Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

You have it the wrong way round: I was pointing out that you are terrified of cause and effect ....

No Gordon, I am no longer terrified of cause and effect.
I have seen the light!
Cause and effect - great!
I can no longer feel guilt because I know could not have possibly chosen differently.
I can no longer be held to account!
I am free to do whatever I want!
Whoop Whoop Whoop !!!

just a minute though - there is something not quite right there ....

[torridon]

You seem to be stuck in the groove of presuming that reaction to sensory data is indicative of some form of conscious perception of the data.  In evolutionary terms, automated advantageous reaction to sensory data would surely come before conscious perception of sensory data.  I remind you that the first real evidence of the existence of conscious awareness was the cave paintings discovered in France.

The evidence we have points to the Cambrian explosion as the earliest origins of conscious perception.  This predates human cave paintings by some 525 million years. The cave paintings mark the earliest evidence of human abstract creativity and representational art.  Such developments clearly requires perception but it does not define it.  Here is how we actually define perception :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception

Perception in some or other form is fundamental and ubiquitous across all higher domains of life.  It is perception that allows a penguin to recognise its chick and a gazelle to recognise a lion.  Perception is not something that evolved in hominids; without perception there would be no hominids, no bats, no fish, no amphibians, no cephalopods, no birds, no primates, no reptiles.  I'm hoping against hope that at least this one small perennial misconception of yours can be put to bed and we don't see you coming back here making the same ignorant and false elision of conscious perception with higher cognitive functioning again.

[Stranger]

just a minute though - there is something not quite right there ....

Yes, your inability to produce the logic you said you had or have the honesty to admit you can't.

This kind idiocy is just one of your favourite distraction tactics.

[Gordon]

No Gordon, I am no longer terrified of cause and effect.
I have seen the light!
Cause and effect - great!
I can no longer feel guilt because I know could not have possibly chosen differently.
I can no longer be held to account!
I am free to do whatever I want!
Whoop Whoop Whoop !!!

just a minute though - there is something not quite right there ....

Don't be so childish: you aren't free (as you envisage freedom) to do whatever you want, Alan, and you can be held to account - as you well know.

[Outrider]

No Gordon, I am no longer terrified of cause and effect.

Excellent.

I have seen the light!  Cause and effect - great!  I can no longer feel guilt because I know could not have possibly chosen differently.

In the long-term that realisation could lead to an adjustment of when you feel guilt and what you feel guilt about, perhaps, but it's unlikely that such an understanding would fundamentally and immediately update your internal emotional algorithms to that extent; if you suddenly feel like that I'd recommend seeking a medical professional's input.

I can no longer be held to account!

Of course you can - it's the justification for doing so that changes, not the fact that it happens.  People need to be held to account in order for society to function, it's the understanding of the nature of punishment vs rehabilitation that requires updating when you realise that people have no overall choice over what they become.

I am free to do whatever I want![/quote

You always were.  Who and what you are empowered and restrained you in equal measure then, why would they not do so now?

Whoop Whoop Whoop !!!

I think you meant that to be mock-celebratory, but it comes across as some sort of warning alarm going off...

O.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

No Gordon, I am no longer terrified of cause and effect.
I have seen the light!
Cause and effect - great!
I can no longer feel guilt because I know could not have possibly chosen differently.
I can no longer be held to account!
I am free to do whatever I want!
Whoop Whoop Whoop !!!

just a minute though - there is something not quite right there ....

I have not read the last few pages as I'm sure it's just a repetition of the arguments we have heard before.

Just checking the argument has not changed and AB is still asserting that the capacity for abstract thoughts about the supernatural and morality and the capacity to make choices that took into account concepts about moral values was due to humans having a soul, rather than just that their brain had developed to be able to conceptualise abstract ideas.

And AB is asserting that animals don't have abstract thoughts about supernatural entities or morality because they don't have souls?

And we still haven't got any further in terms of AB defining a soul or providing any proof of a soul being present in humans, other than as an abstract concept in the mind, or a soul being the source of higher cognitive functions? I find AB's argument similar to certain transgender arguments that a biological man can have an innate female essence that makes him a woman because there is more than biology at play. The proof that he is a woman is the feeling that he is one and he cannot deny the reality of his feelings.

AB - in relation to being held accountable - if a choice is made based on the influences of nature/ nurture and given that nurture includes environmental factors such as listening to sermons about Jesus and reading the Bible and praying, if the nurture causes a change in perception, and this change is a factor in choosing a behaviour, why would we not be held accountable for that action?

What's the alternative to holding people accountable for their nature / nurture if a society is to function?

[Nearly Sane]

....

What's the alternative to holding people accountable for their nature / nurture if a society is to function?

Pretty much all of your post is correct. The thing is that given that everything is determined or random, the lack of an alternative is not about anything other than that. Society functions as it functions. The idea that we would loom for something else is a mistake in perception. We are back that on a day to day discussion we talk about touching something when we don't, just as we talk about choosing something freely when we don't.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Pretty much all of your post is correct. The thing is that given that everything is determined or random, the lack of an alternative is not about anything other than that. Society functions as it functions. The idea that we would loom for something else is a mistake in perception. We are back that on a day to day discussion we talk about touching something when we don't, just as we talk about choosing something freely when we don't.

I think I have understood you correctly and agree that logically everything is either determined or random.

I am just wondering why this leads AB to conclude that he can't be held accountable.  Society holds animals accountable for their behaviour so why would humans be exempt from this accountability? 

[Nearly Sane]

I think I have understood you correctly and agree that logically everything is either determined or random.

I am just wondering why this leads AB to conclude that he can't be held accountable.  Society holds animals accountable for their behaviour so why would humans be exempt from this accountability?

His point is that if we have no 'real free choice' in doing it, it's not valuable. If he was a murderer, and it is just determined, then the idea of responsibility, as we normally use it, does not apply.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

His point is that if we have no 'real free choice' in doing it, it's not valuable. If he was a murderer, and it is just determined, then the idea of responsibility, as we normally use it, does not apply.

Ok but valuable to whom? Even if being a murderer is determined, I would think it's valuable to society because I am not sure how a society could function if the people who make up that society do not face consequences for their actions and behaviour.

I think CBT is interesting in this scenario - a therapist helps you become aware of what you are thinking as you are thinking it, and once you can recognise your thoughts, they teach you to reframe your thoughts to be less negative, which then changes your perceptions, which then changes your feelings, which then influences your behaviour. All of this is a deterministic system - the thoughts you have are determined by your nature/ nurture and even if you reframe those thoughts into new thoughts - your new thoughts are determined by your nature/nurture. It's just your nurture has altered slightly by the input of the therapist.

[Nearly Sane]

Ok but valuable to whom? Even if being a murderer is determined, I would think it's valuable to society because I am not sure how a society could function if the people who make up that society do not face consequences for their actions and behaviour.

I think CBT is interesting in this scenario - a therapist helps you become aware of what you are thinking as you are thinking it, and once you can recognise your thoughts, they teach you to reframe your thoughts to be less negative, which then changes your perceptions, which then changes your feelings, which then influences your behaviour. All of this is a deterministic system - the thoughts you have are determined by your nature/ nurture and even if you reframe those thoughts into new thoughts - your new thoughts are determined by your nature/nurture. It's just your nurture has altered slightly by the input of the therapist.

Not seeing what point you are making

[Stranger]

I am just wondering why this leads AB to conclude that he can't be held accountable.  Society holds animals accountable for their behaviour so why would humans be exempt from this accountability?

It's a distraction. Alan either uses it (consciously or not) as a distraction when his honesty is questioned ("but how can I be held accountable if you're right?"), as an appeal to consequences ("but if you're right then nobody would be accountable"), or as a kind of arse about face argument ("but I am responsible, so you're wrong").

Come to think of it, most of what he says is a distraction from the fact that he's been totally unable to address the fact that if our minds aren't deterministic systems, then they involve randomness, not any sort of additional "freedom". So he'll peddle endless incredulity about the possibility of a deterministic explanation (unfailingly misrepresented as being a restriction of "material reactions") or anything else that gets people talking about anything but the glaring contradictions and total lack of reasoning in his own position.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Not seeing what point you are making

I'm was responding to Alan's point that in a determinant system, society can't hold people accountable. Quite clearly society can and does hold people accountable in a determinant system as society has no alternative but to hold people accountable.

My other point was that our brains are capable of recognising that our thoughts are a product of our nature/ nurture and to keep seeking ways to change our nurture (environmental influences) to try to change our thoughts and therefore our behaviours.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm was responding to Alan's point that in a determinant system, society can't hold people accountable. Quite clearly society can and does hold people accountable in a determinant system as society has no alternative but to hold people accountable.

My other point was that our brains are capable of recognising that our thoughts are a product of our nature/ nurture and to keep seeking ways to change our nurture (environmental influences) to try to change our thoughts and therefore our behaviours.

Alan's point though that in his value position, the holding of people as accountable is meaningless to his values. And to be fair that's true for the vast majority of people - and that isn't an ad populum rather pointing out that the debate is about a wholely different  position.


That our brains recognise change does nothing in terms of Allan's freedom idea.

[Alan Burns]

Don't be so childish: you aren't free (as you envisage freedom) to do whatever you want, Alan, and you can be held to account - as you well know.

You can't have it both ways, Gordon. 
I am constantly being told that your take on determinism means that we could not possibly have made different choices over what we did in the past.  In such a scenario there is no personal accountability, because we have no personal control over the past events which you claim determines our choices. 

I know you will immediately claim "ad pop" for this, but almost the entire human race believes they could have made different choices in their lifetimes.  Are they all wrong?  Or is it short sighted human logic which is wrong?  Can you continue to ignore the possibility (or probability) that the power of the human soul can facilitate our freedom to choose, to think, to contemplate, to imagine, to investigate, to draw conclusions, to worship ..... ?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

You can't have it both ways, Gordon. 
I am constantly being told that your take on determinism means that we could not possibly have made different choices over what we did in the past.  In such a scenario there is no personal accountability, because we have no personal control over the past events which you claim determines our choices.

I know you will immediately claim "ad pop" for this, but almost the entire human race believes they could have made different choices in their lifetimes.  Are they all wrong?  Or is it short sighted human logic which is wrong?  Can you continue to ignore the possibility (or probability) that the power of the human soul can facilitate our freedom to choose, to think, to contemplate, to imagine, to investigate, to draw conclusions, to worship ..... ?

But in your scenario the soul makes a choice based on a reason, so the soul's choice is still being determined by the soul's perceptions of other factors i.e. its reasons for making the choice it did.

If the soul did not perceive those particular factors it could not have made the choice it did, therefore the soul's choices are determined (or as you like to call it "pre-determined") by the few specific factors it perceives and takes into consideration. I am not seeing how your scenario is any different from Gordon's.

Even if you are asserting that a soul has perfect information and is all-knowing (are you asserting that?) it's choices are still determined by the perfect information it takes into consideration. It is not free from this information so its choices aren't really free.

[Alan Burns]

But in your scenario the soul makes a choice based on a reason, so the soul's choice is still being determined by the soul's perceptions of other factors i.e. its reasons for making the choice it did.

If the soul did not perceive those particular factors it could not have made the choice it did, therefore the soul's choices are determined (or as you like to call it "pre-determined") by the few specific factors it perceives and takes into consideration. I am not seeing how your scenario is any different from Gordon's.

Even if you are asserting that a soul has perfect information and is all-knowing (are you asserting that?) it's choices are still determined by the perfect information it takes into consideration. It is not free from this information so its choices aren't really free.

My perception of reality is that we all exist and act in the present.  We are not machines determined by inevitable cause and effect.    We are not just an effect of the past - we have the conscious ability to generate our own cause.  This is the reality I live and exist in.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

My perception of reality is that we all exist and act in the present.  We are not machines determined by inevitable cause and effect.    We are not just an effect of the past - we have the conscious ability to generate our own cause.  This is the reality I live and exist in.

When you generate your own cause - does it happen randomly or is there a reason for you generating that cause?

[torridon]

You can't have it both ways, Gordon. 
I am constantly being told that your take on determinism means that we could not possibly have made different choices over what we did in the past.  In such a scenario there is no personal accountability, because we have no personal control over the past events which you claim determines our choices. 

Faux naivety. You can have it both ways, in effect.  The principle of deterrence applies at the emergent level of human social interaction whilst deterministic principles still underpin all human behaviour.  So, whilst it might be true that in the most fundamental sense you had no choice other than to post the above message, your preference in the moment is what it is, your choice nonetheless triggers reaction from the rest of the cosmos, such as this one, which will influence future choices.  It is by understanding that we are what we are due to the past, that penal reforms are moving the dial away from punishment and towards rehabilitation. Once people come to understand why choices they made in the past are bad they are more likely to make better choices in the future.  This is still all consistent with an underlying determinism.

[Nearly Sane]

Faux naivety. You can have it both ways, in effect.  The principle of deterrence applies at the emergent level of human social interaction whilst deterministic principles still underpin all human behaviour.  So, whilst it might be true that in the most fundamental sense you had no choice other than to post the above message, your preference in the moment is what it is, your choice nonetheless triggers reaction from the rest of the cosmos, such as this one, which will influence future choices.  It is by understanding that we are what we are due to the past, that penal reforms are moving the dial away from punishment and towards rehabilitation. Once people come to understand why choices they made in the past are bad they are more likely to make better choices in the future.  This is still all consistent with an underlying determinism.

This seems to claim a freedom in much the same illogical way that AB does. Any move towards a different system of punishment is going to happen because of what we are. I think it's mixing up 2 levels of views - the day to day level where we talk about will as if it was in some sense a choice that could be different, and the underlying philosophical level where it appears that no other choice could be made.

[torridon]

My perception of reality is that we all exist and act in the present.  We are not machines determined by inevitable cause and effect.    We are not just an effect of the past - we have the conscious ability to generate our own cause.  This is the reality I live and exist in.

It's not the reality I live in.  To 'generate a cause' out of the blue, for no reason, would be random.  I don't do things randomly. Do you ?

[torridon]

This seems to claim a freedom in much the same illogical way that AB does. Any move towards a different system of punishment is going to happen because of what we are. I think it's mixing up 2 levels of views - the day to day level where we talk about will as if it was in some sense a choice that could be different, and the underlying philosophical level where it appears that no other choice could be made.

I'd agree, a change in policy re crime and punishment would be an inevitability in a fundamental philosophical sense, and yet would be described as free choice in the language of policy makers.  Trying to describe the same phenomenon from both levels of analysis is apt to cause confusion.

[Alan Burns]

When you generate your own cause - does it happen randomly or is there a reason for you generating that cause?

It is certainly not random - nor is it an inevitable reaction beyond my control.  I am consciously aware of reasons, and I am consciously aware of possible consequences, and I am consciously aware of my ability to make my own choice rather than just react.

[Stranger]

My perception of reality is that we all exist and act in the present.

Gibberish Alert!

We are not machines determined by inevitable cause and effect.

Baseless assertion.

We are not just an effect of the past - we have the conscious ability to generate our own cause.  This is the reality I live and exist in.

Drivel. If we generate a cause that isn't entirely the effect of previous causes, then, to some extent, it is due to nothing and is therefore random. No matter how much you ignore it, that logic isn't going to go away.

Where is the first hint of the logic you said you had or the honesty to admit you have none?

[Stranger]

It is certainly not random - nor is it an inevitable reaction beyond my control.

No, it's an inevitable reaction that is entirely under your control. You can't control something unless you have the will to do one thing rather than another. It is your own will that is the inevitable reaction (unless there is randomness).

I am consciously aware of reasons, and I am consciously aware of possible consequences, and I am consciously aware of my ability to make my own choice rather than just react.

Trite, superficial, thought-free nonsense.