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.
Chili
Posts: 355
Joined: September 29th, 2017, 4:59 pm

Re: What is CTD?

Post by Chili » November 22nd, 2017, 4:27 pm

One is fully conscious of something after it has already happened.

One begins to become conscious of it while it is forming / happening, and pushed the levers accordingly.

The man driving the car is aware of what is going on in the car and steers accordingly, not knowing until afterward whether his intentions were manifested.

But this man, does he not have another smaller man in his brain driving his body, and so on ad infinitum ? Good question.

Steve3007
Posts: 5393
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: What is CTD?

Post by Steve3007 » November 22nd, 2017, 4:34 pm

RJG:
1. Are you ‘conscious’ of some of these ‘real’ events? …or is there no such thing as consciousness?
Yes. I consciously sense some events.
2. And if you are ‘conscious’ of some of these events, then is there a delay in time between your consciousness-of-this-event and the event itself? …or can you “instantaneously” detect/sense these events through your consciousness?
Yes. There is a delay. Any event that I consciously sensed happened before I consciously sensed it.
Do you believe that ‘everything’ (and I mean everything!) that one is conscious of, has already happened?
If by "everything that one is conscious of" you mean "every event that it is possible for me to consciously sense" then my answer is "yes".

Consciously sensing an event means that the event is a "cause" and the conscious sensation is an "effect". The traditional definitions of "cause" and "effect" stipulate that effects cannot precede causes in time. So the event called "conscious sensation" must come after the event being sensed. Likewise, the event called "conscious causation" must come before the event being caused, for the same reason.

---

P.S.
If it is not ‘me’ pulling my own puppet strings, then I could care less!
You mean you do care? Since you could care less, that means there is some level of caring less than the amount that you actually care. So your level of caring is non-zero. Whereas if you'd said "I couldn't care less" it would mean that (assuming there can't be a negative quantity of care) your actual level of caring is zero, because that's the only non-negative number that couldn't be any less.

(Sorry. That was just an irrelevant, pedantic rant about an American English idiom.)

Chili
Posts: 355
Joined: September 29th, 2017, 4:59 pm

Re: What is CTD?

Post by Chili » November 22nd, 2017, 4:44 pm

I notice RJG that you scoff at mental causation - at the idea of "consciousness" (whatever that is) could affect matter via mental causation.

But why do you not find it equally nutty and unlikely that things could go the other way - that matter could bring about some kind of mental affect within consciousness?

A pox upon both their houses, I say.

-- Updated November 22nd, 2017, 4:45 pm to add the following --

I notice RJG that you scoff at mental causation - at the idea of "consciousness" (whatever that is) could affect matter via mental causation.

But why do you not find it equally nutty and unlikely that things could go the other way - that matter could bring about some kind of mental affect within consciousness?

A pox upon both their houses, I say.

"WHAT IS MIND? NO MATTER.
WHAT IS MATTER? NEVER MIND."
- Homer Simpson
Attachments
whatismatter.jpg
(41.25 KiB) Not downloaded yet
whatismatter.jpg
(41.25 KiB) Not downloaded yet

Londoner
Posts: 1783
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

Re: What is CTD?

Post by Londoner » November 23rd, 2017, 6:29 am

RJG wrote: Me: Yes, it matters because you are trying to differentiate one part of our consciousness from 'something else'; 'the controller'. If you cannot say what that 'something else/controller' is, then it is a difference without a difference.
Again, who cares! If it is not ‘me’ pulling my own puppet strings, then I could care less!

I don't care what my puppet master 'looks' like or 'smells' like. He could be a man from Mars, or a mad scientist prodding my vat soaked brain with electrodes. What really matters to 'me' is if I am a puppet or not!
Because you can think you can measure the distance in time between event A (the puppet master's command) and event B (your response). You cannot measure a distance unless you know both ends of the thing you are measuring.
Me: Also we have now made the metaphysics even more complicated with the introduction of 'reality'. Aren't we part of reality?
Yes, we are a part of reality.

Me: If not, if we can only 'view' reality, that means reality and our consciousness are separate things
Yes, separate things; one is a part of the other. We exist in reality, but can only ‘experience’ this reality through consciousness. …agreed?
We cannot simultaneously be 'a part of reality' and also 'experience' reality. If we experience it we must be outside it (especially since we are said to be operating on a different time line to that reality).

Again, you are introducing this mysterious thing called 'consciousness', which is not part of 'reality' but is the only means by which we connect with reality. Fine, but yet at the same time you reject the idea of 'mind' as too mysterious.

When you write 'one is part of the other' the question is - how? How does 'consciousness' (which is not 'real'), connect to 'reality' (which presumably is)? And we are back in the usual mind-body discussion; ghosts in the machine, pineal glands etc. We always will be, because no matter how we change the vocabulary we eventually return to the problem that a scientific description of consciousness cannot describe the experienced phenomenon of consciousness, and vice-versa.
By the way, -- Do you believe that ‘everything’ (and I mean everything!) that one is conscious of, has already happened?
You are trapping yourself with language. What 'everything'? What does 'happened' mean?

I am conscious that in 1815 the Battle of Waterloo took place. But I am not conscious of the battle itself, since it was over long ago. I am also conscious of my ignorance, that there must have been many other historical events that I am not conscious of. I may be conscious of some historical events that did not really happen. And before I came up with that example of the Battle of Waterloo I was not conscious of it, in that I was thinking of something else.

As I write this post, I am conscious of the words I want to write, but I am not thinking about how to spell them. I must in some sense know how to spell them, but I do not consciously think about it, not unless the spelling-check thingy underlines them in red. If it does then the word as a word jumps into consciousness.

As I face the window, the reflected light from the garden enters my eye, my optic nerve responds to that light, but I may not be conscious of this because I am thinking about philosophy. I then turn my attention to the garden, but I cannot do so in an undifferentiated way; I have to look at particular things. And they only become particular things when I distinguish them from all the other things, when I distinguish 'a tree' from the background to the tree. So at what point in that process did the tree become a 'thing'?

There is an awful lot of philosophy about the nature of consciousness and perception and 'reality'. Since we don't all agree what they mean, there is no point in asking everyone yes/no questions using those words and thinking you can compare the answers.

User avatar
RJG
Posts: 970
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: What is CTD?

Post by RJG » November 24th, 2017, 9:57 am

Firstly, thank you Chili, Steve, and Londoner for responding to my so-called survey question. It appears that we all (except maybe Londoner?) agree that the consciousness-of-X, always follows X.
Steve3007 wrote:Consciously sensing an event means that the event is a "cause" and the conscious sensation is an "effect". The traditional definitions of "cause" and "effect" stipulate that effects cannot precede causes in time. So the event called "conscious sensation" must come after the event being sensed.
Yes, agreed. 'Consciously sensing'-an-event comes after the 'event'.

To further expand/clarify on what you've said, there are 'two' components to every conscious experience; 1) the non-conscious 'before' component; the event itself, and 2) the conscious 'after' component; the conscious realization of that non-conscious event/thing. For example, there is an 'apple' sitting on the table, and then there is our conscious realization (or our "consciously sensing") of that apple. Or to put it even more simply: there is 'X', and there is the 'consciousness-of-the-X'.
Steve3007 wrote:Likewise, the event called "conscious causation" must come before the event being caused, for the same reason.
Not so. This is where we seemingly split ways.

Firstly, you have combined two words into one component. You have inserted the word "conscious" to the event X of "causation". If you truly believe that you are "conscious" of your "causation", then this consciousness can only be 'after' the causation.

Secondly, I see this two-worded term, "conscious causation", as a oxymoron. It combines two mutually contradictory words. "Conscious" implies an "effect" (or coming 'after'); and "causation" implies a "cause" (or coming 'before'). In this aspect, "conscious causation" would be just as impossible as "married bachelors" and "square circles".

Thirdly, we humans are 'experiential' beings. We can only experience 'experiences', aka "effects". We can never experience "causes" themselves (...because if we did, then it would be an "effect"!). "Causes" are only presumed to exist. We, "experiential beings", just assert (these imaginary) "causes" as the explanation for the happenings of sequential events/effects/experiences.
RJG wrote:If it is not ‘me’ pulling my own puppet strings, then I could care less!
Steve3007 wrote:You mean you do care? Since you could care less, that means there is some level of caring less than the amount that you actually care. So your level of caring is non-zero. Whereas if you'd said "I couldn't care less" it would mean that (assuming there can't be a negative quantity of care) your actual level of caring is zero, because that's the only non-negative number that couldn't be any less.
...ha, good catch, ...thanks.

Chili wrote:I notice RJG that you scoff at mental causation - at the idea of "consciousness" (whatever that is) could affect matter via mental causation.

But why do you not find it equally nutty and unlikely that things could go the other way - that matter could bring about some kind of mental affect within consciousness?
Because consciousness is an after-effect. ...and 'effects' are not 'causers'. If we really want to take a stab at defining "consciousness", then I propose the following:

Consciousness is the singular experience of 'recognition' (of bodily experiences/reactions), made possible by memory.

Without 'memory' there can be no 'recognition', and without 'recognition, there can be no 'consciousness'. ...so it is 'recognition' that then ultimately brings 'life' to consciousness.

Londoner wrote:Because you can think you can measure the distance in time between event A (the puppet master's command) and event B (your response). You cannot measure a distance unless you know both ends of the thing you are measuring.
If I follow your implication correctly, then my response is that it is not the "distance", nor the actual amount of time-delay in CTD, that matters. It is the logical relationships of the terms. It is the realization that consciousness-of-X is always AFTER X. The actual "distance" in time between the two is of null value, to its logical conclusion.
Londoner wrote:We cannot simultaneously be 'a part of reality' and also 'experience' reality. If we experience it we must be outside it (especially since we are said to be operating on a different time line to that reality).
Not so. Can't an (internal) appleseed be part of the (whole) apple?
Londoner wrote:Again, you are introducing this mysterious thing called 'consciousness', which is not part of 'reality' but is the only means by which we connect with reality.
But it 'is' a part of reality. And it can experience reality, but never experience itself.
Londoner wrote:Fine, but yet at the same time you reject the idea of 'mind' as too mysterious.
If this "mind" is something more than just an "experiencer" then YES, I reject it.
Londoner wrote:When you write 'one is part of the other' the question is - how? How does 'consciousness' (which is not 'real'), connect to 'reality' (which presumably is)?
Consciousness is 'real', it is a real experience. Consciousness is our experiential (and only!) view of reality.
Last edited by RJG on November 24th, 2017, 1:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Steve3007
Posts: 5393
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: What is CTD?

Post by Steve3007 » November 24th, 2017, 10:36 am

RJG:
Yes, agreed. 'Consciously sensing'-an-event comes after the 'event'.
Goodo.
To further expand/clarify on what you've said, there are 'two' components to every conscious experience; 1) the non-conscious 'before' component; the event itself, and 2) the conscious 'after' component; the conscious realisation of that non-conscious event/thing. For example, there is an 'apple' sitting on the table, and then there is our conscious realisation (or our "consciously sensing") of that apple. Or to put it even more simply: there is 'X', and there is the 'consciousness-of-the-X'.
Yes. There are two events. The event of something happening "out there", and the slightly later event in my brain of perceiving that something has happened.
Not so. This is where we seemingly split ways.
Indeed, so it seems.
Firstly, you have combined two words into one component. You have inserted the word "conscious" to the event X of "causation". If you truly believe that you are "conscious" of your "causation", then this consciousness can only be 'after' the causation.
No, I didn't say I am conscious "of" anything here. I said "conscious causation" not "conscious of causation". Being "conscious of something" means sensing it. It means input. I was talking about output in this part.
Secondly, I see this two-worded term, "conscious causation", as a oxymoron. It combines two mutually contradictory words.
Only if you always see "input" when you see "conscious".
"Conscious" implies an "effect" (or coming 'after');...
Not to me it doesn't. "Consciously sensing" implies an effect. "Consciously causing" implies a cause. Sensory versus motor.
...and "causation" implies a "cause" (or coming 'before'). In this aspect, "conscious causation" would be just as impossible as "married bachelors" and "square circles".
For reasons given above I disagree.
Thirdly, we humans are 'experiential' beings. We can only experience 'experiences', aka "effects". We can never experience "causes" themselves (...because if we did, then it would be an "effect"!). "Causes" are only presumed to exist. We, "experiential beings", just assert (these imaginary) "causes" are the explanation for the happening of sequential events/effects/experiences.
I partially agree except that I would call it slightly more than a mere assertion. I would call it an extremely useful working hypothesis that has worked so far and which regularly helps us to get through the day. So to call these causes "imaginary" is to render the word "imaginary" meaningless, because it makes everything imaginary, and I like words which distinguish one thing from another. The word "imaginary" is more useful to me if some things are it and some things are not it.

User avatar
RJG
Posts: 970
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: What is CTD?

Post by RJG » November 24th, 2017, 1:00 pm

RJG wrote:Firstly, you have combined two words into one component. You have inserted the word "conscious" to the event X of "causation". If you truly believe that you are "conscious" of your "causation", then this consciousness can only be 'after' the causation.
Steve3007 wrote:No, I didn't say I am conscious "of" anything here. I said "conscious causation" not "conscious of causation". Being "conscious of something" means sensing it. It means input. I was talking about output in this part.
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"?

RJG wrote:Thirdly, we humans are 'experiential' beings. We can only experience 'experiences', aka "effects". We can never experience "causes" themselves (...because if we did, then it would be an "effect"!). "Causes" are only presumed to exist. We, "experiential beings", just assert (these imaginary) "causes" are the explanation for the happening of sequential events/effects/experiences.
Steve3007 wrote:I partially agree except that I would call it slightly more than a mere assertion. I would call it an extremely useful working hypothesis that has worked so far and which regularly helps us to get through the day. So to call these causes "imaginary" is to render the word "imaginary" meaningless, because it makes everything imaginary, and I like words which distinguish one thing from another. The word "imaginary" is more useful to me if some things are it and some things are not it.
My point is that it is impossible to experience a 'cause'.

Londoner
Posts: 1783
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

Re: What is CTD?

Post by Londoner » November 24th, 2017, 3:20 pm

RJG wrote:
Me: Because you can think you can measure the distance in time between event A (the puppet master's command) and event B (your response). You cannot measure a distance unless you know both ends of the thing you are measuring.
If I follow your implication correctly, then my response is that it is not the "distance", nor the actual amount of time-delay in CTD, that matters. It is the logical relationships of the terms. It is the realization that consciousness-of-X is always AFTER X. The actual "distance" in time between the two is of null value, to its logical conclusion.
If it is about the logical relationship of the terms, then it is true by definition. You are defining 'consciousness' etc. in a particular way, then saying that a delay is part of your definition. This indeed seems to be what you are doing.

We have had this many times; logic cannot tell us anything about what is or isn't the case. If you defined 'consciousness' to mean 'a type of horse' then logically we might conclude 'consciousness has four legs'.
Not so. Can't an (internal) appleseed be part of the (whole) apple?
That an experiencer cannot experience themselves is not about being a part of something, it is about subject and object.
But it 'is' a part of reality. And it can experience reality, but never experience itself.
Isn't that just what you denied above?

However, what exactly do you think 'reality' is?

Objects we can experience; rocks, trees etc. presumably count as 'reality'. You say 'consciousness' is also part of reality. What is the common thing that consciousness shares with rocks, trees etc. that makes you say it is also 'real'?
Consciousness is 'real', it is a real experience. Consciousness is our experiential (and only!) view of reality.
But that is self-contradictory. Is 'consciousness' real? Or is the thing consciousness gives us a view of 'real'?

What makes the experience 'real'? If it is because 'consciousness' is itself real, then everything that goes on in our heads is also real. Or, if it is 'real' because it connects to something beyond consciousness, then consciousness would not be real in itself, it would only be real in as far as it connects to this other reality.

As I wrote last time, we just find ourselves back in the same old philosophical grooves, nothing resolved.

Chili
Posts: 355
Joined: September 29th, 2017, 4:59 pm

Re: What is CTD?

Post by Chili » November 24th, 2017, 3:27 pm


Because consciousness is an after-effect. ...and 'effects' are not 'causers'. If we really want to take a stab at defining "consciousness", then I propose the following:

Consciousness is the singular experience of 'recognition' (of bodily experiences/reactions), made possible by memory.

Without 'memory' there can be no 'recognition', and without 'recognition, there can be no 'consciousness'. ...so it is 'recognition' that then ultimately brings 'life' to consciousness.
This is generated by some kind of AI ? It is word salad. Who or what is experiencing? Totally done with this thread this time, I promise.

User avatar
RJG
Posts: 970
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: What is CTD?

Post by RJG » November 24th, 2017, 5:15 pm

Londoner wrote:We have had this many times; logic cannot tell us anything about what is or isn't the case.
Deductive logic tells us truths and falses. It tells us that married bachelors, square circles, and conscious causations are not logically possible, and therefore do not exist in reality.
Londoner wrote:That an experiencer cannot experience themselves is not about being a part of something, it is about subject and object.
Yes, it is about the logical impossibility of being in two place at one time (both subject and object simultaneously), …why, did I ever say otherwise?
Londoner wrote:However, what exactly do you think 'reality' is?
Reality is the collection of all that which exists with certainty. Certainties are that which exist independent of one’s perceptions.
Londoner wrote:You say 'consciousness' is also part of reality.
Yes. Conscious experiencing (aka “consciousness”) exists with certainty, and is therefore part of reality.
Londoner wrote:What is the common thing that consciousness shares with rocks, trees etc. that makes you say it is also 'real'?
Consciousness exists with certainty. Rocks and trees are the objects of consciousness, and therefore are not so certain.
Londoner wrote:Is 'consciousness' real? Or is the thing consciousness gives us a view of 'real'?
The 'experiencing-of-something' is much more certain (and less mysterious) than the 'something' itself. In other words, consciousness is real, and that (those objects) which we are conscious of (i.e. consciously view), may or may not be real.
Londoner wrote:What makes the experience 'real'?
Can you 'deny' experiencing exists? And while you are at it, can you also deny away your 'experiencing' of denying? If not, then experiencing is undeniable; absolute, ...and 'real'.
Chili wrote:This is generated by some kind of AI ? It is word salad. Who or what is experiencing?
Sorry, there is no real ‘magic’ to believe in, …there are only ‘agent-less’ auto-reactive physical bodies that interact with each other. That's all. We are no more special/magical/god-like than anything else floating around in this universe.

The end.

User avatar
JamesOfSeattle
Posts: 458
Joined: October 16th, 2015, 11:20 pm

Re: What is CTD?

Post by JamesOfSeattle » November 25th, 2017, 12:16 am

Okay, I want to take another crack at this.

RJG, you are confining the definition of consciousness to a smaller part of it than most people. Most of us (I think) consider a conscious event or experience to consist of an input and an output. The input is perceived and the output is generated in response to the input. We see this whole process as the experience. So a conscious event has an input and an output. So we consider the output to be "consciously produced", or to be a result of consciousness.

You are redefining consciousness to somehow be the recognition of the input only, completely separate from the production of the output. The problem is that recognition of input makes no sense in a context that does not include an output. There is no reason to say there was a recognition if nothing else happens. Note: memory of the input is an output.

*

Londoner
Posts: 1783
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

Re: What is CTD?

Post by Londoner » November 25th, 2017, 5:28 am

RJG wrote: Deductive logic tells us truths and falses. It tells us that married bachelors, square circles, and conscious causations are not logically possible, and therefore do not exist in reality.
No it doesn't. The things you list are not assertions of anything because they are self-contradictory (except perhaps the strange 'conscious causations'). They are the equivalent of saying 'A and not-A'. You haven't said anything, so it is neither true nor false. And true and false in logic are not the equivalent of 'real' and 'not-real'. Logic only concerns the relationship with propositions, not the propositions themselves (which is why we can substitute symbols without meanings, like 'A', for the propositions).

More importantly in this case, you say about your assertion: 'It is the logical relationships of the terms.' But your assertion concerns time. The relationship of two terms in logic is not about their sequence in time; if we say B follows A in the sense that it is entailed by it, we do not mean it follows it in time, that B comes later.

You cannot use logic to tell you anything at all about such things.
Me: However, what exactly do you think 'reality' is?
Reality is the collection of all that which exists with certainty. Certainties are that which exist independent of one’s perceptions...
But
Consciousness exists with certainty. Rocks and trees are the objects of consciousness, and therefore are not so certain....The 'experiencing-of-something' is much more certain (and less mysterious) than the 'something' itself. In other words, consciousness is real, and that (those objects) which we are conscious of (i.e. consciously view), may or may not be real.
So, we can only access whatever might be out there through our consciousness. (I cannot perceive anything independently of my perception)....

Since 'reality' is the collection of all that exists with certainty, and the objects of consciousness are not certain, then 'reality' only applies to one thing; consciousness itself.

So we have 'consciousness' which is 'reality', as distinct all the things within that consciousness, which are not. Then this presumably applies to CTD which concerns brains and other possibly unreal objects.
Me: What makes the experience 'real'?
Can you 'deny' experiencing exists? And while you are at it, can you also deny away your 'experiencing' of denying? If not, then experiencing is undeniable; absolute, ...and 'real'.
But I never just 'experience' in the abstract. I only experience things. And we have established that the things I experience are not real, so my experience cannot be 'real'.

(To put it another way, what is the test by which you determined 'experience exists'? How could it fail that test? If there is no answer, then it shows that the claim 'experience exists' is not a meaningful proposition.)

A while back you asked:
Do you believe that ‘everything’ (and I mean everything!) that one is conscious of, has already happened?
Will your own answer now be: 'No, because I do not think those things we are conscious of are necessarily real'.?

User avatar
RJG
Posts: 970
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: What is CTD?

Post by RJG » November 25th, 2017, 10:23 am

JamesOfSeattle wrote:Most of us (I think) consider a conscious event or experience to consist of an input and an output.
Then most of us consider the impossible, is possible. -- It is impossible to experience a cause/"output". We are experiential beings and can ONLY experience 'experiences'; effects/inputs. Considering otherwise is just plain "storytelling".

RJG wrote:...married bachelors, square circles, and conscious causations are not logically possible.
Londoner wrote:No it doesn't. The things you list are not assertions of anything because they are self-contradictory (except perhaps the strange 'conscious causations'). They are the equivalent of saying 'A and not-A'. You haven't said anything, so it is neither true nor false.
I am saying this -- it is not logically possible for A to be not-A -- and this is logically true.
Londoner wrote:More importantly in this case, you say about your assertion: 'It is the logical relationships of the terms.' But your assertion concerns time. The relationship of two terms in logic is not about their sequence in time; if we say B follows A in the sense that it is entailed by it, we do not mean it follows it in time, that B comes later.
I am saying this -- if A<B is true, then A>B cannot be true -- and this is logically true.
Londoner wrote:You cannot use logic to tell you anything at all about such things.
Just watch me -- If A is 'before' B, then logic tells me A cannot be 'after' B.
Londoner wrote:To put it another way, what is the test by which you determined 'experience exists'? How could it fail that test? If there is no answer, then it shows that the claim 'experience exists' is not a meaningful proposition.
"Experiencing exists" is NOT logically derived. It is an Absolute Truth. See below for definitions.
RJG wrote:
Truth hierarchy:
1. Absolute Truth -- undeniable/undoubtable (…Descartes foundation of all knowledge)
2. Objective Truth -- logically derived - via logic/math (a priori; pre-experiential)
3. Subjective Truth -- experientially derived - via subjective experiences (a posteriori; post-experiential)
4. Religious Truth -- via blind faiths
5. Non-Truth -- via logical impossibilities

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.

Objective Truths (#2) are the next highest level of ‘certainties’; these are “logically derived” via deduction. These truths are known and qualified as “logical truths”.

Subjective (#3) (“experientially derived”), and Religious (#4) truths are not trustworthy to yield ‘true’ (real; certain) knowledge. Those truths reliant upon the uncertain nature of experiential objects, or from blind faiths, can never be certain, or known as truthful.

Non-truths (#5) are not logically possible.

Londoner
Posts: 1783
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

Re: What is CTD?

Post by Londoner » November 25th, 2017, 12:29 pm

RJG wrote: Me: No it doesn't. The things you list are not assertions of anything because they are self-contradictory (except perhaps the strange 'conscious causations'). They are the equivalent of saying 'A and not-A'. You haven't said anything, so it is neither true nor false.
I am saying this -- it is not logically possible for A to be not-A -- and this is logically true.
It is neither true nor false because you have not said anything. The proposition in that formula is 'A'. Is the value of A true - or false? If we do not know, then we cannot use it in a piece of logic. Is is like a maths formula that starts 'Two - or perhaps not two' and then stops.
I am saying this -- if A<B is true, then A>B cannot be true -- and this is logically true.
That would be right, but in logic you are free to assume either of those terms are true. Logic does not tell us which is true. Logic is not concerned which are true, it is only interested in the relationship between terms, so it doesn't get us anywhere.
Me: You cannot use logic to tell you anything at all about such things.
Just watch me -- If A is 'before' B, then A cannot be 'after' B.
Or vice-versa! Which means logic has not told us anything about whether A or B is first.

Consider, if I write 'No unicorn is a camel' does this show it is 'logically true' there are such things as unicorns? Or camels? Or that there are no unicorns? Or that there are no camels? Or both? Or neither? No; it has nothing to say about the existence or otherwise of these creatures. No more that 2+2=4 shows it is mathematically true that I have four apples, or there are four angels.
"Experiencing exists" is NOT logically derived. It is an Absolute Truth. See below for definitions.

Truth hierarchy:
1. Absolute Truth -- undeniable/undoubtable (…Descartes foundation of all knowledge)
2. Objective Truth -- logically derived - via logic/math (a priori; pre-experiential)
3. Subjective Truth -- experientially derived - via subjective experiences (a posteriori; post-experiential)
4. Religious Truth -- via blind faiths
5. Non-Truth -- via logical impossibilities

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.
Except that it isn't.
Objective Truths (#2) are the next highest level of ‘certainties’; these are “logically derived” via deduction. These truths are known and qualified as “logical truths”.
And would you like to run through that logic? So far, we only have the premise that you think is certain, to do with Descartes, although you have not actually said what it is. It cannot just be 'experiencing' because that begs the question of whether what goes on in Descartes' head is an experience i.e. whether it relates to anything outside itself. Descartes cannot even know whether he exists, since all we have is one thought.

If you are going to get any further at all you are going to need some additional Absolute Truth(s). Are you going to follow Descartes and say one of them is God? And why will they be 'undeniable/undoubtable'? In fact you say yourself, God is only category 4:
Subjective (#3) (“experientially derived”), and Religious (#4) truths are not trustworthy to yield ‘true’ (real; certain) knowledge. Those truths reliant upon the uncertain nature of experiential objects, or from blind faiths, can never be certain, or known as truthful.
So you have already lost Descartes.
Non-truths (#5) are not logically possible.
We have done 'logically possible'.

But before getting sidetracked onto Descartes, let us review where we are regarding the topic of this thread. You say the only certain truth is our subjective experience of consciousness; experiential truths are distinctly iffy. In that case, where does it leave CTD, which is not only experiential but (being scientific) depends on a metaphysic that would be right down in category 4.

At this point, your notion of experience/consciousness is utterly subjective, it is next door to solipsism. As such it has lost all connection with brains, synapses and the rest. The discussion could have gone the opposite way, in which experience/consciousness was seen as entirely a matter of brains and synapses and we were denying the existence of subjective experience at all. CTD was meant to be a bridge between the two, so whichever of these paths we had taken, we would have ended up where we are now - denying that this bridge is resting on anything at one end.

User avatar
RJG
Posts: 970
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: What is CTD?

Post by RJG » November 25th, 2017, 7:27 pm

RJG wrote:
Londoner wrote:You cannot use logic to tell you anything at all about such things.
Just watch me -- If A is 'before' B, then logic tells me A cannot be 'after' B.
Londoner wrote:Or vice-versa! Which means logic has not told us anything about whether A or B is first.
You failed miserably! :D - you failed to see the "If" in this if/then statement.

Londoner wrote:And would you like to run through that logic? So far, we only have the premise that you think is certain, to do with Descartes, although you have not actually said what it is.
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.

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:It cannot just be 'experiencing' because that begs the question of whether what goes on in Descartes' head is an experience i.e. whether it relates to anything outside itself. Descartes cannot even know whether he exists, since all we have is one thought.
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.

Again, if this starting premise is to serve as 'seed' for all true knowledge, then it has to be absolutely undoubtably certain. Descartes's "I think…" does not meet this level of certainty.

Londoner wrote:If you are going to get any further at all you are going to need some additional Absolute Truth(s).
Not so. There can only be ONE 'starting seed'.

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.

Londoner wrote:So you have already lost Descartes.
I hope so! ...I don't wish to fail, as he has done.

Londoner wrote:...let us review where we are regarding the topic of this thread.
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!).
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!)

Post Reply