Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

correct -
the absolute impossibility of human self awareness and freedom of thought to be derived entirely from physically pre defined material reactions.

What strange assertions of personal faith you do make Alan. You'll never trouble to demonstrate why you think that to be an "absolute impossibility" though will you.

[torridon]

correct -
the absolute impossibility of human self awareness and freedom of thought to be derived entirely from physically pre defined material reactions.

So God creates a world for self awareness to happen in, but makes it absolutely impossible for it to happen.  Doh.  If I were a god I'd make it possible, not impossible.  I don't think I'll ever get my head round the impenetrable anti-logic of the religious mindset.

[Alan Burns]

So God creates a world for self awareness to happen in, but makes it absolutely impossible for it to happen.  Doh.  If I were a god I'd make it possible, not impossible.  I don't think I'll ever get my head round the impenetrable anti-logic of the religious mindset.

It is logical when you come to realise that awareness is not a material property.  It is illogical to presume that a single entity of awareness can somehow emerge from discrete material reactions.  Material reactions can induce other material reactions, but this does not constitute awareness.  An emergent property may be looked upon from outside observation as a single entity, but internally it is just a collection of discrete material reactions.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It is logical when you come to realise that awareness is not a material property.  It is illogical to presume that a single entity of awareness can somehow emerge from discrete material reactions.  Material reactions can induce other material reactions, but this does not constitute awareness.  An emergent property may be looked upon from outside observation as a single entity, but internally it is just a collection of discrete material reactions.

Would I be right to assume that you will never bother to explain why you think that entirely reason-free faith assertion to be true? 

[Gordon]

It is logical when you come to realise that awareness is not a material property.  It is illogical to presume that a single entity of awareness can somehow emerge from discrete material reactions.  Material reactions can induce other material reactions, but this does not constitute awareness.  An emergent property may be looked upon from outside observation as a single entity, but internally it is just a collection of discrete material reactions.

More mindless drivel, Alan, packed with a selection from your stock of grandiose phrases: we're missing 'God's gift of free will', but no doubt that will pop up again sometime soon.

[torridon]

It is logical when you come to realise that awareness is not a material property.  It is illogical to presume that a single entity of awareness can somehow emerge from discrete material reactions.  Material reactions can induce other material reactions, but this does not constitute awareness.  An emergent property may be looked upon from outside observation as a single entity, but internally it is just a collection of discrete material reactions.

Not illogical at all, given that is what the evidence suggests happens.  We just need to understand it, and magic explanations will not get us closer to a real understanding.

Is pain 'material' ?  When someone steps on my toe, I am aware of pain.   When someone steps on my dog's toe it is aware of its pain.  This is how all creatures avoid danger to life and limb.  Awareness is not magic, in some or other degree and quality, it is a ubiquitous phenomenon in nature; unless that is, you imagine that a god has privileged homo sapiens only with 'real' experience of pain whilst all other species are just carefully crafted automata designed to fool us all.

[Stranger]

It is logical when you come to realise that awareness is not a material property.  It is illogical to presume that a single entity of awareness can somehow emerge from discrete material reactions.  Material reactions can induce other material reactions, but this does not constitute awareness.  An emergent property may be looked upon from outside observation as a single entity, but internally it is just a collection of discrete material reactions.

More logic- and evidence-free assertions.

You get that just calling things "logical" or "illogical" doesn't make it so, and that "illogical" doesn't mean "I can't personally see how this could happen", don't you?

[Walter]

AB,

Would I be right to assume that you will never bother to explain why you think that entirely reason-free faith assertion to be true?

blue,
don't risk your own sanity on this. AB lives with and prays to the fairies every week ,
If you cant see the fairies it's because you are a fairy , you don't know this yet. Look around you . Do people appear to act normally around you?
Yes? Then I can confirm you are a fairy

much as love to watch you in your pink mini skirt twirling and twerking, please prove to me you are not a fairy

omg

house mistress has ordered an underwear change  (why does she need to watch)??

[Alan Burns]

More logic- and evidence-free assertions.

You get that just calling things "logical" or "illogical" doesn't make it so, and that "illogical" doesn't mean "I can't personally see how this could happen", don't you?

Is it illogical to believe that human beings have the freedom to consciously choose their own thoughts, words and actions rather that the materialistic presumption that they are all just predefined reactions?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Is it illogical to believe that human beings have the freedom to consciously choose their own thoughts, words and actions rather that the materialistic presumption that they are all just predefined reactions?

Yes.

[torridon]

Is it illogical to believe that human beings have the freedom to consciously choose their own thoughts, words and actions rather that the materialistic presumption that they are all just predefined reactions?

it's not a 'materialistic presumption' and neither are they 'predefined', these are your old strawman phrases. The thoughts we have happen for a reason, the choices we make, we make for a reason.   This is logical, not illogical.  It is the claim of being 'free' that makes no sense.  You cannot be free of determining factors without being random.

[Gordon]

Is it illogical to believe that human beings have the freedom to consciously choose their own thoughts, words and actions.....

Indeed it is

..... rather that the materialistic presumption that they are all just predefined reactions?

Your incredulity is showing again, Alan.

[Stranger]

Is it illogical to believe that human beings have the freedom to consciously choose their own thoughts, words and actions rather that the materialistic presumption that they are all just predefined reactions?

In the way you mean, yes, for logical reasons that have nothing to do with anything "materialistic" and that have been explained to you endless times.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Is it illogical to believe that human beings have the freedom to consciously choose their own thoughts, words and actions....

Yes as is evidenced by looking at ourselves and other people. We make decisions according to our character. Something that is a product of our nature and nurture. I can accurately predict the reaction of people whose characters I know to any given situation.

If a loved one started to choose their thoughts to act completely out of character from one day to the next it would be a cause for concern. Wouldn't you agree?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Have a look at this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdTBqBnqhaQ

It's a video with nice examples of AI coming up with clever solutions to problems when the solutions themselves were not part of the starting parameters - that is to say, they emerged. This might give you a clue to the nature of consciousness as an emergent property rather than requiring an internally contradictory invisible magic man at the controls.   

[Alan Burns]

Yes as is evidenced by looking at ourselves and other people. We make decisions according to our character. Something that is a product of our nature and nurture. I can accurately predict the reaction of people whose characters I know to any given situation.

If a loved one started to choose their thoughts to act completely out of character from one day to the next it would be a cause for concern. Wouldn't you agree?

I fully agree that there are reasons for our choices.  I perceive the reasons to be determined within our conscious awareness, which is why they are regarded as choices rather than reactions.  The materialistic explanations put forward in this forum presume that choices are made by subconscious brain activity before we become aware of them - which renders the choice to be just an inevitable reaction and our conscious awareness to be just a spectator.

Meanwhile I consciously choose to disagree with his materialistic explanation, because we have more freedom to choose than a boulder rolling down a hill!

[Stranger]

I fully agree that there are reasons for our choices.  I perceive the reasons to be determined within our conscious awareness...

Here we go round and round again...

Alan, as had been pointed out many, many times before, you can't conjure up a reason "within our conscious awareness" without it being either entirely due to (preceding) reasons itself, unless it involves randomness. As soon as you break the chain of strict cause and effect, you are, of necessity, introducing some ingredient that isn't for any reason, and hence is random.

...which is why they are regarded as choices rather than reactions.

Choices are reactions.

The materialistic explanations put forward in this forum presume that choices are made by subconscious brain activity before we become aware of them - which renders the choice to be just an inevitable reaction and our conscious awareness to be just a spectator.

The degree to which this is the case has no bearing on the purely logical problem with your position that I outlined above. However much a choice is made consciously or not, it can only be the result of a strict chain of cause and effect, or if not, it must involve randomness.

Meanwhile I consciously choose to disagree with his materialistic explanation, because we have more freedom to choose than a boulder rolling down a hill!

Well of course you do, but that changes nothing about the logic.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

I fully agree that there are reasons for our choices.  I perceive the reasons to be determined within our conscious awareness, which is why they are regarded as choices rather than reactions.  The materialistic explanations put forward in this forum presume that choices are made by subconscious brain activity before we become aware of them - which renders the choice to be just an inevitable reaction and our conscious awareness to be just a spectator.

Meanwhile I consciously choose to disagree with his materialistic explanation, because we have more freedom to choose than a boulder rolling down a hill!

I think you have missed the point I was making.

I was responding to you question as the whether we can control our thought. The point I was trying to make was that if your version of freedom was true I would expect the world that look different than it does and invited you to a thought experiment that could demonstrate this.

Here goes again.

People are by and large very predictable. Choice between competing options comes down to our personality at the moment of that choice. The only way to make a different choice would be to change our personality. Looking around people dont appear to change personality day to day. My question to you was if someone did appear to undergo a nightly personality transplant would you consider it free will in action or a sign worthy of concern?

[Alan Burns]

Here we go round and round again...

Alan, as had been pointed out many, many times before, you can't conjure up a reason "within our conscious awareness" without it being either entirely due to (preceding) reasons itself, unless it involves randomness. As soon as you break the chain of strict cause and effect, you are, of necessity, introducing some ingredient that isn't for any reason, and hence is random.

Choices are reactions.

The degree to which this is the case has no bearing on the purely logical problem with your position that I outlined above. However much a choice is made consciously or not, it can only be the result of a strict chain of cause and effect, or if not, it must involve randomness.

Well of course you do, but that changes nothing about the logic.

Our conscious awareness exists and acts in its own present - it defines our present.  It is influenced by the past, but not controlled by it.  As pointed out in the book Miracles by CS Lewis, a conscious choice must have a spiritually derived power to break the chains of physical cause and effect in order to invoke an act of will.

[Stranger]

Our conscious awareness exists and acts in its own present - it defines our present.

The predicable and totally meaningless hand-waving about "the present". Colloquially, the present is irrelevant and strictly, it doesn't exist.

It is influenced by the past, but not controlled by it.

Then it must involve randoness - once again (and totally predictably) you've totally ignored the logic.

As pointed out in the book Miracles by CS Lewis, a conscious choice must have a spiritually derived power to break the chains of physical cause and effect in order to invoke an act of will.

The "chains of physical cause and effect" are not the problem. Logically, the only alternative to cause and effect, is randomness.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Our conscious awareness exists and acts in its own present - it defines our present.  It is influenced by the past, but not controlled by it.  As pointed out in the book Miracles by CS Lewis, a conscious choice must have a spiritually derived power to break the chains of physical cause and effect in order to invoke an act of will.

So C S Lewis didn't understand the argumentum ad conseqeuntiam either then? Fair enough.

[Outrider]

Our conscious awareness exists and acts in its own present - it defines our present.  It is influenced by the past, but not controlled by it.

Influenced by but not controlled by - not controlled by it because it's only one of many factors influencing it, or because there is something independent of our past that is also influencing it?

As pointed out in the book Miracles by CS Lewis, a conscious choice must have a spiritually derived power to break the chains of physical cause and effect in order to invoke an act of will.

That's sort of presupposing the conclusion, there - if you think that 'will' is somehow partially or entirely independent of the past experiences and events that have resulted in you, then yes, but if you are content to follow the evidentiary chain that suggests we are each an inevitable result of a unique combination of an unimaginable number of prior events then there is no need to posit unevidenced 'spiritually derived powers' to explain behaviour.

O.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Evidence?

Oh, it's you - faith claim only then. OK, as you were.

The evidence you continue to dismiss is our obvious ability to direct our own thought processes according to our conscious will.  The scenario which you proclaim to be the only explanation involves pre determined reactions driven entirely by laws of physics resulting in end reactions which are beyond any interventional control or manipulation.  If your thoughts and words are entirely pre defined before you are aware of them, how can you possibly claim any credit or credence for what you say?  To reach any conclusion requires the freedom to consciously drive your own thought processes, otherwise the result will command no credibility.

When you come to account for how you have used your gift of freewill - (a gift which defies any physical explanation) can you honestly claim that you never had such a gift?

[torridon]

The evidence you continue to dismiss is our obvious ability to direct our own thought processes according to our conscious will.  The scenario which you proclaim to be the only explanation involves pre determined reactions driven entirely by laws of physics resulting in end reactions which are beyond any interventional control or manipulation.  If your thoughts and words are entirely pre defined before you are aware of them, how can you possibly claim any credit or credence for what you say?  To reach any conclusion requires the freedom to consciously drive your own thought processes, otherwise the result will command no credibility.

When you come to account for how you have used your gift of freewill - (a gift which defies any physical explanation) can you honestly claim that you never had such a gift?

That 'conscious will' itself must derive from something though.  If it has no derivation, then your will must be random.  Quite simple, really.

[Stranger]

The evidence you continue to dismiss is our obvious ability to direct our own thought processes according to our conscious will.

That is not evidence that what we consciously (or otherwise) decide is not entirely due to our past lives (nature, nurture, and experience) applied to the situation at had. There cannot possibly be any evidence for your logically self-contradictory, nonsense version of "freedom". Literally nothing could be evidence for that because it makes no sense.

The scenario which you proclaim to be the only explanation involves pre determined reactions driven entirely by laws of physics resulting in end reactions which are beyond any interventional control or manipulation.

It's all about how "interventional control and manipulation" works. It is a contradiction to claim that it is free of randomness yet not entirely determined by what led up to it. And yet again: your problem is logical - it has nothing to do with physics. Making a mind non-physical doesn't get rid of the logical problem.