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.”
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.
- In essence, CTD is the time that it takes to KNOW what our body is physically experiencing.
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.
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.
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.
- P1. EVERYTHING we are conscious of, are of past events.
P2. Past events are unchangeable.
C1. Therefore, EVERYTHING we are conscious of, is unchangeable.
- 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”.
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.
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.
- "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!
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.
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.
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.”
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)
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!