(September 13, 2026 at 11:32 am)Jal Wrote:

(September 13, 2026 at 10:35 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Correct. Macro evolution is a fact, we've observed speciation.

Look, I live in a mechanical body built from inanimate matter called food. 
Technically, therefore, I should just be an inanimate machine. Again, a domino that is not in control of its own navigation. 

But in fact I am an animate body, which is consistent with a soul-infused body. 
Where did I get this physical soul? And why cannot it simply detach itself from my body by self-locomotion?

My theory: I opine that God infuses a soul into the body and confines it there (Gen 2:7). 

Seems to me He is deeply involved with His creatures and, as such, likely the unseen agent of speciation as well. Just my opinion. 

I'm sorry no one on this thread wants to hear  that opinion. But to prematurely rule out that possibility strikes me as a bit presumptuous.

Once again shifting the burden of proof. Even if the distribution of the burden is not wholly toward the proponent, they still bear the lion's share of the burden. It is not our job to disprove that which has yet to be proved.

(September 13, 2026 at 11:22 am)Angrboda Wrote:

(September 11, 2026 at 12:02 am)Jal Wrote: You seem to think I am segregating conscious into different component parts, namely the hungry part and the free-will part, and somehow one part signals the other. The most famous form of segregation among Christians is known as trichotomy (viz. spirit, soul, and body), which is complete gibberish and idiocy and is rejected by 99.9% of professional theologians. Among professionals, the general consensus is that each technical term for the self describes a diferent perspective of that one self, thus it's not a different component. (Viz. mind, soul, spirit, will, emotions, conscience, heart, inner man).  No, I would not make such a rookie mistake.

I am suggesting no such thing.   I am merely pointing out that the intentionality of consciousness of the hunger aligns with both a view in which the hunger has a determinative effect on consciousness and a view in which the effect is non-determinative and mediated by a libertarian will.  Since you assume the latter, you are unable to see that the former equally as well explains the matter without recourse to a libertarian free will.  If I might opine on my personal view, consciousness to me serves as a scale upon which are weighed potential and actual unpleasant feelings and it reacts to effect a minimization of unpleasantness among them all.  It is not initiative in any real sense as it is purely reactive:  anxieties create the stimulus, the physician's hammer in the kneejerk reflex, and consciousness launches reactive processes aimed at handling the anxiety.

(September 11, 2026 at 12:02 am)Jal Wrote: You say of hunger that the "desire is a part of my willing process and causes me, to initiate actions consistent with that desire." Please be careful how you use that word "initiate." In cause-effect determinisim, you CANNOT initiate anything. You're just a midstream domino. (Not to mention the unfathomability of innately unconscious particles becoming self-aware and hungry). Even if you feel desire/hunger, that's just a subjective feeling, it doesn't move your body, it doesn't take you to the grocery store.   Bear in mind that I can feel hungry and fast for a week. I'm in control. Tell me, in which of your physiology classes did they teach that cause-effect isn't needed to move the body? That arms can move without ATP due to self-locomotion driven by desire?

The word initiate has multiple senses.  I believe that I used it correctly, but I will aim to be clearer in future for my reading comprehension challenged friends.  You claim here that the feeling of hunger has no motive power but once again you have provided no support for your claim.  According to Hitchens' razor, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.  Thus I dismiss your claim.  You have a habit of introducing things as bare assertions rather than claims supported with evidence.  It makes the bulk of your bloviating not worth the time it takes to respond.  In the case of fasting, the hunger as a motive force is overrriden by a more compelling alternate process or stimulus.

(September 11, 2026 at 12:02 am)Jal Wrote: In other words, you're in essence trying to surreptitiously add MY metaphysics as an auxilliarly addition to science's cause-effect determinism because the latter is clearly insufficient - hence the word "insufficient" in the title of this thread. In MY metaphysics, desire really CAN move the body,  more precisely the body moves itself (self-locomotes). That's why I should be punished for assault if I punch someone in the face. Were it just domino cause-effect, no one should blame me for the punch. Subjectively I realize that I myself (i.e. my free will)  am probably the one to blame for that violence.

I have done no such thing as noted.  Your lack of skill with the English language has led you to think otherwise.  That is not my problem.

As to the puncher, an analogy I have heard is of glass vessels in a factory.  Regardless of the cause, we should remove defective glass from any products we intend to ship.

(September 11, 2026 at 12:02 am)Jal Wrote: whatever it wants. Clearly a deterministic domino-universe is not in control - the cat itself is in control.

Your remark here seems to have been cut off.  Did you have something to say?

(September 11, 2026 at 12:02 am)Jal Wrote: Even on a conscious level, it would take a mathematical genious to do x-y-z calculations properly. When I do math, I REALLY have to concentrate as hard as I can. I have to function at the very zenith of conscious acuity.  You're trying to tell me that the brain of every mamamal, subconsciously, is performing calculations too challenging even at full acuity? Even animal motility functions this way?  You know that sounds preposterous, right?

I mean, how far will you science-minded people go in order to insist on a cause-effect deterministic metaphysics? Unto the deepest recesses of absurdity?

Different computational devices use different processes to arrive at their conclusions.  Thus, a computer is able to perform thousands of calculations in a fraction of a second, whereas my doing them similarly through conscious reasoning would take years.  Your implied assumption that your conscious mind accomplishes the task with the same efficiency that a subconscious process would is both not supported and contrary to the evidence from empirical reality.  That you think this is absurd simply suggests you suck at reasoning, employing assumptions that are nowhere justified because you're too stupid to adopt reasonable assumptions.

(September 11, 2026 at 12:02 am)Jal Wrote: It's not like have a million options here, if a piece of matter moves without being pushed>
(A) It happened randomly/ arbitrarily/ chaotically, no rhyme or reason for that particular direction and destination.
(B) It is self-locomotion by free will.

This was already addressed in post #714, underscoring once again how you are not actually listening to the replies to your claims and queries but simply ham-fistedly hammering out repetitive nonsense that fails to account for any objections because you aren't debating as an open-minded and good-faith opponent, but rather as a blowhard who thinks that sheer repetition shall carry some weight.  It doesn't, and you have once again demonstrated your true character as a dogmatic twat.  Even if this had not already been shown to be wrong, the postulation of only the two options without support is an obvious misapplication of the law of the excluded middle as without deductive proof of the case, unknown options cannot be reconciled except by a fallacious argument from ignorance.  I am reasonably familiar with the standard arguments which typically prop up such assertions, and unless you have something new and unheard of in the last several millennia of theological argument, I suggest you not waste your breath repeating stale and long since debunked bollocks.

(September 11, 2026 at 12:02 am)Jal Wrote: (A) All reality is fully chaotic, all motility is purely chaotic, and everyone just spasms randomly.
(B) We typically exert some control, unless our nervous system is damaged, we freely chose our behavior.

I see no support for your position in this latest post other than to repeat your previously attested assertive posturing, so if you hoped to clarify your prior argument with further elaboration as you suggested you were going to do, you have failed.  Simply repeating yourself is neither clarification nor elaboration.  Try presenting actual arguments and evidence.  You might surprise yourself.  I know it would surprise me.

You keep insisting that the burden of proof is on me to suggest that we navigate by free will. 
That's like arguing:  "No such thing as humor. The burden of proof is on anyone who postulates it."
The obvious problem with this shifting  of the burden of proof is that humor seems to be a fact of our experience.
The same with free will. All day long I face choices. I consider them, reflect on them, and make a decision.
Are my resolutions predetermined? Possibly. But given my experience, I don't think the burden of proof falls on me.

Secondly, I am not sure you're focusing on the crux of the debate. Again, the question is whether self-locomotion is possible without a domino effect. Which of your science professors is currently affirming that a piece of matter can suddenly just up and move - self-locomote - merely because it WANTS to? With no  mechanical energy and no push? Again, sounds like you're trying to add my intimations as an auxiliary addition to science, confirming the word "Insufficient" in the title of this thread.

Quote:Different computational devices use different processes to arrive at their conclusions.  Thus, a computer is able to perform thousands of calculations in a fraction of a second, whereas my doing them similarly through conscious reasoning would take years.  Your implied assumption that your conscious mind accomplishes the task with the same efficiency that a subconscious process would is both not supported and contrary to the evidence from empirical reality.  That you think this is absurd simply suggests you suck at reasoning, employing assumptions that are nowhere justified because you're too stupid to adopt reasonable assumptions.

My subconscious mind isn't calculating X,Y, Z coordinates unbeknownst to me. Stop fantasizing.

Do you think it's absurd that your mind is doing calculations because you don't think that's how control works..or because you're pretty sure it's your soul doing them?

(September 13, 2026 at 11:49 am)Angrboda Wrote:

(September 13, 2026 at 11:32 am)Jal Wrote: Look, I live in a mechanical body built from inanimate matter called food. 
Technically, therefore, I should just be an inanimate machine. Again, a domino that is not in control of its own navigation. 

But in fact I am an animate body, which is consistent with a soul-infused body. 
Where did I get this physical soul? And why cannot it simply detach itself from my body by self-locomotion?

My theory: I opine that God infuses a soul into the body and confines it there (Gen 2:7). 

Seems to me He is deeply involved with His creatures and, as such, likely the unseen agent of speciation as well. Just my opinion. 

I'm sorry no one on this thread wants to hear  that opinion. But to prematurely rule out that possibility strikes me as a bit presumptuous.

Once again shifting the burden of proof.  Even if the distribution of the burden is not wholly toward the proponent, they still bear the lion's share of the burden.  It is not our job to disprove that which has yet to be proved.

I wasn't shifting the burden of proof. I wasn't asking for proof. I was simply talking about remaining open-minded to possibilities.  A fully closed mind is not objectivity. It's bias.

You must mean open souled. Our minds are just dominoes. They're not doing anything we don't know about - remember?

(September 13, 2026 at 11:58 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Do you think it's absurd that your mind is doing calculations because you don't think that's how control works..or because you're pretty sure it's your soul doing them?

Calculations too complex to be done at a conscious level, when exercising full mental concentration, are probably not happening subconsciously.

It's amazing how often atheists will postulate a bizarre claim that takes more faith to believe it than religion.

Machines do it all the time..and they're not conscious or ensouled, are they? Coordinate calculations are the basis of model control systems. They're simpler than you think...but people are notoriously bad at doing them consciously - even though we appear to be pretty good at doing them "subconsciously" - walking is just falling forward with a purpose. Do you think about every step?

(September 13, 2026 at 12:06 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Machines do it all the time..and they're not conscious or ensouled, are they?

No, actually they don't. You're mixing apples and oranges.

Machines don't consciously navigate and calculate. A computer is just passive wires carrying current, arranged strategically to output desired predeterminate outcomes. The computer is not in control. In essence, a computer isn't really DOING anything and, moreover, there is consistency in the process.

Conscious activity is very different. When I walk to the grocery store, there is no predefined path. All the roads familiar to me might currently be blocked with Detour signs. And a rocky road might call for picking up my feet in completely unpredictable angles and distances. There is no consistency. I must consciously control the navigation. The question is how we accomplish it. Merleau Ponty was sufficiently erudite about human motility to credibly argue, "Cleary we are not calculating X-Y-Z coordinates". Our own experience confirms:
(1) We are controlling the navigation consciously.
(2) But we are NOT navigating by calculations.

Quote:That was my point.  Do you think about every step?

Exactly Merleau Ponty's point.

(September 13, 2026 at 12:27 pm)Jal Wrote:

(September 13, 2026 at 12:06 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Machines do it all the time..and they're not conscious or ensouled, are they?

No, actually they don't. You're mixing apples and oranges.

Machines don't consciously navigate and calculate.  A computer is just passive wires carrying current, arranged strategically to output desired predeterminate outcomes. The computer is not in control.  In essence, a computer isn't really DOING anything and, moreover, there is consistency in the process.

Conscious activity is very different.  When I walk to the grocery store, there is no predefined path. All the roads familiar to me might currently be blocked with Detour signs. And a rocky road might call for picking up my feet in completely unpredictable angles and distances. There is no consistency. I must consciously control the navigation. The question is how we accomplish it. Merleau Ponty was sufficiently erudite about human motility to credibly argue, "Cleary we are not calculating X-Y-Z coordinates". Our own experience confirms:
(1) We are controlling the navigation consciously.
(2) But we are NOT navigating by calculations.

Quote:That was my point.  Do you think about every step?

Exactly Merleau Ponty's point.

And yet there is sufficient evidence to conclude that Attila the Hun preferred mutton to any other meat.

Boru