Searching for GOD...

[ippy]

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.

Thank goodness that religious belief seems to be dying out in the westernised world.

Commiserations Alan, ippy.

[torridon]

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?

Eerm, it is me that has been telling you that freedom is not a cause for the last three years.  Did you not read any of that ?  It is you that keeps claiming 'God given freedom' as cause, not me.  Freedom is circumstantial, not causal.

[Stranger]

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.

Misunderstanding? Your assertions about free will are both totally baseless and self-contradictory.

How can you possibly take lack of constraint to be considered as an ultimate cause?

Nobody said it was - why don't you pay some attention to what is actually being said?

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

[Gordon]

It takes more than a lack of constraint to come up with these so called assertions.

Well, you certainly seem unconstrained when it comes to posting illogical theobollocks - perhaps if you addressed the logical contradictions that have been pointed out to you repeatedly you'd be more circumspect in what you claim.

How can you possibly take lack of constraint to be considered as an ultimate cause?

Who has said this? Moreover, your "ultimate cause" is another example of your fallacious thinking.

[Outrider]

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.

I'm pretty sure the concept doesn't presume there to be a 'soul' at all - it doesn't presume, it deduces from the available evidence.

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.

Despite the wealth of evidence that shows it's exactly dictated by prior events?  I'd suggest that it's you showing a complete misunderstanding of the reality of the illusion of free will, given the FUNDAMENTALLY ILLOGIC NATURE OF THE PREMISE AS YOU PITCH IT, even before the evidence speaks wholly against it.

O.

[Alan Burns]

Let's see...

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.

There is plenty of evidence which shows random physical reactions to be destructive rather than creative.
And the fact that we are unable to detect anything other than physical reactions does not necessarily lead on to the conclusion that there can be nothing other than physical reactions involved.

Is this 'creative willpower' something for which we have any evidence? No.

Have you ever tried replying to a post by random tapping on a keyboard?
Or producing entities of conscious awareness from exploding star debris?

Is there any evidence of us being 'brought' into conscious existence by some deliberate decision? No.

Have you read the Bible?

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

But what is the ultimate causation of any deliberate assertion?

[Alan Burns]

Eerm, it is me that has been telling you that freedom is not a cause for the last three years.  Did you not read any of that ?  It is you that keeps claiming 'God given freedom' as cause, not me.  Freedom is circumstantial, not causal.

It is you that has interpreted freedom to mean nothing more than lack of constraint.

Our conscious freedom is what allows our human minds to escape from the limitations of what can be produced by physical reactions alone.

[torridon]

It is you that has interpreted freedom to mean nothing more than lack of constraint....

Not just my interpretation, it is the general interpretation that everybody uses.  From the Cambridge English dictionary :

freedom
noun
 
the condition or right of being able or allowed to do, say, think, etc. whatever you want to, without being controlled or limited:

[torridon]

Our conscious freedom is what allows our human minds to escape from the limitations of what can be produced by physical reactions alone.

Whereas the above goes beyond the dictionary definition of freedom, and is pure assertion without justification.

You are going to need more than empty assertions to cut it with others; you need to justify your assertion.  Over to you ....

[Nearly Sane]

Not just my interpretation, it is the general interpretation that everybody uses.  From the Cambridge English dictionary :

freedom
noun
 
the condition or right of being able or allowed to do, say, think, etc. whatever you want to, without being controlled or limited:

The crucial thing being that what we cannot control is what we want, and it would make no sense to do so since that in itself would be a want, and would then create an infinite regress.

[Alan Burns]

The crucial thing being that what we cannot control is what we want, and it would make no sense to do so since that in itself would be a want, and would then create an infinite regress.

But we do have freedom in how, when, where (or if) to satisfy those wants.  A freedom which nature alone cannot give.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

There is plenty of evidence which shows random physical reactions to be destructive rather than creative.

But “physical reactions” don’t happen "randomly", ie chaotically – they’re subject to various natural laws that mean they function consistently, which in turn means the interactions of these events over time produces more complex outcomes than each of the determining events that caused them. Your lack of understanding here is alarming.   
 

And the fact that we are unable to detect anything other than physical reactions does not necessarily lead on to the conclusion that there can be nothing other than physical reactions involved.

That’s called a straw man – no-one says otherwise. That does not though imply for one moment that there is a non-physical to be detected by any means. Does it? 

Is this 'creative willpower' something for which we have any evidence? No.

Bingo! Then why assert it to exist as there’s no evidence for it?

Have you ever tried replying to a post by random tapping on a keyboard?

Or producing entities of conscious awareness from exploding star debris?

Irrelevant.

Have you read the Bible?

He asked for evidence, not for claims made in an ancient compendium of books.

But what is the ultimate causation of any deliberate assertion?

That’s called a non sequitur. You claimed that something was impossible and you were explain why you thought that. Replying with a question about “ultimate causation” has no relevance to the question you were asked.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

A freedom which nature alone cannot give.

Again, why do you think that?

[Nearly Sane]

But we do have freedom in how, when, where (or if) to satisfy those wants.  A freedom which nature alone cannot give.

No, that's just another want and means you have created an infinite regress.

[Stranger]

But we do have freedom in how, when, where (or if) to satisfy those wants.

Why would you do that, unless you wanted to?

A freedom which nature alone cannot give.

As always, this is just a reasoning-free assertion.

Still waiting for you to be honest and admit you cannot provide the logic you said you had...

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Again, why do you think that?

Simply because I have freedom to think it.  It is up to me what I choose to think - not the physical, unavoidable reactions in nature.

[Nearly Sane]

Simply because I have freedom to think it.  It is up to me what I choose to think - not the physical, unavoidable reactions in nature.

And another infinite regress.

[Stranger]

Simply because I have freedom to think it.

That's not an answer to the question. Nobody denies that humans can think - how does that connect to your nonsense version of freedom?

It is up to me what I choose to think - not the physical, unavoidable reactions in nature.

Why can't it be both?

Where is the first hint of any reasoning, Alan? We all know you can stamp your little foot really, really hard and assert the same nonsense over and over again. Where is the logic you said you had?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Simply because I have freedom to think it.  It is up to me what I choose to think - not the physical, unavoidable reactions in nature.

Except of course the only logically coherent reasoning we have tells us that your experience of “choosing what to think” is “the physical, unavoidable reactions in nature”. Just asserting it to be otherwise despite being asked for arguments to justify the assertion and never providing any is getting you nowhere.

I notice by the way that you just ignored the corrections I posted to your previous collection of mistakes. Oh well.   

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

Oh dear - slipping towards E- mark territory.

Firstly you misunderstand the notion of hypothetical - in other words not real and therefore it is perfectly appropriate to ask you to comment on a hypothetical scenario involving two identical people in every respect - and in this scenario if you believe the soul exists (I don't but you do) then of course their souls will be identical too.

Second fail - I asked you to base your arguments on first principles and avoid circular arguments - assuming features of the soul is not arguing from first principles, and then using that assumption to justify your conclusions, which you then need to justify your assumption is classic circular argument.

[torridon]

But we do have freedom in how, when, where (or if) to satisfy those wants......

The choice of how, when and where are also wants. You seem oblivious that you are merely contradicting yourself.  You cannot have it both ways, you are making no sense.

[Alan Burns]

Oh dear - slipping towards E- mark territory.

Firstly you misunderstand the notion of hypothetical - in other words not real and therefore it is perfectly appropriate to ask you to comment on a hypothetical scenario involving two identical people in every respect - and in this scenario if you believe the soul exists (I don't but you do) then of course their souls will be identical too.

Second fail - I asked you to base your arguments on first principles and avoid circular arguments - assuming features of the soul is not arguing from first principles, and then using that assumption to justify your conclusions, which you then need to justify your assumption is classic circular argument.

It all depends how far back you go in starting from first principals.
It would appear that your starting point presumes that you have the ability to consciously analyse, think things through and make logical deductions.
To get to the essence of the human soul you need to go further back.
Where does this ability come from?
What drives your thought processes?
What comprises a thought process?
What is the means of validation of such a process?
What is consciousness?
How do you start a thought process?
What (in physical terms) comprises belief or disbelief?

[ProfessorDavey]

It all depends how far back you go in starting from first principals.

No - what is meant by that is taking as the starting point that these hypothetical two people are identical in every respect and have identical experiences to that point in every respect.

To get to the essence of the human soul you need to go further back.
Where does this ability come from?
What drives your thought processes?
What comprises a thought process?
What is the means of validation of such a process?
What is consciousness?
How do you start a thought process?
What (in physical terms) comprises belief or disbelief?

It doesn't matter where these things come from (or exist at all e.g. a soul) the point is that the hypothetical people are identical in every respect and in every experience. So please explain to me how those two hypothetical people who are identical in all of those respects, with identical experiences up to that point would make different choices.

Come back once you've explained that please.

[Alan Burns]

No - what is meant by that is taking as the starting point that these hypothetical two people are identical in every respect and have identical experiences to that point in every respect.
It doesn't matter where these things come from (or exist at all e.g. a soul) the point is that the hypothetical people are identical in every respect and in every experience. So please explain to me how those two hypothetical people who are identical in all of those respects, with identical experiences up to that point would make different choices.

Come back once you've explained that please.

Because they are not biological machines which have no choice in how they react.
As I tried to explain in my earlier post, the essence of what makes you "you" can't be found in reactions to past events, or in contemplating imaginary hypothetical situations, or in trying to deny your own freedom to think.

I am not asking you to try to imagine some hypothetical scenario.  I am asking you to contemplate the reality of your own self and your own capabilities and realise that what comprises the amazing gift of your own conscious freedom goes way beyond the consequences of inevitable physical reactions.

[ProfessorDavey]

Because they are not biological machines which have no choice in how they react.

Nope won't do - not working from first principles - again using an unevidenced assertion as the starting point to try to justify your conclusion.

F- mark now.

As I tried to explain in my earlier post, the essence of what makes you you can't be found in reactions to past events, or in contemplating imaginary hypothetical situations, or in trying to deny your own freedom to think.

Oh dear - now deciding you don't like the question (a perfectly reasonable one and exactly of the type typically using in philosophical debate).

So still failing to explain how the two identical hypothetical people could arrive at different decisions.

Seems you've thrown the towel in.