Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Tue Jul 21, 2015 9:56 pm**

"Why not just say the animal "walks""

Okeedoke...

The animal walks.

...and...

The animal sees, hears, feels.

The animal thinks.

The animal remembers.

The animal assesses, compares, contrasts, concludes.

The animal chooses.

The animal self-directs.

The animal looks at himself in the mirror, recognizes himself, sez to his reflection, 'Hello Henry!'

#

"your view is logical non-sense to me."

And yours, to me, is wrong-headed (willfully 'wrong').

*shrug*

Posted: **Sat Sep 12, 2015 8:26 pm**

raw_thought wrote:It seems to me that consciousness is required for free will to exist. In other words I have to consciously decide something for it to be a free will act.
1. Cause always precedes effect.
2. One cannot be conscious of a thought before one thinks it.
3. Therefore, one cannot consciously cause one's thoughts!
Since we cannot consciously determine our thoughts (our decisions) free will is impossible in all situations!

1. In addition to my genetic endowment, my experiences shape all that I say, do, and think
2. I cannot divorce myself from my experiences
3. The contributions of the past are responsible for what happens in the present moment.

Posted: **Sun Sep 13, 2015 11:29 am**

raw_thought wrote:2. One cannot be conscious of a thought before one thinks it.

However, one can be conscious of the directions of thoughts, such that I choose to delve into mathematics, or in art, or in engineering, or in general news and therefore think much thoughts of these respective kinds. Now what for determination?

Posted: **Sun Sep 13, 2015 4:32 pm**

How can one be conscious of the direction of thoughts before being conscious of a thought? Even if this were possible, it still proves that free will is impossible.

Posted: **Sun Sep 13, 2015 10:11 pm**

raw_thought wrote:How can one be conscious of the direction of thoughts before being conscious of a thought? Even if this were possible, it still proves that free will is impossible.

One should be capable of evaluating past events and also thought(s) (events) in order to determine (the best) future events, at least as premeditation if not entirely foreseeing the actual events.

Posted: **Sun Sep 20, 2015 12:49 am**

Necromancer wrote:One should be capable of evaluating past events and also thought(s) (events) in order to determine (the best) future events...

Necromancer, you are committing a logical error, an impossible infinite regress (i.e. a vicious loop).

How does one “evaluate" in order to determine? 1. Does it take thoughts to do so? 2. If so, then does one ‘choose’ (i.e. evaluate/determine) these thoughts? 3. If so, then does it take thoughts to do this choosing? 4. If so, then does one choose these thoughts too? 5. If so, then go back to question 1, repeat this loop infinitely. …round and round we go, where we stop, nobody knows.

We can't choose/evaluate/determine our way out of this. Nor can we (logically) claim "I choose, therefore I choose." --- this is simply a meaningless proclamation that proves nothing.

Raw_Thought is correct --- It is not logically possible to choose/construct/create/select our own thoughts. We are left with only the ability to ‘experience’ them (…not create them).

One cannot ‘know’ what one thinks until one has thunk it!

Posted: **Sun Sep 20, 2015 1:20 am**

I could not have said it better!
However, I have heard necromacer's objection before and have thought what you described.

Posted: **Wed Sep 23, 2015 3:45 pm**

RG1 wrote:
raw_thought wrote:Therefore, one cannot consciously cause one's thoughts!

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Not at all. One "causes" them when they decide which memories of things stored, to perform math functions upon.
So, how does one "decide"?
One decides based upon priorities, which are always self serving, in some way, shape or form.

Does it take 'thoughts' to "decide"?
Sure, the 'math' must be performed.

And if so, then did one consciously "cause" these thoughts?
You seem to forget the subconscious mind, and it's role. But that's understandable, many don't understand the subconscious.

And if so, were these consciously "decided" too?
Again, see immediately above!

And if so, ...
Consider the subconscious please, then revisit the vicious circle you're attempting to create.

As you can see (via infinite regress), that it is NOT logically possible to consciously create/select/choose/dictate one's own thoughts. We are left with only the ability to 'experience' the thoughts that we do.
Not at all, you just only have part of the puzzle and it's left you dumbfounded, confused; totally to be expected. If one is missing puzzle pieces, then the picture is not clear, and then we often jump to conclusions, as we most often cannot know what it is that we don't know.

In other words, ...our thoughts cannot dictate what we think! ...free-will is a myth!
No! The absolute truth versus belief, knowledge versus ignorance dictates our thoughts, our thinking. Free will, is the act of using math so as to allow knowledge to overcome ignorance, truth to overcome belief, and this is done most often by facing ones fears. So yes, determinism is real, but there is a difference between the determinism of the universe (physics) and humankind's determinism of confusion based on the obfuscation of truth and knowledge by their belief and ignorance, which is most often based upon their fear.

http://www.simplelogic123.com

Posted: **Wed Sep 23, 2015 5:35 pm**

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
RG1 wrote:And if so, then did one consciously "cause" these thoughts?
You seem to forget the subconscious mind, and it's role. But that's understandable, many don't understand the subconscious.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
RG1 wrote:And if so, were these consciously "decided" too?
Again, see immediately above!

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
RG1 wrote:And if so, ...
Consider the subconscious please, then revisit the vicious circle you're attempting to create.

NOTE: A 'non-conscious’ choice is NOT a ‘conscious choice’.

You cannot logically claim to make a “conscious choice” by claiming it was made ‘unknowingly’ (i.e. non-consciously; subconsciously/unconsciously). If the choice were made “subconsciously” then how would you ‘know’ that you ‘consciously’ made it?!!!!

If you did not ‘knowingly’ make the choice, then it was not a ‘conscious choice’, and therefore not of your free-will.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
RG1 wrote:As you can see (via infinite regress), that it is NOT logically possible to consciously create/select/choose/dictate one's own thoughts. We are left with only the ability to 'experience' the thoughts that we do.
Not at all, you just only have part of the puzzle and it's left you dumbfounded, confused; totally to be expected. If one is missing puzzle pieces, then the picture is not clear, and then we often jump to conclusions, as we most often cannot know what it is that we don't know.

There is no puzzle piece missing. It is just simple logic.

For you to claim “I choose, therefore I choose” as the basis or proof of your ability to choose is non-sensical! This claim is just a meaningless ‘proclamation’.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
RG1 wrote:In other words, ...our thoughts cannot dictate what we think! ...free-will is a myth!
No! The absolute truth versus belief, knowledge versus ignorance dictates our thoughts, our thinking.

Okay, so then do we ‘choose’ our truths/beliefs/knowledge/ignorance that in turn dictates (chooses/determines) our thoughts/thinking? (...be careful, …as a “yes” answer will expose your logical error, i.e. committing a logical fallacy of infinite regress!).

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Free will, is the act of using math so as to allow knowledge to overcome ignorance, truth to overcome belief, and this is done most often by facing ones fears.

Please describe the actual process/math of making a choice and you will then see that it reduces to one or both of the following logical errors (i.e. non-sensical-ness):

1. A, therefore A --- meaningless proclamation, proves nothing --- “[A] I choose, therefore [A] I choose”

2. A>B, B>A, …∞ --- infinite regress --- “It was my [A] reason that determined my choice, but I chose my [A] reason!”, “…and I had a [A] reason for choosing the [A] reason that determined my choice, …and furthermore, I chose that very [A] reason! …and yes, I did have a [A] reason for choosing that very [A] reason! …and …and …into infinity and beyond!”

Please avoid these logical errors when describing the ‘process/math’ of choosing.

Posted: **Wed Sep 23, 2015 5:52 pm**

RG1 wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
RG1 wrote:And if so, then did one consciously "cause" these thoughts?
You seem to forget the subconscious mind, and it's role. But that's understandable, many don't understand the subconscious.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
RG1 wrote:And if so, were these consciously "decided" too?
Again, see immediately above!

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
RG1 wrote:And if so, ...
Consider the subconscious please, then revisit the vicious circle you're attempting to create.
NOTE: A 'non-conscious’ choice is NOT a ‘conscious choice’.

You cannot logically claim to make a “conscious choice” by claiming it was made ‘unknowingly’ (i.e. non-consciously; subconsciously/unconsciously). If the choice were made “subconsciously” then how would you ‘know’ that you ‘consciously’ made it?!!!!

If you did not ‘knowingly’ make the choice, then it was not a ‘conscious choice’, and therefore not of your free-will.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
RG1 wrote:As you can see (via infinite regress), that it is NOT logically possible to consciously create/select/choose/dictate one's own thoughts. We are left with only the ability to 'experience' the thoughts that we do.
Not at all, you just only have part of the puzzle and it's left you dumbfounded, confused; totally to be expected. If one is missing puzzle pieces, then the picture is not clear, and then we often jump to conclusions, as we most often cannot know what it is that we don't know.
There is no puzzle piece missing. It is just simple logic.

For you to claim “I choose, therefore I choose” as the basis or proof of your ability to choose is non-sensical! This claim is just a meaningless ‘proclamation’.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
RG1 wrote:In other words, ...our thoughts cannot dictate what we think! ...free-will is a myth!
No! The absolute truth versus belief, knowledge versus ignorance dictates our thoughts, our thinking.
Okay, so then do we ‘choose’ our truths/beliefs/knowledge/ignorance that in turn dictates (chooses/determines) our thoughts/thinking? (...be careful, …as a “yes” answer will expose your logical error, i.e. committing a logical fallacy of infinite regress!).

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Free will, is the act of using math so as to allow knowledge to overcome ignorance, truth to overcome belief, and this is done most often by facing ones fears.
Please describe the actual process/math of making a choice and you will then see that it reduces to one or both of the following logical errors (i.e. non-sensical-ness):

1. A, therefore A --- meaningless proclamation, proves nothing --- “[A] I choose, therefore [A] I choose”

2. A>B, B>A, …∞ --- infinite regress --- “It was my [A] reason that determined my choice, but I chose my [A] reason!”, “…and I had a [A] reason for choosing the [A] reason that determined my choice, …and furthermore, I chose that very [A] reason! …and yes, I did have a [A] reason for choosing that very [A] reason! …and …and …into infinity and beyond!”

Please avoid these logical errors when describing the ‘process/math’ of choosing.

All of this hubbub above is strictly from your mind, your understanding, and has very little to do with what I said.

The subconscious and conscious mind work together. It seems to me that you believe them distinctly separate. And that's just not the case.

Posted: **Wed Sep 23, 2015 6:11 pm**

The subconscious is not conscious. "All" I proved was that consciousness cannot create or determine thoughts.
The claim that the subconscious creates thoughts is superfluous to the argument. It does not matter if it does create thoughts or does not.
Actually, your argument is circular. That the subconscious effects the consciousness and then consciousness determines what the subconscious does. But that does not matter because the subconscious is irrelevant to the context of the debate.

Posted: **Wed Sep 23, 2015 6:18 pm**

Free will is the belief that we consciously determine something. Since all our conscious decisions.begin as thoughts, and consciousness cannot determine our thoughts, it follows that none of our actions are the result of free will.
As for you mentioning an infinite regress...where was that in my argument????
True that was Einstein's argument, but not mine.
My argument was very straightforward
1. Effects always come after their cause.
2. One cannot be conscious of a thought before one thinks it.
3. Therefore, consciousness cannot cause a thought.

Posted: **Wed Sep 23, 2015 6:38 pm**

raw_thought wrote:The subconscious is not conscious. "All" I proved was that consciousness cannot create or determine thoughts.
The claim that the subconscious creates thoughts is superfluous to the argument. It does not matter if it does create thoughts or does not.
Actually, your argument is circular. That the subconscious effects the consciousness and then consciousness determines what the subconscious does. But that does not matter because the subconscious is irrelevant to the context of the debate.

It's your right to misunderstand me all you want, and/or to try and exclude anything pertinent to the topic, that you find difficult to understand, or need to eliminate so that you can try and believe you're correct.

Posted: **Wed Sep 23, 2015 6:45 pm**

Perhaps, I am comfused.So you agree with me that consciousness cannot determine thoughts?
If you say that the subconscious is conscious and it is different then consciousness then that implies that there are two consciousneses per person!
If you disagree with my argument show which premis is untrue (1 or 2) or show that the argument is invalid (that 3 must follow from 1 and 2. Simply saying that I am wrong is not an argument.

Posted: **Wed Sep 23, 2015 6:46 pm**

raw_thought wrote: My argument was very straightforward
1. Effects always come after their cause.
2. One cannot be conscious of a thought before one thinks it.
3. Therefore, consciousness cannot cause a thought.

Philosophy Now Forum

Consciousness and free will.

Re: Consciousness and free will.

Re: Consciousness and free will.

Re: Consciousness and free will.

Re: Consciousness and free will.

Re: Consciousness and free will.

Re: Consciousness and free will.

Re: Consciousness and free will.

Re: Consciousness and free will.

Re: Consciousness and free will.

Re: Consciousness and free will.

Re: Consciousness and free will.

Re: Consciousness and free will.

Re: Consciousness and free will.

Re: Consciousness and free will.