Searching for GOD...

[ekim]

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

Logic? 

[torridon]

LOL 

[Outrider]

I am free to choose what I think.

Or, maybe, you can't help but believe that?

You will of course reply that I can't alter what I want, but what is the source of that conscious want?

Well, disregarding for a moment whether there is a conscious want to have a source - if you could alter what you wanted, on what basis would that decision be made?  Is it based upon prior experience, in which case to what extent can it be free of that experience, and if it isn't then what is it dependent upon?  And if it's not dependent upon anything, is it just random?

Am I just a robot?

What do you mean 'just'?  Why is that some sort of a reduction - if this deterministic model is correct you are no less than you were before you understood. You are not suddenly 'merely', or 'only', or 'just' something less, you are exactly as spectacular an organism as you were before.

O.

[Alan Burns]

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

Freedom to choose involves more than just lack of constraint.  It is freedom to choose between two or more viable, perceived options which exist in your present state of conscious awareness.  It involves a means to consciously invoke a chosen action.  Do these words I am choosing to type just get defined by the absence of constraints?  Were they predefined by every historical event beyond my conscious control?   Or were they consciously chosen by me?

[Alan Burns]

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.

You seem to be implying that all the mistakes you find in my posts were preconceived in my subconscious, which is beyond my conscious control.  And it follows using the same logic that the corrections you deem to make in your replies were also preconceived subconsciously beyond your own conscious control.  So how can you determine if your subconscious brain activity is somehow superior to my subconscious brain activity if neither of us have any conscious input?  And this question is effectively meaningless if it just gets answered by yet more subconscious brain activity.

[Alan Burns]

Logic? 

Well I would say that you are correct in implying that my replies are free from the flawed logic repeatedly being quoted that denies my freedom to choose.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Well I would say that you are correct in implying that my replies are free from the flawed logic repeatedly being quoted that denies my freedom to choose.

Your posts are full of flawed logic. Those flaws are explained to you. You ignore the explanations and keep attempting the same flawed logic. That's dishonest.

Stop being dishonest.

[Alan Burns]

Well, disregarding for a moment whether there is a conscious want to have a source - if you could alter what you wanted, on what basis would that decision be made?  Is it based upon prior experience, in which case to what extent can it be free of that experience, and if it isn't then what is it dependent upon?  And if it's not dependent upon anything, is it just random?

Knowledge of prior experiences exists in my present state of conscious awareness, as do the viable options which I can choose to invoke.  My choice is not just a mechanistic reaction to the past.  It is a freely chosen option invoked from within my present state of conscious awareness.  I know this scenario goes beyond anything which can be defined by the materialistic logic of time dependent chains of cause and effect, but it is the only scenario which reflects the reality of our human ability to consciously choose what we do, think or say.

[Stranger]

Knowledge of prior experiences exists in my present state of conscious awareness, as do the viable options which I can choose to invoke.

To the extent that the "present state of conscious awareness" means anything at all (until you provide a proper definition and stop running scared from the question), it's just a moving moment in time - it has no logical significance at all.

My choice is not just a mechanistic reaction to the past.

So you keep asserting, without evidence or reasoning. If it is true that it's "not just a mechanistic reaction to the past", then, to the extent that it isn't, it is due to nothing to do with the past, hence nothing to do with anything regarding the choice or the person you are - we call this "randomness".

It is a freely chosen option invoked from within my present state of conscious awareness.

More evasive nonsense. How do you make that choice? And the "present state of conscious awareness" is still logically irrelevant hand-waving.

I know this scenario goes beyond anything which can be defined by the materialistic logic...

There is no such thing as "materialistic logic", just logic.

...of time dependent chains of cause and effect..

The only way to make choices that make any sense or can have any purpose, is for them to come from chains of cause and effect.

...but it is the only scenario which reflects the reality of our human ability to consciously choose what we do, think or say.

Your version of choice making doesn't even make sense, let alone reflect anything in reality.

[torridon]

Freedom to choose involves more than just lack of constraint.  It is freedom to choose between two or more viable, perceived options which exist in your present state of conscious awareness.  It involves a means to consciously invoke a chosen action.  Do these words I am choosing to type just get defined by the absence of constraints?  Were they predefined by every historical event beyond my conscious control?   Or were they consciously chosen by me?

If your concept of freedom means being free of relevant considerations in making a choice, then you aren't making a choice at all; you are merely doing a random behaviour.  How else can a choice be meaningful except by reference to the relevant factors ?

If I am making my next move in a game of chess, then how could that be free of the sum total of my knowledge and experience and skill ? If it were somehow humanly possible to be free of the relevant knowledge my move would be random.  Likewise if a robin in choosing a nest site were to be somehow free of its instincts and learning to date then it would be choosing nesting sites randomly and robins would have long gone extinct.

Choice doesn't work like that. A meaningful choice arises out of the weighing of the options against each other, not by being free of them.

[Outrider]

Knowledge of prior experiences exists in my present state of conscious awareness, as do the viable options which I can choose to invoke.  My choice is not just a mechanistic reaction to the past.

So what else is it? What is that other bit using to make the decision?

It is a freely chosen option invoked from within my present state of conscious awareness.  I know this scenario goes beyond anything which can be defined by the materialistic logic of time dependent chains of cause and effect, but it is the only scenario which reflects the reality of our human ability to consciously choose what we do, think or say.

No, that's just an attempt to say that 'it's difficult to define, so let's not look at it' - yes it's difficult, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.  If there's an element that's not a mechanistic inevitable consequence of prior events, then what is that bit? Is it something random?  If it's neither, what is that - things are either a consequence of prior events or they aren't, and it seems like you're trying to introduce some third way here, and I can't at the moment conceive of what that could be.

O.

[Alan Burns]

Choice doesn't work like that. A meaningful choice arises out of the weighing of the options against each other, not by being free of them.

I have never claimed that a choice is free of options.  It is a consciously driven choice between viable options.
And what would you say drives this "weighing" process?

[Alan Burns]

If I am making my next move in a game of chess, then how could that be free of the sum total of my knowledge and experience and skill ?

In playing chess you are often faced with a choice of options - some with more risk than others.  It is your own conscious choice about how much risk to take.  This is where it differs from the hard programmed computer chess player which will have a pre programmed element of risk.

And please refrain from your incorrect claim that freedom to choose must be random.

[ekim]

I have never claimed that a choice is free of options.  It is a consciously driven choice between viable options.
And what would you say drives this "weighing" process?

Intelligent reasoning or emotional intelligence or a combination of both?  Consciousness just facilitates the process rather than drives it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

And please refrain from your incorrect claim that freedom to choose must be random.

If it's not deterministic it must be random. It's a binary. Just inventing a little man to do the choosing that works by logic-free magic isn't an explanation, it's the avoidance of an explanation.

It's not difficult.

[torridon]

I have never claimed that a choice is free of options.  It is a consciously driven choice between viable options.
And what would you say drives this "weighing" process?

In a simple choice between rival options, the option with the greatest emotional appeal wins out and the choice is resolved.  Clearly not all choices are simple, but it has to come down to simple logic otherwise we would never be able to resolve choice.  And given that we have no control over how much each option appeals to us, we have no control over the outcome, in reality.  How would the world work if we could alter how things appeal to us ? On what basis would we choose to alter the appeal ?   This route makes no sense and would make life unintelligible.

[Stranger]

I have never claimed that a choice is free of options.  It is a consciously driven choice between viable options.
And what would you say drives this "weighing" process?

You do - and what drives it is the wrong question. The question you keep on running away from is how a choice is finally made.

In playing chess you are often faced with a choice of options - some with more risk than others.  It is your own conscious choice about how much risk to take.  This is where it differs from the hard programmed computer chess player which will have a pre programmed element of risk.

Do you really think you have a choice about how risk-averse you are? How would you decide? By how much risk you should take in deciding how risk-averse you should be today and in this circumstance?

Oops - another infinite regress.

And please refrain from your incorrect claim that freedom to choose must be random.

Have you really been paying no attention?

It's you who keeps on insisting that our "freedom" means that our choices aren't fully determined what led up them - and that means that there must be randomness involved.

[ekim]

In a simple choice between rival options, the option with the greatest emotional appeal wins out and the choice is resolved.  Clearly not all choices are simple, but it has to come down to simple logic otherwise we would never be able to resolve choice.  And given that we have no control over how much each option appeals to us, we have no control over the outcome, in reality.  How would the world work if we could alter how things appeal to us ? On what basis would we choose to alter the appeal ?   This route makes no sense and would make life unintelligible.

As I see it, the religious perspective brings in God and the choice becomes one of an alignment with God's Will (Thy Will be done on Earth) by giving up self will, which is based upon the personal desires you mention.  The individual becomes choice-less and free of self will but not free of God's Will.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Ekim,

As I see it, the religious perspective brings in God and the choice becomes one of an alignment with God's Will (Thy Will be done on Earth) by giving up self will, which is based upon the personal desires you mention.  The individual becomes choice-less and free of self will but not free of God's Will.

I wonder if that’s what AB is (inadvertently) proposing? In the (admittedly highly unlikely) event that his god is real, “He” has sent his little minions in the form of “souls” to do the decision making for “us”, but in such a way that “we” feel as though “we” have (AB’s logically impossible version of) “free” will, only it’s really this same god acting through his little soul helpers who’s pulling the strings all along.

It’s all mad as a box of frogs I know, but when you just make shit up to protect some faith beliefs you hold a priori as AB does you inevitably find yourself in ever more convoluted ontologies to keep shoring up the logical inconsistencies as they arise.

[Christine]

As I see it, the religious perspective brings in God and the choice becomes one of an alignment with God's Will (Thy Will be done on Earth) by giving up self will, which is based upon the personal desires you mention.  The individual becomes choice-less and free of self will but not free of God's Will.

I know a few Christians who have very different opinions about what "God" wants and expects from humans.  I think many religious people are doing exactly what they want, but (with remarkable hubris) elevating their own desires to the status of god-ordained goodness. 

Also, I manage not to run amok while smoking crack without reference to any deity at all.  It's quite revealing when people suggest humans would all be out killing and raping if it wasn't for instructions from an authority figure. 

Alan Burns telling people to refrain from making incorrect claims!  Blimey.

[Alan Burns]

So what else is it? What is that other bit using to make the decision?

No, that's just an attempt to say that 'it's difficult to define, so let's not look at it' - yes it's difficult, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.  If there's an element that's not a mechanistic inevitable consequence of prior events, then what is that bit? Is it something random?  If it's neither, what is that - things are either a consequence of prior events or they aren't, and it seems like you're trying to introduce some third way here, and I can't at the moment conceive of what that could be.

O.

As I have said on previous posts, the third way would be our conscious awareness existing in its own present state - perceiving and interacting with our physical brain to invoke whatever is needed to implement a choice.  I believe that our conscious awareness is the only viable definition for the word "present" because that is where we exist and make our choices.  Scripture would indicate that the human soul is immortal, therefore not belonging or being part of this material world, so it would not be restricted by the time related laws of cause and effect.  Our spiritual nature would also fit in with God's nature as indicated in the awesome beginning of John's gospel - "In the beginning was the word …" - not a material thing but a meaning - a conscious intention to bring this universe into existence.

[Alan Burns]

It's you who keeps on insisting that our "freedom" means that our choices aren't fully determined what led up them - and that means that there must be randomness involved.

Please stop misrepresenting what I say.
Our choices are determined by our conscious will which has the power to choose between two or more viable options and to enable our freedom to guide our own thought processes.  It is not a reaction but a choice.  Nothing at all random.

[Gordon]

Our choices are determined by our conscious will which has the power to choose between two or more viable options and to enable our freedom to guide our own thought processes.  It is not a reaction but a choice.  Nothing at all random.

Then why do I find some foods inherently revolting without having to go through a mental process of evaluating said foods?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

As I have said on previous posts...

Oh dear.

Translation: I have no interest in any counter-arguments to anything I've said already, I'm just going to keep repeating it regardless.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Scripture would indicate that the human soul is immortal, therefore…

See whether you can work out for yourself the problem with that “therefore”. Take your time if you need to.