Alan,
In response to your post 37308:
But the materialist view would mean choices were entirely predetermined before we became consciously aware of them. There can be no half measures. We are entirely driven by past physically predetermined reactions - or there is something else involved - but not random. Conscious choices are not random.
I would rather choose the word 'determined' rather than 'predetermined' for reasons already given, especially in this case, where 'predetermined' may suggest that things are fixed without any human involvement. As I see it, human involvement can be important to the interaction(rather than reaction) which results in choices made. Furthermore, even though, as the evidence shows, much of what we do happens in the unconscious, there are sensible reasons to suggest that, in evolutionary terms, consciousness plays a part. Various suggestions have been put forward as reasons for our conscious awareness. The one I prefer is that it allows a feedback mechanism to the brain by being able to focus on meaningful data, allowing it(the brain) to more easily come to decisions.
My reasoning is entirely based upon the reality of my demonstrable ability to drive my own thought processes.
To me, your reasoning is based upon the thought processes in your brain which are a result of deterministic interaction, and, because I see you as basically the workings of your brain, then your phrase 'to drive your own thoughts' becomes essentially meaningless or at least recursive if you like, and one that you cannot demonstrate except by assertion.
But if a brain comprises nothing but material elements, the only form of control will be physically controlled reactions within the material. So everything will be inevitable, uncontrollable reactions to previous events. This is not control - just uncontrollable reaction.
You seem to desire some sort of outside controller(your soul, perhaps) and hence you see the inner workings of the brain as being uncontrollable in a materialistic scenario. I have no reason to think that there is any outside controller and therefore I am quite happy to accept that the brain can control itself. Indeed, there is a great deal of evidence, especially from brain damaged people, that the brain can lose or modify its control in certain situations, leading to erratic or personality changing behaviour.
But I suspect the wealth of evidence you consider is entirely based upon material science investigation. If you deliberately exclude any possible source outside material science, you will inevitabley conclude that everything must somehow be derived from pre defined material reactions, even if you can't discover how it works. When the physical brain ceases to function it is inevitable that any interactivity with a human soul would no longer be possible, so consciously controlled actions will cease - but what happens to our conscious awareness can't be predicted.
Then you would be entirely wrong,as well as being rather mischievous, as you have been told this before. I am quite happy to accept that there may be many things that we don't know, and therefore any conclusions I come to are provisional.
Unfortunately your idea of a 'soul' has no evidence from any source to recommend it(simply asserting that it exists does not count as evidence), transgresses the rules of logic and does not affect me in any subjective sense. Hence it has little significance for me. I am quite prepared to critically analyse any other 'possible source' in exactly the same way. All you have to do is present it/them and give good, sound and evidential reasons for your suggestions. I also have to disagree with you completely on another point. I think we can predict what happens to our conscious awareness when the brain ceases to function with a great deal of confidence. It simply disappears, unless, of course, you have evidence to the contrary as to where it can now be found.
Determinism is certainly the norm. As explained above, physical determinism will be entirely defined by the laws of physics acting within material reactions. But our conscious freedom to drive our own thought processes does not fit with this type of determinism. So you are faced with the possibility that our conscious freedom is just an illusion, or there is something else which determines our thought processes which is not predetermined, but consciously invoked. It is human will.
The idea that there is a separate 'me' driving my thought processes I find difficult to comprehend. As far as I am concerned. 'Me' includes my thought processes, whether they be conscious or unconscious. Freedom, for me, especially entails the absence of curtailment from any outside influence and indeed perhaps from any limitation that my brain may impose. Hence, although I may feel free at any point, I may well be subject to controls and limitations which, if I bother to analyse them, are self evident. E.g. the desire to jump from a clifftop which is (hopefully) curtailed by the same brain. Again I see no reason to invoke a 'something else' to explain our thought processes. Why on earth would one explain 'human(or any other animal's) will' except by reference to the brain?
But quantum indeterminacy implies that there is no perceived cause to quantum events. It does not preclude the possibility that quantum indeterminacy has no cause - just no discernable cause. It opens the door to the possibility of non physical causes, such as a spiritually invoked cause.
A spiritual cause cannot be discounted.(whatever that may entail, as I am not even sure how one would describe or even define the word 'spiritual'). However, The fact that we have not yet produced a satisfactory explanation fully explaining quantum entanglement or quantum indeterminacy is no reason to invent ideas which have no basis in experimentation, no basis in theoretical mathematics and are of no forecasting value at all. Of course just about anything is possible, but we need educated guesses that we can at least work upon. Your suggestion of spiritually invoked cause is simply conjecture, and, as such, should be put on the backburner unless or until we have the tools to examine it in detail. In the larger world, of course, quantum effects tend to rapidly disappear due to the effects of decoherence, first mooted in its present form by German Physicist, Dieter Zeh, and now gaining widespread acceptance.
The evidence for the human soul lies in our own conscious awareness and in our ability to make consciously driven choices - both of which defy any explanation from physically predefined material reactions. Coming to any conclusion requires the ability to consciously contemplate the relevant factors.
I see no reason why conscious awareness, or our ability to make choices which may or may not involve consciousness should be evidence for a human soul. On the other hand we have plenty of evidence that it is the brain which drives our thoughts. There is no reason that I can think of which suggests that consciousness cannot emerge from physical interactions. The fact that the hard problem of consciousness remains a problem(although much recent experimental work in the neuroscientific field has increased our knowledge in this area) does not give you carte blanche, in my eyes, to suggest your entirely unevidenced and ill defined but preferred option of your human soul idea. Furthermore there is a huge amount of evidence that many animal species have conscious awareness, indeed some have conscious self awareness as far as we can tell. Incidentally there is some evidence to suggest that the neanderthals(a separate species to homo sapiens sapiens) had some form of early religious cult in that they deliberately buried their dead alongside stone tools and animal bones.
Such freedom to contemplate cannot exist within physically predefined chains of cause and effect in an entirely material brain. Conclusions cannot be determined by uncontrollable reactions.
This is simply assertion, Alan, and as such has no value. As an adjunct to this, I make all sorts of conclusions about all sorts of things, sometimes without any recall to conscious awareness at all. Indeed I was listening to the writer, John Preston(He wrote 'A Very English Scandal') describing how he writes. He talked about the words and ideas coming into his head without any real conscious effort, and actually stated that he is reluctant to revise his original ideas because this tends to water them down. I know of many other artists who have said similar things(E.g. Ray Bradbury, Grayson Perry)
Yes, we do have the freedom to witness - but what drives this act?
I was actually trying to show you that your idea of 'witness' is no more than saying 'I really, really believe this to be true' and we can all do that. In itself it has no intrinsic value. However to answer your question, it would seem to me that your brain is responsible.
Electrical activity certainly plays a part in the brain's cognitive functionality, as do electromagnetic fields, but can you honestly presume that they play the whole part? If they do play the whole part then the inevitable conclusion must be that everything we do, think or say is entirely predetermined by underlying physically controlled reactions - which denies us the consciously driven freedom we all enjoy.The evidence for my conscious freedom lies in my ability to make the consciously driven assertions I am perceived to make.
You mean you think I need a special request to be honest, Alan? Really? However to respond to your point. It seems so, and in the absence of any other evidence, I am happy to accept this as a provisional explanation. And, for the umpteenth time, I see no reason at all why the physical make up of the brain cannot explain our 'consciously driven freedom'. I did ask, remember, 'what evidence have you that supports your assertion that there must be something else?'. Yet all you can come up with is that your ability to make assertions is some sort of evidence for your position. Making assertions or even the ability to make assertions is not evidence by itself, Alan. You need to produce some sort of methodology which would back up your assertions. In my book, you have failed to entirely, time and time again.
Hence I am happy to dismiss your assertions unless/until you can produce evidence which can point towards such ideas as you claim.
This presents a fascinating thought experiment, to try to imagine one'self
when cut off from the information contained in our brain. But:
I am aware of past memories.
But these memories are not me.
I am aware of all my learnt experiences.
But these learnings are not me.
I am aware of sight, sound, touch and taste.
But there senses are not me.
Take all these away, and what is left?
Me.
I remain a single entity of awareness and willpower.
When my material body ceases to function, I will look forward to being aware of a place in a new world which God has prepared for me.
I am aware of past memories and my brain's capacity to be able to recollect these
memories, even though, I realise, that my brain's recollections are prone to error and lack of accuracy.
My brain's ability to recollect is part of me.
I am aware that my brain has the capacity to learn and absorb learnt experiences.
The brain's capacity to do this is part of me.
I am aware that my brain has the capacity to interpret my bodily senses such as sight, sound and touch.
My brain's capacity to do this is part of me.
Take all these away and my brain may well be able still to produce cogent thinking, muddled thinking, decision making, hallucinations, emotions and feelings which may or may not affect other parts of my body and various qualities such as determination, stubbornness, willpower etc.(although these may well come under the label of emotions and feelings).
My brain's capacity to do these things and have these qualities is part of me.
Assuming that I haven't forgotten any other brain function(discounting the ability to perform necessary functions such as breathing) then take all these away, and what I understand as 'me' disappears. Alter any one of these, and what is 'me' changes. That is why I often look upon the 'me' of my youth as a distinctly different person to the 'me' of my present 78 years.
My functioning brain remains a single entity, although it is of course made up of many parts which connect, pass information between them and function in such a way that evolution, even with its many imperfections, allows 'me' to survive.
When my material body ceases to function, I will assume oblivion awaits because I see no reason that there is anything that remains, a view which is further strengthened by seeing no reason to have a belief in any god. This state of affairs does not worry me at all as it seems to be a very natural state of affairs.
No. I am not determined by prior events - I (my soul) am God's creation.
Believe this if you want, but please be aware that you are simply asserting something without any evidence whatever.
1) It is not established that 'you' equates to 'your soul' except that you believe it to be so.
2) It is not established that there is any such entity as your God except that you believe it to be so.
3) There are vast amounts of evidence which suggest that every human being is a product of what went before, whether you believe it or not.
Yet I have had the freedom to consciously contemplate the points you have made and make these sincerely thought out replies. I am not at all convinced that I could have accomplished this by nothing but physically predetermined material reactions in my brain.
I don't doubt that you are sincere, and we all, unless coerced, have such freedoms, whether they be explained by the conscious or unconscious mind. I am not at all convinced by any of your pleading for the simple reason that you cannot back up your claims. They seem to be simply a result of your all pervading faith position and nothing more. For me, your utterances are like repetitive 'sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal' except it is not charity that you lack but unbiased, critical and logical thinking.
