Consciousness and free will.

[alpha]

Well you can stick it where the sun doesn't shine

i was just about to suggest the exact same thing to you. i guess there are absolutes in the world, after all.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Well you can stick it where the sun doesn't shine

i was just about to suggest the exact same thing to you. i guess there are absolutes in the world, after all.

Yet the reason we both said it was relative. I the ultimate .

[alpha]

Well you can stick it where the sun doesn't shine

i was just about to suggest the exact same thing to you. i guess there are absolutes in the world, after all.

Yet the reason we both said it was relative.

if you say so.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Well you can stick it where the sun doesn't shine

i was just about to suggest the exact same thing to you. i guess there are absolutes in the world, after all.

Yet the reason we both said it was relative. I the ultimate .

if you say so.

Are you not paying attention?

Are we still friends?

[alpha]

if you say so.

Are you not paying attention?
yes, i am, "old one".

Are we still friends?
ya; just watch your language a bit more.

[SpheresOfBalance]

if you say so.

Are you not paying attention?
yes, i am, "old one".

Are we still friends?
ya; just watch your language a bit more.

Don't be insulted, this really is just fun and games, to keep one sharp, on their toes. I used to get mad, but usually only when one called me names. As long as one doesn't call me names, I'm good! You know, like idiot, moron, brain dead, etc. Pretty much I'm immune these days unless I'm not feeling so good.

But I resent being told what to do, usually doing quite the opposite.

[alpha]

Don't be insulted, this really is just fun and games, to keep one sharp, on their toes. I used to get mad, but usually only when one called me names. As long as one doesn't call me names, I'm good! You know, like idiot, moron, brain dead, etc. Pretty much I'm immune these days unless I'm not feeling so good.

But I resent being told what to do, usually doing quite the opposite.

well, things like "screw you". and "stick it where the sun doesn't shine" are insults.

[Hobbes' Choice]

It is physical because the brain is a physical object. A thought is energy organised in matter.
that is speculative.

How could it be anything else?

Your 'explanation' of sphere's problem is not helpful.
to you.

Offer an alternative!
We know that human activity ends when the brain is removed. We know that brain damage can cause the loss of memory and change thinking. So tell me - if thinking does not require the physical existence of the brain, how are thoughts sustained; how can we have memories, and why do these things change with changes to the physicality of the brain?

This is a complete no brainer.

[alpha]

It is physical because the brain is a physical object. A thought is energy organised in matter.
that is speculative.
How could it be anything else?

Offer an alternative!
dualism is a logical possibility; not that it's necessarily true.

We know that human activity ends when the brain is removed. We know that brain damage can cause the loss of memory and change thinking. So tell me - if thinking does not require the physical existence of the brain, how are thoughts sustained; how can we have memories, and why do these things change with changes to the physicality of the brain?

This is a complete no brainer.

[Hobbes' Choice]

It is physical because the brain is a physical object. A thought is energy organised in matter.
that is speculative.
How could it be anything else?

Offer an alternative!
dualism is a logical possibility; not that it's necessarily true.

We know that human activity ends when the brain is removed. We know that brain damage can cause the loss of memory and change thinking. So tell me - if thinking does not require the physical existence of the brain, how are thoughts sustained; how can we have memories, and why do these things change with changes to the physicality of the brain?

This is a complete no brainer.

Dualism has no credibility what so ever. It is a myth born out of an assumption that an immortal and incorporeal soul is provided by god.
I'm not sure what you think you mean by "logical possibility", but dualism is not required by the facts.
So what is your alternative.

The proposition that when I type on my keyboard I get characters on the screen is a speculation too. WHy you think this working speculation is somehow invalidated by the fact that it is nothing more than induction puzzles me.
So do you have a BETTER alternative?

[alpha]

Dualism has no credibility what so ever. It is a myth born out of an assumption that an immortal and incorporeal soul is provided by god.
I'm not sure what you think you mean by "logical possibility", but dualism is not required by the facts.
"logical possibility" means that it's conceivable. it might or might not be the case, but it's possible (just like your view of no soul), nonetheless.

So what is your alternative.

The proposition that when I type on my keyboard I get characters on the screen is a speculation too. WHy you think this working speculation is somehow invalidated by the fact that it is nothing more than induction puzzles me.
So do you have a BETTER alternative?
i've provided an alternate possibility; whether or not it's "better", is irrelevant.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Dualism has no credibility what so ever. It is a myth born out of an assumption that an immortal and incorporeal soul is provided by god.
I'm not sure what you think you mean by "logical possibility", but dualism is not required by the facts.
"logical possibility" means that it's conceivable. it might or might not be the case, but it's possible (just like your view of no soul), nonetheless.

So what is your alternative.

The proposition that when I type on my keyboard I get characters on the screen is a speculation too. WHy you think this working speculation is somehow invalidated by the fact that it is nothing more than induction puzzles me.
So do you have a BETTER alternative?
i've provided an alternate possibility; whether or not it's "better", is irrelevant.

So you've given up.
FIne.

[raw_thought]

“Spheres, You actually believe that you can be aware of a thought before you think it????”
ME
“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”
Spheres
So you are saying that it is possible to be aware of a thought before one thinks it!!!!!
True, I have no way of knowing everything that is going on. However, I do know that it is logically impossible to be aware of a thought before one thinks it.
“Thinking is not instantaneous, it's the culmination of previous learnin”
Spheres
But then you said that! You contradict yourself.
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.raw_thought wrote:“
"…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.
I think spheres should take a logic course or at least know what the definition of consciousness is.

[raw_thought]

"You use sequence as an indicator,"
Spheres
So you are saying that effect can precede cause?????????????????
Time travel is a cool idea but logically impossible.

[raw_thought]

I already mapped out your objection, premise 2. You think it is possible to be conscious of a thought before one thinks it. I am trying to understand your objection. How can you be aware of a thought before you think it????
I even accepted Dennett's unconventional definition of consciousness. Even if we accept Dennett's weird definition ( that consciousness has nothing to do with awareness) it is still logically impossible to be conscious of a thought before one thinks it. It would be like saying that I know that the answer is 4 before I figured out what 2+2 equals. Life would be so much simpler!!! One would not have to make any calculations. Einstein would simply know that E=MC2 before he even started doing his mathematical calculations!!!