![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
DragonFly » Sun Feb 04, 2018 4:25 pm wrote:Biological implication of CTD may be as slight as not changing lanes to be in front of a car there if you're cutting it too close, for that car is further ahead than you see it as. Well, we seldom try that anyway.
The philosophical implications of CTD for no free will are world-shattering, bringing down the edifices of religions and court systems and more.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Doogles wrote: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’.
Doogles wrote:THIS IS ‘INTERNAL CONSCIOUSNESS’ and I’m claiming that this process has NO CTD.
Doogles wrote:WE ARE CONSCIOUS OF OUR ‘THOUGHTS’ AT THE REAL TIME THEY ARRIVE IN OUR ‘MIND’S EYE’ BECAUSE THAT IS THE SEAT OF CONSCIOUSNESS.
Doogles wrote: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.
Doogles wrote:Otherwise, no shooter would ever hit a clay pigeon.
Doogles wrote: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.
Doogles wrote:In real life, we compute and adjust for it's speed and overtake without any lag periods in our adjustments and without any problems at all.
DragonFly wrote:The philosophical implications of CTD for no free will are world-shattering, bringing down the edifices of religions and court systems and more.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
doogles wrote:But otherwise, unless you can provide research evidence to support your case, I'm claiming that my dogma is just as good as or makes more sense than your dogma.
BadgerJelly wrote:RJG assumes he is a passenger. Life is easier for him this way, because it lacks responsibility. Not that that matters either because "responsibility" is an illusion to him. Which begs the question if he is wrong then what?
That is why I repeatedly reproach his amoral position. Water of a robotic ducks back for him I guess.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
doogles wrote:Just have a think about your end point of 'recognition' after CTD (involving transmission, translation and recognition) of external events. Is it not in the mind's eye, the seat of conscious awareness of external events? This is point zero in CTD. You have to have this end point of 'recognition' in the real story of CTD with respect to external events.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
doogles » February 6th, 2018, 10:50 am wrote:But RJG continually makes the assumption that our minds have no capacity to immediately compute where the car was at the split second it’s image reached our retina.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
doogles » February 6th, 2018, 5:50 am wrote:RJG “It is not logically possible to consciously cause/control that which you are conscious of.”
D This is an RJG dogmatic statement and at face value is meaningless. This statement is FALSIFIABLE as it stands. If I am conscious of a problem I cause things to happen to control it.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
BadgerJelly wrote:Here's one for you. You cannot be aware of the future or the past. That is what you are saying. So effectively time is an illusion, which then begs the question how on earth you can argue about CTD? - I bet you ignore this!
doogles wrote:Your only sound premise in this discussion so far is that there is a CTD of maybe 200 milliseconds between a vision sensation reaching the retina and its transmission, translation and recognition by the mind’s eye.
RJG wrote:“It is not logically possible to consciously cause/control that which you are conscious of.”
doogles wrote:This is an RJG dogmatic statement and at face value is meaningless. This statement is FALSIFIABLE as it stands.
doogles wrote:If I am conscious of a problem I cause things to happen to control it.
RJG wrote:“You can't plug an extension cord into itself and expect to get power out of itself.”
doogles wrote:You’ve made a statement here that’s true, but it has no relevance to CTD according to my dogma.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Braininvat wrote:
This is trolling,
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
RJG » February 7th, 2018, 12:42 am wrote:BadgerJelly wrote:Here's one for you. You cannot be aware of the future or the past. That is what you are saying. So effectively time is an illusion, which then begs the question how on earth you can argue about CTD? - I bet you ignore this!
If time does not exist ("is an illusion") then there can be no happenings; 'nothing' can happen! ...not even the events involved in "conscious causation". If there is no time, then "conscious causation" is still a myth.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Asparagus » February 6th, 2018, 11:50 am wrote:Braininvat wrote:
This is trolling,
I'm seeing it now. Kind of funny if you think about it.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Positor wrote:(1) Delayed recognition of the outside world. We take about 0.2 seconds to process and recognize external events. We can try to anticipate such events to compensate for this delay, but this is guesswork, which relies on the regularity of the world. In a highly chaotic world, where objects suddenly appeared, disappeared and changed position at random, we would lack control; our lack of control would be proportional to the randomness. Even in the real world, objects sometimes unexpectedly change position, direction or speed at the last moment (e.g. a swerving ball in a ball game, or a braking car), and we cannot react quickly enough. I think this issue is uncontroversial.
Positor wrote:(2) Delayed recognition of ourselves. This is the controversial issue, which raises the question of epiphenomenalism. According to this, not only is there a delay in our brain's recognition of outside events as in (1) above (and a further delay in any brain/body reaction), but there is also a delay between (a) our brain's recognition and reaction and (b) our consciousness of that recognition and reaction. (Brain processes are physical events, which our consciousness takes time to process and recognize.) By the time we become conscious of our brain's decision, that decision has already been made. This would preclude free will, if free will is considered (as it usually is) as a function of the conscious mind rather than just the physical brain. This, I think, is RJG's and Dragonfly's argument.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
RJG » February 6th, 2018, 11:42 am wrote:If time does not exist ("is an illusion") then there can be no happenings; 'nothing' can happen! ...not even the events involved in "conscious causation". If there is no time, then "conscious causation" is still a myth.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
doogles wrote:Your only sound premise in this discussion so far is that there is a CTD of maybe 200 milliseconds between a vision sensation reaching the retina and its transmission, translation and recognition by the mind’s eye.
doogles wrote:He makes this statement in an attempt to identify our disconnect -- “But although you agree with CTD, you somehow disagree with its logical implication (that 'conscious causation' does not exist). ..Okay, so as to help pinpoint our disconnect, let me know which of the following line items you disagree with:” 8 multiple choices of answers are provided.
The premise is that CTD is real, therefore its logical implication is that conscious causation does not exist. ??????? DURR? I’m supposed to accept this as logical, before I answer questions about it.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
RJG » October 14th, 2017, 7:00 pm wrote:C. Therefore, our ‘present’ conscious experience(s) are of ‘past’ events, and our ‘future’ (next) conscious experiences have already happened, (...we just don’t ‘know’ it yet).[/list]
We are, in effect, being ‘fed’ our conscious experiences. That which happens, ‘necessarily’ happens. 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”.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
DragonFly » February 7th, 2018, 3:01 pm wrote:While the objects of qualia in consciousness do not in themselves downwardly cause anything right then and there, they aren’t just sitting around…
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
DragonFly » February 8th, 2018, 4:12 am wrote:OK, so we are greatly automated, which won't please all, but, you see, this is a plus, not a minus, and in addition, some of the automation was kind of "approved" by C, for C had to be very attentive when we were first learning to drive a car and those kinds of things that we "wanted" to automate, and so again C is a necessity. Beyond that automation process, C states are ever only related to the brain's planning/creation of variants of already automatic routines to come up with the new. C never was going to causal nor could it ever be.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Positor » February 7th, 2018, 11:58 pm wrote:DragonFly » February 8th, 2018, 4:12 am wrote:OK, so we are greatly automated, which won't please all, but, you see, this is a plus, not a minus, and in addition, some of the automation was kind of "approved" by C, for C had to be very attentive when we were first learning to drive a car and those kinds of things that we "wanted" to automate, and so again C is a necessity. Beyond that automation process, C states are ever only related to the brain's planning/creation of variants of already automatic routines to come up with the new. C never was going to causal nor could it ever be.
But if C is necessary for learning new procedures, it must have some causal power. If C' alone cannot cause us to learn such procedures, but a combination of C' and C can, it follows that C must be a causal factor.
Also, even if C can somehow affect C', how can it supervise and guide C' if it lags behind it?
![]() |
![]() |
Return to Metaphysics & Epistemology
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests