Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

Sorry, but it is not possible to address anything which removes my freedom to consciously address anything.

Nobody is disputing your abilities to think and respond, so this is blatantly dishonest.

Disregarding whatever beliefs are being put forward, it simply indicates that the poster has the conscious freedom to construct a post in order to justify those beliefs.  Without conscious interaction, how can any post be regarded as personal?

It actually only indicates the poster's ability to express themselves in writing - the role of consciousness is not evident from what is written. The role of consciousness is also totally irrelevant to the logic that destroys your contradictory notion of "freedom".

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Sorry, but it is not possible to address anything which removes my freedom to consciously address anything.

You can't remove something that isn't there. What the logic and evidence tell us is that the lived experience of free will and the underlying explanation for it are at odds. Calling the former an "obvious truth" as an explanation too when reason and evidence show it to be a falsehood is just an indicator of your dishonesty or of your fear of what thinking about it might reveal to you. Or both.

[torridon]

Disregarding whatever beliefs are being put forward, it simply indicates that the poster has the conscious freedom to construct a post in order to justify those beliefs.

People are free to express their beliefs in as much as no one and no thing is stopping them from doing that.  Likewise a prairie dog is free to roam far and wide in search of food in so far as no one and no thing is stopping it.  These are examples of 'freedom' used correctly. However both dog and man are acting on their desires and neither is free of those desires.  The claim that we can be 'free' of ourselves, or free of our beliefs or preferences or free of cause and effect is a spurious irrational use of the word 'free' that makes no sense.

[torridon]

Without conscious interaction, how can any post be regarded as personal?

The post will be personal essentially as it derives from the poster's personal beliefs, not so much because of the particularities of his thought processes whilst writing.  Clearly, no one ever writes posts on here whilst unconscious, not even Blue.  That we are conscious whilst writing is taken for granted, just as a robin must be conscious while building its nest.

[Nearly Sane]

The post will be personal essentially as it derives from the poster's personal beliefs, not so much because of the particularities of his thought processes whilst writing.  Clearly, no one ever writes posts on here whilst unconscious, not even Blue.  That we are conscious whilst writing is taken for granted, just as a robin must be conscious while building its nest.

I've seen a number of posts on here that would make me question that. Ironically, many of Alan's.

[bluehillside Retd.]

torri,

Clearly, no one ever writes posts on here whilst unconscious, not even Blue.

I wouldn't be so sure about that if I were you - I'm a man of many talents!

[Alan Burns]

….. or of your fear of what thinking about it might reveal to you.

How on earth can I possibly do what you suggest if I do not have real freedom to think?
You keep suggesting that if I think deeply about it I should reach the inevitable conclusion that our freedom to think is "just the way it seems".  But the act of thinking deeply about anything is a reality - not "just the way it seems".   If it was not a reality we would not have the freedom to direct our thoughts in order to "think deeply" about anything

[Outrider]

Sorry, but it is not possible to address anything which removes my freedom to consciously address anything.

I agree, but not for the reasons you think   Seriously, though, take a moment to step away from your devotion to your position.  Can you see that your belief in free will - which might not be shakable in any way - is a different thing from any sort of evidence that free will is actually a real thing?  I don't think anyone here doubts your commitment to your position - and I personally don't think the accusations of dishonesty are helpful.

I personally believe that we are deterministic biological machines; the evidence I can find seems to support that, and there are conceptual issues with the idea of free will itself which make it difficult to imagine how such a concept might actually work.  You believe that we have free will, but can you accept that your belief does not equate to a proof?  That your interpretation of the observed phenomena are subjective, and that to ascribe to them an objective truth is overstretching?

O.

[Stranger]

How on earth can I possibly do what you suggest if I do not have real freedom to think?

As is so often the case, the truth is opposite of what you claim it is. You couldn't possibly do any purposeful think at all unless your mind was a good approximation to a deterministic system - and the logic is still inescapable, that to the extent that isn't the case, it involves randomness.

What you refer to as "real freedom" is an impossible contradiction.

You keep suggesting that if I think deeply about it I should reach the inevitable conclusion that our freedom to think is "just the way it seems".  But the act of thinking deeply about anything is a reality - not "just the way it seems".   If it was not a reality we would not have the freedom to direct our thoughts in order to "think deeply" about anything

Nobody is denying that people can and do think about things - it's your impossible, nonsense version of "freedom" that is the problem. Why not stop running away, and using silly evasion like this, and at least try to address the logic and the evidence?

[Alan Burns]

I agree, but not for the reasons you think   Seriously, though, take a moment to step away from your devotion to your position.  Can you see that your belief in free will - which might not be shakable in any way - is a different thing from any sort of evidence that free will is actually a real thing?  I don't think anyone here doubts your commitment to your position - and I personally don't think the accusations of dishonesty are helpful.

I personally believe that we are deterministic biological machines; the evidence I can find seems to support that, and there are conceptual issues with the idea of free will itself which make it difficult to imagine how such a concept might actually work.  You believe that we have free will, but can you accept that your belief does not equate to a proof?  That your interpretation of the observed phenomena are subjective, and that to ascribe to them an objective truth is overstretching?

O.

I fully agree that taking an objective scientific view of how our material bodies function there can be no possible conclusion other than that based upon an entirely deterministic model driven by physical reactions to events.  But such a model would deny my personal freedom to consciously direct my own thought processes.  So there are two possible explanations - one would be the oft quoted phase that our apparent freedom is just the way it seems, because such freedom is a logical impossibility.  The other explanation I would describe not as "magic" but as a miraculous gift beyond human understanding.

[Nearly Sane]

I fully agree that taking an objective scientific view of how our material bodies function there can be no possible conclusion other than that based upon an entirely deterministic model driven by physical reactions to events.  But such a model would deny my personal freedom to consciously direct my own thought processes.  So there are two possible explanations - one would be the oft quoted phase that our apparent freedom is just the way it seems, because such freedom is a logical impossibility.  The other explanation I would describe not as "magic" but as a miraculous gift beyond human understanding.

Once you have thrown out logic as you do here, any claims you make to reasoning are specious.

[Stranger]

I fully agree that taking an objective scientific view of how our material bodies function there can be no possible conclusion other than that based upon an entirely deterministic model driven by physical reactions to events.

As has been said so many times, and you have ignored equally many: the problem with your version of "freedom" is that it is logically self-contradictory, the science and the material world are not your most basic problem. Postulating non-physical magic, doesn't help you in the least.

[Alan Burns]

Once you have thrown out logic as you do here, any claims you make to reasoning are specious.

But if the perceived logic denies the freedom needed to direct our thoughts in order to enable the process of consciously controlled reasoning - the reality goes beyond our current understanding.

[Outrider]

I fully agree that taking an objective scientific view of how our material bodies function there can be no possible conclusion other than that based upon an entirely deterministic model driven by physical reactions to events.

With our current understanding, yes - theoretically, we might learn more, but it would be a monumental change to our understanding of physics.

But such a model would deny my personal freedom to consciously direct my own thought processes.

Again, that does appear to be the current conclusion from the available evidence.

So there are two possible explanations - one would be the oft quoted phase that our apparent freedom is just the way it seems, because such freedom is a logical impossibility.

I think you're mixing two arguments there, a little - not your arguments, so perhaps understandable.  There is a purely logical argument about the concept of free will which wonders whether something can be both free (suggesting not dependent upon prior events) and somehow also will (which would seem to imply at least some link to prior events).  There is a second, scientific, argument based upon the available evidence which does not deal with whether free will is possible or not, but which solely looks at whether conscious awareness occurs after a brain can be shown to have already reached a conclusion on a particular course of action.

The other explanation I would describe not as "magic" but as a miraculous gift beyond human understanding.

And here is where we start to have issues; the science, and the logic (at least as I follow it through) both lead to the conclusion that there is no such thing as free will.  As such, it's not that the 'miracle' explanation for free will is not sufficient, it's an explanation for a phenomenon that doesn't appear to actually exist.  Our perception of free will appears to be illusory - therefore positing an explanation for it is redundant.

In order for your depiction to hold, you'd have to hold - presumably as an article of faith? - that free will existed despite the evidence, and then hold as another (linked?) article of faith that this was something miraculously outside of the physical laws as we understand them.  That is a significant leap to take in the face of a growing body of well-evidenced science establishing how the elements of this process that we do understand actually appear to work.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

But if the perceived logic denies the freedom needed to direct our thoughts in order to enable the process of consciously controlled reasoning - the reality goes beyond our current understanding.

Logic beats your belief. And since you have thrown out logic your claim as pointed out to be using reason is specious.

[Stranger]

But if the perceived logic denies the freedom needed to direct our thoughts in order to enable the process of consciously controlled reasoning - the reality goes beyond our current understanding.

Round and round and round.... That we can think about things and reason about them is not a matter of any debate. You are trying to pretend that this ability is necessarily the same as your 'explanation' of it - and ignoring the fact that your 'explanation' is self-contradictory.

[Alan Burns]

Logic beats your belief …

I would go a stage further to say that the logic referred to would deny our ability to believe in anything, because belief would require the freedom to consciously analyse, reflect and contemplate what we perceive in order to form any belief.

[Nearly Sane]

I would go a stage further to say that the logic referred to would deny our ability to believe in anything, because belief would require the freedom to consciously analyse, reflect and contemplate what we perceive in order to form any belief.

More logic free drivel

[Stranger]

I would go a stage further to say that the logic referred to would deny our ability to believe in anything, because belief would require the freedom to consciously analyse, reflect and contemplate what we perceive in order to form any belief.

Nobody is denying our ability to analyse, reflect and contemplate what we perceive and form a belief. What is missing is the slightest hint from you of any reasoning that supports your version of "freedom" even being logically possible or make any sense, let alone be required for anything we do.

And you are still confusing two arguments. The logical argument makes your version of "freedom" impossible but says nothing about consciousness (what consciousness does is irrelevant to it). The role of consciousness is not certain and that argument is about evidence - of which we have some that consciousness lags actual decisions - although that doesn't mean it has no role in making them.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But if the perceived logic…

You try pejorative language a lot to get you off the hook, but it doesn’t work because all that does is to distract from the problem you’re avoiding. It’s not “perceived” logic, it’s just logic. You know this already though because if exactly the same fallacies you try to justify your faith beliefs – argumentum ad populum, argumentum ad consequentiam, circular reasoning, post hoc ergo propter hoc, negative proof fallacy etc and (wearily) etc were attempted by anyone else to justify their faith beliefs you’d be able to identify why those arguments are false. There isn’t though some magic process by which a false argument that leads to something in which you don’t believe somehow becomes a good one when it leads to a something in which you do believe. You always vanish when this is explained to you, but would it really kill you just once to acknowledge that a logical fallacy remains a logical fallacy regardless of where it leads? 

I’ve given up any hope of you ever not relying on them, but at least have the basic decency to grasp that you’re just moving the goalposts when you do it.       

…denies the freedom needed to direct our thoughts in order to enable the process of consciously controlled reasoning - the reality goes beyond our current understanding.

Or alternatively what that (actual) logic tells you is that the reasons you have for justifying your faith beliefs are wrong. Does that mean that those beliefs are themselves wrong? Not necessarily, no – just as a stuck clock is right twice a day so maybe just as a matter of dumb luck you’ve lighted on a suite of beliefs that are true, however unlikely that guess might be to be correct. What it does mean though is that – so far at least – you’ve never once been able to provide reasoning that any rational person would think to be sound.

So why not do this – just stop relying on logical fallacies to justify your faith claims and instead find some arguments that aren’t false? And if you can’t do that (and you almost certainly can’t) then just take recourse in the faith bit alone and leave it at that.

That’s what someone with intellectual integrity would do at least, but it’s up to you I guess. 

PS And if you're seriously going to reply with the usual "but if it were really up to me how...." idiocy please don't bother.

[torridon]

How on earth can I possibly do what you suggest if I do not have real freedom to think?
You keep suggesting that if I think deeply about it I should reach the inevitable conclusion that our freedom to think is "just the way it seems".  But the act of thinking deeply about anything is a reality - not "just the way it seems".   If it was not a reality we would not have the freedom to direct our thoughts in order to "think deeply" about anything

You are free to 'direct your thoughts' because the thought Police haven't been invented yet.  This is an authentic usage of the word 'free'.  Nobody is stopping you thinking the thoughts you want to think.  In what other sense can a thought be 'free' ? 

[Outrider]

I would go a stage further to say that the logic referred to would deny our ability to believe in anything, because belief would require the freedom to consciously analyse, reflect and contemplate what we perceive in order to form any belief.

We'd still believe, it's just that it would a subconscious activity that was not supported by the available evidence rather than a conscious one.  The subconscious is capable of all the same successes and failures that we are, it just makes the mistakes before we fail to realise we've made them.

O.

[Alan Burns]

You are free to 'direct your thoughts' because the thought Police haven't been invented yet.  This is an authentic usage of the word 'free'.  Nobody is stopping you thinking the thoughts you want to think.  In what other sense can a thought be 'free' ?

I am free to choose what I think.  You will of course reply that I can't alter what I want, but what is the source of that conscious want?  Where does it originate?  Of what does it comprise?  What directs the changes in what I want to do, think or say?  Am I just a robot?

[torridon]

I am free to choose what I think.  You will of course reply that I can't alter what I want, but what is the source of that conscious want?  Where does it originate?  Of what does it comprise?  What directs the changes in what I want to do, think or say?  Am I just a robot?

If your thoughts are free, what constraint are your thoughts free from ?

[Stranger]

I am free to choose what I think.  You will of course reply that I can't alter what I want, but what is the source of that conscious want?  Where does it originate?  Of what does it comprise?  What directs the changes in what I want to do, think or say?

The same as it was all the other times you've asked questions like this: it's the product of the person you are as a result of all of your nature, nurture, and life of experience, right up to the moment you make a choice or formulate a want.

That is consistent and logical, while your impossible contradictory notion of freedom isn't either. Nor, for that matter, can it actually answer your questions.

Am I just a robot?

That's a kind of non-question really. Obviously not, but at this point you usually select an argumentum ad consequentiam from your toolbox of fallacies, and claim that the above would make you "no more than a biological robot". You can look at it like that if you want (you have that freedom) but it makes not a jot of difference to the logic.