Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

But as I have been informed many times, every event is an inevitable consequence of previous events.  If this is the case, there can be no personal input to whatever is determined from the events of the past.  Any response would be just an inevitable consequence of all past events with no room for any personal intervention.

any input I make will still be mine, even if i am a deterministic agent.  It is unique to me.  You are misunderstanding what is meant by 'personal'

[Nearly Sane]

And where do you suppose the unique phrase "shite cubed" originates?  Can you take personal credit for dreaming up this unusual descriptor?  Or did it just pop up into your conscious awareness after being concocted by the uncontrollable reactions occurring in your sub conscious brain activity?

The second in terms of how it was experienced. So given you want to privilege  personal experience above logic and science, that means that because what is described as being your experience and what is described as being my experience being in contradiction, we can through that out as a useful method.

[SteveH]

We don't know for sure what goes on in the minds of other animal species, maybe they have created their own gods too.

The utter flapdoodle, taradiddle and balderdash you will come out with just to avoid admitting you're wrong never seases to amaze me.

[Nearly Sane]

The utter flapdoodle, taradiddle and balderdash you will come out with just to avoid admitting you're wrong never seases to amaze me.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/mysterious-chimpanzee-behaviour-could-be-sacred-rituals-and-show-that-chimps-believe-in-god-a6911301.html

[bluehillside Retd.]

SteveH,

The utter flapdoodle, taradiddle and balderdash you will come out with just to avoid admitting you're wrong never seases to amaze me.

Well...

"Animal faith is the study of animal behaviours that suggest proto-religious faith. There is no evidence that any non-human animals believe in God or gods, pray, worship, have any notion of metaphysics, create artifacts with ritual significance, or many other behaviours typical of human religion.[inconsistent] Whether animals can have religious faith is dependent on a sufficiently open definition of religion. Thus, if by religion one means a "non-anthropocentric, non-anthropomorphic, non-theistic, and non-logocentric trans-species prototype definition of religion",[1][2] ritual behaviour can be interpreted in the actions of chimpanzees, elephants, dolphins and other animals."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_behavior_in_animals

[Roses]

The utter flapdoodle, taradiddle and balderdash you will come out with just to avoid admitting you're wrong never seases to amaze me.

You are talking about yourself again, dear.

[Roses]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/mysterious-chimpanzee-behaviour-could-be-sacred-rituals-and-show-that-chimps-believe-in-god-a6911301.html

An interesting article.

[Alan Burns]

You are just assuming your conclusion, namely that there is a "you" that is separate from cause and effect and would therefore have no control. The only logically self-consistent view is that you are part of cause and effect. The "you" that is exercising control is doing so for reasons. Those reasons being the person you have become due to your nature, nurture, and experience and the circumstances you are faced with. If there were to be any other ingredient to a choice it would have to be nothing to do with you or the choice, so it cannot possibly add to your control or freedom; it would be for no reason, just random.

If you think there is something wrong with that reasoning, why not say what? And try to avoid you past mistakes, like trying to arbitrarily redefine the word "control", or an appeal to consequences, or personal incredulity, or baseless assertion.

But how can I possibly have the ability to contemplate all that you have said without my personal freedom to enact such contemplation?  Your scenario effectively removes the "I" from the equation and replaces me with a material entity with no will, no control, no personal interaction - entirely predefined by physically controlled reactions to events.  Yet I am free to consciously contradict such a scenario because it is not reality.  I do exist. I think. I make choices. I interact. I create.  I know this does not totally fit in with your perceived logic of cause and effect, but it will fit if you acknowledge that you have the ability to consciously invoke a cause which implements an act of conscious will.  I do not profess to know how this ability can be explained in purely scientific terms, but it is the amazing reality which enables me to consciously compose this post.

Too wonderful for me, this knowledge, too high, beyond my reach
psalm 139

[torridon]

But how can I possibly have the ability to contemplate all that you have said without my personal freedom to enact such contemplation?  Your scenario effectively removes the "I" from the equation and replaces me with a material entity with no will, no control, no personal interaction - entirely predefined by physically controlled reactions to events.  Yet I am free to consciously contradict such a scenario because it is not reality.  I do exist. I think. I make choices. I interact. I create.  I know this does not totally fit in with your perceived logic of cause and effect, but it will fit if you acknowledge that you have the ability to consciously invoke a cause which implements an act of conscious will.  I do not profess to know how this ability can be explained in purely scientific terms, but it is the reality which enables me to consciously compose this post.

That 'I' is part of the functioning of a healthy human mind, an aspect of the particular way that consciousness has evolved in humans.  It is a feeling, not a thing, a persistent continuity through change.  We know this from observation, for instance, the 'I' is no longer there in deep sleep or under general anaesthetic. Also it is degraded and even sometimes lost altogether in cases of dementia.  This tells us that 'I' is a product of a healthy functioning waking mind. In severe dementia, there is no longer a person there, just a functioning body.

[Stranger]

But how can I possibly have the ability to contemplate all that you have said without my personal freedom to enact such contemplation?

Nobody is denying your personal freedom to contemplate whatever you want. This really isn't rocket science, why do you keep on posting silly statements like this?

Your scenario effectively removes the "I" from the equation and replaces me with a material entity with no will, no control, no personal interaction - entirely predefined by physically controlled reactions to events.

For the ten millionth time, the "material" and "physical" bit is irrelevant. The "I" is not removed neither is control or personal interaction. The exact opposite of what you say is actually the case, because if what you choose to do is not entirely due to who you have become through your life, and the circumstances of the choice, that would remove any sort of control from you.

Yet I am free to consciously contradict such a scenario because it is not reality.

In what way does it conflict with reality? You keep on making this utterly baseless claim and can never back it up with anything.

I do exist. I think. I make choices. I interact. I create.  I know this does not totally fit in with your perceived logic of cause and effect...

On the contrary, it fits perfectly with cause and effect.

...but it will fit if you acknowledge that you have the ability to consciously invoke a cause which implements an act of conscious will.

Word salad - you being able implement an act of will, is perfectly compatible with it having be caused by all that led up to it.

I do not profess to know how this ability can be explained in purely scientific terms, but it is the amazing reality which enables me to consciously compose this post.

Nothing but cause and effect is needed - you're trying to solve a problem that simply doesn't exist. We don't know exactly how minds work but there is nothing about what they do that suggests that they are not operating as deterministic systems.

There is simply no need for your impossible, self-contradictory magic. And you still haven't addressed the actual reasoning that shows it to be contradictory.

[Outrider]

But how can I possibly have the ability to contemplate all that you have said without my personal freedom to enact such contemplation?  Your scenario effectively removes the "I" from the equation and replaces me with a material entity with no will, no control, no personal interaction - entirely predefined by physically controlled reactions to events.

No, it simply clarifies that your use of 'I' is shorthand for a particular iteration of a material entity with an awareness of its existence as it goes through the deterministic activity of life.

Yet I am free to consciously contradict such a scenario because it is not reality.

You keep claiming this, you keep failing to explain why you think it is the case (you've made clear why you say it, but not what the underlying thinking is).  More to the point, you've yet to explain how such a concept logically operates - it's not dependent upon prior events, it's not something random... but you've not explained what the other options are.

I do exist. I think. I make choices. I interact. I create.

Within some distinct interpretations, yes.  You make choices, inasmuch as there are logically valid possibilities for you at various times that someone without sufficient information on the internal state of your physiology could not predict.

I know this does not totally fit in with your perceived logic of cause and effect, but it will fit if you acknowledge that you have the ability to consciously invoke a cause which implements an act of conscious will.

That still doesn't mean anything.  What is 'conscious will'?  How is that it is at once not a consequence of prior events but is not random?  If will is selecting from a range of possibilities what is informing the choice, and in what way is it 'free' of prior events, prior learnings and experience, inherited tendencies?  It's not merely that it doesn't conform to a 'perceived' logic of cause and effect, it's that it seems to want at once to be a system of cause and effect (I am the cause) and at the same time disavow cause and effect (I am not an effect of prior causes).

I do not profess to know how this ability can be explained in purely scientific terms, but it is the amazing reality which enables me to consciously compose this post.

Don't try science, just try some basic logic - what is it that 'free will' is free of? What is it that makes it 'will'? How does it conceptually work?

Too wonderful for me, this knowledge, too high, beyond my reach psalm 139

"The illusion of free will...is itself an illusion. There is no illusion of free will. Thoughts and intentions simply arise. What else could they do? Now, some of you might think this sounds depressing, but it's actually incredibly freeing to see life this way. It does take something away from life: what it takes away from life is an egocentric view of life. We're not truly separate: we are linked to one another, we are linked to the world, we are linked to our past, and to history. And what we do actually matters because of that linkage, because of the permeability, because of the fact that we can't be the true locus of responsibility. That's what makes it all matter.

So you can't take credit for your talents, but it really matters if you use them. You can't really be blamed for your weaknesses and your failings, but it matters if you correct them. Pride and shame don't make a lot of sense in the final analyses. But they were no fun anyway. These are isolating emotions. What does make sense are things like compassion and love: caring about well-being makes sense; trying to maximize your well-being and the well-being of others makes sense. There is still a difference between suffering and happiness, and love consists in wanting those we love to be happy. All of that still makes sense without free will.

And, of course, nothing that I've said makes social and political freedom any less valuable: having a gun to your head is still a problem worth rectifying, wherever intentions come from. So the freedom to do what one wants is still precious. But the idea that we as conscious beings are deeply responsible for what we want I think needs to be revised: it just can't be mapped onto reality, neither objective nor subjective. And if we're going to be guided by reality, rather than by the fantasy lives of our antecessors, I think our view of ourselves needs to change."

O.

[SusanDoris]

Outrider

Well said indeed. If only AB would take the trouble to read it properly … …

It just might help to make a dent in his smug self-satisfaction.

[Alan Burns]

Don't try science, just try some basic logic - what is it that 'free will' is free of? What is it that makes it 'will'? How does it conceptually work?

O.

Our human will is free from the uncontrollable rules of physical reactions.
Our human will is free from the short sighted view that everything is caused by something else.
Our human will emanates from the free spirit of the human soul.
Our human will is what makes us human.

[Roses]

Our human will is free from the uncontrollable rules of physical reactions.
Our human will is free from the short sighted view that everything is caused by something else.
Our human will emanates from the free spirit of the human soul.
Our human will is what makes us human.

You believe all that to be true, but have never produced anything that could be classified as viable evidence to support your belief, as has been pointed out to you so many, many, many times.

[Stranger]

Our human will is free from the short sighted view that everything is caused by something else.

To the extent that something is not caused by something else, it is caused by nothing, and is therefore random.

[SteveH]

You believe all that to be true, but have never produced anything that could be classified as viable evidence to support your belief, as has been pointed out to you so many, many, many times.

And as I have pointed out to you so many, many, many times, you never produce any evidence or reasoning to support your opinions. You just stick "imo" on the end, as though that settles it. Pot, kettle.
In any case, the freedom of our wills (within limits, obv) is not something that either can or needs to be demonstrated with evidence or arguments. Whatever some smart-alecs on here choose to think (see what I did there?), we know from direct personal experience that we have free-will. It's like consciousness: we know by direct personal experience that we are conscious. We can't prove it, but then, we don't need to. That's the point of "I think, therefore I am".

[Alan Burns]

To the extent that something is not caused by something else, it is caused by nothing, and is therefore random.

You consistently ignore your own ability to consciously invoke an event in your material brain to implement a deliberate act of will.
Do not underestimate yourself.

[Alan Burns]

Quote from: sam harris

"I think our view of ourselves needs to change."


O.

And what can possibly invoke this change?
Where does our ability to invoke change emanate from if we have no control over the past events which drive our apparent choices?

[Roses]

And as I have pointed out to you so many, many, many times, you never produce any evidence or reasoning to support your opinions. You just stick "imo" on the end, as though that settles it. Pot, kettle.

It is those who support something less than credible like the existence of the Biblical god who need to produce the evidence, not sceptics like myself. If I stated there were fairies residing in my garden you would be right to ask me to provide the proof of that statement. IMO the existence god is no more credible than the existence of fairies.

It must make your day having me as the butt of your little temper tantrums.

[Alan Burns]

It is those who support something less than credible like the existence of the Biblical god who need to produce the evidence, not sceptics like myself. If I stated there were fairies residing in my garden you would be right to ask me to provide the proof of that statement. IMO the existence god is no more credible than the existence of fairies.

But no one can say that fairies were responsible for establishing the underlying foundations, principals and motivation on which our civilization was built.

[Stranger]

You consistently ignore your own ability to consciously invoke an event in your material brain to implement a deliberate act of will.

You constantly post inane nonsense in response to simple logic. You can't have a deliberate act of will unless it is because of the person who made the choice and the circumstances of the choice.

[Nearly Sane]

And as I have pointed out to you so many, many, many times, you never produce any evidence or reasoning to support your opinions. You just stick "imo" on the end, as though that settles it. Pot, kettle.
In any case, the freedom of our wills (within limits, obv) is not something that either can or needs to be demonstrated with evidence or arguments. Whatever some smart-alecs on here choose to think (see what I did there?), we know from direct personal experience that we have free-will. It's like consciousness: we know by direct personal experience that we are conscious. We can't prove it, but then, we don't need to. That's the point of "I think, therefore I am".

Define free will.

[Alan Burns]

You constantly post inane nonsense in response to simple logic. You can't have a deliberate act of will unless it is because of the person who made the choice and the circumstances of the choice.

And if the person and circumstances are entirely defined by physical material reactions, there is no deliberate act, no conscious choice - just a chain reaction.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Define free will.

Relax Alan, I've got your back on this one....

NS: it's magic innit.

You're welcome.

[bluehillside Retd.]

SteveH,

In any case, the freedom of our wills (within limits, obv) is not something that either can or needs to be demonstrated with evidence or arguments.

Yes it does if you want to argue for AB's version of "free" will.

Whatever some smart-alecs on here choose to think (see what I did there?), we know from direct personal experience that we have free-will.

No we don't. We act on the basis that our will is "free" because that's what it feels like. As the experience of free will is logically impossible as the explanation for it though (and you don't even bother with the problem and call it magic or "soul" as AB asserts instead) then it should be obvious to you that we cannot have AB's "free" will at all.   

It's like consciousness: we know by direct personal experience that we are conscious. We can't prove it, but then, we don't need to. That's the point of "I think, therefore I am".

No it isn't. Lots of things we "know" because, well, "they're just obvious right?" turn out not to be the explanations for what's actually happening at all. Thinking your fingers actually touch the keys in front of you for example is just one of many examples of the experience of something and the explanation for it being at odds.