Alan,
Outrider could never have made such a statement without the consciously driven freedom to do so. Can you not see the absurdity in the alternative scenario of it being entirely predetermined by uncontrollable physically predefined reactions in a material brain?
Whether it was consciously driven or not is open to question, but there is plenty of evidence that the unconscious also plays a major part, if not a dominant part, in producing our thoughts and decisions. I have never had any quarrel with our freedom to think and act as we do, unless we are curtailed by outside influences of course.
You often try this tack of appealing to our judgement in being able to see something like you that you think is impossible or absurd. Usually, as in this case, your appeal most definitely fails because you give no reason to think something is wrong or absurd.
I think that it is eminently sensible to think that our thoughts and actions are not uncontrollable because, unless the brain is damaged, there is no reason to think that they are not entirely under the control of our brains.
I can quite accept that it is entirely possible that the natural physical reactions and interactions within our brains can produce our thoughts and actions. There is a wealth of evidence which suggests this, not least that when our brain ceases to function, then thoughts and actions also cease.
As determinism seems to be the overriding physical norm, I see no reason to think that our thoughts and actions aren't a product of this process also. I would not use the word 'predeterminism' because it suggests that all events are determined in advance, and can insinuate some sort of entity(god/fate etc.) which 'knows' or even 'decides' these events.
If there is such a mixture, you would have to concede the existence of something capable of consciously driven interaction within the chains of physical cause and effect.
Good grief, no, Alan.
I was simply suggesting that it might be possible that the innermost working of the brain might use quantum indeterminacy before it decoheres to classical physics. Penrose and Hameroff suggested that microtubules are able to behave as quantum objects. A later suggestion was that ion channels in neuronal cell membranes are a possible site for quantum phenomena(Al-Khalili and McFadden) Even if either of these hypotheses were true, then it still says nothing about your third way at all.
I do not presume to know how the human soul works. I just witness to the reality that the capabilities of the human mind human mind go far beyond anything that can be defined by material reactions alone.
Firstly you presume there is a human soul. I don't because firstly there is no evidence that it exists and secondly I see no reason for it to exist. Then you tell me that you 'do not presume' to know how this soul works. I asked you a question, Alan, which was "How does it(the soul) come to its conclusions if they are neither deterministic nor random?". What's your answer? "I do not presume to know how the human soul works." In other words you are totally unable to answer the question I asked, you are totally unable to challenge the logic of determined/random and, furthermore, it's based upon an idea(the human soul) that you are totally unable to evidence. And you expect me to take your word for it, Alan? You'll have to do better than that. I need reasoned argument and evidence, both of which seem to be sadly lacking in your case.
Anyone can 'witness' whatever they wish, Alan. To call something a reality simply means that it is you that consider it a reality, and it is not necessarily the 'reality' that someone else experiences. To get anywhere near an objective reality requires intersubjective evidence, rational thought and logic. I 'witness' to my contention that you seem to be sadly lacking in all these departments.
Our conclusions are determined by the mental processes of the human mind, but what drives these processes? If they are entirely predetermined by physically controlled chains of material reactions, they cannot be regarded as mentally driven conclusions, just inevitable reactions.
There is a huge amount of evidence that cognitive functions are the result of electric activity within the brain. There are many ideas of what consciousness is. One such hypothesis that it is the result of EM fields within the brain. I see no reason to think that brain activity(and hence the mind) is not a result of cause and effect(I would not use 'predetermined' for the reasons given above), of reaction and interaction, of the physical/natural world. I completely reject your last sentence therefore. It's no good simply making assertions like that without backing them up with reasoned argument. Why can't material reactions not lead to thoughts and actions? What evidence have you that supports your assertion.
Finally, Alan, I began this because you always seem to evade answering the question I(and many others) originally asked. You always ignore, rather than face up to the logic. Why even today, Outrider asked you a similar question in post 36478. This was an attempt to pin you down. The nearest I came is your admission that you really haven't a clue how this soul of yours works, but you still cling on like a leech to your idea that there must be a soul nevertheless because you, Alan, cannot possibly conceive of the idea that our thoughts and actions are the result of natural processes. Obviously you are welcome to your point of view, but to an outsider like me it simply smells of bias and bad science inculcated by your religious commitment. I don't find you at all convincing.
