Searching for GOD...

[wigginhall]

A valid argument eh? Where is it? And why has science long since abandoned the idea?

Ah, the old elan vital.  Haven't seen it for a few months.  Huxley said that railway engines could be explained by the elan locomotif.    Genius.

[Dicky Underpants]

Ah, the old elan vital.  Haven't seen it for a few months.  Huxley said that railway engines could be explained by the elan locomotif.    Genius.

Shaw wrote of vitalism in the Preface to Back to Methuselah "All that is now sound biology". How wrong he was. Nonetheless, the influence of vitalism was wide-ranging, particularly in the arts, where its influence was fairly positive. Shaw, James Joyce, Virginia Wolf and the philosopher William James. I went to a lecture recently on the Danish composer Carl Nielsen, called "Nielsen's Vitalism", so it seems that music was also touched by its influence (though when I asked the lecturer whether he thought Nielsen had read Bergson, the chap - who seemed well-informed - thought not).

[Alan Burns]

“Your” decisions are in the past.

This is the hub of our contention.
If I were no more than a biological machine with nothing but physical reactions going on, then I would agree with this.
But reality shows that I am capable of much more than a biological robot driven by the past could ever achieve.

My contention is that my choices are made in the present from my current state of conscious awareness.  This is the only scenario which can enable my obvious freedom to think, say and choose what I want do according to my own conscious will.

You may continue to claim that this is a logical impossibility, and I will continue to witness to the truth of my God given freedom.  And both of these consciously driven arguments will provide yet more substantial evidence for the reality of the freedom we all use to contemplate responses and think up appropriate counter arguments. 

So let us all rejoice in the God given freedom which keeps this thread going on, and on, and on …   

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

This is the hub of our contention.
If I were no more than a biological machine with nothing but physical reactions going on, then I would agree with this.
But reality shows that I am capable of much more than a biological robot could ever achieve.

It’s “nub”, and as ever you fundamentally mistake your problem. Whether or not you agree, you’re still nonetheless expressing the output of prior events. To do otherwise would mean you’re acting randomly, which is not the case.   

My contention is that my choices are made in the present from my current state of conscious awareness.

Physics tell us is that there is no “present”, and even if there was you’d still have no method to explain how that decision could be made without randomness. And no, “it’s magic innit”/"miraculous" isn’t a method.   

This is the only scenario which can enable my obvious freedom to think, say and choose what I want do according to my own conscious will.

No it isn’t. A determinist explanation (that has the distinct advantage of not being holed below the waterline by logical impossibility as your contention is) would feel exactly the same. Your “obvious freedom” is just that  – obvious only as an experiential description, but hopeless as a cogent explanation.   

You may continue to claim that this is a logical impossibility,…

No, I don’t just “claim” it; I argue for it using reason. That’s the difference between us remember?

…and I will continue to witness to the truth of my God given freedom.

And speaking of claiming things with no supporting logic, so far at least you’ve given no sound reason at all for anyone to think you’re “witnessing” anything. If you want to assert your private faith beliefs by all means knock yourself out in the faith sharing area, but if you persist in doing it on a discussion area when you won’t discuss anything you’re wasting everyone’s time, yours included. 

And both of these consciously driven arguments will provide yet more substantial evidence for the reality of the freedom we all use to contemplate responses and think up appropriate counter arguments.

As you clearly have no idea what “evidence” actually requires to be evidence rather than unqualified assertion, this is just white noise. 

So let us all rejoice in the God given freedom which keeps this thread going on, and on, and on …

Happy to if ever you finally manage to explain and demonstrate:

1. What you mean by “God”

2. Why you think it exists at all

3. Why the god you think exists just happens to be the one with which you’re most familiar rather than any of the countless others that have been claimed over the millennia

4. How it is that you think you know accurately what this god thinks and wants

I realise it must be difficult for you to be told that your entire belief systems is almost certainly utter bollocks, but it would reflect much better on you if you actually tried to deal with the problems with it honestly rather than resort endlessly to vapid mantras. Really it would, but fat chance though eh?

[Alan Burns]

So if you know it's just an assertion, why a)are you incapable of accepting that it could be wrong, b) apparently ignoring the fact the evidence doesn't support it and c) not offering us something to support it?

By choosing to make an assertion I am demonstrating that I have the freedom to do so.
I also have the freedom to make the assertion without supporting evidence if I so wish, and I am now pointing out that making the assertion itself constitutes evidence of the freedom I use to consciously make it.

You may choose to contend that I had no other choice but to make the assertion - because the choice was made in the past before I became aware of it, and consequently that I had no choice in neglecting to support it with evidence.  But the truth is that I could have chosen not to make the assertion.  Or I could have chosen to support it with lots of evidence - evidence which you would no doubt choose to dismiss.

This all demonstrates our amazing capabilities.

We are human beings, but are we really just blobs of material under the control of nothing the laws of physics?

[Stranger]

This is the hub of our contention.
If I were no more than a biological machine with nothing but physical reactions going on, then I would agree with this.

Is this a joke? If not, it's, rather ironically, an utterly mindless, thought-free, totally baseless assertion. Where the hell is even the slightest hint of reasoning?

But reality shows that I am capable of much more than a biological robot driven by the past could ever achieve.

Foot-stamp.

My contention is that my choices are made in the present from my current state of conscious awareness.

This is still utterly meaningless, thought-free gibberish. Are you really stupid enough to think that just repeating it (without even being arsed to rephrase it) is going to change people's minds?

This is the only scenario which can enable my obvious freedom to think, say and choose what I want do according to my own conscious will.

Foot-stamp.

And both of these consciously driven arguments will provide yet more substantial evidence for the reality of the freedom we all use to contemplate responses and think up appropriate counter arguments. 

Unless you can tell us in what way anything you post can be possibly be evidence that you could have done differently without randomness, which you apparently can't, this just another foot-stamp.

In order for something to be evidence, one of the contending views would have to predict something about it that is different. Since neither do, it is not evidence. You can't just assert that if you weren't correct things would be different, then say "oh, look, they aren't different, so I'm right!" - that's both dishonest and dimwitted. Do you really need these basic things explained to you?

All you're doing is trying to assert that reality is the way you desperately want it to be and then topping it off with and equally baseless assertion that what people do and say is the evidence for it.

Where is your logic?

If you can't produce any, and you can't answer the relevant questions, why won't you just admit you have none?

Everybody can see that nothing you've said forms anything remotely like a logical argument. Why not some basic, ordinary, human honesty?

[Gordon]

By choosing to make an assertion I am demonstrating that I have the freedom to do so.
I also have the freedom to make the assertion without supporting evidence if I so wish, and I am now pointing out that making the assertion itself constitutes evidence of the freedom I use to consciously make it.

You may choose to contend that I had no other choice but to make the assertion - because the choice was made in the past before I became aware of it, and consequently that I had no choice in neglecting to support it with evidence.  But the truth is that I could have chosen not to make the assertion.  Or I could have chosen to support it with lots of evidence - evidence which you would no doubt choose to dismiss.

This all demonstrates our amazing capabilities.

I'd say all this little strop demonstrates is your amazing gullibility, Alan.

We are human beings, but are we really just blobs of material under the control of nothing the laws of physics?

We may as well be - so welcome to blobhood, Alan (from a fellow blob).

[Stranger]

By choosing to make an assertion I am demonstrating that I have the freedom to do so.
I also have the freedom to make the assertion without supporting evidence if I so wish...

Nobody is disputing the sort of functional freedom needed to write idiotic assertions. It is dishonest to pretend that they do.

...and I am now pointing out that making the assertion itself constitutes evidence of the freedom I use to consciously make it.

Only for the kind of functional freedom that nobody disputes. It is not evidence that you could have done differently without randomness.

Where is your logic?

Why won't you have the basic human honesty to admit you don't have any?

[SusanDoris]

closing down the computer on another day of endless gibberish, drivel, gibberish, drivel, etc etc from AB with a series of excellent, clear, rational,  sensible, thoughtfull posts from others. (I do not  include Sriram amongst them of course!)

[Alan Burns]

Physics tell us is that there is no “present”, and even if there was you’d still have no method to explain how that decision could be made without randomness. And no, “it’s magic innit”/"miraculous" isn’t a method.   

I fully agree that there is no present in "Physics".
But the present is where I exist, where I perceive, where I think, where I invoke choices, where I recall memory.
This is the reason why I contend that I am not a physical thing determined only by physical reactions.
Neither can I be just an emergence coming from physically controlled reactions with no will of my own.

[Stranger]

I fully agree that there is no present in "Physics".
But the present is where I exist, where I perceive, where I think, where I invoke choices, where I recall memory.

Colloquially and hence trivially, perhaps. Logically, however, as soon as you say you do anything in the present, it has to have a duration, and hence the logic of time becomes relevant and the basic logical contradiction of your assertions becomes apparent.

This is the reason why I contend that I am not a physical thing determined only by physical reactions.
Neither can I be just an emergence coming from physically controlled reactions with no will of my own.

I contend that you baselessly assert these things entirely because of intuition (the way it feels) and blind faith and you refuse to see the logic because you've become so invested in said blind faith.

I cite as evidence your entire posting history here, where you have consistently failed to provide any evidence or logic - despite apparently entirely false claims that you have them - and equally consistently refused to face up to the logic that demolishes your assertions.

[Outrider]

By choosing to make an assertion I am demonstrating that I have the freedom to do so.

As we have no capacity to measure alternate possibilities, we have no way to determine if your particular selection of repeating the same assertion that has been repeatedly dismissed is evidence of freedom or of your inability to deviate from the inevitable consequence of your own, apparently faulty, logic.

I also have the freedom to make the assertion without supporting evidence if I so wish, and I am now pointing out that making the assertion itself constitutes evidence of the freedom I use to consciously make it.

Actually, you don't have that freedom; if you back it up with supporting evidence it's no longer an assertion, it's an argument. Try it, you might like.

You may choose to contend that I had no other choice but to make the assertion - because the choice was made in the past before I became aware of it, and consequently that I had no choice in neglecting to support it with evidence.

To a degree this is true; but, to the same extent, I have no option but to write back that you should try arguing rather than asserting, and I can only hope that the repeated exposure to the concept will update the algorithm that is your mindset and elicit either a change in methodology or a change in conclusion on your part.

But the truth is that I could have chosen not to make the assertion.

You realise, of course, that asserting your freedom to assert you have freedom is just a Matryoshka Doll of logical fallacies, right?

Or I could have chosen to support it with lots of evidence - evidence which you would no doubt choose to dismiss.

See, I appreciate that there's some less than welcoming responses to you here, but I like to think that I don't sink to that.  Give me some credit for coming here in good faith; if you have 'lots of evidence' lay it out and let me decide if I'm going to dismiss.  I'll be totally honest, I probably will, but if and when I do I'll have the decency to explain why, and you never know you might just have something more compelling than repeated but unfounded 'truth' claims.

This all demonstrates our amazing capabilities.

Demonstrates them, perhaps, but doesn't help us define or understand them.

We are human beings, but are we really just blobs of material under the control of nothing the laws of physics?

Your phrasing suggests that the two are incompatible... as it is, as I think I pointed out to Sriram earlier, it's entirely possible that we aren't 'blobs of material' we are patterns of activity occuring within 'ugly bags of mostly water'...

O.

[Alan Burns]

Only for the kind of functional freedom that nobody disputes. It is not evidence that you could have done differently without randomness.

I do not know what you mean by "functional freedom"
A function is a purposely contrived procedure to perform a specific action.
There is no freedom within a function.  The only freedom is in the free will of the person designing the function.

[Alan Burns]

Colloquially and hence trivially, perhaps. Logically, however, as soon as you say you do anything in the present, it has to have a duration, and hence the logic of time becomes relevant and the basic logical contradiction of your assertions becomes apparent.

The mechanics of doing something will exist in the time dimension of our universe.  It is the conscious invocation of making the choice to do something which must happen in the present, because it is done from the present state of your conscious awareness.

[Stranger]

I do not know what you mean by "functional freedom"

Is this even serious?

Have we not been discussing the difference between being "free to do as you want" versus "could have done differently without randomness" for about twenty years now? Haven't I said that nobody denies the former and you have no basis for asserting the latter about 30,000 times already in this thread (only to have you ignore it)? Hasn't bluehillside been talking about 'functional "good enough to be useful" truths'? How many times have I said what kind of "freedom" it is that nobody disputes?

Take a wild guess what I meant!

The problem so often is just trying to find words that you don't try to distort the meaning of in order to distract from the actual argument (you've already done it with "freedom", "choice", "deterministic", and so on) - looks like I just underestimated your capacity to do just that, yet again...

I don't suppose there's a cat's chance in hell you're actually going to face up to and address the actual point I was making.

The mechanics of doing something will exist in the time dimension of our universe.  It is the conscious invocation of making the choice to do something which must happen in the present, because it is done from the present state of your conscious awareness.

*sigh*

An invocation is doing something. A choice means changing state from undecided to decided. If every single condition prior to a choice is the same and the outcome could have been different, that means that there must be an element for which there is no reason at all - which means randomness.

Have you absolutely no awareness at all of how utterly silly this gibberish about the "present" really is? Didn't the utter absurdity of it even occur to you as you cobbled together that garbled mess or a post?

How about some actual logic? You know: premises, valid steps of reasoning. No, I take it back, you don't know and you are way too afraid to learn...

[Stranger]

I do not know what you mean by "functional freedom"
A function is a purposely contrived procedure to perform a specific action.
There is no freedom within a function.  The only freedom is in the free will of the person designing the function.

Just for the avoidance of further word games - there is no evidence in anybody's posts of anything other than being able to think and do as they want to do (whether you call that "freedom" or not) and even that is a stretch because we have to assume they were under no external pressure. There is absolutely no evidence of them heaving been able to do differently (how the hell could there be!) without randomness.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I fully agree that there is no present in "Physics".

It’s not “Physics”, just physics. If you think there’s a reality outwith the scope of physics, then tell us what it is and tell us how you’d distinguish it from just guessing about stuff.

But the present is where I exist, where I perceive, where I think, where I invoke choices, where I recall memory.

Colloquially that’s true, just as colloquially you really, really think you touch the keys in front of you. As you would say, it’s “obvious”, “everyone knows” etc. Physics though tells us otherwise – in both cases.

This is the reason why I contend that I am not a physical thing determined only by physical reactions.

It’s not a reason – or at least not a coherent one; it’s just a description of the way something feels, but no more.

Neither…

You can’t have a “neither” because your prior effort just collapsed…

…can I be just an emergence…

... and there’s no “just” about it. The most complex phenomena we know of are emergent…

…coming from physically controlled reactions with no will of my own.

Again, you do have a “will” but only at a descriptive, experiential level of abstraction. If you think your concept of it has some explanatory force though despite all the reason and evidence ranged against you, why not at least try to argue your way out of the hole you’ve dug for yourself rather than just hope you can assert your way out of it?

[Alan Burns]

An invocation is doing something. A choice means changing state from undecided to decided. If every single condition prior to a choice is the same and the outcome could have been different, that means that there must be an element for which there is no reason at all - which means randomness.

Your description of choice defines reaction, not choice.
I make consciously driven choices, not reactions.
You really do need to discern the obvious difference.
One is determined by the past.
The other is an act of will.

But human will has far more capabilities than making conscious choices.
It drives our thought processes.  The thought processes you invoke every time you choose to reply to a post.
It feeds our conscious mind to imagine things far beyond the nature of our material universe.
It can demonstrate intelligent design to be a reality.
It gives us hope for the future.
It transcends anything which can be produced from physically determined reactions of material elements.

[torridon]

I fully agree that there is no present in "Physics".
But the present is where I exist, where I perceive, where I think, where I invoke choices, where I recall memory.
This is the reason why I contend that I am not a physical thing determined only by physical reactions.
Neither can I be just an emergence coming from physically controlled reactions with no will of my own.

Where 'you' exist, is strictly speaking, in the past.  Our sense of 'now' , in terms of phenomenal consciousness, is really a memory of 'then', constructed and enhanced by subliminal processes of mind.  Our sense of 'now' is really a seeming sense of now, and not everything is as it seems.

[torridon]

Your description of choice defines reaction, not choice.
I make consciously driven choices, not reactions.
You really do need to discern the obvious difference.
One is determined by the past.
The other is an act of will.

But human will has far more capabilities than making conscious choices.
It drives our thought processes.  The thought processes you invoke every time you choose to reply to a post.
It feeds our conscious mind to imagine things far beyond the nature of our material universe.
It can demonstrate intelligent design to be a reality.
It gives us hope for the future.
It transcends anything which can be produced from physically determined reactions of material elements.

But our conscious will itself is a driven thing, it  does not spring out of nowhere with no derivation.  If that were the case then our conscious will would be random.  If you think your will is not random, then it must derive from something meaningful. Will cannot be its own cause, that would be meaningless circularity.

This is really quite simple, and it still hasn't sunk in yet, I see.

[Stranger]

Your description of choice defines reaction, not choice.

Word games.

I make consciously driven choices, not reactions.

Why can't they be both?

You really do need to discern the obvious difference.

Firstly, just asserting that it's obvious doesn't make it so, and secondly, if it really were obvious you'd be able to provide evidence or logic - you can't.

One is determined by the past.
The other is an act of will.

Again: why can't it be both?

But human will has far more capabilities than making conscious choices.
It drives our thought processes.  The thought processes you invoke every time you choose to reply to a post.
It feeds our conscious mind to imagine things far beyond the nature of our material universe.
It can demonstrate intelligent design to be a reality.
It gives us hope for the future.

With the exception of "intelligent design" (do you really want to assert that nonsense too?) - yeah, fine.

Now explain why any of those things require that we could have done differently without randomness and finally explain how that purely logical contradiction can be overcome.

It transcends anything which can be produced from physically determined reactions of material elements.

Baseless assertion.

I'm still waiting for the slightest hint of "sound logic".

Can you provide any? If not, and you are an honest person, it's about time you admitted that you don't have any...

[Gordon]

Alan

Why don't you just adopt a position of having personal faith in the tenets of Christianity and living your life accordingly?

Instead it seems you have contrived a narrative that you think to be logical and reasonable in support of your faith, but then that narrative is easily unpicked as being illogical and unreasonable - you seem to be wasting your time.

[Outrider]

Your description of choice defines reaction, not choice.

Which could be a result of the fact that what we think of as choices in everyday situations are actually inevitable reactions.  By contrast, your description of choice defies logical comprehension because it is literally self-contradictory.

I make consciously driven choices, not reactions.

So you keep telling us, but you haven't done any showing.

You really do need to discern the obvious difference.

You need to show that there is actually a difference, first, in order for us to be able to discern one.

One is determined by the past. The other is an act of will.

Will is determined by the past, it seems.

But human will has far more capabilities than making conscious choices.

And, of course, you can demonstrate that?

It drives our thought processes.

Ah, see, that's electrochemistry.

The thought processes you invoke every time you choose to reply to a post.

Yep, electrochemistry.

It feeds our conscious mind to imagine things far beyond the nature of our material universe.

Like free will?  It does feed our conscious mind, that's why consciousness happens after the thinking's already been done.

It can demonstrate intelligent design to be a reality.

Well that'd be an achievement up there with proving the Earth was flat.

It gives us hope for the future.

Strangely, your clinging to the idea is increasingly diminishing mine...

It transcends anything which can be produced from physically determined reactions of material elements.

Because... magic? It might, at not much of a push, transcend your capacity to accept the potential for complex deterministic behaviours, but in order for you to justify the claim that it transends physics you'd need to either fundamentally undermine the current scientific consensus on how the world works (mention me in your Nobel acceptance speech, won't you) or you'd need to establish an entirely new methodology for exploring reality (mention me in your Nobel acceptance speech, won't you).

O.

[Alan Burns]

Alan

Why don't you just adopt a position of having personal faith in the tenets of Christianity and living your life accordingly?

Instead it seems you have contrived a narrative that you think to be logical and reasonable in support of your faith, but then that narrative is easily unpicked as being illogical and unreasonable - you seem to be wasting your time.

I cannot agree Gordon.
I am simply witnessing to reality of human free will.
Any attempt to try to unpick this reality can only confirm it.
It takes a conscious act of will to try to unpick it.
An attempt to try to disprove human free will requires consciously driven thought processes.
The contrived word jugglery used to explain this away merely confirms our freedom to control our own thoughts.
This is not illogical or unreasonable - it is reality.

[Stranger]

I am simply witnessing to reality of human free will.

All you are witnessing to is your own stubborn refusal to accept evidence and logic, while all the time falsely claiming that you are using logic (thereby bearing false witness).

Any attempt to try to unpick this reality can only confirm it.

Simply untrue.

It takes a conscious act of will to try to unpick it.

Possibly. However it does not take the ability to have done differently without randomness - because that is logically impossible.

This is not illogical or unreasonable...

About time you actually showed this to be the case then - instead of just ignoring the reasoning and logic that says otherwise.

...it is reality.

Foot-stamping.

And the wait for the slightest hint of logic or the smallest glimmer of the basic human honesty required to admit that you don't have any, just goes on and on and on...