Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

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.

This is total nonsense. It's has been explained so many times - why the mindless, pointless repetition?

Look, as has been explained endlessly to you, and you never take any notice of, whatever is making a choice can only do so in such a way as each step is entirely due to what led up to it (determinism) or not, and if not, some parts of some steps are not due to anything that led to them - with means they are random.

That has nothing to do with physics. Physics is an example of a system that conforms to the logic. The logic stands independently.

Whatever is making your choices is you - be it physical or something else, so your point about you not having control of it is ridiculous - you are once again starting with your conclusion that "you"  must be separate from any consideration of how choices get made.

And once again: it is impossible to demonstrate your self-contradictory notion of freedom - it is not demonstrable at all.

[Stranger]

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?

There is absolutely nothing in this which is inconsistent with all those thought processes being entirely deterministic (each step entirely due to what led up to it). You again over estimate conscious control; have you never thought of a better way to put things after it is too late?

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.

They are only "predetermined" in the sense that you, as a person, when faced with an exact set of circumstances, will make one choice. Again, you need to consider the rewind time thought experiment - could you make a different choice in exactly the same circumstances? If yes, then the difference can only be random; not to do with you or the circumstances. It can only be you making the choice if the answer is no.

[Sebastian Toe]

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.

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

[Alan Burns]

That has nothing to do with physics. Physics is an example of a system that conforms to the logic. The logic stands independently.

Lets examine this presumption.

The law of physics is not just an example - it is the only model we can use from what we can perceive with our senses to deduce how things work.  So whatever we deduce will pertain to only to this material universe, you can't possibly extrapolate this to be absolutely universal.  Eminent physicist such has Hawkins have deduced that time is a property of this universe which began with the Big Bang (see A Brief History of Time).  So if time as we know it does not exist in other realms, your logic of cause and effect will not be applicable.

Our God given insight can allow us to see beyond what can be perceived by our physical senses alone.  We may have difficulty in imagining a timeless state, but the fact that we can conceive of the possibility could be divinely inspired.

"Before Abraham was born, I Am"   John 8:58

[Roses]

Lets examine this presumption.

The law of physics is not just an example - it is the only model we can use from what we can perceive with our senses to deduce how things work.  So whatever we deduce will pertain to only to this material universe, you can't possibly extrapolate this to be absolutely universal.  Eminent physicist such has Hawkins have deduced that time is a property of this universe which began with the Big Bang (see A Brief History of Time).  So if time as we know it does not exist in other realms, your logic of cause and effect will not be applicable.

Our God given insight can allow us to see beyond what can be perceived by our physical senses alone.  We may have difficulty in imagining a timeless state, but the fact that we can conceive of the possibility could be divinely inspired.

"Before Abraham was born, I Am"   John 8:58

In your opinion.

[Sebastian Toe]

We may have difficulty in imagining a timeless state,

Why would you, specifically,  have difficulty?
Surely, if as you claim, your soul actually exists in such a realm, then you should be able to describe it accurately, from direct experience to everyone here. No imagining required!

Over to you.......

[Nearly Sane]

Lets examine this presumption.

The law of physics is not just an example - it is the only model we can use from what we can perceive with our senses to deduce how things work.  So whatever we deduce will pertain to only to this material universe, you can't possibly extrapolate this to be absolutely universal.  Eminent physicist such has Hawkins have deduced that time is a property of this universe which began with the Big Bang (see A Brief History of Time).  So if time as we know it does not exist in other realms, your logic of cause and effect will not be applicable.

Our God given insight can allow us to see beyond what can be perceived by our physical senses alone.  We may have difficulty in imagining a timeless state, but the fact that we can conceive of the possibility could be divinely inspired.

"Before Abraham was born, I Am"   John 8:58

Writing the words 'timeless state' is no more conceiving the possibility than  writing 'four sided triangle' conceives the possibility. And none of the rest of you post addresses Stranger's point

[Stranger]

Lets examine this presumption.

The law of physics is not just an example - it is the only model we can use from what we can perceive with our senses to deduce how things work.  So whatever we deduce will pertain to only to this material universe, you can't possibly extrapolate this to be absolutely universal.

If you think logic is confined to physics, you obviously haven't studied much pure mathematics. In fact, the only logic that is needed is that the statement; "human choices are completely determined by the immediately preceding conditions (internal and external to the mind)", must be either true or false.

True: determinism.
False: there is at least some random element.

Eminent physicist such has Hawkins have deduced that time is a property of this universe which began with the Big Bang (see A Brief History of Time).  So if time as we know it does not exist in other realms, your logic of cause and effect will not be applicable.

But we do exist in time and we make our choices at a time, based on information available at the time, and according to our state of mind at the time. If time does not exist in some realm, then no choices can be made in it, because a choice is a change of state, and no such change can happen without time.

Our God given insight can allow us to see beyond what can be perceived by our physical senses alone.

Science and logic can, but I can see no evidence whatsoever for any god given insight.

[torridon]

The law of physics is not just an example - it is the only model we can use from what we can perceive with our senses to deduce how things work.  So whatever we deduce will pertain to only to this material universe, you can't possibly extrapolate this to be absolutely universal.  Eminent physicist such has Hawkins have deduced that time is a property of this universe which began with the Big Bang (see A Brief History of Time).  So if time as we know it does not exist in other realms, your logic of cause and effect will not be applicable.

Makes little to no sense.

It is irrelevant whether or not there might be other domains of reality that are timeless if you are trying to understand how choices are made.  All you need to consider are the relevant factors within our domain of activity and knowledge

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Lets examine this presumption.

The law of physics is not just an example - it is the only model we can use from what we can perceive with our senses to deduce how things work.  So whatever we deduce will pertain to only to this material universe, you can't possibly extrapolate this to be absolutely universal.

Straw man. No-one does that. When you attempt to use materialist arguments for “god”, “soul”, “spiritual” you always crash and burn because you get the reasoning wrong. If you think there to be some other way to verify your assertions though, then it’s your job finally to produce it.

We both know though that you’ll just ignore your problem here though don’t we.

Eminent physicist such has Hawkins have deduced that time is a property of this universe which began with the Big Bang (see A Brief History of Time).  So if time as we know it does not exist in other realms, your logic of cause and effect will not be applicable.

Fail. What “other realms” would they be, and how would you propose to verify such an extraordinary claim?

Our God given insight can allow us to see beyond what can be perceived by our physical senses alone.  We may have difficulty in imagining a timeless state, but the fact that we can conceive of the possibility could be divinely inspired.

Oh dear. If you want the assertion “God given insight” to be taken seriously then you have a mountain of problems to overcome first, like defining “God”, then demonstrating its existence at all, then demonstrating how this supposed “insight” is epistemically any different from just guessing, then…

You know, all the stuff you just run away from whenever it’s brought up. Still, if telling lies for Jesus is all you have that’s a matter for you and your conscience I guess. 

[Alan Burns]

There is absolutely nothing in this which is inconsistent with all those thought processes being entirely deterministic (each step entirely due to what led up to it). You again over estimate conscious control; have you never thought of a better way to put things after it is too late?

But it is obvious that you underestimate the power of conscious control.

Here we have two sets of entirely deterministic events (yours and mine) under the control of physical laws where the output of each set tries to somehow contradict the output of the other set.  Can you ask yourself:
What is the source which tries to contradict?
Can you define what is being contradicted in physical terms?
How can any set of physically predetermined events be accused of contradiction?

[torridon]

But it is obvious that you underestimate the power of conscious control.

Here we have two sets of entirely deterministic events (yours and mine) under the control of physical laws where the output of each set tries to somehow contradict the output of the other set.  Can you ask yourself:
What is the source which tries to contradict?
Can you define what is being contradicted in physical terms?
How can any set of physically predetermined events be accused of contradiction?

OK, let's add 'contradiction' to the long list of things that you don't seem to realise are quite consistent with a deterministic model of mind.  No magic required for contradiction.

[Stranger]

But it is obvious that you underestimate the power of conscious control.

What is actually obvious is that you have no answer for the logic you keep on ignoring.

Here we have two sets of entirely deterministic events (yours and mine) under the control of physical laws where the output of each set tries to somehow contradict the output of the other set.  Can you ask yourself:
What is the source which tries to contradict?
Can you define what is being contradicted in physical terms?
How can any set of physically predetermined events be accused of contradiction?

An the mindless, pointless repetition of 'points' that have been answered countless times before, just goes on and on and on and on...

As I explained before, if you insist of reducing everything to the basic level of physics then lots of things don't seem to make much sense (remember the moth flying towards light?).

The fact is that we are sophisticated thinking entities that are able to process complex abstract ideas. There is absolutely no need for self-contradictory magic to explain a discussion on a forum like this. In fact, self-contradictory magic can't possibly explain anything. The rational, logical view is actually the only explanation available.

[Sebastian Toe]

But it is obvious that you underestimate the power of conscious control.

Here we have two sets of entirely deterministic events (yours and mine) under the control of physical laws where the output of each set tries to somehow contradict the output of the other set.  Can you ask yourself:
What is the source which tries to contradict?
Can you define what is being contradicted in physical terms?
How can any set of physically predetermined events be accused of contradiction?

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

[Alan Burns]

OK, let's add 'contradiction' to the long list of things that you don't seem to realise are quite consistent with a deterministic model of mind.  No magic required for contradiction.

So please explain how one set of physically predetermined events can be seen to contradict another set of physically predetermined events.

And be careful how you use the word "mind" in this context.  In an entirely predetermined system, the mind becomes just another link in the chains of physically predefined cause and effect.

[Stranger]

So please explain how one set of physically predetermined events can be seen to contradict another set of physically predetermined events.

Why didn't you pay any attention all the other countless times it's been explained to you?

[torridon]

So please explain how one set of physically predetermined events can be seen to contradict another set of physically predetermined events.

And be careful how you use the word "mind" in this context.  In an entirely predetermined system, the mind becomes just another link in the chains of physically predefined cause and effect.

Alan, do you really not understand this yet ?

'Contradiction' is a emergent phenomenon, a characteristic of higher levels of cognitive functioning. Emergent phenomena derive from simpler underlying constituents; the fact that we describe them at higher levels is useful and valid and that does not detract from the validity of the lower levels of complexity from which they emerge.  Put your hand in water, it feels wet, correct ?  it is a useful thing to us to be able to say so, despite the fact that no molecule of H2O is wet.  That wall feels solid, right ? it is a useful and valid observation to make, despite the fact that all solid objects, walls included, are actually mostly empty space at the level of atomic matter.  Both characterisations are valid at their own level of description and emergence.

[SusanDoris]

So please explain how one set of physically predetermined events can be seen to contradict another set of physically predetermined events.

And be careful how you use the word "mind" in this context.  In an entirely predetermined system, the mind becomes just another link in the chains of physically predefined cause and effect.

And you have the nerve, the arrogance, to tell others to be careful with how they say things?!!! the mind boggles!

[Alan Burns]

As I explained before, if you insist of reducing everything to the basic level of physics then lots of things don't seem to make much sense (remember the moth flying towards light?).

But you can't escape the truth that in a physically predetermined system, no matter how complex, there can be no concept of deliberation, control or manipulation - because there will be no source of deliberation, no controller and no manipulator.  Everything just becomes inevitable reaction under the control of physical laws.

It is true that I choose to insist on reducing everything to the basic level of physics - so what do you blame for this insistence?  Do you blame the laws of physics?  Do you blame the physical arrangement of cells in my brain?  Can you suggest anything which could possibly have prevented me from making this choice?

[Gordon]

It is true that I choose to insist on reducing everything to the basic level of physics - so what do you blame for this insistence?  Do you blame the laws of physics?  Do you blame the physical arrangement of cells in my brain?  Can you suggest anything which could possibly have prevented me from making this choice?

I think it is more the case that your fondness for the fallacy of composition gets in the way.

[Sebastian Toe]

But you can't escape the truth that in a physically predetermined system, no matter how complex, there can be no concept of deliberation, control or manipulation - because there will be no source of deliberation, no controller and no manipulator.  Everything just becomes inevitable reaction under the control of physical laws.

It is true that I choose to insist on reducing everything to the basic level of physics - so what do you blame for this insistence?  Do you blame the laws of physics?  Do you blame the physical arrangement of cells in my brain?  Can you suggest anything which could possibly have prevented me from making this choice?

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

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS AB,

But you can't escape the truth that in a physically predetermined system, no matter how complex, there can be no concept of deliberation, control or manipulation - because there will be no source of deliberation, no controller and no manipulator.  Everything just becomes inevitable reaction under the control of physical laws.

Still telling lies for Jesus then I see. Of course there can be these concepts, just as (to take torri’s recent example) there can be the concept of “wet”. They’re all useful explanations we use in our day to day lives. No one says otherwise. What you resolutely ignore though over and over again is the point, namely that such workaday explanations often fail when you drill deeper into the reasoning that supports them. The Earth isn’t actually flat even though it seems that way; we don’t actually touch objects even though it seems that way; we don’t make decisions unfettered from prior events even though it seems that way.   

It is true that I choose to insist on reducing everything to the basic level of physics - so what do you blame for this insistence?

It’s not reducing to physics, it’s elevating from magic and there’s no “blame” involved. The only relevant blame here concerns your stultifying dishonesty.

Do you blame the laws of physics?  Do you blame the physical arrangement of cells in my brain?  Can you suggest anything which could possibly have prevented me from making this choice?

Yes, trying to be honest for once. At the level of abstraction at which you operate “blame” works as a concept; the deeper thinking that so terrifies you though tells you something else entirely.

[Alan Burns]

Alan, do you really not understand this yet ?

'Contradiction' is a emergent phenomenon, a characteristic of higher levels of cognitive functioning. Emergent phenomena derive from simpler underlying constituents; the fact that we describe them at higher levels is useful and valid and that does not detract from the validity of the lower levels of complexity from which they emerge.  Put your hand in water, it feels wet, correct ?  it is a useful thing to us to be able to say so, despite the fact that no molecule of H2O is wet.  That wall feels solid, right ? it is a useful and valid observation to make, despite the fact that all solid objects, walls included, are actually mostly empty space at the level of atomic matter.  Both characterisations are valid at their own level of description and emergence.

We know that water cannot help but feel wet.  We know that walls cannot avoid  feeling solid.

Any emergence will be defined entirely from the physically predetermined reactions of the material from which it emerges.  So how can a contradiction occur from this emergence?    Contradictions, by definition, must involve something which is can be accused of contradicting.

[SusanDoris]

NS,

May I politely suggest that a quick edit needed here?!!

[Stranger]

But you can't escape the truth that in a physically predetermined system, no matter how complex, there can be no concept of deliberation, control or manipulation - because there will be no source of deliberation, no controller and no manipulator..

Utter drivel for reasons that have been endlessly explained to you, you have provided no answers to, and you continue to ignore in favour of silly, bot-like repetition.

Everything just becomes inevitable reaction under the control of physical laws.

As does everything that doesn't involve randomness. This has nothing to do with the laws of physics.