Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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...

None of which exonerates you from using the word "evolution" almost shamanically.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Dualism turns up in a lot of places. E.g. Physicalises who talk about the unreal for instance.

[Stranger]

None of which exonerates you from using the word "evolution" almost shamanically.

[citation missing]

[Walt Zingmatilder]

[citation missing]

Your use of the word evolution made it as relevant to the topic of discussion as saying Luciano Pavrottis performances were down to the limousine that transported him to the concert hall.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stranger,

See what I mean? You've just been accused of "substituting an explanation with the word evolution" is response to a Reply in which you didn't use the word "evolution" at all. Plus ça change...

[Stranger]

[citation missing]

Your use of the word evolution made it as relevant to the topic of discussion as saying Luciano Pavrottis performances were down to the limousine that transported him to the concert hall.

[citation missing]

Dualism turns up in a lot of places.

So does syphilis.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Your use of the word evolution made it as relevant to the topic of discussion as saying Luciano Pavrottis performances were down to the limousine that transported him to the concert hall.


[citation missing]

So does syphilis.

Touche

[Alan Burns]

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.

I must confess that I am at a loss to know how anyone could be in denial that they have this amazing gift of freewill.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I must confess that I am at a loss to know how anyone could be in denial that they have this amazing gift of freewill.

Freewheel involves responsibility.
Some averse to the idea of salvation on the grounds of owning their actions undo their own argument by denying freewill.

[Gordon]

Freewheel involves responsibility.

Indeed: one should be careful when freewheeling - especially downhill and where there is a following wind.

Some averse to the idea of salvation on the grounds of owning their actions undo their own argument by denying freewill.

This argument, apparently linking 'salvation' with 'freewill', is what exactly, and in this argument how are these two terms defined?

[torridon]

I must confess that I am at a loss to know how anyone could be in denial that they have this amazing gift of freewill.

So you haven't read the thousands of posts on this thread then ? Many people have taken time out and gone to considerable lengths to explain in detail why your notion of freedom is irrational.  Minds have to resolve choice somehow, and they cannot do this in a way that is 'free' of the determining factors without producing a random outcome.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Indeed: one should be careful when freewheeling - especially downhill and where there is a following wind.

This argument, apparently linking 'salvation' with 'freewill', is what exactly, and in this argument how are these two terms defined?

Some people dislike the idea of a saviour on the grounds that somehow having one denies ownership of action and consequences and they advocate complete ownership. Since these people are usually non or antireligious they are often the same people who deny freewill and responsibility for any action.

What looks like ownership of action and ownership isnt anything of the sort.

[Gordon]

I must confess that I am at a loss to know how anyone could be in denial that they have this amazing gift of freewill.

I suspect that is because of your particular, and somewhat peculiar, take on 'God'.

[torridon]

Freewheel involves responsibility.
Some averse to the idea of salvation on the grounds of owning their actions undo their own argument by denying freewill.

We all have a sense of responsibility; all, apart from those suffering from some pathological disorders of the mind, sociopaths and suchlike. A well functioning human mind creates a sense of agency, of ownership of choices, of moral conscience.  There is nothing ground breaking in that, nothing that presents a problem for evolutionary theory or a challenge to a deterministic account of nature.

[Gordon]

Some people dislike the idea of a saviour on the grounds that somehow having one denies ownership of action and consequences and they advocate complete ownership. Since these people are usually non or antireligious they are often the same people who deny freewill and responsibility for any action.

What looks like ownership of action and ownership isnt anything of the sort.

 
Who hold this view?

I think the grounds for dispensing with the notion of 'salvation', as it applies to Jesus, are primarily because it is incoherent and isn't a serious proposition. Freewill, as it applies to determinism, is an entirely different matter.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

 
Who hold this view?

I think the grounds for dispensing with the notion of 'salvation', as it applies to Jesus, are primarily because it is incoherent and isn't a serious proposition. Freewill, as it applies to determinism, is an entirely different matter.

The view was discussed at Length on the Lembit Opik show on Radio Kent last week and I have both come across it frequently and indeed when I was a noñ believer I frequently made it.

I now know that to make such an argument is down to not understanding the gravity of some actions.

[Gordon]

The view was discussed at Length on the Lembit Opik show on Radio Kent last week and I have both come across it frequently and indeed when I was a noñ believer I frequently made it.

I now know that to make such an argument is down to not understanding the gravity of some actions.

Presumably there is something on this that we can review so as to understand the argument you refer to?

[Sebastian Toe]

I now know that to make such an argument is down to not understanding the gravity of some actions.

Example(s)?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Example(s)?

Lets start with three.
Stealing a mars bar and getting way with it.
Speaking out against same sex marriage
Voti ng brexit

[Sebastian Toe]

Lets start with three.
Stealing a mars bar and getting way with it.
Speaking out against same sex marriage
Voti ng brexit

You haven't explained the gravity of those actions.

[Alan Burns]

So you haven't read the thousands of posts on this thread then ? Many people have taken time out and gone to considerable lengths to explain in detail why your notion of freedom is irrational.  Minds have to resolve choice somehow, and they cannot do this in a way that is 'free' of the determining factors without producing a random outcome.

But the simple logic is that in order to contemplate whether or not you have freewill, you need to have freedom to control your own thoughts.  Can you suggest any other animal which shows capability of considering the question of freewill? Perhaps it is because they do not have this gift.

The thousands of posts on this thread offer ample evidence of the human capability of having the freedom to think.

[Stranger]

The thousands of posts on this thread offer ample evidence of the human capability of having the freedom to think.

Shameless dishonesty again. We do have the 'freedom to think' but that does not imply your impossible, contradictory notion of 'freedom'.

[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.]

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I must confess that I am at a loss to know how anyone could be in denial that they have this amazing gift of freewill.

That's because you refuse point blank to address their reasons for doing so, presumably because you're terrified of what you might find out if you did. Your being at a loss about this is in other words wilful.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But the simple logic is that in order to contemplate whether or not you have freewill, you need to have freedom to control your own thoughts.  Can you suggest any other animal which shows capability of considering the question of freewill? Perhaps it is because they do not have this gift.

The thousands of posts on this thread offer ample evidence of the human capability of having the freedom to think.

When someone makes a basic error in reasoning the principle of charity suggests that others should treat the error as an honest mistake. When he's been corrected countless times though, just ignores the corrections, and still repeats the error then there are two options: either he lacks the intellectual wherewithal to grasp the arguments that falsify him, or he's a liar. You choose.   

[Alan Burns]

Shameless dishonesty again. We do have the 'freedom to think' but that does not imply your impossible, contradictory notion of 'freedom'.

Where does this freedom to think come from?
What is driving your thought patterns?
What is driving my thought patterns?
Do you or I have control?
Or are we just predetermined by the unavoidable physical reactions involved in the electrochemical activity in our brain cells?