Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

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.

Human will cannot have control over the things that it emerges from, that is conceptually incoherent. Emergent phenomena could not influence that from which they emerge without incurring a circularity which would render reality incomprehensible. Emergence is a one way street.  To claim that will could influence the quantum events that give rise to will is an irrational claim of downward causation, demolished by Sean Carroll in the blog post below

https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2016/09/08/consciousness-and-downward-causation/

[torridon]

The fact is that you do not know what goes on in the mind of an animal.  You can't prove conscious awareness from externally observed reactions to sensory data, most of which can be seen to be instinctive.

Proof is not sought, it is evidence that underpins reasonable conclusions, and the evidence is that all higher creatures with sense organs experience conscious perception in some or other form and they are capable of some or other degree of cognition.  Maybe 100 years ago most people were content to imagine that other creatures merely reacted instinctively and it was only humans that could 'think things through'.  All the research done in recent years undermines that position, and we are coming to understand the complexity of mind in other creatures. A recent piece of research on crows for instance looked specifically at whether their singing was merely 'instinctual', but the conclusion was that crows have conscious volitional control over their singing.  They think about it, in other words.

https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3000375

[Alan Burns]

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.

You have not fully understood what I mean by "free".  What I am implying is that quantum indeterminacy may not be random, but caused by something beyond physical detection.  If conscious human will is capable of interacting with physical events via apparently undetermined quantum events, then such events will still be deterministic, having been consciously invoked by an act of human will from our present state of human awareness.  Therefore it will be free from physically predefined chains of cause and effect over which we can have no conscious control.

[Alan Burns]

Human will cannot have control over the things that it emerges from, that is conceptually incoherent. Emergent phenomena could not influence that from which they emerge without incurring a circularity which would render reality incomprehensible. Emergence is a one way street.  To claim that will could influence the quantum events that give rise to will is an irrational claim of downward causation, demolished by Sean Carroll in the blog post below

https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2016/09/08/consciousness-and-downward-causation/

I fully agree that in the physical model there is no way that what emerges can have control over what it emerges from, which is why I have to conclude that conscious control can't have a physical cause and is beyond physical definition - otherwise control just becomes inevitable reaction.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

What I am implying is that quantum indeterminacy may not be random, but caused by something beyond physical detection.

If you think something is "beyond physical detection" how do you know it's there at all? What other means of detection do you propose to use instead to distinguish the claim from just guessing?

[Stranger]

If conscious human will is capable of interacting with physical events via apparently undetermined quantum events, then such events will still be deterministic, having been consciously invoked by an act of human will from our present state of human awareness.  Therefore it will be free from physically predefined chains of cause and effect over which we can have no conscious control.

Back to repeating dishonest claims and gibberish, that have been addressed endless times before, I see.

Deterministic means determined by the past events that led up to it, not just "determined by something or other" so once again you are being dishonest in trying to co-opt the term. And once again we get the gibberish of the undefined "present state of human awareness" as if it can, without even an attempt to logically define it, change the fact that something that isn't fully determined by the events that led to it must involve randomness. The logic for this has been explained over and over and you never address it.

Why can't you just honesty address what has been said and try to deal with it?

[torridon]

I fully agree that in the physical model there is no way that what emerges can have control over what it emerges from, which is why I have to conclude that conscious control can't have a physical cause and is beyond physical definition - otherwise control just becomes inevitable reaction.

You're playing your strawman, 'physical' again.  The circularity is a problem of logic, not one of matter.

Give an example of 'conscious control' effecting downward causation, breaking a principle of logic.

[Outrider]

You have not fully understood what I mean by "free".  What I am implying is that quantum indeterminacy may not be random, but caused by something beyond physical detection.

OK, so how do you propose to demonstrate that?  It's a valid hypothesis, so far as it goes, but how would you test it?

If conscious human will is capable of interacting with physical events via apparently undetermined quantum events, then such events will still be deterministic, having been consciously invoked by an act of human will from our present state of human awareness.

See, you've not liberated the system from determinacy there, you've just introduced more deterministic effects - this 'conscious human will' which interacts with physical events comes from where? What causes those particular influences to be applied at those particular times?

Therefore it will be free from physically predefined chains of cause and effect over which we can have no conscious control.

That's when you fall down that logical rabbit hole, again.  That 'conscious will' element - either it's another deterministic process, reliant on prior events and activities to determine its outcomes and you therefore aren't free at all, or it's independent of prior events in which case it's random, and you don't have will you just have chance.

O.

[Alan Burns]

Back to repeating dishonest claims and gibberish, that have been addressed endless times before, I see.

Deterministic means determined by the past events that led up to it, not just "determined by something or other" so once again you are being dishonest in trying to co-opt the term. And once again we get the gibberish of the undefined "present state of human awareness" as if it can, without even an attempt to logically define it, change the fact that something that isn't fully determined by the events that led to it must involve randomness. The logic for this has been explained over and over and you never address it.

Why can't you just honesty address what has been said and try to deal with it?

But to honestly address and try to deal with the issue as you suggest would require my ability to consciously initiate such actions, but if my conscious control is entirely shackled to past events over which I had no control - how do you suggest I can possibly comply with your request?

[Alan Burns]

See, you've not liberated the system from determinacy there, you've just introduced more deterministic effects - this 'conscious human will' which interacts with physical events comes from where? What causes those particular influences to be applied at those particular times?

But how can you presume that conscious human will is entirely predefined by past events.  As I have repeatedly said, we are consciously aware of past events in our present state of mind, and they can have influence on our conscious choices, but they do not dictate - we are free to choose by an act of human will emanating from the conscious awareness which is "you".  You imply that our conscious awareness and associated thoughts are restricted to the mechanistic chains of cause and effect we perceive in material reactions - but without knowing what comprises our consciousness and how it manifests within our material brain you can't make such presuptions, particularly when we have the conscious ability to consider the nature of our own thoughts.

[torridon]

But to honestly address and try to deal with the issue as you suggest would require my ability to consciously initiate such actions, but if my conscious control is entirely shackled to past events over which I had no control - how do you suggest I can possibly comply with your request?

Put it this way, we cannot change the past, but people can try to influence the future so although to date the preference you have manifested is for a duck and dive evasiveness over honesty, and for contrived illogic over logic, we can nonetheless try to improve this going forward.  To choose honest straightforward engagement with others should really be a no brainer for someone claiming to follow a christian path, though seemingly this hasn't registered with you quite yet

[Stranger]

But to honestly address and try to deal with the issue as you suggest would require my ability to consciously initiate such actions, but if my conscious control is entirely shackled to past events over which I had no control - how do you suggest I can possibly comply with your request?

You must of posted virtually this exact question at least tens of times in this thread and it's just as empty-headed, dishonest, and evasive as it was the first time. And the answer is still the same.

I don't know Alan, the level of evasion, dishonesty, and mindless repetition you go in for here is something I've rarely encountered on these kind of forums and most of the people who do use it are dimwitted literal creationists. You seem to want people to believe that you think about things, you've talked about a "logical analysis", and you say you're writing a book, so why do you come here and act like a fool?

[Roses]

Alan is an intelligent person as he has a doctorate, they don't give them out like smarties! However, like a lot of intelligent people who are devout believers, I think Alan dispenses of logic when it comes to his faith.

[Alan Burns]

Put it this way, we cannot change the past, but people can try to influence the future ....

If I can't change the past, and everything I do, think or say is entirely defined by the past - how can I possibly try to influence the future?  What can be the source of my ability to try?

[ekim]

If I can't change the past, and everything I do, think or say is entirely defined by the past - how can I possibly try to influence the future?  What can be the source of my ability to try?

It could be desire for change based upon fear of repetition of past fearful events or desire to repeat past pleasurable events or the desire to indoctrinate others so that they support your own indoctrination.

[Stranger]

If I can't change the past, and everything I do, think or say is entirely defined by the past - how can I possibly try to influence the future?  What can be the source of my ability to try?

When you try to do something, is it for reasons or (partly or wholly) for no reason?

And before you say it (yet again); when you form a reason in illogical gibberish "the present state of your conscious awareness" is that because of reasons or (partly or wholly) for no reason?

[torridon]

If I can't change the past, and everything I do, think or say is entirely defined by the past - how can I possibly try to influence the future?  What can be the source of my ability to try?

Alaskan bears try to catch salmon as they swim upriver for breeding.

Do you imagine bears must therefore have supernatural powers ?

Really ?

[Alan Burns]

Alaskan bears try to catch salmon as they swim upriver for breeding.

Do you imagine bears must therefore have supernatural powers ?

Really ?

Sorry, but this in no way answers the question I put to you, so I ask again, (remembering your statement " we cannot change the past, but people can try to influence the future") :

If I can't change the past, and if everything I do, think or say is entirely defined by the past - how can I possibly try to influence the future?  What can be the source of my ability to try?

[Alan Burns]

When you try to do something, is it for reasons or (partly or wholly) for no reason?

And before you say it (yet again); when you form a reason in illogical gibberish "the present state of your conscious awareness" is that because of reasons or (partly or wholly) for no reason?

The reason exists in your present state of conscious awareness, which does not exist in the past.

[Sriram]

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.

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.

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.

'Brain is deciding'...??!!  Really?!    You guys seriously think that the brain is the deciding agency?

Unbelievable!

[torridon]

'Brain is deciding'...??!!  Really?!    You guys seriously think that the brain is the deciding agency?

Unbelievable!

This is why we have brains, to resolve choice in complex organisms.  There'd be no point in having a brain if something else were fulfilling that role.

[Sriram]

This is why we have brains, to resolve choice in complex organisms.  There'd be no point in having a brain if something else were fulfilling that role.

Hmm....so you think your computer microprocessor is deciding what you write?!   

[torridon]

Sorry, but this in no way answers the question I put to you, so I ask again, (remembering your statement " we cannot change the past, but people can try to influence the future") :

If I can't change the past, and if everything I do, think or say is entirely defined by the past - how can I possibly try to influence the future?  What can be the source of my ability to try?

At some level it comes down to the same or similar things whether you are a bear using your learning to date to better catch salmon, or whether you are a chef using his culinary knowledge trying to improve his pasta recipe.  We all have brains, brains are learning machines and we try to put that learning to good use to create a better future.  You don't need supernatural powers to try do things, and both examples are consistent with an account of mind and volition that is ultimately deterministic - neither exhibits a behaviour that is free from the underlying principle of cause and effect.

[torridon]

Hmm....so you think your computer microprocessor is deciding what you write?!   

Yes, broadly speaking, that is why brains evolved.  Brains don't exist in isolation of course, there are millions of interconnected neurons throughout the body, so in a sense we are distributed intelligence entities, but it is the brain that focuses and coordinates and perceives and resolves.  I'm pretty sure I do most of my thinking in my brain; it might be influenced by my gut and by my heart etc, but it is the brain that is the master coordinator of all this wherein choices are made.

[Sriram]

Yes, broadly speaking, that is why brains evolved.  Brains don't exist in isolation of course, there are millions of interconnected neurons throughout the body, so in a sense we are distributed intelligence entities, but it is the brain that focuses and coordinates and perceives and resolves.  I'm pretty sure I do most of my thinking in my brain; it might be influenced by my gut and by my heart etc, but it is the brain that is the master coordinator of all this wherein choices are made.

"I'm pretty sure I do most of my thinking in my brain;"

What do you mean by that? You are here separating yourself from your brain...  So, are 'you' deciding using your brain as a platform or is the brain itself deciding?  Make up your mind..!