What is CTD?

[DragonFly]

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]

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.

I hope you were being facetious about the car next door Dragonfly. In real life the car next door is never 9 feet ahead of where we think it is. 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. It's a good example of how CTD has no biological significance in our daily perceptions or consciousness.

Likewise for your second sentence.

[RJG]

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’.

Does this "developing" consume time?

THIS IS ‘INTERNAL CONSCIOUSNESS’ and I’m claiming that this process has NO CTD.

Doesn't "process" logically imply some passing of "time"? A process cannot happen without some passage of time, right?

WE ARE CONSCIOUS OF OUR ‘THOUGHTS’ AT THE REAL TIME THEY ARRIVE IN OUR ‘MIND’S EYE’ BECAUSE THAT IS THE SEAT OF CONSCIOUSNESS.

But that's not the issue/question. The issue/question is, does it take 'time', (i.e. transmission, translation, and recognition time), for you to enjoy this wonderful "mind's eye" conscious view? ...if so, then this processing time is referred to as CTD - conscious time delay.

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.

This is logically impossible. -- as we would first have to know (be conscious of) what 'real-time' was so as to then know how much to 'compensate' for. But since our only view of reality is through our consciousness (in 'conscious-time'), we can't know real-time from conscious-time.

There is no way to peek around our conscious window to see reality directly for itself. If we wish to view reality, then it can only be through our conscious view.

Otherwise, no shooter would ever hit a clay pigeon.

What does CTD have to do with one's ability to hit a clay pigeon?

If one is conscious of seeing the launch of a clay pigeon, that means the real-time launching occurred beforehand. And if one is conscious of aiming/firing a gun, that means the real-time aiming/firing of a gun occurred beforehand.

The 'duration' between (and difficulty of) the firing and hitting of the clay pigeon is the same whether we view it from the conscious perspective or the real-time perspective.

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.

...so are you claiming that there are no "non-instant" processes responsible for this "instant" conscious view of the "mind's eye"??

*********

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.

Doogles, we can't do the impossible!

Impossibility #1 - We can't compensate for real-time without first knowing real-time. We can't compensate to an 'unknown' reference point.

Impossibility #2 - "Computing and adjusting" consume time in of itself. By the time we finish the computing and adjusting, the car (in real-time) has traveled even further down the road, requiring re-compensation, but by then, the car is gone and out of our conscious sight.

Even if it were possible to do the impossible, and "compensate" as you say, then our conscious view would appear wacky; choppy and non-continuous. For example, with a car traveling down the street, you claim our conscious view would compensate by either "speeding" or "jumping/lunging" the car up to its proper real-time location. If so, then wouldn't we see these strange effects/movements?

And furthermore, if there were a 'change' in the 'compensated view' of this real-time event, then bizarre effects would happen. For example, if the driver of the car suddenly displayed his middle finger as he passed by, the finger would appear in the back seat, or maybe behind the car, as this new event has not yet been 'compensated' for.

I think Doogle's Dogma is Debunked. :-)

**************

The philosophical implications of CTD for no free will are world-shattering, bringing down the edifices of religions and court systems and more.

Yes, I absolutely agree. Though I suspect that these "world shattering" implications are frightening many from ever (psychologically) accepting this view.

[doogles]

Not good enough RJG!

I don't see any physiological confirmation for your points of view (CTD is real enough. I did personal tests on it in 1952).

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.

I'll just make one more comment. My dogma is that we subconsciously develop 'thoughts' about a multitude of things. And yes, this process takes time, but once the developed (note the word 'developed') 'thought' hits this mind's eye, we are instantly conscious of it and there is NO delay. Hence free will, conscious thought etc are happening in real time internally and are not past events.

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]

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.

[RJG]

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.

How about "simple logic"? Does that count for anything here?

Doogles, it is still impossible to do the impossible, no matter how much "research evidence" you want to throw at it.

It is not logically possible to consciously cause/control that which you are conscious of. You can't plug an extension cord into itself and expect to get power out of itself.

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.

Aww man, Badger, and you were doing so good; you hadn't insulted me all year.

Unlike most here, I prefer to let "logic" dictate my truths (good, bad, or ugly), rather than running away from an ugly truth in favor of a feel-good "fairy tale".

[RJG]

--

[RJG]

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.

Yes. ...and how much time transpired between this external event (happening in reality), and your consciousness of this external event? By the time you got the conscious picture in your head, the external 'real' event is long gone!

Did you watch the Super bowl? Did you know there is a time delay (TV transmission delay) of about 7 seconds from the 'real events' happening in Minneapolis, to your 'conscious' viewing (on the TV) of those events? This is analogous to CTD.

When you were conscious of viewing Gronk catching a pass on the 10 yard line, back in reality (at the field) he already scored and was doing his victory dance, ...we just didn't know it yet.

Like CTD, everything we are conscious of is of 'past' events. The 'future' real events have already happened, and are long gone, ...we just don't know it yet.

If the future has already happened, then there is nothing you can (consciously) do to change it. You have to wait and see what your body, and the rest of reality, has done!

[BadgerJelly]

Truth is not an insult. It is a warning.

By all means swim in nihilism! Don't expect me to let up in telling you what a fool you're being. You would rather assume you can do nothing in order to shirk responsibility. That is not healthy, not something I can idly sit by and ignore, and not something you should be deluding yourself into based on some selective definition of "logic" you lord about with solipsistic authority.

[RJG]

Badger, why the insults/warnings? If I'm wrong somewhere, then just point out my error, make your case, ...and stop being a jackass.

Oh, one more thing, don't make up stuff. If you want to accuse me of saying incorrect stuff, then you got to quote my actual words. Stop the strawman accusations.

[BadgerJelly]

RJG -

I can back up what I've said with quotes from you (I've done so before.) I don't see the need to repeatedly say what you've said elsewhere.

Your counter position is always "Wishful thinking!" and "I use logic."

Have you not stated that you don't believe we actively do anything, that we have no free-will, that we cannot make choices? You have repeatedly said these things and most people on this forum know you have. They are also aware of you parroting the same things over and over and avoiding any questions you don't like, refusing to read anything about the subject, and then you have the audacity to play the victim (even though by your own echo-chamber "logic" you'd have to admit their is no "victim".)

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!

What have I made up? Nothing. Simply stating the facts.

[doogles]

Responses to RJG

RJG “How about "simple logic"? Does that count for anything here?”
D Logic requires sound premises. 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 “Doogles, it is still impossible to do the impossible, no matter how much "research evidence" you want to throw at it.”
D True, but this has no relevance to this subject according to my dogma.

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.

RJG “You can't plug an extension cord into itself and expect to get power out of itself.”
D You’ve made a statement here that’s true, but it has no relevance to CTD according to my dogma.

The above rhetorical questions and statements have not helped, or clarified, anything.

In the next post relating to me, RJG made the statement once again “Yes. ...and how much time transpired between this external event (happening in reality), and your consciousness of this external event? By the time you got the conscious picture in your head, the external 'real' event is long gone!”
D I believe it’s now general knowledge that CTD exists and that there is a measurable delay in recognising events external to our bodies. 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. Now in the absence of comprehensive research in this area, I dogmatically assert the possibility that this happens.

Following Dragonfly’s comment about the car in the lane next to us being further ahead than we think it is (and which RJG endorsed), my dogma says that we would be acknowledging thousands of prangs daily because of overtaking cars brushing the 'invisible' front ends of their slower neighbours. That does not happen much at all to my knowledge. But many tail-to-nose collisions occur because of CTD causing motorists to react to sudden braking too slowly.

I began to think further about this assumption that we do not compute and adjust to the speed of external objects, when I pictured in my mind’s eye (immediate recognition) racehorses crossing winning lines for thousands of years and of silly judges not realising that the horses were already about 9 feet past the winning post when they judged the placegetters. And of course, athletes actually breast a tape -- so they can't sneak through past the judges without being noticed. Yes, the more I think about it, the more I believe that my dogma makes more sense.

I have much more I’d like to say about the unsupported extravagant extrapolations made in this thread, but I’ll just stop for now because I’d like to mention one 1969 reference I found (http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10. ... 69.28.1.79 ) to the inaccuracy of the manual timing of footraces (I think). The abstract found that the people who pressed stop watches at the sound of the gun to start the race, were continuously 0.2 seconds slow in getting the watches to commence. (That’s what we’d expect with CTD). But the interesting other finding was that judges stopped their watches when the athletes were an average of 13.2 centimetres ahead of the finishing line. Obviously, there was some mental computation going on in the minds of those judges in the way of anticipation of exactly when the athletes would breast the tape.

Unfortunately, the full article has a $40 fee, but I’d like to see their Materials and Methods to see how they checked on the real timing and distances if anyone has free access to the journal Ergonomics.

[Positor]

First, let me say that I have no settled position on this topic. Both sides can make arguments which to me have some plausibility, so I am trying to probe each side.

I think there are two separate issues here:

(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.

(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.

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.

But we know where it was when its image reached our retina (ignoring the negligible travel time of light); that is what we see. What we want to know is where the car is now (i.e. at the time of our recognition of the image).

[DragonFly]

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.

The above may demonstrate a slip. RJG's statement is true because what is in consciousness had to get formulated by the brain for it to get into consciousness, which took time, making the consciousness of the info to be after the fact of its making and so not controllable in consciousness since it already became.

D's falsifying slips because it address something else: that in the near future one can address the problem. I doubt if D means that he can use any conscious control instantly with the new conscious objects not having first been formed in the brain.

The same with the claim of "free won't" being able to veto the will right then and there: the brain's analysis still turned its gears just like always to choose the "won't" after further reflection upon the "do so" vote that came out in the first place.

Old folk psychology notions had consciousness either doing something out of thin air, yet still matching the person's tendencies, or consciousness using alternate 'soul' type machinery but again matching the person's tendencies as if the brain had been duplicated; whereas just simply using the brain gets the job done and matches the person's consistency.

For people still just outright wanting what they want, regardless of information that could be learned, this happens a lot and is a subject for cognitive behavior science. In short, perhaps their brain wires fired so often on a wish for an unshowable and very desirable thing that the brain wires wired together and so they always fired together vote for that thing wanted. Various lame defense mechanisms may also be employed to attempt to preserve the thing wanted, although quite flimsy and easily seen through, especially here, such as name calling, kicking the person instead of the ball of the idea, or spouting anger to suggest being so right that they can't be countered.

Our world full of apparent strangeness and craziness gets easier to understand when we realize that people do what they have to do, via brain direction, and that this combined with inability to learn and do differently leads to them crashing into the same wall time and time again, the noting of which gives us compassion for their stuck state.

[RJG]

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.

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.

So then you agree that CTD exists?, ...right?

You agree there exists a time delay (of some irrelevant quantity) between an 'event happening in reality' (let's call it 'X'), and the conscious realization of this 'real' event (let's call this the 'consciousness-of-X'). You seemingly agree that the 'consciousness-of-X' is AFTER 'X'. ...correct?

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:

1. If 2>1 is true, then 2<1 is NOT true.
2. If B is 'after' A is true, then B 'before' A is NOT true.
3. If the 'consciousness-of-X' is AFTER 'X' is true, then 'consciousness-of-X' BEFORE 'X' is NOT true.
4. If consciousness is to 'cause' something, it must 'precede' (come BEFORE) that which it is causing.
5. Without 'something' to be conscious of, there is 'nothing' to be consciousness of. And if there is 'nothing' to be conscious of, then there is no consciousness. (e.g. without 'something' to see → there is no 'seeing').
6. If CTD exists, then the 'consciousness-of-X' is AFTER 'X'.
7. If 'conscious causation' exists, then the 'consciousness-of-X' must come BEFORE the'X'.
8. If CTD exists, then 'conscious causation' does not.

Which line item do you disagree with?

“It is not logically possible to consciously cause/control that which you are conscious of.”

This is an RJG dogmatic statement and at face value is meaningless. This statement is FALSIFIABLE as it stands.

Not so.

1. Because of CTD, EVERYTHING that you are conscious of, has already happened/exists.
2. And logically of itself, you can't be conscious of 'nothing', but only of 'something' (of some 'pre-existing' something).
3. Therefore, you can never consciously cause that which you are conscious of.

If I am conscious of a problem I cause things to happen to control it.

Not so. That which you are conscious of, 'preceded' your consciousness of it.

“You can't plug an extension cord into itself and expect to get power out of itself.”

You’ve made a statement here that’s true, but it has no relevance to CTD according to my dogma.

Not so. It is very relevant. The 'consciousness-of-X' can never 'precede' and cause the 'X', which in turn causes the 'consciousness-of-X'.

[Asparagus]

This is trolling,

I'm seeing it now. Kind of funny if you think about it.

[BadgerJelly]

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.

Priceless! haha!

[DragonFly]

This is trolling,

I'm seeing it now. Kind of funny if you think about it.

Mostly, I see on topic posts, but, yes, there are also some nonsense posts containing no meat or those using ad hominem diversions.

Or do you mean "trolling" one's own CTD thread with CTD topics?

[RJG]

(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.

This delay is transmission, translation, and recognition.

(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.

Nicely said. This delay is translation and recognition.


Asparagus and Badger, if you can't argue with logic, then by all means show your ignorance and argue with insults.

[DragonFly]

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.

Yes, if there's no time, a la the Einstein's implied eternalism of a block universe already made and set, then it's like a movie playing, but the same problem, though, as in presentism, with consciousness having to come after the brain's analysis has finished.

It's not what people like, emotionally, on the surface. Having a first-cause kind of "free will" appeals because it just sound like something great to have, but where would it get its basis? Yet, that's not even a possible question since it would have no basis.

Only learning improves the dilemma, but nothing can really overcome it.

We'd imprison hurricanes if we could, for the safety of all, but we can imprison brains, for society's welfare, over the fact that the criminals did what they had to do. Theirs actions stand; all kinds of "if's" and "should have's" can be said, but that is fantasy, for actuality trumped them.

[doogles]

Asparagus – You’ve done me a favour by giving me a chance to talk about RJGs style of chatting or discussing issues. You mentioned Braininvat’s last post which I endorsed -- “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.”

I believe it is one strong possibility. Some people get their ‘jollies’ in strange ways.

Another possibility is that RJG HAS A FILTER BETWEEN WHAT HE READS AND HIS BRAIN. HE JUST DOES NOT CONSIDER the dogma of anyone else. Other’s considered suggestions just don’t seem to get through to his thinking process. Many preceding posters have pointed out that he never addresses their points of view. This has been repeated many times in this thread. He just ignores any dogmatic points that conflict with his mantra and keeps asking irrelevant questions.

You will note that this was his modus operandi in his most recent post addressed to me. He did not make one comment about his dogma implying that racehorses are already 9 feet past the winning line when judges are back at the line picking the place-getters. He did not address the only reasonable reference I’ve seen – that footrace judges compute and anticipate the tape contact by erroneously pressing their stop watches 13.2 cm before the actual event.

He nit-picks a sentence or two and then uses his own dogmatic mantra all over again at length. It’s there in the post above. Dragonfly does the same.

THE MAIN PROBLEM IN THIS DISCUSSION IS THAT THERE IS ALMOST NIL IN THE WAY OF EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ANY VIEWPOINT AND WE ARE LIMITED TO EVERYDAY EXAMPLES OR JUST PLAIN DOGMA. AND AS YOU CAN SEE, WITHOUT EVIDENCE, DISCUSSION USING DOGMA GOES AROUND IN CIRCLES. AND IF ONE PERSON’S EARS ARE SHUT TO THE DOGMA OF ANOTHER -- ????

Braininvat mentioned RJG’s claims for being logical when in fact, logic appears to be rare. His last post presents an example.

‘Conscious causation’ has been one of the points I’ve been discussing with him. Consider this recent example.

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.

I’m still finding the thread itself somewhat stimulating, although I’m finding RJGs inability to address the dogmas of others and the constant repetition of the same old, same old, somewhat tedious.

[doogles]

Positor has raised another matter I was going to discuss, given time --
“First, let me say that I have no settled position on this topic. Both sides can make arguments which to me have some plausibility, so I am trying to probe each side.

I think there are two separate issues here: (1) Delayed recognition of the outside world, (2) Delayed recognition of ourselves.”

To be fair to RJG, he did mention ALL mental processes in the OP, but I believe that he tends to apply the sound enough principle of CTD incorrectly to all of the processes.

I have an overall working theory which I’ll attempt to explain in schematic form, and as you can see I postulate 3 sets of delays.

This depicts Doogle’s dogma on consciousness and conscious processes, along with the delays involved.

I mentioned in another post that I did some tests on response times in a practical physiology class in the early 1950s. It involved pressing a morse key when a light came on or when a buzzer sounded. The results came up on a rotating drum with some smoked paper draped around it and a sensitive marker flicking on it.
From start to finish, it involved 2 of the above delays -- CTD in recognition of the light or buzzer, and CMATD delay in pressing the morse key. Of course, the mechanics themselves (moving key, electric impulse to marker and marker movement itself) would involve some delay as well in their own right.

The average class time for all of this delay was 0.2 s or 200 ms. My own time averaged 0.14 s. I mention this because the OP in this thread dealt with recognition only and not a motor response as well. The time to recognition alone may take far less time in its own right. In fact, when I think further about CTD, all of these old tests involving morse keys and stop watches may have been measuring substantial mechanical device delays. I’ve lately been imagining the pressing of the button on a stop watch, and I would not be surprised if it represented a significant mechanical delay. CTD (to Recognition alone) may be much shorter than the old tests suggest.

Apart from that, Doogle’s dogma says that if RECOGNITION is the endpoint of CTD, then logically, RECOGNITION OF EXTERNAL PHENOMENA in the mind’s eye has to be the ZERO, IMMEDIATE, INSTANT CONSCIOUSNESS OF anything.

I’ll leave it at that for now for anyone to kick around.

Maybe I should have defined or described what I mean by the mind’s eye.

If I asked any members to imagine a tropical beach and a quiet blue sea, the image of this would come up in your mind’s eye. Or better still, it’s where an image appears if I try the tired old party trick of asking you NOT TO IMAGINE a red elephant.

[Positor]

Doogles,

Can you please elaborate a little on STPD (Subconscious Thought Processing Delay), and its relationship to CTD.

Could 'recognition' be a lower brain process distinct from subsequent 'conscious recognition'?

Could the 'lower' brain's response (leading to action) likewise be distinct from subsequent consciousness of that response? (The epiphenomenalist would say yes.)

What point in your schema corresponds to a decision?

[RJG]

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.

...so here you seem to agree that CTD exists (...that one's 'consciousness-of-X' is AFTER 'X', by "maybe 200 milliseconds")

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.

...and here you seemingly contradict yourself, and scoff at the same notion.


********

1. If we are conscious of 'nothing' then there is NO consciousness, and
2. If we are conscious of 'something', then this 'something' is a 'past' event ("of maybe 200 milliseconds").

So then, how does one "consciously cause" 'something', if all the 'somethings' (that we could possibly be conscious of), at the moment of its consciousness, have already happened, already been caused ("200 milliseconds" ago)? ...so what's left to be consciously caused?

Doogles, you can either 1) answer/argue the above with 'logic', or you can 2) join the chorus (bandwagon) of those that answer/argue with 'insults', or 3) or you can ignore this ugly logical truth, ...so what say you?


*******

The 'consciousness'-of-content cannot logically cause the 'content' of one's consciousness.

In other words -- Consciousness does not cause reality; reality causes consciousness. Without 'content' (reality) there can be no consciousness. Without 'something' to be conscious of, there is 'nothing' to be conscious of. And if there is 'nothing' to be conscious of, then there is no consciousness.


*******

If "married bachelors" are logically impossible, then science can't overturn this truth.
If "conscious causation" is logically impossible, then science can't overturn this truth.

So, no need to run off to 'science' to help justify a wishful truth. - Simple 'logic' ALWAYS DEFEATS 'science'! (...sorry, no offense to all the science-nazi's on this forum)

[hyksos]

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”.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1120070.Remembered_Present

[DragonFly]

Thanks to DaveC in the other thread for the direction on epiphenomenalism and the pointing to the no remainders over the physics.

While the objects of qualia in consciousness do not in themselves downwardly cause anything right then and there, they aren’t just sitting around for the brain as a subject to stare at and admire as some kind of art gallery, but contain great information. Evidently, the brain needs and uses this representation; it provides both the whole and the details, and when seamlessly stitched, perhaps from short term memories, it provides a narrative with action. And it’s quick, too, due to the brain’s massive parallelism.

So, the next best step for nature over the impossible conscious control is for the brain to actually use the unified view to produce future. The brain may even ruminate over a problem, solving it with a larger, wider fixed will of some future instant. The fixed will is dynamic and so it is ever changing to another fixed will, whether a better one or a worse one.

From CTD’s implications and others, we still have that earned fame falls, since the brain for that was superior in talent and thus was the “easy” cause of the great accomplishments having to come forth. Similarly, earned shame and blame goes away, that brain having been inferior, and prone to failure, with the courts leaning more toward protecting society and rehabilitation than to pure punishment.

These brains are still what did the good or bad deed and so they are responsible for that, but cannot be held responsible in the way that they could have done otherwise, as too like with good or bad weather. What happened was the actuality from the inputs and what’s done is done. We learn from our bad deeds, but we don’t need to think it could have gone another way.

Free will falls, logically and religiously, along with religious notions of good/evil spirits causing good deeds / sins, with upbringing, environment, education, and brain chemistry helping/hurting one’s fame/blame and taking some of the credit/debit. Brains run the show.

Brains that are aware of CTD will nevertheless still operate, and not just lay down, for the brain’s aim is to provide survival, this dooming the notion that CTD true fact discoverers do so to shirk responsibility—but some have to say that, and have before, and may continue to do so. Such do brains keep on keeping on in the ideas they’ve formed. We no longer need be aggravated at what pretty much has to be, which peace is a benefit from the deeper understanding.

So, of course, some will still just outright declare the counter but not be able to actually counter. For those resorting to bashing, mocking, and insulting, this backfires, only showing a lack of specifics behind the non topic generalizations—that they have no direct con to the pro. Yes, they have to do it and whatever will be will be. We are all true to ourselves and we don’t turn into someone else in an instant. It takes learning, which may involve some unlearning of what doesn’t fly. Certain learning is dangerous because it’s hard to undo.

A magic world? No. What it has to be? Yes. Any benefit? Yes, experience!

[DragonFly]

From http://www.dpi.inpe.br/Miguel/Musicas/Edelman_Consciencia_PNAS_2003.pdf

Naturalizing consciousness: A theoretical framework
Gerald M. Edelman*
Neurosciences Institute, San Diego, CA 92121
Contributed by Gerald M. Edelman, March 7, 2003

…

Higher-order consciousness emerges later in evolution and is seen in animals with semantic capabilities such as chimpanzees. It is present in its richest form in the human species, which is unique in possessing true language made up of syntax and semantics. Higher-order consciousness allows its possessors to go beyond the limits of the remembered present of primary consciousness. An individual’s past history, future plans, and consciousness of being conscious all become accessible. Given the constitutive role of linguistic tokens, the temporal dependence of consciousness on present inputs is no longer limiting. Nevertheless, the neural activity underlying primary consciousness must still be present in animals with higher-order consciousness.

With these distinctions in hand, we may consider how the neural mechanisms underlying primary consciousness arose and were maintained during evolution. The proposal is as follows. At some time around the divergence of reptiles into mammals and then into birds, the embryological development of large numbers of new reciprocal connections allowed rich reentrant activity to take place between the more posterior brain systems carrying out perceptual categorization and the more frontally located systems responsible for value-category memory (Fig. 1). This reentrant activity provided the neural basis for integration of a scene with all of its entailed qualia. The ability of an animal so equipped to discriminatively relate a present complex scene to its own unique previous history of learning conferred an adaptive evolutionary advantage. At much later evolutionary epochs, further reentrant circuits ap- peared that linked semantic and linguistic performance to categorical and conceptual memory systems. This development enabled the emergence of higher-order consciousness.

The Reentrant Dynamic Core

How can the postulated reentrant activity account for both the unitary nature of consciousness as well as its complexity and changeability? As was mentioned in considering the TNGS, a brain working by selection necessarily must be highly complex to maintain sufficiently large repertoires of diverse circuits as well as massive reentrant circuitry. A recent analysis of complexity in biological networks (16) reveals just the properties required to account for the unitary yet differentiated nature of conscious- ness. That analysis suggests that a complex system is one with many heterogeneous, smaller regions that can act quasi- independently but that also can interact with each other to form larger ensembles and thereby yield integrated functions. The thalamocortical system, whose activity is mainly responsible for the contents of consciousness, is just such a complex system. It contains distributed functionally segregated parts that interact over relatively long distances to yield new integrated functions.

Dynamic reentrant interactions across cortical circuits driven by signals from the body and the environment, but chiefly by the brain itself, allow binding combinations to occur. Because these integrative interactions occur among degenerate repertoires, they allow synchronous linking and binding to take place among widely distributed brain areas. The critical reentrant events within an integrated circuit of this system are metastable and, in time periods of 500 ms or less, give way to a new set of integrated circuits. This process occurs in an ongoing manner over successive time periods within the thalamocortical system, which, as a functional cluster, interacts mainly with itself. This functional cluster has been called the reentrant dynamic core (8) to emphasize its central properties as a complex system capable of yielding differentiated yet unitary states. In a recent paper, Crick and Koch (17) essentially agree with this formulation; their coalitions correspond roughly to core states.

…

Much of behavior is caused by neural activity in brain systems that do not contribute to consciousness. What can we say about the causes of behavior in conscious agents? In considering the facts of human agency, a key issue concerns the relation between consciousness and causation. In line with common sense impressions, many authors have suggested that consciousness itself is causal. But consciousness accompanies particular brain events and is not a material entity. Instead, it is a process that is entailed by those material events. Those events are part of the physical world, and that world is causally closed; only matter energy can be causal.

A scientific view that assumes that consciousness arises from reentrant interactions among neural populations must therefore conclude that it is the neural activity of the dynamic core that is causal. If we call that activity C and the qualia it entails C, then it is C that is the cause of our actions and further C events (Fig. 2). Some philosophers have recoiled from this view, considering it as simply another version of epiphenomenalism or even dualism. There is, however, no need to conclude that C is therefore meaningless and unnecessary; C states are informational even if not causal. C states are the discriminations entailed by causal transactions among C states. Because C and C are coherent, in certain contexts it is useful to talk of C as standing for C ; at higher levels of description, it is convenient to talk as if C is causal as long as no confusion results about the true causes that arise in the neural system. Of course, as time goes on and improved neurophysiological methods and brain-imaging techniques are developed, more detailed analyses of core events will become possible for a third person observer. Even at such a time, however, the reports of a first person subject will be necessary, and necessarily they will be in C language. When we speak to each other, our speech is drawn from C , as is all our activity, but it is in C terms that we carry out our exchanges.

[DragonFly]

While the objects of qualia in consciousness do not in themselves downwardly cause anything right then and there, they aren’t just sitting around…

By expanding on the above, some of the day can be saved, although this cannot be as dualism, miraculuous, mysterianism, paranormal projections, astral planes, souls, gods, or appeals to weird quantum properties.

Consciousness states, C, entailed by a neural process, C', as a property of C', are evidently the only reliable informational means of informationally accessing/knowing about C', which goes both for our own brains and other brains that we speak to about our C states. This was fortunately set up by evolution and/or likely to have been selected for, but, anyway, that's how it turned out.

Even though beliefs are false that C is causal, the true relation of C to C' stands in well for the causal efficacy of C'. We can, then, talk to each other as if C is causal in itself, which indeed we do; no real harm done. It can, though, be dangerous if we give mystical powers to C. Humans are great patternizers, and can go too far if not stopped by logic, our other great ability.

It's very likely seems that there is no other way to directly experience the C' neural events but as the qualia of C, for that would be the usefulness of C evolved. It's not at all likely that the evolutionarialy expensive C is there for nothing. So, then, there cannot be C without C', and thus there can be no zombies (they having only C').

C′ underlies the ability to make distinctions amid complexity, and C qualia are exactly those distinctions.

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 rehearsal 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.

The .5 time lag is still there, but our symbols internal and external can help our overall plans continue over the humps, as well as the brain ever filling in the gaps as best it can.

The C "hard problem" is ill posed. One can never produce/show an actual thing even by the best possible description of that thing, and all the more so something private, which is experience, as still the great "gift".

Hope I made 'some' of someone's day.

[Positor]

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?

[DragonFly]

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?

Good points. Tough to figure.

Looks like C' requires the first-person C view results to keep close tabs on the rehearsal because the C of the individual's view is where the distinctions will matter in the differences they make. (Did that say anything?) C' still supervises but only C can give information to C' for C' to 'know' what happened, since the qualia are the distinctions. So, C is needed and used by C', but I'd say its feedback doesn't presently do anything for control but surely does so in the very near future.

We could say that C is necessary for C's causing movements and so thus its input of C being what it is helps C' do the motor neurals, C then truly being a partial but true cause of C's plannings and doings and so getting some credit for C' causing better motor movements and whatnot.

Help!