Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

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.

Let us examine the phrase "could have done differently without randomness" which you insist on using.

First of all there is no question of randomness.  Our conscious ability to deduce is certainly not random.
We then consider the viability of our conscious driving force being capable of choosing different paths to reach deductions under the same initial circumstances.  If a chosen path can take no other path then it becomes an inevitable reaction.  So the question I put to you is this:  Is it feasible for any valid deduction to be made by a series of inevitable reactions?  My contention is that we must have the freedom to consciously choose our thought paths in order to reach valid conclusions.

Going back to a point I touched on earlier, there are a considerable number of different interpretations of the New Testament.  One such interpretation is Calvanism, which appears to be chosen in order to condone sin by presuming that we have no control over our tendency to commit sin.  This is an example of the freedom to choose our future path in life

[torridon]

  So the question I put to you is this:  Is it feasible for any valid deduction to be made by a series of inevitable reactions?  My contention is that we must have the freedom to consciously choose our thought paths in order to reach valid conclusions.

A computer program produces valid outputs by operating deterministically on its inputs.  Why would that not be a valid outcome ?  It would much less likely be valid if a program were not deterministic.  Just imagine, for a moment, that you are a running computer program, deciding at run time which 'thought path' or algorithm to use to solve the problem.  On what basis do you choose which thought paths to follow ?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Let us examine the phrase "could have done differently without randomness" which you insist on using.

Finally! After literally scores of times of asking you’re finally going to have a go at tackling the major problem your assertions have given you. Splendid! OK, let me just open a fresh family pack of Twiglets and crack open a bottle of something insouciant and we’ll get into it then… 

First of all there is no question of randomness.  Our conscious ability to deduce is certainly not random.

OK, so that leaves just either determined then or something considerably more cogent than “it’s magic innit”/”miraculous”. Can’t wait…

We then consider the viability possibility of our conscious driving force being capable of choosing different paths to reach deductions under the same initial circumstances.

What the actual fuck? Another day and exactly the same mistake? Really? Really really though? You’ve had explained countless times that a “driving force” is just a piece of mindless nonsense you’ve made up, that emergent phenomena arise bottom up and not top down, that… 

… oh what’s the point of trying to argue with this level of obduracy?

If a chosen path can take no other path then it becomes an inevitable reaction.  So the question I put to you is this:  Is it feasible for any valid deduction to be made by a series of inevitable reactions?

Yes. Why wouldn’t it be? Do you remember when I asked you how you’d expect the rationally explained experience of “free” will to feel any different to your (logically impossible) version of it and you just ducked and dived over and over again? Well, it hasn’t gone away – they’d feel just the same so why ditch the rational explanation in favour of the ludicrous assertion version?

My contention is that we must have the freedom to consciously choose our thought paths in order to reach valid conclusions.

And my contention is that leprechauns leave pots of gold at the ends of rainbows. Trouble is though when we make reason- and evidence-denying contentions like these with no supporting arguments of their own anyone possessed of a functioning intellect will rightly conclude that we’re both idiots. 

Going back to a point I touched on earlier, there are a considerable number of different interpretations of the New Testament.

Who the hell cares?

One such interpretation is Calvanism,…

And would it kill you to learn to spell “Calvinism” too by the way? As you won’t answer any questions, at least try to spell your nonsense correctly.

…which appears to be chosen in order to condone sin by presuming that we have no control over our tendency to commit sin.  This is an example of the freedom to choose our future path in life

As the authors of those books either meant them to be apocryphal or were apparently as ignorant of logic and reason as you are, no it isn’t. What it actually is is an example of simple, folkloric, mythical explanations using the tools available to the writers of the time. What’s your excuse for it now though? 

(Sadly folds away the Twiglets, puts the cat out and trudges off to bed... You had me going there for a minute AB – I actually thought you might finally try at least to engage with one of the various problems your claims and assertions give you, but there never was any chance of that at all was there. Was there...)

[Alan Burns]

A computer program produces valid outputs by operating deterministically on its inputs.  Why would that not be a valid outcome ?  It would much less likely be valid if a program were not deterministic.  Just imagine, for a moment, that you are a running computer program, deciding at run time which 'thought path' or algorithm to use to solve the problem.  On what basis do you choose which thought paths to follow ?

A computer program is just an extension of the programmer's ability to choose.  The logic within a program reflects the programmer's freedom to produce the desired functionality.

[Alan Burns]

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.

To get to the point of being able be able to contemplate the idea of consequences, you first need to be able to consciously drive your thought processes to reach this point.  Your thoughts are not on autopilot.

[torridon]

A computer program is just an extension of the programmer's ability to choose.  The logic within a program reflects the programmer's freedom to produce the desired functionality.

I read your position as being that a computer program will mindlessly follow a deterministic path invented by the programmer. The programmer, however, is different in being able to choose his own thought paths at 'run time'.  On what basis do we choose which thought paths to follow ? On what basis do we choose which thoughts to think ?

[Stranger]

If a chosen path can take no other path then it becomes an inevitable reaction.  So the question I put to you is this:  Is it feasible for any valid deduction to be made by a series of inevitable reactions?

YES.

Why wouldn't it be? And you've just specifically ruled out the only alternative: randomness. If we could have done differently, when faced with exactly the same situation, that cannot possibly be for any reason. It should be even more obvious to you when you're thinking about a deduction that you don't do things for no reason.

My contention is that we must have the freedom to consciously choose our thought paths in order to reach valid conclusions.

And you still keep on talking about "concious" choices as if that is in any way connected to the logic of determinism - it simply isn't. If you think there's a connection, you have to logically establish one.

[Gordon]

To get to the point of being able be able to contemplate the idea of consequences, you first need to be able to consciously drive your thought processes to reach this point.  Your thoughts are not on autopilot.

You do seem hung up on this 'drive' notion, no doubt because of your desperate need to have a 'driver', but you've yet to explain why humans can't simply observe the world around them, think about what they have observed, and then conclude that some things do tend to follow or precede other things and that there are sequences of events that have consequences, where some fallacies involve making reasoning mistakes in this regard(e.g. post hoc ergo propter hoc).

Your notion seems to be that we first have to conceptualise sequences and consequences before we can then recognise instances of these - I suggest you have your cart before your horse yet again.

[Outrider]

To get to the point of being able be able to contemplate the idea of consequences, you first need to be able to consciously drive your thought processes to reach this point.  Your thoughts are not on autopilot.

That's really what we're trying to establish, isn't it.  If you start with that premise, you're always going to come to that conclusion.  Perhaps we are on autopilot, perhaps reality is deterministic and we're just along for the ride.  Of course there are consequences; the point is to appreciate that there might not be anything other than consequences...

O.

[Alan Burns]

YES.

Why wouldn't it be? And you've just specifically ruled out the only alternative: randomness. If we could have done differently, when faced with exactly the same situation, that cannot possibly be for any reason. It should be even more obvious to you when you're thinking about a deduction that you don't do things for no reason.

And you still keep on talking about "concious" choices as if that is in any way connected to the logic of determinism - it simply isn't. If you think there's a connection, you have to logically establish one.

In order to establish any logical connection, I would need to initiate such action with a consciously chosen directive.

[Alan Burns]

I read your position as being that a computer program will mindlessly follow a deterministic path invented by the programmer. The programmer, however, is different in being able to choose his own thought paths at 'run time'.  On what basis do we choose which thought paths to follow ? On what basis do we choose which thoughts to think ?

It is all down to conscious intention.
All human creativity begins with conscious intention, then works its way down to fulfil this intention through chains of physical cause and effect.
It is quite the opposite of Bluehillside's notion that complexity comes about from a "bottom up" scenario presuming that complexity is a natural consequence deriving from non complex activity.

Do your posted replies somehow bubble up from unintended subconscious brain activity?
Or do they begin with a consciously driven choice to reply followed up with consciously chosen words needed to fulfill your intention?

[Stranger]

In order to establish any logical connection, I would need to initiate such action with a consciously chosen directive.

What's the point in quoting a post and then totally ignoring its content? This is both a baseless assertion and totally irrelevant for the reasons I outlined in the post you quoted.

Even if we leave the baseless assertion aside for the moment, and let's say that I accept that you need "to initiate such action with a consciously chosen directive". So how do you establish the connection to being able to have done differently without randomness?

Go right ahead, the floor is yours, let's see some of the logic you claimed to have...

[Alan Burns]

What's the point in quoting a post and then totally ignoring its content? This is both a baseless assertion and totally irrelevant for the reasons I outlined in the post you quoted.

Even if we leave the baseless assertion aside for the moment, and let's say that I accept that you need "to initiate such action with a consciously chosen directive". So how do you establish the connection to being able to have done differently without randomness?

Go right ahead, the floor is yours, let's see some of the logic you claimed to have...

I could have consciously not to reply.

[Outrider]

In order to establish any logical connection, I would need to initiate such action with a consciously chosen directive.

Maybe, maybe not.  It may require a conscious step (it may not), but we don't know that it INITIATES with that conscious step, because you've not yet demonstrated that the conscious step is somehow independent of what went before it.

O.

[Stranger]

I could have consciously not to reply.

You do realise that you're descending into incoherence, don't you? Either you can supply a logical connection between consciousness and non-deterministic (could have done differently), no randomness, or you can't.

More generally, it really is about time you actually produced some logic or had the basic human honesty to admit you don't have any.

[Gordon]

It is all down to conscious intention.

Then show your workings.

All human creativity begins with conscious intention, then works its way down to fulfil this intention through chains of physical cause and effect.

So, in your version of 'God' there are no instances of spontaneous inspiration - that would be boring, so thank god (pun intended) that you are probably wrong.

It is quite the opposite of Bluehillside's notion that complexity comes about from a "bottom up" scenario presuming that complexity is a natural consequence deriving from non complex activity.

I can see why you are avoiding coming in terms with emergence, Alan, since it undermines your theology - the thing is though: are you consciously avoiding the implications of emergence or are you a passenger who is hostage to your own subconscious need to preserve your precious beliefs.

Do your posted replies somehow bubble up from unintended subconscious brain activity?
Or do they begin with a consciously driven choice to reply followed up with consciously chosen words needed to fulfill your intention?

It could be either: a compulsion to reply that may have a subconscious input, which we won't of course recognise, or be a carefully considered decision to reply - or even a mix of the two, depending on how impulsive we are.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It is all down to conscious intention.

So you assert.

All human creativity begins with conscious intention, then works its way down to fulfil this intention through chains of physical cause and effect.

So you assert.

It is quite the opposite of Bluehillside's notion that complexity comes about from a "bottom up" scenario presuming that complexity is a natural consequence deriving from non complex activity.

Except:

1. We observe the phenomenon of emergence pretty much everywhere we look in nature, and there’s no good reason to exclude consciousness from that explanatory model.

2. Emergence as the explanation has the huge advantage of not requiring a magic “driver” that somehow functions outwith our ability to detect it and, apparently, operates neither deterministically nor randomly but without a third functional methodology (“it’s magic innit” not being a methodology despite your attachment to it).

3. Circular reasoning is a wrong argument. If you just assert the need for a “driver” with no supporting logic to justify it, then you’ll unavoidably end up with solutions like “soul” to fix the problem – ie, rubbish in = rubbish out.

4. As an experience “free” will as a deterministic phenomenon and as a magic one WOULD FEEL EXACTLY THE SAME. In the total absence of any supporting reason or evidence, your only reason for rejecting the former a priori therefore is wishful thinking. Or as you call it, “faith”.

5. Despite claiming to have logic to support you, all you ever do is to describe an experiential feeling – “It FEELS like there’s a separate “me” in charge, therefore there IS a separate me in charge”. As a description of a feeling, that’s fine; as a logically sound argument to justify a belief though it’s not even wrong. 

Apart from all that though…

Do your posted replies somehow bubble up from unintended subconscious brain activity?

As that’s what the only sound reasoning and evidence suggests, essentially probably yes.

Or do they begin with a consciously driven choice to reply followed up with consciously chosen words needed to fulfill your intention?

As that’s logically incoherent, probably not.

[Stranger]

I could have consciously not to reply.

Just to add, I've now twice (#39061 and #39032) invited you to set out your argument, based on your own stated starting points or premises, and both times you've run away from actually doing so.

Have you got any clue at all how logic works?

[torridon]

It is all down to conscious intention.
All human creativity begins with conscious intention, then works its way down to fulfil this intention through chains of physical cause and effect.
It is quite the opposite of Bluehillside's notion that complexity comes about from a "bottom up" scenario presuming that complexity is a natural consequence deriving from non complex activity.

Do your posted replies somehow bubble up from unintended subconscious brain activity?
Or do they begin with a consciously driven choice to reply followed up with consciously chosen words needed to fulfill your intention?

True to form you didn't really grapple with the question asked, which was, how do you choose which thought to think next ?  The point being, this is a bit of a nonsense - the act of choosing a thought to think is itself a thought process.  That you don't seem to get this insight runs through all your posts.  It pops up again in slightly different form in your latest post - "All human creativity begins with conscious intention" as if a conscious intention has no derivation itself.  Such a claim is incoherent nonsense, as has been pointed out innumerable times, an intention that formed out of the blue for no reason would be random.  You cannot claim that our intentions are not random whilst claiming they have no derivation which implies they are random.  You need to face up to this sooner or later.

[wigginhall]

AB is aiming for the virgin birth of thought.   The trouble is, that parthenogenesis in nature itself has causes.  As a matter of fact, blackberries can do it, via apomixis, a kind of cloning.   But AB has discovered a new variety, with no causes, all hail!

[Alan Burns]

Just to add, I've now twice (#39061 and #39032) invited you to set out your argument, based on your own stated starting points or premises, and both times you've run away from actually doing so.

Have you got any clue at all how logic works?

I do not know how the human soul works.
I just know that it frees me to do my own will.
My conscious freedom is a reality which can't be denied by flawed human logic.
Without our conscious freedom, the concept of logic would never exist because we would not have the freedom to contemplate logic.
And I would not have the freedom to make all these assertions I am constantly being accused of.

[Alan Burns]

True to form you didn't really grapple with the question asked, which was, how do you choose which thought to think next ?

I do not know about you, but I am quite certain that I can choose what to think about - I make the choice, it is not chosen for me, just as I am free to choose how to answer your post. (and make assertions!)

[SusanDoris]

I do not know about you, but I am quite certain that I can choose what to think about - I make the choice, it is not chosen for me, just as I am free to choose how to answer your post.

Well, perhaps it is time you got to grips with the REAL world, and faced up to REAL life.

[Alan Burns]

1. We observe the phenomenon of emergence pretty much everywhere we look in nature, and there’s no good reason to exclude consciousness from that explanatory model.

Apart from the fact that we have no idea what comprises consciousness in material terms or how it works.

[Alan Burns]

Well, perhaps it is time you got to grips with the REAL world, and faced up to REAL life.

The real me and the real you comprise far more than material reactions can ever produce, Susan.
As you will find out when the veil of deception is lifted.