Free-will or determinism - a question.

[wigginhall]

Descartes wrestled with the idea of a separate consciousness or soul.   Of course, the problem then is how the soul and body interact, and nobody, as far as I can see, has come up with a solution.    It seems unlikely that anyone will, since if the soul is deemed to be immaterial, then how does this connect with the material?  Answers on a postcard please. 

However, there are modern formulations of dualism, for example, Chalmers, the consciousness man, but again, as far as I can see, nobody has suggested a solution to the interaction problem. 

There have also been models such as Freud's, who argued that ideas can determine each other, or mental events if you like, but not that ideas are immaterial.   Freud is interesting as he was a neurologist, but quite early on, rejected neurological analyses of people's thinking.   In other words, he didn't want to say to a patient that you were depressed because your orbitofrontal cortex is exhibiting abnormal patterns.

[Alan Burns]

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!

If you read my post which you are quoting you will find that I am not denying that there are reasons for our choices - I have never denied this.  All I am saying is that the determinism defined by the laws of physics acting within the physical elements of our brains implies a much more restricted regime that any determinism resulting from the consciously driven reasoning of the human soul.  I suspect the area of contention between us is the spiritual nature of our conscious awareness and the assumptions of what comprises our conscious reasoning.

[Stranger]

If you read my post which you are quoting you will find that I am not denying that there are reasons for our choices - I have never denied this.

Seriously? If you read my posts (that will be the day!) you will see that I (and other people) am saying that to the extent the reasons do not completely determine the choice, the choice is not determined by any reason - and not determined by any reason means random.

How many times does it need to be repeated before you have the courage to acknowledge it and not repeat the same stuff over again?

All I am saying is that the determinism defined by the laws of physics acting within the physical elements of our brains implies a much more restricted regime that any determinism resulting from the consciously driven reasoning of the human soul.  I suspect the area of contention between us is the spiritual nature of our conscious awareness and the assumptions of what comprises our conscious reasoning.

Meaningless nonsense. Determinism means that every event is the only possible result of its antecedents. You don't get different types due to physical laws or magic la la land. In whatever system you propose, either every event is the only possible result of its antecedents (and you have determinism) or not (and you have some randomness).

[Alan Burns]

Seriously? If you read my posts (that will be the day!) you will see that I (and other people) am saying that to the extent the reasons do not completely determine the choice, the choice is not determined by any reason - and not determined by any reason means random.

How many times does it need to be repeated before you have the courage to acknowledge it and not repeat the same stuff over again?

Meaningless nonsense. Determinism means that every event is the only possible result of its antecedents. You don't get different types due to physical laws or magic la la land. In whatever system you propose, either every event is the only possible result of its antecedents (and you have determinism) or not (and you have some randomness).

So you are effectively saying that all my posts (and yours, and everyone else's) are entirely pre determined before we make them.  I beg to disagree for the reasons I have already stated.

[Stranger]

So you are effectively saying that all my posts (and yours, and everyone else's) are entirely pre determined before we make them.

That is the only logical option, unless there is some genuine random element. I have stated why multiple times and you haven't addressed my argument.

I beg to disagree for the reasons I have already stated.

You haven't stated any reasons that make any sense and you've once again totally ignored the logic that I've presented.

So, do you have a logical refutation, do you not care about logic, have you not understood, or are you too scared to face up to it?

[wigginhall]

If you read my post which you are quoting you will find that I am not denying that there are reasons for our choices - I have never denied this.  All I am saying is that the determinism defined by the laws of physics acting within the physical elements of our brains implies a much more restricted regime that any determinism resulting from the consciously driven reasoning of the human soul.  I suspect the area of contention between us is the spiritual nature of our conscious awareness and the assumptions of what comprises our conscious reasoning.

Can you spell out what the spiritual nature of our conscious awareness is?  You must have some idea about it.   I don't mean another paraphrase such as 'consciously driven reasoning', by the way.   Since you are advocating something immaterial, how does it function?

[Alan Burns]

Can you spell out what the spiritual nature of our conscious awareness is?  You must have some idea about it.   I don't mean another paraphrase such as 'consciously driven reasoning', by the way.   Since you are advocating something immaterial, how does it function?

I do not profess to know hows it functions.  I just know that there must be a single entity of awareness (me or you) which is capable of perceiving and interacting with the state of millions of brain cells.

[Alan Burns]

You haven't stated any reasons that make any sense and you've once again totally ignored the logic that I've presented.

But according to your logic, the act you perceive of me of totally ignoring this logic was entirely pre determined, but it appears that I am being accused of deliberately ignoring the logic.  If it was entirely pre determined, how can it be deliberate?

[Stranger]

But according to your logic, the act you perceive of me of totally ignoring this logic was entirely pre determined, but it appears that I am being accused of deliberately ignoring the logic.  If it was entirely pre determined, how can it be deliberate?

For the reasons that have been carefully explained to you multiple times by myself, torridon, and others.

Once again, you are employing every tactic you can to avoid facing up to the logic. I see no way in which this can be anything but dishonesty. You seem to think you are here, in part anyway, to bear witness. Perhaps you should reflect on what your (apparent?) dishonesty is telling others about your faith...

[SteveH]

If you read my post which you are quoting you will find that I am not denying that there are reasons for our choices - I have never denied this.  All I am saying is that the determinism defined by the laws of physics acting within the physical elements of our brains implies a much more restricted regime that any determinism resulting from the consciously driven reasoning of the human soul.  I suspect the area of contention between us is the spiritual nature of our conscious awareness and the assumptions of what comprises our conscious reasoning.

Could it be that free-will, like consciousness, is an emergent property of big brains?

[Alan Burns]

For the reasons that have been carefully explained to you multiple times by myself, torridon, and others.

Once again, you are employing every tactic you can to avoid facing up to the logic. I see no way in which this can be anything but dishonesty. You seem to think you are here, in part anyway, to bear witness. Perhaps you should reflect on what your (apparent?) dishonesty is telling others about your faith...

If your chosen logic leads to the conclusion that I do not have the freedom to consciously choose my thoughts word and actions, then the logic is wrong.  And the Christian faith entirely supports the reality that human beings have freedom to choose, otherwise there would be no point in being a Christian since we are called to freely choose Jesus Christ as our Saviour.  There are at least ten differing published variations of determinism theory, each with their own logical justifications.  It is by no means an exact science.

And may I point out again that your accusation of my personal dishonesty does not fit with your theoretical logic that everything I do is entirely pre determined, which effectively removes any personal responsibility for my actions.

[Alan Burns]

Could it be that free-will, like consciousness, is an emergent property of big brains?

There is no verifiable evidence that consciousness or free will can be defined as emergent properties of material entities.  And since any emergent property is entirely derived from material events, it must be determinant in the same manner as any material entity.

[Stranger]

Once again, Alan - anything but face the argument I've presented!

If your chosen logic leads to the conclusion that I do not have the freedom to consciously choose my thoughts word and actions, then the logic is wrong.

How many times do I need to repeat that I do not dispute that you can consciously choose what you say and do, before you stop dishonestly implying that I disagree?

And the Christian faith entirely supports the reality that human beings have freedom to choose, otherwise there would be no point in being a Christian since we are called to freely choose Jesus Christ as our Saviour.

I've met at least one Christian who'd give you an argument. However, I've no idea why you think your unsupported, blind faith is at all relevant to the logic.

There are at least ten differing published variations of determinism theory, each with their own logical justifications.  It is by no means an exact science.

Smokescreen to avoid facing the logic - again! I have defined exactly what I mean and the logic that applies.

You posted a list of 'variations' of determinism before (#182) and none of them are actually different types at all. For example, you included adequate determinism which is just the idea that quantum indeterminacy can be ignored in most macro systems, cultural determinism which emphasises the influence of culture over genetics in human character, hard determinism which is basically incompatibilism (the view that determinism is not compatible with free will), and so on. I asked you which one you thought was relevant to the discussion and you ignored the question (what a surprise!).

In the unlikely event that anybody is genuinely confused, see deterministic system for the exact sense in which I am using the term. All the other 'types' are just to do with applicability and consequences.

And may I point out again that your accusation of my personal dishonesty does not fit with your theoretical logic that everything I do is entirely pre determined, which effectively removes any personal responsibility for my actions.

So, basically you are admitting dishonesty but claiming determinism as an excuse...?

You keep on misrepresenting what I've said and employing any tactic you can to avoid facing up to the logic I (and others) have been presenting. What do you think that is telling people about you and your faith?

[torridon]

Yes, my faith does prompt me to witness to the truth of this faith, but I still have the freedom to choose how I answer that prompt, or whether to be lazy and choose to ignore it.  The choice is mine.

The same principle still applies though, the way you answer that prompt will be your favoured route from among the options that you are aware of.  Likewise if I want a drink, there are several to choose from, the one I eventually choose will be the one that appeals the most at that moment.  Just as I do not choose what to like, also, I do not choose what to like the most.  It is the same thing.

[wigginhall]

I do not profess to know hows it functions.  I just know that there must be a single entity of awareness (me or you) which is capable of perceiving and interacting with the state of millions of brain cells.

Well, I just know that there isn't.   What happens now? 

[SusanDoris]

Well, I just know that there isn't.   What happens now?

I predict that AB will not answer your interesting and sensible question, but will continue in his  discourteous way of trying to flag up his own daft ideas. And that,, to me, comes across as smugness.

[Bramble]

I just know that there must be a single entity of awareness (me or you)

Can you explain why you think 'a single entity of awareness' is personal. You and I both have awareness, just as we both move, breathe, eat and so on, but these are universal characteristics of human beings. Unless we are the same person how can awareness itself be me and also you? Surely we say 'I am aware' or 'I have awareness' because the sense of self is not the same as the awareness that is an attribute of selfhood. If you are a single entity of awareness then what happens to you when you go to into deep sleep? Do you disappear? How could awareness itself have the personal characteristics you attribute to yourself that might distinguish you from me? Does awareness have a taste for strong cheese? Does it sin? Or have free will? Or is it you that has and does these things? If so, is there an entity that has or does such things or are there just such things that seem to come with a sense of ownership attached?

[ippy]

Well, I just know that there isn't.   What happens now?

You're a dry old bugger at times Wiggie, try your best to keep it up, yet another good one.

Regards ippy

[wigginhall]

You're a dry old bugger at times Wiggie, try your best to keep it up, yet another good one.

Regards ippy

Well, thank you ever so, but I also mean it.  I don't think there is a single point of awareness, or in AB's lingo, I don't 'perceive' it.  I'm just curious as to what happens next, since AB tends to rely on assertions about his own perceptions, which he seems to think settle any argument.   So what if someone else has different perceptions?   I suppose they're deluded.   

[ippy]

Well, thank you ever so, but I also mean it.  I don't think there is a single point of awareness, or in AB's lingo, I don't 'perceive' it.  I'm just curious as to what happens next, since AB tends to rely on assertions about his own perceptions, which he seems to think settle any argument.   So what if someone else has different perceptions?   I suppose they're deluded.   

Your reply was appropriate, succinct, nail on the head, a very pleasant put down of the 'Assertionist in Chief' of the forum, pricking his bubble, (a spoonerism of some kind would be good with that last one). 

I got the full benefit of your post the moment I read it, it proves the point of something I like to achieve, but not often enough, where it isn't always necessary to write out a lengthy sermon/thesis, to say a hell of a lot.

I've a feeling that this slightly more polished version of Vlad, the one you addressed your post to wont be answering that post of yours, surly it'll at least make A B think, let's hope he can unstick his needle.

Regards ippy

 

[jeremyp]

There is no verifiable evidence that consciousness or free will can be defined as emergent properties of material entities.  And since any emergent property is entirely derived from material events, it must be determinant in the same manner as any material entity.

Alan, you never answered my question.

Just ti recap: let's say you make a choice. Then God magically rewinds time to just before the point where you made your choice. Do you think there's any possibility that you would make a different choice the second time around?

[ippy]

Alan, you never answered my question.

Just ti recap: let's say you make a choice. Then God magically rewinds time to just before the point where you made your choice. Do you think there's any possibility that you would make a different choice the second time around?

He can't make himself answer you he knows if he did, with a truthfull answer, he would be unravelling himself, that's why he wont answer you j p.

So much for his daft faith ideas.

Regards ippy

[Alan Burns]

Alan, you never answered my question.

Just ti recap: let's say you make a choice. Then God magically rewinds time to just before the point where you made your choice. Do you think there's any possibility that you would make a different choice the second time around?

It all depends how I feel at the time I make the conscious choice.  If my choices were entirely pre determined by past events, then turning back the clock would just result in a repeat performance, but that would mean we were all just the equivalent of clockwork robots, reacting in accordance with our built in program.  The reality I perceive is that my conscious choices are ultimately determined by me, not just by past events.

[Stranger]

It all depends how I feel at the time I make the conscious choice.  If my choices were entirely pre determined by past events, then turning back the clock would just result in a repeat performance, but that would mean we were all just the equivalent of clockwork robots, reacting in accordance with our built in program.  The reality I perceive is that my conscious choices are ultimately determined by me, not just by past events.

But the point is that if time was actually rewound, absolutely everything would be the same - including your own state of mind. If you say that you might choose differently, then there cannot possibly be any reason why you would do so, which means you are admitting a random component in your choice.

[Alan Burns]

But the point is that if time was actually rewound, absolutely everything would be the same - including your own state of mind. If you say that you might choose differently, then there cannot possibly be any reason why you would do so, which means you are admitting a random component in your choice.

I am simply admitting that my will is not entirely determined by past events, and it is certainly not random.  My freedom to choose is determined by the willpower of my human soul, not by past events.  But the hypothetical scenario could never be proven one way or the other because it is not possible to turn back time.