Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

I have never claimed that our ability to choose is free from determinism, so please stop misrepresenting what I say.  My claim is that our choices need to be sourced from something other than physically predefined events in order to enable the reality of our freedom to make conscious choices.

Oh, not again!

The idea that any event (including choices) is either entirely due to pre-existing causes or is, in part, random has nothing at all to do with the physical universe - it's just logic! To claim that it is based on the physical world is simply untrue.

[Gordon]

My claim is that our choices need to be sourced from something other than physically predefined events in order to enable the reality of our freedom to make conscious choices.

As ever your 'physically predefined' is redundant: 'event' is sufficient, and any aspect of an event that isn't random results from the consequences of prior conditions and prevailing circumstances.

Of course 'sourced from something other than physically predefined events' is just Alan-speak to allow you to claim something 'spiritual', since you need this to preserve your take on 'God': the problem is, as has been noted many times, even if there were such a thing as spiritual agency (which you have managed to make a case for that isn't dependent on fallacies) it would also be subject to the logic of determinism. 

[Enki]

Yes, I don't disagree with what you say as you have applied it to actions, and, the thinking, reasoning, rationalising mind is probably our most active asset and as such will actively interpret accordingly.  What about if the goal is stillness rather than actions?  You could say I desire or am determined to attain inner stillness but that determination or desire is likely to be counter productive until it is dropped.  The end result has been called 'the peace that passeth understanding' amongst other expressions, perhaps because to analyse it, think about it or discuss it's origin can result in a paradise lost.  The word 'random' is sometimes supplanted by 'spontaneous', 'the grace of God' or 'sudden realisation, a revelation' perhaps to imply that it is not as a result of egotistical determination.

I hear what you say, Ekim.

I suggest that actions are the result of brain activity(conscious/subconscious /unconscious). My suggestion(as with other contributors to this thread) is that the brain activity must be deterministic or random. Even if our goal is 'stillness' then 1) we must want that goal, 2) there are reasons why we want that goal(not necessarily conscious ones) and 3) we take action to attempt to achieve that goal. Hence the whole process is basically deterministic.

Incidentally If we achieve some form of 'inner stillness' this does not necessarily mean that the brain has somehow become inactive. Indeed, there is evidence that different areas of the brain become more active, and emotional awareness is heightened. Therefore I would suggest that the effects of this 'stillness' that you describe(e.g. the peace that passes all understanding) have causes and these are to be found in brain activity. Hence, whatever one feels/experiences is still either deterministic in nature or random(or some mixture of both)

Not sure what you mean by 'egotistical determination' but assuming that you mean by that is the deterministic process, I have no reason to believe that a 'revelation' is anything other than a product of the mind.

[Sebastian Toe]

I considered it to be a trivial question.
Counting obviously requires the God given properties of conscious awareness and freewill in order to initiate and carry out the counting process.  It also requires information provided from our human sense organs.  So it is a combined effort.

Its not trivial as it is necessary to understand at a simple level how your version of a soul works.
Step me through it if you can.

What exactly is the counting process?

[torridon]

I considered it to be a trivial question.
Counting obviously requires the God given properties of conscious awareness and freewill in order to initiate and carry out the counting process.  It also requires information provided from our human sense organs.  So it is a combined effort.

Cognitive tests on other species show that the ability to do simple arithmentic is not confined to humans. Gorillas, monkeys, chimpanzees, bears, wolves and chickens, amongst others, have demonstrated some degree of numeracy in tests requiring them to add up.

[Alan Burns]

Oh, not again!

The idea that any event (including choices) is either entirely due to pre-existing causes or is, in part, random has nothing at all to do with the physical universe - it's just logic! To claim that it is based on the physical world is simply untrue.

But your misguided logic fails to explain the reality of my conscious freedom to choose and guide my own thought processes.  No amount of wordy explanations can change the fact that such freedom can't exist within a world entirely predefined by physical material reactions.

Let me illustrate just how short sighted your logic can be.

You presume that everything must be predetermined whether it has a spiritual nature or a physical nature, but in this you are making an unfounded presumption. Time is a property of our material universe.  Stephen Hawkin deduced from his extensive physical analysis that time as we know it began with the Big Bang. (See his book, "A Brief History of Time").  The inspired words of the Christian Bible tell us that our souls are immortal, and therefore can't be derived from our material universe.  So we can't presume that our souls are subject to the time constrains evident in material behaviour.  It is possible that our souls perceive time through awareness of the sensory data contained in our brain cells, but do not have a time dimension of their own - they just have the ability to consciously interact within the time dimension of our physical body.  In which case the freewill derived from our souls will not be subject to the time line of predetermined causes.  I admit that this is just a postulation of what I think may be possible, but it illustrates that you will need to look beyond the predefined logic of our material universe in order to discover the truth behind our existence.

[SusanDoris]

I considered it to be a trivial question.
Counting obviously requires the God given properties of conscious awareness and freewill in order to initiate and carry out the counting process.  It also requires information provided from our human sense organs.  So it is a combined effort.

I waited until I had seen Sebastian Toe's reply before writing this. The question was not trivial, it is your answer which is trivial, doing a bit of handwaving, assuming a God and soul, and therefore makes no rational sense as far as I can see.

[Gordon]

You presume that everything must be predetermined whether it has a spiritual nature or a physical nature, but in this you are making an unfounded presumption.

The presumption is all yours, Alan: as in your presumption of a 'spiritual nature'.

Time is a property of our material universe.

You mean the universe: as far as I know the material one is the only one we have evidence of.

Stephen Hawkin deduced from his extensive physical analysis that time as we know it began with the Big Bang. (See his book, "A Brief History of Time").

So?

The inspired words of the Christian Bible tell us that our souls are immortal, and therefore can't be derived from our material universe.

Only if you take this Bible claim literally, which would be naive since it might be wrong: in addition you haven't got evidence for 'souls' so your citing of the Bible is just a fallacious argument from authority and tradition.   
 

So we can't presume that our souls are subject to the time constrains evident in material behaviour.  It is possible that our souls perceive time through awareness of the sensory data contained in our brain cells, but do not have a time dimension of their own - they just have the ability to consciously interact within the time dimension of our physical body.  In which case the freewill derived from our souls will not be subject to the time line of predetermined causes.

Which is no doubt what you'd like to be the case, but I suspect you are just making up a presumptive narrative about 'souls' here in order to fit your personal religious preferences.

I admit that this is just a postulation of what I think may be possible, but it illustrates that you will need to look beyond the predefined logic of our material universe in order to discover the truth behind our existence.

Nope - you don't get to make stuff up to suit yourself and then conclude that it might just be true.

[Stranger]

But your misguided logic fails to explain the reality of my conscious freedom to choose and guide my own thought processes.

In what way? You keep asserting this but never back it up. It seems to be an article of blind faith. I'll ask yet again: what would you expect to be different if I was right?

If everything that goes on in your mind, physically based or otherwise, conscious or otherwise, is doing so without any randomness, then each step of it must be the result of the preceding steps.

No amount of wordy explanations can change the fact that such freedom can't exist within a world entirely predefined by physical material reactions.

...he asserted, without a hint of evidence or logic.

You presume that everything must be predetermined whether it has a spiritual nature or a physical nature, but in this you are making an unfounded presumption. Time is a property of our material universe.  Stephen Hawkin deduced from his extensive physical analysis that time as we know it began with the Big Bang. (See his book, "A Brief History of Time").  The inspired words of the Christian Bible tell us that our souls are immortal, and therefore can't be derived from our material universe.  So we can't presume that our souls are subject to the time constrains evident in material behaviour.  It is possible that our souls perceive time through awareness of the sensory data contained in our brain cells, but do not have a time dimension of their own - they just have the ability to consciously interact within the time dimension of our physical body.

If your soul doesn't "have a time dimension", then it would have to remain static and unchanging. It certainly couldn't perceive the contents of the brain and react to them by making a choice. It couldn't possibly interact with a brain because an interaction takes place over time.

Whatever you say about your soul, a choice making process exists in and needs time. For example, You may have to gather all the information, assess the relevance of experience and memories, go through the possibilities, imagine the possible consequences of each option and then make a final decision. You can't pass any part of it on to some entity that doesn't "have a time dimension" - the process would simply stop - because without time, it cannot get the input, process it and respond.

In which case the freewill derived from our souls will not be subject to the time line of predetermined causes.

This doesn't work even if we ignore all of the above. The problem still is that there is a set of all the information (internal, external, physical, or spiritual) that is available prior to the choice and that could possibly be relevant to a choice. Either that data set fully determines the choice or not. If it doesn't, then there is nothing left that can make a final choice, so any remaining choice must be for no reason (random).

Timeless souls cannot change that.

I admit that this is just a postulation of what I think may be possible, but it illustrates that you will need to look beyond the predefined logic of our material universe in order to discover the truth behind our existence.

Except it's obviously not logically possible. There really is no escape from the logic: either all the relevant information (including who you are) defines the outcome of a choice or not.

[Dicky Underpants]

The inspired words of the Christian Bible tell us that our souls are immortal, and therefore can't be derived from our material universe. 

No  - that's all from Plato. The 'inspired' words of the Christian Bible tell us that the soul is very mortal indeed. Or do you not consider Ezekiel to be part of the Christian Bible? (Mind you, Jesus himself said the soul could be destroyed, but we are dealing with terms here which may have different significations, but have usually been all simply translated as 'soul')

[ekim]

I hear what you say, Ekim.

(1)I suggest that actions are the result of brain activity(conscious/subconscious /unconscious). My suggestion(as with other contributors to this thread) is that the brain activity must be deterministic or random. Even if our goal is 'stillness' then 1) we must want that goal, 2) there are reasons why we want that goal(not necessarily conscious ones) and 3) we take action to attempt to achieve that goal. Hence the whole process is basically deterministic.

(2)Incidentally If we achieve some form of 'inner stillness' this does not necessarily mean that the brain has somehow become inactive. Indeed, there is evidence that different areas of the brain become more active, and emotional awareness is heightened. Therefore I would suggest that the effects of this 'stillness' that you describe(e.g. the peace that passes all understanding) have causes and these are to be found in brain activity. Hence, whatever one feels/experiences is still either deterministic in nature or random(or some mixture of both)

(3)Not sure what you mean by 'egotistical determination' but assuming that you mean by that is the deterministic process, I have no reason to believe that a 'revelation' is anything other than a product of the mind.

Thanks for your patience.  At the risk of wasting both our times, I'll add a couple more comments.
(1) Yes I agree with that.  The reasons and goals can be various 'Know thyself', Nirvana, Heaven etc.  Take action? Yes, some pray, some carry out active meditations or Yoga practices.  Some choose non action like the Taoist's Wei wu Wei - action through non action, and some stillness meditations.  They could all be classed as deterministic methods.
(2) Now comes the awkward part, let's call it the destination.  Buddha said ‘Do not dip the string of thought into the Unfathomable; he who questions errs and he who answers errs.'  This is possibly what 'the peace that passes all understanding' alludes to i.e. the thinking, reasoning, rationalising mind cannot conceptualise it.  To discuss it the mind needs to formalise the discussion as indicated by your comments - 'inner stillness' needs 'some form', some 'brain activity', some 'emotions'.  Your final sentence 'whatever one feels/experiences' jumps to the objective whereas 'Know thyself' is about the subject you call 'one'.  The mind also requires the logic of either/or, either determined or random, where 'random' seems to stand in for 'don't know'. The religious mind creates a God and avoids 'random' as all is determined by God.  Some mystics see it a source and destination situation but where source and destination are the same and a merging with it is about stillness rather than activity.  I'm sure I have bored you by now.
(3) Please see my reply to Bluehillside about 'egotistical determination'.  'Revelation' like 'apocalypse' meant 'removing of a veil' and it is the products of mind which create the veil which obscures clarity.

[Stranger]

I can't help thinking ekim, that you are simply concentrating on a different level of abstraction to enki (and others in this discussion) .

Down at the "nuts and bolts" level of how the mind works (be it entirely a physical brain or otherwise), it must operate deterministically or have some genuine random element. This is just a logical necessity.

There is, however, no reason at all to think that this is detectable to the conscious mind (which is why Alan's frequent assertions that his experience is relevant falls down) or that we can map determinism or randomness to states of mind that we experience.

If we assume that there is only the physical brain, then determinism is operating at the level of firing neurons and lower to atoms and molecules. Any genuine randomness would have to be somehow dependent on quantum effects, which is why it's unlikely to be significant (although there could be pseudo-randomness and the mind is almost certainly chaotic in some respects).

The deterministic nature of our minds is, for all practical purposes, irrelevant to ordinary day to day experience and even to any state of stillness in which you try to detach from any desires, actions, or wants.

[Alan Burns]

In what way? You keep asserting this but never back it up. It seems to be an article of blind faith. I'll ask yet again: what would you expect to be different if I was right?

If you were right, I would have no freedom to consciously control my thoughts, words and actions, because it would all be done for me by the physically determined forces of nature - not me.

If everything that goes on in your mind, physically based or otherwise, conscious or otherwise, is doing so without any randomness, then each step of it must be the result of the preceding steps.

But if a preceding step was spiritually invoked, you have no knowledge of the nature or workings of the source which invoked it.

If your soul doesn't "have a time dimension", then it would have to remain static and unchanging.

Only if you think of it in terms of the mechanistic nature of material elements.  Our spiritual nature could always exist in its own timeless state, but have awareness of the time dimension of our universe, and the power to interact within it.  This would explain the apparent anomaly of specific brain activity preceding our awareness of making a conscious choice.  The soul in effect would be responding to the consciously driven choice by setting in motion the required physical brain activity prior to the choice being made.  It shows how clever God is. 

[Enki]

Thanks for your patience.  At the risk of wasting both our times, I'll add a couple more comments.
(1) Yes I agree with that.  The reasons and goals can be various 'Know thyself', Nirvana, Heaven etc.  Take action? Yes, some pray, some carry out active meditations or Yoga practices.  Some choose non action like the Taoist's Wei wu Wei - action through non action, and some stillness meditations.  They could all be classed as deterministic methods.
(2) Now comes the awkward part, let's call it the destination.  Buddha said ‘Do not dip the string of thought into the Unfathomable; he who questions errs and he who answers errs.'  This is possibly what 'the peace that passes all understanding' alludes to i.e. the thinking, reasoning, rationalising mind cannot conceptualise it.  To discuss it the mind needs to formalise the discussion as indicated by your comments - 'inner stillness' needs 'some form', some 'brain activity', some 'emotions'.  Your final sentence 'whatever one feels/experiences' jumps to the objective whereas 'Know thyself' is about the subject you call 'one'.  The mind also requires the logic of either/or, either determined or random, where 'random' seems to stand in for 'don't know'. The religious mind creates a God and avoids 'random' as all is determined by God.  Some mystics see it a source and destination situation but where source and destination are the same and a merging with it is about stillness rather than activity.  I'm sure I have bored you by now.
(3) Please see my reply to Bluehillside about 'egotistical determination'.  'Revelation' like 'apocalypse' meant 'removing of a veil' and it is the products of mind which create the veil which obscures clarity.

Ekim,

No you haven't bored me. Far from it.

I think the difference between us is that you tend to stress the importance of the subjective response whereas I am probably more interested in trying to explain that response in as objective a way as possible. Let me put it this way. many years ago, my wife and I went to see a performance of King Lear at Stratford on Avon. We were both moved by the outstanding performance of the actors, especially Robert Stephens, who took the title role. At a certain point in the play I happened to glance across at my wife, and noticed that she was absolutely engrossed in a powerful speech by Lear, and tears were streaming down her face. The point about this was that my wife rarely cries. She had spent many years on a cancer ward(as a nurse) and had learned to control her emotions. I thought about this incident a lot afterwards, and what fascinated me was the power that empathy has in certain situations. I wanted to know why we have empathy, where it comes from and what use it is. I don't know if this helps to explain my approach to the spiritual ideas that are obviously of importance to you. I hope it does

I am always interested in different points of view, different experiences, different explanations.

I must correct you on one point however. Random doesn't mean don't know. Don't know might simply be a case of some complex series of causal events which we are not able to fathom. Random in this case simply means without cause or reason.

Cheers

[Stranger]

If you were right, I would have no freedom to consciously control my thoughts, words and actions, because it would all be done for me by the physically determined forces of nature - not me.

You have just assumed that the 'me' refers to something that is necessarily distinct from the "physically determined forces of nature". If you remove that unsupported assumption, then the 'because' in your sentence doesn't explain why you would have no "freedom to consciously control my thoughts, words and actions".

What is so difficult about this that you seem totally unable to grasp it? What if the you are part of the "physically determined forces of nature"? What if that is what produces your consciousness? What if your conscious choices are examples of "physically determined forces of nature"? I know you don't think that is the case but why is it so hard for you to grasp the concept?

And you didn't answer my question (yet again): what do you think would be different about your experience if I was right? How would you be able to tell if I was right? Until you can answer that, or point out some inconsistency in the idea, you cannot logically dismiss it. It is, after all, what all the evidence is telling us is the case.

You have not presented a logical argument, you have just made assumptions based on your faith and incredulity.

But if a preceding step was spiritually invoked, you have no knowledge of the nature or workings of the source which invoked it.

Which makes absolutely no difference at all - we can still apply logic.

Only if you think of it in terms of the mechanistic nature of material elements.

I do wish you'd stop misrepresenting my logical argument as one that is based on the material world.

Our spiritual nature could always exist in its own timeless state, but have awareness of the time dimension of our universe, and the power to interact within it.

This is still just as logically self-contradictory as it was when I explained it before. A timeless thing cannot take part in an interaction that takes place over a period of time. A timeless thing can't make a choice because a choice means that it changes state (from not having made one to having made one) and changing from one state to another requires that the first state precedes the second in time.

This would explain the apparent anomaly of specific brain activity preceding our awareness of making a conscious choice.  The soul in effect would be responding to the consciously driven choice by setting in motion the required physical brain activity prior to the choice being made.  It shows how clever God is. 

That makes no sense whatsoever: the soul makes a choice and sets the brain changes in motion before the choice is made. You didn't really think that through, did you?

You haven't even begun to tackle the basic problem that is (as I said before) that there is a set of all the information (internal, external, physical, or spiritual) that is available prior to the choice. Either that data set fully determines the choice or not. If it doesn't, then there is nothing left that can make a final choice, so any remaining choice must be for no reason (random).

Absolutely nothing that you've said addresses that point.

[ekim]

Ekim,

No you haven't bored me. Far from it.

I think the difference between us is that you tend to stress the importance of the subjective response whereas I am probably more interested in trying to explain that response in as objective a way as possible. Let me put it this way. many years ago, my wife and I went to see a performance of King Lear at Stratford on Avon. We were both moved by the outstanding performance of the actors, especially Robert Stephens, who took the title role. At a certain point in the play I happened to glance across at my wife, and noticed that she was absolutely engrossed in a powerful speech by Lear, and tears were streaming down her face. The point about this was that my wife rarely cries. She had spent many years on a cancer ward(as a nurse) and had learned to control her emotions. I thought about this incident a lot afterwards, and what fascinated me was the power that empathy has in certain situations. I wanted to know why we have empathy, where it comes from and what use it is. I don't know if this helps to explain my approach to the spiritual ideas that are obviously of importance to you. I hope it does

I am always interested in different points of view, different experiences, different explanations.

I must correct you on one point however. Random doesn't mean don't know. Don't know might simply be a case of some complex series of causal events which we are not able to fathom. Random in this case simply means without cause or reason.

Cheers

Enki

Yes, both you and Stranger are probably right that my focus as regards this topic is different to yours a number of others.  I try to present the view of the mystic and perhaps heretic which is likely to be condemned as much by organised religion as it might be by scientists.  It is especially difficult because their tendency is to express what they have to say about the results of their experiential practices analogically rather than logically.  To me, they are more concerned with the subject 'I' and its essential nature rather than subjective responses which would probably fall within the province of psychology.  The anecdote about your wife is a good example.  To my simple mind, control of emotions often boils down to suppression of emotions, especially those which might interfere with intricate tasks.  Suppression is often just delayed expression and response to a variety of arts is usually a safe way of expression, although I sometimes wonder about some of the violent films and plays nowadays.  Some people are more sensitive than others and can sense what another is feeling and will perhaps be drawn to a profession where this ability (empathy) can be used.

The, so called, spiritual path is perhaps for looking for a more fundamental identity e.g. I am 'being', rather than I am (being) thoughtful, (being) emotional, (being) a top dog, (being) an under dog etc.

As regards "Random in this case simply means without cause or reason.", wouldn't we have to know every possible cause and reason that ever was or is to be sure of classifying an event as random?

Best wishes.

[Gordon]

If you were right, I would have no freedom to consciously control my thoughts, words and actions, because it would all be done for me by the physically determined forces of nature - not me.

And if 'me' comprises only the 'physically determined forces of nature' there is then no problem.

But if a preceding step was spiritually invoked, you have no knowledge of the nature or workings of the source which invoked it.

More to the point: neither do you, and it is you who is making the claim.

Our spiritual nature could always exist in its own timeless state, but have awareness of the time dimension of our universe, and the power to interact within it.  This would explain the apparent anomaly of specific brain activity preceding our awareness of making a conscious choice.  The soul in effect would be responding to the consciously driven choice by setting in motion the required physical brain activity prior to the choice being made.  It shows how clever God is. 

This is you just making stuff up now, Alan, and the idea that something timeless can operate via a sequence of events occurring in time just doesn't fly. Of course you are peddling fiction now: your particular 'soul' claims are analogous to Tolkien telling us that there are Hobbits and that they have hairy feet: neither Hobbits nor 'souls' are serious propositions. 

[Alan Burns]

You have just assumed that the 'me' refers to something that is necessarily distinct from the "physically determined forces of nature".

My thoughts, words and actions go far beyond anything that the purposeless, unguided forces of nature could ever produce, so it is not an unsupported assumption.

If you remove that unsupported assumption, then the 'because' in your sentence doesn't explain why you would have no "freedom to consciously control my thoughts, words and actions".

What is so difficult about this that you seem totally unable to grasp it? What if the you are part of the "physically determined forces of nature"? What if that is what produces your consciousness? What if your conscious choices are examples of "physically determined forces of nature"? I know you don't think that is the case but why is it so hard for you to grasp the concept?

Because I have freedom to choose my thoughts, words and actions

And you didn't answer my question (yet again): what do you think would be different about your experience if I was right? How would you be able to tell if I was right?

You and I would have the intelligence and imagination close to that of a wild monkey.

Until you can answer that, or point out some inconsistency in the idea, you cannot logically dismiss it. It is, after all, what all the evidence is telling us is the case.

Then I suggest you widen the scope of your admissible evidence

You have not presented a logical argument, you have just made assumptions based on your faith and incredulity.

It is based on the impossibility of material reactions to define an entity of conscious awareness, together with the impossibility for my freedom to choose being defined by physically predetermined material reactions.  You may label this as personal incredulity - you have the God given freedom to do so if you so wish.

Which makes absolutely no difference at all - we can still apply logic.

But you can't change reality to fit in with your conceived logic.

I do wish you'd stop misrepresenting my logical argument as one that is based on the material world.

For someone who apparently does not believe in the spiritual world, you seem to profess to know how it works.

This is still just as logically self-contradictory as it was when I explained it before. A timeless thing cannot take part in an interaction that takes place over a period of time. A timeless thing can't make a choice because a choice means that it changes state (from not having made one to having made one) and changing from one state to another requires that the first state precedes the second in time.

You are thinking of a spiritual entity which is frozen in earth time.  If time as we know it does not exist in the spiritual dimension, you can't consider it to be subject to the same cause and effect scenario experienced by material entities in this world.  The evidence I see is that the spiritual entity which is our soul has a freedom which can't be defined within the deterministic constraints of your short sighted logic.

That makes no sense whatsoever: the soul makes a choice and sets the brain changes in motion before the choice is made. You didn't really think that through, did you?

Yes, because I believe the soul does whatever is needed to invoke an act of conscious will into this material world, even if this requires setting off the neuron activity before the choice is made (in our time - not the soul's time)

You haven't even begun to tackle the basic problem that is (as I said before) that there is a set of all the information (internal, external, physical, or spiritual) that is available prior to the choice. Either that data set fully determines the choice or not. If it doesn't, then there is nothing left that can make a final choice, so any remaining choice must be for no reason (random).

But the conscious will of the human soul extends far beyond anything which can be physically predetermined by past events.

Absolutely nothing that you've said addresses that point.

In your opinion.

[torridon]

My thoughts, words and actions go far beyond anything that the purposeless, unguided forces of nature could ever produce, so it is not an unsupported assumption. ...

That in itself is an unsupported assumption.  What is your justification for that grand claim ?

[Stranger]

My thoughts, words and actions go far beyond anything that the purposeless, unguided forces of nature could ever produce, so it is not an unsupported assumption.

That is an baseless assertion. How do you know?

Because I have freedom to choose my thoughts, words and actions

That isn't a reason - are you actually capable of analytical, logical thought or is incredulity and baseless assumptions and assertions all you can manage?

You and I would have the intelligence and imagination close to that of a wild monkey.

Here you go again. Why does that follow unless I accept your unsupported, evidence and logic free assumptions and assertions?

Then I suggest you widen the scope of your admissible evidence

To include what? Your unsupported assertions and assumptions?

It is based on the impossibility of material reactions to define an entity of conscious awareness, together with the impossibility for my freedom to choose being defined by physically predetermined material reactions.  You may label this as personal incredulity - you have the God given freedom to do so if you so wish.

More baseless assertions.

But you can't change reality to fit in with your conceived logic.

Physician, heal thyself.

For someone who apparently does not believe in the spiritual world, you seem to profess to know how it works.

As I said before, I am only assuming it is logically self-consistent. If you claim that it isn't then logic is irrelevant to your view and your own claims that you are using logic are void.

You are thinking of a spiritual entity which is frozen in earth time.  If time as we know it does not exist in the spiritual dimension, you can't consider it to be subject to the same cause and effect scenario experienced by material entities in this world.

This is just you abandoning any logic and insisting that it's magical, logic defying magic that does things magically. It's meaningless waffle. Logically, if the soul doesn't have a time dimension (as you said) then it can't interact or change state (make a choice).

The evidence I see is that the spiritual entity which is our soul has a freedom which can't be defined within the deterministic constraints of your short sighted logic.

So, the 'evidence' for your meaningless waffle is your unsupported assertion.  Can this get any sillier?

Yes, because I believe the soul does whatever is needed to invoke an act of conscious will into this material world, even if this requires setting off the neuron activity before the choice is made (in our time - not the soul's time)

So now the soul has its own time, does it? Make up your mind. Not that it will help with the logcal contradiction of something being not (pre)determined and not random.

However, what the hell, go for it. If you think it will help; how does the soul having its own time overcome the contradiction?

But the conscious will of the human soul extends far beyond anything which can be physically predetermined by past events.

Which is an irrelevant baseless assertion that wouldn't address the problem even if it were true (beacuse you qualified it with 'physical' which has nothing to do with the problem I stated).

In your opinion.

It's a fact that you haven't addressed the point. You haven't once said how the problem can be overcome - all you've done is insisted that it can be by your soul but you never say how - at least not in any way that stands up to the slightest logical scrutiny.

As I said before, if you want to claim that the soul is free from the constraints of logic, that's fine, but you need to admit that you do not have logic on your side. If not, you need to explain how the logical problem can be overcome in a way that makes logical sense.

[Sebastian Toe]

.  The evidence I see is that the spiritual entity which is our soul has a freedom which can't be defined within the deterministic constraints of your short sighted logic.

Can you explain the difference between deterministic logic and spiritual logic please.
Examples would be good to enlighten the ignorant among us

[Gordon]

Yes, because I believe the soul does whatever is needed to invoke an act of conscious will into this material world, even if this requires setting off the neuron activity before the choice is made (in our time - not the soul's time)

How do 'souls' do this 'setting off' neuron activity?

Oh I know you don't know because it is just one example of made up nonsense so to allow you satisfy your need for 'God'. I think you need something more substantive than 'whatever is needed' to be taken seriously.   

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Two points:
I have never claimed that our ability to choose is free from determinism, so please stop misrepresenting what I say.  My claim is that our choices need to be sourced from something other than physically predefined events in order to enable the reality of our freedom to make conscious choices.

Alan - if I am understanding you correctly in the above post and in the post I have linked to http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?action=post;quote=752061;topic=10333.32000 you are stating that you believe the soul's choices are either random or determined by prior events i.e the options the soul has to choose from to cause a human to take a particular action are random or determined by (based on) previous events the soul has encountered thus far. "Random" in this case being the word we use to describe a choice that is not based on an immediately prior event to the choice being made. Have I understood you correctly?

What I am not clear on is what you are proposing when you define something as a "physically predefined event". What is your concept of a "physically pre-defined event"? If a person chooses to pray in a certain manner because their brain has acquired knowledge that prayers can be performed in that particular manner, do you consider the acquisition of knowledge of how to pray to be a "physically predefined event", which then determines the choice to pray in that particular manner? I'm not sure why the concept of time is problematic for you in relation to a soul - what difference does it make to a soul, when choosing an option from the options available, if a soul operates within a concept of time or it doesn't?

I am also not sure how you are differentiating between physical and non-physical events. Does your concept of "non-physical" only encompass supernatural influences on the soul's choice e.g. your concept of the prior event of God communicating with the soul? Or when you think of non-physical" do you also mean thoughts?

From what I have read about thoughts, they could be electrochemical activity in the brain or they could be "something else undefined" that causes electrochemical activity in the brain. Neuroscientists go with the former definition as that is testable - you can't test for "something else undefined".

But they do not know if our psychology or mind activates brain regions based on our thoughts /what the mind perceives or if these brain regions activate to form our thoughts and perceptions. What they do seem to show is that thoughts are difficult to consciously control e.g. if you are told not to think of something, you can't comply - you will invariably think of what you have been told not to think of.

https://www.sciencealert.com/watch-what-is-a-thought-made-of

And when we perceive something as beautiful or morally right or perceive an experience as supernatural it seems science is a way from figuring out if those perceptions are caused by electro-chemical reactions whereby regions in the unconscious and conscious brain activate to shape our perception of it as beautiful or moral or supernatural; or if our perceptions (from a currently unknown source in our mind) of beauty or morality or the supernatural causes the electrochemical reactions and brain activity that can be observed in certain regions of the unconscious and conscious brain.

[Alan Burns]

Alan - if I am understanding you correctly in the above post and in the post I have linked to http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?action=post;quote=752061;topic=10333.32000 you are stating that you believe the soul's choices are either random or determined by prior events i.e the options the soul has to choose from to cause a human to take a particular action are random or determined by (based on) previous events the soul has encountered thus far. "Random" in this case being the word we use to describe a choice that is not based on an immediately prior event to the choice being made. Have I understood you correctly?

No.  I have always believed that human choices are determined - by our conscious human will which acts in the present, not the past.  It is other posters who have brought the word "random" into this discussion.  Our conscious choices are certainly not random

What I am not clear on is what you are proposing when you define something as a "physically predefined event". What is your concept of a "physically pre-defined event"? If a person chooses to pray in a certain manner because their brain has acquired knowledge that prayers can be performed in that particular manner, do you consider the acquisition of knowledge of how to pray to be a "physically predefined event", which then determines the choice to pray in that particular manner? I'm not sure why the concept of time is problematic for you in relation to a soul - what difference does it make to a soul choosing an option from the options available if a soul operates within a concept of time or it doesn't?

We can have no control over physically predefined events, simply because we have no control over the laws of physics.  To enable conscious control, there needs to be a source to initiate that control which is driven by our conscious will - not by the uncontrollable outcome of physically predefined events.

I am also not sure how you are differentiating between physical and non-physical events. Does your concept of "non-physical" only encompass supernatural influences on the soul's choice e.g. your concept of the prior event of God communicating with the soul? Or when you think of non-physical" do you also mean thoughts?

I believe our conscious perception to be a non physical entity, because perception involves conscious awareness of physical activity - it is not defined by the physical activity itself.  Awareness is not something which can be defined in terms of material properties - I believe it to be a conscious state of our spiritual soul.  Our awareness perceives the physical state of our brain cells, and can interact with them in order to invoke an act of will.  Our soul can be likened to a person at the controls of an aeroplane, with the conscious ability to manipulate certain controls with a spiritual push of the button, and leaving other controls on automatic pilot.

From what I have read about thoughts, they could be electrochemical activity in the brain or they could be "something else undefined" that causes electrochemical activity in the brain. Neuroscientists go with the former definition as that is testable - you can't test for "something else undefined".

All neuroscience can do is correlate physical brain activity with conscious thought processes, but this correlation does not imply that thoughts are entirely defined by physical brain activity. 

But they do not know if our psychology or mind activates brain regions based on our thoughts /what the mind perceives or if these brain regions activate to form our thoughts and perceptions. What they do seem to show is that thoughts are difficult to consciously control e.g. if you are told not to think of something, you can't comply - you will invariably think of what you have been told not to think of.

But the fact that you can try to analyse in this manner is itself evidence of your ability to control your own thought processes.

https://www.sciencealert.com/watch-what-is-a-thought-made-of

And when we perceive something as beautiful or morally right or perceive an experience as supernatural it seems science is a way from figuring out if those perceptions are caused by electro-chemical reactions whereby regions in the unconscious and conscious brain activate to shape our perception of it as beautiful or moral or supernatural; or if our perceptions (from a currently unknown source in our mind) of beauty or morality or the supernatural causes the electrochemical reactions and brain activity that can be observed in certain regions of the unconscious and conscious brain.

The brain is certainly a very complex instrument, but if we comprise nothing but material elements, we are entirely defined by material properties of those elements - the same elements as you will find in a piece of rock.  In theory, the sub atomic particles in a piece of rock could be zapped into an identical replica of yourself - atom for atom, but would it really be you?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

No.  I have always believed that human choices are determined - by our conscious human will which acts in the present, not the past.  It is other posters who have brought the word "random" into this discussion.  Our conscious choices are certainly not random

Ok - so no random choices and you think conscious choices are determined.

Regarding decisions being made in the present, based on your beliefs, am I correct in thinking you would claim that if I (influenced by my soul) consciously decide now in the present to pray, it is because it is time for the Maghrib prayer, which is determined by the Islamic tradition that Maghrib starts at the time of sunset - and the tradition as well as sunset are events that happened in the past. So in your model of a soul as perceiving and influencing my conscious decisions, you would say my soul's decision to pray is determined by past events but I/my soul could decide in the present not to pray? The question is what prompted my decision not to pray? You presumably agree, that as it is a conscious decision, there was a reason for it? And the reason is based on a thought I have already had - so my mind/ soul would then weigh up which thought is more important to me, the individual, - the thought that I should pray or the thought that I should not pray.

We can have no control over physically predefined events, simply because we have no control over the laws of physics.  To enable conscious control, there needs to be a source to initiate that control which is driven by our conscious will - not by the uncontrollable outcome of physically predefined events.I believe our conscious perception to be a non physical entity, because perception involves conscious awareness of physical activity - it is not defined by the physical activity itself.  Awareness is not something which can be defined in terms of material properties - I believe it to be a conscious state of our spiritual soul.  Our awareness perceives the physical state of our brain cells, and can interact with them in order to invoke an act of will.  Our soul can be likened to a person at the controls of an aeroplane, with the conscious ability to manipulate certain controls with a spiritual push of the button, and leaving other controls on automatic pilot.

Ok - so you agree that a conscious state of our spiritual soul is not a proposition that can be tested by science? And you seem to have made it clear that this is your belief. So if anyone reads this thread and agrees with your view, it would seem that they will not be basing their belief in souls on any objectively testable evidence. We don't know what it is in an individual's brain process that could lead to the mind's perception that this belief in souls is a proposition to be accepted, but in your opinion do you think the mind accepting this belief in souls is a conscious choice or an unconscious choice? Personally I have no idea whether belief in the supernatural is more of a conscious rather than unconscious choice; I also have no idea whether it is the mind's belief in the supernatural that acts to produce electrochemical activity in the brain or whether electrochemical activity leads to belief in the supernatural.

All neuroscience can do is correlate physical brain activity with conscious thought processes, but this correlation does not imply that thoughts are entirely defined by physical brain activity.

I agree that we currently don't know if thoughts are just electrochemical activity or something else undefined is involved. Your belief in a soul being involved will resonate with some people and not others - and I don't know why some individuals' minds/ brains adopt that thought of the existence of a concept such as a soul despite not having objective evidence, while other individuals' minds/ brains reject the concept due to lack of objective evidence. That people are individuals and have diverse views on this is a good thing IMO but other individuals may have the opinion that this kind of diversity is a bad thing. 

But the fact that you can try to analyse in this manner is itself evidence of your ability to control your own thought processes.The brain is certainly a very complex instrument, but if we comprise nothing but material elements, we are entirely defined by material properties of those elements - the same elements as you will find in a piece of rock.  In theory, the sub atomic particles in a piece of rock could be zapped into an identical replica of yourself - atom for atom, but would it really be you?

I don't know how much control I have over my thoughts. I can certainly control my selection of words to explain my thoughts but not sure I am controlling my thoughts. If you tell me not to think of something I can't prevent myself from thinking about it - so my experience is that my control over my thoughts is not very extensive. But I would say that my thoughts are what makes me, me.