Philosophy Now Forum

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???????

Raw_Thought wrote: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!

"The event must happen first, before one can be aware, or know of it."

Sure, for every event external to me, yes, you're absolutely right.

But, for events that are internal to me, that are, in fact, 'me', not only is it permissable that I know the event (myself) as it happens, it's friggin' mandatory.

RG1 wrote:The event must happen first, before one can be aware, or know of it.

henry quirk wrote:Sure, for every event external to me, yes, you're absolutely right.

But, for events that are internal to me, that are, in fact, 'me', not only is it permissable that I know the event (myself) as it happens, it's friggin' mandatory.

So then, how do you know what you are thinking? How do you ‘know’ the content of your thoughts? Don’t you FIRST have to ‘recognize’ or ‘translate’ the thoughts into something with meaning, so as to then ‘know’ what you are thinking? And doesn't this translation/recognition take a bit of 'time'?

Luckily, my thoughts come to me in the English language, so the translation/recognition is very quick for me. But if my thoughts were in Spanish or Russian, then it would take much longer for me to ‘know’ my thoughts.

Henry, certainly you are NOT claiming that you can 'create' your thought and 'know' your thought simultaneously and instantaneously, ...are you?

The realization/knowing of a thought can only occur AFTER the thought, …agreed? In other words, we can’t know what we think until AFTER we think it. It is therefore logically impossible to go back in time to control/change that which we only just ‘now’ experience.

...which means that the thoughts that we experience (are consciously aware of) have ALREADY happened/initiated. Therefore, “conscious control” (aka conscious choice, “free-will”) is logically IMPOSSIBLE. Libet's experiments have confirmed what LOGIC has already told us!!!

"The realization/knowing of a thought can only occur AFTER the thought, …agreed?"

No sir, I do not agree, for reasons (backed my own experience of myself) which I've laid out multiple times, across multiple threads.

You aren't listening to me...you're not even attempting to argue against me...you're just soapboxing.

#

"Libet's experiments" if not exactly disputed, certainly have been called into question. Before you worship at the hooves of that particular sacred cow, you may wanna check and see if it's still alive and kicking. I believe the wiki entry on neuroscience lays out the problems with Libet's tests.

RG1 wrote:
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).

Sorry, this is off-topic, but I'm curious. What is your argument for favoring seeking the truth even if it is ugly? I intuitively also want to seek the truth, but I'm wondering what a more sophisticated reason for that'd be.

Butting in here with my own take...

Truth is what is real, what is factual. To seek the truth (reality, fact) is, bottom line, motivated by self-preservation. Seeing the world as it is, and acting accordingly, is always a good thing. This, of course, means seeing the world naked, without the buffers and constrainers of language and concept. That is: see the event then describe it, don't craft a descrption then go lookin' for the event you've described. Also: don't craft a description then ignore an event cuz it doesn't neatly fall into the conceptual box you've built (like determinists).

henry quirk wrote:Butting in here with my own take...

Truth is what is real, what is factual. To seek the truth (reality, fact) is, bottom line, motivated by self-preservation. Seeing the world as it is, and acting accordingly, is always a good thing. This, of course, means seeing the world naked, without the buffers and constrainers of language and concept. That is: see the event then describe it, don't craft a descrption then go lookin' for the event you've described. Also: don't craft a description then ignore an event cuz it doesn't neatly fall into the conceptual box you've built (like determinists).

There are big reasons why people use "truth" and not "facts'. You are conflating the two things. Truth is far more frangible and indefinable.
For example the Lord of the Rings Trilogy has much to demonstrate about loyalty and friendship between Frodo and Samwise. What Tolkien shows about these things contains much 'truth', and yet the books are totally fictional.

By contrast bachelors are unmarried men is a fact, and yet contains no 'truth'.

henry quirk wrote:Butting in here with my own take...

Truth is what is real, what is factual. To seek the truth (reality, fact) is, bottom line, motivated by self-preservation. Seeing the world as it is, and acting accordingly, is always a good thing. This, of course, means seeing the world naked, without the buffers and constrainers of language and concept. That is: see the event then describe it, don't craft a descrption then go lookin' for the event you've described. Also: don't craft a description then ignore an event cuz it doesn't neatly fall into the conceptual box you've built (like determinists).

There are big reasons why people use "truth" and not "facts'. You are conflating the two things. Truth is far more frangible and indefinable.
For example the Lord of the Rings Trilogy has much to demonstrate about loyalty and friendship between Frodo and Samwise. What Tolkien shows about these things contains much 'truth', and yet the books are totally fictional.

By contrast bachelors are unmarried men is a fact, and yet contains no 'truth'.

Risto wrote:Sorry, this is off-topic, but I'm curious. What is your argument for favoring seeking the truth even if it is ugly?

Hi Risto, since none of us have any say-so in what we desire (or favor), I therefore have no argument, to justify why I desire what I desire. It just is what it is.

Remember, we don’t control/dictate/choose our desires, it is our desires (will/wants) that control us. It is these very desires that drive/motivate us to do what we do.

Risto wrote:I intuitively also want to seek the truth, but I'm wondering what a more sophisticated reason for that'd be.

The simple (sophisticated) reason is that “You are what you are”.

Either you are a ‘Philosopher’ (seeker of ‘real’ truths, good, bad, or ugly) or you are a 'Religionist' (seeker of feel-good ‘pseudo’ truths). The trick is recognizing which one you are.

To help know -- Just ask yourself if you have a preference to (or favor) a particular outcome/conclusion. For example, as in the free-will debate. If you do have a preference, particular a strong preference, or an emotional bias, then you are probably NOT seeking ‘real’ truth, you probably are seeking 'justification' (pseudo-truth) to fill a need/desire. And if you do 'not' have a preference of a particular outcome/conclusion, then you probably have a much 'clearer' view of the truth.

...if you are to judge a race, it is best 'not' to have a horse in the race!

trying to explain things based on how we feel, is never gonna get us anywhere. each person might feel differently about the same thing. science and even physics, are also limited in their scope. logic, however, is the most absolute (broad) tool we (some of us anyway) have at our disposal.

henry seems to argue that conclusions are wrong if one of the premises is wrong, but refuses (or fails) to demonstrate which premise is actually faulty.

spheres, seems to build his entire theory on how the brain works, while admitting, no one, including himself, really knows how the hell it works. logically, it doesn't really matter how exactly the brain works (how consciousness interacts with subconsciousness), the point is, no matter how you hypothesize about it, it would still prove determinism, or lead to infinite regress or circular logic.

it was interesting to read sphere's asteroid analogy, and how cause needn't always precede effect.

i just wanted to add, that one shouldn't confuse logical causation with physical causation. the logical laws of causality devour everything physical and metaphysical. this means that even in the presence of of a soul, determinism still applies, because for genuine freewill to exist (and function) it needs to be outside the law of causation, which is impossible, as it's a universal law. nothing can escape it. no exceptions.

Hobbes,

I don't disagree with you except to say, like love, loyality and friendship (love wearing different hats perhaps) are interior actions folks demonstrate in the exterior world (caressing the face of a loved one, standing against the enemy with a friend, etc.). I believe loving is real (as interior action) in the same way I believe choosing/agency is real (as an interior action).

In another thread, you said sumthin' about how we don't get the choice to love, we do or we don't. I could argue this isn't strictly accurate but I'm goin' home to the nine year old and will leave that for another day. I'll close with this: even if we don't choose to love, we always choose what to do with that love (to express or repress, how to express, etc.). Each of us an agent, considering, weighing, choosing, doing.

#

Alpha,

I thought i was pretty clear across multiple threads: I reject all the premises (and conclusions) offered by you determinists and my only evidence is how my (and your) head works. You wholly reject the evidence of (in) your head as an illusion.

I think you determinists are kinda looney, and I'm pretty sure you determinists think the same about those on my side of the aisle.

Haven't got a clue how to bridge the gap between us.

henry quirk wrote:Alpha,

I thought i was pretty clear across multiple threads: I reject all the premises (and conclusions) offered by you determinists and my only evidence is how my (and your) head works. You wholly reject the evidence of (in) your head as an illusion.

I think you determinists are kinda looney, and I'm pretty sure you determinists think the same about those on my side of the aisle.

Haven't got a clue how to bridge the gap between us.

rejecting is not enough. in order for your rejection to be valid, you must invalidate our premises.

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).