Consciousness and free will.

[Hobbes' Choice]

1. Cause always precedes effect.
2. Consciousness of a thought cannot precede thinking it.

Consciousness of a thought is thinking it. Each though has to have a cause which pre-dates the conscious process. This has to be a physical cause.

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.

What is Sphere's problem? Does he think it all comes from thin air?

[alpha]

1. Cause always precedes effect.
2. Consciousness of a thought cannot precede thinking it.

Consciousness of a thought is thinking it. Each though has to have a cause which pre-dates the conscious process. This has to be a physical cause.
why must it be physical? there's no logical necessity for it to be physical.

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.

What is Sphere's problem? Does he think it all comes from thin air?
spheres probably just wants to complicate it so much and mesh it all together, to give him room for speculating and what he thinks is plausible deniability (to save his relativism from being destroyed).

[SpheresOfBalance]

Alpha you're out of your tree!!

I argue because, those that are speaking as if certain in this matter, are speaking as if they "KNOW" how the brain works. If scientists currently admit they don't know how it works, then who are PNF frequenters to state that they know certainly how it works.
Since they do not know the following they cannot speak with certainty:

(1) What consciousness is.
(2) What ever it is, how it works.
(3) What thinking is.
(4) What ever thinking is, how it works.
(5) How are thoughts created.
(6) Where are thoughts created?
(7) How much time is required to make a thought, certainly pathways between neurons (new data) aren't created instantaneously.
(8) Which is more proper, speaking of the unconscious, or subconscious mind, remember that some philosophers argue that it doesn't exist?
(9) I could come up with many, many others...

Those that say they don't have to know such things, for them to say what's already been said in this thread with certainty, have a problem with their thinking. Have a problem with their denial getting in the way. It would surely seem they don't want to be responsible, for somethings that they've already done. This can be used as a means to both sidestep learning and responsibility, to perpetuate the problem. To continue doing something because they actually like it. Manic??

Here you go:

What's in this box I'm holding? Tell me with certainty!
With respect to what's in this box, how does it interact with that which is outside the box? Tell me with certainty!

If a long time ago, I told you what was inside the box, and how it interacted with that which was outside the box, upon asking you now, the first thing that would come to your mind, might be what you were told was the truth then, in that case, which might bias your 'guess' as to this current case, but in fact you could not know as if certain. First, I could have been lying the first time. Second, I could have changed it's contents. So in truth you could not speak as if certain, you could only ever speculate. Which is exactly what is being done in this particular case with consciousness.

Because you have a mind, and the old ideas seem to fit that which you experience, which is why they were posited in the first place, you 'believe' in them, they certainly 'seem' the case. But just because they 'seem' so, does not mean they 'are so, certainly, in 'truth!' Which in fact is what the scientists are currently attempting to ascertain.

Of course you guys want to beat your chests, playing the part of scientists, and speak with certainty! But the truth is, that you can't!

[alpha]

dear spheres,

what the hell are you talking about? you like to conveniently hide behind "science" because science can always be refuted. when was the last time science actually discovered something, stuck with it, and reached a consensus on it? this sort of "science" serves relativists extremely well. logic on the other hand, is the anti-relativism, and therefor avoided like the plague by any and all relativists. even when they try using logic, they're actually trying to distort it into something else. it's very clear that you're way out of your depth when it comes to logic, so just admit it, and say "i don't understand the argument", instead of writing essay after essay, of unrelated arguments, speculations and ad hominems.

take care, spheres.

[Hobbes' Choice]

1. Cause always precedes effect.
2. Consciousness of a thought cannot precede thinking it.

Consciousness of a thought is thinking it. Each though has to have a cause which pre-dates the conscious process. This has to be a physical cause.
why must it be physical? there's no logical necessity for it to be physical.

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.

What is Sphere's problem? Does he think it all comes from thin air?
spheres probably just wants to complicate it so much and mesh it all together, to give him room for speculating and what he thinks is plausible deniability (to save his relativism from being destroyed).

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

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

[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?

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

[SpheresOfBalance]

dear spheres,

what the hell are you talking about? you like to conveniently hide behind "science" because science can always be refuted. when was the last time science actually discovered something, stuck with it, and reached a consensus on it?
Yet you are using a computer, created through science. If you become Ill and require fixing, you yell for science, as it is the only thing that can fix you. You do indeed seem to require fixing.

this sort of "science" serves relativists extremely well. logic on the other hand, is the anti-relativism, and therefor avoided like the plague by any and all relativists.
No it's not, that you believe so, shows your lack of understanding. Philosophy is in fact the father of all science, and as such all science is in fact the progeny of philosophy. They share the same DNA! That you believe they are distinctly different, means you cling to that which is fringe philosophy, because it actually doesn't compute.

even when they try using logic, they're actually trying to distort it into something else. it's very clear that you're way out of your depth when it comes to logic, so just admit it, and say "i don't understand the argument", instead of writing essay after essay, of unrelated arguments, speculations and ad hominems.
Everyone supplies ad-hominem's depending upon the others perspective, you did throughout this message of yours. You can't stand the fact that you bought into RT's BS, and hide behind his false logic, that you'll even so so far as to challenge that which has made your modern life modern, SCIENCE! They use nothing but logic, which is why it takes so long to nail things down, the proof is in the pudding, not crazy peoples minds.

take care, spheres.
What ever 'suits' you, of course!

[alpha]

according to your logic (which we discussed in the other thread), i could easily invalidate your whole argument by saying "i was just messing with you".

[SpheresOfBalance]

according to your logic (which we discussed in the other thread), i could easily invalidate your whole argument by saying "i was just messing with you".

No, you would then invalidate that we were at odds in the way we seemingly were, that my argument didn't actually oppose yours as yours was not really presented!

I never lie, which doesn't mean that I never have lied, it just means that I never lie here, or currently in my life. I consider myself a "Truth Seeker!" I hold truth above all other things. It's what brought me to philosophy. But I have learned that Philosophy doesn't necessarily point to the truth as much as it points to how hard it is to find. If I tell you something, it's because I honestly believe it to be the case!

[alpha]

according to your logic (which we discussed in the other thread), i could easily invalidate your whole argument by saying "i was just messing with you".

No, you would then invalidate that we were at odds in the way we seemingly were, that my argument didn't actually oppose yours as yours was not really presented!

I never lie, which doesn't mean that I never have lied, it just means that I never lie here, or currently in my life. I consider myself a "Truth Seeker!" I hold truth above all other things. It's what brought me to philosophy. But I have learned that Philosophy doesn't necessarily point to the truth as much as it points to how hard it is to find. If I tell you something, it's because I honestly believe it to be the case!

since you mentioned honesty, let me be honest with you; truth can't be found through relativising (and broadening the meaning of) everything, but by narrowing things down. no truth can be reached by validating everything, just because some random person somewhere in the mountains might believe it is so.

[SpheresOfBalance]

according to your logic (which we discussed in the other thread), i could easily invalidate your whole argument by saying "i was just messing with you".

No, you would then invalidate that we were at odds in the way we seemingly were, that my argument didn't actually oppose yours as yours was not really presented!

I never lie, which doesn't mean that I never have lied, it just means that I never lie here, or currently in my life. I consider myself a "Truth Seeker!" I hold truth above all other things. It's what brought me to philosophy. But I have learned that Philosophy doesn't necessarily point to the truth as much as it points to how hard it is to find. If I tell you something, it's because I honestly believe it to be the case!

since you mentioned honesty, let me be honest with you; truth can't be found through relativising (and broadening the meaning of) everything, but by narrowing things down. no truth can be reached by validating everything, just because some random person somewhere in the mountains might believe it is so.

Yet you would tell everyone that life sucks, that there should be none. I say, "screw you, as you're some freak that lives in the mountains somewhere!" Not a lot of things that are human made are absolute, my friend, deal with it!

I get the impression that you've suffered a great blow, at the hands of a drunk driver, a war, or some other such bad luck, that has limited your freedom, i.e., "...it won't change anything." If so, you have the "RELATIVE" power to use 'knowledge' and 'science' to make your life in the confines of the absolute universal physics, that actually are the case. In such a case of misfortune, absolutism tends to strangle one, while relativism lends to their freedom, but absolutism is a good way to maintain the status quo of being pissed off, that's for sure!

[alpha]

"screw you, as you're some freak that lives in the mountains somewhere!"

ditto.

[SpheresOfBalance]

"screw you, as you're some freak that lives in the mountains somewhere!"

ditto.

And thus I'm the right one, the sane one, that has relativism on my side. As to the futility of "your" life you can only speak of "yours." Yours is the only example of that case, that you can be sure of, it is unique, as yours is what you, not we, have made it. Relative to ours, you have made yours shit! That is your right, with the relative meaning of life, amongst men.

However mine is sacred, you come over here and screw with my miracle, I'll end yours in the process of you screwing with mine. As the universe only says to live and let live, lest you decide that you want to die. In which case it can be provided! Everyones choice, to either live or die, I choose life! You?

[alpha]

"screw you, as you're some freak that lives in the mountains somewhere!"

ditto.

And thus I'm the right one, the sane one, that has relativism on my side. As to the futility of "your" life you can only speak of "yours." Yours is the only example of that case, that you can be sure of, it is unique, as yours is what you, not we, have made it. Relative to ours, you have made yours shit! That is your right, with the relative meaning of life, amongst men.
actually it's dealing with "people" like you that makes my "life" much more miserable than need be.

However mine is sacred, you come over here and screw with my miracle, I'll end yours in the process of you screwing with mine. As the universe only says to live and let live, lest you decide that you want to die. In which case it can be provided! Everyones choice, to either live or die, I choose life! You?

[SpheresOfBalance]

"screw you, as you're some freak that lives in the mountains somewhere!"

ditto.

And thus I'm the right one, the sane one, that has relativism on my side. As to the futility of "your" life you can only speak of "yours." Yours is the only example of that case, that you can be sure of, it is unique, as yours is what you, not we, have made it. Relative to ours, you have made yours shit! That is your right, with the relative meaning of life, amongst men.
actually it's dealing with "people" like you that makes my "life" much more miserable than need be.
I believe you, you crazy ones always feel that way, you that would be the self proclaimed god, so as to dictate absolutism, your religious dogma. Well you can stick it where the sun doesn't shine, or the moon, take your pick, as in this context, they are both one in the same.

However mine is sacred, you come over here and screw with my miracle, I'll end yours in the process of you screwing with mine. As the universe only says to live and let live, lest you decide that you want to die. In which case it can be provided! Everyones choice, to either live or die, I choose life! You?