Consciousness and free will.

[Wyman]

You are saying that the delivery precedes giving birth.
Therefore one cannot give birth before delivery.
If you are saying that giving birth and delivering a baby are simultaneous, then the analogy with thinking a thought is a false analogy.
Actually, I think giving birth precedes the delivery. But that is a superfluous point. The fact is that delivery and birth cannot be simultaneous and still have a workable analogy.

I was saying that you are playing with ambiguous terms and engaging in sophistry. What does it mean to be conscious of a thought? What is a thought? What is consciousness? Why do you think that free will is a thought? When is a decision made as opposed to not yet being made? What does it mean to consciously determine a thought?

[jackles]

Consciousness at root does not move so consciouness cant turn 360degrees or left or right. The event does the moving and deciding.

[HexHammer]

It seems to me that consciousness is required for free will to exist. In other words I have to consciously decide something for it to be a free will act.
1. Cause always precedes effect.
2. One cannot be conscious of a thought before one thinks it.
3. Therefore, one cannot consciously cause one's thoughts!
Since we cannot consciously determine our thoughts (our decisions) free will is impossible in all situations!

No one in this forum obviously really have a fucking clue about free will, nor in any other philosophy forum.

You should study compulsions, group think, suggestion, etc, that is what steer our subcioncous thoughts and general thinking.

Various countries are more or less identical in their population of how their inhabitans are able to learn, but our traditions and customs are very different, so we will act very different.

Many in the USA will see guns as a benefical thing to society, and "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun", but sex is abominable!!!!

In EU we have it reversed, guns are abomiable, but sex is ok. Even the adults will teach their teens about sex, which often causes a lot of shame and emberresment.

So, the "truth" is very subjective and not objective, our graps of reality and views are heavily influenced by the peers we are amongst.

[raw_thought]

You are saying that the delivery precedes giving birth.
Therefore one cannot give birth before delivery.
If you are saying that giving birth and delivering a baby are simultaneous, then the analogy with thinking a thought is a false analogy.
Actually, I think giving birth precedes the delivery. But that is a superfluous point. The fact is that delivery and birth cannot be simultaneous and still have a workable analogy.

I was saying that you are playing with ambiguous terms and engaging in sophistry. What does it mean to be conscious of a thought? What is a thought? What is consciousness? Why do you think that free will is a thought? When is a decision made as opposed to not yet being made? What does it mean to consciously determine a thought?

1. Cause must always precede (come before) effect.
That means that if A precedes B, then B cannot cause A. For example, throwing a vase precedes and causes the vase to shatter. It is impossible for the shattered vase to cause it to be thrown.

I am using the dictionary definitions of "consciousness" etc.
I am not saying that free will is a thought. * I am saying that for a thought to be the result of free will it must have been caused by a conscious decision.
* The thought 1+1=2 is not an example of free will. It is the result of deciding to think that.

[raw_thought]

It seems to me that consciousness is required for free will to exist. In other words I have to consciously decide something for it to be a free will act.
1. Cause always precedes effect.
2. One cannot be conscious of a thought before one thinks it.
3. Therefore, one cannot consciously cause one's thoughts!
Since we cannot consciously determine our thoughts (our decisions) free will is impossible in all situations!

1. Cause always precedes effect.
2. One cannot give birth before one delivers the baby.
3.Therefore, giving birth cannot cause babies to be delivered!
Since we cannot have babies by giving birth, humanity will cease to exist in a hundred years!

One cannot be the best runner in the race before he beats all the others.
Therefore, being the best runner cannot cause someone to beat the other runners!

Your argument was not about questioning my definitions. You offered a false analogy.
Your justification or should I say rationalization, (at the top of this page) of what I quoted from you in this post, is typical of first year philosophy students. Question what the writer means when he says something. Demand a definition of every word! So if I say, "the dog is on the mat" you will say,"what is a dog" "what is a mat?"
Also, you really do not know what is meant when someone says,"I made a conscious decision "???

[raw_thought]

Your delivery/birth analogy to my syllogism is false because for it to show absurdity one must assume that birth and delivery are simultaneous. In my syllogism my propositions are not simultaneous.

[Wyman]

I keep losing my posts somehow. Here is a shortened version of my brilliant response:

Thinking is an activity, like speaking or running. Before I speak or run, I am conscious and I weigh whether or not I want to speak or run. When I decide on something, I do it. The entire time, I am continuously conscious. So, I decide to think about something, then I do it.

There are thoughts that come spontaneously and I would agree these are not freely willed. But you are saying that free will is impossible.

[raw_thought]

It seems to me that consciousness is required for free will to exist. In other words I have to consciously decide something for it to be a free will act.
1. Cause always precedes effect.
2. One cannot be conscious of a thought before one thinks it.
3. Therefore, one cannot consciously cause one's thoughts!
Since we cannot consciously determine our thoughts (our decisions) free will is impossible in all situations!

No one in this forum obviously really have a fucking clue about free will, nor in any other philosophy forum.

You should study compulsions, group think, suggestion, etc, that is what steer our subcioncous thoughts and general thinking.

Various countries are more or less identical in their population of how their inhabitans are able to learn, but our traditions and customs are very different, so we will act very different.

Many in the USA will see guns as a benefical thing to society, and "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun", but sex is abominable!!!!

In EU we have it reversed, guns are abomiable, but sex is ok. Even the adults will teach their teens about sex, which often causes a lot of shame and emberresment.

So, the "truth" is very subjective and not objective, our graps of reality and views are heavily influenced by the peers we are amongst.

[raw_thought]

I am using a tablet and cannot fit my response into the same space as that quote.
My response to the quote above.
I agree with all of that *. But what does that have to do with my argument?
* Well most of it. I disagree that there is no such thing as objective truth. "1+1=2 " is an objective fact it is not an opinion.

[raw_thought]

I confess I am confused. Are you agreeing with me? That there is no free will?
When you suggested that I study more (about group think etc) I got the impression that you were disagreeing with me.

[HexHammer]

raw_thought

I disagree with you on all points.

Ppl who sleep walk can do very complex things, that requires thinking, without the person being consciously aware of the thoughts and actions. Thus it is the subconsciousness that steers us in many cases. Even when the sleepwalker the day after are confronted with these weird behavior, many will be in denial.

[raw_thought]

I agree that sleepwalkers can do lots of things. The questiin is, are they responsible for their actions? If someone throws a rock into my head, I become unconscious, and I twitch,am I responsible if one of my twitchs kicks a guy off a cliff? I think not. You may disagree. But I think what I just said is obvious.

[HexHammer]

I agree that sleepwalkers can do lots of things. The questiin is, are they responsible for their actions? If someone throws a rock into my head, I become unconscious, and I twitch,am I responsible if one of my twitchs kicks a guy off a cliff? I think not. You may disagree. But I think what I just said is obvious.

This anology doesn't relate in any way to OP.

OP is clinical behaviourism and brain functions, your last post is about jura.

[Hobbes' Choice]

. "1+1=2 " is an objective fact it is not an opinion.

No, it's nothing more than an analytic truth. The fact of it is coded in the statement.
You might as well say a+b=c. It's not objective in any sense. It has truth within the language community that decides what the parts of the statement mean. It's only when we have agreement that we try and claim objectivity.

Philosophically 1 can never equal one, when applied to reality, as each thing occupies a unique temporal and spacial position. No two oranges are the same; thus 1 orange +1 orange can only equal 1 orange and another orange.
Numbering is an abstraction.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I confess I am confused. Are you agreeing with me? That there is no free will?
When you suggested that I study more (about group think etc) I got the impression that you were disagreeing with me.

It is obvious that there is such a thing as "free will", the trick is to figure out what that means in a universe where the necessity of cause and effect are king.