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.
Post Reply
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: What is CTD?

Post by RJG »

Chili wrote:You are struggling - valiantly perhaps - against this simple truth: all knowledge is "flawed".
Does that include this piece of knowledge (above)?
Chili wrote:Reaction and experience are two completely different things and most of your arguments rely on an undefended conflation of them.
Yes, I conflate these two terms. But I suspect you are conflating “experience” with “conscious experience”. These are two different things. A bodily ‘experience’ is a bodily ‘reaction’. A “conscious experience” is a ‘known/recognized/felt’ bodily experience. Not all experiences are conscious experiences.
Chili wrote:In so saying, you assert there is such a thing as a mind - a term which can alternately refer to a subjective space where subjective experiences take place or to the experiencer itself. Or both, often.
Not so. When I say “experiencer”, I mean only a ‘thing’ that ‘experiences’. Period. Nothing more! - A “mind” implies much more (e.g. “agency”, thinker/author of thoughts, etc)
Chili wrote:You assert that experiencer must be different from mind, without offering any explanation
Yes. See above.
Londoner
Posts: 1783
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

Re: What is CTD?

Post by Londoner »

RJG wrote: Me: But the sun does not rise in the east and set in the west. To say that it does it to suppose a particular viewpoint i.e. it is to describe how the sun appears to move relative to an observer - us.
Agreed. But that is irrelevant to the point that there is no “agent” controlling its motion.
The agent is us. Any description of movement assumes a particular point of view. This is true of all language. If I say 'this is a cabbage' then I have sorted the world into cabbages and not-cabbages, which I can only do if I am viewing the world from outside. I can do this, cabbages can't. Cabbages simply exist in the world, they do not describe it. Scenarios (like the 'brain in a vat') which deny that we have minds which are distinct from the world rob the language we are using of its meaning.
Me: Similarly, how could I know that my body/brain can 'experience' unless I was an external observer of that body/brain?
An “experiencer” can never ‘experience’ himself; as that would be a logical impossibility (a fairy tale). An “experiencer” can only know that he exists through the use of logical deduction.
Indeed, so since the experiencer cannot experience themselves, then to say we - the experiencer - are our bodies, or our brains, would not make sense. If I am experiencing and describing those things, I cannot be those things. So we have the paradox that we certainly have a sense of identity, but we cannot equate that sense to any particular part of our body - hence the notion of 'mind'.

I do not see how I can logically deduce I exist.
1. Experiencing exists --- the starting absolute/undoubtable premise.
2. Experiencer (“me”) exists --- logically derived; for without an Experiencer, said Experiencing could not exist (happen).

We know we exist (via logic), but we can’t ‘experience’ ourselves.
If 1. is an 'undoubtable premise' then it is not a proposition in logic. Propositions have to be capable of being either true or false. It is only 'undoubtable' in that it is a tautology. To say of something that it 'exists' is not to name a predicate of that thing. If I say 'there is a cat' then this already includes the claim the cat exists. All we have therefore is 'Experiencing!'

If we want to go any further, a next step must set out the claim that an 'experience' must be the property of an 'experiencer'. And we need to say what we understand by an 'experiencer', because if means more that 'that experience' then we are going to need something more in the way of premises.

If not, if it was the case that we could simply derive the existence of 'an experiencer' from 'an experience', then one problem would be that every separate experience we have means there must be a separate experiencer. The 'me' of this moment is a different 'me' from the one that started this sentence. If I wanted to argue that there is only one 'me' that is having many different experiences, then I need to bring in the claim that I persist over time, that there is such a thing as 'the past' and my memories (of past experiences) are reliable. So, we will have to add still more steps to this deduction - and each one of those steps is an assumption, so that our conclusion is no longer certain.
Chili
Posts: 392
Joined: September 29th, 2017, 4:59 pm

Re: What is CTD?

Post by Chili »

RJG wrote:
Chili wrote:You are struggling - valiantly perhaps - against this simple truth: all knowledge is "flawed".
Does that include this piece of knowledge (above)?
Chili wrote:Reaction and experience are two completely different things and most of your arguments rely on an undefended conflation of them.
Yes, I conflate these two terms. But I suspect you are conflating “experience” with “conscious experience”. These are two different things. A bodily ‘experience’ is a bodily ‘reaction’. A “conscious experience” is a ‘known/recognized/felt’ bodily experience. Not all experiences are conscious experiences.
Chili wrote:In so saying, you assert there is such a thing as a mind - a term which can alternately refer to a subjective space where subjective experiences take place or to the experiencer itself. Or both, often.
Not so. When I say “experiencer”, I mean only a ‘thing’ that ‘experiences’. Period. Nothing more! - A “mind” implies much more (e.g. “agency”, thinker/author of thoughts, etc)
Chili wrote:You assert that experiencer must be different from mind, without offering any explanation
Yes. See above.
Show a link to a dictionary or other source that supports your usage of experience to include one particle's encounter with another particle.

The ambiguity you seek to introduce with this usage - you hope it will support your unified theory of subjective and objective. A fairy tale, to be sure.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: What is CTD?

Post by RJG »

Chili wrote:Show a link to a dictionary or other source that supports your usage of experience to include one particle's encounter with another particle.

The ambiguity you seek to introduce with this usage - you hope it will support your unified theory of subjective and objective. A fairy tale, to be sure.
1. Does the body experience bodily reactions? - Y/N
2. Are these bodily reactions therefore experiences? - Y/N
3. Are we conscious of ALL bodily experiences/reactions or just SOME?
4. What do we call those bodily experiences/reactions that we are conscious of? (hint: "conscious experiences").
5. What do we call those bodily experiences/reactions that we are NOT conscious of? (hint: just "experiences")
6. Is there a difference between "experience" and "conscious experience"? - Y/N (hint:Yes)

Many entities (including molecules, worms, plants, etc.) can "experience" (and auto-react accordingly), but not many can "know" they experience. The ones that "know" are the ones that are considered "conscious" entities/subjects.

...agreed?

Londoner wrote:Indeed, so since the experiencer cannot experience themselves, then to say we - the experiencer - are our bodies, or our brains, would not make sense. If I am experiencing and describing those things, I cannot be those things.
Not so. We could very well "be one of those things", ...all it means is that we just can't experience the part of the brain/body that does the experiencing.
Londoner wrote:So we have the paradox that we certainly have a sense of identity, but we cannot equate that sense to any particular part of our body - hence the notion of 'mind'.
Except that the "notion of mind" implies much more than just an experiencer. Experiencer only implies the 'thing', or the 'substrate' upon which bodily reactions (aka "experiences") occur.

Also, the "notion of mind" still doesn't help solve this paradox. For where is this mind located?

So, why add or create a separate 'imaginary entity' (a mind) to explain the actions (experiences) of the body? ...why claim a 'sun-god' is necessary to explain the actions of the sun?

For example, if we accept this new imaginary entity, the "mind", as the explanation for the actions of the 'body', then what explains the actions of this 'mind'? ...must we then add/create another new imaginary entity called "mind-god" to explain the actions of the mind? ...and then what explains the actions of this new mind-god? ...where does all this silliness stop?

As you can see, asserting a "mind", as the explanation for the actions of the body, does not provide any explanation or resolution. It only adds a layer of silliness (non-sensical-ness).

Asserting something 'other' than the body/brain itself, as the experiencing entity, has no logical basis.
Londoner wrote:I do not see how I can logically deduce I exist.
You can't. You can only logically deduce 'experiencer' exists. We just call this experiencer "I" for convenience sake.
Londoner wrote:If 1. is an 'undoubtable premise' then it is not a proposition in logic. Propositions have to be capable of being either true or false. It is only 'undoubtable' in that it is a tautology. To say of something that it 'exists' is not to name a predicate of that thing. If I say 'there is a cat' then this already includes the claim the cat exists. All we have therefore is 'Experiencing!'
1. Experiencing exists --- is an absolute and undeniably true premise. It is impossible to deny, as the mere act of denying only affirms its existence.

An Absolute Truth 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.

2. Experiencer exists --- is logically derived. For without an Experiencer, experiencing could not happen. Experiencing can’t happen without some-‘thing’ experiencing. This ‘thing’ is the 'substrate' upon which the experiencing occurs.
Londoner wrote:...if it was the case that we could simply derive the existence of 'an experiencer' from 'an experience', then one problem would be that every separate experience we have means there must be a separate experiencer. The 'me' of this moment is a different 'me' from the one that started this sentence.
Not so. Imagine a plant leaf. At one moment it experiences moisture (rain) and auto-reacts accordingly, and then moments later it experiences heat and light (sunshine) and auto-reacts accordingly. It is the same leaf (i.e. the same "experiencer") in both moments. The same is true with our physical bodies too.
Londoner
Posts: 1783
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

Re: What is CTD?

Post by Londoner »

RJG wrote:
Me: Indeed, so since the experiencer cannot experience themselves, then to say we - the experiencer - are our bodies, or our brains, would not make sense. If I am experiencing and describing those things, I cannot be those things.
Not so. We could very well "be one of those things", ...all it means is that we just can't experience the part of the brain/body that does the experiencing.
Not if we can name them, we can't. Since the part that does the experiencing cannot be experienced it cannot be named, so it would have to be some part of the body we cannot talk about. Since our body is made of material things, things we can name, then the experiencer can't be a part of the body.
Me: So we have the paradox that we certainly have a sense of identity, but we cannot equate that sense to any particular part of our body - hence the notion of 'mind'.
Except that the "notion of mind" implies much more than just an experiencer. Experiencer only implies the 'thing', or the 'substrate' upon which bodily reactions (aka "experiences") occur.
I do not agree that 'experiencer' does imply some 'thing'. Indeed it can't, for the reasons I have given.
Also, the "notion of mind" still doesn't help solve this paradox. For where is this mind located?
It is not a thing, such that it needs a location, it is descriptive of the nature of experience.
So, why add or create a separate 'imaginary entity' (mind) to explain the actions (experiences) of the body? ...why claim a 'sun-god' is necessary to explain the actions of the sun?
Because my experience of 'thinking' is seperate to 'having a brain'. I do not understand these references to a sun god.
For example, if we accept this new imaginary entity, the "mind", as the explanation for the actions of the 'body', then what explains the actions of this 'mind'? ...must we then add/create another new imaginary entity called "mind-god" to explain the actions of the mind? ...and then what explains the actions of this new mind-god? ...where does all this silliness stop?
As I say, it is not an explanation in the sense of being some undiscovered internal human organ. It is descriptive of the nature of human consciousness, necessary because a material explanation of human consciousness is inadequate, because it does not reflect the nature of our individual experience.
As you can see, asserting a "mind", as the explanation for the actions of the body, does not provide any explanation or resolution. (...it only just temporarily 'hides', or kicks-the-problem-down-the-road).
No, it doesn't resolve the problem, but nor does it hide it. Your alternative seems to be that there is no 'mind' but instead some aspect of the body/brain that we can't experience. There doesn't seem to be much difference.
Asserting something other than the body/brain itself, as the experiencing entity, has no logical basis.
Logic has nothing to do with any of this:
Me: I do not see how I can logically deduce I exist.
You can't. You can only logically deduce 'experiencer' exists. We just call this experiencer "I" for convenience sake.
You cannot deduce the existence of anything, logic just isn't about that. By trying to put an idea into a logical form we can sometime see if it is self-contradictory, or tautological, but that is as far as it goes.
1. Experiencing exists --- is an absolute and undeniably true premise. It is impossible to deny, as the mere act of denying only affirms its existence.
Then it is not a proposition in logic, since as I wrote last time, a proposition in logic must be capable of being either true or false.

I cannot confirm or deny it, because I do not know what it means. What does that 'exist' mean? 'Exists' as an object? As a word in the dictionary? As a fuzzy idea? As a possibility? Subjectively? Objectively? There is no single absolute sense - if we said it 'exists' in any one of those senses then we would be saying it doesn't 'exist' in another. So I do not know what this claim 'exists' amounts to.
Me:..if it was the case that we could simply derive the existence of 'an experiencer' from 'an experience', then one problem would be that every separate experience we have means there must be a separate experiencer. The 'me' of this moment is a different 'me' from the one that started this sentence.
Not so. Imagine a plant leaf. At one moment it experiences moisture (rain) and auto-reacts accordingly, and then moments later it experiences heat and light (sunshine) and auto-reacts accordingly. It is the same leaf (i.e. the same "experiencer") in both moments. The same is true with our physical bodies too.
You start out by stating what is said to be a self evident and undeniable truth, yet your answer to my criticism requires me to accept an analogy, based on biology!

That there is 'experiencing' does not confirm the reality of plants, or of an external world at all. It does not confirm that the world operates in a regular way according to natural laws. It does not confirm that things - including the experiencer - continue to exist over time. It does not confirm that we have physical bodies.

So, when writing out the logical argument that is supposed to confirm the existence of a perceiver, you will have to add extra premises that list all these things as assumptions. But then it will not be simply 'cogito ergo sum', there will be a whole list of assumptions before we get to 'ergo sum', and the conclusion would only be true if every assumption was true, which we cannot know to be the case.
Chili
Posts: 392
Joined: September 29th, 2017, 4:59 pm

Re: What is CTD?

Post by Chili »

RJG,

You just made your same assertions - without links to definitions or research - and with more bolding.

I'll leave you to it then. Have a bolded navel-gazing echo-chamber kind of day.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: What is CTD?

Post by RJG »

Londoner wrote:Not if we can name them, we can't. Since the part that does the experiencing cannot be experienced it cannot be named, so it would have to be some part of the body we cannot talk about. Since our body is made of material things, things we can name, then the experiencer can't be a part of the body.
I don’t follow. What does “naming” have to do with anything?? Isn’t it possible for something to exist, that we can’t experience? Can't the blade of a knife exist, even though the knife can't cut it's own blade?

A knife is a made of "material things". It can cut many things, but never the cutting part of itself.
A stone is made of "material things". It can tap/hit many things, but never the tapping/hitting part of itself.
Our bodies are made of "material things". It can experience many things, but never the experiential part of itself.

RJG wrote:So, why add or create a separate 'imaginary entity' (mind) to explain the actions (experiences) of the body? ...why claim a 'sun-god' is necessary to explain the actions of the sun?
Londoner wrote:Because my experience of 'thinking' is separate to 'having a brain'. I do not understand these references to a sun god.
Firstly, the reference to early man’s belief in the “sun-god” controlling the actions of the sun, was simply just an analogy of today’s man’s belief of the “mind” controlling the actions of the body. That’s all. Both answers (beliefs), are non-answers, they just kick the can down the road.

Secondly, are you implying that “thinking” means something ‘more’ than just ‘experiencing thoughts’? We are only just the ‘experiencers’ of our thoughts, not the god (creator/constructor/author) of our thoughts. We cannot dictate those thoughts that we think/experience.

Again, we are just ‘experiencers’, nothing more is logically possible.

Londoner wrote:Your alternative seems to be that there is no 'mind' but instead some aspect of the body/brain that we can't experience. There doesn't seem to be much difference.
An experiencer can only experience. Your interpretation of ‘mind’, seems to be something more than just 'experiencing', …true?
Londoner
Posts: 1783
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

Re: What is CTD?

Post by Londoner »

RJG wrote: I don’t follow. What does “naming” have to do with anything?? Isn’t it possible for something to exist, that we can’t experience? Can't the blade of a knife exist, even though the knife can't cut it's own blade?
We can talk about knives because they are objects of our experience. But we cannot experience about what does the experiencing. As you write later: 'It can experience many things, but never the experiential part of itself' and 'we just can't experience the part of the brain/body that does the experiencing'.
Firstly, the reference to early man’s belief in the “sun-god” controlling the actions of the sun, was simply just an analogy of today’s man’s belief of the “mind” controlling the actions of the body. That’s all. Both answers (beliefs), are non-answers, they just kick the can down the road.
As I wrote in the previous post, to say we have a 'mind' is to say that our consciousness cannot be reduced to material terms. It is not the name of some additional material substance that 'controls' things.
Secondly, are you implying that “thinking” means something ‘more’ than just ‘experiencing thoughts’? We are only just the ‘experiencers’ of our thoughts, not the god (creator/constructor/author) of our thoughts. We cannot dictate those thoughts that we think/experience.
Yes, I am saying just that. I do not see why it is necessary to invoke God to explain human's ability to think.
Again, we are just ‘experiencers’, nothing more is logically possible.
So you keep saying, but you do not answer my objections to this claim.
An experiencer can only experience. Your interpretation of ‘mind’, seems to be something more than just 'experiencing', …true?
Yes.

You could say a rock 'experiences' meaning that when things happen to it they alter its nature, such that the shape of the rock (in a sense) records that experience. But I do not think that the nature of human experience is like that. We do not only experience, we can also reflect on the experience. That means the nature of that experience is not fixed.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: What is CTD?

Post by RJG »

RJG wrote:Secondly, are you implying that “thinking” means something ‘more’ than just ‘experiencing thoughts’? We are only just the ‘experiencers’ of our thoughts, not the god (creator/constructor/author) of our thoughts. We cannot dictate those thoughts that we think/experience.
Londoner wrote:Yes, I am saying just that. I do not see why it is necessary to invoke God to explain human's ability to think.
Because the "ability to think" is not humanly possible. Humans can only "experience thoughts", not "think" them!

If CTD exists, then ‘everything’ that one is conscious of, has ALREADY HAPPENED. If it has already happened, then it has already been caused. If it has already been caused, then it is too late to ‘cause’ it, ...and too late to 'think' it.

In other words, we can't logically be conscious of a thought, without a (pre-existing) thought to be conscious of. -- The thought comes first, then the consciousness-of-the-thought follows (by the value of CTD). If the 'thought' comes before the 'consciousness'-of-the-thought, then it was already created/constructed/authored! ...it was already thunked!


Thinking is logically impossible on a number of fronts, and angles:

1. CTD -- If CTD exists, then 'thinking' does not. -- [refer back to the beginning of the OP to understand CTD].

2. Infinite Regression -- Thinking would require the pre-selecting of one’s own thoughts. But then those thoughts (involved in the pre-selecting) would also have to be pre-selected. Thus, since the pre-selection of thoughts would require pre-selecting other thoughts, the pre-selecting of thoughts would fall into an infinite regress and no thoughts could ever be selected, and thus no thinking.

3. Time Conflicts --- One cannot be conscious of a thought 'before' one thinks it.
  • -We don’t ‘know’ what we think until after we think it.
    -One cannot ‘know’ what one thinks until one has thunk it!
4. Our thoughts can never dictate what we think! ...they are always "a day late and a dollar short".

RJG wrote:An experiencer can only experience. Your interpretation of ‘mind’, seems to be something more than just 'experiencing', …true?
Londoner wrote:Yes. ...We do not only experience, we can also reflect on the experience.
Not so. We don't "reflect", we only just "experience (the thoughts associated with) reflection".

Because of CTD, we don't "consciously do" anything, ...we are only conscious of what we've done!
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7932
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: What is CTD?

Post by LuckyR »

RJG wrote:
RJG wrote:Secondly, are you implying that “thinking” means something ‘more’ than just ‘experiencing thoughts’? We are only just the ‘experiencers’ of our thoughts, not the god (creator/constructor/author) of our thoughts. We cannot dictate those thoughts that we think/experience.
Londoner wrote:Yes, I am saying just that. I do not see why it is necessary to invoke God to explain human's ability to think.
Because the "ability to think" is not humanly possible. Humans can only "experience thoughts", not "think" them!

If CTD exists, then ‘everything’ that one is conscious of, has ALREADY HAPPENED. If it has already happened, then it has already been caused. If it has already been caused, then it is too late to ‘cause’ it, ...and too late to 'think' it.

In other words, we can't logically be conscious of a thought, without a (pre-existing) thought to be conscious of. -- The thought comes first, then the consciousness-of-the-thought follows (by the value of CTD). If the 'thought' comes before the 'consciousness'-of-the-thought, then it was already created/constructed/authored! ...it was already thunked!


Thinking is logically impossible on a number of fronts, and angles:

1. CTD -- If CTD exists, then 'thinking' does not. -- [refer back to the beginning of the OP to understand CTD].

2. Infinite Regression -- Thinking would require the pre-selecting of one’s own thoughts. But then those thoughts (involved in the pre-selecting) would also have to be pre-selected. Thus, since the pre-selection of thoughts would require pre-selecting other thoughts, the pre-selecting of thoughts would fall into an infinite regress and no thoughts could ever be selected, and thus no thinking.

3. Time Conflicts --- One cannot be conscious of a thought 'before' one thinks it.
  • -We don’t ‘know’ what we think until after we think it.
    -One cannot ‘know’ what one thinks until one has thunk it!
4. Our thoughts can never dictate what we think! ...they are always "a day late and a dollar short".

RJG wrote:An experiencer can only experience. Your interpretation of ‘mind’, seems to be something more than just 'experiencing', …true?
Londoner wrote:Yes. ...We do not only experience, we can also reflect on the experience.
Not so. We don't "reflect", we only just "experience (the thoughts associated with) reflection".

Because of CTD, we don't "consciously do" anything, ...we are only conscious of what we've done!
Ho hum. Much ado about... not much. Okay, so there is a time delay, so what? So our perspective is shifted a second from what we "think" it is, so our consciousness (from the perspective of an observer with impossibly quick observational and computational skills, has a bit of a lag (that is built into our perception and is thus compensated for by our brains), how does this factoid change our reality appreciably from what we perceive every day?
"As usual... it depends."
Londoner
Posts: 1783
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

Re: What is CTD?

Post by Londoner »

RJG wrote: Because the "ability to think" is not humanly possible. Humans can only "experience thoughts", not "think" them!

If CTD exists, then ‘everything’ that one is conscious of, has ALREADY HAPPENED. If it has already happened, then it has already been caused. If it has already been caused, then it is too late to ‘cause’ it, ...and too late to 'think' it.
I disagree and I have said why. I do not think CTD has anything to do with 'thinking', again for the reasons I have said; I can't face writing it all again but if you look back in the thread you will find it. There is no point in just repeating your own opinion and not engaging with the argument.
In other words, we can't logically be conscious of a thought, without a (pre-existing) thought to be conscious of. -- The thought comes first, then the consciousness-of-the-thought follows (by the value of CTD). If the 'thought' comes before the 'consciousness'-of-the-thought, then it was already created/constructed/authored! ...it was already thunked!


Thinking is logically impossible on a number of fronts, and angles:
Again, I have explained why logic has nothing to say about such things. You are just using logically impossible as a sort of rhetorical intensifier, the equivalent of saying your opinion is 'really definitely' correct. It isn't an arguement!
2. Infinite Regression -- Thinking would require the pre-selecting of one’s own thoughts. But then those thoughts (involved in the pre-selecting) would also have to be pre-selected. Thus, since the pre-selection of thoughts would require pre-selecting other thoughts, the pre-selecting of thoughts would fall into an infinite regress and no thoughts could ever be selected, and thus no thinking.
We have had this before, it is either a variation of Zeno's Paradox or 'First Cause'. By that argument nothing at all could exist. The earth could not exist unless a pre-earth existed, which would require a pre-pre-earth, and a pre-pre-pre- earth etc. in an infinite regression, therefore the earth cannot exist. I do not know exactly how you intend your argument, but usually it rests on a misunderstanding of time.

Besides, if your argument was right, we could never measure CTD, since it is the measured period is between two thought events. For you (since all thinking involves an infinite regression) that period would be infinite. (Between every couple of that infinite series of steps we can insert another infinite series of steps).
3. Time Conflicts --- One cannot be conscious of a thought 'before' one thinks it.
That is true because the word 'conscious' always has an object. One is conscious of something. But you are mixing it up with 'conscious' meaning 'having thoughts', which is a continuous process.
4. Our thoughts can never dictate what we think!
And again, you are mixing up 'thinking' as a continuous process, with 'what we think' which would describe a specific event.

This is still the Paradox. In one version of the Paradox, an arrow cannot possibly be moving, because at each moment it must be in one particular location. But if it is at one particular location then it must be at rest. (Or alternatively, since the arrow is moving it does not exist at any location, therefore there is no arrow.) You are doing this with thought/consciousness. If one has to be conscious of particular things, one at a time, then one cannot be conscious in a continual sense. Or, if one is conscious in a continual sense, one cannot be conscious of particular things.

I agree that it isn't obvious what is wrong with Zeno's Paradox, and the infinite regressions, but since the earth does exist and things do move we know there must be something wrong with it somewhere. And in my opinion we have come up with good explanations for what is wrong, which can be readily found on various internet sites.
Me: Yes. ...We do not only experience, we can also reflect on the experience.
Not so. We don't "reflect", we only just "experience (the thoughts associated with) reflection".
And what is the difference? How are 'thoughts associated with reflection' different from 'reflection'? Does this apply to all verbs? We do not 'run', we just 'experience a physical event associated with running'?

I do not think this has anything to do with CTD. It is a problem of sense and reference.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: What is CTD?

Post by Burning ghost »

RJG -

Willing to join me on the dark side yet? Ready to drop this dead horse and put your thought to work on something of more "substance"?
AKA badgerjelly
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: What is CTD?

Post by RJG »

Burning ghost wrote:Willing to join me on the dark side yet? Ready to drop this dead horse and put your thought to work on something of more "substance"?
Well, I think we have beat this so-called “dead horse” enough. But I’m not sure if I’ve got the time to jump on another horse at this moment, until after I take care of some urgent (work related) projects that I’ve been neglecting.

But this “of more substance” sounds very tempting (a “teaser” of some sort?). Why not post this new topic, and I’ll jump in with my 2 cents, as free time allows.

Londoner wrote:And what is the difference? How are 'thoughts associated with reflection' different from 'reflection'?
Huge difference -- one implies consciously ‘experiencing’, the other implies consciously ‘doing’ (i.e. conscious ‘causation’). One is possible, the other is not.
Londoner wrote:Does this apply to all verbs? We do not 'run', we just 'experience a physical event associated with running'?
Yes, correct! Because of CTD, we can’t consciously ‘do’ anything, we can only consciously experience that which has already been ‘done’. We can’t consciously move our bodies about -- we can only be conscious of our bodies moving about. Again, a huge difference in meaning, between the two statements.

Our consciousness is a delayed view of reality. That which we consciously experience as happening, has already happened!

LuckyR wrote:Ho hum. Much ado about... not much. Okay, so there is a time delay, so what? So our perspective is shifted a second from what we "think" it is, so our consciousness (from the perspective of an observer with impossibly quick observational and computational skills, has a bit of a lag (that is built into our perception and is thus compensated for by our brains), how does this factoid change our reality appreciably from what we perceive every day?
No big deal. All it means is that 'reality' is a step ahead of our consciousness-of-reality. It (reality) leads the way, calling-the-shots; dictating that which we are conscious of. That’s all.


-- The END! --
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: What is CTD?

Post by Steve3007 »

RJG:
Because of CTD, we can’t consciously ‘do’ anything, we can only consciously experience that which has already been ‘done’. We can’t consciously move our bodies about -- we can only be conscious of our bodies moving about.
As I explained in my earlier posts, to which you stopped replying at post #136, this is incorrect. You are, for some strange reason, failing to acknowledge the presence of motor neurons, in addition to sensory neurons. You only ever talk about passive observing. We sense things that have already happened a short time in the past, and then we cause things that will happen a short time in the future. And then, a bit later still, we sense the results of those actions, which are then in the past. As explained in detail earlier.
Our consciousness is a delayed view of reality. That which we consciously experience as happening, has already happened!
Yes. And that which we consciously cause has not yet happened.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: What is CTD?

Post by RJG »

Steve3007 wrote:You are, for some strange reason, failing to acknowledge the presence of motor neurons, in addition to sensory neurons.
The presence of neurons does not help reduce, or eliminate CTD. Impulses traveling between neurons consume time, which only ‘contribute’ to the overall CTD value (the amount of time delay).

CTD is a time “lag”, which means that consciousness can NEVER catch up to (and affect) to the happenings in reality.

Steve3007 wrote:We sense things that have already happened a short time in the past,…
Yes, you remembered this: We become ‘conscious’-of-sensing, only AFTER we (our body) sensed these things.

Steve3007 wrote:…and then we cause things that will happen a short time in the future.
But then forgot this: We become ‘conscious’-of-causing, only AFTER we (our body) has caused things.

"Consciously causing" is as impossible as a "married bachelor" or "square circle". Consciousness implies AFTER, and causation implies BEFORE. These are 'mutually exclusive'.

Because consciousness always follows that which it is conscious of, then conscious causation, or consciously doing anything is impossible, …making all conscious experiences, simply ‘passive’ experiences.

Steve3007 wrote:And then, a bit later still, we sense the results of those actions, which are then in the past.
Yes. We become ‘conscious’-of-sensing, AFTER we (our body) sensed these things.

Our consciousness ALWAYS “lags” the events happening in reality. It can never catch up to, and affect the events happening in reality. It is as futile as chasing one’s own shadow.

Conscious causation is IMPOSSIBLE.
Post Reply

Return to “Epistemology and Metaphysics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021