Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Point 1 isn't a point and your behaviour here has long since exited you from any right to expect a reply to anything.

Have a nice life.

More projection than the golden age of cinema.

[Alan Burns]

And the endless repetition just goes on and on and on...

That freedom is not the same as your impossible, contradictory notion of freedom. You make choices according to who you are ('you') and the circumstances, otherwise 'you' wouldn't be free to choose.

You can't be free from being you. Your version of freedom is self-contradictory and hence impossible.

Of course I can't be free from being myself.  But the contention lies in what I am.

Am I just a piece of reconstituted star debris which came into existence on the cooling crust of a tiny blob of molten material, entirely under the control of unguided natural forces of nature?

If so, why do I perceive meaning and purpose in my life, and what ultimately determines this perception?  And why do I perceive the existence of freedom?

My freedom comes from my ability to make a consciously driven choice rather than just react to previous events.  I believe my choices to be self determined and invoked from within my present conscious awareness.  You may deem this to be impossible, but I consciously choose to disagree, because I believe in the power of my soul to interact with my physical body in order to facilitate my consciously driven choice.  And nothing you have put forward convinces me otherwise, because it can never explain my ability to choose what I think, say or do.

[Enki]

A little too much of me here though Enki. Aren't you diverting a bit from you?

Take it as an example of  concern for others being more important than concern for oneself.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Of course I can't be free from being myself.  But the contention lies in what I am.

Am I just a piece of reconstituted star debris which came into existence on the cooling crust of a tiny blob of molten material, entirely under the control of unguided natural forces of nature?

Yes. And there's no "just" about it either - we're remarkable creatures.

If so, why do I perceive meaning and purpose in my life, and what ultimately determines this perception?  And why do I perceive the existence of freedom?

That’s a non sequitur (yet another fallacy), and you perceive these things because you have a brain that’s evolved to such a degree that it’s self-aware. Given that, why wouldn’t you perceive these things?

My freedom comes from my ability to make a consciously driven choice rather than just react to previous events.  I believe my choices to be self determined and invoked from within my present conscious awareness.  You may deem this to be impossible, but I consciously choose to disagree, because I believe in the power of my soul to interact with my physical body in order to facilitate my consciously driven choice.  And nothing you have put forward convinces me otherwise, because it can never explain my ability to choose what I think, say or do.

Nothing put forward can convince you because you never bother to address it. Nothing put forward to deny my belief in leprechauns would convince me I was wrong about that either if I just ignored all of it.

What’s wrong with you?

[Stranger]

My freedom comes from my ability to make a consciously driven choice rather than just react to previous events.  I believe my choices to be self determined and invoked from within my present conscious awareness.  You may deem this to be impossible, but I consciously choose to disagree, because I believe in the power of my soul to interact with my physical body in order to facilitate my consciously driven choice.  And nothing you have put forward convinces me otherwise, because it can never explain my ability to choose what I think, say or do.

So, you're basically doing the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling your blind faith, self-contradictory assertions, over and over and over again, at the top of your voice.

What's the point?

[Alan Burns]

So, you're basically doing the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling your blind faith, self-contradictory assertions, over and over and over again, at the top of your voice.

What's the point?

I am exercising my God given freedom to choose to contradict your arguments in which you try to argue against the reality that I have such freedom.

[Stranger]

I am exercising my God given freedom to choose to contradict your arguments...

Yes, you can't or won't argue against the logic, so you're reduced to silly contradiction.

...in which you try to argue against the reality that I have such freedom.

This appears to be a barefaced lie. I have never once argued against your freedom to contradict.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Burnsism:

"I've got my fingers in my ears, I'm not listening, La La-La La La."

Repeat endlessly.
 

[Alan Burns]

Yes, you can't or won't argue against the logic, so you're reduced to silly contradiction.

This appears to be a barefaced lie. I have never once argued against your freedom to contradict.

But you have argued that my choice to contradict would be dictated by past events, so in this scenario, I can't see how I could have any freedom in my choice to contradict you.

[Stranger]

But you have argued that my choice to contradict would be dictated by past events, so in this scenario, I can't see how I could have any freedom in my choice to contradict you.

freedom: The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants. I have never once denied that you have the power to contradict me if you want to.

Yet again: you can't just redefine words in order to suit your own beliefs.

Yet again: our subjective experience of freedom and making choices is not the same thing as your illogical and contradictory 'explanation' of how it works.

Yet again: your statement just assumes that 'I' refers to something different from the choice-making entity that past events have made you; begging the question.

[Gordon]

But you have argued that my choice to contradict would be dictated by past events, so in this scenario, I can't see how I could have any freedom in my choice to contradict you.

Alan

Listen carefully: you have the biological equipment to be able to be self aware and think abstractly, though not always successfully. However you don't think in isolation from others, from events, from experiences, from influences or from your personal traits and capabilities -  you might have noticed that we are all different.

When you talk about being 'free' to choose which words to type when you post isn't somehow separate from determinism - after all, you are dependent on your language skills regarding how you express in prose whatever it is you are thinking, and what you are thinking involves the various aspects I noted above - and these are constraints, else we could all write poetry as well as, say, Heaney. So your choice of prose is understandable and unremarkable, and in your case quite predictable too.

[jeremyp]

But in putting forward an argument for the non existence of human freewill, can you not see the obvious truth that you are demonstrating the reality of your freewill by consciously choosing to argue against its existence?

Please address the point I actually made.

Do you think if time were rewound and them played forward again, you would make different decisions?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm sure Vlad will confirm the relevance of Mr Opik's views, and that Mr Opik being a failed politician with an interest in self-promotion will in no way whatsoever reduce the importance of My Opik's philosophical views (as expounded on local radio in some far-flung part of the UK).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p06npbt4

[Alan Burns]

Please address the point I actually made.

Do you think if time were rewound and them played forward again, you would make different decisions?

You seem to be equating our real world with the over simplified analogy of a video recording.  Of course it would be different.

[Stranger]

Please address the point I actually made.

Do you think if time were rewound and them played forward again, you would make different decisions?

You seem to be equating our real world with the over simplified analogy of a video recording.

Looks like you're trying to avoid the question, as I think you did before, by claiming it is impossible - and of course it is - but that isn't the point; it's a thought experiment. The point is to think through the consequences of your ideas.

What you need to think about is what would happen if you could literally rewind time, so you were faced with exactly the same choice in exactly the same state of mind, would you, or could you, make a different choice?

Of course it would be different.

Then, as everything is exactly the same, the choice must contain a totally random element because it can't be anything at all to do with the circumstance or anything at all to do with you and your state of mind.

If, on the other hand, you say you couldn't make a different choice, then it was obviously fully determined by the circumstances and your state of mind - which is what everybody has been saying to you...

[torridon]

You seem to be equating our real world with the over simplified analogy of a video recording.  Of course it would be different.

For you to make different decisions the second time around, there would have to be reasons for that for your choice not to be random.  If all relevant considerations were identical there would be no reason to make a different choice.

[Alan Burns]

For you to make different decisions the second time around, there would have to be reasons for that for your choice not to be random.  If all relevant considerations were identical there would be no reason to make a different choice.

But we are not machines, Torri.

[Alan Burns]

Looks like you're trying to avoid the question, as I think you did before, by claiming it is impossible - and of course it is - but that isn't the point; it's a thought experiment. The point is to think through the consequences of your ideas.

What you need to think about is what would happen if you could literally rewind time, so you were faced with exactly the same choice in exactly the same state of mind, would you, or could you, make a different choice?

But in order to conduct such a thought experiment, I would need the conscious freedom to direct my own thoughts.  What is the ultimate source of this thought control?

[Gordon]

But in order to conduct such a thought experiment, I would need the conscious freedom to direct my own thoughts.  What is the ultimate source of this thought control?

The organ between your ears, Alan.

[Stranger]

But in order to conduct such a thought experiment, I would need the conscious freedom to direct my own thoughts.  What is the ultimate source of this thought control?

The same as it was last time you asked this inane question.

This is shameless evasion - how about answering the question and stop being so childish?

[torridon]

For you to make different decisions the second time around, there would have to be reasons for that for your choice not to be random.  If all relevant considerations were identical there would be no reason to make a different choice.

But we are not machines, Torri.

That is merely a use of pejorative language to avoid engaging with the reality of the logic of the situation. 

Now, read carefully :

If there is no reason for making a different choice second time around, that means a different choice would be a random occurrence. It is random is there is no reason for it.

We cannot make this any simpler; these are simply the meanings of the words and concepts involved. merely throwing in 'machines' or 'physical' or 'uncontrollable', as is your wont, will not alter the simple logic of the situation.  Freedom from determinism means random.

[Alan Burns]

Alan

Listen carefully: you have the biological equipment to be able to be self aware and think abstractly,

I do this often.
I think about the source of my self awareness.
I think about what controls my thoughts.
I think about my ability to generate and perceive conscious thought
I think about the limitations of what can be achieved by physically predetermined material reactions

However you don't think in isolation from others, from events, from experiences, from influences or from your personal traits and capabilities -  you might have noticed that we are all different.

I have noticed how remarkably different we are from other animals

When you talk about being 'free' to choose which words to type when you post isn't somehow separate from determinism - after all, you are dependent on your language skills regarding how you express in prose whatever it is you are thinking, and what you are thinking involves the various aspects I noted above - and these are constraints, else we could all write poetry as well as, say, Heaney. So your choice of prose is understandable and unremarkable, and in your case quite predictable too.

Yes, I am free to choose every word I type.
But I think about what determines my choice.
And I have to conclude that my choice is determined by me of course.
But I think about what comprises me.
And I think about how I can possibly be determined by nothing but predetermined physical reactions of material elements.
And I continue to think about many things, because I have the freedom to think, to perceive, to interact, to control, to manipulate, to change, to pray, to bear witness, to discover, to create, to love .......

[torridon]

I am free to choose every word I type.

In the superficial sense, yes, you are free to type what you want, because nobody is stopping you.

In a more profound sense, no, because your output reflects what you want to write, and we cannot fundamentally choose what to want.

[torridon]

And I think about how I can possibly be determined by nothing but predetermined physical reactions of material elements.

Incredulity is not an argument; pejorative language cannot hide the truth.

[Stranger]

But I think about what comprises me.
And I think about how I can possibly be determined by nothing but predetermined physical reactions of material elements.

I have seen no evidence at all that you've thought about this. On the contrary, you keep on totally ignoring the arguments about it - exactly as if you are too afraid to think about it.

And I continue to think about many things, because I have the freedom to think, to perceive, to interact, to control, to manipulate, to change, to pray, to bear witness, to discover, to create, to love .......

Yes, you do, but it's actual, non-fairy tale freedom, not your impossible idea of 'freedom'.

Let's not forget that you have never faced up to the logical arguments that show that your version of freedom is self-contradictory and so impossible (you just ran away from facing another one about rerunning time). No matter how much you argue against a deterministic mind, you have no alternative.