Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

It is quite simple.
We are not free from cause and effect because WE are the cause.

Yet more nonsensical, reasoning-free drivel. If anything is just a cause (without being an effect), it would be random.

And you still haven't even attempted to answered the question I asked as to how Vlad's (or anybody else's) post proves that he could have done differently, let alone that any difference would not have been random.

All in all, yet more evidence that either you don't have the first inkling of a clue about logic or reasoning or you just switch them off when the subject comes close to your precious superstitions.

[Sebastian Toe]

I don't know, Seb. I believe there is a non material aspect to the universe and that a property which emerges from the material, might be material but with non material aspects.

I tend to think there is something in the biblical division into body, mind, and spirit.

Fair enough.
All within the universe though,, no multi(verse/realm)?

[torridon]

It is quite simple.
We are not free from cause and effect because WE are the cause.

Oh, great, so that prises you out of the random-but-not-random paradox does it ?  You might be fooling yourself with a little wordplay but its not going to fool anyone else around here. 

To be generous, all you are describing here is that 'WE' are the proximal cause of an action; but if 'WE' have no prior derivation then 'WE' are ourselves random, hence the choices made by 'WE' are therefore still ultimately random.

Must try harder.

[Outrider]

You make that sound like a bad thing.

That would be a moral judgement, and I'm not sure I've had permission to make those yet.

If I have no free will then it isn't my compulsive need is it.

It is, it's just not your fault.

O.

[Alan Burns]

You totally ignored my question in favour of a rather silly false dilemma that has been addressed countless times already. All rather proving my point that either you don't have the first inkling of a clue about logic or reasoning or you just switch them off when the subject comes close to your precious superstitions.

But the truth is that what you term the "false dilemma" relating to the question of ultimate cause has never been addressed.  Trying to explain it away using the bland descriptive terms of "nature, nurture and experience" explains nothing, because in the materialist scenario these will be derived from inevitable reactions to past events - so no ultimate cause.

Our nature, nurture and experience certainly exist.  They exist in the conscious awareness which is "you", but they do not control you.  Please realise that there is a "you" in all this.  You are in control.  You are the ultimate cause.

[Stranger]

But the truth is that what you term the "false dilemma" relating to the question of ultimate cause has never been addressed.

You not liking the answer doesn't mean that it hasn't been addressed. If you have any actual reasoning in response to the answer, then it's about time you came out with it.

Trying to explain it away using the bland descriptive terms of "nature, nurture and experience" explains nothing...

At least it isn't self-contradictory, like your illogical nonsense.

...because in the materialist scenario...

There you go with dishonest misrepresentation. You just can't help lying about this, can you? The argument against you does not assume a "materialist scenario".

...these will be derived from inevitable reactions to past events - so no ultimate cause.

An "ultimate cause" (something that isn't an effect) must be random, for reasons that you continue to just ignore.

Our nature, nurture and experience certainly exist.  They exist in the conscious awareness which is "you", but they do not control you.  Please realise that there is a "you" in all this.  You are in control.  You are the ultimate cause.

Baseless, illogical assertions. To the extent "you" are not the result of nature, nurture and experience, you must be random.

Isn't it about time you at least tried to learn enough about logic that you could at least attempt to do something other than endlessly repeat the same baseless drivel over and over again?

The fact that you never even try, speaks volumes about how insecure your beliefs are.

[Alan Burns]

There you go with dishonest misrepresentation. You just can't help lying about this, can you? The argument against you does not assume a "materialist scenario".

It is not a lie or dishonest misrepresentative.
Your arguments and logic are entirely based upon the time dependent cause and effect scenario perceived in material behaviour.
They do not reflect the reality we all perceive.
Your presumption that this time related cause and effect scenario can be extrapolated to apply to the absolute entirety of all reality is totally unfounded.  There is more to reality than you can possibly imagine.

[Nearly Sane]

It is not a lie or dishonest misrepresentative.
Your arguments and logic are entirely based upon the time dependent cause and effect scenario perceived in material behaviour.
They do not reflect the reality we all perceive.
Your presumption that this time related cause and effect scenario can be extrapolated to apply to the absolute entirety of all reality is totally unfounded.  There is more to reality than you can possibly imagine.

Can you fuck off telling what I perceive, and stating that everyone perceives the same way and the same thing as you. I've raised numerous times in this thread that I don't seem to perceive the same way as you. Why do you ignore that? Are you a badly programmed bot?

[Outrider]

It is not a lie or dishonest misrepresentative.

I don't think it's a lie, I think you genuinely can't see it.

Your arguments and logic are entirely based upon the time dependent cause and effect scenario perceived in material behaviour.

There are two elements to the argument, and they need to be dealt with separately:

Firstly, there's the logical contradiction of something being both free, and will, and that is not dependent upon a material limitation.  If what you have is will, it's a 'decision' (to simplify) based upon prior learning, and previous events creating the context in which the will is being exercised.  Even if that is happening in a non-material 'spiritual' frame of reference, in order for it to be will it has to be an event of that nature, and that's not free, it's constrained by the prior events.  If it's not constrained, if there's a 'free' element, then it becomes a random influence, which is not will.  It might be an accumulation of those, but logically, whether it's material or not, it's either will or it's free, but not both.

Secondly there's the empirical argument, which is dependent upon an assumption of material activity, whereby we know that the activity of consciousness strongly correlates with brain activity.  In order to justify a claim of there being something else you need to show that something in consciousness is not possible through purely material activity; you've claimed and asserted it repeatedly, I genuinely feel that you believe it's not possible, but at the moment that amounts to nothing more than your personal incredulity - you've not demonstrated any reason for me to think there has to be something more, just reasons for me to think that you think there has to be something more.

They do not reflect the reality we all perceive.

If our shared perception is one thing, what reason do you have to think that reality is something else?

Your presumption that this time related cause and effect scenario can be extrapolated to apply to the absolute entirety of all reality is totally unfounded.

There is no such assumption; even if your posited 'other' element isn't time dependent, you still have to show how it interacts with activity - the manifestation of the 'free will' that you're suggesting - that is decidedly material and operating in a linearly temporal cause and effect manner.

There is more to reality than you can possibly imagine.

Again, based on what?  You have no comprehension of the limits of my imagination.  It's certainly beyond our current capacity to demonstrate, but that does not preclude it being entirely physical in nature, nor does it mean that it necessarily isn't; it's mean we don't definitively know at the moment.

O.

[Stranger]

It is not a lie or dishonest misrepresentative.
Your arguments and logic are entirely based upon the time dependent cause and effect scenario perceived in material behaviour.

As I explained in detail (#40759), the only assumption is that minds change state over time - as anything that makes choices must. It is simply a lie to say that it's about what is perceived in "material behaviour". The laws of physic are irrelevant.

And, as I've said multiple times, and you've totally ignored exactly the same number of times, if you could make your notion of "free will" make logical sense, then we couldn't rule out a physical explanation without claiming to know everything about the material world.

What seems to pass as an "argument" in your mind has confused logical impossibility with physical limitations from the start.

They do not reflect the reality we all perceive.

Drivel. If there is anything we all perceive it's that our minds exist in and change over time - something you seem to want to deny.

Your presumption that this time related cause and effect scenario can be extrapolated to apply to the absolute entirety of all reality is totally unfounded.

It is based on logic that you have been completely unable to counter. In fact you don't seem interested in even trying. You don't seem to care that most of what you post is based on well known mistakes in basic reasoning (fallacies). If you have the ability to think logically, all this silly assertion and endless repetition suggests that you simply dare not think about it properly.

[torridon]

Our nature, nurture and experience certainly exist.  They exist in the conscious awareness which is "you", but they do not control you.  Please realise that there is a "you" in all this.  You are in control.  You are the ultimate cause.

Better to say, you are the proximal cause, not the ultimate cause.  i.e. the immediate cause, but behind that there must be reasons why you are the way you are.  Were that not true, then you are merely random.  Have you never wondered why, faced with a similar situation, people make different choices ? Why a person from Texas would likely be a christian whereas a person from Karachi would likely be a muslim ? We might be the proximal cause of our choices but to assert we are the ultimate cause neglects an understanding of all that has gone on before, the vast majority of which was not chosen by 'us' but has formed us into what we are.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Can you fuck off telling what I perceive, and stating that everyone perceives the same way and the same thing as you. I've raised numerous times in this thread that I don't seem to perceive the same way as you. Why do you ignore that? Are you a badly programmed bot?

Did you just ask someone to fuck off?

[Nearly Sane]

Did you just ask someone to fuck off?

To be precise I asked them to fuck off doing something. It may be part of the demotic that you are unaware of. What point are you making?

[Sebastian Toe]

Did you just ask someone to fuck off?

Did you?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Did you?

I wouldn't, on this board, dare do what Nearly Sane did.

[Outrider]

Did you?

I find this is a useful shorthand: https://www.someecards.com/usercards/viewcard/MjAxMi0yMDEwMzEwMDk1ZmM4OTcw/

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I find this is a useful shorthand: https://www.someecards.com/usercards/viewcard/MjAxMi0yMDEwMzEwMDk1ZmM4OTcw/

O.

Sorry. Had to laugh at that.

[Outrider]

Sorry. Had to laugh at that.

No need to be sorry about that, it's had a good deal of use over the past few years on Facebook

O.

[Nearly Sane]

I wouldn't, on this board, dare do what Nearly Sane did.

Still not getting your point.

[Alan Burns]

Drivel. If there is anything we all perceive it's that our minds exist in and change over time - something you seem to want to deny.

Yes, our minds change over time, but can you presume that the causes of change occur before the change takes place?  If so you are presuming that our minds work in the same mechanistic time related cause and effect scenario observed in material behaviour.

The questions you need to contemplate are:
What comprises our conscious awareness?
Can conscious awareness be directed from within itself?
Does our conscious awareness of the information in our brain exist alongside the material elements which define the information?
Did time extend back beyond the big bang to infinity?
Will time extend beyond the death of this material universe?
What can define the existence and direction of time outside material entities?
What is time?
Is time a material property?
Can you imagine how conscious awareness emerges from material reactions?
Can you imagine any form of infinity in terms of time and/or space?

As I said - there must be more to reality that we can possibly imagine with our human minds.
However, our ability to even contemplate that which can't be imagined offers ample evidence for the conscious freedom needed to engage in such contemplation.  Or do you still believe it is all defined by predetermined reactions to past events?

[Alan Burns]

Can you fuck off telling what I perceive, and stating that everyone perceives the same way and the same thing as you. I've raised numerous times in this thread that I don't seem to perceive the same way as you. Why do you ignore that? Are you a badly programmed bot?

The evidence I see in people's posts indicate that most human beings perceive that they have the same freedom as I perceive.
What is being contested is whether this perceived freedom is an illusion.
What I endeavour to point out is that the evidence we have shows that our freedom is a reality rather than an illusion.

[Nearly Sane]

The evidence I see in people's posts indicate that most human beings perceive that they have the same freedom as I perceive.
What is being contested is whether this perceived freedom is an illusion.
What I endeavour to point out is that the evidence we have shows that our freedom is a reality rather than an illusion.

You said everyone feels that perception. 'IThey do not reflect the reality we all perceive' I have pointed out I don't. You have then ignored this on multiple occasions.

[Stranger]

Yes, our minds change over time, but can you presume that the causes of change occur before the change takes place?  If so you are presuming that our minds work in the same mechanistic time related cause and effect scenario observed in material behaviour.

It's simple enough logic Alan, (see yet again #40759), if everything (state of mind and environment) are in a given state at the time a choice is made, either there is only one possible choice or not. If not, then we have something that happened for no reason (that existed at the time of the choice), which means random.

Instead of trying to pretend that the argument is based on the physical universe, how about having the intellectual courage to address it as it is actually being presented? What is your alternative?

I also note that once again you've totally ignored the point that if you could answer that question you couldn't dismiss a physical explanation without claiming to know everything about the physical universe.

The questions you need to contemplate are:
...

Why should I consider these questions when you routinely ignore anything in the least bit difficult for you, mindlessly repeat stuff that has already been answered, and when all your own 'answers' consist of self-contradictory magic? Once you start to actually engage with the answers you have been given and answer the points that have been raised, then I'll happily try to answer any questions you have, but at the moment your questions just look like deflection and hypocrisy.

How about making a start by actually answering the two point above?

What I endeavour to point out is that the evidence we have shows that our freedom is a reality rather than an illusion.

What evidence (for your own nonsensical version of "freedom")? You haven't posted anything remotely like evidence - just endless assertions, and basic mistakes in reasoning.

[torridon]

The evidence I see in people's posts indicate that most human beings perceive that they have the same freedom as I perceive.
What is being contested is whether this perceived freedom is an illusion.
What I endeavour to point out is that the evidence we have shows that our freedom is a reality rather than an illusion.

The freedom I perceive is freedom from things that stop me doing what I want.  This is what freedom means and it is not an illusion, it is merely circumstantial.

[Sebastian Toe]

I wouldn't, on this board, dare do what Nearly Sane did.

Ah, NS talks sense!
Now I understand.