What is CTD?

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Londoner
Posts: 1614
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

Re: What is CTD?

Post by Londoner » November 26th, 2017, 6:07 am

RJG wrote: You failed miserably! :D - you failed to see the "If" in this if/then statement.
The 'if' shows it is only an assumption. And conclusion is therefore also conditional on the assumptions. So at the end, we have only restated all the assumptions that were in the premises. We have not discovered that our assumptions, and therefore our conclusion, represent a fact.

And as I have said before, there is no claim that the assumption is the equivalent to some fact about the world; we are equally free to assume it has the value 'not/false' instead.
I'll say it again -- "Experiencing exists" is the (certain) starting premise. Descartes got stuck on "I think…" as his starting premise. He did not go back (reduce) far enough. This is Descartes famous error.
'Exists' meaning what? What is the test for whether something exists or not, such that 'experience' passed? If we say something 'exists' in normal speech our meaning depends on what sort of thing it is. For example 'dreams exist' (in a sense) and 'London exists' (in a sense) and 'triangles exist' (in a sense) and Oliver Twist exists (in a sense). Whether our claim is true or not depends on that sense. But here there is no sense. It is only 'indisputable' because there is no meaning we can fix on.

If we attempted to say anything about the experiencing's existence , for example 'it is an experience of an external object X', or 'it is the experience of a continuous subject' we need additional assumptions. So saying 'experience exists' does not assert anything. It is the equivalent of saying 'experience experience.
In all fairness to Descartes, and all the other "great thinkers". They are all handicapped; they are all psychologically unable to deny the very thing that makes them 'great'.
I think poor old Descartes should be safe from ad hominems by now. I do not know what you think Descartes famous error is supposed to be, so I cannot comment on that. Is it:
Yes. All Descartes can truly un-doubt-ably know is that "experiencing exists". ...Descartes "experienced thoughts" and then falsely assumed "I think…". This led to Descartes flawed conclusion that res cogitans (mind) and res extensa (body) are two independent entities. This dichotomy is the foundation of Descartes's [flawed] dualism.
As I understand it, the senses; eyes, ears etc. can deceive us, whereas pure thought in the sense of geometry etc. cannot. (Although that depends on a beneficent God, whose existence Descartes proves separately). So I think it is rather that he is distinguishing between what can be known for certain and those things about which we can be in error. The things about which we can be in error include both our interpretation of sensations and also the organs that give rise to these sensations.
Not so. There can only be ONE 'starting seed'.
A seed needs water and nutrients, otherwise it remains just a seed. And a seed that has no possibility of growth is not even a seed, it is just a lump of matter. I think 'experiencing exits' is like that.
An Absolute Truth (#1) is the highest level of ‘certainty’ (real-ness); it is the singular premise/conclusion statement (that Descartes was searching for) that does not require supporting premises to vouch for its truthfulness. It is not 'derived'. It is the beginning, the ‘seed’, upon which to build and grow all ‘true’ knowledge.
As I said above, what is it that we are certain of? What is it true about? Otherwise all it is saying is something like 'if a thing is a thing then it is that thing (but I don't know what makes a thing a thing)'.
Yes, good idea, let us stay on topic. If we wish to discuss Descartes, or other interesting topics, then we probably should start a new topic/thread. Below is the simple logic related to this particular CTD topic/thread. Do you agree with it or not? If there is flaw in this logic, then please 'specifically' point out the flaw.
  • P1. “Instantaneous” detection/sensing is not logically (nor scientifically) possible. This includes human conscious experiences (sensing/detecting). A ‘time delay’ is an unavoidable fact.

    P2. None of our conscious processes are ‘exempt’ from this ‘time delay’, as ALL processes consume time.

    C. Therefore, our ‘present’ conscious experience(s) are of ‘past’ events, and our ‘future’ (next) conscious experiences have already happened, (...we just don’t ‘know’ it yet!).
What is wrong is that things, including experience, do not take place in a series of 'instants'. Time is measured against events, so if an observer chooses to distinguish and give labels to parts of something as distinct events, then you will put them in a relationship that involves time - but that is something you have done. There is no reason why they should be divided at all, or be divided in that particular way. Also, time is not some third entity, that gets consumed'.

We could do the same with extension; if I distinguish between two objects, then they will have different locations. But again, that is a function of my choice - to distinguish them at all, and to distinguish them in that way. Suppose I do this; suppose I distinguish two objects in space. Now they are 1 metre away from each other, but the distance: 1 metre has not come into existence. It is certainly not a quantity of 'length' that has been 'consumed'.
I also go further in this thread and make the logical assertion that if CTD exists then "concious causation" does not. (...please note the "if" word, and then the "then" word), And if you disagree with any of this logic, then again be specific and point out the flaw. (...instead of 'lecturing' me on logic!)
Well, I can't just ignore claims that some assertion about truth is 'logically derived'.

Steve3007
Posts: 4223
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: What is CTD?

Post by Steve3007 » November 26th, 2017, 10:52 am

RJG (Post #187. I'm running a bit late on this one. Better late than never, I guess):
If you are not "conscious of this causation", then what is the purpose of the word "conscious" in "conscious causation"? ...why not say just "causation"?
Because then the reader wouldn't know what had done the causing.
My point is that it is impossible to experience a 'cause'.
I agree. We experience the effects that we strongly suspect were caused by us slightly earlier. See my feedback loop. I also endorse JamesOfSeatle's post, #191, when he/she (I'm trying not to make unfounded assumptions) said some stuff about inputs and outputs.
"Even men with steel hearts love to see a dog on the pitch."

User avatar
RJG
Posts: 832
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: What is CTD?

Post by RJG » November 26th, 2017, 1:40 pm

Londoner wrote:The 'if' shows it is only an assumption. And conclusion is therefore also conditional on the assumptions.
Yes. The "if" and "then" statements are both assumptions. And all the words contained in the "if" and "then" statements also have assumptive meanings.
Londoner wrote:So at the end, we have only restated all the assumptions that were in the premises. We have not discovered that our assumptions, and therefore our conclusion, represent a fact.
Not so. The 'if/then' statement as a WHOLE, "represents a newly discovered fact". If one pokes a hole in the balloon, then it will pop (deflate). The whole of this 'if/then' statement now provides us with a newly "discovered" piece of information" (i.e. "fact"), one that is separate from the individual meanings of the (words within the) separate premise and conclusion.

And yes, ALL "facts" are contingent upon their "assumptive" meanings.

RJG wrote:I'll say it again -- "Experiencing exists" is the (certain) starting premise.
Londoner wrote:'Exists' meaning what?
Am I speaking to Bill Clinton?? ("...it depends upon what your meaning of 'is', is"). Londoner, in 'any', of all your possible meanings/assumptions of "exists", does "experiencing exist"? ...if so, then let's go with that one! :)

RJG wrote:In all fairness to Descartes, and all the other "great thinkers". They are all handicapped; they are all psychologically unable to deny the very thing that makes them 'great'.
Londoner wrote:I do not know what you think Descartes famous error is supposed to be, so I cannot comment on that.
Sad. I thought, if anyone, it would be you, that would catch my strategically placed hints ("great thinkers" and "that which makes them great").

Descartes error (or pyschological inability) is that he was unable to reconcile the fact that he is NOT this "great" thinker (creator/author/constructor) of his own thoughts. For his whole livelyhood (and purpose in life) depended upon being recognized as a "great thinker". But in actuality, he is merely, like all the rest of us pions, just the "experiencer of his thoughts".

His famous statement "I think, therefore I am", should be "I experience thoughts, therefore I am". ...but wait... But even this revised statement is not fully reduced, nor correct, ...for how did he conclude this "I" exists? ...and can he only just experience 'thoughts'?

So, his further revised (Rev C) starting premise (i.e. his "absolute truth" seed) from which to build all 'true knowledge', should be (...drumroll please...), "Experiencing exists"! -- and it is from here where we can 'logically derive' Experiencer exists -- and from here we can then put it all together in a newly formed statement:
  • Experiencing exists, therefore I (the experiencer) am!
But this of course, shoots down dualism. Dualism is dead. There is no separate "thinker of thoughts", no "res cognitans" (mind). There is only an experiential mono-istic body that experiences stuff (...such as 'thoughts').

RJG wrote:P1. “Instantaneous” detection/sensing is not logically (nor scientifically) possible. This includes human conscious experiences (sensing/detecting). A ‘time delay’ is an unavoidable fact.

P2. None of our conscious processes are ‘exempt’ from this ‘time delay’, as ALL processes consume time.

C. Therefore, our ‘present’ conscious experience(s) are of ‘past’ events, and our ‘future’ (next) conscious experiences have already happened, (...we just don’t ‘know’ it yet!).
Londoner wrote:What is wrong is that things, including experience, do not take place in a series of 'instants'. Time is measured against events, so if an observer chooses to distinguish and give labels to parts of something as distinct events, then you will put them in a relationship that involves time - but that is something you have done. There is no reason why they should be divided at all, or be divided in that particular way. Also, time is not some third entity, that gets consumed'.

We could do the same with extension; if I distinguish between two objects, then they will have different locations. But again, that is a function of my choice - to distinguish them at all, and to distinguish them in that way. Suppose I do this; suppose I distinguish two objects in space. Now they are 1 metre away from each other, but the distance: 1 metre has not come into existence. It is certainly not a quantity of 'length' that has been 'consumed'.
Okay, so then, which of the above premise/conclusion statements are logically flawed? ...and specifically which words?

RJG wrote:If you are not "conscious of this causation", then what is the purpose of the word "conscious" in "conscious causation"? ...why not say just "causation"?
Steve3007 wrote:Because then the reader wouldn't know what had done the causing.
But this "conscious" causation is exactly what is in question here, and is contradicted by the facts and existence of CTD.

We can't just automatically stick the word "conscious" in front of causation, because we believe it is true. ...no more than a judge can proclaim a suspect "innocent" (or "guilty") without hearing the facts and ascertaining the truth.

Just because we've been indoctrinated to believe and automatically accept that we consciously cause things, does not necessarily make it so. Unfortunately the facts/evidence seem to point the other way.

RJG wrote:My point is that it is impossible to experience a 'cause'.
Steve3007 wrote:I agree. We experience the effects that we strongly suspect were caused by us slightly earlier. See my feedback loop.
The feedback loop doesn't help. Every conscious event is simply a 'recorded replay' of a past event in reality. Consciousness is not free to think for itself! It is just a 'delayed view' of what is happening out there in reality. That's all. ...that's all it can (logically) be.

Londoner
Posts: 1614
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

Re: What is CTD?

Post by Londoner » November 26th, 2017, 3:25 pm

RJG wrote: Yes. The "if" and "then" statements are both assumptions. And all the words contained in the "if" and "then" statements also have assumptive meanings.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'assumptive meanings'. The logic is only about the relationship between the propositions, they do not stand for particular words, which is why they can be replaced with symbolic letters. I do not mean we assume the meaning of the propositions, I mean we assume their T/F value. As I say, we are only interested is what is valid, i.e. the correct application of the rules regarding an if-then conditional.

It is like maths. We can take two numbers (positive or negative) and our answer is correct if we have correctly interpreted the meaning of the sign that connects them; +, x, - etc. The actual numbers involved are not important because they do not represent quantities of anything. 3 + 4 = 7 is correct because we have understood the meaning of '+', not because it correctly describes quantities of objects.
Me: 'Exists' meaning what?
Am I speaking to Bill Clinton?? ("...it depends upon what your meaning of 'is', is"). Londoner, in 'any', of all your possible meanings/assumptions of "exists", does "experiencing exist"? ...if so, then let's go with that one! :)
It is for you to explain what you mean. I am saying that 'exist' has no meaning until you do.

To put it formally. 'existence is not a predicate'. Consider; if I say 'that is a cat' and then add 'it exists' what extra information have I given you? If it is a cat, then necessarily it is an existent cat. If it does not exist, then it cannot be a cat. The 'it exists' would only make sense if you explained 'What I mean that I am that I am not just imagining it' or 'What I mean is it is not a character in fiction' whatever.

That existence is not a predicate comes up in responses to the Ontological Argument for God, so I am not just making this stuff up myself.
Sad. I thought, if anyone, it would be you, that would catch my strategically placed hints ("great thinkers" and "that which makes them great").

Descartes error (or pyschological inability) is that he was unable to reconcile the fact that he is NOT this "great" thinker (creator/author/constructor) of his own thoughts. For his whole livelyhood (and purpose in life) depended upon being recognized as a "great thinker". But in actuality, he is merely, like all the rest of us pions, just the "experiencer of his thoughts".
I probably failed to catch your hints because I disagree.
His famous statement "I think, therefore I am", should be "I experience thoughts, therefore I am". ...but wait... But even this revised statement is not fully reduced, nor correct, ...for how did he conclude this "I" exists? ...and can he only just experience 'thoughts'?

So, his further revised (Rev C) starting premise (i.e. his "absolute truth" seed) from which to build all 'true knowledge', should be (...drumroll please...), "Experiencing exists"! -- and it is from here where we can 'logically derive' Experiencer exists -- and from here we can then put it all together in a newly formed statement:
As you gather, I don't think "Experiencing exists" means anything. I think the same is true of 'Experiencer exists' for the same reason and I do not think we can 'logically derive' one from the other.
Me: What is wrong is that things, including experience, do not take place in a series of 'instants'. Time is measured against events, so if an observer chooses to distinguish and give labels to parts of something as distinct events, then you will put them in a relationship that involves time - but that is something you have done. There is no reason why they should be divided at all, or be divided in that particular way. Also, time is not some third entity, that gets consumed'.

We could do the same with extension; if I distinguish between two objects, then they will have different locations. But again, that is a function of my choice - to distinguish them at all, and to distinguish them in that way. Suppose I do this; suppose I distinguish two objects in space. Now they are 1 metre away from each other, but the distance: 1 metre has not come into existence. It is certainly not a quantity of 'length' that has been 'consumed'.


Okay, so then, which of the above premise/conclusion statements are logically flawed? ...and specifically which words?
The flaw in the logic is that both premises are stated as indisputable facts rather than assumptions. As a piece of logic your conclusion is not proven, because it still rests on your assumed premises (as is always the case with logic) which you do not acknowledge. It also 'begs the question' (petitio principii) in that your premises assume your conclusion.

The premises are also complex, and contain many internal assumptions. Just to take one example; This includes human conscious experiences (sensing/detecting). But we do not know when - if ever - our experiences are the sensing or detecting of anything. So, if we are treating it simply as logic, then it needs to be expressed in such a way that each premise contains a single - identifiable - assumption.

I have already mentioned the problematic nature of time consisting of 'moments' or being 'consumed'. If we broke down your premises in such a way that we could clearly identify all the assumptions about the nature of time then I think we would find that they were self-contradictory, it is certainly not time as it is understood in science.

User avatar
RJG
Posts: 832
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: What is CTD?

Post by RJG » November 27th, 2017, 8:07 am

RJG wrote:Okay, so then, which of the above premise/conclusion statements are logically flawed? ...and specifically which words?
Londoner wrote:The flaw in the logic is that both premises are stated as indisputable facts rather than assumptions.
Of course! ...a sound argument assumes 'true' premises. ...do you have reason to 'assume' (hint hint) that these are 'not' true?
Londoner wrote:As a piece of logic your conclusion is not proven, because it still rests on your assumed premises (as is always the case with logic)...
Is it possible to ever have non-"assumed" premises, ...or are ALL premises "assumed"? …and is the premise "ALL/SOME/NONE premises are assumed" itself, also 'assumed'?
Londoner wrote:...as is always the case with logic…
...including this logic? ...in other words, is this premise of yours, 'true', or just a meaningless assumption?

Londoner, you cut off the very legs upon which you make your stand!

Steve3007
Posts: 4223
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: What is CTD?

Post by Steve3007 » November 27th, 2017, 10:26 am

RJG:
But this "conscious" causation is exactly what is in question here, and is contradicted by the facts and existence of CTD.
Conscious causation is not contradicted by the facts and existence of CTD. CTD, as presented in your OP, has nothing whatever to say about it. The CTD that you describe in your OP is all about inputs. Simply ignoring the presence of outputs - of motor neurons - doesn't in itself demonstrate that they don't exist.
We can't just automatically stick the word "conscious" in front of causation, because we believe it is true. ...no more than a judge can proclaim a suspect "innocent" (or "guilty") without hearing the facts and ascertaining the truth.
The judge never does ascertain the truth with certainty. He/she weighs up the available evidence and then decides what is the most likely reason for the existence of that evidence.

Likewise, my conscious inputs have, since I was born, been receiving lots of sensations and images of things that I take to be parts of my body moving around. As I explained earlier, from an early age I began to build up a theory that I was causing those movements. I don't know with certainty that I am causing those movements, just as the judge doesn't know with certainty whether the defendant is guilty. It's simply the theory which best fits the evidence.
Just because we've been indoctrinated to believe and automatically accept that we consciously cause things, does not necessarily make it so.
It's not indoctrination. It's a useful theory based on the patterns in evidence which I formulated in my infant brain. We all worked it out before we could talk, or listen to any indoctrination.
Unfortunately the facts/evidence seem to point the other way.
The patterns in the movements of my body parts - aka the evidence - points to the theory that I'm causing them to move.
The feedback loop doesn't help. Every conscious event is simply a 'recorded replay' of a past event in reality.
Every conscious sensation. Every conscious input.
Consciousness is not free to think for itself! It is just a 'delayed view' of what is happening out there in reality. That's all. ...that's all it can (logically) be.
Note your use of the word "view". You're still simply ignoring motor functions and concentrating on sensory functions.

-- Updated Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:47 pm to add the following --

RJG:

Perhaps instead of simply responding to your posts I should be more proactive and actually ask you a question.

After a long conversation, I realise that you don't think the movements of your body (which you correctly state are detected by your brain after they've happened) are caused by the parts of your brain (whatever they may be) in which your consciousness resides.

But, putting aside any ideas of certain knowledge, let's simply try to spot patterns in these delayed perceptions of ours. Let's try to be scientists. As such, do you think you'd find it possible to formulate any theories - any tentative working hypotheses - as to what might be causing them? Is there any experiment that you could do to test any such theories?
"Even men with steel hearts love to see a dog on the pitch."

User avatar
RJG
Posts: 832
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: What is CTD?

Post by RJG » November 27th, 2017, 12:51 pm

Steve3007 wrote:After a long conversation, I realize that you don't think the movements of your body (which you correctly state are detected by your brain after they've happened) are caused by the parts of your brain (whatever they may be) in which your consciousness resides.
Correct. “Detection” is not “causing”.

1. The “detection” part of the brain does not do the “causing” of bodily movements.
2. The “detection” part of the brain is our consciousness.
3. The “causing” part of the brain is our unconscious bodily reactions.

We don't consciously move our bodies about, ...we are only conscious of our bodies moving about.

Steve3007 wrote:But, putting aside any ideas of certain knowledge, let's simply try to spot patterns in these delayed perceptions of ours. Let's try to be scientists. As such, do you think you'd find it possible to formulate any theories - any tentative working hypotheses - as to what might be causing them?
Yes. I suspect that our human bodies, are like every other body/entity/thing within this universe, and it auto-reacts 'accordingly' (to its applied stimuli, and to some universal laws; laws of physics, etc.). Our physical human bodies are not exempt from the laws that apply to (seemingly) everything else. That which we attribute as “consciously causing” is merely a trick of the senses.

The close proximity in time between a 'bodily movement' and the 'consciousness of the bodily movement', tricks us into believing that our consciousness caused the movement. Perhaps, if this CTD delay were a bit longer, we would not be as easily fooled.

Steve3007
Posts: 4223
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: What is CTD?

Post by Steve3007 » November 27th, 2017, 1:06 pm

Yes. I suspect that our human bodies, are like every other body/entity/thing within this universe, and it auto-reacts 'accordingly' (to its applied stimuli, and to some universal laws; laws of physics, etc.). Our physical human bodies are not exempt from these laws. That which we attribute as “consciously causing” is merely a trick of the senses.
When you refer to "our human bodies" here I presume you're referring specifically to the part of that body known as the brain, yes?

When you say this:
1. The “detection” part of the brain does not do the “causing” of bodily movements.
2. The “detection” part of the brain is our consciousness.
3. The “causing” part of the brain is our unconscious bodily reactions.
you're talking about the brain in both 2 and 3. You believe they are our unconscious brain reactions, yes?
"Even men with steel hearts love to see a dog on the pitch."

Londoner
Posts: 1614
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

Re: What is CTD?

Post by Londoner » November 27th, 2017, 1:19 pm

RJG wrote: Of course! ...a sound argument assumes 'true' premises. ...do you have reason to 'assume' (hint hint) that these are 'not' true?
Yes I do, but you asked me to comment not on the soundness of the premises but just on it as a piece of logic.
Me: As a piece of logic your conclusion is not proven, because it still rests on your assumed premises (as is always the case with logic)...
Is it possible to ever have non-"assumed" premises, ...or are ALL premises "assumed"? …and is the premise "ALL/SOME/NONE premises are assumed" itself, also 'assumed'?
Yes, the T/F values are always assumed because, as I have said, in logic we are only interested in the relationship between the propositions, not the propositions as such. If the argument is 'valid' then it is valid for any propositions.

If the truth of the propositions was based on something else, say an empirical observation, then we would not be doing logic. It is like maths. Within maths I can say with certainty that 1+1=2, but I cannot say that this apple and that orange make 'two', because an apple and and orange are distinct entities, not abstractions, so they cannot be added. I can only do the sum with abstract quantities, where '1' represents no particular thing. The same is true of propositions within logic.
...including this logic? ...in other words, is this premise of yours, 'true', or just a meaningless assumption?

Londoner, you cut off the very legs upon which you make your stand!
Yes, logic itself is based on a set of axioms which are assumed to be valid.

I am not making any 'stand'! You are the one who keeps insisting that your argument is 'logically derived'. I'm saying it isn't, for the reasons I have given.

User avatar
RJG
Posts: 832
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: What is CTD?

Post by RJG » November 27th, 2017, 2:09 pm

Steve3007 wrote:When you refer to "our human bodies" here I presume you're referring specifically to the part of that body known as the brain, yes?
No, not necessarily. I am referring to the body as a whole; body/brain. We have many different sensors and organs throughout the body, which interact with each other, and which influence the unconscious reactions and the conscious experiences.

RJG wrote: 1. The “detection” part of the brain does not do the “causing” of bodily movements.
2. The “detection” part of the brain is our consciousness.
3. The “causing” part of the brain is our unconscious bodily reactions.
Steve3007 wrote:When you say this [above], …you're talking about the brain in both 2 and 3. You believe they are our unconscious brain reactions, yes?
Again, not necessarily. Though the brain is probably the primary organ responsible for most of the body's actions/experiences.

Steve3007
Posts: 4223
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: What is CTD?

Post by Steve3007 » November 27th, 2017, 2:41 pm

RJG:
No, not necessarily. I am referring to the body as a whole; body/brain. We have many different sensors and organs throughout the body, which interact with each other, and which influence the unconscious reactions and the conscious experiences.
OK. But would you accept that when I "decide" to move my leg, the nerve impulse which causes my leg muscle to contract happens as a result of something happening in my brain? Even though you may not regard that something as a conscious decision.

If you do accept that, would you accept that something in my brain has caused my leg to move, even if you don't associate the word "conscious" with that something?
"Even men with steel hearts love to see a dog on the pitch."

User avatar
RJG
Posts: 832
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: What is CTD?

Post by RJG » November 27th, 2017, 3:20 pm

Steve3007 wrote:OK. But would you accept that when I "decide" to move my leg, the nerve impulse which causes my leg muscle to contract happens as a result of something happening in my brain? Even though you may not regard that something as a conscious decision.
Yes. But just to clarify, there is never actually a “decision” made (conscious or otherwise), there is only a bodily reaction(s) that one may, or may not, become aware of.
Steve3007 wrote:If you do accept that, would you accept that something in my brain has caused my leg to move…
Yes.

Steve3007
Posts: 4223
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: What is CTD?

Post by Steve3007 » November 27th, 2017, 3:27 pm

RJG:
Yes. But just to clarify, there is never actually a “decision” made, only a bodily reaction.
Yes, I understand that is your position. That's why I put the word "decide" in quotes.

So you do believe that sensory inputs from outside the brain cause things to happen in the brain and that things happening in the brain then cause things to happen outside the brain. You just don't refer to those second things happening in the brain as "conscious" or "decisions", yes?
"Even men with steel hearts love to see a dog on the pitch."

User avatar
RJG
Posts: 832
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: What is CTD?

Post by RJG » November 27th, 2017, 4:03 pm

Steve3007 wrote:So you do believe that sensory inputs from outside the brain cause things to happen in the brain and that things happening in the brain then cause things to happen outside the brain.
Yes. I call these bodily chain-reactions (auto-reactions).
Steve3007 wrote:You just don't refer to those second things happening in the brain as "conscious"…
Correct, not at all. Although we are conscious of (recognize) the sensory input, there is no consciousness of the actual brain activity (neural activity) that cause things to happen outside the brain, such as moving a leg. And then we don’t know (are not conscious) that we moved our leg until after the ‘proprioception’ sensory input is received and recognized.

Steve3007
Posts: 4223
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: What is CTD?

Post by Steve3007 » December 7th, 2017, 11:05 am

RJG:
Yes. I call these bodily chain-reactions (auto-reactions).
OK. That's fine. You say potato, I say potarto, you say tomayto, I say tomarto...

I think we're approaching the point when we might finally be able to call the whole thing off.
Correct, not at all. Although we are conscious of (recognize) the sensory input, there is no consciousness of the actual brain activity (neural activity) that cause things to happen outside the brain, such as moving a leg.
Well, I've talked about feedback loops. Couldn't there be relatively short feedback loops within the brain? I guess the longest feedback loop is one which involves sensing things outside our brain and body. e.g. I issue a command to catch a ball and I know I've caught the ball when a sensation comes in from outside the body showing a ball in my hand - a thing that happened outside my brain and body. But I also know I've moved my hand when a sensation comes in from nerves inside my arm telling me the hand has moved - a thing that happened outside my brain but inside my body. So perhaps that are feedback loops that never leave the brain.
And then we don’t know (are not conscious) that we moved our leg until after the ‘proprioception’ sensory input is received and recognized.
But if we fired a motor neuron, we know that we attempted to move our leg, don't we? We just don't know until slightly later whether we were successful.
"Even men with steel hearts love to see a dog on the pitch."

Post Reply