Free-will or determinism - a question.

[Nearly Sane]

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 willpower 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.

And again you don't appear to gave the basic courtesy to read what you are replying to.

Hiw dies any cause that is your choice happen if it isn't caused? If it is caused it is deternined. If it isn't it is random.


Before you reply, make sure you read that and don't repeat a reply that just ignores it, please.

[torridon]

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

You are just deploying a mental block here it seems. Just saying 'I am the cause' is not throwing any light on the underlying reasons that lead to your choices.  We do not make choices out of thin air, there must be a rationale to our choices otherwise our actions would be just random.

[Stranger]

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

It isn't the point because nobody is disputing that 'you' are in control.

But what constitutes "me" or "you"? 

Now, that is the point - but yet again, you will not actually face up to it and go off on one of your silly tangents again...

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.

And if your consciousness is not part of the "physically deterministic material universe", then it must be part of some other, equally deterministic, system (unless it incorporates some random element) - which would make all your choices just as predetermined as they would be if you were entirely physical. That is what LOGIC tells us and that is why the term 'physical' is irrelevant.

[Stranger]

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.

And you once again RUN AWAY from facing the fact that whatever is making the choices, has to have an internal process that makes them, based on its inputs and its internal state. Labelling it "spiritual awareness" doesn't change that.

So this "spiritual awareness" either produces choices that are entirely defined by its internal state and its inputs (and is deterministic), or, to some extent, its output is not fully defined by its inputs and state, in which case the final choice between alternatives has to happen for no reason (its inputs and state are all the reasons available to it), and is therefore random.

How about having the courage to stop and think about that (and no, your ability to 'stop and think' does not mean that you are not a deterministic being)?

[Alan Burns]

And if your consciousness is not part of the "physically deterministic material universe", then it must be part of some other, equally deterministic, system (unless it incorporates some random element) - which would make all your choices just as predetermined as they would be if you were entirely physical. That is what LOGIC tells us and that is why the term 'physical' is irrelevant.

But in this statement you are applying the same logical rules of physical cause cause and effect to the non physical, but you can't presume to know how the non physical works, and in particular whether it requires a plethora of pre determined reasons to define and implement what amounts to an inevitable conscious choice.  You seem to ignore the concept of "conscious will" which is not just an inevitable consequence to the past (that would be reaction), but a real time attribute of consciously driven processes.

[Nearly Sane]

But in this statement you are applying the same logical rules of physical cause cause and effect to the non physical, but you can't presume to know how the non physical works, and in particular whether it requires a plethora of pre determined reasons to implement a conscious choice.  You seem to ignore the concept of "conscious will" which is not just an inevitable consequence to the past (that would be reaction), but a real time attribute of consciously driven processes.

That's another egregious misrepresentation of a post which specifically points out that the conclusion is not based on induction from how the physical might behave but logic. Read the posts Alan, instead of as ever responding to something not said. Yet again a basic lack of courtesy!

[Alan Burns]

And you once again RUN AWAY from facing the fact that whatever is making the choices, has to have an internal process that makes them, based on its inputs and its internal state. Labelling it "spiritual awareness" doesn't change that.

So this "spiritual awareness" either produces choices that are entirely defined by its internal state and its inputs (and is deterministic), or, to some extent, its output is not fully defined by its inputs and state, in which case the final choice between alternatives has to happen for no reason (its inputs and state are all the reasons available to it), and is therefore random.

How about having the courage to stop and think about that (and no, your ability to 'stop and think' does not mean that you are not a deterministic being)?

To me, my spiritual awareness simply makes me aware of the many different choices I am able to make at any given time, and allows me to decide which choice to make (if any) and when to make it, thus giving me real time control of my life on this earth, and in particular, allowing me to freely worship the one God who brought everything into existence.

[Alan Burns]

You are just deploying a mental block here it seems. Just saying 'I am the cause' is not throwing any light on the underlying reasons that lead to your choices.  We do not make choices out of thin air, there must be a rationale to our choices otherwise our actions would be just random.

I fully agree that conscious choices are not random.
But how do you differentiate between an inevitable reaction and a conscious choice?

[Stranger]

But in this statement you are applying the same logical rules of physical cause cause and effect to the non physical, but you can't presume to know how the non physical works...

I am just applying LOGIC, Alan. There is absolutely NO assumption that we are dealing with PHYSICAL.

You seem to ignore the concept of "conscious will" which is not just an inevitable consequence to the past (that would be reaction), but a real time attribute of consciously driven processes.

Except that a "real time attribute of consciously driven processes" is just a jumble of words that doesn't address the problem of how decisions are arrived at.

To me, my spiritual awareness simply makes me aware of the many different choices I am able to make at any given time, and allows me to decide which choice to make (if any) and when to make it, thus giving me real time control of my life on this earth...[preaching deleted]

And yet again, you've totally ignored the logical reasoning in the post this is supposed to be a reply to. It's at least rude of you, if not dishonest.

You cannot just make the 'I' and the 'me' in that description external and ignore how it makes choices. That is not answering the question, it's running away from it.

Just because it's a conscious process, doesn't mean that it isn't subject to the logic that it (by which I mean YOU) only has its internal state (your state of mind, memories, experience, etc.) and its inputs (what you are currently experiencing) to base its choice on - and if those do not define just one choice, then there is nothing left to base the remaining choice on, so it must be made for no reason at all - which means the remaining choice is random.

Ultimately that logic is inescapable: all your conscious choices must be subject to that logic - no matter what it feels like to make them.

That has NOTHING TO DO WITH the PHYSICAL - it's just LOGIC.

[Alan Burns]

I am just applying LOGIC, Alan. There is absolutely NO assumption that we are dealing with PHYSICAL.

But you are assuming that the logic you perceive through your physical senses can also apply to the non physical.  Can our consciousness create its own reasons?

Except that a "real time attribute of consciously driven processes" is just a jumble of words that doesn't address the problem of how decisions are arrived at.

That is just your consciously chosen claim

And yet again, you've totally ignored the logical reasoning in the post this is supposed to be a reply to. It's at least rude of you, if not dishonest.

Is it rude or dishonest to stand up for what I honestly believe to be the truth?

You cannot just make the 'I' and the 'me' in that description external and ignore how it makes choices. That is not answering the question, it's running away from it.

I am describing my perception of reality

Just because it's a conscious process, doesn't mean that it isn't subject to the logic that it (by which I mean YOU) only has its internal state (your state of mind, memories, experience, etc.) and its inputs (what you are currently experiencing) to base its choice on - and if those do not define just one choice, then there is nothing left to base the remaining choice on, so it must be made for no reason at all - which means the remaining choice is random.

There is nothing random about my conscious awareness having  the final say after perceiving all the background reasoning.

Ultimately that logic is inescapable: all your conscious choices must be subject to that logic - no matter what it feels like to make them.[/size]

I cannot escape the truth that I am capable of making conscious choices, and no amount of misguided intellectual thinking can change this.

That has NOTHING TO DO WITH the PHYSICAL - it's just LOGIC.

But how can you be so certain that your perceived logic can drive the will of the human soul?

[torridon]

But you are assuming that the logic you perceive through your physical senses can also apply to the non physical. 

How long is it taking you to grasp this - logic transcends scientific notions like 'physical', 'material'.  If I have two apples and then get another two apples I'll have four apples; but this logic does not just apply to fruity things.  Adding a sprinkling of adjectives like 'physical', 'material','conscious', 'spiritual' cannot turn an irrational concept into a rational concept.  Logic transcends.

[torridon]

I fully agree that conscious choices are not random.
But how do you differentiate between an inevitable reaction and a conscious choice?

Our 'conscious' choices derive from the accumulation of lower level reactions, which are, at the levels of physics and chemistry and neurology, inevitable.  Whatever emerges at a higher level, it derives from the interactions of simpier constituents at a lower level.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I am just applying LOGIC, Alan. There is absolutely NO assumption that we are dealing with PHYSICAL.

Except that a "real time attribute of consciously driven processes" is just a jumble of words that doesn't address the problem of how decisions are arrived at.

And yet again, you've totally ignored the logical reasoning in the post this is supposed to be a reply to. It's at least rude of you, if not dishonest.

You cannot just make the 'I' and the 'me' in that description external and ignore how it makes choices. That is not answering the question, it's running away from it.

Just because it's a conscious process, doesn't mean that it isn't subject to the logic that it (by which I mean YOU) only has its internal state (your state of mind, memories, experience, etc.) and its inputs (what you are currently experiencing) to base its choice on - and if those do not define just one choice, then there is nothing left to base the remaining choice on, so it must be made for no reason at all - which means the remaining choice is random.

Ultimately that logic is inescapable: all your conscious choices must be subject to that logic - no matter what it feels like to make them.

That has NOTHING TO DO WITH the PHYSICAL - it's just LOGIC.

Come on now. In my time 'Treading the message boards' the words evidence, logic and reason have often been coopted into philosophical materialism.

[torridon]

To me, my spiritual awareness simply makes me aware of the many different choices I am able to make at any given time, and allows me to decide which choice to make (if any) and when to make it, thus giving me real time control of my life on this earth, and in particular, allowing me to freely worship the one God who brought everything into existence.

We all have awareness (usually) of options to choose from.  The mechanism by which we arrive at a decision is fundamentally the same though, we weigh up our options and discern our preference, which option has the most appeal at the moment.

So how come, given the same situation, people make different choices ?  It is because each of us is different; each of us develops a unique system of internal values and preferences, starting from pre-birth and continually updating each moment we are alive. The choice we make in any moment reflects our personal set of inner values, our inner context.  We cannot just arbitrarily choose what set of values to have, they develop within us over time.

Private Fraser posted this yesterday about reading the Koran:

I could read it all now and have read a fair bit of it. It doesn't do anything for me. That was the point though the OT and NT didn't use to do anything for me and then it started to

Why would it be that person A can read the Koran and be moved by it whereas person B can read it and have a different reaction.  The words are the same what changes is the person reading.

Why would it be that reading the OT and NT left him unmoved at one point in his life, but then it moved him at a later point ?  His own inner context had changed over time.

When we make a choice we are always evaluating our options against an inner set of values and we don't 'choose' what those values are, they develop within us over time.  Our inner context is always pre-existing. We cannot go back in time, this is why are choices are not truly free, they are always a reflection of our past trajectory.

Imagine a much simpler scenario. Suppose you go to dinner at a friend's and they give you something you've never tasted before.  Do you choose whether to like it or not ?  Or do you find that you like it or not ? We don't truly have any choice in how we react, our choices merely reflect our personal context, and even in this pared-down minimalist context bare bones scenario, even in that we do still have some context to evaluate a novel taste against - the fundamentals of taste sensation, bitter, sweet, salty, sour.

Our choices reflect our personal inner context, and that is not something we have willfull conscious control over, it develops subliminally over time.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I could read it all now and have read a fair bit of it. It doesn't do anything for me. That was the point though the OT and NT didn't use to do anything for me and then it started to

That it started to make sense is still a mystery to me.
You may come up with something like your context changed, or your needs changed but you seem to me to be ignoring that the OT and NT began to change my context.

That is true of any transformative encounter but in all cases one is transformed by the contents.

I just felt you were building up to a 'developing a need for an emotional crutch' argument.

[Stranger]

But you are assuming that the logic you perceive through your physical senses can also apply to the non physical.

Do you understand what logic is and are you suggesting that basic logic does not apply to your magic world? What I am assuming is that the 'soul' (if one should exist) cannot contain contradictions - there are no square circles and no things that happen for reasons but don't happen for reasons at the same time.

Can our consciousness create its own reasons?

I'm sure it does - but it either does so for other reasons or for no reason (randomly) - or both, or a combination.

That is just your consciously chosen claim

It's actually an observation. Feel free explain the meaning if you wish.

Is it rude or dishonest to stand up for what I honestly believe to be the truth?

No but it's rude to ignore what people say and just repeat the same things they've already answered (how would you view that in a real conversation?) or dishonest in pretending that you have understood and answered when you haven't.

I am describing my perception of reality

I'm sure you are but by avoiding considering the internal processes of your conscious self, you are sidestepping the whole point of the topic and this discussion.

Our subjective 'perceptions' are of little relevance.

There is nothing random about my conscious awareness having  the final say after perceiving all the background reasoning.

Fine - then there is no further choice to make. If all the reasons for a choice, when processed through your own conscious decision making process (which is defined by who you are) can result in only one outcome, then you are a fully deterministic being and all your choices are predetermined.

I cannot escape the truth that I am capable of making conscious choices, and no amount of misguided intellectual thinking can change this.

FFS - nobody is denying that you make conscious choices!

No amount of woolly, subjective, nice, comforting feelings of something magical but self-contradictory, can change the logic.

But how can you be so certain that your perceived logic can drive the will of the human soul?

Are you prepared to admit that your beliefs are illogical and self-contradictory? Because that is the alternative...

[Stranger]

...philosophical materialism.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Walt Zingmatilder]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

you've spelt it wrong Stranger. It should be:

lalalalalalalalalalalalalalaoolookabee.

[torridon]

That it started to make sense is still a mystery to me.
You may come up with something like your context changed, or your needs changed but you seem to me to be ignoring that the OT and NT began to change my context.

That is true of any transformative encounter but in all cases one is transformed by the contents.

I just felt you were building up to a 'developing a need for an emotional crutch' argument.

None of us is static,we are always in a state of development.  The things that felt important to me 20 years ago are different to the things that feel important to me now. Information exchange is two-way. Every encounter I have changes me, and I change it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

None of us is static,we are always in a state of development.  The things that felt important to me 20 years ago are different to the things that feel important to me now. Information exchange is two-way. Every encounter I have changes me, and I change it.

Nothing I couldn't agree with here. But feel you are ignoring my report of mysteriously being able to crack the code that had kept Christian literature a closed book to me both the conceptual and linguistic code.

[Gordon]

Nothing I couldn't agree with here. But feel you are ignoring my report of mysteriously being able to crack the code that had kept Christian literature a closed book to me both the conceptual and linguistic code.

Sounds very subjective, Vlad.

How do you know that the results of your code-cracking have general application for the rest of us?

[torridon]

Nothing I couldn't agree with here. But feel you are ignoring my report of mysteriously being able to crack the code that had kept Christian literature a closed book to me both the conceptual and linguistic code.

How do we explain radicalisation ? I think people who experience sudden transformation are probably subliminally primed for change.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sounds very subjective, Vlad.

How do you know that the results of your code-cracking have general application for the rest of us?

I can't help you with how I became able to code crack, that was the mysterious part.

[Stranger]

Back to religion is the root of all evil again.

The main problem with thinking that you've actually cracked a code is not so much the specifics of some people's "revelation" but simply that there is no consistency. Those people who suddenly "see" something in religious texts do not come away with the same "message".

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The main problem with thinking that you've actually cracked a code is not so much the specifics of some people's "revelation" but simply that there is no consistency. Those people who suddenly "see" something in religious texts do not come away with the same "message".

Who apart from me, whose experience is not mediated by the press or media, particularly atheist rant sites do you know?