Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The investigation comes after the air crash, so what good is it?

In which case we are back to consciousness informing action which is what Alan is arguing.
Are we talking about Learning here? Learning can be done by an intelligent machine which could also have memory...so where is all this happening? Consciousness or intelligence? How do you sort out consciousness from unconscious intelligence. Consciousness here seems like an entity beyond necessity.

[Stranger]

Human will is a source of determinism, not a result of it.

That simply doesn't make sense - please stop trying to pretend that you are talking about determinism.

determinism - "The doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will."

determinism - "Determinism is the philosophical theory that all events, including moral choices, are determined completely by previously existing causes."

But my human will is obviously self determined.  It is the ultimate source which determines my thoughts, words and actions.

None of which makes your version of 'freedom' deterministic. If you thought your will made its choices deterministically, then they would, by definition, be predetermined. I have given you several definitions of deterministic and determinism - so please stop misusing the words for your impossible magic.

My human will is God's spiritual gift which is beyond our human understanding, given in order to enable me to choose my own destiny.  I make no apology in repeating the fact that am not a machine.

Your posts seem to suggest otherwise. Mindlessly repeating the same nonsense will not make it any less nonsensical. Your ideas about 'freedom' are self-contradictory and hence impossible. It is simply impossible for anything to happen entirely due to reasons (no randomness) and not entirely due to reasons (not deterministic which means predetermined by the inputs and internal state).

[Stranger]

In which case we are back to consciousness informing action which is what Alan is arguing.

That really isn't the problem with what Alan is saying. He's trying to tell us that choices can be made without being deterministic and without involving randomness, which is a contradiction.

The exact role of consciousness really isn't known. The lag experiments suggest that some sorts of choice are made prior to us being conscious of them but consciousness is not something we can say we fully understand yet. It may inform decision making over the longer term, if only via memory.

There is a lot we still don't know about consciousness but we can rule out Alan's views about how choices get made based on simple logic, and we have enough evidence that the brain produces consciousness to conclude that there is no soul. Strictly, a soul isn't impossible but Alan's view of freedom is.

[Gordon]

My human will is God's spiritual gift which is beyond our human understanding, given in order to enable me to choose my own destiny.

If so, how come you think you know so much about it?

I make no apology in repeating the fact that am not a machine.

You seem like a biological machine stuck in recurring loops: 'spiritual soul yada yada yada', 'inevitable, uncontrollable consequences of physically determined reactions yada yada yada', ' entirely driven by inevitable consequences to past events yada yada yada', etc etc ad nauseam.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That really isn't the problem with what Alan is saying. He's trying to tell us that choices can be made without being deterministic and without involving randomness, which is a contradiction.

The exact role of consciousness really isn't known. The lag experiments suggest that some sorts of choice are made prior to us being conscious of them but consciousness is not something we can say we fully understand yet. It may inform decision making over the longer term, if only via memory.

There is a lot we still don't know about consciousness but we can rule out Alan's views about how choices get made based on simple logic, and we have enough evidence that the brain produces consciousness to conclude that there is no soul. Strictly, a soul isn't impossible but Alan's view of freedom is.

Isn't Alan's beef though that just as there is an explanatory gap between intelligence and consciousness there is one between the unconscious forces which determine the course of unconscious particles and er, consciousness and the real difficulty here is how we describe the emergence of things like consciousness.
Either it is explained purely in terms of particle theory which is no explanation at all since everything in that explanation is unconscious....or acknowledge a new thing which is distinctive.

[Stranger]

Isn't Alan's beef though that just as there is an explanatory gap between intelligence and consciousness there is one between the unconscious forces which determine the course of unconscious particles and er, consciousness and the real difficulty here is how we describe the emergence of things like consciousness.

Err, not sure what some of that word salad actually meant but I think tha answer is 'no'. As I said, Alan's main problem is about the nature of freedom in that he wants choices to be not deterministic (despite him trying to redefine the word) and not involve randomness - which is a contradiction.

Either it is explained purely in terms of particle theory which is no explanation at all since everything in that explanation is unconscious....or acknowledge a new thing which is distinctive.

Classic fallacy of composition. (No atoms are alive. Therefore, nothing made of atoms is alive.)

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Err, not sure what some of that word salad actually meant but I think tha answer is 'no'. As I said, Alan's main problem is about the nature of freedom in that he wants choices to be not deterministic (despite him trying to redefine the word) and not involve randomness - which is a contradiction.

Classic fallacy of composition. (No atoms are alive. Therefore, nothing made of atoms is alive.)

I cannot help your intellectual limitations Stranger.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Err, not sure what some of that word salad actually meant but I think tha answer is 'no'. As I said, Alan's main problem is about the nature of freedom in that he wants choices to be not deterministic (despite him trying to redefine the word) and not involve randomness - which is a contradiction.

Classic fallacy of composition. (No atoms are alive. Therefore, nothing made of atoms is alive.)

Not really since Nowhere am I proposing that nothing made of atoms is conscious.
Further evidence of your limited intellect.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Err, not sure what some of that word salad actually meant but I think tha answer is 'no'. As I said, Alan's main problem is about the nature of freedom in that he wants choices to be not deterministic (despite him trying to redefine the word) and not involve randomness - which is a contradiction.

Classic fallacy of composition. (No atoms are alive. Therefore, nothing made of atoms is alive.)

So what you are saying is no atoms are alive therefore all things made of atoms are alive?

[Alan Burns]

Better to be a machine that operates on sound logical principals than something with no rhyme or reason.  If humans operated as you seem to think we would have long gone extinct.  We are still here, and we are here, because we make choices for reasons.  Get over it.

But reasons for choices only exist in our conscious awareness, which we can't translate directly to predetermined material reactions.  Despite all the investigations into neuroscience, we cant define our thoughts in material terms - all we have is some correlation with specific areas of perceived brain activity. 

You seem to be inferring that human freewill is uncontrolled.  It is quite the opposite, because it facilitates the conscious ability to control our thoughts, words and actions.

[Alan Burns]

Well, in my opinion, you certainly ought to be apologising - for ignoring so many of the excellent posts here containing well-thought-out  explanations, many with questions attached which you evade, written in clear English with no excuse for misunderstanding; for your total lack of evidence, theories and methods of justifying your bizarre, supernatural beliefs; for your continuous misrepresentation of what others say; for fallacies, repeated over and over; for the, what I see as, smug attitude towards the writers of  posts which point out the incorrectness of your ideas;;;;;; for the, apparently, random-word-generator  posts which lack any coherent meaning; and for the oft-repeated falsehoods about basic biology.

Dear Susan,

Your posts offer a great example of the human freedom to consciously cherry pick the theories which support what you want to believe, while ignoring, dismissing or ridiculing any arguments put forward which may contradict what you want to believe.

You may well accuse me of doing the same - but at least I can acknowledge that I have the God given freedom to consciously choose to do so.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Please stop misquoting me on this.

I haven’t.

I have never claimed that our conscious freedom to choose is not deterministic.  My contention is in what determines our choice - the will of our human soul, or the inevitable consequences of predetermined physical reactions in an entirely material brain

You’re still not getting it. Whether you think there’s no “soul” and we make our own decisions or you think there’s a “will of the human soul” that does the decision-making for us makes no difference – each of them would have to work either deterministically or randomly. There is no other option. Just claiming magic for the latter as a way out of the problem answers nothing.

[Gordon]

Dear Susan,

Your posts offer a great example of the human freedom to consciously cherry pick the theories which support what you want to believe, while ignoring, dismissing or ridiculing any arguments put forward which may contradict what you want to believe.

Dear Alan

You haven't advanced any arguments: fallacy-ridden assertions don't count.

For example, I been waiting for you to explain how a 'soul' in a separate dimension from the one we occupy (which is what you told us) can interact with our biology (which is what you told us). You just say these things and run away when asked for answers, and in this case a 'don't know' from you would be inadequate since if you don't know then you shouldn't be making claims you can't support.

You may well accuse me of doing the same - but at least I can acknowledge that I have the God given freedom to consciously choose to do so.

Right on cue: you give us another fallacious statement.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Your posts offer a great example of the human freedom to consciously cherry pick the theories which support what you want to believe, while ignoring, dismissing or ridiculing any arguments put forward which may contradict what you want to believe.

Not true. To ignore etc arguments there have to be arguments to be ignored. You don't have any - what you have is assertions, with occasional attempts to validate them with some very bad reasoning. 

You may well accuse me of doing the same -

Gee, you think?

... but at least I can acknowledge that I have the God given freedom to consciously choose to do so.

You don't "acknowledge" it, you assert it. They're very different things.

[Stranger]

And the mindless repetition just goes on and on and on and on, completely ignoring all the answers already given and all the arguments that show that your ideas are impossible...

But reasons for choices only exist in our conscious awareness, which we can't translate directly to predetermined material reactions.

Yet again: 'material' has nothing to do with the logic. Either you make choices entirely due to pre-existing reasons (deterministic) or not, and if not, there must be some randomness.

Despite all the investigations into neuroscience, we cant define our thoughts in material terms...

Yet again: argument from ignorance fallacy combined with jaw-dropping hypocrisy as you are offering no 'definition' or explanation yourself.

You may well accuse me of doing the same - but at least I can acknowledge that I have the God given freedom to consciously choose to do so.

Yet again: the dishonest pretence that our experience of freedom is the same as your self-contradictory, nonsense 'explanation' of it.

[Stranger]

Your posts offer a great example of the human freedom to consciously cherry pick the theories which support what you want to believe, while ignoring, dismissing or ridiculing any arguments put forward which may contradict what you want to believe.

You may well accuse me of doing the same...

So what are the arguments that support what you want to believe, Alan? I'm not actually aware of any. Incredulity, baseless assertions, and logical fallacies are not arguments.

[Alan Burns]

And the mindless repetition just goes on and on and on and on, completely ignoring all the answers already given and all the arguments that show that your ideas are impossible...

Yet again: 'material' has nothing to do with the logic. Either you make choices entirely due to pre-existing reasons (deterministic) or not, and if not, there must be some randomness.

I fully agree that there are reasons
Consciously determined reasons
Not physically predetermined reasons
Can you not tell the difference?
One of them is controlled, the other is uncontrollable.

[Alan Burns]

Yet again: the dishonest pretence that our experience of freedom is the same as your self-contradictory, nonsense 'explanation' of it.

I struggle to see how I can be accused of deliberate dishonesty if I have no freedom to consciously deliberate anything.

[torridon]

You seem to be inferring that human freewill is uncontrolled.  It is quite the opposite, because it facilitates the conscious ability to control our thoughts, words and actions.

We don't 'control our will' in a real fundamental sense.  Can you make yourself want something you don't want ? Can you make yourself believe something you don't believe ? Clearly we cannot do such things, therefore the notion that we can control our will, fundamentally, is a nonsense.  All we do, in making a choice, is identify the option that appeals most to us in any situation but we cannot make something external appeal to us if it does not. Neither can we 'control' our thoughts in any fundamental sense.  We are still waiting for you to give us an exmaple of a thought you had and how you were able to 'control' it.

[jeremyp]

It is for good reasons that we install a black box flight recorder on all aircraft.  You seem to be disputing the utility of memory.

No I am not - Vlad is.

I said consciousness might be an after the event thing. He said what evolutionary value is that. I said being able to introspect past decisions might have some evolutionary value. He said  what evolutionary value is that. I replied with an analogy about why it is good to be able to look back on things that have already happened and analyse why.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I fully agree that there are reasons
Consciously determined reasons
Not physically predetermined reasons
Can you not tell the difference?
One of them is controlled, the other is uncontrollable.

Consciousness is "physical", so no.

[jeremyp]

Consciousness here seems like an entity beyond necessity.

Frankly, I think you are an entity beyond necessity and most of your non Brexit related posts bear that out and yet here you are.

[Stranger]

I struggle to see how I can be accused of deliberate dishonesty if I have no freedom to consciously deliberate anything.

Please stop lying about my arguments. I have never suggested that you have no freedom to consciously deliberate.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I struggle to see how I can be accused of deliberate dishonesty if I have no freedom to consciously deliberate anything.

I know you struggle with this, but I don't see why given the countless times it's been explained to you in very plain terms.

[Gordon]

I struggle to see how I can be accused of deliberate dishonesty if I have no freedom to consciously deliberate anything.

Nobody said you couldn't 'deliberate', and you are misrepresenting what has been said to you.