Searching for GOD...

[BeRational]

If every event that ever happens is determined by past events, then everything is predetermined by the past.  Whatever comprises "you" will just be a conduit for the endless chains of cause and effect to take their course.

So what?

You dont like that answer so it must be wrong?

[Nearly Sane]

If every event that ever happens is determined by past events, then everything is predetermined by the past.  Whatever comprises "you" will just be a conduit for the endless chains of cause and effect to take their course.

I am finding the discussion about predetermined vs determined fairly pointless with a clear agreed definition from either AB or NTtS. 

[Alan Burns]

I am finding the discussion about predetermined vs determined fairly pointless with a clear agreed definition from either AB or NTtS.

Just contemplate what is being claimed.
Determinism claims that every event is a consequence of previous events.
So everything must be predetermined by these previous events.
Can you honestly claim that the process of "thinking things through" can be a reality in such a scenario?

[Nearly Sane]

Just contemplate what is being claimed.
Determinism claims that every event is a consequence of previous events.
So everything must be predetermined by these previous events.
Can you honestly claim that the process of "thinking things through" can be a reality in such a scenario?

You see the problem I have here is that you are using determined/predetermined as synonymous and NTtS is not
 You are talking past each other.

[torridon]

Just contemplate what is being claimed.
Determinism claims that every event is a consequence of previous events.
So everything must be predetermined by these previous events.
Can you honestly claim that the process of "thinking things through" can be a reality in such a scenario?

Is there something special about thinking that places it outside the paradigm of cause and effect ?  It's biological activity happening in your brain and if thoughts were somehow not subject to that principle that would mean that thoughts were random events. You haven't explained how we could have random thoughts, and indeed, were it at all possible, how on earth that would help will.

[Stranger]

I am finding the discussion about predetermined vs determined fairly pointless with a clear agreed definition from either AB or NTtS.

The point is that part of Alan's approach is use prejudicial language, and even try to change the meanings of some words, rather than provide an argument, see: #38646 and #38758.

Having said that, it's probably a side issue, considering his total inability to produce anything substantive at all to back up his claims or address the reasoning against him.

[Nearly Sane]

The point is that part of Alan's approach is use prejudicial language, and even try to change the meanings of some words, rather than provide an argument, see: #38646 and #38758.

Having said that, it's probably a side issue, considering his total inability to produce anything substantive at all to back up his claims or address the reasoning against him.

I think as per my reply to him he sees determined/predetermined as synonymous. I agree it's a relative side issue but it might help remove one of the many recurring loops in the conversation if you were to explain to him why you see a difference, and why you see predetermined as prejudicial.

[Stranger]

Just contemplate what is being claimed.
Determinism claims that every event is a consequence of previous events.
So everything must be predetermined by these previous events.
Can you honestly claim that the process of "thinking things through" can be a reality in such a scenario?

In all your posts here, you have never once given a sound logical reason why not.

I also note that, once again, you've chosen, in your replies to me, to totally ignored the substantive questions entirely. To remind you:

• You have yet to demonstrate the ability to have done differently (without randomness) or withdraw the claim that it is demonstrable.
• You have made no attempt to justify your claim of the "absolute improbability" of minds being deterministic (what you call "predetermined").
• We still haven't seen the slightest hint of the "sound logic" you claimed to have.

[Stranger]

I think as per my reply to him he sees determined/predetermined as synonymous. I agree it's a relative side issue but it might help remove one of the many recurring loops in the conversation if you were to explain to him why you see a difference, and why you see predetermined as prejudicial.

You may be right, but it's not even that simple, he previously tried to co-opt "determined" (and "deterministic") to mean "determined by this magic soul thingy", and then insisted that 'determined' and 'predetermined' didn't mean the same thing at all, from #38644:

"You really need to come to terms with the fact that there is a difference between predetermined and determined.
They are two different words with different meanings.
We can have no conscious control of what is predetermined."

[Gordon]

My impression, and I may have the wrong impression, is that Alan sees 'predetermined' as some sort of fatalistic preordained outcome over which he has no control. So, in the absence of the divine spark he thinks he has, 'predetermined' for Alan would mean that if he decided on Weetabix for breakfast this morning then that choice could have been predicted at any point in time ever since the Big Bang.

He rejects the idea that his choice of Weetabix from among other available options was just determined by his specific internal state at the point of time he made the choice from the available options, where if his internal state had been any different he might have reached for the Sugar Puffs, preferring to see his choice as example of his 'gift from God' in action at that moment, implying that this divine spark has breakfast preferences: he doesn't explain though how his 'gift from God' influenced him towards the Weetabix.

He also rejects the idea that if, as a thought experiment, time was rewound to making his choice of breakfast and if his internal state was exactly the same as it was when he first reached for the Weetabix then he would likely make the same choice again.

 

[Alan Burns]

So what?

You dont like that answer so it must be wrong?

It is not that I do not like it - I see it as a logical impossibility.
How can the result of predetermined chains of cause and effect form an opinion of themselves?
The fact that I have the freedom to contemplate reality shows that my thoughts can't be predetermined by the past.  They are determined by my conscious awareness which exists and acts in the present.  I am aware of the past, but this awareness exists in the present.  I am also aware of reasons behind my thoughts - and these reasons exist within my present state of conscious awareness.  My conscious awareness brings all this information together in the present so that it can be consciously manipulated rather than reacted to.

[torridon]

It is not that I do not like it - I see it as a logical impossibility.
How can the result of predetermined chains of cause and effect form an opinion of themselves?
The fact that I have the freedom to contemplate reality shows that my thoughts can't be predetermined by the past.  They are determined by my conscious awareness which exists and acts in the present.  I am aware of the past, but this awareness exists in the present.  I am also aware of reasons behind my thoughts - and these reasons exist within my present state of conscious awareness.  My conscious awareness brings all this information together in the present so that it can be consciously manipulated rather than reacted to.

That spiel does not amount to logical impossibility; what it amounts to is incredulity, not the same thing at all.  What is an example of a logical impossibility is your counter-claim, that something can be free of cause and effect without being random.  Now, that really is impossible.

[Outrider]

Just contemplate what is being claimed.
Determinism claims that every event is a consequence of previous events.
So everything must be predetermined by these previous events.
Can you honestly claim that the process of "thinking things through" can be a reality in such a scenario?

Yes.  Thoughts are physical activities in a brain - neurons triggering other neurons via bio-electric stimulation prompting other neurons, with the activity moderated by the prior forming of neural connections and the hormonal state of the neurons at the time of processing.  Each and every component of that is entirely determined by prior events.

O.

[Stranger]

It is not that I do not like it - I see it as a logical impossibility.

So where is the actual logic? You don't seem to even understand the meaning of the word.

The fact that I have the freedom to contemplate reality shows that my thoughts can't be predetermined by the past.

How? Where is the reasoning?

They are determined by my conscious awareness which exists and acts in the present.  I am aware of the past, but this awareness exists in the present.  I am also aware of reasons behind my thoughts - and these reasons exist within my present state of conscious awareness.  My conscious awareness brings all this information together in the present so that it can be consciously manipulated rather than reacted to.

For reasons that have been expplained to you countless times, this is MEANINGLESS GIBBERISH!

If you think there is some actual logic cunningly concealed within it, you need to set out the argument properly, not just mindlessly repeat it over, and over, and over again.

[Nearly Sane]

You may be right, but it's not even that simple, he previously tried to co-opt "determined" (and "deterministic") to mean "determined by this magic soul thingy", and then insisted that 'determined' and 'predetermined' didn't mean the same thing at all, from #38644:

"You really need to come to terms with the fact that there is a difference between predetermined and determined.
They are two different words with different meanings.
We can have no conscious control of what is predetermined."

Yes, I think it's illustrative of the muddled thinking that he ends up with ths sort of contradictory approach. His inability to clearly define trems makes a lot of the conversation here just people talking past people. I feel that AB thinks we all perceive things exactly as he does, despite it being pointed out frequently by different people that they don't. This leads to the idea that we are somehow inventing excuses for not believing in a god - because AB thinks that deep down we all do.

[Alan Burns]

That spiel does not amount to logical impossibility; what it amounts to is incredulity, not the same thing at all.  What is an example of a logical impossibility is your counter-claim, that something can be free of cause and effect without being random.  Now, that really is impossible.

Please !
I have never claimed that our thoughts are free from cause and effect.
Read my posts.

[torridon]

It is not that I do not like it - I see it as a logical impossibility.
How can the result of predetermined chains of cause and effect form an opinion of themselves?
The fact that I have the freedom to contemplate reality shows that my thoughts can't be predetermined by the past.  They are determined by my conscious awareness which exists and acts in the present.
...

all of which fails to take account of the fact that we know (from empiricism) that conscious awareness itself is 'determined' by subliminal preconscious brain function over which we have no control and our seeming conscious 'present' is actually only our apparent present. I get that this is counter intuitive, but there again, so is a spherical Earth, and in earlier times people would have struggled to conceptualise a spherical Earth and come to terms with the fact that the flatness of the land is really only an apparent, local flatness.

I think it the case that to truly reconcile our understanding of brain function with our understanding of mind we have to lose our old ways of privileging intuition, personal experience and mind whilst ignoring the broader findings from science.

[torridon]

Please !
I have never claimed that our thoughts are free from cause and effect.
..

Yes you do, all the time.  Here you are in reply 40960 "The fact that I have the freedom to contemplate reality shows that my thoughts can't be predetermined by the past".  If you are 'free' from the past, then you are free from cause and effect. Cause and effect manifest a forward arrow of time; they do not operate in some sort of timeless present, free from the past. Such a proposition is meaningless.

[Stranger]

Please !
I have never claimed that our thoughts are free from cause and effect.
Read my posts.

Oh, do stop being so utterly dishonest/dimwitted (take your pick).

We've been though this so, so many times. Every time you say that we could have done differently, you are claiming that our thoughts are free from cause and effect. Saying our conscious will (or anything else) is just a cause, which isn't itself an effect, is the same thing as denying that we are governed by cause and effect.

Why won't you stop this idiotic pissing about with language and terminology and try to construct some sort of logical argument?

You must be really, really scared of actually thinking about this.

[Alan Burns]

Yes you do, all the time.  Here you are in reply 40960 "The fact that I have the freedom to contemplate reality shows that my thoughts can't be predetermined by the past".  If you are 'free' from the past, then you are free from cause and effect. Cause and effect manifest a forward arrow of time; they do not operate in some sort of timeless present, free from the past. Such a proposition is meaningless.

You are stuck in thinking of reality as being entirely composed of time related cause and effect as seen in material behaviour, but when you try to apply this presumed reality to actual reality, your freedom to think about such things disappears into the predetermined world of physically driven cause and effect.

This is the quote in full, which clearly states that our conscious thoughts are neither random nor physically predetermined.

The fact that I have the freedom to contemplate reality shows that my thoughts can't be predetermined by the past.  They are determined by my conscious awareness which exists and acts in the present.  I am aware of the past, but this awareness exists in the present.  I am also aware of reasons behind my thoughts - and these reasons exist within my present state of conscious awareness.  My conscious awareness brings all this information together in the present so that it can be consciously manipulated rather than reacted to.

As I inferred in a previous post - whatever comprises "you" must be more than just a conduit through which endless chains of physical cause and effect pass through.  Do you honestly believe that the end results of physically predetermined chains of cause and effect could consciously question their own plausibility?  If so I believe I would have grounds to accuse you of personal optimism.

I am fully aware that my persistence in witnessing to what I believe to be the truth of our God given gift of human free will is not making me very popular with some posters, but in this I am in sympathy with the prophet Jeremiah whose God given prophesy was not popular with the Israelites at the time, and he felt "terror from all sides", but the terror of not bearing witness won through and God gave him the strength to carry on witnessing to the truth in the face of such hostility.

[Stranger]

This is the quote in full, which clearly states that our conscious thoughts are neither random nor physically predetermined.

The fact that I have the freedom to contemplate reality shows that my thoughts can't be predetermined by the past.  They are determined by my conscious awareness which exists and acts in the present.  I am aware of the past, but this awareness exists in the present.  I am also aware of reasons behind my thoughts - and these reasons exist within my present state of conscious awareness.  My conscious awareness brings all this information together in the present so that it can be consciously manipulated rather than reacted to.

This is still nothing like a logical argument, all it is is an expression of your own personal belief/incredulity and your usual meaningless gibberish about "the present".

As I inferred in a previous post - whatever comprises "you" must be more than just a conduit through which endless chains of physical cause and effect pass through.  Do you honestly believe that the end results of physically predetermined chains of cause and effect could consciously question their own plausibility?

With your usual dishonest misrepresentation struck out, yes. Why not?

If so I believe I would have grounds to accuse you of personal optimism.

It's not optimism, why the hell would it be optimistic? It is, however, what all the evidence and reasoning is telling us.

I am fully aware that my persistence in witnessing to what I believe to be the truth of our God given gift of human free will is not making me very popular with some posters, but in this I am in sympathy with the prophet Jeremiah whose God given prophesy was not popular with the Israelites at the time, and he felt "terror from all sides", but the terror of not bearing witness won through and God gave him the strength to carry on witnessing to the truth in the face of such hostility.

I think I smell delusions of grandeur.    You seem to be terrified of actually thinking about this.

Where is the "sound logic" you said you had?

[torridon]

You are stuck in thinking of reality as being entirely composed of time related cause and effect as seen in material behaviour, but when you try to apply this presumed reality to actual reality, your freedom to think about such things disappears into the predetermined world of physically driven cause and effect.

This is the quote in full, which clearly states that our conscious thoughts are neither random nor physically predetermined.

The fact that I have the freedom to contemplate reality shows that my thoughts can't be predetermined by the past.  They are determined by my conscious awareness which exists and acts in the present.  I am aware of the past, but this awareness exists in the present.  I am also aware of reasons behind my thoughts - and these reasons exist within my present state of conscious awareness.  My conscious awareness brings all this information together in the present so that it can be consciously manipulated rather than reacted to.

As I inferred in a previous post - whatever comprises "you" must be more than just a conduit through which endless chains of physical cause and effect pass through.  Do you honestly believe that the end results of physically predetermined chains of cause and effect could consciously question their own plausibility?  If so I believe I would have grounds to accuse you of personal optimism.

I am fully aware that my persistence in witnessing to what I believe to be the truth of our God given gift of human free will is not making me very popular with some posters, but in this I am in sympathy with the prophet Jeremiah whose God given prophesy was not popular with the Israelites at the time, and he felt "terror from all sides", but the terror of not bearing witness won through and God gave him the strength to carry on witnessing to the truth in the face of such hostility.

Just to take the central part of that : " .. I have the freedom to contemplate reality shows that my thoughts can't be predetermined by the past.  They are determined by my conscious awareness which exists and acts in the present".  The idea that our conscious awareness determines what thoughts we should be thinking is problematic; why, because it is a circular claim. Thoughts happen within the context of our conscious awareness, but our conscious awareness cannot solely determine what our consciousness awareness should be, that gives you an infinite regress. For a thought to be meaningful, it has to occur for a reason outside of itself.

More fundamentally, our conscious awareness is the end product of non-conscious processes of mind, so although there are elements of volitional feedback, the thoughts we experience all have non-conscious provenance. And to the extent that the contents of mind are due to volition, this is still subject to the insight that we don't have any control over experience, whether I see the sky as blue is not a choice,  whether or not I like the taste of strawberry is not something I control.

So, 'my conscious awareness brings all this information together in the present so that it can be consciously manipulated rather than reacted to..  OK, notwithstanding issues previously outlined above, how do you go about resolving choice in the knowledge of relevant factors ?

[SusanDoris]

Oh, do stop being so utterly dishonest/dimwitted (take your pick).

We've been though this so, so many times. Every time you say that we could have done differently, you are claiming that our thoughts are free from cause and effect. Saying our conscious will (or anything else) is just a cause, which isn't itself an effect, is the same thing as denying that we are governed by cause and effect.

Why won't you stop this idiotic pissing about with language and terminology and try to construct some sort of logical argument?

You must be really, really scared of actually thinking about this.

Also completely smug and self-satisfied and a whole set of synonyms to go with it, to which I would add 'boring'!!

[Alan Burns]

Also completely smug and self-satisfied and a whole set of synonyms to go with it, to which I would add 'boring'!!

I can assure you, Susan, that I get no personal satisfaction from posting on this thread.  What sustains me is the knowledge that I am doing God's will by witnessing to the truth which leads to our salvation.  I find the fact that many try to deny this truth in spite of the abundant evidence shown by their own abilities quite upsetting.

[Roses]

I can assure you, Susan, that I get no personal satisfaction from posting on this thread.  What sustains me is the knowledge that I am doing God's will by witnessing to the truth which leads to our salvation.  I find the fact that many try to deny this truth in spite of the abundant evidence shown by their own abilities quite upsetting.

As has been said many times, it isn't a truth but a belief with no evidence to back it up.