Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

And within all these chains of physically determined reactions going on in a material brain, I ask again - what is it that deliberates?

The evidence is that it's those very "chains of physically determined reactions going on in a material brain" that is doing the deliberation.

What is the source of deliberation?

This question doesn't even make sense. A deliberation is a process that happens over time, so, regardless of whether it's "material reactions" or not, it is either a deterministic system or it isn't (and therefore involves randomness).

All the evidence is that the physical brain is the thing that is executing the process, but it makes bugger all difference to the above logic if it's a magic soul in oh so magical magic land, doing it magically, by magic, and in a very, very magical way.

[ippy]

The evidence is that it's those very "chains of physically determined reactions going on in a material brain" that is doing the deliberation.

This question doesn't even make sense. A deliberation is a process that happens over time, so, regardless of whether it's "material reactions" or not, it is either a deterministic system or it isn't (and therefore involves randomness).

All the evidence is that the physical brain is the thing that is executing the process, but it makes bugger all difference to the above logic if it's a magic soul in oh so magical magic land, doing it magically, by magic, and in a very, very magical way.

Puts me in mind of that good old Douglas Adams quote:

'Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too'?

Regards, ippy.

[Alan Burns]

The evidence is that it's those very "chains of physically determined reactions going on in a material brain" that is doing the deliberation.

Which reduces me to being a spectator over the acts of deliberation being carried out by the laws of physics.
I know this has been covered many times, but I have never had a viable explanation of my ability to consciously drive acts of deliberation.
My ability to consciously control my own thoughts is not just a feeling or experience - it is a reality which defines what I am and what I do - and in particular to continue to witness to this reality which can have no physical explanation - because I do not exert control over the laws of physics.

[Stranger]

Which reduces me to being a spectator over the acts of deliberation being carried out by the laws of physics.

No, it doesn't. There is no other you to be a spectator. What you call "you" is the ever ever changing state of your mind that is either a deterministic system or not (and therefore involves randomness). I explained this yet again in more detail in #40312, which you, entirely predictably, ignored in favour of an obvious distraction tactic of wibbling on about "sources".

And it makes no difference if it's the laws of physics that are producing your state of mind or your magic soul - exactly the same logic applies.

I know this has been covered many times, but I have never had a viable explanation of my ability to consciously drive acts of deliberation.

Why don't you actually engage with the arguments and say why they're wrong then, instead of totally ignoring them and just repeating the same dimwitted questions and endlessly answered "points" over and over and over again?

My ability to consciously control my own thoughts is not just a feeling or experience - it is a reality which defines what I am and what I do...

You have never once given an argument as to why anything you do or experience requires the self-contradictory idea that you could have done something differently, for no reason at all that pertained at the time, without it involving randomness, and neither have you ever addressed the LOGICAL contradiction involved.

...and in particular to continue to witness to this reality which can have no physical explanation - because I do not exert control over the laws of physics.

You do not exert control over the way your mind works regardless of whether that working is down to the laws of physics or not. You are the person you are, you think the way you think, and you wish or don't wish to do whatever it is you wish to do or not to do at the time, consciously, subconsciously, semi-consciously, or whatever other level you mind may work on. When you assert that you could have done differently if you so wished, that doesn't change the fact that you didn't wish to do differently at that time and that was down to your exact state of mind at the time. Your ever changing (conscious and unconscious) state of mind, complete with its wishes, is something that changes over time and is therefore either a deterministic system or it isn't and hence involves some randomness.

There isn't some other "you" that somehow floats free of all this because, we'd then be able to apply exactly the same reasoning to that "you" and we'd have started into another infinite regress.

The laws of physics are irrelevant and totally beside the point. The logic you keep denying has nothing to do with them.

Your instance on being able to do something differently for reasons and not for reasons is simply nonsensical, and endlessly misrepresenting the problem as being to do with the laws of physics is either dishonest or stupid of you.

Also, another point you've ignored at least five times now: you don't know all the laws of physics, so if you could make your version of "freedom" logically self-consistent, then you cannot rule out a physical explanation.

I've now repeated this many, many times (and others have said similar things). If you don't think it's a "viable" answer to your claims, then how about saying why and actually respond to what I've said, instead of ignoring it, throwing in another distraction tactic, or just repeating the same things?

[torridon]

Which reduces me to being a spectator over the acts of deliberation being carried out by the laws of physics.
I know this has been covered many times, but I have never had a viable explanation of my ability to consciously drive acts of deliberation.
My ability to consciously control my own thoughts is not just a feeling or experience - it is a reality which defines what I am and what I do - and in particular to continue to witness to this reality which can have no physical explanation - because I do not exert control over the laws of physics.

We do not need to have control over the laws of physics in order to think or contemplate, this is a nonsense.  On the contrary, the thoughts we have are entirely consistent with a deterministic model - thoughts arise for a reason, there is no evidence to suggest true randomness is at work in the way minds work and if that were the case then we would be debilitated by it. We think the thoughts we want to think and we cannot be free of our desires, this a fundamental aspect of the functioning of the mammalian limbic brain which underpins how we all think and deliberate and choose.

[Outrider]

And within this bombardment from the rest of the cosmos, there appear to be acts of conscious deliberation.

There manifestly are such things - that's not in debate.  What's in debate is your claim that they have some special status amongst all the rest of the activities in the cosmos in that they are somehow neither random, nor deterministic - that's the bit we're still waiting for you to explain.

My question pertains to the source of such acts.  If there is no definable source, what is it that deliberates?

The deliberation is activity within a brain, so far as we can tell.  There are proximate causes, but our capacity to trail the chain back is limited - ultimately, everything in the universe traces back to the Big Bang, and the (presumed) singularity that was in place prior to it.  What happened 'before' that is something that we don't currently have sufficient evidence to even guess at.

O.

[Alan Burns]

No, it doesn't. There is no other you to be a spectator. What you call "you" is the ever ever changing state of your mind that is either a deterministic system or not (and therefore involves randomness). I explained this yet again in more detail in #40312, which you, entirely predictably, ignored in favour of an obvious distraction tactic of wibbling on about "sources".

And it makes no difference if it's the laws of physics that are producing your state of mind or your magic soul - exactly the same logic applies.

Why don't you actually engage with the arguments and say why they're wrong then, instead of totally ignoring them and just repeating the same dimwitted questions and endlessly answered "points" over and over and over again?

You have never once given an argument as to why anything you do or experience requires the self-contradictory idea that you could have done something differently, for no reason at all that pertained at the time, without it involving randomness, and neither have you ever addressed the LOGICAL contradiction involved.

You do not exert control over the way your mind works regardless of whether that working is down to the laws of physics or not. You are the person you are, you think the way you think, and you wish or don't wish to do whatever it is you wish to do or not to do at the time, consciously, subconsciously, semi-consciously, or whatever other level you mind may work on. When you assert that you could have done differently if you so wished, that doesn't change the fact that you didn't wish to do differently at that time and that was down to your exact state of mind at the time. Your ever changing (conscious and unconscious) state of mind, complete with its wishes, is something that changes over time and is therefore either a deterministic system or it isn't and hence involves some randomness.

There isn't some other "you" that somehow floats free of all this because, we'd then be able to apply exactly the same reasoning to that "you" and we'd have started into another infinite regress.

The laws of physics are irrelevant and totally beside the point. The logic you keep denying has nothing to do with them.

Your instance on being able to do something differently for reasons and not for reasons is simply nonsensical, and endlessly misrepresenting the problem as being to do with the laws of physics is either dishonest or stupid of you.

Also, another point you've ignored at least five times now: you don't know all the laws of physics, so if you could make your version of "freedom" logically self-consistent, then you cannot rule out a physical explanation.

I've now repeated this many, many times (and others have said similar things). If you don't think it's a "viable" answer to your claims, then how about saying why and actually respond to what I've said, instead of ignoring it, throwing in another distraction tactic, or just repeating the same things?

Your presumption that the time dependent cause and effect we perceive in the physically controlled material universe can also apply to the non physical is entirely baseless.  You can't make such a presumption without knowledge of how the non physical works.  I do not presume to know how the non physical works - I just know that my conscious freedom is a reality beyond what can be achieved by physical reactions alone.

The problem with a physically deterministic scenario is that every event throughout history will be an inevitable reaction to previous events, which renders any concept of choice to be an impossibility.  Conscious choice is not a dictated reaction.  My ability to consciously contemplate and interact with the present reality, rather than react to it, can't exist in a physically deterministic scenario.

[Outrider]

Your presumption that the time dependent cause and effect we perceive in the physically controlled material universe can also apply to the non physical is entirely baseless.

Again, no, there's no presumption from the physical to anything.  There's the logical concept that things are either deterministic or they are random - there is no third option.  Even if you consider something that somehow loops time or moves outside of it so that cause temporally precedes effect there's still a logical requirement that things are either a result of earlier things or they are completely independent.  You want to have some undefined third choice that's selective dependent, but you've completely failed to establish any sort of logical framework in which such a concept could be considered to exist BEFORE you try to decide whether it applies to material, spiritual or non-physical concepts.

It's your underlying logical framework that's insufficient, at the moment.

You can't make such a presumption without knowledge of how the non physical works.

Until and unless you can give reason to think that the 'non-physical' is a thing, we don't need to presume anything about it, it can be ignored alongside 'magic' and 'spirit' and other unevidenced assertions.

I do not presume to know how the non physical works - I just know that my conscious freedom is a reality beyond what can be achieved by physical reactions alone.

You presume - not know - that your conscious freedom is a reality, and therefore assert that there is a non-physical to not understand.

The problem with a physically deterministic scenario is that every event throughout history will be an inevitable reaction to previous events, which renders any concept of choice to be an impossibility.

That's not, actually, logically a problem with the depiction.  You might take issue with the implications of that, but it doesn't in any way, shape or form invalidate the sequence of logical steps by which that conclusion has been reached.

Conscious choice is not a dictated reaction.

Because?

My ability to consciously contemplate and interact with the present reality, rather than react to it, can't exist in a physically deterministic scenario.

Why not? You recall prior, similar scenarios, extrapolate from them, and come to a conclusion which you then apply to the current situation - entirely a flow of cause and effect.

O.

[Stranger]

Your presumption that the time dependent cause and effect we perceive in the physically controlled material universe can also apply to the non physical is entirely baseless.  You can't make such a presumption without knowledge of how the non physical works.

What total nonsense. Did you even bother to read what I said? The only 'assumptions' I am making are logical self-consistency and the obvious fact that your state of mind changes over time.

Either your state of mind, including your "conscious awareness", is determined, moment by moment, by its previous state and what it is perceiving at the time (operating as a deterministic system), or it isn't. That's a a simple yes or no - it's either true or it is false - and it applies to your state of mind regardless of whether your mind is entirely physical, entirely non-physical, or any combination.

If you insist that it is false - then you are saying that some part of your state of mind was due to something that had nothing at all to do with you or what you are perceiving, that is to say, it was causeless, and therefore random.

I do not presume to know how the non physical works - I just know that my conscious freedom is a reality beyond what can be achieved by physical reactions alone.

Back to foot-stamping.

Quite apart from anything else - as I keep on pointing out, and you keep on ignoring - you are claiming to be omniscient with regard to the physical world. If you had any good reason to think that there is some logically self-consistent way out of the above reasoning, then you couldn't possibly know that it couldn't be achieved in the physical world, possibly by some completely unknown aspect of it.

Remember that we don't know that the physical world is entirely deterministic - there are actually good reasons to think that it isn't.

The problem with a physically deterministic scenario...

I'm not arguing for a "physically deterministic scenario", Alan, to represent the argument against you like that is dishonest.

The rest is just silly foot-stamping with a side helpings of an appeal to consequences fallacy and yet another attempt to redefine the word 'choice'.

Why don't you care about relying on fallacies?

Remember that you said you had "sound logic"?




Still waiting...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

it doesn't exist as a thing; it exists as an emergent phenomenon of mind. All mental phenomena are constructions of mind, that includes your sense of self.

Orwellian Doublethink.

Does the self exist or not?, you seem to be wanting your cake and eat it here. I think we need to discuss what we mean by ''exist''. Does the self exist because it is an emergent phenomena or not exist because it is an emergent phenomena? what is 'thing existence'?

Might it not be wise to drop the illusion of self schtick altogether?

[torridon]

Orwellian Doublethink.

Does the self exist or not?, you seem to be wanting your cake and eat it here. I think we need to discuss what we mean by ''exist''. Does the self exist because it is an emergent phenomena or not exist because it is an emergent phenomena? what is 'thing existence'?

Might it not be wise to drop the illusion of self schtick altogether?

Human thought has long featured notions of mind/body duallism.  We find it hard to believe that when the body dies, the person 'inside' goes too. We tend to talk about a body as if it is something we 'have', rather than something we 'are'. So, that is why it seems to me our minds create something of a compelling feeling of there being some sort of immaterial being living within us.  That is why I would describe it as illusion, because there is no 'thing' living inside that is separate from the body. I would say your self exists, but not in the usual sense of the word 'exist' as my house exists or that bus stop exists.  It exists as a sense, like a sense of direction exists, or a sense of wellbeing exists.  Does Beethoven's 7th exist ?  You'd be hard put to say anything about its location or its speed.  There's nuanced differences in what we mean by 'exist'.

[Roses]

Human thought has long featured notions of mind/body duallism.  We find it hard to believe that when the body dies, the person 'inside' goes too. We tend to talk about a body as if it is something we 'have', rather than something we 'are'. So, that is why it seems to me our minds create something of a compelling feeling of there being some sort of immaterial being living within us.  That is why I would describe it as illusion, because there is no 'thing' living inside that is distinct from the body. I would say your self exists, but not in the usual sense of the word 'exist' as my house exists or that bus stop exists.  It exists as a sense, like a sense of direction exists, or a sense of wellbeing exists.  Does Beethoven's 7th exist ?  You'd be hard put to say anything about its location or its speed.  There's nuanced differences in what we mean by 'exist'.

I agree with you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Human thought has long featured notions of mind/body duallism.  We find it hard to believe that when the body dies, the person 'inside' goes too. We tend to talk about a body as if it is something we 'have', rather than something we 'are'. So, that is why it seems to me our minds create something of a compelling feeling of there being some sort of immaterial being living within us.  That is why I would describe it as illusion, because there is no 'thing' living inside that is distinct from the body. I would say your self exists, but not in the usual sense of the word 'exist' as my house exists or that bus stop exists.  It exists as a sense, like a sense of direction exists, or a sense of wellbeing exists.  Does Beethoven's 7th exist ?  You'd be hard put to say anything about its location or its speed.  There's nuanced differences in what we mean by 'exist'.

And I look forward to you outlining what they are. Would you describe a sense of direction or a sense of wellbeing illusionary or is that word reserved in your vocabulary for people you wish to shock or at least disturb out of what you see as a fault on there part and the use of the term illusion is just you being cruel to be kind.

It still looks like Orwellian doublespeak. It is your own confused conceptions of the term 'exist' that need clarification rather than other peoples.

Would you describe a sense of direction as illusiory or a sense of well being as illusiory I wonder.

[torridon]

And I look forward to you outlining what they are. Would you describe a sense of direction or a sense of wellbeing illusionary or is that word reserved in your vocabulary for people you wish to shock or at least disturb out of what you see as a fault on there part and the use of the term illusion is just you being cruel to be kind.

It still looks like Orwellian doublespeak. It is your own confused conceptions of the term 'exist' that need clarification rather than other peoples.

Would you describe a sense of direction as illusiory or a sense of well being as illusiory I wonder.

I don't see much in there that challenges my way of looking at things, I think you are more looking to impugn people's motives rather than debate the ideas.  You are free to outline your own rationalisation of 'self' and justify it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't see much in there that challenges my way of looking at things, I think you are more looking to impugn people's motives rather than debate the ideas.  You are free to outline your own rationalisation of 'self' and justify it.

The only challenge I am making is to your way of looking at things which appears to be in two different directions at one time.

Do emergent phenomenon exist or not?

Is a sense of wellbeing and a sense of direction illusiory?

There is no debate because you have stopped answering questions or clarifying.

Emergent phenomena are real in my book.

Therefore a sense of self is not illusiory.

Something existent has to be illuded. So the idea of an illusiory sense of self itself being illuded is in many ways no different from a metaphorical little man inside the skull.

[torridon]

The only challenge I am making is to your way of looking at things which appears to be in two different directions at one time.

Do emergent phenomenon exist or not?

Is a sense of wellbeing and a sense of direction illusiory?

There is no debate because you have stopped answering questions or clarifying.

Emergent phenomena are real in my book.

Therefore a sense of self is not illusiory.

Something existent has to be illuded. So the idea of an illusiory sense of self itself being illuded is in many ways no different from a metaphorical little man inside the skull.

If can you understand your 'self' in terms of it being an emergent property of your body, then well done, you've learned to see through the illusion already. Many people cannot do this. Across the world, across all the major religions, the intuition of there being a distinct person inside the body is alive and well, from this board you can see it in Sriram and Alan Burns.  The fact that people believe in some form of afterlife, and even many atheists do apparently, means that they believe their self is ontologically distinct from their body and so will persist after the body has died.  This intuition is widespread, and as far as science is concerned, it is a false intuition, ie an illusion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If can you understand your 'self' in terms of it being an emergent property of your body, then well done, you've learned to see through the illusion already. Many people cannot do this. Across the world, across all the major religions, the intuition of there being a distinct person inside the body is alive and well, from this board you can see it in Sriram and Alan Burns.  The fact that people believe in some form of afterlife, and even many atheists do apparently, means that they believe their self is ontologically distinct from their body and so will persist after the body has died.  This intuition is widespread, and as far as science is concerned, it is a false intuition, ie an illusion.

If it is an emergent property of the body it is not an illusion so neither I or you have seen through it.

Your pat on the head is misplaced.

I have nothing against the self being an emergent property of the body but if it is truly emergent then no other aspect,structure process in the body possesses it.

And this is where you guys seemed not to have grasped emergence of the self.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

If it is an emergent property of the body it is not an illusion so neither I or you have seen through it.

Your pat on the head is misplaced.

I have nothing against the self being an emergent property of the body but if it is truly emergent then no other aspect,structure process in the body possesses it.

And this is where you guys seemed not to have grasped emergence of the self.

More wilful misunderstanding trollery, or do you genuinely not understand the simple explanation you've been given?

1. Minds seem highly likely to be an emergent property of complex bodies.

2. Emergent properties exist.

3. The experience "self" is part of the larger emergent property of mind.

4. The sense of self also though feels like there's a separate "you" somehow floating free of the body, telling it what to do etc. That's the illusory part because that sense is a false explanation for the phenomenon.

5. Asking a question like, "what is it that does the observing then?" betrays a basic failure to grasp the argument. Human (and most like many other species') consciousness is self-aware. The experience of ourselves is the sensation of the processing that's happening in a single, massively complex unit of being call we call "me".

Capiche now?       

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

More wilful misunderstanding trollery, or do you genuinely not understand the simple explanation you've been given?

1. Minds seem highly likely to be an emergent property of complex bodies.

2. Emergent properties exist.

3. The experience "self" is part of the larger emergent property of mind.

4. The sense of self also though feels like there's a separate "you" somehow floating free of the body, telling it what to do etc. That's the illusory part because that sense is a false explanation for the phenomenon.

5. Asking a question like, "what is it that does the observing then?" betrays a basic failure to grasp the argument. Human (and most like many other species') consciousness is self-aware. The experience of ourselves is the sensation of the processing that's happening in a single, massively complex unit of being call we call "me".

Capiche now?       

Capiche. You obviously have been watching too many westerns and gangsters on Freeview. You are misspending your youth. I cannot see how anything I've said is of great variance to you here. That you are presenting that straw man as the case I can only assume it is in support of you labelling people who disagree with you as trolls.

If you think people feel separate from their bodies outside any kind of crisis that is just caricature.

That is just nasty.   

[Roses]

Vlad your latest forum name would be more correct if it read, 'My unfriendly delusion of self'.

[Sebastian Toe]

If you think people feel separate from their bodies outside any kind of crisis that is just caricature.

That is just nasty. 

Try Mr Burns of this very parish.
Not only is his self not of his body, it is not of this universe.
Is he having a crisis do you think?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Capiche. You obviously have been watching too many westerns and gangsters on Freeview. You are misspending your youth. I cannot see how anything I've said is of great variance to you here. That you are presenting that straw man as the case I can only assume it is in support of you labelling people who disagree with you as trolls.

Weird. When you ask about properties of the self as a separate entity from the body, you fail to grasp the argument. It's not "self" that's illusory, it's the apparent experience of separateness that's illusory. Thats why AB's "but I'd just be a spectator then" is dimwitted - there's no need for an independent spectator when the entity is self-aware - the only thing it's "spectating" - ie experiencing - is itself.       

If you think people feel separate from their bodies outside any kind of crisis that is just caricature.

Tell AB, not me. He seems tho think there's an invisible little man at the controls separate from his body, apparently pulling the strings for "him".

That is just nasty.   

What is - AB's claim? No, wilfully misinformed and ignorant I'd say rather than nasty.

[Alan Burns]

Remember that you said you had "sound logic"?

I honestly can't recall what I said in relation to sound logic.
However, you seem to claim that everything I say about the concept of free will to be illogical, whilst in my mind it is perfectly logical.
So what defines "sound logic"?
Let us start by considering the concept of logic,
Where does it exist?
What comprises logic?
Is it just a pattern of neurological activity?
How does it emerge from material reactions in the brain?
What determines logic?
If logic is determined by the inevitable consequences to past events, what makes it "sound"?
What makes the consequences of my material brain reactions inferior to your material brain reactions?

[Stranger]

Once again, Alan runs away from actually addressing the logical argument.

I honestly can't recall what I said in relation to sound logic.

Here's an example (one of many):-

My view that conscious awareness can't be generated from material reactions alone is not just personal incredulity.  It is based upon sound logic on which I could write many pages.  Unfortunately I can only give a short account on this forum.

However, you seem to claim that everything I say about the concept of free will to be illogical, whilst in my mind it is perfectly logical.
So what defines "sound logic"?
Let us start by considering the concept of logic,
Where does it exist?
What comprises logic?

It's a formalised system of thought, like mathematics (aspects of it can be considered as part of mathematics). It has rules that have been worked out over millennia.

Along the way, many invalid ways of arguing have also been identified, these are called "fallacies", of which you seem to have employed a sizeable subset on this this very thread. The fact that you seem not to care about this suggests that either have no idea about logic and are confusing "sound logic" with "what Alan Burns happens to think is believable", you think you understand it (perhaps because you studied programming) but don't, or you're just not paying any attention at all to this conversation and are using it just to repeat your daft script because you think you're "witnessing".

As for "sound" logic, after you made the above comment, I pointed you at this article: Validity and Soundness, not that you seem to have taken the slightest bit of notice.

Is it just a pattern of neurological activity?
How does it emerge from material reactions in the brain?
What determines logic?
If logic is determined by the inevitable consequences to past events, what makes it "sound"?
What makes the consequences of my material brain reactions inferior to your material brain reactions?

What makes the consequences of my magic soul inferior to the consequences of your magic soul?

What conceivable difference would the self-contradictory ability of being able to have done differently without randomness make to the process of logical (or otherwise) thought and the validity of what emerges from it?

[Gordon]

I honestly can't recall what I said in relation to sound logic.
However, you seem to claim that everything I say about the concept of free will to be illogical, whilst in my mind it is perfectly logical.
So what defines "sound logic"?
Let us start by considering the concept of logic,
Where does it exist?
What comprises logic?
Is it just a pattern of neurological activity?
How does it emerge from material reactions in the brain?
What determines logic?
If logic is determined by the inevitable consequences to past events, what makes it "sound"?
What makes the consequences of my material brain reactions inferior to your material brain reactions?

Alan

You are a stranger to logic: it might be worth your while getting better acquainted, unless you intend to continue looking foolish.