Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

This doesn't follow at all. There is nothing about determinism that negates dishonesty. If somebody says something they know to be untrue, that is still dishonest. There is also nothing wrong with pointing it out, since there is nothing that prevents a person from realising their dishonesty and changing their approach accordingly. In a deterministic system, every new input to a person's mind can potentially change it in any number of ways.

And yet in a deterministic system, there is no choive. Alan cannot but act as he does. Your unwilligness to accept the logic of your position is just determined as well.

[Stranger]

Yes we do indeed have a choice - but there is only one truth and only one reality.
Our choice is to either accept it or reject it.

Isn't it about time you stopped living in an impossible fantasy world, then?

[Alan Burns]

This doesn't follow at all. There is nothing about determinism that negates dishonesty.

What you fail to acknowledge is the role of conscious deliberation in committing an act of dishonesty.

[Stranger]

And yet in a deterministic system, there is no choive.

Now you're trying to use Alan's impossible re-definition of the word 'choice'. Deterministic systems can make choices, just not impossible 'free will' choices. And you ignored my actual point.

Alan cannot but act as he does. Your unwilligness to accept the logic of your position is just determined as well.

But what is said to him here can have an effect on his future choices. It is you who are not following the logic here. Determinism is not fatalism. Alan's future will depend on hist total state now, and all inputs and interactions from now on. Using words like "dishonesty" and "choice" is not inconsistent.

[Stranger]

What you fail to acknowledge is the role of conscious deliberation in committing an act of dishonesty.

You have not actually addressed the argument that shows that your view of this role is impossible.

[Nearly Sane]

Now you're trying to use Alan's impossible re-definition of the word 'choice'. Deterministic systems can make choices, just not impossible 'free will' choices. And you ignored my actual point.

But what is said to him here can have an effect on his future choices. It is you who are not following the logic here. Determinism is not fatalism. Alan's future will depend on hist total state now, and all inputs and interactions from now on. Using words like "dishonesty" and "choice" is not inconsistent.

But what is said to him here is determined as well. Given that, your use of 'choice' is meaningless. Compatibilism is a comforting vapid bedtime story.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

In this one statement you are implying that we have a choice over which reality or truth to accept.

At one level, yes we do. Your mistake though is akin to assuming that a koalas being “obviously” bears at a functional level of discourse also means they must be bears at a taxonomic level too. Different realities co-exist and function in parallel all the time – you can’t though just assume that any one such must be the only one.   

Yes we do indeed have a choice - but there is only one truth and only one reality.
Our choice is to either accept it or reject it.

No, there are lots of truths and lots of realities. This should be obvious even to you by now.

[Stranger]

But what is said to him here is determined as well.

So what, exactly? Choice is still just the act of selecting from a group of options, and dishonesty is still the act of choosing to state something that you know is not true.

I mean, you appear to want to affect the future of people here to do, or not do, something. Why would you bother if you think it will have no effect? In fact, of course it will. I wouldn't have been writing this if you hadn't posted what you did.

[Alan Burns]

....  dishonesty is still the act of choosing to state something that you know is not true.

How can you come to a conclusion about whether something is true without the freedom to consciously contemplate the factors involved?

[Alan Burns]

Just calling something “bizarre” without sound reasoning to support the claim is (yet another) fallacy called poisoning the well. It’s not the “free” will as you fondly imagine it to be does not exist, it’s that it cannot exist for the reasons you’ve been given countless times that you cannot or will not ever address.   

You do not need to establish sound reasoning about the workings of of free will in order to use it

[Maeght]

How can you come to a conclusion about whether something is true without the freedom to consciously contemplate the factors involved?

You can go through a thought process but it isn't necessarily a free one. That's the whole point surely. No one questions that we can think about stuff.

[Outrider]

You do not need to establish sound reasoning about the workings of of free will in order to use it

But you do if you want to claim that you're using it.

O.

[Stranger]

You do not need to establish sound reasoning about the workings of of free will in order to use it

How can you come to a conclusion about whether something is true without the freedom to consciously contemplate the factors involved?

Yet more mindless dimwittery.

You are not using 'free will' in the way you define it because that would be logically impossible. You can stamp your little foot as hard as you like and throw all your toys out of your pram if you want, but unless you address the clear contradiction in your version of 'free will' you will have nothing logically relevant to say.

Again: grow the fuck up.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You do not need to establish sound reasoning about the workings of of free will in order to use it

At a workaday, colloquial level that’s true enough to be useful. You can “use” your “free” will as much as you like when deciding whether, say, to order tea or coffee. Almost all social interactions depend on this useful level of understanding.

What you can’t do though is just assume that a belief at this level of abstraction (ie, to use your term, the “obvious” level) is also therefore true at the explanatory, epistemic level of what’s also happening under the bonnet. I asked you recently on multiple occasions whether you can grasp that that which is "obviously" true need not necessarily be actually true but you ran away each time i did it so I still don't know whether you understand it yet.       

This however is where you keep going wrong.

[Alan Burns]

What you can’t do though is just assume that a belief at this level of abstraction (ie, to use your term, the “obvious” level) is also therefore true at the explanatory, epistemic level of what’s also happening under the bonnet. I asked you recently on multiple occasions whether you can grasp that that which is "obviously" true need not necessarily be actually true but you ran away each time i did it so I still don't know whether you've grasped this point yet.       

I do grasp what you are saying about the different levels of abstraction and I fully understand your reasoning.
My contention is simply that your ability to come up with these ideas of different levels of abstraction does not fit with the presumption that it can all be accomplished without the freedom to consciously control the thought processes needed to arrive at these consciously verified conclusions.

This however is where you keep going wrong.

Where you keep going wrong is trying to make reality fit in with our very limited knowledge of how things work - particularly in our human minds.  Your ideas are entirely dependent on the premiss that everything must comply with the time related cause and effect scenario we perceive in material behaviour.  The reality of what we can achieve with our human minds goes way beyond a materialistic cause and effect scenario.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I do grasp what you are saying about the different levels of abstraction and I fully understand your reasoning.

Well, as you’ve shown no sign so far of understanding that at all I’ll just have to take your word for it I guess but ok…

My contention is simply that your ability to come up with these ideas of different levels of abstraction does not fit with the presumption that it can all be accomplished without the freedom to consciously control the thought processes needed to arrive at these consciously verified conclusions.

You can contend anything you like, but unless you can finally produce sound reasons to rebut the reasoning that shows that to be impossible without infinite regress (or without recourse to magic thinking to get you off that hook) then your unqualified opinion here is worthless.

Where you keep going wrong is trying to make reality fit in with our very limited knowledge of how things work - particularly in our human minds.  Your ideas are entirely dependent on the premiss that everything must comply with the time related cause and effect scenario we perceive in material behaviour.

Here’s the difference between us though: I can tell you where you go wrong because I have sound reasoning for support. You on the other hand cannot or will not address that reasoning, and instead collapse immediately into banalities, idiocies of plain false thinking.

Of course my understanding is delimited by “our very limited knowledge of how things work”. So is yours. So is everyone’s. How could it be otherwise?

And yes, my position is “dependent on the premiss that everything must comply with the time related cause and effect scenario we perceive in material behaviour” because that’s the only verifiable model of reality we have. If you don’t like that and want to escape it so as to fit your blind faith convictions your only way out (so far at least) has been an “it’s magic innit” land supposedly outside time and space in which anything goes – but if decision-makers there can operate free of decision-makers of their own, then up can be down and 2+2 can = 5 too. That not a rebuttal argument though – it’s where you end up when you abandon even the pretence of an argument in favour of anything goes bullshit.         

The reality of what we can achieve with our human minds goes way beyond a materialistic cause and effect scenario.

I hear the blind faith claim. Now, finally, produce some sound reasons to justify it.

[Stranger]

I do grasp what you are saying about the different levels of abstraction and I fully understand your reasoning.

There is no evidence of this in your posts.

My contention is simply that your ability to come up with these ideas of different levels of abstraction does not fit with the presumption that it can all be accomplished without the freedom to consciously control the thought processes needed to arrive at these consciously verified conclusions.

Which is just the same dimwittery as before. You might as well have said "My contention is simply that doing arithmetic does not fit with the presumption that 1 does not equal 2." Your statement is equally absurd.

Where you keep going wrong is trying to make reality fit in with our very limited knowledge of how things work - particularly in our human minds.

You keep going wrong in trying to make reality fit with your blind faith, for which you have offered no evidence and no hint of sound reasoning. Further, you have ignored the obvious logic that makes it impossible.

Your ideas are entirely dependent on the premiss that everything must comply with the time related cause and effect scenario we perceive in material behaviour.

It has nothing to do with "material behaviour". The infinite regress involved in "consciously control our own thought processes" directly follows from the statement itself.

The reality of what we can achieve with our human minds goes way beyond a materialistic cause and effect scenario.

Another utterly baseless assertion. 

[Alan Burns]

You keep going wrong in trying to make reality fit with your blind faith, for which you have offered no evidence and no hint of sound reasoning. Further, you have ignored the obvious logic that makes it impossible.

As I inferred earlier, I do not have to make the reality of my free will fit in with any logical explanations in order to use it.  My freedom to control my own thoughts is what defines me.  It defines who I am as a unique individual within the human race.  Without it I am just a biological robot driven entirely by physical reactions with no will of my own.

[Stranger]

As I inferred earlier, I do not have to make the reality of my free will fit in with any logical explanations in order to use it.

The fact that it feels like you are using such an ability, does not make it real. The idea that you are using it is a baseless assertion/assumption that contradicts basic logic. You really need to grow up and stop confusing your subjective impressions of reality with reality itself. There are endless examples of our intuitive ideas about how reality works being wrong. You are not immune and your blind faith is not a reason to think you are in this case.

My freedom to control my own thoughts is what defines me.  It defines who I am as a unique individual within the human race.

Argument by assertion fallacy. Twice.

Without it I am just a biological robot driven entirely by physical reactions with no will of my own.

Appeal to consequences fallacy and dishonest misrepresentation of the opposing arguments that do not require physical reactions or deny a will of your own.

Using fallacies demonstrates that you have no grasp of basic logic.

[torridon]

In this one statement you are implying that we have a choice over which reality or truth to accept.

Yes we do indeed have a choice - but there is only one truth and only one reality.
Our choice is to either accept it or reject it.

Rather simplistic and platitudinous.  Reality is complex and there are a potentially infinite number of claims that could be made about it, each of which might be correct or incorrect.  If a claim appears to have good supporting evidence, we might be inclined to accept it. Otherwise keeping an open mind until convincing evidence comes along is probably what happens.  Simply backing one claim dogmatically closes the mind to other possibilities.

[Alan Burns]

Now you're trying to use Alan's impossible re-definition of the word 'choice'. Deterministic systems can make choices, just not impossible 'free will' choices. And you ignored my actual point.

It is you who tries to redefine choice.
The deterministic system you propose means that at any one time we could not possibly have done or thought anything differently.
That is not choice.  It is unavoidable reaction.

[torridon]

It is you who tries to redefine choice.
The deterministic system you propose means that at any one time we could not possibly have done or thought anything differently.
That is not choice.  It is unavoidable reaction.

It is 'choice' in terms of describing the mental processes involved in choosing. The fact that all mental processes are fundamentally deterministic in their operation does not mean that these processes are not taking place.

[Stranger]

It is you who tries to redefine choice.
The deterministic system you propose means that at any one time we could not possibly have done or thought anything differently.
That is not choice.  It is unavoidable reaction.

Drivel. Automated systems and non-human animals make choices all the time. It doesn't not mean impossible god-magic. And, of course, a choice is always a reaction (to being faced with different options).

Even if there were anything in this (which there isn't) it would then be yet another argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy, which means that you have yet again displayed a shocking inability to grasp even the basics of logic.

[Alan Burns]

Drivel. Automated systems and non-human animals make choices all the time. It doesn't not mean impossible god-magic. And, of course, a choice is always a reaction (to being faced with different options).

Even if there were anything in this (which there isn't) it would then be yet another argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy, which means that you have yet again displayed a shocking inability to grasp even the basics of logic.

So in your scenario, the word "deliberate" becomes redundant since there can be no such thing as a deliberate action or thought if we are totally shackled to reactions to past events over which we have no control.

Yet I am constantly being accused of repeating myself and ignoring opposing arguments - are these not acts of deliberation - or just unavoidable reactions?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You have a remarkable facility for cramming a lot of mistakes into relatively few words. Disappointingly when those mistakes are explained to you you don’t take ownership of them by addressing the corrections you're given, but that’s just your character I guess. Anyway, in the reasonably sure knowledge that you’ll just ignore these corrections too:

As I inferred earlier,…

Implied, not inferred.

…I do not have to make the reality of my free will fit in with any logical explanations in order to use it.

No-one said otherwise. If you want to explain it though rather than just have the experience of “using” it, then you have no options but the logical explanations. What else would you suggest – illogical explanations? 

My freedom to control my own thoughts is what defines me. It defines who I am as a unique individual within the human race.

You may “define” yourself by that useful fiction, but that doesn’t make it true.

Without it I am just a biological robot driven entirely by physical reactions with no will of my own.

No you’re not but, even if that were to be the case, sow what? This is this is just another deployment of the argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy.