Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

Why then can't I 'will' myself to eat mayonnaise or like country music?

Of course we can't choose to change our likes and dislikes.
But we are quite capable of using our conscious willpower to do things that we do not want to do.  We all have the power to choose to eat something we do not like, and we can also choose to listen to music which we find appalling.  I know there will be reasons for doing such things.  Reasons exist in our conscious awareness, and our conscious will is the ultimate reason.

[Gordon]

Of course we can't choose to change our likes and dislikes.

Super.

But we are quite capable of using our conscious willpower to do things that we do not want to do.

You're contradicting yourself - I can't 'will' myself to eat mayonnaise, so you would seem to be wrong.

We all have the power to choose to eat something we do not like, and we can also choose to listen to music which we find appalling.

You are confused, Alan: I can 'will' myself to listen to country music but I can't 'will' myself to like it - there is a difference.

I know there will be reasons for doing such things.  Reasons exist in our conscious awareness, and our conscious will is the ultimate reason.

Wrong again: we may be unaware of reasons, such as our inherent personal traits and subconscious needs and wants, that precede our conscious awareness - such as my overwhelming aversion to mayonnaise that borders on phobia, that is not something I need think about, and is not something I can 'will' away. 

[torridon]

The determining factor is your consciously invoked human will.  Our conscious awareness allows us to override the determining factors of instinct and learnt experiences, because we are consciously aware of these factors before we invoke a conscious choice.  As I have previously mentioned, our conscious awareness always exists and acts in its own present.  It is aware of the past, and present, but not determined by it.  To discover the source of a conscious act of will, you need to be able to define what comprises conscious awareness and how it works.  I am certain that conscious awareness will never be defined by material reactions, because discrete material reactions alone are incapable of producing a single entity of awareness.  We are aware of material reactions, not driven by them.

Your conscious will is not the determining influence; the notion that something can be its own cause is circular.  Rather, our will manifests through conscious experience and saying that we choose 'consciously' says little or nothing about the thought processes involved. Without consciousness we cannot do anything bar breathe and digest and other autonomic processes and the same goes for all other animals.  We don't see a wolf deciding which bison to target whilst unconscious.  Consciousness is assumed for all higher mental functioning.  You need to do more than scratch the surface of this issue or we will be here forever. 

So, to take your example above, 'Our conscious awareness allows us to override the determining factors of ...', yes, clearly conscious awareness is involved in the loop but we do not resolve a choice simply by being conscious.  You have to dig deeper, ask, why would we want to override instinct ? The answer is not because we are conscious, but because there must be some reason to want to override an instinctive choice. Defining free will merely as the ability to override instinct with more complex behaviours is trivial.  Fact is, there must be some reason for a change of mind, if that were not the case, then our choices would be random.  We cannot divorce choice from the reasons for choice without implying randomness.  So, if a choice to override an instinctive response is not random it must owe to a reason - for some reason the desire to override overcame the more basic response, so we are still true to the principle that we always do whatever is our uppermost desire in the moment and we cannot choose which desires should be uppermost.

If you honestly believe that you can choose which preferences to have, then give an example and we can work through it.

[torridon]

Of course we can't choose to change our likes and dislikes.
But we are quite capable of using our conscious willpower to do things that we do not want to do.  We all have the power to choose to eat something we do not like, and we can also choose to listen to music which we find appalling.  I know there will be reasons for doing such things.  Reasons exist in our conscious awareness, and our conscious will is the ultimate reason.

That is quite wrong. We choose things because of reasons, not because we are conscious.  A wolf does not bring a bison down because it is conscious; it does it because it is hungry.

[Stranger]

The determining factor is your consciously invoked human will.

Mindless repetition of an evasive answer. Why do you "consciously invoke" one choice rather than another?

As I have previously mentioned, our conscious awareness always exists and acts in its own present.

This will remain utterly devoid of any meaning until you can logically define the "present" in some way that makes the slightest difference to the logic you keep on totally ignoring.

But we are quite capable of using our conscious willpower to do things that we do not want to do.

Ultimately this is just nonsense. You always do what you want to do most.

We all have the power to choose to eat something we do not like, and we can also choose to listen to music which we find appalling.

You only do those things because there is something else you want more. You can't choose your wants because you'd then have to decide what you wanted to want, then what you wanted to want to want, and so on into an infinite regress.

This has been raised before and, like all the other logic, you just ignore it.

I know there will be reasons for doing such things.  Reasons exist in our conscious awareness, and our conscious will is the ultimate reason.

This is just incoherent nonsense. If a reason is formulated within "conscious awareness", then the same logic (that you continue to totally ignore) applies to them. Either all the factors that led up to the formulation of the reason fully determined it or not, and if not, then some part of it must be random.

[Alan Burns]

You are confused, Alan: I can 'will' myself to listen to country music but I can't 'will' myself to like it - there is a difference.

Of course there is a difference.  We can't choose to like something we do not like.  But that does not detract from the freedom we have to choose to do something even if we do not like it.  Human free will is not about changing our likes or dislikes, it is the freedom we have to consciously choose to override our likes and dislikes if we so wish.  This is the power of human will.

[Stranger]

Of course there is a difference.  We can't choose to like something we do not like.  But that does not detract from the freedom we have to choose to do something even if we do not like it.  Human free will is not about changing our likes or dislikes, it is the freedom we have to consciously choose to override our likes and dislikes if we so wish.

The key phrase being "if we so wish". We can override our likes and dislikes but we cannot override what we wish to do most - and that is how we act.

[torridon]

Of course there is a difference.  We can't choose to like something we do not like.  But that does not detract from the freedom we have to choose to do something even if we do not like it.  Human free will is not about changing our likes or dislikes, it is the freedom we have to consciously choose to override our likes and dislikes if we so wish.  This is the power of human will.

Stranger beat me to it.

The phrase 'if we so wish' demonstrates that you are still not getting this.  That we might 'so wish' something indicates a desire is at work, a desire to override another desire in this case.  That is still a desire, a want, a preference, and like beliefs, we cannot choose which preferences or likes to have.  Our choice arises out of the weighing of rival desires against each other.

[Gordon]

Of course there is a difference.  We can't choose to like something we do not like.  But that does not detract from the freedom we have to choose to do something even if we do not like it.  Human free will is not about changing our likes or dislikes, it is the freedom we have to consciously choose to override our likes and dislikes if we so wish.  This is the power of human will.

I'd have to say, Alan, that for an obviously intelligent man when it comes to this you are so dense that light would bend around you - your 'if we so wish' will end up being whatever the overriding need/want/desire is that wins out in the circumstance, such as my inherent desire to avoid mayonnaise in any and all circumstances, and there is absolutely nothing I can do to 'will' otherwise.

Of course I'm fully aware of my desire to avoid mayonnaise, but I content it is not a matter of 'will' since I have no choice in this regard.

[Alan Burns]

We can easily deny both free will and the supernatural since 1) there is no evidence for either, and 2) both concepts are inherently irrational and as such are beyond empirical investigation.

Such acts of denial are in themselves obvious evidence of our conscious freedom to choose to contemplate what is being denied and reach such a conclusion. (even though it is an obviously wrong conclusion!)

Just suppose we park the irrational nature of the free will claim for a moment, and consider what science would have to do to come up with empirical evidence in favour of free will.  The experiment might go something like this:

Sit a test subject down and ask him/her to choose a piece of fruit from the basket; maybe he goes for an apple, say.

Next, after ten seconds, put the arrow of time into reverse, wind the entire cosmos back 10 seconds and then let time run forward again.

If the test subject chooses a different fruit from the basket second time around, then you might argue you have discovered empirical evidence for free will.

Clearly we cannot do this, free will is bound to remain forever a speculation without any supporting evidence.  And even if the subject did choose a pear the second time around, it would be argued that, there being no reason for the change of choice given all conditions are identical, the choice is random.

I fully agree that this rather trivial, hypothetical scenario does not in any way give insight to our ability to consciously drive our own thought processes.

You cannot get away from the bare fact, that a choice requires a reason.  For it not to be a random event, a choice must be a consequential outcome of the reason(s) that led to it.

Yes, and the primary reason for any conscious choice is defined by our conscious will.  Where we seem to differ is in our interpretation of what causes our conscious will.  You appear to presume it to be absolutely defined by past events.  I believe it to be defined by our conscious awareness of past events coupled with our conscious freedom to choose how to react to these past events.

[Alan Burns]

I'd have to say, Alan, that for an obviously intelligent man when it comes to this you are so dense that light would bend around you - your 'if we so wish' will end up being whatever the overriding need/want/desire is that wins out in the circumstance, such as my inherent desire to avoid mayonnaise in any and all circumstances, and there is absolutely nothing I can do to 'will' otherwise.

Of course I'm fully aware of my desire to avoid mayonnaise, but I content it is not a matter of 'will' since I have no choice in this regard.

But I am simply pointing out that you do have conscious freedom to choose to override your dislike for mayonnaise.  The fact that you consciously choose not to override your dislike does not remove your freedom to choose to do so.

[Alan Burns]

That is quite wrong. We choose things because of reasons, not because we are conscious.  A wolf does not bring a bison down because it is conscious; it does it because it is hungry.

But does the wolf have any freedom in its choice to bring down the bison? 

[Gordon]

But I am simply pointing out that you do have conscious freedom to choose to override your dislike for mayonnaise.  The fact that you consciously choose not to override your dislike does not remove your freedom to choose to do so.

Nope - I am not choosing not to override my dislike: my dislike is intrinsic to me, a priori if you will, so the option to override it is simply not available to me and there is absolutely nothing I can do about it.

There are limits to 'will' whether you like it or not, and my situation in relation to mayonnaise may be a trivial example but it is, nevertheless, an example that shows you are wrong.

[Alan Burns]

Nope - I am not choosing not to override my dislike: my dislike is intrinsic to me, a priori if you will, so the option to override it is simply not available to me and there is absolutely nothing I can do about it.

There are limits to 'will' whether you like it or not, and my situation in relation to mayonnaise may be a trivial example but it is, nevertheless, an example that shows you are wrong.

The fact that you are aware of a possible choice indicates the reality of your freedom to choose.
You vastly underestimate the power of human will.

[torridon]

But does the wolf have any freedom in its choice to bring down the bison?

If no one and nobody is restricting the wolf then it is free to pick any animal from the entire herd to target.  A chaffinch has the same 'freedom' to choose where to build its nest.  It can build anywhere it wants.  Similarly I am 'free' to choose any item of fruit from the basket, so long as nobody has put a sign saying 'don't take apples'.  The wolf, the chaffinch and the human all experience freedom in this sense.  Where we differ is in the degree of sophistication of our mental processes.  I might fancy the apple, but if I've just been told by my doctor that my potassium levels are low, I might go for the banana instead, with a view to rectifying that.  This reflects the greater degree of cognitive sophistication in a human brain.  It does not mean that I am free from the principle of cause and effect.

[Gordon]

The fact that you are aware of a possible choice indicates the reality of your freedom to choose.
You vastly underestimate the power of human will.

If you do take sufficient care to read what others actually say it seems you have a problem processing what they say.

So listen carefully: you are quite simply wrong, and I have already clearly explained that in the particular case of my aversion to mayonnaise I have no choice available to me. I do not see 'a possible choice' that is 'the reality of my freedom to choose' because I recognise that I cannot 'will' away something that I have no control over.

Kindly stop second-guessing what is said to you or presuming that you are better acquainted with my intrinsic food phobias than I am myself.   

[Stranger]

But I am simply pointing out that you do have conscious freedom to choose to override your dislike for mayonnaise.

The fact that you are aware of a possible choice indicates the reality of your freedom to choose.

As I wrote on the other thread, it does look as if you think that establishing that humans are free to make (conscious) choices also establishes your (contradictory) claims about what that "freedom" means (not fully determined by all that led to up to them and involving no randomness) - this just isn't the case.

You need to set out the logic or evidence that gets you from one to the other.

[Alan Burns]

As I wrote on the other thread, it does look as if you think that establishing that humans are free to make (conscious) choices also establishes your (contradictory) claims about what that "freedom" means (not fully determined by all that led to up to them and involving no randomness) - this just isn't the case.

You need to set out the logic or evidence that gets you from one to the other.

I do not deny that a choice is determined by all that led up to it.  What you seem to ignore is the existence and power and capabilities of your own consciously determined human will.

[Stranger]

I do not deny that a choice is determined by all that led up to it.

*sigh* Either you've totally capitulated or this is another silly attempt to confuse the issue by redefining language.

If a choice is determined by all that led up to it, it is fully the result of cause and effect and therefore all your previous claims are wrong. I only started using the phrase because you tried to co-opt "deterministic" to mean that it's just "determined by" something.   

[Stranger]

I do not deny that a choice is determined by all that led up to it.

To add to my previous answer, regardless of what language you want to use, you need reasoning to go from our ability to think and choose to not fully determined by chains of cause and effect (whatever you want to call it) and involving no randomness.

Feel free to pick the language if you want. What do you want to call minds that are fully the result of chains of cause and effect?

[Alan Burns]

To add to my previous answer, regardless of what language you want to use, you need reasoning to go from our ability to think and choose to not fully determined by chains of cause and effect (whatever you want to call it) and involving no randomness.

Feel free to pick the language if you want. What do you want to call minds that are fully the result of chains of cause and effect?

The power of the consciously aware human soul is an ultimate, defining cause for any act of consciously driven human will.  It is the source which sets off the chains of cause and effect needed to implement your consciously chosen act of will.  Without this defining cause we are just an uncontrollable lump of material answering only to the laws of physics.

[torridon]

The power of the consciously aware human soul is an ultimate, defining cause for any act of consciously driven human will.  It is the source which sets off the chains of cause and effect needed to implement your consciously chosen act of will.  Without this defining cause we are just an uncontrollable lump of material answering only to the laws of physics.

Bared of prejudicial hyperbole, the above reduces to bald nonsense.  Will, human or other, cannot be its own cause.  Our will must derive from something, if it does not, then it is random, by definition.  Is this really so hard ?

[Stranger]

The power of the consciously aware human soul is an ultimate, defining cause for any act of consciously driven human will.  It is the source which sets off the chains of cause and effect needed to implement your consciously chosen act of will.

Firstly, why quote my post if you're going to totally ignore its content? You still need to provide reasoning to take us from humans making choices to your contradictory, not deterministic, no randomness, claims about it.

Secondly, this is a baseless assertion. You have provided not one shred of a hint of a reason to take it seriously.

Thirdly, if this "act of consciously driven human will" is without any causes, it can only be acting randomly. Your statement is obvious nonsense.

Without this defining cause we are just an uncontrollable lump of material answering only to the laws of physics.

Misrepresentation (the laws of physics are irrelevant), prejudicial and inaccurate language, and an appeal to consequences fallacy.

All in all, you've managed a post that is total nonsense from start to finish. No reasoning, no evidence, no logic, and no sense.

[Gordon]

The power of the consciously aware human soul is an ultimate, defining cause for any act of consciously driven human will.  It is the source which sets off the chains of cause and effect needed to implement your consciously chosen act of will.  Without this defining cause we are just an uncontrollable lump of material answering only to the laws of physics.

In just three sentences we get the fallacies of incredulity (which in your case is ubiquitous), reification, ignorance and an appeal to consequences.

This is your Campbell's soup moment, Alan: you've produced condensed theobollocks.

[Alan Burns]

Bared of prejudicial hyperbole, the above reduces to bald nonsense.  Will, human or other, cannot be its own cause.  Our will must derive from something, if it does not, then it is random, by definition.  Is this really so hard ?

I feel the ultimate reality you fail to grasp is that our spiritual nature does not comply to the same time related cause and effect scenario we perceive in this material universe.  Can you grasp the concept of your spiritual self existing in a timeless state of an eternal present?

Such a reality is alluded to in the Gospel -
John 8:58: “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”

 It may be difficult for our human minds to grasp, but so is the concept of time being eternal, having no beginning or end.   According to physicist Stephen Hawkin, time is a property of this material universe.  I believe our soul is not of this universe, but can perceive it and interact with it through the window provided by our material body.  No one can presume to know what lies beyond this universe, but we do have the divine revelations given to us from the inspired words of the Christian bible.  What I do know with absolute certainty is that we comprise far more than physically controlled material reactions alone can ever achieve.