Free-will or determinism - a question.

[Stranger]

The extent to which you exclude influences from a choice...

Just to point out that I have never suggested that choices are devoid of influence.

Wow - you have the nerve to edit my post down to that after what you said in #201!?

Influence does not infer that the choice is pre determined, just that it can be influenced by certain factors, and after consciously driven consideration of these factors we make a final choice.  Torridon and yourself may imply that this consciously driven consideration is itself a pre determined process, but I have to say that I perceive this as a process in which I (my spiritually aware self) have overall control.

I explained exactly why this makes no sense in the rest of my post and once again you've ignored it and pretended that repeating the things that have already been answered multiple times is an answer.

You have also ignored the fact that you cannot possibly directly perceive whether you (your "spiritually aware self" or whatever other meaningless label you want to use) and your deliberations are deterministic or not. How would you be able to tell if they were?

In order to have any integrity at all in this discussion, you need to face up to the logic that has been presented to you and either argue against it or admit that you don't care about logic.

[torridon]

Just to point out that I have never suggested that choices are devoid of influence.
Influence does not infer that the choice is pre determined, just that it can be influenced by certain factors, and after consciously driven consideration of these factors we make a final choice.  Torridon and yourself may imply that this consciously driven consideration is itself a pre determined process, but I have to say that I perceive this as a process in which I (my spiritually aware self) have overall control.

And how does your 'spiritually aware self' make that final choice ?  In terms of process I see no difference in principle between making a broad initial choice and a final particular choice; it comes to the same thing, we are evaluating our options to see which aligns best with our preferences as they stand at that moment in time.  There may be a difference in terms of granularity, but not one of process or principle.  What we do do, is evaluate our options to discern the best way to meet our needs; what we don't do, is to 'control' or alter what our preferences or needs are to suit the options.

[Alan Burns]

And how does your 'spiritually aware self' make that final choice ?  In terms of process I see no difference in principle between making a broad initial choice and a final particular choice; it comes to the same thing, we are evaluating our options to see which aligns best with our preferences as they stand at that moment in time.  There may be a difference in terms of granularity, but not one of process or principle.  What we do do, is evaluate our options to discern the best way to meet our needs; what we don't do, is to 'control' or alter what our preferences or needs are to suit the options.

Ultimately the conscious self does what it wants to do at a particular chosen moment in time.  It is driven by the conscious self, not by outside agencies.  What makes a person choose to climb a mountain other than the fact it is just what they want to do?

[torridon]

Ultimately the conscious self does what it wants to do at a particular chosen moment in time.  It is driven by the conscious self, not by outside agencies....

Read the posts Alan, that is what the previous umpteen posts have been trying to get you to consider - how the 'conscious self' achieves that decision.  Read the previous post and try again; engage with the substance of the discussion, consider - what is the process by which the 'conscious self' arrives at a decision

[torridon]

What makes a person choose to climb a mountain other than the fact it is just what they want to do?

If I form a desire to climb a mountain for absolutely no reason, then it is random;  If it is not random, then there will be reasons why that desire formed.  The vast majority of human mind is subconscious; so in all likelihood, the reasons for that desire arising are going to be at least in part somewhat subliminal.  In reality, I doubt that true random ever really plays a part in the formation of our intentions; we are complex beings and there are always reasons underneath.

[ekim]

Ultimately the conscious self does what it wants to do at a particular chosen moment in time.  It is driven by the conscious self, not by outside agencies.  What makes a person choose to climb a mountain other than the fact it is just what they want to do?

I think that what you are describing is self will which is based upon personal desires or 'wants' as you call them which tend to be subconscious emotional drivers.  In the example which you mention the determining factors could be pleasure, excitement, recognition of achievement.  It is possible to be conscious of those drivers and intellectually modify them so that your intention to act or not act (will) upon mountain climbing can be judged as viable.  You could perhaps say that you are then relatively free from being blindly driven, to being consciously selective, but you are not totally free from desire.  The other aspect, from your Christian point of view, is, are you free from the will of your God, which is what 'self will' implies and 'sin' represents or are your actions determined by your God's Will?  In either case, it is difficult to see where there is conscious free will.

[Stranger]

Ultimately the conscious self does what it wants to do at a particular chosen moment in time.  It is driven by the conscious self, not by outside agencies.  What makes a person choose to climb a mountain other than the fact it is just what they want to do?

As has already been said, you need to actually read what has been said to you.

Nobody is suggesting an "outside agency" controls your decision making.

[Juan Toomany]

What makes a person choose to climb a mountain other than the fact it is just what they want to do?

Hi Alan,

Why will " it is just what they want to do" not enough.

Juan

[Alan Burns]

If I form a desire to climb a mountain for absolutely no reason, then it is random;  ......

A person climbs a mountain because they want to.
There is nothing random about that.
But where does that want originate?
And what is it that triggers the want into action?
The fact is that they are not pre destined to climb the mountain.
They have the freedom to choose whether to climb it or not.
That freedom to choose is directed by the conscious self - it is not random.

[Alan Burns]

As has already been said, you need to actually read what has been said to you.

Nobody is suggesting an "outside agency" controls your decision making.

So what precisely do you define to be the controller of the decision making?

[Stranger]

So what precisely do you define to be the controller of the decision making?

I've lost count of how many times I've answered this question. Why don't you actually read what has been written and respond to it, instead of ignoring everybody, repeating your blind faith, self-contradictory dogma, and asking questions that have been answered multiple times before?

At the moment, you are doing the intellectual equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes tight shut, and yelling "LA LA LA LA...".

[torridon]

A person climbs a mountain because they want to.
There is nothing random about that.
But where does that want originate?
And what is it that triggers the want into action?
The fact is that they are not pre destined to climb the mountain.
They have the freedom to choose whether to climb it or not.
That freedom to choose is directed by the conscious self - it is not random.

The word 'triggers' here is significant.  A want, such as a desire to climb a mountain, does not occur spontaneously out of thin air, there are reasons underpinning it. This is the nature of reality; one thought leads to another, action causes reaction, all things are
interconnected, no man is an island.  This means that any event could be traced back to its antecedent causes in principle, though not always in practice.  The world of biology is messy, but the underlying principles of cause and effect will still pertain, so we can assume that mind states such as longing to reach that peak arise subject to the same base principals and that desire will compete with other desires such as to stay home with a mug of cocoa.  Whichever desire proves the strongest wins the day.

[torridon]

So what precisely do you define to be the controller of the decision making?

There is no 'controller' of a neural decision making system, that is flawed conceptualisation.  If there were to be a 'controller' then it would need its own decision making system with its own internal 'controller' with which the control the decision making.

Doesn't work like that.  Decisions emerge out of principles of competition and democracy between rival components of a system.  20 years ago we imagined that the queen ant controlled the ant colony, causing various ants to assume roles so that the colony as a whole functioned well.  Now we understand that top down hierarchical principal is flawed, the queen does not exert control, but rather colony level decisions arise out of the interactions of the individuals within the colony.  It is known as emergence, and the principles learned from this, such as recruitment, now inform how we model decision making in a brain, with rival neural assemblies engaging in recruitment until one faction gains significant advantage over its rivals, such as what happens when you decide to stay home with a mug of cocoa rather than go out and climb that mountain. Whichever neural assembly recruits the most wins the day.

[Alan Burns]

There is no 'controller' of a neural decision making system, that is flawed conceptualisation.  If there were to be a 'controller' then it would need its own decision making system with its own internal 'controller' with which the control the decision making.

Doesn't work like that.  Decisions emerge out of principles of competition and democracy between rival components of a system.  20 years ago we imagined that the queen ant controlled the ant colony, causing various ants to assume roles so that the colony as a whole functioned well.  Now we understand that top down hierarchical principal is flawed, the queen does not exert control, but rather colony level decisions arise out of the interactions of the individuals within the colony.  It is known as emergence, and the principles learned from this, such as recruitment, now inform how we model decision making in a brain, with rival neural assemblies engaging in recruitment until one faction gains significant advantage over its rivals, such as what happens when you decide to stay home with a mug of cocoa rather than go out and climb that mountain. Whichever neural assembly recruits the most wins the day.

Of course there can be no controller in a purely material entity which can only generate endless streams of physical cause and effect events.  Everything comes down to inevitable reactions.  But then we have the element of conscious awareness to bring into consideration.  The question is this - Is our conscious awareness just aware of the consequences of these physically determined chains of cause and effect, or does it have active intervention capability?  If so, what induces the conscious act of intervention? To me there seems to be something incongruous about the concept of our conscious awareness actively trying to analyse its own existence if everything is just driven by physically induced reactions.

[Alan Burns]

Hi Alan,

Why will " it is just what they want to do" not enough.

Juan

Hi Juan,

In a nutshell -
My contention is where and how this "want" originates.   If we are all just comprised entirely of material elements, anything we do, think or say will be just a consequence of the material reactions taking place in our brain cells.  We know that material reactions are generally caused by previous physical events, (disregarding for the time being the quantum uncertainty element which is assumed to be random).  And the consequent reactions to these events are governed by the laws of physics.  So from a materialist point of view, any specific "want" arising in the brain is just an inevitable consequence of all previous physical events that have ever taken place.  But if we have the freedom to control and activate our "wants", this freedom to control must be derived from something non physical - providing evidence for the existence of the human soul to enable our freedom to make and enable conscious choices

[Stranger]

But then we have the element of conscious awareness to bring into consideration.  The question is this - Is our conscious awareness just aware of the consequences of these physically determined chains of cause and effect, or does it have active intervention capability?

What an utterly bizarre question. It's actually not at all clear what you are talking about. On the one hand, a "conscious awareness" would tend to imply just the awareness part of our experience but you seem to use it just to mean "consciousness", which fits more with the question but then we have to ask where on earth did you get the idea of a consciousness that can't do anything?

If so, what induces the conscious act of intervention?

This has been explained to you over and over and over again. Why are you being so rude and discourteous by just ignoring the answers you get?

Conscious response can only be the result of the people we are reacting to the situation at hand. The people we are is the result of our nature, nurture and experience.

All of that is either fully deterministic or includes some random element because there is no logical alternative.

Postulating a non-physical 'soul' makes no difference to that logic.

To me there seems to be something incongruous about the concept of our conscious awareness actively trying to analyse its own existence if everything is just driven by physically induced reactions.

Why?

[Alan Burns]

Wow - you have the nerve to edit my post down to that after what you said in #201!?

But my edit did not change the apparent meaning of what you were saying.

[Alan Burns]

Conscious response can only be the result of the people we are reacting to the situation at hand. The people we are is the result of our nature, nurture and experience.

All of that is either fully deterministic or includes some random element because there is no logical alternative.

Postulating a non-physical 'soul' makes no difference to that logic.

It makes all the difference in the world, because physical reactions are definitively defined by the laws of physics.  Spiritually induced events (if they exist) are not confined or constrained by the laws of physics until the event occurs - then the laws of physics will take over.  So it is a logical assumption that spiritually induced events are capable of producing different results in the deterministic scenario.

[Stranger]

It makes all the difference in the world, because physical reactions are definitively defined by the laws of physics.  Spiritually induced events (if they exist) are not confined or constrained by the laws of physics until the event occurs - then the laws of physics will take over.  So it is a logical assumption that spiritually induced events are capable of producing different results in the deterministic scenario.

How many times? What do you think you are gaining by this stubborn and dishonest (I just can't see how you can be doing this honestly) refusal to even acknowledge the arguments as they have been presented to you?

Even if you have a non-physical soul, it either does things that are determined by reasons or aren't and are (to the extent that they aren't so determined) random.

[Stranger]

But my edit did not change the apparent meaning of what you were saying.

You edited out the bit that addressed the 'points' you posted in response. That is, at the very least, rude and discourteous. It could easily be seen as dishonest because somebody reading just your post might assume I hadn't already addressed your points.

What do you think you are achieving by totally ignoring the replies you get and just repeating yourself?

[Stranger]

Because physical reactions can't analyse themselves.

He asserted.     

[Alan Burns]

How many times? What do you think you are gaining by this stubborn and dishonest (I just can't see how you can be doing this honestly) refusal to even acknowledge the arguments as they have been presented to you?

Even if you have a non-physical soul, it either does things that are determined by reasons or aren't and are (to the extent that they aren't so determined) random.

The only reasons which apply in the physically determined scenario are defined entirely by the laws of physics.
The reasons which apply in the spiritual scenario will be defined by our conscious awareness, which I believe to be a spiritual property of the human soul.

[Stranger]

How many times? What do you think you are gaining by this stubborn and dishonest (I just can't see how you can be doing this honestly) refusal to even acknowledge the arguments as they have been presented to you?

Even if you have a non-physical soul, it either does things that are determined by reasons or aren't and are (to the extent that they aren't so determined) random.

The only reasons which apply in the physically determined scenario are defined entirely by the laws of physics.
The reasons which apply in the spiritual scenario will be defined by our conscious awareness, which I believe to be a spiritual property of the human soul.

Why did you ignore this: Even if you have a non-physical soul, it either does things that are determined by reasons or aren't and are (to the extent that they aren't so determined) random?

Once again: if this "conscious awareness" does anything, it either does so entirely due to reasons (determinsim) or not entirely due to reasons - which means that, to the extent that is actions are not due to reasons, they are due to no reason - which means random.

FFS Alan - grow a backbone and at least acknowledge this argument and stop posting as if nonbody has even posted it!

[torridon]

Of course there can be no controller in a purely material entity which can only generate endless streams of physical cause and effect events.  Everything comes down to inevitable reactions.  But then we have the element of conscious awareness to bring into consideration.  The question is this - Is our conscious awareness just aware of the consequences of these physically determined chains of cause and effect, or does it have active intervention capability?  ....

Conscious awareness is not some separate 'thing' to 'intervene', it is a phenomenon of nature that evolved hundreds of millions of years ago.  It is silly to think of it as some separate system of intervention.  And even if it were, it still gets you nowhere in terms of explanation as all you end up with is some parallel 'spiritual' realm of cause and effect running alongside the real one.  It's all spurious, baseless and pointless.

[ippy]

What is it Alan your whole world falls apart if you acknowledge Stranger's or B H's posts, have I got that right, or is this yet another post that goes on to the, rather tall by now, unanswered pile? 

Necessarily good and kind wishes to you Alan, ippy

P S It's so sad for you Alan you just can't face the facts.