Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

You, and others, imply that it is the past which dictates our decisions - in which case they are reactions, not choices.

The making of a choice is the process of resolving competing desires.  We make choices all the time, and every person resolves choices in their own unique way according to their internal mind state.  There is nothing in this requiring a disconnect in chains of cause and effect, and indeed were this to tbe the case, then our choices would end up being random.  This would have no value or merit.

[Stranger]

So Alan, yet again we find you ignoring the answers to the questions you asked (that you'd previously accused me of not answering). Yet agin you are running away from engaging with the responses so we can move forward. Instead you've just picked out one phrase, that I even pointed out had been endlessly covered before, so you can just do more mindless repetition.

Yet more evidence that you are afraid of real debate and actually having to think about the subject.

You, and others, imply that it is the past which dictates our decisions...

Indirectly. You are the person you are because of the past and the person you are makes the choice that it does because of who it is and the circumstances it finds itself in.

...in which case they are reactions, not choices.

Every choice is a reaction. It's not an either/or question.

And the concept of trying would also be determined by a reaction to past events which negates any possible invocation from the conscious self.

Again, indirectly via the person you are. You still seem to be unable to grasp that, on the basis of evidence and reasoning, there isn't any 'you' that is separate from cause and effect. Any idea you have of a 'conscious self' would also be the result of the past, so its potential involvement in choice-making wouldn't change anything at all, even if it wasn't obviously wrong.

It's also interesting to note that you implied back in #48381 that you are no longer arguing for souls operating outside of the constraints of time. If this is the case, then you now don't even have a meaningless mantra to fall back on to escape from the fact that if minds are not deterministic, they must involve randomness. And, of course, the person you are must be fully determined by your past and any initial conditions, or those things and some randomness. 

This is not the reality we all exist in.
We make conscious choices which are determined by us - not by the past.
We are capable of consciously guiding our thoughts to reach our consciously chosen goals.
Out ability to try is invoked from within our conscious self - it is not a pre determined reaction to past events.
We have the freedom to choose our own destiny.

Unargued, evidence-free, and illogical assertions.

[Stranger]

And the concept of trying would also be determined by a reaction to past events which negates any possible invocation from the conscious self.

I want to emphasis a point here because you seem to have been confused about this since you started this 'discussion'. There is no logical connection between being determined by the past and whether the conscious or unconscious mind is in control.

The conscious mind is no less (or more) subject to the arguments about determinism than the unconscious mind. The unconscious mind doing all the work first, before consciousness gets a look in, does not mean that it is determined by the past. Likewise, if the conscious mind was in total control that does not mean that it isn't determined by the past.

There is simply no logical connection between your two assertions that

• our actions are not deterministic and we could have done differently without that difference being random, and
• that it is our conscious mind that is in control and not the unconscious mind.

The logical arguments against both are different and entirely separate.

[jeremyp]

• our actions are not deterministic and we could have done differently without that difference being random, and
• that it is our conscious mind that is in control and not the unconscious mind.

The logical arguments against both are different and entirely separate.

The first line item is highly problematic no matter what the nature of the mind is. The determinism problem doesn't go away if we assume an immortal soul.

Even if my mind is "controlled" by a soul, how does it know what to make me do? It can only be based on my past experience, current information (which is really just more past experience) and reasoning ability. There isn't anything else, except randomness.

So, if you focus on a particular choice your soul made in the past, if the circumstances were exactly the same and your experience was exactly the same i.e. as if time had been rewound, how would your soul be capable of making a different decision? It would go through exactly the same processes with exactly the same information and would come up with exactly the same choice of action.

B is completely irrelevant. It could be your conscious mind, your soul, or your unconscious mind: the argument is the same.

[ekim]

Even if my mind is "controlled" by a soul, how does it know what to make me do?

God knows!

[Stranger]

The first line item is highly problematic no matter what the nature of the mind is. The determinism problem doesn't go away if we assume an immortal soul.

Even if my mind is "controlled" by a soul, how does it know what to make me do? It can only be based on my past experience, current information (which is really just more past experience) and reasoning ability. There isn't anything else, except randomness.

So, if you focus on a particular choice your soul made in the past, if the circumstances were exactly the same and your experience was exactly the same i.e. as if time had been rewound, how would your soul be capable of making a different decision? It would go through exactly the same processes with exactly the same information and would come up with exactly the same choice of action.

B is completely irrelevant. It could be your conscious mind, your soul, or your unconscious mind: the argument is the same.

Exactly. I was just outlining the two 'arguments' that Alan seems to think are connected (from the part of his post I quoted) but aren't. Frankly I don't think he's ever quite grasped that positing a 'soul' or insisting on 'conscious control' don't make the slightest difference to the arguments against his impossible version of 'free will'.

He tried to address it with the nonsense phrase "ever present state of conscious awareness" and now he's trying to insist on the equally meaningless and irrelevant "conscious control of our own thought processes".

[Alan Burns]

I have never argued that our minds are not deterministic.  It is the source of what determines our thoughts words and actions which I question.
If the source is limited to physically determined reactions to past events then we are merely a biological robot with no will of our own and our conscious awareness is just a spectator on events which have already been determined.

I have not ruled out the ever present state of conscious awareness being the source of our human will which frees us from being shackled to inevitable reactions to the past and allows us the freedom to think about the reality we exist in rather than just react to it.  It is a speculation which would fit better with reality than the materialistic biological robot.

[Stranger]

I have never argued that our minds are not deterministic.  It is the source of what determines our thoughts words and actions which I question.

  Oh for fuck's sake, Alan, do you really not remember going through all this idiocy before? Deterministic has a very specific meaning. It is not just that something is determined by something else. Claiming that we could have chosen differently than we did is denying that our minds are deterministic.

#39517
#32591
#32601

If the source is limited to physically determined reactions to past events...

Being the direct consequence of the past is what deterministic means. The "physically" is just you dishonestly pretending that the problem is one with the physical world, rather than the logical one that it actually is.

...then we are merely a biological robot with no will of our own...

Both inaccurate and an argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy.

...and our conscious awareness is just a spectator on events which have already been determined.

Unmitigated, thought-free, and dishonest drivel. There is no suggestion that anybody has made that would make consciousness a spectator. Both the content of consciousness itself, and what it wants to do would all be the direct result of the person you are, that is the way it is because of the past. There is no spectating going on in any scenario that has ever been suggested here.

I have not ruled out the ever present state of conscious awareness being the source of our human will which frees us from being shackled to inevitable reactions to the past and allows us the freedom to think about the reality we exist in rather than just react to it.  It is a speculation which would fit better with reality than the materialistic biological robot.

The "ever present state of conscious awareness" is meaningless gibberish.

You can't just make up a stupid, meaningless phrase, pretend that it answers a question, and then utterly refuse to even try to explain what it means. Not if you have a single shred of self-respect and honesty, anyway.

Not only have you apparently not bothered to think about this subject at all, you can't even remember what has been gone though endless times before.

So much for thinking deeply and having an inquiring mind.   

[torridon]

I have never argued that our minds are not deterministic.  It is the source of what determines our thoughts words and actions which I question.
If the source is limited to physically determined reactions to past events then we are merely a biological robot with no will of our own and our conscious awareness is just a spectator on events which have already been determined.

We all have a will of our own, but that will is not something that exists ex-nihilo with no origins or derivation.  It is something that is formed by our past.  Whenever a person commits some senseless atrocity, the first question we ask, is why ? We all instinctively know that there are reasons underlying the choices we make, and those reasons lie in the past.

[Alan Burns]

  Oh for fuck's sake, Alan, do you really not remember going through all this idiocy before? Deterministic has a very specific meaning. It is not just that something is determined by something else. Claiming that we could have chosen differently than we did is denying that our minds are deterministic.

Not if the choice is determined by the will of your human soul.
We are not machines.

[Alan Burns]

We all have a will of our own, but that will is not something that exists ex-nihilo with no origins or derivation.  It is something that is formed by our past.  Whenever a person commits some senseless atrocity, the first question we ask, is why ? We all instinctively know that there are reasons underlying the choices we make, and those reasons lie in the past.

And we all (most of us anyway) have regrets over bad choices we know we could have made differently under the same circumstances.

[Alan Burns]

Being the direct consequence of the past is what deterministic means. The "physically" is just you dishonestly pretending that the problem is one with the physical world, rather than the logical one that it actually is.

But your short sighted logic is entirely based upon what you perceive in materialistic behaviour.

[Alan Burns]

The "ever present state of conscious awareness" is meaningless gibberish.

You vastly underestimate the nature of our conscious awareness.
It is where we exist.
It defines the present.
It is the only reality we know.
It defies any materialistic explanation or definition.

[Stranger]

Not if the choice is determined by the will of your human soul.

Which is not only logically self-contradictory, it's not what deterministic means. It means that everything is the result of pre-existing conditions and that there could only ever be one possible outcome.

deterministic - believing that everything that happens must happen as it does and could not have happened any other way, or relating to this belief

deterministic - ideas or explanations are based on determinism.

determinism - is the belief that all actions and events result from other actions, events, or situations, so people cannot in fact choose what to do.

I mean, for fuck's sake go back to the links I gave to posts in 2018.I and others spent ages pointing out that you didn't understand the term and cited endless sources that supported us.

Is your memory really that flaky?

And how you can possibly claim to have thought deeply about free will without ever learning what deterministic means is quite beyond me. It is one of the most fundamental concepts in the whole subject.

We are not machines.

So stop telling lies like: "I have never argued that our minds are not deterministic."

[Nearly Sane]

You vastly underestimate the nature of our conscious awareness.
It is where we exist.
It defines the present.
It is the only reality we know.
It defies any materialistic explanation or definition.

BOGOF on fortune cookies today, then.

[Stranger]

And we all (most of us anyway) have regrets over bad choices we know we could have made differently under the same circumstances.

Baseless, unargued assertion.

But your short sighted logic is entirely based upon what you perceive in materialistic behaviour.

More dishonesty. It is based - as I have explained at great length, and you always totally ignore because of your obvious fear of the thinking about it - on the fact that minds require time and that time means that either actions proceed deterministically or they don't, and if they don't, then there must be randomness.

Logically (not physically), there is no other possibility.

You vastly underestimate the nature of our conscious awareness.

Baseless, unargued assertion.

It is where we exist.

I do not exist in some 'ever present state'. My thoughts unfold over time. By the time I've finished a thought, the start is in the past.

It defines the present.

There is no concept of 'the present' that makes the slightest logical difference to the determinism or randomness argument.

It is the only reality we know.

Poppycock. I don't recognise the concept at all.

It defies any materialistic explanation or definition.

It defies basic logic. Please stop lying about it being about 'materialism' or the physical world. I have explained the logic, either use logic to refute it or stop the dishonest misrepresentation.

It really isn't a great look for someone who is supposedly a Christian to have to lie and misrepresent opposing arguments.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, the shape of space-time depends on what's in it and what's in it couldn't exist without the space-time, so what? There is no indication that the system depends on anything else.

The indication is of course the argument from contingency and the absurdity of circular heirarchies.

The whole argument from contingency is incoherent because it lacks any explanation for how it is logically possible for something to exist which couldn't have failed to exist. Absent such an explanation, any claims you make about it (like it can't have components) is just you making shit up. Without the missing explanation, they are baseless, unargued assertions.

The alternatives are logically absurd namely circular heirarchies, infinite regress, something out of nothing for example. There would have to be a reason why everything failed to exist. Nothing of course does not exist and that reason wouldn't exist. The question is why existence and not non existence? answer? something has to exist.

[Alan Burns]

More dishonesty. It is based - as I have explained at great length, and you always totally ignore because of your obvious fear of the thinking about it - on the fact that minds require time and that time means that either actions proceed deterministically or they don't, and if they don't, then there must be randomness.

Logically (not physically), there is no other possibility.

The concept of time and how it relates within our material world is entirely based upon scientific investigation.
The physicist Stephen Hawkin postulated that time as we know it began with the big bang creation of our universe.
You cannot extrapolate the time dependent cause and effect scenarios observed in material behaviour to apply to anything outside the realms of our material universe.

[Alan Burns]

It really isn't a great look for someone who is supposedly a Christian to have to lie and misrepresent opposing arguments.

As a Christian it is my duty to witness to what I sincerely believe to be the truth.
And it is not blind faith.  My Christian faith is evidence based.
You need to widen your scope of what you accept as evidence.

[Alan Burns]

Poppycock. I don't recognise the concept at all.

This was your reply to my observation that our conscious awareness is the only reality we know.
I think you need to explain how you come to know anything outside your conscious awareness.

[torridon]

And we all (most of us anyway) have regrets over bad choices we know we could have made differently under the same circumstances.

But you don't know that.  It is unknowable, and this is why there is no evidence for free will and why there never can be. We all feel casually that we might have acted differently in the same circumstances, but of course, looking back later on with regret is not the same circumstance.  Apart anything else, we now have hindsight, a lovely thing to have, but which was not available originally.

[Stranger]

The concept of time and how it relates within our material world is entirely based upon scientific investigation.

Doesn't change the fact that time is a requirement for the functioning of minds. Without time, there can be no thoughts, no deliberation, no choices, and not actions. Without time, it is impossible to think or do anything at all.

Hence time is a logical requirement for any sort of mind and any sort of purposeful action (or any action at all). From that, we can logically see that either minds are deterministic systems or they aren't (and hence involve randomness).

Minds logically require time and time logically excludes your version of free will. Get over it.

[Stranger]

And it is not blind faith.  My Christian faith is evidence based.

So why is it that, in all the years and years you've been posting, you have never once offered a single hint of the merest suggestion of the tiniest morsel of actual evidence?

This was your reply to my observation that our conscious awareness is the only reality we know.
I think you need to explain how you come to know anything outside your conscious awareness.

More blatant dishonesty. You were making claims about the "ever present state of conscious awareness", not just "conscious awareness".

Again, I don't experience an "ever present state" of anything. It's just meaningless gibberish.

[Alan Burns]

Doesn't change the fact that time is a requirement for the functioning of minds. Without time, there can be no thoughts, no deliberation, no choices, and not actions. Without time, it is impossible to think or do anything at all.

Hence time is a logical requirement for any sort of mind and any sort of purposeful action (or any action at all). From that, we can logically see that either minds are deterministic systems or they aren't (and hence involve randomness).

Minds logically require time and time logically excludes your version of free will. Get over it.

You seem to be stuck in the time related cause and effect scenario observed in our material world. You seem oblivious to the concept of our conscious self being able to invoke an act of will within our material brain.
For your logic to be valid, you would need to show how the working of the human mind is entirely dependent on the time line in our material universe.

[Stranger]

The indication is of course the argument from contingency and the absurdity of circular heirarchies.

How does that indicate that the space-time and its contents depend on anything else?

The alternatives are logically absurd namely circular heirarchies, infinite regress, something out of nothing for example.

Two points.

• How do you know that you have thought of all the all the alternatives, or even that humans are capable of thinking of all the alternatives?
  
  
• You are ignoring the total absurdity of a 'necessary entity'.