Free Will

[Alan Burns]

You have established no credible (!) connection between consciousness and credibility.

The concept of credibility only exists in your conscious awareness - what more connection do you need

[Stranger]

The concept of credibility only exists in your conscious awareness - what more connection do you need

Seriously Alan, childish word games? You implied that the credibility of a belief was dependent on it originating in the conscious rather than the subconsciousness mind:-

The only alternative would be to believe that your entire post was composed in your sub conscious before you were aware of it - and the act of belief itself would also have been a sub conscious act - which effectively renders such belief to have no credibility.

[jeremyp]

Thanks for this, Gordon.

I was particularly impressed with this comment which puts forward one of my own arguments, put with much better articulation than I am capable of:

The problem with the assertion that free will is an illusion is that it carries inescapable consequences for the ability of our intelligence to arrive at an adequation of the truth. Notwithstanding that education, cultural background and character affect our cognitive reasoning, to have any hope of knowing anything truly, we must be capable of objectivity and therefore, by definition, free in our thought to some degree. If we are always deterministically fated to be led down a wired neural pathway towards a conclusion that we cannot escape, we have no real basis for assuming that it bears any relation to the actual nature of things.

If free will is an illusion, then so is true knowledge. And this would then also apply to our capacity to know the true nature of free will. Is Oliver Burkeman not fatally determined to arrive at the conclusion he has, regardless of whether it is actually true or not? In which case, I’m not sure we can really say his conclusion is true.
Khalid Naqib
Chilton, Buckinghamshire

Firstly, this is nothing more than an argument from adverse consequences. Just because Khalid Naqib doesn't like what he perceives to be the logical consequences of denying free will, doesn't mean there is free will.

Secondly, his characterisation of a deterministic brain is pejorative. Sure the neural pathways exist, but they are constantly changing as new information is ingested. They are not hardwired in the sense that a non programmable computer is hardwired.

[SusanDoris]

After all these years of nonsense from AB, it seems that he really does think that if we think that the brain is a split second ahead of awareness, then every single thought and idea has been pre-determined since the human species evolved. I wonder if he ever stops to think for a minute that all words articulated or written - and then read - affect the brains of those who hear or read them, so that the thoughts that will be thought during the next five minutes are, yes, determined by the contents of the brain involved,  but have not been waiting around in space to be thought.

But he won't take any notice of that, will he? And if he does, he'll have understood in his own unscientific version.

I realise this post is a waste of time, but I'll post it anyway!:)

[Alan Burns]

Seriously Alan, childish word games? You implied that the credibility of a belief was dependent on it originating in the conscious rather than the subconsciousness mind:-

What mystifies me is how you can give credibility to anything without consciously driven contemplation.

[Alan Burns]

After all these years of nonsense from AB, it seems that he really does think that if we think that the brain is a split second ahead of awareness, then every single thought and idea has been pre-determined since the human species evolved. I wonder if he ever stops to think for a minute that all words articulated or written - and then read - affect the brains of those who hear or read them, so that the thoughts that will be thought during the next five minutes are, yes, determined by the contents of the brain involved,  but have not been waiting around in space to be thought.

But he won't take any notice of that, will he? And if he does, he'll have understood in his own unscientific version.

I realise this post is a waste of time, but I'll post it anyway!:)

What I am witnessing to, Susan, is our God given gift of freedom to choose our own destiny - a gift which can never be achieved from the consequences of physically driven reactions in a material brain over which there can be no control other than the laws of physics.

You may well regard my posts as a waste of time, together with people's replies.  I do not expect instant conversions from my postings, but my hope is that they may plant a seed which will one day grow and enlighten people to discover their true God given nature and rejoice in using this amazing gift of human free will.

[Stranger]

What mystifies me is how you can give credibility to anything without consciously driven interaction.

Are you even paying attention? You made the claim that a belief that originated in the subconscious would have no credibility - nothing you've said since I challenged it seems to even be addressing that point, let alone substantiating it.

[Alan Burns]

Firstly, this is nothing more than an argument from adverse consequences. Just because Khalid Naqib doesn't like what he perceives to be the logical consequences of denying free will, doesn't mean there is free will.

There is nothing in his comment which suggests that the conclusions are based on personal likes or dislikes.

Secondly, his characterisation of a deterministic brain is pejorative. Sure the neural pathways exist, but they are constantly changing as new information is ingested. They are not hardwired in the sense that a non programmable computer is hardwired.

The "hardwiring" he refers to is the uncontrollable laws of physical reactions which are presumed to lead to logical conclusions without any means of consciously driven guidance.

[Stranger]

What I am witnessing to asserting without any hint of reasoning or evidence, Susan...

FIFY.

...which can never be achieved from the consequences of physically driven reactions in a material brain over which there can be no control other than the laws of physics.

Not only an utterly baseless assertion but one that misrepresents the argument as being about the physical world.

I do not expect instant conversions from my postings, but my hope is that they may plant a seed which will one day grow and enlighten people to discover their true God given nature and rejoice in using this amazing gift of human free will.

If you're so keen on planting such 'seeds', Alan, then might I suggest that ignoring logic and misrepresenting other people's arguments, is not a good way to go about it?

[jeremyp]

There is nothing in his comment which suggests that the conclusions are based on personal likes or dislikes.

His whole argument is "if there was no free will there would be no real knowledge and that's bad therefore free will"

The "hardwiring" he refers to is the uncontrollable laws of physical reactions which are presumed to lead to logical conclusions without any means of consciously driven guidance.

Actually he was specifically referring to neural pathways.

[torridon]

What I am witnessing to, Susan, is our God given gift of freedom to choose our own destiny - a gift which can never be achieved from the consequences of physically driven reactions in a material brain over which there can be no control other than the laws of physics.

You may well regard my posts as a waste of time, together with people's replies.  I do not expect instant conversions from my postings, but my hope is that they may plant a seed which will one day grow and enlighten people to discover their true God given nature and rejoice in using this amazing gift of human free will.

You might think you are 'witnessing', but witnessing doesn't cut it with people that value facts, evidence, reasoning.  All I get is that your claims are inseparably wedded to a particular naivety about how minds work and you are not willing or able develop deeper insights into how your own mind works.

[ekim]

What I am witnessing to, Susan, is our God given gift of freedom to choose our own destiny - a gift which can never be achieved from the consequences of physically driven reactions in a material brain over which there can be no control other than the laws of physics.

You may well regard my posts as a waste of time, together with people's replies.  I do not expect instant conversions from my postings, but my hope is that they may plant a seed which will one day grow and enlighten people to discover their true God given nature and rejoice in using this amazing gift of human free will.

Here you go again, Alan, confusing freedom of choice with free will.  I don't think anybody is denying the ability to choose as this is what intelligence is.  However, your choice of destiny is likely to be determined by your desire for such a destiny and your willfulness is likely to be driven by such a desire rather than being free from it.  Your hope or desire is to 'plant seeds' and your will is attached to this desire rather than free from it.

[SusanDoris]

You may well regard my posts as a waste of time, together with people's replies. 

So you didn't even read my post with comprehension. I thought it was clear that I meant that writing my post was a waste of time. I do not consider \(most) other posts to be a waste of my time reading them

I do not expect instant conversions from my postings, but my hope is that they may plant a seed which will one day grow and enlighten people to discover their true God given nature and rejoice in using this amazing gift of human free will.

And that, to me, is cringe-making stuff.

[Alan Burns]

His whole argument is "if there was no free will there would be no real knowledge and that's bad therefore free will"

You need to see the difference between knowledge and information.
Information exists in a computer.
Knowledge resides in the human mind.
The conversion of information into knowledge requires the conscious freedom to contemplate the raw data and interpret it to be something meaningful - this is not just a reaction.

Actually he was specifically referring to neural pathways.

pathways which in a materialistic scenario will be defined by physically defined material reactions - hence no means of intelligently controlled guidance needed to reach a viable logical conclusion.

[jeremyp]

You need to see the difference between knowledge and information.

No I don't, not in this case: I just need to know that your man was making an argument from adverse consequences.

The conversion of information into knowledge requires the conscious freedom to contemplate the raw data and interpret it to be something meaningful - this is not just a reaction.pathways which in a materialistic scenario will be defined by physically defined material reactions - hence no means of intelligently controlled guidance needed to reach a viable logical conclusion.

And how does that relate to free will?

[Alan Burns]

And that, to me, is cringe-making stuff.

What you label as cringe making stuff concerns the eternal salvation of human souls.

[Nearly Sane]

What you label as cringe making stuff concerns the eternal salvation of human souls.

Woo

[torridon]

What you label as cringe making stuff concerns the eternal salvation of human souls.

Given we have no evidence of 'souls'. human or otherwise. and no evidence of salvation granting gods, the idea is a complete non-starter; add to which it is also a contradiction in terms given the god elsewhere is claimed to be the embodiment of all encompassing love yet in fact reserves this salvation thing strictly for its acolytes and those individuals who are confused enough to accept the irrational claim of free will. I cannot for the life of me of understand why anyone imbued with a modicum of decency and blessed with a clear thinking mind would find such a bizarre diabolical entity worthy of worship.

[Stranger]

pathways which in a materialistic scenario will be defined by physically defined material reactions - hence no means of intelligently controlled guidance needed to reach a viable logical conclusion.

The non sequitur seems to have become your favourite fallacy. If you write the word 'hence' it's conventional to precede it with the reasons for what follows.

Then again, you could just be implicitly applying your old favourite, the argument from personal incredulity and therefore missed out the step that would go something like "I can see no way in which the materialistic scenario can can produce intelligently controlled guidance, so it must be impossible".

[Gordon]

What you label as cringe making stuff concerns the eternal salvation of human souls.

Theobabble.

[SusanDoris]

What you label as cringe making stuff concerns the eternal salvation of human souls.

Meaningless words. Have a go at answering these questions:
Where are all the saved souls at the moment?
Where are the ones not saved?
Do they know they are saved?How do they know this?
If you believe they are situated somewhere near Earth or even in this galaxy, what happens to them when the sun vbecomes a white dwarf or something and life has long since become extinct?

I am very happy to know that the part of the total me that people label soul does not need saving and certainly wil not be!!

[Alan Burns]

Given we have no evidence of 'souls'. human or otherwise. and no evidence of salvation granting gods, the idea is a complete non-starter; add to which it is also a contradiction in terms given the god elsewhere is claimed to be the embodiment of all encompassing love yet in fact reserves this salvation thing strictly for its acolytes and those individuals who are confused enough to accept the irrational claim of free will. I cannot for the life of me of understand why anyone imbued with a modicum of decency and blessed with a clear thinking mind would find such a bizarre diabolical entity worthy of worship.

You must be living in a different world to me Torri
The evidence for a loving God, the human soul, Heaven and eternal salvation is there in abundance for me and for many millions of clear thinkers throughout the world.

[BeRational]

You must be living in a different world to me Torri
The evidence for a loving God, the human soul, Heaven and eternal salvation is there in abundance for me and for many millions of clear thinkers throughout the world.

I know it is, and that's the problem.

[Stranger]

The evidence for a loving God, the human soul, Heaven and eternal salvation is there in abundance for me and for many millions of clear thinkers throughout the world.

That actually made me laugh out loud. When looking at your posts on the subject here, the last thing that comes to mind is clear thinking. Confusion, blind faith, and a stubborn refusal to learn anything, seem to be a better descriptions. You may well be capable of clear thinking in other subjects (almost certainly if you're telling the truth about your background) but you've provided none of it on this subject, let alone any hint of the smallest smidgen of actual evidence.

The same seems to be true of other theists who, one would have to assume, were capable of clear thinking in other subject areas. It seems that blind faith cripples the ability to think clearly and logically about the subject of said faith. I find that terrifying.

[Alan Burns]

Meaningless words. Have a go at answering these questions:
Where are all the saved souls at the moment?
Where are the ones not saved?
Do they know they are saved?How do they know this?
If you believe they are situated somewhere near Earth or even in this galaxy, what happens to them when the sun vbecomes a white dwarf or something and life has long since become extinct?

The fact that you have the conscious freedom to speculate about such matters is a starting point for gaining faith.
Our human minds are not capable of "seeing" beyond what our physical senses give us, but human history shows a great propensity for the human mind to seek far beyond what our senses give.  Nature alone could never provide such freedom, so why do we have it and how did it come to be?
The answers all lie in the divine revelations of scripture.

I am very happy to know that the part of the total me that people label soul does not need saving and certainly wil not be!!

As I implied in an earlier post, information resides in a material brain.  Knowledge resides in the human soul.  Whatever you "know" is not defined by mere material reaction, but by the miraculous power given to us in our spiritual soul.