Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

For mind read soul, which can only perceive and  interact with our physical brain in the present

How many more times do you need it pointing out that "the present" is either irrelevant or non-existent?

Why do you simply ignore people who point this out? It just makes you look as if you're not paying attention or are stupid or dishonest.

What do you think "the present" means in the way you are using it?

[torridon]

For mind read soul, which can only perceive and  interact with our physical brain in the present

So, I'm not getting what is different here.You say a soul is limited to acting in the present, but so is my mind.  I cannot do anything in the past, neither can I do anything in the future; I can only act now.  So it is with the soul, so you say.  So, let's just stick with mind, much simpler.

[Alan Burns]

So, I'm not getting what is different here.You say a soul is limited to acting in the present, but so is my mind.  I cannot do anything in the past, neither can I do anything in the future; I can only act now.  So it is with the soul, so you say.  So, let's just stick with mind, much simpler.

Yes that would be much simpler.
But a physically determined mind can only react in accordance with the laws of physics to past events.
Conscious perception and freedom to interact are beyond anything which can be achieved by physical reactions of material elements.  You may well label this post as personal incredulity once again, but it is based on the perceived reality of our conscious freedom to choose rather than on short sighted logic which denies such freedom.

[Sebastian Toe]

But a physically determined mind can only react in accordance with the laws of physics to past events.

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

[torridon]

Yes that would be much simpler.
But a physically determined mind can only react in accordance with the laws of physics to past events.
Conscious perception and freedom to interact are beyond anything which can be achieved by physical reactions of material elements.  You may well label this post as personal incredulity once again, but it is based on the perceived reality of our conscious freedom to choose rather than on short sighted logic which denies such freedom.

Not so much incredulity, but rather baseless fantasy, offered in place of reality.  There is no evidence to suggest conscious perception is 'beyond' what can be explained.  Some things are hard to understand, that just requires of us to put in the hard yards to figure it out. Labelling it as 'beyond' signals defeat, you've already decided without trying that it is inexplicable, so lets just live with magic. Minds evolved to resolve choice and they do it sublimely well without the need for supernatural intervention coming from somewhere 'beyond'.  The making of a choice is a deterministic process, it has to be otherwise the making of a choice is just random noise and in that case there is no human civilisation, no ecosystems, no wildlife. Faced with a choice, our minds identify the most appealing option but the freedom to alter how something appeals to us is beyond our reach, and just as well, as such an ability would render all of life meaningless.

[Gordon]

But a physically determined mind can only react in accordance with the laws of physics to past events.

Again, the 'physically' is redundant: 'determined' is sufficient.

Conscious perception and freedom to interact are beyond anything which can be achieved by physical reactions of material elements.  You may well label this post as personal incredulity once again, but it is based on the perceived reality of our conscious freedom to choose rather than on short sighted logic which denies such freedom.

I have to laugh each time you go down the 'short sighted logic' route since your explanation, such as it is, is that we each have a small chunk of 'God' within us that somehow interacts with our brains, and about which you can say nothing meaningful.

[Stranger]

But a physically determined mind can only react in accordance with the laws of physics to past events.

Any mind, including any soul you dream up, can only react to past events, unless it introduces something that isn't due to anything that led to it, which means that it's random.

That is the simple logic you are clearly too frightened of to even try to think about - hence we get the nonsense about "the present" and the pretence that "determined by..." is a third option.

Conscious perception and freedom to interact are beyond anything which can be achieved by physical reactions of material elements.  You may well label this post as personal incredulity once again, but it is based on the perceived reality of our conscious freedom to choose rather than on short sighted logic which denies such freedom.

This is not only incredulity, it's also either deeply dishonest or lacks any kind of serious thought.

The only thing that you can possibly perceive directly is the internal experience of being able to do as you want. The logic does not deny that freedom.

Either you realise this and are just lying or you must be making the incredibly short-sighted, simplistic, and totally baseless assumption that being able to consciously choose to do as you want is not compatible with a deterministic* mind, just because it doesn't feel like it. You can't even say how you think it would feel like if all your thoughts were the direct result of past events, not without lapsing into circular reasoning, anyway.

* What you insist on calling "predetermined".

[Alan Burns]

Any mind, including any soul you dream up, can only react to past events, unless it introduces something that isn't due to anything that led to it, which means that it's random.

That is the simple logic you are clearly too frightened of to even try to think about - hence we get the nonsense about "the present" and the pretence that "determined by..." is a third option.

But I have the freedom to choose whether or not to think about it.  Such a choice is not entirely driven by the past, otherwise there would be no choice would there?  The choice is obviously made in the present after consideration of options.  And the conscious awareness of these options exists in the present state of mind - not the past.  It all occurs within my current state of conscious awareness, otherwise I would just be subject to mechanistic reactions to past events over which I have no conscious control.  Your simplistic logic totally fails to explain the reality of my conscious freedom

I know you will dismiss all this as drivel or gibberish, but I hope and pray that one day, you, Torri, Gordon, Blue and all my other critics will come to appreciate God's amazing gift of life in all its fullness.

[Stranger]

But I have the freedom to choose whether or not to think about it.  Such a choice is not entirely driven by the past, otherwise there would be no choice would there?

That's just a silly word game. You make a choice in the normal sense of the word. If you want to play silly games with the English language so that "choice" means your self-contradictory nonsense, the you never make a choice because choosing is impossible.

The choice is obviously made in the present after consideration of options.  And the conscious awareness of these options exists in the present state of mind - not the past.  It all occurs within my current state of conscious awareness, otherwise I would just be subject to mechanistic reactions over which I have no conscious control.

If you think this constitutes a meaningful argument, you need to define exactly what you mean by "the present". I've asked you at least three times to do that but, as always, you just ignore it.

If you mean it in the everyday sense, it's irrelevant because it's just a short space of time and the logic applies to every stage of any choice making.

If you are trying to be more precise, it doesn't exist in any way that anything can happen in it.

So what do you mean?

Your simplistic logic totally fails to explain the reality of my conscious freedom

You've never been able to point to an actual flaw or explain in what way it is simplistic. Try having some intellectual courage and think about the actual argument.

I know you will dismiss all this as drivel or gibberish, but I hope and pray that one day, you, Torri, Gordon, Blue and all my other critics will come to appreciate God's amazing gift of life in all its fullness.

Sorry but you have totally convinced me that your faith has crippled your ability to think logically, so no thanks.

[torridon]

But I have the freedom to choose whether or not to think about it.  Such a choice is not entirely driven by the past, otherwise there would be no choice would there?  The choice is obviously made in the present after consideration of options.  And the conscious awareness of these options exists in the present state of mind - not the past.  It all occurs within my current state of conscious awareness, otherwise ...

Your current state of conscious awareness derives from what has gone before, from what just happened.  it doesn't just spring out of nowhere, it is an outcome, a product, a consequence of the events that led up to the current moment.  No one can just choose what state of mind to have out of thin air.  Not you, not I, nobody

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I know you will dismiss all this as drivel or gibberish,…

Dismiss with reason and argument that you cannot or will not address, yes.

…but I hope and pray that one day, you, Torri, Gordon, Blue and all my other critics…

You don’t have critics. What you do have are people who criticise the arguments you attempt to validate your faith beliefs, and rightly so as those arguments are uniformly bad ones.

…will come to appreciate God's amazing gift of life in all its fullness.

A personal faith belief you are of course entirely entitled to hold if it makes sense to you. Your problem though is overreaching into asserting it to be true for everyone else too, but with no cogent connecting logic to take you from assertion to fact. 

However vanishingly unlikely, the various objects of your faith beliefs (“god”, “soul”, “spiritual” etc) may for all I know be real. What I do know though from your algorithm-like repetition of exactly the same errors in thinking is that you have no good reasons for believing them to exist. To that extent at least I suppose you have done us a service.

[jeremyp]

You seem totally hemmed in to thinking in physical terms.  All physically defined events will inevitably be predetermined by previous physical events.  Which is why the concept of human freewill cannot exist in a purely physical scenario.

But try to imagine a spiritual dimension which can only exist and act in the present.  Time is a dimension of our physical world in which a spiritual entity can consciously perceive and interact.  This interaction would be determined by the spiritual entity which can only exist in the present.  And such interaction would be compatible with the freedom all humans enjoy.

Translation:

Events in the physical world are determined. Because I don't like that idea, I'll invent a magical realm so I can maintain the illusion that my will is not deterministic.

[Sriram]

Translation:

Events in the physical world are determined. Because I don't like that idea, I'll invent a magical realm so I can maintain the illusion that my will is not deterministic.

No....all events in the physical world are not predetermined. We have discussed this already. There are random factors....which in fact may not be truly random.

These 'random' factors are very crucial in determining the course of events in this world.  Since we don't know what these random factors are....they are considered 'other worldly'....which is not really wrong.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Translation:

Events in the physical world are determined.

Isn't radioactive decay random?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

AB,


However vanishingly unlikely, the various objects of your faith beliefs (“god”, “soul”, “spiritual” etc) may for all I know be real.

Can we see your working out for how vanishingly small, thank you?

[Stranger]

No....all events in the physical world are not predetermined. We have discussed this already. There are random factors....which in fact may not be truly random.

It's actually an open question whether there is true randomness.

These 'random' factors are very crucial in determining the course of events in this world.

If true randomness exists it's at the quantum level and probably doesn't affect the course of events in the macro world much at all.

Since we don't know what these random factors are....they are considered 'other worldly'....which is not really wrong.

Nonsense.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How many more times do you need it pointing out that "the present" is either irrelevant or non-existent?

Why do you simply ignore people who point this out?

....because relativity has nothing to do with brain function?

[Stranger]

....because relativity has nothing to do with brain function?

And....? It's Alan who seems to think that "the present" has something to do with the way his soul manages to achieve the impossible by not being determined by the past and not involving randomness.

I'm trying to extract his idea of what he thinks "the present" is in the context of his "argument". As with all awkward questions and logical arguments, he's just ignoring it...

[Alan Burns]

Much of this thread has been taken up by questioning the ultimate cause of human will, whether it derives from a spiritual source or from an entirely physical source.  One argument being that if it is not predetermined by past events, the only alternative would be random.

In thinking more about what has been said on this thread, I have come to the conclusion that some people have got things the wrong way round.  There are events which have obvious causes, but which have no discernable intended purpose.  And there are events which have an obvious intended purpose.  The source of the intention may well be somewhat distant from the event itself.  For example a man made machine will produce events which were intended to occur by the conscious will of the maker of the machine.  And there will also be events occurring which were not intended by the maker which will most likely impair the intended function of the machine.

I look upon life on this earth and all that supports it as an intended consequence of God's will.  Like any man made machine, the workings of the machine are all derived from physically predefined reactions which can be observed as behaving in accordance with natural laws, but the function of the machine works in accordance with the will of the maker.  So it is with life on this earth, which reflect the will of its Creator.  Similarly I see the products of human life reflecting the creativity of our Creator.  Looking at a function such as rain precipitation, it could well be an intended function on this planet in order to provide an environment in which life can thrive.  Similarly, looking at a farmer's equipment for spraying crops - it all works in accordance with scientific laws, but its obvious functionality reflects the intended creativity of the farmer along with the designers and manufactures of the equipment.

The second law of thermodynamics indicates that naturally occurring events which are not derived from an intended source will tend to generate chaos rather than intended functionality.  I believe that Sriram has a valid point in suggesting that events with no discernable cause could derive from a source beyond the scope of human perception.  If conscious will has the power to influence quantum events which apparently have no discernable cause, there is enormous scope for intentional creativity to occur in this universe.

So instead of determined versus random, it would be more meaningful to consider intended versus unintended.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I look upon life on this earth and all that supports it as an intended consequence of God's will.

No doubt you do. See Reply 33510 though for the explanation of why that belief is entirely a matter for you alone.

So instead of determined versus random, it would be more meaningful to consider intended versus unintended.

Of course not, for the fairly obvious reason I’d have though that you’d need to demonstrate something to do the intending before troubling yourself with what that supposed intentionality entails.

[Alan Burns]

Of course not, for the fairly obvious reason I’d have though that you’d need to demonstrate something to do the intending ......

[Stranger]

Much of this thread has been taken up by questioning the ultimate cause of human will, whether it derives from a spiritual source or from an entirely physical source.

Actually a lot of  this thread has been taken up with your fundamental misunderstanding that events being "predetermined" or involving randomness is associated with the physical world and that you can therefore 'escape' from this determinism by postulating a "spiritual" soul.

In fact (as has been explained to you endlessly) the physical world can only involve determinism or randomness because it is logically self-consistent, not because it is physical. Any logically self-consistent soul would have to be just as "predetermined" as a physical brain.

So instead of determined versus random, it would be more meaningful to consider intended versus unintended.

You do understand that every event still has to be determined (by the past events that led to it) or involve randomness, anyway, don't you? Of course a purely random event can't have been intended but that's the only excluded combination.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You've just glossed over the absence of a cogent reason to think there to be a god in the first place in the hope that people would discuss instead what "he" intends. It's a bit like me saying, "never mind whether I can show that there are leprechauns, let's just talk about why they're so keen on leaving pots of gold at the ends or rainbows".   

Doesn't wash does it.

[SusanDoris]

After a ten-day absence from this thread, apart from peering, nose to screen, at a few words here and there, I see that AB is still firmly trapped in his steel-reinforced, cottonwool cocoon,  unable to come to terms with reality.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

You've just glossed over the absence of a cogent reason to think there to be a god in the first place in the hope that people would discuss instead what "he" intends. It's a bit like me saying, "never mind whether I can show that there are leprechauns, let's just talk about why they're so keen on leaving pots of gold at the ends or rainbows".   

Quote from: bluehillside Retd. on Today at 12:46:27 PM


    Of course not, for the fairly obvious reason I’d have though that you’d need to demonstrate something to do the intending ......

Did you really intend to write this?
If so could we quote "you" as an example to demonstrate something which can do the intending, or could it have been those leprechauns?