Consciousness and free will.

[SpheresOfBalance]

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!
Unknowable, but rather a method so as to frame things in such as way so as to exclude others, while placing oneself at the top of the heap, a very common illogical ploy. A truly wise man could have framed it in such a way so as to be all inclusive of everyone.

If logic says that free-will is not possible, then so be it!
No, 'your' logic says that your 'version' of free will is not possible. And that's good enough for 'you!' Where I have quite a different model of free will. That is until someone that's actually capable, can iron out all the truths of the matter.

Deal with it and move on. Stop crying about it and trying to spin a ‘happy-ending’ out of it.
As if you are the voice of reason, as if you can necessarily know with certainty. And you are the one crying, me, me, me!

Look, I have no need, nor desire, to play your games. I am much too old for that.
Me too, so frame your diatribe so as to include everyone, if you're capable.

With my last few days on this earth,
I do indeed sympathize with you, as I'm sure HQ does as well.

I just to want to know the ‘REAL’ stinking truth, …good, bad, or ugly.
Me too, Me too! HQ too! All of us want to know!

No time to play these ‘feel-good’ games.
No time for games of winning at another's expense, let's frame our words so as to be all inclusive of all old people, and young, that want to know the truth before they die.

If something is not logically possible, then it is not logically possible. Period.
Absolutely! But first we have to ensure we are talking of the exact same things, understanding that it is wrong to down play another's beliefs on the subject until we've done that.

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.
I already have, yet you refuse to look at it, for fear that you might have to reconsider. An old dog and new tricks case? Lets just frame the unknowable as such, while being all inclusive in that endeavor. YOU TOO, you too!!!

[RG1]

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.

Spheres, your ‘blind allegiance’ to “science” is the problem here! You miss the understanding that ‘logic’ is PRIOR to “science”. See my early comment below to Leo.

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 ).

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.

Spheres, again, you are hung up on "science" and not seeing the logic of it.

Also, you seem to be saying here that since there is no ‘official scientifically approved meaning’ to the words/terms used in the premises, that this somehow invalidates the logic? Not so. Words and terms used in premises do not require an ‘official scientific meaning’ to be valid. But, all that is simply required, is that there be an ‘agreed upon’ understanding of the words/terms.

Your ‘lack of understanding’ of his words/terms does not invalidate his logical claim. You can either ask, or make an attempt to understand the meaning of his words, as he has intended, or you can stand back and keep throwing rocks at it like you are.

[RG1]

Spheres, and Henry,

"So if one cannot ‘know’ what one thinks until ‘after’ one thinks it, then it is NOT LOGICALLY POSSIBLE for one to ‘know’, nor to 'knowingly' select/choose, what one thinks ‘before’ one thinks it."

1. Do you understand this?
2. Do you agree with this?
3. If so, then is the following statement true?

"If free-will relies on our ability to 'knowingly' select (i.e. consciously choose) those thoughts that determine our choices, then free-will is not logically possible."

...Agreed?

Henry and Spheres, your inability to accept this simple logic, is the reason for my suspicion.

[henry quirk]

I haven't been arguing for a free will...that you and yours keep ignoring this makes the lot of you suspect.

Your premise is wrong. Your logic is on the nose, but as the computer guys say ' garbage in, garbage out'.

But, no worries...you preach your thing and I'll do mine...the world will keep right on turning no matter who is right (me ).

[SpheresOfBalance]

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.

Spheres, your ‘blind allegiance’ to “science”
A falsehood, as it is impossible for you to know that my allegiance is blind. And with regard to this assertion of yours, it would certainly seem, that it is then your non allegiance that is blind, else you would not make such a logical fallacy.

is the problem here! You miss the understanding that ‘logic’ is PRIOR to “science”.
Prior to, has a tendency of meaning, included within, in terms of mans learning, which is certainly the case, in this instance.

See my early comment below to Leo.

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.
So you admit that science uses logic. There may be hope for you after all.

In regards to Raw_Thought’s point, "science" has absolutely NO relevance here, as this is simply a LOGIC problem, (…not a SCIENCE problem!)
It would be nice if you could eliminate science, wouldn't it. Then your faith (belief) would be able to run-a-muck, without restriction. So It's a good thing that science, 'proves' otherwise.

You see you're talking to the wrong person. To me philosophy is in fact the father of all science, thus all branch's of science are philosophies children, such that they are in fact the same thing, one family of many constituents. Science just goes the distance, outside the mind to the real physical world, much more so than philosophy. Inside all branches of science and philosophical schools of thought there are different viewpoints, owing to the fact that some things are as yet unknowable. As to the topic at hand, this is the case.

If one cannot know what consciousness or thoughts are or how they work, then no definitive logical conclusions can be formulated. Of course in your mind you can have it your way, that's your right. But as to it's truth value, universally speaking, you cannot dictate. I have what some call a mind, consciousness, thoughts, memories etc, just like you, or so it might seem. While I shall never encroach upon yours so as to tell you what your's are, I'll be damned if I'll allow you to encroach upon mine, as if to tell me what mine are.

The jury is still out as to mind, and no amount of weak theories by amateurs are going to necessarily change my views. No one can sell me swampland I can't build upon. So you can take your mysterious meanderings of what you 'believe' to be the case and... Yeah, I almost went there. But then you deserve better than that right! And so do I!


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 ).

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.

Spheres, again, you are hung up on "science" and not seeing the logic of it.

Also, you seem to be saying here that since there is no ‘official scientifically approved meaning’ to the words/terms used in the premises, that this somehow invalidates the logic? Not so. Words and terms used in premises do not require an ‘official scientific meaning’ to be valid. But, all that is simply required, is that there be an ‘agreed upon’ understanding of the words/terms.

Your ‘lack of understanding’ of his words/terms does not invalidate his logical claim.
Of course they do, as I've been saying all along that it's his lack of understanding them, that is his problem. Define consciousness, thinking, thoughts, and free will as you 'believe' them to be. I use 'believe' because you cannot 'know.' If you believe you can 'know' them 'certainly,' then explain how you are capable of 'certainly knowing' them. I'm waiting!

You can either ask, or make an attempt to understand the meaning of his words, as he has intended, or you can stand back and keep throwing rocks at it like you are.

[RG1]

Your ‘lack of understanding’ of his words/terms does not invalidate his logical claim.

Of course they do, as I've been saying all along that it's his lack of understanding them, that is his problem.

I am sure that he understands HIS own words just fine! I think the problem is YOURS. YOU are the one that does not understand him, and has the audacity to claim that his logic (that you do 'not' understand) is invalid. Give me a break!

Define consciousness, thinking, thoughts, and free will as you 'believe' them to be. I use 'believe' because you cannot 'know.' If you believe you can 'know' them 'certainly,' then explain how you are capable of 'certainly knowing' them. I'm waiting!

Your logic (reasoning) here is flawed. I agree that there are ‘many’ understandings to these words, but this in NO WAY invalidates RT’s logic. By claiming it so, you are committing a ‘fallacious’ argument here, you are making an appeal to ignorance (the inability to ‘know’ these words) as proof that RT’s logical conclusion is false. The two do not connect. Your reasoning (or do I dare say "your logic") is flawed, i.e. is fallacious!

As I said before, words/terms used in premises DO NOT require an ‘official stamped scientific meaning’ to be valid. All that is required, is an ‘agreed upon’ understanding of the word/term. So if you do not understand what RT means by a certain word, then ASK HIM for clarification so that you both can have an AGREED UPON understanding of the same word/term used. (And don't foolishly say "oh it never can be known, so you are wrong!" - this is non-sensical). This is assuming of course, you wish to make an attempt to understand, ...otherwise then just keep throwing rocks at the 'ugly' thing!

[RG1]

By the way, do you agree or not agree to this that I wrote earlier:

"So if one cannot ‘know’ what one thinks until ‘after’ one thinks it, then it is NOT LOGICALLY POSSIBLE for one to ‘know’, nor to 'knowingly' select/choose, what one thinks ‘before’ one thinks it."

1. Do you understand this?
2. Do you agree with this?
3. If so, then is the following statement true?

"If free-will relies on our ability to 'knowingly' select (i.e. consciously choose) those thoughts that determine our choices, then free-will is not logically possible."

...Agreed?

Henry and Spheres, your inability to accept this simple logic, is the reason for my suspicion.

There are only 3 YES/NO questions, can you provide a yes or no to each of these?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Your ‘lack of understanding’ of his words/terms does not invalidate his logical claim.

Of course they do, as I've been saying all along that it's his lack of understanding them, that is his problem.

I am sure that he understands HIS own words just fine!
It's more involved than words, were' dealing with very complex concepts here, that may or may not even be real.

I think the problem is YOURS.
I don't believe you're thinking at all.

YOU are the one that does not understand him,
I don't need to, I only need to understand the concepts current status, to understand that he cannot say what he's saying with any kind of certainty.

and has the audacity to claim that his logic (that you do 'not' understand) is invalid.
Look I understand that you've taken the young lad under your dusty wings, but no one can argue, as if certain, concepts that are still being questioned as having any validity at all.

Give me a break!
No, I'll not give you a break, until such time that you acknowledge the uncertainness of his argument, that you support.

Define consciousness, thinking, thoughts, and free will as you 'believe' them to be. I use 'believe' because you cannot 'know.' If you believe you can 'know' them 'certainly,' then explain how you are capable of 'certainly knowing' them. I'm waiting!

Your logic (reasoning) here is flawed. I agree that there are ‘many’ understandings to these words, but this in NO WAY invalidates RT’s logic.
Sure it does, because he is speaking of things that are common to us all, not things that are only his. So when he speaks of such things he takes on all those other meanings. As who is to say that his particular meaning is necessarily correct.

By claiming it so, you are committing a ‘fallacious’ argument here,
No, it is you and RT that spouts falsehoods, as you are saying what is certain, about something that is still seen by those studying it, as uncertain, were you both have no expertise to say so.

you are making an appeal to ignorance (the inability to ‘know’ these words) as proof that RT’s logical conclusion is false. The two do not connect.
They only ever connect, if truth be a consideration!

Your reasoning (or do I dare say "your logic") is flawed, i.e. is fallacious!
Again, it's you and he that spout falsehoods, 'only' because you say it as if it's certainty the case. I would easily accept it as your 'theory.' No problem there.

If you are unable to understand the fundamental truth that logic must be built on ideas of bedrock (truth) that logic calls them "TRUTH TABLES" for a very good reason, then maybe senility has set in, maybe Alzheimer's. Because you couldn't be more wrong. I seriously recommend you go back to your college books on logic, if you have or have ever had any, and read. If you have none you can borrow mine.

One cannot prove or disprove, with certainty, a concepts truth value if that concept is still in development, PERIOD! (hint: that's why it's still in development) as you two try and do! So as to be CORRECT, something you two know nothing about, one must always add verbiage indicating that ones uncertainty can only be the case, at that particular time, or else you come off as either a liar, or a fool.

You and he seem the type that FEAR ignorance to such an astonishing degree, that you'll make crap up in your heads no matter how ludicrous, so that you can 'believe' you've found an answer, so you can relax.

I hate to be the one to tell you this sir, but you and I shall probably die long before MANY things are answered. Humans are still in kindergarten, my friend. Look how we still fight over resources, instead of putting our minds and worthless paper to work in creating new self sustaining practices and tools, largely the human population are nothing but wasteful me, me, me, fools. At least the ones running the show.

As I said before, words/terms used in premises DO NOT require an ‘official stamped scientific meaning’ to be valid. All that is required, is an ‘agreed upon’ understanding of the word/term. So if you do not understand what RT means by a certain word, then ASK HIM for clarification so that you both can have an AGREED UPON understanding of the same word/term used. (And don't foolishly say "oh it never can be known, so you are wrong!" - this is non-sensical). This is assuming of course, you wish to make an attempt to understand, ...otherwise then just keep throwing rocks at the 'ugly' thing!
The truth is never ugly, only lies and liars are ugly, while fools, one should always try and help. I always throw rocks at lies and liars, get used to it! Of course if one's a fool, I'll try and try again to clear their heads, though it can get old, as the possibility of futility wears one thin.

[henry quirk]

"So if one cannot ‘know’ what one thinks until ‘after’ one thinks it..."

This is your first error. Since I'm the one doing my thinking, I'm nuthin' but aware of what I think, as I think it...there is no delay, no catching up to the thinking...there's no separation between 'me' and the thinking...I am the thinking, the thinking is me.

If you're sane and honest, you know this is true. You need only to consult the workings of your own head to confirm what I say is 'fact'.

#

"...then it is NOT LOGICALLY POSSIBLE for one to ‘know’, nor to 'knowingly' select/choose, what one thinks ‘before’ one thinks it."

"This is your second error. Since I am the thinking and since I makes choices all of the time (pausing, considering, choosing, doing), it's absolute manure to say I can't know my thoughts or direct them. Choosing to, for example, craft a response in a thread would be impossible under your scheme cuz if I don't form the intent, consider what I want to say, choose the words, design the sentence, move my fingers in certain ways, etc. the post can't be. Under your scheme, nuthin' in that sequence I just outlined is possible cuz, as you say, I'm just an auto-reacter (bio-automation) unable to originate, unable to cause.

If you were right, then it would be impossible for me to consider my actions and thoughts as I, for example, think about the meeting I'll have with a client this afternoon. It would be impossible to consider who he is (his character) and how best to inform him that his wife indeed is cheating on him, wants to divorce him, and plans to take him to the cleaners in court. Under your scheme considering the future and my responses to possible problems woukd be impossible. And: it would be impossible for me to suppress my sympathy for the man as I break the news to him, impossible to effect a professional demeanor.

Again: you know this is true.

#

"If free-will relies on our ability to 'knowingly' select (i.e. consciously choose) those thoughts that determine our choices, then free-will is not logically possible."

As I say: garbage in, garbage out. Your logical process is great, your conclusion, however, is fatally flawed by a crapsack premise.

[RG1]

Do you also argue with this much vigor that "square circles" and "married bachelors" exist?

[henry quirk]

HA!

So: which are you, liar or loon?

You gotta be one or the other. You know I'm right but you're ego is in the way and you lie to self-preserve, or, you actually believe the craziness you foist up.

If liar: shame on you. There's a whole whack of impressionable heads out there and you're misdirecting them.

If loon: you have my sympathies.

Meh, nuthin' I can or want to do about it either way.

SoB: he's all yours for now...I can't, at the moment, waste a dollop more of my time on him.

'nuff said.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Do you also argue with this much vigor that "square circles" and "married bachelors" exist?

Straw man, bait and switch, as "square circles" and "married bachelors" have absolutely nothing to do with the opposing argument to yours on, so called, consciousness and thinking. However your and RT's belief surely seems to have everything to do with "square circles" and "married bachelors!" I mean that they are analogous. That is only because you speak of it as if it's certain. It is not!

It is not certain that, so called, consciousness and or it's relationship to, so called, thinking denies the possibility of free will. Remember that to me Free Will is simply ones ability to choose between multiple alternatives. It depends solely upon the knowledge of the one making the decision. So free will is constrained like EVERYTHING else in the universe, but just because humans can't spread their arms and fly does not mean they don't have free will. They have free will within the constraints the universe allows free will. If one is a vegetable on a machine, their free will is extremely limited. If a human is running in the night, their free will set to escape death at the hands of another human, and they run off an unknown 1000 ft. high cliff, their free will has most probably failed them. But if they get away, it has probably served them well, because the killer had a gun and they had nothing.

Of course socioeconomics, ignorance, denial, bias and sickness, to name a few, can 'limit' free will even more so than the universe, but again it does not necessarily eliminate it altogether. Ignorance of the law is an excuse, despite what a judge might say, as they only say that to blindly compensate for potential liars. But I bet you even a judge doesn't know all the laws he's answerable too, where ever he may find himself, and would reel at being held accountable, especially if the punishment was severe.

So free will can save us, then again it can hang us, as it depends on knowledge and physics.

"Why do opponents of free will always seem to want to attribute the word 'free' with such fantastical proportions?"

[raw_thought]

Spheres thinks that logic can be transcended!!!
Specifically, he thinks I cannot say that there are no square circles, unless I do empirical research and find no square circles!
Similarly, he thinks that even tho 1 and 2 are obviously true, the only way that we can know that 3 follows is if it is empirically verified.
1. Cause always precedes effect.
2. Consciousness of a thought cannot precede thinking it.
3. Therefore, consciousness cannot cause thoughts.
The above syllogism is valid. If 1 and 2 are true then the truth of 3 follows. Since 1 and 2 are obviously true then 3 is true.
The only way that 3 cannot be true is if one transcends logic.

[RG1]

HA!

So: which are you, liar or loon?

You gotta be one or the other. You know I'm right but you're ego is in the way and you lie to self-preserve, or, you actually believe the craziness you foist up.

If liar: shame on you. There's a whole whack of impressionable heads out there and you're misdirecting them.

If loon: you have my sympathies.

Meh, nuthin' I can or want to do about it either way.

SoB: he's all yours for now...I can't, at the moment, waste a dollop more of my time on him.

'nuff said.

Lots of emotion here Henry, ...be careful, your 'bias' is showing.

[RG1]

One cannot prove or disprove, with certainty, a concepts truth value if that concept is still in development, PERIOD!

So WHO is it that determines when a concept is no longer in development? Who is this authority person that gets to slam down his gavel and make such a powerful decree? (Note: every single word in a premise/sentence could be deemed "still in development", for who is to say otherwise?)

Don't forget: It is LOGIC that gives us Truths (and False's), ...not science!, ...science gives us knowledge, logic gives us truths/false's.