think that’s what explains why some of us get so bloody frustrated by him. If even once he said something like, “OK, I understand your argument but here’s why I think it’s wrong….” then there’d be a conversation. Instead though he just repeats endlessly the same tropes and mantras that have been falsified countless times. It’s like watching a man say “2+2=5”, have the error corrected and then respond with “2+2=5”, and then repeat until everyone gives up and goes home.

Still, as apparently we’re “the forces of evil” I guess he can convince himself that any tactic in response is acceptable. 

[torridon]

The key word in this definition of freedom is in the meaning of the word "want".
What is it that determines what you want to do?
Is it you, or is it pre existing unavoidable consequences to events?
..

From my own personal experience, and from simple logic, I am happy to acknowledge that my wants arise for some or other reason.  Were this not to be the case, then my wants would be random, and if humans, uniquely, had evolved a disposition to random behaviours, then we would not be here to discuss it.   The choice I make between alternatives reflects the greatest want out of the rivalry of competing wants.  This is how brains resolve choice, something they do incessantly- we weigh options against each other on a scale of emotional value to identify the most appealing option.

[torridon]

I agree,
I have never denied the influence or importance of past events in enabling us to make an informed choice.  The contention I have with other posters such as Blue, Torri and Stranger is in the role of our conscious awareness being aware of influencing factors, but still having the freedom to consciously invoke the chosen option at a chosen time and place, or perhaps to choose not to do anything.  This is the driving force of our consciously controlled human will which I believe is directed by our spiritual nature rather than from the physically predetermined reactions of our brain cells.

No one can 'control' their will.  Our will is a consequence of what has gone before.  If I could control my will then I would be able to want something I do not want.  This is what 'controlling' my will would mean, and clearly it is a nonsense. We do not 'control' our will, we act upon it.

[torridon]

Your argument is obviously flawed.
If everything is entirely predetermined by past events, there can be no concept of conscious freedom to choose.  If something is entirely predetermined, it can be nothing but an unavoidable reaction.  Our freedom to make consciously driven choices must have a definable source which has the freedom to determine the choice.  But in an entirely physically controlled scenario there can be no such source.

Freedom isn't a thing.  Our sense of freedom is a feeling, just like feeling hot or feeling confused of feeling happy.  It is a feeling.  Freedom cannot be a cause of something, it is events that lead to other events.  All our actions today have consequences in the future, all our experience today is a consequence of what has gone before. We feel free, but feelings are always consequences of the things that gave rise to those feelings.

[Stranger]

I am constantly being accused of deliberate actions such as evasion, dishonesty, assertions, ignoring, ... etc. Yet these same accusers tell me that my apparently conscious choices are entirely predetermined by past events.  So I ask them,  Who or what is ultimately responsible for the deliberation involved in such actions?

And you've been answered multiple times but you just ignore it. For example here: #31926 (after the fourth quote).

[torridon]

The present is not fiction as you previously implied.
Every event occurs in the present - including a conscious act of human freewill.

How long do you think the present moment lasts for ?  You've probably got a smart phone with a stop watch ability. Try timing the present moment and come back here and tell us how long it lasted. 

An event of zero duration cannot happen.  Rather, the 'present' is really a useful fiction, a construction of our perception.

[ekim]

No one can 'control' their will.  Our will is a consequence of what has gone before.  If I could control my will then I would be able to want something I do not want.  This is what 'controlling' my will would mean, and clearly it is a nonsense. We do not 'control' our will, we act upon it.

I may be wrong but I think what Alan is trying to say is about 'choice', but somehow he mixes it up with his frequent expressions 'consciously controlled human will' or 'God given soul'.  If we can accept 'desire/want' as a primary driving force and 'will' as the 'intention to act or not act' then it is possible to choose an intention between desires if the person can gain conscious detachment from those desires.  An addiction would then be a 'want' I do not want and there becomes the possibility of choosing or modifying my actions.  If I am not conscious of the addiction then the possibility is lost and I am driven by the sub/unconscious desire.  The kind of 'freedom' mentioned in 'spirituality' tends to be about a consciousness detached from or transcending the desires and thoughts of the psyche, which is something to aspire to rather than seen as 'God given'.

[torridon]

I may be wrong but I think what Alan is trying to say is about 'choice', but somehow he mixes it up with his frequent expressions 'consciously controlled human will' or 'God given soul'.  If we can accept 'desire/want' as a primary driving force and 'will' as the 'intention to act or not act' then it is possible to choose an intention between desires if the person can gain conscious detachment from those desires.  An addiction would then be a 'want' I do not want and there becomes the possibility of choosing or modifying my actions.  If I am not conscious of the addiction then the possibility is lost and I am driven by the sub/unconscious desire.  The kind of 'freedom' mentioned in 'spirituality' tends to be about a consciousness detached from or transcending the desires and thoughts of the psyche, which is something to aspire to rather than seen as 'God given'.

I don't think we can ever truly 'gain conscious detachment' from our desires.  The extent that we could do so, would arise only as a consequence of a desire to gain conscious detachment from desires.  We mediate multiple levels of abstraction and cognition; so we might seek out some or other behaviour modification therapy to help us control an addiction as you say, but we would only do that if we desire to do so arose for some reason.  I would not go into rehab if I didn't want to.

[Enki]

I may be wrong but I think what Alan is trying to say is about 'choice', but somehow he mixes it up with his frequent expressions 'consciously controlled human will' or 'God given soul'.  If we can accept 'desire/want' as a primary driving force and 'will' as the 'intention to act or not act' then it is possible to choose an intention between desires if the person can gain conscious detachment from those desires.  An addiction would then be a 'want' I do not want and there becomes the possibility of choosing or modifying my actions.  If I am not conscious of the addiction then the possibility is lost and I am driven by the sub/unconscious desire.  The kind of 'freedom' mentioned in 'spirituality' tends to be about a consciousness detached from or transcending the desires and thoughts of the psyche, which is something to aspire to rather than seen as 'God given'.

Which still doesn't actually explain the reasons for modifying one's actions. Is this a random choice, or is it a result of determinism? No matter how you dress it up, you still have to face this problem. Incidentally, it seems to me that you are equating 'wants' with  basic desires. Why so? Surely to want to be free of these desires is also a 'want', whether it be conscious or unconscious.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

Does that mean that you’ve changed your mind then about positing “in so much as those are the only inputs my soul can use to decide what course of action to take”? Would it decide or wouldn’t it? 

Whether they’ve “not been identified” is moot, but fair enough – you’re describing the “you can’t cut butter with a knife made of butter” problem I think.   

But you started by saying you had a suggestion for how it would work and then told us only what it would do. Where’s the “how”?

Where?

No – that’s the problem. If he just said something like, “look, I have no logic and no evidence to support my claims and assertions of fact but I believe them to be true nonetheless just as articles of personal faith” that would be fine. It would come at a big price because he’d then have to give up any expectation of anyone agreeing with him (any more than he’d agree with their various and sundry beliefs from personal faith) but so far as it goes it would be no-one’s business but his own. What he actually does though is to overreach – he tries to make arguments in logic for his claims so as to persuade others of their validity, but whenever he does it those arguments unravel immediately like a cheap suit. What he then does in the face of their falsification is either to ignore the falsifications or to repeat the falsified mantras. Or both.     

As I said before - my post was trying to look at it from Alan's perspective of a soul having a will that has the final veto or decision in choices, and then asking Alan whether the scenario I presented was the same type of scenario he envisages based on his beliefs about the soul and what it does. I wasn't trying to claim anyone has it all figured out how the brain perceives its own perceptions and makes moral choices based on those perceptions of perceptions, much less claim that anyone has figured out how to stick a soul into the actual thinking process.

How Alan chooses to word his posts is his business. If he doesn't post according to your preferences, I guess it's just something that will have to continue to frustrate you, unless Alan decides to follow your guidance on the matter.

[SusanDoris]

Gabriella

If younger people, possibly vulnerable young people are reading this particular thread, I think it is important that there are always practical, rational posts which counter the zero-evidenced, ill-informed waffle that AB writes.
Do you agree?

[ippy]

Gabriella

If younger people, possibly vulnerable young people are reading this particular thread, I think it is important that there are always practical, rational posts which counter the zero-evidenced, ill-informed waffle that AB writes.
Do you agree?

I'm sure whatever Gabriella thinks Susan, if she does reply it'll be a two or three thousand word reply, say very little and will diminish your will to live.

Regards ippy.

[Nearly Sane]

   Moderator:   See update to 'Clarification regarding confrontational posting' thread on Mod & Admin.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Gabriella

If younger people, possibly vulnerable young people are reading this particular thread, I think it is important that there are always practical, rational posts which counter the zero-evidenced, ill-informed waffle that AB writes.
Do you agree?

They deserve the honesty of admission that the hard problem of consciousness has not been settled and that there has been an attempt to turdpolish that away.

[SusanDoris]

   Moderator:   See update to 'Clarification regarding confrontational posting' thread on Mod & Admin.   

I have to say, though, that Ippy's post did make me laugh out loud!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I have to say, though, that Ippy's post did make me laugh out loud!

Me too though I was laughing at it not with it.

[Alan Burns]

How long do you think the present moment lasts for ?  You've probably got a smart phone with a stop watch ability. Try timing the present moment and come back here and tell us how long it lasted. 

An event of zero duration cannot happen.  Rather, the 'present' is really a useful fiction, a construction of our perception.

The concept of how long a moment lasts for is not relevant.
My contention is that every event occurs in the present, including an act of human free will.  There is no such thing as a duration of the present - the present is simply the state where events occur.

[Stranger]

They deserve the honesty of admission that the hard problem of consciousness has not been settled and that there has been an attempt to turdpolish that away.

Don't be silly Vlad. Of course the problem of consciousness hasen't been solved but there has been no attempt that I've seen to disguise that. What we do have is plentiful evidence that consciousness is produced by brains.

Quite apart from all that, much of the discussion has been about the logical impossibility of what Alan is proposing. It isn't impossible that we have souls (although the evidence is strongly against the idea) but it is impossible that they can make choices that are not deterministic unless they have some random element.

[Stranger]

The concept of how long a moment lasts for is not relevant.
My contention is that every event occurs in the present, including an act of human free will.  There is no such thing as a duration of the present - the present is simply the state where events occur.

Pure gibberish.   

There is no such thing as the present in physics. There cannot even be the concept of a single point in time that extends beyond a single point in space - and even if we ignore that, nothing can happen in zero time.

Your belief in your subjective experience, even when it is in obvious conflict with hard evidence from science, is totally irrational. Have you just given up on pretending to use logic and reasoning?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I'm sure whatever Gabriella thinks Susan, if she does reply it'll be a two or three thousand word reply, say very little and will diminish your will to live.

Regards ippy.

Oh look - a Troll.

Any chance you’ll collect your one (possibly two) thoughts together and post an actual argument one day or are you here just to disrupt.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I have to say, though, that Ippy's post did make me laugh out loud!

I had the same reaction to your post imagining problems for “vulnerable” young people reading about Alan’s beliefs on this thread.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Pure gibberish.   

There is no such thing as the present in physics. There cannot even be the concept of a single point in time that extends beyond a single point in space - and even if we ignore that, nothing can happen in zero time.

Your belief in your subjective experience, even when it is in obvious conflict with hard evidence from science, is totally irrational. Have you just given up on pretending to use logic and reasoning?

Perhaps, finally you could explain why evolution has made no accommodation for the detection of single points of time for single points in space.

I think the answer is none, nix, zero and would therefore question its relevance in the context of the discussion here.

[SusanDoris]

I had the same reaction to your post imagining problems for “vulnerable” young people reading about Alan’s beliefs on this thread.

Okay, but why?  Please give your easons.

I don't think it is funny to delude younger people into thinking that there is a little independent soul inside everyone.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Okay, but why?  Please give your easons.

I don't think it is funny to delude younger people into thinking that there is a little independent soul inside everyone.

Unfortunately it hasn't been effectively discounted and anyone who says otherwise is talking crap.
And that's from someone like me who isn't happy with the idea of souls whizzing around.