Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

Machines whose actions are determined by past events are incapable of telling deliberate lies.  But I am not just a biological machine.  I am capable of telling deliberate lies, as we all are.  Such capability can only be determined by something which acts in the present - not determined by the past.  Anything determined by the past will inevitably be an unavoidable reaction to the past.

So where is the "perfectly logical argument" you promised us?

This is just a string of your usual baseless assertions, utterly meaningless gibberish about "the present", rounded off with an appeal to consequences fallacy.

[Alan Burns]

So where is the "perfectly logical argument" you promised us?

This is just a string of your usual baseless assertions, utterly meaningless gibberish about "the present", rounded off with an appeal to consequences fallacy.

It is a perfectly logical argument.
You have accused me of telling blatant lies.
You claim that every event must be determined by previous events, which implies that every event involved in my thought processes can only be inevitable reactions to previous events.  There is no mechanism for telling a deliberate lie within such a scenario.

[Stranger]

It is a perfectly logical argument.

You really should read that book I pointed pointed out to you.

You have accused me of telling blatant lies.
You claim that every event must be determined by previous events, which implies that every event involved in my thought processes can only be inevitable reactions to previous events.  There is no mechanism for telling a deliberate lie within such a scenario.

Firstly, deliberate means "done consciously and intentionally" and there is nothing about determinism that rules out conscious intent.

Secondly, if you insist on redefining 'deliberate' so that it means contradictory-god-magic-soul based intention, then your argument becomes entirely circular and the inherent contradiction tells us that deliberate lying, using your redefinition, is impossible.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Machines whose actions are determined by past events are incapable of telling deliberate lies.

Currently that’s probably true.

But I am not just a biological machine.

That’s just a statement of blind faith, so no argument so far… 

I am capable of telling deliberate lies, as we all are.

Being a vastly more complex “biological machine” than any computer we currently have that’s not surprising.

Such capability can only be determined by something which acts in the present - not determined by the past.

That’s another unqualified faith claim. Still no argument to support it though.

Anything determined by the past will inevitably be an unavoidable reaction to the past.

Your terminology is off, but essentially you’re describing determinism yes. Well done.

Unavoidable reactions can never be classed as deliberate lies.

They can if the fact of “unavoidable reactions” creates the experience of deliberately telling lies.

Anyway, you promised that you had an argument that would provide a logical path from the subjective experience of “free” will to the objective explanation for it. I’ve also told you what an argument consists of – premises/logical inference/conclusion etc. My tea went cold waiting for it last time, but I’ve made a nice coffee now so I’m all ready to hear it.

Go for it!   

[torridon]

It is a perfectly logical argument.
You have accused me of telling blatant lies.
You claim that every event must be determined by previous events, which implies that every event involved in my thought processes can only be inevitable reactions to previous events.  There is no mechanism for telling a deliberate lie within such a scenario.

Of course there is a mechanism, it happens, clearly.  When a wolf chases down a bison, it does so deliberately.  There is nothing spooky / impossible about 'deliberate'; it just means the choice is made in some knowledge of the consequences. When someone tells a lie, it merely shows that the urge to lie overpowered the urge to be honest at that moment in time but that doesn't mean the same will happen next time the person is faced with such a choice. The consequences of having lied the first time will be part of the context within which the choice is resolved next time.  This is the basis of offender rehabilitation.  People do bad things so we try to help them understand the consequences of that so in the future they may make better decisions.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It is a perfectly logical argument.

What is? Where? All I've seen so far is assertions - "I am not a biological machine" etc. Where's the argument though?

[Alan Burns]

You really should read that book I pointed pointed out to you.

Firstly, deliberate means "done consciously and intentionally" and there is nothing about determinism that rules out conscious intent.

Please explain how an inevitable neuron reaction in my brain can be deemed responsible for determining conscious intent?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Please explain how an inevitable neuron reaction in my brain can be deemed responsible for determining conscious intent?

Do you remember that I took the time recently to explain logical fallacies to you? This one is called shifting the burden of proof. You claimed to have a “perfectly logical argument” to validate your assertions – either you have or you haven’t but you cannot claim to have it, fail to provide it and then insist that someone explain the alternative to you. Whether there’s a complete answer to that, a partial answer or no answer at all is entirely irrelevant to your claim.

You really need to put up or shut up here. Do you have the “perfectly logical argument” you said you have to justify your clams or not?

If you think you have, what is it?

If you haven’t just say so.

It’s very simple.     

[Stranger]

Please explain how an inevitable neuron reaction in my brain can be deemed responsible for determining conscious intent?

Now you're back to asking for a full explanation of exactly how everything works when all you have to offer as an alternative is self-contradictory magic. 

So, do you have any logic to back up your claims or not?

[Alan Burns]

They can if the fact of “unavoidable reactions” creates the experience of deliberately telling lies.

There is an obvious contradiction in this statement.
An "experience", as you deem to call it, does not invoke a deliberate act.  The word "experience" reduces you to being a spectator of something which has already been determined.  As I said in my earlier post, a deliberate act can only be invoked in the present by the entity (you) which is responsible for the act.  Deliberate acts can't exist within the scenario where every event is an inevitable reaction to past events.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

There is an obvious contradiction in this statement.

Really? Where?

An "experience", as you deem to call it, does not invoke a deliberate act.

Oh FFS. The “experience” of something is just the way it feels to you. It’s quite possible though that the way something feels to you isn’t the way it actually is. So far, all you have is a feeling of “free” will that you then promote to being necessarily an accurate explanation for it with no connecting argument of any kind. 

The word "experience" reduces you to being a spectator of something which has already been determined.

Not if there isn’t a “you” somehow floating free of the rest of your physical self there isn’t. Your circular reasoning about this has been explained to you many times – why do you keep doing it?

As I said in my earlier post, a deliberate act can only be invoked in the present by the entity (you) which is responsible for the act.  Deliberate acts can't exist within the scenario where every event is an inevitable reaction to past events.

But when you said it your problem of having no argument to support the claim was explained you. Why have you just ignored that again?

So to summarise: yes there is a contradiction - it contradicts the assertion about "free" will you make but are entirely unable to support with the sound argument you claimed to have. That's a good thing though, only for me.   

[torridon]

There is an obvious contradiction in this statement.
An "experience", as you deem to call it, does not invoke a deliberate act.  The word "experience" reduces you to being a spectator of something which has already been determined.  As I said in my earlier post, a deliberate act can only be invoked in the present by the entity (you) which is responsible for the act.  Deliberate acts can't exist within the scenario where every event is an inevitable reaction to past events.

yes they can.  See #40479. 'Deliberate' just means the choice is made in some knowledge of the consequences.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Do you remember that I took the time recently to explain logical fallacies to you? This one is called shifting the burden of proof. You claimed to have a “perfectly logical argument” to validate your assertions – either you have or you haven’t but you cannot claim to have it, fail to provide it and then insist that someone explain the alternative to you. Whether there’s a complete answer to that, a partial answer or no answer at all is entirely irrelevant to your claim.

You really need to put up or shut up here. Do you have the “perfectly logical argument” you said you have to justify your clams or not?

If you think you have, what is it?

If you haven’t just say so.

It’s very simple.   

I asked for an explanation.  How can a request for explanation be deemed to be a logical fallacy?
Your reply does not explain, so I ask again -

Please explain how an inevitable neuron reaction in my brain can be deemed responsible for determining conscious intent

[Gordon]

I asked for an explanation.  How can a request for explanation be deemed to be a logical fallacy?
Your reply does not explain, so I ask again -

Please explain how an inevitable neuron reaction in my brain can be deemed responsible for determining conscious intent

You're wandering into the fallacy of composition - again.

[Stranger]

I asked for an explanation.  How can a request for explanation be deemed to be a logical fallacy?

You really don't pay any attention at all, do you? You can't logically argue for some 'explanation' you have on the basis that other proposed explanations are not complete. Especially when your supposed 'explanation' involves self-contradictory magic.

Your nonsensical magic does not become more believable just because we haven't got a full explanation of how conscious intent emerges from the brain.

Still waiting for the logical argument you claimed to have...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I asked for an explanation.  How can a request for explanation be deemed to be a logical fallacy?
Your reply does not explain, so I ask again -

Please explain how an inevitable neuron reaction in my brain can be deemed responsible for determining conscious intent

Again – it’s a fallacy called shifting the burden of proof. You claimed to have a "perfectly logical argument" to justify your claims. You have been asked to provide it, and instead you just ask for information about the evidence-based explanation. The answer to that might be a full explanation, a partial explanation, or no explanation at all. None of these answers though would have any relevance at all to your claim – namely that you have a valid argument to justify your assertions about “free” will.

The actual answer to the naturalistic explanation by the way is option two – ie, a partial information – but even if it was option three – ie, no information at all - still that would tell you nothing whatsoever about how likely your assertion (effectively “it’s magic innit”) is to be true.

Really, really try to grasp this. Your personal ignorance of or incredulity about the evidence for determinism tells you absolutely nothing about the credence you or anyone else should give to the superstition you would put in its place.

So yet again: what is the “perfectly logical argument” you claimed to have but seem never to be able to produce?
       

[torridon]

I asked for an explanation.  How can a request for explanation be deemed to be a logical fallacy?
Your reply does not explain, so I ask again -

Please explain how an inevitable neuron reaction in my brain can be deemed responsible for determining conscious intent

it can't.  And neither can a molecule of H2O account for the fluidity of water.  Mental phenomena emerge out of the interactions of neurons.  It's emergence, Alan, and it is everywhere.

[Alan Burns]

it can't.  And neither can a molecule of H2O account for the fluidity of water.  Mental phenomena emerge out of the interactions of neurons.  It's emergence, Alan, and it is everywhere.

Emergence does not have a will of its own.
Anything which emerges from material reactions will be entirely defined by those reactions.

[torridon]

Emergence does not have a will of its own.
Anything which emerges from material reactions will be entirely defined by those reactions.

Yes, will emerges from all that neural processing.  No neurons have will, will is an emergent phenomenon that derives from the functioning of the limbic brain.

[Stranger]

Emergence does not have a will of its own.

But the emergent phenomenon of minds, do (according to the evidence).

Anything which emerges from material reactions will be entirely defined by those reactions.

It will be produced by them, so what?

Where is this logical argument you promised us?

[Sebastian Toe]

It is a perfectly logical argument.

..on you go.

Make the arguement....without asking questions.
Just your arguement, laid out here, nothing else.
No diversions.
Should be easy, shouldn't it?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Emergence does not have a will of its own.
Anything which emerges from material reactions will be entirely defined by those reactions.

You fundamentally misunderstand (or misrepresent) what emergent properties can entail. As I’ve explained emergence to you several times and referred you to a very good book on the subject, I can only assume your continued ignorance to be deliberate.

Why though?

[Gordon]

Emergence does not have a will of its own.

You're misrepresenting emergence, and you should know better by now.

Anything which emerges from material reactions will be entirely defined by those reactions.

Says you, but we know what you say contains fundamental errors in logic and reasoning, hence your fondness for fallacies.

[BeRational]

It is a perfectly logical argument.
You have accused me of telling blatant lies.
You claim that every event must be determined by previous events, which implies that every event involved in my thought processes can only be inevitable reactions to previous events.  There is no mechanism for telling a deliberate lie within such a scenario.

I need to learn more about logic  as I am lacking, but I can see that you have not made a logical  argument. I think you mean you have made a statement that makes sense to you,  but that is not logic.

I have been watching  the atheist experience,  and the host is very good at logic and to use his example of logic 101 here is an example.
You start with some premises link them to get a conclusion. IF you accept the premises, then  you  have to accept the conclusion otherwise you're being irrational.

So here goes.

Premise 1.  All men are mortal.

Premise 2. John  is a man.

Conclusion.  John is mortal.

That is a logical argument.

But just because you can form an internally  consistent argument, it does not mean the conclusion is true. For that you would have to accept the premises.
So here goes.

Premise 1. All unicorns wear pink hats on Tuesday.

Premise  2. Today  is Tuesday.

Conclusion.  All unicorns will be wearing pink hats.

[bluehillside Retd.]

 Hi BR. Nice to hear from you again – it’s been a while.

I need to learn more about logic  as I am lacking, but I can see that you have not made a logical  argument. I think you mean you have made a statement that makes sense to you,  but that is not logic.

I have been watching  the atheist experience,  and the host is very good at logic and to use his example of logic 101 here is an example.
You start with some premises link them to get a conclusion. IF you accept the premises, then  you  have to accept the conclusion otherwise you're being irrational.

So here goes.

Premise 1.  All men are mortal.

Premise 2. John  is a man.

Conclusion.  John is mortal.

That is a logical argument.

But just because you can form an internally  consistent argument, it does not mean the conclusion is true. For that you would have to accept the premises.
So here goes.

Premise 1. All unicorns wear pink hats on Tuesday.

Premise  2. Today  is Tuesday.

Conclusion.  All unicorns will be wearing pink hats.

Quite so. One of the bigger problems AB gives himself (admittedly from a crowded field of problems) is circular reasoning. It goes like this:

1. Premise: there’s a god with a plan

2. Argument: the plan has happened, and the chances of that occurring “unguided” are too slim to make it happenstance

3. Conclusion: therefore god

You’ll notice though that Step 1 (the premise) and Step 3 (the conclusion) are the same thing (ie, "God"). That’s the circular reasoning bit, and it nullifies the whole effort. I’ve explained this to him several times but as always he ignores the problem and instead shoots off into either another fallacy or irrelevance. Then when he thinks the dust has settled, he returns time and again to the same circular reasoning. I have no idea what he gets from it, but there it is nonetheless.