I do not agree. While I agree that people are effected at times by their environment etc they still have a conscience to know the difference between right and wrong. Even if at times they do the wrong thing, because of ignorance, God understands this and does not hold them accountable.When you say “self-caused”, are you saying that’s how free-will would have to work? If you’re referencing free-will or how it would work, I’m not certain of that myself. What I explained in my previous post does not involve self-causation but if anything it involves manipulating the factors (environment, biology) that makes us who we are. Eventhough we play in active role in determining who we are using our minds (via cognitive behavioral therapy), you still have to do it using environment and biology and that’s why I believe determinism and/or materialism is still involved. If there’s anything coming close to free-will in my view it would probably be that the person is playing an active role in shaping who they are, and it’s an indirect process, in part, since the person is using biology (when neuroplasticity changes happen) and not just mind to bring it about.
Why would we have need for your thread when God himself proved you wrong? When in the beginning he created heaven and earth etc.We already discuss that. Time cannot be instigated at the same time be a variable of the theory which explain the beginning. Therefore the act of creation is impossible. I have a thread on this in here.
Well, photon decides. You can read more about it here.
Dualism is false. Form cannot give rise to consciousness. Therefore matter should be conscious. I have a thread on this in here.
It has to be free will which is self-caused otherwise all you have is a chain of causes and effects. You can have loops but loops is not more than a chain of causes and effects.When you say “self-caused”, are you saying that’s how free-will would have to work? If you’re referencing free-will or how it would work, I’m not certain of that myself. What I explained in my previous post does not involve self-causation but if anything it involves manipulating the factors (environment, biology) that makes us who we are.
Any active role is possible if and only if we can make self-cause act.Eventhough we play in active role in determining who we are using our minds (via cognitive behavioral therapy), you still have to do it using environment and biology and that’s why I believe determinism and/or materialism is still involved. If there’s anything coming close to free-will in my view it would probably be that the person is playing an active role in shaping who they are, and it’s an indirect process, in part, since the person is using biology (when neuroplasticity changes happen) and not just mind to bring it about.
I don’t understand how what you said is related to our discussion. Were you following our discussion?Sure he does. He only hold us accountable for what we can understand. There are many people in the bible who God makes accountable.
Like when they tried to trick him, he told them how they were evil and devils.
God knows a heart. Your heart is indeed your brain functioning.
The idea of creation of Heaven and Earth is a myth. That is true because the story imposes God inside time which this cannot be correct since time is a part of creation.Why would we have need for your thread when God himself proved you wrong? When in the beginning he created heaven and earth etc.
God has authority over heaven and Earth. He can do anything in or outside of time. He has proved this. There are millions who can testify to what God has and can do.
Authority has to be proven and exercised. God has done this time and time again. Where do you feel because you have a thread on creation, that anyone would take your word over the Creator himself?
Well, you need to explain how mind is possible if it is not the result of bottom-top causation. Moreover you deal with the problem of over-determination even if top-down causation is true.I should specify that my view involves materialism in that biology and environment play a role. It however, is not limited to traditional determinism since I believe causation goes both ways, that is top-down (mental causation on the brain) and not just bottom-up (causation starting at the fundamental level and progressing from there). There is scientific evidence for both types of causation.
I agree, and my view involves a chain of causes and effects. Perhaps the real issue may be that the mind is playing a role in that process.It has to be free will which is self-caused otherwise all you have is a chain of causes and effects. You can have loops but loops is not more than a chain of causes and effects.
I disagree that playing an active role requires free-will or self-causation. Playing an active role in this context would just mean the person is directly involved in bringing about a certain chain of causes and effects. Would you say that a person has free-will when they are able to control their environment and change their thought pattern? In case you haven’t noticed, I’m describing cognitive-behavioral therapy which has been proven to be effective in changing behavior.Any active role is possible if and only if we can make self-cause act.
Based on the objections I’ve gotten from skeptics on this forum so far, I’d rather question exactly what is the brain determining if there is no fixed behavioral patterns. You say that the brain determines behavior. So then I present evidence from cognitive behavioral therapy that involves a person’s behavior shifting towards a target behavior (whatever the behavior psychotherapists wants) that is not part of the person’s current brain state. You then say that the target behavior was part of the person’s brain all along. Oh, and lets not forget that the evidence following CBT also shows that the brain state itself was changed! The problem here is that biologically-rooted behavior is supposed to remain fixed, but when you have it consistently changing around the same time that CBT is used and towards an outside stimulus (whatever behavior psychologist proposes as a control), then you can’t blame me for questioning determinism. Without determinism in the context of the mind/body, there may be not an overdetermination problem to bring up.Well, you need to explain how mind is possible if it is not the result of bottom-top causation. Moreover you deal with the problem of over-determination even if top-down causation is true.
Where mind come from?I agree, and my view involves a chain of causes and effects. Perhaps the real issue may be that the mind is playing a role in that process.
One cannot bring about a certain chain of cause and effect without a self-cause act.I disagree that playing an active role requires free-will or self-causation. Playing an active role in this context would just mean the person is directly involved in bringing about a certain chain of causes and effects. Would you say that a person has free-will when they are able to control their environment and change their thought pattern? In case you haven’t noticed, I’m describing cognitive-behavioral therapy which has been proven to be effective in changing behavior.
I claim that any shift from a normal behavior is the result of loop otherwise you need to accept that the process of shifting from a normal behavior is the result of a self-cause act.Based on the objections I’ve gotten from skeptics on this forum so far, I’d rather question exactly what is the brain determining if there is no fixed behavioral patterns. You say that the brain determines behavior. So then I present evidence from cognitive behavioral therapy that involves a person’s behavior shifting towards a target behavior (whatever the behavior psychotherapists wants) that is not part of the person’s current brain state. You then say that the target behavior was part of the person’s brain all along. Oh, and lets not forget that the evidence following CBT also shows that the brain state itself was changed! The problem here is that biologically-rooted behavior is supposed to remain fixed, but when you have it consistently changing around the same time that CBT is used and towards an outside stimulus (whatever behavior psychologist proposes as a control), then you can’t blame me for questioning determinism. Without determinism in the context of the mind/body, there may be not an overdetermination problem to bring up.
The mind is a product of the brain and our interaction with the environment. The brain enables the mind, and the environment provides the content - the information that we use to think, remember, solve problems, etc.Where mind come from?
Well you didn’t answer my question. Is the ability to control your environment and biology, using CBT or other means, free-will? Do you agree that CBT can change behavior?One cannot bring about a certain chain of cause and effect without a self-cause act.
I suppose we can call it a loop since thought and behavior can influence the brain and the brain can also influence the two, as well. You can’t restrict it to just the brain not only because there’s more than the brain involved (also the mind, behavior, environment) in the process, but also because of the order in which the factors and changes come into play. In other words, you can’t claim that it’s only the brain since the mind and behavior also played a role, and their distinct roles (reformulating thinking and behavior towards a different behavior) came before the change in brain structure/function. My only conclusion is that mind can play an active and/or causative role in changing biology and behavior. In terms of the free-will debate, I only see it putting a dent in biological determinism (behaviors being determined only by genes, brain, and are fixed).I claim that any shift from a normal behavior is the result of loop otherwise you need to accept that the process of shifting from a normal behavior is the result of a self-cause act.
How a machine could create intelligent mind which can self-cause? That looks illogical.The mind is a product of the brain and our interaction with the environment. The brain enables the mind, and the environment provides the content - the information that we use to think, remember, solve problems, etc.
Yes, you need to decide firmly and act steadily to change rewiring.Well you didn’t answer my question. Is the ability to control your environment and biology, using CBT or other means, free-will? Do you agree that CBT can change behavior?
What I meant is that the behavior can be changed as the result of loops which only exist in brain. There is always a reason (which is the result of all our experience in the past and stored in subconsciousness in order to be delivered when it is needed or created when is needed) for changing the behavior.I suppose we can call it a loop since thought and behavior can influence the brain and the brain can also influence the two, as well. You can’t restrict it to just the brain not only because there’s more than the brain involved (also the mind, behavior, environment) in the process, but also because of the order in which the factors and changes come into play. In other words, you can’t claim that it’s only the brain since the mind and behavior also played a role, and their distinct roles (reformulating thinking and behavior towards a different behavior) came before the change in brain structure/function. My only conclusion is that mind can play an active and/or causative role in changing biology and behavior. In terms of the free-will debate, I only see it putting a dent in biological determinism (behaviors being determined only by genes, brain, and are fixed).
God is outside as well as inside time.The idea of creation of Heaven and Earth is a myth. That is true because the story imposes God inside time which this cannot be correct since time is a part of creation.
You woke up this morning and pinched yourself and found you still have a mind!Where mind come from? …
I claim that any shift from a normal behavior is the result of loop otherwise you need to accept that the process of shifting from a normal behavior is the result of a self-cause act.
Where did machines come in? We weren’t saying that.How a machine could create intelligent mind which can self-cause? That looks illogical. …
What I meant is that the behavior can be changed as the result of loops which only exist in brain. There is always a reason (which is the result of all our experience in the past and stored in subconsciousness in order to be delivered when it is needed or created when is needed) for changing the behavior.
That requires a change in God since the creation was not and there is.God is outside as well as inside time.
The main issue that I am raisin is that we cannot know that our decision is based on self-loop or they are self-caused. You pinch yourself to show that you have free will. Why you do that? Because of a thought before it.You woke up this morning and pinched yourself and found you still have a mind!
You have trouble tracing further back than existence to creation, but that doesn’t negate existence. Let’s go with existence!
Now, we take decisions because of our capacity for initiative. You posit a loop coming in here and I can’t contradict that though we don’t see where the loop comes from - unless you mean initiative?
And initiative is a self-caused act.
Your own life can act for you as data for your philosophising. It surpasses what is in the weaker books, confirms what is in the better books, and the better books confirm what you experience day to day in your life.
In my view, the interaction problem is not an objection to any view but rather it only shows a gap in our knowledge. Many materialists assume that we’re dealing only with physical factors/components and therefore believe that we’ll soon discover all of the physical processes that link brain to mind. Contrary to your conclusion, I see nothing illogical because we’re dealing with areas that we have little or no evidence for - gaps in knowledge. I don’t know that we’re only a biological machine when it comes to consciousness. I won’t accept that until we can resolve the explanatory gap.How a machine could create intelligent mind which can self-cause? That looks illogical.
Fundamentally, I don’t think you’re saying anything different than my view in that both of our views involve cause-and-effect. What we’re disagreeing on is the role of the pieces involved in the process, whether it be the brain, mind, environment, etc. In cognitive-behavioral therapy, the change in thinking and behavior precedes any change in neural activity.What I meant is that the behavior can be changed as the result of loops which only exist in brain. There is always a reason (which is the result of all our experience in the past and stored in subconsciousness in order to be delivered when it is needed or created when is needed) for changing the behavior.
So you believe that matter can give rise to an state, conscious state, at which it can self-cause?In my view, the interaction problem is not an objection to any view but rather it only shows a gap in our knowledge. Many materialists assume that we’re dealing only with physical factors/components and therefore believe that we’ll soon discover all of the physical processes that link brain to mind. Contrary to your conclusion, I see nothing illogical because we’re dealing with areas that we have little or no evidence for - gaps in knowledge. I don’t know that we’re only a biological machine when it comes to consciousness. I won’t accept that until we can resolve the explanatory gap.