Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

That takes away human free will and makes it God's, though, and doesn't actually explain how the logic is any different - it's still either dependent upon the elements that made God what it is, or it's random.  There still isn't any sort of logical 'third path' for a god to manifest something that is both not deterministic and not random.

O.

And that logic applies to any god's will as well

[ippy]

We are not free of prior conditions.
We are consciously aware of prior conditions.
Our conscious awareness enables us to choose how to react to these prior conditions.

If someone has been indoctrinated their will can't be as free as those of us that have managed to avoid being indoctrinated or are, luckily,  less susceptible to indoctrination than you Alan, so it follows______-

Commiserations to you Alan, ippy. 

[Alan Burns]

This suggests that actually you do think that we are free of our prior conditions, which you just said that we weren't.  If our conscious awareness is somehow free of prior conditions, then it's a random element - which you've also said that you don't think is the case.  How does that conscious awareness manage to be 'not random' but also 'not determined by prior events', given that there is literally NO OTHER OPTION.

Things either happen as a result of what happened before, or they are random, there is no third option here.

O.

You do not seem to appreciate the nature of our conscious awareness.
Out awareness is not a reaction to prior events - it is conscious perception of prior events.
There is a profound difference between reaction and perception of reaction.
The former is entirely determined by prior events, the latter is awareness of prior events.
My contention is that awareness is not a reaction.  It is not definable in terms of reactions.  It is perception of reactions.
Our conscious awareness allows us to consciously choose, rather than mechanistically react.

[Outrider]

You do not seem to appreciate the nature of our conscious awareness.

You've not shown, though, how your view of human consciousness is in any way viable.  You want it somehow to be both non-random and non-determined, but you keep failing to explain how that in any way can be shown to be at all possible.

Out awareness is not a reaction to prior events - it is conscious perception of prior events.

That sounds like a reaction, to me.  It happens after the event, and because of the event - that's a reaction.

There is a profound difference between reaction and perception of reaction.

Actually, they are both reactions - for the purposes of this discussion, you're attempting to falsely differentiate them. What makes something a reaction in this sense is that it happens after an event, because of that event: in that sense, our 'conscious perception' is another reaction.

The former is entirely determined by prior events, the latter is awareness of prior events.

Doesn't stop it being a reaction to those events.

My contention is that awareness is not a reaction.  It is not definable in terms of reactions.  It is perception of reactions.

It is definable in terms of reactions - I just did that.

Our conscious awareness allows us to consciously choose, rather than mechanistically react.

How?  Which element of that is both not random and not determined, and how does that work?

O.

[Nearly Sane]

If someone has been indoctrinated their will can't be as free as those of us that have managed to avoid being indoctrinated or are, luckily,  less susceptible to indoctrination than you Alan, so it follows______-

Commiserations to you Alan, ippy.

Your thoughts are as constrained as AB's

[torridon]

You do not seem to appreciate the nature of our conscious awareness.
Out awareness is not a reaction to prior events - it is conscious perception of prior events.
There is a profound difference between reaction and perception of reaction.
The former is entirely determined by prior events, the latter is awareness of prior events.
My contention is that awareness is not a reaction.  It is not definable in terms of reactions.  It is perception of reactions.
Our conscious awareness allows us to consciously choose, rather than mechanistically react.

So, we can consciously choose, but you are still stuck with the fact that how we choose to (consciously) respond will always reflect how we most want to respond and this is not something we have control over.

[Stranger]

You do not seem to appreciate the nature of our conscious awareness.
Out awareness is not a reaction to prior events - it is conscious perception of prior events.
There is a profound difference between reaction and perception of reaction.
The former is entirely determined by prior events, the latter is awareness of prior events.
My contention is that awareness is not a reaction.  It is not definable in terms of reactions.  It is perception of reactions.
Our conscious awareness allows us to consciously choose, rather than mechanistically react.

So, basically just more mindless repetition of the same old, same old, while totally ignoring the approximately 10,000 responses you've already had to it and, of course, the obvious contradiction that has been pointed out to you even more times.

Not the behaviour of an intelligent adult with your list of qualifications, Alan. Especially one who claimed to have logic.

Why won't you even try to engage with the answers you have and make some sort of an attempt to think logically?

[ekim]

That takes away human free will and makes it God's, though, and doesn't actually explain how the logic is any different - it's still either dependent upon the elements that made God what it is, or it's random.  There still isn't any sort of logical 'third path' for a god to manifest something that is both not deterministic and not random.

O.

I think the suggestion is that from the human perspective there is no 'free' will.  There is self will determined by the desires which drive human intentions towards self considerations and is therefore not free, and there is God's Will which does the driving.  As far as I can make out, the God in question is not composed of elements and is dependent upon nothing.  It is, was and always will be. It is said to be omnipresent and omniscient and randomness doesn't feature, as all is determined by the one will.  Randomness is a human invention to cover its ignorance of what truly does the determining.  God doesn't do 'random' and so, as you say, there is no third path and no logic.  I suppose a very rough analogy for the two wills is that the God's Will is like the river and self will is an eddy going round in circles trying to sustain itself with whatever it can attach itself to, whereas the answer might be to let go for free flow.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Sam Harris explaining very lucidly everything about “free” will that’s being explained to you here (and that you persist in ignoring):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCofmZlC72g

[ippy]

AB,

Sam Harris explaining very lucidly everything about “free” will that’s being explained to you here (and that you persist in ignoring):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCofmZlC72g

I remember a film including a Robot given conflicting orders Blue, I'll take a guess you're ahead of me here, I can see the smoke.

Regards, ippy.

[Robbie]

Just take school open days for an example when your children were still school age, it's an opportunity to meet some really well qualified people with degrees in all sorts and yet some of them in spite of all of their education have managed to remain completely ignorant, unable to put all of their many, in some cases, qualifications together and use them to any good effect; effectively educated and ignorant.   

They may seem that way to you ippy but generally people who've 'got it' don't flaunt it. They don't have to.

[ippy]

They may seem that way to you ippy but generally people who've 'got it' don't flaunt it. They don't have to.

I get the impression you've missed where I have said: 'yet some of them', meaning not all of them, have you got that Robbie?

Regards, ippy. 

[Alan Burns]

Actually, they are both reactions - for the purposes of this discussion, you're attempting to falsely differentiate them. What makes something a reaction in this sense is that it happens after an event, because of that event: in that sense, our 'conscious perception' is another reaction.

It is not a false differentiation.
We know what causes reactions - they are defined according to the laws of physics and chemistry acting on material elements.
Nobody knows what defines conscious perception or how it works.
If you try to define a single entity of perception in terms of material reactions you can go on forever along the endless chains of physical cause and effect without determining the point of perception.  No matter how complex the physical reactions - the end result is just another set of discrete reactions.  Conscious awareness requires something which perceives reactions instead of just producing more reactions.  I know Bluehillside claims that conscious awareness is an emergent property of material reactions, but before this can be claimed, you need know that perception is possible in material elements.  Outward observation of material reactions does not define inner perception.

[Nearly Sane]

It is not a false differentiation.
We know what causes reactions - they are defined according to the laws of physics and chemistry acting on material elements.
Nobody knows what defines conscious perception or how it works.
If you try to define a single entity of perception in terms of material reactions you can go on forever along the endless chains of physical cause and effect without determining the point of perception.  No matter how complex the physical reactions - the end result is just another set of discrete reactions.  Conscious awareness requires something which perceives reactions instead of just producing more reactions.  I know Bluehillside claims that conscious awareness is an emergent property of material reactions, but before this can be claimed, you need know that perception is possible in material elements.  Outward observation of material reactions does not define inner perception.

Drivel.

[Stranger]

It is not a false differentiation.
We know what causes reactions - they are defined according to the laws of physics and chemistry acting on material elements.
Nobody knows what defines conscious perception or how it works.
If you try to define a single entity of perception in terms of material reactions you can go on forever along the endless chains of physical cause and effect without determining the point of perception.

More misrepresentation of the arguments against you. The arguments are not about physics or chemistry and neither are reactions defined by those things. You're trying to argue by redefinition again.

No matter how complex the physical reactions - the end result is just another set of discrete reactions.

What is it about humans that indicates that they cannot be the result of reactions (your endless baseless assertions and foot-stamping aside)?

Conscious awareness requires something which perceives reactions instead of just producing more reactions.

Perception by itself, doesn't do anything, so whether perception is involved or not, the result is either a direct consequence of what came before (a reaction) or it isn't and therefore, to some extent, it is not due to anything that led up to it and is therefore random.

Perception/consciousness doesn't change that logic one iota.

I know Bluehillside claims that conscious awareness is an emergent property of material reactions, but before this can be claimed, you need know that perception is possible in material elements.  Outward observation of material reactions does not define inner perception.

We don't need to know anything of the sort. What we have is lots of evidence that it is an emergent property, bugger all evidence of anything else being involved, and that your alternative is not only entirely logic- and evidence-free, but logically self-contradictory and hence impossible.

Even if we knew nothing at all about how consciousness might arise (we didn't know anything about emergence), we could still dismiss your nonsense because it's logically impossible.

That's logically impossible, not physically impossible, no matter how many times you dishonesty misrepresent the arguments against you.

You said you had logic Alan, where is it?

[Alan Burns]

Even if we knew nothing at all about how consciousness might arise (we didn't know anything about emergence), we could still dismiss your nonsense because it's logically impossible.

That's logically impossible, not physically impossible, no matter how many times you dishonesty misrepresent the arguments against you.

You said you had logic Alan, where is it?

You totally fail to understand the significance of the conscious awareness of the human soul existing and acting in the present - which frees us from your short sighted logic which ties us entirely to being an inevitable consequence of the past.  It is the freedom we all enjoy.  It is the freedom you need to use in consciously driving your thoughts to any logical conclusion (be it right or wrong). It is what makes us human.

[Nearly Sane]

You totally fail to understand the significance of the conscious awareness of the human soul existing and acting in the present - which frees us from your short sighted logic which ties us entirely to being an inevitable consequence of the past.  It is the freedom we all enjoy.  It is the freedom you need to use in consciously driving your thoughts to any logical conclusion (be it right or wrong). It is what makes us human.

Idiotic drivel that ignores any of the points made.

[torridon]

You totally fail to understand the significance of the conscious awareness of the human soul existing and acting in the present - which frees us from your short sighted logic which ties us entirely to being an inevitable consequence of the past.  It is the freedom we all enjoy.  It is the freedom you need to use in consciously driving your thoughts to any logical conclusion (be it right or wrong). It is what makes us human.

in which you totally fail to understand and address the flaws in your logic-free spiel.  it would be good to see you actually engaging with criticism and addressing the points made.  Then you might start to build some credibility and respect.

[Gordon]

You totally fail to understand the significance of the conscious awareness of the human soul existing and acting in the present - which frees us from your short sighted logic which ties us entirely to being an inevitable consequence of the past.  It is the freedom we all enjoy.  It is the freedom you need to use in consciously driving your thoughts to any logical conclusion (be it right or wrong). It is what makes us human.

That you couldn't see the flaws in the above prior to clicking on 'Post' should worry you greatly, and that it clearly doesn't should worry you even more.

[Stranger]

You totally fail to understand the significance of the conscious awareness of the human soul existing and acting in the present - which frees us from your short sighted logic which ties us entirely to being an inevitable consequence of the past.

Firstly, why do you think just repeating the same thing is going to make any difference to people's response to it, or understanding of it for that matter? And secondly, I don't understand it because it is, as currently stated, content-free gibberish. You might as well have typed "Ah, but if I say abracadabra, then I don't have to think about your inconvenient logic, see!"

Once again you've just asserted that the logic is short-sighted, without providing any arguments. Then off you go into full foot-stamping mode again...

It is the freedom we all enjoy.

Baseless assertion.

It is the freedom you need to use in consciously driving your thoughts to any logical conclusion (be it right or wrong).

Baseless assertion.

It is what makes us human.

Baseless assertion.

Isn't it about time you at least admitted that you have no logical argument?

[Outrider]

It is not a false differentiation.

It is.  You are arbitrarily claiming that conscious activity is somehow different without justifying how.

We know what causes reactions - they are defined according to the laws of physics and chemistry acting on material elements.  Nobody knows what defines conscious perception or how it works.

To what extent?  We don't have a unified quantum theory yet, so we don't actually 'know' what causes reactions down to that extent, we have some of the pieces of the puzzle.  What we don't have is any reason to think that the neuron activity in the brain which leads to conscious awareness is mechanistically any different to the neuron activity that, say, processes visual imagery.

If you try to define a single entity of perception in terms of material reactions you can go on forever along the endless chains of physical cause and effect without determining the point of perception.

Which doesn't invalidate it.

No matter how complex the physical reactions - the end result is just another set of discrete reactions.

Yep.  Isn't an infinite universe a marvellous thing?  Actually, theoretically, there is an absolute limit to how far down you can go, but given that the current theories involve a layer of apparently random behaviour at the quantum level I'm not sure if that makes a difference or not.

Conscious awareness requires something which perceives reactions instead of just producing more reactions.

Does it?  Isn't conscious awareness that particular set of reactions which are responses to the other reactions?

I know Bluehillside claims that conscious awareness is an emergent property of material reactions, but before this can be claimed, you need know that perception is possible in material elements.

No, you don't - that's the point of emergent behaviour, it exists in the patterns of interactions between elements which themselves do not manifest the properties, otherwise they wouldn't be emergent they'd be intrinsic.

Outward observation of material reactions does not define inner perception.

Denial of reality because you don't like the philosophical implications doesn't invalidate the evidence...

O.

[Alan Burns]

Once again you've just asserted that the logic is short-sighted, without providing any arguments.

Your logic is short sighted because it denies the reality of my conscious freedom to choose my own thoughts, words and actions.
It denies my conscious freedom to witness to the reality of human free will.
It denies my conscious freedom to choose Jesus as my Lord and Saviour.
It denies my conscious freedom to make what you choose to label as unevidenced assertions.

[torridon]

Your logic is short sighted because it denies the reality of my conscious freedom to choose my own thoughts, words and actions.
It denies my conscious freedom to witness to the reality of human free will.
It denies my conscious freedom to choose Jesus as my Lord and Saviour.
It denies my conscious freedom to make what you choose to label as unevidenced assertions.

Nah, you do all those because you want to, and if you have no control over your desires, then the alleged freedom is non-existent.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Your logic is short sighted because it denies the reality of my conscious freedom to choose my own thoughts, words and actions.
It denies my conscious freedom to witness to the reality of human free will.
It denies my conscious freedom to choose Jesus as my Lord and Saviour.
It denies my conscious freedom to make what you choose to label as unevidenced assertions.

No, it “denies” the claims and assertions you make about these things by showing them to be logically unsupportable or worse. You’re trying the argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy again – “the logic falsifies unqualified beliefs I have, therefore the logic is wrong”.

You’ve shown yourself to be entirely indifferent to your reliance on logical fallacies, but surely even you can see the problem this gives you can’t you?     

[Stranger]

Your logic is short sighted because it denies the reality of my conscious freedom to choose my own thoughts, words and actions.
It denies my conscious freedom to witness to the reality of human free will.
It denies my conscious freedom to choose Jesus as my Lord and Saviour.
It denies my conscious freedom to make what you choose to label as unevidenced assertions.

Drivel.

It does not deny your ability to make these baseless assertions.

It does not deny your freedom to make these baseless assertions in the normal sense of the word. That is, you are free to assert whatever you want to because there is nothing stopping you.

The only thing it does deny is your nonsensical, incoherent, and self-contradictory assertions about how "freedom" works.

Remember you said you had sound logic? Still waiting for the first hint of it........