Consciousness, Freewill and Language

[Philosophy Now]

Michael Langford talks about the language we use to talk about the mind and brain.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/87/Consciousness_Freewill_and_Language

[-1-]

Michael Langford takes an ambitious look at free will. Writes an article, which is impossible to evaluate.

It is impossible to evaluate because he arbitrarily chooses some premises, that are neither proven by him, nor are they intuitive. He considers them true, if not for their intrinsic meaning, but because he declares in the article that they are true.

This I can't deal with. If I take a premise to be true, I expect it to be true. But in formal logic that is not an expectation. So Langford MAY have the right to consider these arbitrary claims as proper premises to his argument, but he can't and does not even attempt to defend or prove that they are really true.

Such statements include, for instance, the following:
"... language involves the introduction of a cluster of inter-related concepts, such as freedom, creativity, self-awareness, rational reflection, empathy, love. None of these – I am suggesting – can be fully understood without reference to the others. I am also suggesting that although no physical laws are broken, reflective thought cannot adequately be explained or described purely in terms of neurological activity."

In my opinion Langford is wrong in claiming that Love and Rational Reflection are meaningless unless you reference the two to each other and to freedom, creativity, and to etc. In my opinion he ought not to force this down the throat of the reader, unless of course he proves the included claim first.

Langford also makes some grave errors: he sets out to prove something, and he explicitly states that he takes for granted that an explicit claim is true, and that claim is nothing but a loose paraphrasing of the proposition. So he takes for granted what he wants to prove? This is going into logic territory of the Bible and of other sacred texts. Circular arguments. Here's the quote I'm talking about:

" I am not necessarily rejecting epiphenomenalism. Once again, this term covers a range of views, and does not necessarily commit one to the causal determinism against which I propose to argue. " This will not help him disprove determinism. A concept can only be disproven by a priori means if you show a flaw that makes the concept self-contradictory. But Langford takes the edge right out of determinism, he hides behind the skirt -- so to speak -- of epiphenomalism.

00000000000000000

Eventually the cat comes out of the bag... and Langford lets the cat out quite early on. "Although I am not myself an atheist, if I were to become one, I would not see any need to change the following argument for that reason."

Here we have it. He starts out to disprove determinism because he has an agenda -- the religious convictions he has compels him to prove something that is not true, but is aligned with his commitment to his religion.

[TimeSeeker]

This I can't deal with. If I take a premise to be true, I expect it to be true.

Physics claims that energy is a real phenomenon. Do you consider this premise to be true and if yes - are you willing to be transparent about your SUBJECTIVE criteria for "truth" or "sufficient proof"?

Because by the exact same criteria one proves "energy" one can also prove "God".

[surreptitious57]

by the exact same criteria one proves energy one can also prove God

Can a non falsifiable be proven ? Does the Universe exist ? Do you exist ?

[TimeSeeker]

Can a non falsifiable be proven ? Does the Universe exist ? Do you exist ?

Begging the question: Is "The Universe exists" a non-falsifiable claim?

I don't think it is.

You can falsify The Universe's existence by discovering/observing its non-existence.
I can falsify my own existence by observing my non-existence.

And at this point you should figure out that the qualifier "exists" is total metaphysical bullshit

As are any propositions of existence.

[surreptitious57]

by the exact same criteria one proves energy one can also prove God

Can you falsify any of these statements [ you cannot then your argument is invalid ]

God is non falsifiable so therefore cannot be proven / The Universe exists and is composed of energy / You exist and are composed of energy

[TimeSeeker]

Can you falsify any of these statements [ you cannot then your argument is invalid ]

God is non falsifiable so therefore cannot be proven / The Universe exists and is composed of energy / You exist and are composed of energy

No no. Hold on Can you falsify the existence of 'energy'?

You can't! So it cannot be proven? Exactly like God?

So... what should we do with all of physics then?

[surreptitious57]

Can you falsify the existence of energy

Answering a question with a question which is really a non answer but I will answer this deflection anyway
I will assume that you think you actually exist and as you have mass and mass is energy then energy exists
The same can be said of the Universe which is also composed of mass that is energy and this is why I asked you those two questions
Now your turn : can you demonstrate the existence of God as I have with energy and the Universe [ remember he is non falsifiable ]

[TimeSeeker]

Answering a question with a question which is really a non answer but I will answer this deflection anyway

It is not a deflection. It is a correction. You are mistaken about the sequence of enquiry. An answer (a statement) ALWAYS follows a question.

What was the question to the statement "The Universe exists." ?

I will assume that you think you actually exist and as you have mass and mass is energy then energy exists

I don't know how you are using the word "exists" here so I will just ignore this line of enquiry.

Again. I can think of no question to which the answer is: "I exist".

The same can be said of the Universe which is also composed of mass that is energy and this is why I asked you those two questions

That is an incorrect premise. Mass is not COMPOSED of energy. Mass is the CONSEQUENCE of energy. Physics does not deal with ontology. Physics deals with causes and effects. In the temporal (time) dimension energy appears before mass.

And so the actual premise is "If energy exists THEN it will have a consequence". We have successfully quantified (DEFINED!) the consequence - mass. And so by confirmation bias we have rendered the premise true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram

Now your turn : can you demonstrate the existence of God as I have with energy and the Universe [ remember he is non falsifiable ]

Yes I can. The Universe is the CONSEQUENCE of God. In the temporal dimension God appears before The Universe.

We invented energy. So we can also invent God.

[surreptitious57]

The Universe is the CONSEQUENCE of God . In the temporal dimension God appears before The Universe

Can you demonstrate this beyond merely asserting it which is all you have done here
Can you construct a testable hypothesis that can be subject to potential falsification
Unless you can then I have no way of knowing whether or not what you claim is actually true

Also if God appears before the Universe then it cannot be temporally infinite
But physics breaks down at the Big Bang so you dont know what came before
However no cosmological model invalidates the notion of a temporally infinite Universe

[TimeSeeker]

Can you demonstrate this beyond merely asserting it which is all you have done here
Can you construct a testable hypothesis that can be subject to potential falsification
Unless you can then I have no way of knowing whether or not what you claim is actually true

The exact same counter-argument can be made for energy. I am simply challenging your commitment to consistency!

If you accept 'energy' (which you cannot test OR falsify) then you must also accept my god-argument! I have provided you with an equivalent argument and equivalent evidence!

If you reject my God-argument but accept the 'energy' argument then you must justify why!

Also if God appears before the Universe then it cannot be temporally infinite
But physics breaks down at the Big Bang so you dont know what came before
However no cosmological model invalidates the notion of a temporally infinite Universe

Actually. Physics breaks down a few instances AFTER the Big Bang. This is demonstrable by the circularity in the SI units.

Time is defined in terms of mass and mass is defined in terms of the Kilogram. Which is a unit we made up.

[surreptitious57]

If you accept energy ( which you cannot test OR falsify ) then you must also accept my God argument !

If you reject my God argument but accept the energy argument then you must justify why !

As I have already said before and will say only once more :

Energy is an actual phenomenon while God is a non falsifiable concept of human imagination
They are not even remotely the same and as such should not be treated with any equivalence
Furthermore energy is the domain of physics while God is the domain of philosophy or religion

[TimeSeeker]

As I have already said before and will say only once more :

Energy is an actual phenomenon

And as I corrected you already - it isn't. I know it's counter-intuitive, but it's part&parcel with the process of learning to think like a physicist.

Mass is the actual testable/measurable phenomenon - the effect of an unseen cause. We have quantified mass with the Kilogram (which we made up). But then there is a question: What CAUSES mass? Energy causes mass. That is the proposition!

Energy is the cause. Mass is the effect. Energy is the EXPLANATION for mass.

Nobody has ever seen energy. Nobody can test or falsify energy. And if you think you can - go right ahead and show me an example of 'energy'!

It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount. It is not that way.
--Richard Feynman volume I; lecture 4, "Conservation of Energy"; section 4-1, "What is energy?"; p. 4-2

Then come philosophers and ask the ontological question: What is energy? Nobody knows!

while God is a non falsifiable concept of human imagination
They are not even remotely the same and as such should not be treated with any equivalence
Furthermore energy is the domain of physics while God is the domain of philosophy or religion

God and energy are EXACTLY the same LOGICAL entities. Axioms. Pre-suppositions. Assumed truths. Call them what you will.

We cannot define anything precisely. If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers, who sit opposite each other, one saying to the other, "You don't know what you are talking about!". The second one says, "What do you mean by know? What do you mean by talking? What do you mean by you?"
volume I; lecture 8, "Motion"; section 8-1, "Description of motion"; p. 8-2

[-1-]

This I can't deal with. If I take a premise to be true, I expect it to be true.

Physics claims that energy is a real phenomenon. Do you consider this premise to be true and if yes - are you willing to be transparent about your SUBJECTIVE criteria for "truth" or "sufficient proof"?

Because by the exact same criteria one proves "energy" one can also prove "God".

Did I say "Take it away, boys?"

Apparently, I did, without realizing it. So... take it away, boys!

[TimeSeeker]

Did I say "Take it away, boys?"

Apparently, I did, without realizing it. So... take it away, boys!

Did you have to say it?

Maybe you haven't yet worked it out that one's own bar for "sufficient evidence and truth" is highly predictable by one's own expectations

Simply: you can't get to "truth" without "expectation" so you equivocated yourself with "If I take a premise to be true, I expect it to be true.".