Searching for GOD...

[ippy]

At least Nicolas Marks, (Sparky), was fun, he made me smile many a time.

ippy.

[Alan Burns]

Except that given it's not a thing and I'm still doing that, it manifestly isn't needed... you see how that failing to support anything just turns this into 'he said, she said...'
If you want to base something on the concept of free will you need to demonstrate free will, not just claim it.

What you are doing is consciously contemplating the existence or non existence of human free will.
You do not need to do this, it is something you have consciously chosen to do.
And you will be consciously guiding the thought processes involved in order to reach what you deem to be a satisfactory solution.
This to me is an obvious demonstration of the reality that you have the conscious freedom (free will) needed to accomplish the task you have chosen to carry out.

[torridon]

What you are doing is consciously contemplating the existence or non existence of human free will.
You do not need to do this, it is something you have consciously chosen to do.
And you will be consciously guiding the thought processes involved in order to reach what you deem to be a satisfactory solution.
This to me is an obvious demonstration of the reality that you have the conscious freedom (free will) needed to accomplish the task you have chosen to carry out.

So, we all do what we want to do so long as nothing gets in our way.  There is nothing in this observation to challenge a deterministic account of mind.  Doesn't require supernatural powers. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

What you are doing is consciously contemplating the existence or non existence of human free will.
You do not need to do this, it is something you have consciously chosen to do.
And you will be consciously guiding the thought processes involved in order to reach what you deem to be a satisfactory solution.
This to me is an obvious demonstration of the reality that you have the conscious freedom (free will) needed to accomplish the task you have chosen to carry out.

To you it probably does seem that way. For more rational thinkers though it’s just a description of the way an experience feels, which in turn is entirely compatible with a deterministic explanation of what the experience actually is. Of course after all thousands of posts of unqualified assertion and flat wrong arguments you could finally try at least to make a cogent argent to take from “feels” to “is”, but I should warn you that no-one before you has ever managed it either.

[Stranger]

This to me is an obvious demonstration of the reality that you have the conscious freedom (free will) needed to accomplish the task you have chosen to carry out.

But you simply haven't connected what you call "conscious freedom", i.e. the ability to contemplate, think about things, and make choices, with your contradictory assertions about it. What is it about thinking about stuff and making choices that necessitates that those choices be ones that could have been different without randomness?

You keep on just asserting a connection without the slightest hint of the "sound logic" you claimed to have.

[Gordon]

What you are doing is consciously contemplating the existence or non existence of human free will.

So what - I can consciously contemplate frogs or streak and kidney pies should I wish to do so.   

You do not need to do this, it is something you have consciously chosen to do.

I can if I want to though - again, so what?

And you will be consciously guiding the thought processes involved in order to reach what you deem to be a satisfactory solution.

Ironically, Alan, you're both overthinking and thinking badly at the same time.

This to me is an obvious demonstration of the reality that you have the conscious freedom (free will) needed to accomplish the task you have chosen to carry out.

So what: I'm just about to have a beer because I want one, and having had previous experience I expect to accomplish the task successfully.

Stop being so silly!

[Alan Burns]

So, we all do what we want to do so long as nothing gets in our way. 

But what we consciously choose to think about requires more than just a freedom from constraint.  It requires a means to direct our thought processes to reach a satisfactory conclusion - otherwise the end result would be meaningless.  I cannot conceive of this "means to direct" as anything other than the conscious driver of thoughts which Bluehillside keeps claiming is not needed.

And such thought processes are not essential to our needs - they are simply a result of our consciously driven choice.

[Stranger]

But what we consciously choose to think about requires more than just a freedom from constraint.  It requires a means to direct our thought processes to reach a satisfactory conclusion - otherwise the end result would be meaningless.  I cannot conceive of this "means to direct" as anything other than the conscious driver of thoughts which Bluehillside keeps claiming is not needed.

And such thought processes are not essential to our needs - they are simply a result of our consciously driven choice.

Assert, hand-wave, value judgement, hand-wave, express incredulity, and assert. And you're still just ignoring the actual point: where is the connection between our abilities and your assertion that we could have done differently and no randomness?

Where is your "sound logic"?

[Gordon]

But what we consciously choose to think about requires more than just a freedom from constraint.  It requires a means to direct our thought processes to reach a satisfactory conclusion - otherwise the end result would be meaningless.  I cannot conceive of this "means to direct" as anything other than the conscious driver of thoughts which Bluehillside keeps claiming is not needed.

And such thought processes are not essential to our needs - they are simply a result of our consciously driven choice.

Alan


Birds have biological equipment that allows them to fly and humans have the biological equipment that allows us to think, and not always clearly - the 'driver' you are looking for is just your biology doing what it does.

No supernatural religious bollocks required.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But what we consciously choose to think about requires more than just a freedom from constraint.  It requires a means to direct our thought processes to reach a satisfactory conclusion –

The experience of “directing our thought processes” tells you nothing about whether there’s actually a separate “you” that’s “directing” anything. That’s your basic error remember – just assuming the way something feels must also be the way it is, especially when that would be logically impossible.

…otherwise the end result would be meaningless.

No it wouldn’t and even if it would, that’s an argumentum ad consequentiam – one of your various failures in reasoning.

I cannot conceive of this "means to direct" as anything other than the conscious driver of thoughts…

No doubt you can’t, but what you cannot conceive of is just the argument from personal incredulity – another of your various failures in reasoning.   

…which Bluehillside keeps claiming is not needed.

No Bluehillside hillside doesn’t. What Bluehillside actually does is to explain that there’s no good reason to exclude consciousness from the explanatory model of emergence and that emergent phenomena happen bottom up and not top down so there’s no need for “directing”, "driving" etc.

And such thought processes are not essential to our needs - they are simply a result of our consciously driven choice.

Stop lying. I’ve told you several times that the experience of “free” will as you would like it to be is real  – or “essential” as you put it – as a workaday place marker for an explanation, but it cannot be a cogent explanation itself for what’s actually happening because that’s logically impossible.

[Alan Burns]

Stop lying. I’ve told you several times that the experience of “free” will as you would like it to be is real  – or “essential” as you put it – as a workaday place marker for an explanation, but it cannot be a cogent explanation itself for what’s actually happening because that’s logically impossible.

But how can you possibly claim it to be logically impossible if the process you consciously use to determine this is just an experience rather than a reality?

[Stranger]

But how can you possibly claim it to be logically impossible if the process you consciously use to determine this is just an experience rather than a reality?

It is only you (in this discussion) who thinks that the process we are using is what you call "freedom" (could have done differently and no randomness). You have yet to give us the slightest hint of a reason why anybody should accept your assertion that human thought requires this nonsensical version of "freedom".

What's so hard? Provide a rational reason to accept that your notion of "freedom" is a necessary part of what we're doing or stop endlessly asserting that it is. Seriously, what's the matter with you? You must realise that you can't make something true (or even convincing) by just asserting it over and over again.

Where is your sound logic?

If you can't provide anything that even looks like logic, how about admitting that you don't have any?

[torridon]

But what we consciously choose to think about requires more than just a freedom from constraint.  It requires a means to direct our thought processes to reach a satisfactory conclusion - otherwise the end result would be meaningless.  I cannot conceive of this "means to direct" as anything other than the conscious driver of thoughts which Bluehillside keeps claiming is not needed.

And such thought processes are not essential to our needs - they are simply a result of our consciously driven choice.

So what if our musings are not 'essential' to our needs ? I might spend the next hour pondering new directions in bus stop architecture, I can do so because I am free to do so in the sense that I have the time and no other issues impinge on it, but that freedom is not the cause - if I do that it is because the desire to do so has arisen within me for some reason. And, as has been pointed out exhaustively, we don't choose which desires to have.

So, this insight is one you need to embrace to make progress.  This whole 'driving my thoughts' line is a stubborn sticking point that we can trace back to the outdated notion of souls.  There is no ontological basis for souls, there is no empirical evidence for souls.  The idea of an ontologically distinct entity within us makes no sense of the reality of how minds work.  Something that was independent of the past would be an incapable and meaningless entity, having no reason of its own to jump left or to jump right, to prefer marmalade to marmite or vice versa. Such things can only make sense if we see our 'self' as being born of and within the circle causes and effects.  That desire to daydream about bus stops must have origin from somewhere outwith myself. A 'soul' would have no such inherent properties.

[SusanDoris]

So what if our musings are not 'essential' to our needs ? I might spend the next hour pondering new directions in bus stop architecture, I can do so because I am free to do so in the sense that I have the time and no other issues impinge on it, but that freedom is not the cause - if I do that it is because the desire to do so has arisen within me for some reason. And, as has been pointed out exhaustively, we don't choose which desires to have.

So, this insight is one you need to embrace to make progress.  This whole 'driving my thoughts' line is a stubborn sticking point that we can trace back to the outdated notion of souls.  There is no ontological basis for souls, there is no empirical evidence for souls.  The idea of an ontologically distinct entity within us makes no sense of the reality of how minds work.  Something that was independent of the past would be an incapable and meaningless entity, having no reason of its own to jump left or to jump right, to prefer marmalade to marmite or vice versa. Such things can only make sense if we see our 'self' as being born of and within the circle causes and effects.  That desire to daydream about bus stops must have origin from somewhere outwith myself. A 'soul' would have no such inherent properties.

Wouldn't it be nice if AB  read your clear, sensible post with just the faintest glimmer of acknowledgement of its clear, rational content?

[Gordon]

But how can you possibly claim it to be logically impossible if the process you consciously use to determine this is just an experience rather than a reality?

Since when did experiences stop being real? After all, and irrespective of the detail or minutiae of the natural world, that I seem to be touched these keys as I type does seem to be sufficiently real for practical purposes.

Just a thought about this 'driver' that you envisage operates as we seem to make conscious decisions - how well qualified do you imagine this thing to be if it is other than a part of our biology? You see, I've just watched my 6 year old grandson make a choice between two games* that he wanted to play on the Wii, and it occurred to me that if his 'driver' was separate from the little boy I know as Struan then it must be familiar with his gaming preferences to the extent that it may as well be just him, biologically speaking.

Moreover, if this 'driver' is in essence the 'gift of free will' you mention then how come children and young people, by virtue of inexperience, might make poor decisions - and some do - which is why responsible adults look out for them?  Your scheme doesn't seem to have been thought through very well.   

* Tony Hawks Downhill Run was the selection. 

[Alan Burns]

Since when did experiences stop being real?

Read the following quote from Bluehillside:

the experience of “free” will as you would like it to be is real  – or “essential” as you put it – as a workaday place marker for an explanation, but it cannot be a cogent explanation itself for what’s actually happening

[Alan Burns]

Something that was independent of the past would be an incapable and meaningless entity, having no reason of its own to jump left or to jump right, ………...

Please stop misrepresenting what I say.
I have never claimed that we are independent of the past.
We are consciously aware of the past
We are influenced by our conscious awareness of the past.
But we are not controlled by the past.
The control we all have emanates from the conscious state of mind we have at the present.  We live, perceive and act in the present, not the past.

And I fully agree that in the scientific material sense, there is no present.
The present is defined where the conscious awareness of the human soul exists and acts.

In the materialistic scenario there can only be inevitable reactions to the past, but you and I and everyone else on this forum are not inevitable reactions, we are human beings each with a will of our own which enables us to consciously interact with our world rather than just react.

[Alan Burns]

It is only you (in this discussion) who thinks that the process we are using is what you call "freedom" (could have done differently and no randomness). You have yet to give us the slightest hint of a reason why anybody should accept your assertion that human thought requires this nonsensical version of "freedom".

What's so hard? Provide a rational reason to accept that your notion of "freedom" is a necessary part of what we're doing or stop endlessly asserting that it is. Seriously, what's the matter with you? You must realise that you can't make something true (or even convincing) by just asserting it over and over again.

Where is your sound logic?

If you can't provide anything that even looks like logic, how about admitting that you don't have any?

You provide many examples of your consciously driven freedom to choose to emphasize words in bold in virtually every reply you make to my posts.

[Stranger]

The control we all have emanates from the conscious state of mind we have at the present.  We live, perceive and act in the present, not the past.

No matter how many times you repeat gibberish, it's still gibberish.

And I fully agree that in the scientific material sense, there is no present.
The present is defined where the conscious awareness of the human soul exists and acts.

It really is quite a feat to make gibberish make even less sense by adding circular definitions.

There's a magical reason called "the present" that explains how you could have done differently in exactly the same situation, and therefore for no possible reason, without randomness.

How do you define "the present"?

It's where it's possible to for something to have done differently in exactly the same situation, and therefore for no possible reason, without randomness.

In the materialistic scenario there can only be inevitable reactions to the past, but you and I and everyone else on this forum are not inevitable reactions, we are human beings each with a will of our own which enables us to consciously interact with our world rather than just react.

More childish foot-stamping.

Where is your sound logic, Alan?
How about admitting that you don't have any?

[Stranger]

You provide many examples of your consciously driven freedom to choose to emphasize words in bold in virtually every reply you make to my posts.

Seriously? Did you even read what I said? In what way does that indicate that my choices could have been different and involved no randomness?

Alan, you're supposed to be an intelligent adult, isn't about time you engaged intelligently with the actual points that have been raised? Do you want to come across as stupid?

[Stranger]

And I fully agree that in the scientific material sense, there is no present.
The present is defined where the conscious awareness of the human soul exists and acts.

In the materialistic scenario there can only be inevitable reactions to the past, but you and I and everyone else on this forum are not inevitable reactions, we are human beings each with a will of our own which enables us to consciously interact with our world rather than just react.

And just to emphasise another point you've been ignoring. If you could make this gibberish about the "present" make coherent logical sense (which you clearly can't), then, unless you are claiming to be omniscient, you cannot possibly know that it would be impossible in the "materialistic scenario".

Not only does the argument against you not depend on the physical - if you could resolve the logical problem, you couldn't then claim that it was physically impossible (unless you also claimed omniscience).

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But how can you possibly claim it to be logically impossible if the process you consciously use to determine this is just an experience rather than a reality?

I really don’t know what’s wrong with you. Really I don’t. “Free” will as you assert it to be is logically impossible because it must be either deterministic (which you don’t like) or random (which would be chaotic). Your way out of that of relying on magic (or, as you put it, “miracles”) is laughable.

HOWEVER, the sensation of being “free” in our decision-making has a valid, important role to play in everyday life and provided you don’t think about it too hard most of us proceed on the basis that it’s THE truth, rather than just A truth.

So there you go. Now you have no excuse ever to get this wrong again have you.

Have you?

Oh, and why have you done your standard slippery thing and just ignored the corrections I gave you in the post you decided to edit?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Read the following quote from Bluehillside:

He did. Why didn't you?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Please stop misrepresenting what I say.
I have never claimed that we are independent of the past.
We are consciously aware of the past
We are influenced by our conscious awareness of the past.
But we are not controlled by the past.

The control we all have emanates from the conscious state of mind we have at the present.  We live, perceive and act in the present, not the past.

There’s no such thing as “the present” except in colloquial terms.

And I fully agree that in the scientific material sense, there is no present.

The “scientific material sense” also means the most logically robust sense available. If you want to rebut it, you need something other than unqualified assertions or broken logic to do the job.

The present is defined where the conscious awareness of the human soul exists and acts.

Only by people who want to tell us what their faith beliefs are. So?

In the materialistic scenario there can only be inevitable reactions to the past, but you and I and everyone else on this forum are not inevitable reactions, we are human beings each with a will of our own which enables us to consciously interact with our world rather than just react.

And the same logic- and evidence-denying faith mantra to finish.

Why do you bother?

[Gordon]

Read the following quote from Bluehillside:

I did - perhaps you should re-read it, and for comprehension this time.