Consciousness and free will.

[raw_thought]

Ummm
I presented arguments.
You only present childish insults.

[raw_thought]

Spheres who knows nothing about me,has made the argument that because I believe that one cannot be conscious of a thought before one thinks it, that means that I am not taking responsibility for my life.
Everyone can see how stupid that argument is and irrelevant to the fact that one cannot be conscious of a thought before one thinks it.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Spheres who knows nothing about me,has made the argument that because I believe that one cannot be conscious of a thought before one thinks it, that means that I am not taking responsibility for my life.
Everyone can see how stupid that argument is and irrelevant to the fact that one cannot be conscious of a thought before one thinks it.

You are acting like a showboat as you have avoided my earlier comment of substance, so as to follow this less than adult way of proceeding. Is that what you hope to get away with?

[Obvious Leo]

Spheres who knows nothing about me,has made the argument that because I believe that one cannot be conscious of a thought before one thinks it, that means that I am not taking responsibility for my life.
Everyone can see how stupid that argument is and irrelevant to the fact that one cannot be conscious of a thought before one thinks it.

It doesn't help that you're conflating two different things because consciousness and awareness are not the same thing. You can't be AWARE of a thought before you've thought it for the simple reason that it is AWARENESS which describes the self-observation of a particular brain state. You can't observe something until after it's actually happened so this has nothing to do with free will.

[raw_thought]

Note that I called your argument stupid (not you). And then proved that it was stupid.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Ummm
I presented arguments.
You only present childish insults.

I suggest you take a psychology course when you grow up and can attend university.

[raw_thought]

Sure if you prefer,
One cannot be conscious of a thought before one thinks it.
Your strategy of confusing the issue with semantics did not work.

[raw_thought]

Ummm
I presented arguments.
You only present childish insults.

I suggest you take a psychology course when you grow up and can attend university.

More ad hominums. As I said, it does not matter if I understand psychology or not. It is logically impossible to be conscious of a thought before one thinks it.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Not at all, this is what you avoided on a page earlier. Address it or you loose!

All I am saying is that it is logically impossible for consciousness to create thoughts because no one can be conscious of a thought before one thinks it. I am making no claims as to how the brain works. How the brain performs calculations is not part of this debate.

If you cannot know the actual complete facts of the matter, concerning how the human mind works, how then can you be certain that any particular portion of how it works, that you believe is the case, is certainly the case. In other words you can't necessarily understand consciousness or thoughts, so how could you possibly say for certain how they fit together, logically.

What you mean to say, to my way of thinking, so as to actually be in line with philosophy, is that: If what you believe about the mind in terms or consciousness and thoughts are actually the case, then it's logically impossible. For one to say anything other than that, is taking a leap of faith, purely conjecture, god, anyone?

[raw_thought]

Similarly, I know that one cannot be conscious of a thought before one thinks it and therefore consciousness cannot determine what we think.
Just as I know (without actually seeing molecules) that 2 molecules plus 2 molecules equals 4 molecules, I know that consciousness (without seeing into the mind or brain) cannot determine what we think.

[raw_thought]

Similarly, I know that at the molecular level there are no square circles, even if I know nothing about molecules.

[SpheresOfBalance]

OK then, you admit defeat. Fine with me!

[raw_thought]

Spheres,
“ the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself”
“the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and though”
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consciousness
“ feeling, experiencing, or noticing something (such as a sound, sensation, or emotion)”
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aware
In other words in the context of our debate the terms “awareness” and “consciousness” are interchangeable. Your objection was merely silly semantics.
1. One cannot be conscious of a thought before one thinks it.
2. Causes always precede effects.
3. Therefore, it is impossible for consciousness to cause thoughts.
There are only two ways to defeat that syllogism. Prove that premise 1 and/or 2 are false or that the argument is invalid ( that 3 doesn’t follow from 1 and 2) .If you cannot show that premises 1 and/or 2 are false and /or that the argument is invalid then 3 must be true.
You claim, with your typical name calling ad hominum style, that I know nothing about psychology. First, you don’t know me and second, one does not have to know anything about psychology to know that consciousness cannot cause thoughts. It is logically impossible for consciousness to cause thoughts as proven in the above syllogism.
Similarly, one does not have to know anything about chemistry to know that at the molecular level there are no square circles. Square circles are logically impossible as is consciousness causing thoughts.

[raw_thought]

OK then, you admit defeat. Fine with me!

?????
Do you have any critical thinking skills???? I answered your question!
"If you cannot know the actual complete facts of the matter, concerning how the human mind works, how then can you be certain that any particular portion of how it works..."
Spheres
One does not have to know anything about psychology to know that consciousness cannot cause thoughts. It is logically impossible for consciousness to cause thoughts as proven in the above syllogism.
Similarly, one does not have to know anything about chemistry to know that at the molecular level there are no square circles. Square circles are logically impossible as is consciousness causing thoughts.

[Obvious Leo]

consciousness cannot cause thoughts.

So do you dismiss all of cognitive neuroscience as bullshit?