Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Wed Sep 23, 2015 6:49 pm**

"Free will is the act of doing math"
Spheres
That is a unique definition of free will! Most would say that if you do something unconsciously it cannot be an act of free will.

Posted: **Wed Sep 23, 2015 6:56 pm**

Absolute truth vs our beliefs determine our thoughts?
The truth or falsehood of our thoughts does not have anything to do with free will. The question is, did I freely decide to think "1+1=2". It does not matter if 1+1=2 is true,in the context of our debate. Similarly, the question, " did you consciously decide to believe in unicorns?" is not the same as asking if unicorns exist.

Posted: **Wed Sep 23, 2015 7:14 pm**

SpheresOfBalance wrote:The subconscious and conscious mind work together.

How do you know this? Are you conscious of your subconscious? How can one 'know' what is 'unknown'?

And then how could they (the conscious and the subconscious) "work together"? Since the conscious mind is not conscious of the subconscious mind, then how is it possible that they can communicate so as to "work together"? Certainly the conscious mind is 'clueless' of the happenings of the subconscious mind, ...true?

Remember: Choices made non-consciously/subconsciously (i.e. "unknowingly") are not of one's free-will. Since we don’t control our unconscious, we therefore do not control the choices made by our unconscious.

Choices can only be made non-consciously. Consciously made choices are not logically possible.

Posted: **Wed Sep 23, 2015 8:26 pm**

The OP:

"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.
2. One cannot be conscious of a thought before one thinks it.
3. Therefore, one cannot consciously cause one's thoughts!
Since we cannot consciously determine our thoughts (our decisions) free will is impossible in all situations!"

Broken down below, point by point:

It seems to me that consciousness is required for free will to exist.
Yes it "seems" that way to you, as it does to me.

In other words I have to consciously decide something for it to be a free will act.
Actually you have to consciously decide something 'for yourself' for it to be considered an act of free will.

1. Cause always precedes effect.
Not necessarily at all, if asteroid (A) collides (causal) with asteroid (B) sending out debris (effect) towards and striking Asteroid (C) then the previous effect becomes a causal from (C)'s perspective. So the effect of (A) striking (B) came before the causal of (C) being struck. It is known as a cascade or chain of events, as the effect of the previous becomes the causal of the next, an effect comes first, relatively speaking.

2. One cannot be conscious of a thought before one thinks it.
Thinking is the action of the conscious mind in conjunction with the subconscious mind to formulate thoughts. Thinking is the math, thoughts are the conclusion of that math, they are both products of the unconscious and conscious mind.

3. Therefore, one cannot consciously cause one's thoughts!
Non-Sequitur. Your conclusion does not necessarily follow your premises. One causes ones thoughts when they decide to think. Thinking is the cause, the thought is the effect

Since we cannot consciously determine our thoughts (our decisions) free will is impossible in all situations!
We determine our thoughts as we think, thus you, my friend, have the free will to believe in leprechauns, if your thinking is misinformed as evidenced by your thoughts.

So though you started off being honest admitting that things "seemed" a certain way to you, you change mid stream as though you could then be certain. If your first premise can only seem to be certain, how could your conclusion be absolutely certain?

Posted: **Wed Sep 23, 2015 8:50 pm**

SpheresOfBalance wrote:We determine our thoughts as we think,...

How do you do this "determining" that determines our thoughts? Does it take thoughts to do this "determining"?

Can you not see your illogic here?... we use thoughts to determine our thoughts, ... Then what determines the thoughts that determined our thoughts? Round and round we go into a never ending infinite regress!

Posted: **Wed Sep 23, 2015 9:01 pm**

RG1 wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:The subconscious and conscious mind work together.
How do you know this? Are you conscious of your subconscious? How can one 'know' what is 'unknown'?

And then how could they (the conscious and the subconscious) "work together"? Since the conscious mind is not conscious of the subconscious mind, then how is it possible that they can communicate so as to "work together"? Certainly the conscious mind is 'clueless' of the happenings of the subconscious mind, ...true?

Remember: Choices made non-consciously/subconsciously (i.e. "unknowingly") are not of one's free-will. Since we don’t control our unconscious, we therefore do not control the choices made by our unconscious.

Choices can only be made non-consciously. Consciously made choices are not logically possible.

Again you argue with your misguided belief of what my words contain, commonly referred to as projection, so you're arguing with yourself. You're starting to create a precedent, that I'll consider when reading any future commentary of yours.

But you've calmed down a little so I'll indulge you, a little.

You Said: "Since the conscious mind is not conscious of the subconscious mind, then how is it possible that they can communicate so as to "work together"?
The subconscious and conscious minds are contained in 'one' brain, 'one' entity. While you consider communication in one direction, you fail to consider it in the other. If in fact you claim that your conscious mind is incapable of "reading" what is contained in your subconscious mind, how could it be possible for you to know that your subconscious mind is not capable of 'reading' your conscious mind? And in so doing, "working together..."

Certainly the conscious mind is 'clueless' of the happenings of the subconscious mind, ...true?"
...because in fact it's theorized that the subconscious mind affects conscious behavior. So what can one conclude from such a theory?

Posted: **Wed Sep 23, 2015 9:10 pm**

RG1 wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:We determine our thoughts as we think,...
How do you do this "determining" that determines our thoughts? Does it take thoughts to do this "determining"?
READ!!! Thinking determines our thoughts. How many times do I have to say it for you to take notice? Tell me!

Can you not see your illogic here?... we use thoughts to determine our thoughts, ...
Again you project, arguing with your misconception.

Then what determines the thoughts that determined our thoughts? Round and round we go into a never ending infinite regress!
Are you doing drugs that inhibit thinking, drunk on your pride, have ADD, just being a troll, or is it some other problem that causes you to not understand the differences between different words? I shall definitely be sympathetic if it's beyond your control.

Posted: **Thu Sep 24, 2015 5:44 pm**

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Thinking determines our thoughts.

This is the problem!!! This is where you commit the logical error!

Spheres, we both agree that we are ‘consciously’ aware of our “thoughts”. So the ‘experience of thoughts’ is not the issue/problem. The problem is the “thinking” part! Now if you agree that "thinking" can only be a non-conscious event, then we are in agreement!

But if you don't, and therefore believe that we possess the power to “think”; i.e. we have the ability to consciously create/construct/determine those thoughts that we then experience, then you are committing a logical fallacy. Do you see the ‘dog-chasing-its-tail’ scenario here?

If not, then let me ask you -- HOW do you determine which thoughts to "think"? (Why do you "think" thought A instead of thought B?) …does it take thoughts to determine which thought (A or B) to think? …if so, then these ‘new-thoughts’ determine the ‘thinking’ that determines ‘our-thoughts’, …now can you see the vicious (never-ending) loop you are creating?

If not, then let me ask you -- HOW did you determine these ‘new-thoughts’ that determined the ‘thinking’ that determined ‘our-thoughts’?

Not only is there an ‘infinite regress’ problem with the concept of “thinking”, but also a problem of ‘time’. For example:

It is not logically possible to consciously ‘know’ what one "thinks" UNTIL one ‘experiences the thought(s)’. In effect, ALL we can do is ‘experience thoughts’, as there is NEVER an opportunity for us to go back in time, to create/construct (i.e. to “think”) a thought for which we can then experience in the present.

Bottom-line --- “THINKING” IS NOT LOGICALLY POSSIBLE, …all we are left with is the ability to ‘EXPERIENCE’ thoughts’ (…not CREATE them!).

Spheres, I suspect your ‘emotional bias' towards one conclusion over another clouds your ability to reason with logic. Most of us have grown up being told (i.e. indoctrinated/brainwashed) that we "consciously think" those thoughts that we experience, that in turn determine our actions, and therefore justify us as 'responsible/accountable'. Because of this cultural indoctrination, we 'automatically' discount, without question, anything contrary to this very concept, and in fact, we seem to hold on to its (supposed) truthfulness passionately (i.e. with 'emotional bias').

I suspect in a future era of time, the reality of this fact (one's inability to think) will be considered "self-evident", but for now, we are all pawns of our indoctrinations.

Posted: **Thu Sep 24, 2015 11:38 pm**

If we only experience thoughts, as you say, then are these our thoughts we are experiencing? I don't know what you're trying to say here.

Posted: **Fri Sep 25, 2015 3:34 pm**

bergie15 wrote:If we only experience thoughts, as you say, then are these our thoughts we are experiencing? I don't know what you're trying to say here.

Yes, these are ‘our’ thoughts as they come from our physical being (body/brain). Thoughts are non-consciously generated by the neural activity in the brain, but consciously experienced. So if we (the conscious we) are just the ‘experiencers’ of our thoughts, then we are not its 'authors', and therefore free-will is not valid. In other words, if our thoughts dictate our choices/actions, then we have no say-so in the matter, …as we did not dictate/’author’ those thoughts that dictated our actions.

In essence, all our choices/actions are ‘involuntary reactions’ (instead of the perceived/assumed ‘voluntary actions’). Which means, therefore we are relegated to just being biological ‘experiencing’ entities, that ‘auto-react’ according to our circumstances/stimuli. Which further means that the ‘mind’ and ‘conscious control’ are but illusionary experiences.

So, yes it is a big deal to accept the notion that we are NOT the ‘authors’ of our thoughts. It strips away our power and magicalness/specialness. Because of the high degree of non-palatable-ness, most of us refuse to accept this ugly unbending truth of logic. Ignorance is bliss, …right? ...and since life is short, it is better to live happy and non-accepting of this truth, than miserable and accepting of this truth. ...that is, if we only had the choice to!

Posted: **Tue Sep 29, 2015 11:21 pm**

RG1 wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:Thinking determines our thoughts.
This is the problem!!! This is where you commit the logical error!

Spheres, we both agree that we are ‘consciously’ aware of our “thoughts”. So the ‘experience of thoughts’ is not the issue/problem. The problem is the “thinking” part! Now if you agree that "thinking" can only be a non-conscious event, then we are in agreement!

But if you don't, and therefore believe that we possess the power to “think”; i.e. we have the ability to consciously create/construct/determine those thoughts that we then experience, then you are committing a logical fallacy. Do you see the ‘dog-chasing-its-tail’ scenario here?

If not, then let me ask you -- HOW do you determine which thoughts to "think"? (Why do you "think" thought A instead of thought B?) …does it take thoughts to determine which thought (A or B) to think? …if so, then these ‘new-thoughts’ determine the ‘thinking’ that determines ‘our-thoughts’, …now can you see the vicious (never-ending) loop you are creating?

If not, then let me ask you -- HOW did you determine these ‘new-thoughts’ that determined the ‘thinking’ that determined ‘our-thoughts’?

Not only is there an ‘infinite regress’ problem with the concept of “thinking”, but also a problem of ‘time’. For example:

It is not logically possible to consciously ‘know’ what one "thinks" UNTIL one ‘experiences the thought(s)’. In effect, ALL we can do is ‘experience thoughts’, as there is NEVER an opportunity for us to go back in time, to create/construct (i.e. to “think”) a thought for which we can then experience in the present.

Bottom-line --- “THINKING” IS NOT LOGICALLY POSSIBLE, …all we are left with is the ability to ‘EXPERIENCE’ thoughts’ (…not CREATE them!).

Spheres, I suspect your ‘emotional bias' towards one conclusion over another clouds your ability to reason with logic. Most of us have grown up being told (i.e. indoctrinated/brainwashed) that we "consciously think" those thoughts that we experience, that in turn determine our actions, and therefore justify us as 'responsible/accountable'. Because of this cultural indoctrination, we 'automatically' discount, without question, anything contrary to this very concept, and in fact, we seem to hold on to its (supposed) truthfulness passionately (i.e. with 'emotional bias').

I suspect in a future era of time, the reality of this fact (one's inability to think) will be considered "self-evident", but for now, we are all pawns of our indoctrinations.

I'm saying that neither you, I, nor scientists currently have certain full knowledge of the brains inner workings. Did you see earlier where I mentioned a theory. Grow up be a man, admit that you can't know. I see that often you assume something goes without saying, that some of your attachments to concepts, do not necessarily fit, and contained within that assumption, lies your potentially false conclusions.

Think about it this way. Most of our, (humans), brains are filled with many, many, many (billions, trillions, more?) bits of data. Can they all come to the surface at once? Of course not, could you imagine that? Being flooded by all that you have committed to memory at once, wow!! How could that possibly be called thinking. I see the subconscious, or maybe the interaction between it and the conscious like a controller, a traffic cop, that prioritizes, dependent upon current events. If a current event (problem) in the conscious mind is important enough, it and the subconscious work together to pull from the memory banks those particulars that are pertinent to the subject at hand. As the two minds compare all the pertinent data, one is thinking, when the best solution is found it is called a thought.

Your understanding of thinking as being impossible, actually just spells out your ignorance of what's actually going on, or the actual meaning of the terms used to describe such things.

Free will is exercised in those moments, solely determined by experience, or lack thereof (knowledge/ignorance) and the physics of the universe, however we may understand them. Free will is a consequence of the totality of that container, i.e., universal physics, knowledge, and ignorance, as contained in the brain however it actually works.

Just because one doesn't fully understand how something works doesn't necessarily mean it's impossible. I often see people here that believe their particular understanding necessarily indicates something definitive about the universe, yet they can't know what it is that they have yet to learn, so I'm perplexed that they then assert something as certain, not instead being reminded of Socrates words, surely meant as a reminder, at least to me, to be cautious with certainty. I'm referring to 'I only 'know' that I 'know' nothing,' In my opinion the greatest words ever spoken by the father of philosophy, probably in fact that which lent to his method. This is in fact how Science attempts to proceed, with it's method of purposeful, even double, blindness, in an attempt to uncover the most certain conclusion possible.

So thinking is possible, but obviously your understanding of it is impossible. To suit your selfish needs? We all have them.

I'm different than most, in that I take what is given and try and make sense of it so it fits. I never say that something is impossible. Everything that human kind has seriously posited, are puzzle pieces that fit in the puzzle, one just has to work at finding where it is that they fit.

You and I are thinking as we write what we do, otherwise the words would seem totally incoherent, in terms of the subject at hand. It's a function of parsing all the experiences that we've had, to generate thoughts. Neither you nor I know for certain how it's accomplished, yet...

P.S. It surely seems to me that your ulterior motive in believing as you do is so you can sidestep things that others might say you're responsible.

Posted: **Wed Sep 30, 2015 6:42 pm**

SpheresOfBalance wrote:I'm saying that neither you, I, nor scientists currently have certain full knowledge of the brains inner workings.

Agreed.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Did you see earlier where I mentioned a theory. Grow up be a man, admit that you can't know. I see that often you assume something goes without saying, that some of your attachments to concepts, do not necessarily fit, and contained within that assumption, lies your potentially false conclusions.

Spheres, you miss my point. Much like saying that a ‘round square’ is not logically possible, or a ‘married bachelor’ is not logically possible, I am likewise saying that ‘conscious control’ is not logically possible.

This has nothing to do with science or "theories", but only with logical possibilities. And, if something is not logically possible, then all the science (and its theories) in the world cannot change this very fact. ...agreed?

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Think about it this way. Most of our, (humans), brains are filled with many, many, many (billions, trillions, more?) bits of data. Can they all come to the surface at once? Of course not, could you imagine that? Being flooded by all that you have committed to memory at once, wow!! How could that possibly be called thinking. I see the subconscious, or maybe the interaction between it and the conscious like a controller, a traffic cop, that prioritizes, dependent upon current events. If a current event (problem) in the conscious mind is important enough, it and the subconscious work together to pull from the memory banks those particulars that are pertinent to the subject at hand. As the two minds compare all the pertinent data, one is thinking, when the best solution is found it is called a thought.

I can agree that the “thinking” (if such activity actually exists) can only be a ‘non-conscious’ event, and the experience/awareness of “thought” is the ‘conscious’ event. The "interaction" between these two parts/events can only be speculative.

But you seem to forget that we are ONLY PRIVY to our “CONSCIOUS” part, i.e. the “thoughts” themselves! This is the part that we experience and are consciously aware of. This is the part that allows us to ‘know’. We are NEVER privy to the 'non-conscious' stuff, including the “thinking” part. We can only presume/speculate/theorize that this thinking activity/interaction actually occurs. We really can’t (consciously) ‘know’ (…for if we did know it, then this knowledge would express itself as an awareness of a conscious thought!, …and ‘awareness’ of a thought is just ‘awareness’, NOT ‘control’, nor determiner/dictator of that thought! Awareness is just awareness (…not control!).

It is not logically possible to ‘know’ what we think until we ‘experience’ the thought. ...and by the time we 'experience' this thought, we missed the opportunity to 'think' (consciously create/construct) it!!

Leo says it well here:
“You can only experience something that has already happened so essentially you're living in the wake of your own past.” -- Obvious Leo

So, just because we (consciously) ‘experience’ thoughts does NOT mean that we (consciously) ‘thunk’ those thoughts. ..as we cannot go back in time and select/create/construct those thoughts that we only 'now' experience!

Therefore, it is not logically possible to think!

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Your understanding of thinking as being impossible, actually just spells out your ignorance of what's actually going on…

Again, forget the ‘science’ of what’s “actually going on”, this is moot/meaningless. If it is not logically possible, then it is not logically possible, ...no matter how much science you wish to throw at it.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Free will is exercised in those moments, solely determined by experience, or lack thereof (knowledge/ignorance) and the physics of the universe, however we may understand them. Free will is a consequence of the totality of that container, i.e., universal physics, knowledge, and ignorance, as contained in the brain however it actually works.

If free-will is the ability to “consciously” choose/control, then free-will is not logically possible. Just because we 'want' it to be so, does not make it so. If our thoughts dictate (choose) our actions, and we do not choose our thoughts, then neither do we choose our actions.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Grow up be a man, admit that you can't know.

Do you really 'know' that we can "think"? …or should you just grow up, be a man, and admit that you can't possibly know?

Posted: **Fri Oct 02, 2015 12:07 am**

“It is not logically possible to consciously ‘know’ what one "thinks" UNTIL one ‘experiences the thought(s)’. In effect, ALL we can do is ‘experience thoughts’, as there is NEVER an opportunity for us to go back in time, to create/construct (i.e. to “think”) a thought for which we can then experience in the present.”
RG1
You definitely got my point.
“My argument was very straightforward
1. Effects always come after their cause.
2. One cannot be conscious of a thought before one thinks it.
3. Therefore, consciousness cannot cause a thought.”
ME
“I'm saying that neither you, I, nor scientists currently have certain full knowledge of the brains inner workings.”
Spheres
“Spheres, you miss my point. Much like saying that a ‘round square’ is not logically possible, or a ‘married bachelor’ is not logically possible, I am likewise saying that ‘conscious control’ is not logically possible.
This has nothing to do with science or "theories", but only with logical possibilities. And, if something is not logically possible, then all the science (and its theories) in the world cannot change this very fact. ...agreed?”
RG1
Agreed. Spheres did not understand my argument.

Posted: **Fri Oct 02, 2015 10:57 pm**

RG1 wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:I'm saying that neither you, I, nor scientists currently have certain full knowledge of the brains inner workings.
Agreed.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Did you see earlier where I mentioned a theory. Grow up be a man, admit that you can't know. I see that often you assume something goes without saying, that some of your attachments to concepts, do not necessarily fit, and contained within that assumption, lies your potentially false conclusions.
Spheres, you miss my point. Much like saying that a ‘round square’ is not logically possible, or a ‘married bachelor’ is not logically possible,
I agree, but only because these are man made concepts, and thus it can be no other way. A definition is in fact a definition.

I am likewise saying that ‘conscious control’ is not logically possible.
Not at all, as I would argue that the conscious mind controls everything you do, except autonomic functions, and even those, the conscious mind can control, if one so chooses. Of course when one consciously stops controlling them, luckily the unconscious mind resumes control.

In the initiation of a particular subject one is to think of, lies conscious control. Personally I don't believe that its a black or white question. That actually consciousness and unconsciousness fade into one another, that they are not distinctly separate. That there are shades of grey between them.

This has nothing to do with science or "theories", but only with logical possibilities. And, if something is not logically possible, then all the science (and its theories) in the world cannot change this very fact. ...agreed?

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Think about it this way. Most of our, (humans), brains are filled with many, many, many (billions, trillions, more?) bits of data. Can they all come to the surface at once? Of course not, could you imagine that? Being flooded by all that you have committed to memory at once, wow!! How could that possibly be called thinking. I see the subconscious, or maybe the interaction between it and the conscious like a controller, a traffic cop, that prioritizes, dependent upon current events. If a current event (problem) in the conscious mind is important enough, it and the subconscious work together to pull from the memory banks those particulars that are pertinent to the subject at hand. As the two minds compare all the pertinent data, one is thinking, when the best solution is found it is called a thought.
I can agree that the “thinking” (if such activity actually exists) can only be a ‘non-conscious’ event, and the experience/awareness of “thought” is the ‘conscious’ event. The "interaction" between these two parts/events can only be speculative.

But you seem to forget that we are ONLY PRIVY to our “CONSCIOUS” part, i.e. the “thoughts” themselves! This is the part that we experience and are consciously aware of. This is the part that allows us to ‘know’. We are NEVER privy to the 'non-conscious' stuff, including the “thinking” part. We can only presume/speculate/theorize that this thinking activity/interaction actually occurs. We really can’t (consciously) ‘know’ (…for if we did know it, then this knowledge would express itself as an awareness of a conscious thought!, …and ‘awareness’ of a thought is just ‘awareness’, NOT ‘control’, nor determiner/dictator of that thought! Awareness is just awareness (…not control!).

It is not logically possible to ‘know’ what we think until we ‘experience’ the thought. ...and by the time we 'experience' this thought, we missed the opportunity to 'think' (consciously create/construct) it!!

Leo says it well here:
“You can only experience something that has already happened so essentially you're living in the wake of your own past.” -- Obvious Leo

So, just because we (consciously) ‘experience’ thoughts does NOT mean that we (consciously) ‘thunk’ those thoughts. ..as we cannot go back in time and select/create/construct those thoughts that we only 'now' experience!

Therefore, it is not logically possible to think!

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Your understanding of thinking as being impossible, actually just spells out your ignorance of what's actually going on…
Again, forget the ‘science’ of what’s “actually going on”, this is moot/meaningless. If it is not logically possible, then it is not logically possible, ...no matter how much science you wish to throw at it.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Free will is exercised in those moments, solely determined by experience, or lack thereof (knowledge/ignorance) and the physics of the universe, however we may understand them. Free will is a consequence of the totality of that container, i.e., universal physics, knowledge, and ignorance, as contained in the brain however it actually works.
If free-will is the ability to “consciously” choose/control, then free-will is not logically possible. Just because we 'want' it to be so, does not make it so. If our thoughts dictate (choose) our actions, and we do not choose our thoughts, then neither do we choose our actions.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Grow up be a man, admit that you can't know.
Do you really 'know' that we can "think"? …or should you just grow up, be a man, and admit that you can't possibly know?

OK, so I'm going to be bold enough to disagree with you. I see that different people have different capabilities. While it may be true for you and some others to not be capable of accessing your unconscious mind, where you are consciously aware of such a transaction, I believe that others have that capability to various degrees. If consciousness can cause the suppression of certain memories, then it is controlling the thinking process. That's the aim! Personally I believe that the division between the conscious and unconscious minds is a result of man wanting to have his cake and eat it too. If he can create a division between that which he knows is true and that which he wants to believe is true, then he can serve his selfish needs with no conscious guilt. As I've said, fear is a very big factor.

In addition, to believe such a thing, if true, would mean that the blurry line between the conscious and unconscious minds vary between different people, as those that have more to hide, delve less into their unconscious minds, while those more willing to address their fears, and the absolute truth of things, delve deeper into their unconscious. Examples are hypnosis, subliminal stimulus and of course Psychological Kinesiology (Psych-K).

Again I ask you, if you say that you cannot be conscious of the unconscious, how would you know to what degree they lend to one another? For instance it could be that there is no such thing as the unconscious mind, that there is only one mind, that the illusion of their being an unconscious mind is created in the need for the mind to only focus on few things at a time, otherwise, as I've said above, we'd be inundated with data to such a degree as to be incapable of doing anything. So what you call a conscious mind is actually a selective window into the unconscious mind, that is in fact the focusing element. And in so focusing on one particular subject one controls the thinking, as all the data that fits that criteria is retrieved. It happens very fast, the stream of data that is, so maybe the focusing element is just not capable of articulation at the speed of memory retrieval. Still I would say that the 'conscious mind (focusing agent) is in control' as it specifies the topic memories for retrieval), the thought being simply the juxtaposition of all the retrieved memories, as they're focused upon, so that all that thinking is, is the act of retrieving the pertinent data for juxtaposition, initiated by the subject at hand, i.e., thinking is done in that 'instant' of retrieval of data/juxtaposition. That it's not some long drawn out process, that must be done in the unconscious mind. That it's a conglomerate of previous retrievals that are then stored as a singular memory, such that it can be instantly retrieved again, already calculated, unless of course new data has to be added to the conglomerate, and so it is, for the next stored memory and subsequent retrieval; thinking!

Which is why it's hard to teach old dogs new tricks!

Posted: **Fri Oct 02, 2015 11:05 pm**

No one said that one cannot be conscious of the subconscious. The brain does the calculations unconsciously and then presents the results to the consciousness. Consciousness cannot do the calculations because it cannot be aware of them before they exist. You still dont get it. Your whole post has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

Philosophy Now Forum

Consciousness and free will.

Re: Consciousness and free will.

Re: Consciousness and free will.

Re: Consciousness and free will.

Re: Consciousness and free will.

Re: Consciousness and free will.

Re: Consciousness and free will.

Re: Consciousness and free will.

Re: Consciousness and free will.

Re: Consciousness and free will.

Re: Consciousness and free will.

Re: Consciousness and free will.

Re: Consciousness and free will.

Re: Consciousness and free will.

Re: Consciousness and free will.

Re: Consciousness and free will.