7 of 13
7
8 Great Philosophical Questions That We’ll Never Solve
Posted: 31 October 2012 10:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 91 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

Oh, you meant “can” as in “be physically able to.” I forgot how boring compatibilism was.  grin

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 October 2012 10:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 92 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4544
Joined  2007-08-31
George - 31 October 2012 10:11 AM

Oh, you meant “can” as in “be physically able to.” I forgot how boring compatibilism was.  grin

Yeah, once you understand it, it is boring. The only real interesting stuff is that people always try to argue against you, because they still have libertarian free will in the back of their heads. They don’t get loose from Cartesian dualism, and therefore think that Libet has found some high interesting fact, that we ‘are not free’. The only thing Libet discovered is that we have no homunculus in our heads that coordinates all observations and movements. That is not really a great discovery, is it?

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 October 2012 10:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 93 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

Well, I am not trying to argue against your position because I can’t get “loose from Cartesian dualism,” nor because of my “Christian-thinking-based way of looking at things,” but because you are trying to hijack free will with whatever it is you believe in.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 October 2012 10:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 94 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4544
Joined  2007-08-31
George - 31 October 2012 10:43 AM

you are trying to hijack free will with whatever it is you believe in.

question
You started the whole free will thing with your reference to Libet, and I reacted on that. That’s all. If you say something wrong about free will I react. I am determined to do so. cheese

And for the rest I am pretty consistent in what I am defending. It is just not possible to say everything in short posts that people actually read.

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 October 2012 10:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 95 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6171
Joined  2006-12-20
GdB - 31 October 2012 10:55 AM
George - 31 October 2012 10:43 AM

you are trying to hijack free will with whatever it is you believe in.

question
You started the whole free will thing with your reference to Libet, and I reacted on that. That’s all. If you say something wrong about free will I react. I am determined to do so. cheese

And for the rest I am pretty consistent in what I am defending. It is just not possible to say everything in short posts that people actually read.

What George is saying is the term free will should only be applied to libertarian free will.

But I’m yet to see him say why.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 October 2012 11:07 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 96 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6171
Joined  2006-12-20
GdB - 31 October 2012 10:28 AM

Yeah, once you understand it, it is boring. The only real interesting stuff is that people always try to argue against you, because they still have libertarian free will in the back of their heads. They don’t get loose from Cartesian dualism, and therefore think that Libet has found some high interesting fact, that we ‘are not free’.

I always think this misses the main point which is the distant past is out of our control, so in order to make good choices we are relying on something out of our control to be as we need it to be. George’s introduction of the squirrel was making this point

It’s this luck that the concept of the choice being totally up to us is the denial of.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 October 2012 11:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 97 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3195
Joined  2011-11-04
StephenLawrence - 31 October 2012 12:17 AM
TimB - 30 October 2012 08:33 PM

Part of our consciousness involves internal verbal behavior.  We, in effect, can tell ourselves things such as, for example, “I want such and such.”...“In order to get such and such, I could go to the mall and get it.  Or I could ask my friend for it.  Or I might find one in the attic… Hmm… I don’t have much money and the attic is too hot.  I’ll try asking my friend for it.” 

Now are any of you suggesting that this kind of self-talk, is not a part of the controlling stimuli, that results in my subsequent behavior?

No, the point is we can tell ourselves this without being conscious of it, just like somebody can tell us something without us being conscious of them speaking it. The video I posted a few post back will be helpful to see what I mean.

Stephen

And my point is that we don’t have to be conscious of everything we do or think at every moment, in order to want or in order to make decisions in relation to those wants, or in order to act on those wants.  But the fact that we are sometimes aware of what we do or think about what we want and what we are going to do, has a part in controlling our behavior, at times.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 October 2012 11:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 98 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6171
Joined  2006-12-20
TimB - 31 October 2012 11:19 AM

And my point is that we don’t have to be conscious of everything we do or think at every moment, in order to want or in order to make decisions in relation to those wants, or in order to act on those wants.  But the fact that we are sometimes aware of what we do or think about what we want and what we are going to do, has a part in controlling our behavior, at times.

Perhaps and if so the Libet experiments would have nothing to say about that.

I just dunno, but I expect consciousness has some evolutionary advantage.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 October 2012 11:59 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 99 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3195
Joined  2011-11-04
StephenLawrence - 31 October 2012 11:25 AM
TimB - 31 October 2012 11:19 AM

And my point is that we don’t have to be conscious of everything we do or think at every moment, in order to want or in order to make decisions in relation to those wants, or in order to act on those wants.  But the fact that we are sometimes aware of what we do or think about what we want and what we are going to do, has a part in controlling our behavior, at times.

Perhaps and if so the Libet experiments would have nothing to say about that.

I just dunno, but I expect consciousness has some evolutionary advantage.

Stephen

Yes, one would think that our complex verbal behavior skills, our abilities to plan, and think about what we do, and reflect on what we have done, etc., has and does play a part in how likely we are to survive to the point of reproduction.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 October 2012 12:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 100 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6171
Joined  2006-12-20
TimB - 31 October 2012 11:59 AM

Yes, one would think that our complex verbal behavior skills, our abilities to plan, and think about what we do, and reflect on what we have done, etc., has and does play a part in how likely we are to survive to the point of reproduction.

Yes, for sure but we aren’t talking about these things, we are talking about what being conscious of these things is doing.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 October 2012 01:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 101 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29
TimB - 31 October 2012 11:59 AM
StephenLawrence - 31 October 2012 11:25 AM
TimB - 31 October 2012 11:19 AM

And my point is that we don’t have to be conscious of everything we do or think at every moment, in order to want or in order to make decisions in relation to those wants, or in order to act on those wants.  But the fact that we are sometimes aware of what we do or think about what we want and what we are going to do, has a part in controlling our behavior, at times.

Perhaps and if so the Libet experiments would have nothing to say about that.

I just dunno, but I expect consciousness has some evolutionary advantage.

Stephen

Yes, one would think that our complex verbal behavior skills, our abilities to plan, and think about what we do, and reflect on what we have done, etc., has and does play a part in how likely we are to survive to the point of reproduction.

The ability to plan is one thing. To be aware of doing the planning is another. Our reasoning brain is surely an adaptation, but consciousness may very well be a byproduct, a biological spandrel.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 October 2012 02:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 102 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3195
Joined  2011-11-04
StephenLawrence - 31 October 2012 12:28 PM
TimB - 31 October 2012 11:59 AM

Yes, one would think that our complex verbal behavior skills, our abilities to plan, and think about what we do, and reflect on what we have done, etc., has and does play a part in how likely we are to survive to the point of reproduction.

Yes, for sure but we aren’t talking about these things, we are talking about what being conscious of these things is doing.

Stephen

What do you think being conscious of these things is?  Being conscious of these things incorporates these behaviors.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 October 2012 03:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 103 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3195
Joined  2011-11-04
George - 31 October 2012 01:43 PM
TimB - 31 October 2012 11:59 AM
StephenLawrence - 31 October 2012 11:25 AM
TimB - 31 October 2012 11:19 AM

And my point is that we don’t have to be conscious of everything we do or think at every moment, in order to want or in order to make decisions in relation to those wants, or in order to act on those wants.  But the fact that we are sometimes aware of what we do or think about what we want and what we are going to do, has a part in controlling our behavior, at times.

Perhaps and if so the Libet experiments would have nothing to say about that.

I just dunno, but I expect consciousness has some evolutionary advantage.

Stephen

Yes, one would think that our complex verbal behavior skills, our abilities to plan, and think about what we do, and reflect on what we have done, etc., has and does play a part in how likely we are to survive to the point of reproduction.

The ability to plan is one thing. To be aware of doing the planning is another. Our reasoning brain is surely an adaptation, but consciousness may very well be a byproduct, a biological spandrel.

Think of planning as a behavior.  Think also of our observing our own planning as a behavior. Whether the behaviors involved in observing and reflecting on our own behavior are products or by products does not seem material to me. Either way I imagine that they can give significant advantages for some members’ of our species subsequent survival to reproduction.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 October 2012 03:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 104 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

Sure, but neither planning nor observing are consciousness per se. It would be silly to speculate if we could plan and observe without being conscious of what we are doing (since consciousness may very wel bel an “emerging property” resulting from such behaviour and since we are ALWYAS conscious when we plan and observe), but nowhere does this prove that consciousness is anything else than a mere spectator, as Libet’s experiment seems to indicate—well, at least to me it does.

[ Edited: 31 October 2012 03:41 PM by George ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 October 2012 04:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 105 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3195
Joined  2011-11-04

I think that what we call consciousness is a variety of different behaviors that go on inside our own skin. But regardless, saying that consciousness is a mere spectator, suggests that it is superfluous.  It cannot be superfluous, as any stimulus can act as an occasion for the relative probability of occurence of another behavior. And behaviors can act as such stimuli at times.  Intraverbal behavior is an example of this.  If I said “Mary had a little_____”, many persons would respond by saying or at least thinking the word “lamb”.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
   
7 of 13
7