Searching for GOD...

[Sebastian Toe]

Whatever else you think of me, you surely can't accuse me of not thinking.  My thoughts go deeper than you could ever imagine.  Certainly deeper than anything which could be achieved entirely through physically predetermined reactions in my brain cells.

Good, a post which demonstrates that your biological brain can think deeply, far more deeply than your unevidenced, completely logic free, magic requiring "soul" can.
And yet still manage to produce a post of gigantic steaming manure.
 

[Alan Burns]

Yes you do, but you have to make your mind up somehow.

No matter what you say makes the choice (you, your conscious awareness, your soul, whatever) a choice still has to be made and then the same arguments apply; it must be entirely due to the past or not, and if not, to that extent, it's due to nothing and is random.

It's like you're making a basic assumption that there is a 'you' that must be totally removed from any possible description of how choices get made, and you seem blind to the fact that you're even making it.

But if my mind is made up entirely by past events, I no longer have the freedom to make my own mind up, because past events have already made it up for me.

No - the reality is that I have the ability to make my own mind up, having knowledge of past events and knowledge of reasoning, and the consciously driven power to act according to my own will. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Whatever else you think of me, you surely can't accuse me of not thinking.

Of course I can, and rightly so. Thinking would entail reading the arguments you’d received and attempting at least counter-arguments of your own. What you do though is to begin with a mantra that you think makes sense (but doesn’t) and then repeat it over and over and over again is if no falsifying arguments had been made.

Whatever else that might be, it certainly isn’t thinking – it’s precisely not thinking.

My thoughts go deeper than you could ever imagine.

Well, as you’ve never managed to show any sign of it here we’ll just have to take your word for that assertion. Which seems appropriate as all your other claims are just assertions too.

Certainly deeper than anything which could be achieved entirely through physically predetermined reactions in my brain cells.

And speaking of wholly unqualified, wholly non-argued, and wholly non-evidenced assertions…

If you genuinely think that you are capable of rational thought, why not finally use some if it here?

Coda: Classic Dunning-Kruger effect too by the way, just classic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

"In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people of low ability have illusory superiority and mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is. The cognitive bias of illusory superiority comes from the inability of low-ability people to recognize their lack of ability. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, low-ability people cannot objectively evaluate their actual competence or incompetence.[1]"

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But if my mind is made up entirely by past events, I no longer have the freedom to make my own mind up, because past events have already made it up for me.

FFS! They haven’t “made it up for you” as if in some way long ago they’d considered every possible future question and then just looked up the answer in a giant cerebral Filofax. What they actually do is to create the conditions that then respond to the stimuli you receive.

No - the reality is that I have the ability to make my own mind up, having knowledge of past events and knowledge of reasoning, but the consciously driven power to act according to my own will.

Yes, but only provided by “free will” you don’t actually mean the logically impossible conceptualisation of it you keep asserting here. I suspect that at some level you’re dimly aware at least of its impossibility though, which is why you have to keep on making up new stuff (“spiritual” etc) to try to get you off the hook of fundamental self-contradiction you’ve given yourself. The problem with that though is that every new invention you’re forced to conjure up then causes even bigger logical problems of its own (something you’d know by now if you didn’t keep ignoring the explanations that are given to you).   

That's some “deep thinking” eh?

[Stranger]

Yes you do, but you have to make your mind up somehow.

No matter what you say makes the choice (you, your conscious awareness, your soul, whatever) a choice still has to be made and then the same arguments apply; it must be entirely due to the past or not, and if not, to that extent, it's due to nothing and is random.

It's like you're making a basic assumption that there is a 'you' that must be totally removed from any possible description of how choices get made, and you seem blind to the fact that you're even making it.

But if my mind is made up entirely by past events, I no longer have the freedom to make my own mind up, because past events have already made it up for me.

QED

Right on cue you make exactly the assumption I indicated, with exactly the same blindness to the fact that you're making it.

No Alan, the past doesn't choose for you, you are the product of the past. There is no separate "you" that stands aside from any description of how you came to be and how you make choices. Even if you have a magic soul, it would have to be the product of its initial state and subsequent life, too. The only alternative is to introduce some part of the process that isn't due to the events that led up to it, which means that it's random.

No - the reality is that I have the ability to make my own mind up, having knowledge of past events and knowledge of reasoning, but the consciously driven power to act according to my own will.

There you go again, totally ignoring the question of how your "own will" makes its choices; just assuming that it is totally removed from any rational discussion of what it is or how it makes up its mind.

Do you seriously not see what you are doing?

[Alan Burns]

There you go again, totally ignoring the question of how your "own will" makes its choices; just assuming that it is totally removed from any rational discussion of what it is or how it makes up its mind.

Do you seriously not see what you are doing?

So what invokes an act of human will, in physical terms?
The problem you have is that you can't define an act of human will in physical terms.
Looking at the physical nature of the material human brain, all you can detect are physical reactions to previous reactions.  There is nothing which can be identified as a cause of an act of human will.  The cause just disappears into the infinite regress of physically predefined cause and effect.  This is why I can claim that your concept of freedom to choose is totally false.  In the material model there is no choice, just inevitable uncontrollable reactions to past events.

To invoke an act of will requires an intervention from outside the physically predefined cause and effect.  I have indicated that this could be a quantum event which has no discernable physical cause, but may be the spiritually defined gateway into the human brain to enable the consciously driven freedom we all enjoy.

[SteveH]

Steve H,

You've got to be joking right?

Tell me you're joking.

AB is hard wired to churn out endlessly "your ability to write this post is evidence that you have my (impossible as it happens) concept of free will" no matter what the arguments that falsify him. That's the opposite of thinking - he's an algorithm stuck in an endless loop of misplaced certainty regardless of the reasoning ranged against him.

But you just as robotically churn out the counter-argument! That's why I suggested a week or two ago that this thread should be locked or deleted: it's been going round in circles for months.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Steve H,

But you just as robotically churn out the counter-argument! That's why I suggested a week or two ago that this thread should be locked or deleted: it's been going round in circles for months.

Nope. When someone repeats endlessly the equivalent of 2+2=5 the explanation of why 2+2≠5 remains valid no matter how many times it’s said. The fault remains with the person asserting that 2+2=5 and just ignoring the falsification of it. 

[Stranger]

So what invokes an act of human will, in physical terms?

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

The problem you have is that you can't define an act of human will in physical terms.

I have a great deal better definition than you do.

Looking at the physical nature of the material human brain, all you can detect are physical reactions to previous reactions.

The logic of the situation has nothing to do with the physical brain. If a soul exists, either it operates according to reactions to past events or not, and if not, it must introduce randomness.

The cause just disappears into the infinite regress of physically predefined cause and effect.  This is why I can claim that your concept of freedom to choose is totally false.  In the material model there is no choice, just inevitable uncontrollable reactions to past events.

Argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy. You can deny that it's "real" freedom if you want but you not liking it is not an argument against it being true.

To invoke an act of will requires an intervention from outside the physically predefined cause and effect.  I have indicated that this could be a quantum event which has no discernable physical cause, but may be the spiritually defined gateway into the human brain to enable the consciously driven freedom we all enjoy.

There you go again.

This leads to exactly the same logical problem. This "spiritual event" has to come about somehow. It either comes about entirely because of past events (spiritual or physical) or not. If not, then to some extent, it wasn't due to the things that led up to it, so must be, to that extent, random. See #33125 for a more detailed version of the argument.

The problem is that there is an logical argument about how choices get made but instead of facing up to it, you keep on insisting that something else makes the choice - apparently missing the point completely. It makes no difference what makes the choice, whatever it is still has to make it ad the above logic applies.

[Stranger]

But you just as robotically churn out the counter-argument! That's why I suggested a week or two ago that this thread should be locked or deleted: it's been going round in circles for months.

Is it only months? While I have tried to put the argument in different ways, the responses do get repetitive because AB simply won't address the points being made.

It's not like he makes a claim, gets counterarguments and then responds to the counterarguments, he just goes back to his list of claims or asks questions that have been answered many times before without even acknowledging the answers he already has.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is it only months? While I have tried to put the argument in different ways, the responses do get repetitive because AB simply won't address the points being made.

It's not like he makes a claim, gets counterarguments and then responds to the counterarguments, he just goes back to his list of claims or asks questions that have been answered many times before without even acknowledging the answers he already has.

Maybe what SteveH is suggesting is that you give up on the futility you must be feeling and strike out with, for once, a positive statement of the position you hold, presenting it for scrutiny in all its alleged coherence.

At the moment the thread at best looks like a market place for obsession and at worse a playground.............in my humble opinion.

[Roses]

Maybe what SteveH is suggesting is that you give up on the futility you must be feeling and strike out with, for once, a positive statement of the position you hold, presenting it for scrutiny in all its alleged coherence.

At the moment the thread at best looks like a market place for obsession and at worse a playground.............in my humble opinion.

To which you are contributing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

To which you are contributing.

You'd have to go some to find my contributions here, If you have an alternative solution to whatever people are so obsessed about (consciousness I think) why don't you present it?

[Stranger]

Maybe what SteveH is suggesting is that you give up on the futility you must be feeling and strike out with, for once, a positive statement of the position you hold, presenting it for scrutiny in all its alleged coherence.

My position has been in most of my answers to Alan...

[ekim]

This is the gist of Stranger's position as regards free will:
"This leads to exactly the same logical problem. This "spiritual event" has to come about somehow. It either comes about entirely because of past events (spiritual or physical) or not. If not, then to some extent, it wasn't due to the things that led up to it, so must be, to that extent, random." based upon reason."
This is the gist of the Christian position as I see it: There are no random events.  There are events determined by self considerations which are built upon past experiences and future desires and there are events determined by God. The choice is to sacrifice 'self' will in favour of God's Will.  The former leads to Hell bent conflict and the latter to Heavenly bliss.  To relate it to this topic 'Searching for God' who is in Heaven requires the surrender of self will and its attachments.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

So what invokes an act of human will, in physical terms?
The problem you have is that you can't define an act of human will in physical terms.
Looking at the physical nature of the material human brain, all you can detect are physical reactions to previous reactions.  There is nothing which can be identified as a cause of an act of human will.  The cause just disappears into the infinite regress of physically predefined cause and effect.  This is why I can claim that your concept of freedom to choose is totally false.  In the material model there is no choice, just inevitable uncontrollable reactions to past events.

To invoke an act of will requires an intervention from outside the physically predefined cause and effect.  I have indicated that this could be a quantum event which has no discernable physical cause, but may be the spiritually defined gateway into the human brain to enable the consciously driven freedom we all enjoy.

Such a shame that you won’t or can’t engage with the arguments that undo you. Here for example you’ve returned yet again to the fallacy of the argument from personal incredulity – “I can’t imagine how X works, therefore the answer must be Y”.

Even if your various assertions about the state of knowledge about consciousness were to be true (and they aren’t), all that would leave you with would be a “don’t know”. And “don’t know” gives you not one scrap of a jot of an iota of a smidgin of an anything for whatever speculation you feel like dropping in to the knowledge gap.

I explained this to you before, and even gave you an analogy to help you grasp your mistake (your argument is precisely that of those who asserted ”Thor” because they couldn’t see how thunder worked) yet you just ignore the explanation and return over and over again to exactly the same mistake.   

Why do you do that? Why not say either, “OK, I can see now why my argument from personal incredulity is a bad one and I won’t do it again” or, alternatively, “actually I think the argument from personal incredulity is a good one and here’s why…”?

Instead we play this ridiculous game of explaining to you where you go wrong, you just ignoring the explanation, and then you going wrong again in exactly the same way.

You claimed earlier to think deeply about things, yet your posts here tell us you barely have a cogent thought in your head. Why not then at least start to grasp some basics about how logical argument actually works and gradually work your way up from there? 

[torridon]

So what invokes an act of human will, in physical terms?
The problem you have is that you can't define an act of human will in physical terms.
...

Emotion, in a word.  It is emotion that bridges the mind/matter gap.  This is the fundamental basics of how mind works.  Nature has evolved a way to translate perception and cognitions into optimal 'physical' motor response.  This is why we have emotions.  Say boo to a goose and it will become fearful and react out of fear. Say boo to an estate agent and he/she will become fearful and react, perhaps in a more complex way.  It is our emotions that mediate between courses of action, we are always identifying, often subliminally, the most appealing course of action in any given moment.  It has to work this way, regardless of whether you imagine that emotions evolved naturally or they were invented by a god, there has to be a mechanism to resolve choice between alternatives and we cannot be free of such a mechanism without developing random behaviours.

[Stranger]

This is the gist of Stranger's position as regards free will:
"This leads to exactly the same logical problem. This "spiritual event" has to come about somehow. It either comes about entirely because of past events (spiritual or physical) or not. If not, then to some extent, it wasn't due to the things that led up to it, so must be, to that extent, random." based upon reason."
This is the gist of the Christian position as I see it: There are no random events.  There are events determined by self considerations which are built upon past experiences and future desires and there are events determined by God. The choice is to sacrifice 'self' will in favour of God's Will.  The former leads to Hell bent conflict and the latter to Heavenly bliss.  To relate it to this topic 'Searching for God' who is in Heaven requires the surrender of self will and its attachments.

The two descriptions are at totally different levels of abstraction aren't alternatives to each other. My argument applies directly to any events, including any "choice is to sacrifice 'self'" or "surrender of self will".

[Alan Burns]

Yesterday evening, my wife asked me what I was doing on the computer.
I replied that I was reading a post from someone who said I was not a deep thinker.
"Why would he say that?", she says.
"He says if I could think deeply, I would conclude that I have no freewill", I reply.
She starts to laugh.
"It is a joke, right?  He must be having a laugh, surely.", she says.
"No, he is quite serious", I reply
She laughs even louder.
"Have you pointed out the obvious?", she says.
"Yes, several times in several different ways", I reply
"Some people are very strange.", she replies, and carries on ironing.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Yesterday evening, my wife asked me what I was doing on the computer.
I replied that I was reading a post from someone who said I was not a deep thinker.
"Why would he say that?", she says.
"He says if I could think deeply, I would conclude that I have no freewill", I reply.
She starts to laugh.
"It is a joke, right?  He must be having a laugh, surely.", she says.
"No, he is quite serious", I reply
She laughs even louder.
"Have you pointed out the obvious?", she says.
"Yes, several times in several different ways", I reply
"Some people are very strange.", she replies, and carries on ironing.

And did you then say, "But to be fair by "free will" I actually meant a logically impossible conceptualisation of it", and did she reply, "Oh in that case he's quite right to tell you that you're not a thinker at all"?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

And did you then say, "But to be fair by "free will" I actually meant a logically impossible conceptualisation of it", and did she reply, "Oh in that case he's quite right to tell you that you're not a thinker at all"?

And was it a logically impossible conceptualisation of it which prompted this reply?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

And was it a logically impossible conceptualisation of it which prompted this reply?

No.

[Enki]

Yesterday evening, my wife asked me what I was doing on the computer.
I replied that I was reading a post from someone who said I was not a deep thinker.
"Why would he say that?", she says.
"He says if I could think deeply, I would conclude that I have no freewill", I reply.
She starts to laugh.
"It is a joke, right?  He must be having a laugh, surely.", she says.
"No, he is quite serious", I reply
She laughs even louder.
"Have you pointed out the obvious?", she says.
"Yes, several times in several different ways", I reply
"Some people are very strange.", she replies, and carries on ironing.

Funny that. Several times I've talked to my wife about this person on the forum who believes that we make choices through the consciously driven will of the human soul. I really wouldn't like to repeat her responses.

[Stranger]

Yesterday evening, my wife asked me what I was doing on the computer.
I replied that I was reading a post from someone who said I was not a deep thinker.
"Why would he say that?", she says.
"He says if I could think deeply, I would conclude that I have no freewill", I reply.

Did somebody say that? I conclude that you're not a deep thinker because instead of engaging with the rational arguments made to you, you just ignore them in favour of endlessly repeating assertions, incredulity, contradictions, and questions that have been answered many times before.

If you have the ability to grasp logical arguments and compose logical counterarguments, you are, for some reason, choosing not to do so.

Cue: "But how can I be accused of making a choice..."

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stranger,

Did somebody say that? I conclude that you're not a deep thinker because instead of engaging with the rational arguments made to you, you just ignore them in favour of endlessly repeating assertions, incredulity, contradictions, and questions that have been answered many times before.

If you have the ability to grasp logical arguments and compose logical counterarguments, you are, for some reason, choosing not to do so.

Cue: "But how can I be accused of making a choice..."

What’s curious I find is that I suspect that AB has at least some awareness of what fallacious arguments entail – he wouldn’t for example buy a medical treatment from me on the basis that I really deeply believed I was right about its efficacy, and nor would he reject the causes of rainbows because I told him that they would falsify my personal belief in leprechauns.

Yet for some reason he has a complete blind spot about this when he tries to argue for his beliefs by relying on fallacy after fallacy after fallacy. Usually he just ignores the problem when its pointed out to him, and on the rare occasion he does respond he accuses me of just “labelling” his efforts as fallacious even though they are precisely aligned to the definitions these various fallacies have.

His way out of that is to magic up “spiritual”, which seems to mean something like, “no matter how false the arguments I try they aren’t false any more when I relate them to a spiritual world”, apparently oblivious to the problem that when he opens that door anything else at all can pile in behind – leprechauns or just fine because of the “leprechaunal” etc.

It’s very odd I find, and about as far removed from actually thinking as I can imagine.