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: Consciousness and free will.

Post by alpha » Tue Dec 01, 2015 8:23 pm

@ hobbes, ing1, et al;

let's just cut to the chase; which of these do you reject (regardless of whether they're logical, empirical, axiomatic, etc..)?

1. law of no contradiction.
2. law of excluded middle.
3. law of sufficient reason.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 2815
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: right here

Post by henry quirk » Tue Dec 01, 2015 9:33 pm

"it was certainly caused."

Was the causer caused?

If no: how do you figure?

If yes: was 'that' causer caused?

If no: how do you figure?

If yes: was 'that' causer caused?

If no: how do you figure?

If yes: was 'that' causer caused?

and on and on and on and...

Was there (is there) a first cause, or, does the whole schmear just go back infinitely?

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

Re:

Post by alpha » Tue Dec 01, 2015 9:46 pm

henry quirk wrote:"it was certainly caused."

Was the causer caused?

If no: how do you figure?

If yes: was 'that' causer caused?

If no: how do you figure?

If yes: was 'that' causer caused?

If no: how do you figure?

If yes: was 'that' causer caused?

and on and on and on and...

Was there (is there) a first cause, or, does the whole schmear just go back infinitely?
either way, whether one accepts infinite regress, or a first cause (or even an infinitely old existence), the universe is still not infinitely old (13.8 billion years old according to scientists), so unless one accepts randomness (causelessness), he must accept that it was caused. also, like i said, even if we accept the possibility of true randomness/causelessness, that would only lead to indeterminacy, which is a bigger problem than determinacy.

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 9:55 pm

alpha wrote:
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.

I think you seem to be speechless due you your incomprehension. Try to keep up. I'm not talking about a law, buts is obvious refutation. You are guilty of black and white thinking. You are moving from either a thing is caused or uncaused. to ALL things must be either caused or uncaused, which is a fallacy. You are generalising from a single case to a general case and ignoring the nuance and possibility that two conditions can exit for different things. There is nothing to suggest that some things might be uncaused even if some things are caused.

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.

This is a rational argument, I'm not making an empirical argument. But you still have offered nothing to support your statemens: nothing at all- NOT EVEN empirical evidence. not rational evidence, and not even logic.

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.

~But it is nonetheless true. WHen are you going to back up your claim to determinism?

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.

The most commonly accepted cosmology is the Big Bang. Try again without the childish insults.

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.

And there is nothing to suggest that this law is a good one. But why you keep mentioning? It make you look like a dick. Spontaneous generation does not break any law of contradiction. You don't get to have your law of contradiction make determinism for you. Aristotle was not a determinist and found no contradiction there.
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.

It is not my opinion, as you well know. But if it were tell me what contraction it holds. If you can't do this then shut the fuck up about the irrelevant law of contradiction!

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.

NO, you are the fucking idiot. All you are doing is foot stamping. You shout I am a determinist, and so that I don't contradict myself nothing is caused. THat is moronic.
Try this: I believe in free will, and to preserve the law of no contradiction I reject full determinism.
Either argument has as much value are each other - namely WORTHLESS shit.
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?

It's meaningless law. You assert that you have a 'lawful' claim to determinism, but havn't got a fucking clue why you are a determinist.

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.
Show me the logic. Come on put your fucking money where you mouth is if you have the balls.
You don't get this from logic.
I've not used any science. This lies behind all science. ~Science assumes it; relies on it. Science does not prove determinism, and you don't get it from logic. Its all from habit.

Show me the logic.
Show me the logic.
Show me the logic.Show me the logic.
Show me the logic.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 2815
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: right here

Post by henry quirk » Tue Dec 01, 2015 10:06 pm

Alpha,

That was not an answer, just an evasion.

Trying again...

Infinite regress, or, first (uncaused) cause: pick one.

Then, if you will, illustrate how your choice fits into the rest of your thinking.

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 10:53 pm

alpha wrote:are you saying that we don't (or shouldn't) have any absolute logical principles?
I'm saying that thinking in terms of axiomatic principles ("randomness" or "determinism" in this case) is not logical.

Finding "absolute logical principles" was the aspiration of mathematicians, until Godel proved it was impossible. It was believed that particles could not exist in two places at the same time, but that was proved to be untrue. 'A' can be both 'A' and 'not-A' at the same time and same place in a different relation.

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 11:03 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote:I think you have your terms confused. Excluding the middle is a fallacy. A fallacy which you could be committing.
alpha wrote: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:I think you seem to be speechless due you your incomprehension. Try to keep up. I'm not talking about a law, buts is obvious refutation. You are guilty of black and white thinking. You are moving from either a thing is caused or uncaused. to ALL things must be either caused or uncaused, which is a fallacy. You are generalising from a single case to a general case and ignoring the nuance and possibility that two conditions can exit for different things. There is nothing to suggest that some things might be uncaused even if some things are caused.
you idiot! i've said countless times, that randomness leads to indeterminism, which can't prove accountability. so, to me, it makes no difference whether one is a determinist or an indeterminist. what i have a problem with is idiots who deny both, while claiming to not violate any laws of thought. be a man and say: "i reject the law of no contradiction", or "i reject the law of excluded middle", or "the law of sufficient reason". just stop the fucking drivel.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:Because things are caused, does not follow that no things are uncaused.
alpha wrote:i'm not basing my argument on observation, as you keep insisting.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:This is a rational argument, I'm not making an empirical argument. But you still have offered nothing to support your statemens: nothing at all- NOT EVEN empirical evidence. not rational evidence, and not even logic.
again, you moron! i never said because one thing is caused, then everything else is also caused. you have a severe comprehension problem! you think this is what i said because you place empiricism above all else, and in empirical science, deductions are based on limited observation. in logic no observation is necessary. i doubt someone with your level of mental retardation will ever grasp this concept.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:It is not inconceivable that some things come into existence spontaneously.
alpha wrote:such a statement is not surprising, coming from someone who questions excluding the middle.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:~But it is nonetheless true. WHen are you going to back up your claim to determinism?
you mean, how many more times am i gonna back up my claim to determinism?
Hobbes' Choice wrote:Science, in fact, seems to demand that the universe does just that.
alpha wrote:if "science" does in fact demand this, then it's even stupider than i thought.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:The most commonly accepted cosmology is the Big Bang. Try again without the childish insults.
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.
alpha wrote: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:And there is nothing to suggest that this law is a good one. But why you keep mentioning? It make you look like a dick. Spontaneous generation does not break any law of contradiction. You don't get to have your law of contradiction make determinism for you. Aristotle was not a determinist and found no contradiction there.
first, you're the dick. second, truly spontaneous generation does break the law of sufficient reason, therefor (if we accept it while accepting sufficient reason, like some pricks) we break the laws of no contradiction and excluded middle. if aristotle wasn't a determinist, then that's a huge mistake on the part of an otherwise great mind.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:Excluding the possibility that we live in a universe of causality in which some things come into being uncaused, is opinion.
alpha wrote:it is your self-contradicting opinion that randomness (causelessness) is possible.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:It is not my opinion, as you well know. But if it were tell me what contraction it holds. If you can't do this then shut the fuck up about the irrelevant law of contradiction!
read again: truly spontaneous generation does break the law of sufficient reason, therefor (if we accept it while accepting sufficient reason, like some pricks) we break the laws of no contradiction and excluded middle.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:It is only a contradiction if you want to assert that the universe is exclusively deterministic.
alpha wrote: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:NO, you are the fucking idiot. All you are doing is foot stamping. You shout I am a determinist, and so that I don't contradict myself nothing is caused. THat is moronic.
Try this: I believe in free will, and to preserve the law of no contradiction I reject full determinism.
Either argument has as much value are each other - namely WORTHLESS shit.
indeed, everything that comes out of you is worthless shit.
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.
alpha wrote:so you accept the law of excluded middle?
Hobbes' Choice wrote:It's meaningless law. You assert that you have a 'lawful' claim to determinism, but havn't got a fucking clue why you are a determinist.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:We assert that everything has causes by induction, not logic.
alpha wrote: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.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:Show me the logic. Come on put your fucking money where you mouth is if you have the balls.
You don't get this from logic.
I've not used any science. This lies behind all science. ~Science assumes it; relies on it. Science does not prove determinism, and you don't get it from logic. Its all from habit.

Show me the logic.
Show me the logic.
Show me the logic.Show me the logic.
Show me the logic.
i'll try, but i have sufficient reason to believe that you still wouldn't get it.
1. the principle of sufficient reason says that everything must be caused, and nothing can be uncaused; ever.
2. if a thing exists that's uncaused, that would either invalidate the principle of sufficient reason, or break the law of no contradiction (because the same thing is both caused and uncaused).
3. if a thing exists that's neither caused nor uncaused, that would invalidate the law of excluded middle.

using your brain might be very unfamiliar to you, but give it a try (disclaimer: i'm not responsible if you hurt yourself trying to think).

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 11:05 pm

The Inglorious One wrote:
alpha wrote:are you saying that we don't (or shouldn't) have any absolute logical principles?
I'm saying that thinking in terms of axiomatic principles ("randomness" or "determinism" in this case) is not logical.

Finding "absolute logical principles" was the aspiration of mathematicians, until Godel proved it was impossible. It was believed that particles could not exist in two places at the same time, but that was proved to be untrue. 'A' can be both 'A' and 'not-A' at the same time and same place in a different relation.
if 'a' can be both 'a' and not 'a' at the same time, then we can never ever know anything. making any discussion in history pointless, including this one.

Obvious Leo
Posts: 4018
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: Re:

Post by Obvious Leo » Tue Dec 01, 2015 11:10 pm

alpha wrote:
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.
Can't you see that this argument is both circular and completely unphilosophical. Once you assume that the universe had a beginning you immediately assume that it had a causal agent which exists external to itself. All you're doing is shoving your first cause beyond the reach of your own enquiry, in which case you should be pursuing your argument in a religion forum rather than in a philosophy forum.

Stop talking about determinism, alpha, because you don't know what determinism is.

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

Re:

Post by alpha » Tue Dec 01, 2015 11:12 pm

henry quirk wrote:Alpha,

That was not an answer, just an evasion.

Trying again...

Infinite regress, or, first (uncaused) cause: pick one.

Then, if you will, illustrate how your choice fits into the rest of your thinking.
henry, the honest truth is that i'm not really decided on this myself, at this point. one might argue that all three scenarios are logically possible. i'm still thinking about it. i'm looking into pantheism, which basically says that both god and existence (not the universe) are infinitely old, but god preceding existence only by logical priority.

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

Re: Re:

Post by alpha » Tue Dec 01, 2015 11:13 pm

Obvious Leo wrote:
alpha wrote:
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.
Can't you see that this argument is both circular and completely unphilosophical. Once you assume that the universe had a beginning you immediately assume that it had a causal agent which exists external to itself. All you're doing is shoving your first cause beyond the reach of your own enquiry, in which case you should be pursuing your argument in a religion forum rather than in a philosophy forum.

Stop talking about determinism, alpha, because you don't know what determinism is.
shut up leo. i'm not in the mood for your your usual nonsense. we've been through this before.

Obvious Leo
Posts: 4018
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: Consciousness and free will.

Post by Obvious Leo » Tue Dec 01, 2015 11:23 pm

Haven't you noticed that every single poster on this topic is in unanimous agreement that you're full of shit? Shouldn't this be telling you something?

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 2815
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: right here

Post by henry quirk » Tue Dec 01, 2015 11:27 pm

Alpha,

"one might argue that all three scenarios are logically possible"

So it's logical to assume a first (uncaused) cause, but not logical to assume I initiate causal chains?

How does that work?

You just wrote...

1. the principle of sufficient reason says that everything must be caused, and nothing can be uncaused; ever.
2. if a thing exists that's uncaused, that would either invalidate the principle of sufficient reason, or break the law of no contradiction (because the same thing is both caused and uncaused).
3. if a thing exists that's neither caused nor uncaused, that would invalidate the law of excluded middle.


Seems to me: if you consider a first (uncaused) cause as possible, you must also consider possible that I (or you or Leo or Hobbes or…) initiate causal chains.

#

Leo,

I don't think he's fulla shit...just wrong.

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

Re:

Post by alpha » Tue Dec 01, 2015 11:35 pm

henry quirk wrote:Alpha,

"one might argue that all three scenarios are logically possible"

So it's logical to assume a first (uncaused) cause, but not logical to assume I initiate causal chains?

How does that work?

You just wrote...

1. the principle of sufficient reason says that everything must be caused, and nothing can be uncaused; ever.
2. if a thing exists that's uncaused, that would either invalidate the principle of sufficient reason, or break the law of no contradiction (because the same thing is both caused and uncaused).
3. if a thing exists that's neither caused nor uncaused, that would invalidate the law of excluded middle.


Seems to me: if you consider a first (uncaused) cause as possible, you must also consider possible that I (or you or Leo or Hobbes or…) initiate causal chains.
the difference is that something has to be infinitely old in order to be able to assume any responsibility for anything. i doubt that anyone here, even the ones with the tiniest minds, like leo and hobbes, would suggest that any of us are infinitely old in any way. this problem is known as causa sui.
Last edited by alpha on Tue Dec 01, 2015 11:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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 11:38 pm

Obvious Leo wrote:Haven't you noticed that every single poster on this topic is in unanimous agreement that you're full of shit? Shouldn't this be telling you something?
i don't mind being categorized with the likes of einstein, hawking, schopenhauer, and countless other heavyweights. what would be insulting is if i were placed in the same category as you or hobbes. now that would be inexplicably humiliating.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests