Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

If our conscious freedom is not a reality, how could anyone have the freedom to think up reasons to believe, or not believe in the existence of a Creator?

The reason you can do that 'freely', is because nobody, or no thing, is stopping you from doing it.  The absence of external coercion or restraint doesn't imply we have supernatural powers.

[Outrider]

If our conscious freedom is not a reality, how could anyone have the freedom to think up reasons to believe, or not believe in the existence of a Creator?

They didn't, they had a conceptualisation that was an inevitable consequence of the capacity they inherited, the traits they were born with and the development of their mind from the experiences they'd undergone prior to the concept - then they came to the only (right or wrong) conclusion they could.

O.

[Stranger]

If our conscious freedom is not a reality, how could anyone have the freedom to think up reasons to believe, or not believe in the existence of a Creator?

What you call "freedom" is impossible and nonsensical. It would be impossible for intelligence to even exist if the universe were that illogical and inconsistent. On the other hand, we are free to think and do exactly as we wish, it's just that there are reasons why we wish to do what we wish to do (and, no, saying the reason is "the concious will of the human soul" is not an alternative, it's just avoiding the question).

[Alan Burns]

The reason you can do that 'freely', is because nobody, or no thing, is stopping you from doing it.  The absence of external coercion or restraint doesn't imply we have supernatural powers.

But it is not just absence from external restraints which determines these consciously derived reasons.  There is a driving force which perceives a goal then consciously strives to achieve that goal.  You may well consider this to be achievable by the uncontrollable physically predetermined events occurring in your material brain without any conscious guidance, but if I dare to question this presumption I will no doubt be once more accused of personal incredulity.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

There is a driving force which...

Except of course despite your countless assertions of this unqualified claim you've never once managed to demonstrate either in logic or with evidence that there is any such "driving force".

That's your problem remember (well, one of many problems in fact but ok).

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Except of course despite your countless assertions of this unqualified claim you've never once managed to demonstrate either in logic or with evidence that there is any such "driving force".

That's your problem remember (well, one of many problems in fact but ok).

Without this consciously driven force, how can you possibly give credence to the output of the predetermined reactions occurring within the two kilograms of matter which constitutes your brain?

[Stranger]

Without this consciously driven force, how can you possibly give credence to the output of the predetermined reactions occurring within the kilogram of matter which constitutes your brain?

This is just incredulity, again. Why not?

And you are still ignoring the total impossibility of choices being not entirely determined by their antecedents and yet involving no randomness. No matter how incredulous you are and no matter how unlikely you think something is, it is infinitely more believable and probable than something that is inherently impossible.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Without this consciously driven force, how can you possibly give credence to the output of the predetermined reactions occurring within the kilogram of matter which constitutes your brain?

As good an example of the fallacy of personal incredulity as you've posted in a while. Given the vast complexity of the brain and given the evidence we have already for consciousness as an emergent property, why on earth wouldn't you give that explanation credence – unless of course you've decided a priori "god" and so have to bend and invent your reality to preserve that belief?

[Outrider]

But it is not just absence from external restraints which determines these consciously derived reasons.  There is a driving force which perceives a goal then consciously strives to achieve that goal.

... and that driving force comes from where?  We feel we consciously strive, perhaps, but the evidence suggests that feeling is not justified.

You may well consider this to be achievable by the uncontrollable physically predetermined events occurring in your material brain without any conscious guidance, but if I dare to question this presumption I will no doubt be once more accused of personal incredulity.

Not necessarily, but you have to justify your position.  If you want to call into question the current scientific understanding, you need to be able to explain why, and so far we're having to infer reasons because you aren't justifying it for yourself.

O.

[Gordon]

Without this consciously driven force, how can you possibly give credence to the output of the predetermined reactions occurring within the kilogram of matter which constitutes your brain?

Your stuff of late reminds me more and more of buying 'Pick'n'Mix' sweets from dear old Woolies in days gone by: except in your case it is a 'Pick'n'Mix' of fallacies - mainly incredulity (as in the above) but the fallacies of composition, equivocation, ignorance and consequences are nearly always somewhere in the bag too.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gordon,

Your stuff of late reminds me more and more of buying 'Pick'n'Mix' sweets from dear old Woolies in days gone by: except in your case it is a 'Pick'n'Mix' of fallacies - mainly incredulity (as in the above) but the fallacies of composition, equivocation, ignorance and consequences are nearly always somewhere in the bag too.

You've forgotten that he's fan of circular reasoning too - "there must be a god because people believe that there's a god" etc. 

[torridon]

But it is not just absence from external restraints which determines these consciously derived reasons.  There is a driving force which perceives a goal then consciously strives to achieve that goal.  You may well consider this to be achievable by the uncontrollable physically predetermined events occurring in your material brain without any conscious guidance, but if I dare to question this presumption I will no doubt be once more accused of personal incredulity.

We do not do things because we are free to, we do them because we want to.  Freedom is only relevant in terms of the absence of irritating constraints that might otherwise get in our way.  That 'driving force' is our desires, our needs, and they don't spring out of nowhere for no reason, they are a consequence, typically, of perception.  Perception drives volition. Put a plateful of food in front of my dog and it will form a desire to eat; same goes for me.  Intentions form out of perceived need, this is why perception is the beginning of the chain.  Humans have a greater range of needs and corresponding responses than other creatures; that does not signify freedom so much as complexity.

[Sriram]

Nima Arkani Hamed a renowned physicist says that we will now never return to a deterministic picture of the world.  See the link....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pup3s86oJXU

[Sriram]

Here is a PDF write up of the same thing.

https://www.sns.ias.edu/sites/default/files/daed_a_00161(3).pdf

[Outrider]

Here is a PDF write up of the same thing.

https://www.sns.ias.edu/sites/default/files/daed_a_00161(3).pdf

I don't pretend to be operating at an understanding of quantum mechanics on the level this guy's working at, but... the existence of clearly measurable probability functions for quantum phenomena suggests to me that there is an underlying mechanic of which we're not currently aware.

Either way, as the essay clearly states, these quantum effects wash out at macroscopic levels where physics does operate in a deterministic way.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Nima Arkani Hamed a renowned physicist says that we will now never return to a deterministic picture of the world.  See the link....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pup3s86oJXU

1. Everyone here who's tried to put you and AB straight (despite the explanations falling on deaf ears) has been careful to add phrases like, "down to the quantum field level at least". The hammer hitting the nail still causes the nail to go into the wood, and it's still cause and effect all the way down for most practical purposes.

2. Quantum randomness happens at very, very tiny scales and the net effect over countless events is dissipated into consistent results.

3. Nothing the author says suggests, implies or in any way gives succour to your attempted, "therefore any shit that pops into my head must be true too". This is Deepak Chopra level misdirection, and if you want to privilege your various claims of fact over just guessing then still you have all your work ahead of you to propose a method to do the job and then to implement it. Currently all you have is, "it's true because I say it's true" allied with various logical fallacies, which frankly isn't much of a start.   
   

[ippy]

Without this consciously driven force, how can you possibly give credence to the output of the predetermined reactions occurring within the kilogram of matter which constitutes your brain?

I have to grudgingly admire the job the Catholic Church and associates have done on you Alan, looks like right from day one of your life Alan, you know including those pre 7 years old where it's well known how vulnerable innocent children are to any form of indoctrination at these such young ages.

You must be one of their prime examples of how successful their methods are, I'd guess you don't even think you are in fact an indoctrinated Catholic.

Commiserations Alan, ippy.

[Alan Burns]

S
2. Quantum randomness happens at very, very tiny scales and the net effect over countless events is dissipated into consistent results.

It would only take a tiny bit of quantum indeterminacy to initiate an event within the neuron activity in your brain to invoke a consciously driven choice.  Scale does not matter.

And I do not think you appreciate that truly random quantum events would never sustain the stability needed at molecular level.  Molecular stability requires the probability of specific quantum events to occur at specific times.  If human will can have control of some quantum events in our brain, then God's will could have the control over quantum events on a much bigger scale to sustain molecular stability.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It would only take a tiny bit of quantum indeterminacy to initiate an event within the neuron activity in your brain to invoke a consciously driven choice.  Scale does not matter.

And I do not think you appreciate that truly random quantum events would never sustain the stability needed at molecular level.  Molecular stability requires the probability of specific quantum events to occur at specific times.  If human will can have control of some quantum events in our brain, then God's will could have the control over quantum events on a much bigger scale to sustain molecular stability.

I really don't know what's wrong with you AB. For the reasons that have been set out a bajillion times already and you always just ignore, your version of "free" will is LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. Deal with that other than by invoking magic and calling it "soul" and then - finally - you might have something to say that's worth listening to. 

[Nearly Sane]

As regards all this reference to quantum, I will refer to the answer I prepared some years earlier in #37 in the thread below


http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=9431.25

[torridon]

It would only take a tiny bit of quantum indeterminacy to initiate an event within the neuron activity in your brain to invoke a consciously driven choice.  Scale does not matter.

This is just as contradictory as all your other positions.  If some quantum indeterminacy impacted something at macro level then that would be randomness effectively ruining the otherwise predictable behaviour of matter.  Invoking an element of randomness hardly accounts for will, it is the opposite of will.  If you want something to go smoothly to plan, the absolute last thing you want is some unaccountable randomness creeping in to spoil things.

[Stranger]

It would only take a tiny bit of quantum indeterminacy to initiate an event within the neuron activity in your brain to invoke a consciously driven choice.  Scale does not matter.

Total drivel. Neurons are vast compared to elementary particles, about 10¹⁴ atoms (according to a quick google) - a scale at which, for all practical purposes, things behave classically.

But that is (literally) an infinitely smaller problem than the fact that your notion of "freedom" is self-contradictory, and therefore totally impossible.

And I do not think you appreciate that truly random quantum events would never sustain the stability needed at molecular level.  Molecular stability requires the probability of specific quantum events to occur at specific times.

More drivel. Yes, there are problems associated with how the classical world emerges from the quantum world but it is nothing like the idea that we need probabilistic events to coincide in order to get molecules. Atomic structure (and hence chemistry) requires an analysis of the (uncollapsed) wave-function, rather than "measured" particles with defined positions, which is where the probabilities (randomness) occurs (assuming it's real - and that depends on the interpretation).

[torridon]

And I do not think you appreciate that truly random quantum events would never sustain the stability needed at molecular level.  Molecular stability requires the probability of specific quantum events to occur at specific times.  If human will can have control of some quantum events in our brain, then God's will could have the control over quantum events on a much bigger scale to sustain molecular stability.

This is reminscent of your objections to mutations and it springs from a deep misunderstanding of statistics. Determinism at atomic levels does not derive from particular key quantum events happening in particular sequence; rather it emerges as an average of an underlying probabilty curve.  There are billions of quantum fluctations happening everywhere every second, with such a vast underlying probability stratum it is inevitable that matter at classical scales behaves with high preditability.  Imagine tossing a coin; if you toss it a handul of times you might get some skewed distribution of outcomes; but it you toss it a billion times you are going to get 50% heads and 50% tails, or as near as makes no practical difference.

[Stranger]

Nima Arkani Hamed a renowned physicist says that we will now never return to a deterministic picture of the world.  See the link....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pup3s86oJXU

Others differ on that - but I don't see quite what that has to do with any of the woo you keep peddling.

Here is a PDF write up of the same thing.

https://www.sns.ias.edu/sites/default/files/daed_a_00161(3).pdf

Which was an interesting read but I still don't see the connection.

[Outrider]

It would only take a tiny bit of quantum indeterminacy to initiate an event within the neuron activity in your brain to invoke a consciously driven choice.  Scale does not matter.

Well, scale probably does matter in the overwhelming majority of cases, but let's play Devil's advocate on this, let's assume there's an instance where a brain is deciding between two options, and it's come down to a 'casting vote' by one neuron.  It's almost at the tipping point, and we have one final electron settling from a quantum state into one of two positions which will either mean the neuron's active or it's not.

If that quantum event is random then you've got a tiny, tiny element of a piece of brain activity that isn't deterministic... so it's 'free', but what you've lost is 'will'. You've replaced inevitable consequence of prior events to absolutely independent of anything.  I don't see how that benefits your claims.

And I do not think you appreciate that truly random quantum events would never sustain the stability needed at molecular level.  Molecular stability requires the probability of specific quantum events to occur at specific times.

Sufficiently large numbers of predominantly deterministic events with a random element - like, say, weather patterns - for sustainable (if sometimes dynamic) patterns of activity, so it's possible.

If human will can have control of some quantum events in our brain, then God's will could have the control over quantum events on a much bigger scale to sustain molecular stability.

Both of those are extremely doubtful 'ifs' though.  There is nothing that suggests, outside of Chopra-woo, that human 'will' can control quantum events, and nothing to suggest a god, let alone a will of a god with the capacity to exert that quantum influence without any apparent physical presence or existence at all.

O.