Searching for GOD...

[Enki]

Truly amazing!

You must be really proud of the valiant effort made by your subconscious brain activity to try to justify the absurd notion that all your thoughts are entirely predetermined before you think them.

The above post tells me that you seem totally unable to argue against the logic and arguments ranged against you or else you would have made some attempt to deal with them.

Instead, you simply express incredulity(truly amazing) which adds nothing to your ideas at all. And then, you compound your obvious inability to argue your case by a mixture of sarcasm(you must really be proud etc.) with selected epithets such as 'absurd' which convey your distaste but add nothing to the argument whatever.

Are you totally unable to give reasoned arguments which support your point of view, or are you forever held in the grip of assertion and incredulity?

[Sebastian Toe]

Truly amazing!

You must be really proud of the valiant effort made by your subconscious brain activity to try to justify the absurd notion that all your thoughts are entirely predetermined before you think them.

That's amazing.
You must be really proud of  demonstrating  the workings of a biological brain making choices entirely under deterministic principles with no magic, logic free, fantasy ridden soul required.

[wigginhall]

Yes, I don't get why it is absurd that thoughts are formed preconsciously, or that they have precursors.   I suppose it's like the virgin birth!

[Alan Burns]

There seems no end in sight to your chronic confusion over these concepts.  The principal of determinism is a principal of logic.  Whether the universe is completely deterministic is another matter.  Within a fully deterministic system there can be no free will because that is what determinism means and in your previous post your were accepting of determinism.  now in this post you are arguing that the universe may not be fully deterministic, which is a straw man, because nobody here has argued that it is.  All we can say with confidence is that is appears to be fully deterministic, at least from the level of atomic matter up but we cannot rule out the possibility of some randomness or unknown factors.  But just because we do not know everything does not licence us to play head games with logic.  Any event that occurs is either a consequential outcome or it isn't, it is a binary question with only one of two possible answers, yes or no.  if it isn't a consequence of something else then it is random by definition.  Whether the causal event is physical or immaterial or fast or blue or bigger than a stream train makes no difference to the binariness of the question, the ensuing event is either a deterministic consequence or a random event.  Your insistence that 'will' constitutes some third possible answer to a yes or no question is just irrational, it is incredulity where there could be principled thinking and understanding.  It is not possible to conceive of an event which is not a consequence without being random because that is what 'not a consequence' means.

But the implication of physically controlled determinism does not reflect reality.  You can't shoehorn reality to fit in with the limitations of presuming that everything is entirely the consequence endless chains of physically predefined cause and effect.

The reality is that human creativity, imagination and free thought implies a form of determinism which does not have its origins in the endless chains of uncontrollable physical reactions, but in a non physical source which gives us the conscious freedom we all enjoy.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Continued avoidance of the reasoning that undoes you noted. Your incredulity is not a rebuttal.

But your reasoning is obviously flawed.  Badly flawed.  Because it fails to give you the conscious ability to reason!

[Alan Burns]

The above post tells me that you seem totally unable to argue against the logic and arguments ranged against you or else you would have made some attempt to deal with them.

Without my God given gift of the power of freewill, I would be unable to consciously come up with any arguments or reasoning, because I would be entirely controlled by something over which I have no personal control.

[Sebastian Toe]

Without my God given gift of the power of freewill, I would be unable to consciously come up with any arguments or reasoning, because I would be entirely controlled by something over which I have no personal control.

Thank you for showing  the workings of a biological brain making choices entirely under deterministic principles with no magic, logic free, fantasy ridden soul required.

[Alan Burns]

You really don't get it, do you!

Your thinking is determined (not 'predetermined) by both your capacity to think and any matters that are occupying your thoughts: an obvious example is your use of language as you mull. Here's a thought experiment to try: have a go at thinking a random thought that doesn't flow from any existing knowledge you have, doesn't require familiar language and terminology, doesn't involve your personal traits or any events in the history of your experiences, or is isolated from any prevailing circumstances.

I've tried - and I've come to the view that anything I think about involves mental antecedents, circumstances and probably personal biases I'm not fully aware of. Even trying to have a go at not thinking anything at all seems to involve thoughts about trying not to think anything.

Face it Alan: we are both biological robots adrift in a deterministic universe, and while we may have a degree of freedom to act we are never wholly free from a wide range of influences and antecedents - which is just as well, since if it were otherwise we'd be living chaotic lives.   

"I've tried - and I've come to the view that anything I think about involves mental antecedents ...."

But in order to consciously try anything, or think anything, something must be capable of invoking whatever is needed to start the process of trying or thinking.  Within the physically predetermined electro chemical activity of the human brain there can be no mechanism for consciously invoking any action of trying.  Everything will be entirely predetermined by physically driven consequences to previous physical reactions.  Everything will become an unavoidable reaction.  This is not reality.

[Roses]

Without my God given gift of the power of freewill, I would be unable to consciously come up with any arguments or reasoning, because I would be entirely controlled by something over which I have no personal control.

The god of your imagination has set you up, if it really exists. It must be having a laugh at your expense as you try to explain your so called 'reasoning' on this topic, which most posters have rejected because it is lacking in logic.

[torridon]

But the implication of physically controlled determinism does not reflect reality.  You can't shoehorn reality to fit in with the limitations of presuming that everything is entirely the consequence endless chains of physically predefined cause and effect.

The reality is that human creativity, imagination and free thought implies a form of determinism which does not have its origins in the endless chains of uncontrollable physical reactions, but in a non physical source which gives us the conscious freedom we all enjoy.

We cannot control determinism, physically, mentally, slowly, quickly or anyhowly, the idea makes no sense.  Determinism is a principal of logic. Do you think there would be physically controlled arithmetic or algebra ?

Human creativity, imagination and free thought are not forms of determinism, they are phenomena of nature and their existence in themselves do not provide evidence that nature is not deterministic.  If you can come up with an example of, say, a choice you made that was not made for any reason without being random then you might might have a case against the deterministic account of mind. You have never done that, and you cannot ever do that, because the proposition is inherently self-contradictory : 'for no reason' means random.   This is the simple logic for which you have no answer other than repeated incredulity.  Simply claiming a soul as the engine of decision making does not eliminate those endless chains of cause and effect that you can't seem to get your head round.

[Alan Burns]

The god of your imagination has set you up, if it really exists. It must be having a laugh at your expense as you try to explain your so called 'reasoning' on this topic, which most posters have rejected because it is lacking in logic.

My critics could not consciously reject anything if they did not have the God given freedom to do so.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But your reasoning is obviously flawed.  Badly flawed.  Because it fails to give you the conscious ability to reason!

First, your previous post contained a string of fallacies and errors of fact that I took the time to correct. You just ignored the corrections.

Why?

Second, it doesn't fail "to give you the conscious ability to reason!" at all for reasons that have been explained to you countess times and that you continue to ignore. At one level of abstraction we reason and decide all the time - about whether to have tea or coffee for example. Your Grand Canyon-sized problem though is that by "ability" you actually mean something like untethered from prior events but not random either. The first few times you tried it it was just a mistake. Once it was corrected for you many times and you ignored the correction you were dishonest. Now though you're just plain blind to reason.

The day-to-day experience of "free" will is only that - a day-to-day experience. If ever though you you could finally bring yourself actually to think as you claim to be able to do, you'd see that deeper and more profound levels of reality than "that's how it feels to me" must give you a different answer.

The problem with that though is that it would wash away at the sand foundations of your entire belief system, so you think it better to look idiotic on a message board than t risk that happening.

Sad really.
           

[Alan Burns]

  If you can come up with an example of, say, a choice you made that was not made for any reason without being random ...

The reason behind my choices is determined by my consciously driven human will.  If it was a consequence of physical reactions, it would not be a consciously driven choice, just an inevitable reaction.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

My critics could not consciously reject anything if they did not have the God given freedom to do so.

But your god would not have been able to do that if the unicorns of Alpha Centauri had not granted him the freedom to do so.

See, that's the thing when you post mindless bollocks in place of argument - others can do it with mindless bollocks of their own too.

[torridon]

"I've tried - and I've come to the view that anything I think about involves mental antecedents ...."

But in order to consciously try anything, or think anything, something must be capable of invoking whatever is needed to start the process of trying or thinking.  Within the physically predetermined electro chemical activity of the human brain there can be no mechanism for consciously invoking any action of trying.  Everything will be entirely predetermined by physically driven consequences to previous physical reactions.  Everything will become an unavoidable reaction.  This is not reality.

The thinking and trying is a consequence of things that led to the desire.  What is so hard about this ?  When a wolf tries to bring down a buffalo, there will be reasons for that, it will not be a random event.  The wolf's attempt derives from its hunger, from its desire to provide food for its pups etc.  There are, in reality, always antecedents, or certainly at the level of living things

[Roses]

My critics could not consciously reject anything if they did not have the God given freedom to do so.

Oh AB I feel so sorry for you. You are so indoctrinated you seem unable to see how flawed your views are! The vile RCC has a lot to answer for.

[torridon]

The reason behind my choices is determined by my consciously driven human will.  If it was a consequence of physical reactions, it would not be a consciously driven choice, just an inevitable reaction.

So, if there was 'a reason behind your choice' that defines it as not random, therefore this is not an example of a choice made for no reason without being random.

In reality, there would be antecedents for antecedents and antecedents for them also, otherwise, there would be randomness in the world of human choices and human civilisation would not be possible.  An underlying determinism is necessary for a functioning society.

[Alan Burns]

At one level of abstraction we reason and decide all the time - about whether to have tea or coffee for example. Your Grand Canyon-sized problem though is that by "ability" you actually mean something like untethered from prior events but not random either. The first few times you tried it it was just a mistake. Once it was corrected for you many times and you ignored the correction you were dishonest. Now though you're just plain blind to reason.

The day-to-day experience of "free" will is only that - a day-to-day experience. If ever though you you could finally bring yourself actually to think as you claim to be able to do, you'd see that deeper and more profound levels of reality than "that's how it feels to me" must give you a different answer.

You imply that there are two levels of abstraction.  One in which we perceive our ability to reason and make conscious choices, and a lower level which implies that these perceptions must be illusionary.

Can you not envisage the possibility that your perceptions of reasoning and choice are real, and that it is your flawed reasoning that leads you to believe that these perceptions are an illusion?  The fact that you are able to consciously reason is surely evidence that you comprise more than physically driven material reactions can ever achieve?

[Alan Burns]

The thinking and trying is a consequence of things that led to the desire.  What is so hard about this ?  When a wolf tries to bring down a buffalo, there will be reasons for that, it will not be a random event.  The wolf's attempt derives from its hunger, from its desire to provide food for its pups etc.  There are, in reality, always antecedents, or certainly at the level of living things

You can't compare human creativity and abstract thinking with pre programmed animal instincts.

[Alan Burns]

Oh AB I feel so sorry for you. You are so indoctrinated you seem unable to see how flawed your views are! The vile RCC has a lot to answer for.

And I feel sorry for those who do not appreciate the amazing gift of human freewill and presume that they are nothing more than biological robots with no choices of their own.

[wigginhall]

As torridon said, determinism provides a vital underlying structure to society and to life.   If we didn't know that X follows Y, there would be chaos, in fact, there wouldn't be anything.   Trying to isolate some areas that are not subject to determinism is the province of magic, well, then anything goes.   The sun is carried across the sky by a winged chariot, you know it makes sense.

[Alan Burns]

So, if there was 'a reason behind your choice' that defines it as not random, therefore this is not an example of a choice made for no reason without being random.

In reality, there would be antecedents for antecedents and antecedents for them also, otherwise, there would be randomness in the world of human choices and human civilisation would not be possible.  An underlying determinism is necessary for a functioning society.

I have never claimed that we can make choices for no reason.

We all have the freedom to choose between feasible options.  A choice which may well be influenced by antecedents, but not entirely controlled by them, otherwise it becomes an unavoidable reaction to antecedents.

[Alan Burns]

As torridon said, determinism provides a vital underlying structure to society and to life.   If we didn't know that X follows Y, there would be chaos, in fact, there wouldn't be anything.   Trying to isolate some areas that are not subject to determinism is the province of magic, well, then anything goes.   The sun is carried across the sky by a winged chariot, you know it makes sense.

Everything in our physical universe is subject to determinism.  But physically driven determinism will allow no freedom to facilitate conscious control, manipulation, choice or deliberation because everything will comprise inevitable uncontrollable physically defined reactions to previous events.  Our freedom to think, choose, control, manipulate etc must be derived from something which is not constrained by the physical laws of material science over which we can have no control.  Our freedom to consciously control our thoughts, word and actions must originate from a power beyond this physically predetermined material universe.  The power of the human soul can consciously perceive and interact with this universe, but this consciously driven freedom can't be part of this material universe.

[wigginhall]

Yes, magic.

[torridon]

You can't compare human creativity and abstract thinking with pre programmed animal instincts.

Of course you can compare; that doesn't imply that all species are equal, but all species are related and have related physical and mental function.  The fundamentals of the basic emotions are common to all mammals, such as the translation of hunger to a response in seeking food.  Humans have extended abilities for abstraction and that is an adaptation that evolved from our arboreal ancestors.  That isn't magic.