Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

And how can we possibly have the power to take steps to achieve this if all our conscious choices are apparently formed before we become aware of them? 

I would suggest that being honest should start with the admission that you have the freedom to consciously control your thoughts, words and actions.

We do have a degree of 'freedom' - just not your bespoke version of 'freedom', Alan, since what you mean by 'freedom' is illogical and fanciful.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well this is RE Christian board so why would you expect me to be taking issue with science and technology.  There would be space for that elsewhere.

OK then Where have you talked about science and technology as the cause of Global warming and species destruction?


To suggest that religion is responsible for the catastrophe, what you call ''Our catastrophic downfall'' facing man is pretty nuclear. Where else are you going to go from there. The die is cast Torridon. What can you say now that will stop you looking like you're repenting what you said. And climbing back from what is patently an unreasonable slur?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

There is certainly a finding by researchers which indicates specific brain activity to occur before a conscious choice, but using this to draw the conclusion that we are not aware of our choices until after they are made does not reflect the obvious reality that we all have the power to consciously invoke a choice.

See Reply 32221, Items 1 & 9 for an explanation of where you’ve gone wrong there (“obvious truths” often aren’t truths at all; assertion is not argument). 

If our conscious self is not responsible for our choices, it makes no sense of our existence.

See Reply 32221, Items 5 & 6 for an explanation of where you’ve gone wrong there (functional truths do not imply the explanations for them; argumentum ad consequentiam), and in any case many of us are quite capable of finding meaning without resorting to magical thinking.

Here you quote two unique human attributes,
Our ability to try to make sense of our lives.
And our conscious ambition to make the most of our lives.
Attributes which would not be possible if we did not have the freedom to consciously control what we think, say and do.

See Reply 32221, Items 2 & 9 for an explanation of where you’ve gone wrong there (your concept of “freedom” is fundamentally incoherent and irrational; asertion is not argument).

I agree that our freedom to consciously impose our will on this world, rather than just react to it, is a dangerous and potentially catastrophic ability.

See Reply 32221, Item 2 for an explanation of where you’ve gone wrong there (your concept of “freedom” is fundamentally incoherent and irrational). 

But God has given us a sense of right and wrong and we need to use this gift wisely.

See Reply 32221, Item 9 for an explanation of where you’ve gone wrong there (assertion is not argument).

And how can we possibly have the power to take steps to achieve this if all our conscious choices are apparently formed before we become aware of them?   

I would suggest that being honest should start with the admission that you have the freedom to consciously control your thoughts, words and actions.

See Reply 32221, Item 2 for an explanation of where you’ve gone wrong there (your concept of “freedom” is fundamentally incoherent and irrational).

[Alan Burns]

We do have a degree of 'freedom' - just not your bespoke version of 'freedom', Alan, since what you mean by 'freedom' is illogical and fanciful.

But any form of freedom is illogical in the secular materialistic world.  As Stranger said in a recent post (#32310), our choices become just reactions.

[Stranger]

But any form of freedom is illogical in the secular materialistic world.

You really do need to get it into your head that just asserting something, without basis, makes you look silly.

As Stranger said in a recent post, our choices become just reactions.

There is no 'just' about it - and making choice must be a reaction to the circumstances in which it was made. The alternative is that it is just a random action with no direction or purpose.

And you still won't address the fact that your version of "freedom" is inherently self-contradictory and hence impossible.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But any form of freedom is illogical in the secular materialistic world.  As Stranger said in a recent post, our choices become just reactions.

See Reply 32221, Items 2 for an explanation of where you’ve gone wrong there (your concept of “freedom” is fundamentally incoherent and irrational). Also by the way you’ve been corrected on this basic error in thinking countless times and yet you repeat it endlessly as if you hadn’t been corrected on it at all. See Reply 32221, Item 8 for an explanation of where you’ve gone wrong there (repetition of a mistake doesn’t make it not a mistake).

Why do you do this?

Yet again, “any” form of freedom wouldn’t be illogical at all – only the incoherent and irrational one you conceptualise, which is illogical in any case. Under the rationalist model, a perfectly functional freedom exists that allows us to navigate the world we seem to occupy. So does a perfectly functional understanding of touch, even though we never actually touch anything. The point here is that useful, functional, everyday explanations for experiential phenomena serve their purpose well enough still within a materialistic universe, but more considered explanations for them gives you no basis whatever to assert that “any” versions of these things are therefore impossible. They’re illogical, but still possible as functionally useful constructs provided you don't rely on them for explanations of what's really going on.

Capiche?   

[Gordon]

But any form of freedom is illogical in the secular materialistic world.  As Stranger said in a recent post (#32310), our choices become just reactions.

Of course they are reactions to something: you have the intellectual capacity to things things through, but not in isolation from circumstances, influences, prior events and personal traits etc. In doing so you may make errors of judgment, you may make mistakes, and you may be misled but you don't tend to react or think randomly else life would be chaotic most of the time - and it isn't.

I have to laugh when you claim others are 'illogical' when they don't buy your own version of 'freedom' when just two days ago, in #32287, you gave us this:

As I have previous indicated, I believe the soul exists in a spiritual dimension which is not part our material universe, and can initiate whatever actions are required within the time line of our physical brain activity in order to implement our conscious choice.

I suspect Mr Spock would not hesitate to point out your own illogicality, from this example and the copious other examples you've provided.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gordon,

I suspect Mr Spock would not hesitate to point out your own illogicality, from this example and the copious other examples you've provided.

Bluehillside's fifth maxim: Any explanation that requires magic explains nothing at all.

[jeremyp]

Gordon,

Bluehillside's fifth maxim: Any explanation that requires magic explains nothing at all.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/jpallan/4633000725

[bluehillside Retd.]

jeremy,

https://www.flickr.com/photos/jpallan/4633000725

Quite!

[Alan Burns]

There is no 'just' about it - and making choice must be a reaction to the circumstances in which it was made. The alternative is that it is just a random action with no direction or purpose.

The alternative to a reaction is a consciously determined choice.

You may consciously choose to class this as an assertion, but in doing so, you will be confirming the reality of this freedom we all experience.

[torridon]

OK then Where have you talked about science and technology as the cause of Global warming and species destruction?


To suggest that religion is responsible for the catastrophe, what you call ''Our catastrophic downfall'' facing man is pretty nuclear. Where else are you going to go from there. The die is cast Torridon. What can you say now that will stop you looking like you're repenting what you said. And climbing back from what is patently an unreasonable slur?

I don't see the equivalence with science and technology. Science and technology are morally neutral, they don't tell us how to live our lives or express opinions on right and wrong; religions on the other hand are full of such moral instruction and they influence us.

I don't claim religion to be the cause of environmental catastrophe, that would be simplistic.  There are many roots to be the problems facing us and they mostly lie within us, in broader human nature.  That we are eroding the very Earth systems that support us is a problem of our own making; but having figured out what is happening, do we have the will to do anything about it ?  I fear we do not because our tendency to avoid facing up to reality is too pervasive.  The science says we are not on track to limit global warming to 1.5 whilst simultaneously finding the consequences of 1.5 are worse that previously estimated.  Humanity faces an unprecedented crisis and we have perhaps 20 years within which to turn things around but we cannot change.  To make things worse, this crisis coincides with a populist wave with populations in country after country voting in third rate short sighted political leaders who offer simplistic solutions to complex problems.  More than ever before, we need to rise to the challenge, develop a far reaching global conscience, build bridges not walls, listen to the science and value the findings appropriately.  But we don't, we value our simplistic beliefs, prejudices and short term considerations over the complexity of evidence.  We have an unprecedented crisis unfolding in front of our eyes, yet it is business as usual.  We need to wake up, snap out of it.

[Stranger]

And round and round and round the pointless nonsense goes...

The alternative to a reaction is a consciously determined choice.

Once again: saying that something is determined by something else is totally irrelevant to the questions of whether it is deterministic or whether it is a reaction. You've been corrected on this countless times, you've never made a counterargument, so I can only assume that this is deliberately dishonest or is totally lacking in any thought.

You may consciously choose to class this as an assertion, but in doing so, you will be confirming the reality of this freedom we all experience.

Once again: our experience is subjective and does not provide any evidence (one way or the other) of whether choices are deterministic or not. Conflating our subjective experiences with your illogical, self-contradictory, impossible idea of 'freedom' is either dishonest or demonstrates complete lack of thought.

So, Alan, dishonest or unable or unwilling to think?

[Cue evasion tactic of asking what the "source" of dishonesty might be, or some such nonsense that has been answered countless times]

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't see the equivalence with science and technology. Science and technology are morally neutral, they don't tell us how to live our lives or express opinions on right and wrong; religions on the other hand are full of such moral instruction and they influence us.

I don't claim religion to be the cause of environmental catastrophe, that would be simplistic.  There are many roots to be the problems facing us and they mostly lie within us, in broader human nature.  That we are eroding the very Earth systems that support us is a problem of our own making; but having figured out what is happening, do we have the will to do anything about it ?  I fear we do not because our tendency to avoid facing up to reality is too pervasive.  The science says we are not on track to limit global warming to 1.5 whilst simultaneously finding the consequences of 1.5 are worse that previously estimated.  Humanity faces an unprecedented crisis and we have perhaps 20 years within which to turn things around but we cannot change.  To make things worse, this crisis coincides with a populist wave with populations in country after country voting in third rate short sighted political leaders who offer simplistic solutions to complex problems.  More than ever before, we need to rise to the challenge, develop a far reaching global conscience, build bridges not walls, listen to the science and value the findings appropriately.  But we don't, we value our simplistic beliefs, prejudices and short term considerations over the complexity of evidence.  We have an unprecedented crisis unfolding in front of our eyes, yet it is business as usual.  We need to wake up, snap out of it.

It seems you are confusing populism, fuhrerprincip, great man hypothesis with religion thus making the cardinal error of equating religion with what and who you don't like. The religious maniac with nukes is the stuff of James Bond and probably even there such characters are thin on the ground.

Bombs, bulldozers and the engines that move them do not make themselves nor are they made by third rate politicians. There have to be complicit scientists and technologists.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB, 32330

The alternative to a reaction is a consciously determined choice.

No it isn't - it's randomness. I've just corrected you on this (again) at Reply 32330 so why have you repeated the mistake? You can have all the "consciously determined choice" you want provided you don't overreach from a superficial, functionally useful construct into thinking that also explains what's actually happening at a deeper level. Why is this so hard for you that you refuse ever to address it - can you just not see the words, or are you so heavily invested in your mistake that you cannot bear even to think about the arguments that falsify it?
 

You may consciously choose to class this as an assertion, but in doing so, you will be confirming the reality of this freedom we all experience.

FFS! See above.

[bluehillside Retd.]

It seems you are confusing populism, fuhrerprincip, great man hypothesis with religion thus making the cardinal error of equating religion with what and who you don't like. The religious maniac with nukes is the stuff of James Bond and probably even there such characters are thin on the ground.

Bombs, bulldozers and the engines that move them do not make themselves nor are they made by third rate politicians. There have to be complicit scientists and technologists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

[Walt Zingmatilder]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

More projection than your local multi screen Cineworld.

[Alan Burns]

No it isn't - it's randomness. I've just corrected you on this (again) at Reply 32330 so why have you repeated the mistake? You can have all the "consciously determined choice" you want provided you don't overreach from a superficial, functionally useful construct into thinking that also explains what's actually happening at a deeper level. Why is this so hard for you that you refuse ever to address it - can you just not see the words, or are you so heavily invested in your mistake that you cannot bear even to think about the arguments that falsify it?
 

Of course I can see the words and I fully understand their meaning.  But no amount of wordy explanation can take away the reality that this conscious entity of awareness which is "me" has the freedom to choose what to say, think and do.  As I have stated before, the reality I perceive is that these things are determined by my conscious will acting in the present, not by the physically predetermined events of the past over which I have no control.  I presume that others perceive this same reality, but a blind faith that it can all be explained by our somewhat limited human scientific knowledge prevents them from seeing the obvious truth.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Of course I can see the words and I fully understand their meaning.

Then why will you never, ever try to address them?

But no amount of wordy explanation…

Fallacy of pejorative language. Yet again, even if the explanation was “wordy” (and it wasn’t) that would tell you nothing about the quality of its content. I’ve explained this to you before, so why do you keep doing it?

…can take away the reality that this conscious entity of awareness which is "me" has the freedom to choose what to say, think and do.

Which is precisely the functionally useful but epistemically superficial construct I explained to you 32330 and that you have just ignored again remember?

As I have stated before, the reality I perceive is that these things are determined by my conscious will acting in the present, not by the physically predetermined events of the past over which I have no control.

Yes I know it’s the reality you perceive – it’s the reality that most of us perceive and use as our explanation for consciousness, and at one level it works too – but only provided we don’t think too hard about it.   

I presume that others perceive this same reality,…

Yes, and most of us perceive that we actually touch the objects we appear to contact too. As with your concept of “freedom” though, more robust thinking and evidence tell us that our perceptions are wrong. 

…but a blind faith that it can all be explained by our somewhat limited human scientific knowledge prevents them from seeing the obvious truth.

And a thumping piece of misrepresentation to finish:

- There is no “blind faith” (that’s your position with your magic "soul" remember?) because we have the intersubjective experience of science gradually producing "bottom up" more and more robust explanations for the phenomena we experience.

- No-one claims that “it can be explained by our somewhat limited human scientific knowledge” at all. Scientific knowledge in this field is readily acknowledged to be incomplete, but what it does uniformly and consistently point to is a naturalistic explanation being the correct one. There may or may not be some radical discovery in the future that causes a paradigm shift in that understanding but you cannot just take incompleteness as a rationale to junk what we do know for un-argued, un-evidenced and deeply irrational speculations and claim them to be facts.

- There is no “obvious truth” in your efforts. See Reply 32221, Item 1 to see where you’ve gone wrong again. You may think it to be obvious, but that’s because you cannot bear to consider the logic that falsifies it.

So why not try honestly this time actually to engage with Reply 32330 that explains simply and clearly why you’re wrong? What are you so frightened of? 

[torridon]

Of course I can see the words and I fully understand their meaning.  But no amount of wordy explanation can take away the reality that this conscious entity of awareness which is "me" has the freedom to choose what to say, think and do.  As I have stated before, the reality I perceive is that these things are determined by my conscious will acting in the present, not by the physically predetermined events of the past over which I have no control.  I presume that others perceive this same reality, but a blind faith that it can all be explained by our somewhat limited human scientific knowledge prevents them from seeing the obvious truth.

It's nothing to do with faith, it is simple logic.  For a choice not to be a random event, it must be a consequence of something prior.  These are what the words mean. You are just not facing up to the reality of logic, on the mere basis of the reality you 'perceive'.  Our personal experience is itself a construction of mind, not some irreducible guide to fundamental reality.

[Stranger]

Of course I can see the words and I fully understand their meaning.

There is strong evidence that you aren't actually thinking about them.

But no amount of wordy explanation can take away the reality that this conscious entity of awareness which is "me" has the freedom to choose what to say, think and do.

Which says exactly nothing about whether the underlying process is deterministic or not.

As I have stated before, the reality I perceive is that these things are determined by my conscious will acting in the present, not by the physically predetermined events of the past over which I have no control.

Yes, you keep on stating it and it never gets any less ridiculous.

• You do not perceive this Alan, you believe it. You cannot possibly directly perceive whether or not you are a deterministic process.
  
  
• Nothing can act "in the present" for reasons that have been explained to you and you continue to ignore.
  
  
• There is no logical reason why "physically predetermined events" and "conscious will" cannot be descriptions of the same thing.
  
  
• There is a logical reason why you cannot have anything that isn't deterministic and isn't random (and no, "determined by" is not what I mean).
  
  
• You don't need to have control over past events in order to have control of your choices (unless we adopt your self-contradictory notion of control).

I presume that others perceive this same reality, but a blind faith that it can all be explained by our somewhat limited human scientific knowledge prevents them from seeing the obvious truth.

No, I do not perceive what you claim to, because your claim that you perceive it is laughable nonsense. Neither does the the most obvious reason you are wrong have anything to do with science - it's just logic.

It's incredible that you accuse others of blind faith when you are desperately clinging to self-contradictory, impossible nonsense, and seem to be too afraid to even face up the arguments that show that to be the case. The reason why your version of 'freedom' is impossible has been explained multiple times and you still will not directly address it. Come on, Alan, how about an actual counterargument?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stranger,

Come on, Alan, how about an actual counterargument?

He never will. AB reminds me a bit of Wylie E. Coyote from the Roadrunner cartoons - he's run off the cliff and his legs are still twirling frantically, but he knows that the moment he looks down gravity will kick in so he cannot risk it. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Stranger,

He never will. AB reminds me a bit of Wylie E. Coyote from the Roadrunner cartoons -

Could that be due to animated debate?

[wigginhall]

Of course I can see the words and I fully understand their meaning.  But no amount of wordy explanation can take away the reality that this conscious entity of awareness which is "me" has the freedom to choose what to say, think and do.  As I have stated before, the reality I perceive is that these things are determined by my conscious will acting in the present, not by the physically predetermined events of the past over which I have no control.  I presume that others perceive this same reality, but a blind faith that it can all be explained by our somewhat limited human scientific knowledge prevents them from seeing the obvious truth.

Others have mentioned it, but I'm curious how you can perceive that there are no antecedent causes to something.   I must admit, I don't have that ability, I can't scroll back through past events, deciding which caused something happening to me now.   Please share, as it must be very useful.

[Alan Burns]

• Nothing can act "in the present" for reasons that have been explained to you and you continue to ignore.
  
  

I am currently acting in the present by replying to this post.
This reply was not entirely predetermined by past events, but by what I wish to write at this present time.
No amount of your reasoned explanations can take away my freedom to do this.