Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

My conscious awareness defines me.


Not answering the question. Clearly you didn't consciously choose your own character and personality.

He asserted, without the hint of a smidgen of a scintilla of any reasoning or evidence, while totally ignoring all the logic that tells us that his ideas are self-contradictory.

Are all choices made on the basis of character and personality?

[Stranger]

When are you saying the choice is determined?
What is making the choice?
How does the system accommodate novelty and uniqueness of situations?

Your brain (or mind, if you want to keep the idea of a soul open, for the sake of argument) is a sophisticated information gathering, processing, and evaluating system that has evolved (been magically created) to deal with abstract concepts, have hopes, fears, likes, dislikes, and all the other stuff that makes us the people we are, and which has the ability to make choices based on all those things.

None of that changes the fact of the logical necessity that down at the "nuts and bolts" level, things have to happen due to causes or not - and if not then they must be random.

You're trying to deal with separate levels of abstraction and it really doesn't work very well. You can sort of see it because you have a particular personality and way of thinking and we can see that that is because of some combination of nature and nurture. So it's sort of possible to see that we make choices for reasons but you can't hope to unravel all the layers.

To use a different example: if you want to understand why a moth flies towards a flame, you wouldn't be talking about the deterministic interactions of the atoms it's made of (even though that is the 'reason'), you'd be talking about the evolution of its behaviour with respect to light sources and so on.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Your brain (or mind, if you want to keep the idea of a soul open, for the sake of argument) is a sophisticated information gathering, processing, and evaluating system that has evolved (been magically created) to deal with abstract concepts, have hopes, fears, likes, dislikes, and all the other stuff that makes us the people we are, and which has the ability to make choices based on all those things.

None of that changes the fact of the logical necessity that down at the "nuts and bolts" level, things have to happen due to causes or not - and if not then they must be random.

You're trying to deal with separate levels of abstraction and it really doesn't work very well. You can sort of see it because you have a particular personality and way of thinking and we can see that that is because of some combination of nature and nurture. So it's sort of possible to see that we make choices for reasons but you can't hope to unravel all the layers.

To use a different example: if you want to understand why a moth flies towards a flame, you wouldn't be talking about the deterministic interactions of the atoms it's made of (even though that is the 'reason'), you'd be talking about the evolution of its behaviour with respect to light sources and so on.

What more evidence of 'explaining away' perpetrated by a certain camp in the consciousness debate, than this post can there be?

A lot of words but no answers to my questions posed.

[Stranger]

What more evidence of 'explaining away' perpetrated by a certain camp in the consciousness debate, than this post can there be?

A lot of words but no answers to my questions posed.

 

What do you think I'm explaining away? I tried to give you more than simplistic answers to your simplistic questions, but whatever...

When are you saying the choice is determined?
When are you saying the choice is made?

When a person makes up their mind.

What is making the choice?

Brains - according to all the evidence.

How does the system accommodate novelty and uniqueness of situations?

That's how humans have evolved. I have no idea about the details.

[Sebastian Toe]

A lot of words but no answers to my questions posed.

I think that should be copied and pasted after almost every single one of AB's responses!

[ekim]

Not really what I was getting at.  I asked what determines me, not what defines me.

If it is 'me' that determines what choice to make, what is it that determines what I am ?  I don't spring out of nowhere, fully and uniquely formed.  Why should it be that I like marmite whereas my brother does not ?

From the 'spiritual'/mystic's point of view the 'I' is not determined and cannot be defined and is formless, sometimes simply called 'conscious being'.  The 'me' or 'self' is determined by what 'I' become attached to e.g.  mental concepts, pleasures, pains, desires, fears, marmite which go to create the unique and changeable form you mention.  It becomes a question of identity. To 'realise' 'I', the 'self' and all its attachments, including religious attachments, has to be dis-identified with, which is something the mind will resist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What do you think I'm explaining away? I tried to give you more than simplistic answers to your simplistic questions, but whatever...

When a person makes up their mind.

Brains - according to all the evidence.

That's how humans have evolved. I have no idea about the details.

I find myself
A) agree to all these points. Particularly your last statement.
B) maintain with a cast iron conviction that these replies are pretty thin stuff.

[Alan Burns]

Quote from: Alan Burns on November 01, 2018, 06:54:04 PM

    Because I am not a machine.

You're behaving exactly like one - and not a very sophisticated one at that...

Quite the opposite.
Every key I type is a result of my consciously driven choice determined by my present state of conscious awareness.  To suggest that these conscious choices could be entirely predetermined by past events is quite bizarre. You claim that it is logic totally ignores our power to consciously act in the present.

[Alan Burns]

Not really what I was getting at.  I asked what determines me, not what defines me.

If it is 'me' that determines what choice to make, what is it that determines what I am ?  I don't spring out of nowhere, fully and uniquely formed.  Why should it be that I like marmite whereas my brother does not ?

To ask what determines you does not really make any sense.
The answer "you" was made to a question about what determines your conscious choices.
You are the source of that which is determined, which is the conscious choice.

[Stranger]

Quite the opposite.

I disagree: the endless repetition of the same old script, overe and over and over again. Totally ignoring the substantive argument that show that you are wrong. I'm pretty sure I could code a bot that was every bit as 'convincing' as your posts.

Every key I type is a result of my consciously driven choice determined by my present state of conscious awareness.

-yawn-

To suggest that these conscious choices could be entirely predetermined by past events is quite bizarre. You claim that it is logic totally ignores our power to consciously act in the present.

You continue to ignore the logic like you're totally terrified of it.

You continue to witter on about "the present" as if it makes some difference to the logic, when it obviously doesn't.

You continue to misrepresent our subjective experience as if it where evidence of your self-contradictory drivel, which it obviously isn't.

You continue to misrepresent the logical argument as ignoring our experience, which it doesn't.

Yep, a really simple bot could do as well...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You're behaving exactly like one - and not a very sophisticated one at that...

Quite the opposite.
Every key I type is a result of my consciously driven choice determined by my present state of conscious awareness.  To suggest that these conscious choices could be entirely predetermined by past events is quite bizarre. You claim that it is logic totally ignores our power to consciously act in the present.

Is determined by past events even the same as being determined by physical laws.
One seems to fit the term predetermined in a completely different sense than the other.
Nobody has adequately included novelty or uniqueness of situation among your opponents imv.
'Evolution did it' in no way reaching the definition of an explanation.

[Stranger]

Nobody has adequately included novelty or uniqueness of situation among your opponents imv.
'Evolution did it' in no way reaching the definition of an explanation.

Incredible double standards here. Logic gives us some basic principles (that Alan won't face up to and you don't seem to have grasped) and science has taken us some way towards an understanding but it is by no means complete.

That (despite being incomplete) is actually based on something and offers some solid conclusions.

In the other corner, we have "it's magic innit" and a blatant self-contradiction (not deterministic and not random).

[Alan Burns]

I disagree: the endless repetition of the same old script, overe and over and over again. Totally ignoring the substantive argument that show that you are wrong. I'm pretty sure I could code a bot that was every bit as 'convincing' as your posts.

But your action in coding a bot would aptly demonstrate that you have the consciously driven freedom to do so. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But your action in coding a bot would aptly demonstrate that you have the consciously driven freedom to do so.

I could easily correct you (yet again) on this endlessly repeated mistake but as you've just ignored every correction of it you've been given hitherto can you think of a reason for me to bother? Absent posting anything of meaningful content, why are you wasting everyone's time here?

[Stranger]

But your action in coding a bot would aptly demonstrate that you have the consciously driven freedom to do so.

There you go again - the same predicable dishonesty (or total lack of any actual thought). As I said in the post that you were (supposedly) replying to:

"You continue to misrepresent our subjective experience as if it where evidence of your self-contradictory drivel, which it obviously isn't.

You continue to misrepresent the logical argument as ignoring our experience, which it doesn't."

Can't you at least have the basic courtesy and honesty to stop repeating this kind of misrepresentation? I and others have addressed this point endless times and yet we still get subjected to the same mindless nonsense about our replies demonstrating our conscious freedom as if that supports your self-contradictory ideas about 'freedom', which it obviously doesn't.

You are being fundamentally dishonest Alan. If you disagree, argue against it, but the silly pretence that it has never been addressed is pretty much the same as lying.

[And replying by asking what is the 'source' of this dishonesty or some such nonsense that has already been answered countless times, would just be further dishonesty.]

[Alan Burns]

You continue to misrepresent the logical argument as ignoring our experience, which it doesn't.

The logic you keep referring to is derived from our human ability to perceive and our freedom to control our own thought processes in order to think things out.  But it is demonstrably fallible - just look at the numerous different flavours of determinism, all apparently based upon perceived logic, but all perceptively different in their definitions.  You appear to have latched on to the compatible version of determinism which claims compatibility with our freedom to choose, but looking deeper into your replies on this forum, your version of freedom amounts to nothing more than the pre programmed logic involved with an "if, then else" statement in a computer program.  So no freedom at all, just inevitable pre programmed reaction to events.  This is not the reality which I perceive.  I cannot possibly choose to consciously subscribe to a logic which conflicts with the demonstrable reality of my freedom to make my own choices in what I do, think or say.  It would be dishonest of me to do so.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The logic you keep referring to is derived from our human ability to perceive and our freedom to control our own thought processes in order to think things out.  But it is demonstrably fallible - just look at the numerous different flavours of determinism, all apparently based upon perceived logic, but all perceptively different in their definitions.  You appear to have latched on to the compatible version of determinism which claims compatibility with our freedom to choose, but looking deeper into your replies on this forum, your version of freedom amounts to nothing more than the pre programmed logic involved with an "if, then else" statement in a computer program.  So no freedom at all, just inevitable pre programmed reaction to events.  This is not the reality which I perceive.  I cannot possibly choose to consciously subscribe to a logic which conflicts with the demonstrable reality of my freedom to make my own choices in what I do, think or say.  It would be dishonest of me to do so.

See Reply 32221, items 2, 5 & 6. There is freedom (just as there is touch), but only at functional rather than epistemic levels, and you’ve just tried (yet again) the argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy.

What you're trying re freedom is identical to arguing that if we never actually touch stuff, we could never pick it up. Therefore...

Why do you keep wasting people’s time here with your mindless repeated assertions? 

[Stranger]

The logic you keep referring to is derived from our human ability to perceive and our freedom to control our own thought processes in order to think things out.  But it is demonstrably fallible - just look at the numerous different flavours of determinism, all apparently based upon perceived logic, but all perceptively different in their definitions.

No Alan, there are different terms that use the word "determinism" but I (and others here) have been totally clear about what sense I am using it and there are no logical inconsistencies or rival "flavours" of determinism in the sense that I am using the term.

You appear to have latched on to the compatible version of determinism...

There is no such thing as a "compatible version" of determinism. Compatibilism is about the compatibility between determinism and free will.

...which claims compatibility with our freedom to choose, but looking deeper into your replies on this forum, your version of freedom amounts to nothing more than the pre programmed logic involved with an "if, then else" statement in a computer program.  So no freedom at all, just inevitable pre programmed reaction to events.

As I have said multiple times: if we adopt your definition of freedom, then it is simply impossible. If we accept the normal definition (The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants), then we can have that within a deterministic system.

You are also using an argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy.

This is not the reality which I perceive.  I cannot possibly choose to consciously subscribe to a logic which conflicts with the demonstrable reality of my freedom to make my own choices in what I do, think or say.

Yet again: you can do whatever you want - that is not the issue.

Yet again: you are dishonestly trying to equate our subjective experience with your (illogical) explanation for it. You must acknowledge (even if you disagree) that every notion about consciousness and free will is an attempt to explain our experience.

Claiming that only yours can do it is both dishonest and arrogant.

[SusanDoris]

And here's another one asking the same question:

Why do you keep wasting people’s time here with your mindless repeated assertions?  [/quote

[jeremyp]

you

But we are complex collections of cells and patterns of signals and subject to the laws of physics. Also, all the stimuli we get from the environment are subject to the laws of physics.

Even if you posit the existence of an immortal soul, all of the information we get on which to base our decisions comes from the physical World. If you rewound your life back to the beginning and then replayed it with exactly the same things happening to you, would you make different decisions? I don't think you would.

Free will is an illusion.

[torridon]

To ask what determines you does not really make any sense.
The answer "you" was made to a question about what determines your conscious choices.
You are the source of that which is determined, which is the conscious choice.

It makes sense to me.  There are reasons (determinants) underlying a choice I make now.  There are also reasons (determinants) that lead me to being what I am at the moment of making a choice.  The choice I make is a consequence of who/what I am now and who/what I am now is a consequence of what has gone before.  This seems simple, straightforward and authentic to me.  We are products of cause and effect and the choices we make are the continuation of that paradigm.  To be free of that would mean being random.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Incredible double standards here. Logic gives us some basic principles (that Alan won't face up to and you don't seem to have grasped) and science has taken us some way towards an understanding but it is by no means complete.

That (despite being incomplete) is actually based on something and offers some solid conclusions.

In the other corner, we have "it's magic innit" and a blatant self-contradiction (not deterministic and not random).

The trouble is though that you are substituting an explanation with the word evolution as if the mere power of the word sweeps any dualistic, idealistic philosophy in front of it. In fact you are using it to "magic away" a need for explanation.

[Sebastian Toe]

programmed logic involved with an "if, then else" statement in a computer program. 

Basically correct with the huge difference being that our brains are complex biological 'computers' and the if/then/else is really if/then/else(10*a really big number).
the 'program' is a vastly complex flexible, fluid neural network with almost uncountable variations, emerging into our concious being.
No unevidenced, totally logic free, magic soul required.

[Stranger]

The trouble is though that you are substituting an explanation with the word evolution as if the mere power of the word sweeps any dualistic, idealistic philosophy in front of it. In fact you are using it to "magic away" a need for explanation.

You don't half talk drivel, Vlad.

The big problem with any form of dualism is the total lack of any evidence for it, and the plentiful evidence that minds are what brains do. Logic is the problem for Alan's notion of 'freedom', because it's inherently self-contradictory. Evolution has hardly featured in the discussion, but we also have plentiful evidence that it is what produced brains.

As I said before, it's not like we have a full explanation for consciousness but what we do have from logic and science is far, far more of an explanation than is being offered by superstitious notions of self-contradictory, magic souls.

First take the plank out of your own eye...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stranger,

You don't half talk drivel, Vlad.

The big problem with any form of dualism is the total lack of any evidence for it, and the plentiful evidence that minds are what brains do. Logic is the problem for Alan's notion of 'freedom', because it's inherently self-contradictory. Evolution has hardly featured in the discussion, but we also have plentiful evidence that it is what produced brains.

As I said before, it's not like we have a full explanation for consciousness but what we do have from logic and science is far, far more of an explanation than is being offered by superstitious notions of self-contradictory, magic souls.

You are of course big enough and ugly enough (as my mum used to say) to look after yourself, but you do realise I hope that a certain poster here will only ever use terms he doesn't understand or wilfully misrepresents or are irrelevant to get a rise out of people rather than actually to discuss anything.

Just sayin'.