Could our actions be decided by our conscious mind?

[Speakpigeon]

Object as much as you like, but your conclusion has no relationship to your premises. That conscious mind and conscious is determined by the state of a group of neurons does not allow for action being initiated by conscious mind because both conscious mind and action is being determined by brain state, the working conditions within a group of neurons.
Your conclusion implies Dualism where there is no room for Dualism.
Your persistent denial of this just shows that you don't understand the subject matter or the composition of your own argument.
The sooner you realize and acknowledge this error, the happier you'll be.
Not even close. Not even in the ballpark. What a poor rational. Try again if you like, but it would be better if you just acknowledged your erroneous argument. There is no shame in making a mistake and admitting to it.

Oh dear, oh dear, you're sounding ever more hysterical by the minute.

That conscious mind and conscious is determined by the state of a group of neurons

Hey, that's not even the argument. You're making stuff up. You can't even read the bloody thing and understand what it says.

For your information, I obtained confirmation that the argument is valid.

Not that it would make any difference to you.

We're done here.

You can resume your contradictory debate with the other guy who is always right. Two duelists who are both always right and who always disagree with each other about everything. Interesting. I guess Hell starts right here.
EB

 

[DBT]

Object as much as you like, but your conclusion has no relationship to your premises. That conscious mind and conscious is determined by the state of a group of neurons does not allow for action being initiated by conscious mind because both conscious mind and action is being determined by brain state, the working conditions within a group of neurons.
Your conclusion implies Dualism where there is no room for Dualism.
Your persistent denial of this just shows that you don't understand the subject matter or the composition of your own argument.
The sooner you realize and acknowledge this error, the happier you'll be.
Not even close. Not even in the ballpark. What a poor rational. Try again if you like, but it would be better if you just acknowledged your erroneous argument. There is no shame in making a mistake and admitting to it.

Oh dear, oh dear, you're sounding ever more hysterical by the minute.

Not in the least. Not a bit. It's you. You appear sad over what you know is a badly composed argument, but pride does not allow you to acknowledge your error.

Hey, that's not even the argument. You're making stuff up. You can't even read the bloody thing and understand what it says.

Ahem, may I remind you of the terms of your premises:

Premise 1 - For all we know, somebody's conscious mind may be the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain;
Premise 2 - What somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain;

There is clearly nothing here that supports the conclusion of 'what somebody does may be determined by the conscious mind of this person'' because according to your premises both conscious mind and what someone does is determined by ''the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain''
Hence it is a failed argument.

For your information, I obtained confirmation that the argument is valid.

Really? A confirmation? How exactly was this obtained?

Not that it would make any difference to you.

It might. It would if it was genuine. It wouldn't if it was obtained by a confirmation from Mr Untermensche.

We're done here.

Hopefully so. But I won't hold my breath in anticipation

I guess Hell starts right here.
EB

Maybe it does. But so far you appear to be reveling in it.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Hey, that's not even the argument. You're making stuff up. You can't even read the bloody thing and understand what it says.

Ahem, may I remind you of the terms of your premises:

Premise 1 - For all we know, somebody's conscious mind may be the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain;
Premise 2 - What somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain;

There is clearly nothing here that supports the conclusion of 'what somebody does may be determined by the conscious mind of this person'' because according to your premises both conscious mind and what someone does is determined by ''the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain''
Hence it is a failed argument.

This has to be the stupidest justification ever. You are terminally unable to understand a logical argument. No point arguing anything with you.

I guess I must be stupid to have insisted for so long.

Let's see if UM is even stupider than me.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

For your information, I obtained confirmation that the argument is valid.

Really? A confirmation? How exactly was this obtained?

I don't remember you replying to my thread on the formal structure of the argument. That's sounds like a cop out to me. Chicken.

Reply first, and I'll see if I feel motivated to satisfy your request here.

Not that this could make any difference.
EB

 

[DBT]

For your information, I obtained confirmation that the argument is valid.

Really? A confirmation? How exactly was this obtained?

I don't remember you replying to my thread on the formal structure of the argument. That's sounds like a cop out to me. Chicken.

Reply first, and I'll see if I feel motivated to satisfy your request here.

Not that this could make any difference.
EB

I gave a correction of the structure of your argument, whether you remember that or not. I also explained precisely why your premises do not allow you to make the conclusion that you make.

You either reject what I say because you fancy yourself as being right in spite of clearly being wrong.....or you are incapable of understanding the flawed composition of your own argument (specifically the conclusion) or any explanations as to why it is flawed.

Yet another hint: If somebody's conscious mind is 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 (P1, P2) what somebody cannot be ''determined by the conscious mind of this person'' (Conclusion) because both conscious mind and what someone does is determined by 'the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain'

If you can't see the error of your argument, straightforward as it is, there is no hope that you are even able to understand. Perhaps it's a blind spot, or a glitch in the state of a group of neurons in your brain. Who knows...that is possible.

 

[DBT]

Hey, that's not even the argument. You're making stuff up. You can't even read the bloody thing and understand what it says.

Ahem, may I remind you of the terms of your premises:

Premise 1 - For all we know, somebody's conscious mind may be the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain;
Premise 2 - What somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain;

There is clearly nothing here that supports the conclusion of 'what somebody does may be determined by the conscious mind of this person'' because according to your premises both conscious mind and what someone does is determined by ''the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain''
Hence it is a failed argument.

This has to be the stupidest justification ever. You are terminally unable to understand a logical argument. No point arguing anything with you.

I guess I must be stupid to have insisted for so long.

Let's see if UM is even stupider than me.
EB

Roll your eyes, wail and gnash your teeth if it makes you feel better, but just saying that it's stupid doesn't mean you have demonstrated it. It just shows that you cannot refute what I said. Perhaps if you first understood what I said........

 

[DBT]

Reply first, and I'll see if I feel motivated to satisfy your request here.
.
EB

That's amusing, it was probably Mr Untermesche that 'validated' your argument. After all, it happens to be his belief that the conscious mind is the decision maker ....

 

[Speakpigeon]

Reply first, and I'll see if I feel motivated to satisfy your request here.
.
EB

That's amusing, it was probably Mr Untermesche that 'validated' your argument. After all, it happens to be his belief that the conscious mind is the decision maker ....

Another proof you don't understand logic. The truth of the conclusion is not the same thing at all as the validity. UM is like you. His beliefs trump his logic. No rational conversation is possible with any of you and the fact that you two are forever caught in an absurd duel is evidence enough.
EB

- - - Updated - - -

I don't remember you replying to my thread on the formal structure of the argument. That's sounds like a cop out to me. Chicken.

Reply first, and I'll see if I feel motivated to satisfy your request here.

Not that this could make any difference.
EB

I gave a correction of the structure of your argument, whether you remember that or not.

Please remind me.
EB

 

[DBT]

Another proof you don't understand logic. The truth of the conclusion is not the same thing at all as the validity. UM is like you. His beliefs trump his logic. No rational conversation is possible with any of you and the fact that you two are forever caught in an absurd duel is evidence enough.
EB

Actually it was sarcasm. I'm surprised that I have to point it out.....should I also have to explain why I mentioned Mr Untermensche in relation to your claim of having your argument validated?

Please remind me.
EB

If you couldn't understand what the problem with your argument happens to be, eve when it has been explained numerous times, making no comment on the explanations being provided, why would explaining it one more time make any difference?

I think that your Conceit does not allow you to concede a bad argument whenever you happen make one. You just engage with your little repertoire of snide remarks in the hope that it discredits your opponent make you look good. It doesn't work.

 

[fromderinside]

People twisellng each other's straw. Wonder what the straw thinks.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I gave a correction of the structure of your argument, whether you remember that or not.

Please remind me.
EB

 

[DBT]

People twisellng each other's straw. Wonder what the straw thinks.

I suspect that it may be a French Straw involved in most of the twiseling in this instance.

 

[DBT]

I gave a correction of the structure of your argument, whether you remember that or not.

Please remind me.
EB

Is your memory failing? Are you OK? Maybe due for a check up? Old age creeping up? Or did you not understand what I said...so in a moment of embarrassment decided to pretend that nothing was said?

 

[Speakpigeon]

Here is a different instanciation of the same argument:

For all we know, a wave on a planet may be the state of some water in the sea on this planet;
What a float on a planet does is determined by the state of some water in the sea on this planet;
Therefore, for all we know, what a float on a planet does may be determined by a wave on this planet.

Is this argument sound?

If not, why?
EB

 

[DBT]

That's actually appears to be reasonable.

The difference being, unlike ''what somebody does may be determined by the conscious mind of this person,'' a float is a distinct and separate object being acted upon by a wave and whatever it does is determined by the wave..just like whatever the conscious mind of person does is determined by 'the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain' and not by the conscious mind of this person.

The actions of the cork being determined by the wave, while the conscious mind is being determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain; brain waves, if you like.

 

[Speakpigeon]

That's actually appears to be reasonable.

The difference being, unlike ''what somebody does may be determined by the conscious mind of this person,'' a float is a distinct and separate object being acted upon by a wave and whatever it does is determined by the wave..just like whatever the conscious mind of person does is determined by 'the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain' and not by the conscious mind of this person.

The actions of the cork being determined by the wave, while the conscious mind is being determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain; brain waves, if you like.

The logical structure is the same. If you think one is valid, then you can't think the other is not without being illogical yourself.

And if the argument is valid and you accept the premises as true, as you did with the conscious mind argument, then you can't deny the truth of the conclusion without being illogical yourself.
EB

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

That's actually appears to be reasonable.

The difference being, unlike ''what somebody does may be determined by the conscious mind of this person,'' a float is a distinct and separate object being acted upon by a wave and whatever it does is determined by the wave..just like whatever the conscious mind of person does is determined by 'the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain' and not by the conscious mind of this person.

The actions of the cork being determined by the wave, while the conscious mind is being determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain; brain waves, if you like.

The logical structure is the same. If you think one is valid, then you can't think the other is not without being illogical yourself.

And if the argument is valid and you accept the premises as true, as you did with the conscious mind argument, then you can't deny the truth of the conclusion without being illogical yourself.
EB

DBT just clearly pointed out why your previous premises—as worded—were not true (or, would not just be accepted as true).

 

[Speakpigeon]

That's actually appears to be reasonable.

The difference being, unlike ''what somebody does may be determined by the conscious mind of this person,'' a float is a distinct and separate object being acted upon by a wave and whatever it does is determined by the wave..just like whatever the conscious mind of person does is determined by 'the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain' and not by the conscious mind of this person.

The actions of the cork being determined by the wave, while the conscious mind is being determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain; brain waves, if you like.

The logical structure is the same. If you think one is valid, then you can't think the other is not without being illogical yourself.

And if the argument is valid and you accept the premises as true, as you did with the conscious mind argument, then you can't deny the truth of the conclusion without being illogical yourself.
EB

DBT just clearly pointed out why your previous premises—as worded—were not true (or, would not just be accepted as true).

No, he didn't.

When you assert something like that, you better checked the facts.

He in fact explicitly accepted the premises as true.

And whether the premises are true or not is irrelevant to the validity of an argument.

So, your post is a derail.

More noise.
EB

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

DBT just clearly pointed out why your previous premises—as worded—were not true (or, would not just be accepted as true).

No, he didn't.

Yes, he did (emphasis mine):

The difference being, unlike ''what somebody does may be determined by the conscious mind of this person,'' a float is a distinct and separate object being acted upon by a wave and whatever it does is determined by the wave..just like whatever the conscious mind of person does is determined by 'the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain' and not by the conscious mind of this person.

It’s right there.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Yes, he did (emphasis mine):

The difference being, unlike ''what somebody does may be determined by the conscious mind of this person,'' a float is a distinct and separate object being acted upon by a wave and whatever it does is determined by the wave..just like whatever the conscious mind of person does is determined by 'the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain' and not by the conscious mind of this person.

It’s right there.

As I say, he did explicitly agree that both premises of the initial argument were true. You only need to go through the entire thread, but it must be on page 2, 3 or 4.

You'd need to read and understand what people actually say before making wild assertions. You don't even understand what the bit you posted refers to. So, please, check your facts.
EB