Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

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.

You don't get to redefine 'freedom' to suit your purposes. Freedom means absence of external constraints or coercion, whether you like it or not.  So in your book, freedom means freedom from the constraints of the past, but we cannot ever be truly free of the past and neither can we be truly free of influence. And if we were somehow to be able to disconnect ourselves from these things, it would only mean that we had become random beings.  By disconnecting ourselves from the reasons why we are the way we are in the present moment, we disconnect ourselves from meaning. Given we have to resolve choices, continually, we have to resolve them in a meaningful way and you cannot do that if you are free of the relevant influences that would make your choice meaningful.

[Gordon]

You continue to confuse the concept of conscious freedom to choose with programmed reactions and instinctive behaviour.

Please state clearly the details of this 'concept of conscious freedom' of which you speak.

My concept of freedom is not absence of external constraint or coercion.

So what is it if not these?

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.

Nope - this attempt at a description fails because you need to unpack "viable option which is not a predefined reaction to past events" and you need to explain this "difference between consciously driven thought processes and subconsciously driven reactions" and how each can be identified as having separately identifiable roles.

For example, I've often mentioned my revulsion of mayonnaise (and similarly vile products) so perhaps you might explain how my "consciously driven thought processes", such as my suite of mayonnaise avoidance strategies, is in some way separate from my "subconsciously driven reaction" whenever mayonnaise (or the prospect of encountering it) occurs: is my reaction the "instinctive behaviour" you mention?

If your 'concept of freedom' is well developed you should be able to use this everyday example to set out how you think your 'concept' applies in this case, but no doubt you'll ignore or obfuscate as is the norm for you.   
 

[Stranger]

I do reply to what is being posted.

Sorry, but mindless repetition of "points" that have already been addressed countless times before is stretching the definition of "reply" (certainly in the context of a discussion forum) to breaking point.

In many cases I wish I had time to reply in much more detail.

You can't turn baseless assertions, fallacies, and contradictions into sound reasoning by adding more detail. Your position is fundamentally flawed, for all the reasons that have been given to you many times.

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.

Another argument from incredulity fallacy - and, once again, you seem to be confusing the conscious versus subconscious issue with determinism. They are two are entirely separate issues.

You claim lack of time but you have the time to indulge in utterly pointless, mindless, and never-ending repetition that just makes you and your faith look stupid. Personally, if I had the choice between shutting up and making a cause I believed in look stupid, I'd opt for the former. If you think you don't have time to do justice to your case, why are you bothering with the pointless repetition?

And you still haven't addressed the fact that it's become totally obvious that you didn't bother to study logic before proclaiming to the world that you had "sound logic" to support your view. For example, you can't logically deduce anything about the world without making some starting assumptions (premisses). You have repeatedly ignored requests to be explicit about yours - I suspect because if you tried to do that, it would be immediately obvious that they contain your conclusion.

If you're ever going to persuade thinking people, it really isn't more detail that you need, it's having the humility to admit your mistake and either learning about logical deduction or giving up the bogus claim.

Seriously, you know how absurd literal 6,000 year ago, six day creationists look when they claim to be using science and obviously know nothing about it. Compare directly to Alan Burns claiming to use logic...

[ekim]

And if we were somehow to be able to disconnect ourselves from these things, it would only mean that we had become random beings.  By disconnecting ourselves from the reasons why we are the way we are in the present moment, we disconnect ourselves from meaning. Given we have to resolve choices, continually, we have to resolve them in a meaningful way and you cannot do that if you are free of the relevant influences that would make your choice meaningful.

From the aspect of 'spirituality', what you are describing as 'we' is what they would describe as 'self' which comprises those drives, desires and thoughts which a human identifies with and the 'meaning' of life (or more accurately 'of living') tends to revolve around sustaining that identity and what supports it.  Spirituality tends to use a method to disidentify with 'self' and its concerns and discover an inner essence beyond those activities.  It provides a different 'meaning' or purpose and tends to rely upon 'letting go' rather than sustaining attachments.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I do reply to what is being posted.

But that’s simply not true is it? You’re asked exactly the same questions and given exactly the same challenges, refutations and rebuttals over and over again and yet you never, ever engage with them. Never. Instead what you do is just repeat the assertion or argument that’s been falsified as if the falsification hadn’t happened.

That’s your problem here. When you try argument X and you’re told that argument X is wrong and why it’s wrong, instead of pretending nothing’s happened why not engage with the problem – either with a more robust counter-argument, or by agreeing not to bother with argument X again? Instead the discourse is:

A: Argument X

B: Argument X is wrong and here’s why

A: Argument X

B: Argument X is wrong and here’s why

A: Argument X

B: What do you think you’ll achieve by never engaging with the falsification of argument X?

A: I do answer it. Argument X

Repeat ad nauseam…
   

In many cases I wish I had time to reply in much more detail.

No you don’t, or at least not if by “more detail” you mean open engagement with the arguments rather than further repetition of unqualified assertions and multiply falsified arguments. No-one want more detail of the same mistakes – what they want is any detail at all concerning the questions you’re asked and the falsifications you’re given. A broken speak your weight machine can add more detail by repeating the same phrase in 27 languages, but that contributes nothing to the dialogue.

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.

Why have you just contradicted the claim you just made to answering questions by completely ignoring everything my post was about? I asked you about what you hope to achieve by never addressing the problems you give yourself, and you “replied” as if you’d never been asked that question, preferring instead the same old speak your weight machine routine? Why the dishonest evasiveness?

To believe that they all just occur as inevitable reactions within sub conscious brain activity is frankly beyond my comprehension.

And having asked why when you commit a basic logical fallacy and the fallacy is explained to you you just ignore the problem, you finish with – wait for it – a basic logical fallacy! I don’t doubt that lots of things are beyond your comprehension, as indeed lots of things are beyond mine. That doesn’t make them not true though – it just means that we can’t comprehend them. This fallacy is called the argument from personal incredulity – “I can’t comprehend X, therefore X cannot be true”. Problem is, lots of people can comprehend X, and what’s more they can investigate X with reasons and evidence that are robust. I might for example find thunder and lightning so deeply mysterious that it’s beyond my comprehension, and I might even then adopt the same mistake as you by inserting a cause (Thor/God) for which I have no reasoning or evidence whatever, but that gives others no reason at all to agree with me. 

And that old son is where you are – someone who (apparently genuinely) has a set of beliefs he thinks to be true and that he wants other to think to be true, but who has only mindless assertions and false arguments to justify those beliefs but will never, ever address the problems this gives him.

So yet again: why bother with it?

[Alan Burns]

For example, I've often mentioned my revulsion of mayonnaise (and similarly vile products) so perhaps you might explain how my "consciously driven thought processes", such as my suite of mayonnaise avoidance strategies, is in some way separate from my "subconsciously driven reaction" whenever mayonnaise (or the prospect of encountering it) occurs: is my reaction the "instinctive behaviour" you mention?

I have to admit that I share your revulsion of mayonnaise.  There is nothing I can do to change this revulsion because it is driven by factors within my body which are beyond my control.  However I have the freedom to choose how to cope with this.  I can choose to inform the maker of the sandwich to avoid using mayonnaise.  Or I could choose to eat a pie instead.  Or I can choose to scrape off the mayonnaise.  I have the conscious freedom to choose.  It is not a subconscious reaction.

[Roses]

I like mayonnaise, it is so much nicer than salad cream, which we used to have when I was a kid. Talk about going off topic!

[Alan Burns]

You don't get to redefine 'freedom' to suit your purposes. Freedom means absence of external constraints or coercion, whether you like it or not.  So in your book, freedom means freedom from the constraints of the past, but we cannot ever be truly free of the past and neither can we be truly free of influence. And if we were somehow to be able to disconnect ourselves from these things, it would only mean that we had become random beings.  By disconnecting ourselves from the reasons why we are the way we are in the present moment, we disconnect ourselves from meaning. Given we have to resolve choices, continually, we have to resolve them in a meaningful way and you cannot do that if you are free of the relevant influences that would make your choice meaningful.

I totally agree that we are not free of influences from the past.  We are consciously aware of them.  This conscious awareness occurs in the present, as does the act of consciously resolving these influences in a meaningful way.  It is all driven by our conscious awareness which has the freedom to act in the present, not just produce an inevitable reaction to past events.

[Alan Burns]

Sorry, but mindless repetition of "points" that have already been addressed countless times before is stretching the definition of "reply" (certainly in the context of a discussion forum) to breaking point.

You can't turn baseless assertions, fallacies, and contradictions into sound reasoning by adding more detail. Your position is fundamentally flawed, for all the reasons that have been given to you many times.

Another argument from incredulity fallacy - and, once again, you seem to be confusing the conscious versus subconscious issue with determinism. They are two are entirely separate issues.

You claim lack of time but you have the time to indulge in utterly pointless, mindless, and never-ending repetition that just makes you and your faith look stupid. Personally, if I had the choice between shutting up and making a cause I believed in look stupid, I'd opt for the former. If you think you don't have time to do justice to your case, why are you bothering with the pointless repetition?

And you still haven't addressed the fact that it's become totally obvious that you didn't bother to study logic before proclaiming to the world that you had "sound logic" to support your view. For example, you can't logically deduce anything about the world without making some starting assumptions (premisses). You have repeatedly ignored requests to be explicit about yours - I suspect because if you tried to do that, it would be immediately obvious that they contain your conclusion.

If you're ever going to persuade thinking people, it really isn't more detail that you need, it's having the humility to admit your mistake and either learning about logical deduction or giving up the bogus claim.

Seriously, you know how absurd literal 6,000 year ago, six day creationists look when they claim to be using science and obviously know nothing about it. Compare directly to Alan Burns claiming to use logic...

dictionary quote:
prem·ise  (prĕm′ĭs)
n. also prem·iss (prĕm′ĭs)
1. A proposition upon which an argument is based or from which a conclusion is drawn.

It all depends where you start from.

Do you start from the reality of your own freedom to consciously contemplate and think about the source of your own thought processes?

Or do you start from a presumption based on every event being an inevitable consequence of previous events, which effectively rules out the alternative starting premise stated above.

[Gordon]

I have to admit that I share your revulsion of mayonnaise.  There is nothing I can do to change this revulsion because it is driven by factors within my body which are beyond my control.  However I have the freedom to choose how to cope with this.  I can choose to inform the maker of the sandwich to avoid using mayonnaise.  Or I could choose to eat a pie instead.  Or I can choose to scrape off the mayonnaise.  I have the conscious freedom to choose.  It is not a subconscious reaction.

Don't be silly, Alan.

My 'freedom to choose' to avoid mayonnaise is driven by my subconscious intrinsic revulsion of the nasty stuff since I have no control over my innate sense of revulsion: I haven't made a conscious decision that I find the stuff revolting, since if I had I could just decide that I really liked it - and I can't consciously do that.

[Gordon]

dictionary quote:
prem·ise  (prĕm′ĭs)
n. also prem·iss (prĕm′ĭs)
1. A proposition upon which an argument is based or from which a conclusion is drawn.

It all depends where you start from.

Do you start from the reality of your own freedom to consciously contemplate and think about the source of your own thought processes?

Or do you start from a presumption based on every event being an inevitable consequence of previous events, which effectively rules out the alternative starting premise stated above.

You start by acquainting yourself with the principles of logic, Alan, and stop co-opting what you imagine to be logic into your fallacious and rambling theobabble.

[Stranger]

dictionary quote:
prem·ise  (prĕm′ĭs)
n. also prem·iss (prĕm′ĭs)
1. A proposition upon which an argument is based or from which a conclusion is drawn.

I know what a premiss is Alan, it's you who seem to be struggling.

It all depends where you start from.

Premises are supposed to be assumptions that you think people will agree with. This is all new to you, isn't it?

Do you start from the reality of your own freedom to consciously contemplate and think about the source of your own thought processes?

As has been repeatedly pointed out to you (and you just ignore), you're are making a set of assertions about how that works. Nobody disputes this in the sense that we obviously can consciously contemplate things and come to conclusions - so you could use that as a premiss, the problem is that you then just assert that it means that choices are not fully deterministic (fully defined by the past events that led up to them) and involve no randomness.

There is a massive, gaping hole in your "argument" consisting of... well,... actually,... errmm,... well,... how can I put this?,... the entire fucking argument:-

Premiss 1: We can consciously contemplate things and come to conclusions.
Premiss 2:
...
Premiss n:
Step 1:
Step 2:
...
Step m:
Conclusion: Choices are not fully deterministic (fully defined by all the past events that led up to them) and involve no randomness.

All you've got to do is fill in the logical steps.

Or do you start from a presumption based on every event being an inevitable consequence of previous events, which effectively rules out the alternative starting premise stated above.

It would actually rule out the conclusion, not the premiss. However (more evidence that you don't pay attention), I don't think anybody is actually using this as a premiss - I, for one, would give them an argument if they did.

[torridon]

I totally agree that we are not free of influences from the past.  We are consciously aware of them.  This conscious awareness occurs in the present, as does the act of consciously resolving these influences in a meaningful way.  It is all driven by our conscious awareness which has the freedom to act in the present, not just produce an inevitable reaction to past events.

and how do you consciously resolve between competing influences ?  Identify the base principle by which you choose

[Outrider]

dictionary quote:
prem·ise  (prĕm′ĭs)
n. also prem·iss (prĕm′ĭs)
1. A proposition upon which an argument is based or from which a conclusion is drawn.

It all depends where you start from.

Do you start from the reality of your own freedom to consciously contemplate and think about the source of your own thought processes?

Or do you start from a presumption based on every event being an inevitable consequence of previous events, which effectively rules out the alternative starting premise stated above.

If you're trying to establish whether or not we have free will then neither, because you're engaging in a circular argument either way.  You have to consider what freedom would require, then see if that's viable, and if it constitutes 'will' or not.

As it is, either it's free - which is to say random - and therefore can't be considered 'will' in any meaningful way, or it's constrained by cause and effect (whether physical, spiritual or something else) in which case it might be considered will (depending on the details) but isn't free.

O.

[Alan Burns]

It would actually rule out the conclusion, not the premiss.

But it is not a conclusion.
Our freedom to guide our own thoughts is the reality which enables us to start contemplating the logic behind this reality.

[Stranger]

But it is not a conclusion.
Our freedom to guide our own thoughts is the reality which enables us to start contemplating the logic behind this reality.

The only reality we know is being able to think and come to conclusions, free from external constraints. You have given absolutely no evidence or reasoning whatsoever to justify the assertion that choices are therefore not fully deterministic (the "inevitable consequence of previous events") and involve no randomness.

This isn't logic, Alan, it's just you stamping your little foot and insisting that it must be the way you want it to be, because, well, it's obvious, innit?

Sorry, not only is it not obvious but, once you actually apply logic to it, it can be shown to be self-contradictory and hence impossible.

[Alan Burns]

The only reality we know is being able to think and come to conclusions, free from external constraints. You have given absolutely no evidence or reasoning whatsoever to justify the assertion that choices are therefore not fully deterministic (the "inevitable consequence of previous events") and involve no randomness.

This isn't logic, Alan, it's just you stamping your little foot and insisting that it must be the way you want it to be, because, well, it's obvious, innit?

Sorry, not only is it not obvious but, once you actually apply logic to it, it can be shown to be self-contradictory and hence impossible.

What is impossible is for you to start contemplating reality without having the conscious freedom to do so

[Stranger]

What is impossible is for you to start contemplating reality without having the conscious freedom to do so

More foot stamping doesn't help.

Why does that "freedom" need to be not fully deterministic (the "inevitable consequence of previous events") and involving no randomness, rather than simply free from external constraints?

[Enki]

Quote from: Alan Burns on Today at 11:48;15 AM

....

It all depends where you start from.

Do you start from the reality of your own freedom to consciously contemplate and think about the source of your own thought processes?

Or do you start from a presumption based on every event being an inevitable consequence of previous events, which effectively rules out the alternative starting premise stated above.

I have no idea why you think that these two starting points are incompatible with each other. If anything, the second starting point could be said to come before your first starting point, and could quite easily lead to the second. There is no discrepancy for instance between the idea of events/consequences and the idea of freedom of thought, which simply means the freedom of an individual to think as one wants without outside constraints, but says nothing about the actual mechanisms of the thinking process at all.

However let's take your first premise, which was that we have the reality of our own freedom to consciously contemplate and think about the source of our own thought processes.

Could you please lay out the logical steps from this premise, such that it leads to a conclusion that you wish to make?

[ippy]

I like mayonnaise, it is so much nicer than salad cream, which we used to have when I was a kid. Talk about going off topic!

I like the Mayonnaise too LR, had a good holiday there a few years back.

Regards, ippy.

[torridon]

What is impossible is for you to start contemplating reality without having the conscious freedom to do so

So all you need is that nobody interferes with your contemplating.  That is merely circumstantial, not supernatural

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB-ism: –

Premise: A

Logical step 1: missing

Logical step 2: missing

Logical step 3: missing

Conclusion: Also premise A

[Alan Burns]

More foot stamping doesn't help.

Why does that "freedom" need to be not fully deterministic (the "inevitable consequence of previous events") and involving no randomness, rather than simply free from external constraints?

It is not foot stamping to deduce that you need a consciously invoked effort to start contemplating the reality behind your own existence.
It is all down to our conscious human will.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It is not foot stamping to deduce that you need a consciously invoked effort to start contemplating the reality behind your own existence.
It is all down to our conscious human will.

Repeating idiocy doesn’t make it less idiotic. I set out a few posts ago (38554) where you go wrong. Entirely predictably you’ve just ignored the problem.

What does that say about you do you think?

[Gordon]

It is not foot stamping to deduce that you need a consciously invoked effort to start contemplating the reality behind your own existence.

I see you have now redefined 'deduce': please set out the deductive process step-by-step.

It is all down to our conscious human will.

If this is your conclusion, arrived at via deduction, then please show your workings, deductively-speaking (and free from fallacies).