![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
BadgerJelly » March 13th, 2018, 3:53 am wrote:A) I believe (1) rigidly and in no way think my choices are my own or that I have any control. If I am correct then it obviously doesn't matter, if (1) is true then there is no consequence following this belief. If however (2) is true I affect my future choices and arm myself with the presumption that what I do or think makes no difference and if the time comes in the future where a choice will point to toward something good or something bad I will mutely just go along with anything because I don't believe I am more than a passenger.
BadgerJelly » March 13th, 2018, 3:53 am wrote:B) I believe (2) rigidly, but in reality (1) is true so it doesn't matter at all what I do or think. My thoughts and belief in having any agency at all are merely a consequence of the predetermined universe - there is no consequence to my thought here, there is essentially no difference to me believing (1) or not. If however (2) is true and I possess some element of agency in the universe, that my thoguhts can impact upon future events AND I am thinking they do then I put my agency to use and direct myself toward the good and away from the bad, and no doubt make mistakes and learn and strive toward something better.
BadgerJelly » March 13th, 2018, 3:53 am wrote:The difference here is stark. If you adhere to rigid and unerring belief in (1) you're not even trying because you don't believe "trying" matters.
If you don't understand this let me break it into more simplier terms.
Position (1) means there is no responsibility for our conscious awareness. Position (2) means there is some responsibility carried by our conscious awareness.
Belief in either position makes no difference if (1) is true. Belief in each position has consequences if (2) is true.
BadgerJelly » March 13th, 2018, 3:53 am wrote:I just meant the "get out of jail free card" as being an appeal and acceptance of personal limitation with the added bonus of assuming there is an overlying moral meaning to the universe and that we're a blip, albeit a blip that matters.
Basically I am saying it is an appeal to reason "beyond reason", which we obviously cannot conceive of. Much like physicists don't tend to mull over what happens outside of time and space, because such ideas are so beyond human contemplation that to frame them rationally is to bring them into the confines of that which they are unknowable - and there is the point at which people struggle with Kant's "noumenon" and misinterpret it as an appeal to something "other", not realizing that the very term "noumenon" is its own refutation.
BadgerJelly » March 13th, 2018, 3:53 am wrote:It appears Dfly thinks RJG has stumbled upon some "ultimate truth."
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
If you have no control then there is no such thing as following this belief or going along with anything.
The point is that morality has to do with what you actually do and not with your beliefs.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
RJG » March 13th, 2018, 11:12 pm wrote:mitchellmckain wrote:But to be sure, imagination is a process which takes time...
...and then some microseconds later one is conscious of the imagined Y…
If "one is conscious of the imagined Y" AFTER the imagination process, then would you agree that it is not logically possible for one to consciously cause the imagined Y?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
sponge » March 14th, 2018, 3:12 pm wrote:Thanks, mitch, you just put me back on track. You're right, of course. Logic rules!
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
mitchellmckain wrote:But to be sure, imagination is a process which takes time...
...and then some microseconds later one is conscious of the imagined Y…
RJG wrote:If "one is conscious of the imagined Y" AFTER the imagination process, then would you agree that it is not logically possible for one to consciously cause the imagined Y?
mitchellmckain wrote:Nope. This does not logically follow. You have not shown that one has to be conscious of something BEFORE you can be the cause of it (and indeed why you would adopt such a nonsensical premise is beyond comprehension).
mitchellmckain wrote:As explained above, it is the consciousness of X which was the cause for imagining Y.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
RJG » March 15th, 2018, 8:51 am wrote:Consciously means knowingly
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
RJG » March 14th, 2018, 4:53 pm wrote:If "one is conscious of the imagined Y" AFTER the imagination process, then would you agree that it is not logically possible for one to CONSCIOUSLY cause the imagined Y?
RJG » March 14th, 2018, 4:53 pm wrote:mitchellmckain wrote:As explained above, it is the consciousness of X which was the cause for imagining Y.
1. At what point were you conscious of X? ...was it before or after X?
2. At what point were you conscious of imagining Y? ...was it before/after the imagining of Y?
3. At what point are you conscious of anything? ...was it before/after the anything?
4. At what point can ever you come 'before' (and consciously cause) that which you come 'after'?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
RJG wrote:Consciously means knowingly
BadgerJelly wrote:I struggle to why you find that to be enough of an explanation in the given context.
mitchellmckain wrote:What I have constantly disputed is your claim it is impossible for consciousness to cause anything.
mitchellmckain wrote:RJG wrote:1. At what point were you conscious of X? ...was it before or after X?
1. After.
mitchellmckain wrote:RJG wrote:2. At what point were you conscious of imagining Y? ...was it before/after the imagining of Y?
2. After. Doesn't change the fact that it was caused by the consciousness of X.
mitchellmckain wrote:RJG wrote:3. At what point are you conscious of anything? ...was it before/after the anything?
3. After. Doesn't mean that it isn't the cause of things which come later.
mitchellmckain wrote:RJG wrote:4. At what point can ever you come 'before' (and consciously cause) that which you come 'after'?
4. We covered this. You come before and consciously cause things which come later…
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
BadgerJelly » March 15th, 2018, 2:06 am wrote:…I return to saying your approach is completely idiotic again.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
RJG » March 15th, 2018, 12:53 am wrote:mitchellmckain wrote:What I have constantly disputed is your claim it is impossible for consciousness to cause anything.
Unfortunately if CTD is true, then 'reality', (not consciousness), leads and calls ALL the shots.
RJG » March 15th, 2018, 12:53 am wrote:mitchellmckain wrote:RJG wrote:2. At what point were you conscious of imagining Y? ...was it before/after the imagining of Y?
2. After. Doesn't change the fact that it was caused by the consciousness of X.
If the consciousness-of-X can't consciously cause X, then it certainly can't "consciously cause' that which X causes, nor can it "consciously cause" that which it is 'not' conscious of!
RJG » March 15th, 2018, 12:53 am wrote:Although it is possible for the real-time X to cause the real-time (imagining of) Y, it is impossible for the 'consciousness-of-X' to consciously cause this real-time event, especially considering that it can't consciously cause X itself!
RJG » March 15th, 2018, 12:53 am wrote:mitchellmckain wrote:RJG wrote:3. At what point are you conscious of anything? ...was it before/after the anything?
3. After. Doesn't mean that it isn't the cause of things which come later.
Yes it does. As it can't possibly "consciously cause" that which it is 'not' conscious of!mitchellmckain wrote:RJG wrote:4. At what point can ever you come 'before' (and consciously cause) that which you come 'after'?
4. We covered this. You come before and consciously cause things which come later…
Impossible. We are not conscious of those "things that come later", so we can't consciously cause them.
RJG » Wed Mar 14, 2018 10:53 pm wrote:We are ONLY conscious of the 'past', and the the past has already been caused!
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
RJG wrote:Unfortunately if CTD is true, then 'reality', (not consciousness), leads and calls ALL the shots.
mitchellmckain wrote:So you would like to believe despite not being able to prove it because it doesn't agree with the facts.
mitchellmckain wrote:Take an example... I am writing a story and I see a bird and decide that would be a good thing to put into this scene I am writing.
mitchellmckain wrote:If I am never conscious of the bird then it never gets in the story. It only goes into the story BECAUSE I was conscious of it. Thus it is the consciousness of the bird which causes it to be put in the story...
RJG wrote:We are ONLY conscious of the 'past', and the the past has already been caused!
mitchellmckain wrote:Incorrect. By imagination we are conscious of things in the future.
mitchellmckain wrote:Thus the most you can say here is that our ability to consciously cause things is limited to our ability to imagine and predict the future.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
RJG » March 15th, 2018, 4:06 pm wrote:Let's recap the chain of events here:1. When the physical you was 'seeing the bird', the conscious you was "conscious-of-writing".
2. And when the physical you was 'deciding', the conscious you was "conscious-of-seeing" the bird.
3. And when the physical you was 'including the bird' in the story, the conscious you was "conscious-of-deciding".
4. And when the physical you was 'finishing the story', the conscious you was "conscious-of-including-the-bird" in the story.
5. And finally, 150 ms later after finishing the story, the conscious you was "conscious-of-finishing" the story.
RJG » March 15th, 2018, 4:06 pm wrote:Consciousness can never get out in front of the real actions of reality to ever have a causal effect on them. Consciousness ALWAYS lags behind reality. So that the content of one's consciousness can only be filled with "old news"; of stuff that has already happened; already been caused!
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
mitchellmckain wrote:For the physicalist, there is no "conscious you" apart from the physical you…
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
mitchellmckain wrote:We are talking about the process in the "physical you" which responds to information from the environment…
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
RJG » March 18th, 2018, 2:22 am wrote:mitchellmckain wrote:For the physicalist, there is no "conscious you" apart from the physical you…
Agreed. We physicalists only use the terms "conscious self" (and "mind") out of 'convenience' to describe the (conscious) 'recognition' of bodily experiences/reactions. There only exists a 'physical body' (aka a "physical you") that experiences and 'auto-reacts' accordingly (to its applied stimuli).
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Positor wrote:1. Every conscious recognition is a specific event, occurring at a specific time.
2. For a physicalist, all events are physical.
3. Therefore, an instance of conscious recognition is either a physical event itself, or it does not exist at all.
4. Instances of conscious recognition exist.
5. Therefore, for a physicalist, an instance of conscious recognition is a physical event itself.
Positor wrote:6. It is agreed that CTD applies to stimuli. There are (at least) two distinct physical events: (a) the stimulus and (b) the consciousness of that stimulus. Or (a) a set of stimuli and (b) the processed, unified consciousness of that set of stimuli.
Positor wrote:7. It is not agreed that CTD applies to responses. If it does, then there are (at least) two distinct physical events: the so-called 'physical' response and the conscious recognition of that response (which, however, is also physical - see (5) above).
Positor wrote:8. If the conscious recognition of a response is itself physical, it is physically possible for it to have (some) causative power. It is also logically possible for it to influence future events, by imagining such events and then (perhaps imperfectly) enacting them.
9. It has not been proven that CTD applies to responses. If it does not, then the so-called 'physical' response is the conscious response. If CTD does apply, then it is logically possible that the two distinct physical events in (7) - one unconscious and the other conscious - can both influence the future (the conscious event would add input to the ongoing unconscious (auto-reactive) process).
Positor wrote:10. It may be the case that consciousness has no causative power, but you need to present an argument for determinism; it is not a question of logic. Actually, I find deterministic arguments for epiphenomenalism quite persuasive.
RJG wrote:Imagine the following:
Brothers Ron and Carl are running a long race (e.g. an ultra-marathon through the streets of San Francisco). Ron is always ahead of Carl by 10 meters. When Ron turns left, then 10 meters later, Carl turns left. When Ron runs up a hill, then 10 meters later, Carl runs up that hill. etc. etc.
Question 1: If Carl is presently 10 meters behind Ron, is there anything Carl can do to influence/affect/cause Ron's present actions?
Question 2: If Carl, at the beginning of the race (i.e. in the 'past') was 10 meters behind Ron, is there anything then or now Carl can do to influence/affect/cause Ron's past or present actions?
Question 3: If Carl is ALWAYS 10 meters behind Ron, can Carl EVER influence/affect/cause Ron's past, present, or future actions?
The answers are all "NO" -- Carl can only view Ron's actions, but never (ever!) have a causal effect upon them.
Carl = consciousness (conscious self)
Ron = physical body (real self)
Consciousness can never (ever!) have a 'causal' influence on the real-time actions/reactions of the body.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
RJG wrote:When you get off work today and walk across the parking lot to your car, know that your 'real' body is at least 7 inches out in front of you. And if it were possible to see the 'real' you (the one existing in 'reality'), then you would see the back of your own head. ...spooky, ...yes.
And then when you reach for the car door handle, your 'real' hand has already opened the door. ...again, spooky, ...but true!
Our 'real' self (body) always leads our 'conscious' self. There is no way to avoid this logical truth.
![]() |
![]() |
Return to Metaphysics & Epistemology
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests