RJG wrote:Badger and Mitch: Being conscious of something does not mean one 'caused' this something. Being conscious of my bodily actions is no more causitive than me being conscious of your bodily actions.
mitchellmckain wrote:Being conscious of bodily actions is not causing those actions, but this does not mean this consciousness of bodily actions has no causal effect on bodily actions.
Sure it does.
mitchellmckain wrote:It has been stipulated repeatedly that CTD does in fact mean that consciousness at a particular time is not the cause of anything it is conscious of at that particular time.
Correct.
mitchellmckain wrote:Indeed, we could say, of course it isn't -- that would be contrary to the very purpose of consciousness, which like the computer display screen is to make a report of results to the operator.
If you wish to use the analogy of a computer-display-as-'consciousness', and maybe the CPU-as-the-'physical-brain', then that is okay, so long as you stay consistent throughout your analogy.
mitchellmckain wrote:The dispute has been whether this means the causality goes only in one direction in the continuing process which is not restricted to a particular time. The point of making a report to the operator is so he can act on the information given by it, and by acting on it the report has a causal effect on future events which get reported on at a later time.
Who is this "he/operator" that is "acting on this information"? ...is he a 'conscious entity' himself? ...how does "he/operator" fit into your analogy? If you are going to use a computer analogy to represent the relationship of consciousness to the physical body, then you can't add conscious characters into the mix.
In other words, if:
Computer display = 'consciousness'
CPU = 'physical brain'
Then what does"he/operator" = ???
1. The
computer display is the 'result' of (is 'after') the
CPU's actions/reactions.
The display cannot do anything itself!2.
Consciousness is the 'result' of (is 'after') the
physical brain/body's actions/reactions.
Consciousness cannot do anything itself!Your analogy proves my point! (...thank you :-) )
********
Asparagus wrote:RJG. You're a dualist.
Not so. ...though I suspect you are a "dualist", since you do claim to have "volition" (conscious control), ...as (physical) monists would never claim such!