Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But it is not just an experience of choosing.

Yes it is. Your alternative version of it is logically impossible.

It is what defines the word "choice".  It is demonstrable choice.  Demonstrated throughout the history of mankind's consciously driven acts of discovery and creativity.

No it isn't. Your definition of "choice" involves separating the self into a "controller" and a controlled, which Cartesian dualism was junked as plainly wrong some 300 years ago.
   

And it is not magic.  It is God's miraculous gift of human freewill.

And what to your mind is the difference between your unqualified assertion "God's miraculous gift of human freewill" and "it's magic innit" exactly?

[Alan Burns]

So an elephant's control over its trunk comes from its consciously driven will then.

Fine.  Have you ever seen an elephant controlling its trunk when it was not conscious ?

As I have said several times, externally observed reactions driven by instinctive behaviour are not necessarily an indication of the conscious awareness we perceive as human beings.  Conscious awareness is an internal property which does not need to be verified by physical reaction.  Our awareness allows us to consciously choose how to react - or not react at all if we so wish.  We can use it to override instinctive reactions.

[Alan Burns]

   
And what to your mind is the difference between your unqualified assertion "God's miraculous gift of human freewill" and "it's magic innit" exactly?

One is demonstrably real, the other is a deliberate illusion.

[Nearly Sane]

One is demonstrably real, the other is a deliberate illusion.

Demonstrate it then because so far you haven't. Indeed you appear not to understand 'demonstrably' or 'real'. And you are so logically inept you don't understand that you have no methodology, despite being asked many many many times, for what you assert.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

ne is demonstrably real, the other is a deliberate illusion.

If you think something is demonstrably real then, without collapsing immediately into logical fallacies, at least try finally to demonstrate it.

[torridon]

As I have said several times, externally observed reactions driven by instinctive behaviour are not necessarily an indication of the conscious awareness we perceive as human beings.  Conscious awareness is an internal property which does not need to be verified by physical reaction.  Our awareness allows us to consciously choose how to react - or not react at all if we so wish.  We can use it to override instinctive reactions.

There is no reason to imagine that every other species lacks inner awareness though is there ?  What evidence is there to suggest that to be the case ? I've never seen a bear hunt for food whilst it was in hibernation; hunting is too complex a behaviour to carry out whilst not conscious, a bear needs to have the  keen awareness that derives from its senses of sight and smell in order to be successful.  How could an eagle see a rabbit on the ground if it cannot see ?  Your claims make no sense and have no evidence and have no explanation, it is just all bald stubborn blind ignorance you keep putting out.  All awareness is inner awareness. No creatures have some sort of 'external' awareness, such a phenomenon does not exist.

Justify yourself.

[Gordon]

As I have said several times, externally observed reactions driven by instinctive behaviour are not necessarily an indication of the conscious awareness we perceive as human beings.

So you keep saying, but repetition doesn't improve what is no more than a banal word-salad.

Conscious awareness is an internal property which does not need to be verified by physical reaction.

So, when we are conscious and aware, as in being awake, we know we are awake because we are awake: can you see the problem here?

Our awareness allows us to consciously choose how to react - or not react at all if we so wish.  We can use it to override instinctive reactions.

So when we are awake we can, like, think using our brains and decide stuff - big wow!

[Stranger]

To have control, you need a source of control - a controller.  Control is not just reaction to past events, over which we can have no control.

Total nonsense. Control is a reaction to whatever it is controlling.

My conscious control comes from my consciously driven will.

So you endlessly assert. How about dropping endless repetition of points that have been answered countless times, and starting to try to argue for it.

One is demonstrably real, the other is a deliberate illusion.

You can't demonstrate your impossible, contradictory version of "freedom" - it doesn't even make coherent sense. It is literally meaningless gibberish.

[Alan Burns]

There is no reason to imagine that every other species lacks inner awareness though is there ?  What evidence is there to suggest that to be the case ? I've never seen a bear hunt for food whilst it was in hibernation; hunting is too complex a behaviour to carry out whilst not conscious, a bear needs to have the  keen awareness that derives from its senses of sight and smell in order to be successful.  How could an eagle see a rabbit on the ground if it cannot see ?  Your claims make no sense and have no evidence and have no explanation, it is just all bald stubborn blind ignorance you keep putting out.  All awareness is inner awareness. No creatures have some sort of 'external' awareness, such a phenomenon does not exist.

Justify yourself.

As I said, you do not need conscious awareness to react in a pre programmed, instinctive way. Robots can be programmed to react in an animal like way without conscious awareness.  Observed animal reactions do not tell you what is going on in the mind of the animal.

[Roses]

As I said, you do not need conscious awareness to react in a pre programmed, instinctive way. Robots can be programmed to react in an animal like way without conscious awareness.  Observed animal reactions do not tell you what is going on in the mind of the animal.

Humans are an animal species too.

[Gordon]

As I said, you do not need conscious awareness to react in a pre programmed, instinctive way.

So I don't need to worry about remembering to breathe or that my endocrine system produces thyroxine - well so what?
 

Robots can be programmed to react in an animal like way without conscious awareness.

Again, so what, and anyway robots are manufactured whereas animals (including our species) aren't.

Observed animal reactions do not tell you what is going on in the mind of the animal.

Well you are an animal, Alan, though I do concede it is hard to know what is going on in your mind.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

As I said, you do not need conscious awareness to react in a pre programmed, instinctive way. Robots can be programmed to react in an animal like way without conscious awareness.  Observed animal reactions do not tell you what is going on in the mind of the animal.

Yes we know you’ve said it, endlessly in fact. Repeating a stupidity doesn’t make it less stupid though.

A bear feels hungry. It smells food. It moves in that direction. You feel hungry. You smell food. You move in that direction. At one level each of you have made a “choice” that each of you act on. At a more profound level though those choices are manifestations of underlying deterministic processes. It’s not difficult, or at least it’s not if you’re not handicapped by insisting on jemmying in a faith belief about a "soul" you happen to hold a priori so as to justify it.

[Roses]

I wonder where in the human body the 'soul' resides? It is strange if we all have one medical science hasn't yet detected it.

[Alan Burns]

Demonstrate it then because so far you haven't. Indeed you appear not to understand 'demonstrably' or 'real'. And you are so logically inept you don't understand that you have no methodology, despite being asked many many many times, for what you assert.

The demonstrable reality of our freedom to choose is evident in every post we write on this forum.  We are free to choose what to write, when to write it, or not to write anything if we so wish.  Our choices are made by our conscious will at the time we make them.  This is reality.  We have freedom to contemplate this reality and consciously drive our thought processes to reach conclusions (be they right or wrong!).  The alternative is to presume that everything we have ever thought, said and done was entirely predetermined by past events over which we had no control.  You can't change reality to fit in with our limited knowledge of science.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Yes we know you’ve said it, endlessly in fact. Repeating a stupidity doesn’t make it less stupid though.

A bear feels hungry. It smells food. It moves in that direction. You feel hungry. You smell food. You move in that direction. At one level each of you have made a “choice” that each of you act on. At a more profound level though those choices are manifestations of underlying deterministic processes. It’s not difficult, or at least it’s not if you’re not handicapped by insisting on jemmying in a faith belief about a "soul" you happen to hold a priori so as to justify it.

Yes, we do have some commonality with animals in having instinctive reactions to sensory data.  The difference is that our conscious awareness allows us freedom to choose how to react to our perceived sensory data.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The demonstrable reality of our freedom to choose is evident in every post we write on this forum.

Not in the sense you intend “freedom” it isn’t.

We are free to choose what to write, when to write it, or not to write anything if we so wish.

That’s right, There’s no-one standing behind you with a gun to your head telling you to do otherwise.

Our choices are made by our conscious will at the time we make them.

As that’s logically impossible unless they’re also in part or in whole random, not they’re not

This is reality.

No, it’s a narrative you find persuasive because you will not or cannot think about its implications.

We have freedom to contemplate this reality and consciously drive our thought processes to reach conclusions (be they right or wrong!).

Not in the sense you intend “freedom” we don’t.

The alternative is to presume that everything we have ever thought, said and done was entirely predetermined by past events over which we had no control.

There is no “we” other than the agglomeration of those “past events”, and you’re trying the fallacy of an argumentum ad consequentiam too.
 

You can't change reality to fit in with our limited knowledge of science.

Our “limited knowledge of science” as you put it is the best guide we have to what reality is. Calling your reason- and evidence-free faith beliefs “reality” and complaining that the findings of science falsify it is called begging the question – one of the many fallacies into which you routinely collapse.

[Stranger]

More mindless repetition of obviously wrong foolishness.

We are free to choose what to write, when to write it, or not to write anything if we so wish.

Nobody is disputing this. That is not the issue.

The alternative is to presume that everything we have ever thought, said and done was entirely predetermined by past events over which we had no control.

What is missing is any tiny hint of a morsel of a scintilla of a reason to suppose that what we think, say and do is not entirely determined ("predetermined" is a misrepresentation) by everything that led up to it (all the circumstances and all our nature, nurture, and experience).

What is also missing is any attempt to tackle the problem that if choice-making isn't entirely determined by everything that led up to it, then some part of that choice must not be due to anything that led up to it, and therefore be random.

You can't change reality to fit in with our limited knowledge of science.

Nobody is trying to. You are trying to argue by fallacy, incredulity, and baseless assertion, for the logically impossible. You cannot change reality or logic to suit your blind faith.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Yes, we do have some commonality with animals in having instinctive reactions to sensory data.  The difference is that our conscious awareness allows us freedom to choose how to react to our perceived sensory data.

Wrong again. If we're after the food and the 'phone rings, that may create a want to answer the 'phone instead. If the bear is after the food and hears a gunshot, that may create a want to move in the opposite direction instead. Same process.

[jeremyp]

It is still a reaction - which by definition is not a choice.

Do you make choice completely spontaneously? Or do you make them in reaction to events. For example, why did you choose to respond to my post? Wasn't it in reaction to seeing it?

[Nearly Sane]

The demonstrable reality of our freedom to choose is evident in every post we write on this forum.  We are free to choose what to write, when to write it, or not to write anything if we so wish.  Our choices are made by our conscious will at the time we make them.  This is reality.  We have freedom to contemplate this reality and consciously drive our thought processes to reach conclusions (be they right or wrong!).  The alternative is to presume that everything we have ever thought, said and done was entirely predetermined by past events over which we had no control.  You can't change reality to fit in with our limited knowledge of science.

Asserting isn't demonstrating.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Asserting isn't demonstrating.

It is when you rely solely on circular reasoning: "But the fact that I can assert it demonstrates god" etc.

[Enki]

One is demonstrably real, the other is a deliberate illusion.

Then you are under an obligation to demonstrate 'God's miraculous gift of human freewill' as real.

Don't forget that demonstrable means 'clearly apparent or capable of being logically proved' so it is clearly not enough to assert that it is simply demonstrable to you. That would have no significance whatever.

Over to you.

[Roses]

Then you are under an obligation to demonstrate 'God's miraculous gift of human freewill' as real.

Don't forget that demonstrable means 'clearly apparent or capable of being logically proved' so it is clearly not enough to assert that it is simply demonstrable to you. That would have no significance whatever.

Over to you.

I agree. It might seem real and logical to AB as he is so indoctrinated by the Catholic dogma he is unable to think outside the box, or maybe too intimidated to do so.

[bluehillside Retd.]

enki,

Then you are under an obligation to demonstrate 'God's miraculous gift of human freewill' as real.

Don't forget that demonstrable means 'clearly apparent or capable of being logically proved' so it is clearly not enough to assert that it is simply demonstrable to you. That would have no significance whatever.

Over to you.

He never will. "God is real. Free will requires god. We have free will. Therefore god is real. God is real. Free will requires god. We have free will. Therefore...etc" is all he has, so round and round he goes entirely oblivious to the problem his circular reasoning gives him.

[torridon]

As I said, you do not need conscious awareness to react in a pre programmed, instinctive way. Robots can be programmed to react in an animal like way without conscious awareness.  Observed animal reactions do not tell you what is going on in the mind of the animal.

Ten out of ten for evasiveness; zero out of ten for engagement.

I didn't ask about reaction, I asked about awareness.  In case you've forgotten, you need to be aware of an issue before you can respond to it. Response comes later. So, please try again, this time read what is written and respond to that, not something tangential.

What evidence is there to suggest that non-human animals lack inner awareness ? If there is a knock at the door, my dog responds, pricking up his ears, growling.  This evidence suggests that he was aware of the knock at the door, just as I was.  I find your endlessly repeated claims that my dog lacks that inner awareness bizarre, what other explanation could there be for his subsequent response ? Is his growling just an enormous coincidence ?