Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

Nobody is arguing against that - please stop the dishonest pretence that they are.

Is it dishonest to conclude that no source of freedom can exist is a material world entirely defined by physical reactions to previous events?

To give credit to Bluehillside and Torridon, they both conclude that in the material scenario, our feeling of freedom is "just the way it seems", indicating that our notion of freedom is an illusion.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Is it dishonest to conclude that no source of freedom can exist is a material world entirely defined by physical reactions to previous events?

It is when the impossibility in logic of a non-deterministic and nom-random “freedom” is explained to you and you keep either ignoring the explanation or muddying the waters by inventing “physical’ logic and the like.

To give credit to Bluehillside and Torridon, they both conclude that in the material scenario, our feeling of freedom is "just the way it seems", indicating that our notion of freedom is an illusion.

So why not either accept the supporting reasoning that leads to that conclusion or (finally) try to provide a counter-argument of some sort? Note by the way that non-argued and non-evidenced assertions (“we’re so much more than the material” etc) are not counter-arguments.

[Stranger]

Nobody is arguing against that - please stop the dishonest pretence that they are.

Is it dishonest to conclude that no source of freedom can exist is a material world entirely defined by physical reactions to previous events?

To be clear, what I said was in response to your statement "You are free to choose what you want to do for whatever reason you choose at the moment you choose.  You are in control." from #32146.

Yes, it's dishonest to suggest that you would not be free to choose what you want to if you were entirely physical. We have no evidence or logic that would lead to that conclusion.

To give credit to Bluehillside and Torridon, they both conclude that in the material scenario, our feeling of freedom is "just the way it seems", indicating that our notion of freedom is an illusion.

They will have to speak for themselves but I would say that your rejection of determinism ("predetermined" choices) is partly because of how it feels to you. You don't feel constrained by the past - and you wouldn't because it wouldn't be a constraint on whatever you wanted to do. It's just that what you want to do is the result of the past. That is the only way freedom can work. There has to be something that is free and it has to get there somehow and have wants that have to arise somehow.

If you refuse to accept the definition of freedom as "The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants." and insist that freedom entails what you want being somehow decided, not by who you are as a result of your history, but is somehow conjured up entirely because of reasons by not entirely because of reasons as well, then 'freedom' is impossible regardless of whether we are physical or not.

[jjohnjil]

I have seen nothing in animal behaviour which can't be programmed into a computer simulation with no need for conscious perception.

Alan

Let's suppose animals had these souls you say only humans have, how would their behaviour differ?  I watch crows gathering together in the evenings, how do you know they're not praying to a crow's version of God? 

This business of only we have souls has blinded you to the bleeding obvious - that we simply have brains that are more complex and more developed than most other animals and their brains work exactly the same as ours, albeit in a lesser way.


They, like we, are born with certain abilities and then learn from our experiences the whole time. This 'soul' that can magically, after taking in all the brain's memories, inputs and experiences, make a completely unconnected decision - based on nothing at all - is sheer madness!

Tell us how you imagine it to do this … Is it some sort of alien that invades our bodies and has a mind of it's own?  Even if this were the case, presumably it too would need its own 'soul' to decide what to tell our brains to do.

[Alan Burns]

If you refuse to accept the definition of freedom as "The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants." and insist that freedom entails what you want being somehow decided, not by who you are as a result of your history, but is somehow conjured up entirely because of reasons by not entirely because of reasons as well, then 'freedom' is impossible regardless of whether we are physical or not.

The problem we have is in what defines our "want"
If our want is entirely predefined by past events, it can only be a reaction to those events, so where does the freedom come in?

[torridon]

The problem we have is in what defines our "want"
If our want is entirely predefined by past events, it can only be a reaction to those events, so where does the freedom come in?

What would be the point in being free to want something you don't want ?  It is a nonsense aspiration that would render human life meaningless.  We have meaning in our lives because there are reasons why we want things.

[Stranger]

The problem we have is in what defines our "want"
If our want is entirely predefined by past events, it can only be a reaction to those events, so where does the freedom come in?

Being free from the person you are makes no sense and the person you are is due to your nature, nurture, and experience.

If something that has freedom doesn't have wants, then it wouldn't do anything. Choosing our own wants is not only a nonsense aspiration, as torridon said, but it also leads to an infinite regress. How do you choose your wants, by what you want to want? Then how do you choose that...?

[Alan Burns]

What would be the point in being free to want something you don't want ?  It is a nonsense aspiration that would render human life meaningless.  We have meaning in our lives because there are reasons why we want things.

What would render our life meaningless would be our inability to consciously control what we want to do. 

[Alan Burns]

Being free from the person you are makes no sense and the person you are is due to your nature, nurture, and experience.

If something that has freedom doesn't have wants, then it wouldn't do anything. Choosing our own wants is not only a nonsense aspiration, as torridon said, but it also leads to an infinite regress. How do you choose your wants, by what you want to want? Then how do you choose that...?

You are just playing with words here.
The simple truth is that there can be no source of freedom in a material world where every event is a direct consequence of previous events.

[Gordon]

Alan

Your views on the link about crows I posted yesterday are?

This research seems to kick into touch your notion that non-human animals just react.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The problem we have is in what defines our "want"

If our want is entirely predefined by past events, it can only be a reaction to those events, so where does the freedom come in?

You’ve just repeated your man in the restaurant problem – the menu provides various tasty options, but the man still has to have some process to select one. And even if he asks his pal to come over to do the choosing for him then his pal has to have a process to do the choosing, and so on forever.

This is where you keep collapsing into incoherence – if you want to assert into existence a little man at the control to select from the wants that arise from the subconscious, then that little man himself has to have a want of his own to select one. Just adducing magic to get you out of the problem doesn’t work – logic is logic, and parachuting extra decision-makers into the picture just adds more and more assumptions while explaining nothing more than self-awareness would explain in the first place.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You are just playing with words here.

No, he’s explaining in plain terms the logic that falsifies your contention.

The simple truth is that there can be no source of freedom in a material world where every event is a direct consequence of previous events.

But you know already that this supposed “simple truth” is in fact idiotic for the reason that’s been explained to you over and over again and you keep ignoring: your personal definition of “freedom” is incoherent; freedom bounded by certain logical constraints on the other hand is not.   

[torridon]

What would render our life meaningless would be our inability to consciously control what we want to do.

No that makes no sense. I cannot control which desires to have, neither can you. If you think you could do that, then you would be able to want something you don't want or believe something you don't believe.  Your rationale is incomprehensible, inconceivable.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

What would render our life meaningless would be our inability to consciously control what we want to do.

What people find to be meaningful is subjective – if a more considered reality offends your subjective sense of meaning so you must cling to a different (and deeply irrational) narrative that’s a matter for you. Others on the other hand find perfectly useful meaning in their lives without rejecting a priori the reasoning and evidence that gives us that more considered understanding of reality. 

[Alan Burns]

AB,

No, he’s explaining in plain terms the logic that falsifies your contention.

But you know already that this supposed “simple truth” is in fact idiotic for the reason that’s been explained to you over and over again and you keep ignoring: your personal definition of “freedom” is incoherent; freedom bounded by certain logical constraints on the other hand is not.   

No amount of wordy explanations can alter the simple truth that in a material world where every event is a consequence of previous events, there is no source of freedom.

[Alan Burns]

AB,
 

What people find to be meaningful is subjective – if a more considered reality offends your subjective sense of meaning so you must cling to a different (and deeply irrational) narrative that’s a matter for you. Others on the other hand find perfectly useful meaning in their lives without rejecting a priori the reasoning and evidence that gives us that more considered understanding of reality.

But how can you discern meaning, consider evidence or contemplate reality if we do not have the freedom to consciously control our own thoughts?

[Alan Burns]

Alan

Your views on the link about crows I posted yesterday are?

This research seems to kick into touch your notion that non-human animals just react.

see #32135

[ekim]

The problem we have is in what defines our "want"
If our want is entirely predefined by past events, it can only be a reaction to those events, so where does the freedom come in?

I think the word you should be using instead of 'define' and 'predefines' is 'determines'.  You have also brought the word 'entirely' into the discussion.  Do you believe that if a past event partially determines a desire that any resultant action/non-action is free from or dependant upon the past?  Perhaps to clarify what you are saying you could give an example in your life which illustrates what you are claiming.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

No amount of wordy explanations…

Throwing in the pejorative “wordy” is an attempt to poison the well. There’s nothing wordy about the plainly expressed reasoning that falsifies you, and even if there was that would tell you nothing about the validity or otherwise of the content of that wording. This is a bad habit of yours, and you should stop doing it.

…can alter the simple truth that in a material world where every event is a consequence of previous events, there is no source of freedom.

You’ve just been corrected on that so why repeat the mistake? Your personal (and incoherent) understanding of “freedom” does not align with the understanding of freedom that logic and evidence gives us, and that is rational. Can you just not see these words or something, or do you deliberately pretend that they haven’t been said?

But how can you discern meaning, consider evidence or contemplate reality if we do not have the freedom to consciously control our own thoughts?

FFS! We do have that “freedom”inasmuch as we function as if we had ultimate agency, but that doesn't change the underlying reality of cause and effect.

Why is this so hard for you when it’s such a simple point? 

[Stranger]

Being free from the person you are makes no sense and the person you are is due to your nature, nurture, and experience.

If something that has freedom doesn't have wants, then it wouldn't do anything. Choosing our own wants is not only a nonsense aspiration, as torridon said, but it also leads to an infinite regress. How do you choose your wants, by what you want to want? Then how do you choose that...?

You are just playing with words here.

Pot-kettle-black.

I notice that you haven't addressed what I said. You keep on totally ignoring logical arguments. There are now two blatant contradictions in your version of 'freedom': the random/(pre)determined one and the infinite regress of choosing our wants.

The simple truth is that there can be no source of freedom in a material world where every event is a direct consequence of previous events.

Once again the dishonest association with the material world. If you define "source of freedom" as something that can make choices that are entirely because of reasons but not entirely because of reasons, then it's self-contradictory and impossible, regardless of whether you postulate a non-physical soul or not.

If you define freedom as the ability to think and do as you want, then it's fully compatible with a deterministic system - again regardless of whether you postulate a non-physical soul or not.

[Gordon]

see #32135

Nope - unlike the crows, Alan, this doesn't fly. From the article we read 'The researchers suspect that the crows might do this by envisaging a simulation of the problem in front of them - playing out different actions in their brains until they figure out the solution.'

Sounds to me like your contention that non-human animals can only react has been well and truly rebutted no matter how much you try to wriggle out of accepting this, and we are also informed that the biology of these crows works 'So they can predict what something that does not yet exist would do if they made it. Then they can make it and they can use it.

That means that the standard idea that animals try everything at random and improve by reinforcement - that's not enough'.

So perhaps you can stop posting inaccurate conclusions about non-human animals now that you know you are wrong.

[Alan Burns]

I think the word you should be using instead of 'define' and 'predefines' is 'determines'.  You have also brought the word 'entirely' into the discussion.  Do you believe that if a past event partially determines a desire that any resultant action/non-action is free from or dependant upon the past?  Perhaps to clarify what you are saying you could give an example in your life which illustrates what you are claiming.

I have never denied that past events have influence on our conscious choices.  But the reality is that we have the ability to consciously consider these influences prior to making a choice.  This ability to consciously consider influences allows us the freedom to choose, rather than just react.  Stranger's version of freedom seems to centre around having this power to consciously consider things, but then indicates that the conscious consideration itself must be predetermined, which effectively negates any form of freedom.  As I have previously indicated, every post on this forum is offers evidence of our conscious freedom to think and act and choose what we write.  The only alternative would be to presume that our freedom to consciously choose to do all this is just an illusion.

[Alan Burns]

Once again the dishonest association with the material world. If you define "source of freedom" as something that can make choices that are entirely because of reasons but not entirely because of reasons, then it's self-contradictory and impossible, regardless of whether you postulate a non-physical soul or not.

The reason for our choices emanates from our conscious self.  If the conscious self is a spiritual entity, you can't presume to know that it works by the same predetermined cause and effect rules of our material universe.  This is not dishonest - it is a postulation which makes sense of the reality we all experience as human beings.

If you define freedom as the ability to think and do as you want, then it's fully compatible with a deterministic system - again regardless of whether you postulate a non-physical soul or not.

There is no freedom within a physically deterministic system.  If we live in a physically defined deterministic world, then the nature, nurture and experiences which define each individual are themselves fully predetermined entities which effectively removes any concept of personal freedom in our thoughts, words and actions.

[Stranger]

As I have previously indicated, every post on this forum is offers evidence of our conscious freedom to think and act and choose what we write.

Even if you don't agree, it is clear that everybody's view of how our minds work is an attempt to explain our experience of thinking and making choices. To pretend that only yours can do so is effectively a lie.

[Alan Burns]

Even if you don't agree, it is clear that everybody's view of how our minds work is an attempt to explain our experience of thinking and making choices. To pretend that only yours can do so is effectively a lie.

Whether our views are correct or not, they are still personal views which offer evidence of our freedom to consciously communicate what we have consciously deduced.  Every post provides this evidence of this freedom, not just my own posts.