Consciousness and free will.

[alpha]

Alpha. You commit a common logical error by conflating consciousness with awareness. Consciousness is a PROCESS and it is simply a generic term for all acts of cognition but awareness is a specific term for one's observation of such acts. Clearly one can't observe something until after it's already occurred so we can't be aware of a thought until after we've already thought it....

we can easily replace the word "consciousness" with "awareness".

... but this act of observation can then operate as a causal agent in directing the cognitive process. Perhaps a a basic text on cognitive neuroscience might help you understand that neurally networked computation is non-linear and thus non-Newtonian. In non-Newtonian systems causation operates both top-down and bottom up throughout networked causal hierarchies.

even if i buy into this type of causation, it still all relies on initial unintentional thoughts (even if just one), that happened outside of our awareness. that initial thought(s) is not by our genuine choice, therefor, neither is anything caused by it (this applies even to your non-newtonian sytem).

[SpheresOfBalance]

As to the topic at hand, RT cannot state his premises and thus conclusion, as if it's certainly the case, as scientists might change the content of his premises. I'm saying that, "...there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false."

again, you fail to understand how logic actually works. it has nothing to do with investigations. a logical deduction is valid (if there is no way to disprove the premises). saying things like "we don't know yet" won't invalidate it.
What the hell do you think "...insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information..." means anyway? It means that "we don't know yet," they are 100% synonymous. Obviously you have a reading comprehension problem!

The OP, in black, though I shall add my response in between his lines of text in violet:

It seems to me that consciousness is required for free will to exist. In other words I have to consciously decide something for it to be a free will act.
1. Cause always precedes effect.
Exactly the case!
2. One cannot be conscious of a thought before one thinks it.
Here's where the problem begins, what it is that is consciousness, thoughts and thinking RT is taking from old definitions, that have been called into question. If they are being questioned, it's because scientists realize they were created in a time that we could not necessarily know the truth of their substance. This is because of advances in psychology, neuroscience, FMRI's as well as other human brain explorations. Since what they are may be rewritten, it invalidates any possible interpretation based upon the old beliefs. Not that they are necessarily invalid, but that they are not necessarily valid. So that one does not make assumptions as to the truth of the matter, one cannot rightfully assert anything as if it's certainly the case. In keeping with truth of the highest degree, one can only state such hypotheses as such. To do otherwise is falling short of logical imperatives. So RT can say whatever he wants to say, its a free country, but there is no truth that can necessarily be found within his assertions.
3. Therefore, one cannot consciously cause one's thoughts!
Therefore this remains to be seen as "...there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false." Such that surely this conclusion may suffer, of course it may not, hence the truth being of uncertainty.

Since we cannot consciously determine our thoughts (our decisions) free will is impossible in all situations!
Again, the same thing applies!

if a claim is has nothing to do with science, it shouldn't be possible to scientifically disprove it. rt's premises have nothing to do with science, hence, no amount of scientific research or investigation can disprove any of his premises.
BS, as science is the only authority as to what consciousness, thoughts and thinking actually are, not some "relative" retards such as RT, RG1, you, me or anyone else here at the PNF for that matter!

[SpheresOfBalance]

You are dead wrong alpha, did you notice that I quoted something? Here, Read this and weep. Look for the passage that I've highlighted above in red. It came from RG1's argument that mine was an 'argument from ignorance,' which it wasn't. My argument actually supports that which the rules of informal logic offer as acceptable argument. You need to brush up on your understanding of logic. You have "absolutely" no way out of this one. ABSOLUTELY!!!!

for once you are right, but not completely. i concede that my post was worded poorly. i'll revise it accordingly.

I've been right more than once, that you're incapable of seeing it, does not make your case. Oh and your rewrite left OH SO VERY MUCH to be desired. Full of falsehoods your, so called, logic is. Though I do appreciate your attempt at concession, however incomplete it was.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Oops, double post

[SpheresOfBalance]

Oh and by the way your avatar seems to certainly speak of you. And if you somehow believe that it exemplifies your abilities here at the PNF, think again!

Alpha, really, actually you're well beyond Zulu!

[Obvious Leo]

we can easily replace the word "consciousness" with "awareness".

If you are not interested in making meaningful statements then you can attach whatever meanings to words which happen to suit your convenience. However this is a philosophy forum and in such places precision of language is often crucial to the merit of an argument. Your argument has no merit because you conflate the meaning of two entirely different constructs as they are used in the scientific community. I have no particular interest in free will arguments, because I regard them as infantile, but I am merely correcting you on a matter of scientific fact.

[alpha]

As to the topic at hand, RT cannot state his premises and thus conclusion, as if it's certainly the case, as scientists might change the content of his premises. I'm saying that, "...there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false."

again, you fail to understand how logic actually works. it has nothing to do with investigations. a logical deduction is valid (if there is no way to disprove the premises). saying things like "we don't know yet" won't invalidate it.

What the hell do you think "...insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information..." means anyway? It means that "we don't know yet," they are 100% synonymous. Obviously you have a reading comprehension problem!

it appears to me (and many others here, and as you admitted, elsewhere) that it is in fact you who has the reading comprehension disorder. when did i say that "insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information" is different from "we don't know yet"? i was actually just rephrasing your phrase "insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information" with "we don't know yet", and stating that this is not a scientific matter, but a logical one. logic, like math, doesn't change, unlike science which changes everyday.

i'll reply to the rest of your post separately.

[SpheresOfBalance]

As to the topic at hand, RT cannot state his premises and thus conclusion, as if it's certainly the case, as scientists might change the content of his premises. I'm saying that, "...there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false."

again, you fail to understand how logic actually works. it has nothing to do with investigations. a logical deduction is valid (if there is no way to disprove the premises). saying things like "we don't know yet" won't invalidate it.

What the hell do you think "...insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information..." means anyway? It means that "we don't know yet," they are 100% synonymous. Obviously you have a reading comprehension problem!

it appears to me (and many others here, and as you admitted, elsewhere) that it is in fact you who has the reading comprehension disorder. when did i say that "insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information" is different from "we don't know yet"? i was actually just rephrasing your phrase "insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information" with "we don't know yet", and stating that this is not a scientific matter, but a logical one. logic, like math, doesn't change, unlike science which changes everyday.
You need to reread the wikipedia page as it states quite the opposite.

i'll reply to the rest of your post separately.

[alpha]

can anyone refute this, then?

1. awareness is required for free will to exist. In other words I have to awarely decide something for it to be a free will act.
2. Cause always precedes effect.
3. One cannot be aware of a thought before one thinks it.
4. Therefore, one cannot awarely cause one's thoughts!
Since we cannot awarely determine our thoughts (our decisions) free will is impossible in all situations!

@ spheres; what about now?

@ leo; do you feel better now?

[alpha]

You need to reread the wikipedia page as it states quite the opposite.

wikipedia can shove it.

[alpha]

Oh and by the way your avatar seems to certainly speak of you. And if you somehow believe that it exemplifies your abilities here at the PNF, think again!

Alpha, really, actually you're well beyond Zulu!

you're dragging my avatar into this argument now? what's wrong with you, man?

[alpha]

I have no particular interest in free will arguments, because I regard them as infantile, but I am merely correcting you on a matter of scientific fact.

yes, all the philosophers who've argued about freewill were infantile.

[Obvious Leo]

yes, all the philosophers who've argued about freewill were infantile.

Arguing about the nature of the will is not infantile but arguing about the existence of it emphatically is. If you care to name a philosopher who would disagree with this claim then kindly do so. However, if you prefer to define yourself as a mindless automaton then I have no particular interest in dissuading you from this self-assessment.

[alpha]

yes, all the philosophers who've argued about freewill were infantile.

Arguing about the nature of the will is not infantile but arguing about the existence of it emphatically is. If you care to name a philosopher who would disagree with this claim then kindly do so.

this is probably the first time anyone has ever made such a claim, so i doubt i'd find any philosophers who had disagreed with it before you just made it now.

However, if you prefer to define yourself as a mindless automaton then I have no particular interest in dissuading you from this self-assessment.

if your self-delusion (believing in freewill) serves you well, then by all means.

[Obvious Leo]

if your self-delusion (believing in freewill) serves you well, then by all means.

I don't believe in anything because belief is simply not a part of my conceptual make-up. I am a man of science and that human beings are able to anticipate the consequences of their future actions and behave accordingly is a doctrinal position in all the sciences, as well as being a statement of the bloody obvious. If you don't buy it I couldn't care less but it's got me fucked why you haven't topped yourself. You're a puppet in a simulated reality.