Can we think?

[§outh§tar]

How is that circular!? Yours is circular!! It is obviously a choice! How would you answer than?
"How did you choose to raise your arm in the air?"

Can you please qualify why it is "obviously" a choice?

I already addressed the implications of our inability to answer the question elsewhere but I suspect either invert or rosa has refuted it by now..

 

[§outh§tar]

SouthStar,


Do you know Systems theory?
(I have only German sources here before me, and I couldn't find their translations on the net.)

Systems theory solves many problems that classical logic has. In classical logic, with linear causality, we soon hit the wall and have to infer some Prime Mover, or the linear causality collapses.
Systems theory postulated that within a system, there exists a circular causality. But to understand this, you need to get into Systems theory though.

I warmly recommend it. Not because it would be some sort of a cop-out, but because it offers a better (read: more scientific, more intersubjectively provable, simpler, more efficient) methodological tool for describing and analyzing esp. social and cognitive phenomena.

Can you direct me to any good sites, Google isn't any help.

I'll see if I can get any books on the subject this Christmas (I'm celebrating Christmas?)

 

[TruthSeeker]

Can you please qualify why it is "obviously" a choice?

It is self-evident that whatever you do you are making a choice - even if it is not a conscious choice. I would say there are 3 kinds of choices. The first one would be an unconcious choice. For example, when you are dreaming and you move, or something like that. The second and third one are conscious choices. Concious choices are either based on accurate perception or based in innacurate perceptions.

Unconscious choices are not really important because you don't usually really have much control over them. But conscious choices can make the difference between a good life and a miserable life.

And btw, choices aren't always a result of thinking. Like.... do you always have to think "I will lift my arm right now" in order to lift your arm?

 

[§outh§tar]

It is self-evident that whatever you do you are making a choice - even if it is not a conscious choice. I would say there are 3 kinds of choices. The first one would be an unconcious choice. For example, when you are dreaming and you move, or something like that. The second and third one are conscious choices. Concious choices are either based on accurate perception or based in innacurate perceptions.

Unconscious choices are not really important because you don't usually really have much control over them. But conscious choices can make the difference between a good life and a miserable life.

I will address the thesis, although I believe I have already done so elsewhere:

This is a non sequitur fallacy. Simply because there is no one else around to accredit the choice to is simply no logical reason to conclude we are the ones who made the choice.

So you again have to qualify why my choice is "mine".

And btw, choices aren't always a result of thinking. Like.... do you always have to think "I will lift my arm right now" in order to lift your arm?

As I pointed out, if that is the case then your conclusion is wrong. If I did not have to think to raise my arm, then why assume that I am responsible for raising my arm?

 

[§outh§tar]

SouthStar,

Um. Yes. Or rather, you (the interpretive mechanism) is rationalizing the actions taken by you (the boys in the basement). Both are you.
----
You've taken my mention of "the boys in the basement" in an irresponsible manner. Regardless of whether "you" (the interpreter of your life) enact thoughts or actions or whether it is "you" (the boys in the basement) it is still "you" (the whole).

As I was discussing with TruthSeeker above, I don't see where the conclusion that the "action was taken by me" comes from.

One. Determinism is not implied by the subconscious.
Two. Only a coward would forgo personal responsibility.

Without free will, the 'coward' has no choice to forgo personal responsibility, eh?

You lie to yourself. Or, in prettier terms, you tell yourself a story. Your arm moves because you willed it. You chose it. You killed that prostitute because she was a dirty slut that deserved it. You killed your enemy because he was a monster who would eat your children given half a chance.

Know something? Your take on free will and determinism shows your christian heritage. You think on lack of free will as in all your actions are pre-ordained. Determinism. You think of "the boys in the basement" as some entity apart from yourself to whom you can shift the blame. Beware, lest you find yourself a new god.

Well I admit my theory is a non sequitur as well but like I asked before, what reason is there to conclude that these boys in the basement are not a separate entity?

Whose thoughts would they be then?

The problem is concluding we are responsible for our choices just because we don't know who else to accredit them to is non sequitur.

Just because there are processes that are going on beneath conscious awareness does not mean that you are not responsible for your own actions. By seeking to shift "blame" from self to other by calling these subconscious parts of yourself other is cowardly. Perhaps we are unable to truly control these hidden parts of ourselves, but it has been shown that man is capable of coming quite close to appearing to do so. And it is the appearances that count. It is actions that count. It is the end (in this instance) that justifies the means.

I had originally proposed a Prime Mover of thoughts instead of crediting the subconscious, just to be more cowardly than I ever was.. By our inability to answer the questions posed, it seems that the appearances are rather illusory and man has never been close to achieving any such control. Unless any man knows how to take a deep breath.




(Chances are most people, having read this, will involuntarily take a deep breath)

So, simply stating: "The arm moves because I will it" is a cop-out. It's a non-answer. But, this doesn't lead to the assumption that our thoughts are not our own. They are our own. And our actions are our own responsibility.

I don't see how anything leads to the conclusion that our thoughts are our own, or that our actions are our own responsibility either. I have admitted my assumption does not logically follow from the responses to my questions, but I believe the same applies here to assuming our actions are our own.

The thought started "you" by thinking "you".

Definitely so. But from whence cometh the thought? Hurrah for the Prime Mover, the only logical inference!

 

[water]

SouthStar,


Here's something on self-organization with further links: http://www.acm.org/sigs/sigois/auto/Main.html

and something very general on systems theory:
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/SYSTHEOR.html

It developed in relation to radical constructivism, so the two are somewhat related.

As for books -- where are you located? The US, Europe?
I only have an index in German here, with a lot of German authors, but I doubt they are translated.
For now, I can direct you only to these authors -- look them up in your library, if they have any titles there:
John Richards and Ernst von Glaserfeld
Peter M. Hejl
Siegfried J. Schmidt

(But I'll look further.)

 

[water]

This is a non sequitur fallacy. Simply because there is no one else around to accredit the choice to is simply no logical reason to conclude we are the ones who made the choice.

The point I am trying to make indeed appears like that non sequitur, but only appears. See below.

And btw, choices aren't always a result of thinking. Like.... do you always have to think "I will lift my arm right now" in order to lift your arm?

As I pointed out, if that is the case then your conclusion is wrong. If I did not have to think to raise my arm, then why assume that I am responsible for raising my arm?

TrutSeeker has a point (although I am not sure that he is aware of it). Namely, it is possible to do something that looks like an act of choice, but isn't.

For example, take two mountain climbers in a difficult climbing section. One is climbing, while the other one is securing him. The one securing is freezing, he has only a little space to stand on, he is tired, it is very dangerous. So he thinks how nice it would be if he would not have to be waiting there, and he thinks how he could climb on and then take a rest. Immersed in these nice thoughts, he forgets himself, and without actually deciding to let go, he lets go of the rope.

He cannot be called fully responsible for the damage done, because he hasn't willfully decided to let go of the rope, right? But he did let go of the rope, and he has no valid reason (as if a rock hit him on the head and he let go by accident) for his doing what he did.

In law, such cases tend to be treated as crime done out of negligence. The punishment is milder, but the doer is still punished. Why? I think such cases are a gray area (both for law as well as cognition and ethics), and the doer is punished more for reasons of keeping up a certain social order -- as a crime has happened, and it has to be punished.

As I was discussing with TruthSeeker above, I don't see where the conclusion that the "action was taken by me" comes from.

The sense of ethics isn't based on neurological assessments.
That the action was taken by you is not a neurological assessment, but much more a psycho-sociological/ethical.

Well I admit my theory is a non sequitur as well but like I asked before, what reason is there to conclude that these boys in the basement are not a separate entity?

Those boys in the basement cannot communicate to us in an equal manner. Talking to them is like a Chinese and Hutu trying to have a conversation.

My point is, once more, that "the boys in the basement" is a concept that comes from a different discipline, from a different theory that observes a different sphere of human life -- than the concept of "free will". We cannot just mix up disciplines.

The problem is concluding we are responsible for our choices just because we don't know who else to accredit them to is non sequitur.

That's true. But this is not my line of argument.

I had originally proposed a Prime Mover of thoughts instead of crediting the subconscious, just to be more cowardly than I ever was.. By our inability to answer the questions posed, it seems that the appearances are rather illusory and man has never been close to achieving any such control. Unless any man knows how to take a deep breath.

What matters is that we *can* take a deep breath, and we *do* take deep breaths.
How we do it is secondary or irrelevant.

I don't see how anything leads to the conclusion that our thoughts are our own, or that our actions are our own responsibility either. I have admitted my assumption does not logically follow from the responses to my questions, but I believe the same applies here to assuming our actions are our own.

Nothing *leads* to that conclusion. That conclusion simply *is* there, it is postulated, it cannot be derived. It's an axiom.

The choice is yours because this is how society is organized (that's a circular here).

If we agree that in a viable society certain institutes and mechanisms (concepts, in general) exist, and that personal responsibility and free will are such concepts, then it is understandable that your choice is indeed yours, as such this society is viable, this is how it functions.

Your choice is yours because a human society, in order to function, needs the institute of personal responsibility.

Definitely so. But from whence cometh the thought? Hurrah for the Prime Mover, the only logical inference!

Don't do that.

 

[Collision]

Thinking is initiated by a stimulus. One comes across a stimulus and is driven to respond with an opinion. One does not need to find questions outside of his own head either. Memories and hormones and what not come into play. One thought stems from many others.

Fate is there, but there is also free will, since each action is a choice. Having a choice is having freedom. With choices come consequences, and here lies responsibility.

Well, of course, if you sit around and point to gods each time you have trouble finding an answer, then you are not thinking.

Let me stipulate two general non-crime states to reply to the question. The first state is a circumstance at rest and the second is a circumstance of uniform motion. As long as no force acts upon these states there is no crime. If there is a force that acts upon these states there is a change in velocity of one of the two states or what I will call for this reply a criminal change of state.

(A change of velocity in the opposing direction by the way would be a progressive change of velocity, but we’re only talking about criminal changes of state.)

The object that collides with the situation that creates a criminal state is what is physically responsible for creation of a criminal state. The object would be the human in this context. The human is responsible for changing a non-criminal rest or non-criminal uniform motion state into one of a criminal state, because responsibility significantly is tied to the object that exerts the force that creates the change.

Actions speak louder than intent every single time; accept in a Hallmark card, where only the thought counts. When we let the words means more than the physics we call this a mental-physical disassociative theory, where theories don’t represent the physics. Bush has this mental disorder in regard to Iraq. In other words, Bush doesn’t think he’s responsible for the death of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis and neither do the American criminal minded citizens who support this criminal act of murder upon Iraqis.

Tell it like it is.

 

[TruthSeeker]

This is a non sequitur fallacy. Simply because there is no one else around to accredit the choice to is simply no logical reason to conclude we are the ones who made the choice.

Ok. So you are saying that just because I raised my arm doesn't mean it was me to choose so? I don't follow it? Kinda begs the question....

Let me try to put mine in an organized manner...
P1. I raise my arm.
P2. To raise my arm, I need to choose to do so.
---------------------------------------------
C: Raising my arm was my choice.

Now.... what you seem to say is this:

P1. I raise my arm.
P2. Somebody needs to choose to raise my arm.
----------------------------------------------
C: Someone other than me chose to raise my arm.

I don't see how it follows? I mean.... if someone has to choose to raise your arm, wouldn't it be much more likely that you, yourself chose? How can you claim that somebody else did? It is very self-evident that the person that raises the arm that has the power and will to do so. So can you please elaborate your argument and extensively explain how did you get to the conclusion that someone else raised your arm? Because it is really hard to see how you infered that. And it is you that has the burden of proof...

And I certainly suggest you to separate every single thing that has to do with a choice. I would say "power" and "will" (maybe other things). You should define those things and connect them in a way that proves your argument.

So you again have to qualify why my choice is "mine".

It is you that has the burden of proof.

As I pointed out, if that is the case then your conclusion is wrong. If I did not have to think to raise my arm, then why assume that I am responsible for raising my arm?

That's very self-evident. How come someone else could do that? In any case, it is you that carry the burden of proof. If you can prove it, I will certainly believe. And I will certainly applaud you cause that's a pretty hard thing to prove....

 

[TruthSeeker]

TrutSeeker has a point (although I am not sure that he is aware of it). Namely, it is possible to do something that looks like an act of choice, but isn't.

Of course I'm fully aware of it. I even fully explained it....!

It is self-evident that whatever you do you are making a choice - even if it is not a conscious choice. I would say there are 3 kinds of choices. The first one would be an unconcious choice. For example, when you are dreaming and you move, or something like that. The second and third one are conscious choices. Concious choices are either based on accurate perception or based in innacurate perceptions.

Unconscious choices are not really important because you don't usually really have much control over them. But conscious choices can make the difference between a good life and a miserable life.

 

[Exilus]

Trully, thinking is a complicated thing to. Babies, once born have a trouble thinking correctly, and just find it pleasing to wallow around/be carried around in their own fecies, and somehow find it wonderful. As the human body grows of a higher age, it learns just like an animal, observation. But seeing that the human being species were the dominating being on the planet named earth.

That being said, you could easily understand that humans have found it possible to teach other human beings to learn from other than observation. And afterwards the whole organism could understand more about the world. I understand and keep to my mind that humans are just another species of animal, so in other words. . . Steak/Meat eaters are indeed carnivores.

Thinking, however. What a wonderful topic to think about, but not worthy since it's so simple how the human brain functions.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Did you say "simple"!?!?

This is first philosophy! It's not about the brain, it is about thinking.

 

[Shifty Russian]

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?

Thinking is a natural process, you don't have to iniate anything to start thinking.

Thus, to raise your right arm, all you have to do is think about it.

Regards,
- Shifty Russian

 

[§outh§tar]

Ok. So you are saying that just because I raised my arm doesn't mean it was me to choose so? I don't follow it? Kinda begs the question....

Let me try to put mine in an organized manner...
P1. I raise my arm.
P2. To raise my arm, I need to choose to do so.
---------------------------------------------
C: Raising my arm was my choice.

Now.... what you seem to say is this:

P1. I raise my arm.
P2. Somebody needs to choose to raise my arm.
----------------------------------------------
C: Someone other than me chose to raise my arm.

I don't see how it follows? I mean.... if someone has to choose to raise your arm, wouldn't it be much more likely that you, yourself chose? How can you claim that somebody else did? It is very self-evident that the person that raises the arm that has the power and will to do so. So can you please elaborate your argument and extensively explain how did you get to the conclusion that someone else raised your arm? Because it is really hard to see how you infered that. And it is you that has the burden of proof...

And I certainly suggest you to separate every single thing that has to do with a choice. I would say "power" and "will" (maybe other things). You should define those things and connect them in a way that proves your argument.


It is you that has the burden of proof.


That's very self-evident. How come someone else could do that? In any case, it is you that carry the burden of proof. If you can prove it, I will certainly believe. And I will certainly applaud you cause that's a pretty hard thing to prove....

Truthseeker, I said:

I have admitted my assumption does not logically follow from the responses to my questions, but I believe the same applies here to assuming our actions are our own.

So you see, I had already admitted my logic did not necessarily follow - only a theory which avoids the ludicrous assumption that we are doing something even though we clearly don't know how.

Since I have already made my disclaimer, I still await the basis behind your assumption that "it is very self-evident".

P.S. Sorry for the late reply, I'm having internet problems so it will take me a while to get to your reply.

 

[§outh§tar]

Thinking is a natural process, you don't have to iniate anything to start thinking.

Thus, to raise your right arm, all you have to do is think about it.

Regards,
- Shifty Russian

Can you then tell me how to think to raise my arm since it is no natural?

 

[TruthSeeker]

Thinking is a natural process, you don't have to iniate anything to start thinking.

Thus, to raise your right arm, all you have to do is think about it.

Regards,
- Shifty Russian

Do you have to think before you raise your arm!?!?!?


EDIT: Oh, btw.... welcome to sciforums

 

[TruthSeeker]

So you see, I had already admitted my logic did not necessarily follow - only a theory which avoids the ludicrous assumption that we are doing something even though we clearly don't know how.

Oh, ok then.

Since I have already made my disclaimer, I still await the basis behind your assumption that "it is very self-evident".

What is self-evident? Oh.... choices, right?
I had even forgotten what we were talking about....

Anyways. Choices are self-evident because even when you don't do anything you are making a choice - that is, choosing to not do anything!

P.S. Sorry for the late reply, I'm having internet problems so it will take me a while to get to your reply.

Don't worry pal. We all have internet problems...

 

[§outh§tar]

TrutSeeker has a point (although I am not sure that he is aware of it). Namely, it is possible to do something that looks like an act of choice, but isn't.

For example, take two mountain climbers in a difficult climbing section. One is climbing, while the other one is securing him. The one securing is freezing, he has only a little space to stand on, he is tired, it is very dangerous. So he thinks how nice it would be if he would not have to be waiting there, and he thinks how he could climb on and then take a rest. Immersed in these nice thoughts, he forgets himself, and without actually deciding to let go, he lets go of the rope.

He cannot be called fully responsible for the damage done, because he hasn't willfully decided to let go of the rope, right? But he did let go of the rope, and he has no valid reason (as if a rock hit him on the head and he let go by accident) for his doing what he did.

In law, such cases tend to be treated as crime done out of negligence. The punishment is milder, but the doer is still punished. Why? I think such cases are a gray area (both for law as well as cognition and ethics), and the doer is punished more for reasons of keeping up a certain social order -- as a crime has happened, and it has to be punished.

First of all, no one can tell what was going through the first climber's mind to determine guilt.

Punish means:
to impose a penalty on for a fault, offense, or violation

And as to him not being 'fully responsible', it is clear that in such a situation, he is either responsible or he is not. Why should man's law try to guess what was in a man's head?

BUT, he does have a valid reason:

- Thoughts entered his head on how nice it would be to be comfortable, to reach the top, to be warm..

Did he wish for these thoughts to enter his mind? Had he any partaking in whether or not these thoughts entered his mind? Could he remove these thoughts from his mind at will?

No, no, and no again.

Therefore he cannot possibly be called guilty, since he had NO such partaking in the offense since he was neither directly responsible or indirectly responsible. In which case it is nicer to invoke a prime mover who instilled these thoughts.

Those boys in the basement cannot communicate to us in an equal manner. Talking to them is like a Chinese and Hutu trying to have a conversation.

My point is, once more, that "the boys in the basement" is a concept that comes from a different discipline, from a different theory that observes a different sphere of human life -- than the concept of "free will". We cannot just mix up disciplines.

Is that not the point of Systems Theory, to incoorporate all fields? At least that is what this site says

What matters is that we *can* take a deep breath, and we *do* take deep breaths.
How we do it is secondary or irrelevant.

What's the reason for the asterisks then? Do you that that we are the ones who want to take the deep breaths?

Nothing *leads* to that conclusion. That conclusion simply *is* there, it is postulated, it cannot be derived. It's an axiom.

Well this axiom stinks. An axiom is supposed to be a self-evident truth but I still fail to see how this is self-evident, if you can show me?

The choice is yours because this is how society is organized (that's a circular here).

If we agree that in a viable society certain institutes and mechanisms (concepts, in general) exist, and that personal responsibility and free will are such concepts, then it is understandable that your choice is indeed yours, as such this society is viable, this is how it functions.

Your choice is yours because a human society, in order to function, needs the institute of personal responsibility.

I don't disagree that society needs personal responsibility but arbitrarily assuming personal responsibility and free will a priori stinks.

Don't do that.

What other explanation is there for the origin of thoughts (that can defend free will)?

 

[Shifty Russian]

Can you then tell me how to think to raise my arm since it is no natural?

I think you're missing the point. You don't have to be told how to raise you're right arm - as it natural skill you learnt to do the day you were born. Like breathing. You don't need anyone tell you how to breath. You can train yourself to perform things with your arms which are not naturally learnt when we are born - e.g. how to juggle or throw.

Do you have to think before you raise your arm!?!?!?

Of course you have to think before you raise your right arm. Whether it would be to drink coffee, or deflect an object flying at you (reflex action). This only comes after thoughts have been processed.

Oh, btw.... welcome to sciforums

Thanks, Glad to be here.

Regards,
- Shifty Russian

 

[TruthSeeker]

Of course you have to think before you raise your right arm. Whether it would be to drink coffee, or deflect an object flying at you (reflex action). This only comes after thoughts have been processed.

Do you have to think "I'm going to raise my arm" before you raise your arm?