What is CTD?

[RJG]

If they can ‘recognize’, then I consider them conscious.

I'm hearing "eye of the beholder" much more than rigor here.

Yep, I concur. (...although there are tests for the 'experiencing of recognition' to 'rule-out' consciousness, such as for Alzheimer's patients, ...but not any to 'rule-in' the experiencing of recognition in computers, ...or zombies).

[Chili]

(Nested quote removed.)

I'm hearing "eye of the beholder" much more than rigor here.

Yep, I concur. (...although there are tests for 'recognition', such as for Alzheimer's patients, ...but not for computers, ...or zombies).

The tests are all based on what people feel in the gut. The task is to convince people at the gut level.

[Atreyu]

RJG 12, Everyone Else 1. Halftime.

[JamesOfSeattle]

[stuff].

RJG, I think I see the disconnect. You are ascribing all of consciousness to one particular sub-agent in the brain, namely, what Damasio refers to as the autobiographical self. The output of that agent includes at least memory. It's possible that its output includes other things, such as the release of hormones which induce emotional states, but I don't think that has been established. It's also possible that its output includes veto control over some decisions, but again, I don't think that has been established. What has been shown, and what you are keying on, is that the autobiographical agent is not the one responsible for primary decisions to act

So my point is that with respect to the autobiographical self, what you say may be correct. However if you consider the whole brain as the agent, it is wrong to say there is no conscious control.

*

[Togo1]

If a time delay dooms us to only see events that have already happened, how is it we play tennis?

CTD has NO effect on the body’s ability to play tennis.

Ok, I'm going to go through this in baby steps, because you seem to have difficultly engaging with what I've actually said:

YOU are saying that because there is a time delay between the real world and conscious processing, consciousness can't be involve in our actions.
I am saying that there exists a time delay between the real world and unconscious processing. Why does this not stop us hitting tennis balls?

The body performs lots of amazing and complex tasks without consciousness.

Yes, and every single one of those amazing and complex tasks takes place at a time delay to the real world, just like consciousness does.

You are saying consciousness can't control anything because of a time delay. But the entire brain works on a time delay. Why does the same arguement not apply?

[Burning ghost]

Just for the sake of revealing some of the confusion to those that have looked at this subject from several angles:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/eidetic-reduction

Eidetic reduction, in phenomenology, a method by which the philosopher moves from the consciousness of individual and concrete objects to the transempirical realm of pure essences and thus achieves an intuition of the eidos (Greek: “shape”) of a thing—i.e., of what it is in its invariable and essential structure, apart from all that is contingent or accidental to it. The eidos is thus the principle or necessary structure of the thing. Being a science of essences, phenomenology finds this reduction important for its methodology.

...

Thus, the eidetic reduction is neither a form of induction nor an abstraction. In accordance with the phenomenological reduction, it abstains from any sort of positing of the actual existence of its objects, and it brackets, or holds in suspense, the concrete and factual content. On the other hand, it is not an empirical generalization that takes place at the level of man’s natural attitude.

Atyeuryuer -

RJG 12, Everyone Else 1. Halftime.

Yeah, I've noticed you're ignorance too. Congrats! The question is are you just as stubborn and unwilling to read as RJG, or do you also believe your own armchair antics outweigh the masses of accumulated human knowledge?

It is not half-time. RJG is playing on an imaginary field and has been doing so for 5+ years. I've tried over the years to coax him into playing by the rules of the big boys, but he is insistent that our rules are wrong (even though we manage to play very well together) and that his rules are right. He lives by one dogmatic rule whilst others live by the understanding of several different sets of rules that produce differing, and sometimes contrary, perspectives.

The self defining fact that processes take time is hardly worthy of praise. There is the interesting phenomenon of how we construct language to capture this idea and relate it to parceled sequences of abstract time in order to predict future events.

RJG -

For the sake of the argument I am going to blindly agree with you and start backing up your claims with information in the future.

To start :

darwinianconservatism.blogspot.com/2017 ... l-and.html

I think Sapolsky has a good case to some degree. What is less obvious is what it is we're referring to as being "free-will" on this level. If you know a little more about Sapolsky then you'll see he is far from being a hard determinist. A question that many people don't seem to ask is if the universe is not determined (in the hard-cast clockwork sense) then does this necessarily mean that we are "free"?

To approach this question we can compile a very string case against the premise of "free-will", against the idea of "consciously doing something". Getting caught up in irreducible fragments of time does nothing to solidify the case against free-will. It is a dead end.

[LuckyR]

Yet tennis can be played, intentionally.

Not so. For how does one play “intentionally”? Does one 'intend' their own intentionality?

“Intentionality” is a self-contradictory concept (i.e. “self-stultification”). One cannot “intend” anything without there existing the prior “intention” to do so. This prior “intention” defeats any viability of true 'intentionality', making the term itself self-contradictory (nonsensical).

In your peculiar use of the word intentional, what would you call the alternative, randomness?

[Burning ghost]

LuckyR -

See above post I made addressed to RJG.

You'll find a better presentation there about how chaos steps into the debate over "free-will". This basically boils down to chaotic systems being unpredictable. As the complexity of the brains functions has some reducible level that ends in chaotic patterns it is fair to say that the "intention" is simply how consciousness frames the bodily experience of the manifest form of the prior chaotic system (which can be known and tracked back to a certain degree with predictions, just as the future outcomes can be predicted within a certain margin of error after which the sequential order of events becomes complex and then simply chaotic - beyond steady state cycle ?? My technical jargon is likely a little off, but hope you catch the gist.)

So RJG is just saying that the recognition of a functional process (outside of direct conscious control - necessarily so) is not the same as intentionally altering the said functional process. The conscious state merely assesses the outcome of the processes and from their it feeds back into the system as it is functionally required to do so after playing with it.

The question is then do you see that as being "free will" or as the absence of "free will"?

That is essentially the crux upon which this whole discussion lies. If you're only convinced of one interpretation of this then you're possibly at some disadvantage in being able to reconcile your view with others and developing better ways to present your argumentation.

[RJG]

RJG, I think I see the disconnect. You are ascribing all of consciousness to one particular sub-agent in the brain, namely, what Damasio refers to as the autobiographical self. The output of that agent includes at least memory. It's possible that its output includes other things, such as the release of hormones which induce emotional states, but I don't think that has been established. It's also possible that its output includes veto control over some decisions, but again, I don't think that has been established. What has been shown, and what you are keying on, is that the autobiographical agent is not the one responsible for primary decisions to act

So my point is that with respect to the autobiographical self, what you say may be correct. However if you consider the whole brain as the agent, it is wrong to say there is no conscious control.

Not so. ALL brain processes consume time.

James, you are over complicating, over-thinking, all this. This is much ‘simpler’ than you allude to here. This is simply about the IMPOSSIBILITY of doing something AFTER it has already been done. (e.g. You can't step outside if you are already outside).

If brain processes consume any time whatsoever, then this establishes the AFTER relationship, and the resulting IMPOSSIBILITY of these brain processes controlling that which has already happened.

YOU are saying that because there is a time delay between the real world and conscious processing, consciousness can't be involve in our actions.

Correct. Consciousness cannot 'cause’ something that has already happened.

I am saying that there exists a time delay between the real world and unconscious processing. Why does this not stop us hitting tennis balls?

Togo, you too, are over thinking all this. If these "unconscious" processes happened AFTER the hitting of the tennis ball, then they CANNOT be the ‘cause’ of hitting the tennis ball (...and if they happened BEFORE, then they can be).

You are saying consciousness can't control anything because of a time delay.

YES. CTD establishes an AFTER relationship. And because of CTD, conscious causation (aka conscious control, "free-will", mental causation) is IMPOSSIBLE.

********

Burning ghost, thank you for the link to the very interesting article.

[Chili]

"Free-will" is generally just not thought through. If all things have causes, then that makes it an illusion - or at the very least an unexamined subjective impression.

Sometimes we experiencing performing a conscious action and may callously not be aware of the effects of that action, but we can become aware of them.

But we can also ask about the causes in the world which precede the "conscious action" - past experiences, mental conditioning, or indeed physical causes which are passing through a person and their brain.

From a religious perspective, how indeed could God relinquish agency and control over all of creation?

[JamesOfSeattle]

Not so. ALL brain processes consume time.

I never said otherwise.

James, you are over complicating, over-thinking, all this. This is much ‘simpler’ than you allude to here.

Who said that explanations should be as simple as possible, but no simpler?

If brain processes consume any time whatsoever, then this establishes the AFTER relationship, and the resulting IMPOSSIBILITY of these brain processes controlling that which has already happened.

But there are some brain processes that establish the BEFORE relationship, as in the decision to move to the left. I'm saying that this decision is a conscious event. It is performed in response to an input (ball moving to left), it initiates the movement, and the movement happens after the decision. The decision is made in the brain before "you" (the autobiographical self) are conscious of it, but so what? It (the decision) is still in the class of events I call conscious events. Those events which you are calling consciousness are only a subset of this class, specifically, those events which generate memory and are performed by the autobiographical self.

*

[Chili]

If 2 people are playing chess, this kind of discussion seems quite irrelevant. There is an overall understanding of the board that each person has.

Something like that happens when playing tennis. The sensations from seconds ago are integrated into the "story" that you have about the tennis game, and what you would do if this happened or that happened. You make a split-second decision based on your understanding of where the other person will be going. Of course they may be faking you out. Then you brain went the wrong way.

[RJG]

But there are some brain processes that establish the BEFORE relationship, as in the decision to move to the left.

What comes first, the “decision”, or the “consciousness-of-the-decision”?

[JamesOfSeattle]

What comes first, the “decision”, or the “consciousness-of-the-decision”?

The decision, which is a conscious act of agent A, comes first. Consciousness of the decision, which is a conscious act of agent B, comes after.

*

[RJG]

-delete-