Do we really choose anything?

[RJG]

Consciousness illuminates our minds to make us aware, it does not produce the thoughts. We produce them just be living and experiencing the world with our bodies. Consciousness is a witness, it does not participate in our life or actions.

Bingo! And therefore "conscious control" (aka free-will; conscious choosing; conscious causation) is just an illusion.

Consciousness is the experience of 'recognition' (of our bodily reactions) made possible by memory.

We choose how we think, how we feel, and how we act.

This statement contradicts your earlier statement. We can't consciously choose anything.

Every single damn thought that comes to our awareness has already been authored/scripted for us; someone/something has already filled these thoughts with content! ...how rude!

I disagree. My thoughts are derived from the texts on the contemplation of Consciousness and the nature of Self and the world in the Advaita Vedanta of nondualism, which is about 3000 years old and still relevant to many around the world.

Did you consciously choose, create, or author these thoughts that you are conscious of? If not, then you didn't have any say-so in the matter.

Not only is it logically impossible to be conscious of a 'content-less' (unscripted) thought, but every single damn thought we have has already been scripted for us! We are only conscious of the thought 'after' it has been scripted and given to us. We don't consciously create and author our own thoughts.


**********

...for why did we choose thought A as opposed to thought B?

Why do you believe a thought B exists at the moment thought A is thought?

I don't. My point was to ask why did you choose this particular thought instead of another particular thought? What caused you to choose thought A instead of thought B (referring to any other thought)? And did you choose the thoughts that did the choosing? If not, then you chose nothing.


**********

Have you ever wondered why modern societies teach maths and logic to their youths when it is innate? Silly societies wasting ressources, right?

Yes, it is much better if we all spout non-sense!

Logic is our innate and ONLY means to "make-sense". Without it, we can only make "non-sense".

I think our education system has failed us. We should focus more on teaching and improving critical thinking and logic skills. Improving our reasoning skills should be the #1 priority in our public schools.

We should not be teaching our kids WHAT to think, we should be teaching them HOW to think.


**********

You are using arithmetic logic such as A>B, B>C therefore A>C and trying to apply it to extremely complex problems…

Yes. If we are interested in finding objective (logical) truths, then deductive logic is the only game in town.

...(such as human decision making) that is not even understood at the granular level. Those analogies just don't apply. Congratulations on an excellent example of a logic-user making an error in logic.

Lucky, we don't find truths by 'abandoning' logic. This is a philosophy forum here, not a chat room meant for meaningless (non-sensical) conversations.

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.

Logic is our ONLY means to "make-sense". Without it, we can only make "non-sense".

[AmericanKestrel]

Submitted to early, sorry ... I forgot

Babies, and other lives, are born with an innate sense to interpret the world in a logical way. Am i misreading you?

If this hypothesis of yours assumes that newborns have already the capacity "to interpret the world in a logical way" I would flatly deny it because it contradicts scientific evidence.
If this hypothesis of yours means that they have the capacity to learn "to interpret the world in a logical way" then it would conform with the meaning of my sentence "In the course of that process it may be coined with thinking in terms of "logic (and math)" which seem to conform well with the functioning of the human cognitive apparatus."

the point is it does not require othe humans for the innate capacity to bee excercised. just innate capacity to breathe is excercised as soon as the infant pops out of the womb.

Have you ever wondered why modern societies teach maths and logic to their youths when it is innate? Silly societies wasting ressources, right?

No I have never wondered about it because it is evidently clear to me.
Logic is not just one thing. Eastern system of logical analysis varies from the western, and is equally valuable for the purpose employed. Ancient societies used math and logic for all kinds purposes before SCIENCE became a thing. They did not built the ancient temples and pyramids that still stand solidly (while our bridges of "modern societies" fall and kill people) and followed weather patterns and angle of sun for farming without the knowledge of mathematics. The very concept of shunya or zero was conceived in Vedantic philosophy more than 3000 years ago.
Again, the mental capacity to understand mathematics and logic need to exist before one can be taught anything. You need to know language is a thing and that you don't know Chinese, before you can be taught how to write Chinese.

[mahfouz]

RJG wrote:
...

for why did we choose thought A as opposed to thought B?

mahfouz wrote:

Why do you believe a thought B exists at the moment thought A is thought?

RJG wrote:

I don't. My point was to ask why did you choose this particular thought instead of another particular thought? What caused you to choose thought A instead of thought B (referring to any other thought)? And did you choose the thoughts that did the choosing? If not, then you chose nothing.

Thank you for responding.

But I must ask again. Why do you think a thought B (another particular thought OR any other thought) exists for one to choose?

Maybe it is just the use of the word "choose" that is hampering my understanding.

[AmericanKestrel]

Consciousness illuminates our minds to make us aware, it does not produce the thoughts. We produce them just be living and experiencing the world with our bodies. Consciousness is a witness, it does not participate in our life or actions.

Bingo! And therefore "conscious control" (aka free-will; conscious choosing; conscious causation) is just an illusion.

Consciousness is the experience of 'recognition' (of our bodily reactions) made possible by memory.

One needs to be careful about consciousness and Consciousness with the capital C. The biological consciousness of being aware, that can be lost upon being hit on the head and falling down, or under anesthesia when we have lost consciousness, is not the same as the spiritual Consciousness that makes us aware we are awake, that we got hit in the head and lost our bearing, or went under the knife for surgery and now recovering. Two different things. In Advaita philosophy the Sanskrit word for the big C is Atma - the Self.

[AmericanKestrel]

Did you consciously choose, create, or author these thoughts that you are conscious of? If not, then you didn't have any say-so in the matter.

Not only is it logically impossible to be conscious of a 'content-less' (unscripted) thought, but every single damn thought we have has already been scripted for us! We are only conscious of the thought 'after' it has been scripted and given to us. We don't consciously create and author our own thoughts.

There might have been some misunderstanding or miscommunication on my part. What I meant to say is the way I see the relationship of the Self, our body and mind, and the world we live in is shaped by my study of Advaita philosophy of non-dualism.
As to choice in how we act we are absolutely in control of it, even the choice not to act.
As for thoughts I am not sure what you mean that they are scripted for us. Our thoughts are the result of our impressions and understanding our world by means of our sense organs, which are cognized by our mind and intellect. They are our thoughts scripted by us. Each individual creates his own world shaped by his perceptions, experiences, his thoughts and actions which produce consequences.

[stevie]

Again, the mental capacity to understand mathematics and logic need to exist before one can be taught anything.

As I said: "the capacity to learn" mathematics and logic is inherent in the "functioning of the human cognitive apparatus" but without being taught - either implicitely or explicitely - there will be no capacity to understand or apply mathematics and logic. Saying otherwise may be part of particular religious views but isn't supported by science.

[RJG]

...[we] make decisions in our non-conscious minds, and the conscious mind catches up later, and pretends to itself that it was in control all the way.

Pattern, I agree with you here. Everything we are conscious of, has already happened. The conscious mind is always "a day late and a dollar short".

• "The reality that we are conscious of, is long gone by the time we become conscious of it." - quote from The Logical Implication of CTD (by RJG at viewtopic.php?f=2&t=17102 )
  
  “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.” -- Obvious Leo

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

As to choice in how we act we are absolutely in control of it, even the choice not to act.

Does it take thoughts (or something else) to choose to act or to not to act? If so, then did you choose these thoughts (or the something else)? …or were these given to you? If you didn't choose these thoughts (or the something else) that did your choosing, then you didn't choose anything.

AK, can you not see the logical dilemma here? …the impossible infinite regress of "choosing" anything?

[AmericanKestrel]

Again, the mental capacity to understand mathematics and logic need to exist before one can be taught anything.

As I said: "the capacity to learn" mathematics and logic is inherent in the "functioning of the human cognitive apparatus" but without being taught - either implicitely or explicitely - there will be no capacity to understand or apply mathematics and logic. Saying otherwise may be part of particular religious views but isn't supported by science.

What exactly is the “human cognitive apparatus”? How is it different from simply the human being? Who is first teacher who will teach us and who taught them?
What religious view do you have in mind? Perhaps your fear that it has something to do with religion is inhibiting you from seeing the irrationality of your argument.

[LuckyR]

You are using arithmetic logic such as A>B, B>C therefore A>C and trying to apply it to extremely complex problems…

Yes. If we are interested in finding objective (logical) truths, then deductive logic is the only game in town.

...(such as human decision making) that is not even understood at the granular level. Those analogies just don't apply. Congratulations on an excellent example of a logic-user making an error in logic.

Lucky, we don't find truths by 'abandoning' logic. This is a philosophy forum here, not a chat room meant for meaningless (non-sensical) conversations.

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.

Logic is our ONLY means to "make-sense". Without it, we can only make "non-sense".

Alas, just as it was once logical to Aristotle and the rest of the Greek philosophers that the earth was the center of the universe, you are ignoring the aspect that you personally bring to your computational analysis of this and all other problems.

When human decision making is finally understood in the distant future, the breakthrough will be made by a neurochemist, not a philosopher. Similar to how cosmological discoveries were made by astronomers not philosophers.

[RJG]

Alas, just as it was once logical to Aristotle and the rest of the Greek philosophers that the earth was the center of the universe…

This is another example of Bad Science. If you disagree with me and believe that these false beliefs were truly the result of sound logic, then please post the 'specific' sound logic that led to these false beliefs.

Remember: it is the absence (not the presence) of 'sound logic' that leads to errors (false beliefs, Bad Science, and fairy-tales).

When human decision making is finally understood in the distant future, the breakthrough will be made by a neurochemist, not a philosopher. Similar to how cosmological discoveries were made by astronomers not philosophers.

We can only get objective truths from sound logic. Scientists (including neurochemists) that disregard or contradict logic will never find objective truths. Until we humans start applying sound logic, we will forever be stuck believing in our fairy tales.

Note: There are still many examples of Bad Science (science that disregards/contradicts logic) in today's cosmology/astronomy.


*************
"There is nothing more objectively certain, in all of reality, than that of a logical impossibility. If something is logically impossible, then all the science in the universe cannot make the impossible, suddenly possible."

[AmericanKestrel]

[quLeo[/list]


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

As to choice in how we act we are absolutely in control of it, even the choice not to act.

Does it take thoughts (or something else) to choose to act or to not to act? If so, then did you choose these thoughts (or the something else)? …or were these given to you? If you didn't choose these thoughts (or the something else) that did your choosing, then you didn't choose anything.

AK, can you not see the logical dilemma here? …the impossible infinite regress of "choosing" anything?

Desires, thoughts, and emotions impel us to act. They are all products of the mind. We, with our intellect and reasoning are equipped to make choices about how we act and what action we choose, or not act. We also bear the consequences of those acts, whether immediately or later. All acts have consequences. There is no dilemma or contradiction. The only thing that we cannot control or predict is the outcome.

[stevie]

Again, the mental capacity to understand mathematics and logic need to exist before one can be taught anything.

As I said: "the capacity to learn" mathematics and logic is inherent in the "functioning of the human cognitive apparatus" but without being taught - either implicitely or explicitely - there will be no capacity to understand or apply mathematics and logic. Saying otherwise may be part of particular religious views but isn't supported by science.

What exactly is the “human cognitive apparatus”? How is it different from simply the human being? Who is first teacher who will teach us and who taught them?
What religious view do you have in mind? Perhaps your fear that it has something to do with religion is inhibiting you from seeing the irrationality of your argument.

Q1: Sense organs, brain, nervous system
Q2: What Is "simply the human being"?
Q3: First teachers for a newborn usually are the parents who themselves have been taught by their parents, social environments, public education, professional education, culture.
Q4: No specific one but there may be some religions that posit inherency of cognitive capacities in humans on the basis of some kind of esoteric givenness.
Q5: You are confusing "argument" with "scientific evidence". I am not arguing but I am only referring to scientific evidence.

[LuckyR]

Alas, just as it was once logical to Aristotle and the rest of the Greek philosophers that the earth was the center of the universe…

This is another example of Bad Science. If you disagree with me and believe that these false beliefs were truly the result of sound logic, then please post the 'specific' sound logic that led to these false beliefs.

Remember: it is the absence (not the presence) of 'sound logic' that leads to errors (false beliefs, Bad Science, and fairy-tales).

When human decision making is finally understood in the distant future, the breakthrough will be made by a neurochemist, not a philosopher. Similar to how cosmological discoveries were made by astronomers not philosophers.

We can only get objective truths from sound logic. Scientists (including neurochemists) that disregard or contradict logic will never find objective truths. Until we humans start applying sound logic, we will forever be stuck believing in our fairy tales.

Note: There are still many examples of Bad Science (science that disregards/contradicts logic) in today's cosmology/astronomy.


*************
"There is nothing more objectively certain, in all of reality, than that of a logical impossibility. If something is logically impossible, then all the science in the universe cannot make the impossible, suddenly possible."

I think Aristotle has proven his credibility in the philosophical world, who knows you may someday equal his stature. Of course, calling down classic Greek philosophers when we have the benefit of knowledge provided by scientists (that classic Greek philosophers lacked) is a bit unfair and not much of an achievement.

[AmericanKestrel]

Again, the mental capacity to understand mathematics and logic need to exist before one can be taught anything.

As I said: "the capacity to learn" mathematics and logic is inherent in the "functioning of the human cognitive apparatus" but without being taught - either implicitely or explicitely - there will be no capacity to understand or apply mathematics and logic. Saying otherwise may be part of particular religious views but isn't supported by science.

What exactly is the “human cognitive apparatus”? How is it different from simply the human being? Who is first teacher who will teach us and who taught them?
What religious view do you have in mind? Perhaps your fear that it has something to do with religion is inhibiting you from seeing the irrationality of your argument.

Q1: Sense organs, brain, nervous system
Q2: What Is "simply the human being"?
Q3: First teachers for a newborn usually are the parents who themselves have been taught by their parents, social environments, public education, professional education, culture.
Q4: No specific one but there may be some religions that posit inherency of cognitive capacities in humans on the basis of some kind of esoteric givenness.
Q5: You are confusing "argument" with "scientific evidence". I am not arguing but I am only referring to scientific evidence.

Q1. Sense organs, the brain, and nervous system are biological inert organs. They are neither logical nor can solve equations. What enlightens them and Enables the human being to think and solve equations is Consciousness. I agree that the capacity needs to be filled and for that knowledge shpuld be available.
Q2. Is the embodied Consciousness, as explained in Q1.
Q3. Chicken or the egg fallacy that is nonsense. Without Consciousness nothing exists. Tthe human cognitive apparatus is very dead.
Q4. Fear of knowledge is deadly.
Q5. Cite the scientific evidence that proves that the capacity to know, and for logic, is not inherent. To know that it is one only has to live.

[RJG]

Desires, thoughts, and emotions impel us to act.

Correct. Now the question is - Who/what controls these?

*******
"We do as we want, but we can't want what we want" [Schopenhauer].

...meaning that we don’t control that which controls us. ...further meaning that we really don't control anything.

And getting back to and answering the topic question - if we don't choose the thoughts that do our choosing, then we really don't choose anything.

And if free-will is defined as 'conscious control' or 'having the ability to freely choose', then free-will is logically impossible (via infinite regress) and therefore is just another fairy-tale (non-truth) that we humans have been indoctrinated to believe as true.


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

I think Aristotle has proven his credibility in the philosophical world, who knows you may someday equal his stature. Of course, calling down classic Greek philosophers when we have the benefit of knowledge provided by scientists (that classic Greek philosophers lacked) is a bit unfair and not much of an achievement.

I think Aristotle's belief that the Earth is the center of the universe was based more on speculation, and maybe some valid logic, but certainly not on sound logic.

Valid logic is a mathematically correctly structured argument (and therefore the conclusion logically/mathematically follows), BUT the premises may not be true in a valid argument, and therefore, the conclusion likewise may not be true.

Sound logic, is an argument that is both valid (mathematically structured) and all premises are 'true'. Therefore the conclusion logically follows and is true.