It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The way free will is seen in todays world

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by backwardluminary

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by backwardluminary
I'm just curious--how do you (any/all) justify "free will" in the context of naturalism? Can an autonomous reason arise from a biologically-constructed "brain?" If so, how? If not, where does this "free will" come from? Or is it illusory?


The brain is a product of consciousness. Consciousness is primary to biology.

Consciousness and freewill are really synonyms.

Freewill is an inherent part of consciousness.



Explain how consciousness necessarily implies free will.


Freewill isn't just fundamental to consciousness; freewill IS consciousness.

What we call consciousness is our recognition of our ability to make decisions based on a remembered past and an imagined future.

Without freewill we would simply be biological robots responding to stimulation.

Thoughts, feelings, and emotions are all there result of a directed response rather than an automated response to the external world.




posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by backwardluminary

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by backwardluminary
I'm just curious--how do you (any/all) justify "free will" in the context of naturalism? Can an autonomous reason arise from a biologically-constructed "brain?" If so, how? If not, where does this "free will" come from? Or is it illusory?


The brain is a product of consciousness. Consciousness is primary to biology.

Consciousness and freewill are really synonyms.

Freewill is an inherent part of consciousness.



Explain how consciousness necessarily implies free will.


Freewill isn't just fundamental to consciousness; freewill IS consciousness.

What we call consciousness is our recognition of our ability to make decisions based on a remembered past and an imagined future.

Without freewill we would simply be biological robots responding to stimulation.

Thoughts, feelings, and emotions are all there result of a directed response rather than an automated response to the external world.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by backwardluminary
 


The separateness is an illusion, it is one lump. One ocean full of droplets that 'think' they can control the whole ocean.
People imagine there is a person and a separate world but there is not.
The world can not appear without you.
It is not two 'things'.
The appearance is you.
Or you are the appearance.
No in or out. Just isness.

youtu.be...
edit on 28-8-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by backwardluminary
 


The illusion, the mirage, the rainbow of colors has no purpose, i see it as art.
The thoughts that arise are no different than clouds appearing in the sky. All illusionary. The 'things' that arise are seen.
It is all seeing and knowing.

It is all seeing and knowing. It looks like there is a seer and seen but it is both. These can not happen independantly.
All that is really happening is seeing and knowing.
Presence awareness.
edit on 28-8-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

Freewill isn't just fundamental to consciousness; freewill IS consciousness.

What we call consciousness is our recognition of our ability to make decisions based on a remembered past and an imagined future.

Without freewill we would simply be biological robots responding to stimulation.

Thoughts, feelings, and emotions are all there result of a directed response rather than an automated response to the external world.


How can you say with certainty that all of your thoughts, decisions, and emotions are *not* automated, though? Choice may well be an illusion. Is it ridiculous to think that all of our thoughts/feelings/actions are predetermined based on our experiences and our biological makeup? Reason itself may just be a tool of our unconscious "instinct" or "will."

It seems almost more reasonable to think that "free will" is an illusion and that we are directed by biology. It's really a stretch to think that some part of us has transcended the physical and biological determinism of the natural world.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by backwardluminary
How can you say with certainty that all of your thoughts, decisions, and emotions are *not* automated, though?


The fundamental nature of what consciousness is; intelligent creativity.

Thoughts, decisions, and emotions are indistinguishable from "free will"


Originally posted by backwardluminary
Is it ridiculous to think that all of our thoughts/feelings/actions are predetermined based on our experiences and our biological makeup?


Yes, because consciousness is primary. The brain does not create consciousness.

Even the physical structure of the brain is created (developed over time) by the "mind's" response to the external world.

But it can be understood in a much simpler way. We make decisions. Even attempting to remove the responsibility of "free will" is a choice. Our past experiences and biology may influence our options, but our mind still has to make a choice at each fork in the road. The very act of thinking is decision making.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

The fundamental nature of what consciousness is; intelligent creativity.

Thoughts, decisions, and emotions are indistinguishable from "free will"

Consciousness is primary. The brain does not create consciousness.

Even the physical structure of the brain is created (developed over time) by the "mind's" response to the external world.

But it can be understood in a much simpler way. We make decisions. Even attempting to remove the responsibility of "free will" is a choice. Our past experiences and biology may influence our options, but our mind still has to make a choice at each fork in the road. The very act of thinking is decision making.


Interesting claim. Where does consciousness come from if not the brain? Science has not yet explained consciousness, so any claims about it really are just speculation, but it seems far, far more likely that consciousness is a property that emerges from the complex interactions that occur among the vast numbers of neurons in the brain.

As far as I can tell, your main argument is "because I believe that I have the freedom to make different choices, free will exists."

This is not exactly a logical proof of free will. The perception of choice is not the same as actual free choice. All that it really means is that we might as well act as though free will is not illusory.

Before I proceed further, I want to point out that I do *believe* in free will. I do, however, acknowledge that there is, at present, no way to know with certainty if this is accurate. It is a *belief* and nothing more. I'll attempt to discuss why this is the case so that you can understand where I'm arguing from.

The main issue is, as far as I can see, causal determinism. This is the idea that everything that happens, everything that exists, etc. has an identifiable cause. It is determined by something else, most notably past events and natural laws. There are many potential sources of determinism--biology, culture, psychology, a deity, physical laws, or others. I'm most interested in biological or physical determinism.

I also want to clarify exactly what I mean by "free will." Some take this to mean "actions taken voluntarily." I think that this is too narrow. In my view, "free will" means that, when an individual makes a choice, there is no prior cause of that choice. He (his mind, his consciousness) is the absolute origin of that choice. The choice is not simply the result of biological, physical, or any other form of compulsion. Contrary to this definition of free will is the idea that all of man's choices are caused by factors that are totally beyond his control.

The question, then, can be framed as such: Are our present thoughts, actions, and decisions a *necessary* consequence of past events and natural laws, or do such thoughts, actions, and decisions ultimately originate within us?

One of the many arguments for determinism, the one that I think gives an effective minimal coverage of the issue, is often given as such:

(Premise 1) If an action must necessarily occur, it is not free.

(Premise 2) For any event X there exist outside causes based in natural physical laws that ensure that X occurs.

(Conclusion) Every action is caused; no action is free.

_____________________________

It's possible to challenge this by saying that "humans are not like the mechanistic things to which this applies." One can argue that human action is directed not by physical causes but by internal motivations, desires, emotions, etc. The original argument can be modified to take this into account.

(Premise 1) If an action must necessarily occur, it is not free.

(Premise 2) Human actions are guided by internal desires, motivations, wants, emotions, etc.

(Premise 3) Human internal desires, motivations, wants, emotions, etc. are caused by natural physical laws that necessitate such motivations, wants, emotions, feelings, etc.

(Conclusion) Every human action is caused; no action is free.

_____________________________________

There are, of course, objections to this. One may, for example, challenge the notion that causality is real. It may just be illusory. Based on the fact that we cannot really know the world in and of itself--because everything that we know goes through a filter of perception and thought--we cannot know with certainty that causation is real.

Furthermore, there are some phenomena in quantum physics that are, as far as we know, based entirely in chance. Strict determinism does not really allow for pure chance that does not allow for a pre-set conclusion based on physical laws, but such chance-based phenomena have been observed in quantum physics. As far as I can see, though, this merely means that human action is either determined OR based in chance OR some mix of the two.

You've stated the belief that consciousness does not come from the brain. I'll take it to mean that, in general, you do not believe that consciousness emerges from any natural causes. As such, by your view, it must originate from some transcendent source. You're going to need to provide some pretty good reasons to make this claim convincing, but we'll assume for the moment that this is true. We will assume that there is an actual mind-body dualism--that consciousness is a quality that is endowed on the body from some transcendent source. This still does not guarantee free will. You mentioned that the mind alters the brain. When one combines two chemicals in a beaker, they may react and change into something that cannot be recognized as either of the original chemicals. The changes to the brain, assuming this type of dualism, could simply be a physical consequence of the introduction of the proposed transcendent entity to the brain. Furthermore, knowing nothing about the transcendent consciousness-entity, we have no reason to assume that it was not "designed" or that it did not appear based on some natural laws that are unknown to us. Choice, or the illusion thereof, could be a *necessary* consequence of the natural *design* of your proposed transcendent consciousness-entity.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 03:15 AM
link   
reply to post by backwardluminary
 


Choice or destiny:
youtu.be...

Namaste.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by backwardluminary
Interesting claim. Where does consciousness come from if not the brain?


Interesting question, but utilmatly the answer is unnecessary to understand that the brain can not create consciousness.


Originally posted by backwardluminary
it seems far, far more likely that consciousness is a property that emerges from the complex interactions that occur among the vast numbers of neurons in the brain.


Not only is it unlikely, but if you comprehend the fundamental nature of consciousness it is a ridiculous notion.

Moving matter in "complex interactions" = the message that is experienced
Consciousness = that which experiences


Originally posted by backwardluminary
As far as I can tell, your main argument is "because I believe that I have the freedom to make different choices, free will exists."


The very act of thinking (or believing) is inseparable from freewill.

Freewill is the unavoidable result of consciousness.


Originally posted by backwardluminary
I also want to clarify exactly what I mean by "free will." Some take this to mean "actions taken voluntarily." I think that this is too narrow. In my view, "free will" means that, when an individual makes a choice, there is no prior cause of that choice.


The prior cause of that choice is also a result of freewill.

But regardless of how limited our options are at each moment, we are constantly making decisions.

Every thought is a decision.


Originally posted by backwardluminary
You've stated the belief that consciousness does not come from the brain. I'll take it to mean that, in general, you do not believe that consciousness emerges from any natural causes. As such, by your view, it must originate from some transcendent source. You're going to need to provide some pretty good reasons to make this claim convincing


I don't know where consciousness comes from or if it is eternal or divine.

I don't know if it is some kind of individualized soul or pure conscious energy.

However, if you study physiological psychology the distinction between the experience and that which experiences is unavoidable.

The brain simply synthesizes information into a message. Consciousness responds to this message.

The message is the feeling; we are that which feels.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 01:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 


I'm not sure what to say other than "I, as well as most of the modern scientific and philosophical community, disagree with you." You responded to my points by simply repeating your baseless claims. Your *conclusion* is that consciousness does not come from the brain. Merely repeating that in no way makes that claim more believable.



Interesting question, but utilmatly the answer is unnecessary to understand that the brain can not create consciousness.


I can accept this. You're limiting your claim to "consciousness comes from somewhere other than the brain." I'll ask a different question, then: On what ground do you believe that consciousness comes from elsewhere?




Not only is it unlikely, but if you comprehend the fundamental nature of consciousness it is a ridiculous notion. Moving matter in "complex interactions" = the message that is experienced Consciousness = that which experiences


While my knee-jerk reaction is to focus on your dismissal of the favored theories of neuroscience and philosophy as a "ridiculous notion," that would be petty of me.

I cannot accept the ease with which you separate biology and consciousness, nor can I accept your rigid definition of consciousness. Right now, I am sitting at my computer staring at my screen. I am aware that I am perceiving my screen through a unity of my perceptive machinery and the world of things (assuming such a world of things exists.). Furthermore, I am aware of the "line of thought" that is aware of my perception. This can extend infinitely. What's missing from this picture? Something "that experiences." There is no identifiable "mental entity" that I am aware is doing the perceiving. So really, perception is experienced. Awareness of that perception is experienced. Awareness of that awareness is, itself, experienced. "Consciousness" is always *of* something other than itself. The "I" at the root of consciousness remains unknown. I see no reason that this unknown and unknowable "I" does not originate in the brain.

I am conscious *of* perception. I am conscious *of* my awareness of perception. I am *not* conscious of the root of that consciousness, the *I.* In such a relationship, then, the only *self* really arises from the awareness of awareness. It's a reflexive relationship. I go into slightly more detail about this issue here.

Your proposed "consciousness that experiences" is illusory. Philosophers have grappled with this idea for some time. One idea--the one that I favor--is that the "self" that you call "consciousness" is a "transcendent ego" that unifies the disparate qualities of the self over time. This transcendent ego is, however, an unconscious entity that cannot be known in and of itself. It could be said to be "behind the scenes" of consciousness.




The very act of thinking (or believing) is inseparable from freewill. Freewill is the unavoidable result of consciousness.


You're repeating your assertion without backing it up. Repetition does not make up for the lack of an argument. You consider the idea of free will emerging from consciousness to be tautological. It is not. Look over my faux-formally presented arguments for more details on why this is so. Again, as stated, your argument simply means "I feel like I have free will, ergo I have free will" or "I am aware of the thinking and believing process, therefore I have free will."




The prior cause of that choice is also a result of freewill.


Hmm. So you DO propose an eternal or self-caused consciousness or a consciousness that exists outside of time. Let's apply your proposition to a hypothetical five year old consciousness that can make one decision per year.

(Year 5) decision, caused by...
(year 4) decision, caused by...
(Year 3) decision, caused by...
(year 2) decision, caused by...
(year 1) decision, caused by...
(?????) decision or other act of free will, caused by.....
(?????) (other act of free will), etc.

That statement includes some pretty bold claims about the nature of reality. Namely, it necessitates the existence of a transcendent reality beyond our own, likely a timeless one, as well as the travel of "consciousness-entities" between these realities.
_______________________________________

In conclusion, if you can provide me with a definition of the "that which feels" as you call it or the "unifying ego" as I think of it, I will be much more willing to buy your claim.

To even begin attempting this, you *need* to explain how exactly "consciousness" necessarily implies "free will." And to do this, you must first have a clear definition of "consciousness." So please provide a fundamental definition of consciousness that includes either acceptance or refutation of my above points about it.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by backwardluminary
 


Mind is only one thought at a time. Without consciousness first there can be no thought. Thoughts arise within consciousness. The conscious one is aware of thought arising. Thought can not be without consciousness. But consciousness can be without thought.
You open your eyes and you are conscious, only then can mind and world appear.
'I' and the world appear at once.

The word mind is concept, it is not reality. Mind or brain is only one thought at a time.
In this moment of now (there is no other time, only in thought does time exist), thoughts appear. If consciousness was not primary (already there) how would you beable to know a thought happened?



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by backwardluminary
 


You use time to prove that the brain is prior to consciousness. Time is mind made and mind is time, both are ilusionary, they create each other. I can say 'in two minutes i will do such and such', i create the illusion of time with the mind, two minutes from now does not exist in reality. In reality it is always now, strange how we don't notice this. It is always now, if you check. The past and future only exist in your mind as an image, a memory, a ghost. Only now is. This is the eternal.

'Things' that appear are constantly changing, these 'things' appear to a consciousness. The consciousness, awakeness is always the same, it is the blank screen on which all appearances appear and are known.
The consciousness is the seer and knower of all 'things' including the brain and its one thought at a time appearing presently.

youtu.be...
youtu.be...
youtu.be...
edit on 31-8-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by backwardluminary

Originally posted by Jezus

Freewill isn't just fundamental to consciousness; freewill IS consciousness.

What we call consciousness is our recognition of our ability to make decisions based on a remembered past and an imagined future.

Without freewill we would simply be biological robots responding to stimulation.

Thoughts, feelings, and emotions are all there result of a directed response rather than an automated response to the external world.


How can you say with certainty that all of your thoughts, decisions, and emotions are *not* automated, though? Choice may well be an illusion. Is it ridiculous to think that all of our thoughts/feelings/actions are predetermined based on our experiences and our biological makeup? Reason itself may just be a tool of our unconscious "instinct" or "will."

It seems almost more reasonable to think that "free will" is an illusion and that we are directed by biology. It's really a stretch to think that some part of us has transcended the physical and biological determinism of the natural world.


If all your thoughts, feelings and emotions are an automated response...you are a robot, an automaton. If you would like to 'freely' think that this is the case - your experience will reflect this...this is the process of FREE WILL at work!
The confusion and obfuscation lies, in the fact that, the human 'unit' individualises and separates thier own FREE WILL from others' FREE WILL, without appreciating the process inherent in others' FREE WILL.
FREE WILL has very real consequences on percieved reality. Others' FREE WILL has the same effect on the individuals' percieved reality. This is why FREE WILL is such a contentious issue. While you are excercising your FREE WILL, so is everybody else!

FREE WILL, as part of its process, has a thing called choice, which involves decisions, based on FREE WILL.
Whenever you make a choice, based on FREE WILL, (which is in effect, an act of creation) you subtely or obviously change the parameters of reality around you. To express the concept that you have no FREE WILL makes no difference to the fact of the process!..this act of 'imagined', non-FREE WILL operates in exactly the same way, to produce, according to the process, an outcome commensurate with the process...
Akushla



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by backwardluminary
You're limiting your claim to "consciousness comes from somewhere other than the brain." I'll ask a different question, then: On what ground do you believe that consciousness comes from elsewhere?


There is simply no evidence to suggest that the brain is capable of creating consciousness.

The brain (complex moving matter) synthesizes information to create a message.
Consciousness experiences this message.


Originally posted by backwardluminary
While my knee-jerk reaction is to focus on your dismissal of the favored theories of neuroscience and philosophy as a "ridiculous notion," that would be petty of me.


My formal education is physiological psychology.

In terms of pure science; consciousness is simply an abstract concept. It can not be proven to exist.


Originally posted by backwardluminary
What's missing from this picture? Something "that experiences." There is no identifiable "mental entity" that I am aware is doing the perceiving. So really, perception is experienced..."Consciousness" is always *of* something other than itself


How is it missing? Your feelings, thoughts, and emotions are all a description of the state of that which experiences. The medium is the message synthesized by the brain.


Originally posted by backwardluminary
You consider the idea of free will emerging from consciousness to be tautological.


Again, free will is not a product of consciousness. Freewill is inseparable from consciousness.

If you comprehend the fundamental nature of consciousness it is tautological.


Originally posted by backwardluminary
To even begin attempting this, you *need* to explain how exactly "consciousness" necessarily implies "free will."


Creation is freewill.

Thought is creation.

First, you must understand that scientifically consciousness is just an abstract concept.

You can not scientifically prove to another person that you "have" consciousness.
You can not scientifically prove to yourself person that someone else "has" consciousness.

So what is an abstract concept? How is it connected to thoughts, feelings, emotions, intelligence, and creativity?



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Ralphy
 


In today's world freewill is seen as a hindrance to utopia and utopians. You must be assimilated into the collective or else. They will never realize utopia requires mass murder or slavery for those who disagree. Hence the 20th century.
edit on 31-8-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 


I give up. You're repeating yourself; you're not making arguments. As such, this is like arguing with a brick wall.

If the relationship between "consciousness" (which you've failed to define in a satisfactory manner) and free will is as self-evident as you believe, why is this a problem for philosophy and neuroscience? I hate to use a fallacious "appeal to authority," but since you ignore real arguments, maybe you can at least address that issue.

If consciousness does not originate in the brain, why do brain injuries inhibit various aspects of conscious thought? Why do drugs affect human consciousness if consciousness is a transcendent non-brain property?

Also, I want to point your attention to the Libet experiment. You might be familiar with it--it seems relevant your aforementioned formal education. In the Libet experiment, a subject is asked to pick a random moment to flick his wrist. Brain activity is monitored over the course of this process. The researcher also asks the subject to watch the second hand of a clock and indicate its precise position at the moment when he made the concious "decision" to flick his wrist.

The brain activity corresponding to the buildup of an action potential leading to the actual wrist movement started just *before* subjects reported that they had made the decision! The implication of this is obvious--the decision originated outside of consciousness.

Yes, "decision"--as in the (illusory) choices that you suggest provide evidence for free will.

As for your repeated claim that a being without free will is a robot: Would a robot know that it does not have free will? You're operating under the presumption that belief in free will necessarily suggests the existence of free will.

_____________________

You are correct to say that the broad scientific community has not conclusively determined the nature or origin of consciousness. Jumping to the conclusion of dualism and accepting the broad epistemological and ontological implications of said dualism seems a bit like overkill as far as responses to uncertainty go.
_________________________

What is the best evidence that "consciousness" as a unified, experiencing entity even exists? The best evidence for this is quite simply the fact that most people have some general "intuition" that they can reason and that they do have free will. That is pretty much the basis of your entire argument: "I feel like there is a conscious entity residing withing me, therefore there is. I perceive the illusion of free will, therefore I am free."

_______________________

While I'd like to recommend that you read Kant's three critiques (in order), I realize that that is excessive. They do not "prove" or "disprove" anything, but I do think that they illustrate the issues quite well. In lieu of that, I'll suggest that you read the wikipedia page on "consciousness." It's not nearly as good, but it still provides a lot of information regarding what we do and don't know about consciousness. The word "duality" is used once in the entire article.

______________________

I think I've mentioned this in an earlier post, but I want to repeat it: I am a proponent of free will. Just like you and almost everyone else, I have a vague "intuition" of a conscious entity and autonomy of reason.

Unlike you, I realize that this vague intuition is not sufficient. As such, I will continue to argue against free will and the presence of a unified conscious entity until someone is able to provide evidence or a logical argument suggesting that such things exist. If that day ever comes, I will be overjoyed.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by backwardluminary

'If consciousness does not originate in the brain, why do brain injuries inhibit various aspects of conscious thought? Why do drugs affect human consciousness if consciousness is a transcendent non-brain property?'
______________________

Excuse me...but, you seem to have an elephant in your room!
Akushla



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by backwardluminary
I give up. You're repeating yourself; you're not making arguments. As such, this is like arguing with a brick wall.


I repeated some of the more basic concepts because your responses suggested you did not understand me.


Originally posted by backwardluminary
If the relationship between "consciousness" (which you've failed to define in a satisfactory manner) and free will is as self-evident as you believe, why is this a problem for philosophy and neuroscience?


Comprehending the fundamental nature of consciousness take a lot of concentration and conceptual thought.

Transmitting logic is more difficult than communicating knowledge.


Originally posted by backwardluminary
If consciousness does not originate in the brain, why do brain injuries inhibit various aspects of conscious thought? Why do drugs affect human consciousness if consciousness is a transcendent non-brain property?


The brain synthesizes the information from the outside world and sends a message to "consciousness".
"Consciousness" experiences this message. This experience changes "consciousness" and this change reverberates back into the brain.

However, the brain is still a physical piece. Just like your foot. If you foot is broken you can not walk but obviously you are still mentally capable of walking.

If you brain is damaged it will change the expression of consciousness.


Originally posted by backwardluminary
The brain activity corresponding to the buildup of an action potential leading to the actual wrist movement started just *before* subjects reported that they had made the decision! The implication of this is obvious--the decision originated outside of consciousness.


This shows the gap between our pure consciousness and our inner monologue.

This is actually proof of my argument but this is going to take a lot of concentration to understand this concept.

We are only capable of observing the brain and the effect of consciousness on the brain; not consciousness directly. The inner monologue is still a product of the brain (it speaks in the mechanical verbal language you learned as a baby).


Originally posted by backwardluminary
Would a robot know that it does not have free will?


A robot reacts to stimulation. It does not know. A human theoretically could be a biological robot without any consciousness. It would be impossible to scientifically determine the difference.


Originally posted by backwardluminary
You're operating under the presumption that belief in free will necessarily suggests the existence of free will.


The capacity to "believe" is the result of free will. All thought is freewill.


Originally posted by backwardluminary
What is the best evidence that "consciousness" as a unified, experiencing entity even exists?


The capacity to feel.


Originally posted by backwardluminary
Unlike you, I realize that this vague intuition is not sufficient.


Vague intuition? No.

Years of deep concentration and thought.

Comprehending the distinction between the experience and that which experiences can be learned from physiological psychology.

However, consciousness is an abstract concept. You must use logic.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 






This shows the gap between our pure consciousness and our inner monologue.


Now we're getting somewhere. If I'm not mistaken, your "pure consciousness" is my "unifying ego." I do find it interesting that the "pure consciousness" is an unconscious entity, though (which is what I assume that you mean when you say we cannot observe consciousness directly). The distance between the unifying ego and the "internal monologue" is, indeed, an interesting topic. Is this the entity that you feel has free will?



A robot reacts to stimulation. It does not know. A human theoretically could be a biological robot without any consciousness. It would be impossible to scientifically determine the difference.


This is exactly what I'm arguing. How, then, are you privy to the knowledge that humans are not, in fact, "biological robots?" How have you done the impossible?





The capacity to "believe" is the result of free will. All thought is freewill.


This is the main point that you've been repeating without explaining. I do not understand the logical progression from "belief" to "free will" or "thought" to "free will." Please explain in detail.

I am glad to see that you advocate the use of logic. For my sake--because, you're right, I don't understand your argument--please present a formal, logical proof of the proposition that "all thought is free will." Clearly state your premises and explain how you progress from those premises to your conclusion.

Truly--and I say this without sarcasm--the philosophical community has been waiting for a logical proof of free will for...well, forever. If your years of "deep thought and concentration" have given you the insight necessary to progress to a logical realm beyond which no other has been able to progress, please enlighten me.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by backwardluminary
reply to post by Jezus
 






This shows the gap between our pure consciousness and our inner monologue.


Now we're getting somewhere. If I'm not mistaken, your "pure consciousness" is my "unifying ego." I do find it interesting that the "pure consciousness" is an unconscious entity, though (which is what I assume that you mean when you say we cannot observe consciousness directly). The distance between the unifying ego and the "internal monologue" is, indeed, an interesting topic. Is this the entity that you feel has free will?



A robot reacts to stimulation. It does not know. A human theoretically could be a biological robot without any consciousness. It would be impossible to scientifically determine the difference.


This is exactly what I'm arguing. How, then, are you privy to the knowledge that humans are not, in fact, "biological robots?" How have you done the impossible?





The capacity to "believe" is the result of free will. All thought is freewill.


This is the main point that you've been repeating without explaining. I do not understand the logical progression from "belief" to "free will" or "thought" to "free will." Please explain in detail.

I am glad to see that you advocate the use of logic. For my sake--because, you're right, I don't understand your argument--please present a formal, logical proof of the proposition that "all thought is free will." Clearly state your premises and explain how you progress from those premises to your conclusion.

Truly--and I say this without sarcasm--the philosophical community has been waiting for a logical proof of free will for...well, forever. If your years of "deep thought and concentration" have given you the insight necessary to progress to a logical realm beyond which no other has been able to progress, please enlighten me.


...but have the philosophical community been waiting...of thier own FREE WILL?
Ridiculous arguments
Akushla



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join