Can we think?

[TruthSeeker]

My post was once again properly ignored....

 

[§outh§tar]

My post was once again properly ignored....

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.

 

[§outh§tar]

Philosophical constructivism. Also "radical constructivism".

At least it isn't as absurd as objectivism.

Uh. I suppose I am still so calm that my evaluation of the human condition (which you call "hypocrisy") doesn't come across in a manner for you to understand that I do understand what you are saying, and that I do agree that what we are could be called "hypocrites". Apparently, you can't tell from my style how hopeless I find this whole thing with the human condition.


And guess what is more absurd? That we fight this absurdity!

Rage, rage against the dying of the light!

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.

The problematic concept here is *create*.

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.

I, too, think it is very clever!

Sarcasm?

And you know what this trend is called? Megalomania and playing God.

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?

As a human saw that he can kill a bear, using weapons and tricks, human said "I am better, I am more!" and human said "Nature, I rule over you." As then human did a lot of things that made him feel powerful (or so human thought), human said he doesn't need God, and human killed God in his heart and called himself rational.

(It is too bad that you can't see me or feel my anger as I write this.)

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?

Self-defense.
Human *does* know that human is not omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. But it is an ugly truth, so human thinks, and so he pushes it away, finding scapegoats.

Sooner or later, the only scapegoat left will be human.

No no no.
No.
No!
"If you believe in free will, then you can sire thoughts." is a non sequitur and Invert and I have been saying this all along.

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.

The concept of free will makes sense if we talk about it in terms of sociology, psychology and philosophy. But in terms of neurology, the concept of free will is nonsensical.

"But it is an ugly truth, so human thinks, and so he pushes it away, finding scapegoats."

Talking about free will in terms of neurology is the same as talking about the function of the spoon in terms of the chemical build-up of a spoon.

The spoon has a function, and it also has a certain chemical build-up. But to try and make causal relationships between the function of the spoon and its chemical build-up is ... nonsensical. It can be done though; but just because it can be done does not mean that it is not nonsensical.

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.

I have done that long ago. But I did get bored of that negative h-word.

How can an intrinsic (h-word) stop being a (h-word). I may admit it, but it doesn't change the fact.

Don't praise the day before the evening, alright?
But smugness does do you good.

Aah, the day only comes but once.

"Take no anxious thought for the morrow; sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof."

Again, as I have insisted all along, this is absurd presuppositionalism. The brain may be inferring a causal relationship, but in truth, how can we guarantee that it is simply not coincidence? Arguing from ignorance will not answer the question. Presuppositionalism will not answer the question. Arguing for practicality will not answer the question.

Uh. Spoon ... its function to relation to its cemical build-up ...

The spoon's components do not tell the spoon to think it is a spoon.

The oven is hotter than ever.

Despicable, abhorring, abominable, ignoble, enchagrining, imprecating, disgusting, English is full of them, and there was a site once with Shakespearian insults.

I like the sound to scummy. Not very much like yummy.

No, this just shows that free will is often conceptualized in regards to determinism, as if the two were diametric opposites. I don't think theys are; I think theories just need to be more clear about what exactly they are talking about.

If they were any clearer, their circularity would be exposed. And that would be impractical, now wouldn't it?

I said, a couple of times, how all arguments are essentially arguments that are lead by the rule of the fist. There is a reason.

A neurological one at that.

If I had free will, then I wouldn't be in a closed system for I could sire thoughts.

I would just like to say once more that this is a non sequitur.

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.

I know that I have sat with books for hours, and I know that I was putting much thought into what I was reading and studying.

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.

Niiiiiiiiiiiice! It is axiomatic to presuppose axioms, yes. Superb.

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.

Seems, madam? Nay, it is. I know not "seems".
'Tis not alone my inky cloak, good mother,
Nor customary suits of solemn black,
Nor windy suspiration of forced breath,
No, nor the fruitful river in the eye,
Nor the dejected haviour of the visage,
Together with all forms, moods, shapes of grief,
That can denote me truly. These indeed seem,
For they are actions that a man might play;
But I have that within which passeth show,
These but the trappings and the suits of woe.

..That can denote me truly? But I have that within which passeth show?

Don't those consist a contradiction?

You do know that that apple fell off the tree on Isaac's head because the worm in it ate off the stem?

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

Then I think "consciousness" is rife to be redefined and reconceptualized.

At least we manage to agree. Hurrah!

 

[TruthSeeker]

I am only doing what you do to me.

Yeah, right.... And I am doing what you had done to me...
So much for fallacious logic.....

You want to prove that you are right and so you keep making the same "arguments" endlessly.

Sounds like what you do....

Objection #1: You have not shown why free will can "explain" creativity.

I have shown and quoted sources.....
Posted it twice.

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.

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?

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.

I will read than

And since creativity can be enhanced by stimulating the brain SANS "free will", your argument is bogus.

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.

 

[cole grey]

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 -

“the performer, the conscious performer, is in a seventh heaven of artistic rapture at the results of all this tremendous business, or perchance lost in contemplation of the individual who turns the leaves of the music book, justly persuaded he is showing her his very soul! Of course consciousness usually has a role in the learning of such complex activities, but not necessarily in their performance, and that is the only point I am trying to make here.”

Once learning has been completed, the self-reference is sometimes un-necessary. Ok.

“For in speaking or writing we are not really conscious of what we are actually doing at the time. Consciousness functions in the decision as to what to say, how we are to say it, and when we say it, but then the orderly and accomplished succession of phonemes or of written letters is somehow done for us.”

Once learned and sublimated, processes can be ignored. Ok.

“Similarly, if you think of the last time you slept out of doors, went skating, or - if all else fails - did something that you regretted in public, you tend not to see, hear, or feel things as you actually experienced them, but rather to re-create them in objective terms, seeing yourself in the setting as if you were somebody else.”

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.

“Indeed what Muller should have said was, no one has ever been conscious of a tree. For consciousness, indeed, not only is not the repository of concepts; it does not usually work with them at all! When we consciously think of a tree, we are indeed conscious of a particular tree, of the fir or the oak or the elm that grew beside our house, and let it stand for the concept, just as we can let a concept word stand for it as well.”

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.

”Signal learning (or classical or Pavlovian conditioning) is the simplest example. If a light signal immediately followed by a puff of air through a rubber tube is directed at a person’s eye about ten times, the eyelid, which previously blinked only to the puff of air, will begin to blink to the light signal alone, and this becomes more and more frequent as trials proceed.9 Subjects who have undergone this well-known procedure of signal learning report that it has no conscious component whatever. Indeed, consciousness, in this example the intrusion of voluntary eye blinks to try to assist the signal learning, blocks it from occurring.”

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.

“In the common motor skills studied in the laboratory as well, such as complex pursuit-rotor systems or mirror-tracing, the subjects who are asked to be very conscious of their movements do worse.”

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.

“But, for the present, we have simply established that the older doctrine that conscious experience is the substrate of all learning is clearly and absolutely false. At this point, we can at least conclude that it is possible - possible I say - to conceive of human beings who are not conscious and yet can learn and solve problems.”

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,

Indeed I have begun in this fashion, and place great importance on this opening chapter, for unless you are here convinced that a civilization without consciousness is possible, you will find the discussion that follows unconvincing and paradoxical.

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.

 

[§outh§tar]

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.

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 -

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

I'm not sure you understand: how is consciousness necessary for learning to play the violin OR for conceptualizing?

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.

Please show why this is true.

36) perceptions do not have to be conscious. So what.

I think you are missing his thesis again.

39) 1-How can imagination be both not conscious and controllable?

Please do tell me: How do you control imagination?

2- consciousness is involved in setting up the stimuli for learning

How is consciousness 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

I think you miss the point YET again. WITHOUT consciousness, you wouldn't be conscious of any "vague feelings" in the first place.

42, 43) without the conscious work the unconscious work cannot occur.

1) Please explain what 'work' the conscious does.
2) Please explain why the statement is at all true.

And again, without the conscious recognition of the answer we would just be left with a vague feeling.

Nope.

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?

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?

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.

I changed my mind about that but don't ask because I'm not telling just yet.

Except for ideas you say you have "moved on" from long ago.

A complete 180 from what I've said before.

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.

I have been sick with the flu for the past few days but water is checking the rough draft for holes.

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.

You say "self" stimulation. What is the "self"?

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.

All genii go through the same hurdles.

 

[Bergunde]

Do you know how you think? What do you have to do to initiate a thought? What do you have to do to raise your arm in the air?

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?

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.