Consciousness and free will.

[attofishpi]

Does human consciousness have free will?

As i stated in another thread, apparently the human brain has more logical gates, more combinations permitted by the binary synapses via their amount of connections, than atoms within the entire universe.

Now try telling me i don't have free will..

[henry quirk]

"your 'bias' is showing"

Sure, as is yours. I favor the notion that 'I choose', you favor the notion that you're a robot.

I don't either of us is particularly 'objective' in this.

[henry quirk]

Atto,

None of the determinists are listening, not to you, me, or SoB, not even to themselves...that is, even the evidence of their own internal workings is dismissed cuz it seems to fall ouside of the strict line of 'cause and effect'.

The determinists see themselves as illusions, ghosts, bio-automation.

Having made my little effort to speak in opposition, I'm inclined, for the moment, to let them be. After all: who am I to correct another when he or she is dead set against being corrected?

Robots they wanna be, robots they are.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Spheres thinks that logic can be transcended!!!
No, but your anger/frustration lends to your putting words in my mouth.

Specifically, he thinks I cannot say that there are no square circles, unless I do empirical research and find no square circles!
No, but your anger/frustration lends to your putting words in my mouth.

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.
No, but your anger/frustration lends to your putting words in my mouth.

1. Cause always precedes effect.
Yes!

2. Consciousness of a thought cannot precede thinking it.
You don't necessarily 'know' what either of those three are.

3. Therefore, consciousness cannot cause thoughts.
Again, you don't necessarily 'know' what either of those two are.

The above syllogism is valid. If 1 and 2 are true then the truth of 3 follows.
2 is not necessarily true so neither can 3 be necessarily true.

Since 1 and 2 are obviously true then 3 is true.
Only to your false sense of reasoning.

The only way that 3 cannot be true is if one transcends logic.
Your have no logic, as you don't know what it is.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Whoop! Sorry, Double Post!

[SpheresOfBalance]

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?
I expect more than this out of you because you're older. A concept is out of development when it can be proven as fact.
Answer me, how does the human brain/mind work, (ALL OF IT)? If you cannot answer the question, then it is still in development. In fact no one today can answer that question, or it could be that they don't want to answer it, as maybe they've caught a glimpse of what it is, and they would rather deny it.


(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.

Since you brought it up, to which theory of truth do you subscribe?

[RG1]

I favor the notion that 'I choose'...

And herein lies your problem. --- Why should we “favor” one over the other? Who really gives a flip if free-will is true or false? (...aren't we all in ‘search of truth’ here?. ...and therefore “favoring” one side over another only compromises our ability to render a non-biased conclusion.)

So Henry, ask yourself this question, “Does it ‘really’ matter if free-will is ‘true’ or ‘false’?” --- YES/NO

If NO, then your desire ‘to seek and find truth’ is greater than your desire ‘to feel-goodness in life’, (…as it is more important to know the ‘real’ (and potentially very ugly) truth, than it is to seek pleasure/contentment in life).

If YES, then your desire ‘to feel-goodness in life” is greater than your desire ‘to seek and find truth’, (…as it is more important to find peace/happiness in this life, than it is to accept another ugly truth).

So, does it really matter to you? YES/NO --- your emotional responses seem to indicate YES, that it ‘does matter’ to you a great deal. But maybe I misinterpret your emotion for your strong passion to find truth? …idk. So which is it?

...you favor the notion that you're a robot.

Not so. You are putting words in my mouth (i.e. you "lie like a rug"! )

[RG1]

A concept is out of development when it can be proven as fact.

...aaaannnd, who is the 'prover' of concepts to facts? Can it be me and my proofs?

Again, you are trying to make an 'appeal to ignorance'. You forget that words/concepts/terms are simply 'labels' applied to mutually agreed understandings. There is no such thing as 'absolute or universal meanings' to any words/concepts/terms. These are just 'labels' applied to 'agreed upon meanings'. So unless some All mighty God Ruler that decrees 'official, cast in stone' meanings onto us mere humans, there is no rulebook (nor master dictionary that we all are bound to)!

Complete understanding of the human brain is not necessary to understanding a logical contradiction. Of course this assumes the parties mutually agree to the meanings of the words used in the logical statement. But claiming that a word/concept (i.e. "mind") cannot be completely known is not justification to invalidate the logical contradiction. This is called an 'appeal to ignorance' which is flawed reasoning (fallacious logic).

[henry quirk]

*ahem* to refer to the human individual as 'auto-reacter' (as you have many times) is to call him or her 'robot', 'bio-automation', so no, I didn't lie, I just took your descriptor and replaced it with a synonym of my own choosing, one exactly in keeping with your premise and conclusion.

Not my fault if you're offended by my logical application of an entirely appropriate descriptor.

*shrug*

Perhaps you need to upgrade your emotional response software.

[SpheresOfBalance]

A concept is out of development when it can be proven as fact.

...aaaannnd, who is the 'prover' of concepts to facts? Can it be me and my proofs?
What an absurd question, of course it 'can' be you, list your proofs, so your peers can review it!

Again, you are trying to make an 'appeal to ignorance'.
YOU, are dead wrong! and here is why:

"Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

true
false
unknown between true or false
being unknowable (among the first three)."
................................................--Wikipedia--
I have only ever said what's in blue above. It's been you two jokers that have been saying what is or is not certain, While it's been I that has said that you cannot say what is certain in this particular case, as the jury is still out.

You forget that words/concepts/terms are simply 'labels' applied to mutually agreed understandings.
You mean mutually agreed between you and RT, and you two mean nothing relative to the experts with actual credentials that are working on this problem. You two, do not a majority make, and even if you were in majority, does a mob necessarily rule? Only in might my friend, only in might! Which is in fact devoid of any real reason.

There is no such thing as 'absolute or universal meanings' to any words/concepts/terms.
BS. What you mean to say is that neither you nor I may be privy to such information, which does not necessarily mean that it cannot exist.

These are just 'labels' applied to 'agreed upon meanings'. So unless some All mighty God Ruler that decrees 'official, cast in stone' meanings onto us mere humans, there is no rulebook (nor master dictionary that we all are bound to)!
Incorrect! In this matter, neither a god, you, RT, nor I are necessarily the authority, rather the truth of the matter is in fact the authority, which is that which is actually the case. The actual truth of the matter is in fact the absolute truth or universal truth, however you want to phrase it. And time is what's required for its understanding to come to fruition. Unfortunately for you, I and RT that time is not now. You and RT can scream your predictions until the cows come home. But don't believe for a second that I nor any other person, clear of mind, shall jump aboard your premature train of illogical conclusions.

Complete understanding of the human brain is not necessary to understanding a logical contradiction.
Not, "a logical contradiction", rather "this logical contradiction." The one in question, my dear boy!


Of course this assumes the parties mutually agree to the meanings of the words used in the logical statement.
And so you and he assume, which as you may well know, can make an ASS out of U, not ME.

But claiming that a word/concept (i.e. "mind") cannot be completely known is not justification to invalidate the logical contradiction.
Not, "the logical contradiction", rather "this particular logical contradiction." The one in question, my dear boy!

This is called an 'appeal to ignorance' which is flawed reasoning (fallacious logic).
Yet, as to an "Argument from ignorance," I've proven that you know not of what you're referencing.

It would seem the case is closed, as I've exposed your ignorance of the matter of logic.

[raw_thought]

So Sphere's "argument" is that I do not know what consciousness is.
My understanding is the dictionary and philosophical understanding . Please stop playing games! Or at least show how I am using the terms inappropriately.
I am using the term "consciousness" this way,
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/



PS: Ironically, I found this article that reinforces my position, while I was trying to show sphere's what the definitions of consciousness is.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 141911.htm

[raw_thought]

"Honestly, I cannot understand what people mean when they talk about the freedom of the human will.I have a feeling for instance, that I will something or other;but what relation this has with freedom I cannot understand at all.I feel that I will light my pipe and I do it;but how can I connect this up with the idea of freedom? What is behind the act of willing to light the pipe? Another act of willing? [infinite regress] Schopenhaur once said,"man can do what he will but cannot will what he wills."
Einstein

Here you go:

free [free]

adjective, freer, freest.
1. enjoying personal rights or liberty, as a person who is not in slavery:
a land of free people.
2. pertaining to or reserved for those who enjoy personal liberty:
They were thankful to be living on free soil.
3. existing under, characterized by, or possessing civil and political liberties that are, as a rule, constitutionally guaranteed by representative government:
the free nations of the world.
4. enjoying political autonomy, as a people or country not under foreign rule; independent.
5. exempt from external authority, interference, restriction, etc., as a person or one's will, thought, choice, action, etc.; independent; unrestricted.
6. able to do something at will; at liberty:
free to choose.
7. clear of obstructions or obstacles, as a road or corridor:
The highway is now free of fallen rock.


will(2) [wil]
noun
1. the faculty of conscious and especially of deliberate action; the power of control the mind has over its own actions:
the freedom of the will.
2. power of choosing one's own actions:
to have a strong or a weak will.
3. the act or process of using or asserting one's choice; volition:
My hands are obedient to my will.
4. wish or desire:
to submit against one's will.
5. purpose or determination, often hearty or stubborn determination; willfulness:
to have the will to succeed.
6. the wish or purpose as carried out, or to be carried out:
to work one's will.
7. disposition, whether good or ill, toward another.

I hope that's cleared things up for you.

The real question though, is what is it that you've done that you don't want to take responsibility.

I guess he is saying that Einstein should take responsibility for his life !

[raw_thought]

By the way, I agree with those definitions. So if my definitions are wrong then so are the one's that sphere's endorses! Those lying dictionaries!!!

[raw_thought]

“2. Consciousness of a thought cannot precede thinking it.”
me
“You don't necessarily 'know' what either of those three are.”
Spheres
UMMM
Consciousness is awareness, the act of being aware. You did not know that???? However if you prefer a definition that does not involve awareness (such as Dennett, that we have no feelings, only brain states, see the post right after this one). If you are saying that “consciousness” has no definition, then you are saying that a whole vast area of philosophy (and Searle, Chalmers…) is silly.
“Precede” is defined as
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/precede
Obviously, I am using 2 and 3.
Thought is defined as
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/thought
Hope that helped!
Obviously, you are using a freshman’s argument. If you do not have an argument, question conventional defintions.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
“The above syllogism is valid. If 1 and 2 are true then the truth of 3 follows.”
me
“2 is not necessarily true so neither can 3 be necessarily true.”
Spheres
Take a logic class!!!! There is a difference between truth and validity! For example, the following argument is valid but not true,
1. All Martains eat snakes.
2. Bob is a Martain.
3. Therefore, Bob eats snakes.
Here is a syllogism that is true but invalid.
1. Nixon was president.
2. Carter was president.
3. Therefore Eisenhower was president.
It does not matter if 2 is true (in the argument; 1. Cause always precedes effect. 2. Consciousness of a thought cannot precede thinking it. 3. Therefore, consciousness cannot cause thoughts) for the argument to be valid.
However, if 1 and 2 are true, then 3 has to be true.
Here is a site that will help you understand logic and the difference between truth and validity http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/tvs.html

[raw_thought]

Here is that post , if you agree with Dennett , that consciousness is not about sensations, feeling etc. It does not matter if that is your definition or not. My argument still holds!
“…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.