Searching for GOD...

[jeremyp]

Yet you continually accuse me of deliberately ignoring or misinterpreting or assertion.

But there are reasons why you deliberately are ignoring the arguments against your point and they derive from your experience and perhaps your genes.

[Stranger]

Our choice making is ultimately consciously driven rather than being entirely predeterministically driven...

The descriptions "consciously driven" and "entirely predeterministically" [the 'pre' is redundant] are not even in the same category, let alone alternatives to each other. You could have any combination of the two.

This has been explained over and over and over again, what is it that you can't grasp?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Jeremy,

But there are reasons why you deliberately are ignoring the arguments against your point and they derive from your experience and perhaps your genes.

That and having any critical faculties he may once have had clubbed out of him by the dull certainties of his simplistic religious beliefs. While I can see that his faith has destroyed his ability to think, what I don't get though is why it's also destroyed his ability to be honest - for example by actually engaging with the arguments both at all, and with something other than irrelevance, fallacy, wishful thinking etc. I assume it's because he's terrified of what he might find out, but we'll never know for sure I guess.

[Stranger]

If our choices were entirely driven by predetermined events then we have no control of the final choice.

Utter nonsense, for reasons that have been endlessly expained to you...

[Enki]

If our choices were entirely driven by predetermined events then we have no control of the final choice.  Our choice making is ultimately consciously driven rather than being entirely predeterministically driven, which is what distinguishes it from a reaction.

Why won't you answer my question?

I didn't ask what makes the decisions. I took it as read that you would say it is our conscious awareness. To repeat what I said: " Simply saying that it is our conscious awareness explains nothing,"

I accepted that you did not take a deterministic view when I said "You seem to exclude the idea that a choice is purely deterministic".

So, why bother to repeat the obvious?

I asked on what basis this conscious awareness/soul thingy makes its decisions. I want to know how it actually reaches a decision. You haven't even bothered to address this point yet again. How do you expect anyone like me to accept what you are saying unless you are prepared to give good sensible explanations when asked? You simply seem to repeat some sort of mantra that you have learned. The only conclusion that I can possibly come to is that you really don't know. You have no idea how it works. In which case, by the very absence of any explanation from you, I am simply left with remaining totally unconvinced, and a growing feeling that you, yourself, have actually no real idea what you are talking about.

[bluehillside Retd.]

enki,

Why won't you answer my question?

It's AB - he doesn't answer questions, presumably because that way he's free to repeat the same basic errors over and over again.

Look, I'll show you: Hey AB - what logical path do you think there to be from your perception of an experience to the explanation for it?

(Somewhere in the distant night a coyote wails mournfully, and a gusting wind causes a metal chime to clang furiously and then to fall silent. Tumble weed blows listlessly across the dirt path ahead, and scudding clouds obscure the moon... )

See?

[torridon]

All I can say is that you have a very simplistic view of what constitutes conscious awareness.
It is not just information flow, it is perception of the information.

Obviously it is perception of the information.  Open your eyes, see that screen in front of you, that is perception in action, perception of the screen in front of you.  Your visual perception is the flow of visual information.

Is this something difficult ?

[Alan Burns]

Utter nonsense, for reasons that have been endlessly expained to you...

But your explanation is that the control itself is predetermined.  Which is not what I or most other people understand in what is meant by conscious control.

[Alan Burns]

Obviously it is perception of the information.  Open your eyes, see that screen in front of you, that is perception in action, perception of the screen in front of you.  Your visual perception is the flow of visual information.

Is this something difficult ?

No
The flow of information is the pixels on the screen, whose image is transmitted through the eye which activates nerves and individual brain cells.  But in the end, there is no definition for what consciously perceives all this information. And not just reacts to it.

[Gordon]

But your explanation is that the control itself is predetermined.  Which is not what I or most other people understand in what is meant by conscious control.

It is ironic, Alan, that in all your attempts to claim you are in 'control' you also say this control is somehow dependent on a supernatural agent from another dimension: it doesn't compute, Alan.

You need to rid yourself of is your particular take on 'God' since this is causing you to both reject any explanations that don't in some way allow for 'God' and concoct an alternative personal narrative that is inherently illogical and based on fallacious thinking - it isn't a pretty sight!

[Stranger]

But your explanation is that the control itself is predetermined.

And your 'explanation' is incoherent and self-contradictory.

I'm happy to tackle any argument you put to me about my explanation. In contrast, you keep on running away from tackling any of the many arguments that have been posted that show your 'explanation' is impossible.

[Gordon]

No
The flow of information is the pixels on the screen, whose image is transmitted through the eye which activates nerves and individual brain cells.  But in the end, there is no definition for what consciously perceives all this information. And not just reacts to it.

It's just your brain doing what it does: silly you.

[Alan Burns]

Why won't you answer my question?

I didn't ask what makes the decisions. I took it as read that you would say it is our conscious awareness. To repeat what I said: " Simply saying that it is our conscious awareness explains nothing,"

I accepted that you did not take a deterministic view when I said "You seem to exclude the idea that a choice is purely deterministic".

So, why bother to repeat the obvious?

I asked on what basis this conscious awareness/soul thingy makes its decisions. I want to know how it actually reaches a decision. You haven't even bothered to address this point yet again. How do you expect anyone like me to accept what you are saying unless you are prepared to give good sensible explanations when asked? You simply seem to repeat some sort of mantra that you have learned. The only conclusion that I can possibly come to is that you really don't know. You have no idea how it works. In which case, by the very absence of any explanation from you, I am simply left with remaining totally unconvinced, and a growing feeling that you, yourself, have actually no real idea what you are talking about.

The answer lies in the amazing capabilities of our conscious awareness.  It is not just a spectator of what has already been predetermined.  It has the capability of driving our conscious thought processes, giving us the freedom to make the final choices, determined from within our consciously aware experience of life and our own self.

[Gordon]

The answer lies in the amazing capabilities of our conscious awareness brain. *

* FIFY

[Stranger]

It is not just a spectator of what has already been predetermined.

You do realise that nobody at all has suggested that it is, don't you?

It has the capability of driving our conscious thought processes, giving us the freedom to make the final choices, determined from within our consciously aware experience of life and our own self.

   ...and either making choices that are entirely due to previous causes or not (which means some randomness).

[Alan Burns]

It is ironic, Alan, that in all your attempts to claim you are in 'control' you also say this control is somehow dependent on a supernatural agent from another dimension: it doesn't compute, Alan.

You need to rid yourself of is your particular take on 'God' since this is causing you to both reject any explanations that don't in some way allow for 'God' and concoct an alternative personal narrative that is inherently illogical and based on fallacious thinking - it isn't a pretty sight!

Without the consciously driven power of my human soul, I could not control anything because the laws of physics would be in control of me.

I could not consciously reject anything if I did not have the God given freedom to do so.
The existence and power of God, and the existence and the existence and power of my soul (which is me) are the only things which can make logical sense of my own existence.

[SteveH]

FFS, mods, put this thread out of its misery!

[Alan Burns]

You do realise that nobody at all has suggested that it is, don't you?

Yes they have.
Try looking back at Torridon and Bluehillside's posts.

[Enki]

The answer lies in the amazing capabilities of our conscious awareness.  It is not just a spectator of what has already been predetermined.  It has the capability of driving our conscious thought processes, giving us the freedom to make the final choices, determined from within our consciously aware experience of life and our own self.

Thank you for your response, Alan.

I have no problem at all in accepting that we have the freedom to make a final choice.(See my definition of freedom) I have no problem at all accepting that choices will be made, by being determined from within 'our consciously aware experience and our own self' as you put it. In other words, you are simply suggesting causes and reasons why we make choices. That's fine, Alan. it's called determinism, Whatever choice one makes is determined by those aspects (experience of life and our own self). We can therefore not make any other choice than the one we actually make, can we? You have admitted this clearly when you use the words 'determined'. In fact, if it were possible to evaluate all person x's 'consciously aware experience' and have total understanding of person x's 'self' then we could unerringly tell what choice person X would make in any situation.

Excellent. Now, why on earth is a 'soul' needed to make a choice, when a deterministic brain can do the job? Whether we are talking about unconscious thought processes or conscious thought processes, they are all integral to the brain. For that we have plenty of supporting evidence. However there is no evidence for the existence of a 'soul' never mind the capabilities that you would like to give it. It does seem a rather pointless entity to bring into the equation.

[SusanDoris]

FFS, mods, put this thread out of its misery!

You'd miss it if it wasn't here and, of course, you don't have to look at it you know!!

[Nearly Sane]

FFS, mods, put this thread out of its misery!

Never going to happen. It has now officially been declared a national treasure, and we are merely its guardians.

[torridon]

I have never denied that there are reasons for our choices.
But we have the power to consciously consider those reasons before making the choice.
It is all driven by our conscious awareness - not by inevitable reactions.

And yet you seem unable to articulate a principal upon which rival choices are resolved.  How would that thief resolve his dilemma between feeding his children and doing the 'right thing' ?

[torridon]

No
The flow of information is the pixels on the screen, whose image is transmitted through the eye which activates nerves and individual brain cells.  But in the end, there is no definition for what consciously perceives all this information. And not just reacts to it.

Perception happens in a mind.  It is a mind that perceives, hence the old question, does a tree falling in a forest make a sound if there is noone to hear it. A gazelle that hears a lion creeping up on it is experiencing auditory perception; no magic souls required, this is all perfectly natural.  What responses we make is going beyond by what is strictly meant by perception.

[torridon]

I could not consciously reject anything if I did not have the God given freedom to do so.

And yet rejection is widespread in nature.  Does a female baboon that rejects the advances of an immature male require a soul in order to reject him ?  Nothing magical about rejection I'm afraid, it happens all the time. And before your predictable knee jerk response kicks in, yes, the baboon does this consciously; such complex behaviours are not possible whilst unconscious, whether you are a human or a baboon. 

[Stranger]

Without the consciously driven power of my human soul, I could not control anything because the laws of physics would be in control of me.

Nonsense: control The power to influence or direct people's behaviour or the course of events. You have a kind of Humpty Dumpty attitude to words, don't you?

I could not consciously reject anything if I did not have the God given freedom to do so.
The existence and power of God, and the existence and the existence and power of my soul (which is me) are the only things which can make logical sense of my own existence.

Yet again: our experience of freedom and consciousness is what it is. Many people have offered explanations of it. To claim that it supports only your 'explanation' is, in effect, a lie.