Philosophy Now Forum

“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.”
ME
“What is Sphere's problem? Does he think it all comes from thin air?”
Hobbes choice.
Yep, pretty much!
I used to think that spheres was pro-science. But this thread shows the opposite. His entire argument is that we can NEVER make any statements about the brain because we do not know everything about it and that we cannot make any claims about cause and effect ( that cause always precedes effect) .

raw_thought wrote:“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.”
ME
“What is Sphere's problem? Does he think it all comes from thin air?”
Hobbes choice.
Yep, pretty much!
I used to think that spheres was pro-science. But this thread shows the opposite. His entire argument is that we can NEVER make any statements about the brain because we do not know everything about it and that we cannot make any claims about cause and effect ( that cause always precedes effect) .

I've always found SoB rude and uncontrollably argumentative. I once Decided to take his side of an argument to see what happened. Guess what? He argued against me - and therefore against himself. Oh fucking um!!

“God you are both idiots! You have no way of knowing what’s going on, yet you speak as if you do…”
Spheres
How do I know that one cannot be conscious of a thought before one thinks it? How do I know that one must paint a picture before one sees it? COMMON SENSE!
What neurons are firing and what color paints are used is superfluous. Similarly, if I see a glass of goo, I can know nothing about chemistry and still know with absolute certainty that there are no square/circles in the goo.
Saying that being conscious of a thought can precede thinking it is like saying that one can see the actual physical painting before one paints it. Both are silly because they lack any common sense.

Hobbes choice,
Even if we say that consciousness of a thought is and only is neurons firing, one still cannot say that consciousness causes thoughts. If consciousness and particular neurons firing are equivalent then they must be simultaneous. If A and B are simultaneous, A cannot cause B and B cannot cause A.
If one accepts Dennett’s definition of consciousness and then says, “consciousness causes thoughts” one is saying “ my neurons firing in a particular way cause them to fire in that particular way”. That is a meaningless tautology.
Note, that I am not taking a stance as to which interpretation of consciousness is correct (Dennett’s interpretation that consciousness is and only is brain states or the belief that consciousness involves experiences). I am saying that both interpretations imply that consciousness cannot cause thoughts.

raw_thought wrote:Hobbes choice,
Even if we say that consciousness of a thought is and only is neurons firing, one still cannot say that consciousness causes thoughts.

I did not say that

If consciousness and particular neurons firing are equivalent then they must be simultaneous. If A and B are simultaneous, A cannot cause B and B cannot cause A.

Nonetheless there is such a thing as time, and nothing at happens without reference to precedence.
I think the biggest difficulty, not addressed here is what is the warrant that we make a distinction between consciousness and "a thought".

If one accepts Dennett’s definition of consciousness and then says, “consciousness causes thoughts” one is saying “ my neurons firing in a particular way cause them to fire in that particular way”. That is a meaningless tautology.

I suspect Dennett is a crazy old man who thinks it possible to fudge any issue with the appliance of contradiction. I've only read one of his books,and from it I concluded he has a poor understanding of natural selection due to his liberal application of teleology. SO I don't rate him generally.

Note, that I am not taking a stance as to which interpretation of consciousness is correct (Dennett’s interpretation that consciousness is and only is brain states or the belief that consciousness involves experiences). I am saying that both interpretations imply that consciousness cannot cause thoughts.

It seem to me that the massively complicated organ the brain, is not to be 'controlled' by the conscious thoughts of humans. The complexity of its workings far outreaches any thing we could encompass by our daily awareness. And we know that often when we try to think how to do something that can get in the way of us actually doing it. When one thinks of an expert playing the piano, he cannot think of every key his ten fingers press. You cannot even drive a car if you have to consciously remind yourself of what the there pedals do.
And yet the process of learning these things is moderated by the conscious learned experience in some way/

alpha wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Don't be insulted, this really is just fun and games, to keep one sharp, on their toes. I used to get mad, but usually only when one called me names. As long as one doesn't call me names, I'm good! You know, like idiot, moron, brain dead, etc. Pretty much I'm immune these days unless I'm not feeling so good.

But I resent being told what to do, usually doing quite the opposite.

well, things like "screw you". and "stick it where the sun doesn't shine" are insults.

So is "...just because some random person somewhere in the mountains might believe it is so." Which is what came first, shall we continue to traverse what was said from end to beginning? The way in which we descended into anarchy, the tit for tat escalation. Of course, you'll obviously take no blame, it's an ego thing, and seems to be apparent at this point. What say you? Worthless or worthwhile?

Are degrees of condescension relative and not absolute?

Below in red is what Spheres added in this post as a correction to his previous post, while blue is his current response to the last by RT.

RT: “Spheres, You actually believe that you can be aware of a thought before you think it????”
SOB: “God you are both idiots! You have no way of knowing whats going on, yet you speak as if you do, based on archaic, antiquated understandings. You use sequence as an indicator, yet you're ignorant of the possible sequences that are taking place. Time is not your god in this case, proving your point, it's the other possible sequences, that science is trying to iron out, that make fun of your position”
RT: So you are saying that it is possible to be aware of a thought before one thinks it!!!!! True, I have no way of knowing everything that is going on. However, I do know that it is logically impossible to be aware of a thought before one thinks it.
SOB: “Thinking is not necessarily instantaneous, it's the culmination of previous learning” (in red is what I should have added)
RT: But then you said that! You contradict yourself.
SOB this post: Not at all!

Sphere’s objection? That I have not defined the terms “consciousness” and “thoughts”.
SOB this post:No, rather that you don't necessarily know what they are, that your definitions aren't necessarily correct,
that science is still working on their actual definitions, that the definitions you are using, are quite possibly, archaic and antiquated.

I assumed that everyone knows the conventional definitions * and are not confused when one says “consciousness” or “thoughts”. However, I also accepted Dennett’s unconventional definitions, that “consciousness” and “thoughts” are and only are brain states.raw_thought wrote:“
SOB this post: What the current definitions are has never been questioned by me. Their validity is in fact what I'm questioning, or rather that is what science is currently questioning, which shows that your logical imperative, might be based upon incorrect data. That you therefore cannot state it with certainty. That it is your rather simple deduction based upon old data, which may be in error.

Obvious leo: "…causation operates both top-down and bottom up…”

RT: Perhaps an analogy will help. The image on your computer screen is the top level. Suppose it is attached to a monitor that “recognizes” the color blue. When the screen turns blue it sends a command to the computer hardware that makes the screen turn red.
True, the color blue on the screen facilitates the screen becoming red. However, the blue image on the screen was completely determined by the computer hardware (bottom level).
SOB this post: This has nothing to do with the problem at hand, you certainly have tried to build a straw-man.

I do not see how that is an example of free will.
SOB this post: Well you posed it, not I!

I think spheres should take a logic course or at least know what the definition of consciousness is.
SOB this post: I think you should stop building straw-men or take a reading comprehension course. I believe the latter is your best bet, based upon your previous jumping to conclusions of what one means. I believe that you're so amped up, that your ego saving, trumps understanding of your opponent, such that in essence you're actually arguing with yourself. Or so it surely honestly seems to me.

raw_thought wrote:"You use sequence as an indicator,"
Spheres
So you are saying that effect can precede cause?????????????????
Time travel is a cool idea but logically impossible.

Here you go again with your spamming, this could have easily been an edit to your previous, as you've quoted the same thing. And my response to this one is surely contained in my response to your last one. Stop spamming and learn how to edit your previous posts. It's one of the reasons why you're tiresome. Like a fucking mindless parrot you surely seem sometimes, a squirrel on crack. Relax, take a deep breath, and edit your last. Sheesh!

raw_thought wrote:I already mapped out your objection, premise 2. You think it is possible to be conscious of a thought before one thinks it. I am trying to understand your objection. How can you be aware of a thought before you think it????
I even accepted Dennett's unconventional definition of consciousness. Even if we accept Dennett's weird definition ( that consciousness has nothing to do with awareness) it is still logically impossible to be conscious of a thought before one thinks it. It would be like saying that I know that the answer is 4 before I figured out what 2+2 equals. Life would be so much simpler!!! One would not have to make any calculations. Einstein would simply know that E=MC2 before he even started doing his mathematical calculations!!!

Again, really? Sheesh! Squirrel on crack, squirrel on crack!

raw_thought wrote:“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.”
ME
“What is Sphere's problem? Does he think it all comes from thin air?”
Hobbes choice.
Yep, pretty much!
I used to think that spheres was pro-science. But this thread shows the opposite. His entire argument is that we can NEVER make any statements about the brain because we do not know everything about it and that we cannot make any claims about cause and effect ( that cause always precedes effect) .

Squirrel on crack, squirrel on crack!!

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

raw_thought wrote:“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.”
ME
“What is Sphere's problem? Does he think it all comes from thin air?”
Hobbes choice.
Yep, pretty much!
I used to think that spheres was pro-science. But this thread shows the opposite. His entire argument is that we can NEVER make any statements about the brain because we do not know everything about it and that we cannot make any claims about cause and effect ( that cause always precedes effect) .

I've always found SoB rude and uncontrollably argumentative.
Of course control is your issue, though I'm no ones puppet.

I once Decided to take his side of an argument to see what happened.
Prove it! Prove that your animosity didn't poke through your deception. So you're a liar, go figure! Who's the better man, one that sticks to their guns, or one that attempts to deceive, for some kind of gain for their ego?

Guess what? He argued against me - and therefore against himself. Oh fucking um!!
Prove it! Prove that what you say is true, and not some half baked rationalization, another attempt at boosting your fragile ego. Lets both have equal opportunity to dissect it word for word.

The truth is me and HC have a bit of a history that gets in the way of our being civil with one another. We both have axes to grind; we both agree to disagree any time we can.

raw_thought wrote:“God you are both idiots! You have no way of knowing what’s going on, yet you speak as if you do…”
Spheres
How do I know that one cannot be conscious of a thought before one thinks it? How do I know that one must paint a picture before one sees it? COMMON SENSE!
What neurons are firing and what color paints are used is superfluous. Similarly, if I see a glass of goo, I can know nothing about chemistry and still know with absolute certainty that there are no square/circles in the goo.
Saying that being conscious of a thought can precede thinking it is like saying that one can see the actual physical painting before one paints it. Both are silly because they lack any common sense.

Squirrel on crack, squirrel on crack! Stop Spamming!

See my actual answer above, to all this needless spamming, dated and timed "Fri Nov 06, 2015 12:44 am." Soak it in, then respond only once please. All other attempts to spam shall remain ignored, as what is contained within them is useless. Please edit your original if you need to add more, again Please! Thank You!

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Don't be insulted, this really is just fun and games, to keep one sharp, on their toes. I used to get mad, but usually only when one called me names. As long as one doesn't call me names, I'm good! You know, like idiot, moron, brain dead, etc. Pretty much I'm immune these days unless I'm not feeling so good.

But I resent being told what to do, usually doing quite the opposite.

alpha wrote:well, things like "screw you". and "stick it where the sun doesn't shine" are insults.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:So is "...just because some random person somewhere in the mountains might believe it is so." Which is what came first, shall we continue to traverse what was said from end to beginning? The way in which we descended into anarchy, the tit for tat escalation. Of course, you'll obviously take no blame, it's an ego thing, and seems to be apparent at this point. What say you? Worthless or worthwhile?

i take it that you thought that by "some random person somewhere in the mountains" i meant you. i didn't mean you. i meant "some random person somewhere in the mountains". you insulted me based on your misinterpretation of my statement.

alpha wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Don't be insulted, this really is just fun and games, to keep one sharp, on their toes. I used to get mad, but usually only when one called me names. As long as one doesn't call me names, I'm good! You know, like idiot, moron, brain dead, etc. Pretty much I'm immune these days unless I'm not feeling so good.

But I resent being told what to do, usually doing quite the opposite.

alpha wrote:well, things like "screw you". and "stick it where the sun doesn't shine" are insults.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:So is "...just because some random person somewhere in the mountains might believe it is so." Which is what came first, shall we continue to traverse what was said from end to beginning? The way in which we descended into anarchy, the tit for tat escalation. Of course, you'll obviously take no blame, it's an ego thing, and seems to be apparent at this point. What say you? Worthless or worthwhile?

i take it that you thought that by "some random person somewhere in the mountains" i meant you. i didn't mean you. i meant "some random person somewhere in the mountains". you insulted me based on your misinterpretation of my statement.

Incorrect, you were talking of my argument and I quote:

alpha wrote: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.

I was the one you were talking to, I was the one that had been relativising, as you called it. Contextually you could only have been referring to me. That you now try and sidestep the issue is understandable, but you can't really expect to take me for a fool, can you, really? Insult to injury. Plus you misunderstood me, as i said:

SpheresOfBalance wrote: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!

The bit above in red is in reference to this quote of yours below, and was clearly an "if/then" statement. CLEARLY!

alpha wrote:i think that whether death is harm or not, it's still better than this "life", regardless.

You said "life," you did not clarify that you meant "your life" so you bundled us all in that statement. Are you a terrorist? Can I expect you to blow us all up because we don't meet with your approval? So if that be the case I said screw you, clearly an if then statement. If it doesn't apply, then you have nothing to worry about, feeling guilty?

The bit in blue above, after I issued the If/then, I'm trying to help you, trying to let you know that if in fact you are disappointed in life because you've suffered some sort of major blow, absolutism shall kill your soul, your will, that relativity is your only savior. I'm saying screw that you're not absolutely like all the rest, that relatively you're still just as vital, take Stephen Hawking for instance. In absolutest terms hes lacking what others have, but in relative terms, he's heads above the rest. Crap the fact that he's beaten ALS, such that he has, is a grand testament indeed in the power of positive thinking. Which is surely that which is keeping him alive. And how much better off are we for his fight to stay alive?

I believe you ignored my caring for you, paying attention only to my If/Then statement, as then you had the moral high ground, because you were clearly losing the on topic argument.

I'm an acquired taste in all my coarseness! But if one pays close attention, very close attention, they'll find that I care for everyone, that I only try and see this venue as a way to exercise the mind. And I do so need it!

So I guess I should apologize for your misinterpretation. Are we both subject to misinterpretation?

When I was a kid me and my friends used to wrestle, as long as things were relatively equal, it remained a game, just for play, but often when one started to best the other, the loser made a last ditch effort and made it real, by breaking all the gentlemanly rules, hitting below the belt. I guess we're not very far removed from those days, huh? Boys will be boys! Isn't that right HC?

alpha wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Don't be insulted, this really is just fun and games, to keep one sharp, on their toes. I used to get mad, but usually only when one called me names. As long as one doesn't call me names, I'm good! You know, like idiot, moron, brain dead, etc. Pretty much I'm immune these days unless I'm not feeling so good.

But I resent being told what to do, usually doing quite the opposite.

alpha wrote:well, things like "screw you". and "stick it where the sun doesn't shine" are insults.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:So is "...just because some random person somewhere in the mountains might believe it is so." Which is what came first, shall we continue to traverse what was said from end to beginning? The way in which we descended into anarchy, the tit for tat escalation. Of course, you'll obviously take no blame, it's an ego thing, and seems to be apparent at this point. What say you? Worthless or worthwhile?

i take it that you thought that by "some random person somewhere in the mountains" i meant you. i didn't mean you. i meant "some random person somewhere in the mountains". you insulted me based on your misinterpretation of my statement.

He's rather good at that. This is why I have him on ignore. My time here is less wasted than it once was.