Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

I did not recognise any explanation for why I can be personally accused of lying if you continue to believe that all my choices are physically predetermined in my subconscious before I am personally aware of them.

Should you be accusing the laws of physics?
If not, then what can be held responsible for a deliberate lie?
Could it be the little man at the controls?

If I did get into the habit of telling deliberate lies, how do you suggest that I can consciously stop these lies if I have no conscious freedom to control my thoughts?

You are perfectly capable of changing your mind, people do it all the time.

You can be accused of lying if and only if your choice is entirely due to you acting in response to the circumstances. As soon as you try to 'escape' from determinism, that is, as soon as your choice is not entirely due to you (your character, which is the way it is because of your initial state and your subsequent life) and the circumstances with which you are presented, then you can't be blamed because, in that case, some part of it had nothing to do with you or the circumstances.

Once again we are face to face with the contradiction at the heart of your nonsense view of 'freedom'. You can't be 'free' from being yourself, it's just nonsense  - and that is exactly what your obsession with being free from "pre-"determinism means.

[torridon]

Two observations:

If this is true, the whole content of this forum must be the result of subconscious activity of human brains and the conscious awareness of the participants is just a spectator function.

If our conscious awareness can offer no personal control over our thinking processes, how can you give credibility to the outcome of these apparently uncontrollable thought processes?

It would appear that the more you try to ignore the existence of human freewill, the more absurd your conclusions become.

The vast majority of brain function operates without conscious awareness, this should not be surprising.  When was the last time you decided to beat your heart or take a breath or regulate your bloodstream electrolytes ?  Consciousness is only a tiny part of overall brain function, and mostly it is not under 'personal control' When was the last time you 'decided' to see lemons as yellow or the sky as blue.  We don't control our personal awareness, rather it is constructed subliminally by lower processes of mind that 'we' do not have access to.  When was the last time you 'decided' which thought to think ? Such notions make no sense, to decide to think a thought means you must have already thought about it.  Thoughts come to us out of lower levels of mind; all our thoughts derive from something; if that were not true, then our thoughts would be random and if humans had evolved the ability to have random thoughts we would long ago have gone extinct.  No, our thoughts are not random, they have origins, they derive from something prior and hence we have meaning in our lives.

[Alan Burns]

The vast majority of brain function operates without conscious awareness, this should not be surprising.  When was the last time you decided to beat your heart or take a breath or regulate your bloodstream electrolytes ?  Consciousness is only a tiny part of overall brain function, and mostly it is not under 'personal control' When was the last time you 'decided' to see lemons as yellow or the sky as blue.  We don't control our personal awareness, rather it is constructed subliminally by lower processes of mind that 'we' do not have access to.  When was the last time you 'decided' which thought to think ? Such notions make no sense, to decide to think a thought means you must have already thought about it.  Thoughts come to us out of lower levels of mind; all our thoughts derive from something; if that were not true, then our thoughts would be random and if humans had evolved the ability to have random thoughts we would long ago have gone extinct.  No, our thoughts are not random, they have origins, they derive from something prior and hence we have meaning in our lives.

So to return to the point I made, why should I give credence to the content of your post if you had no personal control over the thoughts used to compose it?

[Alan Burns]

You are perfectly capable of changing your mind, people do it all the time.

You can be accused of lying if and only if your choice is entirely due to you acting in response to the circumstances. As soon as you try to 'escape' from determinism, that is, as soon as your choice is not entirely due to you (your character, which is the way it is because of your initial state and your subsequent life) and the circumstances with which you are presented, then you can't be blamed because, in that case, some part of it had nothing to do with you or the circumstances.

Once again we are face to face with the contradiction at the heart of your nonsense view of 'freedom'. You can't be 'free' from being yourself, it's just nonsense  - and that is exactly what your obsession with being free from "pre-"determinism means.

But according to your own philosophy, the "you" in all this is just a reconstituted lump of star debris entirely under the control of physical laws.  So I ask again, what is it in this lump of material which is "me" that can be accused of lying?

[Stranger]

But according to your own philosophy, the "you" in all this is just a reconstituted lump of star debris entirely under the control of physical laws.  So I ask again, what is it in this lump of material which is "me" that can be accused of lying?

Because you are a thinking being who is capable of lying. This isn't at all difficult.

If you cannot accept that there is responsibility in the case that we are deterministic beings (that make choices entirely because of the reasons that lead to them) then there is no such thing as responsibility.

Your magic, non-material soul cannot rescue it because the 'problem' is logical self-consistency itself - not the restrictions of the physical world.

[SusanDoris]

Because you are a thinking being who is capable of lying. This isn't at all difficult.

the more AB posts, the less I'd agree with the idea of him as a thinker!! How anyone can continue to pour out such non sense is hard to understand. There is a street evangelist who appears in town occasionally, though, who is able to use a sound kit to talk non-stop in similar language - boring all the passers-by.

[Gordon]

But according to your own philosophy, the "you" in all this is just a reconstituted lump of star debris entirely under the control of physical laws.  So I ask again, what is it in this lump of material which is "me" that can be accused of lying?

Which bit of 'you' being just an aspect of how your biology works are you struggling with?

Some bits of reconstituted star debris can think, but not always all that well.

[torridon]

So to return to the point I made, why should I give credence to the content of your post if you had no personal control over the thoughts used to compose it?

Whether I had 'personal control' over it or not is irrelevant to whether it is true or not.  Judge the post on its own merit.

[Alan Burns]

Because you are a thinking being who is capable of lying. This isn't at all difficult.

But if thoughts are defined by deterministic physical reactions, how can anything be deemed to be responsible for a lie.  You have previously conceded that choices are reactions, so why should an inevitable reaction be deemed to be a lie?

[Alan Burns]

Whether I had 'personal control' over it or not is irrelevant to whether it is true or not.  Judge the post on its own merit.

If you do not personally control the output from your thought processes, then what is ultimately responsible for the posts you make?

[Alan Burns]

Which bit of 'you' being just an aspect of how your biology works are you struggling with?

Some bits of reconstituted star debris can think, but not always all that well.

Thoughts are perceived within the human mind.
We do not yet know what comprises our thoughts, or how they are generated.

If you believe that thoughts are entirely defined by deterministic electrochemical activity in your brain, then it is impossible to show how this entirely predetermined activity can be accused of deliberate lies.

[torridon]

If you do not personally control the output from your thought processes, then what is ultimately responsible for the posts you make?

I cannot believe something I do not believe and vice versa; I cannot control my beliefs and neither can you. I simply post up what seems to true me. Concepts of responsibility, along with your other usual suspects, deliberation, trying, etc are all valid concepts at the level of emergence of persons and they have no validity at the primitive levels of cellular interaction from which these things emerge.  You're still stuck playing the dumb fruit and veg seller telling the physicist that of course you can make two apples touch.  Concepts of responsibility and suchlike are useful and valid at the level of persons and their doings, and they arise out of a deterministic substrate.  If that were not the case, human beings would be making random choices and civilisation would be impossible.  Would you really want to live in such a world ?  Of course you wouldn't.

[Gordon]

Thoughts are perceived within the human mind.
We do not yet know what comprises our thoughts, or how they are generated.

Dead people don't have thoughts: thoughts are a function of living biology and, to be specific, brains.

If you believe that thoughts are entirely defined by deterministic electrochemical activity in your brain, then it is impossible to show how this entirely predetermined activity can be accused of deliberate lies.

That people can have different thoughts in respect of the same thing: for example, that some people mysteriously think ABBA were entertaining, indicates that while the biochemistry that supports mental activity applies to everyone the content of mental activity is unique to each brain.

Loading up the hyperbole, as you do, indicates only that you'd prefer that you weren't just as much as hostage to biology and determinism as the rest of us - but you are, Alan.

[Sebastian Toe]

Thoughts are perceived within the human mind.
We do not yet know what comprises our thoughts, or how they are generated.

If you believe that thoughts are entirely defined by deterministic electrochemical activity in your brain, then it is impossible to show how this entirely predetermined activity can be accused of deliberate lies.

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]

I cannot believe something I do not believe and vice versa; I cannot control my beliefs and neither can you. I simply post up what seems to true me. Concepts of responsibility, along with your other usual suspects, deliberation, trying, etc are all valid concepts at the level of emergence of persons and they have no validity at the primitive levels of cellular interaction from which these things emerge.  You're still stuck playing the dumb fruit and veg seller telling the physicist that of course you can make two apples touch.  Concepts of responsibility and suchlike are useful and valid at the level of persons and their doings, and they arise out of a deterministic substrate.  If that were not the case, human beings would be making random choices and civilisation would be impossible.  Would you really want to live in such a world ?  Of course you wouldn't.

None of this explains how the integrity your thought processes can be valid if you have no conscious control over them.

If Einstein was alive today, do you honestly think he would deny any conscious involvement in the development of his theories?

[Stranger]

But if thoughts are defined by deterministic physical reactions, how can anything be deemed to be responsible for a lie.  You have previously conceded that choices are reactions, so why should an inevitable reaction be deemed to be a lie?

FFS you're going round in circles quicker that usual, I just answered that - here it is again:

You can be accused of lying if and only if your choice is entirely due to you acting in response to the circumstances. As soon as you try to 'escape' from determinism, that is, as soon as your choice is not entirely due to you (your character, which is the way it is because of your initial state and your subsequent life) and the circumstances with which you are presented, then you can't be blamed because, in that case, some part of it had nothing to do with you or the circumstances.

Once again we are face to face with the contradiction at the heart of your nonsense view of 'freedom'. You can't be 'free' from being yourself, it's just nonsense  - and that is exactly what your obsession with being free from "pre-"determinism means.

How about actually addressing the answers you are getting - just for a change?

How about addressing the basic contradiction in your own position?

[torridon]

None of this explains how the integrity your thought processes can be valid if you have no conscious control over them.

If Einstein was alive today, do you honestly think he would deny any conscious involvement in the development of his theories?

I don't know about that. Einstein was clearly well read, and these ideas predate Einstein - we can trace epiphenominalism back to the mid 19th century, with Huxley et al. so he might have been familiar with it.

Bottom line is, we cannot have 'control over our thoughts' because, at base, we are our thoughts. We don't choose our thoughts, they emerge from lower levels of mind.

Here's another thought experiment for you :

Try to think a truly random thought.

It is an impossible thing to do.  Any thought we can come up with is always derivative from the current contents of our mind. There is no escaping these fundamental facts of life.

[Alan Burns]

Dead people don't have thoughts: thoughts are a function of living biology and, to be specific, brains.

You can't possibly show this assertion to be true because you can't define a thought in physical terms.

Perception of the sensory data within the human brain can certainly be used to feed our conscious thoughts.
But we do not know what happens to this single entity of perception when the physical brain ceases to function.
I have no doubt that we will all discover what happens at some date in the future.

[Gordon]

You can't possibly show this assertion to be true because you can't define a thought in physical terms.

Don't be silly - a thought is something that occurs within a certain part of our biology, just as the production of insulin is something that occurs in another part of our biology. I can define a thought as a mental event arising from biochemical activity in the brain since, as far as is known, no thoughts occur in any other circumstances. You do seem overly fond of the term 'define' when 'explain' or 'describe' would be more apposite.

Perception of the sensory data within the human brain can certainly be used to feed our conscious thoughts.
But we do not know what happens to this single entity of perception when the physical brain ceases to function.
I have no doubt that we will all discover what happens at some date in the future.

I see we're back to 'single entity of perception' when you mean person: and when the brain ceases to function so does the person, since they are one and the same - they become, if you will, an ex-single entity of perception. 

[Alan Burns]

Don't be silly - a thought is something that occurs within a certain part of our biology, just as the production of insulin is something that occurs in another part of our biology. I can define a thought as a mental event arising from biochemical activity in the brain since, as far as is known, no thoughts occur in any other circumstances. You do seem overly fond of the term 'define' when 'explain' or 'describe' would be more apposite.

You can define insulin as a chemical substance.
But not so a thought.
Thoughts can be perceived by your human brain, but how do you get to "no thoughts occur in any other circumstances"?

I see we're back to 'single entity of perception' when you mean person: and when the brain ceases to function so does the person, since they are one and the same - they become, if you will, an ex-single entity of perception.

So you say, but I beg to differ.

[Sebastian Toe]

But we do not know what happens to this single entity of perception when the physical brain ceases to function.
I have no doubt that we will all discover what happens at some date in the future.

Well for a start, as all of the physical memories, cease to be, what exactly will this single entity of perception actually percieve in order to function, on any level?

[Gordon]

You can define insulin as a chemical substance.

Super.

But not so a thought.

I described a thought as being a mental event arising from biochemical activity in the brain, and biochemistry is involved in thinking whether you like it or not.

Thoughts can be perceived by your human brain, but how do you get to "no thoughts occur in any other circumstances"?

Thoughts arise in the human brain, Alan, and you become aware of them: there are no good reasons to think that human thoughts arise anywhere else other than then human brain and are then somehow transmitted to the human brain: no active human brain = no human thoughts does appear to be the case.

[torridon]

Perception of the sensory data within the human brain can certainly be used to feed our conscious thoughts.
But we do not know what happens to this single entity of perception when the physical brain ceases to function.
I have no doubt that we will all discover what happens at some date in the future.

We already have enough evidence though.  This 'single entity or perception' evaporates every time we go to sleep.  It starts up again when we wake.  When in a deep sleep , I have no sense of being 'me'.  Occasionally we dream, and in dreams quite often there is a 'me', a subject within the dream, experiencing events, but when the dream finishes, the 'me' disappears again.  Dreaming, being a form of consciousness that occurs in sleep, shows that your single entity of perception of a product, or aspect, of consciousness.  Bottom line, as a subject of experience, I am not a thing, I am an event, I am a rolling process, and when the process stops, I stop.

[ekim]

We already have enough evidence though.  This 'single entity or perception' evaporates every time we go to sleep.  It starts up again when we wake.  When in a deep sleep , I have no sense of being 'me'.  Occasionally we dream, and in dreams quite often there is a 'me', a subject within the dream, experiencing events, but when the dream finishes, the 'me' disappears again.  Dreaming, being a form of consciousness that occurs in sleep, shows that your single entity of perception of a product, or aspect, of consciousness.  Bottom line, as a subject of experience, I am not a thing, I am an event, I am a rolling process, and when the process stops, I stop.

A mystic might rephrase what you say as follows.  There is consciousness and there are objects of consciousness created as thought forms, mental images, emotional states, bodily sensations.  Consciousness can identify with those forms, states and images and call it 'me' or 'my self' so that when there is a disconnection, 'me' seems to disappear. Images arise during dream sleep and, if remembered, the mind reestablishes the connection and a 'me' is formed again.  In deep dreamless sleep, the connection of consciousness with mental formative processes is temporarily broken and the mind cannot form a 'me'.  Bottom line, as consciousness, I am not a thing, I am not an event, I am not a rolling process and when the processes stop, 'I' am still being.

[Nearly Sane]

A mystic might rephrase what you say as follows.  There is consciousness and there are objects of consciousness created as thought forms, mental images, emotional states, bodily sensations.  Consciousness can identify with those forms, states and images and call it 'me' or 'my self' so that when there is a disconnection, 'me' seems to disappear. Images arise during dream sleep and, if remembered, the mind reestablishes the connection and a 'me' is formed again.  In deep dreamless sleep, the connection of consciousness with mental formative processes is temporarily broken and the mind cannot form a 'me'.  Bottom line, as consciousness, I am not a thing, I am not an event, I am not a rolling process and when the processes stop, 'I' am still being.

This describes something that feels totally unlike my experience.