Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

But nothing which has previously been said can contradict this basic logic.

To accuse a physically predetermined being of deliberate dishonesty is equivalent to declaring that a boulder running down a hill has taken the wrong path!

You previously admitted that "humans can be deliberately dishonest, some more than others"

For this to be true, the human needs the freedom to deliberately choose a dishonest option.  A physically predefined reaction can never be deemed to be a deliberate act of dishonesty.

What this amounts to is saying that if you are being dishonest because of the person you are and the reasons you have for being dishonest, then it isn't really dishonesty.

Look, you may not like the logic and you may choose (you have that freedom) not to call what we have "freedom" but if we use your definition of "freedom" then freedom is simply impossible.

How about, just for once, addressing one of the arguments:

• Either what we do is entirely due to our basic nature (initial conditions) and subsequent life (right up to the moment of choice) or it isn't.
  
  
• If it isn't (as you insist), then some part of some decisions are not due to our basic nature (initial conditions) and subsequent life.
  
  
• If that is the case, then that element of choice making is not because of our basic nature or any part of our life (right up to the moment of choice).
  
  
• Therefore, a part of choice making has nothing to do with the choice maker or the circumstances of the choice.

If you think that reasoning is wrong, please point out where.

If not, please explain how something that has nothing to do with me and nothing to do with the circumstances of a choice, can make me more free or responsible.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But nothing which has previously been said can contradict this basic logic.

That you cannot or will not engage with the logic that falsifies your hopeless attempt at logic does not mean that it does not falsify your hopeless attempt at logic.

To accuse a physically predetermined being of deliberate dishonesty is equivalent to declaring that a boulder rollng down a hill has taken the wrong path!

Why are you doing this to yourself? You’ve had explained endlessly that decision-making at the level you experience it is entirely compatible with an underlying determinism that explains it.   

Would it really kill you finally at least to try to address that rather than just ignore it over and over again?

Really though?

You previously admitted that "humans can be deliberately dishonest, some more than others"

He hasn’t “admitted” that at all – he just said it.

For this to be true, the human needs the freedom to deliberately choose a dishonest option.  A physically predefined reaction can never be deemed to be a deliberate act of dishonesty.

Flat wrong as always – see above.

Of course we are all capable of deliberate acts of dishonesty, because we are human, with the freedom to consciously choose between right and wrong.

Yes, that is our experience of “choice”. Now all you have to do is to tell us what on earth that has to do with the explanation for that experience, especially as your concept of it plunges immediately into the impossibility of self-contradiction (which is why you have to adduce the “it’s magic innit” of “spiritual” to get you off that hook).   

[Alan Burns]

Yes, that is out experience of “choice”. Now all you have to do is to tell us what on earth that has to do with the explanation for that experience, especially as your concept of it plunges immediately into the impossibility of self-contradiction (which is why you have to adduce the “it’s magic innit” of “spiritual” to get you off that hook).   

But just labelling our freedom to choose to be an experience does not explain away the concept of deliberation.  I know that there can be no physically defined explanation for this freedom, which is why I suggest that it is evidence of the spiritual power emanating from of the conscious awareness of our human soul.  The soul being defined as that which can perceive and interact with this otherwise physically predetermined universe.

The only alternative you can offer in your secular, physically predetermined world is that we are just spectators on what has already been predetermined by past events - just human boulders rolling down the hill of life.

[Alan Burns]

He hasn’t “admitted” that at all – he just said it.

Of course, silly me!
To admit something would require an act of freewill - which he proclaims does not exist.

[torridon]

Of course, silly me!
To admit something would require an act of freewill - which he proclaims does not exist.

No, you can admit things simply because you want to.  No superfluous nonsense about freewill required.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But just labelling our freedom to choose to be an experience…

It’s not just a “label”, it is an experience. You have an experience of choice. That’s what the word means for Pete’s sake!

…does not explain away the concept of deliberation.

It doesn’t claim to. It just says that you have an experience of something. You haven’t tried the fallacy of the straw man for while though, so welcome back!

What you were actually asked though was to explain “…what on earth that has to do with the explanation for that experience, especially as your concept of it plunges immediately into the impossibility of self-contradiction (which is why you have to adduce the “it’s magic innit” of “spiritual” to get you off that hook).”

As ever I see that you just ignored that in favour of a daft evasion.

What does this dishonesty say about you do you think? Is it fine and dandy to your mind provided you do it for Jesus or something?
 

I know that there can be no physically defined explanation for this freedom…

How do you “know” that rather than just assert it? You know, one of the several questions you always run away from.

…which is why I suggest that…

Nope. You have to demonstrate your unqualified assertion that “there can be no physically defined explanation for this freedom” before attempting alternatives.

…it is evidence…

It’s evidence for nothing whatever other than that you personally can’t see how a materialistic explanation would work. Evidence for something has to relate to that something, not to what you perceive to be a lack of evidence for something else. You’re trying again the same line someone asserting “Thor” would attempt if he didn’t understand how thunder works.   

Then again I’ve explained that to you before and you just ignored that too, so hey-ho eh?
 

…of the spiritual power emanating from of the conscious awareness of our human soul.  The soul being defined as that which can perceive and interact with this otherwise physically predetermined universe.

Mindless gibberish noted. Why not just say “it’s magic innit”? It’d save you some wasted typing at least.

The only alternative you can offer in your secular, physically predetermined world is that we are just spectators on what has already been predetermined by past events - just human boulders rolling down the hill of life.

And the argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy makes its ever-welcome return. You really are utterly indifferent to the hopelessness of your attempts at logic aren’t you. 

Of course, silly me!

Well, you had to get something right eventually I suppose.

To admit something would require an act of freewill - which he proclaims does not exist.

Perhaps if you stopped lying for, say, one day a week to begin with that would be a good start at least?

[torridon]

So how does this deliberation become invoked within a physically predetermined environment?
Is there some dishonest predetermined electron activity taking place?

Same as with all things, you think things through because you want to; no magic required. A female rabbit will 'deliberate' over which scrape to turn into a burrow over the course of several days before making her mind up. No magic required; all perfectly natural.  This is why brains evolved, to do exactly this sort of thing.  Perhaps you ought to try it out one day.

[Alan Burns]

You’ve had explained endlessly that decision-making at the level you experience it is entirely compatible with an underlying determinism that explains it.   

And I have pointed out numerous times that this is not feasible explanation for consciously driven choice.  Your conscious awareness exists and acts in the present - it is not predefined by the past.  And please don't claim that there is no such thing as the present.  It is where we all exist.  It is where we make conscious choices rather than be subjected to predetermined reactions.

[Stranger]

Of course, silly me!
To admit something would require an act of freewill - which he proclaims does not exist.

I proclaim no such thing. I have pointed out that your version of "free will" is self-contradictory and I'm still waiting for a coherent response.

You could start by addressing the argument in #33125.

[torridon]

And I have pointed out numerous times that this is not feasible explanation for consciously driven choice.  Your conscious awareness exists and acts in the present - it is not predefined by the past.  And please don't claim that there is no such thing as the present.  It is where we all exist.  It is where we make conscious choices rather than be subjected to predetermined reactions.

Why don't you get out your stop watch and time how long the present moment lasts for.  Whan you've got that figure, estimate how much can be achieved in that time span.

[Stranger]

And I have pointed out numerous times that this is not feasible explanation for consciously driven choice.

So you assert, without any evidence or reasoning and while totally ignoring the arguments against your impossible alternative...

Your conscious awareness exists and acts in the present - it is not predefined by the past.  And please don't claim that there is no such thing as the present.  It is where we all exist.

This is gibberish. As I said before (#33120), the "present" in the everyday sense ("living in the present") is logically irrelevant. If you try to define it in concrete terms it disappears. What do you mean by it and how do you think it helps against the logic you keep on ignoring?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

And I have pointed out numerous times that this is not feasible explanation for consciously driven choice.

You haven’t pointed that out at all, you’ve just asserted. So far as I’m aware, you’ve never once bothered even to attempt to explain why you think that remarkable claim to be true.

By contrast, the arguments you’re given that falsify your various claim precisely tell you why you’re wrong. As you just pretend they haven’t been made though, I suppose you’ll never be able to grasp that.

Your conscious awareness exists and acts in the present –

In the colloquial sense that’s right. If ever you thought about it though you’d realise that “the present” is nonsensical. 

…it is not predefined by the past.

One of your favourite remarkable and entirely unqualified assertions that one.

And please don't claim that there is no such thing as the present.

Why not? There isn’t, at least not in any meaningful sense.

It is where we all exist.  It is where we make conscious choices rather than be subjected to predetermined reactions.

Yes, that’s the way it seems to us isn’t it when we don’t think about the implications of such superficial reasoning. Fortunately though some of us at least are capable of thinking more deeply, even if you're not one of them.

[jjohnjil]

And I have pointed out numerous times that this is not feasible explanation for consciously driven choice.  Your conscious awareness exists and acts in the present - it is not predefined by the past.  And please don't claim that there is no such thing as the present.  It is where we all exist.  It is where we make conscious choices rather than be subjected to predetermined reactions.

Alan
Wouldn’t it be helpful and move this thread along from the boring repetition, if you gave an example of when your soul made a decision entirely free from anything you had experienced in the past?

You’ve said that it takes into account all your past experience but doesn’t have to come to a decision based on it.  Demonstrate such a decision.

[bluehillside Retd.]

jj,

Wouldn’t it be helpful and move this thread along from the boring repetition, if you gave an example of when your soul made a decision entirely free from anything you had experienced in the past?

You’ve said that it takes into account all your past experience but doesn’t have to come to a decision based on it.  Demonstrate such a decision.

He never will. If he bothers to reply at all he'll just slide off into something else - generally a diversion or a basic logical fallacy - but as his knowledge about a supposed "soul" is precisely zero (as opposed to the substantial body of knowledge we have already about consciousness by the way) there's nothing he can say. "It's magic" isn't only the beginning of it, it's the middle and the end of it too   

[Alan Burns]

Why don't you get out your stop watch and time how long the present moment lasts for.  Whan you've got that figure, estimate how much can be achieved in that time span.

And every action involved in doing this would be driven by my conscious choices invoked within my present conscious awareness.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hey AB - turns out they've made a documentary about this "soul" of yours:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJCCUdK7PiU

I take it all back!

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

And every action involved in doing this would be driven by my conscious choices invoked within my present conscious awareness.

Not unless you can turn physics on its head and demonstrate this "present" of yours it isn't.

[Stranger]

And every action involved in doing this would be driven by my conscious choices invoked within my present conscious awareness.

You really aren't making any sense. What on earth do you think this "present" is exactly, and how do you think it helps with all the logic that is against you? How does your sentence above differ in meaning from just saying that you'd be consciously choosing what to do?

[Alan Burns]

/index.php?topic=10333.msg755978#msg755978]#33120[/url]), the "present" in the everyday sense ("living in the present") is logically irrelevant. If you try to define it in concrete terms it disappears. What do you mean by it and how do you think it helps against the logic you keep on ignoring?

The present is defined by things which happen.  Every event occurs in the present - not the past.  It is totally relevant when seen in conjunction with our conscious awareness.  We are aware of past events - this awareness exists in our present memory   We are also consciously aware of reasons which are formed within our present state of mind.  But this awareness does not automatically invoke a conscious choice - that is done by a consciously driven act of will which also gets invoked in the present.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The present is defined by things which happen.  Every event occurs in the present - not the past.  It is totally relevant when seen in conjunction with our conscious awareness.  We are aware of past events - this awareness exists in our present memory   We are also consciously aware of reasons which are formed within our present state of mind.  But this awareness does not automatically invoke a conscious choice - that is done by a consciously driven act of will which also gets invoked in the present.

Can't work - the only way you can experience the present is to remember it. That's why people who research these things refer to the "remembered present".

Think about it...

...oh, hang on...you won't do that will you. Sorry.

[Alan Burns]

Alan
Wouldn’t it be helpful and move this thread along from the boring repetition, if you gave an example of when your soul made a decision entirely free from anything you had experienced in the past?

You’ve said that it takes into account all your past experience but doesn’t have to come to a decision based on it.  Demonstrate such a decision.

It is easily demonstrated by contemplating your own ability to make conscious choices.  You are consciously aware of reasons for making a choice before the choice is made, but these reasons do not automatically invoke the choice.  You still have control over when, where and if to invoke your choice.  And the act of contemplating this scenario aptly demonstrates you freedom to drive your own thought processes.  Can you honestly believe that such thought processes occur in your subconscious before you become aware of them?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It is easily demonstrated by contemplating your own ability to make conscious choices.  You are consciously aware of reasons for making a choice before the choice is made, but these reasons do not automatically invoke the choice.  You still have control over when, where and if to invoke your choice.  And the act of contemplating this scenario aptly demonstrates you freedom to drive your own thought processes.  Can you honestly believe that such thought processes occur in your subconscious before you become aware of them?

And what in this repeated piece of deep irrationality is it that gives rise to the want to "invoke the choice" as you put it?

Yeah, I know - don't tell me - it's magic innit.   

[Stranger]

The present is defined by things which happen.

Things happen all the time. How do things happening define the present?

Every event occurs in the present - not the past.

No, the event of you posting this message happened in the past.

It is totally relevant when seen in conjunction with our conscious awareness.  We are aware of past events - this awareness exists in our present memory

Except that the act of accessing memory takes time. You can't achieve anything in a single instant. Even if we accept the notion of a present state of mind, everything about it must have arrived from the past.

We are also consciously aware of reasons which are formed within our present state of mind.  But this awareness does not automatically invoke a conscious choice - that is done by a consciously driven act of will which also gets invoked in the present.

Now the descent into incoherent gibberish. This appears to be nothing more than throwing meaningless verbiage at the choice making process in the hope the logical contradiction at the heart of what you think happens somehow disappears under it.

All the information relevant to making a choice must be there prior to actually making it. The process of making a choice itself takes time. By the time you've finished, the start is in the past.

Waffling about the "present" things being "consciously driven" can't change the fundamental logic of the situation.

If all the factors affecting the choice do not fully determine the outcome, then some part of the choice making is not due to the factors affecting it, so it must be random. Insisting that it happens in the "present" and describing it as "consciously driven" can't change that basic logic.

[Stranger]

It is easily demonstrated by contemplating your own ability to make conscious choices.  You are consciously aware of reasons for making a choice before the choice is made, but these reasons do not automatically invoke the choice.  You still have control over when, where and if to invoke your choice.

* sigh *

YET AGAIN

So how does the "you" ultimately decide when, where and if to invoke its choice? It either does so entirely because of pre-existing causes/reasons or not. If not, then, to that extent, it has chosen for no reason, which means random.

Shifting the focus to consciousness makes no difference whatsoever to the basic logic.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Can't work - the only way you can experience the present is to remember it. That's why people who research these things refer to the "remembered present".

Our conscious experience is simply a memory of things which occurred in the present.  I am consciously aware of each letter I type after I type it, but the invocation of my consciously driven choice to type that letter occurred in what was then my present state of conscious awareness.