Five Reasons to Believe in God

[lunamoth]

And I don't think your response really answers my question. I asked how you would tell the difference between "meat world" and "soul world". It seems to me that your answer is that we can't tell the difference, but we have to choose anyhow.

Even not choosing is making a choice.

 

[lunamoth]

The two things aren't mutually exclusive. "Evolutionary" does not necessarily imply "not rational".

I've come to think that it is more like a spectrum, but at some point along the way we arbitrarily make the distinction of rational vs. non-rational.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And that soul-world matches my experience.

It does? How?

This speaks to my question from before. If "soul world" matches real-world experience better than "meat world" does, then this would be a way to tell the difference between the two.


BTW: the longer this thread goes, the more I want to open "Soul and Meat World", a combination blues bar and deli.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Even not choosing is making a choice.

That may very well be the case, but it's not relevant to what I asked.

 

[lunamoth]

It does? How?

Do you feel like you make choices that are meaningful? If so, please help me in my conversation with Autodidact and explain to me where you have control of those choices.

This speaks to my question from before. If "soul world" matches real-world experience better than "meat world" does, then this would be a way to tell the difference between the two.

I think the means of telling the difference is in this conversation about free will and the basis of reason.

BTW: the longer this thread goes, the more I want to open "Soul and Meat World", a combination blues bar and deli.

Now I'm getting hungry. Time to go make dinner!

PS - I just noticed the mad face you posted with your previous post. What was that for?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do you feel like you make choices that are meaningful? If so, please help me in my conversation with Autodidact and explain to me where you have control of those choices.

I feel like I do. I don't know that I actually do. I can't think of any way to test whether I do have free will rather than being a "meat machine" that just feels like he has free will.

OTOH, I recognize that some decisions that feel like free will choices to me are more likely the result of instincts or hormonal responses, even if they feel rational to me... so it seems that my sense of "free will" can be fooled to at least some degree.

I think the means of telling the difference is in this conversation about free will and the basis of reason.

In what way?

And just to bring this back to the original topic of the thread: are you saying that free will points to us being in "soul world", which points to the existence of God?

PS - I just noticed the mad face you posted with your previous post. What was that for?

Whoops - that was my fat fingers' way of telling me that I should post using a regular computer instead of the tiny little screen on my iPod Touch. I bumped the button by mistake.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

My focus in this thought process is on whether or not we can make choices, or if choice is an illusion.

What is choice? I would define the ability to choose as the ability to process information, imagine different outcomes, weigh the possible consequences of action, and then act on that basis. Something that can do those things, can choose. How else could we define "choice"?

 

[Autodidact]

Neurons firing in response to environmental stimuli which we do not control.

Choice/decision implies will - you have defined it that way yourself. I see no place in the above statement for choice or control. The us deciding is mindless.

Mind is an emergent property of the brain. When a brain operates, you get mind. How can it be mindless?

You keep talking about a "we" as if it was separate from the body. The neurons firing is US. That's us making a choice. There is no other "we" to control it.

 

[Autodidact]

And that soul-world matches my experience.

I'm going to question this. In what way? I'll hold off on saying more until you respond, because I don't want to jump to conclusions.

 

[lunamoth]

I feel like I do. I don't know that I actually do.

So, your experience is that you make meaningful choices. This is what I mean by saying it matches my experience.

can't think of any way to test whether I do have free will rather than being a "meat machine" that just feels like he has free will.

Just thinking about it logically based upon what you know (I don't think a detailed knowledge of neurobiology is needed for this thought experiment), at what point in the decision-making cascade of events can you exert control over the choice? Can you choose which sensory data you intercept? Can you choose your wiring or memory bank at the moment the decision is upon you? Can you choose which synapses fire? Is there any possibility of being a meat machine that has free will?

OTOH, I recognize that some decisions that feel like free will choices to me are more likely the result of instincts or hormonal responses, even if they feel rational to me... so it seems that my sense of "free will" can be fooled to at least some degree.

Yes, this opens up a whole other can of worms. We know that there are situations where we can't trust our senses or our reasoning. What seems like it is rational is perhaps justification after the fact.

In what way?

I think we can logically conclude that meat machines cannot have will.

And just to bring this back to the original topic of the thread: are you saying that free will points to us being in "soul world", which points to the existence of God?

It could, especially if one's concept of God were along the lines of the Ground of Being.

 

[lunamoth]

What is choice? I would define the ability to choose as the ability to process information, imagine different outcomes, weigh the possible consequences of action, and then act on that basis. Something that can do those things, can choose. How else could we define "choice"?

All being processed by a sophisticated organic computer. Ignoring the complexity of the example you use, how can we make even a simple free choice if we, like all else in nature, are locked into the chain of cause and effect?

What is doing the weighing? How is it any different from a complicated computer program? If you could know every single detail about the data input and the wiring of the computer, you could predict exactly the outcome (barring random events that disrupt the process). No?

 

[lunamoth]

Mind is an emergent property of the brain. When a brain operates, you get mind. How can it be mindless?

While the emergent property we call mind is a property of the brain, the processes that lead to outcomes are completely dependent upon conditions that we do not choose (because we can't, because there is no we). In Autodidactism, what we call 'mind' is the emergent outcome - the process itself is mindless.

You keep talking about a "we" as if it was separate from the body. The neurons firing is US. That's us making a choice. There is no other "we" to control it.

Sigh. I feel like we are just talking past each other at this point. Because I need to keep using some kind of term to denote whatever it is that is our self, it seems like I am separating out the I. When I am looking at the situation from the perspective of Autodidactism, I am assuming that "I/we/us/you" equates only with the physical components of our body/brain. I am following your line of reasoning, as I understand it, that we are the result of a biological process, nothing more. What emerges from that biological process we call mind and choice and will and our personality, likes, dislikes, etc.

But, if it is a cause and effect process then there is no place where the course of events can be altered. There is no place where choice can occur, no mover to make that different choice. See, by saying "no mover" I am acknowledging your position that there is no other us, or unseen or magical bits.

I'm not sure if you missed my question about the computer analogy. If you put all the same data into the same computer with the same wiring, does the computer choose what output it gives you?

If the wiring changed every time you entered data, then it would quickly become too complex to predict the outcomes, but still, if you knew the wiring, you could predict the outcome. In that case does the computer choose what output it gives you?

Can you think of any computer, AI, Turing machine that could choose what output to give you? What would have to be different?

 

[lunamoth]

I'm going to question this. In what way? I'll hold off on saying more until you respond, because I don't want to jump to conclusions.

This is from part of my discussion with 9/10ths. I follow up on it there.

See his post #243, my post #245, his post #246, and my post #250.

The long and short of it is that, so far, I have seen no compelling explanation for how a meat robot actually can make meaningful choices, yet my experience of life is that I do.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So, your experience is that you make meaningful choices.

That's not what I said. I've had experiences that felt like meaningful choices.

I've also had the experience of touching ice and feeling that it was hot, not cold.

This is what I mean by saying it matches my experience.

So... you think you have free will because it feels more like you do than like you don't?

Just thinking about it logically based upon what you know (I don't think a detailed knowledge of neurobiology is needed for this thought experiment), at what point in the decision-making cascade of events can you exert control over the choice? Can you choose which sensory data you intercept? Can you choose your wiring or memory bank at the moment the decision is upon you? Can you choose which synapses fire? Is there any possibility of being a meat machine that has free will?

Depends what you mean by "choose". If a naturalistic process could count as "choosing" for you (it would for me), then sure, a "meat machine" could choose.

Yes, this opens up a whole other can of worms. We know that there are situations where we can't trust our senses or our reasoning. What seems like it is rational is perhaps justification after the fact.

So our experience suggests that our experience isn't always trustworthy, right?

I think we can logically conclude that meat machines cannot have will.

Again - it depends what you mean by "will".

It could, especially if one's concept of God were along the lines of the Ground of Being.

But how does "Ground of Being" suggest "God"?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

All being processed by a sophisticated organic computer. Ignoring the complexity of the example you use, how can we make even a simple free choice if we, like all else in nature, are locked into the chain of cause and effect?

Well according to my definition, if a physical system can process information, model different possible outcomes, and act based on those calculations, it has the ability to choose, by definition. Nothing in my definition of "choice" is incompatible with everything being determined by a chain of cause and effect.

What is doing the weighing? How is it any different from a complicated computer program?

The brain is doing the weighing. Not any particular atom, or any particular neuron, but all of them acting in concert. The brain is very different from any computer program that exists today, of course, but in principle you could make a complicated computer program no different from our brain.

If you could know every single detail about the data input and the wiring of the computer, you could predict exactly the outcome (barring random events that disrupt the process). No?

True. You could predict the outcome. How does this conflict with my definition of "choice"? What is your definition of "choice"?

 

[lunamoth]

True. You could predict the outcome. How does this conflict with my definition of "choice"? What is your definition of "choice"?

Exactly where has will been exerted?

Can a computer, with all the same input, ever give different output?

 

[lunamoth]

So... you think you have free will because it feels more like you do than like you don't?

The thesis of free will matches my experience. The thesis that I do not have free will does not match my experience.

I am looking at free will as the alternative to hard determinism: Determinism at wiki.

Depends what you mean by "choose". If a naturalistic process could count as "choosing" for you (it would for me), then sure, a "meat machine" could choose.

How does that work in a chain of cause and effect events? You seem to agree with Autodidact that because natural systems can produce different outcomes, and that the processing that leads to that event is very complex, that this is all that we mean by choosing/choice.

I would call that the illusion of choice or will. There is no mover to alter the course of cause and effect events. Only a complex organic system that blindly responds to environmental input. After the fact we think that we chose.

So our experience suggests that our experience isn't always trustworthy, right?

Nor our reason.

But how does "Ground of Being" suggest "God"?

It's one way some people conceive of God. reference: Paul Tillich - The Courage to Be.

 

[lunamoth]

True. You could predict the outcome. How does this conflict with my definition of "choice"? What is your definition of "choice"?

To me choice implies will and intent.

Whether the process is carried out by a computer or a brain, if, given the variables, there can only be one outcome, you have a result, not a choice. In a meat robot world "choice" is our reflection back on the event and seeing that one of multiple options was acted upon, IOW, an illusion.

 

[lunamoth]

OK, I answered Mr. Spinkles twice. This is my brain telling me that I am done with this thread for the night.

Thank you all for the lively discussion. At least Polyhedral sees my point about will being an illusion!

 

[Gloone]

OK, I answered Mr. Spinkles twice. This is my brain telling me that I am done with this thread for the night.

Thank you all for the lively discussion. At least Polyhedral sees my point about will being an illusion!

IMO illusions are the things you lack.