Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Absolutely not.  We have no freedom to choose our own personality - it is what we are born with.

So how you do you decide what your invisible little man at the controls can and cannot change then? Wouldn't, say the way I choose to vote (or whether to vote at all) be a reflection of my personality too? 

We can't choose our desires, but we do have freedom to choose how, when, where and if to act out our desires.

Yes, in the colloquial sense we do have that freedom - indeed all of society functions on that basis. You know full well though that that cannot be a logically coherent freedom as you imagine it to at the explanatory level for reasons that have been explained to you countless times and that you just ignore or misrepresent.

And we would not be able to contemplate any concept of determinism vs freedom without our consciously driven freedom to think things through.

Repeating a stupidity it doesn't make it less stupid. You do know that right?

[Alan Burns]

BTW, there are Christians who don't believe in "free will" because it contradicts god's sovereignty. I actually knew one quite well at university. He was a Calvinist who believed in predestination.

Calvanists are not part of the mainstream Christian faith.
The belief of Calvanists is a prime example of mankind being able to employ their intellectual freedom to re interpret (or deliberately miss interpret) scripture in order to come to a self centred belief that they can do nothing to control their tendency to commit sin.  Such a conclusion is not justifiable in scripture.  Jesus forgave sin, but He did not condone it.  He told the adulterous woman to "go and sin no more".

[Roses]

Calvanists are not part of the mainstream Christian faith.
The belief of Calvanists is a prime example of mankind being able to employ their intellectual freedom to re interpret (or deliberately miss interpret) scripture in order to come to a self centred belief that they can do nothing to control their tendency to commit sin.  Such a conclusion is not justifiable in scripture.  Jesus forgave sin, but He did not condone it.  He told the adulterous woman to "go and sin no more".

I hope the far from perfect, Jesus, asked the pig farmer for forgiveness when a herd of pigs fell over a cliff whilst he was performing exorcism hocus pocus, always assuming that daft tale has any credibility.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Calvanists are not part of the mainstream Christian faith.
The belief of Calvanists is a prime example of mankind being able to employ their intellectual freedom to re interpret (or deliberately miss interpret) scripture in order to come to a self centred belief that they can do nothing to control their tendency to commit sin.  Such a conclusion is not justifiable in scripture.  Jesus forgave sin, but He did not condone it.  He told the adulterous woman to "go and sin no more".

REG: Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans are the fucking Judean People's Front.

P.F.J.: Yeah...

JUDITH: Splitters.

P.F.J.: Splitters...

FRANCIS: And the Judean Popular People's Front.

P.F.J.: Yeah. Oh, yeah. Splitters. Splitters...

LORETTA: And the People's Front of Judea.

P.F.J.: Yeah. Splitters. Splitters...

REG: What?

LORETTA: The People's Front of Judea. Splitters.

REG: We're the People's Front of Judea!

LORETTA: Oh. I thought we were the Popular Front.

REG: People's Front! C-huh.

FRANCIS: Whatever happened to the Popular Front, Reg?

REG: He's over there.

P.F.J.: Splitter!

(Life of Brian)

[Stranger]

We can't choose our desires, but we do have freedom to choose how, when, where and if to act out our desires.

*sigh*

YET AGAIN: How do we make such a choice? We would have to decide if we desired to act out our desires or not. Then we'd have to decide if we desired to desire to act out our desires or not. See the problem?

How about next time, instead of just thoughtlessly regurgitating your script, you actually address the answers you've had. You know, behave like you actually do have some freedom to think and aren't a mindless automaton.

And we would not be able to contemplate any concept of determinism vs freedom without our consciously driven freedom to think things through.

Endlessly asserting the need for "consciously driven freedom" is not a logical argument, neither has it got any apparent connection to the actual point of contention, which is the ability to have done differently without randomness.

Why does anything that humans do need the ability to have done differently without randomness (that is not a question about the role of consciousness)?

Where is your logic?

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

[torridon]

Absolutely not.  We have no freedom to choose our own personality - it is what we are born with.
We can't choose our desires, but we do have freedom to choose how, when, where and if to act out our desires.

You are making no sense.  The choice of how, when, where and if to act out our desires is itself a desire, or rather, an outcome of a desire. If I have a desire, I will act upon it in the manner that is most appealing to me and I cannot choose how much things appeal to me. Any choice, be it a how, a when, a where, or an if, is still resolved by reference to the emotional content associated with each possibility and that is not something that anyone can control.  This is fundamental to how minds resolve choice.

[Stranger]

Calvanists are not part of the mainstream Christian faith.

A Sunday afternoon outing for the no true Scotsman fallacy - don't think you've used that one recently.

Does that go for Martin Luther (On the Bondage of the Will) as well?

[Alan Burns]

……………...
(Life of Brian)

Yet more evidence of mankind's intellectual freedom to ridicule.

[SusanDoris]

AB

How you can be so utterly obtuse, blinkered and dishonest is probably beyond human understanding.

[Stranger]

Yet more evidence of mankind's intellectual freedom to ridicule.

I'm not aware that anybody had denied it.

Where is the need to have been able to do differently without randomness?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Yet more evidence of mankind's intellectual freedom to ridicule.

In the face of such implacable, dead-eyed obduracy what response other than ridicule would you suggest?

[Alan Burns]

Why does anything that humans do need the ability to have done differently without randomness (that is not a question about the role of consciousness)?

The whole concept of freedom in relation to human will implies that our freedom to choose is not entirely dictated by past events.  If it was dictated by the past it would just be inevitable reaction.  You imply that the role of conscious awareness is irrelevant, but when considering the concept of human will it is entirely relevant.  Our conscious awareness will comprise all the influencing factors and possible consequences relating to a choice, but such awareness does not dictate the choice.  The role of conscious awareness allows such factors to influence, not dictate.  You may well consider the hypothetical scenario of turning back time and trying to imagine how you could possibly have made a different choice under the same circumstances, but we can't role back time in order to test this.  The conscious freedom employed to even try to imagine such a scenario is yet more evidence of our consciously driven free will.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The whole concept of freedom in relation to human will implies that our freedom to choose is not entirely dictated by past events.  If it was dictated by the past it would just be inevitable reaction.  You imply that the role of conscious awareness is irrelevant, but when considering the concept of human will it is entirely relevant.  Our conscious awareness will comprise all the influencing factors and possible consequences relating to a choice, but such awareness does not dictate the choice.  The role of conscious awareness allows such factors to influence, not dictate.  You may well consider the hypothetical scenario of turning back time and trying to imagine how you could possibly have made a different choice under the same circumstances, but we can't role back time in order to test this.  The conscious freedom employed to even try to imagine such a scenario is yet more evidence of our consciously driven free will.
 

All completely wrong for reasons that have been explained to you many times and that you just continue to ignore. As I just said, in the face of such implacable, dead-eyed obduracy what response other than ridicule would you suggest?

[Stranger]

The whole concept of freedom in relation to human will implies that our freedom to choose is not entirely dictated by past events.

This is just your assertion. Where is the logic?

If it was dictated by the past it would just be inevitable reaction.

So what? How do you know it isn't? Where is the logic?

You imply that the role of conscious awareness is irrelevant, but when considering the concept of human will it is entirely relevant.

You still seem to be struggling with comprehension here. Of course consciousness is important to how humans operate but it isn't logically connected to the question of causality. There is no logical reason why a "consciously driven choice" cannot also be a "inevitable reaction".

The main point of disagreement here is about whether we could have done differently without randomness and talking about the role of consciousness is irrelevant to that. Your continued assertions about consciousness are both baseless and irrelevant.

Our conscious awareness will comprise all the influencing factors and possible consequences relating to a choice, but such awareness does not dictate the choice.  The role of conscious awareness allows such factors to influence, not dictate.

Why do you think repetition of the same words over and over again will do you any good? It just makes you look dim.

You may well consider the hypothetical scenario of turning back time and trying to imagine how you could possibly have made a different choice under the same circumstances, but we can't role back time in order to test this.

It's a thought experiment Alan, it's about the logic of the situation, not the practicality of doing it.

The conscious freedom employed to even try to imagine such a scenario is yet more evidence of our consciously driven free will.

Which, even if it weren't just another baseless assertion, is irrelevant. What is it about that act of imagination that requires us to have been able to have done otherwise without randomness?

Still waiting for any hint of actual logic or a tiny glimmer of the basic honesty to admit you don't have any.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

All completely wrong for reasons that have been explained to you many times and that you just continue to ignore. As I just said, in the face of such implacable, dead-eyed obduracy what response other than ridicule would you suggest?

Does the fact that I can consciously choose to put forward arguments against your reasons and explanation not indicate that I have freedom to choose to do so?  You may not agree with the arguments I make, but you can't deny that I have the power to consciously choose to make them.  Just as you have the power to consciously choose to ridicule them.  Can you try to explain it all away as "just the way it seems"?  Or is it a reality?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Does the fact that I can consciously choose to put forward arguments against your reasons and explanation not indicate that I have freedom to choose to do so?

Yes, but only at the “true enough to be functionally useful” level of abstraction, not at the deeper explanatory level you wish it to be.

You may not agree with the arguments…

You make assertions, not arguments but ok…

…I make, but you can't deny that I have the power to consciously choose to make them.

Of course I can. You have the freedom to think (albeit a freedom you seem to be unwilling to exercise) but you cannot have a “power to consciously choose” as you intend it because that runs immediately slap bang into the determined vs random problem you have no answer to (“magic”/”miraculous” being no answer at all).   

Just as you have the power to consciously choose to ridicule them.  Can you try to explain it all away as "just the way it seems"?  Or is it a reality?

It’s both: it’s A reality, but only a relatively superficial one for exactly the reason that actually touching the keys in front of you is A reality, but only a relatively superficial one. There are though deeper, more logically cogent realities if only you’d allow yourself to understand them.

Short answer to whether it’s “just the way it seems”: effectively yes. The way an experience FEELS and the way it IS do not in other word necessarily align.

[Stranger]

Does the fact that I can consciously choose to put forward arguments against your reasons and explanation not indicate that I have freedom to choose to do so?

Mindlessly repeated, baseless, and irrelevant.

Where is your logic? If you can't produce any, where is your honesty?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stranger,

Mindlessly repeated, baseless, and irrelevant.

Where is your logic? If you can't produce any, where is your honesty?

Alan thinks that the formulation of an argument that falsifies him means that he must be right. That’s a close as he gets to logic. It’s his nuclear button, so that way he never has to bother with the content of the falsifications themselves. It’s idiotic, but that’s the beginning and the end of it. That’s why long ago and far away he told us (apparently proudly) that no argument could ever change his mind.

What he was actually telling us was that no argument could ever be allowed to change his mind. Turns out he meant it too.

[Alan Burns]

You have the freedom to think (albeit a freedom you seem to be unwilling to exercise) …..

So you concede that I have freedom to think.
You also concede that (in your opinion) I have the willpower not to think.

But you also deem conscious thoughts to be an emergent property of physically determined material reactions.
So how can such freedom emerge from material reactions?

[Stranger]

Does the fact that I can consciously choose to put forward arguments against your reasons and explanation not indicate that I have freedom to choose to do so?

How many times do you think you have asked this question, or made the corresponding assertion, in this thread? Maybe 20 or 30 times? Either you have some actual logical path from "Alan can choose to mindlessly, and endlessly, repeat baseless nonsense" to "therefore he could have done differently without randomness" or you don't.

If you do, how about finally posting it and if not, have the basic honesty to finally admit it.

[Stranger]

So you concede that I have freedom to think.
You also concede that (in your opinion) I have the willpower not to think.

But you also deem conscious thoughts to be an emergent property of physically determined material reactions.
So how can such freedom emerge from material reactions?

You're claiming that it can't - your burden of proof. And how about you drop the hypocrisy and get round to answering the questions you keep ignoring, before demanding answers?

What is it about anything humans do that means that they could have done differently without randomness?

And again: I'm not asking about consciousness - just because something is under conscious control doesn't logically mean that it could have been different without randomness.

How do resolve the contradiction that if we could have done differently in exactly the same situation and state of mind, there can be no possible reason for any difference, so it could only be random?

[Gordon]

So you concede that I have freedom to think.

It is a by-product of your biology, Alan: I'd say you were compelled to think.

You also concede that (in your opinion) I have the willpower not to think.

I'd say you can direct your thinking, but I doubt you could decide to not think since that would involve you in thinking about stopping yourself from thinking - can you see the problem? Perhaps thinking is reactive when the biology is working, which is a prospect that terrifies you.

But you also deem conscious thoughts to be an emergent property of physically determined material reactions.
So how can such freedom emerge from material reactions?

So, here we are back to you falling into several fallacies at once: for starters we have incredulity (as usual), ignorance, and composition.

[Alan Burns]

How do resolve the contradiction that if we could have done differently in exactly the same situation and state of mind, there can be no possible reason for any difference, so it could only be random?

In order to make this a contradiction, you must presume that a "state of mind" is entirely a consequence of past events, otherwise it could not possibly be replicated in the way you suggest.
My contention is that a state of mind can never be entirely replicated.  It is dynamic, not a mechanically predictable array of data.  Our human minds are much more than a consequence of the past.  We have the freedom to choose our future destiny.

[Alan Burns]

So, here we are back to you falling into several fallacies at once: for starters we have incredulity (as usual), ignorance, and composition.

No, it is simply fact based deduction.
The fact that you have the conscious freedom to make such an accusation is the evidence.

[torridon]

Does the fact that I can consciously choose to put forward arguments against your reasons and explanation not indicate that I have freedom to choose to do so?  You may not agree with the arguments I make, but you can't deny that I have the power to consciously choose to make them.  Just as you have the power to consciously choose to ridicule them.  Can you try to explain it all away as "just the way it seems"?  Or is it a reality?

You have the freedom to put arguments, but why imagine there must be something supernatural about it ?  Freedom is merely circumstantial. it just means nothing stopped you from acting on your desire.  If something obstructs you then you are not free.  Freedom is not a thing, it is an absence of a thing. You misconceptualise freedom in the same way many religious people do when they ask, where is the evidence for atheism, to which we wearily have to reply, atheism is not a religion, it is more just the default position in the absence of a religion.  You make the same mistake with your repeated claims about freedom, as if it were some magical property, conjured up by minds operating in a supernatural realm.  Freedom is not a thing, it is merely the absence of a thing, ie a constraint.