Searching for GOD...

[Outrider]

Happy New Year to you Torri

I think we take much for granted when considering the concept of "present".

The present does not exist in any machine or material entity.  The present can only exist in the conscious awareness of an external observer to material entities.  It is not a material property.  I put it to you that there is no present outside our conscious awareness.

To an extent I agree with you, to the extent that the 'present' is merely a location in space-time that has significance only to the extent that we are at that particular point.  It's a little like thinking London is signfiicant because we're there, but then assuming that when we travel to Edinburgh it has assumed that significance and London somehow no longer exists.

O.

[Stranger]

Of course our choices are not free of determinants.
You continue to ignore the nature and power of the main determinant which is our conscious will.
We are consciously aware of our possible choices, and the reasons behind them, but our conscious awareness allows us the freedom to choose from our choices and reasons.

Which is, yet again, just avoiding the point, not answering it - why do you never pay any attention to the answers you have already been given? Consciousness makes no difference to the logic of the situation and saying a choice is made by "our conscious will" does not tell us anything about how "our conscious will" goes about making those choices.

Your reasoning allows no possible choice, just inevitable uncontrollable reaction to past events, but this is not the reality I live in.

As I said before, you seem to regard it as axiomatic that a conscious choice is different to an "inevitable reaction" (the "uncontrollable" is just more misrepresentation) - it isn't.

If you think a conscious choice (what you experience) cannot be an "inevitable reaction", then you need to show your working.

[Alan Burns]

The determination of your choice arises out of weighing against each other of rival options to identify the option with most appeal.

But the act of "weighing" as you put it is done within our conscious awareness.  It is driven by our conscious awareness.  And the final choice is determined from within our conscious awareness.  The big question is about what comprises our conscious awareness and how it works.  My contention is that conscious awareness does not comprise solely of physically defined material reactions.

This morning I consciously chose to attend a morning service at our local church.  There was no obligation to do so.  I was tempted to stay in bed and enjoy a relaxing morning.  I was free to choose this easy option, but I chose to attend church.  I know beyond any doubt that I was using my God given freedom to make this choice.  It was not an inevitable reaction driven by physically defined electro chemical activity over which I have no control.

[Stranger]

But the act of "weighing" as you put it is done within our conscious awareness.  It is driven by our conscious awareness.  And the final choice is determined from within our conscious awareness.

So what? You still haven't given us any reason at all to think that "conscious awareness" makes any difference to the logic of the situation.

This morning I consciously chose to attend a morning service at our local church.  There was no obligation to do so.  I was tempted to stay in bed and enjoy a relaxing morning.  I was free to choose this easy option, but I chose to attend church.  I know beyond any doubt that I was using my God given freedom to make this choice.  It was not an inevitable reaction driven by physically defined electro chemical activity over which I have no control.

Your certainty seems to be based on nothing but blind faith and incredulity. You have given us no reason at all to think that, just because you made a conscious choice, it wasn't also an "inevitable reaction" of the person you are (because of your nature, nurture, and experience) to the circumstance at the time. You obviously wanted to go to church more than you wanted to stay in bed. Either that is entirely because of all the reasons that led up to it, or not. If not, to that extent, it must have been for no reason (random).

And you are still dishonestly misrepresenting the argument against you by linking it to the physical.

[Gordon]

This morning I consciously chose to attend a morning service at our local church.  There was no obligation to do so.  I was tempted to stay in bed and enjoy a relaxing morning.  I was free to choose this easy option, but I chose to attend church.  I know beyond any doubt that I was using my God given freedom to make this choice.  It was not an inevitable reaction driven by physically defined electro chemical activity over which I have no control.

Unless your going to church was a random act, Alan, which seems unlikely given you are a regular, perhaps it was always more than likely that you were always going to go to church - since your need for church, either consciously or unconsciously, clearly outweighed your need for a lie-in. It may well feel that you made a choice, but it was probably the choice you were always going to make anyway given your history and personal traits.

News just in: I prefer beer to lager, therefore when in a pub I tend to order: you've guessed it - beer.

[Alan Burns]

News just in: I prefer beer to lager, therefore when in a pub I tend to order: you've guessed it - beer.

You trivialise the amazing gift of human free will.  It goes far, far deeper than choosing between beer and lager.  Our consciously driven freedom to guide our own thought processes is the essential means behind all human philosophy, religion, scientific discovery, art, music, literature, invention ... etc.  With reference to the Jeremy Vine slot on lunchtime radio - It is free will which makes us human.

[Stranger]

You trivialise the amazing gift of human free will.

And you don't, with your inane, pointless, mindless repetition of reasoning-free assertion and fallacy?

[Gordon]

You trivialise the amazing gift of human free will.  It goes far, far deeper than choosing between beer and lager.  Our consciously driven freedom to guide our own thought processes is the essential means behind all human philosophy, religion, scientific discovery, art, music, literature, invention ... etc.  With reference to the Jeremy Vine slot on lunchtime radio - It is free will which makes us human.

Nothing trivial about it, Alan: there are times when I feel like I'm making choices, but I'm really not. Don't forget my mayonnaise issue: I'm 'free' to avoid it by, say, asking waiters to please not put any on the plate, and also avoiding ordering meals that come with a risk of salad - but I'm not 'free' to choose to like mayonnaise.

Which reminds me, you never did advise on how my inability to freely choose mayonnaise doesn't invalidate your 'free will' claims.

[ippy]

You trivialise the amazing gift of human free will.  It goes far, far deeper than choosing between beer and lager.  Our consciously driven freedom to guide our own thought processes is the essential means behind all human philosophy, religion, scientific discovery, art, music, literature, invention ... etc.  With reference to the Jeremy Vine slot on lunchtime radio - It is free will which makes us human.

OK Alan now tell all of us how you have acquired this knowledge and the exact method you have used to arrive at this conclusion, without the use of unqualified assertions?

Commiserations to you Alan, ippy
                 

[torridon]

But the act of "weighing" as you put it is done within our conscious awareness.  It is driven by our conscious awareness.  And the final choice is determined from within our conscious awareness.  The big question is about what comprises our conscious awareness and how it works.  My contention is that conscious awareness does not comprise solely of physically defined material reactions.

This morning I consciously chose to attend a morning service at our local church.  There was no obligation to do so.  I was tempted to stay in bed and enjoy a relaxing morning.  I was free to choose this easy option, but I chose to attend church.  I know beyond any doubt that I was using my God given freedom to make this choice.  It was not an inevitable reaction driven by physically defined electro chemical activity over which I have no control.

OK, thanks for coming up with an example, but I don't see how it is any different in nature to umpteen examples I have posted up on this thread. So, you had a choice to make and you went with the one that appealed the most.  There is nothing in this to challenge a deterministic account of mind, indeed it is consistent with what I have been arguing all along.  The choice we make reflects the option that had the most appeal at the time, and we cannot infer that your choice was free from that principle.  You acted on your uppermost desire and neither you, nor I nor anyone else can choose to alter how we experience our desires.  The process of weighing up rival alternatives must be a process of identifying, or trying to identify within the limits of our cognition and memory, the option that appeals the most.  We are all 'free' to consider a range of alternatives, but we are not free choose our emotional attachments to each alternative; this is not something anyone can control.  Our deliberations are our attempts to identify the option with the greatest appeal, but we cannot choose how appealing each option should be.  This is why we are, and must be, deterministic beings.  The notion that we could arbitrarily choose how to experience things is a nonsense that would render all decision making impossible. To bring it back to your example, you were able to decide between church and a lie-in only because you had no control over how appealing these options were; only because we are deterministic beings.

[Alan Burns]

To bring it back to your example, you were able to decide between church and a lie-in only because you had no control over how appealing these options were; only because we are deterministic beings.

The concept of "appeal" is a property of the conscious mind.  We are consciously aware of what appeals to us, and the quality of that appeal, before we invoke a conscious choice.  It is not the amount of appeal that dictates the final choice - it is a conscious act of will.

[torridon]

The concept of "appeal" is a property of the conscious mind.  We are consciously aware of what appeals to us, and the quality of that appeal before we invoke a conscious choice.  It is not the amount of appeal that dictates the final choice - it is a conscious act of will.

So if you do not base your choice on which option appeals the most, what criteria is used ?

[Gordon]

The concept of "appeal" is a property of the conscious mind.

Says who?

I have a fondness music that I would class as 'jazz' and a detestation for what I class as 'country music' (which is an oxymoron) - the thing is, Alan, I don't experience having to consciously deliberate on whether not I find any particular piece of music appealing or not.
 

We are consciously aware of what appeals to us, and the quality of that appeal before we invoke a conscious choice.  It is not the amount of appeal that dictates the final choice - it is a conscious act of will.

As those great philosophers Genesis noted 'I know what I like and I like what I know' - and the circularity here betrays that there are intrinsic needs, traits and preferences that determine how we are likely to react in certain situations, and I'd suggest to you that there are many situations in which I do react without conscious deliberation: albeit I can reflect on my position, such as my phobic aversion to mayonnaise, but I can't will away my distaste.

[Stranger]

The concept of "appeal" is a property of the conscious mind.  We are consciously aware of what appeals to us, and the quality of that appeal, before we invoke a conscious choice.  It is not the amount of appeal that dictates the final choice - it is a conscious act of will.

You still seem to be assuming that a "conscious act of will" magically has the properties you've decided on (not fully determined by its antecedents and involving no randomness) - you haven't written a single line of logic or reasoning to support that assumption.

And you still haven't addressed the fact that it's self-contradictory.

[Alan Burns]

You still seem to be assuming that a "conscious act of will" magically has the properties you've decided on (not fully determined by its antecedents and involving no randomness) - you haven't written a single line of logic or reasoning to support that assumption.

And you still haven't addressed the fact that it's self-contradictory.

You do not need logic to prove that gravity exists.  How it works is beyond human comprehension, but we know it exists by what it does.  Same with human will.

[Stranger]

You do not need logic to prove that gravity exists.  How it works is beyond human comprehension, but we know it exists by what it does.  Same with human will.

Nobody is denying "human will" (our ability to think and choose) exists. It is you who are making claims about how it works, specifically that choices are not entirely due to their antecedents and involve no randomness.

As I already pointed out at least three times now, you seem to think that choices being conscious makes that self-evident - it doesn't. You need some reasoning that takes us from our ability to make choices (that obviously exists) to your claims about how that works. And you need to address the fact that said claims contradict each other.

[Outrider]

You do not need logic to prove that gravity exists.

Actually you do, you don't need logic to presume that it exists, but to prove it requires a formal thought process.

How it works is beyond human comprehension, but we know it exists by what it does.

Except that for an immense amount of time we didn't know what it did, or rather we fundamentally misunderstood what it did.  It was the rigorous application of a logical methodology that clarified gravity is not a force acting upon objects at all, as we'd presumed, but rather a warping of space-time caused by mass.  To what extent is it that you think gravity is 'beyond human comprehension'?

Same with human will.

So it would seem- presumptions as to how it works in the absence of a logical process of examination which derives a conclusion from the evidence available...

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

You do not need logic to prove that gravity exists.

Gravity is far more than an apple falling to the ground - you need logic to deduce that the same force is determining the orbiting of planets around the sun, the moon around the earth and the moon's effects on the tides for example. All that requires logic. 

How it works is beyond human comprehension

No it isn't.

but we know it exists by what it does.

No that is a circular argument - we can observe the effects of what we recognise as gravity, but without the logic required to determine that these many effects (orbiting planets and moons, tides, apples falling, big ships being pulled towards each other) are the result of the same force we cannot link them to gravity.

[Gordon]

You do not need logic to prove that gravity exists.

Of course you do, else how would you be able to organise and consider your observations? The problem you have, Alan, whenever logic is mentioned, is to refer it to something physical and ignore that logic is also relevant without reference to, say, gravity - hence you stumble over explaining how something can be neither determined nor random.

How it works is beyond human comprehension, but we know it exists by what it does.

I suspect you mean something along the lines of that if you don't understand something that that something isn't understandable by humans, and this is where you drop 'God' into the mix in order to provide the warm and cosy feeling that you clearly prefer to 'don't know' - but that is just your personal incredulity kicking in again. 

Same with human will.

Not really, since the likes of experience, circumstances, preferences and personal traits all play a part in choices we make: such as my mayonnaise avoidance, and you've yet to address my contention that I'm not really 'free' to choose mayonnaise. I also note you have dropped the 'free' here - and it is the 'free' element of 'will' that you have logical problems with.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You do not need logic to prove that gravity exists.

As ever, you seem entirely unable to grasp the difference between a what and a how. We know that gravity exist because we experience it – apples fall from trees, planets orbit stars. We know that “free” will exist because we experience it – we choose coffee instead of tea, we pick one party to vote for instead of another. These descriptions are both “whats”. The “hows” though are the explanations needed to justify beliefs about what’s actually happening beneath the experiential. And for those we have a choice: we can accept folk stories – invisible pixies pulling stuff down with strings too thin to see for gravity, invisible souls at the controls for free will say for which there’s no evidence whatsoever (which is why they are epistemically identical claims), or instead we can investigate using the tools of reason and evidence. And when we do use the tools of reason and evidence we arrive at compelling and justifiable answers that require no supernatural or magical agencies at all. These explanations are not complete (why is why people are working on them to fill in the gaps) but they are significantly more robust than the folkloric alternatives of pixies and souls.         

How it works is beyond human comprehension,…

Of course it isn’t. Gravity is a well, albeit incompletely, understood phenomenon:

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

…but we know it exists by what it does.

Yes, but “what it does” tells us nothing about how it does it. That’s the point. 

Same with human will.

Wrong again. What “human will” does as a lived experience tells you nothing about how it does it.

[Alan Burns]

….  hence you stumble over explaining how something can be neither determined nor random.

Please stop misrepresenting what I have said in numerous posts on this.

I have never claimed that human free will is free from determinism.

My contention is in what determines a conscious choice.

It is either the uncontrollable result of physical material reactions, or it is determined by the conscious will of the human soul.  The "free" in freewill implies that our conscious choice is free from the pre defined nature of physical material reactions.

The miraculous property of conscious awareness allows us the freedom to choose how to react to our sensory information rather than just react in accordance with uncontrollable chains of physically defined cause and effect.  You can't take away this reality by claiming it to be a logical Impossibility. 

[Gordon]

Please stop misrepresenting what I have said in numerous posts on this.

I'm not: I'm very familiar with your trademark take on 'souls', consciousness and 'free will' and have regularly commented on what you say in your numerous posts in this thread.

I have never claimed that human free will is free from determinism.

My contention is in what determines a conscious choice.

It is either the uncontrollable result of physical material reactions, or it is determined by the conscious will of the human soul.  The "free" in freewill implies that our conscious choice is free from the pre defined nature of physical material reactions.

There you go again, Alan, diving headfirst into fallacies: you don't seem to be able to explain whatever it is you are trying to say, probably because what you're trying to say is too incoherent to be explainable. You keep attempting to tie the logic of determined vs random around your particular fear of the consequences of the 'physical', so here you create a silly false dichotomy involving the spectre (as you see it) of physical reality (which includes how your biology works by the way) with your wholly unsupported presumption of this 'soul' - so you aren't actually 'contending' anything that is meaningful. 

The miraculous property of conscious awareness allows us the freedom to choose how to react to our sensory information rather than just react in accordance with uncontrollable chains of physically defined cause and effect.  You can't take away this reality by claiming it to be a logical Impossibility.

And you finish with your usual flourish of predictable theobollocks - you're not being misrepresented, Alan, for the simple reason that you always end up saying the same thing, which in spite of your trademark incredulous and flowery hyperbole essentially condenses down to: 'Wow - God, we are not worthy!'.

[torridon]

Please stop misrepresenting what I have said in numerous posts on this.

I have never claimed that human free will is free from determinism.

My contention is in what determines a conscious choice.

It is either the uncontrollable result of physical material reactions, or it is determined by the conscious will of the human soul.  The "free" in freewill implies that our conscious choice is free from the pre defined nature of physical material reactions.

The miraculous property of conscious awareness allows us the freedom to choose how to react to our sensory information rather than just react in accordance with uncontrollable chains of physically defined cause and effect.  You can't take away this reality by claiming it to be a logical Impossibility.

So you start with :

I have never claimed that human free will is free from determinism.

and then immediately contradict yourself with

conscious awareness allows us the freedom to choose how to react to our sensory information rather than just react in accordance with uncontrollable chains of physically defined cause and effect

which is the logical impossibility in your thinking.  We cannot be both deterministic and simultaneously free from determinism. An event either has a cause, or it doesn't, in which case it is random.

[Outrider]

Please stop misrepresenting what I have said in numerous posts on this.

I think understand where you're coming from, but I don't think it's a misrepresentation, just a confusion of general and specific.

I have never claimed that human free will is free from determinism.

The point is, though, that we're breaking down the concept of consciousness/will into component parts - some, at least, we all seem to agree is a combination of brain processes which are entirely physical and deterministic. You appear to think that there is at least some element that is:

...either the uncontrollable result of physical material reactions, or it is determined by the conscious will of the human soul.  The "free" in freewill implies that our conscious choice is free from the pre defined nature of physical material reactions.

Whatever mechanism that non-physical element works by, though, has to fall into one of two categories: it's either a deterministic response to prior (physical or non-physical) events and states, or it's independent of those prior events and states and is therefore random.  Whether or not the elements of the system are all physical is something of a red herring in the underlying concept of freedom, and I think some of us are getting a little too hung up with it, at the moment.

The miraculous property of conscious awareness allows us the freedom to choose how to react to our sensory information rather than just react in accordance with uncontrollable chains of physically defined cause and effect.  You can't take away this reality by claiming it to be a logical Impossibility.

You keep stating that it's a reality, but you've not addressed that fundamental question of what, if it's free of determinism (physical or otherwise) in what way is it a choice and not simply random?  If it's a choice, it's some sort of deliberate process of balancing criteria, which makes it a deterministic process: we are in a particular state, we have a series of inputs and a condition which applies weigh to those inputs and generates an output - your 'conscious choice'.

O.

[Alan Burns]

So you start with :
and then immediately contradict yourself with 
which is the logical impossibility in your thinking.  We cannot be both deterministic and simultaneously free from determinism. An event either has a cause, or it doesn't, in which case it is random.

But our freedom to choose is not a logical impossibility.  It is a demonstrable reality.
I am free to choose colour
I am free to choose size
I am free to choose bold
I am free to choose style
And yes, there are reasons for my choice.
The reason is simply to consciously demonstrate the reality of our freedom to choose.