Consciousness and free will.

[RG1]

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.

Leo, you, like many others, miss Raw_Thought’s simple succinct point. Your blind allegiance to “science” as the ‘answer-to-all’, causes you to overlook the very ‘logic’ that gives science its credence. In regards to Raw_Thought’s point, "science" has absolutely NO relevance here, as this is simply a LOGIC problem, (…not a SCIENCE problem!)

If something is not logically possible, then ALL the "science" in the world (and in the "vast ocean”) cannot make it possible, …true?

So if one cannot ‘know’ what one thinks until ‘after’ one thinks it, then it is NOT LOGICALLY POSSIBLE for one to ‘know’ what one thinks ‘before’ one thinks it. This is just simple logic, …and all the wishing and hoping (and science!) cannot change or undo this logical truth.

Raw_Thought is correct, …if free-will relies on our ability to 'knowingly' (consciously) construct those thoughts that determine our choices, then free-will is not logically possible. And since "science" cannot make the impossible, possible, then we must either accept it as such, and deal with it, or keep believing in impossible things. It’s your choice! (…but not really ).

[SpheresOfBalance]

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.

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?

There I made it RED and LARGE so you can't miss it. It tears your assumptions to shreds!

P.S. Here, let be phrase what you should be saying, in order to be in alignment with philosophies aim, from your perspective. Above I actually said it kinda from my perspective:

"In terms of consciousness and thoughts, If what I 'believe' everybody 'seems' to mean is 'actually' what they mean, then it seems logically impossible. I say this because if any part of what I believe them to mean is not what they actually mean then I'm as incorrect as they are. In other words, It's probably a falsehood for me to say something is wrong with a theory, as to the absolute truth of any particular subject, when I'm incapable of knowing the absolute truth of that subject, as then we're 'all' just theorizing."

At least that's what you should be saying, if you want to be considered philosophically sound in your approach.

[raw_thought]

Obviously I am more familiar with the neurology of consciousness than Obvious Leo. *
“In response to confusion over the book's theme, Hofstadter has emphasized that GEB is not about mathematics, art, and music but rather about how cognition and thinking emerge from well-hidden neurological mechanisms.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del,_Escher,_Bach
In other words the brain creates conscious thoughts. Consciousness does not cause thoughts. In other words consciousness cannot determine what you think.
However, such empirical validation is unnecessary. Both 1 and 2 below are obviously true,
1. Cause always precedes effect.
2. One cannot be conscious of a thought before one thinks it.
It is also obviously true that from 1 and 2, 3 follows.
3. Therefore, it is impossible for consciousness to cause thoughts.

* I can include many other quotes and many from journals and papers from academic neurology. However, I thought that it was rather obvious that conventional neurology concentrates on how the brain creates our thoughts and not on how consciousness (psychology) creates thoughts. Most neurologists even dismiss psychological factors as causal. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/folkpsych-theory/ For example, they claim that words such as “love”, “desire” “pain” etc are misnomers. They do not have any existence and therefore no causal properties. Only brain states exist.
Anyway, it is obvious that if physicalism is true, there is no free will. Physical objects obey physical laws (cause and effect etc) .
That seems obvious to me and almost everyone. Unfortunately, it is not obvious to Spheres and Obvious Leo. Or perhaps they did not understand my argument and did not know what they were objecting to.

[raw_thought]

“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
I already answered that. Of course one can make claims about an entire system without knowing everything about that system. For example, I am certain that there are no square circles at the molecular level, even tho my chemistry knowledge is inadequate. If I see a glass of goo, I can safely assume that there are no square circles in it, even if I do not know what that substance is.

[Briancrc]

Also, there are many examples of working models that haven't answered all questions. Unanswered questions do not negate the model. A model is revised or dropped when contradictory evidence is discovered.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Obviously I am more familiar with the neurology of consciousness than Obvious Leo. *
“In response to confusion over the book's theme, Hofstadter has emphasized that GEB is not about mathematics, art, and music but rather about how cognition and thinking emerge from well-hidden neurological mechanisms.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del,_Escher,_Bach
In other words the brain creates conscious thoughts. Consciousness does not cause thoughts. In other words consciousness cannot determine what you think.
However, such empirical validation is unnecessary.
First 1979, are you kidding me? Today scientists attest to the fact that we still don't understand the human mind.
So here's something more current, possibly (2014):

"...but right now we know too little to build public policy or advice on brain findings."
and
"In contrast to neuroscience, cognitive science and developmental science are more mature, making enormous contributions to knowledge in the last 50 years. Much policy and advice can be based on that research, but neuroscience is too young to provide such specific guidance."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... k/how.html

AND (2013) (take note of number 1)

"8 Things We Simply Don't Understand About the Human Brain"
"1. What is consciousness?"
"2. How much of our personality is determined by our brain?"
"3. Why do we sleep and dream?"
"4. How do we store and access memories?"
"5. Are all aspects of cognition computational?"
"6. How does perception work?"
"7. Do we have free will?"
"8. How can we move and react so well?"
http://io9.com/8-things-we-simply-dont- ... -949442979

So anything you, raw thought, posits, as if definitive, is total BS. Man up and admit that you're just spitting into the wind! Or are you the only man alive that knows? Yeah Right!

Second, There is no "empirical" evidence when it comes to the subject of consciousness:

"empirical [em-pir-i-kuh l]

adjective
1. derived from or guided by experience or experiment.
2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, especially as in medicine.
3. provable or verifiable by experience or experiment."
--dictionary.reference.com--

Grow up, son! Try and be a man!



Both 1 and 2 below are obviously true,
1. Cause always precedes effect.
2. One cannot be conscious of a thought before one thinks it.
It is also obviously true that from 1 and 2, 3 follows.
3. Therefore, it is impossible for consciousness to cause thoughts.

* I can include many other quotes and many from journals and papers from academic neurology. However, I thought that it was rather obvious that conventional neurology concentrates on how the brain creates our thoughts and not on how consciousness (psychology) creates thoughts. Most neurologists even dismiss psychological factors as causal. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/folkpsych-theory/ For example, they claim that words such as “love”, “desire” “pain” etc are misnomers. They do not have any existence and therefore no causal properties. Only brain states exist.
Anyway, it is obvious that if physicalism is true, there is no free will. Physical objects obey physical laws (cause and effect etc) .
That seems obvious to me and almost everyone. Unfortunately, it is not obvious to Spheres and Obvious Leo. Or perhaps they did not understand my argument and did not know what they were objecting to.

[RG1]

Spheres, you are forgetting that science is IRRELEVANT here.

Raw_thought is making the claim that free-will is not LOGICALLY possible. That being said, then 'science/neuroscience' has no bearing, nor relevance --- for all the science in the world CANNOT make the logically (mathematically) impossible, suddenly possible (i.e. a square circle cannot suddenly become a true thing), ...agree?

LOGIC is our innate means of 'making sense'. Without LOGIC, then NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING, makes sense. We could not have discussions without it. Communication would be non-sensical. So, if something is 'not-logically-possible', then 'NO AMOUNT' of science cannot overturn this fact. So, arguing this OP from a 'science' perspective is futile/moot at best.

I happen to agree with Raw_thought. Free-will is not logically possible. It is an ugly truth of life that many of us are psychologically unable to accept. But if one wishes to dispute his logical claim, then one must use logic (...not 'science') to do so.

[henry quirk]

Impeccable logic, and impeccable conclusions extending out from that logic, don't mean jack if the premise is wrong.

Logically, bees can't fly...

[RG1]

Impeccable logic, and impeccable conclusions extending out from that logic...

...why thank you Henry, you are so kind!

...don't mean jack if the premise is wrong.

Agreed. ...so good thing the premise is true! (...hint: you will need more than a "proclamation" to prove it wrong!)

Logically, bees can't fly...

...huh? ...how so?

[henry quirk]

"you will need more than a "proclamation" to prove it wrong!"

Ah, but I have the best evidence there is (you have that evidence too, but -- for some reason -- you deny it).

Every time you pause, consider, then choose, you do sumthin' other than 'auto-react'.

You know this is the case.

Again, you deny it (obviously being a non-responsible bio-robot is some folks cuppa tea)...as you like.

#

"...why thank you Henry, you are so kind!"

HA!

In our previous discussion on this subject I said the same thing. I've never faulted your logic, only your starting point.

#

"huh? ...how so?"

You can google this, if you like: the structure of the bee is such that it was determined, logically, that it cannot fly. Obviously, the bee does fly and quite well, so while the logic was on the spot, the conclusion was wrong. Why? Cuz, the premise was wrong.

Just like yours.

[RG1]

Free-will is not logically possible. It is an ugly truth of life that many of us are psychologically unable to accept.

Henry, are you psychologically unable to accept an ugly truth? YES or NO?

[henry quirk]

I accept and live with ugly facts and truth all the time, about myself, about other folks, about the world.

My turn: why is it so important for you to 'be' nuthin' but bio-automation?

Did you do sumthin' (or, was sumthin' done to you) that drives you to absolve yourself (or the other)?

'I'm just a robot so it's not my fault.' 'He or she is just a robot so what he or she did to me is not their fault.'

[SpheresOfBalance]

Spheres, you are forgetting that science is IRRELEVANT here.
Certainly a strawman!

Raw_thought is making the claim that free-will is not LOGICALLY possible. That being said, then 'science/neuroscience' has no bearing, nor relevance --- for all the science in the world CANNOT make the logically (mathematically) impossible, suddenly possible (i.e. a square circle cannot suddenly become a true thing), ...agree?
Again a strawman. If science cannot 'know' what either "consciousness," thought or "free will" is, then most probably neither can RT. Of course I'm sure that most of us would like to believe we can. Thus as such there can be no logical precedent, as premises cannot be created about an unknown. Answer the questions. What is consciousness? What is thought? What is free will. No one necessarily 'knows,' so no logic can be applied.

What RT does is take one of many possible 'beliefs' of what they both are, of course they oppose one another, or else he could not use premises to formulate his conclusion that their connection is illogical.

Basically he's saying, if Yunthe, and Quatre, then Zimunive! Viola it's illogical. Because values for those three words have never been realized, and RT supplies his best guess as to what they are, actually he takes the common belief of the day, not his at all, and then applies his imaginary premises to unknown things, so as to find them illogical. You, like RT have taken the 'belief' of the day purely on 'faith,' finding said 'belief' illogical, and while that may be so, as they are currently defined, it speaks to nothing of what consciousness, thinking, or free will actually are.

If nothing else he's wasting his time, arguing that unknowns are necessarily illogical, which is illogical!

You see I hate that some novices go the distance, actually being so bold as to say definitive things about as yet unknowns. I believe they do this solely so they can believe they are right about something, that mankind has somehow missed, after all, if they take on a subject that is currently unknowable, how could anyone say they are wrong, thus assuring their belief that they could be right. It's a very common way for some to find their worth when deep down they believe they have none. But in fact everyone has worth, in said positing solutions to the currently unfathomable, they have just got to learn to leave room for others, by not speaking as if their particular solution is necessarily definitive, instead making it very clear that theirs is one of only many possible solutions. That's my beef! Not that he is necessarily wrong, just that he cannot say that he is necessarily correct.


LOGIC is our innate means of 'making sense'. Without LOGIC, then NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING, makes sense. We could not have discussions without it. Communication would be non-sensical. So, if something is 'not-logically-possible', then 'NO AMOUNT' of science cannot overturn this fact. So, arguing this OP from a 'science' perspective is futile/moot at best.
As if I don't understand this, which shows that in fact you don't understand my point, at all.

I happen to agree with Raw_thought. Free-will is not logically possible.
Yes! But only as you 'believe' you 'know' it. Which doesn't necessarily speak of any necessary truth. Scientists don't know it, so you most probably can't know it, or you'd suddenly be heralded as a genius of such a scientific breakthrough.

It is an ugly truth of life that many of us are psychologically unable to accept. But if one wishes to dispute his logical claim, then one must use logic (...not 'science') to do so.
It's also a truth that in life not all are capable of seeing things as deeply as others, because we are all at different stages in our learning. some things you, I and RT shall never know, and they shall not necessarily be the same things. As a matter of fact a great many of them probably won't be. The current human mind is extremely micro relative to the extremely macro universe of knowledge.

[RG1]

I accept and live with ugly facts and truth all the time, about myself, about other folks, about the world.

My turn: why is it so important for you to 'be' nuthin' but bio-automation?

Did you do sumthin' (or, was sumthin' done to you) that drives you to absolve yourself (or the other)?

'I'm just a robot so it's not my fault.' 'He or she is just a robot so what he or she did to me is not their fault.'

‘TRUTH’ is what is “important” to me. Good, Bad, or Ugly. Whatever it may be. I don’t ‘bias/judge’ my truth by its prettiness or ugliness. It just is what it is.

Henry, it boils down to this --- If our desire for 'truth' is greater than our desire for 'feel-goodness', then we will ‘recognize’ and accept ‘free-will’ as the myth that it is, …otherwise we won't!

If logic says that free-will is not possible, then so be it! Deal with it and move on. Stop crying about it and trying to spin a ‘happy-ending’ out of it.

Look, I have no need, nor desire, to play your games. I am much too old for that. With my last few days on this earth, I just to want to know the ‘REAL’ stinking truth, …good, bad, or ugly. No time to play these ‘feel-good’ games. If something is not logically possible, then it is not logically possible. Period.

If you think Raw_Thought or myself has made an error in logic, then please show the error, instead of just crying about the ugly conclusion.

[henry quirk]

Bumblebees.

'nuff said.