Free-will or determinism - a question.

[Alan Burns]

And yet you managed to do it. Which is why I asked you to reread the post so you could try not to misrepresent Stranger. It seems basic courtesy to me that you should want to do that.

Sorry, but I genuinely do not understand your objection - I was just reiterating my own thought on the subject.

[Nearly Sane]

So are you saying that control does not exist?
Are we entirely and uncontrollably defined by past events?
And I can't agree with your definition of "me".  I am a conscious entity in control of a physical body, not just a consequence of past events!

in what way aren't you a consequence of past events?  You are arguing against determinism here, so we can take your statements that you weren't arguing against determinism to have been wrong.

[SusanDoris]

Sorry, but I genuinely do not understand your objection - I was just reiterating my own thought on the subject.

Are you then acknowledging that you do not take notice of what others say in their posts, but just post your own thoughts?

[Alan Burns]

While totally ignoring everything I said. What was the point? You didn't address my points and you didn't even say anything you haven't said thousands of times (or so it seems) before.

How about you read what I said, think about it and then write an actual response to it - or would that be asking for too much honesty?

I honestly found the points you were making were not relevant, so I wanted to re state my own view just to clarify my own position and get back to what I consider the essence of the subject in question.

And as an aside, do you consider my post to be just a logical reaction to your own post, or was there something else involved - could it possibly be my free will?

[Nearly Sane]

Sorry, but I genuinely do not understand your objection - I was just reiterating my own thought on the subject.

This is just wrong because in your post you made statements about what you were arguing against in Stranger's post that were not about what he argued and were a misrepresentation of it. Go back and read his post, and your's. As ever Alan I have no doubt you aren't lying but I do see a basic form of discourtesy in that you don't read the posts you reply to, but rather reply to an argument you think you should reply to. It's at best careless, but it makes discussion impossible with you if you ignore what people actually write!

[Stranger]

I honestly found the points you were making were not relevant...

I actually pointed out a massive gaping logical hole at the heart of your so called "argument" and you think it's not relevant!

Even if you thought that was the case - why not explain why you think it was not relevant, instead of mindlessly repeating the same drivel you've stated endlessly in the past and that has been refuted just as many times by many people?

And as an aside, do you consider my post to be just a logical reaction to your own post, or was there something else involved - could it possibly be my free will?

You are showing no evidence of free will at all - you are behaving exactly like a mindless automaton with no ability to think for itself at all...

[Stranger]

So are you saying that control does not exist?

Of course it does - and control systems need to be deterministic.

Are we entirely and uncontrollably defined by past events?

[prejudicial language indicated]

Unless there is a random element, that is the only logical option.

And I can't agree with your definition of "me".  I am a conscious entity in control of a physical body, not just a consequence of past events!

Being "a conscious entity in control of a physical body" does not contradict you being deterministic - and being deterministic is the only logical way you can possibly make purposeful and meaningful choices.

[torridon]

So are you saying that control does not exist?
Are we entirely and uncontrollably defined by past events?
And I can't agree with your definition of "me".  I am a conscious entity in control of a physical body, not just a consequence of past events!

The feeling of control is an emergent phenomenon whose discussion sits comfortably in higher realms such as psychology.  At the more fundamental levels of reality, concepts of control and freedom dissolve. What control do we actually have if we cannot choose what to want or what to believe ? We are in a sense hostage to the past. I did not choose to start growing a backbone as a 10 day old foetus, nor did I choose the development path of becoming a white skinned hetero male nor did I choose to be born in Yorkshire.  All broad brush stuff I'm sure you'll agree but later down the line we start to develop sentience and self awareness and characteristics traits that distinguish us from others in more subtle ways but the same principle applies, we ultimately do not choose what subtle and ephemeral characteristics to have but rather they form within us as a consequence of our passage through life.  I just made myself a cup of tea two minutes ago.  I did not choose to want a cup of tea, rather, the desire for a cuppa arose within me and I acted on it.  This is what I mean by 'dissolve'. It makes no sense to claim that I could could choose to want something, because that implies there again must be some prior motivation for wanting to choose to want something. We never develop desire or need for no reason, there is always a reason for things; if this were not true we could not possibly be here discussing it.

[ekim]

The feeling of control is an emergent phenomenon whose discussion sits comfortably in higher realms such as psychology.  At the more fundamental levels of reality, concepts of control and freedom dissolve. What control do we actually have if we cannot choose what to want or what to believe ? We are in a sense hostage to the past. I did not choose to start growing a backbone as a 10 day old foetus, nor did I choose the development path of becoming a white skinned hetero male nor did I choose to be born in Yorkshire.  All broad brush stuff I'm sure you'll agree but later down the line we start to develop sentience and self awareness and characteristics traits that distinguish us from others in more subtle ways but the same principle applies, we ultimately do not choose what subtle and ephemeral characteristics to have but rather they form within us as a consequence of our passage through life.  I just made myself a cup of tea two minutes ago.  I did not choose to want a cup of tea, rather, the desire for a cuppa arose within me and I acted on it.  This is what I mean by 'dissolve'. It makes no sense to claim that I could could choose to want something, because that implies there again must be some prior motivation for wanting to choose to want something. We never develop desire or need for no reason, there is always a reason for things; if this were not true we could not possibly be here discussing it.

The difference, though, is that you are identifying with a physical body and its associated mental states, whereas Alan identifies with a soul which wants for nothing as all is provided by his God.  The only choice Alan has to make is to surrender to his God's control and allow his life to be determined by that God.

[SteveH]

The feeling of control is an emergent phenomenon whose discussion sits comfortably in higher realms such as psychology.  At the more fundamental levels of reality, concepts of control and freedom dissolve. What control do we actually have if we cannot choose what to want or what to believe ? We are in a sense hostage to the past. I did not choose to start growing a backbone as a 10 day old foetus, nor did I choose the development path of becoming a white skinned hetero male nor did I choose to be born in Yorkshire.  All broad brush stuff I'm sure you'll agree but later down the line we start to develop sentience and self awareness and characteristics traits that distinguish us from others in more subtle ways but the same principle applies, we ultimately do not choose what subtle and ephemeral characteristics to have but rather they form within us as a consequence of our passage through life.  I just made myself a cup of tea two minutes ago.  I did not choose to want a cup of tea, rather, the desire for a cuppa arose within me and I acted on it.  This is what I mean by 'dissolve'. It makes no sense to claim that I could could choose to want something, because that implies there again must be some prior motivation for wanting to choose to want something. We never develop desire or need for no reason, there is always a reason for things; if this were not true we could not possibly be here discussing it.

10 days post-conception, you were an embryo, not a foetus.
You had no control over your desire for a cup of tea, but you could control whether you acted on it by making one or not.

[Stranger]

You had no control over your desire for a cup of tea, but you could control whether you acted on it by making one or not.

Then you have to consider what the 'you' refers to in your statement and how it makes choices. Once again, it can either do so for reasons or there can be a random element - but there are no other logical alternatives. To the extent the choice is no a direct, deterministic result of the reasons why it was made, it was made for no reason, which means random.

[SteveH]

Then you have to consider what the 'you' refers to in your statement and how it makes choices. Once again, it can either do so for reasons or there can be a random element - but there are no other logical alternatives. To the extent the choice is no a direct, deterministic result of the reasons why it was made, it was made for no reason, which means random.

The fact that there were reasons for the choice (thirst, fondness for tea, advert break) for making tea when you did, and not coffee or some other drink doesn't alter the fact that it was your choice. Determinism rules - every event has a pre-existant cause (at the everyday level, that is: not at the quantum level, apparantly, though that doesn't alter things materially), but some of those pre-existant causes are our conscious choices.

[torridon]

10 days post-conception, you were an embryo, not a foetus.
You had no control over your desire for a cup of tea, but you could control whether you acted on it by making one or not.

Makes no difference really.  You admit that we have no control over the desire to have a cup of tea, but then claim that we do have control over whether or not to act on it.  That's just arbitrary.  They are both desires, related desires in this case, and so the same principle applies.  Whatever I choose to do in the next moment reflects my uppermost priority in the next moment. We cannot arbitrarily choose what to want or what to believe, we discern what our priority is and act on it; that may well be to have that tea, or it may be another choice, perhaps to postpone that tea because I have some more pressing priority in the moment.

[Stranger]

...but some of those pre-existant causes are our conscious choices.

But a concious choice is made for some reasons (or is, to some extent, random) - you cannot simply regard it as an input (just a cause). Consciousness has inputs, an internal state, and outputs (choices) - it is either internally deterministic* (its outputs are determined by its inputs and internal state) or it has a genuine random element.

* Although almost certainly chaotic in the mathematical sense.

[Alan Burns]

While totally ignoring everything I said. What was the point? You didn't address my points and you didn't even say anything you haven't said thousands of times (or so it seems) before.

You are accusing me of deliberately ignoring what you said in the post.

Considering what you say in your post about the logic of determinism, can you deduce the ultimate cause of my deliberate choice to ignore what you said in your post?

[Stranger]

You are accusing me of deliberately ignoring what you said in the post.

Considering what you say in your post about the logic of determinism, can you define the ultimate cause of my deliberate choice to ignore what you said in your post?

You really are an intellectual coward of the first order - yet again blatantly avoiding addressing the point.

You're question makes no sense - can you define the 'ultimate cause' of the cold weather we're having? How many times are you going to repeat this pathetic argument about your replies being evidence of the magic nature of 'free will'? I mean, what do you think people are going to say? "Oh f**k - I never thought of the fact that you and I can choose what to type, what to ignore, and what to answer, that totally undermines my views..."?

Grow up!

[wigginhall]

It shows the bankruptcy of this position, reduced to parroting a few empty phrases.    It's not possible to describe the 'spiritual' antecedents of any act or wish, so instead we get either silence, or empty verbiage.   

[Alan Burns]

You really are an intellectual coward of the first order - yet again blatantly avoiding addressing the point.

You're question makes no sense - can you define the 'ultimate cause' of the cold weather we're having? How many times are you going to repeat this pathetic argument about your replies being evidence of the magic nature of 'free will'? I mean, what do you think people are going to say? "Oh f**k - I never thought of the fact that you and I can choose what to type, what to ignore, and what to answer, that totally undermines my views..."?

Grow up!

But you are now ignoring my point.
I put it to you that I am the cause of my replies.
If I am not the cause, what is it that you are arguing with?

[Stranger]

But you are now ignoring my point.

Untrue. I pointed out that the question made no sense and asked you a similar one - all of which you have ignored!

I put it to you that I am the cause of my replies.
If I am not the cause, what is it that you are arguing with?

Of course 'you' are to cause of your replies - that isn't the point.

How about going back and reading what has been said? If you genuinely can't understand it, I'll try to explain more...

[Nearly Sane]

But you are now ignoring my point.
I put it to you that I am the cause of my replies.
If I am not the cause, what is it that you are arguing with?

No he didn't ignore your point he said your question was stupid. And it is and you continue to ignore the points made to you showing your basic discourtesy. By the way, what would you question mean, what is an 'ultimate cause' and how would it happen without a cause?

[Alan Burns]

No he didn't ignore your point he said your question was stupid. And it is and you continue to ignore the points made to you showing your basic discourtesy. By the way, what would you question mean, what is an 'ultimate cause' and how would it happen without a cause?

The ultimate cause of my posts stems from the conscious willpower of my soul.
Nothing else makes sense.
The only alternative scenario is that my replies are just the inevitable consequence of all the physical events which have taken place since the beginning of the universe.
I repeat - am not nature's robot.

[Nearly Sane]

The ultimate cause of my posts stems from the conscious willpower of my soul.
Nothing else makes sense.
The only alternative scenario is that my replies are just the inevitable consequence of all the physical events which have taken place since the beginning of the universe.
I repeat - am not nature's robot.

But how does that cause arise? If it doesn't have a prior cause, then it is just random. And your laying out one scenario and saying that is all you can think of is an argument from ignorance, followed up by you using physical in it which has been covered many times is specious in terms of determinism, and you then just dismiss it because you don't accept. You don't present arguments, you don't listen to arguments.

[Stranger]

The ultimate cause of my posts stems from the conscious willpower of my soul.

Meaningless.

Nothing else makes sense.

Untrue.

The only alternative scenario is that my replies are just the inevitable consequence of all the physical events which have taken place since the beginning of the universe.

Back to the pointless mantra and the dishonest association of of determinism with the physical.

I repeat - am not nature's robot.

Pointless prejudicial language.

And you still don't have the intellectual courage to face up to the logic of the arguments presented to you. What sort of impression do you think you are giving (of yourself and your faith) by just regurgitating the same thing, in the same words, over and over and over again and over again - while totally ignoring the arguments put to you?

[Alan Burns]

Of course 'you' are to cause of your replies - that isn't the point.

It is the point.  I take ultimate responsibility for all my choices, because I am in control. 

But what constitutes "me" or "you"? 

Are we just all just part of the physically deterministic material universe?  If so we are all indeed under the inevitable control of the natural consequences cause and effect which date back to the beginning of time. 

[Alan Burns]

But how does that cause arise? If it doesn't have a prior cause, then it is just random. And your laying out one scenario and saying that is all you can think of is an argument from ignorance, followed up by you using physical in it which has been covered many times is specious in terms of determinism, and you then just dismiss it because you don't accept. You don't present arguments, you don't listen to arguments.

Of course all my actions have a cause.  I am the cause.

And to answer Stranger's point, yes there is a reason behind my conscious choices.  The reason stems from the ability of my spiritual awareness to make a conscious choice.

The point I am making is that there is a difference between choice and reaction.  I drive my choices.  Nature drives reactions.

And if I am repeating my previous arguments it is because I have consciously chosen to do so of my own free will.