Searching for GOD...

[Owlswing]

Rationalising with a heavily indoctrinated Catholic?

The poor bloke is trapped and is totally unable to open certain doors that must feel forbidden to him. This power of indoctrination never ceases to amaze me, the catholic version seems to be the most advanced and thorough form of this kind of mind bending that's revealingly demonstrated almost daily on this thread.

ippy.

Are you really surprised at the efficiency of the Catholic indoctrination machine?

It has been the existence for just under 2,000 years and has been polished to the point where they can dismiss the complete elimination of the Aztec and Maya civilisations by military might and venereal diseases as being nothing more than the execution of will of their God to cleanse the World of heretic unbelievers and therefore nothing worth discussing and certainly not in need of further justification, along of course, with the rest of the abominations that it required and requires of its followers,

If you are capable of thast kind of brainwashing of adults what chance do young and innocent kids have.

[Alan Burns]

It is also nonsense. The program in a chess computer isn't a spectator, it is what is actually making the choices. The mind of a non-human animal isn't a spectator, it is what is determining its behaviour. In both cases (for very different reasons) the behaviour is being determined in real time - no part of the systems can sensibly be described as spectators.

The computer chess program has no awareness of its own.  It just reacts in a pre programmed way to events without any need for awareness.  And the ultimate source of the programmed reaction lies in the conscious will of the human beings responsible for designing the game and designing the computer software - evidence that intelligent design does exist in our universe.  Animal behaviour can similarly be viewed as programmed reactions to events which can be attributed to a combination of built in instinct and learnt experience - similar to that of a computer chess player.  I also believe it offers evidence of intelligent design attributable to the creative will of God.  Human behaviour shows evidence of our apparently unique ability to consciously override our built in instincts - I know of no computer software which can deliberately override what it has been programmed to do.

[Alan Burns]

Firstly, if our conscious awareness had control over past events it wouldn't be determined by them, but secondly it's not merely a claim it's the logical deduction of how the process works.  If you somehow want to divorce consciousness from prior events then you need to explain how the break happens.

Right.  It's the fact that you don't like that conclusion that seems to spur your argument, not actually anything logically or evidentially wrong with the individual steps.  That's the logical fallacy of arguing from consequence - if you don't like the conclusion, you need to investigate why you don't like the conclusion, but to maintain that the logic is wrong solely because you don't like it makes no sense.

O.

It is not preferred consequences which leads to the deduction.  It is the improbability, or more accurately the impossibility, that all our thoughts, words and actions can be entirely defined by chains of physical reactions over which we have no personally driven control.

[Gordon]

It is not preferred consequences which leads to the deduction.  It is the improbability, or more accurately the impossibility, that all our thoughts, words and actions can be entirely defined by chains of physical reactions over which we have no personally driven control.

Alan

The evidence to date suggests that every thought you've ever had, or will have, along with every other mental experience, is just a matter of active biology. Moreover, you don't have the 'personally driven control' that you assume since, if you were right, you could decide to want what you don't want: and I'd have long since overcome my phobic aversion to mayonnaise.

Your 'case', such as it is, fails miserably. 

[Stranger]

Human behaviour shows evidence of our apparently unique ability to consciously override our built in instincts - I know of no computer software which can deliberately override what it has been programmed to do.

Just as you cannot override the person you are and act as if you were somebody else. As I actually said (and you again totally ignored) either your deliberate acts are entirely due to their antecedents (the person you are, and the situation) or they are not and therefore involve randomness.

It is the improbability, or more accurately the impossibility, that all our thoughts, words and actions can be entirely defined by chains of physical reactions over which we have no personally driven control.

Firstly, it's not an either or - there can be no personal control unless it's the person that is in control, and that person became the person they are because of the past (nature, nurture, and experience), otherwise they'd be random. Secondly, what impossibility? Where is even the first hint of any reasoning or evidence to back up this assertion? Thirdly, this still has nothing to do with the "physical".

Enough of the silly foot-stamping and assertions, where is the logic you said you had?

[Alan Burns]

Just as you cannot override the person you are and act as if you were somebody else. As I actually said (and you again totally ignored) either your deliberate acts are entirely due to their antecedents (the person you are, and the situation) or they are not and therefore involve randomness.

Of course all my deliberations are due to the person I am and the outside influences and circumstances.  The question is - what comprises the person I am?  If I am merely a part of the continuum of this physically determined universe, then everything I choose to say, do or think is entirely driven by physical reactions over which "this person that I am" has no personal influence, so I can take no personal credit or presume any personal accountability for such physically driven reactions.  I contend that in order to be "the person I am" I need a means of personal control - which is where the power of the human soul comes in.

[torridon]

Of course all my deliberations are due to the person I am and the outside influences and circumstances.  The question is - what comprises the person I am?  If I am merely a part of the continuum of this physically determined universe, then everything I choose to say, do or think is entirely driven by physical reactions over which "this person that I am" has no personal influence, so I can take no personal credit or presume any personal accountability for such physically driven reactions.  I contend that in order to be "the person I am" I need a means of personal control - which is where the power of the human soul comes in.

No man is an island, so they say. Everything is interconnected, so, an individual is constituted via his/her interconnections with everything else.  Can you point to anything about yourself that has absolutely no relation to other things, having zero formative influences ?  If there is something unique, personal to you that does not derive from the mix of ambient formative influences, then what is its provenance, what constitutes it, what evidence is there for it ?

[Outrider]

It is not preferred consequences which leads to the deduction.  It is the improbability, or more accurately the impossibility, that all our thoughts, words and actions can be entirely defined by chains of physical reactions over which we have no personally driven control.

Except that you never explain WHY it's impossible, just that you don't believe it - that's an argument from incredulity.  WHY is it impossible?  What is the link in the chain of explanation that doesn't work?  We know that the physical is involved, we have no evidence for anything else being involved, we have no logical framework for some element which is neither random nor deterministic... you haven't shown impossibility, you've shown personal reluctance to accept the explanation supported by the available evidence.

O.

[Stranger]

Of course all my deliberations are due to the person I am and the outside influences and circumstances.

Good. And those two things together determine every thought and outcome.

The question is - what comprises the person I am?

In practical terms, it's the way you think, your likes and dislikes, your abilities and knowledge, your education and experience, as well is your basic nature (genetics, and any nature you think a soul may come with, if you like) - all the things that make you a unique person.

If I am merely a part of the continuum of this physically determined universe...

The logical argument against you is not about the physical universe. Misrepresenting the argument against you is a sort of lying - please stop it.

...then everything I choose to say, do or think is entirely driven by physical reactions over which "this person that I am" has no personal influence, so I can take no personal credit or presume any personal accountability for such physically driven reactions.

Even if this wasn't confused nonsense, it would be yet another appeal to consequences fallacy. What is it with you and fallacies? Don't you think they apply to you or something?

Anyway, you've already agreed that any choice is the result of the person you are and the circumstances. You cannot change either of those things regardless of how the person you are got to be they way it is. If the person you are is the result of chains of cause and effect or reactions (not necessarily physical), that doesn't mean that the person has no influence. It is exactly that person that is making all the choices.

I don't understand why you don't get this. You are the way you are and you will always make the choice the person you are would make in the circumstances at the time. Being "free" of these "constraints" doesn't make any sense at all - regardless of whether the person you are is the result of chains of (not necessarily physical) cause and effect.

And, no, the "cause is the will of the human soul" is not a way out of this. A (not necessarily physical) cause that isn't itself a (not necessarily physical) effect of some previous (not necessarily physical) cause must be random. Anything that changes state over time (anything that makes choices) is either a deterministic system or it isn't (and involves randomness).

[Sebastian Toe]

  If I am merely a part of the continuum of this physically determined universe,

If, as you assert, your soul resides in a timeless realm, only experiencing time when it visits our physical universe, in order to make some free-will decisions.
Please use your free will to describe to me what it is like, residing in a timeless place.
What do you feel, experience there?
Use your time here to give an insight as to that existence?
For example, there must be some sort of volume there because there will be billions if other souls existing alongside yours. Are you aware if them?
Are the souls of the people yet to be born there? If not, where could they possibly be?
Do the souls of those who die move somewhere else? If so, where and how?
So many questions.

It would be fascinating to see your description of your experience of that place.

[ippy]

Are you really surprised at the efficiency of the Catholic indoctrination machine?

It has been the existence for just under 2,000 years and has been polished to the point where they can dismiss the complete elimination of the Aztec and Maya civilisations by military might and venereal diseases as being nothing more than the execution of will of their God to cleanse the World of heretic unbelievers and therefore nothing worth discussing and certainly not in need of further justification, along of course, with the rest of the abominations that it required and requires of its followers,

If you are capable of thast kind of brainwashing of adults what chance do young and innocent kids have.

Look up brainwashing Owl, I know what you mean but brainwashing often used in the context you have used it, is completely the wrong word to describe indoctrination.

Brainwashing involves torture such as sensory deprivation for extended periods etc.

Not surprised Owl more amazed at how it still manages to catch people after all of these years and you would think with all of the knowledge that's available at our fingertips it shouldn't be such an  easy trap to fall into but there when you see some of the examples on this forum?

Regards, ippy.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It is not preferred consequences which leads to the deduction.  It is the improbability, or more accurately the impossibility, that all our thoughts, words and actions can be entirely defined by chains of physical reactions over which we have no personally driven control.

Let’s take those in reverse order shall we?

If you think a deterministic explanation is “improbable” then what working out did you do to conclude that it’s more improbable than a “soul” that has no rational basis and for which there’s no evidence whatever?

If you think it’s impossible on the other hand, then rather than just assert it to be so explain WHY in your opinion it’s impossible. This is the Grand Canyon-sized gap you always leave – you just assert it to be impossible and when pressed lapse into one or several of a series of logical fallacies (argument from personal incredulity, argumentum ad consequentiam etc) to explain why. As fallacious arguments are always wrong arguments, what else do you have to justify your assertion of impossibility?   

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Let’s take those in reverse order shall we?

If you think a deterministic explanation is “improbable” then what working out did you do to conclude that it’s more improbable than a “soul” that has no rational basis and for which there’s no evidence whatever?

Which is more improbable -
Determined by physical reactions with an indifference to creativity and with no means of wilful conscious interaction
Or determined by the same creative willpower which brought us into conscious existence?

If you think it’s impossible on the other hand, then rather than just assert it to be so explain WHY in your opinion it’s impossible. This is the Grand Canyon-sized gap you always leave – you just assert it to be impossible and when pressed lapse into one or several of a series of logical fallacies (argument from personal incredulity, argumentum ad consequentiam etc) to explain why. As fallacious arguments are always wrong arguments, what else do you have to justify your assertion of impossibility?   

My conscious freedom to make such "assertions" is a sufficient explanation.

[ProfessorDavey]

My conscious freedom to make such "assertions" is a sufficient explanation.

As we are in exam season - albeit this year rather different than usual, here is an exam question for you.

Please explain how, in a hypothetical scenario, two hypothetical people who are completely identical in all respects (genetic, upbringing, societal and cultural influence etc) could logically arrive at a different decision as to whether to make an assertion or not to do so.

In your answer please base your arguments on first principles and avoid circular arguments.

[Alan Burns]

As we are in exam season - albeit this year rather different than usual, here is an exam question for you.

Please explain how, in a hypothetical scenario, two hypothetical people who are completely identical in all respects (genetic, upbringing, societal and cultural influence etc) could logically arrive at a different decision as to whether to make an assertion or not to do so.

In your answer please base your arguments on first principles and avoid circular arguments.

The one thing which is a physical  impossibility to reproduce as an exact copy -
The human soul

[ProfessorDavey]

The one thing which is a physical  impossibility to reproduce as an exact copy -
The human soul

D- I'm afraid (actually I'm being charitable). Firstly failing from the problem of circular argument and secondly failing to understand the word hypothetical in the context of identical - so if you accept the notion of a human soul (I don't but you do, so let's work with that), hypothetical identicality would also mean the human soul would be identical between these two hypothetical people.

So again I ask how these hypothetical people - identical in every respect of genetics, upbringing (and soul if you think such a thing exists) could logically arrive at a different decision as to whether to make an assertion or not to do so.

[torridon]

Which is more improbable -
Determined by physical reactions with an indifference to creativity and with no means of wilful conscious interaction
Or determined by the same creative willpower which brought us into conscious existence?

Which is more improbable - an explanation from first principles, or a circular explanation ?

Your reasoning that conscious intentions are inexplicable from first principles therefore they must have been created by conscious intentions is just incredulity augmented by circular (ie fallacious) logic

Must try harder..

[torridon]

My conscious freedom to make such "assertions" is a sufficient explanation.

Your freedom to make assertions is merely evidence that nothing is stopping you from making them.  Have you got something on the moderators ?

[torridon]

The one thing which is a physical  impossibility to reproduce as an exact copy -
The human soul

which despite the many invitations, you have declined to offer any evidence for, or any description of.  When you can come up with some convincing evidence and rationale for said entity then we might have something to churn over. Empty assertions just don't cut it, in case you hadn't noticed.

[Roses]

The one thing which is a physical  impossibility to reproduce as an exact copy -
The human soul

Something which doesn't exist in the sense you mean it.

[Stranger]

Which is more improbable -
Determined by physical reactions with an indifference to creativity and with no means of wilful conscious interaction
Or determined by the same creative willpower which brought us into conscious existence?

Firstly, this is a total misrepresentation of the argument against you, so you're either doing it deliberately (lying) or you are not paying any attention. Secondly, which is more improbable: something without any supporting evidence or reasoning and which is fundementally self-contradictory, or something Alan Burns finds counter-intuitive and out of step with his blind faith?

My conscious freedom to make such "assertions" is a sufficient explanation.

No matter how hard you stamp your little foot and assert this over and over again, it is, and always has been, nonsense. You have provided no reason whatsoever to connect your ability to post nonsense with your impossible version of "freedom".

Still waiting for any hint of the logic you claimed you had or the honesty to admit you have none.

[Outrider]

Which is more improbable -

Let's see...

Determined by physical reactions with an indifference to creativity and with no means of wilful conscious interaction

Are 'physical reactions' something for which we have evidence? Yes.
Are 'physical reactions' something for which we have evidence of involvement in the processes of thought and consciousness? Yes.
Are there any elements of the process of thought or consciousness which occur without any apparent 'physical reaction' being involved? No.

So far, so reasonable.

Or determined by the same creative willpower which brought us into conscious existence?

Is this 'creative willpower' something for which we have any evidence? No.
Is there any evidence of us being 'brought' into conscious existence by some deliberate decision? No.

Hmm... Which of those appears to be the more improbable explanation?

My conscious freedom to make such "assertions" is a sufficient explanation.

Asserting your assertion is only sufficient to show that it's an assertion, which we sort of already knew.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Which is more improbable -
Determined by physical reactions with an indifference to creativity and with no means of wilful conscious interaction

As that’s both based on rational deduction and aligned with the evidence we do have, seems reasonable so far…

Or determined by the same creative willpower which brought us into conscious existence?

Whereas as this on the other hand is fundamentally irrational (your eternal determined vs random binary problem that you try to escape by invoking magic) and has no supporting evidence whatsoever, so I’d go with this being the more improbable.

Why don’t you?
 

My conscious freedom to make such "assertions" is a sufficient explanation.

No, that’s just an assertion. More specifically, it’s an assertion that the way an experience feels to you must also therefore be the explanation for it with no connecting argument between the two. You weren’t asked for a repetition of your “what” though were you? What you were actually asked for was the connecting argument – that is, the WHY – you believe your assertion to be true.

Why is this so difficult for you to grasp or respond to? 

[Alan Burns]

D- I'm afraid (actually I'm being charitable). Firstly failing from the problem of circular argument and secondly failing to understand the word hypothetical in the context of identical - so if you accept the notion of a human soul (I don't but you do, so let's work with that), hypothetical identicality would also mean the human soul would be identical between these two hypothetical people.

So again I ask how these hypothetical people - identical in every respect of genetics, upbringing (and soul if you think such a thing exists) could logically arrive at a different decision as to whether to make an assertion or not to do so.

Your hypothetical concept seems to presume the soul to be some form of mechanistic working which can be replicated to perform identical operations given the same input data.  In this you show a complete misunderstanding of the concept of human free will, which is consciously aware of influential data but not dictated by it.

[Alan Burns]

Your freedom to make assertions is merely evidence that nothing is stopping you from making them.  Have you got something on the moderators ?

It takes more than a lack of constraint to come up with these so called assertions.  How can you possibly take lack of constraint to be considered as an ultimate cause?