Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I do appreciate your efforts, Blue,…

Rather than appreciate them why not engage with those efforts and try at least to engage with the multiple problems your unqualified assertions and logically wrong arguments give you?

…but no amount of theorising can possibly take away the reality of my freedom to drive my own thoughts.

Yes “theorising” (ie, robust reasoning and evidence) can because that “freedom” as you intend it is impossible. The sense of freedom at an experiential level is fine, and without it we’d cease to function as social species. It cannot be fine though at an explanatory level because the only way out of the determined vs random binary to justify an a priori religious belief is “it’s magic”. And citing magic as your answer (or, as you put it, “miraculous”) is the abandonment of the logic you claim to have but can never demonstrate.   
 

Can you not see that for an accusation of personal incredulity to be true, the accused must have the personal freedom to assert such incredulity?

No because that’s an utterly stupid position to take. Can you not see that it’s quite valid to accuse someone (correctly as it happens) of personal incredulity at the level of abstraction of experiential freedom, and that that does not cease to be the case when the deeper, logic- and evidence-based explanation for the experience of freedom can only be deterministic?

[torridon]

I am not disconnected from the past.  I am consciously aware of the past, but the past does not control me.  I am free to contemplate, to think, to discover, to explore, to choose, to pray, to create, to discuss, to imagine  … .  To try to define such freedom within the context of physically defined reactions is an impossible task, because any physical explanation would deny such freedom.  Such consciously driven freedom cannot exist within endless chains of physical reactions.

You persistently misconceive what freedom means.  Freedom means the absence of external constraint.  We don't do things because we are free, we do them because we want to.  I go to work in the mornings not because I am free, but because I want to earn some money.  I eat my lunch not because I am free to, but because I am hungry.  Freedom is circumstantial, not causal.

It might be a mischaracterisation to claim that the past controls you. Rather, the past has made you what you are in the present.  There is no escaping that, given we cannot rewind time.  If you opt for tea rather than coffee there must be a reason for that for it not to be a random choice. Something must have led to your wanting one and not the other. You are not controlled by the past, more that you are an outcome of it. 'Controlled' is just pejorative.

[Alan Burns]

Yes “theorising” (ie, robust reasoning and evidence) can because that “freedom” as you intend it is impossible. The sense of freedom at an experiential level is fine, and without it we’d cease to function as social species. It cannot be fine though at an explanatory level because the only way out of the determined vs random binary to justify an a priori religious belief is “it’s magic”. And citing magic as your answer (or, as you put it, “miraculous”) is the abandonment of the logic you claim to have but can never demonstrate.   

But I do demonstrate it by freely choosing to contradict your flawed logic - which denies the reality which I am currently demonstrating.
My freedom is not just a sense of freedom at an experiential level.  If it were I would not have the freedom to consciously compose this post. 
Any logical analysis must begin with the conscious freedom essential to contemplate and evaluate the issues under consideration.  To presume that this can all happen within subconscious brain activity without any means of conscious verification is highly illogical.
 

No because that’s an utterly stupid position to take. Can you not see that it’s quite valid to accuse someone (correctly as it happens) of personal incredulity at the level of abstraction of experiential freedom, and that that does not cease to be the case when the deeper, logic- and evidence-based explanation for the experience of freedom can only be deterministic?

And please explain precisely what generates the "deeper, logic- and evidence-based explanation for the experience of freedom" and how this source of generation can be presumed to be correct.

[Gordon]

But I do demonstrate it by freely choosing to contradict your flawed logic - which denies the reality which I am currently demonstrating.

Since your 'reality' includes supernatural agents you'll need to demonstrate these before claiming they are 'real' - on you go!

My freedom is not just a sense of freedom at an experiential level.

Yes it is, and we all join you in this as regards day-to-day routine functioning.

If it were I would not have the freedom to consciously compose this post.

Yes you would, but with the constraints of your biology, intellect and experiences.
 

Any logical analysis must begin with the conscious freedom essential to contemplate and evaluate the issues under consideration.  To presume that this can all happen within subconscious brain activity without any means of conscious verification is highly illogical.

You are a stranger to logic, Alan, and if I were you I'd be inclined to rectify that before making claims about logic especially since, as we see here, you are falling into your usual fallacies (which negate what you say).

And please explain precisely what generates the "deeper, logic- and evidence-based explanation for the experience of freedom" and how this source of generation can be presumed to be correct.

It is called thinking, Alan: it is just your brain doing what comes naturally, albeit some brains are better at thinking about logic and subtleties whereas some other brains are less capable in this regard and fall prey to reasoning errors.

[torridon]

But I do demonstrate it by freely choosing to contradict your flawed logic - which denies the reality which I am currently demonstrating....

You were able to choose to reply freely because nobody was stopping you from replying.  This is the reason why we enjoy freedom.  But you never demonstrated a reply that was free of cause and effect, or free of your nature, or free of your desires.  This you have never done, and you never will.

[Stranger]

But I do demonstrate it by freely choosing to contradict your flawed logic - which denies the reality which I am currently demonstrating.

Considering how many times this has been explained to you, it's very difficult to see this as anything but a barefaced lie about what people are saying to you. If you disagree, then try some actual, rational arguments, rather than this idiotic, reasoning-free misrepresentation of the actual argument against you. Nobody is denying anything at all that you are able to demonstrate.

You have given us no reasoning whatsoever that goes from our experiences and abilities to your contradictory definition of "freedom". Not a single line of reasoning or a single scrap of evidence - nothing whatsoever. Just endless, mindless assertion.

Any logical analysis...

It really is about time you stopped using this Alan - it is blindingly obvious that you don't have the first inkling of a clue about logic. Here is a great example of the evidence for that...

To presume that this can all happen within subconscious brain activity without any means of conscious verification is highly illogical.

Firstly, just calling something illogical, doesn't make it so - you actually need to provide the logic itself. Secondly, you are once again confusing the conscious versus unconscious with the logical contradiction at the heart of your notion of "freedom". I don't think anybody has suggested that consciousness has no role at all - but it simply doesn't matter because, regardless of its role, your version of "freedom" is still self-contradictory.

And please explain precisely what generates the "deeper, logic- and evidence-based explanation for the experience of freedom" and how this source of generation can be presumed to be correct.

Why should anybody offer you any explanation of anything? You are trying to us tell that it's all totally unexplained magic and to please try and ignore the blatant contradiction and total lack of any evidence or reasoning.

You have been provided with lots of evidence and reasoning and you just ignore it or (apparently) lie about it.

[Alan Burns]

I go to work in the mornings not because I am free, but because I want to earn some money.  I eat my lunch not because I am free to, but because I am hungry.  Freedom is circumstantial, not causal.

But in the examples you give
 - we are free to choose what type of work we do.
 - we are free to choose how many jobs to have within time constraints.
 - we may be consciously aware of temptation to steal to get more money - we are free to consciously resist such temptation
 - we are free to choose what to eat for lunch
 - we are free to choose when to eat lunch within time constraints
 - we are free to over indulge in what we eat and drink (and suffer the consequences)
 - we are free to choose to resist the temptation to over eat or drink too much.

All this freedom is enabled through our present state of conscious awareness which gives us the opportunity to choose which of the numerous options available to invoke.

[Stranger]

But in the examples you give
 - we are free to choose what type of work we do.
 - we are free to choose how many jobs to have within time constraints.
 - we may be consciously aware of temptation to steal to get more money - we are free to consciously resist such temptation
 - we are free to choose what to eat for lunch
 - we are free to choose when to eat lunch within time constraints
 - we are free to over indulge in what we eat and drink (and suffer the consequences)
 - we are free to choose to resist the temptation to over eat or drink too much.

Yes - except none of that goes any way at all towards establishing your contradictory assertions that those choices are not fully deterministic* and involve no randomness.

All this freedom is enabled through our present state of conscious awareness which gives us the opportunity to choose which of the numerous options available to invoke.

And this is still gibberish. Why on earth you think just repeating something that several people have told you is incoherent nonsense, is going to achieve anything, is totally beyond me.

Look, if you knew anything at all about constructing a logical argument (which you clearly don't) then you'd have started out with your premises, and it looks very much as if one of them would have been something like:-

It is clear from our ability to consciously contemplate and make choices, that our minds are not fully deterministic* and do not involve randomness.

Then everybody could have told you that they didn't accept your premiss and, again, if you actually understood logic, you'd have realised that your argument was dead in the water until and unless you could persuade them of its truth. So, to that end, you'd have to go back to more basic premises, that people would accept, and establish it from those.

Just endlessly repeating that your premiss is self-evident from people's ability to think, compose posts, and make everyday choices (which is effectively what you're doing), is never going to persuade anybody and it makes you look stupid and/or dishonest when you tell people that they're denying things that they aren't.

People don't accept your premiss. They do accept that we can think, compose posts, and make everyday choices but they do not accept that that means choices are not fully deterministic* and involve no randomness.

Seriously Alan, is that really too difficult for you to grasp?

* And please don't start the dishonesty about what "deterministic" means again. 

[Enki]

But in the examples you give
 - we are free to choose what type of work we do.
 - we are free to choose how many jobs to have within time constraints.
 - we may be consciously aware of temptation to steal to get more money - we are free to consciously resist such temptation
 - we are free to choose what to eat for lunch
 - we are free to choose when to eat lunch within time constraints
 - we are free to over indulge in what we eat and drink (and suffer the consequences)
 - we are free to choose to resist the temptation to over eat or drink too much.

All this freedom is enabled through our present state of conscious awareness which gives us the opportunity to choose which of the numerous options available to invoke.

For heaven's sake Alan, no one is disagreeing that we aren't free to choose any of these things. Nothing you have said here obviates the idea that we do things for reasons, whether those reasons be held in the conscious or subconscious mind.

And what have you to offer? Nothing it seems. Your last sentence simply tells us that  our present state gives us the 'opportunity' to choose without giving any idea how that opportunity resolves itself. You have been asked this endlessly, it seems. How do we make decisions? Never mind the 'opportunity', what about the process?

[Gordon]

But in the examples you give
 - we are free to choose what type of work we do.

Nope - I am not free to pursue a career as a ballet dancer, and never was, but that I could have would be dependent on criteria such as being able to dance and not thinking, as I do, that dancing is about as compelling as watching sychronised knitting, which shows that I'm not 'free' from personal biases.

- we are free to choose how many jobs to have within time constraints.

Nope - we are not free to become employed in any specific job since, obviously, that is not usually in our gift but we can choose from offers made - so what.

- we may be consciously aware of temptation to steal to get more money - we are free to consciously resist such temptation

Nope - I have never been tempted to steal money and so have never been required to resist the temptation: perhaps you have, but I haven't. There are, of course, other temptations available.

- we are free to choose what to eat for lunch

Nope - we can certainly choose from available options: mayonnaise is usually an option but I am not 'free' to choose it.

- we are free to choose when to eat lunch within time constraints

So not really 'free' from constraints then, where you get time for lunch, or have to skip lunch, may involve on wider events or prevailing circumstances.

- we are free to over indulge in what we eat and drink (and suffer the consequences)
 - we are free to choose to resist the temptation to over eat or drink too much.

Nope - that there may be consequences, and possibly prior experiences of over-indulgence or possible risks to one's personal reputation, will be influences that may affect how best to approach, say, the office party tonight - so 'free' here does involve influences on choice.

All this freedom is enabled through our present state of conscious awareness which gives us the opportunity to choose which of the numerous options available to invoke.

None of the points you note are as 'free' as you imagine them to be, and if this is the best you can do then not only is your reasoning flawed, hence your regular use of fallacies, it also implies that your particular take on faith is built on failure.

That people can make routine choices, such as when it is possible to have lunch, does not confirm your thesis that these choices are neither determined nor random.

[Alan Burns]

Considering how many times this has been explained to you, it's very difficult to see this as anything but a barefaced lie about what people are saying to you. If you disagree, then try some actual, rational arguments, rather than this idiotic, reasoning-free misrepresentation of the actual argument against you. Nobody is denying anything at all that you are able to demonstrate.

You have given us no reasoning whatsoever that goes from our experiences and abilities to your contradictory definition of "freedom". Not a single line of reasoning or a single scrap of evidence - nothing whatsoever. Just endless, mindless assertion.

It really is about time you stopped using this Alan - it is blindingly obvious that you don't have the first inkling of a clue about logic. Here is a great example of the evidence for that...

Firstly, just calling something illogical, doesn't make it so - you actually need to provide the logic itself. Secondly, you are once again confusing the conscious versus unconscious with the logical contradiction at the heart of your notion of "freedom". I don't think anybody has suggested that consciousness has no role at all - but it simply doesn't matter because, regardless of its role, your version of "freedom" is still self-contradictory.

Why should anybody offer you any explanation of anything? You are trying to us tell that it's all totally unexplained magic and to please try and ignore the blatant contradiction and total lack of any evidence or reasoning.

You have been provided with lots of evidence and reasoning and you just ignore it or (apparently) lie about it.

The evidence lies in my freedom to choose between good and evil.
The evidence lies in my freedom to choose Jesus as my saviour.
It is a freedom which nothing in earth or heaven can ever take away.

[Gordon]

The evidence lies in my freedom to choose between good and evil.
The evidence lies in my freedom to choose Jesus as my saviour.
It is a freedom which nothing in earth or heaven can ever take away.

I'm sure your subconscious personal traits do influence you as you note above, Alan, but that is just you being you and is of no greater significance that my personal traits that see me choose to ride motorcycles whenever the option is practical even when a nice warm car is available - that is just me being me.

None of us are really 'free' as you imagine we are, which is a good thing really since the result would be chaos.

[Stranger]

The evidence lies in my freedom to choose between good and evil.
The evidence lies in my freedom to choose Jesus as my saviour.

This is nothing but more childish foot stamping - you haven't actually addressed any of my points. Where is the reasoning that goes from your functional ability to make choices to your claims that said choices are not fully deterministic* and involve no randomness?

As I explained in #38632, people do not accept this equivalence as a premiss, so you need to justify it or your argument never gets off the starting blocks.

* And please don't start the dishonesty about what "deterministic" means again.

[Alan Burns]

This is nothing but more childish foot stamping - you haven't actually addressed any of my points. Where is the reasoning that goes from your functional ability to make choices to your claims that said choices are not fully deterministic* and involve no randomness?

As I explained in #38632, people do not accept this equivalence as a premiss, so you need to justify it or your argument never gets off the starting blocks.

* And please don't start the dishonesty about what "deterministic" means again.

I am grateful that our law courts do not share your view that everything we do is determined entirely by past events beyond our conscious control.  The fact that people could have chosen differently in the past is absolutely central to the workings of our criminal justice system.

[Gordon]

I am grateful that our law courts do not share your view that everything we do is determined entirely by past events beyond our conscious control.  The fact that people could have chosen differently in the past is absolutely central to the workings of our criminal justice system.

I can see the scene now, when the defending QC notes: 'M'Lud, my client says it wasn't him but his 'soul' that made him pinch the handbag'.

You are really aren't thinking very well these days, since nobody is arguing that people can't make choices and nor are they disputing that choices have consequences.

[torridon]

But in the examples you give
 - we are free to choose what type of work we do.
 - we are free to choose how many jobs to have within time constraints.
 - we may be consciously aware of temptation to steal to get more money - we are free to consciously resist such temptation
 - we are free to choose what to eat for lunch
 - we are free to choose when to eat lunch within time constraints
 - we are free to over indulge in what we eat and drink (and suffer the consequences)
 - we are free to choose to resist the temptation to over eat or drink too much.

..

OK, just to run with the first of those, they are all the same in principle, there are lots of jobs today on Indeed I could apply for, so you could say I am free to apply for x,y, or z job.  My nephew, however, over from the States, cannot apply as he doesn't have the right to work and live here.  So, he does not enjoy the same freedom as me in that context.  There is nothing supernatural going here, these are circumstantial freedoms outwith my control.  You could say I have more degrees of freedom than my nephew.  But I still have to make a choice within the available set which one(s) to apply for, and I bring my reasoning and experience to bear on working out which job I would have the best chance of succeeding with. I resolve that choice using reasoning, such as it is. I am not free of it, and I cannot be free of all that personal insight and experience without making a random choice. A smart choice is necessarily a function of the relevant considerations as they compete against each other in my mind.  There is nothing spooky going here, it comes down to maths in a sense, as best as my cognitive abilities allow for.  The only meaningful freedom here is the one that I have that is denied to my nephew.

[Stranger]

I am grateful that our law courts do not share your view that everything we do is determined entirely by past events beyond our conscious control.  The fact that people could have chosen differently in the past is absolutely central to the workings of our criminal justice system.

And the search for any hint of "sound logic" in Alan's "arguments" just goes on and on...

It's frankly quite difficult to see what you were hoping to achieve with this. Are you trying to appeal to (false) authority or consequences? Either one would be a fallacy.

Also, I have made no claims about choices being "beyond conscious control", if you want to claim that conscious control is incompatible with determinism* you'd need to establish that too. You seem to be flirting with a false dilemma fallacy to add to your collection.

Anyway, are you going to try to logically establish a connection between our functional ability to make choices to your claims that said choices are not fully deterministic* and involve no randomness - or have you just given up?

* And please don't start the dishonesty about what "deterministic" means again.

[torridon]

The evidence lies in my freedom to choose between good and evil.
The evidence lies in my freedom to choose Jesus as my saviour.
It is a freedom which nothing in earth or heaven can ever take away.

However, no one can believe something they don't believe or want something they don't want.  This is the underlying signature of determinism as it manifests in minds.  We cannot be free in the sense you imply, as then there would be no basis for decision making. Our choices reflect who we are and what we have become and we cannot unmake the past.

[Alan Burns]

OK, just to run with the first of those, they are all the same in principle, there are lots of jobs today on Indeed I could apply for, so you could say I am free to apply for x,y, or z job.  My nephew, however, over from the States, cannot apply as he doesn't have the right to work and live here.  So, he does not enjoy the same freedom as me in that context.  There is nothing supernatural going here, these are circumstantial freedoms outwith my control.  You could say I have more degrees of freedom than my nephew.  But I still have to make a choice within the available set which one(s) to apply for, and I bring my reasoning and experience to bear on working out which job I would have the best chance of succeeding with. I resolve that choice using reasoning, such as it is. I am not free of it, and I cannot be free of all that personal insight and experience without making a random choice. A smart choice is necessarily a function of the relevant considerations as they compete against each other in my mind.  There is nothing spooky going here, it comes down to maths in a sense, as best as my cognitive abilities allow for.  The only meaningful freedom here is the one that I have that is denied to my nephew.

The freedom I implied in all these examples is simply the fact that we know that we could have made a different choice.
I know you will try to refute this by saying that there was no possibility of choosing anything different.  But that is where we will continue to disagree - until the truth finally drops and you will come to appreciate the amazing gift of human free will.

[Alan Burns]

* And please don't start the dishonesty about what "deterministic" means again.

You really need to come to terms with the fact that there is a difference between predetermined and determined.
They are two different words with different meanings.
We can have no conscious control of what is predetermined.

[torridon]

The freedom I implied in all these examples is simply the fact that we know that we could have made a different choice.
I know you will try to refute this by saying that there was no possibility of choosing anything different.  But that is where we will continue to disagree - until the truth finally drops and you will come to appreciate the amazing gift of human free will.

Well, think it through, if you had made a different choice, there would have to be some reason for that, otherwise your different choice would be different for no reason; ie random.  This is the heart of the matter : if you really believe you could have chosen differently in identical circumstances, that means you believe your choice to be random.

[Stranger]

You really need to come to terms with the fact that there is a difference between predetermined and determined.
They are two different words with different meanings.
We can have no conscious control of what is predetermined.

In a sense you're actually right - but not, I think, in the way you mean. You keep on misrepresenting the argument against you as predetermined, whereas a mind that is deterministic would make decisions that are determined at the time, in response to the situation at hand.

The script of a play means that what the actors say is predetermined (decided in advance) whereas the moves made by a chess computer are determined by an algorithm at the time and in response to the situation. And no, it doesn't matter how the algorithm got there, that's totally beside the point (if you're tempted to go on about the human programmer, think about non-human animal behaviour instead).

If human minds are deterministic systems, then their choices are determined (not predetermined) at the time but that doesn't mean they could have been different in exactly the same situation, from exactly the same staring point.

I'm agnostic about how much consciousness is involved in human choice making but "conscious control" isn't logically incompatible with minds being deterministic systems.

The freedom I implied in all these examples is simply the fact that we know that we could have made a different choice.

We don't know any such thing, Alan. That is your claim - one you have totally failed to back up with any of your supposed "sound logic". As I explained in #38632, you seem to regard it as a premiss and it's one that those arguing against you do not accept - at least not unless there is a random element, which you deny.

It's therefore up to you to give us some actual reasoning to support your claim (and explain how such a difference could be anything other than random) - otherwise it's just your baseless assertion.

The problem appears to be that you've simply failed to do your homework before claiming to have "sound logic". Your background (as a programmer and your MENSA test) suggests that you have the aptitude to understand deductive logic but you seem to have failed to realise that you need to learn about it too.

It's like if you pass an aptitude test for programming - yes you have the ability but you can't use it until you've actually learned about the principles involved and mastered an actual programming language. You never seem to have taken that step with logical reasoning, which is why you can't construct even a valid argument, let alone a sound one and why you keep on falling into well known fallacies.

[Gordon]

You really need to come to terms with the fact that there is a difference between predetermined and determined.
They are two different words with different meanings.
We can have no conscious control of what is predetermined.

The problem is yours, Alan: you misuse the terms, and especially the former.

[torridon]

In a sense you're actually right - but not, I think, in the way you mean. You keep on misrepresenting the argument against you as predetermined, whereas a mind that is deterministic would make decisions that are determined at the time, in response to the situation at hand.

The script of a play means that what the actors say is predetermined (decided in advance) whereas the moves made by a chess computer are determined by an algorithm at the time and in response to the situation. And no, it doesn't matter how the algorithm got there, that's totally beside the point (if you're tempted to go on about the human programmer, think about non-human animal behaviour instead).

If human minds are deterministic systems, then their choices are determined (not predetermined) at the time but that doesn't mean they could have been different in exactly the same situation, from exactly the same staring point.

I'm agnostic about how much consciousness is involved in human choice making but "conscious control" isn't logically incompatible with minds being deterministic systems.

We don't know any such thing, Alan. That is your claim - one you have totally failed to back up with any of your supposed "sound logic". As I explained in #38632, you seem to regard it as a premiss and it's one that those arguing against you do not accept - at least not unless there is a random element, which you deny.

It's therefore up to you to give us some actual reasoning to support your claim (and explain how such a difference could be anything other than random) - otherwise it's just your baseless assertion.

The problem appears to be that you've simply failed to do your homework before claiming to have "sound logic". Your background (as a programmer and your MENSA test) suggests that you have the aptitude to understand deductive logic but you seem to have failed to realise that you need to learn about it too.

It's like if you pass an aptitude test for programming - yes you have the ability but you can't use it until you've actually learned about the principles involved and mastered an actual programming language. You never seem to have taken that step with logical reasoning, which is why you can't construct even a valid argument, let alone a sound one and why you keep on falling into well known fallacies.

<upvote>

[Alan Burns]

Well, think it through, if you had made a different choice, there would have to be some reason for that, otherwise your different choice would be different for no reason; ie random.  This is the heart of the matter : if you really believe you could have chosen differently in identical circumstances, that means you believe your choice to be random.

The reason for my choice is determined by my conscious will.  Not the past.  As I have previously said, I am aware of the past, but not determined by it.