Consciousness and free will.

[alpha]

Descartes was no slouch either. If you accept the existence of the soul as an entity separate from the embodied self then you'll finish up in the conceptual wilderness with alpha the dualist, forever trying to find a reason not to slash your wrists because you're a mindless automaton dancing to the tune of the almighty. Pity, rather than contempt, is probably a more humane stance to take towards such existential sufferers.

this is precisely why ignorance and stupidity are bliss. one need not think, just blurt out whatever comes to their so called mind.

[alpha]

Obviously in my effort to generalise the specific case I haven't made myself very clear, so I'll refer directly to alpha's argument relating to the OP. The case against the reality of the will rests on the dualist assumption that the self is a different entity from the observer of the self.

you honestly do have a reading comprehension disorder, don't you? when was my argument ever based on dualism?

If this assumption is accepted then alpha's case is made and the notion of the will is illusory. However if this assumption is not accepted then his argument is tautologous by begging its own question. This circularity has nothing to do with the validity of the logic process itself but has to to with the validity of the premise. Since the premise itself contradicts the evidence then the entire argument is flawed.

what evidence? perhaps you mean your non-newtonian delusions?

[alpha]

can anyone refute this, then? spheres, leo, hobbes?

1. awareness is required for free will to exist. In other words I have to awarely decide something for it to be a free will act.
2. Cause always precedes effect.
3. One cannot be aware of a thought before one thinks it.
4. Therefore, one cannot awarely cause one's thoughts!
Since we cannot awarely determine our thoughts (our decisions) free will is impossible in all situations!

leo, don't drag dualism into this.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Whereof you cannot speak you ought to remain silent. But if you want to keep the existence of unicorns a possibility then that is your decision, there is no need to muddy the discussion here.

it is you who's muddying the discussion by insinuating the logical impossibility of god, souls, etc., when their existence is more than possible. unicorns are very possible also.

I am saying the unicorns and god are not evident. I did not say they were a logical impossibility. That's Leo
But to talk about them you need to state what you think they are and show evidence, otherwise you are just fantasising.

[Hobbes' Choice]

can anyone refute this, then? spheres, leo, hobbes?

1. awareness is required for free will to exist. In other words I have to awarely decide something for it to be a free will act.
2. Cause always precedes effect.
3. One cannot be aware of a thought before one thinks it.
4. Therefore, one cannot awarely cause one's thoughts!
Since we cannot awarely determine our thoughts (our decisions) free will is impossible in all situations!

leo, don't drag dualism into this.

1. You have not said what you mean by "awareness" and "free will"
2. Causes always precede effects. antecedent conditions are required by current and future state. Causes and effects are multifarious and usually identified by human interest which restricts the view of the universe to a human metric. But otherwise YES.
3. I think not. I become aware of thoughts that seem to come from nowhere. Some part of my brain has "Thought" it; formed it.
4. I don't think this is a fair conclusion from 3 - it more or less supports my position. But I think the problem here is the duality of though, thinking, awareness, and consciousness- we try to sunder them as separate things to better understand and communicate our mental process, but I think the model is probably wrong, and there is no way to observe this activity.

The deduction is faulty. But I think you get to free will is false because determinism, which is cause always preceded effect. You don't need more.

[alpha]

can anyone refute this, then? spheres, leo, hobbes?

1. awareness is required for free will to exist. In other words I have to awarely decide something for it to be a free will act.
2. Cause always precedes effect.
3. One cannot be aware of a thought before one thinks it.
4. Therefore, one cannot awarely cause one's thoughts!
Since we cannot awarely determine our thoughts (our decisions) free will is impossible in all situations!

leo, don't drag dualism into this.

1. You have not said what you mean by "awareness" and "free will"
2. Causes always precede effects. antecedent conditions are required by current and future state. Causes and effects are multifarious and usually identified by human interest which restricts the view of the universe to a human metric. But otherwise YES.
3. I think not. I become aware of thoughts that seem to come from nowhere. Some part of my brain has "Thought" it; formed it.
4. I don't think this is a fair conclusion from 3 - it more or less supports my position. But I think the problem here is the duality of though, thinking, awareness, and consciousness- we try to sunder them as separate things to better understand and communicate our mental process, but I think the model is probably wrong, and there is no way to observe this activity.

The deduction is faulty. But I think you get to free will is false because determinism, which is cause always preceded effect. You don't need more.

i could argue your points, but since you accept determinism, there's not much point.

[alpha]

Whereof you cannot speak you ought to remain silent. But if you want to keep the existence of unicorns a possibility then that is your decision, there is no need to muddy the discussion here.

it is you who's muddying the discussion by insinuating the logical impossibility of god, souls, etc., when their existence is more than possible. unicorns are very possible also.

I am saying the unicorns and god are not evident. I did not say they were a logical impossibility. That's Leo
But to talk about them you need to state what you think they are and show evidence, otherwise you are just fantasising.

ok, fair enough. i might open a separate thread for that, though.

[Hobbes' Choice]

can anyone refute this, then? spheres, leo, hobbes?

1. awareness is required for free will to exist. In other words I have to awarely decide something for it to be a free will act.
2. Cause always precedes effect.
3. One cannot be aware of a thought before one thinks it.
4. Therefore, one cannot awarely cause one's thoughts!
Since we cannot awarely determine our thoughts (our decisions) free will is impossible in all situations!

leo, don't drag dualism into this.

1. You have not said what you mean by "awareness" and "free will"
2. Causes always precede effects. antecedent conditions are required by current and future state. Causes and effects are multifarious and usually identified by human interest which restricts the view of the universe to a human metric. But otherwise YES.
3. I think not. I become aware of thoughts that seem to come from nowhere. Some part of my brain has "Thought" it; formed it.
4. I don't think this is a fair conclusion from 3 - it more or less supports my position. But I think the problem here is the duality of though, thinking, awareness, and consciousness- we try to sunder them as separate things to better understand and communicate our mental process, but I think the model is probably wrong, and there is no way to observe this activity.

The deduction is faulty. But I think you get to free will is false because determinism, which is cause always preceded effect. You don't need more.

i could argue your points, but since you accept determinism, there's not much point.

Does Leo not also?

[alpha]

i could argue your points, but since you accept determinism, there's not much point.

Does Leo not also?

that will be the day lol. he thinks that "scientifically", it's been "proven" that we have "freewill". go figure! and i thought spheres was a handful.

[Obvious Leo]

I am saying the unicorns and god are not evident. I did not say they were a logical impossibility. That's Leo

I did NOT say this. I said that no logical argument could be framed to support their existence.

Furthermore at no stage have I denied the fact that reality is fully deterministic. I merely pointed out that pre-determinism and self-determinism are entirely different constructs. A pre-determined reality requires a pre-determiner and a self-determined reality does not.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I am saying the unicorns and god are not evident. I did not say they were a logical impossibility. That's Leo

I did NOT say this. I said that no logical argument could be framed to support their existence.

In other words that they are logical impossible to prove.

Furthermore at no stage have I denied the fact that reality is fully deterministic.
That's what I thought already.
I merely pointed out that pre-determinism and self-determinism are entirely different constructs. A pre-determined reality requires a pre-determiner and a self-determined reality does not.

... a self determined reality requires a determining willful agent.

[Obvious Leo]

... a self determined reality requires a determining willful agent.

I would never have picked you for a creationist, Hobbes, so your reputation for surprises remains intact.

Rather than considering the universe as a whole we might examine a significant subset of it, such as our terrestrial biosphere. The conventional wisdom is that our biosphere has evolved into the highly complex entity that it is solely as a consequence of cause and effect, and without a need to resort to the assumption of a willful causal agent. If you have an argument to refute this canonical stance adopted in biology I'd be very interested to hear it.

[Hobbes' Choice]

... a self determined reality requires a determining willful agent.

I would never have picked you for a creationist, Hobbes, so your reputation for surprises remains intact.

Rather than considering the universe as a whole we might examine a significant subset of it, such as our terrestrial biosphere. The conventional wisdom is that our biosphere has evolved into the highly complex entity that it is solely as a consequence of cause and effect, and without a need to resort to the assumption of a willful causal agent. If you have an argument to refute this canonical stance adopted in biology I'd be very interested to hear it.

I did not imply a creation in any sense. You need to read more carefully.
I was not talking about the universe and how it is determined, but about how YOU or I might decide to play nicely or decide for themselves to insult one's interlocutor.
You have the will to insult or be nice. That's what describes you as a self determining agent. The only type of creation is things such as the creation of your last post, and the turd you did when you got up (thought I have no direct empirical evidence for that), or have at some time done during your life.

[Obvious Leo]

Keep your shirt on, mate, I was only taking the piss in order to make the more general point.

In modern neuroscience the mind is modelled as an evolving and self-determining system in much the same way as a biosphere is. We select concepts on the basis of their adaptive fitness and incorporate them into our world-view. If they make the world more comprehensible to us then they become a part of our cognitive map and if they don't then they are rejected, exactly in the same way as natural selection operates in biology. Thus rather than being passive observers of an objective reality being enacted all around us we are actually active agents creating our own version of reality within our own consciousness. This is hardly breaking news since I know of very few philosophers who would claim any different. All I'm saying is that this rather obvious Kantian doctrine is now well supported by empirical science. Sadly the physicists have been a bit slow to catch on.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Keep your shirt on, mate, I was only taking the piss in order to make the more general point.

Calling me a creationist is not making a point. It's making a turd.

In modern neuroscience the mind is modelled as an evolving and self-determining system in much the same way as a biosphere is. We select concepts on the basis of their adaptive fitness and incorporate them into our world-view. If they make the world more comprehensible to us then they become a part of our cognitive map and if they don't then they are rejected, exactly in the same way as natural selection operates in biology.

That is one shockingly reductionist way of looking at it. I think this is the Edleman theory. It's as narrowly focussed as most of evolutionary psychology. It ignores al the activities performed and pathways the brain makes that are selectively neutral and all the other ones that are selectively negative a lead to such things as addiction, suicide and compulsive behaviours to name a few. Brain pathways that are used get reinforced, like using muscles.

Thus rather than being passive observers of an objective reality being enacted all around us we are actually active agents creating our own version of reality within our own consciousness.
True - but not a particularly good sequitur.
This is hardly breaking news since I know of very few philosophers who would claim any different. All I'm saying is that this rather obvious Kantian doctrine is now well supported by empirical science. Sadly the physicists have been a bit slow to catch on.

True. So what?