Consciousness and free will.

[alpha]

I can't in any way that you'll accept just as you can't invalidate my notions in a way I'll accept.

Hell if I know where to go from here ('cept home...'night folks).

night, henry.

for tomorrow: the goal isn't convincing the other person per se, but rather obliterating his/her reasoning and argument. whether he/she accepts it or not, is irrelevant.

[raw_thought]

I haven’t had to teach basic logic 101 for years. Unfortunately, it is now obviously necessary.
When one analyzes a syllogism one breaks it up into soundness, validity and truth.
http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/tvs.html
“Soundness” means that the premises are true and the argument is valid. If the argument is sound then the conclusion must be true.
“Validity” means that the form of the argument is correct. The truth or falseness of the premise does not matter.
For example, the syllogism,
1. All Martians eat snakes.
2. Bob is a Martian.
3. Therefore, Bob eats snakes.
, is valid.
The meaning of “truth” is obvious. “All Martians eat snakes” and “Bob is a Martian” are not true.
1. Cause always precedes effect.
2. Consciousness of a thought cannot precede thinking it.
3. Therefore, consciousness cannot cause thoughts.
Is obviously valid. 3 follows from 1 and 2.
The only thing left to do is see if the premises 1 and 2 are true. Premise 1 is obviously true. However, Spheres has a problem with premise 2. Since the argument is valid and premise 1 is obviously true, if premise 2 is true then the conclusion (that consciousness cannot cause thoughts) must be true.
Let’s investigate if premise 2 (that one cannot be conscious of a thought before one thinks it) is true. It seems obvious to me that one cannot be conscious of a thought before one thinks it. However, Spheres thinks that it is a false premise!
Sphere’s objection? That I have not defined the terms “consciousness” and “thoughts”. I assumed that everyone knows the conventional definitions * and are not confused when one says “consciousness” or “thoughts”. However, I also accepted Dennett’s unconventional definitions, that “consciousness” and “thoughts” are and only are brain states.

“…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.

If Spheres disagrees with the conventional definitions ( of “consciousness” and “thoughts”) and also rejects the unconventional definitions ( Dennett), I wish he would post his definitions of “consciousness” and “thoughts”!!

[SpheresOfBalance]

Spheres, You actually believe that you can be aware of a thought before you think it????
Or are you claiming that no one can understand that sentence because none of the terms are defined???????

Well said RT, …and should be simple enough for Spheres (and maybe Henry) to understand.


In fact, not only is it impossible to know (or be aware) of something "BEFORE" it happens, but it is also impossible to know of things "AS" they happen. The event must happen first, before one can be aware, or know of it.

The ‘knowing’ of an event can only ‘follow’ the event, even if this difference in time is by microseconds for the brain to process the act of ‘recognition’, and thereby to ‘know".

“The important thing to understand about the moment NOW is that it is actually the moment THEN. You can only experience something that has already happened so essentially you're living in the wake of your own past.” -- Obvious Leo

In other words -- That which we are aware of, has already happened!

God you are both idiots! You have no way of knowing whats going on, yet you speak as if you do, based on archaic, antiquated understandings. You use sequence as an indicator, yet you're ignorant of the possible sequences that are taking place. Time is not your god in this case, proving your point, it's the other possible sequences, that science is trying to iron out, that make fun of your position.

Thinking is not instantaneous, it's the culmination of previous learning, that's already been visited in ones past. Thinking is not what you believe it to be, I'm saying that it's already been thought, that you're largely just retrieving previous conclusions, such that you already know them. What you add to them each time they're revisited is subtle indeed, listen to you two, like parrots you surely sound! Polly wanna cracker?

I've shown that at least one of you have misunderstandings of logic. Of course I can in fact show that you both do. When I have more time to devote to little boys. I'm busy, but, "I'll be back!"

[RG1]

Spheres, You actually believe that you can be aware of a thought before you think it????

God you are both idiots! You have no way of knowing whats going on, yet you speak as if you do, based on archaic, antiquated understandings. You use sequence as an indicator, yet you're ignorant of the possible sequences that are taking place. Time is not your god in this case, proving your point, it's the other possible sequences, that science is trying to iron out, that make fun of your position.

Thinking is not instantaneous, it's the culmination of previous learning, that's already been visited in ones past. Thinking is not what you believe it to be, I'm saying that it's already been thought, that you're largely just retrieving previous conclusions, such that you already know them. What you add to them each time they're revisited is subtle indeed, listen to you two, like parrots you surely sound! Polly wanna cracker?

I've shown that at least one of you have misunderstandings of logic. Of course I can in fact show that you both do. When I have more time to devote to little boys. I'm busy, but, "I'll be back!"

...so is this a "YES" or a "NO"?

Or are you claiming that no one can understand that sentence because none of the terms are defined???????

...or is this what you are claiming?

Can you answer RT's simple questions or not?

You seem to be an arrogant ass. Why not just answer the simple questions instead of dancing (and bad-mouthing) so as to distract and avoid exposing your ignorance? Grow up young man!

[SpheresOfBalance]

Spheres, You actually believe that you can be aware of a thought before you think it????

God you are both idiots! You have no way of knowing whats going on, yet you speak as if you do, based on archaic, antiquated understandings. You use sequence as an indicator, yet you're ignorant of the possible sequences that are taking place. Time is not your god in this case, proving your point, it's the other possible sequences, that science is trying to iron out, that make fun of your position.

Thinking is not instantaneous, it's the culmination of previous learning, that's already been visited in ones past. Thinking is not what you believe it to be, I'm saying that it's already been thought, that you're largely just retrieving previous conclusions, such that you already know them. What you add to them each time they're revisited is subtle indeed, listen to you two, like parrots you surely sound! Polly wanna cracker?

I've shown that at least one of you have misunderstandings of logic. Of course I can in fact show that you both do. When I have more time to devote to little boys. I'm busy, but, "I'll be back!"

...so is this a "YES" or a "NO"?

Or are you claiming that no one can understand that sentence because none of the terms are defined???????

...or is this what you are claiming?

Can you answer RT's simple questions or not?

You seem to be an arrogant ass. Why not just answer the simple questions instead of dancing (and bad-mouthing) so as to distract and avoid exposing your ignorance? Grow up young man!

The young man within me, as in all, was used to silence, and confound until such time that I had more of it, time that is. It was to keep you entertained until such time. Were you amused?

You're the one that I put in his place, as to not understanding a concept of logic. You failed to understand: "Argument from ignorance" also known as "appeal to ignorance." As I was not creating a false dichotomy, in fact I was stating that "there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false." And it is why you both fail, in this particular case, so says logic!

Case closed!

[alpha]

@ rt, rg1, & spheres;

the problem is that rt, rg1, and i, believe in absolutes, and therefor in the absolute conclusions that deductive reasoning produces (so if the premises are all true, the conclusion is absolutely valid). spheres (with whom i've become friends) believes in relative truths, thus, necessarily rejecting logic (whether she realizes it or not) by definition, because logic in its purest form, does not deal with anything relative, only absolutes. in other words, logic only deals with 100% and 0%. for anything in-between, one must use tools other than raw logic.

Philosopher Hilary Putnam, among others, states that some forms of relativism make it impossible to believe one is in error. If there is no truth beyond an individual's belief that something is true, then an individual cannot hold their own beliefs to be false or mistaken. A related criticism is that relativizing truth to individuals destroys the distinction between truth and belief.

as to henry, i honestly have no idea what he's talking about.

[henry quirk]

HA!

I think you determinists know exactly what I'm talkin' about, just as I know exactly what you're talkin' about.

Let's at least be honest here.

Let's just say we agree to disagree...we can do this, yes?

[alpha]

HA!

I think you determinists know exactly what I'm talkin' about, just as I know exactly what you're talkin' about.

Let's at least be honest here.

Let's just say we agree to disagree...we can do this, yes?

i'm sorry, henry, but if you actually understood what we were talking about, you would've conceded 50 posts ago.

[henry quirk]

I could say the same, Al...*shrug*...I don't move you, you don't move me, and the world, not caring, keeps spinning...I'm content, having said my piece, to let it go, to agree to disagree, to avoid the sourness that usually comes with sitting with a debate past its expiration date.

You?

[alpha]

I could say the same, Al...*shrug*...I don't move you, you don't move me, and the world, not caring, keeps spinning...I'm content, having said my piece, to let it go, to agree to disagree, to avoid the sourness that usually comes with sitting with a debate past its expiration date.

You?

i disagree.

[henry quirk]

HA!

[SpheresOfBalance]

@ rt, rg1, & spheres;

the problem is that rt, rg1, and i, believe in absolutes,
Yet as to the topic at hand, no one currently knows of any absolutes.

and therefor in the absolute conclusions that deductive reasoning produces (so if the premises are all true, the conclusion is absolutely valid).
But the premises are not necessarily true, because "there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false." --Wikipedia--

spheres (with whom i've become friends) believes in relative truths,
Thanks for the friend thing, me too you! But... No, as I've said, I believe in both, relative and absolute truths, there are distinctions that one must consider on a case by case basis, or they're just pissing in the wind.

thus, necessarily rejecting logic
No, It's logic that spells out my belief.

(whether she realizes it or not)
No, I'm a dude, dude! (your flawed logic? Or a punch in my arm?)

by definition, because logic in its purest form, does not deal with anything relative, only absolutes.
Yet you have to use absolute premises before you can use them to formulate absolute conclusions, which contain absolute certainty.

in other words, logic only deals with 100% and 0%.
Of course, but his premises do not contain 'sufficient investigation and therefore sufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false.' --wikipedia--

for anything in-between, one must use tools other than raw logic.
Yet my stance is not in between.

Philosopher Hilary Putnam, among others, states that some forms of relativism make it impossible to believe one is in error. If there is no truth beyond an individual's belief that something is true, then an individual cannot hold their own beliefs to be false or mistaken. A related criticism is that relativizing truth to individuals destroys the distinction between truth and belief.

Hilary is in fact speaking of you, RT and RG1, on this matter.

as to henry, i honestly have no idea what he's talking about.
Your fall back tactic, when you're ideas are threatened!

[alpha]

@ rt, rg1, & spheres;

the problem is that rt, rg1, and i, believe in absolutes,
Yet as to the topic at hand, no one currently knows of any absolutes.
the problem with relativists is that no topic has any absolutes. rt gave premises, that have nothing to do with science, opinion, or observation. you accepted that cause always precedes effect, so that's one down. another premise is that any free willed decisions must be made completely in the conscious part of our minds, otherwise they're not truly free choices/decisions. i.e., they're not genuinely ours. what does that have to do with science? what does it have to do with the detailed dynamics of how the brain works? regardless of how it works, if a decision is not made 100% consciously, then it's not really our decision, is it? i don't know about you, but i won't take any responsibility for any subconscious decisions i make. the final premise is that since conscious decision making relies entirely on thoughts, and these thoughts are not created in the conscious part, then the whole process is not free, as it relies entirely on thoughts that are themselves not produced consciously.

and therefor in the absolute conclusions that deductive reasoning produces (so if the premises are all true, the conclusion is absolutely valid).
But the premises are not necessarily true, because "there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false." --Wikipedia--
this is a claim. i can just as easily claim (even more easily) that there is insufficient investigation and therefor insufficient information to prove that freewill is true.

spheres (with whom i've become friends) believes in relative truths,
Thanks for the friend thing, me too you! But... No, as I've said, I believe in both, relative and absolute truths, there are distinctions that one must consider on a case by case basis, or they're just pissing in the wind.
what distinctions? anything we say, you could easily refute by saying "insufficient investigation". you fail to distinguish between conceptual and empirical things.

thus, necessarily rejecting logic
No, It's logic that spells out my belief.
i've just spoken with logic himself, and he strongly denied this outrageous claim.

(whether she realizes it or not)
No, I'm a dude, dude! (your flawed logic? Or a punch in my arm?)
lol. sorry, man. it wasn't flawed logic. i simply based my deductions on speculative (certain things you said) premises (in the absence of absolutes).

by definition, because logic in its purest form, does not deal with anything relative, only absolutes.
Yet you have to use absolute premises before you can use them to formulate absolute conclusions, which contain absolute certainty.
we maintain that the premises used here are absolute.

in other words, logic only deals with 100% and 0%.
Of course, but his premises do not contain 'sufficient investigation and therefore sufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false.' --wikipedia--
again, mixing concepts with objects. you can't "sufficiently investigate" concepts scientifically.

for anything in-between, one must use tools other than raw logic.
Yet my stance is not in between.
whenever science is your argument, you're automatically in between.

Philosopher Hilary Putnam, among others, states that some forms of relativism make it impossible to believe one is in error. If there is no truth beyond an individual's belief that something is true, then an individual cannot hold their own beliefs to be false or mistaken. A related criticism is that relativizing truth to individuals destroys the distinction between truth and belief.

Hilary is in fact speaking of you, RT and RG1, on this matter.
wow! this quote was against relativism, not realism or conceptualism.

as to henry, i honestly have no idea what he's talking about.
Your fall back tactic, when you're ideas are threatened!
are you saying that you actually understand henry?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Obviously you haven't read all this thread and it's a long one so I don't blame you, though it would be of some help.
Here follow this link to the proper page then scroll down keeping your eyes on the left side of the page to find my post dated:

Fri Oct 16, 2015 3:06 pm

then look for this passage, in red of course.

"AND (2013) (take note of number 1)"

read the entire thing if need be, but you can also follow those links off site if you want, to see what you think.

I just don't want to post it again, being at least somewhat respectful of Ricks shared resources.

In essence my argument was, If consciousness hasn't been nailed down yet, then any taking of old info for granted, can probably only lead to falsehoods as conclusions.

Check it out!

[alpha]

Obviously you haven't read all this thread and it's a long one so I don't blame you, though it would be of some help.
Here follow this link to the proper page then scroll down keeping your eyes on the left side of the page to find my post dated:

Fri Oct 16, 2015 3:06 pm

then look for this passage, in red of course.

"AND (2013) (take note of number 1)"

read the entire thing if need be, but you can also follow those links off site if you want, to see what you think.

I just don't want to post it again, being at least somewhat respectful of Ricks shared resources.

In essence my argument was, If consciousness hasn't been nailed down yet, then any taking of old info for granted, can probably only lead to falsehoods as conclusions.
and my argument is that "nailing it down" is irrelevant to the argument. our debate isn't about the exact nature of consciousness. it's about anything being done outside of it being unfree (regardless of how it works exactly).

Check it out!

i actually did read the whole thread, so i'd rather not do it again. i'll take a look at the post you mentioned, however.