Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

But how can a person be personally responsible for their nature, nurture and experience if it is all predetermined?

A person has to get to be a person before they can possibly be held responsible for anything. How can a person be held responsible for the type of person they are anyway - even if they were magicked into existence by a god?

Because it is the reality we all live in.
I do not think many people actually believe that their conscious choices are entirely predetermined.
Certainly none that I have come across, except on this forum.

Which:

• Doesn't answer the question I asked. Why the bot-like repetition? How do you think it helps to ignore the answers you already have?
  
  
• Is an argumentum ad populum fallacy. Are you trying for the full set?
  
  
• Is not a reflection of the reality we live in, as soon as you give it any serious thought at all. We do things for reasons and we are the people we are for reasons.

And your alternative is still self-contradictory for reasons that you still will not tackle directly.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

But how can a person be personally responsible for their nature, nurture and experience if it is all predetermined?Because it is the reality we all live in.

I haven't read through all the posts since I was last on here - but nothing seems to have moved much in terms of the positions people are adopting in this debate so I'll just carry on from here.

What does holding someone personally responsible mean? As far as I can tell, we each try to influence other people's choices and behaviours because those choices and behaviours are determined by nature and nurture - a combination of genetics and environmental factors and we are part of the environmental factors for other people's choices. And it makes sense to think our own choices and behaviours are similarly determined. Acknowledging this doesn't prevent a consequence to the person carrying out an action regardless of how their action was determined or influenced. Is this consequence that a person experiences what you mean when you say holding someone personally responsible?

Can you identify a choice you made that was not dependent on previous events or random? If you wrote a post on here, I can see how it could be random typing of words or it could be in response to a previous post and would, for example, be determined by the words written by other posters, your interpretation of those words, your goals, your level of education, intelligence, knowledge you had acquired, emotional reactions.

How do you perceive that your soul has influenced or changed your response to a post you read? And do you then think that the words your soul chose to include in your post were determined by your soul's level of education, intelligence, knowledge it had acquired, emotional reactions, your soul's goals, God telling your soul what to tell your brain to tell your fingers to type? 

[torridon]

But how can a person be personally responsible for their nature, nurture and experience if it is all predetermined?Because it is the reality we all live in.
I do not think many people actually believe that their conscious choices are entirely predetermined.
Certainly none that I have come across, except on this forum.

The 'reality we all live in' is common to all humans not because it is fundamental unarguable reality, it is common to us because that is the way that human minds have evolved to work.  It is our shared evolutionary heritage. All our day to day experience is phenomenology of mind that is constructed along characteristically human lines.  Remember that shadowed checkerboard illusion ? Nobody experiences it, 'as is', we all see it wrongly because we experience human construction of mind, rather than what is 'out there', and this is the case for every human that has ever lived.  You are still not getting that there are roots underlying our common experience and there are deeper levels of insight there for the taking for people wishing for greater understanding.  But we have to be prepared to let our simple models of reality fade in order for deeper understanding to grow.

[Sriram]

The 'reality we all live in' is common to all humans not because it is fundamental unarguable reality, it is common to us because that is the way that human minds have evolved to work.  It is our shared evolutionary heritage. All our day to day experience is phenomenology of mind that is constructed along characteristically human lines.  Remember that shadowed checkerboard illusion ? Nobody experiences it, 'as is', we all see it wrongly because we experience human construction of mind, rather than what is 'out there', and this is the case for every human that has ever lived.  You are still not getting that there are roots underlying our common experience and there are deeper levels of insight there for the taking for people wishing for greater understanding.  But we have to be prepared to let our simple models of reality fade in order for deeper understanding to grow.

Sorry to intervene in your conversation with Alan...but I agree with everything you say here.  But that has been the position of most religious philosophies since ancient times.

That there is an unknowable reality that lies beneath the appearances is what all spiritual philosophies have maintained all along.  Religions have given it an anthropomorphic tilt with deities and gods (nothing wrong with that actually...maybe that is the hidden reality).   

Religious and spiritual people try to understand these realities through subjective experiences instead of through objective means. They give this unknown reality a name and they try to blend it with images, myths and legends.  You prefer to call it random or unknown reality. 

I don't see any real conflict here. 

[Alan Burns]

The 'reality we all live in' is common to all humans not because it is fundamental unarguable reality, it is common to us because that is the way that human minds have evolved to work.  It is our shared evolutionary heritage. All our day to day experience is phenomenology of mind that is constructed along characteristically human lines.  Remember that shadowed checkerboard illusion ? Nobody experiences it, 'as is', we all see it wrongly because we experience human construction of mind, rather than what is 'out there', and this is the case for every human that has ever lived.  You are still not getting that there are roots underlying our common experience and there are deeper levels of insight there for the taking for people wishing for greater understanding.  But we have to be prepared to let our simple models of reality fade in order for deeper understanding to grow.

The simple model is surely the materialistic one.
Deeper understanding comes with the acknowledgement and perception of our spiritual nature.

[Stranger]

Deeper understanding comes with the acknowledgement and perception of our spiritual nature.

Diesn't seem to have given you any understanding. You can't even say what it is or how it works (it's logically the same as saying "it's magic"), you cannot or will not addresses the obvious contradictions, and your only attempts to say why anybody should take it seriously descend into empty assertions, blind faith, and numerous logical fallacies.

[Stranger]

That there is an unknowable reality that lies beneath the appearances is what all spiritual philosophies have maintained all along.  Religions have given it an anthropomorphic tilt with deities and gods (nothing wrong with that actually...maybe that is the hidden reality).   

Religious and spiritual people try to understand these realities through subjective experiences instead of through objective means. They give this unknown reality a name and they try to blend it with images, myths and legends.  You prefer to call it random or unknown reality. 

I don't see any real conflict here.

Can't help thinking you've somewhat missed the point. We are talking about things that we know from science or reasoning that conflict with a simplistic acceptance of how things subjectively seem.

[Alan Burns]

I haven't read through all the posts since I was last on here - but nothing seems to have moved much in terms of the positions people are adopting in this debate so I'll just carry on from here.

What does holding someone personally responsible mean? As far as I can tell, we each try to influence other people's choices and behaviours because those choices and behaviours are determined by nature and nurture - a combination of genetics and environmental factors and we are part of the environmental factors for other people's choices. And it makes sense to think our own choices and behaviours are similarly determined. Acknowledging this doesn't prevent a consequence to the person carrying out an action regardless of how their action was determined or influenced. Is this consequence that a person experiences what you mean when you say holding someone personally responsible?

Can you identify a choice you made that was not dependent on previous events or random? If you wrote a post on here, I can see how it could be random typing of words or it could be in response to a previous post and would, for example, be determined by the words written by other posters, your interpretation of those words, your goals, your level of education, intelligence, knowledge you had acquired, emotional reactions.

How do you perceive that your soul has influenced or changed your response to a post you read? And do you then think that the words your soul chose to include in your post were determined by your soul's level of education, intelligence, knowledge it had acquired, emotional reactions, your soul's goals, God telling your soul what to tell your brain to tell your fingers to type?

Hi Gabriella,

My soul is simply the essence of what I am.  My conscious awareness, my capacity to think and make choices are all spiritual properties which can't be defined entirely in material terms.  Without my soul I would just be a biological machine driven entirely by instinct and learnt experiences with no will of my own.

[Sebastian Toe]

Without my soul I would just be a biological machine driven entirely by instinct and learnt experiences with no will of my own.

Just because we do not know how something works does not infer that it does not happen.

[Sriram]

Can't help thinking you've somewhat missed the point. We are talking about things that we know from science or reasoning that conflict with a simplistic acceptance of how things subjectively seem.

How do scientific findings conflict with the fact that human observation does not indicate reality as it really is?   

[Alan Burns]

Diesn't seem to have given you any understanding. You can't even say what it is or how it works (it's logically the same as saying "it's magic"), you cannot or will not addresses the obvious contradictions, and your only attempts to say why anybody should take it seriously descend into empty assertions, blind faith, and numerous logical fallacies.

I can assure you that spiritual insight will open up a whole new world of understanding.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Hi Gabriella,

My soul is simply the essence of what I am.  My conscious awareness, my capacity to think and make choices are all spiritual properties which can't be defined entirely in material terms.  Without my soul I would just be a biological machine driven entirely by instinct and learnt experiences with no will of my own.

Hi Alan

Some people distinguish between brain and mind - the mind is labelled as being the part that is consciously aware and the essence of who they are. That which has been labelled the mind is currently a bit of a mystery as science has various sometimes conflicting theories on how or why it works, but lack the technology to test the theories to reach any conclusions at any complex level.

The idea that the mind is an emergent property of the brain leaves  a lot still unexplained. If a person does not have a belief in the supernatural it's logical that their investigations and explanations will not include supernatural elements such as a mysterious and undefined soul.

[Stranger]

How do scientific findings conflict with the fact that human observation does not indicate reality as it really is?   

It doesn't, it tells us that that is the case. That's the point here, not that there is some "unknowable reality".

[Stranger]

I can assure you that spiritual insight will open up a whole new world of understanding.

As I said, the evidence of your posts suggests otherwise.

[Sriram]

It doesn't, it tells us that that is the case. That's the point here, not that there is some "unknowable reality".

Once we realize that our observations, understanding and theories are limited by natural human conditions...it automatically follows that there is a reality that we cannot know.

[Alan Burns]

It doesn't, it tells us that that is the case. That's the point here, not that there is some "unknowable reality".

But science does not give the complete picture of reality.  I provides a few pieces of the jigsaw, but we do not know how many pieces are missing.  So it would be unwise to base your entire understanding of reality on limited scientific discovery.

[Stranger]

Once we realize that our observations, understanding and theories are limited by natural human conditions...

What "natural human conditions" do you mean?

[Stranger]

But science does not give the complete picture of reality.  I provides a few pieces of the jigsaw, but we do not know how many pieces are missing.

I don't think anybody is claiming that current science is a complete picture of reality.

So it would be unwise to base your entire understanding of reality on limited scientific discovery.

And even more unwise to base it on superstition, logical contradictions, fallacies, and blind faith.

[SteveH]

But science does not give the complete picture of reality.  I provides a few pieces of the jigsaw, but we do not know how many pieces are missing.  So it would be unwise to base your entire understanding of reality on limited scientific discovery.

This sounds to me like an appeal to the god of the gaps.

[Enki]

Once we realize that our observations, understanding and theories are limited by natural human conditions...it automatically follows that there is a reality that we cannot know.

If we are limited by 'natural human conditions' then what logically follows is that we do not know if there is a reality that is different or not, because, as you suggested,  'we cannot know'. Hence, if this is true, we can make no progress at all until we find the means of finding out.

Meanwhile I'll stick with science which seems to give us some ideas of 'reality' at least, and can be built on or modified as new evidence comes to light.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The simple model is surely the materialistic one.

Tell it to the research scientists working at the leading edges of their various disciplines. Materialism looks anything but simple to me.

Deeper understanding comes with the acknowledgement and perception of our spiritual nature.

But as “spiritual” is just a word religious people use but can tell us nothing about it offers no understanding of any sort, deep or otherwise. That’s your problem remember:

So what is this “spiritual" then AB?"

AB: “Er, well…it’s spiritual innit.”

So, the precise equivalent of saying “it’s magic” then?

AB: –––––––––––

But science does not give the complete picture of reality.

No-one says otherwise. That’s why scientists keep doing it.

I provides a few pieces of the jigsaw, but we do not know how many pieces are missing.

If we don’t know how many pieces are missing, you have no means of knowing whether we already know a few of them or a lot of them.

Thinking really, really isn’t your long suit is it.

So it would be unwise to base your entire understanding of reality on limited scientific discovery.

That “so” is a non sequitur – one of the various logical fallacies about which you know or care nothing at all. In the absence of any other investigable route to understanding, why on earth wouldn’t you base your entire understanding so far on “limited scientific discovery”?   

[Sebastian Toe]

So it would be unwise to base your entire understanding of reality on limited scientific discovery.

Just because we do not know how something works does not infer that it does not happen.

[Sriram]

What "natural human conditions" do you mean?

This discussion is with reference to torridon's 33427.   Check that out.

[torridon]

The simple model is surely the materialistic one.
Deeper understanding comes with the acknowledgement and perception of our spiritual nature.

You're kidding right ?  Have you ever tried getting your head round String theory ?  If it is really simple, perhaps you'd like to explain the role of lipid polymorphism in cell membrane theory ?  If that was a doddle why not explain why the Procrustean method of entanglement concentration can be more efficient than the Schmidt projection method.  There is not a human alive with the cognitive resource to understand the range and depth of science.  Religious beliefs, on the other hand, are simple enough for most 10 year olds, which is part of the reason for their popularity.

[torridon]

I can assure you that spiritual insight will open up a whole new world of misunderstanding.

FIFY