I am only doing what you do to me. You want to prove that you are right and so you keep making the same "arguments" endlessly. Here is your question and I will answer it for the last time. If you cannot reason through it, then do not blame me. How do you explain creativity without free will. Objection #1: You have not shown why free will can "explain" creativity. Objection #2: On page 11, in my reply to cole grey, I have shown that consciousness is simply not necessary for learning, thinking, and concepts. If consciousness is not necessary, then neither is your precious free will. Objection #3: I have given you a post where creativity was artificially enhanced. Ever read 'Flowers for Algernon?' Well that is what it was like. The results have been scientifically noted, all you need to do was READ. And since creativity can be enhanced by stimulating the brain SANS "free will", your argument is bogus.
At least it isn't as absurd as objectivism. Hope? Hope never changed reality. This hypocrisy can be changed. It involves changing who we are. It involves losing ourselves potentially. If we can become conscious, we can be so powerful I don't even know where to begin. Our consciousness and its relation to free will is a farce. All we have to do is be aware; be aware of the farce. Like you said, you don't experience yourself as brain neurons, but just think of what could happen if you did. You would be all powerful to satisfy yourself in every way. You could cure your own ailments, be creative at a whim, anything. Everyting. Harder said than done. But there's still hope. So it is absurd to fight the absurdity. Instead, we must simply sidestep it. We must be prepared to let down our vanities and destroy ourselves. Are we brave enough to lay down our hypocrisy? Do not rage against the light. Simply turn the light off. Caught me there. I didn't mean "create". That would not follow from what I said above, or maybe it could. But it makes me dizzy to see how that would follow. The brain cannot create consciousness can it? That would be very dangerous to say so. Instead we should say consciousness came prepackaged with the brain. The reason I say so is because consciousness is superfluous and therefore to say it evolved or was created is itself problematic. Sarcasm? Megalomania is not "a delusional mental disorder" actually. It may be a delusion, but a "disorder" I don't know. Since that implies we all have this disorder, what would be the standard of "mental order" arbitrarily used in this case? Better angry than hopeless. Well now that I think of it, it may be hopeless. But we mustn't think that way. It just isn't. We would be submitting to our own condition. We would be submitting to whoever made us that way.. It seems inescapable and it actually is. But like fooling the hiccups, we must fool ourselves to think otherwise. It is necessary for no reason (known to us at least). Ironically, human did not know that he was a part of nature. By destroying nature, he was destroying himself. And nature too, was a part of God. When he destroyed nature, he destroyed God. And he was left all alone. Him and his logic. And logic killed him. As I think now, it occurs to me. Maybe that is the way it was meant to be. It seems hopeless. It seems purposefully hopeless. But whose purpose? Sooner or later, the only scapegoat left will be human. It is inescapable. Simply inescapable. If you cannot sire thoughts, then the concept of free will was NOT sired by you and *you* do not believe it because you want to. You believe it because you are made to believe it. You are being tricked into believing so. When you raise your arm and you feel like you raised your arm, you are being tricked into believing so. The feeling that you volitionally raise your arm was NOT, I repeat NOT, sired by you and therefore free will can simply not be true. That is why Libet's work is so important. invert objected by saying even though we do not sire the thought, we can veto it. I gave him the same objection I give you. If you did not sire the thought, what makes you think you sired the veto? Admitting there is this impossible connundrum is no justification for relegating the problem to sociology and psychology, which will obviously be less harsh on the issue. Try looking at invert's response to me on page 10. Time and time again, all he did was assume the very thing he was trying to prove. Circularity. There were also other very crucial objections that he simply skipped over. And most importantly, when he arrived at the veto question, he gave the same loathsome cop-out you are giving: "it doesn't matter" If you (plural) are going to be this hypocritical and ignore the implications of perhaps the most important objection in order to be comfortable with the status quo, then I really don't know what to say. "But it is an ugly truth, so human thinks, and so he pushes it away, finding scapegoats." Feeding more strawmen into the oven. The components of the spoon do not correlate in the same way as neurons and free will. Neurons create free will and the illusion of it. Aluminum atoms do not create a spoon. Besides, you and I have not even begun discussing the functions of free will. I had earlier come to the conclusion that it was unnecessary for the delusion to even exist. But. For now, we must determine whether it holds to the same rigorous standards you would hold for any other proposition. It does not. And yet see how I meet arbitrariness, circularity, arguments from ignorance, strawman arguments. Simply to defend a farce. How can an intrinsic (h-word) stop being a (h-word). I may admit it, but it doesn't change the fact. Aah, the day only comes but once. "Take no anxious thought for the morrow; sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." The spoon's components do not tell the spoon to think it is a spoon. The oven is hotter than ever. I like the sound to scummy. Not very much like yummy. If they were any clearer, their circularity would be exposed. And that would be impractical, now wouldn't it? A neurological one at that. I would like to rebut this scummy objection by noting that it has not been shown why this is a non sequitur (esp. given my recent comments above). Remember, it's not the function we debate but rather whether the assumption of free will is correct. Ay. You keep assuming this free will and have as of yet shown no justification for it. How did you put thought into what you were reading? (Ironically this is the same person who claims the inability to sire thoughts does not discredit free will) Remember also that I noted earlier that consciousness is simply not necessary for learning; it plays no part. Yes it occured to me how hopeless this makes us. Constructivism doesn't care that this is inconsistency. Pretending it isn't there doesn't make it go away. ..That can denote me truly? But I have that within which passeth show? Don't those consist a contradiction? And that seems to have kicked off the neurons in his head. No causal relationship needst be inferred. No praises to be given to the worm. //Chuckles at the very thought At least we manage to agree. Hurrah!
Yeah, right.... And I am doing what you had done to me... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! So much for fallacious logic..... Sounds like what you do.... I have shown and quoted sources..... Posted it twice. Consciousness is what drives you to do something. How can you explain making decissions without it. Here's an example. You have two doors. You have to choose which one you want to go through. One of them kills you, the other rewards you. Both doors seem equal in all respects. There's no way you can find out which one kills you and which one doesn't. Explain how someone would choose which door to go through without free will (and without cause and effect, of course). Another thing. How can you explain someone writting a book, for example? If they have no free will, how do you explain their creativity, their imagination, their ability to create new things, new stories, etc? I will read than Sounds like a fallacy to me.... This one, it seems: http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#antecedent Basically, just because creativity can be enhanced by stimulating the brain without "free will" doesn't imply that creativity necessarily does not exist.
Southstar said, "Objection #2: On page 11, in my reply to cole grey, I have shown that consciousness is simply not necessary for learning, thinking, and concepts. If consciousness is not necessary, then neither is your precious free will." Sorry, I didn't want to respond before I had a chance to look through your links, which were all quite interesting. But you didn't "show" anything. I had some problems with you using the Jaynes thing because, although it is useful to keep one from limiting our perspective on what consciousness can be, i.e., not to insist that consciousness is simply self-referencing awareness, but includes other processes, it doesn't adequately deal with the special type of consciousness free-will thinking is. Let me give you a breakdown of my problems with your use of Jaynes - Once learning has been completed, the self-reference is sometimes un-necessary. Ok. Once learned and sublimated, processes can be ignored. Ok. I find this hard to even do, create an image of myself as seen from another person’s perspective. It is like trying to see the face of someone in a dream, where you knew who they were but can’t even say the face looked like anyone in particular, especially not the person represented. Nothing but fuzz. However, I am still conscious of the concept. No good. I can draw a cartoon of a tree that stands for no particular tree at all, and very easily say that that is my conscious representation of “tree”. A particular image of a particular tree may be all that is available to the chimpanzee, but a human can easily go beyond the restriction. Simple learning. Simple, simple, simple. Higher learning is the ability to utilize the way to stop the blinking by consciously trying to assist it. That is where we find the greatness of the human mind. Simple learning is easier to do without consciousness. Ok. Jaynes gives only lower level learning in his examples throughout the paper. Ok. Maybe that is why animals have such amazing motor skills and humans are second rate, unless you are talking about motor skills learned through conceptualizing. Those fine motor skills, playing the violin for example, are unmatched by the non-human animal. Yes. All learning is not dependent on consciousness. It is possible that human beings who were not conscious could learn and solve problems, but they wouldn’t solve the problem of getting a giant piece of metal to fly through the air, for example. They would still be trying to figure out how to invent math. WAIT! I am only half way through my problems with your use of Jaynes for “showing” me that free-will consciousness is superfluous. I will stop here for now because I feel I’ve taken up enough space on this page. If not, have no fear, I’ll go through the rest with you. I’ll summarize by #– 36) perceptions do not have to be conscious. So what. 39) 1-How can imagination be both not conscious and controllable? 2- consciousness is involved in setting up the stimuli for learning 41) without consciousness reason would be just vague feelings we would never be able to touch in any concrete way 42, 43) without the conscious work the unconscious work cannot occur. And again, without the conscious recognition of the answer we would just be left with a vague feeling. Also, the link about zombies doesn't really add up to a solid argument for or against the possibility of zombies, but instead offers some problems with both for and against. Would you say that the possibility of zombies helps or hurts your argument, and how? I don't really get whether your theory is mechanistic or not. You give arguments to show that we have no control over our brains, and then you say that this is not a purely physical thing, but have not put out a possibility for who/what is in control over our brains. Except for ideas you say you have "moved on" from long ago. Please don't feel I am misrepresenting what you've said here, I am simply trying to understand what you're getting at. I haven't heard anything from the working out of your theory that has inclined me to think it is going to be entirely sensical, but it is always easier to criticize than to create, so I applaud your efforts anyway. As Gendanken pointed out, the conceptual is still out of reach for the chimpanzee, even if the banana is within reach. I still believe that a specific type of consciousness that allows for the perception of free will can be explained as being necessary for higher learning, i.e., mental self stimulation. Jaynes sums up the issue here very well, I’m not, and I am finding it unconvincing so far. However, like I said, it is always harder to innovate. Good exploring to you.
What is the 'special type of consciousness free-will thinking is' then? Let me give you a breakdown of my problems with your use of Jaynes - His point here is "Conscious retrospection is not the retrieval of images, but the retrieval of what you have been conscious of before,5 and the reworking of these elements into rational or plausible patterns." Nothing much there about dreaming. I am not sure how this has anything to do with what he's saying. What he is trying to say is that consciousness is not the 'repository' of concepts. Is that what you disagree with? I'm not sure you understand: how is consciousness necessary for learning to play the violin OR for conceptualizing? Please show why this is true. I think you are missing his thesis again. Please do tell me: How do you control imagination? How is consciousness involved in setting up the stimuli for learning? I think you miss the point YET again. WITHOUT consciousness, you wouldn't be conscious of any "vague feelings" in the first place. 1) Please explain what 'work' the conscious does. 2) Please explain why the statement is at all true. Nope. The possibility of zombies is not crucial to my overall argument. I only use it to show that consciousness is superfluous but that is not what I am arguing. What I arguing is this: Can we think? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I changed my mind about that but don't ask because I'm not telling just yet. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! A complete 180 from what I've said before. I have been sick with the flu for the past few days but water is checking the rough draft for holes. You say "self" stimulation. What is the "self"? Jaynes sums up the issue here very well, All genii go through the same hurdles. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Are we thinking about thinking again? Isnt' that a vicious circle of torture? It seems like one of those neverending loops.... Think about thinking... Ok I'm thinking... But what am I thinking about?... I'm thinking about thinking about thinking about thinking... hmmm there is a wall there. I can't seem to get out of the circle. Can I think about something else now? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! For me stimuli, memories, and irrelevant randomness (not claiming that irrelevant randomness is indeed proper) contributes to thought. Thinking... isn't thinking nothing but continuous searching? I can think about raising my arm into the air, but does that make it go up? Nope, it's not moving. I'd say that the brain is designed to effect the physical through the body, but to also imagine an outcome before it reacts. I think allot of the brain is wired for familiarity. It goes back to birth. Why does a baby cry? That is something we might never know. Perhaps it is because a brand new mind truly has nothing that is is familiar with. Well, until momma comes and picks us up.
