What is CTD?

Discussions on the nature of being, existence, reality and knowledge. What is? How do we know?

Re: What is CTD?

Postby Asparagus on January 31st, 2018, 5:19 pm 

RJG wrote:How about 'before and after' relationships, do they exist? If B is after A is true, ...then B is before A is not true. ...agreed?

Why can't I decide to go to the store 30 minutes before I actually go?
Asparagus
Member
 
Posts: 259
Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: What is CTD?

Postby RJG on January 31st, 2018, 6:00 pm 

Asparagus wrote:Why can't I decide to go to the store 30 minutes before I actually go?

Because we can't consciously "decide" (or consciously "do") anything! We can't do the impossible. To put it very simply, the so-called 'decision' was made 'prior' to our 'consciousness-of-the-decision', ...therefore we didn't (consciously) "decide" anything! ...it was decided for us.

Because of CTD, we 'consciously' exist in the 'past', while 'physically' existing in the 'present'.

...our bodily actions are 'out-of-sync', and always ahead of ('leading'), our 'lagging' consciousness-of-said-bodily-actions.
User avatar
RJG
Banned User
 
Posts: 963
Joined: 22 Mar 2012


Re: What is CTD?

Postby Asparagus on January 31st, 2018, 6:16 pm 

@RJG

Deciding to do something doesn't entail moving, so CTD isn't relevant.

Why can't I decide to go to the store 30 minutes before I actually go?
Asparagus
Member
 
Posts: 259
Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: What is CTD?

Postby RJG on January 31st, 2018, 6:32 pm 

Asparagus wrote:Deciding to do something doesn't entail moving, so CTD isn't relevant.

It is not about "moving". It is about events/actions happening in reality, and one's consciousness-of-said-event.

How does one decide? Whatever it is, it happened before you were conscious of it! ... therefore you did not (consciously) decide.

Asparagus, please read the OP. It might help make things more clear.
User avatar
RJG
Banned User
 
Posts: 963
Joined: 22 Mar 2012


Re: What is CTD?

Postby Asparagus on January 31st, 2018, 6:57 pm 

RJG » January 31st, 2018, 6:32 pm wrote:
Asparagus wrote:Deciding to do something doesn't entail moving, so CTD isn't relevant.

It is not about "moving". It is about events/actions happening in reality, and one's consciousness-of-said-event.

How does one decide? Whatever it is, it happened before you were conscious of it! ... therefore you did not (consciously) decide.

Asparagus, please read the OP. It might help make things more clear.

Are you sure the OP supports the thesis that decision-making precedes consciousness of decision-making?
Asparagus
Member
 
Posts: 259
Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: What is CTD?

Postby RJG on January 31st, 2018, 7:08 pm 

Yes, absolutely. Again, how does one make a decision? Anything (and everything!) that you are conscious of has already happened; already been caused; is in the past: has already been decided.

Look at the analogy I posted this morning, that should help make it clearer.

...gotta run now
User avatar
RJG
Banned User
 
Posts: 963
Joined: 22 Mar 2012


Re: What is CTD?

Postby Asparagus on January 31st, 2018, 9:07 pm 

RJG » January 31st, 2018, 7:08 pm wrote:Yes, absolutely. Again, how does one make a decision? Anything (and everything!) that you are conscious of has already happened; already been caused; is in the past: has already been decided.




I think there is research that shows that the motor cortex becomes active before one is conscious of the decision to move. That's what I thought you were banking on. But it's not. You're thinking that decisions are somehow made prior to consciousness of them. Why do you think that?

If you don't explain why I can't decide to go to the store without being immediately conscious of my environment, you're thesis is suffering from No True Scotsman (IOW you're being picky about what constitutes a decision in just such a way as to support your claim.)
Asparagus
Member
 
Posts: 259
Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Blog: View Blog (2)
Dave_C liked this post


Re: What is CTD?

Postby RJG on February 1st, 2018, 12:47 am 

Asparagus wrote:You're thinking that decisions are somehow made prior to consciousness of them.

Correct. Logically, one cannot be conscious of 'something' if there is no 'something' to be conscious of. One cannot be conscious of "making a decision", if the "making of the decision" hasn't already happened.

The 'consciousness-of-X' is dependent upon the pre-existence of 'X'.

Furthermore, one cannot be 'conscious' of something until CTD seconds after the 'something' happens. One cannot be conscious of "making a decision" until CTD seconds after the "making of the decision" happens.

Everything we are conscious of (including every micro step/event in the decision making process) are of 'past' events. Past events have already happened, already been caused, already been decided.


Asparagus wrote:If you don't explain why I can't "decide"…

Because the "deciding" has already been done!!!

The future has already happened, ...it just hasn't consciously played out it yet.
User avatar
RJG
Banned User
 
Posts: 963
Joined: 22 Mar 2012


Re: What is CTD?

Postby RJG on February 1st, 2018, 8:33 am 

There are two now's; the 'now' of reality, and the 'now' of consciousness. The conscious now 'lags' the real now by the value of CTD.

From reality's 'now' perspective -- everything we are conscious of, are of 'past' events.

From our conscious 'now' perspective -- the future has already happened, ...we just don't know it yet!
User avatar
RJG
Banned User
 
Posts: 963
Joined: 22 Mar 2012


Re: What is CTD?

Postby Asparagus on February 1st, 2018, 10:33 am 

So in my conscious now, I decide to go to the store. 30 minutes later I do it. Problem?
Asparagus
Member
 
Posts: 259
Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: What is CTD?

Postby Braininvat on February 1st, 2018, 10:56 am 

RJ's version of epiph. assumes what it sets out to prove: that the ENTIRE process of decision is unconscious, that there is no passing the ball back and forth between conscious and unconscious as a plan of action is made. So it assumes in advance that consciousness plays no causal role. Neuro pointed this out a couple years ago, in another thread. Not all decisions are split-second reactions.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 6851
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: What is CTD?

Postby RJG on February 1st, 2018, 11:05 am 

Asparagus wrote:So in my conscious now, I decide to go to the store. 30 minutes later I do it. Problem?

Yes. If you are now conscious-of-deciding, then the "deciding" had already happened (prior to your consciousness-of-deciding).

One cannot be conscious of 'something', without (a pre-existing) 'something' to be conscious of. ...the 'something' comes 'before' the 'consciousness-of-something'.

Braininvat wrote:RJ's version of epiph. assumes what it sets out to prove: that the ENTIRE process of decision is unconscious, that there is no passing the ball back and forth between conscious and unconscious as a plan of action is made. So it assumes in advance that consciousness plays no causal role. Neuro pointed this out a couple years ago, in another thread. Not all decisions are split-second reactions.

Braininvat, you are making the flawed assumption that one can be conscious of things as they happen (in real-time, as opposed to conscious-time). We can't sense/detect "instantaneously". Everything we are "conscious" of has already happened!
User avatar
RJG
Banned User
 
Posts: 963
Joined: 22 Mar 2012


Re: What is CTD?

Postby Asparagus on February 1st, 2018, 12:24 pm 

Braininvat » February 1st, 2018, 10:56 am wrote:RJ's version of epiph. assumes what it sets out to prove: that the ENTIRE process of decision is unconscious, that there is no passing the ball back and forth between conscious and unconscious as a plan of action is made. So it assumes in advance that consciousness plays no causal role. Neuro pointed this out a couple years ago, in another thread. Not all decisions are split-second reactions.

I think his reasoning goes this way:

1. Mind is physical.
2. Consciousness of the physical is always delayed.
3. Therefore the mind can never be conscious of itself.

4. The world the mind is conscious of no longer exists at the time it's witnessed
5. The mind is never conscious of itself
6. Therefore consciousness always lacks a real object.

Maybe by way of Kant, we could discover the true source of temporality. Or not. Either way.

Interesting view, RJG!
Asparagus
Member
 
Posts: 259
Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: What is CTD?

Postby Positor on February 1st, 2018, 9:46 pm 

RJG » February 1st, 2018, 12:33 pm wrote:There are two now's; the 'now' of reality, and the 'now' of consciousness. The conscious now 'lags' the real now by the value of CTD.

From reality's 'now' perspective -- everything we are conscious of, are of 'past' events.

From an interpersonal perspective, yes. But I would not regard this as the only 'real' perspective (see below).

From our conscious 'now' perspective -- the future has already happened, ...we just don't know it yet!

From our direct personal, phenomenological perspective (which I regard as an alternative, but equally real, frame of reference), the future has not already happened. It is only from the interpersonal perspective - which we conceive indirectly - that the future has already happened.

From our direct perspective, we distinguish voluntary actions from involuntary ones. So there must be something in the interpersonal reference frame that corresponds to this distinction. The 'I' that is conscious of making a decision is correlated to the 'I' that makes the decision. From the direct perspective, the two are the same; from the indirect perspective, they are different, and the decision is made before I become conscious of it. But from either perspective, the 'I' that actually makes the decision is just as much the 'real me' as the 'I' that is conscious of making it.

A free decision is one that we experience as being free, even if from one perspective it was made earlier. We just need to refine our idea of 'freedom'.
Positor
Active Member
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: 05 Feb 2010
dandelion liked this post


Re: What is CTD?

Postby RJG on February 2nd, 2018, 1:04 pm 

RJG wrote:From our conscious 'now' perspective -- the future has already happened, ...we just don't know it yet!

Positor wrote:From our direct personal, phenomenological perspective (which I regard as an alternative, but equally real, frame of reference), the future has not already happened.

From our "direct personal, phenomenological perspective", the Earth is still flat.


Positor wrote:A free decision is one that we experience as being free, even if from one perspective it was made earlier.

...do illusions/delusions suddenly become 'real', if we experience them as real?
User avatar
RJG
Banned User
 
Posts: 963
Joined: 22 Mar 2012


Re: What is CTD?

Postby RJG on February 3rd, 2018, 10:17 am 

To conclude -

"We are, in effect, being ‘fed’ our conscious experiences. That which happens, ‘necessarily’ happens."

The End.
User avatar
RJG
Banned User
 
Posts: 963
Joined: 22 Mar 2012


Re: What is CTD?

Postby Asparagus on February 3rd, 2018, 12:38 pm 

RJG » February 3rd, 2018, 10:17 am wrote:To conclude -

"We are, in effect, being ‘fed’ our conscious experiences. That which happens, ‘necessarily’ happens."

The End.

"The End" as in you're through talking about it?
Asparagus
Member
 
Posts: 259
Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: What is CTD?

Postby Braininvat on February 3rd, 2018, 12:56 pm 

The most powerful reason for rejecting epiphenomenalism is the view that it is incompatible with knowledge of our own minds — and thus, incompatible with knowing that epiphenomenalism is true.

... (i) knowledge of one's mental events requires that these events cause one's knowledge, but (ii) epiphenomenalism denies physical effects of mental events. So, either we cannot know our own mental events, or our knowledge of them cannot be what is causing the plainly physical event of our saying something about our mental events. Thus, suppose S is an epiphenomenalist, and that S utters “I am in terrible pain.” S is committed to the view that the pain does not cause the utterance. But then, it seems, S would be making the same utterance whether or not a pain were occurring. If this is so, then S's testimonies about S's own pains are worthless — both to us and to S. They cannot be taken to represent any knowledge about pains on S's part (if S's epiphenomenalist view is true). In fact, on an epiphenomenalist view, all the arguments for epiphenomenalism and rebuttals to counterarguments we have reviewed might be given even if we were all zombies — i.e., even if we were all possessed of physical causes of our utterances and completely devoid of any mental life whatsoever.


---- posted by DaveC on page 1, restated in various wordings through the thread, still unanswered.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 6851
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: What is CTD?

Postby Braininvat on February 3rd, 2018, 1:06 pm 

RJG » February 3rd, 2018, 7:17 am wrote:To conclude -

"We are, in effect, being ‘fed’ our conscious experiences. That which happens, ‘necessarily’ happens."

The End.


This is trolling, and antithetical to the spirit of a philosophical discussion. To roundly ignore or dismiss all the counterarguments in a thread, just repeating your single point over and over, is the quintessence of trolling. When challenged, you passive aggressively bleat that you are just being logical and then imply that other members don't understand logic or how to interpret scientific data. Many of the forumites you have said this to are professional scientists, so when they fade from the discussion I am not too surprised.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 6851
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills
doogles liked this post


Re: What is CTD?

Postby RJG on February 3rd, 2018, 3:57 pm 

Asparagus wrote:"The End" as in you're through talking about it?

If one refuses to accept logic in these discussions, then these discussions are non-sensical (illogical); i.e. a waste of time.

If one can't understand that -- if B>A is true, then that means B<A cannot be true -- then there is no need to continue this discussion.

If the 'consciousness-of-something' (B) comes AFTER the 'something' (A), then it cannot come before! ...no matter how much 'science' (and endless debate) we want to throw at it!! ...it is still not possible to do the impossible!

For consciousness to 'cause' something it must come BEFORE the something. But consciousness cannot exist without the (pre-existing) 'something' already to be conscious of.

Conscious causation is a just feel-good myth, ...if we are looking for 'real' truths, then we need to stop conning ourselves.


Braininvat wrote:
Dave_C wrote:The most powerful reason for rejecting epiphenomenalism is the view that it is incompatible with knowledge of our own minds — and thus, incompatible with knowing that epiphenomenalism is true.

... (i) knowledge of one's mental events requires that these events cause one's knowledge, but (ii) epiphenomenalism denies physical effects of mental events. So, either we cannot know our own mental events, or our knowledge of them cannot be what is causing the plainly physical event of our saying something about our mental events. Thus, suppose S is an epiphenomenalist, and that S utters “I am in terrible pain.” S is committed to the view that the pain does not cause the utterance. But then, it seems, S would be making the same utterance whether or not a pain were occurring. If this is so, then S's testimonies about S's own pains are worthless — both to us and to S. They cannot be taken to represent any knowledge about pains on S's part (if S's epiphenomenalist view is true). In fact, on an epiphenomenalist view, all the arguments for epiphenomenalism and rebuttals to counterarguments we have reviewed might be given even if we were all zombies — i.e., even if we were all possessed of physical causes of our utterances and completely devoid of any mental life whatsoever.



---- posted by DaveC on page 1, restated in various wordings through the thread, still unanswered.

huh?? ...the "answer" is on page 2 of this thread. ...or just look below for a copy of that exchange:
Dave_C wrote:The most powerful reason for rejecting epiphenomenalism is the view that it is incompatible with knowledge of our own minds — and thus, incompatible with knowing that epiphenomenalism is true.

... (i) knowledge of one's mental events requires that these events cause one's knowledge…

RJG wrote:Knowing my thoughts does 'not' mean that my thoughts caused my knowing. My “knowing” was caused by ‘recognition’ (of past memories/experiences).

Also, the ‘experiencing’ of mental events (e.g. thoughts) is one thing, and the ‘content’ of these thoughts are another. Knowledge is contained in the ‘content’ of the thought, not in the ‘experiencing’ of the thought.

Dave_C wrote:So, either we cannot know our own mental events…

RJG wrote:False. We can know (recognize, be conscious of) our own mental events, but not until AFTER they exist/happen.

Dave_C wrote:...or our knowledge of them cannot be what is causing the plainly physical event of our saying something about our mental events.

RJG wrote:True. The ‘knowing’ (recognition) of our mental events has no causative force upon our bodily actions.

We don’t know of our mental events (aka bodily reactions) until AFTER they exist/happen. And likewise, we don’t ‘know’ of our bodily actions (“the plainly physical event of our saying something”) until AFTER we ‘recognize’ our mouth opening and saying something.

Dave_C wrote:Thus, suppose S is an epiphenomenalist, and that S utters “I am in terrible pain.” S is committed to the view that the pain does not cause the utterance.

RJG wrote:True. An epiphenomenalist would say it was ‘not’ the “knowing” of this pain that caused his utterance, it was an “urge” (a bodily reaction) in response to an underlying bodily reaction.

Dave_C wrote:But then, it seems, S would be making the same utterance whether or not a pain were occurring.

RJG wrote:Why so? The ‘conscious recognition’ of pain, is just an ‘effect’; a symptom/indicator of a bodily reaction, not it’s ‘causer’!


********
Braininvat wrote:When challenged, you passive aggressively bleat that you are just being logical and then imply that other members don't understand logic or how to interpret scientific data. Many of the forumites you have said this to are professional scientists, so when they fade from the discussion I am not too surprised.

...or might it be that 'simple logic' baffles their "professional" 'scientific' minds? :-)

Remember: 'Logic' always trumps 'Science'
User avatar
RJG
Banned User
 
Posts: 963
Joined: 22 Mar 2012


Re: What is CTD?

Postby Asparagus on February 3rd, 2018, 4:56 pm 

RJG » February 3rd, 2018, 3:57 pm wrote:
Asparagus wrote:"The End" as in you're through talking about it?

If one refuses to accept logic in these discussions, then these discussions are non-sensical (illogical); i.e. a waste of time.

If one can't understand that -- if B>A is true, then that means B<A cannot be true -- then there is no need to continue this discussion.

If the 'consciousness-of-something' (B) comes AFTER the 'something' (A), then it cannot come before! ...no matter how much 'science' (and endless debate) we want to throw at it!! ...it is still not possible to do the impossible!

For consciousness to 'cause' something it must come BEFORE the something. But consciousness cannot exist without the (pre-existing) 'something' already to be conscious of.

Conscious causation is a just feel-good myth, ...if we are looking for 'real' truths, then we need to stop conning ourselves.


Cause and effect are products of analysis. Follow the logic. :)
Asparagus
Member
 
Posts: 259
Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: What is CTD?

Postby RJG on February 3rd, 2018, 6:48 pm 

Asparagus wrote:Cause and effect are products of analysis. Follow the logic. :)

Are you referring to the 'knowing-of-cause and effect' or to 'cause and effect' itself?

Cause and effect, itself, is NOT dependent on one's analysis of it. In fact, without cause and effect, there could be no analysis!
User avatar
RJG
Banned User
 
Posts: 963
Joined: 22 Mar 2012


Re: What is CTD?

Postby Asparagus on February 3rd, 2018, 7:17 pm 

RJG » February 3rd, 2018, 6:48 pm wrote:
Asparagus wrote:Cause and effect are products of analysis. Follow the logic. :)

Are you referring to the 'knowing-of-cause and effect' or to 'cause and effect' itself?

Cause and effect, itself, is NOT dependent on one's analysis of it. In fact, without cause and effect, there could be no analysis!

Cause and effect are products of analysis.
Asparagus
Member
 
Posts: 259
Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: What is CTD?

Postby RJG on February 3rd, 2018, 7:49 pm 

Asparagus wrote:Cause and effect are products of analysis.

Then how do you do analysis?
User avatar
RJG
Banned User
 
Posts: 963
Joined: 22 Mar 2012


Re: What is CTD?

Postby Asparagus on February 3rd, 2018, 7:56 pm 

RJG » February 3rd, 2018, 7:49 pm wrote:
Asparagus wrote:Cause and effect are products of analysis.

Then how do you do analysis?

"Analysis" means taking apart that which exists united. As Hegel put it, it's like taking a clock apart in order to learn something about it.

This realization leads to synthesis.
Asparagus
Member
 
Posts: 259
Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: What is CTD?

Postby RJG on February 3rd, 2018, 8:03 pm 

Asparagus wrote:"Analysis" means taking apart that which exists united. As Hegel put it, it's like taking a clock apart in order to learn something about it.

Is cause and effect involved in this "taking apart"? In other words, was there a learned 'effect' from the 'causal' "taking apart"?

Can you really do "analysis" without cause and effect? ...I think not.
User avatar
RJG
Banned User
 
Posts: 963
Joined: 22 Mar 2012


Re: What is CTD?

Postby Asparagus on February 3rd, 2018, 8:10 pm 

RJG » February 3rd, 2018, 8:03 pm wrote:
Asparagus wrote:"Analysis" means taking apart that which exists united. As Hegel put it, it's like taking a clock apart in order to learn something about it.

Is cause and effect involved in this "taking apart"? In other words, was there a learned 'effect' from the 'causal' "taking apart"?

If so, then that too is a product of analysis.

Cause and effect are bound together. Can't have one without the other.
Asparagus
Member
 
Posts: 259
Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: What is CTD?

Postby RJG on February 3rd, 2018, 8:21 pm 

Asparagus wrote:If so, then that too is a product of analysis.

Is "analysis" an effect (...the result of some cause(s))? ...if so, then I rest my case! :-)

Bottom line -- you can't have analysis, if there ain't no cause and effect.

Asparagus wrote:Cause and effect are bound together. Can't have one without the other.

Agreed.
User avatar
RJG
Banned User
 
Posts: 963
Joined: 22 Mar 2012


Re: What is CTD?

Postby Asparagus on February 3rd, 2018, 8:43 pm 

RJG » February 3rd, 2018, 8:21 pm wrote:
Asparagus wrote:If so, then that too is a product of analysis.

Is "analysis" an effect (...the result of some cause(s))? ...if so, then I rest my case! :-)

Bottom line -- you can't have analysis, if there ain't no cause and effect.

Cause and effect are products of analysis. Analysis is the source of "before" vs "after." It's the source of "you" vs "not-you." It's an aspect of rationality.

The other side is synthesis. The separation between man and woman is lost in human. The separation between human and lobster is lost in animal.

The separation between cause and effect is lost in event.
Asparagus
Member
 
Posts: 259
Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: What is CTD?

Postby doogles on February 3rd, 2018, 8:59 pm 

I liked Braininvat's post above.

I was going to avoid involvement in this thread because it involves consciousness in a Philosophy Forum.

I just see so many ASSUMPTIONS and FLAWS in RJG's arguments that I could not resist.

In the OP, RJG opened with “Because of CTD, everything that we are ‘presently’ conscious of, are of ‘past’ events. When we see a car traveling (at 40 mph) down the street, we fully assume this car to be where we see it, when in actuality, it is at least 9’ (3 meters) in front of where our eyes tell us.

Although we view ‘reality’ through ‘consciousness’ (our conscious experiences), our conscious view is ‘skewed’; it is a ‘time delayed’ view of reality. This means that ‘everything’ that we are conscious of has already happened PRIOR to our conscious awareness/experience of it.”


This just might be true. I haven't searched for any experimental evidence on our interpretation of the position of moving objects when we first spot them. We just MAY mentally compensate, so I'm not sure about "we fully assume this car to be where we see it." I'll expand on that in a couple of paragraphs.

As far as internal planning is concerned, ONE COULD ARGUE THAT A THOUGHT DEVELOPS SUBCONSCIOUSLY, AND THAT WE BECOME CONSCIOUS OF THE ‘THOUGHT’ THE INSTANT IT REACHES ‘OUR MIND’S EYE’. THIS IS ‘INTERNAL CONSCIOUSNESS’ and I’m claiming that this process has NO CTD. WE ARE CONSCIOUS OF OUR ‘THOUGHTS’ AT THE REAL TIME THEY ARRIVE IN OUR ‘MIND’S EYE’ BECAUSE THAT IS THE SEAT OF CONSCIOUSNESS.

Back to the example of the moving car -- after the lag of 9 feet, our brains may just compensate for this lag, but even so, after the first glance, we then perceive everything in synch with the images flowing along the line of transmission, translation and recognition. I would claim that our brains automatically adjust for this delay and are even capable of anticipating future trajectories. Otherwise, no shooter would ever hit a clay pigeon. Therefore, this CTD has no significant biological role in our conscious interpretation of external events.

The MAIN part of RJGs argument that I do not find logical is the conclusion it draws from the opening statements -- “This conclusion is a bit ‘chilling’, as it destroys any viability of conscious control (aka “free-will”, mental causation, conscious causation) or any form or notion of “consciously doing” anything. So, contrary to popular belief, we don’t actually “consciously do” anything, ...we are only “conscious” of what we’ve “done”.”

That conclusion makes too many assumptions about the times when CTD applies.

I maintain that internal thoughts relating to FREE-WILL, MENTAL CAUSATION, CONSCIOUS CAUSATION all emanate from thoughts at the time they are seen in our mind’s eye and that consciousness of thoughts has no CTD.

Logically, we cannot conclude that “We don’t actually consciously do anything” from the premise of CTD. If the idea to do something emanated from an instantaneous thought, (because the mind’s eye is the hypothetical seat of conscious recognition, the end point of transmission, translation and recognition), there will be a delay only in the neural transmission of messages to the muscles involved in ‘doing’ anything. We can exclude this latter from the discussion because once the message is transmitted, consciousness is no longer involved.

So, with my dogmatic view of the ‘mind’s eye' as a seat of recognition of everything, it is logical to conclude that I am instantly conscious of what I am doing. If I perform the task for long enough, I may go into autopilot and keep ‘doing’ the task, as my mind’s eye goes into daydreaming mode, but then my mind’s eye will return to the image of the task and I will be conscious of what I am doing immediately.

I admit that a limited case of CTD will apply if I decide to evaluate the task I’m performing – simply because I’m interrupting the continuous flow of the task and taking a ‘fresh’ look at it.

In conclusion, I dogmatically assert that because our mind’s eye is the final seat of recognition and consciousness, CTD has no relevance to internal ‘thoughts’, and therefore free-will, mental causation, or conscious causation (exclude the time delay in motor nerve transmission; it no longer involves consciousness once the message is sent).

The fact that our brains can compute and adjust to the lag times and trajectories, as in clay pigeon shooting or spearing fish, strongly suggests that CTD has no significant biological role in our interpretation of external events.

That's Doogle Dogma and physiological evidence will have to be produced to change that point of view.
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1013
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


PreviousNext

Return to Metaphysics & Epistemology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests