Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

Without my God given freedom to perceive and drive my own thought processes, my imagination could not possibly work the way it does.

Unsupported assertion - show your working.

The process of evolution would deliver the instinctive reactions needed to enhance survival.
But there is no remit in the evolutionary process to facilitate our conscious freedom to choose rather than just react.

Unsupported assertion - show your working.

[Gordon]

Once more you seem unable to distinguish between consciously driven choices and instinctive reactions.

The process of evolution would deliver the instinctive reactions needed to enhance survival.
But there is no remit in the evolutionary process to facilitate our conscious freedom to choose rather than just react.

Evolution doesn't have a 'remit', Alan.

[SteveH]

But there is no remit in the evolutionary process to facilitate our conscious freedom to choose rather than just react.

Evolution doesn't have a 'remit', Alan.

Exactly - that's what Alan said. Do try to pay attention! 

[Sebastian Toe]

Of course I can use my imagination.

Then use it.
Imagine the scenario as described.
Answer the question.

(Attempts to side-track, noted and dismissed)

[torridon]

Once more you seem unable to distinguish between consciously driven choices and instinctive reactions.

The process of evolution would deliver the instinctive reactions needed to enhance survival.
But there is no remit in the evolutionary process to facilitate our conscious freedom to choose rather than just react.

Irrespective of the degree of or the quality of conscious involved, they are all still choices, and choosing between alternative is why brains evolved.  It isn't a simple either/or - consciousness, cognitive function, emotion, perception, intelligence etc, are all present in varying degrees in all species and all individuals.  Humans might have evolved neocortex but that does not alter the underlying base brain function which is common to all mammals which includes mechanisms for resolving choice between alternatives.  Our neocortex helps us with symbolic and abstract thinking which is clearly an evolutionary adaptation for the human niche.  No magic required.

[bluehillside Retd.]

SteveH,

Exactly - that's what Alan said. Do try to pay attention! 

Nope. AB was arguing that there's no remit in evolution to produce outcome X; Gordon explained that there's no remit in evolution at all (and thus that AB's point is a priori redundant).

It's not Gordon who needs to pay attention. 

[Gordon]

Evolution doesn't have a 'remit', Alan.
Exactly - that's what Alan said. Do try to pay attention! 

You misunderstand - Alan's use of 'remit' here implies some form of direction: as in some things being 'within remit' and others 'outwith remit', which implies prescription. So 'remit' here is another version of 'purpose', in that the current attributes of our species humans involves deliberate divine intervention and that we humans are not solely the outcome of unguided evolutionary processes. 

[Alan Burns]

Evolution doesn't have a 'remit', Alan.

That was the point I was making.
It was in answer to Torri's statement:
"This is why brains evolved, to make choices"

[torridon]

That was the point I was making.
It was in answer to Torri's statement:
"This is why brains evolved, to make choices"

Any teleology you see in that is purely in your interpretation.  Perhaps it would be better put as 'we can make choices because brains evolved'.  Do you think malaria evolved to kill people ?

[jeremyp]

That was the point I was making.
It was in answer to Torri's statement:
"This is why brains evolved, to make choices"

Yes so?

Animals that have brains that make good choices survive long enough to have babies with similar brains.

[SteveH]

You misunderstand - Alan's use of 'remit' here implies some form of direction:

Exactly; and he said there isn't one.

[Gordon]

Exactly; and he said there isn't one.

I suspect Alan thinks otherwise when it comes to our species: hence, for him, we each possess a specific divine attribute ( a 'soul') that has been deliberately inserted into us by a divine agent and where this has nothing to do with the evolution of our species - and that sounds like a design claim to me.

[Roses]

But it will never happen, because there is a bit of God in each one of us which science alone will never discover.  And it is easily verified every day by us exercising our freedom to choose what we do, think or say.  A freedom which nature alone can never give.  There have been numerous attempts on this thread to try to explain away this freedom as being a logical impossibility, but without this freedom, such attempts at explanation would be impossible in a world where every conscious choice we make has already been predetermined before we make it.

I have to ask what can motivate people to try to convince themselves that their freedom to choose is not a reality, and that every choice they make has already been predetermined before they are consciously aware of it?  Could they be afraid of the implications?

Our God given freedom is an amazing gift which must have been given to us for a reason.  Our freedom enables us to discern purpose and meaning in our lives.  It enables us to seek the truth.  A truth which indeed sets us free.

AB you might believe all that to be true, but it is only a your opinion, which you cannot substantiate with any convincing evidence.

[bluehillside Retd.]

SteveH,

Exactly; and he said there isn't one.

No he didn't - what he said was that there isn't one specific outcome of a "remit", and here's where he did it: 

But there is no remit in the evolutionary process to facilitate our conscious freedom to choose rather than just react.

He fundamentally misunderstands that evolution doesn't have a "remit" at all, so using a supposed failure of evolution to do something in order to validate a mindless faith belief alternative is redundant thinking.   

[Alan Burns]

Exactly; and he said there isn't one.

I know from experience that BH appears never to admit to being wrong on this forum. 

[Roses]

I know from experience that BH appears never to admit to being wrong on this forum. 

Nor do you AB, when people have brought to your attention some of your errors.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I know from experience that BH appears never to admit to being wrong on this forum. 

Leaving aside the deep irony of that from the poster who just runs away whenever a falsifying argument is put to him only to return a bit later with exactly the same mistakes, that's not true in any case. You show me to be wrong about something and I'll readily concede the point. So far though asserting mindless assertions doesn't even get its trousers off for that purpose. 

[SusanDoris]

I know from experience that BH appears never to admit to being wrong on this forum. 

That is so smug and self-satisfied... ...

[SteveH]

I suspect Alan thinks otherwise when it comes to our species: hence, for him, we each possess a specific divine attribute ( a 'soul') that has been deliberately inserted into us by a divine agent and where this has nothing to do with the evolution of our species - and that sounds like a design claim to me.

But that would be outside of evolution, and Alan said that evolution has no remit etc.
It wouldn't kill the non-believers on here to occasionally admit that someone who disagrees with them has a point, and admit that they were wrong - and before the usual suspect weighs in with an adolescent sarcastic comment about pots and kettles, I have done so in the past.

[SteveH]

SteveH,

No he didn't - what he said was that there isn't one specific outcome of a "remit", and here's where he did it: 

He fundamentally misunderstands that evolution doesn't have a "remit" at all, so using a supposed failure of evolution to do something in order to validate a mindless faith belief alternative is redundant thinking.   

You are attributing to Alan things he didn't say, i.e. that evolution does have a remit in other areas. Arguing from silence is never a good idea.

[Gordon]

But that would be outside of evolution, and Alan said that evolution[/u] has no remit etc.
It wouldn't kill the non-believers on here to occasionally admit that someone who disagrees with them has a point, and admit that they were wrong - and before the usual suspect weighs in with an adolescent sarcastic comment about pots and kettles, I have done so in the past.

Which would then mean, on the basis that evolution is for Alan an insufficient explanation for human mental attributes, that his 'evolution has no remit' is code for divine 'purpose/design': which is where we came in.

[Stranger]

You are attributing to Alan things he didn't say, i.e. that evolution does have a remit in other areas. Arguing from silence is never a good idea.

This is getting silly. This is what Alan did say:

The process of evolution would deliver the instinctive reactions needed to enhance survival.
But there is no remit in the evolutionary process to facilitate our conscious freedom to choose rather than just react.

The most obvious interpretation is that he thinks it does have a "remit" to deliver instinctive reactions. Otherwise they are a totally bizarre pair of statements.

If evolution has no remit at all, then it has no remit to produce instinctive reactions, yet obviously Alan thinks it did it anyway. In that case the second statement is irrelevant because evolution does things without remit.

If Alan wants to explain why he put those two statements together if he knew and understood that evolution has no remit to do anything, I'd love to hear it.

Alan is given to a putting things in a rather 'unorthodox' way, so I just assumed it was a case of that, and that this was just a statement that he thought evolution could produce instinctive reactions but not conscious choices, which is why I just asked him to back up his assertion.

[bluehillside Retd.]

SteveH,

You are attributing to Alan things he didn't say, i.e. that evolution does have a remit in other areas. Arguing from silence is never a good idea.

Wrong again. Try reading what he did say - it's akin to, "Morris dancing doesn't have a remit to remove lost teeth, therefore the tooth fairy". Morris dancing doesn't have a remit of any kind so the argument is a priori redundant.   

This isn't difficult to grasp if you try, really it isn't.   

[Alan Burns]

Nor do you AB, when people have brought to your attention some of your errors.

I recall offering apologies on at least three occasions when I have discovered that I was wrong in what I have said.

[SusanDoris]

I recall offering apologies on at least three occasions when I have discovered that I was wrong in what I have said.

Any such apologies have been so narrow and, I'd say, trivial, in nature that they added nothing to the credibility of your non-arguments.]