Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

In order to make this a contradiction, you must presume that a "state of mind" is entirely a consequence of past events...

No, I don't. It doesn't matter how it got that way.

...otherwise it could not possibly be replicated in the way you suggest.

First, this is a non-sequirur (that means it doesn't follow from what you said), second, it's actually your contention that we "could have done differently", not mine. If that's to mean anything at all, it must involve at least imagining exactly the same situation and state of mind.

My contention is that a state of mind can never be entirely replicated.  It is dynamic, not a mechanically predictable array of data.

Even to the extent this means anything, what has it got to do with the contradiction?

Our human minds are much more than a consequence of the past.  We have the freedom to choose our future destiny.

Ending with just another baseless assertion of your nonsensical position.

No hint of logic, and no hint of a resolution of the contradiction.

Where is your logic?

[torridon]

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.

If you claim that your state of mind is not a consequence of the reasons that led to it, then you are claiming that your mind is, to some extent, random.

We cannot rule out true randomness in nature, but do you feel like your mind is random ? I think not, but your claims, as in we have the freedom to choose our future destiny imply a disconnection from causes and that implies random.  This claim is unintelligible.  I might choose a career as a bus driver, but if there was no reason for that choice, then I chose a career at random.

[Stranger]

No, it is simply fact based deduction.

I don't believe you - show your working.

The fact that you have the conscious freedom to make such an accusation is the evidence.

So you endlessly and baselessly assert. In what way can anything that anybody posts be evidence that they could have done differently without randomness?

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

[Gordon]

No, it is simply fact based deduction.

Then present your premises and conclusion and we can examine the validity and soundness of your deduction.

The fact that you have the conscious freedom to make such an accusation is the evidence.

Wrong, since given what you posted my response was the only one I could have made in the circumstances of considering that you were making various fallacious assertions (yet again).

[Outrider]

I cannot agree Gordon.

You mean you don't have a choice? 

I am simply witnessing to reality of human free will.

You do  know that eyewitness testimony has been shown to be horribly unreliable, compromised by any number of sensory iniquities, cognitive biases and failures of memory, right?

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

Hardly 'any' attempt - I've made several, and they've all come out not confirming that.  Whereas, it seems, every time you do it, it comes out the same way. Almost like there was no other option for you....

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

Which is an irony, because it takes a subconscious process to happen for you to become aware that there's a decision to be made at all.

An attempt to try to disprove human free will requires consciously driven thought processes.

Arguably, yes... you seem to think that's some sort of killer argument when it's just a restatement of the observed phenomena.

The contrived word jugglery used to explain this away merely confirms our freedom to control our own thoughts.

Contrived word jugglery like a concept that is both free and will?  That sort of word jugglery, or something else?

This is not illogical or unreasonable - it is reality.

Illogical depends on the premises upon which you enter into the assessment with... if you premises are flawed, reality may seem profoundly illogical, as any investigation into (say) quantum mechanics will adequately show.

O.

[Alan Burns]

Illogical depends on the premises upon which you enter into the assessment with... if you premises are flawed, reality may seem profoundly illogical, as any investigation into (say) quantum mechanics will adequately show.

O.

The premises that I start with are these:

I exist as an entity of conscious awareness.
I have senses which perceive sight, sound, touch and taste.
I have the ability to contemplate and draw meaning from my sensory input.
I have memory of past events which I can recall at will.
I have a physical body, some of which which I can control at will.

These are the basic premises from which I can start an investigation into reality.

To start off from a premise that everything is a direct consequence of previous events is not a valid starting point because it is an unfounded presumption, not a basic premise.

[Udayana]

The premises that I start with are these:

I exist as an entity of conscious awareness.
I have senses which perceive sight, sound, touch and taste.
I have the ability to contemplate and draw meaning from my sensory input.
I have memory of past events which I can recall at will.
I have a physical body, most of which which I can control at will.

These are the basic premises from which I can start an investigation into reality.

To start off from a premise that everything is a direct consequence of previous events is not a valid starting point because it is an unfounded presumption, not a basic premise.

You are starting everything with "I" .

Why? We don't know that there is any such thing. Just give it up!
 

[Stranger]

The premises that I start with are these:

I exist as an entity of conscious awareness.
I have senses which perceive sight, sound, touch and taste.
I have the ability to contemplate and draw meaning from my sensory input.
I have memory of past events which I can recall at will.
I have a physical body, most of which which I can control at will.

These are the basic premises from which I can start an investigation into reality.

To start off from a premise that everything is a direct consequence of previous events is not a valid starting point because it is an unfounded presumption, not a basic premise.

Quite apart from the obvious problems with some of the things on your list (vagueness, inaccuracy, and subjectivity), none of them appear to be in direct conflict with the logical necessity (which is obviously a better starting point) that if everything is not the direct consequence of previous events, then it must involve randomness.

However, for the sake of argument, let's say I accept all your premises, now what? Where is the valid argument that gets us from these premises to the notion that we could have done differently without randomness? How does the contradiction get resolved, and how do you go from that to a soul and hence to your idea of god?

Where is the actual logic?

[Sebastian Toe]

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

Your post is evidence of the workings of a biological brain working entirely under deterministic principles.
No magic, logic free, extra-dimentional soul required.

[Roses]

Your post is evidence of the workings of a biological brain working entirely under deterministic principles.
No magic, logic free, extra-dimentional soul required.

Agreed.

[Gordon]

The premises that I start with are these:

I exist as an entity of conscious awareness.
I have senses which perceive sight, sound, touch and taste.
I have the ability to contemplate and draw meaning from my sensory input.
I have memory of past events which I can recall at will.
I have a physical body, most of which which I can control at will.

These are the basic premises from which I can start an investigation into reality.

To start off from a premise that everything is a direct consequence of previous events is not a valid starting point because it is an unfounded presumption, not a basic premise.

Leaving aside your presumption of an 'I', as Udayana points out, you are leaving out stuff - and in particular the subconscious elements such as neural processes and personal biases/traits that your conscious 'I' is unaware of but where there is evidence that these elements are important.

Your starting premises are inadequate and, therefore, so is your conclusion.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

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

It’s not a concession – it’s something you’ve been told over and over again, BUT with the caveat that your (and my) “freedom” is just a useful description of an experience – ie, that’s what it feels like – but it cannot also be “freedom” as you assert it to be, ie nether determined nor random.

But you also deem conscious thoughts to be an emergent property of physically determined material reactions.

That’s what the cogent reasoning and evidence suggests, yes.

So how can such freedom emerge from material reactions?

(Sigh) …because “such” freedom isn’t your logical impossible version of it, it’s just the workaday, colloquial, that’s good enough for now, folk usage that serves us perfectly well for most practical purposes but collapses when you assume it also to be the explanation for the phenomenon.

[Alan Burns]

Leaving aside your presumption of an 'I', as Udayana points out, you are leaving out stuff - and in particular the subconscious elements such as neural processes and personal biases/traits that your conscious 'I' is unaware of but where there is evidence that these elements are important.

Your starting premises are inadequate and, therefore, so is your conclusion.

"I" is not a presumption.
The "I" is defined by the source of awareness from which all else comes.
the "I" is not directly aware of such things as subconscious elements or neural processes or biases.  These are things which need to be discerned from the basic premises I listed.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The premises that I start with are these:

…I have a physical body, most of which which I can control at will.

Actually you ARE a “physical body”, but ok…

These are the basic premises from which I can start an investigation into reality.

To start off from a premise that everything is a direct consequence of previous events is not a valid starting point because it is an unfounded presumption, not a basic premise.

No, determinism is a valid “starting point” because that’s what centuries of observation and testing tells us is the way the universe works. If you want to assert your senses etc not to have evolved from prior events then justify the claim with some reasoning of your own.

[torridon]

The premises that I start with are these:

I exist as an entity of conscious awareness.
I have senses which perceive sight, sound, touch and taste.
I have the ability to contemplate and draw meaning from my sensory input.
I have memory of past events which I can recall at will.
I have a physical body, most of which which I can control at will.

These are the basic premises from which I can start an investigation into reality.
..

Do these observations help to explain difference ? Why for instance some people become bus drivers, whilst others become pastry chefs ?

[Gordon]

"I" is not a presumption.
The "I" is defined by the source of awareness from which all else comes.

I have no idea what you mean here, and I suspect you don't either: this is just another word salad unless you can unpack 'defined by the source of awareness' and 'from which all else comes'.

the "I" is not directly aware of such things as subconscious elements or neural processes or biases.  These are things which need to be discerned from the basic premises I listed.

How can you 'discern' what you are unaware of? The best you can do is to acknowledge, as you seem to do here, that in your conscious state there are probably influences at play that your 'I' cannot discern because the 'I' has no awareness of these, so that you can never really be 'free' from these 'under the bonnet' processes.

Therefore, your premises are inadequate since your start point is too late, being after the bits you'd don't like.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I have a physical body, most of which which I can control at will.

Incidentally, you don’t “control” most of your body’s processes either. Try controlling your heart rate, or your digestive system, or your immune system, or indeed your dis/like for Marmite for that matter.

Most of your body’s functions happen under the bonnet in other words without the conscious “you” being aware of them.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Actually you ARE a “physical body”, but ok…

No, determinism is a valid “starting point” because that’s what centuries of observation and testing tells us is the way the universe works. If you want to assert your senses etc not to have evolved from prior events then justify the claim with some reasoning of your own.

Before we can even define what we mean by determinism, we need use of the ability to consciously deduce, think and draw conclusions about what we perceive through our senses.  The concept of determinism is certainly not a valid starting point.  It is something which needs to be deduced from consciously driven thought processes.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Before we can even define what we mean by determinism, we need use of the ability to consciously deduce, think and draw conclusions about what we perceive through our senses.  The concept of determinism is certainly not a valid starting point.  It is something which needs to be deduced from consciously driven thought processes.

Did you actually mean to say that?

Really though?

You do realise that it’s reasoning that enables us to understand what reasoning consists of a priori right?

[Stranger]

Before we can even define what we mean by determinism, we need use of the ability to consciously deduce, think and draw conclusions about what we perceive through our senses.  The concept of determinism is certainly not a valid starting point.  It is something which needs to be deduced from consciously driven thought processes.

Now you seem to be muddling up the contents of deduction with the ability needed to do it. Nobody has ever denied that humans have the ability to deduce, think, and draw conclusions. It's that ability that enables (some of) us to see the logic of determinism and that the alternative is randomness.

If you want to start from the existence of the human ability and draw a conclusion from it about determinism, then go right ahead. But thus far, all you've done is make silly assertions about it actually being the same thing as one of your main conclusions (we could have done differently without randomness).

Still waiting for the actual deduction.

[Alan Burns]

Now you seem to be muddling up the contents of deduction with the ability needed to do it. Nobody has ever denied that humans have the ability to deduce, think, and draw conclusions. It's that ability that enables (some of) us to see the logic of determinism and that the alternative is randomness.

If you want to start from the existence of the human ability and draw a conclusion from it about determinism, then go right ahead. But thus far, all you've done is make silly assertions about it actually being the same thing as one of your main conclusions (we could have done differently without randomness).

Still waiting for the actual deduction.

The point I am making is that our ability to consciously deduce, think and draw conclusions is the fundamental starting point of human knowledge.  Any deduced logic which takes away the freedom essential to perform conscious deductions is fundamentally flawed.  You can't start off any analysis with flawed logic which denies our conscious freedom.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Did you actually mean to say that?

Really though?

You do realise that it’s reasoning that enables us to understand what reasoning consists of a priori right?

What I realise is that our freedom to think is the essential starting point for any form of conscious reasoning.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The point I am making is that our ability to consciously deduce, think and draw conclusions is the fundamental starting point of human knowledge.

Again, what reasoning enables us to do is to understand how something works (reasoning itself included). You’re confusing the process by which we understand something with the thing we're seeking to understand.

Any deduced logic which takes aware the freedom essential to perform conscious deductions is fundamentally flawed.

Wrong again for several reasons, but mostly because reason- and evidence-led explanations for consciousness do not take away from the experiential description of it. And so far at least, an experiential description is all you have.   

You can't start off any analysis with flawed logic which denies our conscious freedom.

“Denying our conscious freedom” as you put it isn’t flawed logic; the flawed logic here (OK, just assertion as you haven’t provided any logic) is simply to assume that the way an experience FEELS must also be the way that experience IS. 

Why is this so difficult for you even to comprehend?

[Outrider]

I exist as an entity of conscious awareness.

I'd suggest that you exist as an entity which HAS conscious awareness, but you can't limit it to that as a premise.

I have senses which perceive sight, sound, touch and taste.

I'll concede that, amongst others.

I have the ability to contemplate and draw meaning from my sensory input.

Draw meaning? Or infer, or impute?  Is the meaning in the input, or is the meaning in the contemplation?

I have memory of past events which I can recall at will.

I'd qualify that - we have imperfect memories which are not only unreliable in what they recall, they are also unreliable in when they can recall it.

I have a physical body, most of which which I can control at will.

Within the spirit that it's meant I'd go along with that - I think we tend to underestimate how much of our body's functions are automated in one way or another, but I appreciate what you're attempting to suggest here.

These are the basic premises from which I can start an investigation into reality.

I think, if you presuming meaning is extrinsic to the interpreter and that our memories are inherently reliable then you've already got at least two partially flawed premises there.

To start off from a premise that everything is a direct consequence of previous events is not a valid starting point because it is an unfounded presumption, not a basic premise.

Absolutlely.  You start from the premise that at least some things are the consequence of earlier things and look for spontaneous events.  If you find one, let me know..

O.

[Stranger]

The point I am making is that our ability to consciously deduce, think and draw conclusions is the fundamental starting point of human knowledge.  Any deduced logic which takes aware the freedom essential to perform conscious deductions is fundamentally flawed.  You can't start off any analysis with flawed logic which denies our conscious freedom.

Except that nothing at all about determinism does take away "the freedom essential to perform conscious deductions". You are just asserting, without any logical basis whatsoever, that the "freedom" required means that we could have done differently without randomness. Why does the "the freedom essential to perform conscious deductions" require that we could have done differently without randomness, and how do you do you overcome the contradiction?

Your whole "argument" seems to be based on the non-logic that if it doesn't feel like our choices are the result of all the past events that led to them, and it doesn't feel like our choices involve any randomness, then that is the ultimate truth of the matter. That isn't logic, that's just intuition, incredulity about other explanations, and a denial of logic.