Searching for GOD...

[SusanDoris]

Your post demonstrates the workings of a biological brain making choices entirely under deterministic principles with no magic, logic free, fantasy ridden soul required.

I do like that response, and nod decisively in agreement every time.

[Stranger]

I see no flaws in concluding that consciously driven thoughts and choices are evidence of them not being entirely predetermined by past events.

It's both absurd and dishonest. You have not produced the slightest hint of a reason why conscious thoughts cannot be entirely determined by the reasons for them.

It is dishonest because every single conjecture about consciousness is about our abilities and experiences, and trying to claim them as evidence of yours alone is a basically lying about what other people have proposed.

What's more you keep saying that there is no randomness, which is where the obvious, glaring, written in ten mile high neon letters contradiction in your position is.

To the extent something is not entirely determined by the reasons for it, it is for no reason - which means random.

I consciously choose to disagree.

I know - but you you can never back it up with anything but incredulity and baseless assertion.

Consciousness is entirely relevant because it is the reality we exist in,
My conscious awareness defines me, just as it defines my consciously driven choices.

All of which is totally irrelevant to the point. Did you even bother to read what you were supposedly replying to?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I do like that response, and nod decisively in agreement every time.

I never get to the end of Seb's posts since I always nod OFF decisively everytime.

[SusanDoris]

I never get to the end of Seb's posts since I always nod OFF decisively everytime.

And that's another one of your irrelevant, silly and totally unfunnyposts.

[Roses]

I never get to the end of Seb's posts since I always nod OFF decisively everytime.

It is your posts, which make less sense than those of most other posters.

[Maeght]

I never get to the end of Seb's posts since I always nod OFF decisively everytime.

Yes, of course you do.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It is your posts, which make less sense than those of most other posters.

I've saved a packet on Horlick's since I started reading about atheism.

[torridon]

Well, I would say that the ability to "make stuff up" provides obvious evidence of our freedom to consciously control our own thought processes.

OK, so you're talking about creativity.  I think this is still consistent with a deterministic account of mind function.  if you remember we covered this sort of ground way back with the capital cities thought experiment, which illustrates aspects of the relationship between conscious and subconscious levels of mind.  Since Freud we have understood that subconscious mind is a vast storehouse of what we are, our memories, habits, dispositions etc, whereas conscious mind has only a tiny amount of just very current issues.  Think about what happens when you recall a memory - the memory is not in conscious mind so we cannot retrieve it as if by some unique key or as if we already knew what we were trying to recall; rather what happens is we exert a vague pull request and receive whatever it is that subconscious mind delivers up to us. So, when you are being creative, making stuff up, say, you are using this relationship between different levels of mind.  Our conscious mind does not generate ideas up front, that would be impractical.  What we can do is assess the ideas that do come up from 'below' with against our preferences.  It is still deterministic as we do not specify exactly what to retrieve from memory, and again, we have no control over our preferences.

[Alan Burns]

It's both absurd and dishonest. You have not produced the slightest hint of a reason why conscious thoughts cannot be entirely determined by the reasons for them.

Can you fully define what comprises conscious thought?
If not, how can you possibly lay claim to know what determines a thought?

It is dishonest because every single conjecture about consciousness is about our abilities and experiences, and trying to claim them as evidence of yours alone is a basically lying about what other people have proposed.

Can you not tell the difference between a lie and a genuine disagreement?

What's more you keep saying that there is no randomness, which is where the obvious, glaring, written in ten mile high neon letters contradiction in your position is.

I have never claimed that there is no randomness.
What I have claimed is that conscious choices are not random.
If they were, choosing whether to overtake on a busy road could soon wipe out much of our population.

To the extent something is not entirely determined by the reasons for it, it is for no reason - which means random.

I have never claimed a choice can be made for no reason.
I claim that for it to be a genuine choice, it can't be predefined by physically predetermined reactions alone - otherwise it is not a choice because it is an inevitable reaction.

Please stop misquoting what I have posted.

[Alan Burns]

OK, so you're talking about creativity.  I think this is still consistent with a deterministic account of mind function.  if you remember we covered this sort of ground way back with the capital cities thought experiment, which illustrates aspects of the relationship between conscious and subconscious levels of mind.  Since Freud we have understood that subconscious mind is a vast storehouse of what we are, our memories, habits, dispositions etc, whereas conscious mind has only a tiny amount of just very current issues.  Think about what happens when you recall a memory - the memory is not in conscious mind so we cannot retrieve it as if by some unique key or as if we already knew what we were trying to recall; rather what happens is we exert a vague pull request and receive whatever it is that subconscious mind delivers up to us. So, when you are being creative, making stuff up, say, you are using this relationship between different levels of mind.  Our conscious mind does not generate ideas up front, that would be impractical.  What we can do is assess the ideas that do come up from 'below' with against our preferences.  It is still deterministic as we do not specify exactly what to retrieve from memory, and again, we have no control over our preferences.

You accused me of making stuff up, implying that I did it deliberately.
Now you are trying hard to explain why I did not deliberately make stuff up because it somehow just happened to be what my deterministic brain chose to do without any deliberation from me.

Can you not see the obvious that we are all free to choose how, when and where to use our many gifts in a creative imaginative way?  I fail to comprehend how you can possibly believe that it is all done before we become consciously aware of what we have done.

[Stranger]

Can you fully define what comprises conscious thought?
If not, how can you possibly lay claim to know what determines a thought?

I don't claim to know what determines it, but if it is not fully determined by whatever led to it, then, to the extent that it isn't so determined, it must be determined by nothing, and therefore random.

This is not a complicated argument. You've had it explained many times and by several people and you've never been able to point out what is wrong with it. You just resort to incredulity and baseless assertions that it is "flawed" or "shortsighted".

Can you not tell the difference between a lie and a genuine disagreement?

Because the disagreement is about how our experience of conscious thought and choice making comes about, and nobody is denying those things. Everybody who attempts to explain them is attempting to explain the same things. Claiming those things as evidence for your idea alone is lying about what other people are claiming.

A genuine and honest disagreement would acknowledge that you can't claim the phenomena we are all attempting to explain as evidence for your own explanation.

You are like somebody with a new theory of gravity trying to claim that the evidence for it, and against all the other theories, is that things fall towards the ground.

I have never claimed that there is no randomness.
What I have claimed is that conscious choices are not random.
If they were, choosing whether to overtake on a busy road could soon wipe out much of our population.

Since the whole subject of this debate is conscious choices, why on earth would you think I was claiming that you said no randomness about anything else?

I'm not saying that there is significant randomness either, but the implication of your claim that choices are not fully determined by the reasons for them, is that they involve randomness.

FFS, you keep claiming you are understanding what is said to you, so why do I need to go over this time and time again when you post things like this that strongly suggest you've been paying no attention whatsoever?

I have never claimed a choice can be made for no reason.

Did you even read the quote you put this under?

To the extent something is not entirely determined by the (existing) reasons for it, it is for no reason - which means random.

And no, you can't just magic a reason into existence in "the present" (which you still haven't said what you mean by in any logically significant way) because the reason itself would have to either be due to prior reasons or random.

I claim that for it to be a genuine choice, it can't be predefined by physically predetermined reactions alone - otherwise it is not a choice because it is an inevitable reaction.

Now the pointless mantra about the "physical", which is (as different people have explained many times) totally irrelevant to the logic.

Please stop misquoting what I have posted.

I didn't. How about you actually paying some attention to what is said to you?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Can you fully define what comprises conscious thought?
If not, how can you possibly lay claim to know what determines a thought?

Can you fully define what comprises gravity?

If not, how can you possibly claim to know what causes an apple to fall from a tree?

Can you not tell the difference between a lie and a genuine disagreement?

Yes, which is why we know you’re dishonest. To have a “genuine disagreement” the parties have to engage at least with what the argument actually is. When arguments are put to you though you either ignore them or misrepresent them. If just for once you’d stop lying for Jesus and instead tried at least to be honest about what’s actually being said to you then – but only then – would there be something to disagree about.       

I have never claimed that there is no randomness.
What I have claimed is that conscious choices are not random.
If they were, choosing whether to overtake on a busy road could soon wipe out much of our population.

What you have “claimed” is “it’s magic”, only it would embarrass you to say that so you call it “spiritual” instead. Either way, it’s just more dishonesty. 

I have never claimed a choice can be made for no reason.
I claim that for it to be a genuine choice, it can't be predefined by physically predetermined reactions alone - otherwise it is not a choice because it is an inevitable reaction.

Please stop misquoting what I have posted.

He didn’t, and your hypocrisy here is breathtaking. What you actually claim to get you off the binary determined vs random hook is magic, which is epistemically worthless. How would such a claim be investigated so as to distinguish it from just guessing?

And, as you know full well but keep ignoring, the choice is “genuine” inasmuch as – at a shallow level of thinking – that’s a reality that for day-to-day purposes works well enough. If you want to keep cheating though by defining “genuine” as “free from both determinism and randomness” then of course all you have is an irrational, logically impossible straw man version of “genuine”.   

[Stranger]

You accused me of making stuff up, implying that I did it deliberately.
Now you are trying hard to explain why I did not deliberately make stuff up because it somehow just happened to be what my deterministic brain chose to do without any deliberation from me.

The claim is that you are your deterministic brain. When you contrast the "deterministic brain" with yourself, as if they were mutually exclusive, you are assuming your conclusion.

[Gordon]

Now you are trying hard to explain why I did not deliberately make stuff up because it somehow just happened to be what my deterministic brain chose to do without any deliberation from me.

'You' and your brain are one in the same: so what you think of as conscious choice is just your material biology at work.

Can you not see the obvious that we are all free to choose how, when and where to use our many gifts in a creative imaginative way?  I fail to comprehend how you can possibly believe that it is all done before we become consciously aware of what we have done.

Not all of us are as encumbered by ancient religious superstitions as you are.     

[wigginhall]

More incredulity from AB.  The idea that there are unconscious motives, thoughts, and so on, is over a 100 years old, but has been given an empirical basis via experiments.   Why is it incredible?   It matches my experience.

[Alan Burns]

The claim is that you are your deterministic brain. When you contrast the "deterministic brain" with yourself, as if they were mutually exclusive, you are assuming your conclusion.

I was comparing the deterministic brain with the conscious self.

[Gordon]

I was comparing the deterministic brain with the conscious self.

Which is circular: 'you' and your brain are one and the same, and the feeling you have of agency is but one aspect of the neurological activity going on between your ears.

[Alan Burns]

If you want to keep cheating though by defining “genuine” as “free from both determinism and randomness” then of course all you have is an irrational, logically impossible straw man version of “genuine”.   

But I have never claimed a conscious choice is free from determinism.
(I have had to explain this numerous times.)

What I claim is that conscious choices can't be entirely defined by predetermined material reactions, which are controlled by the the laws of physics.  Your conscious efforts to explain how our apparently conscious choices are predetermined before we make them is self contradictory.  You are obviously using your consciously driven freedom to control your own thoughts in order to try to deny this freedom.

What I claim is that conscious choices involve more than physically predefined material reactions.  I postulate that our freedom to choose is evidence for the spiritual willpower of the human soul.

And in this post, I use the word freedom to mean that a choice is free from the constraints of being defined entirely by physical reactions alone.

[Gordon]

And in this post, I use the word freedom to mean that a choice is free from the predetermined constraints of being defined entirely by physical reactions alone.

Leaving aside your trademark hyperbole - unless you make random choices then your choices aren't 'free' in the way you'd like them to be.

I'm struggling to imagine how I could even make a random choice, since even if I set out 6 options and throw a die to select one, the 6 options I specify may well be influenced by my preexisting biases, situation and my current mental state and where, theoretically at least, if the precise details of all the forces that would act on the die as I rolled were known beforehand I would know the outcome in advance since there could only ever be one result - it just looks random because I don't have sufficient information.

I'm afraid, Alan, that you can't escape that you live in a deterministic universe whether you like it or not. 

[Stranger]

I was comparing the deterministic brain with the conscious self.

That makes no difference. The claim is that your conscious self is what the deterministic brain produces. This is really simple: your consciousness is deterministic (unless there is some randomness).

But I have never claimed a conscious choice is free from determinism.
(I have had to explain this numerous times.)

And just as many times it's been explained to you that what you are describing to is not determinism. For example:#32591 and #32601.

Determinism is when your choices are entirely determined by the preceding reasons.

What I claim is that conscious choices can't be entirely defined by predetermined material reactions, which are controlled by the the laws of physics.

The laws of physics are totally irrelevant to the logic, as has been explained multiple times by multiple posters.

Your conscious efforts to explain how our apparently conscious choices are predetermined before we make them is self contradictory.

This is a baseless assertion; where is the contradiction? And nobody is denying that they are conscious choices - it's just that they must come about through a processes in which each stage is entirely driven by what led up to it (unless there is some randomnes).

[Alan Burns]

Leaving aside your trademark hyperbole - unless you make random choices then your choices aren't 'free' in the way you'd like them to be.

I'm struggling to imagine how I could even make a random choice, since even if I set out 6 options and throw a die to select one, the 6 options I specify may well be influenced by my preexisting biases, situation and my current mental state and where, theoretically at least, if the precise details of all the forces that would act on the die as I rolled were known beforehand I would know the outcome in advance since there could only ever be one result - it just looks random because I don't have sufficient information.

I'm afraid, Alan, that you can't escape that you live in a deterministic universe whether you like it or not.

Once more I have to say that there is nothing random about conscious choice.

The over simplification in this example of choice is disguising the real issue.  Just consider the processes involved in writing this post.  Did you think about the meaning you wished to portray? Did you think about your choice of words needed to portray this meaning?  Were you free to choose what meaning you wished to portray, and were you free to choose your words?  The logic derived from physically driven events would imply that all these choices were predetermined before you consciously invoked them.  I put it to you that your choices were determined at the time you invoked invoked them from your consciously driven thought processes.

[Alan Burns]

The laws of physics are totally irrelevant to the logic, as has been explained multiple times by multiple posters.

It is entirely relevant because we have no conscious control over the laws of physics, but we do have demonstrable control of our thought processes.  So I conclude that the source of this control cannot be entirely physical.

[torridon]

You accused me of making stuff up, implying that I did it deliberately.
Now you are trying hard to explain why I did not deliberately make stuff up because it somehow just happened to be what my deterministic brain chose to do without any deliberation from me.

Can you not see the obvious that we are all free to choose how, when and where to use our many gifts in a creative imaginative way?  I fail to comprehend how you can possibly believe that it is all done before we become consciously aware of what we have done.

This is still very confused, indicating you haven't really onboarded any of the subtleties of mind function at all.

Firstly, there is no fundamental distinction between 'my brain' and 'me'.  You are your brain, you are your mind.  Our sense of self is part of the whole, not something separate.

Secondly, 'deliberation', is a thinking process and like all mind processes, is inevitably a consequence of fundamental mind function.  To imagine that deliberation is something that happens solely in conscious mind is simplistic.  Nothing happens solely in conscious mind, our consciousness is always a memory of what just happened, and this includes the thoughts we just had.

Thirdly, are we 'free' to choose 'how and when to use our gifts' ?  Our choice reflects our preference and we cannot choose which preferences to have.  We are 'free' to act on our desires, but how free is that given we cannot choose which desires to have.

[torridon]

Just consider the processes involved in writing this post.  Did you think about the meaning you wished to portray? Did you think about your choice of words needed to portray this meaning?  Were you free to choose what meaning you wished to portray, and were you free to choose your words?  The logic derived from physically driven events would imply that all these choices were predetermined before you consciously invoked them.  I put it to you that your choices were determined at the time you invoked invoked them from your consciously driven thought processes.

It is your subconscious mind that is 'choosing' which words to employ, not your conscious mind.  Understanding this may not be intuitive, but relies on a more subtle understanding of the workings of mind, which is why we have put up various thought experiments on this thread to help illustrate.  I know many thousands of words in the English language, but they aren't in my conscious mind all the time; consciousness is (apart from other things) a system of prioritisation, a bringing to the fore of what we need to focus on right here right now.  As I work my way along the sentence, it it not the case that my conscious mind knows which word to use next, because that would require all words to be already in conscious mind.  Our minds could not possibly work like that.  Rather what happens, is that subconscious processes are yielding up words for 'me' to use, as I work my way along the sentence.  It is my subconscious mind that is actually doing the choosing, my awareness is a construction of narrative memory that follows closely behind the real activity.

[Gordon]

Once more I have to say that there is nothing random about conscious choice.

The over simplification in this example of choice is disguising the real issue.  Just consider the processes involved in writing this post.  Did you think about the meaning you wished to portray? Did you think about your choice of words needed to portray this meaning?  Were you free to choose what meaning you wished to portray, and were you free to choose your words?  The logic derived from physically driven events would imply that all these choices were predetermined before you consciously invoked them.  I put it to you that your choices were determined at the time you invoked invoked them from your consciously driven thought processes.

You seem to think everything regarding, to use your example, writing a post is a deliberate choice occurring only in the instant you are
writing: but there is other stuff is going on that you are less aware of, such as your preexisting language and writing skills, your personal biases, your prior knowledge of the subject matter and your interlocutor etc, and you don't carry all this around in your conscious awareness like some kind of constantly open mental dictionary with a filing cabinet of everything you've ever said and done before, and with everything 'open'; that would be overwhelming.

Yes, you have the ability to make choices about what you write but what you choose to write isn't divorced from antecedents and influences: beneath what looks to you as swan-like elegance in post-composing there are the wee legs of unconscious processes that, as you ponder, are hidden from view but are furiously paddling away nonetheless.