Searle and the Intentionality of Perception

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

Re: Searle and the Intentionality of Perception

Postby RJG on January 16th, 2018, 1:10 pm 

Neri wrote:If you now say that the senses do provide accurate information about the real world and do allow us to avoid the danger of injury or death, then the time lag you refer to must be of little or no significance.

Again, the "time lag" refers to the "conscious realization" (the recognition; the knowing of) of the stuff happening in the real world, this includes the conscious recognition of our own sensory reactions/experiences themselves.

Everything that we consciously experience, (including our sensory experiences) are of 'past' events ('past' experiences). ...again, do you agree with this, or not?

This "time lag" makes it impossible for consciousness to have any causal effect on that which it is conscious of. Because everything that one is conscious of has "already happened"!; is a past event; i.e. it has "already been caused"! ...do you agree, or not agree?


Neri wrote:Of course, avoiding danger involves taking action of some sort. Hence, I take it you have now abandoned the foolish notion that a so-called time lag proscribes human action of any sort.

We, the 'body' unconsciously take action --- and then (CTD time delay later), we become conscious of taking that action.

In other words, we don't/can't consciously take action, we are only conscious of the action we 'took' (past tense). Danger and death are still avoided, ...life goes on!


Neri wrote:You need to consider the possibility that you do not know what you are talking about.

And you as well. ...though, I actually think you do know what you are talking about, but are psychologically unable to accept such an ugly, but obvious logical truth.

I perceive you, Braininvat, and many others here as being extremely highly intelligent, but it also appears that you let your emotions/passions sway and dictate your beliefs/truths, as well as allowing/lowering yourself to take cheap shots; by making condescending remarks to other posters (...me in particular!). Though I need to give a shout-out to Badger, a highly intelligent fellow, who has not insulted me all year, ...thanks BJ.

If we are to move forward in understanding reality, then we need to let go of some of our old beliefs/truths. We should let 'logic' lead the way (good, bad, or 'ugly'!), ...and not our emotions/passions, or our resistance to change from the status quo narrative.
User avatar
RJG
Member
 
Posts: 914
Joined: 22 Mar 2012


Re: Searle and the Intentionality of Perception

Postby Braininvat on January 16th, 2018, 3:09 pm 

This "time lag" makes it impossible for consciousness to have any causal effect on that which it is conscious of.


You've been called on this fallacy, by dozens of members, over a period of 4 years, at least two of them people trained in neurology. Consciousness is a process that is contiguous with events and not separate from them. And consciousness can anticipate/extrapolate an unfolding event and respond to it - hence the baseball (or cricket) batter's ability to see the ball coming, anticipate its near future position, and then decide to take a swing at it or refrain from doing so. A delay of milliseconds in our responses does not necessitate an epiphenomenalist position or mean that we cannot, while continuously conscious of what is going on, participate in a realtime scenario of taking action.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 6287
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Searle and the Intentionality of Perception

Postby RJG on January 16th, 2018, 5:29 pm 

RJG wrote:This "time lag" makes it impossible for consciousness to have any causal effect on that which it is conscious of.

Braininvat wrote:You've been called on this fallacy, by dozens of members, over a period of 4 years, at least two of them people trained in neurology.

Sorry, Braininvat, my argument is logically sound. If you, or your "experts" can point to the logical flaw, I would really appreciate it, as I too would like to not believe in ugly truths.

Claiming my argument as a "fallacy", without any evidence of such does not make it so.


Braininvat wrote:Consciousness is a process that is contiguous with events and not separate from them.

Yes, the 'consciousness-of-X' relies on the pre-existence of 'X'.

Without 'something' to be conscious of, then there is 'nothing' to be conscious 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).

But:
1. Are these (the 'X' and the 'consciousness-of-X') the same things/events? -- NO
2. Are these two things/events separated in time? -- YES, one follows (is 'after') the other.

Is there a logical "fallacy" flaw here? Does anyone disagree?


Braininvat wrote:And consciousness can anticipate/extrapolate an unfolding event and respond to it - hence the baseball (or cricket) batter's ability to see the ball coming, anticipate its near future position, and then decide to take a swing at it or refrain from doing so.

The (logical) "fallacy" is right here with your own words. B>A and B<A cannot be both true! If we are conscious of our experiences, then we cannot also be the conscious causer of them, ...if we are 'conscious' of our experiences, then it is too late to 'cause' them!

A = 'X' -- an event happening in reality
B = 'Consciousness-of-X' --- an event happening in the conscious mind of the observer.
> = is 'after'
< = is 'before'
B<A = conscious causation -- to 'cause' X, consciousness must 'precede' X.

But if B>A is true, then B<A (conscious causation) cannot be true. If B>A is true, then B<A cannot be true. ...we cannot have it both ways!


Braininvat wrote:A delay of milliseconds in our responses does not necessitate an epiphenomenalist position or mean that we cannot, while continuously conscious of what is going on, participate in a realtime scenario of taking action.

Does this "millisecond delay" establish an 'after' relationship? If so, then doesn't this establish that B>A is true? ...and if so, then how can you then insist that B<A also be true?

This conscious time delay (CTD) gives us no conscious access to the present. Everything we are conscious of has already happened. If it has already happened, then it is too late to cause it.

Conscious causation is a myth.
User avatar
RJG
Member
 
Posts: 914
Joined: 22 Mar 2012


Previous

Return to Metaphysics & Epistemology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests