Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

My contention is about the nature of the determining cause.  You claim the cause is an inevitable reaction to past events.  I deduce that the cause is your consciously driven will acting and existing in the present.

Human will cannot be its own cause.  That is irrational. In reality, your will always derives from something prior.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

My reasoning is based on an obvious need for your consciously driven interaction required…

That’s not reasoning, it’s just assertion. To validate your belief that it is an “obvious need” you need to provide some actual reasons to justify the claim.   

…to formulate the (admittedly flawed) reasoning in your posts.

If you think that someone is posting flawed reasoning, then explain why rather than just assert it to be so. That’s what others do here when you attempt your string of fallacies, albeit that you just ignore the explanations you’re given.

I have not claimed that the content of your posts was not deterministic.  My contention is about the nature of the determining cause.  You claim the cause is an inevitable reaction to past events.  I deduce that the cause is your consciously driven will acting and existing in the present.

Again you don’t “deduce’ that at all – you just assert it. To deduce something you have to link your premises with your conclusions using sound logic. You on the other hand either just assert your premises to be “obviously true” when they’re no such thing, or attempt some logic at least that always flat wrong.

If such reasoning does not require any conscious interaction, why do you need to be conscious when composing your detailed replies?

Because you have to be conscious for there to be something to express the information that arises from the subconscious. This is a (major) point against you, not for you. Why would your magic little man at the controls “soul” clock off just because we happen to be sleeping?

[Alan Burns]

Because whilst they might be quantitatively different - matters of scale and degree - they are qualitatively the same; what, functionally is the difference between the two sets of choices?

Yes, I fully agree that the choice of tea or coffee and the mental processing needed to compose a complex, well thought out reply come from the same source.

While it may be feasible to conclude that the source of choice between tea or coffee can be derived from instinctive pre programmed patterns of behaviour, the same derivation cannot be applied to the profound consciously driven thought processes needed to compose your posts.  So I have to conclude that both choices derive from the formidable power of our consciously controlled human will.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Yes, I fully agree that the choice of tea or coffee and the mental processing needed to compose a complex, well thought out reply come from the same source.

While it may be feasible to conclude that the source of choice between tea or coffee can be derived from instinctive pre programmed patterns of behaviour, the same derivation cannot be applied to the profound consciously driven thought processes needed to compose your posts.  So I have to conclude that both choices derive from the formidable power of our consciously controlled human will.

Utter BS. Again, you're just confusing scale with principle. You may as well assert that while it's reasonable that your lawn mower can be powered by a petrol engine, a Ferrari is much more complex than a lawn mower so a petrol engine cannot power a Ferrari.

[Stranger]

Alan, please, just for once try to PAY SOME FUCKING ATTENTION!

My reasoning is based on an obvious need for your consciously driven interaction required to formulate the (admittedly flawed) reasoning in your posts.

YET AGAIN: your contradictory assertions about freedom are just as contradictory regardless of the role of consciousness.

I have not claimed that the content of your posts was not deterministic.

YET AGAIN: do stop this stupid attempt to redefine "deterministic" - see (for about the ten thousandth time) #32591 and #32601.

My contention is about the nature of the determining cause.  You claim the cause is an inevitable reaction to past events.  I deduce that the cause is your consciously driven will...

YET AGAIN: you haven't posted anything remotely resembling a deduction - neither have you given any reasoning to say that it can't be both.

...acting and existing in the present.

YET AGAIN: this is still totally meaningless.

If such reasoning does not require any conscious interaction, why do you need to be conscious when composing your detailed replies?

I've never claimed that consciousness plays no part in composing posts.

[Alan Burns]

Human will cannot be its own cause.  That is irrational. In reality, your will always derives from something prior.

My will is currently causing the choice of keys being typed on this keyboard.  This is reality.  Your presumption that my conscious will is entirely caused by something prior removes any personal responsibility or accountability.

I am responsible for choosing the content of my posts, not an an endless string of inevitable cause and effect dating back to the beginning of time.

[Gordon]

Yes, I fully agree that the choice of tea or coffee and the mental processing needed to compose a complex, well thought out reply come from the same source.

While it may be feasible to conclude that the source of choice between tea or coffee can be derived from instinctive pre programmed patterns of behaviour, the same derivation cannot be applied to the profound consciously driven thought processes needed to compose your posts.  So I have to conclude that both choices derive from the formidable power of our consciously controlled human will.

Feel free to conclude as you like, Alan, but since your conclusions are underpinned by irrational theobollocks I think we can simply dismiss them.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Utter BS. Again, you're just confusing scale with principle. You may as well assert that while it's reasonable that your lawn mower can be powered by a petrol engine, a Ferrari is much more complex than a lawn mower so a petrol engine cannot power a Ferrari.

The source of power is irrelevant to the argument.
Both the lawnmower and the Ferrari are derived from the consciously controlled willpower of human beings - it is just a matter of scale.  Neither could come into existence without it.

[Stranger]

My will is currently causing the choice of keys being typed on this keyboard.  This is reality.  Your presumption that my conscious will is entirely caused by something prior removes any personal responsibility or accountability.

Textbook appeal to consequences fallacy. Did it never occur to you to study logic before claiming to use it?

I am responsible for choosing the content of my posts, not an an endless string of inevitable cause and effect dating back to the beginning of time.

Why can't it be both?

[Stranger]

The source of power is irrelevant to the argument.

Whoosh...

[Alan Burns]

Why can't it be both?

Because choices and reactions are two different things.

[Stranger]

Because choices and reactions are two different things.

Baseless assertion - where is the reasoning?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

My will is currently causing the choice of keys being typed on this keyboard.

But your will at an experiential level cannot be as you would like it to be at an explanatory level for reasons that have been explained to you countless times, but that you always just ignore.

This is reality.

No, it’s just a reality that satisfies someone who cannot or will not think through the logical impossibility it presents.

Your presumption that my conscious will is entirely caused by something prior removes any personal responsibility or accountability.

1. It’s not a “presumption” – it’s a deduction based on reason and evidence.

2. It doesn’t remove your personal responsibility at all at an everyday, functional level.

3. Even if it did though, that’s just an argumentum ad consequentiam – one of the stable of logical fallacies on which you rely to justify your faith beliefs.

I am responsible for choosing the content of my posts, not an an endless string of inevitable cause and effect dating back to the beginning of time.

You’re just repeating the same mindless assertions, and the “I” to which you refer is in any case an “endless string…” etc.

The source of power is irrelevant to the argument.
Both the lawnmower and the Ferrari are derived from the consciously controlled willpower of human beings - it is just a matter of scale.  Neither could come into existence without it.

Way to miss the point. You accepted that determinism is fine for simple choices, but then claimed without explanation that it couldn’t function for complex decisions. I was merely explaining to you by way of an analogy that scale and complexity have no relevance to the principle. Provided the underlying neural architecture is sufficiently complex, it makes no difference at all whether the choice is a simple or a complex one.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Never,

Baseless assertion - where is the reasoning?

It's AB - there is no reasoning. Calling something he really wants to be true "blindingly obvious" is all he has.

[Alan Burns]

Way to miss the point. You accepted that determinism is fine for simple choices, but then claimed without explanation that it couldn’t function for complex decisions. I was merely explaining to you by way of an analogy that scale and complexity have no relevance to the principle. Provided the underlying neural architecture is sufficiently complex, it makes no difference at all whether the choice is a simple or a complex one.

It is you who is missing the point.
The point in question relates to comparing the source and degree of complexity contained in a Ferrari and a Lawnmower.  In both cases, the complexity, whether small or large, is entirely determined from human will.  Petrol has no relevance to the scales involved.  My argument that  complex, detailed, well thought out responses to my posts require the consciously controlled interaction of human will still stands.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

But your will at an experiential level cannot be as you would like it to be at an explanatory level for reasons that have been explained to you countless times, but that you always just ignore.

The fact is that I find your explanations totally unconvincing for reasons I have put forward numerous times. Our ability to think, contemplate, draw conclusions etc is a reality, not just an experience beyond our control.

[Stranger]

It is you who is missing the point.
The point in question relates to comparing the source and degree of complexity contained in a Ferrari and a Lawnmower.  In both cases, the complexity, whether small or large, is entirely determined from human will.  Petrol has no relevance to the scales involved.

Look up! The point is still sailing majestically about 30,000ft above your head.

My argument that  complex, detailed, well thought out responses to my posts require the consciously controlled interaction of human will still stands.

This is firstly, hand-waving waffle rather than anything resembling a logical arguemnt, and secondly, completely irrelevant. You seem to be convinced that establishing some role for consciousness would also establish your contradictory assertions about how "free will" works (no determinism and no randomness - and please don't try the idiotic redefinition of "determinism" yet again). This is simply not the case.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It is you who is missing the point.

Seems unikely, but let’s see shall we?

The point in question relates to comparing the source and degree of complexity contained in a Ferrari and a Lawnmower.

No it doesn’t. What it actually concerns is the basic idea that a principle – in this case that a petrol engine can propel a vehicle – doesn’t cease to be valid just because one vehicle is more complex than another. You accepted that determinism is a reasonable explanation for the process of deciding between tea and coffee, but then just asserted (ie, with no reasons whatever)) that it could not be a reasonable explanation for more complex decisions. In other words, you confused scale with principle.   

In both cases, the complexity, whether small or large, is entirely determined from human will.  Petrol has no relevance to the scales involved.

Wrong, and completely irrelevant in any case.

My argument that  complex, detailed, well thought out responses to my posts require the consciously controlled interaction of human will still stands.

You don’t have an argument remember, just an assertion. If you think that to be true nonetheless then – finally – provide some reasons to justify the belief rather than rely on assertion in place of an argument.

What’s stopping you?

[Outrider]

Yes, I fully agree that the choice of tea or coffee and the mental processing needed to compose a complex, well thought out reply come from the same source.

Not just source, a process of the same nature.

While it may be feasible to conclude that the source of choice between tea or coffee can be derived from instinctive pre programmed patterns of behaviour, the same derivation cannot be applied to the profound consciously driven thought processes needed to compose your posts.

Why not? Decades of adaptive reprogramming as a result of incremental experience isn't capable of refining simple instinctive inclinations into something more nuanced?

So I have to conclude that both choices derive from the formidable power of our consciously controlled human will.

You've still not showed anything that explains why you think this is not possible, just that you feel it isn't - it's still the argument from incredulity, there's nothing in your argument that is independent of your feeling, that's logically derived or demonstrated in terms of qualitative understandings of cognition or neural behaviour.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The fact is that I find your explanations totally unconvincing...

You find them totally unconvincing doesn't mean they are totally unconvincing – it just means that you will never, ever engage honestly and openly with them.

...for reasons I have put forward numerous times.

Stop lying. You either don't bother with even attempting reasons at all ("it's blindingly obvious" type assertions) or when you do attempt them they're always quickly falsified but you just ignore the falsifications as if nothing had happened.

Our ability to think, contemplate, draw conclusions etc is a reality, not just an experience beyond our control.

But "our control" is a complex system of underlying processes we're barely aware of at a conscious level, not a magic man at the controls that's logically impossible and about which you have in any case precisely zero information or evidence of any kind.

[Stranger]

The fact is that I find your explanations totally unconvincing for reasons I have put forward numerous times.

Those reasons have never once amounted to anything more than personal incredulity, baseless assertion, and appeals to consequences. I'll ask again: did it never once occur to you to study logic before attempting to claim that you were using it?

Our ability to think, contemplate, draw conclusions etc is a reality, not just an experience beyond our control.

Apart from this being yet another baseless assertion - you are still failing to grasp that "our control" does not mean that it can't also be an "inevitable reaction".

Unless you've been lying about MENSA and being a programmer, you have the aptitude to engage with these arguments, rather than just ignoring them, so why aren't you using it?

[torridon]

My will is currently causing the choice of keys being typed on this keyboard.  This is reality.  Your presumption that my conscious will is entirely caused by something prior removes any personal responsibility or accountability.

And your will must derive from something otherwise it would be random.  This is reality.  If your will was not caused by something prior then it would be random.  What's so hard to grasp about this ?

[Alan Burns]

And your will must derive from something otherwise it would be random.  This is reality.  If your will was not caused by something prior then it would be random.  What's so hard to grasp about this ?

My will is simply me.  It is what I do - consciously think, choose, communicate.  I am not just an inevitable end result of physical chains of reactions.  I an a conscious entity with a will of my own.

How could I possibly declare this (or assert it) without a will of my own?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

My will is simply me.  It is what I do - consciously think, choose, communicate.  I am not just an end result of physical chains of reactions.  I an a conscious entity with a will of my own.

We all have a “will”, but it cannot be what you think it to because that’s logically impossible for reasons that have been explained to you countless times, but that you just ignore. Simply invoking magic (or, as you call it, “miracles”) doesn’t get you off that hook, and nor does relying on assertions rather than making sound arguments to justify your beliefs.

And that’s your problem remember?

[Gordon]

My will is simply me.  It is what I do - consciously think, choose, communicate.  I am not just an inevitable end result of physical chains of reactions.  I an a conscious entity with a will of my own.

How could I possibly declare this (or assert it) without a will of my own?

Yet, ironically, you seem to be intellectually imprisoned by your own ideas of what it means to be 'free'.