BadgerJelly wrote:Nihilism. You say it's not nihilistic yet seem unable to say why RJG.
You are avoiding an ugly truth.
...a 'strawman' accusation.
![]() |
![]() |
BadgerJelly wrote:Nihilism. You say it's not nihilistic yet seem unable to say why RJG.
You are avoiding an ugly truth.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
from previous conversation wrote:BadgerJelly wrote:But your position is pointless because YOU don't have a position - that is the YOU that is supposedly consciously acting out and writing here on this forum.RJG wrote:The 'physical' ME is the one that is auto-reactively "acting out and writing here on this forum", ...not the 'conscious' ME. The 'conscious' ME is just an illusion (a bodily reaction/experience in of itself).BadgerJelly wrote:It is meaningless. It is pure nihilism.RJG wrote:Not so. It is NOT "meaningless". It's just not the 'meaning' that any of us want (desire) to accept.BadgerJelly wrote:For an equivalent position we could imagine that there is a box that may or may not have a bomb in it that is about to explode. From your position you'd do nothing about it, from my position I'd presume the worst and move away from the box. You do nothing.RJG wrote:Not so. The 'physical' ME (body) does what it does. And in most cases, wants to survive and will auto-react to preserve itself. The 'conscious' ME has no say-so in the actions of the body. The 'conscious' ME, can only 'experience' (recognize) the actions/reactions of the body.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
mitchellmckain wrote:The RJG or epiphenomenal zombie: This is, of course, something that looks and behaves like a normal human being and has an experience of consciousness but the experience is irrelevant and serves no purpose because it has no causal effect on the behavior of the zombie.
BadgerJelly wrote:...and explain how we CAN accept this.
BadgerJelly wrote:Is that or is that not fatalism? I say it is fatalism.
BadgerJelly wrote:I would then say that if that is your position and you held to it as firmly as possible you're disregarding your own position in the world and denying all responsibility for action. You therefore have a perfect excuse to do nothing believing firmly that you cannot do anything - that is why it is amoral; it is a steadfast denial of selfhood and responsibility.
BadgerJelly wrote:Now, could fatalism be true? Certainly. If we find out it is true then what?
BadgerJelly wrote:The amoral feature reeks of the most vile form of nihilism. The best use of nihilism is forcing oneself into a corner and understanding the use of pessimism as a road toward harder "truths" of life and makes us face our Shadow (Jungian.) You appear to be in thrall of your shadow self. You'll suffer more before you suffer less and it may well destroy you.
BadgerJelly wrote:But hey! YOU have no choice right. Wake up.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
BadgerJelly » March 4th, 2018, 10:32 pm wrote:The amoral feature reeks of the most vile form of nihilism. The best use of nihilism is forcing oneself into a corner and understanding the use of pessimism as a road toward harder "truths" of life and makes us face our Shadow (Jungian.) You appear to be in thrall of your shadow self. You'll suffer more before you suffer less and it may well destroy you.
But hey! YOU have no choice right. Wake up.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Sponge wrote:Hey, RJG, did it ever occur to you that your 'conscious self' might be standing in the so-called subconscious - at that point where all the information comes together - and sending out information to the physical body with that fraction of a second delay?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
If we don't have a 'choice' to deny, or not deny, then how could it be a "denial"?
- RJG
Yes, if you suspect that you will be "destroyed", then best not go down that path.
Wake up to what??? ...falsehoods and delusions? ...no thanks, I would rather believe in a truth that was ugly, than a lie that is pretty.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
BadgerJelly » March 5th, 2018, 9:14 pm wrote:Brow beating? I am just calling out the dangerous thoughts of a dangerous fool. I cannot forgive willful ignorance on this scale.
BadgerJelly » March 5th, 2018, 9:14 pm wrote:I have yet to see a defense of my so called "accusations" of his fatalistic, amoral, defeatist nihilism. They are his own "accusations" written in his own words. I am merely telling him what he is saying and how abhorrent it is.
BadgerJelly » March 5th, 2018, 9:14 pm wrote:Then comes the idiot logic. If fatalism is true "we accept it" ?? Really? Now we have a choice to accept it even though RJG doesn't believe we have a choice in the first place? It is dogmatic faith in a nihilistic universe, there is no "what if I'm wrong" to the person who does not think they are capable of independent thought - which is the gist of RJG position.
BadgerJelly » March 5th, 2018, 9:14 pm wrote:I find it morally abhorrent and if you do not I also find you morally abhorrent.
BadgerJelly » March 5th, 2018, 9:14 pm wrote: The reason is to think in such a way disposes responsibility. Someone living their life without any inclination to be responsible for their actions is a personal danger to me and those around them. They need no "justification" because such as idea is empty to them. It is a deeply childish and naively dangerous dogmatic position to hold.
Only a complete fool or an evil idiot would say we should act as if we cannot act. The very fact that they would say what we "should" do whilst saying we cannot decide is a clear sign of a dysfunctional being.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
That kind of "with me or against me" type of argument raises all kinds of red flags, bringing to mind such things as intolerance and Nazis.
dangerous thoughts? Hmmmm.... Sounds like something "thought police" would say.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Whether or not I believe in free will (or fatalism) is beside the point.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
DragonFly » March 6th, 2018, 5:11 am wrote:So far, no one has shown how conscious qualia, etc. have a separate repertoire of information from which to decide things which does not include the neural activity correlating to the qualia. Or, a source over and above the neurals.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Positor wrote:I see no logical reason why our past consciousness cannot have influenced our present physical actions…
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
RJG » March 6th, 2018, 10:09 pm wrote:If C is the result of B, then B cannot be the result of C. B>C and B<C are mutually exclusive (and cannot co-exist)!
RJG wrote:If Consciousness is the result of the Body's actions/reactions, then the Body's actions/reactions cannot be the result of Consciousness.
RJG wrote:Imagine the following:
A large boulder falling to and fro down a large mountainside. This large boulder's movements (actions/reactions) are determined by that which it encounters out in front of it (such as other rocks, cactus, etc). These actions/reactions have caused a newly formed path (of destruction/debris behind it). This path is the 'result' (the 'aftermath') of the boulders actions/reactions.
Q1 - Does this newly formed path have any causal effect on the boulder's future actions? -- NO !
Q2 - If consciousness is the result of the body's actions/reactions, then can consciousness influence or have a causal effect on the body's future actions? -- NO !
RJG wrote:The 'physical self' reacts/acts in 'real-time' accordingly to that which it encounters.
RJG wrote:The "physical self" leads and calls all the shots (i.e. auto-reacts accordingly), whereas the "conscious self" lags behind filling its content with the 'knowing/recognition' of these reactions (i.e. the consciousness of these bodily experiences/reactions/sensations).
RJG wrote:Without the prior actions/reactions/experiences/sensations of the "physical self" (body), there is NOTHING for the "conscious self" to be conscious of. By the time the "conscious self" receives any information, the "physical self" has already moved down the road (already acted).
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Asparagus wrote:Phone rings. I realize it 150 ms later. 250 ms after that I decide to answer it. 4000 ms later I say "Hello?" Volitional activity. No problem.
BadgerJelly wrote:It is like saying, "I shot him in the head, but that action has no effect on the present."
BadgerJelly wrote:When we learn to walk or talk we must make conscious effort to do so…
Positor wrote:I am saying that it is logically possible for our past consciousness to influence our present physical actions...
Positor wrote:Your analogy is not appropriate. The path made by the boulder is not part of the boulder itself; the boulder does not carry the path along with it. However, consciousness is part of the person; it is an aspect of the person's brain. The boulder's path is external; consciousness is internal.
Positor wrote:While everyone would agree that CTD applies to experiences/sensations, it is not at all obvious that it applies to reactions. Some would claim (and have claimed in this thread) that consciousness-of-reacting constitutes the reaction itself, and that therefore there cannot be any time lag between "reacting" and "consciousness of reacting".
Positor wrote:Yes, but it is logically possible (though perhaps not physically possible) for the present "physical self" to receive delayed input from the past "conscious self", and for the past "physical self" to have received input from an earlier "conscious self", and so on.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Asparagus wrote:A bird passes by my head. 150 ms later, I realize it and decide to duck. 250 ms later, I duck.
Asparagus wrote:RJG, you're agreeing that this can happen. You accept volition.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Return to Metaphysics & Epistemology
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests