Consciousness and free will.

[alpha]

ok, i just reread the post to which you linked. let me try a different approach; what can science possibly come up with that would undermine our argument? that subconscious decisions are conscious? that thoughts are produced by the conscious? that there is something in the mechanism of how the brain works that defies the laws of logic and/or physics?

you dismissed my whole post, which is fine, but i'd still appreciate an answer to what you think about concepts vs objects. can science study concepts? i'd be very impressed if it could.

[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.
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).
Incorrect, because if one doesn't know how consciousness works he can't necessarily know what's being done where. That it seems that things are in and out of consciousness, doesn't necessarily mean they are.


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.

My basic argument for all things that are currently not fully known, that are being studied as we speak, cutting edge, so to speak, is this:

ONE CANNOT SPEAK OF THESE THINGS AS IF """"CERTAIN"""" AS THE SCIENTISTS SURELY ARE NOT AT THIS TIME!!!!!!!!
ALL THE PEOPLE HERE AT THE PNF CAN ONLY EVER """"SPECULATE"""" AS TO THESE THINGS, UNLESS OF COURSE THEY ARE IN FACT ONE OF THE RESEARCH SCIENTISTS, AND EVEN THEN.... THERE IS NOT NECESSARILY POPULAR CONSENSUS!

I believe that many here and elsewhere pick these cutting edge research topics so as to boost ones ego, because if they can edge out someone else, with a little reading and some of their own BS, then others shall be baffled by it, back down while paying homage to a no account bullshitter. And they don't deserve such attention, only a true scientist does!

I don't believe in such games, it's BS!!

I shall never buy swampland, only ever point out that it might be so. And in such cases it probably is!

[Necromancer]

It's as if having thoughts and taking the time to think (by this "theory") is excessive because you add nothing still the same. Why should one think when decision has already been made unconsciously? This reductio ad absurdum should be most telling.

Like in chess playing: the moves are made unconsciously so blitz chess is exactly the same as normal chess! "Hah-hah, God, I tricked you there!"

[alpha]

It's as if having thoughts and taking the time to think (by this "theory") is excessive because you add nothing still the same. Why should one think when decision has already been made unconsciously? This reductio ad absurdum should be most telling.

Like in chess playing: the moves are made unconsciously so blitz chess is exactly the same as normal chess! "Hah-hah, God, I tricked you there!"

decisions aren't usually made subconsciously. the thoughts are generated and stored subconsciously. the thinking mechanism in the consciousness is also fixed and can't be altered by true choice (infinite regress, or vicious circle).

[Hobbes' Choice]

It's as if having thoughts and taking the time to think (by this "theory") is excessive because you add nothing still the same. Why should one think when decision has already been made unconsciously? This reductio ad absurdum should be most telling.

Like in chess playing: the moves are made unconsciously so blitz chess is exactly the same as normal chess! "Hah-hah, God, I tricked you there!"

decisions aren't usually made subconsciously.

Neuroscience disagrees with this.

[alpha]

It's as if having thoughts and taking the time to think (by this "theory") is excessive because you add nothing still the same. Why should one think when decision has already been made unconsciously? This reductio ad absurdum should be most telling.

Like in chess playing: the moves are made unconsciously so blitz chess is exactly the same as normal chess! "Hah-hah, God, I tricked you there!"

decisions aren't usually made subconsciously.

Neuroscience disagrees with this.

well, then neuroscience only reinforces the case for determinism.

[Hobbes' Choice]

decisions aren't usually made subconsciously.

Neuroscience disagrees with this.

well, then neuroscience only reinforces the case for determinism.

True - is that a problem?

[alpha]

Neuroscience disagrees with this.

well, then neuroscience only reinforces the case for determinism.

True - is that a problem?

not at all, but i might still disagree with neuroscience.

my main argument for determinism is the principle of sufficient reason (as freewill would literally need to exist inside a causal vacuum in order for it to be exempt from absolute causation).

[Hobbes' Choice]

well, then neuroscience only reinforces the case for determinism.

True - is that a problem?

not at all, but i might still disagree with neuroscience.

my main argument for determinism is the principle of sufficient reason (as freewill would literally need to exist inside a causal vacuum in order for it to be exempt from absolute causation).

Yes, but a causal vacuum would mean that everything we rely on for making decisions such as learning, motivation, needs, desires and so forth would be outside our choices. This seems absurd to me.

[alpha]

my main argument for determinism is the principle of sufficient reason (as freewill would literally need to exist inside a causal vacuum in order for it to be exempt from absolute causation).

Yes, but a causal vacuum would mean that everything we rely on for making decisions such as learning, motivation, needs, desires and so forth would be outside our choices. This seems absurd to me.

exactly; it would lead to absolute indeterminism, which won't solve anything. there would still be no accountability.

[Hobbes' Choice]

my main argument for determinism is the principle of sufficient reason (as freewill would literally need to exist inside a causal vacuum in order for it to be exempt from absolute causation).

Yes, but a causal vacuum would mean that everything we rely on for making decisions such as learning, motivation, needs, desires and so forth would be outside our choices. This seems absurd to me.

exactly; it would lead to absolute indeterminism, which won't solve anything. there would still be no accountability.

I don't think it would lead to anything - its an impossibility.
The ability to make a choice is incompatible to the idea that you are insulated from causality. It's meaningless.

[alpha]

I don't think it would lead to anything - its an impossibility.
The ability to make a choice is incompatible to the idea that you are insulated from causality. It's meaningless.

i know that anything but strict causality is impossible. i meant even if it were possible (for argument's sake), it would only lead to indeterminism and chaos, which don't entail any responsibility either.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I don't think it would lead to anything - its an impossibility.
The ability to make a choice is incompatible to the idea that you are insulated from causality. It's meaningless.

i know that anything but strict causality is impossible. i meant even if it were possible (for argument's sake), it would only lead to indeterminism and chaos, which don't entail any responsibility either.

In our wholly deterministic universe we still have generated concepts of blame, shame and responsibility; it's just that people who think they have free will, do not really know what they are doing when they invoke these concepts.

I'd rather live in a world of justice that understood determinism and hence mitigation, correctionalism, and rehabilitation: rather than in a world that thought that people were incorrigible because crime is the result of free will!

[alpha]

In our wholly deterministic universe we still have generated concepts of blame, shame and responsibility; it's just that people who think they have free will, do not really know what they are doing when they invoke these concepts.

I'd rather live in a world of justice that understood determinism and hence mitigation, correctionalism, and rehabilitation: rather than in a world that thought that people were incorrigible because crime is the result of free will!

agreed. better yet, i'd rather not live anywhere at all.

[raw_thought]

1. Cause always precedes effect.
2. Consciousness of a thought cannot precede thinking it.
2. Therefore, consciousness cannot cause thoughts.
The above syllogism confuses Spheres. I will try to make the obvious simpler to understand.
1. The brain creates consciousness by sorting over 86,000,000,000 nerve messages a second.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog ... uman-brain
2. I cannot consciously sort over 86,000,000,000 of anything in a second.
3. Therefore, I cannot consciously create my thoughts.