Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

By using the term "the freedom you perceive" you are obviously implying that my perception of freedom is an illusion, because everything in our material universe comprises unavoidable reactions to past events, apart perhaps from some indeterminate quantum events which have no discernable cause.  The problem I have with your scenario is that the freedom I perceive is demonstrably real.  It is real because it allows me the conscious freedom to deliberately contradict your theories.  Can you define an ultimate cause for this deliberation?  Is there a naughty electron in my brain which is responsible?  If not, what is ultimately responsible for my deliberate choice to contradict your theories?  Your physically predetermined scenario has an ultimate cause which disappears into the oblivion of endless chains of cause and effect.  I believe the only feasible explanation for my freedom must emanate from a consciously driven power to invoke the cause of a series of physical events.  Of course if you try to define this consciously driven power in material terms you inevitably revert back to endless chains of physically predefined cause and effect in which there can be no freedom.

What is the evidence that your freedom to contradict is demonstrably real ?  Just because you contradict someone doesn't necessarily imply freedom.  All it really demonstrates is a desire to contradict, fulfilled.

Where is the evidence that is was a 'free' choice, rather than the indulgence of the desire of the moment ?

[torridon]

God or humans do not break natural laws - they consciously interact with them using the power of freewill to interact - not just react.

So when a dominant chimp controls its troupe, it is interacting with natural law, not breaking it ?

[Alan Burns]

What is the evidence that your freedom to contradict is demonstrably real ?  Just because you contradict someone doesn't necessarily imply freedom.  All it really demonstrates is a desire to contradict, fulfilled.

Where is the evidence that is was a 'free' choice, rather than the indulgence of the desire of the moment ?

Because I have the demonstrable freedom on how, when and where to indulge my desires.

[Alan Burns]

So when a dominant chimp controls its troupe, it is interacting with natural law, not breaking it ?

Can you not see any difference between instinctive, programmed behaviour and the demonstrable freedom we all enjoy as human beings?

[Roses]

Can you not see any difference between instinctive, programmed behaviour and the demonstrable freedom we all enjoy as human beings?

There isn't a difference, as we are an animal species too.

[torridon]

Because I have the demonstrable freedom on how, when and where to indulge my desires.

That's just a repetition of your previous assertion; you're going round in circles rather than engaging.

What is the evidence that your 'freedom' on how, when and where to indulge your desires is demonstrably real ?  Just because we can indulge our desires does not imply freedom from the 'uncontrollable' laws of nature.

A robin has the freedom to decide when, where, and how to build its nest.  Is it supernatural ?

[torridon]

Can you not see any difference between instinctive, programmed behaviour and the demonstrable freedom we all enjoy as human beings?

All higher creatures including humans display a range of behaviours that go beyond instinctive.  Brains learn as they go.  If you are defining freedom as freedom from instinct, then that is a sliding freedom, something that humans have more of, but it is not a question of have/have not.  Do you see that ?

[SusanDoris]

All higher creatures including humans display a range of behaviours that go beyond instinctive.  Brains learn as they go.  If you are defining freedom as freedom from instinct, then that is a sliding freedom, something that humans have more of, but it is not a question of have/have not.  Do you see that ?

Sadly, obstinately, predictably, pathetically, AB appears not to.
If, hidden away amongst all that religious mumbo-jumbo AB has a spark of recognition of reality, which would mean he could attempt a demonstration of what he calls demonstrable, then I can only assume it is rigorously suppressed.

[Gordon]

Can you not see any difference between instinctive, programmed behaviour and the demonstrable freedom we all enjoy as human beings?

The irony being, of course, that the only poster here who exhibits 'programmed behaviour' is you, Alan. 

[Alan Burns]

Sadly, obstinately, predictably, pathetically, AB appears not to.
If, hidden away amongst all that religious mumbo-jumbo AB has a spark of recognition of reality, which would mean he could attempt a demonstration of what he calls demonstrable, then I can only assume it is rigorously suppressed.

Our freedom to consciously contemplate reality is demonstrable and real, and unique to humans.  Without it we would never have the ability to engage in this debate.

[Alan Burns]

The irony being, of course, that the only poster here who exhibits 'programmed behaviour' is you, Alan.

As a developer of computer programs with over forty years experience, I can assure you, Gordon, that my thought patterns (and yours) are way beyond anything which could be achieved by programmed behaviour.

[torridon]

Our freedom to consciously contemplate reality is demonstrable and real.  Without it we would never have the ability to engage in this debate.

But what is there to suggest that a supernatural ability ?

[torridon]

As a developer of computer programs with over forty years experience, I can assure you, Gordon, that my thought patterns (and yours) are way beyond anything which could be achieved by programmed behaviour.

Another mere assertion, which we can ignore since you never come up with any justification.

[Roses]

As a developer of computer programs with over forty years experience, I can assure you, Gordon, that my thought patterns (and yours) are way beyond anything which could be achieved by programmed behaviour.

In your opinion. It might surprise you to know that chimps can use computers and play games on them, as well as young child. I have been reading some articles on the topic.

[Alan Burns]

But what is there to suggest that a supernatural ability ?

Can you demonstrate what comprises our contemplation of reality in material terms?

[Alan Burns]

In your opinion. It might surprise you to know that chimps can use computers and play games on them, as well as young child. I have been reading some articles on the topic.

I have no doubt that they can be trained to press buttons and move a mouse to interact with a screen, but can they develop computers? Can they write game programs?

[torridon]

Can you demonstrate what comprises our contemplation of reality in material terms?

We haven't got to the stage where we can read people's thoughts with high definition using technology, but the basis is there.  Mind reading and mind writing technology are on the horizon, and this would not be possible without an understanding of the material basis of mental states.

We don't need neuroscience to reveal that thinking is physical work - things like mental exhaustion, after exams, say, is part of our common experience.

What evidence is there that 'contemplation' etc is not a material activity ?

[Roses]

I have no doubt that they can be trained to press buttons and move a mouse to interact with a screen, but can they develop computers? Can they write game programs?

Apparently they can play computers games well, and if they can do that, maybe they will eventually learn how to programme computers. 


Possibly in the future chimps will attend school, and some might even go onto university.

[torridon]

I have no doubt that they can be trained to press buttons and move a mouse to interact with a screen, but can they develop computers? Can they write game programs?

Chimps might not match us in that regard.  Nonetheless, they outperform humans in some cognitive tests.  That demonstrates the diversity of types of cognition across species.  Does that justify the claim that humans must be supernatural ?

[Alan Burns]

We haven't got to the stage where we can read people's thoughts with high definition using technology, but the basis is there.  Mind reading and mind writing technology are on the horizon, and this would not be possible without an understanding of the material basis of mental states.

We don't need neuroscience to reveal that thinking is physical work - things like mental exhaustion, after exams, say, is part of our common experience.

What evidence is there that 'contemplation' etc is not a material activity ?

Even if you can define a thought pattern in terms of material particles, you have the problem of defining what it is that can perceive the thought pattern.

[Gordon]

As a developer of computer programs with over forty years experience, I can assure you, Gordon, that my thought patterns (and yours) are way beyond anything which could be achieved by programmed behaviour.

When it comes to what goes on here, Alan, your programming does seem rather predictable:

Press button A for 'God's gift of free will'

Press button B for 'Can't be defined within the physically predetermined behaviour of material element'

Press button C for 'There can be no control in a physically predetermined scenario - just automated reactions'

etc etc

[Roses]

When it comes to what goes on here, Alan, your programming does seem rather predictable:

Press button A for 'God's gift of free will'

Press button B for 'Can't be defined within the physically predetermined behaviour of material element'

Press button C for 'There can be no control in a physically predetermined scenario - just automated reactions'

etc etc

Nice one! I reckon a chimp would do better than AB!

[Alan Burns]

When it comes to what goes on here, Alan, your programming does seem rather predictable:

Press button A for 'God's gift of free will'

Press button B for 'Can't be defined within the physically predetermined behaviour of material element'

Press button C for 'There can be no control in a physically predetermined scenario - just automated reactions'

etc etc

I keep having to repeat such basic truths because I am called to witness to the truth.

[torridon]

Even if you can define a thought pattern in terms of material particles, you have the problem of defining what it is that can perceive the thought pattern.

I don't think we 'perceive' our thoughts; we have thoughts, we experience thoughts.  Concepts of self may be slippery, see triggers broom, but does that justify us regressing back into magical thinking ?  Understanding reality may challenge us, but where is the justification that difficult things are supernatural ?

[torridon]

I keep having to repeat such basic truths because I am called to witness to the truth.

Appearing like a mindless bot, regurgitating bald and baseless assertions hardly demonstrates divine inspiration.  Quite the opposite.  If I had a supernatural agent on my side I would be coming up with mind blowing original material that would take everyone's breath away.