Consciousness and free will.

[Obvious Leo]

Merriam-Webster is NOT the appropriate dictionary for a definition of consciousness. Nowhere in the appropriate sciences which deal with such questions are consciousness and awareness regarded as synonymous constructs.

[raw_thought]

No.
I am saying that cognition is a physical process. Perhaps a analogy will help.
The hardware in a computer does all the calculating. The image on the screen has no power to calculate. Similarly, consciousness has no power to calculate or decide what to think.
It is ironic that you mention cognitive neuroscience. They ignore consciousness. That is a topic for philosophy ( qualia).

[raw_thought]

Merriam-Webster is NOT the appropriate dictionary for a definition of consciousness. Nowhere in the appropriate sciences which deal with such questions are consciousness and awareness regarded as synonymous constructs.

PLEASE!!! No more semantic silliness that has NOTHING to do with the debate.
So how was Webster's definition inaccurate?
Also I said IN THE CONTEXT OF OUR DEBATE they are interchangeable. PLEASE read a post before commenting on it!

[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.

Specifically, show how my argument was invalid or that premise 1 and/or 2 are not true!

[Obvious Leo]

I am saying that cognition is a physical process

Exactly. Cognition is a physical PROCESS and in ALL physical processes, excluding NONE, causation operates both top-down and bottom-up between different hierarchies of informational complexity. This is not an abstruse point open to debate but an inviolable physical FACT.

[raw_thought]

And what does that have to do with anything????
Show me what premise you disagree with, or how 3 does not follow from 1 and 2.

[raw_thought]

I am talking about CONSCIOUSNESS! Perhaps ( and most likely) the brain causes consciousness but that does not mean that consciousness equals the brain.

[raw_thought]

But anyway, simply show what premise (1 or 2 ) is wrong. Or show how 3 does not follow from 1 and 2.

[raw_thought]

If the brain is the only thing that exists and since the brain is physical and since everything physical must obey cause and effect, then it follows that there is no free will.
The only way for there to be free will is if consciousness determines our thoughts * . However, it cannot. Unless, it is not physical.In other words it must transcend cause and effect ( and therefore time) . I prefer to bite the bullet and just admit that free will is an illusion. But I do recognize the only other option, that consciousness is supernatural. I just don't accept it!
*
It makes no sense to talk of free will unconscious choices.

[Obvious Leo]

A little learning is a dangerous thing ;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring :
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.
Fired at first sight with what the Muse imparts,
In fearless youth we tempt the heights of Arts ;
While from the bounded level of our mind
Short views we take, nor see the lengths behind,
But, more advanced, behold with strange surprise
New distant scenes of endless science rise !
So pleased at first the towering Alps we try,
Mount o’er the vales, and seem to tread the sky ;
The eternal snows appear already past,
And the first clouds and mountains seem the last ;
But those attained, we tremble to survey
The growing labours of the lengthened way ;
The increasing prospect tires our wandering eyes,
Hill peep o’er hills, and Alps on Alps arise !

Alexander Pope.

It makes no sense to talk of free will unconscious choices.

There is a vast ocean of learning which awaits you if you venture into the deep waters of the science of embodied cognition. Come back in ten years time when you have some knowledge of it to contribute to the debate.

[raw_thought]

“…causation operates both top-down and bottom up…”
Obvious leo
Perhaps an analogy will help. The image on your computer screen is the top level. Suppose it is attached to a monitor that “recognizes” the color blue. When the screen turns blue it sends a command to the computer hardware that makes the screen turn red.
True, the color blue on the screen facilitates the screen becoming red. However, the blue image on the screen was completely determined by the computer hardware (bottom level). I do not see how that is an example of free will.
RG1 explained it this way,

One should be capable of evaluating past events and also thought(s) (events) in order to determine (the best) future events...

Necromancer, you are committing a logical error, an impossible infinite regress (i.e. a vicious loop).

How does one “evaluate" in order to determine? 1. Does it take thoughts to do so? 2. If so, then does one ‘choose’ (i.e. evaluate/determine) these thoughts? 3. If so, then does it take thoughts to do this choosing? 4. If so, then does one choose these thoughts too? 5. If so, then go back to question 1, repeat this loop infinitely. …round and round we go, where we stop, nobody knows.

We can't choose/evaluate/determine our way out of this. Nor can we (logically) claim "I choose, therefore I choose." --- this is simply a meaningless proclamation that proves nothing.

Raw_Thought is correct --- It is not logically possible to choose/construct/create/select our own thoughts. We are left with only the ability to ‘experience’ them (…not create them).

One cannot ‘know’ what one thinks until one has thunk it!

It is true that the definition of “consciousness” is different in different contexts. I am using “consciousness” in its common sense and dictionary sense. I am not using it in Dennett’s sense where an on light switch is conscious that the light is on. I agree with the majority of academically validated philosophers that Dennett’s “Consciousness explained” would be more accurately titled, “consciousness denied.” I am using the definition of “consciousness” favored by Searle, Chalmers, Nagel…and the majority of academically validated philosophers.

[raw_thought]

“…causation operates both top-down and bottom up…”
Obvious leo
However, that does not mean that effects can precede causes.

[raw_thought]

Leo,
So that is all you got???
insults??
I suggest that you read more philosophy of mind etc. Then you will be able to understand Searle's argument etc.
Posting irrelevant insults, only shows a lack of character and a lack of reasoning ability.
Simply, show that premise 1 and/or 2 are false and /or show that 3 doesn't follow from 1 and 2. But you cannot.
Perhaps you should take a logic class as well!
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.
Instead of wasting time with baseless ad hominums ( http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... minem.html ), simply refute my argument!

[raw_thought]

“It makes no sense to talk of free will unconscious choices.”
ME
“There is a vast ocean of learning which awaits you if you venture into the deep waters of the science of embodied cognition. Come back in ten years time when you have some knowledge of it to contribute to the debate”
Obvious Leo
Hmm so you reject philosophy as rubbish and that only science is real!
Seems like that contradicts your whole way of looking at the world.
It is obvious that if I perform an act unconsciously, I am not responsible for it.*

* With the obvious exception that if I get drunk ( a conscious decision) become unconscious while driving and kill a person, I am responsible for killing that person.

[raw_thought]

I suppose that Alexander Pope quote was to show how smart you are. So smart in fact that you don't have to say anything relevant!
I understand. Since you had no argument or facts you felt stupid and so had to post something.
I suppose it was also a way to scream " you are a poopy head" without looking childish.