Searching for GOD...

[jjohnjil]

.  Could this be the gateway for the free will of the human soul to interact?

Why not?  We've had God of the gaps, so why not Soul of the gaps!

[bluehillside Retd.]

jj,

Why not?

Bluehillside's fourth maxim: When an argument for a god (or a soul) works equally for leprechauns, it's probably a bad argument.
 

[Alan Burns]

I don't actually believe you - but I'll reiterate it just as soon as you give a coherent definition of what you think the "origin for personal deliberation" is.

No, vague terms like 'soul', "human will", and so on, aren't definitions. If deliberation isn't essentially deterministic, how does it work?

it is human will
nothing else comes close to the reality we all know
deliberation has to have a definitive cause which does not disappear into the endless streams of unavoidable cause and effect.

[torridon]

it is human will
nothing else comes close to the reality we all know
deliberation has to have a definitive cause which does not disappear into the endless streams of unavoidable cause and effect.

Simplistic twaddle.

Human will is not some magical force of nature, unaccountable, inscrutable, irreducible.  It is those very chains of cause and effect that you seem to hate that give rise to our desires.  The idea of will existing outside that paradigm makes no sense. If I choose to do something it is because of a reason; I don't do things for no reason.  My will is always a consequence of something prior and the making of a choice is simply the moment of resolving of competing desires.  This is what brains evolved to do and they do it sublimely efficiently.  If this were not the case for humans in particular, then we would be debilitated by indecision.  There has to be some mechanism for resolving rival claims on my time and the idea of a mechanism that is free in some way of its determinants is a nonsense.  Any system that that produces outputs that are not in some way a function or consequence of its inputs is a random system. You should understand this as a programmer, and we are complex systems, not random beings.

[Stranger]

I don't actually believe you - but I'll reiterate it just as soon as you give a coherent definition of what you think the "origin for personal deliberation" is.

No, vague terms like 'soul', "human will", and so on, aren't definitions. If deliberation isn't essentially deterministic, how does it work?

it is human will
nothing else comes close to the reality we all know

Which is not, as I already pointed out (and you ignored, what a surprise!), any sort of definition. So, all your talk of others not being able to define an "origin for deliberation" or "ultimate source" or whatever, is hypocrisy; you have no such definitions yourself.

You have been given endless explanations of the logical alternative (latest: #32228) and all you have is a label and self-contradictory assertions about what it isn't.

deliberation has to have a definitive cause which does not disappear into the endless streams of unavoidable cause and effect.

It doesn't disappear into them Alan, it is produced by them (as has been explained many times). There is no logical alternative.

[ekim]

....the making of a choice is simply the moment of resolving of competing desires.  This is what brains evolved to do and they do it sublimely efficiently. 

... and I would suggest, that those 'moments' are what prayer and meditation attempt to extend, as many desires can be self centred addictions where any sense of free choice is lost and automatic behaviour takes over.  Apart from self centred behaviour, there is also collective behaviour which can be manipulated by others as a means of control.  This can be seen in politics, religion, mass marketing etc and can be very subtle.  There are some in religious organisations who perhaps claim to know what their God desires and will seek to exercise control by persuasive means and instead of a 'pure heart' free of self will, it becomes filled with prejudices and the 'brain's sublime efficiency' enables holocausts, crusades, sectarian conflicts.

[Alan Burns]

it is human will
nothing else comes close to the reality we all know


Which is not, as I already pointed out (and you ignored, what a surprise!), any sort of definition. So, all your talk of others not being able to define an "origin for deliberation" or "ultimate source" or whatever, is hypocrisy; you have no such definitions yourself.

You have been given endless explanations of the logical alternative (latest: #32228) and all you have is a label and self-contradictory assertions about what it isn't.

It doesn't disappear into them Alan, it is produced by them (as has been explained many times). There is no logical alternative.

So your claim that we have freedom to choose is quite simply false.
If our deliberate choices are the consequence of past chains of cause and effect, they become just another inevitable link in the chain.  No freedom whatsoever.
These words you quote from the dictionary definition of freedom, "power" and "want" become meaningless in the context you describe.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

So your claim that we have freedom to choose is quite simply false.
If our deliberate choices are the consequence of past chains of cause and effect, they become just another inevitable link in the chain.  No freedom whatsoever.
These words you quote from the dictionary definition of freedom, "power" and "want" become meaningless in the context you describe.

See Reply 32221, items 2 & 6 (argumentum ad consequentiam).

You’re welcome.

[Stranger]

So your claim that we have freedom to choose is quite simply false.
If our deliberate choices are the consequence of past chains of cause and effect, they become just another inevitable link in the chain.  No freedom whatsoever.
These words you quote from the dictionary definition of freedom, "power" and "want" become meaningless in the context you describe.

And just how many times have we gone around this loop, Alan? I've lost count. Why do you never take any notice?

We do have freedom in the sense of the dictionary definition: "The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants." If you want to redefine it to mean something else, then you should really call it something else. The point is that being able to do as one wants and make choices that are a true refection of the people we are (as a result of our nature and life of experience) is the only sort of freedom that is logically self-consistent.

If you want to diminish that because you prefer a logically impossible, incoherent fantasy, I guess that's up to you, but your opinion on the matter has no bearing on the truth. Reality is under no obligation to be as you want it to be.

[SusanDoris]

And just how many times have we gone around this loop, Alan? I've lost count. Why do you never take any notice?

The words 'closed mind' and 'smug' do tend to spring quite often to my mind.

[Sebastian Toe]

So your claim that we have freedom to choose is quite simply false.
If our deliberate choices are the consequence of past chains of cause and effect, they become just another inevitable link in the chain.  No freedom whatsoever.
These words you quote from the dictionary definition of freedom, "power" and "want" become meaningless in the context you describe.

Another post which demonstrates the human biological brain in action.
No soul required.

[Alan Burns]

And just how many times have we gone around this loop, Alan? I've lost count. Why do you never take any notice?

We do have freedom in the sense of the dictionary definition: "The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants." If you want to redefine it to mean something else, then you should really call it something else. The point is that being able to do as one wants and make choices that are a true refection of the people we are (as a result of our nature and life of experience) is the only sort of freedom that is logically self-consistent.

If you want to diminish that because you prefer a logically impossible, incoherent fantasy, I guess that's up to you, but your opinion on the matter has no bearing on the truth. Reality is under no obligation to be as you want it to be.

It depends on which dictionary definition you use.
Try this one:

Freedom, generally, is having an ability to act or change without constraint. A thing is "free" if it can change its state easily and is not constrained in its present state. In philosophy and religion, it is associated with having free will and being without undue or unjust constraints, or enslavement, and is an idea closely related to the concept of liberty. A person has the freedom to do things that will not, in theory or in practice, be prevented by other forces. Outside of the human realm, freedom generally does not have this political or psychological dimension. A rusty lock might be oiled so that the key has freedom to turn, undergrowth may be hacked away to give a newly planted sapling freedom to grow, or a mathematician may study an equation having many degrees of freedom. In mechanical engineering, "freedom" describes the number of independent motions that are allowed to a body or system, which is generally referred to as degrees of freedom."

I would say that your version of freedom is more applicable to the rusty lock than it is to human beings.

[Stranger]

It depends on which dictionary definition you use.
Try this one:

Freedom, generally, is having an ability to act or change without constraint. A thing is "free" if it can change its state easily and is not constrained in its present state. In philosophy and religion, it is associated with having free will and being without undue or unjust constraints, or enslavement, and is an idea closely related to the concept of liberty. A person has the freedom to do things that will not, in theory or in practice, be prevented by other forces. ...

That isn't a dictionary, it's Wikipedia (you really should reference your sources) and there is nothing whatsoever in this passage that is inconsistent with a deterministic system. You really should try to think this through.

[Enki]

Not a dictionary definition, Alan, but the first paragraph of the Wikipedia Article on Freedom.

If you want to go further and look up Wikipedia's own definition for Freedom of Choice, it is:

Freedom of choice describes an individual's opportunity and autonomy to perform an action selected from at least two available options, unconstrained by external parties.

Which, of course, yet again, does not rule out a deterministic framework.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It depends on which dictionary definition you use.
Try this one:

Freedom, generally, is having an ability to act or change without constraint. A thing is "free" if it can change its state easily and is not constrained in its present state. In philosophy and religion, it is associated with having free will and being without undue or unjust constraints, or enslavement, and is an idea closely related to the concept of liberty. A person has the freedom to do things that will not, in theory or in practice, be prevented by other forces. Outside of the human realm, freedom generally does not have this political or psychological dimension. A rusty lock might be oiled so that the key has freedom to turn, undergrowth may be hacked away to give a newly planted sapling freedom to grow, or a mathematician may study an equation having many degrees of freedom. In mechanical engineering, "freedom" describes the number of independent motions that are allowed to a body or system, which is generally referred to as degrees of freedom."

I would say that your version of freedom is more applicable to the rusty lock than it is to human beings.

First, that’s not a dictionary definition.

Second, even if it was dictionary definitions are not scientific explanations. They tell you that “touch” for example means something like “come into contact with” whereas science gives us a more nuanced explanation.

Third dictionaries merely attempt to describe reality – they don’t decide what it is. Even if you could find a dictionary that had your (entirely irrational) definition of “freedom” that wouldn’t mean that freedom had to be that way.

Try Reply 32221 item 2 to see where you’ve gone wrong again.

[SteveH]

Fknl! Isn't it time this tiresome thread was locked?

[Alan Burns]

That isn't a dictionary, it's Wikipedia (you really should reference your sources) and there is nothing whatsoever in this passage that is inconsistent with a deterministic system. You really should try to think this through.

Yes, I have used my God given freedom to think it through, which is why I have to tell you that my freedom to do this is not sourced by an endless chain of physical cause and effect which I had no freedom to manipulate.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Yes, I have used my God given freedom to think it through, which is why I have to tell you that my freedom to do this is not sourced by an endless chain of physical cause and effect which I had no freedom to manipulate.

See Reply 32221, Item 9 to see where you've gone wrong again.

[SteveH]

you really should reference your sources...

Provide references for your sources. "Reference" is a noun, not a verb.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Steve H,

Provide references for your sources. "Reference" is a noun, not a verb.

It's both – see definition 8: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/reference

"Task" used as a verb on the other hand makes my skin crawl.

[Alan Burns]

Which, of course, yet again, does not rule out a deterministic framework.

Once more:
I have never denied that our freedom to choose is not deterministic.
But -
What drives our consciously made choice?
What is the source which guides conscious manipulation?
Where does conscious control emanate from?
These are all determined by physical activity in the human brain, but what initiates this activity?
The obvious answer is "you".
If these were just inevitable consequences of previous physically controlled cause and effect reactions, the entity which is "you" becomes superfluous, being just another link in the endless chains of cause and effect.
But the truth is that you are much, much more than a physical link in the chain.

[Stranger]

Yes, I have used my God given freedom to think it through...

I don't believe you. I don't actually believe that you've given this any real thought for years, which is why you keep on totally ignoring all the reasoned and logical replies you keep getting. It would also explain why you never even bother to think up new ways of putting it, just the same old script, time and time and time again...

...which is why I have to tell you that my freedom to do this is not sourced by an endless chain of physical cause and effect which I had no freedom to manipulate.

That is a totally baseless assertion. What's more you do have all the freedom in the world to manipulate whatever you want (practical constraints aside). You have that ability because of determinism, not despite it.

Further evidence of your refusal to think is that you still will not face up to the arguments that your version of 'freedom' is simply impossible - it makes no sense. Just like a square circle, cannot possibly refer to anything real.

[SteveH]

Steve H,

It's both – see definition 8: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/reference

"Task" used as a verb on the other hand makes my skin crawl.

Fuck Collins' Dictionary. They're wrong.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Once more:
I have never denied that our freedom to choose is not deterministic.
But -
What drives our consciously made choice?
What is the source which guides conscious manipulation?
Where does conscious control emanate from?
These are all determined by physical activity in the human brain, but what initiates this activity?
The obvious answer is "you".

See Reply 32221, item 2 to see where you’ve gone wrong again (irrational understanding of the term “freedom”).

If these were just inevitable consequences of previous physically controlled cause and effect reactions, the entity which is "you" becomes superfluous, being just another link in the endless chains of cause and effect.

See Reply 32221, item 6 to see where you’ve gone wrong again (argumentum ad consequentiam).   

But the truth is that you are much, much more than a physical link in the chain.

See Reply 32221, item 9 to see where you’ve gone wrong again (unqualified assertion).

[bluehillside Retd.]

Steve H,

Fuck Collins' Dictionary. They're wrong.

Charming. So then it seems must be Merriam-Webster (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reference), the Oxford English (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/reference), Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference)…