Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But what you are doing is to deliberately ignore any evidence outside the scope of what can be discovered from human scientific investigation.

It’s not only “scientific” investigation, it’s just investigation by any method – and if you can’t investigate something you have no business calling it evidence. Why is this so difficult for you?

You ignore the evidence of your own free will and presume it is an illusion.

See above. If you want to call the experience of “free” will evidence for the explanation for it then you need some method to investigate that claim. I asked you in my last post how you would do that but, as ever, you just ignored the question. Why?

Your freewill is not evidence of leprechauns or fairies.

No-one says that it is. Nor though is the experience of it evidence for anything else either, other than that that’s only how the experience feels on a day-to-day basis.

It is evidence of what comprises and defines you.  You are far more than an emergent property of physically predetermined electro chemical activity.

So you assert again despite the total lack of evidence to support the claim. Your stunt of calling something “demonstrable” when you can’t demonstrate it, “obvious” when there’s nothing obvious about it at all etc just makes you look foolish or worse. You’ve been given every opportunity to put some flesh on the bones of, “here’s a story I find comforting so I choose to believe it to be true” with some actual argument and actual evidence, yet you always spurn the chance. Why then should your relentless avoidance not be taken to mean that you have neither reason nor evidence to support you?

[Alan Burns]

So you assert again despite the total lack of evidence to support the claim. Your stunt of calling something “demonstrable” when you can’t demonstrate it, “obvious” when there’s nothing obvious about it at all etc just makes you look foolish or worse. You’ve been given every opportunity to put some flesh on the bones of, “here’s a story I find comforting so I choose to believe it to be true” with some actual argument and actual evidence, yet you always spurn the chance. Why then should your relentless avoidance not be taken to mean that you have neither reason nor evidence to support you?

Why would I need to seek evidence in order to verify my obvious freedom to be able to choose to seek such evidence?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Why would I need to seek evidence in order to verify my obvious freedom to be able to choose to seek such evidence?

For the same reason a thinking person would seek evidence for any other experience of something also being the explanation for it. We experience all sorts of things that superficially also seem to provide explanations for them, but that reason and evidence reveal not to be the explanations at all. What makes the experience of "free" will so special for you that it's exempt from basic investigation of any kind?   

[Alan Burns]

AB,

For the same reason a thinking person would seek evidence for any other experience of something also being the explanation for it. We experience all sorts of things that superficially also seem to provide explanations for them, but that reason and evidence reveal not to be the explanations at all. What makes the experience of "free" will so special for you that it's exempt from basic investigation of any kind?

But what initiates the act to deliberately seek evidence?  And what drives the acts of deliberation involved in consciously collating and analysing evidence?

How can you possibly justify these acts of conscious deliberation to be entirely driven within our subconscious brain activity before we become aware of it?

Can you not see that this process of consciously driven investigation offers substantial evidence that we can consciously drive our own thought processes?  And that we need to seek how this conscious freedom to drive our own thoughts comes about rather than try to dismiss it as an illusion of freedom in order to comply with our limited human knowledge of reality?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But what initiates the act to deliberately seek evidence?  And what drives the acts of deliberation involved in consciously collating and analysing evidence?

How can you possibly justify these acts of conscious deliberation to be entirely driven within our subconscious brain activity before we become aware of it?

Can you not see that this process of consciously driven investigation offers substantial evidence that we can consciously drive our own thought processes?  And that we need to seek how this conscious freedom to drive our own thoughts comes about rather than try to dismiss it as an illusion of freedom in order to comply with our limited human knowledge of reality?

Why have you just ignored the explanation I gave to you for why you cannot claim evidence for an explanatory narrative when you have no means to validate it? Start with that and there’ll be something to talk about. When you try the argument from personal incredulity again and introduce “initiators” and “drivers” to fill the gaps though you’ve already crashed and burned.

Slowly now – can you finally see that you cannot claim the status of evidence for a supposedly explanatory story when you have no method to test the claim it makes? 

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Why have you just ignored the explanation I gave to you for why you cannot claim evidence for an explanatory narrative when you have no means to validate it?

Our consciously driven freedom to make choices is validated by what we do.
Just as the presence of gravity is verified by what it does.

[Gordon]

Our consciously driven freedom to make choices is validated by what we do.

By what measure do you determine validation?

Just as the presence of gravity is verified by what it does.

Gravity isn't a choice though: seems like you're going down the false equivalence route now (which is yet another fallacy).

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Our consciously driven freedom to make choices is validated by what we do.

Still ducking and diving then. "Our consciously driven freedom to make choices" as you put it would feel the same whether the experience of it wasn't the explanation for it, or whether there was a magic little man at the controls.

Why then not even bother with trying to think about what the actual explanation for it could be?

Just as the presence of gravity is verified by what it does.

 

Another failure. We experience gravity, just as we experience "free" will. If we relied on our experience of gravity to explain it too though we might for example decide that it's done by invisible pixies holding stuff down with very thin strings. Investigation though tells us that gravity is the phenomenon by which things with mass or energy are brought toward one another, caused by the bending of spacetime. Thus no pixies are needed.

What you do with the experience of "free" will is equivalent to deciding that invisible pixies explain gravity, only instead of pixies you assert into existence "soul" to do the job. That's why if you have any hope of finding a more cogent truth you need to investigate the phenomenon, rather than just assume that the experience of something must also be the explanation for it. 

A good place to start would be to stop endlessly running away from the question you've been asked and finally to attempt at least an answer to it.   

[Alan Burns]

Another failure. We experience gravity, just as we experience "free" will. If we relied on our experience of gravity to explain it too though we might for example decide that it's done by invisible pixies holding stuff down with very thin strings. Investigation though tells us that gravity is the phenomenon by which things with mass or energy are brought toward one another, caused by the bending of spacetime. Thus no pixies are needed.

What you do with the experience of "free" will is equivalent to deciding that invisible pixies explain gravity, only instead of pixies you assert into existence "soul" to do the job. That's why if you have any hope of finding a more cogent truth you need to investigate the phenomenon, rather than just assume that the experience of something must also be the explanation for it. 

We do not know how gravity works or how it originates - we just know it exists by what it does.  We experience it by observation.  It is not an illusion.

We do not know how an act of free will works or how it originates, but we know it exists because we can invoke it to do what we consciously choose to do.  Everyone experiences it.  It is not an illusion.

Pixies are irrelevant.

[Gordon]

We do not know how gravity works or how it originates - we just know it exists by what it does.  We experience it by observation.  It is not an illusion.

We do not know how an act of free will works or how it originates, but we know it exists because we can invoke it to do what we consciously choose to do.  Everyone experiences it.  It is not an illusion.

You're begging the question again, Alan, which negates what you say here.

Pixies are irrelevant.

Sounds like you're an apixeist: presumably you are unconvinced by claims of pixies, just as others are unconvinced by claims of 'God'.   

[BeRational]

We do not know how gravity works or how it originates - we just know it exists by what it does.  We experience it by observation.  It is not an illusion.

We do not know how an act of free will works or how it originates, but we know it exists because we can invoke it to do what we consciously choose to do.  Everyone experiences it.  It is not an illusion.

Pixies are irrelevant.

Why are pixies irrelevant?

They could explain everything you see that gravity does.

They are sufficient to explain gravity

[Alan Burns]

Why are pixies irrelevant?

They could explain everything you see that gravity does.

They are sufficient to explain gravity

I do not need to explain human freewill.  I just use it.
I know that it can't possibly be derived entirely from predetermined physical reactions, because such an explanation would deny the reality of my freedom to think, choose and act.  Nothing could possibly induce me to deny this freedom.

[Sebastian Toe]

Nothing could possibly induce me to deny this freedom.

...not even facts?
Probably not!

[torridon]

I do not need to explain human freewill.  I just use it.
I know that it can't possibly be derived entirely from predetermined physical reactions, because such an explanation would deny the reality of my freedom to think, choose and act.  Nothing could possibly induce me to deny this freedom.

It's quite simple really.  We have the 'freedom' to act on our desires, but we don't have the freedom to choose which desires to have.

So, how free is that ?

[torridon]

We do not know how an act of free will works or how it originates, but we know it exists because we can invoke it to do what we consciously choose to do.  Everyone experiences it.  It is not an illusion.

Here is the problem in claiming 'experience' of freedom : freedom is not a thing, it is an absence of a thing.  Failure to recognise that lies at the heart of the free will debate.  Freedom is not a thing that can exist in itself, it is not a power that we can invoke, rather it is our conceptualisation of the absence of factors that could otherwise obstruct us acting on our desires.  I might feel free to say this or that because we have 'free speech', in other words, there is no legislation stopping me from expressing myself.  But it makes little sense to claim that I am invoking the absence of repressive counter-legislation every time I speak.  These are the reasons why the feeling of freedom arises, it is out of the knowledge that we operate without external coercion in contexts where coercion could easily exist and we are glad of that.

However it never bothers us that we are not free of ourselves; we don't want to be other than our selves, so the corresponding feeling of gladness at the lack of freedom to be other than our selves never arises.  So, we can never be free of being ourselves and that fact never bothers us.

[SusanDoris]

Here is the problem in claiming 'experience' of freedom : freedom is not a thing, it is an absence of a thing.  Failure to recognise that lies at the heart of the free will debate.  Freedom is not a thing that can exist in itself, it is not a power that we can invoke, rather it is our conceptualisation of the absence of factors that could otherwise obstruct us acting on our desires.  I might feel free to say this or that because we have 'free speech', in other words, there is no legislation stopping me from expressing myself.  But it makes little sense to claim that I am invoking the absence of repressive counter-legislation every time I speak.  These are the reasons why the feeling of freedom arises, it is out of the knowledge that we operate without external coercion in contexts where coercion could easily exist and we are glad of that.

However it never bothers us that we are not free of ourselves; we don't want to be other than our selves, so the corresponding feeling of gladness at the lack of freedom to be other than our selves never arises.  So, we can never be free of being ourselves and that fact never bothers us.

Resounding applause - definitely one for the 'best posts' thread.

And of course it'll go right through AB's head without registering anything on the way!

[Alan Burns]

It's quite simple really.  We have the 'freedom' to act on our desires, but we don't have the freedom to choose which desires to have.

So, how free is that ?

As I have said several times, I do not choose my desires, but I do have freedom to choose how, when and where to indulge those desires - or I may choose not to indulge.  I have the freedom to choose.

[Alan Burns]

Resounding applause - definitely one for the 'best posts' thread.

And of course it'll go right through AB's head without registering anything on the way!

Torri obviously wrote what you want to hear, Susan.

But looking at Torri's very well thought out response, it surely indicates his profound ability to deliberately choose the words and phrases which support his point of view.  Where does this deliberate choice originate?  What is the source for these carefully chosen words?  According to Torri's belief it all happened in his predetermined sub conscious brain activity before he was consciously aware of it.  Do you see the problem?

[Maeght]

Torri obviously wrote what you want to hear, Susan.

But looking at Torri's very well thought out response, it surely indicates his profound ability to deliberately choose the words and phrases which support his point of view.  Where does this deliberate choice originate?  What is the source for these carefully chosen words?  According to Torri's belief it all happened in his predetermined sub conscious brain activity before he was consciously aware of it.  Do you see the problem?

There is no problem.

[ekim]

Here is the problem in claiming 'experience' of freedom : freedom is not a thing, it is an absence of a thing.  Failure to recognise that lies at the heart of the free will debate.  Freedom is not a thing that can exist in itself, it is not a power that we can invoke, rather it is our conceptualisation of the absence of factors that could otherwise obstruct us acting on our desires.  I might feel free to say this or that because we have 'free speech', in other words, there is no legislation stopping me from expressing myself.  But it makes little sense to claim that I am invoking the absence of repressive counter-legislation every time I speak.  These are the reasons why the feeling of freedom arises, it is out of the knowledge that we operate without external coercion in contexts where coercion could easily exist and we are glad of that.

However it never bothers us that we are not free of ourselves; we don't want to be other than our selves, so the corresponding feeling of gladness at the lack of freedom to be other than our selves never arises.  So, we can never be free of being ourselves and that fact never bothers us.

I think your first paragraph is fair enough.  One could say 'free from', a more relative expression, rather than 'freedom' which seems more absolute e.g. free from prison.  I think your second paragraph goes against what is at the basis of many religious practices and which is about being free from 'self' considerations or selfishness, self aggrandisement, self centeredness etc.  To relate this to the topic, the Jesus method was to self sacrifice by surrendering to a higher power which promotes unity or oneness as opposed to the divisiveness of 'self' centred concerns which plague the planet.

[BeRational]

I do not need to explain human freewill.  I just use it.
I know that it can't possibly be derived entirely from predetermined physical reactions, because such an explanation would deny the reality of my freedom to think, choose and act.  Nothing could possibly induce me to deny this freedom.

How can you know this?

Do you know everything?

[Sebastian Toe]

Torri obviously wrote what you want to hear, Susan.

But looking at Torri's very well thought out response, it surely indicates his profound ability to deliberately choose the words and phrases which support his point of view.  Where does this deliberate choice originate?  What is the source for these carefully chosen words?  According to Torri's belief it all happened in his predetermined sub conscious brain activity before he was consciously aware of it.  Do you see the problem?

Torri's well thought out response being due to the workings of a biological brain making choices entirely under deterministic principles with no magic, logic free, fantasy ridden soul required
Your response, ditto.

[Alan Burns]

Here is the problem in claiming 'experience' of freedom : freedom is not a thing, it is an absence of a thing.  Failure to recognise that lies at the heart of the free will debate.  Freedom is not a thing that can exist in itself, it is not a power that we can invoke, rather it is our conceptualisation of the absence of factors that could otherwise obstruct us acting on our desires.  I might feel free to say this or that because we have 'free speech', in other words, there is no legislation stopping me from expressing myself.  But it makes little sense to claim that I am invoking the absence of repressive counter-legislation every time I speak.  These are the reasons why the feeling of freedom arises, it is out of the knowledge that we operate without external coercion in contexts where coercion could easily exist and we are glad of that.

However it never bothers us that we are not free of ourselves; we don't want to be other than our selves, so the corresponding feeling of gladness at the lack of freedom to be other than our selves never arises.  So, we can never be free of being ourselves and that fact never bothers us.

Thanks for this thought provoking response.

The word "freedom" is meaningless until it is applied to something specific.  Nothing is totally free from constraints, and in the case of our freedom to choose we need to recognise the nature of our constraints.  You version of freedom would appear to be the absence of external constraints - such as a gag to prevent speech or a tethered chain to prevent walking.  If the gag is removed, I will be free to talk, but I will also be free to choose what to say.  If the chain is removed, I will be free to walk, but I will also be free to choose my direction and speed.  I agree we can't be free of ourselves and our desires, but we each have freedom within ourselves to choose how, when and where to indulge our desires.

[torridon]

As I have said several times, I do not choose my desires, but I do have freedom to choose how, when and where to indulge those desires - or I may choose not to indulge.  I have the freedom to choose.

That is self contradictory though.  The choice of how, when and where to indulge our desires itself comes down to the same thing in principal - it is also a desire, or a competition between desires and the resolution of the choice reflects the uppermost desire in that context at the time.  This is how minds evolved to resolve choice, a simple (ultimately) weighing up of rival options on a scale of emotional appeal.  Your notion that we cannot choose which desires to have but on the other hand we can choose which desires to enact is an irrational self contradiction which would leave humans in permanent indecision were that the case.  The same founding principal must apply at all scales, not just at a broad brush scale.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

That is self contradictory though.  The choice of how, when and where to indulge our desires itself comes down to the same thing in principal - it is also a desire, or a competition between desires and the resolution of the choice reflects the uppermost desire in that context at the time.  This is how minds evolved to resolve choice, a simple (ultimately) weighing up of rival options on a scale of emotional appeal.  Your notion that we cannot choose which desires to have but on the other hand we can choose which desires to enact is an irrational self contradiction which would leave humans in permanent indecision were that the case.  The same founding principal must apply at all scales, not just at a broad brush scale.

Just to clarify, are you arguing that all choices are resolved based on a scale of emotional appeal? For example, my mind resolves the choice of rival options such as whether to be a theist or atheist using a scale of emotional appeal?