The Logical Implication of 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.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

The Logical Implication of CTD

Post by RJG »

*********************************

THE LOGICAL IMPLICATION OF CTD

The ultimate goal in philosophical debate and discussion is to arrive at objective truth; logical certainty. This is done by reducing these discussions to logical statements that can then be mathematically (deductively) derived as true or false. This paper is written mostly from the perspective of logic; utilizing the axioms of Simple Logic.[1]

The existence of CTD is known by many in the science community, but its monstrous logical implication stays hidden away from plain view. This paper starts first by reviewing CTD, then secondly exposing its hidden logical implication, and then finally reviewing and refuting some of the attempted objections of this new found logical truth.


What is CTD?
  • “The important thing to understand about the moment NOW is that it is actually the moment THEN. You can only experience something that has already happened, so essentially you're living in the wake of your own past.”
This quote by an Australian philosopher[2] pretty much sums up all that we need to know about CTD. But to add a bit more clarity - CTD is Conscious Time Delay. It is the delay in time between that which happens in reality (in real-time), and that which happens in the conscious mind of the observer (in conscious-time). More specifically, it is the time delay from an event happening in reality to the conscious realization of that event.

Most of us feel that we experience reality ‘as’ it is happening. We feel that our present conscious experiences are in sync with the present happenings of reality. But because of CTD, everything that we are presently conscious of, are of past events. For example, when we see a car traveling down the road at 40 mph, we fully assume this car to be precisely where we see it, when in reality, it is probably at least 11 feet (3.5 meters) in front of where our eyes tell us.[3]
  • The reality that we are conscious of, is long gone by the time we become conscious of it.
There are at least 3 factors that contribute to CTD: transmission, translation, and recognition. Using the car example above, 1) the transmission delay is the time it takes for light waves to bounce off the object (car) and enter into the eyes of the observer, 2) the translation delay is the time it takes for the conversion of these light waves into the electrical signals and patterns that the brain can then understand, and finally, the most significant is 3) the recognition delay is the time it takes to match these signals/patterns to corresponding memory patterns so as to then know what one experiences. Science tells us that the conscious recognition of our bodily experiences (sensory and neural reactions) will take a minimum of 200 milliseconds and possibly up to 0.5 seconds (or more).[4]
  • In essence, CTD is the time that it takes to KNOW what our body is physically experiencing.
Important Note:
The amount of time delay is irrelevant to this discussion. It is the existence of the time delay itself that matters. In other words, it doesn’t matter if the time delay were only .00000000001 milliseconds, or 100 seconds long, the logical implication of CTD still holds true.

To help better understand CTD -- imagine watching a “live-broadcasted” sporting event on TV. We believe that what we are seeing (on the TV) is actually happening in real-time, but due to network transmission delays of up to 7 seconds, our present view actually consists of past events. While we may see the batter on TV going through his warm-up swings, but back at Fenway Park, in so-called “real-time”, he has already hit a home run, ...we just don’t know it yet.

We view live sporting events through the time-delayed view of our TV. And likewise, we view reality through the time-delayed view of consciousness. ...this being our only access (view) to reality.

Logically:
  • P1. Instantaneous detection/sensing etc. is not logically (nor scientifically) possible. This includes human conscious experiencing (sensing, detecting, translating, and the interpreting involved in the conscious recognition of sensory and neural activity). A time delay is an unavoidable fact.
    P2. None of our conscious processes or events are exempt from this time delay, as ALL processes and events consume time.
    C1. Therefore, EVERYTHING that we are conscious of, has already happened; are of past events.
CTD is the inevitable and unavoidable time delay occurring between an event happening in reality [X] and the conscious realization of that event [consciousness-of-X].

To conclude this section with a spooky but true "Twilight Zone" moment...

When you get off work today and walk across the parking lot to your car, know that your real body (the one existing in reality), is probably at least 10 inches (26 cm) out in front of you.[5] And if it were possible to see the real you, then you would see the back of your own head. ...spooky? ...yes.

And then when you reach for the car door handle, your real hand has already opened the door. ...again, spooky, ...but true!


The Logical Implication

Although CTD itself is understandable and obvious to many of us, its monstrous implication is not so understandable, nor obvious. The logical implication of CTD is that conscious-causation is a logical impossibility.

Because of CTD, we are, in effect, being ‘fed’ our conscious experiences. That which happens, necessarily happens. This logical conclusion is a bit chilling, as it destroys any viability of conscious control (i.e., conscious-causation; free-will; mental causation, etc.) or any form or notion of consciously doing anything.
  • So, contrary to popular belief - We don’t consciously do anything, ...we are only conscious of what we’ve done.
To help better understand, imagine watching a video today of what you did yesterday. Is there anything you can do now to change that which you see? No, of course not, everything we are viewing are of past events; they have already happened; they have already been done.

A CTD value of any amount, whether 24 hours long as illustrated above, or a fraction of a millisecond, yields the same logical implication - the logical impossibility of conscious-causation; the logical impossibility of consciously doing anything.
  • Everything we are conscious of, are of past events.
The logic is very clear and simple. We can’t cause, control, or change a past event; after it has already happened; after it has already been caused. What is done is done.
  • P1. EVERYTHING we are conscious of, are of past events.
    P2. Past events are unchangeable.
    C1. Therefore, EVERYTHING we are conscious of, is unchangeable.
Again, the logic (above) is very simple and straightforward. Its conclusion is sound and irrefutable. Below is another syllogism, showing again the logical impossibility of conscious-causation, but from a slightly different perspective:
  • P1. The consciousness -of-X follows (comes after) X. [Consciousness>X]
    P2. The causation -of-X precedes (comes before) X. [Causation<X]
    C1. Therefore, the before-after terms defeat themself, thereby rendering “conscious-causation” as a simple oxymoron on par with “married bachelors” and “square circles”.
Nothing is more objectively certain in all of reality than that of a logical impossibility. In this case, X=~X is a logical impossibility; we can’t come before (and cause) that which we come after (are conscious of). Since no amount of empirical evidence could ever overturn, or make this (or any logical impossibility), a possibility, then conscious-causation (e.g., conscious control; free-will) is hereby demoted to the ranks of myths and illusions.


Objections
  • P1. CTD exists - everything we are conscious of, are of past events.
    P2. Past events are unchangeable.
    C1. Therefore, everything we are conscious of, is unchangeable.
    P3. Unchangeable events cannot be caused to change.
    C2. Therefore, conscious-causation is logically impossible.
To disprove a logical truth, one must first show a flawed (untrue) premise statement and/or an invalid logic structure. If the premises are true, and the structure is mathematically valid, then the conclusion is logically sound; logically true; objectively true. Attempts to disprove “the logical impossibility of conscious-causation” include:

1. Invalidate ‘logic’ itself. Deny that logic provides truth.

This claim defeats itself. This is a futile argument because any (logical) argument that tries to defeat logic, only defeats itself (the argument). And any illogical argument that tries to defeat logic defeats nothing. For if we argue that logic is invalid, then we only invalidate our own argument. We cut off the very legs upon which we make our stand.

2. Claim P1 is false. Claim that we can be conscious of future events via intentions, goal planning, etc.

This claim is mistaking the “map” for the “territory”. It is only our “thoughts” (of these future events) that we are actually conscious of, not actual “future events” themselves. Much like when reading a book about “future events” does not mean that we are actually seeing “future events”. We are only seeing (the pre-existing) “words” in the book whose content is about “future events”. And likewise, being conscious of thoughts or feelings about future events does not mean that one is actually conscious of future events. It is only the (pre-existing) thought/feeling (bodily experience) that one is actually conscious of.

******
Additional comments:
When we are conscious, we are only conscious of bodily experiences (e.g. thoughts[6], feelings, and sensory experiences), which in turn are supposedly caused by real objects or events (within or outside the body). These bodily experiences are the content of our consciousness and are undeniably real, as there can be nothing more real in all of reality, than our own experiences.[7] Whereas the objects that are represented in these experiences are not-certain; they may be real, or they may be not-real (fictitious; illusionary; imaginary; delusional; hallucinal; dream, etc.).

For example, sitting at my desk in my room, when I look outside my window, I am conscious of the sight of a tree, and when I look inside around my room, I am conscious of the sight of a ghost flying about. Since I am only privy to my bodily experiences and nothing more (i.e. not to the causal source of these experiences, nor to the actual objects that are represented in these experiences), the ghost himself may actually be real, and the tree herself may actually be not-real (or vice-versa, or other). In any case, both are not-certain. The certainty lies in the visual experience itself; it is the sight of the ghost and the sight of the tree that are undeniably real and certain, whereas the objects (ghost/tree) represented within these experiences are not-certain; i.e., they may be real or not-real.

Important Notes:
Without something to be conscious of, there can be no consciousness. One cannot be conscious of nothing. -- Much like with reading: without something to read, there can be no reading. One cannot be reading of nothing.

Without X, there can be no consciousness (-of-X).
Without words, there can be no reading (-of-words).

The "something" [X] that we are conscious of, are “bodily experiences”. Without pre-existing bodily experiences, there can be no consciousness [consciousness-of-X]. The consciousness of these bodily experiences naturally follows (comes after) the existence of these bodily experiences. -- Again, much like with reading: without pre-existing words there can be no reading. The reading of words naturally follows (comes after) the existence of these words.

Consciousness is contingent upon the pre-existence of bodily experiences.
…as is reading is contingent upon the pre-existence of words.

Interesting Side Notes
:
1. Although another topic altogether, consciousness itself can only logically be another bodily experience. This is not to say that we can be conscious of consciousness, as that would be logically impossible. More particularly, consciousness is the singular bodily experience of recognition, made possible by memory. For it is recognition that converts a non-conscious bodily experience into a conscious experience, that we then call “consciousness”.

2. In one respect, consciousness could be viewed as the memory playback of the most recent bodily experiences. And it is because of this memory playback, that we experience consciousness in moments rather than in discrete points. To help better understand, imagine being a smaller version of our self, sitting backwards in a backpack on the back of our larger real-self. This is our “window seat” (our conscious view) of reality. And as our real-self moves forward in time through reality, we not only experience the most recent past experience, but also (with a little less clarity) the previous past experiences, thereby creating our conscious moments; i.e., the appearance of duration within our conscious experiences.

3. This imagination illustration above is not to imply that a conscious self exists within a real self. This is not logically possible. It is to imply that a body experiences many bodily reactions (bodily experiences), including that of recognition, that we call “consciousness”.

And now back to the Objections…

3. Claim P1 is false.
Claim that our conscious processes occur instantaneously, or claim that our consciousness of an event in reality is simultaneous with that event, or claim that the content of one’s consciousness is consciousness itself; i.e., it is just a particular mental representational state, and therefore has no time lag whatsoever.

Firstly, an “instantaneous process” is itself an oxymoron and therefore logically impossible. Processes consume time, and instantaneous means no-time. X=~X is a logical impossibility.

Secondly, occurring “simultaneously” requires “instantaneous processing” (instantaneous sensing/detecting), which again is logically impossible.

Thirdly, even if there were no time delay whatsoever, or the CTD value was effectively zero, conscious-causation would still be logically impossible. Even if we assume the false premise P1 below is true, the conclusion is still the same; conscious-causation is still logically impossible.
  • P1. The consciousness (-of-X) occurs simultaneously with (or is) X.
    C1. Therefore, consciousness does not precede X.
    C2. Therefore, consciousness cannot cause X.
    C3. Therefore, conscious-causation is logically impossible.
The consciousness-of-X would have to precede X in order to cause it, which of course is impossible.
  • "Once one becomes conscious of something, then it is too late to cause this something!”
  • P1. One can’t be conscious of something if there is no something yet to be conscious of.
    P2. And… once one becomes conscious of something, then it is too late to cause this something!
    C1. Therefore, even if CTD = 0 (or does not exist) conscious-causation is still logically impossible. X<X is logically impossible; one cannot be conscious of something before one is conscious of it!
4. Claim P1 is false. Claim that if CTD were true, we would be unable to play tennis or hit a fast-pitched baseball as the ball in both cases would be in a different spatial location than our conscious perception tells us.

This claim makes the mistake of assuming that our bodies operate (act/react) consciously. Our real bodies act/react in real-time, …and it is these bodily experiences (bodily reactions/sensations) that we consciously realize CTD seconds after they happen. Using the baseball scenario and assuming a 200 millisecond CTD, here is what the unfolding of the events would look like:
  • @t=0
    In Reality: pitcher releases the ball towards the plate.
    Conscious batter: sees the pitcher start his motion.

    @ t=200 ms
    In Reality: ball is 1/3 of the way to the plate.
    Conscious batter: sees the pitcher release the ball towards the plate.

    @ t=400 ms
    In Reality: ball is 2/3 of the way to the plate, the batter begins his swing.
    Conscious batter: sees the ball at 1/3 of the way to the plate

    @ t=600 ms
    In Reality: batter hits the ball.
    Conscious batter: sees the ball at 2/3 of the way to the plate and begins his swing.

    @ t=800 ms
    In Reality: ball goes over the fence; home run.
    Conscious batter: hits the ball.
Although reality leads consciousness (by 200 ms in this case) there is no added difficulty in hitting the ball because the speed/time of the ball (from pitcher to plate) is the same in both the conscious time and real time. The body reacts; responding to stimuli as it has been trained/conditioned to do so, and then 200 ms later, the body is then conscious of that particular bodily reaction.

5. Claim P1 is false. Claim that the “past” does not exist. Claim that real time does not exist therefore before-and-after conditions do not exist.

Much like Objection #3, this claim does not help defeat, but instead only reinforces, the logical impossibility of conscious-causation. If time, and before-and-after states of existence (sequential events) did not exist, then there could be no causation whatsoever. There could be nothing that precedes something else to cause it. There could be no cause-and-effect. Without time, conscious-causation would still be logically impossible.

6. Claim that C2 is false despite the trueness of its premises. Claim that our present consciousness (of a past event) is an event itself which then can have a causal effect on a future event, thereby making conscious-causation possible.

Firstly, since we can’t consciously cause something that we are conscious of, we certainly cannot consciously cause something that we are not-conscious of.

Secondly, for a conscious event to have a causal effect on a real-time event, it must occur before (i.e., in the future of) the real-time event. But since all conscious events themselves occur after the happenings of real time events, they therefore cannot have a causal effect on the happening of any real time event. In other words, there can never be a point in time where consciousness catches up to (and passes) reality to ever have a causal effect on it.

Side Note:
There exist two “nows”; the “now” happening in reality, and the “now” happening in our present conscious experiences. The conscious “now” lags the real “now” by the CTD value.

CTD Timeline - small.JPG
CTD Timeline - small.JPG (10.37 KiB) Viewed 3273 times


7. Claim that C2 is false because we can obviously consciously cause the lifting of our own arm whenever we want to, thereby making conscious-causation possible.

This claim puts the cart in front of the horse. One can’t be conscious-of-a-want without their first being a want to be conscious of. The want (desire; will) comes before (not after!) the consciousness-of-the-want. X always precedes the consciousness-of-the-X.

Logically, and contrary to popular belief, we don’t/can’t consciously cause our own wants, but instead, it is our wants that cause us to do as we do. If we are conscious of the want to raise our arm, then this want (a bodily experience; urge) existed prior to our consciousness of this want. And if we see and feel our arm raising upwards, we only know this after (not before!) the associative bodily experiences happened; i.e., the occurrence of visual and proprioception sensations.

Interesting sidenote:
The philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer also recognized the logical impossibility of causing our own wants as he correctly states:
  • “Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.”
This means that although our wants dictate our actions, we can’t (consciously) dictate our own wants. Since it is logically impossible [X<X] to “want what we want” (without a preceding want to do so!), it is therefore, our wants that control us, and not the other way around, as we (many of us) have falsely been indoctrinated to believe.


Conclusion and Other Logical Implications

To conclude, because of CTD, our conscious view of reality is just a “window seat to the past”, therefore, conscious-causation is logically impossible. We cannot “consciously do” anything because everything we are conscious of has already been “done”; has already happened; has already been caused. And what is done is done.

This conclusion also leads to other logical truths, including:
1. The inability (impossibility) to consciously think our own thoughts - we can’t consciously think (cause/create/author/script) our own thoughts; we are only conscious of the thoughts that have already been created/scripted for us.

2. The inability (impossibility) to consciously move our bodies about - we can’t consciously cause our bodies to move about; we are only conscious of our bodies moving about.

3. The inability (impossibility) to consciously intend or desire anything - we can’t consciously cause our intentions or desires; we are only conscious of our intentions and desires.

Also, many benefits can be gained by understanding and accepting CTD and its logical implications. For example, one interesting benefit of understanding CTD, might be improved teaching and training methods in our schools and sports, where current methods rely heavily (and falsely) on consciousness as a means of teaching/training. Because of CTD, our response to any-and-all given situations (stimuli) are determined by our pre-conditionings, and NOT by our consciousness of the stimuli. In other words, we don’t consciously cause a particular response (to a given stimuli), we are only conscious of the particular response we (our body) made. Consciousness has no causal role in the body’s reaction/response to any given stimuli. The acceptance of this realization, by those in our education system, could have a profound effect on the learning efficiency and capacity of our students.

And to conclude, with one more benefit example of understanding CTD and its logical implications, is that our view of others will soften. For example, we will less likely judge a person by their “bad” behavior. We will instead, recognize that they, like us, are only conscious of their bodily actions (good, bad, or ugly), and are not the conscious controllers of these actions. Therefore, we will find ourselves becoming more empathetic towards others, and particularly to those who are trapped in disadvantaged positions in reality.

Final comment: If we, as a society, truly desire to move forward in increasing our knowledge of reality, then the acceptance of the impossibility of conscious-causation is a critical threshold to cross. Crossing this threshold may be impossible to most of us, since it is our desires (which we have no conscious say-so over) that ultimately dictate our actions. If the desire for true knowledge exceeds the desire to not relinquish our (imaginary) conscious power, then we can cross this threshold and move forward onto new truths, otherwise we will continue believing as we want.


*******
Footnotes:
1. The axioms of Simple Logic:
  • X=X is true
    X=~X is logically impossible (i.e. something can’t be what it is not)
    X<X is logically impossible (i.e. something can’t exist/happen before it exists/happens)
2. Quote by Obvious Leo. “Obvious Leo” is the moniker of a recently deceased anonymous Australian philosopher.
3. 11 feet is based on a CTD value of 200 milliseconds (40 mph = 58.7 fps; 58.7 x 0.2 = 11.7 feet)
4. There are probably many hundreds of scientific articles written in regards to conscious time delay, including the famous Benjamin Libet experiments. Most of them agree with the 200 - 500 millisecond range of CTD. One example is Velmans, M. (1993) British Journal of Psychology 90(4), 543-566. When Perception becomes Conscious -- http://cogprints.org/838/1/BJP2web.html
5. 10 inches is based on a CTD value of 200 milliseconds, at normal walking speed of 3 mph (3 mph = 52.8 ips; 52.8 x 0.2 = 10.6 inches).
6. Technically, thoughts are sensory experiences. They are a composition of sensory experiences compiled by the rules of one’s language, and therefore fall into the category of sensory experiences. Therefore, Feelings (emotions, urges, etc.) and Sensory experiences encompass all our bodily experiences. The subtle difference being these two types of bodily experiences may be the outwardly felt (feelings) and the inwardly sensed (sensory experiences). Nonetheless, both are bodily sensations; bodily experiences.
7. Experiencing/experiences are undeniably real as they are logically impossible to doubt or deny. For any experiencing of doubt/denial only affirms its existence. There can be nothing more absolutely certain and real than one’s own experiences. Even idealists cannot deny its realness!
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: The Logical Implication of CTD

Post by Count Lucanor »

RJG wrote: February 28th, 2021, 6:53 am The Logical Implication

Although CTD itself is understandable and obvious to many of us, its monstrous implication is not so understandable, nor obvious. The logical implication of CTD is that conscious-causation is a logical impossibility.

Because of CTD, we are, in effect, being ‘fed’ our conscious experiences. That which happens, necessarily happens. This logical conclusion is a bit chilling, as it destroys any viability of conscious control (i.e., conscious-causation; free-will; mental causation, etc.) or any form or notion of consciously doing anything.
  • So, contrary to popular belief - We don’t consciously do anything, ...we are only conscious of what we’ve done.
To help better understand, imagine watching a video today of what you did yesterday. Is there anything you can do now to change that which you see? No, of course not, everything we are viewing are of past events; they have already happened; they have already been done.
I became aware that I swung my arm yesterday, while holding a bat, which caused that a baseball in the air, coming towards me, was hit and sent deep into left field. I might think I didn't intentionally cause that event, but today, I became conscious that I desired to repeat the experience, and so, I became conscious that I went to the same place, held a bat and asked someone to send me a baseball, which I hit and sent again deep into left field. Something happened as I was planning because I desired it and produced the conditions for it to happen. In what way I didn't consciously cause this event, regardless of any lag between the actions and my awareness of them happening? If an action of mine can have effects on things, the effects of my planned actions were consciously caused by me.
RJG wrote: February 28th, 2021, 6:53 am 6. Claim that C2 is false despite the trueness of its premises. Claim that our present consciousness (of a past event) is an event itself which then can have a causal effect on a future event, thereby making conscious-causation possible.

Firstly, since we can’t consciously cause something that we are conscious of, we certainly cannot consciously cause something that we are not-conscious of.
This is evidently false. What determines whether a conscious agent caused something or not is not their own awareness of the event being caused. If I hit the baseball, it is irrelevant that it was an automated action that I became aware of after the action took place. I still caused the hitting of the baseball, in the same sense that an asteroid hitting the Earth causes damage where it hits. No consciousness involved, yet plenty of causation. But that's different from consciously causing the event, which is what happens when I plan the future actions for future events, based on the experiences of past events.
RJG wrote: February 28th, 2021, 6:53 am Secondly, for a conscious event to have a causal effect on a real-time event, it must occur before (i.e., in the future of) the real-time event. But since all conscious events themselves occur after the happenings of real time events, they therefore cannot have a causal effect on the happening of any real time event. In other words, there can never be a point in time where consciousness catches up to (and passes) reality to ever have a causal effect on it.
The issue here is constant conjunction of events: if whenever one occurs, the other does too, then they are constantly conjoined and this is the notion of causation. If my desire to hit the baseball with a bat, based on my past experiences of the constant conjunction of events (the swinging of a bat and its hitting of a baseball), ended up in actually hitting the baseball with a bat, then I consciously caused this event. My actions (independently of my awareness of them) caused the event, and I consciously chose those actions before the actual actions and the actual events.
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: The Logical Implication of CTD

Post by RJG »

Count Lucanor wrote:I became aware that I swung my arm yesterday, while holding a bat, which caused that a baseball in the air, coming towards me, was hit and sent deep into left field. I might think I didn't intentionally cause that event, but today, I became conscious that I desired
So if you became "conscious of your desire", then what came first, the "desire", or the "consciousness-of-the desire"? In other words what comes first, the X, or the consciousness-of-X?

The answer is X (the desire). We can't be conscious of something without there first being something to be conscious of. And once we are conscious of that something, then it is too late to cause this something.

RJG wrote:Firstly, since we can’t consciously cause something that we are conscious of, we certainly cannot consciously cause something that we are not-conscious of.
Count Lucanor wrote:This is evidently false. What determines whether a conscious agent caused something or not is not their own awareness of the event being caused. If I hit the baseball, it is irrelevant that it was an automated action that I became aware of after the action took place. I still caused the hitting of the baseball, in the same sense that an asteroid hitting the Earth causes damage where it hits.
Logically, if you were not-conscious of causing something then you did not consciously cause it.

Count Lucanor wrote:No consciousness involved, yet plenty of causation. But that's different from consciously causing the event, which is what happens when I plan the future actions for future events, based on the experiences of past events.
See Objection # 2:
RJG wrote:2. Claim P1 is false. Claim that we can be conscious of future events via intentions, goal planning, etc.

This claim is mistaking the “map” for the “territory”. It is only our “thoughts” (of these future events) that we are actually conscious of, not actual “future events” themselves. Much like when reading a book about “future events” does not mean that we are actually seeing “future events”. We are only seeing (the pre-existing) “words” in the book whose content is about “future events”. And likewise, being conscious of thoughts or feelings about future events does not mean that one is actually conscious of future events. It is only the (pre-existing) thought/feeling (bodily experience) that one is actually conscious of.
*

RJG wrote:Secondly, for a conscious event to have a causal effect on a real-time event, it must occur before (i.e., in the future of) the real-time event. But since all conscious events themselves occur after the happenings of real time events, they therefore cannot have a causal effect on the happening of any real time event. In other words, there can never be a point in time where consciousness catches up to (and passes) reality to ever have a causal effect on it.
Count Lucanor wrote:The issue here is constant conjunction of events: if whenever one occurs, the other does too, then they are constantly conjoined and this is the notion of causation.
Agreed. Causation is the 'before' event which leads to the present event. BUT the consciousness of the event is always 'after' the event. Hence, the impossibility of consciously causing anything. (i.e. causation occurs 'before', and consciousness occurs 'after').

CTD Timeline - small.JPG
CTD Timeline - small.JPG (10.37 KiB) Viewed 3217 times

*
Count Lucanor wrote:If my desire to hit the baseball with a bat, based on my past experiences of the constant conjunction of events (the swinging of a bat and its hitting of a baseball), ended up in actually hitting the baseball with a bat, then I consciously caused this event.
What exactly did you "consciously cause"? Everything you are conscious of has already happened. You can't be conscious of something without there first being something to be conscious of. And if it existed/happened before you were conscious of it, then how could you have possibly consciously caused it?

Count Lucanor wrote:My actions (independently of my awareness of them) caused the event…
Agreed.

Count Lucanor wrote:...and I consciously chose those actions before the actual actions and the actual events.
Not possible. If you were conscious of the choosing, then the choosing occurred before the consciousness-of-the-choosing. X precedes the consciousness-of-X. "Consciously choosing" is therefore logically impossible.
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5765
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Re: The Logical Implication of CTD

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

The brain hallucinates the reality one consciously perceives, like a waking dream. We are each undeniably in a VR-like pseudo-reality, one with Newtonian-like time and solid objects that appear to made of particles, which themselves exist at a point, or blob of points, in a universal space and a universal time. Time is at least mostly an illusion, but so is most of what we consider "this world", meaning the VR-world our brain creates for our avatar from inside a dark quiet skull.

The brain predicts the future.

Many optical illusions that themselves in part reveal the ideas forming the basis of CTD are generated the result of conscious experience being too far in the future.

Sometimes is not that we experiencing something that has already happened, but rather that we are experiencing something that hasn't yet happened. Sometimes we are not living in the very recent past but in the very near future. However, in all cases, we are never really experiencing something that ever did happen or ever will. It's more of a waking dream, not real in the absolute sense of the word.

CTD explains why sometimes we can seem to travel back slightly to the past, such as with certain optical illusions. Consciously, we are in the future.

However, quantum mechanics has revealed that causality is not one-way, and the arrow of time seems to be a relative construct of a VR-like dream-world that the brain creates, not an aspect of fundamental reality. The past can (and does) exist in a superposition of multiple possibilities.

It can not be safely said that we are a product of the past, just like it cannot safely be said that we are product of the future. Rather, the conscious present is absolutely real, but past-ness and future-ness are only at best relatively real (and thus doubtable, meaning the past may not even exist, e.g. The Matrix could have just turned on). They are products of us, at least in part. Past-ness and future-ness require the conscious present to have meaning and reality, as they are relative presence-dependent constructs of a conscious observer in a here and now. In other words, there is no universal now. Now is an aspect of conscious presence. We bring the now. There is no present and thus no time without us (the observer), and time is just a relative construct relative to us and our presence. Some even use the word presence--and by extension the present--as a synonym for consciousness.
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: The Logical Implication of CTD

Post by Count Lucanor »

RJG wrote: February 28th, 2021, 10:22 pm
Count Lucanor wrote:I became aware that I swung my arm yesterday, while holding a bat, which caused that a baseball in the air, coming towards me, was hit and sent deep into left field. I might think I didn't intentionally cause that event, but today, I became conscious that I desired
So if you became "conscious of your desire", then what came first, the "desire", or the "consciousness-of-the desire"? In other words what comes first, the X, or the consciousness-of-X?

The answer is X (the desire). We can't be conscious of something without there first being something to be conscious of. And once we are conscious of that something, then it is too late to cause this something.
I'm playing your game. I don't hold for a minute the idea that my desire came before my awareness of my desire, but I'm willing to let you go away with this, because it can then be shown that the logical consequences are not the ones you propose.

RJG wrote:Firstly, since we can’t consciously cause something that we are conscious of, we certainly cannot consciously cause something that we are not-conscious of.
Count Lucanor wrote:This is evidently false. What determines whether a conscious agent caused something or not is not their own awareness of the event being caused. If I hit the baseball, it is irrelevant that it was an automated action that I became aware of after the action took place. I still caused the hitting of the baseball, in the same sense that an asteroid hitting the Earth causes damage where it hits.
Logically, if you were not-conscious of causing something then you did not consciously cause it.
A conscious agent causes something. It is irrelevant at this point whether the agent was conscious of his own intention to cause the event before or after the event. But once the experience is over and the agent can learn from it, he can use the information to plan future experiences and accommodate his actions so that events are caused as desired. You have been assuming that an agent can only become conscious of the will to act at the immediacy of the moment the action is taking place, but that's obviously a false assumption. I had the intention to swing the bat way before I started swinging.
RJG wrote:
Count Lucanor wrote:No consciousness involved, yet plenty of causation. But that's different from consciously causing the event, which is what happens when I plan the future actions for future events, based on the experiences of past events.
See Objection # 2:
RJG wrote:2. Claim P1 is false. Claim that we can be conscious of future events via intentions, goal planning, etc.

This claim is mistaking the “map” for the “territory”. It is only our “thoughts” (of these future events) that we are actually conscious of, not actual “future events” themselves. Much like when reading a book about “future events” does not mean that we are actually seeing “future events”. We are only seeing (the pre-existing) “words” in the book whose content is about “future events”. And likewise, being conscious of thoughts or feelings about future events does not mean that one is actually conscious of future events. It is only the (pre-existing) thought/feeling (bodily experience) that one is actually conscious of.
The concept of "consciousness of our thoughts" is a meaningless and distracting redundancy. You could as well used "thoughts of our consciousness" or "thoughts of our thoughts", or "consciousness of our consciousness", same problem. It does not addresses, nor refutes the fact that we can conceptualize events to happen in the future, and since these events can be caused, we can conceptualize the chain of actions and events that will produce the expected consequences as previous experiences have shown to us. We know that hitting the baseball with a bat will cause the baseball to move in some direction. We can plan this and actually do it, being completely aware of it.
RJG wrote:
Count Lucanor wrote:The issue here is constant conjunction of events: if whenever one occurs, the other does too, then they are constantly conjoined and this is the notion of causation.
Agreed. Causation is the 'before' event which leads to the present event. BUT the consciousness of the event is always 'after' the event. Hence, the impossibility of consciously causing anything. (i.e. causation occurs 'before', and consciousness occurs 'after').
One thing is to gain consciousness of an event, another to have the will to act, and another to understand the consequences of one's actions. All of these can be previewed, planned and acted upon, prior to a specific event. I want to hit the baseball out of the ballpark tomorrow (just like I learned to hit it yesterday), so I go there and carry out the appropriate actions to fulfill that desire. Evidently, I consciously caused the event.
RJG wrote:
Count Lucanor wrote:If my desire to hit the baseball with a bat, based on my past experiences of the constant conjunction of events (the swinging of a bat and its hitting of a baseball), ended up in actually hitting the baseball with a bat, then I consciously caused this event.
What exactly did you "consciously cause"? Everything you are conscious of has already happened.
No, I was conscious of a lot of things before they happened, which is all that is required. I was conscious of the will to act, as well as of the consequences of my actions, and of the constant conjunction of events. All this I could take into account before the action was planned and carried out. I wanted to hit the baseball before I hit the baseball, I was conscious of that desire and the actions that I needed to carry out to cause the hitting of the ball. I moved towards that goal consciously.
RJG wrote: You can't be conscious of something without there first being something to be conscious of. And if it existed/happened before you were conscious of it, then how could you have possibly consciously caused it?
I can be conscious of the causes of an event. I can produce those causes before the event. I can be conscious of how the actions that I planned, actually cause the event. If I plan to hit the baseball with a bat, why would I need to wait until the baseball was hit to know that I caused the hitting of the baseball?
RJG wrote:
Count Lucanor wrote:...and I consciously chose those actions before the actual actions and the actual events.
Not possible. If you were conscious of the choosing, then the choosing occurred before the consciousness-of-the-choosing. X precedes the consciousness-of-X. "Consciously choosing" is therefore logically impossible.
You treat choosing as an event independent of consciousness, so that there's an awareness of the event of choosing. But playing with words this way you could treat consciousness as well as the event of awareness, and we could go on forever, flipping between awareness of the event and the event of awareness, so whatever one does consciously, an unconscious cause is put before it. This logic is quite problematic and ends up negating the possibility of consciousness itself, which is absurd. Are events of consciousness not caused by your consciousness?
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7932
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: The Logical Implication of CTD

Post by LuckyR »

It is an error to view the very real delay from both the "real" and perceived perspectives, back and forth. That is not how reality happens. It is logical to view events from either your conscious or the real perspectives (but not both).

It is correct that "your brain predicts the future", meaning that if your brain experiences the behavior of objects 0.2 seconds later than where they are "in reality" the brain compensates for that learned delay.

If a batter swings at a pitch that is actually 3 feet ahead of where it appears to him, his brain compensates for this and displays in his visual cortex the picture of that ball so it makes sense to him as he swings the bat. This compensation we call "learning" to play baseball.

Let's pretend that perception and processing is instantaneous, no delay at all. But we are having a conversation with some astronauts on the moon, where there is a 2.5 second delay for the communication to traverse that distance. Do we have to rethink our universe to explain or understand what happens? Not really, we just have a normal conversation, but we wait 2 seconds in between each line of conversation. Ho hum. Our brains compensate 0.2 seconds for every timed event, just like they've done every moment you have been alive. It's called "normal".
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: The Logical Implication of CTD

Post by RJG »

Scott,LuckyR, Count Lucanor

Firstly, to help clear up some confusion
:
When we are conscious, we are conscious of 'something'. If there is nothing (no-somethings) to be conscious of, then there can be no-consciousness. Similarly, when we are reading, we are reading of 'words'. If there is nothing (no-words) to be reading, then there can be no-reading.

Therefore, this "something" and the "consciousness" (of this something) are TWO different (but related) things, ...agreed? One is an experience (v) and the other is the content (n) of that experience. Be careful not to conflate one as the other. There is 'X', and then there is the 'consciousness-of-X'. Two different animals!

Secondly,
What specifically is this 'something' that we are conscious of? Answer: When we are conscious, we are ONLY conscious of physical bodily experiences (bodily reactions). That's it. Nothing more. All our conscious experiences are of physical bodily experiences (reactions).

When we are conscious, we are only conscious of bodily experiences (e.g. thoughts, feelings, and sensory experiences), which in turn are supposedly caused by real objects or events (within or outside the body). These bodily experiences are the content of our consciousness and are undeniably real, as there can be nothing more real in all of reality, than our own experiences. Whereas the objects that are represented in these experiences are not-certain; they may be real, or they may be not-real (fictitious; illusionary; imaginary; delusional; hallucinal; dream, etc.).

For example, sitting at my desk in my room, when I look outside my window, I am conscious of the sight of a tree, and when I look inside around my room, I am conscious of the sight of a ghost flying about. Since I am only privy to my bodily experiences and nothing more (i.e. not to the causal source of these experiences, nor to the actual objects that are represented in these experiences), the ghost himself may actually be real, and the tree herself may actually be not-real (or vice-versa, or other). In any case, both are not-certain. The certainty lies in the visual (bodily) experience itself; it is the sight (visual experience) of the ghost and the sight of the tree that are undeniably real and certain, whereas the objects (ghost/tree) represented within these experiences are not-certain; i.e., they may be real or not-real.


Scott wrote:The brain hallucinates the reality one consciously perceives, like a waking dream. We are each undeniably in a VR-like pseudo-reality, one with Newtonian-like time and solid objects that appear to made of particles, which themselves exist at a point, or blob of points, in a universal space and a universal time. Time is at least mostly an illusion, but so is most of what we consider "this world", meaning the VR-world our brain creates for our avatar from inside a dark quiet skull.
Yes. In essence, our only view of reality is through our conscious view (experiences) which may or may not reflect true reality. Although our conscious experiences are undeniable certain (as nothing could be more certain in all of reality), but the content of our experiences are not-certain, as there is no (experiential) way to vouch for their certainty. The only means we have to vouch for the realness/certainty of the objects existing as content in our experiences is via 'deductive logic' and/or 'mathematics'.

Scott wrote:Many optical illusions that themselves in part reveal the ideas forming the basis of CTD are generated the result of conscious experience being too far in the future.
This mistakes the "map" as the "territory". Remember, we are only consciously privy to the "map" (to the actual existing bodily experiences), and not to the actual "territory" (the supposed real objects/content represented in our experiences). Experiencing the thought (or idea) of something in the future, does not mean we are actually experiencing the something in the real future. We are only just experiencing 'thoughts' (in the present) whose content is about the future. Much like when reading a book about the future, does not mean we actually see the future. We are only reading a book (only seeing 'words'), whose content contains things about the future.

Scott wrote:Sometimes is not that we are experiencing something that has already happened, but rather that we are experiencing something that hasn't yet happened.
This is logically contradictory. [X=~X]. We can't be conscious of 'something' if there is no-'something' yet to be conscious of. We can only be conscious of a (pre-existing) 'something', ...not of nothing.

We cannot be conscious of "future events" per se, we can only be conscious of physical bodily experiences (e.g. thoughts, feelings, or sensations, ...whose content may be about future events).

Scott wrote:However, in all cases, we are never really experiencing something that ever did happen or ever will. It's more of a waking dream, not real in the absolute sense of the word.
Certainly our experiences themselves "did happen", and are undeniable. "Experiencing exists" is an "absolute undeniable truth" that undeniably happens. In fact, we can't claim experiences don't happen without experiencing the happening of making this claim.

Although we can't be certain if the contents of our experiences (i.e. our hallucinations) are true/certain or not, but we can be absolutely certain that we experienced the hallucination (the conscious experience) itself. Logically it is impossible to deny our own experiences, as then we would have to deny our experience of denying,

Scott wrote:CTD explains why sometimes we can seem to travel back slightly to the past, such as with certain optical illusions. Consciously, we are in the future.
Not so. CTD only explains the temporal relationship between the X, and the consciousness-of-X. One precedes the other. We can't get the "consciousness-of-X" without there first being an "X" to be conscious of. CTD is the time lag between these two events. CTD is the time it takes for our brains to experience the conscious recognition of a physical bodily experience.

Scott wrote:However, quantum mechanics has revealed that causality is not one-way, and the arrow of time seems to be a relative construct of a VR-like dream-world that the brain creates, not an aspect of fundamental reality. The past can (and does) exist in a superposition of multiple possibilities.
This does not help defeat, but instead only reinforces the logical impossibility of conscious-causation. Refer to Objection #5 for more clarity.

Scott wrote:It can not be safely said that we are a product of the past, just like it cannot safely be said that we are product of the future. Rather, the conscious present is absolutely real, but past-ness and future-ness are only at best relatively real (and thus doubtable, meaning the past may not even exist, e.g. The Matrix could have just turned on).
Which again, only reinforces the logical impossibility of conscious-causation.


**********
Count, most of your comments are related to the false conflation of the consciousness-of-X, to X. Read what I wrote at the beginning here, and also to my responses to Scott, to help better understand the miscue in reasoning.


*********
LuckyR wrote:It is logical to view events from either your conscious or the real perspectives (but not both).
Not so. We can only view events through our conscious window (conscious experiences), which may or may not accurately represent reality. That's it. We have no other way to view anything.

If our brain "views" something or causes something that we are not conscious of (until maybe afterwards), then it is not something that we "consciously" caused.
  • We don't know what we experience until after we experience it! ...and by then it is too late to cause it.

LuckyR wrote:It is correct that "your brain predicts the future", meaning that if your brain experiences the behavior of objects 0.2 seconds later than where they are "in reality" the brain compensates for that learned delay.
Yes, our physical brain and body do lots of amazing things. But our consciousness (the knowing/recognition/awareness of) of these amazing things (bodily reactions) is always 'after' the fact. Never before. If we are conscious of something, then there first must be something to be conscious of.

LuckyR wrote:If a batter swings at a pitch that is actually 3 feet ahead of where it appears to him, his brain compensates for this and displays in his visual cortex the picture of that ball so it makes sense to him as he swings the bat. This compensation we call "learning" to play baseball.
But the point is when did this batter actually become conscious of each and every event in hitting the baseball? The consciousness-of-event X (Y, Z, etc), is always 'after' event X (Y, Z, etc). See Objection #4 for more clarity.
  • There is no logical way to be conscious of something 'before' we are conscious of it!

***********************
Everything we are conscious of has already happened. And if it has already happened, then it is too late to cause it. Conscious causation (conscious control, free-will, mental causation, etc) is therefore logically impossible.
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5765
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Re: The Logical Implication of CTD

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

RJG wrote: March 1st, 2021, 11:12 am If there is nothing (no-somethings) to be conscious of, then there can be no-consciousness.
I am not sure I agree with this premise, but it depends what you mean. What if it turns out that you are just an omnipotent god having a dream, and none of this is real?
RJG wrote: March 1st, 2021, 11:12 am Similarly, when we are reading, we are reading of 'words'. If there is nothing (no-words) to be reading, then there can be no-reading.
Again, I am not sure I can agree, but of course it depends on your meaning and the context in which we use equivocal words like 'reality' (e.g. whether we are speaking of absolute reality/truth or contingent relative realities and their contingent relative truths (e.g. "Batman is really Bruce Wayne [in the DC Universe], and Batman is fiction [in the Marvel Universe].)

What we all often call "this world" or "external reality" is yet another dreamy relative contingent realty of relative truths that are true relatively and contingently, which is what I meant to convey in my previous post when I brought up that fact that we are all undeniably hallucinating our entire pseudo-reality that we regularly confusingly call simply "reality". We each live in our own unique VR-world, that seems to created by a material brain, but we only know and see that so-called brain as an object in the VR-reality itself. In other words, what we see as our own brain is part of the hallucination. It's an object, and we know objects don't really exist, not absolutely; they are artifacts of made-up Newtonian-like space and unreal time, and an observer-dependent scale-selection that acts as basis for scientific approximation (a.k.a. demonstrable wrongness).
RJG wrote: March 1st, 2021, 11:12 am Therefore, this "something" and the "consciousness" (of this something) are TWO different (but related) things, ...agreed? One is an experience (v) and the other is the content (n) of that experience. Be careful not to conflate one as the other. There is 'X', and then there is the 'consciousness-of-X'. Two different animals!
I can say there is one penny, and you can say there are two sides to the penny, and you would not be wrong.

Indeed, if we take our perceptions in this VR-world, that may be created by our brain if the brain actually exists, at face value then we get all sorts of paradoxes and absurdities that prove reductio ad absurdum that this VR-world is not real. What's at the edge of space? What happened before time? It is made-up, like a video game world, or a chapter in a book, like a sleeping dream at night. We might call it a waking dream to distinguish it from a sleeping dream, but when inside a sleeping dream it is the waking dream; that relative contingent realness (i.e. the waking-ness of the dream) is very different than eternal or absolute reality.
RJG wrote: March 1st, 2021, 11:12 am For example, sitting at my desk in my room, when I look outside my window, I am conscious of the sight of a tree, and when I look inside around my room, I am conscious of the sight of a ghost flying about. Since I am only privy to my bodily experiences and nothing more (i.e. not to the causal source of these experiences, nor to the actual objects that are represented in these experiences), the ghost himself may actually be real, and the tree herself may actually be not-real (or vice-versa, or other). In any case, both are not-certain. The certainty lies in the visual (bodily) experience itself; it is the sight (visual experience) of the ghost and the sight of the tree that are undeniably real and certain, whereas the objects (ghost/tree) represented within these experiences are not-certain; i.e., they may be real or not-real.
Indeed, but so too might the mirror you see be unreal. So too might the human body you see in that mirror be unreal. You and I might each be an AI in a Matrix, created by non-human aliens in a universe with no real humans. Or it could just be a fleeting dream that a non-human alien is having about to wake up and forget forever. Just as the ghost you see may be unreal, so too may humans be unreal. Humans may be no more real than unicorns, and in a way that fact alone proves that they are not absolutely real, but only contingently real to a relative contingent reality, like Batman to the DC-Universe-reality.




Scott wrote:The brain hallucinates the reality one consciously perceives, like a waking dream. We are each undeniably in a VR-like pseudo-reality, one with Newtonian-like time and solid objects that appear to made of particles, which themselves exist at a point, or blob of points, in a universal space and a universal time. Time is at least mostly an illusion, but so is most of what we consider "this world", meaning the VR-world our brain creates for our avatar from inside a dark quiet skull.
RJG wrote: March 1st, 2021, 11:12 am Yes. In essence, our only view of reality is through our conscious view (experiences) which may or may not reflect true reality. Although our conscious experiences are undeniable certain (as nothing could be more certain in all of reality), but the content of our experiences are not-certain, as there is no (experiential) way to vouch for their certainty. The only means we have to vouch for the realness/certainty of the objects existing as content in our experiences is via 'deductive logic' and/or 'mathematics'. [Emphasis added.]
Perhaps, a solution is to improve our language to reflect the varying types of reality, such as the singular absolute noncontingent reality versus the various (presumably infinite) possible relative or contingent realities (e.g. the DC universe, the dream I had last night, the two similar VR-like-worlds in which you and I each can see a mirror and in that mirror see a human with a human brain that appears to be hallucinating that VR-like pseudo-reality we are seeing including itself as the hallucinater).


RJG wrote: March 1st, 2021, 11:12 am
Scott wrote:Sometimes is not that we are experiencing something that has already happened, but rather that we are experiencing something that hasn't yet happened.
This is logically contradictory. [X=~X]. We can't be conscious of 'something' if there is no-'something' yet to be conscious of. We can only be conscious of a (pre-existing) 'something', ...not of nothing.
I respectfully disagree. I do not concede the premise that the past is more real than the future. In some ways (namely in terms of absolute eternal reality), neither is real and time itself is not real. In other ways (namely contingent relative non-absolute reality), both are real, humans real, and so is the Newtonian-like time humans experience and exist within.
RJG wrote: March 1st, 2021, 11:12 am We cannot be conscious of "future events" per se [...]
In terms of fundamental physics, consciousness, and conscious will, and the interplay between those three things, I do not believe the premise that we can consciously affect the future but not the past or that we can consciously experience the past but not the future.

Rather, I would assert that the words "past" and "future" make no sense without consciousness, and they are both relative to consciousness and consciousnesses experience. Consciousness is much more fundamental and much more absolutely real than time, if time can be said to be real at all. Pasthood and futurehood are like left and right, the ghost on your left and the unicorn on your right; neither is absolutely real but both are relatively real relative to you the conscious observer are a blob in this perceived spacetime standing between the two, but as a vague blob not an infinitesimal point, a vague blob in a made-up hallucinated spacetime. But the closer we focus on that conceptual center, the more apparent the unreality of leftness and rightness become. Sure, you have a right arm and a left arm, but is your sternum left or right, and is that sternum really part of you--the real you--at all?

Scott wrote:However, in all cases, we are never really experiencing something that ever did happen or ever will. It's more of a waking dream, not real in the absolute sense of the word.
RJG wrote: March 1st, 2021, 11:12 am Certainly our experiences themselves "did happen", and are undeniable. "Experiencing exists" is an "absolute undeniable truth" that undeniably happens. In fact, we can't claim experiences don't happen without experiencing the happening of making this claim.

Although we can't be certain if the contents of our experiences (i.e. our hallucinations) are true/certain or not, but we can be absolutely certain that we experienced the hallucination (the conscious experience) itself. Logically it is impossible to deny our own experiences, as then we would have to deny our experience of denying,
Yes, I generally agree. Although, I would rephrase the first sentence in the quote above to be in the present tense, so that it reads "Certainly our experiences themselves are happening, and are undeniable."

Scott wrote:CTD explains why sometimes we can seem to travel back slightly to the past, such as with certain optical illusions. Consciously, we are in the future.
RJG wrote: March 1st, 2021, 11:12 am Not so. CTD only explains the temporal relationship between the X, and the consciousness-of-X. One precedes the other. We can't get the "consciousness-of-X" without there first being an "X" to be conscious of.
I respectfully disagree with the statement, "We can't get the 'consciousness-of-X' without there first being an 'X' to be conscious of.". We can hallucinate an X that never existed and never will.

We can also dream up an X and then make it happen, which is exemplified by artistic creativity. Needless to say, that process is often seen over long periods of time and there is much more practically clear separation between the imaginary dream and future realization of that dream. But I see no valid reason for assuming a very similar process cannot occur in much narrower realm of spacetime.

In the illusion of time, there is not a clear line between (1) predicting the future from one's place in the past versus (2) steering the past to the future from the future. With the unreality of time and the fundamental reality of consciousness both in consideration, these two things may be generally the same: Self-fulfilling prediction by a consciousness in the past versus time-reversed causality by a consciousness in the future.
RJG wrote: March 1st, 2021, 11:12 am CTD is the time lag between these two events. CTD is the time it takes for our brains to experience the conscious recognition of a physical bodily experience.
In the way you are using the word in the sentences above, I believe time is an illusion.

Scott wrote:However, quantum mechanics has revealed that causality is not one-way, and the arrow of time seems to be a relative construct of a VR-like dream-world that the brain creates, not an aspect of fundamental reality. The past can (and does) exist in a superposition of multiple possibilities.
RJG wrote: March 1st, 2021, 11:12 am This does not help defeat, but instead only reinforces the logical impossibility of conscious-causation. Refer to Objection #5 for more clarity.
RJG wrote: February 28th, 2021, 6:53 am[Objection #5] Claim that the “past” does not exist. Claim that real time does not exist therefore before-and-after conditions do not exist.

Much like Objection #3, this claim does not help defeat, but instead only reinforces, the logical impossibility of conscious-causation. If time, and before-and-after states of existence (sequential events) did not exist, then there could be no causation whatsoever. There could be nothing that precedes something else to cause it. There could be no cause-and-effect. Without time, conscious-causation would still be logically impossible.
First, I want to mention that we do not want to falsely conflate time with causality. Scientifically speaking, we know that Newtonian time does not exist. Scientifically speaking, we know there is no universal now. If I was to suggest that we hypothetically imagine freezing time across all the universe would be to suggest nothing and speak gibberish because there is no universal present.

Nonetheless, as a way to describe fundamental reality, I agree with the sentiment of avoiding the term causality, due to its implication of time.

Instead, I prefer the concept of eternal or transcendental creation. Keep in mind, I believe in nothing supernatural. Even Einstein saw fundamental reality as eternal (a.k.a. timeless). To Einstein, presumably the past and the future were mutually causal. Have you seen the movie Predestination?

In relative time as perceived by a conscious observer, the seeming pattern of causality represents a relationship between past conditions and future conditions, but without assuming the fundamental reality of time, there is no reason to believe that the past causes the future anymore than the future causes the past. Rather, in Einstein's eternal block universe they mutually cause each other, in a timeless unchanging 4-D block universe.

But with conscious presence, a relative time emerges, much like a DVD player can pull out a scene at a certain point in a movie even though the disc--without the DVD-player or movie-watcher--contains all events.

But it may not be like a DVD movie. It may be more like a DVD video game. All the possibilities are programmed onto that eternal DVD, different cut scenes depending on which options the player chooses. The ending of the story may already be programmed onto that DVD, or there may be multiple endings and multiple pasts that are all coherent with the player's present and thus could be said to be existing in a super-positioned state in relation to the player's current present in that game. Indeed, the writers of the game story would have to keep in mind all of the different alternative endings to write proper mid-way cut scenes so that they fit with any of the endings still open to the player. But yet the writer's writing can be as dependent on the superpositioned possibilities of the future as well as the superpositioned possibilities of the past (e.g. alternate backstories for video game characters that can be realized depending on future inputs).

How accurate of an analogy that turns out to be, I do not know. But I believe the possibility that it is accurate proves that conscious will does not logically require time to be fundamentally real for it (conscious will) to be fundamentally real.

Maybe free-will is an illusion too (i.e. reality is more a like a DVD movie), maybe it is not an illusion (i.e. reality is more like a DVD video game, with consciousness as the transcendental player), but time definitely is an illusion. And, no, that latter statement about time does not prove that fundamental reality is more like a DVD movie than a DVD video game. Both cases are consistent with the eternal pre-programmed DVD existing in a timeless state, ending(s) and beginning(s) already (co-)existing eternally on the unchanging DVD. Exactly how and why conscious plays it, and exactly how much freedom consciousnesses has while playing it, we do not know.

We do know that presence is relative to if not identical with that consciousness--that which pre-programmed scenes are past and which pre-programmed scenes are future is simply relative to the individual consciousness playing it. The experience of that here and now is real, and everything else--that is either not-here or not-now--is at best a super-positioned state of coherent possibilities, if it even exists at all.
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: The Logical Implication of CTD

Post by RJG »

RJG wrote:If there is nothing (no-somethings) to be conscious of, then there can be no-consciousness.
Scott wrote:I am not sure I agree with this premise, but it depends what you mean.
All I'm really saying here is that the experience of consciousness is not possible without 'something' (a bodily experience) to be conscious of. Much like reading is not possible without 'something' (a word; words) to read.

Scott wrote:What if it turns out that you are just an omnipotent god having a dream, and none of this is real?
If everything we are conscious of is just a dream (or an hallucination of some type), this doesn't mean that nothing is real. Certainly at the very least, the dream, and the dreamer would still be undeniable certain; real.

RJG wrote:Similarly, when we are reading, we are reading of 'words'. If there is nothing (no-words) to be reading, then there can be no-reading.
Scott wrote:Again, I am not sure I can agree…
Can you read if there is nothing to read? ...or do you need words to read? In other words, I'm saying that the experience of reading is not possible without 'something' to read.

Scott wrote:What we all often call "this world" or "external reality" is yet another dreamy relative contingent realty of relative truths that are true relatively and contingently, which is what I meant to convey in my previous post when I brought up that fact that we are all undeniably hallucinating our entire pseudo-reality that we regularly confusingly call simply "reality". We each live in our own unique VR-world, that seems to created by a material brain, but we only know and see that so-called brain as an object in the VR-reality itself. In other words, what we see as our own brain is part of the hallucination. It's an object, and we know objects don't really exist, not absolutely; they are artifacts of made-up Newtonian-like space and unreal time, and an observer-dependent scale-selection that acts as basis for scientific approximation (a.k.a. demonstrable wrongness).
I don't necessarily disagree except for the implication that "everything is uncertain", as this is a logical contradiction in itself. One cannot logically assert (with certainty) that everything is uncertain. For if everything was uncertain, then so is the assertion that "everything is uncertain". So then at least something must be certain.

Scott wrote:Indeed, but so too might the mirror you see be unreal. So too might the human body you see in that mirror be unreal. You and I might each be an AI in a Matrix, created by non-human aliens in a universe with no real humans. Or it could just be a fleeting dream that a non-human alien is having about to wake up and forget forever. Just as the ghost you see may be unreal, so too may humans be unreal. Humans may be no more real than unicorns, and in a way that fact alone proves that they are not absolutely real…
I agree that our subjective perceptions, by themselves, are not trustworthy to reveal true reality, as we have no way of (experientially) knowing if that which we perceive is a hallucination, or if it actually represents something real. But we can know true reality. We can trust absolute and logical truths to reveal true reality, as there is nothing more real in all of our reality than absolute and logical truths. We can trust them because they are non-man-made (a priori) truths, and are likewise impossible for man to deny.
  • 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.

RJG wrote:We can't be conscious of 'something' if there is no-'something' yet to be conscious of. We can only be conscious of a (pre-existing) 'something', ...not of nothing.
Scott wrote:I respectfully disagree. I do not concede the premise that the past is more real than the future.
I was not necessarily referring to a past/present relationship, I was referring more to the logical relationship between the two concepts. I am saying that it is impossible to be 'conscious-of-something' if this 'something' (a physical bodily reaction) does not exist.

Scott wrote:Rather, I would assert that the words "past" and "future" make no sense without consciousness, and they are both relative to consciousness and consciousnesses experience. Consciousness is much more fundamental and much more absolutely real than time, if time can be said to be real at all.
I would think it is the other way around. I think time is fundamental to reality. And without time there could be no consciousness. If we define "time" as equivalent to "change" and therefore defined as "before and after (or changing) states of existence", then time is fundamental to reality, and to everything. For without time, there could be no conscious experience; we could not be conscious of the 'sequential' (before and after) experiences of each independent letter and word necessary to yield a conscious experience of understanding this very sentence.

Without time, absolutely nothing could ever happen (change). All of reality would be frozen; no movement; no conscious perceptions; absolutely nothing could ever happen. And if we look at time from a mathematical (geometric) perspective:
  • A 0D "point" cannot move/change without a 1st dimension.
    A 1D "line" cannot move/change without a 2nd dimension.
    A 2D "plane" cannot move/change without a 3rd dimension.
    A 3D "object" cannot move/change without a 4th dimension.
The 4th dimension is called "time". Therefore, without time, there can be no motion or change (of 3D objects). And although 3D objects may in reality be nothing more than quantum wave forms, it nonetheless requires time to "change states".

Furthermore, and from a logical perspective, time exists infinitely; it has no beginning. The concept of a "beginning of time" is self contradictory [X<X is logically impossible]. "Beginning" is a temporal word, and a "beginning of time" implies a "time before time" [X<X] which is nonsensically self-contradicting, and therefore logically impossible. So if time exists, then it has always (infinitely) existed.

Scott wrote:I respectfully disagree with the statement, "We can't get the 'consciousness-of-X' without there first being an 'X' to be conscious of.". We can hallucinate an X that never existed and never will.
I think you are referring to a different X. The X in the consciousness-of-X refers to the actual physical bodily experience (thought, feeling, sensation), and not to the contents of said experience. So if we are hallucinating ghosts flying about, then we are conscious-of-the-sight (of ghosts flying about). X is the "sight" or visual experience (of seeing ghosts flying about). X is absolutely certain; real. Whereas, the objects represented in the content of X are not-certain.

Again, it is much like reading. When we read, we read actual 'words', so if we are reading about ghosts flying about, we are still only reading actual 'words', whereas the objects (ghosts flying about) represent the content of these words, and are therefore not-certain (as the 'words' themselves).

Scott wrote:Nonetheless, as a way to describe fundamental reality, I agree with the sentiment of avoiding the term causality, due to its implication of time.

Instead, I prefer the concept of eternal or transcendental creation. Keep in mind, I believe in nothing supernatural. Even Einstein saw fundamental reality as eternal (a.k.a. timeless). To Einstein, presumably the past and the future were mutually causal. Have you seen the movie Predestination?
Nope, but I'll look it up!

Scott wrote:In relative time as perceived by a conscious observer, the seeming pattern of causality represents a relationship between past conditions and future conditions, but without assuming the fundamental reality of time, there is no reason to believe that the past causes the future anymore than the future causes the past. Rather, in Einstein's eternal block universe they mutually cause each other, in a timeless unchanging 4-D block universe.
So, then how would causality work if there were no time? How can something cause something else? How could we get motion or change or anything to happen in a timeless universe/reality? Wouldn't everything be frozen if "change" (aka "time") were not possible?

Scott wrote:But with conscious presence, a relative time emerges, much like a DVD player can pull out a scene at a certain point in a movie even though the disc--without the DVD-player or movie-watcher--contains all events.

But it may not be like a DVD movie. It may be more like a DVD video game. All the possibilities are programmed onto that eternal DVD, different cut scenes depending on which options the player chooses.
How can the player "choose"? Or is he predetermined to react (choose) in a certain/specific/predetermined way? In a conscious reality (where befores and afters exist) "conscious causation" and "consciously choosing" are logically impossible because of CTD. (...we can't logically come 'before' and cause that which we consciously realize/come 'after').

Scott wrote:How accurate of an analogy that turns out to be, I do not know. But I believe the possibility that it is accurate proves that conscious will does not logically require time to be fundamentally real for it (conscious will) to be fundamentally real.
It seems to me that if conscious causation (and a "conscious will") are logically impossible in a reality with time, then it is even more so impossible in a reality without time (in a timeless reality).
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: The Logical Implication of CTD

Post by Count Lucanor »

RJG wrote: March 1st, 2021, 11:12 am
Firstly, to help clear up some confusion
:
When we are conscious, we are conscious of 'something'. If there is nothing (no-somethings) to be conscious of, then there can be no-consciousness. Similarly, when we are reading, we are reading of 'words'. If there is nothing (no-words) to be reading, then there can be no-reading.

Therefore, this "something" and the "consciousness" (of this something) are TWO different (but related) things, ...agreed? One is an experience (v) and the other is the content (n) of that experience. Be careful not to conflate one as the other. There is 'X', and then there is the 'consciousness-of-X'. Two different animals!

Secondly,
What specifically is this 'something' that we are conscious of? Answer: When we are conscious, we are ONLY conscious of physical bodily experiences (bodily reactions). That's it. Nothing more. All our conscious experiences are of physical bodily experiences (reactions).

When we are conscious, we are only conscious of bodily experiences (e.g. thoughts, feelings, and sensory experiences), which in turn are supposedly caused by real objects or events (within or outside the body). These bodily experiences are the content of our consciousness and are undeniably real, as there can be nothing more real in all of reality, than our own experiences. Whereas the objects that are represented in these experiences are not-certain; they may be real, or they may be not-real (fictitious; illusionary; imaginary; delusional; hallucinal; dream, etc.).
You're assuming the disembodiment of consciousness, and a weirder version of it, because it comes back as re-embodiment. Consciousness is put in one place and objects at the other end, including among those objects our own bodies, which at the same time work as the catalyst for the conscious experience. So, all that is said is that we are bodily-experiencing our bodily experiences. Or just the same, that we are conscious of the content of our conscious experience. A mere tautology.

Consciousness is a characteristic process of certain bodies, and a particular function of some elements of those bodies (a central nervous system). No body, no sensory organs, no brain, no consciousness. It is through our bodies that we experience the world and ourselves being in relation with that world, and the consciousness of our body comes along with the consciousness of the surroundings of that body, which appear to our understanding as being a reality independent of ourselves. Our conscious bodies are conscious of the world they live in.
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: The Logical Implication of CTD

Post by RJG »

Count Lucanor wrote:You're assuming the disembodiment of consciousness, and a weirder version of it, because it comes back as re-embodiment. Consciousness is put in one place and objects at the other end, including among those objects our own bodies, which at the same time work as the catalyst for the conscious experience. So, all that is said is that we are bodily-experiencing our bodily experiences. Or just the same, that we are conscious of the content of our conscious experience. A mere tautology.

Consciousness is a characteristic process of certain bodies, and a particular function of some elements of those bodies (a central nervous system). No body, no sensory organs, no brain, no consciousness. It is through our bodies that we experience the world and ourselves being in relation with that world, and the consciousness of our body comes along with the consciousness of the surroundings of that body, which appear to our understanding as being a reality independent of ourselves. Our conscious bodies are conscious of the world they live in.
Consciousness itself can only logically be another bodily experience. This is not to say that we can be conscious of consciousness, as that would be logically impossible. More particularly, consciousness is the singular bodily experience of recognition, made possible by memory. For it is recognition that converts a non-conscious bodily experience into a conscious experience, that we then call “consciousness”.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: The Logical Implication of CTD

Post by RJG »

Count Lucanor wrote:Our conscious bodies are conscious of the world they live in.
Not really. We are only conscious of our bodily reactions (via sensory organs) themselves. That's it. Nothing more. We are not actually conscious of the "outside world". We only hope/assume that our bodily reactions/experiences are true representations of the happenings out in the "outside world" (of course, assuming that there is an outside world in the first place). Again, we are not experientially (consciously) privy to the "outside world", we are only privy to our own bodily experiences (bodily reactions). That's it.

Our entire reality consists of Sensations (including *thoughts and sensory experiences) and Feelings (including emotions and urges). That's all there is to our entire reality.

**********
*Note: 'thoughts' are nothing more than a complex composition of sensory experiences compiled by the rules of our specific language and held and replayed from memory.
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: The Logical Implication of CTD

Post by Count Lucanor »

RJG wrote: March 2nd, 2021, 9:30 pm
Consciousness itself can only logically be another bodily experience.
Then these statements turn out to be false:
RJG wrote: Therefore, this "something" and the "consciousness" (of this something) are TWO different (but related) things, ...agreed? One is an experience (v) and the other is the content (n) of that experience. Be careful not to conflate one as the other. There is 'X', and then there is the 'consciousness-of-X'. Two different animals!
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: The Logical Implication of CTD

Post by Count Lucanor »

RJG wrote: March 3rd, 2021, 8:57 am
Count Lucanor wrote:Our conscious bodies are conscious of the world they live in.
Not really. We are only conscious of our bodily reactions (via sensory organs) themselves. That's it. Nothing more. We are not actually conscious of the "outside world".
Actually, we have no more justification in the intuitive sensation of our own bodies as real worldly objects than in the sensation of an "outside" world. But experience allows to build an understanding of our being in the world, which makes us rationally committed to the belief in the objective existence of our bodies, as well as of the world that surrounds us. That's how we are conscious of the world we live in.
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: The Logical Implication of CTD

Post by RJG »

RJG wrote:Consciousness itself can only logically be another bodily experience. This is not to say that we can be conscious of consciousness, as that would be logically impossible. More particularly, consciousness is the singular bodily experience of recognition, made possible by memory. For it is recognition that converts a non-conscious bodily experience into a conscious experience, that we then call “consciousness”.
Count Lucanor wrote:Then these statements turn out to be false:

RJG wrote: Therefore, this "something" and the "consciousness" (of this something) are TWO different (but related) things, ...agreed? One is an experience (v) and the other is the content (n) of that experience. Be careful not to conflate one as the other. There is 'X', and then there is the 'consciousness-of-X'. Two different animals!
Why would these statements be false?

We can't logically be conscious of consciousness anymore than we can see our seeing, or smell our smelling. We can only be conscious of bodily experiences (but not every bodily experience!). There are lots of reactions (bodily experiences) going on in our bodies, most of which we are not conscious of.

Count Lucanor wrote:Our conscious bodies are conscious of the world they live in.
RJG wrote:Not really. We are only conscious of our bodily reactions (via sensory organs) themselves. That's it. Nothing more. We are not actually conscious of the "outside world".
Count Lucanor wrote:Actually, we have no more justification in the intuitive sensation of our own bodies as real worldly objects than in the sensation of an "outside" world.
If I understand you correctly, then I don't disagree. We have no way of experientially knowing if our physical bodies match what we see in the mirror, anymore than we know what the "outside world" looks like. We are only privy to our bodily experiences/reactions themselves, and NOT to the causal sources of these experiences.

Count Lucanor wrote:But experience allows to build an understanding of our being in the world, which makes us rationally committed to the belief in the objective existence of our bodies, as well as of the world that surrounds us. That's how we are conscious of the world we live in.
We can certainly logically derive that because we experience stuff (sights, sounds, smells, etc) we therefore must have the "means" (eyes, ears, nose, etc) to experience this stuff. So in that sense it is "rational" and "objective". But we have no "rational" or "objective" evidence that our eyes, ears, nose and body (and "outside world") are anything like we think it is.
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