Free Will

[Stranger]

But the role of conscious interaction makes a huge difference to the credibility of any argument you postulate.

Back to the unsupported assertions. Why, and how do you know? We simply don't know the exact role of consciousness in our thought processes although there is some evidence that it's not as in charge of things as it subjectively feels - but a bit of honest introspection should tell you that anyway.

So, what's your detailed hypothesis about its role, exactly how does it influence credibility, and what supporting evidence or arguments do you have for it?

How can you possibly claim your conscious awareness (ie the only reality you know) is irrelevant?

I didn't say it was irrelevant full stop, I said it was irrelevant to the logic of "free-will". You seem to be endlessly trying to contrast "inevitable reactions" with conscious choices as if they are necessarily mutually exclusive and there is no possibility of something being both. You have never once provided any logical support for this view. Unless you can do so, it remains a false dichotomy fallacy.

[Alan Burns]

Back to the unsupported assertions. Why, and how do you know? We simply don't know the exact role of consciousness in our thought processes although there is some evidence that it's not as in charge of things as it subjectively feels - but a bit of honest introspection should tell you that anyway.

So, what's your detailed hypothesis about its role, exactly how does it influence credibility, and what supporting evidence or arguments do you have for it?

It all relates to the mental processes involved in being able to reach a valid conclusion.
If you disregard the role of conscious awareness, there is nothing which can perceive a desired goal, and there is nothing to actively guide and validate the thoughts involved in reaching a goal.  In fact, without conscious awareness there could be no thoughts!  Do you understand the problem? 
You are your conscious awareness - it defines the reality of your existence.

I didn't say it was irrelevant full stop, I said it was irrelevant to the logic of "free-will". You seem to be endlessly trying to contrast "inevitable reactions" with conscious choices as if they are necessarily mutually exclusive and there is no possibility of something being both. You have never once provided any logical support for this view. Unless you can do so, it remains a false dichotomy fallacy.

I believe you are using completely the wrong approach.
Try starting off by accepting that our ability to make consciously driven choices rather than unavoidable reactions is a reality.  Then seek to find out why it is a reality.

[ekim]

It all relates to the mental processes involved in being able to reach a valid conclusion.
If you disregard the role of conscious awareness, there is nothing which can perceive a desired goal, and there is nothing to actively guide and validate the thoughts involved in reaching a goal.  In fact, without conscious awareness there could be no thoughts!  Do you understand the problem? 
You are your conscious awareness - it defines the reality of your existence.I believe you are using completely the wrong approach.
Try starting off by accepting that our ability to make consciously driven choices rather than unavoidable reactions is a reality.  Then seek to find out why it is a reality.

Here again you seem to be mixing ideas.  In the first sentence you talk about a desired goal where desire is the driver and in the last sentence you imply that consciousness is the driver.  It is possible for a person to consciously choose between two or more goals but the relative desires for those goals will more likely be the drivers which nullifies your idea of free will.

[Stranger]

If you disregard the role of conscious awareness, there is nothing which can perceive a desired goal...

You will certainly be conscious of a desired goal but the reasons why it becomes the (most) desired goal are not actually under your control at all. All you can do is resolve any conflicting desires by weighing up how much you desire each one.

As has been pointed out before, many, many times, your wants and desires are what they are, they are not things you can change.

...and there is nothing to actively guide and validate the thoughts involved in reaching a goal.

As has also been pointed out, it is unclear to what extent and in what way consciousness is involved in those processes. If we take the multiple drafts view, for example, consciousness is more about how things are 'documented' in memory. Of course there will be feedback to future choices (stages in the same one) because memory is and important input (and also starts a fraction of a second ago).

However, I digress because you haven't addressed the point. This kind of vague hand waving is does not explain how the role of consciousness affects the credibility of an argument.

In fact, without conscious awareness there could be no thoughts!  Do you understand the problem? 

Depends how you define thoughts. Also, I didn't suggest that we could do what we do entirely without consciousness (although some philosophers would disagree) just that its exact role is not a factor in the argument about 'free will', in the way you mean, being impossible.

There is no dichotomy between an "inevitable reaction" and a "conscious choice" - regardless of what role consciousness plays in making the choice.

You are your conscious awareness...

I'm far, far more than that.

...it defines the reality of your existence.

Gibberish.

I believe you are using completely the wrong approach.
Try starting off by accepting that our ability to make consciously driven choices rather than unavoidable reactions is a reality.  Then seek to find out why it is a reality.

As I said, I see no reason at all to choose between "consciously driven choice" and "unavoidable reaction". Until you can show in some way that they are mutually exclusive, this is just a false dichotomy fallacy.

You also seem to be suggesting that the best thing to do is start with blind faith and superficial intuition and then try to make some sort of sense of it. No thanks, you are a horrifying object lesson in what can happen when we abandon reasoning for blind faith.

[Alan Burns]

Here again you seem to be mixing ideas.  In the first sentence you talk about a desired goal where desire is the driver and in the last sentence you imply that consciousness is the driver.  It is possible for a person to consciously choose between two or more goals but the relative desires for those goals will more likely be the drivers which nullifies your idea of free will.

Conscious awareness and desires are intrinsically connected.  You can't have desires without conscious awareness.  You may well be aware of many different desires at any one time, but your conscious awareness allows you to choose how, when and where to fulfil those desires.

[Alan Burns]

Quote from: Alan Burns on Today at 04:47:02 PM

    You are your conscious awareness...

I'm far, far more than that.

Quote from: Alan Burns on Today at 04:47:02 PM

    ...it defines the reality of your existence.

Gibberish.

Take away your conscious awareness and I am quite certain, from your point of view, you would cease to exist

[Sebastian Toe]

I'm far, far more than that.

Gibberish.



Take away your conscious awareness and I am quite certain, from your point of view, you would cease to exist

If you took away your brain would you cease to exist?

[torridon]

I am doing it right now!No.  It needs a source of control which is not shackled to endless chains of uncontrollable cause and effect.  Can we call this source the human soul?It just need "you".  You are the controller.But what I am writing right now is not just a feeling.
I am in control of the fingers typing on this keyboard as a result of my consciously driven intent to reply to your post in a meaningful way.
You are confusing facts and personal likes and dislikes with choices.
Our freedom to guide our thought processes to reach intended goals cannot change facts or personal preferences.Well whatever neuron is responsible for generating this post must be very clever (or perhaps dumb in your opinion  )

OK you just went for a cheap line by line dismissive response rather than engaging properly with commensurate depth and context.  For instance :

"Every event in my brain is 'uncontrollable'. When was the last time you controlled your brain function ? "

I am doing it right now!"

Ill be generous and assume you didn't actually understand the question.

Everything we do is mediated through brain function, be it a dog wagging his tail or a journalist writing up copy, this is brain function in action.  It isn't altering how brains work.  I cannot just decide to process auditory signals in visual cortex. I cannot just decide to switch off my left hemisphere and do all my thinking in the right hemisphere so as to give the left a bit of a rest. it doesn't work like that and it couldn't work like that.  The fact that I cannot see the sky as green is a manifestation of the reality that we cannot alter how our brains work. The fact that I cannot choose to like something I dislike is a manifestation of the reality that we cannot alter how our brains work. The choices we make are the consequential outcome of normal healthy brain function, they are not the outcome of us redirecting our brains to do things differently.

Bottom line, brain function is deterministic, therefore mind function is deterministic.  This conclusion is simple incontrovertible logic.  Our minds might not 'feel' deterministic, but our feelings themselves are the products of regular brain function.

[Stranger]

Conscious awareness and desires are intrinsically connected.  You can't have desires without conscious awareness.

I thought you said "conscious awareness" was unique to humans? Are you seriously trying to suggest that other animals don't have desires?

You may well be aware of many different desires at any one time, but your conscious awareness allows you to choose how, when and where to fulfil those desires.

Drivel. This has been explained to you over and over again. Just reasserting it, without addressing the answers you've had, is pointless. All you can possibly do is weigh up what you desire to do most. You cannot possibly choose that because you'd have no basis on which to do so. Either it would be random or you'd have to desire to desire one desire more than another, and so on, and off we go into another infinite regress.

All the infinite regresses you keep creating should be telling that your thinking is deeply flawed. Meaningless assertions like it's 'you' that makes a choice just emphasis your lack of thought on the subject.

[Stranger]

Take away your conscious awareness and I am quite certain, from your point of view, you would cease to exist

And...? All that tells me is that it is a vital part of me. What you said was "You are your conscious awareness..." [emphasis added].

[ekim]

1....Conscious awareness and desires are intrinsically connected. 

2....You can't have desires without conscious awareness. 

3....You may well be aware of many different desires at any one time, but your conscious awareness allows you to choose how, when and where to fulfil those desires.

1.... If you say that, then this is the death knell of free will.

2.... What you should consider are the desires that lurk beneath the surface in the subconscious.  Some are genetically inspired, some as a result of conditioning by parents, society, religious doctrine, political persuasion, consumerism and the latest fad 'Internet influencers'.  Being aware of these may give you a chance of conscious detachment from those driving forces

3.... I should have thought that, as a Christian, you would follow Jesus' example of sacrificing 'self' driven desires, and surrendering to a God driven desire or Will.  You may be free from one but determined by the other.  You may have the ability to choose but it would seem that 'free will' persists only as an illusion.

[Alan Burns]

OK you just went for a cheap line by line dismissive response rather than engaging properly with commensurate depth and context.  For instance :

Ill be generous and assume you didn't actually understand the question.

Everything we do is mediated through brain function, be it a dog wagging his tail or a journalist writing up copy, this is brain function in action.  It isn't altering how brains work.  I cannot just decide to process auditory signals in visual cortex. I cannot just decide to switch off my left hemisphere and do all my thinking in the right hemisphere so as to give the left a bit of a rest. it doesn't work like that and it couldn't work like that.  The fact that I cannot see the sky as green is a manifestation of the reality that we cannot alter how our brains work. The fact that I cannot choose to like something I dislike is a manifestation of the reality that we cannot alter how our brains work. The choices we make are the consequential outcome of normal healthy brain function, they are not the outcome of us redirecting our brains to do things differently.

Bottom line, brain function is deterministic, therefore mind function is deterministic.  This conclusion is simple incontrovertible logic.  Our minds might not 'feel' deterministic, but our feelings themselves are the products of regular brain function.

Yes, I entirely agree with your logic, but it is based upon the basic premiss that everything must be determined by past events, as they will be in a materialist scenario.
Human free will is about being able to make a consciously driven choice which is not just a predetermined reaction.  And of course we can't make the sky look green.  We can't choose the nature of what we perceive, but we do have freedom to choose what to perceive.  But there is much more to it than this.  We have freedom to think - to contemplate - to guide our thoughts - to reach conclusions.  Can all our thoughts be just reactions?  If so there can be no concept of conscious guidance - just a roller coaster ride along a pre destined path to a pre destined finish.  If our thought processes are a series of uncontrollable material reactions the end result will have no credibility as a consciously derived conclusion.  The ability for consciously driven control is essential for logical thought, but if conscious awareness lags behind the events which define our awareness there is no possibility for consciously driven contemplation.  Hence there can be no feasible explanation for our unique ability to contemplate the reality of our existence in material terms. So when I say "I am doing it right now" it is not evidence of just material reactions in my brain, but evidence for my ability to consciously control the material reactions in my brain to give a considered meaningful response to your post.

[Stranger]

Yes, I entirely agree with your logic, but it is based upon the basic premiss that everything must be determined by past events, as they will be in a materialist scenario.

False. It is not a premiss but a conclusion of reasoning that you have been given endless times before and never once been able to actually find a flaw in.

Human free will is about being able to make a consciously driven choice which is not just a predetermined reaction.

Which is (assuming no randomness) impossible, again for reasons you've been given and never once been able to find a logical fault with.

...we do have freedom to choose what to perceive.

Just silly.

But there is much more to it than this.  We have freedom to think - to contemplate - to guide our thoughts - to reach conclusions.  Can all our thoughts be just reactions?  If so there can be no concept of conscious guidance...

Baseless assertion.

If our thought processes are a series of uncontrollable material reactions the end result will have no credibility as a consciously derived conclusion.  The ability for consciously driven control is essential for logical thought, but if conscious awareness lags behind the events which define our awareness there is no possibility for consciously driven contemplation.  Hence there can be no feasible explanation for our unique ability to contemplate the reality of our existence in material terms.

Logic- and thought-free foot-stamping.

So when I say "I am doing it right now" it is not evidence of just material reactions in my brain, but evidence for my ability to consciously control the material reactions in my brain to give a considered meaningful response to your post.

It's evidence of nothing but your inability or unwillingness to actually think about and respond to the arguments that have been made against your position and your stubborn determination to go on repeating the same mindless nonsense regardless.

[Gordon]

Yes, I entirely agree with your logic, but it is based upon the basic premiss that everything must be determined by past events, as they will be in a materialist scenario.
Human free will is about being able to make a consciously driven choice which is not just a predetermined reaction.  And of course we can't make the sky look green.  We can't choose the nature of what we perceive, but we do have freedom to choose what to perceive.  But there is much more to it than this.  We have freedom to think - to contemplate - to guide our thoughts - to reach conclusions.  Can all our thoughts be just reactions?  If so there can be no concept of conscious guidance - just a roller coaster ride along a pre destined path to a pre destined finish.  If our thought processes are a series of uncontrollable material reactions the end result will have no credibility as a consciously derived conclusion.  The ability for consciously driven control is essential for logical thought, but if conscious awareness lags behind the events which define our awareness there is no possibility for consciously driven contemplation.  Hence there can be no feasible explanation for our unique ability to contemplate the reality of our existence in material terms. So when I say "I am doing it right now" it is not evidence of just material reactions in my brain, but evidence for my ability to consciously control the material reactions in my brain to give a considered meaningful response to your post.

Utter hogwash.

Kindly explain why I cannot 'consciously drive' my thinking so that I can decide to eat mayonnaise when I have always been so utterly revulsed by it: I seem to have no options that could ever overcome my deep-seated instinctive and phobic reaction to this noxious substance. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Utter hogwash.

Kindly explain why I cannot 'consciously drive' my thinking so that I can decide to eat mayonnaise when I have always been so utterly revulsed by it: I seem to have no options that could ever overcome my deep-seated instinctive and phobic reaction to this noxious substance.

Oh, you're talking about mayonnaise.......I thought you meant Hogwash.

[torridon]

Yes, I entirely agree with your logic, but it is based upon the basic premiss that everything must be determined by past events, as they will be in a materialist scenario....

It is not a 'materialist scenario', it the the logical scenario;  the only alternative would be an illogical scenario, and that's all your ponderings amount to.  All of our experience points to an arrow of time within which all events play out. The present moment is always a consequence of events in previous moments.  If this were not true, then the current moment is in a random state.  This is what 'not determined by past events' means.  Everything observes this simple reality, including humans.  Observation confirms that humans make choices within that action - reaction cycle. We all have to become aware of a change of circumstance before we can respond to it.  That is the arrow of time, cause and effect, playing out through the workings of human minds.  Even if you insist on substituting 'soul' in place of 'mind', that will not alter the logic.  A soul-made choice that was not a consequence of the causes that led to it would also be a random event, just as would a mind-made choice.  It's nothing to do with 'physical' or 'material', it is simply the logic of choice, irrespective of whatever is doing the choosing. 

You are like someone unable to face the fact that triangles are always limited to three sides, and out of desperation conjure up a bizarre procession of fake arguments against the reality of triangles - it's only in the materialist scenario - we only have limited human understanding - human souls somehow transcend the flow of time and are hence not subject to cause and effect. If it is illogical, it is wrong. Period.

[Alan Burns]

And...? All that tells me is that it is a vital part of me. What you said was "You are your conscious awareness..." [emphasis added].

And the big question is -
What happens to the entity of spiritual awareness (which is you) when the biological machine it interacts with ceases to function?
We do not know for certain, but you will find some clues in the writings of the New Testament and subsequent commentaries.

[Alan Burns]

It is not a 'materialist scenario', it the the logical scenario;  the only alternative would be an illogical scenario, and that's all your ponderings amount to.  All of our experience points to an arrow of time within which all events play out. The present moment is always a consequence of events in previous moments.  If this were not true, then the current moment is in a random state.  This is what 'not determined by past events' means.  Everything observes this simple reality, including humans.  Observation confirms that humans make choices within that action - reaction cycle. We all have to become aware of a change of circumstance before we can respond to it.  That is the arrow of time, cause and effect, playing out through the workings of human minds.  Even if you insist on substituting 'soul' in place of 'mind', that will not alter the logic.  A soul-made choice that was not a consequence of the causes that led to it would also be a random event, just as would a mind-made choice.  It's nothing to do with 'physical' or 'material', it is simply the logic of choice, irrespective of whatever is doing the choosing. 

You are like someone unable to face the fact that triangles are always limited to three sides, and out of desperation conjure up a bizarre procession of fake arguments against the reality of triangles - it's only in the materialist scenario - we only have limited human understanding - human souls somehow transcend the flow of time and are hence not subject to cause and effect. If it is illogical, it is wrong. Period.

And unfortunately none of your detailed response can explain how such a detailed response can be derived entirely from material reactions beyond your conscious control.

[Stranger]

And unfortunately none of your detailed response can explain how such a detailed response can be derived entirely from material reactions beyond your conscious control.

Unfortunately for you it makes a lot more sense to think it's the result reactions (determinism) than your impossible, self-contradictory magic. A logical answer is always going to beat an illogical and contradictory one.

Also, you just can't help yourself with the (apparently blatantly dishonest) misrepresentation, can you? It's not specifically about material reactions and neither does determinism rule out 'concious control'.

And the big question is -
What happens to the entity of spiritual awareness (which is you) when the biological machine it interacts with ceases to function?
We do not know for certain, but you will find some clues in the writings of the New Testament and subsequent commentaries.

You have given me no reason whatsoever to think I'm an "entity of spiritual awareness" or even defined what such a thing might be.

The big question really is why you keep running away from actually facing the logic of the situation. I suspect that you are simply too afraid of finding out that your blind faith doesn't stand up to a moment's rational thought. I mean, you're so scared of it you can't even stop yourself from continually misrepresenting it. It's like you have to pretend it's a different argument; one that you can at least bear to let into your mind even if you don't have any answers.

[Alan Burns]

Unfortunately for you it makes a lot more sense to think it's the result reactions (determinism) than your impossible, self-contradictory magic. A logical answer is always going to beat an illogical and contradictory one.

Also, you just can't help yourself with the (apparently blatantly dishonest) misrepresentation, can you? It's not specifically about material reactions and neither does determinism rule out 'concious control'.

You have given me no reason whatsoever to think I'm an "entity of spiritual awareness" or even defined what such a thing might be.

The big question really is why you keep running away from actually facing the logic of the situation. I suspect that you are simply too afraid of finding out that your blind faith doesn't stand up to a moment's rational thought. I mean, you're so scared of it you can't even stop yourself from continually misrepresenting it. It's like you have to pretend it's a different argument; one that you can at least bear to let into your mind even if you don't have any answers.

It is not blind faith.
I am confident in my beliefs - more confident than you could ever imagine.
I have no fear whatsoever of me being convinced your own short sighted logic.
My faith is backed up in many ways which would appear to be beyond what you are prepared to acknowledge.
My conception of logic leads me to believe that I am am more, far more than anything which could be defined by material reactions alone.
There is no pretence in any of my arguments.
I hope and pray that all on this forum will come to know the truth behind their existence.

[torridon]

And unfortunately none of your detailed response can explain how such a detailed response can be derived entirely from material reactions beyond your conscious control.

I don't think anybody can fully explain how mind arises from matter, understanding that is a work in progress.  But 'it must be magic' is inherently a non-explanation, an attitude problem and if everyone had such defeatist attitudes in the face of challenge we'd still be wearing animals skins and working with stone tools.

You seem perennially confused about the role of consciousness in decision making.  In most situations the fractional lag due to slow neural functioning is insignificant.  It might be a factor if you are a sports scientist trying to figure out why some people have better reaction times than others, but in most situations you can ignore it.  I might take several months pondering which house to buy and a fractional lag in my thought processes is inconsequential in that. 

But the fact remains that choices are resolved somehow and we would be utterly unable to resolve any choice were mind function not fundamentally deterministic. A non deterministic mind would be making random choices, not informed choices; having a non-deterministic mind would be a curse leading to early death.  Choice depends on being able to measure rival possibilities against each other and that is not possible if you have a non-deterministic system of measuring.  Imagine a market where the weighing scales had effectively variable operation. Customer A would be getting a different number of potatoes to customer B if the weighing scale were to vary in operation. The market would totally fail in such a scenario, it fundamentally depends on being able to measure objectively and consistently.  A non-deterministic mind would likewise fail, it would be totally inoperable being unable to measure effectively. It is a good thing that I don't have a choice in finding whether the sky is green or blue.  Likewise it is a good thing that I don't have any choice in believing whether Berlin is in Germany or Vietnam.  I am only able to revolve choice because I cannot choose to alter how the external world impacts on me.

The process of making a choice is a process of discovering what your preference is in any given situation. The choice you make manifests what your defacto preference is. We cannot choose which preference to have, we discover it, just as we discover the colour of the sky by looking up.  These things are not in our control, and it is good that it is so, we would not be here to discuss it otherwise.

[Sriram]

I don't think anybody can fully explain how mind arises from matter, understanding that is a work in progress.  But 'it must be magic' is inherently a non-explanation, an attitude problem and if everyone had such defeatist attitudes in the face of challenge we'd still be wearing animals skins and working with stone tools.

You seem perennially confused about the role of consciousness in decision making.  In most situations the fractional lag due to slow neural functioning is insignificant.  It might be a factor if you are a sports scientist trying to figure out why some people have better reaction times than others, but in most situations you can ignore it.  I might take several months pondering which house to buy and a fractional lag in my thought processes is inconsequential in that. 

But the fact remains that choices are resolved somehow and we would be utterly unable to resolve any choice were mind function not fundamentally deterministic. A non deterministic mind would be making random choices, not informed choices; having a non-deterministic mind would be a curse leading to early death.  Choice depends on being able to measure rival possibilities against each other and that is not possible if you have a non-deterministic system of measuring.  Imagine a market where the weighing scales had effectively variable operation. Customer A would be getting a different number of potatoes to customer B if the weighing scale were to vary in operation. The market would totally fail in such a scenario, it fundamentally depends on being able to measure objectively and consistently.  A non-deterministic mind would likewise fail, it would be totally inoperable being unable to measure effectively. It is a good thing that I don't have a choice in finding whether the sky is green or blue.  Likewise it is a good thing that I don't have any choice in believing whether Berlin is in Germany or Vietnam.  I am only able to revolve choice because I cannot choose to alter how the external world impacts on me.

The process of making a choice is a process of discovering what your preference is in any given situation. The choice you make manifests what your defacto preference is. We cannot choose which preference to have, we discover it, just as we discover the colour of the sky by looking up.  These things are not in our control, and it is good that it is so, we would not be here to discuss it otherwise.

Why do you keep using the word 'magic' as though we understand everything about how the natural world arose? 

You have stated earlier that  the world is not what it seems and that reality is beyond our grasp. We know that our bodies are largely empty space and the solid nature of the world is just an illusion brought about by the interactions of many different fields.

Is this not 'magic'?   

[Stranger]

It is not blind faith.
I am confident in my beliefs - more confident than you could ever imagine.
I have no fear whatsoever of me being convinced your own short sighted logic.

Yes, unfortunately overconfidence and a refusal to accept even the possibility of being wrong is a sure sign of blind faith and a closed mind. And, yet again, you keep on saying the logic is 'short sighted' but you've never once been able to show that it is, so it's just another baseless assertion - or another article of your blind faith.

My faith is backed up in many ways which would appear to be beyond what you are prepared to acknowledge.

All that you've posted here to support it have been baseless assertions, fallacies, and gibberish. If you posted something with any actual substance it would help. Why do you refuse to learn about logical reasoning and hence how to avoid fallacies and present valid arguments?

My conception of logic leads me to believe...

You don't get to have your own conception of logic.

...that I am am more, far more than anything which could be defined by material reactions alone.

You have never once posted the slightest hint of a shred of a scintilla of evidence or logic that would support this belief.

There is no pretence in any of my arguments.

You often misrepresent the argument against you, which is basically a pretence that it is something that it isn't.

[torridon]

Why do you keep using the word 'magic' as though we understand everything about how the natural world arose? 

You have stated earlier that  the world is not what it seems and that reality is beyond our grasp. We know that our bodies are largely empty space and the solid nature of the world is just an illusion brought about by the interactions of many different fields.

Is this not 'magic'?

No, I don't see why we should call that 'magic'.  There is a difference between 'not yet fully understood' and 'impossible'. Our perceptual systems fabricate a simplified interface to the wider world that makes reality more easily navigable for beings with limited resource.  A bit like a web browser provides simplified access to wider information - you can surf the net without having to understand anything at all about the underlying quantum electrodynamics or the infrastructure of the internet or logic gates or the artificial intelligence behind Google search algorithms.  If you showed your smartphone to a cave man you could forgive him thinking it was magic; but it isn't.  When people invoke 'supernatural', or Goddidit as explanation for something, they generally are not meaning 'not yet understood', generally they mean we will never understand it because it is the will of some 'being' with powers beyond understanding.  That's pretty much indistinguishable from 'magic'

[Sriram]

No, I don't see why we should call that 'magic'.  There is a difference between 'not yet fully understood' and 'impossible'. Our perceptual systems fabricate a simplified interface to the wider world that makes reality more easily navigable for beings with limited resource.  A bit like a web browser provides simplified access to wider information - you can surf the net without having to understand anything at all about the underlying quantum electrodynamics or the infrastructure of the internet or logic gates or the artificial intelligence behind Google search algorithms.  If you showed your smartphone to a cave man you could forgive him thinking it was magic; but it isn't.  When people invoke 'supernatural', or Goddidit as explanation for something, they generally are not meaning 'not yet understood', generally they mean we will never understand it because it is the will of some 'being' with powers beyond understanding.  That's pretty much indistinguishable from 'magic'

You are not getting the point.

'Impossible' is just something we cannot imagine....until it actually happens.  Some fields interacting and producing the illusion of a solid world in which conscious beings happen to evolve and live...is impossible! It is magic by your definition. Nevertheless it actually has happened! 

The world really is 'magic'.