Consciousness and free will.

[RG1]

If it is ‘not-logically-possible’ for an “observer” (an experiencer) to “cause” an experience, then all the "science" in the world cannot make it so.

Well, that's a big IF...

Yes, I agree, this is a big (and ugly!) IF.

Questions:
1. Do you agree that science cannot overturn or make the 'logically-impossible', possible? Y/N

2. Now to the "ugly" part. Can you experience something other than an experience? Y/N

(...more questions to follow after we resolve these two points/questions)

[henry quirk]

1. Do you agree that science cannot overturn or make the 'logically-impossible', possible? Y/N

No. And logic, no matter how impeccable, cannot overturn a faulty premise. That is: if you begin with an error (in thinking) your conclusions will be wrong (no matter how sound your logic).

#

2. Now to the "ugly" part. Can you experience something other than an experience? Y/N

The better question: why do you assume that 'you' (or me or him or her) stand apart from the experience (experiencing)? That is: why do you believe that you are anything other than the experience (experiencing)? You insist the human individual is a receiver (passive, a vessel); I insist the human individual is an apprehender (active, directing and self-directing). I believe (as I hint at up-thread) you've been hoodwinked by the language (you're fixated on placeholders rather than the phenomenon the placeholders stand for).

[Wyman]

If it is ‘not-logically-possible’ for an “observer” (an experiencer) to “cause” an experience, then all the "science" in the world cannot make it so.

Well, that's a big IF...

Yes, I agree, this is a big (and ugly!) IF.

Questions:
1. Do you agree that science cannot overturn or make the 'logically-impossible', possible? Y/N

2. Now to the "ugly" part. Can you experience something other than an experience? Y/N

(...more questions to follow after we resolve these two points/questions)

Answer A:

1)Those are good questions. At the risk of sounding argumentative, I think you have to clarify what you mean by 'logically possible.' I have been reading a book on quantum mechanics and there are real, legitimate reasons to explore non-traditional logical systems to model at least certain aspects of physics.

2)As to the second question, I frame it as: can you justify making a baseline division(categorization, distinction, delineation, conceptualization) in what we call 'experience' that separates 'experience' into separate ontological categories and survives a skeptical analysis.

Answer B:

1) I think of logic as a set (a property of) of formal systems designed to model things. What is common among formal systems is not clear and is certainly not an easy question to answer. Some systems are consistent, some not. Some are complete, some not. They may have different deductive rules and semantic rules. For instance, material implication has always been the subject of criticism, leading to the development of 'relevance' logic.

I think what you are getting at is the idea of 'necessity' which the subject matter of a great deal of debate revolving around 'modal' logic which tries to capture that concept. Liebnitz framed necessity as 'true in all possible worlds' and that concept is used in the semantics of modal logic developed by Kripke. Personally, I am skeptical that modal logic has any use or relevance to questions of truth and necessity.

2) No.

[Wyman]

1. Do you agree that science cannot overturn or make the 'logically-impossible', possible? Y/N

No. And logic, no matter how impeccable, cannot overturn a faulty premise. That is: if you begin with an error (in thinking) your conclusions will be wrong (no matter how sound your logic).

#

2. Now to the "ugly" part. Can you experience something other than an experience? Y/N

The better question: why do you assume that 'you' (or me or him or her) stand apart from the experience (experiencing)? That is: why do you believe that you are anything other than the experience (experiencing)? You insist the human individual is a receiver (passive, a vessel); I insist the human individual is an apprehender (active, directing and self-directing). I believe (as I hint at up-thread) you've been hoodwinked by the language (you're fixated on placeholders rather than the phenomenon the placeholders stand for).

But doesn't even being an active agent in experience mean that you are separate from (though connected to) experience?

[henry quirk]

Well, it seems to me, events happen 'out there', but the experiencing happens 'inside'. The event, which is independent of me, is apprehended by me, processed by me, experienced by me, is me. 'I' am the point of tension between organic, tangible, process (my flesh) and the world (everything that isn't my flesh). So: 'I' am an on-going process made up of apprehending, comparing, self-reflecting, etc. resulting in prioritizing (self-directing).

'I' am, therefore, the experiencing.

[Wyman]

Well, it seems to me, events happen 'out there', but the experiencing happens 'inside'. The event, which is independent of me, is apprehended by me, processed by me, experienced by me, is me. 'I' am the point of tension between organic, tangible, process (my flesh) and the world (everything that isn't my flesh). So: 'I' am an on-going process made up of apprehending, comparing, self-reflecting, etc. resulting in prioritizing (self-directing).

'I' am, therefore, the experiencing.

I agree, but it requires an assumption of a division between 'outside' and 'inside' which creates the dividing line which is the 'self.'

What if you see your flesh and blood as nothing different than the rest of the outside world? Then that division disappears. The distinction between your body and the outside world is an inference from empirical facts just like any other, logically. It is no more certain than that the sun will rise tomorrow (or one could say 'no less certain'). It is a logical problem that I don't think is solvable, though just about every philosopher has taken a crack at it. I think Nietszche, while criticizing Kant's attempt to break out of that circle, said something like 'You just can't ever take the goggles off.' I think that's about right.

[henry quirk]

"You just can't ever take the goggles off."

I go further and believe I 'am' the goggles. I'm limited by what I am...I apprehend only a fraction of what seems to be outside me (and only a fraction of what seems internal to me) and so have/am a skewed perspective...sure it's all inference but as I seem to move in the world, my perception of self as discrete and apart seems validated by my success at moving in the world (my continued existence) as does my notions of agency (being active and self-directing).

[RG1]

1. Do you agree that science cannot overturn or make the 'logically-impossible', possible? Y/N

No. And logic, no matter how impeccable, cannot overturn a faulty premise. That is: if you begin with an error (in thinking) your conclusions will be wrong (no matter how sound your logic).

Henry, you are avoiding the question. I agree with you that a faulty premise can lead to a faulty conclusion. But that’s not the question. Assume the premises and conclusion are true and valid, then re-answer.

Can you experience something other than an experience? Y/N

The better question: why do you assume that 'you' (or me or him or her) stand apart from the experience (experiencing)? That is: why do you believe that you are anything other than the experience (experiencing)? You insist the human individual is a receiver (passive, a vessel); I insist the human individual is an apprehender (active, directing and self-directing). I believe (as I hint at up-thread) you've been hoodwinked by the language (you're fixated on placeholders rather than the phenomenon the placeholders stand for).

'I' am, therefore, the experiencing.

So, are “you” (/"I") a ‘verb’? What happens when you go to sleep or become unconscious during surgery, do you no longer exist?

I have been reading a book on quantum mechanics and there are real, legitimate reasons to explore non-traditional logical systems to model at least certain aspects of physics.

Be careful. You are using your current logic to tell you that logic may be something different. This is a form of begging the question. In effect, you are using the Bible to tell you a truth about the Bible. The logic we use is innate, and is the 'starting' point for all our reasoning. We can't back up any further.

I am asking, in essence, and regardless of whatever perceived logic system used, when translated to a mathematical representation, the following: If A ≠ B, then is it possible for A = B ? The obvious answer is no, which means, that you agree with my original question.

Can you experience something other than an experience? Y/N

No.

I like this answer best! Most people seem to have difficulty understanding/grasping the all-encompassing futility of experiences. Our only gateway to reality is through ‘experiences’. There is no other means.

It is a logical problem that I don't think is solvable, though just about every philosopher has taken a crack at it. I think Nietszche, while criticizing Kant's attempt to break out of that circle, said something like 'You just can't ever take the goggles off.' I think that's about right.

Bingo! Well said Wyman (and Nietszche)!

[Wyman]

Thank you, it's rare that anyone agrees with me . My ego is somewhat deflated though when I reflect that the only thing you agree with me about is that we cannot solve the problem. I guess as Socrates never tired of pointing out, knowing that you know nothing means you at least know something (i.e. 'that you know nothing').

[henry quirk]

"Henry, you are avoiding the question."

Nope. You asked, Do you agree that science cannot overturn or make the 'logically-impossible', possible? Y/N. I said, No, then ranted about logic, no matter how impeccable, cannot overturn a faulty premise.

#

"Assume the premises and conclusion are true and valid, then re-answer."

Did that...thought it was implied...clearly, if 'mind' works the way you think (as receiver [implying passivity]) then you're right. I think your starting point is wrong, so -- no matter how impeccable your logic -- your conclusion is wrong.

Again: I believe you've slaved yourself to the language ('thoughts' instead of 'thinking' [implying there are things instead of processes in your head]).

#

"So, are “you” (/"I") a ‘verb’?"

Yes, 'action', an on-going process or processes....that is, a brain/body of particular and peculiar complexity embedded in the world with 'I' as the point of active tension between the brain/body and the world. Apprehending the world through the senses, processing (comparing, contrasting, assessing) the world, choosing what to do ('this' or that').

#

"What happens when you go to sleep or become unconscious during surgery, do you no longer exist?"

When I sleep I'm still (t)here...the brain (part of me) is active but turned inward, hence dreaming. Even during surgery, 'I' (the process) exists cuz the brain is still in operation.

An altered state is not negation.

[henry quirk]

I believe you've slaved yourself to the language

I mean no insult by this, by the way.

It's easy to get hijacked by the language.

Take this, for example: a brain/body of particular and peculiar complexity embedded in the world with 'I' as the point of active tension between the brain/body and the world...from this one might think I'm saying 'I' is a thing apart from the brain/body when 'I' is what brain/body 'does' ('I' is the action of brain/body [as walking is the action of legs]).

[RG1]

Take this, for example: a brain/body of particular and peculiar complexity embedded in the world with 'I' as the point of active tension between the brain/body and the world...from this one might think I'm saying 'I' is a thing apart from the brain/body when 'I' is what brain/body 'does' ('I' is the action of brain/body [as walking is the action of legs]).

Apprehending the world through the senses, processing (comparing, contrasting, assessing) the world, choosing what to do ('this' or that').

1. What 'exactly' does this mean --- "particular and peculiar complexity embedded in the world with 'I' as the point of active tension between the brain/body and the world" --- this sounds like "feel-good" mumbo-jumbo/religious/mystical-ness to me. Can you reduce this to some logical understandable statements instead of the feel-good vague concept.

2. How does “action” (this “I”) "apprehend", "compare", "contrast", "assess", and "choose" when it is just an action? Doesn’t this action need ‘thoughts’ to perform these functions? And where do these ‘thoughts’ come from? ...To bake a cake (action) requires ingredients. The recipe (process) would be 'non-existent' without ingredients, right? So does this action require the thoughts from the brain? If so, then without the brain, then there can be no "I" (or no "action"), true?

3. Why is there a need to call the “action”, the “I”? What is significant with "I", if it is just action? Can the action do more than action? If not, then why call it "I"?

4. Does the brain/body dictate or cause the action (the “I”), or are you trying to imply the “action” dictates the “action”?

5. Isn’t it more likely that the brain/body provides the thoughts AND processing actions, and therefore should be the legitimate “I”?

6. If the “I” is an action, then how does the “I” know that this “I” exists? Wouldn’t it need ‘thoughts’ to be able to 'know'?

Henry, YOU ARE DISCARDING LOGIC IN FAVOR OF FANTASY(“feel-goodness”). There are many logical contradictions in your stance.
And sorry Henry, and I don’t mean to sound negative, but this all sounds like ‘feel-good’ religious/spiritual/mystical nonsense to me.

Without 'logic', NOTHING makes sense, and ANYTHING is possible.

[Wyman]

And sorry Henry, and I don’t mean to sound negative, but this all sounds like ‘feel-good’ religious/spiritual/mystical nonsense to me.

Yep. That's Henry for you - feel good, spiritual - a real new age guru!

[henry quirk]

RG1,

1-I'm an animal. By way of my senses I acquire information about my surroundings. I take this information and compare it to what I know (what I've acquired in the past through my senses ), I weigh possibilities (if I do 'this' instead of 'that' I expect X to occur). This on-going, high order, acquiring, comparing, weighing, and concluding is a process, an action. This organic/electrochemical process (because it self-references) is the singular perspective I call 'I'. This process called 'I' is integral to the animal (to me).

Is that less artsy-fartsy for you?


2-See above for your answers (if you care to tease them out).


3-'I' is simply the place holder for the singular perspective, the self-referencing process...call it 'watermelon' for all I care. Again: you’re fixating on the placeholder and not on the phenomenon it stands for.


4-The animal (brain/body) does 'I' or self or mind or watermelon in the same way legs do walking. Walking, as action, as process, is integral to legs.


5-See 1 above.


6-See 1 above, and, there are no thoughts, only thinking.


7-No, you have a faulty premise and have used logic to reach a bad conclusion. I believe you ignore the evidence of your own experience cuz -- for some god-forsaken reason -- you find it preferable to be bio-automation instead of a self-responsible individual. I believe it makes you feel good to divest yourself of self-responsibility and are irked with others who hold themselves (and by, extension ‘you’) responsible. You assert I am in contradiction when in fact you choose to misunderstand my view. I believe you choose to misunderstand simply cuz you wanna be a bio-robot and can't bear that some one else might assert you are more.

#

'Without 'logic', NOTHING makes sense, and ANYTHING is possible.'

Agreed, with the addition of 'garbage in, garbage out'.

##

Wyman,

HA!

[RG1]

I'm an animal. By way of my senses I acquire information about my surroundings. I take this information and compare it to what I know (what I've acquired in the past through my senses ), I weigh possibilities (if I do 'this' instead of 'that' I expect X to occur). This on-going, high order, acquiring, comparing, weighing, and concluding is a process, an action. This organic/electrochemical process (because it self-references) is the singular perspective I call 'I'. This process called 'I' is integral to the animal (to me).

So in essence, are you saying:
1. I do stuff (take, compare, weigh, conclude, etc.).
2. Therefore, this stuff that I do, is called ‘I’

The animal (brain/body) does 'I' or self or mind or watermelon in the same way legs do walking. Walking, as action, as process, is integral to legs.

Why not just say the animal "walks", why do you say animal does 'I'? Are you trying to equivocate (mislead) some special meaning, by using the word "I"?

…there are no thoughts, only thinking.

Can you think without thoughts? If so, then what are you thinking?

Sorry Henry, but your view is logical non-sense to me.