Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

Well clearly you haven't thought through the previous point.  Just a glib, dismissive evasion, true to form.

So please explain how the process of "thinking things though" can be accomplished without any means of consciously controlled interaction?

[Alan Burns]

Easily, because that “contemplating” is a valid experiential phenomenon that’s good enough as an explanation for practical everyday purposes, but collapses immediately as an explanation for what’s actually going on when you bother to think about. That you refuse to think about it doesn’t change that though. 

So conscious contemplation is just an experiential phenomenon which collapses when we consciously contemplate what is going on!
Are you serious 

[torridon]

So please explain how the process of "thinking things though" can be accomplished without any means of consciously controlled interaction?

That's irrelevant.  Stranger has already pointed out a gazillion times, the means by which we arrive at a decision is utterly irrelevant, no system can render an impossible result and it is the proposition itself, 'free will' which is (in the strict incompatibilist sense) inconceivable. The claim that you could equally well have chosen differently means that your defacto choice was in fact a random one.  You cannot be free without being random in this context.

[torridon]

So conscious contemplation is just an experiential phenomenon which collapses when we consciously contemplate what is going on!
Are you serious 

What do you mean by 'collapses' ?  Not sure what you mean by that.  All conscious experience is post-hoc construction of mind.  Our conscious experience is not random, it derives from something, and clearly that would include all our conscious thoughts, intentions, desires.

[Gordon]

So conscious contemplation is just an experiential phenomenon which collapses when we consciously contemplate what is going on!
Are you serious 

At least here your rank stupidity is being expressed using fewer words, Alan, which is progress of sorts I suppose since, if continued, it will reduce your tendency towards equivocation.

[Stranger]

In a world where everything is determined by past events, how can conscious contemplation be considered to be a separate issue?
What do you consider to be the determining factor behind our conscious contemplation?

Jeez Alan, I thought you were supposed to be a MENSA member, why is it that talking to you about the logic, free will, and consciousness feels like trying to teach a cat to do algebra?

Please try to pay attention!

The issue of determinism (could we have done differently) and the role of consciousness are logically independent of each other. No matter what role you think conscious plays, from fully in control of everything through to nothing but an epiphenomenon, it says nothing about whether you could have done differently.

Logically, there's no contradiction involved with consciousness being fully in control and everything you do being fully deterministic (you couldn't have done differently).

There is no either/or, dilemma. Trying to emphasis how much you think consciousness is in control and how important conscious contemplation is, does not address the determinism/randomness issue.  What consciousness does and what role it plays is a question for science and evidence to resolve, it has nothing to do with the logical contradiction at the heart of your conception of freedom.

Since you actually edited my post to exclude a further emphasis of this point, it's rather hard not to see this as more distraction and running away from the points that you have no answers to.

So, here we go again...


Can you answer my question or not? In what way do my posts indicate that my choices could have been different in exactly the same circumstances (so for no possible reason) without randomness? If you can't answer, are your going to stop claiming them as evidence?

Can you even explain how a choice could have been different in exactly the same circumstances (hence for no reason) without involving randomness?

Can you provide anything that even looks like sound logic? If not, are you going to admit that you have none?

How can just ignoring these issues be considered an honest engagement with the subject?

[Alan Burns]

What do you mean by 'collapses' ?  Not sure what you mean by that.  All conscious experience is post-hoc construction of mind.  Our conscious experience is not random, it derives from something, and clearly that would include all our conscious thoughts, intentions, desires.

I was just repeating the phrase from Bluehillside in order to point out the silliness of his view.

[Gordon]

I was just repeating the phrase from Bluehillside in order to point out the silliness of his view.

So you have, and in doing so you demonstrate that you haven't understood the point BHS was making.

[Outrider]

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

What I feel like I'm doing is consciously contemplating, what I probably am actually doing is becoming consciously aware - after the fact - that my subconscious has contemplated the existence or non-existence of free will.

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

It's not about a 'need', it's that it was an inevitable consequence of having this brain impacted with those particular messages whilst in that particular balance of hormonal states at that time.

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

It might be that the conscious awareness element of the process is itself a stage in one of the myriad feedback loops that further influences the ultimate outcome, yes - that doesn't make it any less deterministic in nature.

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.

That's because of the way your brain has been conditioned to phrase the argument to your conscious awareness when it gets there.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

So conscious contemplation is just an experiential phenomenon which collapses when we consciously contemplate what is going on!

Are you serious   

I know you struggle with reading for comprehension, but this is getting ridiculous now. The impression of ultimate agency – somehow neither deterministic nor random – doesn’t collapse at all. It’s a useful working assumption, just as the impression that we actually touch the keys is a useful working assumption. Each have their uses as place markers for explanations for what’s actually happening.

What does collapse though is the use of these functional, “good enough to be useful” truths as explanations for what’s happening at a more reason- and evidence-based level. At some, dim level you know this already though because when pushed for a non-determined/non-random explanation you throw up your hands and cite magic (or, as you call it, “miraculous”). The moment you do that you abandon even the pretence of logic – “it’s magic innit?” being the antithesis of logic – in favour of anything goes white noise.

Has this sunk in now?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I was just repeating the phrase from Bluehillside in order to point out the silliness of his view.

No, you were attempting to show the silliness of your straw man version of what Bluehillside said, which is not what Bluehillside actually said. The "straw man" by the way is another example of a fallacious argument, not that you care of course.

[Alan Burns]

Jeez Alan, I thought you were supposed to be a MENSA member, why is it that talking to you about the logic, free will, and consciousness feels like trying to teach a cat to do algebra?

Please try to pay attention!

The issue of determinism (could we have done differently) and the role of consciousness are logically independent of each other. No matter what role you think conscious plays, from fully in control of everything through to nothing but an epiphenomenon, it says nothing about whether you could have done differently.

Logically, there's no contradiction involved with consciousness being fully in control and everything you do being fully deterministic (you couldn't have done differently).

There is no either/or, dilemma. Trying to emphasis how much you think consciousness is in control and how important conscious contemplation is, does not address the determinism/randomness issue.  What consciousness does and what role it plays is a question for science and evidence to resolve, it has nothing to do with the logical contradiction at the heart of your conception of freedom.

Since you actually edited my post to exclude a further emphasis of this point, it's rather hard not to see this as more distraction and running away from the points that you have no answers to.

So, here we go again...


Can you answer my question or not? In what way do my posts indicate that my choices could have been different in exactly the same circumstances (so for no possible reason) without randomness? If you can't answer, are your going to stop claiming them as evidence?

Can you even explain how a choice could have been different in exactly the same circumstances (hence for no reason) without involving randomness?

Can you provide anything that even looks like sound logic? If not, are you going to admit that you have none?

How can just ignoring these issues be considered an honest engagement with the subject?

Your whole take on reality appears to centre around the presumption that everything is a reaction to past events and that given precisely the same circumstances we would all make the same choices - (which would be better described as reactions in your scenario).

However every human being can look back on their lives and identify things they regret.  And the reason for this regret is that most people know that they could have acted differently and made a better choice.  So our human perspective appears to differ from your logic based scenario.  If this human perspective reflected the reality of our freedom to choose between such things as good or evil, right or wrong, self centred activity and charitable deeds …. it would be evidence that we are not entirely material beings under the control of physically determined reactions.  The evidence that we ourselves can control our own thought processes and achieve chosen goals is evident throughout human history.  Our ability to philosophise is dependent on our freedom to guide our own thoughts.  Without such conscious guidance the outcome would be meaningless.

[SusanDoris]

Your whole take on reality appears to centre around the presumption that everything is a reaction to past events and that given precisely the same circumstances we would all make the same choices - (which would be better described as reactions in your scenario).

However every human being can look back on their lives and identify things they regret.  And the reason for this regret is that most people know that they could have acted differently and made a better choice.  So our human perspective appears to differ from your logic based scenario.  If this human perspective reflected the reality of our freedom to choose between such things as good or evil, right or wrong, self centred activity and charitable deeds …. it would be evidence that we are not entirely material beings under the control of physically determined reactions.  The evidence that we ourselves can control our own thought processes and achieve chosen goals is evident throughout human history.  Our ability to philosophise is dependent on our freedom to guide our own thoughts.  Without such conscious guidance the outcome would be meaningless.

Idiotic drivel from start to finish. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Your whole take on reality appears to centre around the presumption…

No. It “centres around” valid logic, not presumption at all. It’d be nice if you stopped misrepresenting people like this. 

…that everything is a reaction to past events and that given precisely the same circumstances we would all make the same choices - (which would be better described as reactions in your scenario).

Your language is, as ever, misleading but essentially yes – given precisely identical circumstances there’s no reason to think the decision would be different. 

However…

Why do I feel another argumentum ad consequentiam coming on?

… every human being can look back on their lives and identify things they regret.  And the reason for this regret is that most people know that they could have acted differently and made a better choice.

And there it is! People can look back and come to different decisions because at that time the circumstances are not precisely the same as they were when the prior decision was made, obviously.

So our human perspective appears to differ from your logic based scenario.

No it doesn’t and in any case I thought you were the one claiming to have logic to validate your beliefs (albeit that you’ve never managed to tell us what it is despite being asked for it countless times)?

If this human perspective reflected the reality of our freedom to choose between such things as good or evil, right or wrong, self centred activity and charitable deeds …. it would be evidence that we are not entirely material beings under the control of physically determined reactions.

You’re joking right? It would be evidence for no such thing of course, and even for you that’s quite a non sequitur.

The evidence that we ourselves can control our own thought processes and achieve chosen goals is evident throughout human history.  Our ability to philosophise is dependent on our freedom to guide our own thoughts.  Without such conscious guidance the outcome would be meaningless.

Unqualified assertion followed by an argumentum ad consquentiam (again), and a false statement about the nature of “meaning”. Deterministic "outcomes" are as meaningful as we find them to be you banana!

[Gordon]

Your whole take on reality appears to centre around the presumption that everything is a reaction to past events and that given precisely the same circumstances we would all make the same choices - (which would be better described as reactions in your scenario).

However every human being can look back on their lives and identify things they regret.  And the reason for this regret is that most people know that they could have acted differently and made a better choice.  So our human perspective appears to differ from your logic based scenario.  If this human perspective reflected the reality of our freedom to choose between such things as good or evil, right or wrong, self centred activity and charitable deeds …. it would be evidence that we are not entirely material beings under the control of physically determined reactions.  The evidence that we ourselves can control our own thought processes and achieve chosen goals is evident throughout human history.  Our ability to philosophise is dependent on our freedom to guide our own thoughts.  Without such conscious guidance the outcome would be meaningless.

But they didn't, Alan, and at the point they apply hindsight the situation has fundamentally changed compared with the point in time and prevailing circumstances (which includes their personal traits and preferences) when they made the original decision - cause and effect have moved on, and with it any consequences will have played out and will now be factors in any subsequent review, which is therefore occurring under different conditions.

This isn't difficult to understand, Alan - I reckon most of us have, on reflection, wished we had acted differently but that retrospective conclusion does not mean that the original decision/choice could have been any different given the prevailing circumstances.     

[torridon]

Your whole take on reality appears to centre around the presumption that everything is a reaction to past events and that given precisely the same circumstances we would all make the same choices - (which would be better described as reactions in your scenario).

However every human being can look back on their lives and identify things they regret.  And the reason for this regret is that most people know that they could have acted differently and made a better choice.  So our human perspective appears to differ from your logic based scenario....

Of course it does, that is a straw man, no one here is arguing that we don't have a casual perception or intuition of free will.  We all can look back and wish we'd chosen differently, with hindsight.  However, none of us can actually do that, so free will can never be demonstrated.  But beyond that, you still have to explain what it would actually mean, to have chosen differently without reason to do so.

[Stranger]

Your whole take on reality appears to centre around the presumption that everything is a reaction to past events and that given precisely the same circumstances we would all make the same choices - (which would be better described as reactions in your scenario).

No, it's based on the logic of the situation that says that if we could have done differently in exactly the same circumstance, then there couldn't possibly be any reason for the difference and it would therefore be random.

You remember, it's the logic you keep on running away from.

However every human being can look back on their lives and identify things they regret.  And the reason for this regret is that most people know that they could have acted differently and made a better choice.  So our human perspective appears to differ from your logic based scenario.

I'm afraid what things subjectively feel like is not an argument against logic. People don't know any such thing.

If this human perspective reflected the reality of our freedom to choose between such things as good or evil, right or wrong, self centred activity and charitable deeds …. it would be evidence that we are not entirely material beings under the control of physically determined reactions.

No Alan, it would not be.

YET AGAIN: if you could make your nonsense version of freedom make logical sense (resolve the contradiction somehow), then it would NOT be evidence that we are not entirely material beings, because we can't know the extent of what is physically possible.

The evidence that we ourselves can control our own thought processes and achieve chosen goals is evident throughout human history.  Our ability to philosophise is dependent on our freedom to guide our own thoughts.  Without such conscious guidance the outcome would be meaningless.

Right back to the question you're running away from: in what way is any of this evidence that any of us actually could have done differently without it being random?

And you still seem to be confusing consciousness with the determinism/random question. They are unrelated. Are you even properly reading posts before you respond to them?

You claimed to have "sound logic" but your starting point contains contradictory assertions that you cannot defend and your subsequent argument isn't even valid, which means it wouldn't follow anyway (unless you claim omniscience about the physical world).

Are you going to finally admit that you have no logic? And if you're not, how about producing something that isn't laughable and stop running away from the questions and counterarguments?

[torridon]

..
If this human perspective reflected the reality of our freedom to choose between such things as good or evil, right or wrong, self centred activity and charitable deeds …. it would be evidence that we are not entirely material beings under the control of physically determined reactions.

Nonsense on several levels. We choose, OK, but we don't choose in a way that is random whilst simultaneously being not random.  Such a claim is not evidence that we are immaterial beings, but rather evidence of confused thinking on your part.  Illogical does not equal immaterial, it just means wrong.

[torridon]

..
The evidence that we ourselves can control our own thought processes and achieve chosen goals is evident throughout human history.  Our ability to philosophise is dependent on our freedom to guide our own thoughts.  Without such conscious guidance the outcome would be meaningless.

We don't control our thoughts in any simple sense as if there were some sort of relationship between ourselves and our thoughts.  Rather, we are our thoughts, and our ability to control them is limited.  If I could control my thoughts, I'd spend today having a stream of really good ideas; but I can't do that, instead, I have to make do with the few good ideas that come to me. If I could control my thoughts, I'd be able to remember things that I've forgotten.  I cannot do this, such possibilities are not in 'my' gift.  The extent to which we do 'guide' our thoughts is anyway a reflection of our desires and merely observing that we follow our desires no way evidences some magical ability to be 'free' of them or to choose which desires to have.

[Outrider]

Your whole take on reality appears to centre around the presumption that everything is a reaction to past events and that given precisely the same circumstances we would all make the same choices - (which would be better described as reactions in your scenario).

That's a conclusion based upon the available evidence.

However every human being can look back on their lives and identify things they regret.

Sometimes that's because what they presumed would be the result turned out not to be, the world being a complicated place and all, and sometimes it was eminently foreseeable and yet they still made that self-evidently poor choice.  Why would they do that?

And the reason for this regret is that most people know that they could have acted differently and made a better choice.

No, the reason for that regret is that they think they might have been able to make another choice because other options were logically possible.  Whether or not they could have made them, in those circumstances is the question at hand, not whether or not people feel that they could have.

So our human perspective appears to differ from your logic based scenario.

I'm pretty sure no-one's disputing that.

If this human perspective reflected the reality of our freedom to choose between such things as good or evil, right or wrong, self centred activity and charitable deeds …. it would be evidence that we are not entirely material beings under the control of physically determined reactions.

Arguably, yes.  As it stands, though, there is no evidence to support that interpretation.

The evidence that we ourselves can control our own thought processes and achieve chosen goals is evident throughout human history.

Is it?  Then why do people make such self-evidently, eminently foreseeable bad decisions?

Our ability to philosophise is dependent on our freedom to guide our own thoughts.

You've not offered anything to support this assertion.  Our ability to abstract on underlying principles may or may not be dependent upon the manifestation of consciousness, certainly it doesn't seem to be at all developed in other species which seem to lack the extent of our capacity to be consciously aware of our thought processes.

Without such conscious guidance the outcome would be meaningless.

Perhaps life is meaningless - that it has no profound depth or ultimate meaning doesn't make it either wrong or untenable.

O.

[Alan Burns]

That's a conclusion based upon the available evidence.

As I have said previously, if the only evidence being considered is limited to scientific knowledge of material properties and reactions, you are bound to come to a materialistic conclusion - but such a conclusion will fall far short of an explanation.

Sometimes that's because what they presumed would be the result turned out not to be, the world being a complicated place and all, and sometimes it was eminently foreseeable and yet they still made that self-evidently poor choice.  Why would they do that?

because we sometimes choose to give in to temptation instead of following our conscience

No, the reason for that regret is that they think they might have been able to make another choice because other options were logically possible.  Whether or not they could have made them, in those circumstances is the question at hand, not whether or not people feel that they could have.

Most people acknowledge the reality that they have conscious control of their thoughts, words and actions, which is why they can justifiably regret that they may have miss-used their power to control.

I'm pretty sure no-one's disputing that.
Arguably, yes.  As it stands, though, there is no evidence to support that interpretation.

As stated above, your restrictions on admissible evidence would automatically rule out any non physical cause.

Is it?  Then why do people make such self-evidently, eminently foreseeable bad decisions?

by giving in to temptation to make what they know to be bad choices.

You've not offered anything to support this assertion.  Our ability to abstract on underlying principles may or may not be dependent upon the manifestation of consciousness, certainly it doesn't seem to be at all developed in other species which seem to lack the extent of our capacity to be consciously aware of our thought processes.

But if any philosophical contemplation was entirely driven by uncontrollable physical reactions I can't see how any credence could be attached to the result.

Perhaps life is meaningless - that it has no profound depth or ultimate meaning doesn't make it either wrong or untenable.

I do not believe the concept of meaning could ever come into our human awareness if there really was no meaning in life.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

As I have said previously, if the only evidence being considered is limited to scientific knowledge of material properties and reactions, you are bound to come to a materialistic conclusion - but such a conclusion will fall far short of an explanation.

And has been explained to you before, “evidence” is a naturalistic concept. If you want to claim to have evidence of some other kind, then it’s your job to show that it is evidence rather than just assertion.

Why have you just made exactly the same mistake again therefore?
 

because we sometimes choose to give in to temptation instead of following our conscience

No, because as time passes information available changes and so our decisions change accordingly. That’s where you went wrong with your daftness about regret – the question is how a different decision could be made in IDENTICAL circumstances, not in circumstances that apply at a later time.
 

Most people acknowledge the reality that they have conscious control of their thoughts, words and actions, which is why they can justifiably regret that they may have miss-used their power to control.

Most people do, just as most people recognise that they touch the keys on front of them too. Thing is though, what most people “recognise” tells you very little about what most people KNOW.

As stated above, your restrictions on admissible evidence would automatically rule out any non physical cause.

As stated before, those “restrictions” concern only what the word “evidence” can MEAN. If you want to include as evidence anything that pops into your heard regardless of whether it’s investigable, measurable etc then I can claim on the same basis that rainbows are “evidence” for leprechauns.
 

by giving in to temptation to make what they know to be bad choices.

Utter bullshit. People often make decisions that they think are good, ethical, positive, whatever and only later on does experience or new data tell them that they were wrong. Either way though, that has absolutely nothing to do with the problem in LOGIC you’ve given yourself.

But if any philosophical contemplation was entirely driven by uncontrollable physical reactions I can't see how any credence could be attached to the result.

Why not, and why do you think your personal incredulity is a compelling argument in any case?

I do not believe the concept of meaning could ever come into our human awareness if there really was no meaning in life.

Like the concept of leprechauns couldn’t “come into our human awareness" if there really were no leprechauns you mean?

[Gordon]

As I have said previously, if the only evidence being considered is limited to scientific knowledge of material properties and reactions, you are bound to come to a materialistic conclusion

Then present some non-materialistic evidence using a methodology that stands scrutiny - and if you can't put-up I suggest you shut-up.

but such a conclusion will fall far short of an explanation.because we sometimes choose to give in to temptation instead of following our conscience

Then 'temptation' was the strongest determinant - this is really simple stuff, Alan.

Most people acknowledge the reality that they have conscious control of their thoughts, words and actions, which is why they can justifiably regret that they may have miss-used their power to control.

Ain't hindsight wonderful, especially with hindsight having seen how cause and effect panned out.

As stated above, your restrictions on admissible evidence would automatically rule out any non physical cause.

Then, as noted above, provide some evidence for a non-physical cause along with the relevant methodology - the burden of proof is yours.

by giving in to temptation to make what they know to be bad choices.

Infantile nonsense, Alan.

But if any philosophical contemplation was entirely driven by uncontrollable physical reactions I can't see how any credence could be attached to the result.

No doubt, but that is because you'e managed to roll together the fallacies of incredulity and consequences.

I do not believe the concept of meaning could ever come into our human awareness if there really was no meaning in life.

And to end we have a flourish of reification with a dash of begging the question and a splash of incredulity - if 'meaning' is dependent on that combination I wouldn't bother troubling yourself with the notion.   

[torridon]

The evidence that we ourselves can control our own thought processes and achieve chosen goals is evident throughout human history.  Our ability to philosophise is dependent on our freedom to guide our own thoughts.  Without such conscious guidance the outcome would be meaningless.

If we were able to control and guide our thoughts, on what basis would we choose which thoughts to think, which desires to have, which things to believe ?  You see, this idea that there can be a 'me' deciding which properties 'me' should have is circular and also, it mirrors your misconception about the nature of perception.  The common factor in both these I can see springs from the notion of a soul, it seems to be a sticky problem in your thinking that you just cannot get past.  Just as it makes no sense that a perceptual system would need a inner perceiver with its own perceptual system to enjoy perception, so likewise it makes no sense that a thinking system would need an inner thinker to guide the thinking system as to which thoughts to think.  This idea of a soul is a founding stumbling block obstructing clarity of understanding of how minds actually work in reality.

[Stranger]

As I have said previously...

How about saying something new for a change, rather then the endless repetition of points people have covered many times before? You know, start acting like the intelligent adult that you claim to be and engage with the answers you already have and answer the questions you have been ignoring.

For starters:-

Can you or can you not resolve the purely logical contradiction that if we could have done differently in exactly the same circumstances then there can be no possible reason why, so it must be random?

Can you or can you not answer the question about your claims of evidence in what people post: in what way does anything that anybody posts indicate that they could have done differently without randomness?

You claimed you had sound logic. Where is it? Were you lying? Did you not understand the implication?

If you can't produce any logic, and you are basically an honest person, why won't you just admit it?