Could our actions be decided by our conscious mind?

[ryan]

Of course this is valid, the way you put it.

Of course it is valid, but is it sound? If not, the conclusion can be rejected.

If you think the premises are sound, then you have to accept the conclusion as logically following from the premises. Something DBT doesn't seem to understand.

Then why ask about it's validity. You really want to see if we accept the premises.

But I would argue P1. If the mind is (in a restricted sense) a group of neurons, then you are just giving the group of neurons a new name.

No. "Is" here obviously has ontological force. It's not just a name. If it is the case that my conscious mind is the state of a group of neurons inside my brain, then that's it. It's ontologically the case that I am the state of a group of neurons. I think, therefore I am but the state of a group of neurons.

And you're not really "arguing" anything much if that doesn't make the premise false.
EB

I am trying to understand and address the massive elephant in the room like DBT was. Are you simply using the terms "group of neurons" and "mind" to name the same thing? If not, then, like I think DBT was getting at, you are trying to smuggle the mind in with a group of neurons.

Traditionally, the mind and a group of neurons are not the same thing. Or else there wouldn't be thousands of years of contention about this.

So my issue about P1 is that you are trying to define the mind as something that it really isn't supposed to be defined as (whether you believe the mind exists or not).

 

[DBT]

If you think the premises are sound, then you have to accept the conclusion as logically following from the premises. Something DBT doesn't seem to understand.


EB

You don't appear to understand what I say. Instead of asking for clarification, you persist in indulging in the illusion of your own grandeur as a Master of Logic and Reason....immediately firing off your typical salvo of derision and contempt that does not allow any sort of reasonable discussion....just another pissing contest.

 

[Speakpigeon]

If you think the premises are sound, then you have to accept the conclusion as logically following from the premises. Something DBT doesn't seem to understand.
EB

You don't appear to understand what I say. Instead of asking for clarification, you persist in indulging in the illusion of your own grandeur as a Master of Logic and Reason....immediately firing off your typical salvo of derision and contempt that does not allow any sort of reasonable discussion....just another pissing contest.

I did try to get you to clarify and that didn't work. So, it's factual that you don't seem to understand how one should go about proving an argument wrong. All you did was accept the truth of the premises and deny the truth of the conclusion without even trying to explain how the argument would be invalid. If we all did like that, it would be easy to dismiss any argument whatsoever on the ground that we are absolutely certain that the conclusion is wrong. It's fine to be convinced a conclusion is wrong, but that should lead you to either try to disprove at least one of the premises, or show how the argument is invalid. You didn't appear to understand that's what you had to do even though I clearly indicated that's what you had to do. So, the best way you can show you understand is to do it now. It's still time. As long as you're still alive, you can try.

For your information, I did find one guy who did it, so it's possible to do it, although I can see how his argument would be a problem for most people here.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Of course this is valid, the way you put it.

Of course it is valid, but is it sound? If not, the conclusion can be rejected.

If you think the premises are sound, then you have to accept the conclusion as logically following from the premises. Something DBT doesn't seem to understand.

Then why ask about it's validity. You really want to see if we accept the premises.

Because we have to agree first that the argument is valid, something you can't take for granted with people like DBT. It's easy to check it's valid, and I dare say it's obvious it's valid, but you need to make sure people agree it's valid. If they don't, then there's really no discussion possible, which appears to be case with people like DBT.

But once this is established, you still need to decide whether you agree with the truth of the premises, because if the premise are false, then you can't use the validity of the argument to assert the conclusion.

But I would argue P1. If the mind is (in a restricted sense) a group of neurons, then you are just giving the group of neurons a new name.

No. "Is" here obviously has ontological force. It's not just a name. If it is the case that my conscious mind is the state of a group of neurons inside my brain, then that's it. It's ontologically the case that I am the state of a group of neurons. I think, therefore I am but the state of a group of neurons.

And you're not really "arguing" anything much if that doesn't make the premise false.
EB

I am trying to understand and address the massive elephant in the room like DBT was. Are you simply using the terms "group of neurons" and "mind" to name the same thing? If not, then, like I think DBT was getting at, you are trying to smuggle the mind in with a group of neurons.

Traditionally, the mind and a group of neurons are not the same thing. Or else there wouldn't be thousands of years of contention about this.

So my issue about P1 is that you are trying to define the mind as something that it really isn't supposed to be defined as (whether you believe the mind exists or not).

I am using the word "is" in its ontological sense. Premise 1 says that the conscious mind is the state of a group of neurons exactly like you could say that the logical state of a computer is the state of its electronic components. You can disagree that it is but there is nothing ambiguous about it.

I am also using "conscious mind" in the usual, subjective sense of the part of the mind of which the subject is subjectively aware. It is the Cartesian "I".

I am also using the expressions "neurons", "group of neurons", "the state of a group of neurons" in the usual empirical sense.

So, there is no equivocation.

Instead, premise 1 clearly, explicitly assumes that given what we know, the conscious mind may be the state of a group of neurons. So, yes, it is assuming that two different names refer in fact to the same thing. This is exactly like assuming x = y to solve a mathematical problem. I would hope this is OK, otherwise we may just as well eschew any rational discussion on any subject whatsoever, which would also deny any validity to science itself. Those who disagree that premise 1 is true can always explain why, but for now, I haven't seen anyone trying to do that.
EB

EDIT
If you still have doubts, you could also look into the meaningfulness of sentences of the form "A is B"...

 

[untermensche]

Saying consciousness may be a "state" is merely pretending to know something. It is so general it is useless. A state of what? Blood, serotonin, the golgi apparatus, electricity, magnetism? You can describe many states of all of those and nowhere is a mind found.

The mind may be some quantum effect.

We would not be able to recognize that as a state.

We might not be able to observe it at all, like many quantum experiments where observation has an effect.

 

[ryan]

Then why ask about it's validity. You really want to see if we accept the premises.

Because we have to agree first that the argument is valid, something you can't take for granted with people like DBT. It's easy to check it's valid, and I dare say it's obvious it's valid, but you need to make sure people agree it's valid. If they don't, then there's really no discussion possible, which appears to be case with people like DBT.

But once this is established, you still need to decide whether you agree with the truth of the premises, because if the premise are false, then you can't use the validity of the argument to assert the conclusion.

But I would argue P1. If the mind is (in a restricted sense) a group of neurons, then you are just giving the group of neurons a new name.

No. "Is" here obviously has ontological force. It's not just a name. If it is the case that my conscious mind is the state of a group of neurons inside my brain, then that's it. It's ontologically the case that I am the state of a group of neurons. I think, therefore I am but the state of a group of neurons.

And you're not really "arguing" anything much if that doesn't make the premise false.
EB

I am trying to understand and address the massive elephant in the room like DBT was. Are you simply using the terms "group of neurons" and "mind" to name the same thing? If not, then, like I think DBT was getting at, you are trying to smuggle the mind in with a group of neurons.

Traditionally, the mind and a group of neurons are not the same thing. Or else there wouldn't be thousands of years of contention about this.

So my issue about P1 is that you are trying to define the mind as something that it really isn't supposed to be defined as (whether you believe the mind exists or not).

I am using the word "is" in its ontological sense. Premise 1 says that the conscious mind is the state of a group of neurons exactly like you could say that the logical state of a computer is the state of its electronic components. You can disagree that it is but there is nothing ambiguous about it.

I am also using "conscious mind" in the usual, subjective sense of the part of the mind of which the subject is subjectively aware. It is the Cartesian "I".

I am also using the expressions "neurons", "group of neurons", "the state of a group of neurons" in the usual empirical sense.

So, there is no equivocation.

Instead, premise 1 clearly, explicitly assumes that given what we know, the conscious mind may be the state of a group of neurons. So, yes, it is assuming that two different names refer in fact to the same thing. This is exactly like assuming x = y to solve a mathematical problem. I would hope this is OK, otherwise we may just as well eschew any rational discussion on any subject whatsoever, which would also deny any validity to science itself. Those who disagree that premise 1 is true can always explain why, but for now, I haven't seen anyone trying to do that.
EB

EDIT
If you still have doubts, you could also look into the meaningfulness of sentences of the form "A is B"...

So then you are essentially stating in P1 that the mind, as it is typically thought of, does not exist. I do not agree. There is also ontological phenomena such as qualia, so the mind can't be just a group of neurons. A group of neurons is not all what is there ontologically.

 

[Speakpigeon]

So then you are essentially stating in P1 that the mind, as it is typically thought of, does not exist. I do not agree. There is also ontological phenomena such as qualia, so the mind can't be just a group of neurons. A group of neurons is not all what is there ontologically.

???

You really think premise 1 "essentially states" that the conscious mind as we typically think of it doesn't exist?! Please justify.

Please note I didn't say that the mind was a group of neurons, as you seem to have misunderstood premise 1 here. Read again: Premise 1 - For all we know, somebody's conscious mind may be the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain. See?

So, do you really think you know that your conscious mind isn't the state of a group of neurons in your brain? How come I don't know that myself?

If so, what would be the rational justification for that? "Rational" here means facts and logic, nothing else. Go on, I'm very interested. If you know something I don't know, I can only be very, very interested.
EB

 

[ryan]

So then you are essentially stating in P1 that the mind, as it is typically thought of, does not exist. I do not agree. There is also ontological phenomena such as qualia, so the mind can't be just a group of neurons. A group of neurons is not all what is there ontologically.

???

You really think premise 1 "essentially states" that the conscious mind as we typically think of it doesn't exist?! Please justify.

Please note I didn't say that the mind was a group of neurons, as you seem to have misunderstood premise 1 here. Read again: Premise 1 - For all we know, somebody's conscious mind may be the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain. See?

A state of a group of neurons is still a group of neurons.

So, do you really think you know that your conscious mind isn't the state of a group of neurons in your brain? How come I don't know that myself?

Because the whole mystery and problem with the consciousness is that it seems to be more than the physical features of a state of neurons.

If so, what would be the rational justification for that? "Rational" here means facts and logic, nothing else. Go on, I'm very interested. If you know something I don't know, I can only be very, very interested.
EB

A fact is that we report something that doesn't look like anything in the brain. So there is a physical living human + consciousness. To say all that exists is the particles of the human contradicts reports of qualia etc. If this state you speak of are composed of individual neurons, how can they become a whole that the mind reports (the binding problem)?

 

[DBT]

If you think the premises are sound, then you have to accept the conclusion as logically following from the premises. Something DBT doesn't seem to understand.
EB

You don't appear to understand what I say. Instead of asking for clarification, you persist in indulging in the illusion of your own grandeur as a Master of Logic and Reason....immediately firing off your typical salvo of derision and contempt that does not allow any sort of reasonable discussion....just another pissing contest.

I did try to get you to clarify and that didn't work.

Did you? I doubt it, not as a genuine request.

Based on my experience with your arrogance, I doubt that would even deign to consider anything that a poster says once you get on your high horse as the ultimate arbiter of logic and reason. Your conceit doesn't allow it. You only see what you want to see and disregard the rest.

Your disingenuous manner makes it a waste of time trying to explain, expecting only insults no matter what is said

That is arrogance.

So, it's factual that you don't seem to understand how one should go about proving an argument wrong. All you did was accept the truth of the premises and deny the truth of the conclusion without even trying to explain how the argument would be invalid. If we all did like that, it would be easy to dismiss any argument whatsoever on the ground that we are absolutely certain that the conclusion is wrong.
For your information, I did find one guy who did it, so it's possible to do it, although I can see how his argument would be a problem for most people here.
EB

Rubbish. You do no better than what you accuse your opponents of doing. You only see what you want to see, then immediately launch your salvo of snide remarks.

It's a waste of time dealing with you.

 

[DBT]

So, it's factual that you don't seem to understand how one should go about proving an argument wrong. All you did was accept the truth of the premises and deny the truth of the conclusion without even trying to explain how the argument would be invalid. If we all did like that, it would be easy to dismiss any argument whatsoever on the ground that we are absolutely certain that the conclusion is wrong.

OK, here is the remark I made in response to your OP question; Could our actions be decided by our conscious mind?


The remark I made outlines the reasons why your conclusion does not follow from your premises.

You did not appear to understand my remark, or why your conclusion is not supported by your premises.

Nor did you show any inclination towards trying to understand.

Post #2
''Available evidence strongly suggests that our experience of conscious mind is an activity of neural networks, that conscious mind is in no way independent from that activity. That it is this underlying neural network activity that determines the expression of conscious mind, therefore the decisions that are made and the actions that are taken.

The conclusion - ''Therefore, for all we know, what somebody does may be determined by the conscious mind of this person'' - appears to fail to take into account the significance of this underlying neural activity, implying that it is the conscious mind that somehow, autonomously, determines what someone does.''

 

[Speakpigeon]

A state of a group of neurons is still a group of neurons.

No, sorry, that's just idiotic.

So, do you really think you know that your conscious mind isn't the state of a group of neurons in your brain? How come I don't know that myself?

Because the whole mystery and problem with the consciousness is that it seems to be more than the physical features of a state of neurons.

If so, what would be the rational justification for that? "Rational" here means facts and logic, nothing else. Go on, I'm very interested. If you know something I don't know, I can only be very, very interested.
EB

A fact is that we report something that doesn't look like anything in the brain. So there is a physical living human + consciousness. To say all that exists is the particles of the human contradicts reports of qualia etc. If this state you speak of are composed of individual neurons, how can they become a whole that the mind reports (the binding problem)?

I asked you what you know and how you know it, not how you feel about premise 1.

Anyway, thank you, I guess we're done. Come back when you can answer in a rational way.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Post #2
''Available evidence strongly suggests that our experience of conscious mind is an activity of neural networks, that conscious mind is in no way independent from that activity. That it is this underlying neural network activity that determines the expression of conscious mind, therefore the decisions that are made and the actions that are taken.

This is irrelevant as it doesn't show that any of the premises if false.

The conclusion - ''Therefore, for all we know, what somebody does may be determined by the conscious mind of this person'' - appears to fail to take into account the significance of this underlying neural activity, implying that it is the conscious mind that somehow, autonomously, determines what someone does.''

The conclusion doesn't need to do anything. It's a conclusion. All we need is that it should follow logically from the premises. You haven't shown that this isn't the case.

So, overall, you haven't shown that any of the premises is false or that the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. So the argument stands.

I guess we better stop here, I can see you haven't the wits to understand what is required to address the OP.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

OK, here is the remark I made in response to your OP question; Could our actions be decided by our conscious mind?

No, it's not the OP, it's the title.

The OP is an argument proposed as logical.
EB

 

[ryan]

No, sorry, that's just idiotic.

Wow, you don't know what a state of a neuron means and how that term is used in biology do you.

A fact is that we report something that doesn't look like anything in the brain. So there is a physical living human + consciousness. To say all that exists is the particles of the human contradicts reports of qualia etc. If this state you speak of are composed of individual neurons, how can they become a whole that the mind reports (the binding problem)?

I asked you what you know and how you know it, not how you feel about premise 1.

Anyway, thank you, I guess we're done. Come back when you can answer in a rational way.
EB

You asked for facts. You didn't read what I wrote.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Wow, you don't know what a state of a neuron means and how that term is used in biology do you.

I put the phrase "the state of a group of neurons" in English. I know what "the state of a group of neurons" means in English, so that's all I need to know. What has biology to do with the English language?

A fact is that we report something that doesn't look like anything in the brain. So there is a physical living human + consciousness. To say all that exists is the particles of the human contradicts reports of qualia etc. If this state you speak of are composed of individual neurons, how can they become a whole that the mind reports (the binding problem)?

I asked you what you know and how you know it, not how you feel about premise 1.
Anyway, thank you, I guess we're done. Come back when you can answer in a rational way.
EB

You asked for facts. You didn't read what I wrote.

I read what you wrote the first time round. The fact you mention that we report something "that doesn't look like anything in the brain" is relevant to whether we know that the conscious mind is or isn't the state of a group of neurons. Many people have reported that the Sun doesn't look like the Earth is orbiting it and it still doesn't look like it today, and yet.

So, maybe you should start by reading the OP yourself.
EB

 

[ryan]

I put the phrase "the state of a group of neurons" in English. I know what "the state of a group of neurons" means in English, so that's all I need to know. What has biology to do with the English language?

A fact is that we report something that doesn't look like anything in the brain. So there is a physical living human + consciousness. To say all that exists is the particles of the human contradicts reports of qualia etc. If this state you speak of are composed of individual neurons, how can they become a whole that the mind reports (the binding problem)?

I asked you what you know and how you know it, not how you feel about premise 1.
Anyway, thank you, I guess we're done. Come back when you can answer in a rational way.
EB

You asked for facts. You didn't read what I wrote.

I read what you wrote the first time round. The fact you mention that we report something "that doesn't look like anything in the brain" is relevant to whether we know that the conscious mind is or isn't the state of a group of neurons. Many people have reported that the Sun doesn't look like the Earth is orbiting it and it still doesn't look like it today, and yet.

So, maybe you should start by reading the OP yourself.
EB

The conscioisness arises *from* the state of neurons. That's my argument against P1.

 

[DBT]

OK, here is the remark I made in response to your OP question; Could our actions be decided by our conscious mind?

No, it's not the OP, it's the title.

The OP is an argument proposed as logical.
EB

Wow, no shorthand allowed. No reference to the OP by way of title permitted. Everything must be described to your satisfaction, regardless of its irrelevance.

 

[DBT]

The conclusion doesn't need to do anything. It's a conclusion. All we need is that it should follow logically from the premises. You haven't shown that this isn't the case.

That is what I have been pointing out from the beginning. Your conclusion does not follow logically from the premises, and I have described the reasons why this is the case.

Again;
If ''somebody's conscious mind may be the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain'' and ''what somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain'' it does not follow that ''what somebody does may be determined by the conscious mind of this person'' because 'conscious mind' and ''what someone does'' is - according to the premises - already determined by neuron states and not the ''conscious mind of the person''

The latter is a redundancy. By saying ''for all we know, what somebody does may be determined by the conscious mind of this person'' you imply another element, an element that is over and above the terms of your premises, therefore not supported by your premises.

So, overall, you haven't shown that any of the premises is false or that the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. So the argument stands.

If you had understood what I said, perhaps not even reading what I said, you'd know that I did not question or challenge your premises.

It is your conclusion that I questioned Again, by introducing an element - action determined by conscious mind, when your premises state that mind is a state of a group of neurons, hence determined by neuron state and not conscious mind, your conclusion is not supported by your premises.

I guess we better stop here, I can see you haven't the wits to understand what is required to address the OP.
EB

It should never have gotten started. It is clear that you not do not understand the subject matter, the flaw in your conclusion or any explanation that was provided.

 

[fromderinside]

The conscioisness arises *from* the state of neurons. That's my argument against P1.

Nothing arises from a snapshot. Consciousness is where the past, present and future is reflected in neural processes. It makes sense that this takes place where sense becomes response.

If one looks at sensory processes one sees current processing refrects past present and future throughout the sensory- response pathway at every waystation in information journey through the nervous system.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The conscioisness arises *from* the state of neurons.

Yes, I have long understood it was your belief, and as you suggested yourself, this is usually the belief people have.

But a belief doesn't work as a logical argument. People believe all sorts of things, that the Sun turns around the Earth and that sort of things. I am asking you to provide a fact that's relevant. A fact that proves the premise false. The fact that you have a belief doesn't contradict premise 1 since it may well be true that you have this belief that consciousness arises from the state of a group of neurons and that premise 1 is true, for example if your belief is mistaken.

That's my argument against P1.

Yes, I got that but it isn't a logical argument. I'm not interested in what people believe here. I already know that, each one of you here. What I asked is a refutation of the argument.

Ryan, this is an important point. I understand you're busy but you should take the time to understand what I'm saying here. This isn't so terribly complicated and it is in fact very basic. If you don't take the time to understand this point, you'll never understand logic. Don't go there. There are enough idiots there. You can also look at all my posts to DBT in this thread. He doesn't understand but I would assume you should.
EB