Consciousness and free will.

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
alpha
Posts: 448
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 3:48 pm

Re: Re:

Post by alpha » Tue Dec 01, 2015 12:44 am

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Indeed, and as soon as you stop confusing this with "logic" we might be back on track. The Principle of sufficient reason is an axiomatic assertion derived not from an a priori position but from a long period of inductive reasoning. It is empirical, not logical. It is a posteriori and not simply based on reason.
first, i disagree that it's empirical.
second, even if it's empirical, it's still axiomatic (as you admit), which means two things; 1. that anyone who rejects it should be institutionalized. and 2. that it's implications are all true, including absolute determinism.

The Inglorious One
Posts: 593
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2015 8:25 pm

Re: Consciousness and free will.

Post by The Inglorious One » Tue Dec 01, 2015 4:42 am

alpha wrote:
The Inglorious One wrote:Why must it be either/or, alpha?
because of the law of no contradiction and the law of excluded middle (which i believe some dispute, such as leo). caused absolutely contradicts uncaused. this means that the same thing (a simple thing) can't be both caused and uncaused at the same time. it also can't be not caused, and not uncaused at the same time. so it must be one or the other.
You are thinking digitally, but reality is analogue.

Does one end of the stick exclude the other? Does the middle exclude the ends? Logically, consciousness might be an epiphenomenon of the tension between them chaos and determinism.

User avatar
alpha
Posts: 448
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 3:48 pm

Re: Consciousness and free will.

Post by alpha » Tue Dec 01, 2015 5:15 am

The Inglorious One wrote:Why must it be either/or, alpha?
alpha wrote:because of the law of no contradiction and the law of excluded middle (which i believe some dispute, such as leo). caused absolutely contradicts uncaused. this means that the same thing (a simple thing) can't be both caused and uncaused at the same time. it also can't be not caused, and not uncaused at the same time. so it must be one or the other.
The Inglorious One wrote:You are thinking digitally, but reality is analogue.

Does one end of the stick exclude the other? Does the middle exclude the ends?
yes, one end of the stick excludes the other end, the middle, and everything else. this end of the stick can't be be this end and that end at the same time.
The Inglorious One wrote:Logically, consciousness might be an epiphenomenon of the tension between them chaos and determinism.
if your using "chaos" to mean scientific chaos (chaos theory), then it's also deterministic. if by "chaos" you mean causelessness, randomness and indeterminacy, then not only is true randomness impossible (contradicts sufficient reason), but even if it were possible, it still wouldn't apply to the exact same thing at the exact same time (law of no contradiction). if one part of the consciousness (i'm using your word, even though it's the will that's in question) is caused, and another part uncaused (hypothetically), then the part that is caused would be determinate, while the part that's uncaused would be indeterminate, and neither entails true responsibility or accountability.

The Inglorious One
Posts: 593
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2015 8:25 pm

Re: Consciousness and free will.

Post by The Inglorious One » Tue Dec 01, 2015 6:01 am

alpha wrote:yes, one end of the stick excludes the other end, the middle, and everything else. this end of the stick can't be be this end and that end at the same time.
No sense in continuing if you insist on being irrational.

User avatar
alpha
Posts: 448
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 3:48 pm

Re: Consciousness and free will.

Post by alpha » Tue Dec 01, 2015 6:17 am

The Inglorious One wrote:No sense in continuing if you insist on being irrational.
i'm sorry you see it that way.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Consciousness and free will.

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Tue Dec 01, 2015 11:24 am

alpha wrote:
The Inglorious One wrote:Why must it be either/or, alpha?
because of the law of no contradiction and the law of excluded middle (which i believe some dispute, such as leo). caused absolutely contradicts uncaused. this means that the same thing (a simple thing) can't be both caused and uncaused at the same time. it also can't be not caused, and not uncaused at the same time. so it must be one or the other.
I think you have your terms confused. Excluding the middle is a fallacy. A fallacy which you could be committing.
Because things are caused, does not follow that no things are uncaused.
It is not inconceivable that some things come into existence spontaneously. Science, in fact, seems to demand that the universe does just that. And for centuries it was thought that mice spontaneously generated from rubbish heaps. In ancient Egypt from the cracks in the dried up mud of the Nile.
Excluding the possibility that we live in a universe of causality in which some things come into being uncaused, is opinion. It is only a contradiction if you want to assert that the universe is exclusively deterministic.
Which I agree that for single items, such as a bird, a pencil or a universe it can only be one thing or the other: either caused or uncaused. There is nothing to suggest that some things appear from nowhere such as the Universe.

We assert that everything has causes by induction, not logic.

Walker
Posts: 4098
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Consciousness and free will.

Post by Walker » Tue Dec 01, 2015 12:40 pm

alpha wrote:Nothing is uncaused.
(working with the logic of the statement itself)

This nothing …

no … thing

nothing = every-thing imagined and unimagined but not sensed

everything imagined and unimagined but not sensed = uncaused

everything imagined and unimagined but not sensed = potentiality

potentiality = uncaused

thing = manifestation of potentiality

manifestation of potentiality = caused

Infinite potentiality includes the imagined, the unimagined, and the unimaginable


Algebraist seeks equivalence
Philosopher seeks equivalence
Each human being
Has no equal

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Re:

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Tue Dec 01, 2015 1:11 pm

alpha wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:Indeed, and as soon as you stop confusing this with "logic" we might be back on track. The Principle of sufficient reason is an axiomatic assertion derived not from an a priori position but from a long period of inductive reasoning. It is empirical, not logical. It is a posteriori and not simply based on reason.
first, i disagree that it's empirical.
second, even if it's empirical, it's still axiomatic (as you admit), which means two things; 1. that anyone who rejects it should be institutionalized. and 2. that it's implications are all true, including absolute determinism.
You are not offering me an argument, only disagreement.
Any one can reject an axiom, as it is a statement taken as true. It can be as wrong as any falsehood, as you ought to know.
God is good is also an axiom; an axion that I reject. As is "we have free will" is also axiomatic.
The reason "for everything there is a cause' is taken as an axiom is due to observation. There might even be an innate sense provided by evolution that predisposes us to think in terms of causes and reasons.

What I get from you, is nothing but a bold, and irrational assertion of determinism and a pretence that it is supposedly logical. But you have offered NOTHING is support of your claim.

So, tell me why you think it is not empirical?
Last edited by Hobbes' Choice on Tue Dec 01, 2015 4:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 2822
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: right here

Post by henry quirk » Tue Dec 01, 2015 4:24 pm

Alpha,

As I say, '(Your) logic is impeccable; my experience is undeniable'.

That is: I cannot refute your logic; I can't deny my experience of my 'self'.

So (again): sumthin' is missing from the conversation, some bit of information about how the world works, how I-ness works, is missing.


Question: How did the universe begin?

#

Inglorious,

"I consider the acknowledgment of subtle physical connection/interactions to be a major breakthrough."

Not seein' why. The interplay between an animal and its environment is obvious.

Walker
Posts: 4098
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Consciousness and free will.

Post by Walker » Tue Dec 01, 2015 4:33 pm

The Inglorious One wrote:
alpha wrote:yes, one end of the stick excludes the other end, the middle, and everything else. this end of the stick can't be be this end and that end at the same time.
No sense in continuing if you insist on being irrational.
However (referencing both the above dialogue, and my last posting),
Mind itself senses.

In considering The Great Divide between The Thought Realm and The Physical Realm

Only the physical exists.
Thoughts exist.
Therefore, thoughts physically exist.

Every-thing and no-thing exist because of cause.
Every-thing existing in the physical realm,
also exists in the thought realm
under certain conditions such as, for instance,
the presence of awareness.

No-thing exists only in the thought realm.

Both every-thing exists,
and no-thing exists,
each in their own way.

Mind and senses discover physical rocks in the familiar realm of rock-things.
Mind discovers physical thought in the physical realm of thought-things.
Both realms physically exist.

Every-thing fashioned into form by man first existed as a thought discovered by man.
Walk though any city. Mind and senses discover rock-things (physical), that first existed as thought-things (physical) discovered by man.

Walk through a virgin forest and consider if the physical rock-things there that cause the discovery of physical thought-things by mind, first existed as only physical thought-things.

“You thought? Where the hell did you get that from, you thought!”

The Inglorious One
Posts: 593
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2015 8:25 pm

Re: Consciousness and free will.

Post by The Inglorious One » Tue Dec 01, 2015 7:04 pm

Alpha,

Before the 19th century, consistency was not an issue because axioms delineated indubitable truths, so they could not be inconsistent. It was assumed that two contradictory statements could not be simultaneously true. That’s how the truth-value implied by the self-evidence generated by observation of phenomena was turned into abstract logical reasoning not dealing with reality, but rather with the validity of mathematical inference in terms of expressions contained in the postulates. “If a, then a” is such an expression, where ‘a’ could be anything and yet it does not have to symbolize anything. Such a discipline is not concerned with whether its conclusions are true or false, but whether its conclusions are in fact the necessary logical consequences of its basic postulates.

But then new geometries were created that were different from and incompatible with the Euclidean axioms. This lead to the realization that the axioms of geometry as well as the axioms of any discipline could not and should not be regarded as true, but only as postulated assumptions from which theorems could be derived.

In other words, your logic is pre-nineteenth century.

User avatar
alpha
Posts: 448
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 3:48 pm

Re: Consciousness and free will.

Post by alpha » Tue Dec 01, 2015 7:13 pm

The Inglorious One wrote:Why must it be either/or, alpha?
alpha wrote:because of the law of no contradiction and the law of excluded middle (which i believe some dispute, such as leo). caused absolutely contradicts uncaused. this means that the same thing (a simple thing) can't be both caused and uncaused at the same time. it also can't be not caused, and not uncaused at the same time. so it must be one or the other.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:I think you have your terms confused. Excluding the middle is a fallacy. A fallacy which you could be committing.
what do you mean "Excluding the middle is a fallacy"? the law of excluded middle is the third law of aristotle's fundamental laws of logic. perhaps you, like leo, reject this law? in which case, i'm speechless.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:Because things are caused, does not follow that no things are uncaused.
i'm not basing my argument on observation, as you keep insisting.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:It is not inconceivable that some things come into existence spontaneously.
such a statement is not surprising, coming from someone who questions excluding the middle.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:Science, in fact, seems to demand that the universe does just that.
if "science" does in fact demand this, then it's even stupider than i thought.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:And for centuries it was thought that mice spontaneously generated from rubbish heaps. In ancient Egypt from the cracks in the dried up mud of the Nile.
there even exist people today who think that god can do what is logically impossible, such as making 1+1=79, but that doesn't mean the law of no contradiction isn't an axiomatic and logical law.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:Excluding the possibility that we live in a universe of causality in which some things come into being uncaused, is opinion.
it is your self-contradicting opinion that randomness (causelessness) is possible.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:It is only a contradiction if you want to assert that the universe is exclusively deterministic.
logically, i have no choice but to make such an assertion. even leo claims to accept this, and denies the possibility of randomness. this means that the absurdity crown now goes to you.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:Which I agree that for single items, such as a bird, a pencil or a universe it can only be one thing or the other: either caused or uncaused. There is nothing to suggest that some things appear from nowhere such as the Universe.
so you accept the law of excluded middle?
Hobbes' Choice wrote:We assert that everything has causes by induction, not logic.
you assert this by induction. many of us assert it by logic. again, you're still trying to force your version of science on everything. i'm sure we can both quote stuff from the internet (or appeal to authority) to support our respective views, so let's just agree to disagree on whether it's a logical or empirical assertion. the bottom line is, you either accept it's validity, or you don't. if you do, then stop debating irrelevant bloody details. if you don't, then that's a different story.

User avatar
alpha
Posts: 448
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 3:48 pm

Re:

Post by alpha » Tue Dec 01, 2015 7:17 pm

henry quirk wrote:Alpha,
....
Question: How did the universe begin?
if you're asking about particular details, i'm afraid i can't give you any. however, if you're asking whether or not it was caused, then the answer is 100000000000% yes, it was certainly caused.

User avatar
alpha
Posts: 448
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 3:48 pm

Re: Consciousness and free will.

Post by alpha » Tue Dec 01, 2015 7:29 pm

The Inglorious One wrote:Alpha,

Before the 19th century, consistency was not an issue because axioms delineated indubitable truths, so they could not be inconsistent. It was assumed that two contradictory statements could not be simultaneously true. That’s how the truth-value implied by the self-evidence generated by observation of phenomena was turned into abstract logical reasoning not dealing with reality, but rather with the validity of mathematical inference in terms of expressions contained in the postulates. “If a, then a” is such an expression, where ‘a’ could be anything and yet it does not have to symbolize anything. Such a discipline is not concerned with whether its conclusions are true or false, but whether its conclusions are in fact the necessary logical consequences of its basic postulates.

But then new geometries were created that were different from and incompatible with the Euclidean axioms. This lead to the realization that the axioms of geometry as well as the axioms of any discipline could not and should not be regarded as true, but only as postulated assumptions from which theorems could be derived.
are you saying that we don't (or shouldn't) have any absolute logical principles?
The Inglorious One wrote:In other words, your logic is pre-nineteenth century.
what can i say? call me a refined modern day caveman if you wish. i even have no problem using prehistoric logic and reasoning, as long as it can't be invalidated. note that making opposing claims does not invalidate anything.

User avatar
alpha
Posts: 448
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 3:48 pm

Re: Re:

Post by alpha » Tue Dec 01, 2015 8:01 pm

alpha wrote:first, i disagree that it's empirical.
second, even if it's empirical, it's still axiomatic (as you admit), which means two things; 1. that anyone who rejects it should be institutionalized. and 2. that it's implications are all true, including absolute determinism.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:You are not offering me an argument, only disagreement.
Any one can reject an axiom, as it is a statement taken as true. It can be as wrong as any falsehood, as you ought to know.
God is good is also an axiom; an axion that I reject. As is "we have free will" is also axiomatic.
The reason "for everything there is a cause' is taken as an axiom is due to observation. There might even be an innate sense provided by evolution that predisposes us to think in terms of causes and reasons.

What I get from you, is nothing but a bold, and irrational assertion of determinism and a pretence that it is supposedly logical. But you have offered NOTHING is support of your claim.

So, tell me why you think it is not empirical?
there isn't a notion in existence that is accepted by everyone absolutely. there can even exist people who dispute that 1+1=2. if you accept the principle of sufficient reason (or whatever you wanna call it), the law of no contradiction, the law of excluded middle, then -based on my prehistoric logic- you'd have no choice but to accept absolute determinism. if you wanna continue with your sophistries and such, then you should know that such tactics don't work with me.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest