The Science and Philosophy Forum

RJG » March 22nd, 2018, 8:18 am wrote:To close out this topic -
The END

Excellent! It is indeed time to put this topic to rest so we don't just repeat ourselves endlessly. So lets just lay out the two sides of the issue and leave it there.

RJG » March 22nd, 2018, 8:18 am wrote:1. We can't be conscious of something if there is nothing to be conscious of.
2. This 'something' always precedes the consciousness-of-this-something (by the CTD value).
3. Therefore, everything that we are conscious of, has already happened; already been caused.

All of these are correct. It is the conclusion drawn from this, that conscious causation and thus free will is impossible, which is wrong. It is based on unstated premises which are incorrect.
1. Conscious causation requires being conscious of the thing which is caused.
2. To be the cause of something you must be the exclusive cause of it.
3. The conscious self is an entity apart from the physical self.
4. Free will consists of being in control of what happens.

These premises are all wrong. So to correct these mistaken ideas...
1. Conscious causation has never meant being conscious of an event which hasn't happened yet. Rather, it relies on our capacity for imagination, prediction, and intention. If we are conscious of an imagined or predicted event which we intend to be the cause of, then this is all that conscious causation has ever meant.
2. Physical events almost always follow from numerous causes and conditions and very rarely from a single cause. Thus conscious causation has never meant that consciousness is the exclusive cause that which is imagined, predicted or intended and it may depend on an number of events going on under to the hood by unconscious or subconscious processes. Thus repeatedly asking if we are consciously the cause of every elements of the conscious causation process does not prove that conscious causation is impossible any more than Xeno proved that motion is impossible.
3. Consciousness is just the process by which the physical self perceives both external and internal events in order to process the data to determine its next action. If you believe in a non-physical consciousness apart from this then it does indeed logically follow that it is a rather epiphenomenal entity having no measurable impact on physical events.
4. Free will only means that we are free to choose responses to events which may be far from sufficient to alter the course of physical events. It is only about who we are, not about determining the course of the future.

RJG » March 22nd, 2018, 8:18 am wrote:And to end all this with the spooky, but true, "Twilight Zone" moment:

RJG wrote:When you get off work today and walk across the parking lot to your car, know that your 'real' body is at least 7 inches out in front of you. And if it were possible to see the 'real' you (the one existing in 'reality'), then you would see the back of your own head. ...spooky, ...yes.

And then when you reach for the car door handle, your 'real' hand has already opened the door. ...again, spooky, ...but true!

Some people may be spooked by the fact that your body gives away your intentions because takes time for your body and mind to accomplished events, but other people are more realistic and accept this fact about human beings. If an action takes less than a tenth of a second to accomplish then it is quite possible that you cannot change your mind and interrupt the action before it is completed, but this is true of very few human actions.

RJG » March 22nd, 2018, 8:18 am wrote:Our 'real' self (body) always leads our 'conscious' self. There is no way to avoid this logical truth.

This is of course only if you believe in a nonphysical conscious self like RJG and Rene Descartes. Other people believe that the consciousness we experience is all part of the physical processes by which we (aka the "physical self") gather and interpret data in order to respond to events. And instead of being a delay between the physical self and some supernatural entity, CTD is simply a consequence of the fact that all physical processes in the human body, brain and (entirely physical) human mind (consisting of linguistic/conceptual constructs and interpretation) takes time.

mitchellmckain wrote:If we are conscious of an imagined or predicted event which we intend to be the cause of, then this is all that conscious causation has ever meant.

Did you cause (intend) this "intention"? ...or were you just conscious-of-intending?

mitchellmckain wrote:It is based on unstated premises which are incorrect.
1. Conscious causation requires being conscious of the thing which is caused.
2. To be the cause of something you must be the exclusive cause of it.
3. The conscious self is an entity apart from the physical self.
4. Free will consists of being in control of what happens.

These premises are all wrong. So to correct these mistaken ideas…

Nice piece of strawman-ship here Mitch, -- creating your own strawman premises, and then bashing them, as if they were mine. ...deceptive non-honesty at its best!

mitchellmckain wrote:This is of course only if you believe in a nonphysical conscious self like RJG…

You know this is not true, but yet you continue to spew it, ...displaying your non-honest approach to these discussions.

mitchellmckain wrote:Some people may be spooked by the fact that your body gives away your intentions because takes time for your body and mind to accomplished events…

What "mind"? - Didn't you just falsely (and hypocritically) accuse me of believing in this "nonphysical conscious self"?


Mitchell, no offense, but your words wreak of dishonesty.

Laat word

RJG: "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."

How was this CTD determined? Can this be empirically tested? What if we had two inputs into a time recording device, with one input being a photo beam detector (detecting in 'real' time) and the other input a conscious human pushing a button (detecting in 'conscious' time). If the photo beam detected the car crossing the finish line before the conscious human did, then is this empirical proof of CTD?

Some of your questions may be answered by reading the thread from the start. Enjoy.

- Later: I see, just on the first page, that Libet's delay experiment comes into the discussion, and a couple of citations given. That's probably as good a place as any to start with CTD. Or you can google "Benjamin Libet time delay experiment" and probably find what you need.

TheVat: "Some of your questions may be answered by reading the thread from the start. Enjoy."

Lots of reading with this one! Will do, thanks.