Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

The words "conscious freedom" simply means that our conscious control is not shackled to comprise mere reactions to past events.

Of course it's not "shackled", that would imply that it wants to do something but is unable to because of the past - that's not the argument at all.

You have previously said that our choices are reactions.
What I am saying is that the achievements of our human mind are not mere reactions, but consciously directed thought processes emanating from a source beyond the limited comprehension of what we can perceive from our physical senses.

I know what you're saying (asserting), what is missing is the "sound logic" you said you had - or anything to support it that isn't obviously fallacious, incoherent, or both, for that matter.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Your notion of a "soul" seems to be akin to someone deciding which books he wants to consult, then going to the library to select them from the shelves. Leaving aside for now the glaring problem this gives you of how this soul/person would decide in the fist place which books to pick (and no, "magic" doesn't answer that) this odd notion also begs the question of why a soul would need a library to consult at all. After all, surely a soul possessed of such prodigious magical powers as to act outside all logical constraints could just memorise the entire library in any case couldn't it? What then would be the point of outsourcing the library to its human host?

Incidentally, any news yet on why you prefer an explanation with zero detail over one with partial detail, or do you intent to ignore that too?   

[SusanDoris]

I could have chosen to go to the pub - perhaps that would have been a better idea!   

what  a silly, evasive response to a sensible question; one which deserves a sensible answer.

[Alan Burns]

what  a silly, evasive response to a sensible question; one which deserves a sensible answer.

The answer offers a simple illustration of my freedom to choose.

[Stranger]

The answer offers a simple illustration of my freedom to choose.

Yet again: nobody is denying that you can do as you want. That is not the same thing as being able to have done differently without randomness. And you didn't address the actual question you were asked. You could only work with the ideas that occurred to you at the time. You couldn't have just chosen to have totally different (better) ideas.

[Alan Burns]

Yet again: nobody is denying that you can do as you want. That is not the same thing as being able to have done differently without randomness. And you didn't address the actual question you were asked. You could only work with the ideas that occurred to you at the time. You couldn't have just chosen to have totally different (better) ideas.

You seem unable to differentiate between consciously driven choice and automated reaction.
Your supposition that they are the same thing does not fit with the reality which is "me".

This is the reality I perceive:
I can only make one choice at a time.
I am consciously aware of the feasible choices and their implications before I invoke a choice.
I am not automated to make what I consciously deem to be the best choice.
I know I am free to make a bad choice if I so wish.
The conscious thoughts I have before making a choice are all under my conscious control.
The content of this post is defined by my conscious abilities at the time I compose it.
The entity of perception which is "me" is the only reality I have.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You seem unable to differentiate between consciously driven choice and automated reaction.

Wrong terms, but that’s because effectively there isn’t one. You on the other hand seem to be unable to provide this “sound logic” you promised to show that there is.

Your supposition that they are the same thing does not fit with the reality which is "me".

You’re mistaking the reality with your reality. They’re not the same thing.

This is the reality I perceive:…

Yes, we all know the reality you “perceive”. Your problem though is that the reality you perceive collapses as a model for the reality as soon as its incoherence and contradictions are exposed. You can keep ignoring that all you like, but just telling us over and over again only what you perceive is about as far from actually demonstrating that your perception of reality and reality itself are the same as you could be.

All you're giving us here is feelings, but never the logic you promised to justify them.

I suggest you try again from the beginning.   

[Alan Burns]

All you're giving us here is feelings, but never the logic you promised to justify them.

No.
I am giving you evidence of your own creative ability which is aptly demonstrated by the mental gymnastics used to consciously contrive to try to justify the inherently flawed logic which denies you the conscious freedom needed to defend your position.

[torridon]

I am not automated to make what I consciously deem to be the best choice.

In a sense, you are, and we all are. 'Automated' is just your usual prejudicial language, but if you peel such bias away and think clearly about it for once, minds would not be able to function without some principle upon which to resolve choice. We always make the choice which we deem the best choice in any given circumstance.  If we do not make the 'best' choice, then upon which principle would we resolve choice ? In the absence of any such principle we would make random choices.  What would you rather be 'automated' or random ? Your persistent bias in this blinds you to understanding the simple logic of choice.

[Stranger]

You seem unable to differentiate between consciously driven choice and automated reaction.

Leaving aside the prejudicial language, you have yet to show that there is such a difference.

Your supposition that they are the same thing does not fit with the reality which is "me".

I don't believe you.

This is the reality I perceive:
I can only make one choice at a time.
I am consciously aware of the feasible choices and their implications before I invoke a choice.

Yes.

I am not automated to make what I consciously deem to be the best choice.
I know I am free to make a bad choice if I so wish.

This is where it starts to collapse into incoherence because you cannot choose what it is that you want to do the most, which is what will be your ultimate choice, if you wish you make a bad choice, more than the others, you will.

The alternative is an infinite regress of wishes.

The conscious thoughts I have before making a choice are all under my conscious control.

Drivel. That's another infinite regress. You can't consciously choose your conscious thoughts because that itself would be a conscious thought process. Of course what you are thinking about will affect what you think of next but you cannot possibly consciously choose your next thought.

The content of this post is defined by my conscious abilities at the time I compose it.

Sort of, yes.

The entity of perception which is "me" is the only reality I have.

Gibberish.

[Stranger]

I am giving you evidence of your own creative ability which is aptly demonstrated by the mental gymnastics used to consciously contrive to try to justify the inherently flawed logic which denies you the conscious freedom needed to defend your position.

Nobody denies human creative ability, nobody denies the ability to indulge in "mental gymnastics" (not that the perfectly simple argument against you needs any), nobody denies the ability to defend or justify their position, and neither does the logic that you keep on asserting is "flawed" without ever being able to point out a flaw.

You're trying to hide behind the words "conscious freedom" again. What is totally missing from you is any connection at all between any human abilities and the self-contradictory ability to have done differently without randomness.

See, if you'd have phrased more honestly, like this: "I am giving you evidence of your own creative ability which is aptly demonstrated by the mental gymnastics used to consciously contrive to try to justify the inherently flawed logic which denies you the ability to have done differently without randomness needed to defend your position.".

Then the begging the question fallacy (illogical thinking) becomes rather more obvious.

[ekim]

This is the reality I perceive:
I can only make one choice at a time.
I am consciously aware of the feasible choices and their implications before I invoke a choice.
I am not automated to make what I consciously deem to be the best choice.
I know I am free to make a bad choice if I so wish.
The conscious thoughts I have before making a choice are all under my conscious control.
The content of this post is defined by my conscious abilities at the time I compose it.
The entity of perception which is "me" is the only reality I have.

Why did you compose the post?  Was it because you wanted to?  If so, your reply is attached to a desire and you are not free from that desire.  If you believe that your reply is  guided by your God, then you are not free from your God's Will.  You seem to keep mixing 'intelligence' (the ability to choose) with 'will' (the intention to act or not act) and 'consciousness' ( the ability to observe or witness).

[Alan Burns]

You're trying to hide behind the words "conscious freedom" again.

The words "conscious freedom" simply describes the freedom I enjoy which allows me to continually witness to the fact that not being able to have done any differently would deny me such freedom.
Freedom cannot exist in automated reactions to past events.

[Alan Burns]

Why did you compose the post?  Was it because you wanted to?  If so, your reply is attached to a desire and you are not free from that desire.  If you believe that your reply is  guided by your God, then you are not free from your God's Will.  You seem to keep mixing 'intelligence' (the ability to choose) with 'will' (the intention to act or not act) and 'consciousness' ( the ability to observe or witness).

I composed this post from the state of my conscious awareness, which allowed me the freedom to think, then consciously choose how to share these thoughts.

[Stranger]

The words "conscious freedom" simply describes the freedom I enjoy which allows me to continually witness to the fact that not being able to have done any differently would deny me such freedom.

Except you're just asserting that you wouldn't be able to do this if you couldn't have done differently. You have presented no logical argument (despite the claims to have one), you have provided no evidence for it (just asserted that people's abilities are the evidence, without ever showing how), so all you are witnessing to is your inability to think logically, your questionable honesty (you keep on misrepresenting other people's views and telling us you have logic but being unable to produce it), your ability to mindlessly repeat the same things over and over again and ignore all the answers, and your blind, illogical faith.

Neither have you addressed the self-contradiction inherent in being able to have done differently without randomness.

Freedom cannot exist in automated reactions to past events.

Depends how you define freedom really, "The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants." can certainly exist without the ability to have done differently.

In any case, this is an appeal to consequences fallacy (illogical thinking).

[Gordon]

I composed this post from the state of my conscious awareness, which allowed me the freedom to think, then consciously choose how to share these thoughts.

Super: but what you call your 'conscious awareness' is a consequence of prior states, whether you like it or not, where aspects of that aren't under your conscious control and nor are you consciously aware of them.   

[ekim]

I composed this post from the state of my conscious awareness, which allowed me the freedom to think, then consciously choose how to share these thoughts.

...... but why did you compose it?  Was your 'state of conscious awareness' driven by the desire to do so?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

No.
I am giving you evidence of your own creative ability which is aptly demonstrated by the mental gymnastics used to consciously contrive to try to justify the inherently flawed logic which denies you the conscious freedom needed to defend your position.

Except of course by “inherently flawed logic” what you mean is something like, “logic that falsifies my logic-free assertions that the way I happen to perceive things must also be the way they are”.   

You know full well though that often the way we perceive things isn’t the way they actually are, and we know this because we have reason and evidence that gives us more cogent understandings. That’s why though we may for example perceive the world to be flat when we look out of the window, we know it not to be. You on the other hand persistently do the equivalent of just looking out of the window, and then dismiss photos from space of a round planet as “inherently flawed” because they contradict the way you perceive things. That’s your problem, and your only way out of it would be to find some logic to take you from perception to reality.

Good luck with it though.       

[Alan Burns]

Depends how you define freedom really, "The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants." can certainly exist without the ability to have done differently.

How precisely do you come to assert the word "certainly" in this statement.
What can make you so certain that you could not have done things any differently?
The dictionary definition mentions to word "power".
Just try thinking about the power you possess to do what you want.
Where does the power originate?
What gives you this power?
Can you not see that the power of your human will gives you the freedom to choose rather than react.

[Stranger]

How precisely do you come to assert the word "certainly" in this statement.
What can make you so certain that you could not have done things any differently?

Firstly that's not what I was claiming certainty about, I was saying that the "power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants" is certainly possible without the ability to have done differently.

It is possible I could done differently but that would necessarily mean that there was something random about what I did - for reasons that have been explained to you endless times and you've never properly addressed.

The dictionary definition mentions to word "power".
Just try thinking about the power you possess to do what you want.
Where does the power originate?
What gives you this power?

It's called a functioning brain. How about you trying to think about why you want to do some things rather than others, without disappearing into an infinite regress?

Can you not see that the power of your human will gives you the freedom to choose rather than react.

There's your favourite false dilemma again.

Still waiting for you to stop the thought-free repetition of the same logical mistakes over and over again, and for you to make some attempt to come up with the "sound logic" you said you had, or at least have the basic human honesty to admit you can't.

[Gordon]

How precisely do you come to assert the word "certainly" in this statement.
What can make you so certain that you could not have done things any differently?
The dictionary definition mentions to word "power".
Just try thinking about the power you possess to do what you want.
Where does the power originate?
What gives you this power?
Can you not see that the power of your human will gives you the freedom to choose rather than react.

You really do get stuck on the simplest of things: nobody denies that people have a degree of 'power', in the sense of having personal autonomy, but this 'power' isn't unconditional even when excluding the practically unreasonable or outright irrational - but this 'power' is subject to our personal characteristics and biases, whether we are aware of them or not, as well as any prevailing circumstances.

I've asked you this before and you've avoided answering -  if this 'power' is as you say then why don't I have the 'power' to decide that I like mayonnaise instead of being repelled by it? After all, what good is this 'power' if I can't even use it on my food preferences when, in social situations, it can be awkward to decline food that is offered but I am powerless to do otherwise? 

[Alan Burns]

I've asked you this before and you've avoided answering -  if this 'power' is as you say then why don't I have the 'power' to decide that I like mayonnaise instead of being repelled by it? After all, what good is this 'power' if I can't even use it on my food preferences when, in social situations, it can be awkward to decline food that is offered but I am powerless to do otherwise?

Of course you can't change your own personal likes and dislikes.  This has nothing to do with the power of free will.
You are consciously aware of your likes and dislikes, and they can influence your conscious choices, but they do not dictate your conscious choices.  You still have the power to choose.

[torridon]

Of course you can't change your own personal likes and dislikes.  This has nothing to do with the power of free will.
You are consciously aware of your likes and dislikes, and they can influence your conscious choices, but they do not dictate your conscious choices.  You still have the power to choose.

So how do you choose ?  This is what you aren't addressing.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Of course you can't change your own personal likes and dislikes.  This has nothing to do with the power of free will.

Why not? Why according to your scheme don't we have the "free" will to like Marmite one day and dislike it the next?
 

You are consciously aware of your likes and dislikes, and they can influence your conscious choices, but they do not dictate your conscious choices.  You still have the power to choose

Make you mind up. Can you choose to like Marmite one day and dislike it the next or not?

Any news by the way on what logic you'd deploy to take you from your subjective perception of things to the objective reality of those things, or is that another question you intend always to ignore?

[Alan Burns]

It's called a functioning brain. How about you trying to think about why you want to do some things rather than others, without disappearing into an infinite regress?

I know I have asked this before, but I do not recall getting any feasible answer:

What can possibly invoke the conscious act of "trying" within endless chains of unavoidable cause and effect?
What is it within me that is capable of "trying"?