Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

I'll just add that this isn't even what honest introspection will tell you. How do you choose words? You don't consciously sift through every possible sequence of words to find something that is appropriate. What happens is that different phrases occur to you. Where did they come from? You may hold them in your (conscious) mind for a while and think they aren't quite right, then another way to express it may occur to you - where from? How many times do you think of a better way of saying something after posting? Where did that come from?

What you describe illustrates our ability to consciously analyse, manipulate and finally choose.  Such processes are driven and controlled within our conscious awareness, but your conjecture that everything results from predetermined reactions to past events does not allow any form of conscious manipulation, control or choice, because everything will just be an inevitable end reaction to chains of cause and effect. To answer your questions more specifically, what can consciously hold on to phrases?  what thinks about them for a while? what can presume that they are not quite right? what can think of another way of expressing what you wish to say? what can then choose to edit what you posted? answer: the conscious awareness of the human soul.

[Roses]

It's evidence of no such thing, it's evidence of the complexity of my brain's structure and capacity.  Why does erudition or the ability to draw conclusions indicate free will?  Amazon's Alexa has a broad vocabulary and can draw conclusions from available data - indeed, can provide unprompted conclusions based upon prior activity - but I suspect you'd hesitate to suggest an Echo had free will?  Erudition is a subjective and quantitative judgement - it's about a degree of complexity and an extent of vocabulary, and yet you're using it to support a qualitative statement: erudition evidences free will - at what level of erudition does free will kick in? How broad a vocabulary suggests free will?

It doesn't defy the post that complex cognitive performance can be entirely materialistic in nature, it defies your belief about that materialistic nature.

Our conscious awareness doesn't define our reality, it defines our understanding of our reality. Rather ironically, our reality defines our conscious awareness.  Our reality shows that at least some of our 'deliberate interactions with the world' are internal post-hoc rationalisations of subconscious activities.

Which still doesn't address the oxymoronic nature of the claim 'free will' in the first place, of course.

O.

A good illustration.

[Alan Burns]

When someone is indoctrinated into a particular way of thinking, they might think their thoughts are controlled by them, which isn't actually the case.

Your post aptly illustrated the circularity of your argument -
To actually think about our thoughts requires an ability to control our thoughts.

[Alan Burns]

  Amazon's Alexa has a broad vocabulary and can draw conclusions from available data - indeed, can provide unprompted conclusions based upon prior activity - but I suspect you'd hesitate to suggest an Echo had free will? 

Alexa has no free will of its own, but its design offers ample evidence of the conscious freedom needed by those who designed and constructed it.

It is evidence that intelligent design is a reality which occurs in this universe - a reality which reflects the creative power of God.  A power which He shared to all mankind.

[Outrider]

Alexa has no free will of its own, but its design offers ample evidence of the conscious freedom needed by those who designed and constructed it.

Those designers, though, aren't involved in that decision making process, in the performances of erudition - they may have created the architecture of that digital brain, but they don't run it, it runs itself.  It makes decisions, judges context and delivers (with varying degrees of success) an interpretation of the answer you were looking for from the available data.  That's what your brain does - when you become aware of what Alexa says in your conscious understanding, that's not a manifestation of your 'free will'. Likewise, when you become aware of information that your brain has passed to your conscious understanding, how is that any more of a sign of free will?

It is evidence that intelligent design is a reality which occurs in this universe - a reality which reflects the creative power of God.  A power which He shared to all mankind.

I wasn't aware anyone was denying the idea that intelligent design happens in the universe - I suspect a number of people would be looking for something more in terms of evidence for the claim that the universe itself is a piece of intelligent design, but that's another debate.

O.

[Alan Burns]

Those designers, though, aren't involved in that decision making process, in the performances of erudition - they may have created the architecture of that digital brain, but they don't run it, it runs itself.  It makes decisions, judges context and delivers (with varying degrees of success) an interpretation of the answer you were looking for from the available data.  That's what your brain does - when you become aware of what Alexa says in your conscious understanding, that's not a manifestation of your 'free will'. Likewise, when you become aware of information that your brain has passed to your conscious understanding, how is that any more of a sign of free will?

Of course Alexa has no free will because it has no conscious awareness.  It merely mimics the conscious awareness and free will of those who designed it.

[Stranger]

But the most compelling evidence of all lies in the carefully chosen words you use to describe your own analysis of the situation in question.  It is evident that your erudite explanations illustrate your freedom to consciously analyse and draw conclusions - a process which defies the posit that it can be derived entirely from the physically controlled material reactions in your brain cells.

There you go bearing false witness again. As has been pointed out endless times, every hypothesis and conjecture is an attempt to explain what we do and experience. It is a lie to claim it as evidence for yours alone and it is absurd when your own conjecture is self-contradictory.

[Stranger]

What you describe illustrates our ability to consciously analyse, manipulate and finally choose.  Such processes are driven and controlled within our conscious awareness, but your conjecture that everything results from predetermined reactions to past events does not allow any form of conscious manipulation, control or choice...

Simply untrue.

...because everything will just be an inevitable end reaction to chains of cause and effect.

Rather than this ruling out conscious analysis and choice, chains of cause and effect are the only logically possible way it can work.

[bluehillside Retd.]

I was listening to someone earlier on the radio talking about Brexit, the rise of populism etc. She was saying that essentially the fault line is between the emotional and the rational. The rationalist thinks that all he needs to do is to explain to the emotionalist why he’s wrong and he’ll change his mind; the emotionalist on the other hand is certain he’s right so will just repeat endlessly his convictions regardless of the quality of the arguments that falsify him. Worse still, the emotionalist will then conclude that the reason his mind hasn’t been changed is the failure of the falsifying arguments rather than the intractability of his convictions, so his convictions are thereby are reinforced.

AB is an emotionalist. That’s all he has. He know he’s right because he knows he’s right and that’s the beginning and end of it.  No matter that when he tries to play on the turf of the rationalist by attempting arguments to support him he always loses, he’ll just eructate again and again the same conviction (“the fact that you can compose this means that….” etc) even though there’s no escaping the logical impossibility of his claims.

That’s the problem here: his position is built on sand, but when you explain why it’s built on sand in his head he processes the arguments as concrete to reinforce the foundations. For the rest of us it’s a futile death spiral of lose lose.     

[Outrider]

Of course Alexa has no free will because it has no conscious awareness.  It merely mimics the conscious awareness and free will of those who designed it.

But our subconscious has no conscious awareness when it makes our decisions for us.

O.

[Christine]

I was listening to someone earlier on the radio talking about Brexit, the rise of populism etc. She was saying that essentially the fault line is between the emotional and the rational. The rationalist thinks that all he needs to do is to explain to the emotionalist why he’s wrong and he’ll change his mind; the emotionalist on the other hand is certain he’s right so will just repeat endlessly his convictions regardless of the quality of the arguments that falsify him. Worse still, the emotionalist will then conclude that the reason his mind hasn’t been changed is the failure of the falsifying arguments rather than the intractability of his convictions, so his convictions are thereby are reinforced.

AB is an emotionalist. That’s all he has. He know he’s right because he knows he’s right and that’s the beginning and end of it.  No matter that when he tries to play on the turf of the rationalist by attempting arguments to support him he always loses, he’ll just eructate again and again the same conviction (“the fact that you can compose this means that….” etc) even though there’s no escaping the logical impossibility of his claims.

That’s the problem here: his position is built on sand, but when you explain why it’s built on sand in his head he processes the arguments as concrete to reinforce the foundations. For the rest of us it’s a futile death spiral of lose lose.     

It's unsurprising if somewhat depressing that Alan doesn't even seem interested in acknowledging what Thomas Paine's points were, never mind addressing them! I'll stop going on about him now, I must be coming over as a bit of a fan girl.  It's not the only book I've read   

I suppose we all think, by default, that other minds work in a similar way to our own.  I couldn't look myself in the mirror if I engaged in the dishonest tactics Alan has in this thread, but presumably Alan doesn't think he's being dishonest.  He doesn't appear to be lacking education so it seems more likely that his mind just doesn't work the way mine does.

That he's in favour of the most embarrassing act of wilful self-harm our country has inflicted on itself in my lifetime (and that includes electing Margaret Thatcher) is also unsurprising.  When you base your view of reality on easily manipulated feelings rather than evidence and facts, that's what you get.  It seems quite a popular approach these days.

See, I'm back to "we're all doomed!" again...

[torridon]

It is obvious that the spiritual power of the human soul has the ability to do whatever it takes to implement a conscious act of will within the material brain.  The fact that it can't have a physical explanation is evidence of our spiritual nature. To try to analyse this in purely material terms is impossible, but the evidence behind this reality is quite simple - our freedom to consciously choose what we do think and say is evidenced throughout the history of mankind.

If it takes a human soul to enact human will then a wolf soul would be required to enact a wolf's will.  So with this way of thinking, every creature on the planet must have a soul of some sort and everything ends up being explained in magical terms.  All of which is blind to the progress that science has made in understanding how brains work, just like a flat-earther is blind to the insights we have into the nature of gravity.  Your head is well and truly in the sand.

[jeremyp]

Hello everybody, just thought I'd pop my head round the door to see if anything is still happening here.

Of course Alexa has no free will because it has no conscious awareness.

How do you know?

That's a serious question. How do you differentiate whether an object has consciousness?

[ippy]

It's unsurprising if somewhat depressing that Alan doesn't even seem interested in acknowledging what Thomas Paine's points were, never mind addressing them! I'll stop going on about him now, I must be coming over as a bit of a fan girl.  It's not the only book I've read   

I suppose we all think, by default, that other minds work in a similar way to our own.  I couldn't look myself in the mirror if I engaged in the dishonest tactics Alan has in this thread, but presumably Alan doesn't think he's being dishonest.  He doesn't appear to be lacking education so it seems more likely that his mind just doesn't work the way mine does.

That he's in favour of the most embarrassing act of wilful self-harm our country has inflicted on itself in my lifetime (and that includes electing Margaret Thatcher) is also unsurprising.  When you base your view of reality on easily manipulated feelings rather than evidence and facts, that's what you get.  It seems quite a popular approach these days.

See, I'm back to "we're all doomed!" again...

Christine, just a thought, I was wondering if another person was selected on the grounds that they were considered to be utterly, completely and deeply indoctrinated into all aspects of the R C beliefs and dogmas, so well indoctrinated they weren't even aware of how far gone they were; in other words a really bad case.

I doubt it'd be that difficult to find such a person described above and then assuming such a person was found I was wondering how much difference there would be in content between this person's ideas and the ideas Alan expounds on this forum, granted their writing technique is more than likely to differ but I doubt the overall sentiments would differ that much.

Regards, ippy.

[Christine]

Christine, just a thought, I was wondering if another person was selected on the grounds that they were considered to be utterly, completely and deeply indoctrinated into all aspects of the R C beliefs and dogmas, so well indoctrinated they weren't even aware of how far gone they were; in other words a really bad case.

I doubt it'd be that difficult to find such a person described above and then assuming such a person was found I was wondering how much difference there would be in content between this person's ideas and the ideas Alan expounds on this forum, granted their writing technique is more than likely to differ but I doubt the overall sentiments would differ that much.

Regards, ippy.

Hello ippy,

I think I see what you're saying - it's not that his mind works differently, it's indoctrination that's the problem.  Yes, entirely possible.  It's possible I'm indoctrinated into my own views, though they've changed so much over time with education and experience that I'd prefer to doubt that!  That's sort of why I asked about counterarguments to Paine's points so I could make a judgement about whether I was biased.  There don't appear to be any though, so I'm happy to continue thinking he's right   

As for my reference to leaving the EU: all I've heard for the last 3 years is vague appeals to emotion in favour of it, while the evidence says all of us, except a few disaster capitalists and those so rich they wouldn't suffer whatever happened, will be worse off in every way I can think of.  I know you are in favour of the UK leaving the EU and I profoundly disagree with you.  I've not heard a rational, well-informed argument in favour of leaving but I would be willing to listen.  On the appropriate thread, obviously. 

Have a nice weekend all, I don't expect to be able to access the site again until Monday.

[Roses]

Your post aptly illustrated the circularity of your argument -
To actually think about our thoughts requires an ability to control our thoughts.

I wish I could control my thoughts, I suffer from anxiety syndrome!

[Robbie]

I can't control my thoughts either littleroses. I try but they intrude. Not usually when I'm at work, generally dealing with things or having a good time but when I am still.

Never mind about searching for God, I'm searching for my keys. I put them somewhere, not the usual place, when I came in & need them now but can't find.

Methinks a small drinky is in order.

[Alan Burns]

Hello everybody, just thought I'd pop my head round the door to see if anything is still happening here.


How do you know?

That's a serious question. How do you differentiate whether an object has consciousness?

Having spent most of my working life in software development, I know precisely what is involved with generating the human mimicking processes used in systems such as Elexa.  Self awareness does not emerge from silicon chips or micro circuits which are merely gateways for electric currents used to simulate what the developers intended.  Human self awareness invokes choices which are not pre programmed, but driven by human will rather than by physically predefined endless chains of cause and effect.

[torridon]

Having spent most of my working life in software development, I know precisely what is involved with generating the human mimicking processes used in systems such as Elexa.  Self awareness does not emerge from silicon chips or micro circuits which are merely gateways for electric currents used to simulate what the developers intended.  ..

And yet awareness does emerge from the interactions of billions of synaptic junctions, each of which is merely a chemical logic gate for the transmission of bioelectrical nerve impulses.

[Alan Burns]

And yet awareness does emerge from the interactions of billions of synaptic junctions, each of which is merely a chemical logic gate for the transmission of bioelectrical nerve impulses.

That is just an assumption which you have no means of verifying, because there is no physical definition for what comprises human self awareness.  Correlation with electro chemocal activity can't be used to define an entity of conscious awareness.

[torridon]

That is just an assumption which you have no means of verifying, because there is no physical definition for what comprises human self awareness.  Correlation with electro chemocal activity can't be used to define an entity of conscious awareness.

Even if we don't understand something completely does that justify us regressing into simplistic magic beliefs, ignoring the sum total of all the insights that we have established along the way ?  We don't fully understand gravity so do we regress back into believing the Sun is being pulled across the sky by fairies equipped with invisible strings ?  Your attitude to learning is nonsensical and backward.

Touch the keyboard with your forefinger now.  How are you aware of the feel of the key under your finger ?  Is it something to do with the fact that you have four thousand touch receptors, tiny biological sensors, in each finger tip each of which transmits information up through the finger, the hand, the arm up into the central nervous system and into the tangle of cortex where it is homogenised and integrated with countless other bioelectrical sensor inputs captured from all over the body into a consolidated and prioritised overall awareness ? 

Or is all that complex of biological stuff redundant, just for show, and the real awareness is due some parallel magic system founded on a supernatural soul that has never been detected by science because it is invisible and immaterial which obtains its information through a parallel network of invisible supernatural sensors that have never been detected by science because they too are invisible and immaterial ?

Which is it ?

[SusanDoris]

Even if we don't understand something completely does that justify us regressing into simplistic magic beliefs, ignoring the sum total of all the insights that we have established along the way ?  We don't fully understand gravity so do we regress back into believing the Sun is being pulled across the sky by fairies equipped with invisible strings ?  Your attitude to learning is nonsensical and backward.

Touch the keyboard with your forefinger now.  How are you aware of the feel of the key under your finger ?  Is it something to do with the fact that you have four thousand touch receptors, tiny biological sensors, in each finger tip each of which transmits information up through the finger, the hand, the arm up into the central nervous system and into the tangle of cortex where it is homogenised and integrated with countless other bioelectrical sensor inputs captured from all over the body into a consolidated and prioritised overall awareness ? 

Or is all that complex of biological stuff redundant, just for show, and the real awareness is due some parallel magic system founded on a supernatural soul that has never been detected by science because it is invisible and immaterial which obtains its information through a parallel network of invisible supernatural sensors that have never been detected by science because they too are invisible and immaterial ?

Which is it ?

That is a really good post to start the day. I shall close this site now (because I'm going out for the day) before AB gets a chance to give a useless, nonsense response.

[Gordon]

That is just an assumption which you have no means of verifying, because there is no physical definition for what comprises human self awareness.  Correlation with electro chemocal activity can't be used to define an entity of conscious awareness.

I see you are back to using weasel-words to mean what you want them to mean, Humpty.

Who says I can't 'define' my brain (such as it is) as 'an entity of conscious awareness'?

[Alan Burns]

….… Which is it ?

I do not know.

But I do know that my freedom to make consciously driven choices can't possibly be driven from predetermined physical reactions, because such physically controlled activity could not reach such an abstract conclusion.  I am in control, and the ultimate source of this control can't be derived from uncontrollable physical reactions.

Apologies for having to repeat this so often, but it is my consciously driven freedom which is responsible.

[Gordon]

I do not know.

But I do know that my freedom to make consciously driven choices can't possibly be driven from predetermined physical reactions, because such physically controlled activity could not reach such an abstract conclusion.

You don't 'know', Alan: and this is no more than your personal belief, supported by your trademark incredulity.

I am in control, and the ultimate source of this control can't be derived from uncontrollable physical reactions.

It just feels that way to you, Alan, but since your flowery explanation for your feelings is a logical error (combined with your incredulity) we can dismiss what you feel as being in any sense compelling for the rest of us.

Apologies for having to repeat this so often, but it is my consciously driven freedom which is responsible.

Nope: the problem you have is that your particular bespoke brand of religious faith has clouded your ability to see where you are going wrong, so you keep making the same mistakes.