Searching for GOD...

[Sebastian Toe]

Acts of wishful thinking and blind faith (and foot stamping!) offer ample evidence for the truth that deliberate acts emanating from the power of human free will are a reality - not an illusion.

..alternately, they demonstrate the power of the entirely biological human brain working entirely under deterministic principles.
No magic, extra universal, time free, soul required.

[Alan Burns]

Seriously, you can't just assert that something is evidence - especially evidence of something self-contradictory and logically impossible.

You have the demonstrable ability to consciously guide the thought processes needed to contemplate the logic you keep quoting.  But the resulting logic denies you such freedom to guide and control your own thoughts.  If every event in the thought process is just an inevitable consequence of past events then there can be no source of control.  This is the self contradiction.

Every post you make provides evidence of the freedom needed to guide thought processes which back up your arguments that such freedom is a logical impossibility.  Either the logic is flawed or our perception of reality is an illusion.

But the logic itself is entirely derived from the reality we perceive through our human senses.

Can you see the loophole you keep falling through?

[Stranger]

You have the demonstrable ability to consciously guide the thought processes needed to contemplate the logic you keep quoting.  But the resulting logic denies you such freedom to guide and control your own thoughts.

Do we really have to go though your whole library of silly assertions all over again? There is nothing I am doing that is incompatible with my my mind being a deterministic system, no matter how many time you stamp your foot about it.

If every event in the thought process is just an inevitable consequence of past events then there can be no source of control.

Back to your other old trick of trying to redefine the language to suit your superstitions. The word 'control' does not mean your impossible magic, control is perfectly compatible with determinism.

This is the self contradiction.

You have shown no contradiction whatsoever. Argument by baseless assertion again.

Every post you make provides evidence of the freedom needed to guide thought processes which back up your arguments that such freedom is a logical impossibility.

Unmitigated drivel for reasons that have been explained about 10,000 times already on this thread.

Either the logic is flawed or our perception of reality is an illusion.

Your perception of reality is an illusion - a self-inflicted one.

But the logic itself is entirely derived from the reality we perceive through our human senses.

False: #40759 (yet again).

Still waiting for anything that even looks like logic, let alone the 'sound logic' you claimed you had.

[Alan Burns]

Quote from: Alan Burns on Today at 06:28:44 PM

    But the logic itself is entirely derived from the reality we perceive through our human senses.

False: #40759 (yet again).

#40759 is simply reiteration of our conscious perception of things which change state over periods of time.


The information used in formulating this logical statement is limited to what we can perceive with our physical senses concerning the physically driven changes in state of material entities.  Our perception of time is dictated by these physical changes.  If there are no perceived changes in physical state, there would be no concept of time.  The logical statement you make is entirely derived from the results of human conscious perception and our mental ability to make consciously driven deductions within our human mind, and such deductions will be based entirely on conscious perception of physically controlled behaviour in material entities.  Your repeated assertion that the logic you postulate has nothing to do with the physical or material is entirely baseless. To imply that this logic can apply equally to anything we can't perceive, such as the spiritual entity of the human soul, is totally unfounded.

[Stranger]

#40759 is simply reiteration of our conscious perception of things which change state over periods of time.

Have you got serious memory problems is this pointless repetition a deliberate tactic? This is a serious question because it speaks to your basic honesty. Either you've genuinely forgotten or you're pretending to have forgotten.

We've been over all this before. Firstly, changing state over time is absolutely necessary for a mind in general and making choices in particular. Each thought takes time and changes the state from not having had that thought to having had it and a choice is a change of state from not having made it to having made it.

Secondly, it isn't about a perception, it's a logical consideration of what is possible for any sort of system that changes its state over time.

Your repeated assertion that the logic you postulate has nothing to do with the physical or material is entirely baseless.

It based on the fact that minds (or any choice maker, for that matter) are systems that change state over time and is not based on minds being material or physical, as you so often claim.

It is a misrepresentation when you talk of the argument against you as being about "physically driven cause and effect" or "cause and effect rules of physical material behaviour". It is about cause and effect but it is not about the physical or material world.

To imply that this logic can apply equally to anything we can't perceive, such as the spiritual entity of the human soul, is totally unfounded.

No it isn't, for the above reasons. Without time (at least a time dimension, even if it's different to the material one) a soul cannot possibly do anything.

And I'm still waiting for anything that even looks like logic from yourself, let alone the 'sound logic' you claimed you had

[Alan Burns]

Have you got serious memory problems is this pointless repetition a deliberate tactic? This is a serious question because it speaks to your basic honesty. Either you've genuinely forgotten or you're pretending to have forgotten.

The act of pretending is not compatible with the concept that we could not have made any other choice at the time.
Pretending is a deliberate action emanating from the power within your conscious self to make such a choice.
If I had genuinely forgotten, I would not have had the choice.
The conscious self is the cause - not the uncontrollable past.

We've been over all this before. Firstly, changing state over time is absolutely necessary for a mind in general and making choices in particular.

You cannot claim this to be true unless you know what the conscious mind is or how the conscious mind works.
Your conscious mind is the datum from which you perceive time, but how can you know it changes state, or exists in the same time/space continuum as this material world?

 Each thought takes time and changes the state from not having had that thought to having had it and a choice is a change of state from not having made it to having made it.

Secondly, it isn't about a perception, it's a logical consideration of what is possible for any sort of system that changes its state over time.

Your conscious mind may not have to change state in order to perceive.

It based on the fact that minds (or any choice maker, for that matter) are systems that change state over time and is not based on minds being material or physical, as you so often claim.

Your concept of minds changing state is entirely based upon your perception of material entities changing state over time.

It is a misrepresentation when you talk of the argument against you as being about "physically driven cause and effect" or "cause and effect rules of physical material behaviour". It is about cause and effect but it is not about the physical or material world.

As I said above, the concept of time related cause and effect comes directly from your perception of material behaviour.

No it isn't, for the above reasons. Without time (at least a time dimension, even if it's different to the material one) a soul cannot possibly do anything.

You cannot apply this logic to a soul which exists, perceives and acts within what is our ever present state of conscious awareness.

[Stranger]

The act of pretending is not compatible with the concept that we could not have made any other choice at the time.

Argument by assertion fallacy. Where's the reasoning? Shameless evasion also noted. I'll ask again: have you genuinely forgotten all this or are you just pretending to have forgotten?

You cannot claim this to be true unless you know what the conscious mind is or how the conscious mind works.

I can, for the reasons stated. A thought takes time and changes the state of mind, a choice is a change of state over time. You simply cannot avoid this. Our minds are not static, so they must change over time (that's what not being static means).

Are you simply confused by the word 'state'? It just refers to everything in your mind. That changes (over time), otherwise you'd never think, do, or perceive anything. Think of a giraffe. See? The image of a giraffe appeared in the current conscious state of your mind that wasn't there before. That's a change of state of your mind that happened at a point in time: you weren't thinking about a giraffe, then you were.

Perhaps you'd find the word 'contents' less confusing than 'state' - although it seems slightly less inclusive to me. Regardless, what I mean is everything about your mind (what your current thought is, your mood, what you're currently perceiving of your environment, and so on) is its state.

...or exists in the same time/space continuum as this material world?

As I said, it doesn't have to be the same time dimension but it does need a time dimension. Of course all the evidence is that it is the same "time/space continuum" but it isn't necessary for the argument - yet again demonstrating that it does not depend on physics or the material world.

You cannot apply this logic to a soul which exists, perceives and acts within what is our ever present state of conscious awareness.

And "ever present state of conscious awareness" is still meaningless word salad. The 'present' has a colloquial meaning, "the period of time now occurring" or can be taken more literally as a single point in time (although that's somewhat problematic). Neither are in any way logically significant to the argument I presented.

[Outrider]

Your apparent denial of the power of human free will - and trying to reclassify it as just a "sensation", is based upon human scientific knowledge which is limited to what we can perceive with our physical senses and man made machines.

I didn't say 'just' a sensation - just trying to comprehend how that complex feed-back system works is mind-blowing... but that wonder doesn't change the apparent nature of the activity.  And of course our knowledge is limited by what we currently have access to, but if our explanation is reliable and works and doesn't leave unexplained gaps why presume that it's insufficient just because we don't have absolute knowledge?  The question is do we have enough knowledge, and it appears that we do.

Can you not see the abundant evidence that there is far more to reality than what has been discovered by human scientific investigation to date.

Yes, yes I can. What I can't see is where any of it relates to an idea that human consciousness is somehow beyond physics, that brain activity doesn't account for who we are, and what on Earth leads from 'there are still some things out there we don't understand' to 'gods/spirits/souls/karma/afterlives'.

Something which defies explanation cannot be presumed to not exist or be an illusion just because current science can't explain it.

There's nothing in this discussion, though, that does defy explanation, there's just you refusing to accept the explanation because you're wedded to an ideological claim of magic.

You can't redefine reality to fit in with short sighted human logic.

I'm not redefining reality, I'm not even defining reality, I'm looking at reality and drawing conclusions from it.  You're looking at reality, not liking what the evidence suggests, and then claiming 'spirit' to fill a gap that just isn't there.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Has anyone around here actually demonstrated that the universe is in fact deterministic?

[Nearly Sane]

Has anyone around here actually demonstrated that the universe is in fact deterministic?

No one has stated that it is.

[ekim]

But as you said in your opening sentence, I am able to choose words to suit my cause.  I desire many things, but I am free to choose how, when and where to act upon those desires - or not to act.  I am not controlled by my conscious desires.  God's will can certainly influence my choices, but I am still free to make such choices - the choices are mine not God's and I am fully accountable for the choices I make.

... and your opening sentence illustrates the problem you have with your notion of free will.  Your cause is determined by the desire you have for a particular effect which means that the words you choose are not free from the desire which motivates your cause.  To choose between the desire to act or not act still means that your choice is attached to or determined by a desire.  The ability to choose is basically what intelligence is and it is present to varying degrees in many life forms.  A cheetah uses it to select prey.  As regards God, your choice is between what your God desires and what you desire.  You may be able to free yourself from your personal desires but then your God become the determining factor.

[Alan Burns]

... and your opening sentence illustrates the problem you have with your notion of free will.  Your cause is determined by the desire you have for a particular effect which means that the words you choose are not free from the desire which motivates your cause.  To choose between the desire to act or not act still means that your choice is attached to or determined by a desire.  The ability to choose is basically what intelligence is and it is present to varying degrees in many life forms.  A cheetah uses it to select prey.  As regards God, your choice is between what your God desires and what you desire.  You may be able to free yourself from your personal desires but then your God become the determining factor.

My conscious awareness of personal desires and God's will are indeed influences on my choices, but I am still the one who chooses to fire whatever brain cells are needed to invoke my own consciously chosen will.

[Outrider]

Has anyone around here actually demonstrated that the universe is in fact deterministic?

It's the prevailing hypothesis, with a massive amount of supporting evidence. As you're well aware all scientific theories are technically provisional, though.

O.

[ekim]

My conscious awareness of personal desires and God's will are indeed influences on my choices, but I am still the one who chooses to fire whatever brain cells are needed to invoke my own consciously chosen will.

..... and that is no different to the cheetah except that it is free from religious indoctrination.  You need to look at what prompts you to make a decision, this is the determining factor for choice.  Your ability to choose (intelligence) is likely to be determined by your brain cells and resident memory.
It could be said that there are two types of intelligence in man, one for rational decisions (intellectual intelligence) and the other for irrational decisions (emotional intelligence).  There is often a conflict between the two.

[Stranger]

My conscious awareness of personal desires and God's will are indeed influences on my choices, but I am still the one who chooses to fire whatever brain cells are needed to invoke my own consciously chosen will.

You must have posted this trite nonsense dozens of times on this thread and had it answered*, so I'll ask yet again: have you genuinely forgotten all the answers you've had or are you pretending to have forgotten?

If you genuinely want to convince people or have a real discussion, then address the answers you've already had. Just repeating yourself as if you've never had any answers makes you look stupid, forgetful, or disingenuous.

Remember how you said you had 'sound logic' and 'valid arguments'? How about trying to actually produce them?

* Even if this little fantasy of yours is true, and you've given us no reason to think it is, it is how 'you' or your 'own consciously chosen will' makes its choices that is the subject of discussion.

[Stranger]

It's the prevailing hypothesis, with a massive amount of supporting evidence.

Strictly speaking, this isn't the case. The problem is quantum mechanics. Although the time evolution of the wave-function according to the Schrödinger equation is deterministic, the results of 'measurements' are not. So whether the universe is fully deterministic depends on what interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct; basically whether you think 'wave-function collapse' is a real physical phenomenon or not.

[Outrider]

Strictly speaking, this isn't the case. The problem is quantum mechanics. Although the time evolution of the wave-function according to the Schrödinger equation is deterministic, the results of 'measurements' are not. So whether the universe is fully deterministic depends on what interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct; basically whether you think 'wave-function collapse' is a real physical phenomenon or not.

Granted, but wave function collapse, experimentally, is still probabilistic, which implies an underlying mechanistic system which we don't currently have suffficient information to adequately define, though, it still speaks to deterministic processes.

O.

[Stranger]

Granted, but wave function collapse, experimentally, is still probabilistic, which implies an underlying mechanistic system which we don't currently have suffficient information to adequately define, though, it still speaks to deterministic processes.

Except Bell's inequalities put severe constraints on any underlying determinism. For example, local (in the relativistic sense) hidden variable theories are ruled out. It is a fact that the current formalism treats the probabilities as fundamental, so determinism is very much an open question.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Has anyone around here actually demonstrated that the universe is in fact deterministic?

Look at that – suspended for a month, then straight back in with a straw man. No preamble, no attempt even to understand the epistemology of truth claims, nothing. No-one has claimed to demonstrate that "the universe" is deterministic, and nor would they need to do so for the deterministic model to be the prevailing functional one nonetheless. Whether determinism applies at the most fundamental level, and indeed whether we could ever know what the most fundamental level even would be is unknowable, but that doesn’t legitimise the likes of AB just spouting irrational and scientifically illiterate gibberish to justify their various personal superstitions.         

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Look at that – suspended for a month, then straight back in with a straw man. No preamble, no attempt even to understand the epistemology of truth claims, nothing. No-one has claimed to demonstrate that "the universe" is deterministic, and nor would they need to do so for the deterministic model to be the prevailing functional one nonetheless. Whether determinism applies at the most fundamental level, and indeed whether we could ever know what the most fundamental level even would be is unknowable, but that doesn’t legitimise the likes of AB just spouting irrational and scientifically illiterate gibberish to justify their various personal superstitions.         

Is this your way of saying ''Can Vlad come out to play?''

[Outrider]

Except Bell's inequalities put severe constraints on any underlying determinism. For example, local (in the relativistic sense) hidden variable theories are ruled out. It is a fact that the current formalism treats the probabilities as fundamental, so determinism is very much an open question.

But Bell's theorem only accounts for local variables, not for general properties, and more importantly it's predicated on predicted outcomes of quantum experiments that haven't been demonstrated yet - it highlights an area where we're still learning, I'm not sure there's a definitive resolution at the moment.

O.

[Stranger]

But Bell's theorem only accounts for local variables, not for general properties...

What do you mean by "general properties"? Bell's rules out what is is generally referred to as local realism.

...and more importantly it's predicated on predicted outcomes of quantum experiments that haven't been demonstrated yet...

A significant number of experimental tests have been done.

...it highlights an area where we're still learning, I'm not sure there's a definitive resolution at the moment.

Exactly - it's an open question.

[torridon]

You always produce well thought out replies to my posts, Torri.
But can the thinking process behind these replies be devoid of consciously driven input?
You have previously quoted evidence of the science behind the claim that our conscious awareness lags behind the events in our brain cells which define our apparently consciously driven choices.
While you think about how to reply to this post, try to imagine how such thought processes could be just the consequence of endless chains of physically driven cause and effect with no source of control.  Or try to contemplate the obvious reality that you are in control.

As in the 'obvious reality' that the Earth is the centre of the universe, you mean ? doubtless when heliocentrism was first proposed, such exclamations of incredulity would have been commonplace. I mean, anyone can look up at the sky and see that everything revolves around the (stationary) Earth.  Obvious, in'it ?

That's the trouble with your 'obvious reality' that 'we' are in control.  Yes, that is the way it seems, and that is good enough for day to day purposes.  But it starts to fail as an explanation when you start to dig deeper, question your assumptions and you end up tying yourself up in knots trying to explain things like free will. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Look at that – suspended for a month, then straight back in with a straw man. No preamble, no attempt even to understand the epistemology of truth claims, nothing. No-one has claimed to demonstrate that "the universe" is deterministic, and nor would they need to do so for the deterministic model to be the prevailing functional one nonetheless. Whether determinism applies at the most fundamental level, and indeed whether we could ever know what the most fundamental level even would be is unknowable, but that doesn’t legitimise the likes of AB just spouting irrational and scientifically illiterate gibberish to justify their various personal superstitions.         

Can a question be a straw man argument? I'm not sure it can?
If others suspicion of you thinking a straw man argument is the equivalent of you being guilty of it.
How much greater is continually arguing from empiricist grounds evidence of being philosophically empiricist?

I have no horse in this race since God is not constrained by a deterministic universe.

[Outrider]

Can a question be a straw man argument? I'm not sure it can?

Yep, it just needs to be predicated on assumptions that no-one is actually making.

If others suspicion of you thinking a straw man argument is the equivalent of you being guilty of it.

On the other hand, 'if' statements typically need a 'then' in order to make any sense.

How much greater is continually arguing from empiricist grounds evidence of being philosophically empiricist?

How much greater than what?

I have no horse in this race since God is not constrained by a deterministic universe.

He sounds a bit like a leprechaun...

O.