RJG wrote: ↑November 24th, 2018, 2:27 pm
RJG wrote:To Fooloso4 et al -- It is impossible to think; pre-select our thoughts. If we pre-selected our thoughts, we would have to think to do so. But then those thoughts 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 would ever be selected. So, no, we cannot pre-select our thoughts; we cannot "think". We can only 'experience' the thoughts given to us (those that pop into our awareness).
ktz wrote:If you actually went and watched the Anil Seth and Susan Greenfield videos I supplied previously, they provide what I find to be a reasonable explanation for this Zeno's paradox-like construct you are trying to make here.
Sorry, ktz, this argument is straightforward. There is no "zeno like paradox" here. There only seems to be a 'dislike' (and subsequent rejection, based on its dislike) of the conclusion.
If you see a flaw in the logic above, then please point it out. Otherwise name-calling something as "zeno-like", and suggesting that one go elsewhere for the answer, are common avoidance techniques by those who refuse to accept that which they don't 'like'.
If you don't know what Zeno's paradox is it might be a good idea of getting in the habit of typing unknown ideas into Google, or asking a straightforward question like "What's Zeno's paradox?" instead of making assumptions of ill will. I'm not trying to obfuscate anything. The logical case you made was similar to a known set of problems in philosophy called Zeno's paradoxes. There's a wikipedia article that a person willing to learn could visit here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes
Basically, Zeno's paradoxes describe situations where one believes that there is an infinite chain of events that makes a certain result paradoxical. For example, you can say that because there always exists a halfway point. between a starting point and ending point, someone can never walk from start to finish because between every two points there will always be another halfway point before getting there. This is obviously false, because we have all had the experience of walking from an arbitrary point A to a point B, and modern mathematical calculus (unavailable to Zeno) explains how the limit of the halving function x/2 approaches zero.
Anyway, the counter-example to your logic is fairly simple. You are making the case that it is paradoxical for a thought to precede itself. This is basically a chicken-or-the-egg argument, which is similar to infinite recursion of Zeno's paradoxes. Can I make a reference to the chicken and the egg without being accused of obfuscation? By saying that the experience of a thought must precede the cause of a thought, basically you're saying that you can't have chickens because in order to have a chicken you must have had an egg, but in order to have an egg you must have had a chicken. This is a fallacious argument, not least because we do have chickens and we do have eggs in real life. In this particular context, I have provided to you the available arguments of psychologist Susan Blackmore citing philosopher of science Dan Dennett, as well as the perspectives of Greenfield and Seth to try and assist you in expanding your understanding of how thought happens. Essentially, your brain is composed of smaller units called neurons. Each neuron is capable of performing an action potential, a choice to fire or not fire. Collections of neurons operate together to send signals to each other which compose thought. I give the example of breathing, normally a subconscious activity, but one that you can direct your consciousness towards. Because neurons can independently formulate signals a priori to our experience of the signals themselves, below the threshhold of neuron activity required for consciousness or memory imprints, your argument is flawed that one must be aware of a thought before one can experience that thought.
It's okay to be out of your depth! I know it can be uncomfortable. But to learn and receive the answers you must be willing to educate yourself via the ideas of others by reading their books and watching them speak. If you are unwilling to educate yourself and look outside your own direct lines of thinking, and only wait for others to deliver answers to you on a silver platter, you will always be fettered by the limitations of your own creativity and the patience of other forum-goers. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest to someone seeking the answer to a question that they ought to visit the place where the answer is located. If someone asks me what two plus two is, I don't think it's right for them to say I'm wrong when I give the answer just because hey wait they had never learned about the number four before and can I really define what four is so that I can prove four is what four means.
ktz wrote:The experience of consciousness occurs on a spectrum, with a certain threshhold of activity pushing a thought into our experience.
Although I agree consciousness is an experience (i.e. the specific experience of 'recognition', of one's bodily experiences/reactions, made possible by memory), but can one actually experience consciousness, or is it more correct to state that one is only conscious of their experiences (conscious of their bodily reactions)?
How do you define consciousness?
In this particular case, I am using the term consciousness as the conscious subjective awareness of a thought or sensory experience that you tried to craft your argument for. In the video I linked, Greenfield addresses the difficulty of an operational definition of consciousness because of its nature. Normally, definitions operate in a number of ways like, for example, an appeal to a higher set. A cat is an animal with four legs. A computer is a type of electronic machine. But consciousness is a... ???
So, in order to definte consciousness, Seth and Greenfield and other neuroscientists essentially begin with the same definition as you, the subjective experience of consciousness, but then use FMRI readings of brain activity to identify the requisite amount of neuronal activity required to define consciousness. This allows them to apply their definition of consciousness to vegetative patients who normally would not be able to indicate their subjective experience of consciousness or lack of consciousness in traditional methods. I strongly suggest if you actually want to learn the answer to the questions you are asking to try watching the videos I linked to previously, because the full breadth of their arguments contains pictures and diagrams that assist with the learning process that would be difficult for me to recreate here. Basically, Greenfield's definition is based on FMRI measurements of patients who subjectively indicate or contraindicate a conscious experience. She correlates the FMRI activity of patients subjectively experiencing consciousness to non-localized collections of neurons she calls "neuronal assemblies" to create an operational definition of consciousness.
ktz wrote:Do you want to give me an example of a premise or contention that one of these writers hold with regard to a priori truth and experience that indicates this flawed belief?
Better yet, why not provide me a proof (by anyone!), that "thinking" (consciously authoring one's own thoughts) is logically possible. Hint: X<X is not logically possible.
Seriously, I would love to be proved wrong, (...no one, including me, wants to belie in an ugly truth). But, if you fail (as I suspect), and you ultimately realize that X<X is logically impossible (i.e. that thoughts cannot precede themselves to cause themselves), then I'll humbly accept your apology for the "being a bit grandiose" and "an excuse to discount the validity of others" derogatory comments.
I'm rooting for you. Prove away!
[/quote]
These are hard problems with complicated answers. Answer me honestly, do you consider yourself willing to do the work required to reach the requisite level of understanding to approach these problems? If you can cite no one and seek to understand no one's thinking outside of your own, why should anyone take seriously your desire to find real answers?
You may have a heart of gold, but so does a hard-boiled egg.
