Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

Any form of control requires a source of control, otherwise it is no different to any other chain reaction.  In your view of determinism where everything event is determined entirely from previous events there can be no definitive source of control.

So how can an elephant control its trunk if, in your view, animals don't have a source of control, and 'just react' ?

[torridon]

Any intelligent person would understand that a regime in which every event is caused by previous events offers zero scope for any personal accountability. I suspect you know as well as me that we are personally responsible for every post we make - a responsibility which is totally incompatible with the materialistic view of determinism you continue to portray. ...

On the one hand, this is merely argumentam ad consequentiam, one of your favourite logical fallacies.  The fact that a deterministic account might undermine our sense of personal responsibility is not evidence that determinism is false.  Our sense of responsibility is just that, it is a sense, a feeling, just like sadness, or elation or fear.  It is a hallmark of the way consciousness has evolved in humans in particular, we have developed a strong sense of personhood and moral responsibility over our choices.  An essay on this from Chris Frith at UCL via the link below :

our-illusory-sense-of-agency-has-a-deeply-important-social-purpose

[Gordon]

Any form of control requires a source of control, otherwise it is no different to any other chain reaction.  In your view of determinism where everything event is determined entirely from previous events there can be no definitive source of control.

"personality, tastes, abilities, current state of mind, …." These just become meaningless labels in the context of the physically predetermined reactions in a material brain.  Their meaning in your conscious awareness has no particular relevance to the inevitable end reactions from physical chains of cause and effect.

Any intelligent person would understand that a regime in which every event is caused by previous events offers zero scope for any personal accountability. I suspect you know as well as me that we are personally responsible for every post we make - a responsibility which is totally incompatible with the materialistic view of determinism you continue to portray.  The human mind is far more than a complex data processor.  It is life itself.  The only life you will ever have.  Our creator has given us all an amazing opportunity to achieve a fulfilment beyond our wildest dreams.

This ramble is no more that the usual fallacious theobabble so as to contrive a gap for 'God' - the clue being the last sentence.

[Stranger]

Any form of control requires a source of control, otherwise it is no different to any other chain reaction.  In your view of determinism where everything event is determined entirely from previous events there can be no definitive source of control.

This is just hand-waving nonsense. You're trying to redefine "control". A thermostat controls temperature - the "source of control" is a deterministic algorithm. Control is virtually the exact opposite of what you claim about it. A "source of control" actually needs to react deterministically.

"personality, tastes, abilities, current state of mind, …." These just become meaningless labels in the context of the physically predetermined reactions in a material brain.  Their meaning in your conscious awareness has no particular relevance to the inevitable end reactions from physical chains of cause and effect.

This is utter nonsense. They are very useful concepts in understanding how humans behave.

And once again, you're dishonestly misrepresenting the logical argument as being about the physical world.

Any intelligent person would understand that a regime in which every event is caused by previous events offers zero scope for any personal accountability. I suspect you know as well as me that we are personally responsible for every post we make...

Totally ignored my point, I see. Starting a sentence with "Any intelligent person would understand..." is not a substitute for finding out what "sound logic" actually means, studying valid and invalid argument forms a coming back with something honest and properly thought through.

As far as your "point" goes, it depends how you define "personal responsibility". In the sense that my posts are the result of what I want to say, then I am personally responsible. The fact that I want to say what I want to say because of (past) reasons doesn't change that. That is all that any intelligent person, who had actually thought about the logic of the situation, would understand.

...a responsibility which is totally incompatible with the materialistic view of determinism you continue to portray.

So you assert - where is the reasoning? Responsibility in the sense I outlined above is totally compatible with minds being fully deterministic. You're view of "responsibility" is logically self-contradictory, hence impossible, and not something that is even imaginable, let alone obvious.

And yet more dishonest misrepresentation in connecting the argument to the material.

The human mind is far more than a complex data processor.

Baseless assertion. Where is your reasoning?

It is life itself.  The only life you will ever have.  Our creator has given us all an amazing opportunity to achieve a fulfilment beyond our wildest dreams.

Vacuous preaching - but at least it has a naive and simplistic honesty to it. Something that your continued misrepresentation and pretence that your assertions, fallacies, and blind faith are actually based on logic and evidence, totally lack.

I'll ask again:-

You've claimed "sound" logic but it looks as if you didn't even bother to find out what that means, let alone take any time to study valid and invalid logical arguments. How about a bit of honesty? How about admitting you have no sound reasoning and either go back to find out what it means and try to find some or stop the pretence that you have evidence or reasoning to back up what you say entirely?

[Outrider]

Which reduces my conscious self to being a spectator of what has already been determined without my conscious intervention.  So can I ask Stranger once again what he considers to be the target of his accusarions of evasion, assertion and lies?

You - in particular, the part of you that's formulating your responses in order for your conscious self to become aware of them in between you making the decision and us reading it...

O.

[SusanDoris]

Reading the stuff that AB writes, I have a constant concern that these unsupported assertions are being heard by young people, thinking of his grandson in particular. Maybe that is out of order here, but the basic years of learning are so important and, although the history and reasons for belief need to be learned and understood, the beliefs themselves should not be taught as evidenced truths.

If Mods choose to delete this, I'll quite understand, but it will not lessen my concern.

[Alan Burns]

You - in particular, the part of you that's formulating your responses in order for your conscious self to become aware of them in between you making the decision and us reading it...

O.

But according to the logic being put forward, the formulation of my responses takes place in my subconscious brain activity before I become aware of it.  By implication, subconscious brain activity is beyond my conscious control - So I ask once more - What precisely is it that is deemed to be the instigator responsible for the evasion, assertion, lies etc which I am being accused of?  If it is subconscious brain activity beyond my conscious control, what is the point or aim of such accusations?  How can they possibly be rectified without my conscious ability to exert control?

If such accusations can be rectified, it would be evidence of my ability to invoke the conscious choices needed to rectify.

[Outrider]

But according to the logic being put forward, the formulation of my responses takes place in my subconscious brain activity before I become aware of it.  By implication, subconscious brain activity is beyond my conscious control - So I ask once more - What precisely is it that is deemed to be the instigator responsible for the evasion, assertion, lies etc which I am being accused of?

You are formulating your argument such that you and your subconscious are separate, but that's not the case. Your subconscious is an intrinsic part of you.

If it is subconscious brain activity beyond my conscious control, what is the point or aim of such accusations?

Arguably, your subconscious adds them to the sum of its experiences and it influences later decisions - in my personal experience, phrasing things as accusations is less likely to prove to be effective, but that's the attempted logical flow of discussions under the deterministic paradigm.

How can they possibly be rectified without my conscious ability to exert control?

Because your subconscious updates with experience.

If such accusations can be rectified, it would be evidence of my ability to invoke the conscious choices needed to rectify.

Unless it happened in the background, and you post hoc rationalised it when you understood that your subconscious was making different decisions these days.

O.

[Alan Burns]

This is just hand-waving nonsense. You're trying to redefine "control". A thermostat controls temperature - the "source of control" is a deterministic algorithm. Control is virtually the exact opposite of what you claim about it. A "source of control" actually needs to react deterministically.

To determine the source of control for a thermostat you need to look beyond the basic mechanism and into the mind of the person responsible for consciously designing and creating the thermostat.  It is simply an extension of the power of the human mind to deliberately implement intentional control within this physically deterministic material universe.

[Stranger]

But according to the logic being put forward, the formulation of my responses takes place in my subconscious brain activity before I become aware of it.

After all this time, you still seem to be totally confused about the arguments against you. I know it's potentially confusing having different people putting different arguments, but you're supposed to be an intelligent person and it's not as if it hasn't been explained to you several times.

The logical argument is about the impossibility of choices being not fully deterministic (the result of all the past events that led up to them) without involving randomness. Nothing about what consciousness does or doesn't do and nothing at all about the material, physical world.

There is also some evidence that it is the subconscious mind actually makes choices, at least in certain circumstances, before the conscious mind is aware of it. This doesn't mean, of course, that the conscious mind didn't have any role at all, especially in choices involving lengthy deliberation. The idea that consciousness is just an epiphenomena has also been put forward but I've yet to see compelling evidence of that.

You seem to be identifying the logical contradiction with the idea that it's the subconscious mind that makes choices. In fact, it's totally irrelevant. The contradiction stands regardless of the role of consciousness.

By implication, subconscious brain activity is beyond my conscious control - So I ask once more - What precisely is it that is deemed to be the instigator responsible for the evasion, assertion, lies etc which I am being accused of?  If it is subconscious brain activity beyond my conscious control, what is the point or aim of such accusations?  How can they possibly be rectified without my conscious ability to exert control?

Again - nobody is suggesting that arguments that are presented to people cannot convince said people. Where is your logic that says your conscious mind needs to be fully in control in order for that to happen?

If such accusations can be rectified, it would be evidence of my ability to invoke the conscious choices needed to rectify.

Baseless assertion - where is the reasoning?

You really do need to learn the difference between a reasoned argument and incredulity and assertion.

[Stranger]

To determine the source of control for a thermostat you need to look beyond the basic mechanism and into the mind of the person responsible for consciously designing and creating the thermostat.  It is simply an extension of the power of the human mind to deliberately implement intentional control...

As I said (many times) before: you're just trying to redefine the word "control" to mean your impossible, contradictory notion of freedom. It simply doesn't mean that, and if you insist on using that definition, then "control" or "source of control", according to your definition, is nonsensical and hence impossible.

Pissing about arguing about what words mean doesn't help you at all. Your version of "freedom" is self-contradictory and insisting that the words we normally use to describe our experiences mean that impossible contradiction, is not a substitute for facing up to said contradiction.

...within this physically deterministic material universe.

And for the hundred thousandth time: the logic has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PHYSICAL, MATERIAL UNIVERSE. There is NO SUCH THING AS PHYSICALLY DETERMINISTIC - only deterministic or not deterministic.

And you're still ignoring this:-

You've claimed "sound" logic but it looks as if you didn't even bother to find out what that means, let alone take any time to study valid and invalid logical arguments. How about a bit of honesty? How about admitting you have no sound reasoning and either go back to find out what it means and try to find some or stop the pretence that you have evidence or reasoning to back up what you say entirely?

[torridon]

To determine the source of control for a thermostat you need to look beyond the basic mechanism and into the mind of the person responsible for consciously designing and creating the thermostat.  It is simply an extension of the power of the human mind to deliberately implement intentional control within this physically deterministic material universe.

That wouldn't explain how an elephant can control its trunk or an alpha male chimp can control its troupe, or how cordyceps fungus can control the mind of a bullet ant.  There are examples of 'control' happening seemingly without any human intervention.

[Alan Burns]

And for the hundred thousandth time: the logic has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PHYSICAL, MATERIAL UNIVERSE. There is NO SUCH THING AS PHYSICALLY DETERMINISTIC - only deterministic or not deterministic.

You assert this with no knowledge of how anything non physical actually operates.
Your logic is entirely based upon observed material behaviour in which events are entirely a consequence of past physically controlled reactions.
My contention involves the difference between predetermined and determined.  I know you claim that there is no difference, and such a claim would be true in the physical scenario based on material reactions.  But you continue to refuse to acnowledge the possibility of our conscious awareness existing and acting in the present, which would allow us the freedom we all experience as human beings.

[Gordon]

You assert this with no knowledge of how anything non physical actually operates.

Irony meters are exploding everywhere!

Your logic is entirely based upon observed material behaviour in which events are entirely a consequence of past physically controlled reactions.

I see you have your own definition of 'logic' - perhaps you'd explain what alternative methods you would use.

My contention involves the difference between predetermined and determined.  I know you claim that there is no difference, and such a claim would be true in the physical scenario based on material reactions.  But you continue to refuse to acnowledge the possibility of our conscious awareness existing and acting in the present, which would allow us the freedom we all experience as human beings.

Since your 'contention' has long since been exposed as fallacious theobabble we can simply reject it since you don't include any basis to investigate what you contend/

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You assert this with no knowledge of how anything non physical actually operates.

That’s because “anything non physical” is incoherent. If you think there’s such a thing as the non-physical, define it, demonstrate it and explain it. Just asserting it and then complaining that rules of logic don’t apply in this magic land you’ve invented is gibberish 

Your logic is entirely based upon observed material behaviour in which events are entirely a consequence of past physically controlled reactions.

Actually it isn’t, but even if it was what else would you want to it be based on? As you have zero information about his supposed non-physical world you’ve pouffed into existence how would you suggest that anyone engage with such claims?

My contention involves the difference between predetermined and determined.  I know you claim that there is no difference, and such a claim would be true in the physical scenario based on material reactions.  But you continue to refuse to acnowledge the possibility of our conscious awareness existing and acting in the present, which would allow us the freedom we all experience as human beings.

FFS! No-one denies the “possibility” of anything. Just endlessly lying about this so as to create a straw man to attack is wrecking what little credibility you have left. What’s actually being said is that there’s no good reason to think there a “present” in the sense you would like it to exist because such a thing is contradicted by the reasoning and evidence we do have. In the vanishingly unlikely event that you ever produced an argument for it more robust than the arguments that discount it then – but only then – would you have something worth listening to.

Oh, and I see that you’re repeatedly ignoring Stranger’s question about how you expect to cite logic for support while at the same time posting strong evidence that you have no idea at all about what rhetorical logic actually entails.

Why is that?

[Alan Burns]

On the one hand, this is merely argumentam ad consequentiam, one of your favourite logical fallacies.  The fact that a deterministic account might undermine our sense of personal responsibility is not evidence that determinism is false.  Our sense of responsibility is just that, it is a sense, a feeling, just like sadness, or elation or fear.  It is a hallmark of the way consciousness has evolved in humans in particular, we have developed a strong sense of personhood and moral responsibility over our choices.  An essay on this from Chris Frith at UCL via the link below :

our-illusory-sense-of-agency-has-a-deeply-important-social-purpose

Having read this well written article, it confirms the inevitable conclusion that from a secular point of view, our concept of freedom to choose and awareness that we could have made different choices must be an illusion in order to fit in with current scientific knowledge.  I cannot disagree with the reasoning used, but I have to observe that the conclusions take no account of any possibility of supernatural events.  The bottom line is that in order to believe that you have the conscious freedom to choose your thoughts, words and actions, you must also believe that this reality can only be brought about by supernatural activity beyond human understanding.

[Outrider]

You assert this with no knowledge of how anything non physical actually operates.

But this isn't an empirical argument, it's a logical one, so we're talking underlying principles.  Logically, there are two possibilities for any individual action - it's the deterministic response to a stimulus, or it's a random event.  That is, unless you can come up with an explanation of something that's logically not either of those.

Taking those logical possibilities on, we then find that our thinking - whether physically originating or not - is a construct of either deterministic elements, random elements or a mixture of the two.  That doesn't leave any room for a third option of 'free but still will'.

Your logic is entirely based upon observed material behaviour in which events are entirely a consequence of past physically controlled reactions.

No, the logic might fit that example well, but it's consistent independent of physical elements.

My contention involves the difference between predetermined and determined.  I know you claim that there is no difference, and such a claim would be true in the physical scenario based on material reactions.  But you continue to refuse to acnowledge the possibility of our conscious awareness existing and acting in the present, which would allow us the freedom we all experience as human beings.

Except that you've not been able to unshackle that conscious awareness from either randomness or determinism in order to give it the freedom to be the non-determined, non-random element that somehow creates a distinction between determined and predetermined.

O.

[torridon]

Having read this well written article, it confirms the inevitable conclusion that from a secular point of view, our concept of freedom to choose and awareness that we could have made different choices must be an illusion in order to fit in with current scientific knowledge.  I cannot disagree with the reasoning used, but I have to observe that the conclusions take no account of any possibility of supernatural events.  The bottom line is that in order to believe that you have the conscious freedom to choose your thoughts, words and actions, you must also believe that this reality can only be brought about by supernatural activity beyond human understanding.

So, elephants must have supernatural powers to be able to control their trunk, then.  Is this really what you believe ? 

Freedom means the absence of external constraint or coercion. 

So, in order to move its trunk, the elephant must be deploying special powers to eliminate any external forces that would otherwise impinge on its freedom to move. 

The freedom that I enjoy in being able to pick any word for the next sentence must lie in the supernatural powers I have deployed to eliminate anything that would otherwise narrow my vocabulary.

Is this really what you believe ?

[torridon]

Having read this well written article, it confirms the inevitable conclusion that from a secular point of view....

Stop right there.  It is written from a logical, honest point of view.  Why not try it yourself one day.

[Gordon]

Having read this well written article, it confirms the inevitable conclusion that from a secular point of view, our concept of freedom to choose and awareness that we could have made different choices must be an illusion in order to fit in with current scientific knowledge.  I cannot disagree with the reasoning used, but I have to observe that the conclusions take no account of any possibility of supernatural events.

Super - all you need do now is explain how 'supernatural events' are known to be possible.

The bottom line is that in order to believe that you have the conscious freedom to choose your thoughts, words and actions, you must also believe that this reality can only be brought about by supernatural activity beyond human understanding.

No - the bottom line is that if, as you say, there is "supernatural activity" that is "beyond human understanding" then you can't possibly know this since you've defined it as being "beyond human understanding"; therefore, by your own account, you can have no understanding of what it is you claim.

[torridon]

No - the bottom line is that if, as you say, there is "supernatural activity" that is "beyond human understanding" then you can't possibly know this since you've defined it as being "beyond human understanding"; therefore, by your own account, you can have no understanding of what it is you claim.

Indeed.  This exposes the laziness at the heart of all superstition.  Something is difficult to understand ? No worries, just file it under 'it must be magic' and move on.

[Stranger]

You assert this with no knowledge of how anything non physical actually operates.

As I have pointed many, many times, only to have you totally ignore it, I am assuming nothing but logical self-consistency and the fact that we make choices over periods of time.

Your logic is entirely based upon observed material behaviour in which events are entirely a consequence of past physically controlled reactions.

You are bearing false witness again. I have presented the argument many times with no reference at all to the nature of the substrate on which it operated (physical or otherwise).

My contention involves the difference between predetermined and determined.  I know you claim that there is no difference, and such a claim would be true in the physical scenario based on material reactions.

You have yet to explain what you think the difference is...

But you continue to refuse to acnowledge the possibility of our conscious awareness existing and acting in the present, which would allow us the freedom we all experience as human beings.

Just as soon as you can put that in a self-consistent way, in which all the terms are properly defined, in a non-circular and logically meaningful ways, I'll happily consider it, but as it stands, it's totally devoid of meaning.

And I do not (neither does anybody else) experience "freedom" in the sense of your logically nonsensical definition - I can't even imagine it because it literally makes no sense.

Which brings us right back to the point that you obviously don't understand what a logical argument entails. You've clearly never taken the trouble to learn about the basics, let alone the valid and invalid ways in which arguments can be structured.

How about just admitting that you're way out of your depth and either drop the pretence at logic or go away and find something valid to present?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Explain this to me. Either you’re a troll who thinks, “I’m going to tell ten lies before breakfast because I get my kicks that way”, or you genuinely believe the things you say you believe but can’t grasp the problems you’re giving yourself with your behaviour here. For what it’s worth I think it’s the latter, but you either just dispense with argument entirely (“any intelligent person knows”, “it’s blindingly obvious” etc) or, when you do try argument, you collapse immediately into one or more of various fallacies (argumentum ad consequentiam, straw man, ad pop etc).

Here’s the thing though: when these things are explained to you perfectly clearly and rationally, you just ignore the explanations and carry on with exactly the same tactics. Why? What do you hope to achieve by it? Surely you can see that if you try to argue for something and the argument is falsified, unless you address the falsification you can never persuade anyone to agree with you? All that the rationalists here think is, “here comes AB again with his unqualified assertions and very bad arguments”.

Seriously, are you really so lost that you just cannot process arguments that undo you so you don’t see them no matter how large the font, or at some level do you think “oh-oh, there’s no way out of that – I know, I’ll just pretend that it hasn’t been said and carry on with the same mistakes”? 

So why not actually surprise me and actually try to reply to what’s actually being said here?

[Alan Burns]

So, elephants must have supernatural powers to be able to control their trunk, then.  Is this really what you believe ? 

Freedom means the absence of external constraint or coercion. 

So, in order to move its trunk, the elephant must be deploying special powers to eliminate any external forces that would otherwise impinge on its freedom to move. 

The freedom that I enjoy in being able to pick any word for the next sentence must lie in the supernatural powers I have deployed to eliminate anything that would otherwise narrow my vocabulary.

Is this really what you believe ?

You continue to confuse the concept of conscious freedom to choose with programmed reactions and instinctive behaviour.
My concept of freedom is not absence of external constraint or coercion.  It is simply the freedom to consciously choose a viable option which is not a predefined reaction to past events.  Such freedom illustrates the difference between consciously driven thought processes and subconsciously driven reactions.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Explain this to me. Either you’re a troll who thinks, “I’m going to tell ten lies before breakfast because I get my kicks that way”, or you genuinely believe the things you say you believe but can’t grasp the problems you’re giving yourself with your behaviour here. For what it’s worth I think it’s the latter, but you either just dispense with argument entirely (“any intelligent person knows”, “it’s blindingly obvious” etc) or, when you do try argument, you collapse immediately into one or more of various fallacies (argumentum ad consequentiam, straw man, ad pop etc).

Here’s the thing though: when these things are explained to you perfectly clearly and rationally, you just ignore the explanations and carry on with exactly the same tactics. Why? What do you hope to achieve by it? Surely you can see that if you try to argue for something and the argument is falsified, unless you address the falsification you can never persuade anyone to agree with you? All that the rationalists here think is, “here comes AB again with his unqualified assertions and very bad arguments”.

Seriously, are you really so lost that you just cannot process arguments that undo you so you don’t see them no matter how large the font, or at some level do you think “oh-oh, there’s no way out of that – I know, I’ll just pretend that it hasn’t been said and carry on with the same mistakes”? 

So why not actually surprise me and actually try to reply to what’s actually being said here?

I do reply to what is being posted.  In many cases I wish I had time to reply in much more detail.  But the fact that my replies invoke such detailed, well thought out responses merely adds to my conviction of the conscious freedom essential to produce such responses.  To believe that they all just occur as inevitable reactions within sub conscious brain activity is frankly beyond my comprehension.