Searching for GOD...

[Sriram]

I can't speak for others but I've never claimed that our choices are 'entirely predetermined'.  Predeterminism is not the same as determinism. I don't think we can say predetermined because at the very least we cannot confidently discount the possibility of genuine randomness.  But it is reasonable to observe that a meaningful choice is necessarily contingent upon the factors that gave rise to it.  If you claim that a choice is resolved in the absence of any reason then you are claiming that your choice is random.  Not me.  You.  it is your own claims that contradict themselves.  To be 'free' of determinism means random.  To resolve choice in a way that is 'free' of any determining factor would be merely a random meaningless event, by definition.

For myself I have no terror in recognising that there are reasons for my choices, it is consistent with the broader understanding that our reality works on principals that seem logical.  In making a choice, I choose the option that most appeals to me, I am expressing my preference, but i cannot choose which preference to have in the first place.  The idea that we could choose our preferences would yield a nonsensical meaningless world.  It makes absolutely no sense.

'Randomness' is no explanation at all. It is just as useful or useless as saying 'God did it'.

[Stranger]

'Randomness' is no explanation at all. It is just as useful or useless as saying 'God did it'.

As was explained to you earlier, this is total nonsense. Actual randomness may or may not exist in nature - it appears to play a role in quantum mechanics. Effective or pseudo randomness (randomness for all practical purposes) abounds - just throw some dice or flip a coin.

[torridon]

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.

This is circular reasoning.  You claim here is that we are already free so we can seek the truth which will set us free.  If we are already free then there is nothing to be gained by seeking the freedom that we already have.

Apart from which I don't see what 'freedom' has got to do with discerning purpose or meaning.  Discerning purpose would be a form of abstract pattern recognition in which regard we perform either well or not so well according to our experience, memory and cognitive abilities.  If you can spot a pattern in a stream of numbers, it means that you are clever, not that you are 'free' of something or other.

[Alan Burns]

You really are very confused. Logic alone tells us that either everything is determined by what led up to it or, to the extent it isn't, it involves randomness. You know, the logic you have never once had the courage to even try to address directly.

You think that your somewhat limited view of logic is on your side.
It is limited because you deny the possibility of choices being determined from the present state of our conscious awareness rather than by past events.

But I have reality on my side.
The reality which enables me to freely witness to the truth of our human freedom.
The freedom which enables us to choose our destiny.

[Stranger]

You think that your somewhat limited view of logic is on your side.

Yet you continue to be unable to show how it is limited.

It is limited because you deny the possibility of choices being determined from the present state of our conscious awareness rather than by past events.

I see you've done another memory wipe and are back to mindlessly repeating the things that have been addressed countless times before. Either the "present state of our conscious awareness" is entirely due to what preceded it or not. To the extent that it isn't, it cannot be due to anything that led to it, which means it's random

But I have reality on my side.

Why can you never provide any evidence or logic then? Why is it that what you claim doesn't even make coherent sense?

The reality which enables me to freely witness to the truth of our human freedom.
The freedom which enables us to choose our destiny.

More mindless repetition. You being able to do as you want is perfectly consistent with the logic I, and others, have presented and in no way demonstrates your own, incoherent, self-contradictory notion of 'freedom'.

You cannot demonstrate something that doesn't make sense in the first place...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You think that your somewhat limited view of logic is on your side.

Logic is on his “side”, and you cannot accuse someone of having a limited view of it when you are entirely unaware of or unwilling to process what logic actually entails. That’s why each time one of your logical fallacies is explained to you you just run away from the problem rather than address it.

It is limited because you deny the possibility of choices being determined from the present state of our conscious awareness rather than by past events.

And speaking of logical fallacies that’s called a straw man. Logic doesn’t deny the “possibility” of that as an ultimate truth (because we cannot rule out the possibility of unknown unknowns), but it does tell us that the arguments you attempt for such a phenomenon are false. 

But I have reality on my side.

No you haven’t. You have a reality, which is your own because you refuse to think about the failure of the arguments you attempt to validate it. You no more have reality on your side than someone who believes that Thor causes thunder has reality on his side – it may be real just for him, but it has no truth value for people capable of thinking harder about it.   

The reality which enables me to freely witness to the truth of our human freedom.
The freedom which enables us to choose our destiny.

Mindless and irrational assertions noted.

[Roses]

You think that your somewhat limited view of logic is on your side.
It is limited because you deny the possibility of choices being determined from the present state of our conscious awareness rather than by past events.

But I have reality on my side.
The reality which enables me to freely witness to the truth of our human freedom.
The freedom which enables us to choose our destiny.

No AB that is not reality, that is only your belief.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sam Harris on consciousness and the illusion of self:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fajfkO_X0l0

It'll be lost on AB, but quite interesting nonetheless.

[Alan Burns]

 Either the "present state of our conscious awareness" is entirely due to what preceded it or not. To the extent that it isn't, it cannot be due to anything that led to it, which means it's random

Human will is certainly not random.  We would not survive long if I was.
As I have pointed out numerous times, our conscious awareness exists and acts in the present.  It is consciously aware of the past, but not dictated by it.  Human will, acting in the present, invokes our conscious choice - otherwise we would be no different to a programmed robot with no will of its own.  This is the reality we all perceive but which you continue to deny because you are locked in to a very limited view of reality.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

As I have pointed out...

No you haven't - you've just asserted. Worse, your assertions have been falsified countless times only you just ignore the falsifications and repeat the same mistakes over and over again.

What does that say about you do you think? 

[Sriram]

Sam Harris on consciousness and the illusion of self:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fajfkO_X0l0

It'll be lost on AB, but quite interesting nonetheless.

He begins by saying that Consciousness is irreducibly subjective and cannot be analysed objectively. You cannot throw out the first person.  You can measure things like fear objectively because of the physiological changes but in the absence of such objective measures  we cannot understand the experience. We feel like passengers in the body......etc. etc.

Clear enough.

Then he gets all wishy washy and starts asserting that there is no place in the brain for the ego to be hiding and we are just a process...and so on and so forth. He is not really explaining anything. Just making broad assertions.

The problem is that there is great reluctance, even fear, of accepting that there could be some metaphysical external agency 'floating above the brain' which is really the first person, the self, the experiencer. And this reluctance is what makes the whole scientific community seem so hard headed and even silly.

It is a simple problem of labeling something as 'supernatural' and then wishing it away. The two boxes syndrome.

These people continue confusing a fundamental aspect of life with religious beliefs and dogma. This is costing humanity itself quite a lot in terms of the continued battle with science to establish such a basic aspect as fact.

[Alan Burns]

Quote
As yourself, BH and Stranger have shown, human investigation coupled with evidence based reasoning leads to the conclusion that every consciously driven choice we make has already been predetermined before we are consciously aware of it.

At least down to the quantum level, essentially yes.

And what happens at the quantum level?
We have quantum events with no apparent cause.
But in order to achieve stability at the atomic level, we need the probability of specific quantum events to occur at specific times.  So this would indicate that indeterminate quantum events are not entirely random, but may have a cause which can't be perceived by human investigation.

Could God's will be a factor which is able to invoke quantum events?
Could this explain how the unfathomable complexity of human life came into existence?
Could God have enabled human will by giving our spiritual soul power to invoke quantum events in our physical brain?
Could this explain the reality we all perceive in being able to consciously invoke acts of will?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

He begins by saying that Consciousness is irreducibly subjective and cannot be analysed objectively. You cannot throw out the first person.  You can measure things like fear objectively because of the physiological changes but in the absence of such objective measures  we cannot understand the experience. We feel like passengers in the body......etc. etc.

No he doesn’t. He just says that we cannot eliminate the subjective when describing the experience.

Clear enough.

Oh dear.

Then he gets all wishy washy and starts asserting that there is no place in the brain for the ego to be hiding and we are just a process...and so on and so forth. He is not really explaining anything. Just making broad assertions.

No he doesn’t and no he isn’t. He just explains that the notion that we’re “passengers” in our bodies is unsupportable because we are our bodies.

The problem is that there is great reluctance, even fear, of accepting that there could be some metaphysical external agency 'floating above the brain' which is really the first person, the self, the experiencer. And this reluctance is what makes the whole scientific community seem so hard headed and even silly.

No that’s not the problem at all. The problem is that those who would assert such a thing have the problem of the burden of proof to demonstrate it. 

It is a simple problem of labeling something as 'supernatural' and then wishing it away. The two boxes syndrome.

No it isn’t. The problem of labelling rests with those who would assert a supernatural, and you can’t wish away something no-one's made a coherent argument to suggest exists in the first place.

These people continue confusing a fundamental aspect of life with religious beliefs and dogma. This is costing humanity itself quite a lot in terms of the continued battle with science to establish such a basic aspect as fact.

No “these people” don’t. The only “fundamental aspect of life” is the beliefs themselves, not whatever claims of fact they happen to concern.

Apart from all that though…

[SteveH]

Sam Harris on consciousness and the illusion of self:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fajfkO_X0l0

It'll be lost on AB, but quite interesting nonetheless.

"Illusion of self" my arse: another philosophidiot denying what all sane people know to be true.

[bluehillside Retd.]

SteveH,

"Illusion of self" my arse: another philosophidiot denying what all sane people know to be true.

Calling someone a "philosophidiot" makes you look idiotic, not him. Try explaining why you think he's wrong; "denying what all sane people know to be true" isn't an argument, it's just an assertion.

[Stranger]

As I have pointed out numerous times, our conscious awareness exists and acts in the present.

That is incoherent. I've asked you several times to define what you think the "present" means in the context but, of course, you never do. If you try to make the concept precise it disappears and in a more colloquial sense, it's simply irrelevant.

It is consciously aware of the past, but not dictated by it.  Human will, acting in the present, invokes our conscious choice...

This has been addressed countless times before, Alan. You are just avoiding the point of how the choice gets made by saying what makes the choice not how it arrives at its choice.

Why the dishonest and silly pretence? You've made these points, you've had answers, so why just ignore the answers and just repeat yourself? How about having the courage to address the answers?

This is the reality we all perceive...

No, it isn't. You cannot perceive something that is nonsensical.

[SteveH]

SteveH,

Calling someone a "philosophidiot" makes you look idiotic, not him. Try explaining why you think he's wrong; "denying what all sane people know to be true" isn't an argument, it's just an assertion.

Some assertions don't need arguing for, because they are self-evident, such as the reality of the self, as Descartes (who was wrong about practically everything else) realised: "I think, therefore I am". I can't deny my own selfhood without immediately falling into logical contradiction.

[Stranger]

And what happens at the quantum level?
We have quantum events with no apparent cause.
But in order to achieve stability at the atomic level, we need the probability of specific quantum events to occur at specific times.

I'll add quantum mechanics to the list of things you've got no idea about...

[Enki]

Alan,

Could God's will be a factor which is able to invoke quantum events?

It could be but there is not the slightest evidence that god is a factor in invoking quantum events'.

Could this explain how the unfathomable complexity of human life came into existence?

It could be, but again there is no evidence of god involvement, and rather a lot of evidence that human life evolved from much simpler forms of life. There are many ideas as to how to define life and how it began on our planet. One intriguing one was the subject of an article in yesterday's Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jan/26/i-predict-great-revolution-physicists-define-life-paul-davies

Could God have enabled human will by giving our spiritual soul power to invoke quantum events in our physical brain?

It could be but again no evidence of a god being involved.  Also there is no evidence that such a thing as a soul actually exisrs. If you are interested in this, it is worth reading 'Life On the Edge' By Jim Al-Khalili and Johnjoe Mc Fadden where the idea is suggested that quantum mechanics has a direct result on consciousness. (based upon the Roger Penrose idea that the mind is a quantum computer).

Could this explain the reality we all perceive in being able to consciously invoke acts of will?

If by this you mean could the existence of a god explain why we see ourselves as an entity who can carry out acts of free will, possibly, although by just suggesting a god being involved is no explanation at all until you actually give a detailed explanation on how he/she/it actually allows us to 'consciously invoke acts of free will'.


Finally, every one of your questions is dependent on there being a god , and as there is no evidence for the existence of any god, then your conjectures fall at the first hurdle. The only answer that I could give in each case to your questions is 'possibly' but I see no reason to take up your ideas as they seem to me to be pure conjectures with no evidence whatever to support them.

[torridon]

Some assertions don't need arguing for, because they are self-evident, such as the reality of the self, as Descartes (who was wrong about practically everything else) realised: "I think, therefore I am". I can't deny my own selfhood without immediately falling into logical contradiction.

A bit like it's bleedin' obvious that we live on a flat Earth init.  I mean, on a globe, people in Australia would be spending all their days upside down, init ?

In my experience, bland declarations that something is 'obviously true' usually mask the fact that the claimant hasn't really thought about the matter in any depth.

[torridon]

The problem is that there is great reluctance, even fear, of accepting that there could be some metaphysical external agency 'floating above the brain' which is really the first person, the self, the experiencer. And this reluctance is what makes the whole scientific community seem so hard headed and even silly.

It is a simple problem of labeling something as 'supernatural' and then wishing it away. The two boxes syndrome.

I never hear any scientists labelling consciousness as 'supernatural'.  Quite the opposite, they see it as a challenge to understand.  However we don't have any evidence for something metaphysical being the 'self', and furthermore it makes no logical sense, it is an idea that renders the brain somewhat redundant.  Why should my self, be something separate to me ?  It makes no sense.

[torridon]

But I have reality on my side.
The reality which enables me to freely witness to the truth of our human freedom.
The freedom which enables us to choose our destiny.

You have the reality that we are free to make our choices in which meaning we are free of external coercion. No one disputes that meaning of freedom. In making a choice I am expressing my preference.  You don't have the reality that you can choose which preferences to have though. Nobody does, it doesn't make sense. We are free to express the preferences over which we have no control.  In a superficial everyday sense, we are free. In the more fundamental sense, we are not free.

[SteveH]

A bit like it's bleedin' obvious that we live on a flat Earth init.  I mean, on a globe, people in Australia would be spending all their days upside down, init ?

In my experience, bland declarations that something is 'obviously true' usually mask the fact that the claimant hasn't really thought about the matter in any depth.

You obviously don't understand the cogito, or you would see that it must be true, as a matter of simple logic. If I deny my own conscious existance, who is it that's doing the denying?

[SteveH]

You have the reality that we are free to make our choices in which meaning we are free of external coercion. No one disputes that meaning of freedom. In making a choice I am expressing my preference.  You don't have the reality that you can choose which preferences to have though. Nobody does, it doesn't make sense. We are free to express the preferences over which we have no control.  In a superficial everyday sense, we are free. In the more profound sense, we are not free.

But we are also free to choose between rival preferences: shall I go down the boozer, or stay in and watch telly?

[SteveH]

Thirty-four thousand, two hundred and twenty-three replies, and one million, five hundred and ninety-three thousand, nine hundred and seventeen views! You'd think we'd've reached some kind of consensus by now...