Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

Magic or non-magic though, the question is the same: determined by prior events, or random? You choose.

But I have the freedom to think things out before I make the choice.
Magic is an illusion - not real.
Random would not produce any meaningful result.
Determined by prior events leads to no ultimate cause.
All there is left is conscious will.

[Stranger]

Your example clearly illustrates the difference between a cause and a reason.  The thief's hungry children are not an inevitable cause - they are a reason perceived by the conscious awareness of the thief...

Anything but address the actual logic. Perceived reasons are a glimpse of the fact that we all make choices for reasons. They are not alternatives or a way to avoid the logic that nothing can happen that isn't entirely due to pre-existing reasons/causes without introducing randomness.

...but the ultimate cause of the theft will be the thief's consciously driven choice

That isn't an alternative to the logic either. Yet again: it's answering a totally different question. The question isn't about what makes the choice it's about how (by what process) the choice is made - you need to say how "consciously driven choice" makes up its mind.

-sigh-

Here we are again - this point has been made to you over and over and over again, and once again you've chosen to totally ignore all the answers and counterarguments in favour of just trotting out the same old inane nonsense you've said countless times before, without even acknowledging what people have said about it.

[Stranger]

But I have the freedom to think things out before I make the choice.

Yes - so why don't you?

Magic is an illusion - not real.

So why keep on claiming it? Make no mistake, all your waffle boils down to "it's magic".

Random would not produce any meaningful result.
Determined by prior events leads to no ultimate cause.
All there is left is conscious will magic.

FIFY

Conscious choice is not left, because it isn't a third alternative, for all the reasons that have been explained to you many, many times and you continue to totally ignore.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But I have the freedom to think things out before I make the choice.

No, you have a freedom to do that. That functional freedom though necessarily cannot be you impossible concept of that term. You know this already because it's been explained to you countless times, even though you routinely just ignore the explanation and repeat the same mindless mantra in response.

Magic is an illusion - not real.

But it's also all you have whenever you're asked anything at all about this supposed "soul" of yours. If you think you have different answers to the questions you've repeatedly been asked (what is it, how would it function, how would your claims and assertions about it be investigated etc) then all you have to do finally is to tell us what they are. Why be coy about that?

Random would not produce any meaningful result.

Yes I know, but it's all that's left if you reject determinism remember? Well, that an "it's magic innit?", which is your alternative.

Determined by prior events leads to no ultimate cause.

Debatable but irrelevant - whether "ultimate cause" or not tells you nothing about the logic for determinism.
 

All there is left is conscious will.

Which as you assert it to be is incoherent, irrational and logically impossible. How does that help you?

[Enki]

But your alternative explanation is self contradictory.
You claim that I have freedom to choose whatever I wish.
But you also claim that my wish is entirely predetermined by past events.
So no freedom
No choice.
Just inevitable reaction to past events.

Yet again:

Freedom  the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants.

Choice    the act of choosing between two or more possibilities.

So, what is self contradictory?

[Alan Burns]

Anything but address the actual logic. Perceived reasons are a glimpse of the fact that we all make choices for reasons. They are not alternatives or a way to avoid the logic that nothing can happen that isn't entirely due to pre-existing reasons/causes without introducing randomness.

That isn't an alternative to the logic either. Yet again: it's answering a totally different question. The question isn't about what makes the choice it's about how (by what process) the choice is made - you need to say how "consciously driven choice" makes up its mind.

-sigh-

Here we are again - this point has been made to you over and over and over again, and once again you've chosen to totally ignore all the answers and counterarguments in favour of just trotting out the same old inane nonsense you've said countless times before, without even acknowledging what people have said about it.

But I am not ignoring the points you make.  I am illustrating the error in the logic you insist on adhering to.  The logic is flawed because it does not explain the reality of my ability to make a conscious choice which is not an inevitable consequence to past events.

You keep on making the same points, but no matter how much you repeat this logic, it does not explain reality, therefore it must be flawed.  You can't change reality to fit in with flawed logic.  My conscious choices are not dictated by past events, they are consciously chosen by the entity which is me.  What you espouse effectively redefines "me" to be just an inevitable consequence to past events.  In particular it does not explain the reality of my ability to consciously pray to God.

[Alan Burns]

Yet again:

Freedom  the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants.

Choice    the act of choosing between two or more possibilities.

So, what is self contradictory?

The contradictions lie in the definition of "one" and what this "one" wants.  The definition surely assumes that whatever constitutes "one" has the capability to choose what it wants, otherwise the concept of choice is meaningless.  It the "one" is defined as an inevitable consequence to past events, it will be incapable of making any choice.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But I am not ignoring the points you make.

Yes you are. It's what you do. Consistently.

I am illustrating the error in the logic you insist on adhering to.

No you're not. To "illustrate an error" you'd have to come up with a coherent a counter-argument. You never do that.

The logic is flawed because it does not explain the reality of my ability to make a conscious choice which is not an inevitable consequence to past events.

Except as has been explained to you many, many times and you just ignore - your "reality" about that is just the reality of the experience you appear to have, and NOT the reality of the explanation for it. You know this because you've been told it many times, but rather than ever engage with the explanation you evade, deflect, and ignore the problem. You're slipperier than an eel on Swarfega ice skates about this. Why?   

You keep on making the same points,

Presumably because you keep ignoring them. The explanation for why 2+2=2 doesn't have to be changed just because you keep pretending it hasn't been said.

...but no matter how much you repeat this logic, it does not explain reality, therefore it must be flawed.

Utter bollocks. Stop lying. All it doesn't explain is your hopelessly irrational concept of reality. 

You can't change reality to fit in with flawed logic.

The logic isn't flawed; your ability to think is. Badly so.

My conscious choices are not dictated by past events,

So you act randomly then. In that case, why do you repeat the same mindless idiocies over and over again?

... they are consciously chosen by the entity which is me.

Ah, and we're back to "it's magic innit?" then I see. Do grow up.

Whet you espouse effectively redefines "me" to be just an inevitable consequence to past events.

It only re-defines your impossible concept of it, not the reason-based reality of it.

In particular it does not explain the reality of my ability to consciously pray to God.

Yes it does. Stop lying.

[Stranger]

But I am not ignoring the points you make.  I am illustrating the error in the logic you insist on adhering to.

Except you aren't - you have never once pointed out the error in any of the logic, or even tried to.

The logic is flawed because it does not explain the reality of my ability to make a conscious choice which is not an inevitable consequence to past events.

That isn't a reality, it's your contradictory and impossible assertion about what explains the reality. In effect, this is saying, "your logic that challenges my claim must be flawed because it contradicts my claim".

You keep on making the same points, but no matter how much you repeat this logic, it does not explain reality, therefore it must be flawed.

Except that it does explain reality. What about reality (as opposed to your baseless assertions about reality) does it not explain?

You can't change reality to fit in with flawed logic.

I'm not trying to change anything about reality - where are the flaws in the logic?

My conscious choices are not dictated by past events...

Baseless assertion.

...they are consciously chosen by the entity which is me.

Which doesn't mean that they aren't due to past causes.

Whet you espouse effectively redefines "me" to be just an inevitable consequence to past events.

There's no redefining and no 'just' about it - and this is an argumentum ad consequentiam.

In particular it does not explain the reality of my ability to consciously pray to God.

Untrue.

[Stranger]

The contradictions lie in the definition of "one" and what this "one" wants.  The definition surely assumes that whatever constitutes "one" has the capability to choose what it wants...

Yet again: you cannot choose your wants without an infinite regress. How do you choose your wants? By what you want to want? How do you choose that?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stranger,

Yet again: you cannot choose your wants without an infinite regress. How do you choose your wants? By what you want to want? How do you choose that?

Easy: it's magic innit?

[torridon]

Your example clearly illustrates the difference between a cause and a reason.  The thief's hungry children are not an inevitable cause - they are a reason perceived by the conscious awareness of the thief, but the ultimate cause of the theft will be the thief's consciously driven choice

My, how you struggle with this. A choice is not its its own cause, that makes no sense. For a choice to be meaningful it must be due to a reason.  I cannot say I made a choice because I made a choice because I made a choice ......

Just put yourself in the shoes of the thief.  Your children are hungry, you have a duty of parental responsibility to them, they are desperate; on the other hand you have a moral conscience and you know that stealing is wrong.  You have a dilemma; you are conflicted.  How does this get resolved ?  There must be a principal upon which choice is resolved.  Tell us, how do you think a 'soul' or a 'conscious awareness' comes to a decision to resolve the dilemma.

[Enki]

The contradictions lie in the definition of "one" and what this "one" wants.  The definition surely assumes that whatever constitutes "one" has the capability to choose what it wants, otherwise the concept of choice is meaningless.  It the "one" is defined as an inevitable consequence to past events, it will be incapable of making any choice.

No, Alan. The definition of 'freedom' has nothing to say on how 'one' arrives at what one wants at all.

Also, the actual process of choosing is not part of the definition of 'choice'.

Hence there is nothing to suggest in these definitions that the 'freedom to choose' couldn't be the result of a deterministic scenario. So, I ask you again, what is self contradictory here?

[Alan Burns]

Yet again: you cannot choose your wants without an infinite regress. How do you choose your wants? By what you want to want? How do you choose that?

The want is defined by my conscious will - it is what it does.  That is why I am not just a cog in the wheels of an entirely predetermined system.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The want is defined by my conscious will - it is what it does.

Yes, we know that you think that's what it does but the question you're actually asked and you always run away from is how it would do it - ie, is does it function deterministically or randomly to your mind?

Surely you grasp the difference between "what" and "how" don't you?

That is why I am not just a cog in the wheels of an entirely predetermined system.

Oh dear. You don't have a "that" and nor can you have until you finally get around to a plausible explanation for how your conjecture would function.

Why is this so difficult for you?

[Stranger]

The want is defined by my conscious will - it is what it does.

Yet again, you've totally ignored the logic. How does the "conscious will" define what it wants, unless it has a want to want something? Then how does that get decided? By a want to want to want something....?

[Alan Burns]

My, how you struggle with this. A choice is not its its own cause, that makes no sense. For a choice to be meaningful it must be due to a reason.  I cannot say I made a choice because I made a choice because I made a choice ......

The conscious will of the human soul makes the choice - it does so because of a consciously determined reason, not by a physically predetermined cause.

Just put yourself in the shoes of the thief.  Your children are hungry, you have a duty of parental responsibility to them, they are desperate; on the other hand you have a moral conscience and you know that stealing is wrong.  You have a dilemma; you are conflicted.  How does this get resolved ?  There must be a principal upon which choice is resolved.  Tell us, how do you think a 'soul' or a 'conscious awareness' comes to a decision to resolve the dilemma.

This is what the human soul does - it resolves a dilemma by considering options before invoking a consciously made choice.  Something  which a physically controlled brain would be incapable of because it has no freedom to consciously peruse the options before consciously invoking the choice.

[Stranger]

Surely you grasp the difference between "what" and "how" don't you?

The evidence suggests otherwise...

[Alan Burns]

No, Alan. The definition of 'freedom' has nothing to say on how 'one' arrives at what one wants at all.

Also, the actual process of choosing is not part of the definition of 'choice'.

Hence there is nothing to suggest in these definitions that the 'freedom to choose' couldn't be the result of a deterministic scenario. So, I ask you again, what is self contradictory here?

Your interpretation would apply just as well to a rock rolling down a hill.

[Stranger]

Back to the mindless repetition of stuff that has been answered time and time and time and time again...

The conscious will of the human soul makes the choice - it does so because of a consciously determined reason, not by a physically predetermined cause.

Yet again: calling something a "consciously determined reason" cannot magically free it from either being entirely due to its antecedents or not.

Something  which a physically controlled brain would be incapable of because it has no freedom to consciously peruse the options before consciously invoking the choice.

Baseless assertion.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The conscious will of the human soul makes the choice - it does so because of a consciously determined reason, not by a physically predetermined cause.

So you assert. Your Achilles heel though remains that you just disappear every time you're asked HOW it would do that - ie, deterministically or randomly.

This is what the human soul does - it resolves a dilemma by considering options before invoking a consciously made choice.

Yet again, HOW  would it do that if not deterministically or randomly?

Something  which a physically controlled brain would be incapable of because it has no freedom to consciously peruse the options before consciously invoking the choice.

A pieces of idiocy you'd had had detonated countless times now, even though you keep pretending otherwise. Why do you behave so dishonestly?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Your interpretation would apply just as well to a rock rolling down a hill.

It's not an interpretation, it's just basic logic (which eludes you) but, even if that was true, so what?

[Alan Burns]

Yet again, you've totally ignored the logic. How does the "conscious will" define what it wants, unless it has a want to want something? Then how does that get decided? By a want to want to want something....?

It is all done within what constitutes our conscious awareness.  Within our awareness, we have the freedom to peruse, to consider options, to think and to decide before invoking a choice.  These processes are not automated.

[torridon]

The conscious will of the human soul makes the choice - it does so because of a consciously determined reason, not by a physically predetermined cause.This is what the human soul does - it resolves a dilemma by considering options before invoking a consciously made choice.  Something  which a physically controlled brain would be incapable of because it has no freedom to consciously peruse the options before consciously invoking the choice.

Well done on avoiding giving an answer yet again.

Yes, clearly there is some consideration given to the options in order to make a choice.  But how is it resolved ? You want to feed your children, and also, you want to be a decent person and not steal.  How do you decide ?  Think it through.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It is all done within what constitutes our conscious awareness.  Within our awareness, we have the freedom to peruse, to consider options, to think and to decide before invoking a choice.  These processes are not automated.

What's your "thinking" here - that by answering a "how" question only with a "what" answer (albeit a stupid one) no-one will notice your ducking and diving?

If it is, it's not working.