Searching for GOD...

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Alan,

Please can you finally get around to addressing the questions posed by Never Talk to Strangers. I am particular keen to see your answers to the first two.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Étienne d'Angleterre

Please can you finally get around to addressing the questions posed by Never Talk to Strangers. I am particular keen to see your answers to the first two.

While I admire your optimism, I’m afraid you should prepare yourself only for mindless assertions (“everyone knows that”, “it’s obvious that”, “miraculous”, etc) or basic mistakes in reasoning (“but that would mean…”, “lots of people agree with me”, “you can’t disprove it”, “but you’re only using material evidence”, “God is real because you have a god-given gift”, "I can't imagine how", "no material answer must mean supernatural") and on and wearingly on.

Just imagine though what would happen if he either just said “OK, I have no sound reasons to justify any of these beliefs” or, “OK, here at last are some honest answers to your questions” – would the ravens leave the Tower of London I wonder?

[ippy]

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.because we sometimes choose to give in to temptation instead of following our conscienceMost 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.As stated above, your restrictions on admissible evidence would automatically rule out any non physical cause.by giving in to temptation to make what they know to be bad choices.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.I do not believe the concept of meaning could ever come into our human awareness if there really was no meaning in life.

If it was just the odd poster or two spelling out your shortcomings you might have something of a realistic value on offer to put forward Alan, doesn't the glaringly obvious fact, obvious to almost everyone', virtually no one supports your,' it's magic innit' theories/ideas.

Severely indoctrinated would be the kindest explanation that can be suggested, you certainly don't listen to anyone, if you think you do listen I can assure you it doesn't show.

Put yourself in the position of someone that's never read any of the posts on this thread before and starts to read their way through them all, think about it Alan.

Commiserations Alan, ippy.

[Outrider]

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, as has I have pointed out, if you want to consider something other than evidence produced and interpreted under the scientific method, you need to justify it.  As an annexe to that point, it's that science is limited intrinsically to 'material' considerations, it's that science is limited to measurable phenomena - if you have something non-physical that has a measurable effect, then science will accommodate it; what you have, though, is something alleged which has no apparent visible effects, at which point you have to ask what the justification is for considering it.

The current paradigm doesn't fall short of an explanation, it provides an explanation that you - for ideological reasons - don't appear content to accept.  If you want to claim that it's not a viable explanation you need to show which of the steps is in error, and claims of hypothetical untestable 'other' forces is not sufficient to reject that demonstrable evidence we do have.

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

But surely, if we have freedom to consider, then we won't fall prey to temptation, because we can freely consider the options and understand which are the negative choices?

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 believe they have conscious control of their thoughts, I'd accept, but most of them haven't considered that assumption in any depth to understand whether they are correct in their assumption.  Many people can also be wrong, as is evidenced by (amongst others) the existence of Abrahamic religions and Hinduism, and the fact that Donald Trump is US President.

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

And, as stated above, science doesn't rule out non-physical causes, it just  doesn't have any mechanism for interpreting allegations of causes with no consistent or detectable effects - if you want to posit things outside of science's remit you have to also posit a system by which those claims can be validated or refuted; logic is one, that falls over pretty quickly on free will, so you need something else.

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.

Credence in what sense?  If my brain detects a drop in blood sugar and a largely empty stomach on a subsconsious level, am I only hungry after i've consciously decided so? Or am I hungry, and then I become consciously aware of that hunger after my brain has processed the fact?

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

And you're perfectly entitled to that belief, but I'm under no obligation to agree with you purely on the basis that you have a belief.  We see that people have an understanding of 'meaning', and yet it's far from demonstrable that there is an underlying purpose to life.  You might not be able to envision the mechanism by which it comes about, but I can't see how it can be impossible to think we could determine meaning in our activities that are not the product of some larger purpose.

O.

[Alan Burns]

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?

I have done my best to explain what is wrong with the "compatibilism" flavour of logic you keep quoting.

May I quote a criticism from a renouned philosopher who puts the argument more eloquently than I:

Immanuel Kant called it a "wretched subterfuge" and "word jugglery".  Kant's argument turns on the view that, while all empirical phenomena must result from determining causes, human thought introduces something seemingly not found elsewhere in nature—the ability to conceive of the world in terms of how it ought to be, or how it might otherwise be. For Kant, subjective reasoning is necessarily distinct from how the world is empirically. Because of its capacity to distinguish is from ought, reasoning can 'spontaneously' originate new events without being itself determined by what already exists.Kant proposes that taking the compatibilist view involves denying the distinctly subjective capacity to re-think an intended course of action in terms of what ought to happen.

Another prominent critic, William James, accuses compatibilists of creating a "quagmire of evasion" by stealing the name of freedom to mask their underlying determinism.

[torridon]

..
Another prominent critic, William James, accuses compatibilists of creating a "quagmire of evasion" by stealing the name of freedom to mask their underlying determinism.

That is exactly what you have been doing for the last three years on here.  Thanks for shooting yourself in the foot, saves us the trouble.

[Stranger]

I have done my best to explain what is wrong with the "compatibilism" flavour of logic you keep quoting.
...

Except that there is nothing in my questions, or the logic, that has anything directly to do with compatibilism and nothing at all in your post that goes any way at all towards answering said questions (including the quotes).

So, yet again:

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?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I have done my best to explain what is wrong with the "compatibilism" flavour of logic you keep quoting.

May I quote a criticism from a renouned philosopher who puts the argument more eloquently than I:

Immanuel Kant called it a "wretched subterfuge" and "word jugglery".  Kant's argument turns on the view that, while all empirical phenomena must result from determining causes, human thought introduces something seemingly not found elsewhere in nature—the ability to conceive of the world in terms of how it ought to be, or how it might otherwise be. For Kant, subjective reasoning is necessarily distinct from how the world is empirically. Because of its capacity to distinguish is from ought, reasoning can 'spontaneously' originate new events without being itself determined by what already exists.Kant proposes that taking the compatibilist view involves denying the distinctly subjective capacity to re-think an intended course of action in terms of what ought to happen.

It's “renowned”, and a phenomenon not being found elsewhere in nature is not an argument for it not being in nature (despite what Kant may have thought). He also knew nothing of our modern understanding of emergent properties because that was developed after his time. Novel outcomes and determinism are not in other words incompatible. And you still by the way have moved not one iota toward defining and demonstrating a non-natural in which anything goes, which means...

...that your problem as a matter of logic with your claims remains.           

Another prominent critic, William James, accuses compatibilists of creating a "quagmire of evasion" by stealing the name of freedom to mask their underlying determinism.

That’s not very bright then is it. It’s not “stealing the name of freedom” to confine it to an experiential phenomenon rather than accept the logically impossible version of it some (you included) would assert.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

I have done my best to explain what is wrong with the "compatibilism" flavour of logic you keep quoting.

May I quote a criticism from a renouned philosopher who puts the argument more eloquently than I:

Immanuel Kant called it a "wretched subterfuge" and "word jugglery".  Kant's argument turns on the view that, while all empirical phenomena must result from determining causes, human thought introduces something seemingly not found elsewhere in nature—the ability to conceive of the world in terms of how it ought to be, or how it might otherwise be. For Kant, subjective reasoning is necessarily distinct from how the world is empirically. Because of its capacity to distinguish is from ought, reasoning can 'spontaneously' originate new events without being itself determined by what already exists.Kant proposes that taking the compatibilist view involves denying the distinctly subjective capacity to re-think an intended course of action in terms of what ought to happen.

Another prominent critic, William James, accuses compatibilists of creating a "quagmire of evasion" by stealing the name of freedom to mask their underlying determinism.

So you can't answer the questions then. Thought not.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Incidentally, not that you care but the fallacy you just attempted is called the “appeal to authority” (or “argumentum ad verecundiam”). It’s the assertion that something is true because someone in authority or an expert says it’s true without making an argument or providing evidence of your own:

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Authority

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Incidentally, not that you care but the fallacy you just attempted is called the “appeal to authority” (or “argumentum ad verecundiam”). It’s the assertion that something is true because someone in authority or an expert says it’s true without making an argument or providing evidence of your own:

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Authority

But the argument Kant uses concerning the subjective nature of our thought processes is very similar to the points I have been making about the essential freedom needed to drive the thought processes that enable us to reach valid conclusions.

So it is not the fallacy "Appeal-to-Authority" but a confirmation from authority which is commonly used on this forum.

[Gordon]

But the argument Kant uses concerning the subjective nature of our thought processes is very similar to the points I have been making about the essential freedom needed to drive the thought processes that enable us to reach valid conclusions.

Does Kant say anything about 'souls'?

[Stranger]

But the argument Kant uses concerning the subjective nature of our thought processes is very similar to the points I have been making about the essential freedom needed to drive the thought processes that enable us to reach valid conclusions.

I really don't know to what extent that's true but it's anyway totally irrelevant to the fact that we're still waiting for the slightest hint of the "sound logic" that you said you had, or any answers to the basic questions that you keep running away from.

If you think you can do that from the ideas that Kant had, do feel free, but just quoting some stuff about what he thought that doesn't come close to the missing logic or answers to the questions, is just more evasion.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But the argument Kant uses concerning the subjective nature of our thought processes is very similar to the points I have been making about the essential freedom needed to drive the thought processes that enable us to reach valid conclusions.

No it isn’t. Your “argument” consists only of unqualified assertions (“it’s obvious that” etc) and logical fallacies (“but if that were true, then…” (when “that” is something you don’t like)). 

So it is not the fallacy "Appeal-to-Authority" but a confirmation from authority which is commonly used on this forum.

Yes it is – you didn’t discuss the merits of the Kant quote, you just repeated it. If though you want to align yourself with another fallacy (that something unique in nature cannot therefore be of nature) then go right ahead and say so. You might though want to surprise us all and actually tell us WHY you think that to be the case.

[ekim]

But the argument Kant uses concerning the subjective nature of our thought processes is very similar to the points I have been making about the essential freedom needed to drive the thought processes that enable us to reach valid conclusions.

You are making the assumption that 'freedom' is a driving force for thought.  If you observe your thoughts you will most likely see that they are driven by desire in a variety of forms including the one you mention - the desire 'to reach a valid conclusion'.  If you can remain inwardly still enough,try to observe what is driving you to post on this site the way you do and to use your slogan - the truth may set you free from this.

[Alan Burns]

I really don't know to what extent that's true but it's anyway totally irrelevant to the fact that we're still waiting for the slightest hint of the "sound logic" that you said you had, or any answers to the basic questions that you keep running away from.

If you think you can do that from the ideas that Kant had, do feel free, but just quoting some stuff about what he thought that doesn't come close to the missing logic or answers to the questions, is just more evasion.

Sound logic comes from the consciously driven ability to think, to asses, to reason, to draw inferences and to form conclusions.  Yet many on this thread claim that such consciously driven ability must be an illusion because thoughts themselves must be entirely driven by previous events in a deterministic system.  You start off from a presumption that this ability to logically analyse can be derived from a deterministic system in which every event is entirely defined by a previous event.  So for any form of logic to be enabled in our conscious awareness, you must presume that it is capable of being derived from unguidable reactions to previous events.

I put it to you that any form of logic could never come into our conscious awareness without the essential freedom needed to think, to asses, to reason, to draw inferences and to form conclusions.  The science of neurology is only scraping the surface of the workings of the human mind.  After 100 years of investigation the concepts of thought and memory have yet to be discovered in neurological terms.  The idea that it all emerges from physical reactions  is just a presumption based on very limited scientific knowledge.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Sound logic comes from the consciously driven ability to think, to asses, to reason, to draw inferences and to form conclusions.

I know you can’t do irony so this’ll be lost on you, but the irony here is that you need some sound logic IN THE FIRST PLACE to establish that this ability is as you think it to be. So far, you’re stuck in a piece of circular reasoning: just assert "free" will to be necessary for there to be "free" will and repeat endlessly.     

Yet many on this thread claim that such consciously driven ability must be an illusion because thoughts themselves must be entirely driven by previous events in a deterministic system.

It’s an “illusion” if you think it’s an explanation rather than an experiential description, yes.

You start off from a presumption…

Wrong again. It’s "logical deduction", not "presumption". Why do you keep misrepresenting this simple point?

… that this ability to logically analyse can be derived from a deterministic system in which every event is entirely defined by a previous event.  So for any form of logic to be enabled in our conscious awareness, you must presume that it is capable of being derived from unguidable reactions to previous events.

Again, you’re wrong about “presumption” but basically you’re on the right lines. There’s no good reason to think there to be an intelligent something to do any “guiding”.

I put it to you that any form of logic could never come into our conscious awareness without the essential freedom needed to think, to asses, to reason, to draw inferences and to form conclusions.

Why not?

The science of neurology is only scraping the surface of the workings of the human mind.  After 100 years of investigation the concepts of thought and memory have yet to be discovered in neurological terms.  The idea that it all emerges from physical reactions  is just a presumption based on very limited scientific knowledge.

Actually you do a disservice to neuroscience in particular that has told us a lot more than you realise, but in any case as Stranger keeps telling you (and you keep ignoring) your problem is one of LOGIC, not physiological evidence. Yet again, without invoking "it's magic innit?"/"miraculous" as your escape clause, how IN IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES could a decision be made differently?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

I know you can’t do irony so this’ll be lost on you, but the irony here is that you need some sound logic IN THE FIRST PLACE to establish that this ability is as you think it to be. So far, you’re stuck in a piece of circular reasoning.

No.
You can't start off with Logic.  The conscious ability to think, deduce and draw conclusions is the essential starting point.

[Stranger]

Sound logic comes from the consciously driven ability to think, to asses, to reason, to draw inferences and to form conclusions.  Yet many on this thread claim that such consciously driven ability must be an illusion because thoughts themselves must be entirely driven by previous events in a deterministic system.

YET AGAIN: Nobody is denying our ability to reason, draw inferences, and form conclusions. The role of consciousness in this process is both debatable and totally irrelevant to the logic.

YET AGAIN: Even if consciousness were in total control, that does not logically mean that it isn't fully deterministic. Will you please try to let that sink in to your tiny mind and either stop confusing the two or explain why you disagree?

What am I thinking? Alan actually taking some notice and responding in a reasonable way? Sorry, as you were...

Yet many on this thread claim that such consciously driven ability must be an illusion because thoughts themselves must be entirely driven by previous events in a deterministic system.

The aforementioned ability is not what people are saying is an illusion. What is missing is any hint from you as to why the ability to to reason, draw inferences, and form conclusion requires that we could have done differently without randomness.

You start off from a presumption that this ability to logically analyse can be derived from a deterministic system in which every event is entirely defined by a previous event.  So for any form of logic to be enabled in our conscious awareness, you must presume that it is capable of being derived from unguidable reactions to previous events.

Because the only logical alternative is randomness.

YET AGAIN: 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?

I put it to you that any form of logic could never come into our conscious awareness without the essential freedom needed to think, to asses, to reason, to draw inferences and to form conclusions.

You can put forward anything you like, but you said you had logic, where is it? Why do those abilities require that we could have done differently without randomness?

The science of neurology is only scraping the surface of the workings of the human mind.  After 100 years of investigation the concepts of thought and memory have yet to be discovered in neurological terms.  The idea that it all emerges from physical reactions  is just a presumption based on very limited scientific knowledge.

Since you are facing a purely logical problem, this is totally irrelevant.

So - still not the slightest hint of any logic or answers to my questions.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

No.
You can't start off with Logic.  The conscious ability to think, deduce and draw conclusions is the essential starting point.

Wrong again. You "start off" with conjectures, ideas, guesses. One such guess is that free will is non-determinative. Then you (well, some of us) apply logic to determine which guesses are sound and which are not. Your problem is that you start with the guesses part and end with it too. Worse, when you're shown that your guesses cannot be sound because they're logically impossible you ignore the problem and cling to them ever more tightly as a man clings to a concrete lifebelt.

Why?

[Stranger]

The conscious ability to think, deduce and draw conclusions is the essential starting point.

Why does that ability require that we could have done differently without randomness?

How do you resolve the contradiction that if we could have done differently, in exactly the same circumstances and state of mind, there can be no possible reason, so it must be random?

[Alan Burns]

Why does that ability require that we could have done differently without randomness?

It is all down to what drives our conscious ability to think, to reason, and to draw conclusions.  If you deem this driving force to be defined by past chains of cause and effect which have no consciously invoked starting cause or influence, then every thought you have will be just an inevitable reaction with no conscious freedom.  As I have said many times on this thread, human will is influenced by the past but not controlled by it.  The essential freedom needed to enable our ability to think, to reason, and to draw conclusions can only be invoked from our current state of conscious awareness, not the past.

How do you resolve the contradiction that if we could have done differently, in exactly the same circumstances and state of mind, there can be no possible reason, so it must be random?
[/size]

It is resolved by the power of our consciously controlled human will, which is certainly not random, nor is it chained to past events.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Wrong again. You "start off" with conjectures, ideas, guesses. One such guess is that free will is non-determinative. Then you (well, some of us) apply logic to determine which guesses are sound and which are not.

No
You can't apply logic without the essential freedom needed to think, to analyse and draw conclusions.
Our freedom to think must come first.

[torridon]

It is resolved by the power of our consciously controlled human will, which is certainly not random, nor is it chained to past events.

Evasion evasion evasion.

Nobody has asked how you go about thinking or deducing logic.  The question is, what is the logic ?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It is all down to what drives our conscious ability to think, to reason, and to draw conclusions.  If you deem this driving force…

Except of course you’ve had it explained countless times that the logically robust model of emergence doesn’t require a “driving force” remember? Again, you’re just assuming your a priori assumption about this, then building your assertions on that sand.

No
You can't apply logic without the essential freedom needed to think, to analyse and draw conclusions.
Our freedom to think must come first.

Dear god but you struggle with even simple ideas. “Our freedom to think” as an experiential description ISN’T DISPUTED. What IS disputed is that this freedom CANNOT BE an underlying explanation for it because that would be logically impossible. That you have to resort to “its magic innit?”/”miraculous” to get you out of that alone should tell you that.