Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

Oh and what exactly do you think making a string of unqualified assertions will achieve here, and how in any case do you think doing that relates to the post you were supposedly replying to about your bizarre position that minds somehow select their own wants, then change themselves on the basis of the wants they’ve somehow selected?

It is not a bizarre position to witness to the reality of our conscious freedom to choose, rather than react in a machine like way to past events.  Our conscious freedom is a demonstrable reality - not an illusion or a perceived experience - which is the essential means by which we can achieve the vast array of consciously driven human endeavours which distinguish us from the rest of the animal kingdom.

[torridon]

It is not a bizarre position to witness to the reality of our conscious freedom to choose, rather than react in a machine like way to past events.  Our conscious freedom is a demonstrable reality - not an illusion or a perceived experience - which is the essential means by which we can achieve the vast array of consciously driven human endeavours which distinguish us from the rest of the animal kingdom.

Free will is certainly not demonstrable, you should understand this by now.  To demonstrate it, you'd need to be able to rewind time and show that you could have chosen differently in the same circumstance. We can never do that, so free will will always remain a conjecture, a belief and no more.  However if you could rewind time and choose differently that would anyway imply that your choice was random, there being no reason for it.  So, to demonstrate it, would in fact be to refute it anyway. 

Afraid you are backing an entirely unwinnable case with free will.  It is an inherently irrational claim.

[Stranger]

It is not a bizarre position to witness to the reality of our conscious freedom to choose, rather than react in a machine like way to past events.

You're not witnessing to it, just endlessly repeating a reasoning-free assertion.

Our conscious freedom is a demonstrable reality - not an illusion or a perceived experience...

Why can't you demonstrate it, then? All you appear to be able to demonstrate is your own inability to grasp basic logic or properly engage with reasoned responses.

...which is the essential means by which we can achieve the vast array of consciously driven human endeavours which distinguish us from the rest of the animal kingdom.

Just another assertion.

I'll ask yet again: what is it about anything that humans do that requires the (contradictory) ability to have been able to do differently without randomness?

And once again: no matter how much you wibble on "consciously driven", the role of consciousness and how much it is responsible for driving anything, is totally irrelevant to the logic that undoes your silly assertions.

You said you had logic. None of your endlessly repeated assertions, incredulity, and fallacies, are anything remotely like logic, so unless you have something new to say that actually does contain logic, you really should admit that you have none.

[Alan Burns]

I'll ask yet again: what is it about anything that humans do that requires the (contradictory) ability to have been able to do differently without randomness?

As I have said, what humans do is driven by our conscious state of awareness, which is not driven by past events but exists and acts in the present by invoking acts of conscious will rather than being driven by inevitable reactions to past events.  Your repeated use of trying to imagine the impossible scenario of turning back time is just an irrelevance, which in itself demonstrates the freedom of our conscious mind to imagine such a scenario.

And once again: no matter how much you wibble on "consciously driven", the role of consciousness and how much it is responsible for driving anything, is totally irrelevant to the logic that undoes your silly assertions.

The role of consciousness is entirely relevant because it is what frees us from the physically driven cause and effect scenario over which we can have no consciously driven control.

[Alan Burns]

Free will is certainly not demonstrable, you should understand this by now.  To demonstrate it, you'd need to be able to rewind time and show that you could have chosen differently in the same circumstance. We can never do that, so free will will always remain a conjecture, a belief and no more.  However if you could rewind time and choose differently that would anyway imply that your choice was random, there being no reason for it.  So, to demonstrate it, would in fact be to refute it anyway. 

I know I can't turn back time.
I also know that I could have made many different choices over my lifetime which would certainly not have been random. Because I know I am not a machine driven by past events, but a human being exercising my gift of free will.  This awareness in itself is evidence of my freedom to contemplate such things. 

[Stranger]

As I have said, what humans do is driven by our conscious state of awareness, which is not driven by past events but exists and acts in the present by invoking acts of conscious will rather than being driven by inevitable reactions to past events.

Firstly, I didn't ask you to just repeat your baseless, illogical assertion, I asked you to explain how being able to have done differently (without randomness) actually makes a difference. What is it about our abilities needs this (nonsensical) version of "freedom"? I'm asking for reasoning, not just more foot-stamping.

Secondly, no matter how often you repeat the nonsensical gibberish about "exists and acts in the present", it is not magically going to start to make sense.

Your repeated use of trying to imagine the impossible scenario of turning back time is just an irrelevance...

Why? Looks like you are just too afraid to think about it.

...which in itself demonstrates the freedom of our conscious mind to imagine such a scenario.

Baseless assertion.

The role of consciousness is entirely relevant...

The argument against your nonsensical view of freedom, does not depend on the role of consciousness, so it is irrelevant to the counterargument you are facing. You don't get to decide on the contents of the argument against you, you need to address it as it is. Emphasising conciousness does nothing at all to address the argument you face.

You have contradicted yourself in a way that has nothing to do with the role of consciousness.

...because it is what frees us from the physically driven cause and effect scenario over which we can have no consciously driven control.

Another reasoning-free assertion, complete with dishonest misrepresentation.

Where is your logic?

[torridon]

I know I can't turn back time.
I also know that I could have made many different choices over my lifetime which would certainly not have been random. Because I know I am not a machine driven by past events, but a human being exercising my gift of free will.  This awareness in itself is evidence of my freedom to contemplate such things.

I agree our choices are not random, but this means we make choices for a reason, which in turn means they aren't free.

[Stranger]

I know I can't turn back time.

That's the only way your version of "freedom" could actually be demonstrated, so will you now stop calling it demonstrable?

I also know that I could have made many different choices over my lifetime which would certainly not have been random. Because I know I am not a machine driven by past events, but a human being exercising my gift of free will.

Foot-stamping.

This awareness in itself is evidence of my freedom to contemplate such things.

Baseless, thought-free drivel.

[Alan Burns]

I agree our choices are not random, but this means we make choices for a reason, which in turn means they aren't free.

Being free from automated reactions to the past does not imply that our choices are free from reason - just that they are determined by our conscious state of mind at the time we choose to invoke the choice.  Reasons exist in our present state of conscious awareness.  Reasons are not reactions - they are consciously conceived.

[Alan Burns]

Where is your logic?

It is in our conscious state of mind - where the reality of our existence exists.
How can you possibly claim consciousness to be irrelevant?

[Stranger]

Being free from automated reactions to the past does not imply that our choices are free from reason...

If a choice is not entirely due to the pre-existing reasons and the pre-existing state of mind, then part of them must be due to nothing at all (random).

...just that they are determined by our conscious state of mind at the time we choose to invoke the choice.

Of course they are determined at the time.

Reasons exist in our present state of conscious awareness.  Reasons are not reactions - they are consciously conceived.

The "present state of conscious awareness" either got that way entirely because of the immediately preceding state and its inputs, or it is partly due to nothing (random).

"Consciously conceived" reasons either appeared entirely because of preceding reasons and current perceptions (inputs) or they are partly because of nothing (random).

Are you even capable or logical thought and rational arguments?

Do you even know what they mean, because they don't mean "ignore what has actually been said to me and just mindlessly repeat what I've said many times before as if nobody had even mentioned the counterargument that I want to go away".

[Stranger]

Where is your logic?

It is in our conscious state of mind - where the reality of our existence exists.
How can you possibly claim consciousness to be irrelevant?

Blatant evasion noted.

And for fuck's sake, did you even bother to read what I said consciousness was irrelevant to and why?

The contradiction that you have introduced between not deterministic and not random has nothing to do with consciousness - it stands regardless of what role consciousness plays.

Good grief, how did somebody who doesn't pay attention and apparently totally lacks any ability to think rationally and logically ever manage to make a living doing programming?

Where is the logical argument you said you had, or will you admit you can't produce one?

[torridon]

Being free from automated reactions to the past does not imply that our choices are free from reason - just that they are determined by our conscious state of mind at the time we choose to invoke the choice.  Reasons exist in our present state of conscious awareness.  Reasons are not reactions - they are consciously conceived.

And our conscious state of mind is a consequence of the things that led to it.  Consciousness exists within the flow of cause and effect like everything else; good things happen, you get happy, bad things happen, you get sad.  You don't choose your conscious emotional state.  Am I really having to explain this ? I get the feeling you must be an alien who has only learnt about what it is like to be human from reading text books.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It is not a bizarre position to witness to the reality of our conscious freedom to choose, rather than react in a machine like way to past events.

You’re not ‘witnessing” anything though – you’re just describing your experience of something, and then overreaching by asserting the experience also to be the explanation for the phenomenon you’re experiencing.

Our conscious freedom is a demonstrable reality - not an illusion or a perceived experience –

And yet when you’re asked actually to demonstrate it you never, ever even attempt it. Why is that? Why do you think that asserting something to be demonstrable means you don’t have to bother with the demonstration itself? 

…which is the essential means by which we can achieve the vast array of consciously driven human endeavours which distinguish us from the rest of the animal kingdom.

Ah, the old argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy based on a highly dubious assertion about a supposed fundamental difference between our species and all the rest. Why do you keep embarrassing yourself like this?

Oh, and in your last effort you repeated a series of unqualified assertions about what computers could ever achieve, were challenged on them, and then just ignored the questions you were asked. Why are you so dishonest whenever you’re asked to justify your assertions?

[Alan Burns]

And yet when you’re asked actually to demonstrate it you never, ever even attempt it. Why is that? Why do you think that asserting something to be demonstrable means you don’t have to bother with the demonstration itself? 

My ability to assert anything aptly demonstrates that I have the conscious freedom to make the assertion.

[Alan Burns]

And our conscious state of mind is a consequence of the things that led to it.

No.
It is a consequence of how I choose to respond to what I consciously perceive.

[Stranger]

My ability to assert anything aptly demonstrates that I have the conscious freedom to make the assertion.

No, it does not. That's just another reasoning-free assertion. I could, quite literally, write a program to generate your daft assertions over and over and over again, much like your posts.

Not only are you not demonstrating your nonsensical version of freedom, you aren't even demonstrating the presence of a functioning human mind capable of logical thought and the ability to read, comprehend, and engage with counterarguments.

[Alan Burns]

The contradiction that you have introduced between not deterministic and not random has nothing to do with consciousness - it stands regardless of what role consciousness plays.

Without your conscious awareness you would not be able to conceive of any logic.
Can you not see that your ability to freely manipulate and process and validate the thoughts going on within your conscious awareness is essential to bring you to be consciously aware of the conclusions which have been formulated within your conscious mind?

[Stranger]

And our conscious state of mind is a consequence of the things that led to it.

No.
It is a consequence of how I choose to respond to what I consciously perceive.

Which is the same thing. "How I choose" must be the consequence of the things that led to that choice (otherwise, it would involve randomness).

Something that is not the consequence of the things that led to, must involve randomness, because not being the consequence of the things that led to it is pretty much the definition of randomness.

[Alan Burns]

No, it does not. That's just another reasoning-free assertion. I could, quite literally, write a program to generate your daft assertions over and over and over again, much like your posts.

And the ultimate cause for the results produced by such a program would derive from your own consciously controlled mind.
A computer program is just an extension of our human ability to consciously manipulate and interact within this material universe.  It would be you consciously choosing to mimic my so called assertions using computer software, thus demonstrating your own freedom to do so.

[Stranger]

Without your conscious awareness you would not be able to conceive of any logic.
Can you not see that your ability to freely manipulate and process and validate the thoughts going on within your conscious awareness is essential to bring you to be consciously aware of the conclusions which have been formulated within your conscious mind?

Hand-waving waffle that is still totally irrelevant to being able to have done differently in exactly the same circumstances and state of mind.

You said you had logic.

Where is the logic that goes from any actual ability humans have to the need to have the ability to have done differently in exactly the same circumstances and state of mind?

Where is the logic that resolves the contradiction that if something could have been different, then there could be no reason for the difference, so it must be for no reason (random)?

Come on Alan, what are your premises? What are the steps to the conclusion?

[Alan Burns]

Which is the same thing. "How I choose" must be the consequence of the things that led to that choice (otherwise, it would involve randomness).

A consequence of things which have already occurred is a reaction - not a choice.
Our human free will derives from our unique ability to consciously generate a causal event.  It is what makes us human.  It is the underlying cause for every post on this forum.

[Stranger]

And the ultimate cause for the results produced by such a program would derive from your own consciously controlled mind.
A computer program is just an extension of our human ability to consciously manipulate and interact within this material universe.  It would be you consciously choosing to mimic my so called assertions using computer software, thus demonstrating your own freedom to do so.

Is this a joke? You're basically saying that no matter how accurately your posts could be mimicked by a mindless automaton, they still demonstrate that you have magic self-contradictory "freedom".

No matter what you write, it cannot possibly demonstrate that you could have written something different, let alone that you could have done so without randomness.

[Stranger]

A consequence of things which have already occurred is a reaction - not a choice.
Our human free will derives from our unique ability to consciously generate a causal event.  It is what makes us human.  It is the underlying cause for every post on this forum.

Redefinition of the word 'choice' and more mindless foot-stamping. 

Where is the logic?

[torridon]

A consequence of things which have already occurred is a reaction - not a choice.
Our human free will derives from our unique ability to consciously generate a causal event.  It is what makes us human.  It is the underlying cause for every post on this forum.

if you 'generate a causal event' for no reason, then that would be random. How can this be so difficult ? We do not work like that, I don't, you don't, no one does, we make choices for a reason.   There must be a reason why something led us to choose one way and not the other.  I really don't believe that you cannot understand this after all this time.