Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

But can you not see that the current moment is a consequence not just of the past, but the present.  Human conscious awareness is not just a cog in the deterministic machine.  Our awareness perceives the content of millions of brain cells in addition to generating complex thoughts at any present moment.  And our ability to act on all this information is not just a mechanistic reaction, but a consciously chosen action.  Yes there are reasons for our choice - reasons generated from within the present state of our conscious mind - not from inevitable cause and effect from the past.  This interaction in the present enables the obvious difference between choice and reaction.

From the first word to the last word, that is all profoundly wrong, and it only highlights that you've learned nothing at all from the hundreds of posts on this subject here.  The current moment cannot be a consequence of the current moment.  Such a claim would defy logic not to mention observations from fundamental physics.   The arrow of time is unidirectional and neither does it stand still.  For the current moment to be a consequence of the current moment would imply instantaneous communication, yet we know there is an unbreachable cosmic speed limit beyond which no information can travel - the speed of light.  Neural transmission in brains certainly cannot acheive that, it is way slower than the speed of light, hence consciousness lag. 

Your characterisation of the difference between reaction and choice, based on your curious misunderstanding of time completely misses the mark.  The real difference between choice and reaction is not a temporal phenomenon, it is one of complexity and sophistication.  Just as a large house is made from many small and simple bricks, so a choice made in a mind is made of many billions of underlying reactions at the cellular level, and none of us can alter the fundamental behaviour of our cells.

[wigginhall]

Wow, so much guesswork, so little time.

[Alan Burns]

For about the tenth time: what do you think "the present" is?

Colloquially it's irrelevant and technically it doesn't exist, so what do you mean?

You're just repeating your little self-contradictory fantasy, Alan. Where is the reasoning or evidence, and where is your answer to the logic that if something isn't determined by the past, it must be random?

It is not a fantasy.  It is an observation of the reality of human freewill.

The evidence is obvious in the creative thinking and works of mankind.  Your short sighted logic reduces our conscious awareness to be a spectator of what has already been physically predetermined by the past.

We have the conscious ability to determine the future, right now!

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But can you not see that the current moment is a consequence not just of the past, but the present.

Did you actually mean to say that? The word consequence requires a chronology – something can’t be a consequence of something that happens at the same time. Even a virtual non-thinker can grasp this surely?

Human conscious awareness is not just a cog in the deterministic machine.  Our awareness perceives the content of millions of brain cells in addition to generating complex thoughts at any present moment.  And our ability to act on all this information is not just a mechanistic reaction, but a consciously chosen action.  Yes there are reasons for our choice - reasons generated from within the present state of our conscious mind - not from inevitable cause and effect from the past.  This interaction in the present enables the obvious difference between choice and reaction.

I’ll leave others to deal with this mindless, self-contradictory and entirely unqualified gibberish if they wish to. No doubt though you’ll ignore whatever falsifications you’re given and will just repeat exactly the same mindless, self-contradictory and entirely unqualified gibberish in response. My question I suppose is why bother with it? Surely you can see by now can’t you that mindless, self-contradictory and entirely unqualified gibberish will never win the day for people who have reason and logic on their side, so what’s the point of it?

Look at me though – asking AB a question like there’s any chance of him actually answering it. What am I like eh?

[Alan Burns]

The current moment cannot be a consequence of the current moment.

That is true if you continue to presume that everything is defined in physical terms.

It is evidence of the existence and power of our spiritual nature which enables us to think and act in the present, and not be tied to the past.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It is not a fantasy.

Of course it is. Or at least you’ve never managed to produce a coherent argument that suggests that it isn’t a fantasy.

It is an observation of the reality of human freewill.

No it isn’t. That “reality” is just your reality, and you have it because you cannot or will not think about what such a model would actually entail if it was the reality.

The evidence is obvious in the creative thinking and works of mankind.

That’s just evidence that there is “creative thinking and works of mankind”. It tells you nothing at all about the explanation for that creative thinking – you know, the question you always run away from when it’s asked.   

Your short sighted logic…

You’ve been corrected on this many times, so why repeat the attempt at poisoning the well with pejorative language? Logic is either robust or it isn’t – it cannot be “short-sighted” because it happens not to agree with your personal faith beliefs.

…reduces our conscious awareness to be a spectator of what has already been physically predetermined by the past.

It does no such thing, but even if it did all you’d have yet again would be the logical fallacy of an argumentum ad consequentiam. You seem entirely indifferent to making yourself look stupid by repeating the same broken arguments over and over again, but you shouldn’t be. You really shouldn’t.

We have the conscious ability to determine the future, right now!

Yes, which fits just fine within a deterministic framework provided you’re not daft enough to assert into existence a separate “we” to do the choosing. 

[Alan Burns]

Look at me though – asking AB a question like there’s any chance of him actually answering it. What am I like eh?

I do my best to answer according to what I genuinely believe to be the truth - which is not just based upon my religious belief, but on the amazing creative potential which exists within each human being.  I am able to look beyond the obvious limitations of what can be achieved by physical chains of cause and effect and realise that we comprise far more than what any biological machine could ever achieve.

But you obviously do not like the answers I offer you.   

[Stranger]

It is not a fantasy.  It is an observation of the reality of human freewill.

This is simply untrue Alan. All we can observe is our abilities and experiences of being able to do as we want. We definitly can't observe your absurd and contradictory assertions about how it all works.

Don't be so dishonest.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

That is true if you continue to presume that everything is defined in physical terms.

No, it's just true in logic. If you want to invent a non-physical, then still a consequence would have to happen after its cause - otherwise it cannot be a consequence.

Capiche?

Anything?

It is evidence of the existence and power of our spiritual nature which enables us to think and act in the present, and not be tied to the past.

First, I have no idea what you mean by "spiritual" other than "it's magic innit", and nor it seems have you.

Second, it's not evidence for that at all - what it's actually evidence for is your desperate inability to think.

[Sriram]

It is the principal of adequate determinism. Whatever probabalistic or random variation there might be at the quantum level, these variations average out sufficiently such that at the level of atomic matter (and hence chemistry, hence biology, hence ecosystems) we can consider classical reality to be 100% deterministic for all practical computational considerations.  Life is possible because interactions at the level of atomic matter are sufficiently predictable.

http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/adequate_determinism.html

To repeat my post 33811......

Strangely, the article linked by you says....

"Adequate determinism is one of the critical requirements for free will."

Could you explain that?!!

[jeremyp]

But can you not see that the current moment is a consequence not just of the past, but the present.

That is literally impossible. The speed of light is the upper limit for the speed at which information can travel. Events at two points separated in space at the same time cannot affect each other.

Human conscious awareness is not just a cog in the deterministic machine.

How do you know?

Our awareness perceives the content of millions of brain cells

No it doesn't. We are in no way aware of what our brain cells are doing. In fact we are what our brain cells are doing.

And our ability to act on all this information is not just a mechanistic reaction, but a consciously chosen action.

What are brain cells are doing at the moment we we make a conscious decision is activity that obeys deterministic physical law. If your conscious decisions are based on that, your conscious decisions are deterministic.

Yes there are reasons for our choice - reasons generated from within the present state of our conscious mind - not from inevitable cause and effect from the past.  This interaction in the present enables the obvious difference between choice and reaction.

How did the present state of your conscious mind get to be the way it is, if not for deterministic past events?

[Enki]

It is not a fantasy.  It is an observation of the reality of human freewill.

The evidence is obvious in the creative thinking and works of mankind.  Your short sighted logic reduces our conscious awareness to be a spectator of what has already been physically predetermined by the past.

We have the conscious ability to determine the future, right now!

What evidence?  Plenty of creative people would not agree with you. Grayson Perry, for instance, likens his creative instinct like this. "I'm on a kind of rail that's related to all the other things that I've liked in the past". Hemingway warned against thinking about writing consciously as this would not be particularly conducive in producing creative work.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I do my best to answer according to what I genuinely believe to be the truth - which is not just based upon my religious belief, but on the amazing creative potential which exists within each human being.

That’s just not true though is it. To take one of several examples, I’ve asked you over and again what logical path you think there to be to take your from your experience of something to the explanation for it. Not once have you even tried to answer that. I even asked you once why you wouldn’t answer it, but – predictably – you didn’t answer that either.

So why not now try at least to answer the question you’ve been asked so many times but have always run away from?

I am able to look beyond the obvious limitations of what can be achieved by physical chains of cause and effect and realise that we comprise far more than what any biological machine could ever achieve.

Except there’s nothing “obvious” about that at all, and you have no argument at all to suggest that something more than biology would be necessary for consciousness to exist. You can fantasise about that all you want – it’s just another example of your personal incredulity being misdescribed as evidence for something else – but that’s all you’re doing: fantasising.

But you obviously do not like the answers I offer you.

That’s a fundamentally dishonest thing to say. What I like is neither here nor there – on the rare occasion you do try at least to answer something the answer is a logically incoherent mess. Manage an argument that isn’t a logically incoherent mess though and I’ll accept, regardless of whether or not I like where it leads.

[Stranger]

For about the tenth time: what do you think "the present" is?

Colloquially it's irrelevant and technically it doesn't exist, so what do you mean?

You're just repeating your little self-contradictory fantasy, Alan. Where is the reasoning or evidence, and where is your answer to the logic that if something isn't determined by the past, it must be random?

It is not a fantasy...

I note that you still won't answer the question as to what you think "the present" is in the context of your argument. Can we assume this is something else you will never address because defining it will show how irrelevant or impossible it is?

[jeremyp]

To repeat my post 33811......

Strangely, the article linked by you says....

"Adequate determinism is one of the critical requirements for free will."

Could you explain that?!!

It's very simple. If your decisions are the consequence of macroscopic random events, you have no will at all, never mind free will.

[torridon]

That is true if you continue to presume that everything is defined in physical terms.
...

No, it is true because anything other would be illogical.  Consequential implies a temporal relationship between causer and caused.

[torridon]

The evidence is obvious in the creative thinking and works of mankind.  Your short sighted logic reduces our conscious awareness to be a spectator of what has already been physically predetermined by the past.

In this you are ignoring what has been pointed out to you numerous times already - that our conscious awareness is essentially a spectator, and contains no executive function.  Rather than 'spectator', your term, it is perhaps better to use the word 'memory' to describe the real nature and function of conscious awareness.

[Alan Burns]

It's very simple. If your decisions are the consequence of macroscopic random events, you have no will at all, never mind free will.

But our consciously driven willpower is not random, and it is not a predetermined reaction.  It is human will driven by our conscious minds, which is abundantly evident to all but a tiny minority who seem to think that it can all be explained away by uncontrollable physically driven reactions, so any concept of freedom to choose is an illusion.

[Alan Burns]

In this you are ignoring what has been pointed out to you numerous times already - that our conscious awareness is essentially a spectator, and contains no executive function.  Rather than 'spectator', your term, it is perhaps better to use the word 'memory' to describe the real nature and function of conscious awareness.

Sorry, but this explanation falls so far short of reality that I cannot give it any credence.  My will must be driven by my conscious awareness, otherwise I could not consciously interact with this world.  To claim that everything is predetermined before we become aware of it does not reflect our basic sense of reality.  So is my choice to blow a raspberry at your posting just an inevitable reaction predefined within my subconscious, or is it an act of consciously chosen human will?

[wigginhall]

That's a confusion between reality and our basic sense of reality - they are different.  For example, I am not aware of atoms, so does this mean they don't exist?  I am not aware of photons as massless particles, does this mean they don't exist?  I am not aware of gluons, and so on.

[Stranger]

But our consciously driven willpower is not random, and it is not a predetermined reaction.

Alan asserted yet again, totally ignoring reason and logic.

It is human will driven by our conscious minds, which is abundantly evident to all but a tiny minority who seem to think that it can all be explained away by uncontrollable physically driven reactions, so any concept of freedom to choose is an illusion.

"It's obvious, innt?" really isn't an argument. This is a classic argumentum ad populum fallacy.

I used to say that everybody understands free will until you ask them to think about it, but you are the first person I've talked to about the subject who seems to be completely unable (or unwilling) to engage with any actual logical thought about the situation. That's why we get this endless repetition of totally pointless, utterly thought-free, baseless assertions and fallacies.

Doesn't the fact that you have been totally unable to provide an actual logical counterargument to what has been presented, give you any pause for thought? Has it never struck you that you keep on having to avoid the reasoning, rather than respond directly to it? Doesn't the fact that you keep on resorting to logical fallacies bother you, even a little bit?

Nothing at all?

[jeremyp]

It is human will driven by our conscious minds

But why is your conscious mind in the state it is in when you make a decision? It's because of its experience of past events.

[torridon]

Sorry, but this explanation falls so far short of reality that I cannot give it any credence.  My will must be driven by my conscious awareness, otherwise I could not consciously interact with this world.  To claim that everything is predetermined before we become aware of it does not reflect our basic sense of reality.  So is my choice to blow a raspberry at your posting just an inevitable reaction predefined within my subconscious, or is it an act of consciously chosen human will?

Lets just dismiss the obviously circular logic first :

My will must be driven by my conscious awareness, otherwise I could not consciously interact with this world.

Just about as valid as The Bible must be true because the Bible says so

But to step back and address the wider point, it does not reflect our basic sense of reality, yes, I get that; clearly the science challenges our assumptions and intuitions of reality.  And yet this is in part why we do science, to find out the deeper reality of how things actually are that give rise to how they seem.  I feel solid, but I know that is in a sense an illusion, I am mostly empty space; remove all the spaces and you could fit me into a teaspoon.  That doesn't reflect my basic sense of reality, but that doesn't mean it is untrue.  It is our basic sense of reality which is a construction.  None of us has access to preconscious states of mind, we always forget them, we only remember the 'final cut', so you need to factor that in when considering the subliminal psychological processes involved in making  choice. There is always a backstory behind the resolution of choice, and we aren't always aware of it; we are only aware of the end result; this is how minds have evolved to work.

[Alan Burns]

But why is your conscious mind in the state it is in when you make a decision? It's because of its experience of past events.

No
It is certainly not entirely tied to the inevitable reactions to past events.  The conscious mind is conscious for a reason.  It thinks.  It makes choices.  It has a will of its own.  It is you.

To presume that you are entirely, unavoidably defined by past events removes the "you" and replaces it with a puppet.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

No
It is certainly not entirely tied to the inevitable reactions to past events.  The conscious mind is conscious for a reason.  It thinks.  It makes choices.  It has a will of its own.  It is you.

To presume that you are entirely, unavoidably defined by past events removes the "you" and replaces it with a puppet.

1. It does no such thing for the reasons that have been explained to you approximately 32,490, 623 times already but you’re utterly unwilling or unable to deal with.

2. Even if it does do that though, that STILL tells you nothing about the robustness or otherwise of the logic. Logic stands or falls according to its coherence – not according to whether you personally happen to like or not where it leads. This argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy is one of your favourites, yet for some reason you attempt it over and over again. Why is that? Why do you apparently not give even the slightest damn about how broken the arguments you keep trying might be? Are you genuinely so lost to reason that you just cannot process that a fallacious argument is always a wrong argument?

Really though?