Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

Both circular and absurd. Nonsensical gibberish about how you exist in some mythical "present" is not logic. You might as well have just said that you were magically able to do the self-contradictory, which contains just as much reasoning and at least has the advantage of not being circular.

You may have played on video games.
While playing the game, you experience a different world in which you interact via the computer interfaces.  You do not exist in that world, but during the game you are living as though you are the character in that world.  The screen, keyboard, mouse and speakers immerse you into a totally different world to the one you exist in.

Now go one level up.

You interact with this physical world via the interfaces provided in a material body.  You are not part of this world, but your experiences provided though the interface make you feel as though you are part of this world.  The sensory organs and neural interfaces allow you to imagine your entire self exists and acts in this material world.  You perceive the passing of time in this material world through these interfaces, and when they are removed, you will be back in your natural environment where you will experience your true spiritual self.

[Sebastian Toe]

You interact with this physical world via the interfaces provided in a material body. 

Fascinating.
What interfaces are those?
Where do they reside in your body?

[Gordon]

You may have played on video games.
While playing the game, you experience a different world in which you interact via the computer interfaces.  You do not exist in that world, but during the game you are living as though you are the character in that world.  The screen, keyboard, mouse and speakers immerse you into a totally different world to the one you exist in.

Now go one level up.

You interact with this physical world via the interfaces provided in a material body.  You are not part of this world, but your experiences provided though the interface make you feel as though you are part of this world.  The sensory organs and neural interfaces allow you to imagine your entire self exists and acts in this material world.  Your perceive the passing of time in this material world through these interfaces, and when they are removed, you will be back in your natural environment where you will experience your true spiritual self.

You should take this to Netflix: I'm sure they could do something with it - maybe call it 'Even Stranger Things'.

[torridon]

You may have played on video games.
While playing the game, you experience a different world in which you interact via the computer interfaces.  You do not exist in that world, but during the game you are living as though you are the character in that world.  The screen, keyboard, mouse and speakers immerse you into a totally different world to the one you exist in.

Now go one level up.

You interact with this physical world via the interfaces provided in a material body.  You are not part of this world, but your experiences provided though the interface make you feel as though you are part of this world.  The sensory organs and neural interfaces allow you to imagine your entire self exists and acts in this material world.  Your perceive the passing of time in this material world through these interfaces, and when they are removed, you will be back in your natural environment where you will experience your true spiritual self.

AKA simulation 'theory'.  I don't see how this helps your free will claim.  Whilst inside the simulation we would still have to resolve choices by weighing rival options against each other and we still wouldn't be able to believe things we don't believe or want things we don't want, the only conceptual difference is that all our inputs are fictitious in a sense but if we cannot discern that then it makes no difference to the logic of choice.

[Stranger]

You may have played on video games.
While playing the game, you experience a different world in which you interact via the computer interfaces.  You do not exist in that world, but during the game you are living as though you are the character in that world.  The screen, keyboard, mouse and speakers immerse you into a totally different world to the one you exist in.

Now go one level up.

You interact with this physical world via the interfaces provided in a material body.  You are not part of this world, but your experiences provided though the interface make you feel as though you are part of this world.  The sensory organs and neural interfaces allow you to imagine your entire self exists and acts in this material world.  Your perceive the passing of time in this material world through these interfaces, and when they are removed, you will be back in your natural environment where you will experience your true spiritual self.

So how do you think this helps with the determinism/random 'problem'? Regardless of whether you locate yourself outside the "game" or physical world or not, the very act of thinking about something and making a choice requires a time dimension to operate in. Even if that doesn't correspond directly with that of the universe, that doesn't change the fact that it's needed and hence the logic of determinism applies.

[Outrider]

You may have played on video games.

May have?

While playing the game, you experience a different world in which you interact via the computer interfaces.  You do not exist in that world, but during the game you are living as though you are the character in that world.  The screen, keyboard, mouse and speakers immerse you into a totally different world to the one you exist in.

Now go one level up.

You interact with this physical world via the interfaces provided in a material body.  You are not part of this world, but your experiences provided though the interface make you feel as though you are part of this world.  The sensory organs and neural interfaces allow you to imagine your entire self exists and acts in this material world.  Your perceive the passing of time in this material world through these interfaces, and when they are removed, you will be back in your natural environment where you will experience your true spiritual self.

Within that world, though, if we were conscious we could investigate the source of the observable phenomena and find inputs coming from other places - we do not have that.  We could, in the game world, investigate our behaviour and find unprompted activity in the world, things happening without an apparent source, and conjecture that there must be a further source for that input - we don't even have those unexplained phenomena in our world.

O.

[Alan Burns]

So how do you think this helps with the determinism/random 'problem'? Regardless of whether you locate yourself outside the "game" or physical world or not, the very act of thinking about something and making a choice requires a time dimension to operate in. Even if that doesn't correspond directly with that of the universe, that doesn't change the fact that it's needed and hence the logic of determinism applies.

No.
You are making the presumption that time is universal.
We perceive time through our conscious awareness of this material world.
You will be consciously interacting within the time dimension of the physical world, but not necessarily existing in that time dimension.  The ever present state of your conscious awareness will enable you to freely interact within this time dimension without being restricted by its limitations, particularly in relation to the time dependent deterministic nature of this material world. 

I am not claiming that such a scenario will be the absolute truth - no one can ever make such a claim.  But I am illustrating one speculative example of how our human free will can be the reality we all perceive it to be.

[Stranger]

No.

Yes.

You are making the presumption that time is universal.

No, but time is necessary for anything to happen, such as thinking and making choices.

We perceive time through our conscious awareness of this material world.
You will be consciously interacting within the time dimension of the physical world, but not necessarily existing in that time dimension.

Interaction is doing something and hence requires time. To the extent you do not exist in a time dimension, you are incapable of doing anything, including interaction which requires receiving some input, doing something with it, and producing some output.

You can claim that you exist in a different time dimension from the universe as a whole but that doesn't help at all with your contradiction. You've just moved the problem from one time dimension to another.

The ever present state of your conscious awareness...

...is still meaningless gibberish.

...will enable you to freely interact within this time dimension without being restricted by its limitations, particularly in relation to the time dependent deterministic nature of this material world. 

All you've done is made up a totally meaningless phrase "ever present state of your conscious awareness" and then claimed that it frees you from a logical constraint. It's literally as vacuous as saying "but souls are so magic that logic doesn't apply to them".

I am not claiming that such a scenario will be the absolute truth - no one can ever make such a claim.  But I am illustrating one speculative example of how our human free will can be the reality we all perceive it to be.

Except that you haven't.

What's more, we don't all perceive your nonsense version of freedom to be a reality - I can't even imagine what such a perception would involve because it literally makes no sense. As I said before, it seems to be the most superficial and simplistic of assumptions that collapses into incoherence as soon as one thinks about it at all logically.

And YET AGAIN: let's say you could actually define the "ever present state of your conscious awareness" in some way that made logical sense and therefore you did find a way out of the contradiction, you then couldn't go on to claim that non-material souls would be needed unless you claimed to know everything about the physical world and therefore could be sure that there was no possible way to achieve such a state through some (unknown) physical process.

[Alan Burns]

All you've done is made up a totally meaningless phrase "ever present state of your conscious awareness" and then claimed that it frees you from a logical constraint

You do not realise the importance and relevance of this phrase:
"ever present state of your conscious awareness"

A change in state with respect to time can only be detected from a datum which itself is not subject to change.  Our conscious awareness is an ever present window into this material world from which we can perceive how material entities change state over time.  It is in contrast to what may be termed "reactive perception" which involves reaction to sensory data as opposed to conscious awareness of the data.  A reaction cannot be consciously perceived by another reaction.  To consciously perceive reactions occurring over time you need a datum which itself does not change with time.  This is why the concepts of "conscious awareness" and "present state" are so elusive  to define in material terms.  I appreciate that this concept of "ever present state of conscious awareness" is difficult to understand, and I am unable to fully describe this concept and its relevance in a short post on this forum, but I hope I can at least give you some food for thought.

[Sebastian Toe]

You do not realise the importance and relevance of this phrase:
"ever present state of your conscious awareness"

A change in state with respect to time can only be detected from a datum which itself is not subject to change. 

...and the - not subject to change datum - is.......?

[Nearly Sane]

You do not realise the importance and relevance of this phrase:
"ever present state of your conscious awareness"

A change in state with respect to time can only be detected from a datum which itself is not subject to change.  Our conscious awareness is an ever present window into this material world from which we can perceive how material entities change state over time.  It is in contrast to what may be termed "reactive perception" which involves reaction to sensory data as opposed to conscious awareness of the data.  A reaction cannot be consciously perceived by another reaction.  To consciously perceive reactions occurring over time you need a datum which itself does not change with time.  This is why the concepts of "conscious awareness" and "present state" are so elusive  to define in material terms.  I appreciate that this concept of "ever present state of conscious awareness" is difficult to understand, and I am unable to fully describe this concept and its relevance in a short post on this forum, but I hope I can at least give you some food for thought.

http://www.wisdomofchopra.com

[torridon]

You do not realise the importance and relevance of this phrase:
"ever present state of your conscious awareness"

A change in state with respect to time can only be detected from a datum which itself is not subject to change. 
...

eeerm, all sentient living things can detect change over time  I throw a stick for Fido to retrieve, he watches it change state with respect to time just as I do.  That's how he can calculate his speed and direction in order to intercept it.  That doesn't require the observer to be somehow outside the spacetime continuum.

Whatever are you going to dream up next ?

[Gordon]

You do not realise the importance and relevance of this phrase:
"ever present state of your conscious awareness"

A change in state with respect to time can only be detected from a datum which itself is not subject to change.  Our conscious awareness is an ever present window into this material world from which we can perceive how material entities change state over time.  It is in contrast to what may be termed "reactive perception" which involves reaction to sensory data as opposed to conscious awareness of the data.  A reaction cannot be consciously perceived by another reaction.  To consciously perceive reactions occurring over time you need a datum which itself does not change with time.  This is why the concepts of "conscious awareness" and "present state" are so elusive  to define in material terms.  I appreciate that this concept of "ever present state of conscious awareness" is difficult to understand, and I am unable to fully describe this concept and its relevance in a short post on this forum, but I hope I can at least give you some food for thought.

It's free-form 'stream of consciousness' prose, Captain: but not as we know it, unless of course it is pretentious and meaningless shite.

(My money is on the latter)

[Stranger]

You do not realise the importance and relevance of this phrase:
"ever present state of your conscious awareness"

A change in state with respect to time can only be detected from a datum which itself is not subject to change.  Our conscious awareness is an ever present window into this material world from which we can perceive how material entities change state over time.  It is in contrast to what may be termed "reactive perception" which involves reaction to sensory data as opposed to conscious awareness of the data.  A reaction cannot be consciously perceived by another reaction.  To consciously perceive reactions occurring over time you need a datum which itself does not change with time.  This is why the concepts of "conscious awareness" and "present state" are so elusive  to define in material terms.  I appreciate that this concept of "ever present state of conscious awareness" is difficult to understand, and I am unable to fully describe this concept and its relevance in a short post on this forum, but I hope I can at least give you some food for thought.

Total bullshit.

You can't perceive anything at all unless you change state, specifically, from not having perceived it to having perceived it. A 'datum' is just a piece of information and of course you need a baseline to detect change but a perception would have to notice the difference between the baseline and what is happening in time, and noticing (perceiving) is a change of state that would have to happen at a time.

You can't think about anything or make any choices without thoughts entering your mind, being considered and choices being made, all of which are changes in state that happen over time. This whole discussion is about "free will" and to have a will a mind needs to reach a conclusions (another change in state) - to suggest that this can happen without time in some timeless "present" is absurd.

"A reaction cannot be consciously perceived by another reaction" is just a baseless assertion. Claiming that "conscious awareness" and "present state" are "elusive to define in material terms" is just a pretence that anybody is asking you to define anything in "material terms". Logical self-consistency is all that is being asked of you.

[Alan Burns]

Total bullshit.

You can't perceive anything at all unless you change state, specifically, from not having perceived it to having perceived it. A 'datum' is just a piece of information and of course you need a baseline to detect change but a perception would have to notice the difference between the baseline and what is happening in time, and noticing (perceiving) is a change of state that would have to happen at a time.

I believe you are wrong in this.
If the detector changes state as well as that which is being detected, there can be no real detection.  For example, you do not measure velocity of an object which is moving from another object which is also moving.  To consciously detect a change in state with respect to time, the conscious detector needs to be outside the time line, but aware of the time line.

[Alan Burns]

eeerm, all sentient living things can detect change over time  I throw a stick for Fido to retrieve, he watches it change state with respect to time just as I do.  That's how he can calculate his speed and direction in order to intercept it.  That doesn't require the observer to be somehow outside the spacetime continuum.

Whatever are you going to dream up next ?

Once more you seem to presume conscious awareness is demonstrated by instinctive behaviour in reaction to sensory data.
Awareness is not reaction - it is conscious perception of data, not reaction to it.

[torridon]

Once more you seem to presume conscious awareness is demonstrated by instinctive behaviour in reaction to sensory data.
..

Yes of course, any behaviours demonstrate conscious awareness, if you are unconscious all you do is lie on your back, dead to the world until you recover consciousness.   Whether the behaviours are instinctive or more complex is irrelevant.  This is not rocket science Alan.

[torridon]

I believe you are wrong in this.
If the detector changes state as well as that which is being detected, there can be no real detection.  For example, you do not measure velocity of an object which is moving from another object which is also moving.  To consciously detect a change in state with respect to time, the conscious detector needs to be outside the time line, but aware of the time line.

Eeerm, you have never heard of relativity ?  Try using that as a defence next time a speed camera clocks you going 5 miles an hour over the limit.  Sorry m'lud, spacetime has no objective frame of reference so the camera could not possibly have measured my speed.

[Gordon]

Once more you seem to presume conscious awareness is demonstrated by instinctive behaviour in reaction to sensory data.
Awareness is not reaction - it is conscious perception of data, not reaction to it.

On what evidential basis do you claim that 'conscious awareness/perception' cannot be a form of reaction?

Some citations from some suitably authoritative professionals (neurologists, psychologists etc) would be informative.

[Stranger]

I believe you are wrong in this.
If the detector changes state as well as that which is being detected, there can be no real detection.  For example, you do not measure velocity of an object which is moving from another object which is also moving.

Is this even a serious comment? Show me a detector that doesn't change state and I'll show you a broken detector. If you're measuring speed, then a needle moves or digits change state on some display, or the contents of some memory chip change state to record the speed. If nothing changes in a detector it has (obviously) failed to detect anything.

To consciously detect a change in state with respect to time, the conscious detector needs to be outside the time line, but aware of the time line.

Total nonsense. Everything you see, hear, feel, smell, or taste changes the contents of your perception of the world - that perception isn't the world, it's in your mind. Every thought in your conscious mind happens at a time and remains in your mind for a period of time. Every time you think about something and consider different aspects of it, the content of your conscious mind is changing its state. Every time you remember something, information from your memory enters your concious mind, so the content of your consciousness changes. Every daydream or flight of fancy, and every creative act are changes in the state of your mind. More specifically a conscious ("free will") choice happens at a time, and that is a specific change of state from not having chosen to having made your choice.

I can't believe I'm having to spend time (!) explaining why minds can't operate without changing over time. The idea of a mind outside of time is just ridiculous. You seem intent on digging yourself ever deeper into total absurdity.

[Alan Burns]

Eeerm, you have never heard of relativity ?  Try using that as a defence next time a speed camera clocks you going 5 miles an hour over the limit.  Sorry m'lud, spacetime has no objective frame of reference so the camera could not possibly have measured my speed.

You totally missed the point.
In order for the speed camera to determine velocity, the data obtained needs to be referenced to a datum which is not moving.  It is human conscious awareness acting within its own conscious "present" which is the essential means by which this data can be used to determine speed.

[Alan Burns]

eeerm, all sentient living things can detect change over time  I throw a stick for Fido to retrieve, he watches it change state with respect to time just as I do.  That's how he can calculate his speed and direction in order to intercept it.  That doesn't require the observer to be somehow outside the spacetime continuum.

Animals certainly react to change.
But it is our conscious awareness of change which allows us to choose how to react rather than react instinctively.

[torridon]

You totally missed the point.
In order for the speed camera to determine velocity, the data obtained needs to be referenced to a datum which is not moving.  It is human conscious awareness acting within its own conscious "present" which is the essential means by which this data can be used to determine speed.

So, a speed camera is not moving with respect to the speeder.  The speed registered is the relative speed.  Do you really not get this ?

[torridon]

Animals certainly react to change.
But it is our conscious awareness of change which allows us to choose how to react rather than react instinctively.

As do many other intelligent species.  Very few higher species run entirely on instinctive behaviours alone.  You should understand this by now, I've had to explain this over and over again; why do you struggle so much with this ?

[Outrider]

Animals certainly react to change.
But it is our conscious awareness of change which allows us to choose how to react rather than react instinctively.

Whilst I think pretty much everyone is open to the idea that human consciousness is quantitatively different to the rest of the animal kingdom, what is it about humanity that you think shows we are qualitatively different?  Are we something different, or are we just better at consciousness?

O.