Searching for GOD...

[Sriram]

How do you know it isn't detectable by human scientific investigation, at least in principle? You don't

If, as I believe, human consciousness and agency is an emergent property of the organisation of the brain, it is, in principle (but not currently in practice), possible to predict your choices by observing the activity of your neurones. What happens when we invent the brain scanning helmet, put it on your head and can predict all your choices before observing you making them?

This has some points...

1. It creates a loop. If you observe yourself taking a decision that you have no choice taking, you can also change it.... which means you then have a choice....

2. It also shows that 'we' can be independent of ourselves and observe ourselves taking decisions (predetermined or otherwise). This is the 'observer' that many spiritual people talk about. You are getting there!

3. We are in fact talking of the Unconscious mind that takes decisions seconds before we become aware of it. Are the actions of the Unconscious mind predetermined? How do we know?

[torridon]

This has some points...

1. It creates a loop. If you observe yourself taking a decision that you have no choice taking, you can also change it.... which means you then have a choice....

2. It also shows that 'we' can be independent of ourselves and observe ourselves taking decisions (predetermined or otherwise). This is the 'observer' that many spiritual people talk about. You are getting there!

3. We are in fact talking of the Unconscious mind that takes decisions seconds before we become aware of it. Are the actions of the Unconscious mind predetermined? How do we know?

That is not quite true to Jeremy's thought experiment - in which it is the researcher observing who sees the choice being made, not the volunteer with the helmet on.

In fact, research similar to this has already been done in cognitive science, one such demonstrated that the volunteer clearly believed they had made a choice entirely through their own volition, when in fact the choice had been induced by the researcher using equipment.  This demonstrates that feelings of agency and ownership of decision making in conscious mind are constituents of a constructed self.  We never get to see, know, or understand the raw data that a conscious self is derived from, 'knowing' and 'understanding' being phenomena of conscious mind.

[SteveH]

Just a tentative thought, so spare me the usual laboured sarcasm, but might consciousness and self-awareness, and the capacity for abstract thought, as emergent properties of the highly-complex human brain, offer a bit of wriggle-room between determinism and randomness?

[Gordon]

This has some points...

1. It creates a loop. If you observe yourself taking a decision that you have no choice taking, you can also change it.... which means you then have a choice....

I don't 'observe myself' taking decisions: I am simply aware that I need to decide something and that there are factors, options and/or consequences to consider before coming to a choice. 

2. It also shows that 'we' can be independent of ourselves and observe ourselves taking decisions (predetermined or otherwise). This is the 'observer' that many spiritual people talk about. You are getting there!

It doesn't show that at all: I am not independent of myself, and suspect that these spiritual people are over-egging the pudding.

3. We are in fact talking of the Unconscious mind that takes decisions seconds before we become aware of it. Are the actions of the Unconscious mind predetermined? How do we know?

We don't know: that is inherently the nature of unconscious processes.

[torridon]

Just a tentative thought, so spare me the usual laboured sarcasm, but might consciousness and self-awareness, and the capacity for abstract thought, as emergent properties of the highly-complex human brain, offer a bit of wriggle-room between determinism and randomness?

The answer to the question, 'why did that happen', and questions like it, can only be answered in terms of, ultimately, there was a reason for it, or there wasn't.  Any event is either attributable to cause or it isn't.  It is a binary, yes or no, true or false situation.  If there is no causal reason, then it is by definition, random.  The idea of wriggle room in a conceptually binary question doesn't make any sense.

[Sriram]

That is not quite true to Jeremy's thought experiment - in which it is the researcher observing who sees the choice being made, not the volunteer with the helmet on.

In fact, research similar to this has already been done in cognitive science, one such demonstrated that the volunteer clearly believed they had made a choice entirely through their own volition, when in fact the choice had been induced by the researcher using equipment.  This demonstrates that feelings of agency and ownership of decision making in conscious mind are constituents of a constructed self.  We never get to see, know, or understand the raw data that a conscious self is derived from, 'knowing' and 'understanding' being phenomena of conscious mind.

I can understand that the conscious mind may not be making decisions. The unconscious mind might be doing that. That in fact could raise questions about choice being predetermined.  Maybe parts of the unconscious mind are in some way free of the natural world, since it is much larger than the conscious mind and we don't know much about it.  That has been my point.

For this we may have to give up the old science impression that the unconscious mind is just a store house of repressed memories. From what many people such as Eagleman, Chalmers say, the unconscious mind could be far more complex and powerful....and there could even be a common unconscious mind.

So, real free choices could be introduced from the unconscious mind at some level.

[torridon]

I can understand that the conscious mind may not be making decisions. The unconscious mind might be doing that. That in fact could raise questions about choice being predetermined.  Maybe parts of the unconscious mind are in some way free of the natural world, since it is much larger than the conscious mind and we don't know much about it.  That has been my point.

For this we may have to give up the old science impression that the unconscious mind is just a store house of repressed memories. From what many people such as Eagleman, Chalmers say, the unconscious mind could be far more complex and powerful....and there could even be a common unconscious mind.

So, real free choices could be introduced from the unconscious mind at some level.

Free of the natural world ? Absolutely not, quite the opposite, a mind that was free of relevant information would be incapable of making appropriate decisions. Such a mind would produce unintelligible random outcomes, and having such a mind would be a curse leading to early death.  Your unconscious mind is absolutely intimately wired up to its inputs.

[Sriram]

Free of the natural world ? Absolutely not, quite the opposite, a mind that was free of relevant information would be incapable of making appropriate decisions. Such a mind would produce unintelligible random outcomes, and having such a mind would be a curse leading to early death.  Your unconscious mind is absolutely intimately wired up to its inputs.

Why should it produce unintelligible random outcomes?  Maybe it can produce intelligent and considered choices. Like we play VR games.

[torridon]

Why should it produce unintelligible random outcomes?  Maybe it can produce intelligent and considered choices. Like we play VR games.

You will not make intelligent and considered choices if you are free of the relevant information.

[Roses]

We don't choose beliefs

I disagree. After holding out against the pressure I was under to 'give my heart to Jesus' as a child, I eventually made a conscious decision at the age of 11 to comply. It wasn't long before the doubts set in and I ditched my faith by my late teens.

[Gordon]

I disagree. After holding out against the pressure I was under to 'give my heart to Jesus' as a child, I eventually made a conscious decision at the age of 11 to comply. It wasn't long before the doubts set in and I ditched my faith by my late teens.

Could it be that you were complying with Christian beliefs, perhaps by paying lip-service, rather than actually believing in Christian doctrine?

Beliefs can't just be chosen: for example, I can't simply choose to believe that I live closer to London than I do to Edinburgh. To believe something you'd have to be convinced you were correct, but whether you were correct or not is another matter.

[Maeght]

I disagree. After holding out against the pressure I was under to 'give my heart to Jesus' as a child, I eventually made a conscious decision at the age of 11 to comply. It wasn't long before the doubts set in and I ditched my faith by my late teens.

Complying isn't believing. You can't choose to believe something.

[Roses]

Complying isn't believing. You can't choose to believe something.

I chose to believe in it even though I didn't want to do so.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

I can understand that the conscious mind may not be making decisions. The unconscious mind might be doing that. That in fact could raise questions about choice being predetermined.  Maybe parts of the unconscious mind are in some way free of the natural world, since it is much larger than the conscious mind and we don't know much about it.  That has been my point.

For this we may have to give up the old science impression that the unconscious mind is just a store house of repressed memories. From what many people such as Eagleman, Chalmers say, the unconscious mind could be far more complex and powerful....and there could even be a common unconscious mind.

So, real free choices could be introduced from the unconscious mind at some level.

You’re just repeating your same basic mistake in reasoning here. “…free of the natural world, since it is much larger than the conscious mind and we don't know much about it” is just an assumption you make, then claim that some people don’t realise the truth of it because they lack the special mental goggles to see it. 

Doesn’t wash though. If you want to demonstrate that there is a non-natural (whatever that would mean) then you have all your work ahead of you to do it. Just assuming its existence and asserting that the the reason others don't agree with your claim is somehow validated by the notion that they lack the “spirituality” or some such to see it is called begging the question.   

[Maeght]

I chose to believe in it even though I didn't want to do so.

You chose to try to believe more like.

[Roses]

You chose to try to believe more like.

You know nothing about it, I was very devout for a year or two, much to my embarrassment

[Maeght]

You know nothing about it, I was very devout for a year or two, much to my embarrassment

I am going by what you wrote and that you can't chose to believe something.

[Sriram]

You will not make intelligent and considered choices if you are free of the relevant information.

Why should the Unconscious mind be free of the relevant information?  I said it could be like a VR game.  In the VR game, the individual within the game is the Conscious mind and the one outside, playing the game, is the Unconscious mind.  It is all fixed and predetermined and yet quite free too.

For a person within the game it will seem as though some unconscious mind is making the decisions.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Why should the Unconscious mind be free of the relevant information?  I said it could be like a VR game.  In the VR game, the individual within the game is the Conscious mind and the one outside, playing the game, is the Unconscious mind.  It is all fixed and predetermined and yet quite free too.

For a person within the game it will seem as though some unconscious mind is making the decisions.

The locus of the decision making makes no difference. If the decision is that the volcano erupted because the volcano god was angry then, wherever the decision was made, it’s still a bad decision caused by insufficient or wrong information.   

[Roses]

I am going by what you wrote and that you can't chose to believe something.

I chose god for a while, my decision. In the same way in spite of the strangest ofexperiences I have had throughout my life, I have chosen to look for a natural explanation for them when most people would opt for a supernatural one.

[SteveH]

Of course there are limits to what you can choose to believe - I couldn't choose to believe that the earth is flat, even if I wanted to - but within limits, one certainly can choose one's beliefs: as I pointed out earlier, if belief or non-belief in something seems equally valid, one can choose to believe or not. I have a book called 'Religious Belief and the Will' by Louis P. Pojman which deals at length with this very question. I've had it for years, but have never got round to reading it. I will now do so, and report back.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Steve H,

Of course there are limits to what you can choose to believe - I couldn't choose to believe that the earth is flat, even if I wanted to - but within limits, one certainly can choose one's beliefs: as I pointed out earlier, if belief or non-belief in something seems equally valid, one can choose to believe or not. I have a book called 'Religious Belief and the Will' by Louis P. Pojman which deals at length with this very question. I've had it for years, but have never got round to reading it. I will now do so, and report back.

Why couldn't you choose to believe that the Earth is flat if you were given sufficient evidence to explain why the current paradigm fails?

[SteveH]

Steve H,

Why couldn't you choose to believe that the Earth is flat if you were given sufficient evidence to explain why the current paradigm fails?

I couldn't choose to believe it on the evidence available now, i.e. none.

[Robbie]

I chose god for a while, my decision. In the same way in spite of the strangest ofexperiences I have had throughout my life, I have chosen to look for a natural explanation for them when most people would opt for a supernatural one.

I disagree and believe most people would opt for a 'natural' explanation. The idea of the supernatural is quite frightening.

[Roses]

I disagree and believe most people would opt for a 'natural' explanation. The idea of the supernatural is quite frightening.

Religion is supernatural and many people believe in that! I suspect if you had the experiences I have had over the years, I suspect you might be thinking along the lines of the paranormal, but of course I could be wrong.