Could our actions be decided by our conscious mind?

[Koyaanisqatsi]

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.

Not quite. First he wrote:

I repeat premise 1 here for convenience:

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

So, this part of your initial comment doesn't seem to constitute any substantial criticism at all.

That part is fine.

Here again, what you want to claim here is logically entailed by premise 1: If A is B, then A is not independent of B. So, if a conscious mind is the state (or the activity) of a group of neurons, then a conscious mind is not independent from a group of neurons. That should go without me having to explain such trivially obvious evidence.

It is your conclusion - as I have already mentioned - that is the problem. Your conclusion implies more than is allowed by your premises. In fact your conclusion implies/imparts a degree of autonomy to the states and conditions described in your premises....as I said in my initial response.

Your conclusion appears to suggest something along the lines of Mr Untermensches belief in autonomy of mind.

And then:

What do you mean ''now'' I agree with your premises. I pointed out that it was conclusion that was flawed in my second post. It was also clear in my first post, but you didn't understand what I said.

I pointed out the reasons why your conclusion does not follow your premises in my first post

Again, your conclusion: ''Therefore, for all we know, what somebody does may be determined by the conscious mind of this person'' - implies that conscious mind itself may have the ability to determine what somebody does

This contradicts your premises; ''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'' because your premises point to brain/neuronal agency for conscious mind, therefore brain state/condition/agency as the determining factor for how someones conscious mind is being expressed, including all consequent actions...not the conscious mind.

You can't have it both ways, that it is neural networks determine mind and action, and that mind inexplicable has the power of determining a persons actions

It also implies a division between the person and his mind and brain. There is no division. The brain is the sole agent of cognition and action.

Then you said "Never mind" and he said "fine" and then some spot-on analysis of your pointlessly combative posting style and then:

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.''

And then we had:

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.

And this spot-on response:

You can also look at all my posts to DBT in this thread. He doesn't understand but I would assume you should.
EB

The posts addressed to me just display the same conceit and arrogance you present to anyone you happen to disagree with. That's just your nature. Always assuming yourself to be the very embodiment of logic and reason, a veritable God looking down on mere mortals, the defender of reason, yet failing to grasp the fallacies of your own arguments no matter how many times they are pointed out That is your folly.

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 is the groups of neurons and their states that determines both what someone does and the expression of conscious mind rather than just conscious mind as your conclusion suggests.

If you cannot see the fallacy of your argument, you need to wake up Noddy. Perhaps take a course in basic logic....better yet, basic manners.

And then:

But you haven't explained how it would be a fallacy.

EB

Yes I have, It's right there for anyone to see and read. It's not rocket science. It shouldn't take pages of explanation to understand.

"You're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong!" again and again. I guess he must be the President of the United States today.

That is not what I said. I have given several clear descriptions of the fallacy of your conclusion.

Why do you not address what I said?

Again.

Basically, if it is 'somebody's conscious mind is the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain, and what what somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain' (PI, P2), what someone does is not being determined by the conscious mind (conclusion) but by the state of the neurons in this persons brain that is responsible for both conscious mind formation and related action.

It is not the mind that is acting, but the brain acting by means of conscious mind (partly by means of conscious mind, motor action being a separate pathway)

This distinction should not be hard to grasp.

And we're up to page 8 now and he says:

I have clearly stated that I do not dispute your premises. I clearly states that your conclusion does not follow from your premises, and clearly explained why it does not.

And then:

The notion in your conclusion that the conscious mind is determined by the state of a group of neurons doesn't follow from the premises.

Interpreting, as one might choose to do, "A is responsible for B" as equivalent to "A is B", would make my conclusion true, something you have denied, which excludes that this interpretation would be your own. Hence, your conclusion doesn't follow and you are being logically incoherent.

Of course it follows from the premises. It's the only conclusion that follows from the 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, has no suggestion or hint of determination by the conscious mind of this person. Premise one supports supports nothing more than conscious mind determined by the state of a group of neurons

Premise 2 - What somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain, also only supports action being determined by the state of a group of neurons

And then suddenly, pulled out of who knows where, we have the conclusion; Therefore, for all we know, what somebody does may be determined by the conscious mind of this person.

Where does this 'action determined by conscious mind' even come from? There is no suggestion of it in either of the premises, but suddenly, inexplicably, there it is, a conclusion that has no link or relationship to your premises

Therefore your conclusion does not follow from your premises.

And so on.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Not quite. First he wrote:

I repeat premise 1 here for convenience:

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

So, this part of your initial comment doesn't seem to constitute any substantial criticism at all.

That part is fine.

Here again, what you want to claim here is logically entailed by premise 1: If A is B, then A is not independent of B. So, if a conscious mind is the state (or the activity) of a group of neurons, then a conscious mind is not independent from a group of neurons. That should go without me having to explain such trivially obvious evidence.

It is your conclusion - as I have already mentioned - that is the problem. Your conclusion implies more than is allowed by your premises. In fact your conclusion implies/imparts a degree of autonomy to the states and conditions described in your premises....as I said in my initial response.

Your conclusion appears to suggest something along the lines of Mr Untermensches belief in autonomy of mind.

And then:

What do you mean ''now'' I agree with your premises. I pointed out that it was conclusion that was flawed in my second post. It was also clear in my first post, but you didn't understand what I said.

I pointed out the reasons why your conclusion does not follow your premises in my first post

Again, your conclusion: ''Therefore, for all we know, what somebody does may be determined by the conscious mind of this person'' - implies that conscious mind itself may have the ability to determine what somebody does

This contradicts your premises; ''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'' because your premises point to brain/neuronal agency for conscious mind, therefore brain state/condition/agency as the determining factor for how someones conscious mind is being expressed, including all consequent actions...not the conscious mind.

You can't have it both ways, that it is neural networks determine mind and action, and that mind inexplicable has the power of determining a persons actions

It also implies a division between the person and his mind and brain. There is no division. The brain is the sole agent of cognition and action.

Then you said "Never mind" and he said "fine" and then some spot-on analysis of your pointlessly combative posting style and then:

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.''

And then we had:

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.

And this spot-on response:

You can also look at all my posts to DBT in this thread. He doesn't understand but I would assume you should.
EB

The posts addressed to me just display the same conceit and arrogance you present to anyone you happen to disagree with. That's just your nature. Always assuming yourself to be the very embodiment of logic and reason, a veritable God looking down on mere mortals, the defender of reason, yet failing to grasp the fallacies of your own arguments no matter how many times they are pointed out That is your folly.

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 is the groups of neurons and their states that determines both what someone does and the expression of conscious mind rather than just conscious mind as your conclusion suggests.

If you cannot see the fallacy of your argument, you need to wake up Noddy. Perhaps take a course in basic logic....better yet, basic manners.

And then:

But you haven't explained how it would be a fallacy.

EB

Yes I have, It's right there for anyone to see and read. It's not rocket science. It shouldn't take pages of explanation to understand.

"You're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong!" again and again. I guess he must be the President of the United States today.

That is not what I said. I have given several clear descriptions of the fallacy of your conclusion.

Why do you not address what I said?

Again.

Basically, if it is 'somebody's conscious mind is the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain, and what what somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain' (PI, P2), what someone does is not being determined by the conscious mind (conclusion) but by the state of the neurons in this persons brain that is responsible for both conscious mind formation and related action.

It is not the mind that is acting, but the brain acting by means of conscious mind (partly by means of conscious mind, motor action being a separate pathway)

This distinction should not be hard to grasp.

And we're up to page 8 now and he says:

I have clearly stated that I do not dispute your premises. I clearly states that your conclusion does not follow from your premises, and clearly explained why it does not.

And then:

The notion in your conclusion that the conscious mind is determined by the state of a group of neurons doesn't follow from the premises.

Interpreting, as one might choose to do, "A is responsible for B" as equivalent to "A is B", would make my conclusion true, something you have denied, which excludes that this interpretation would be your own. Hence, your conclusion doesn't follow and you are being logically incoherent.

Of course it follows from the premises. It's the only conclusion that follows from the 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, has no suggestion or hint of determination by the conscious mind of this person. Premise one supports supports nothing more than conscious mind determined by the state of a group of neurons

Premise 2 - What somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain, also only supports action being determined by the state of a group of neurons

And then suddenly, pulled out of who knows where, we have the conclusion; Therefore, for all we know, what somebody does may be determined by the conscious mind of this person.

Where does this 'action determined by conscious mind' even come from? There is no suggestion of it in either of the premises, but suddenly, inexplicably, there it is, a conclusion that has no link or relationship to your premises

Therefore your conclusion does not follow from your premises.

And so on.

Yes? And?
EB

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Yes? And?

And, at no point does he "explicitly agree that both premises of the initial argument were true." He merely reiterates that he does not necessarily dispute them, but that is not the same thing as "explicitly" agreeing that they are true (or, as I qualified it, accepted as true). Indeed, at best it would be the exact opposite of what he did (i.e., the difference between tacit and explicit).

He also repeatedly demonstrated how/why your OP syllogism's conclusion did not follow from your premises. And in his follow up to your analogical syllogism, points out the difference in the premises and why, once again, your OP is non-sequitur due to the wording of your premises. Hence my emphasizing "unlike" in his follow up:

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.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Here is what I took to be DBT's explicit agreement that the premises were true.

What do you mean ''now'' I agree with your premises. I pointed out that it was conclusion that was flawed in my second post. It was also clear in my first post, but you didn't understand what I said.

"I pointed out that it was conclusion that was flawed".
I still take this as implicitly implying that he agreed the premises were true.
If that's not what he meant, then that's just too bad.
And so?

And I have him on ignore now.
EB

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

It may just be a language barrier (lord knows your English is far better than my French), but let me make it clear:

Here is what I took to be DBT's explicit agreement that the premises were true.
...
I still take this as implicitly implying that he agreed the premises were true.

See it now?

And I have him on ignore now.

Perhaps you should re-think.

 

[DBT]

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

Yes I did. You did not understand what I said the first time, and you didn't understand it this time. The distinction being that in your first argument the conscious mind is the brain wave - inseparable from it - which is determined by the state of a group of neurons, while in your second example, the float is completely separate object to the wave, it is the wave the acts upon the float as a separate and distinct object.

This distinction is key to the point.

It should not be hard to grasp.

This is what makes the conclusion in your first draft invalid.

Again, it is the float as a separate object being acted upon that makes the difference. This is what makes your second argument valid.

 

[Speakpigeon]

It may just be a language barrier (lord knows your English is far better than my French),

You would have to prove your English is better than mine.

but let me make it clear:

Here is what I took to be DBT's explicit agreement that the premises were true.
...
I still take this as implicitly implying that he agreed the premises were true.

See it now?

Most people are so devious you never get any better than that.

"Implicitly implying" really means that if he does not agree with the premises then he is either mentally retarded or even more devious than UM. So, either way, I win the argument.

And I have him on ignore now.

Perhaps you should re-think.

No, I'll take your analysis at face value and deduce from it that he is either mentally retarded or even more devious than UM.

Yes I did.

See. "Yes I did". Did what? We'll never get to know.

And if you think you understand DBT's word soup, please explain to me what he says here:

You did not understand what I said the first time, and you didn't understand it this time. The distinction being that in your first argument the conscious mind is the brain wave - inseparable from it - which is determined by the state of a group of neurons, while in your second example, the float is completely separate object to the wave, it is the wave the acts upon the float as a separate and distinct object.

This distinction is key to the point.

It should not be hard to grasp.

This is what makes the conclusion in your first draft invalid.

Again, it is the float as a separate object being acted upon that makes the difference. This is what makes your second argument valid.

Me, beyond saying this is idiotic, I don't.
EB

 

[DBT]

See. "Yes I did". Did what? We'll never get to know.

We? Is that a Royal We? Or have you proclaimed yourself a spokesman on behalf of all readers? You should know exactly what I explained, therefore the reasons why your first conclusion failed and why your second draft was reasonable.

If you can't understand what was explained to you, that is your failure.

And if you think you understand DBT's word soup, please explain to me what he says here:

Me, beyond saying this is idiotic, I don't.
EB

Something is idiotic. No doubt about that. But this idiotic thing does not happen to be my explanation of the pros and cons of your arguments. It is clear that you understand neither your own arguments or my explanations of them.

 

[Speakpigeon]

See. "Yes I did". Did what? We'll never get to know.

We? Is that a Royal We? Or have you proclaimed yourself a spokesman on behalf of all readers? You should know exactly what I explained, therefore the reasons why your first conclusion failed and why your second draft was reasonable.

If you can't understand what was explained to you, that is your failure.

And if you think you understand DBT's word soup, please explain to me what he says here:

Me, beyond saying this is idiotic, I don't.
EB

Something is idiotic. No doubt about that. But this idiotic thing does not happen to be my explanation of the pros and cons of your arguments. It is clear that you understand neither your own arguments or my explanations of them.

See. "Yes I did". Did what? We'll never get to know.

And we still don't know.
EB

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

"Yes I did". Did what? We'll never get to know. And we still don't know.

Seriously? First of all, I thought you put him on ignore. Secondly:

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 I did.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

And if you think you understand DBT's word soup, please explain to me what he says here:

You did not understand what I said the first time, and you didn't understand it this time. The distinction being that in your first argument the conscious mind is the brain wave - inseparable from it - which is determined by the state of a group of neurons, while in your second example, the float is completely separate object to the wave, it is the wave the acts upon the float as a separate and distinct object.

This distinction is key to the point.

It should not be hard to grasp.

This is what makes the conclusion in your first draft invalid.

Again, it is the float as a separate object being acted upon that makes the difference. This is what makes your second argument valid.

Me, beyond saying this is idiotic, I don't.

That is hard to believe, since he spells it all out, but, ok. I'll repeat it.

He's saying that in the OP argument, the "conscious mind" is inseparable from the brain wave (essentially, it IS the brain wave), and that is determined by the state of a group of neurons. Clear?

Then in your analogous argument, the float (analogous to the "conscious mind") is separate from the wave.

OP: the "mind" simply is the wave. Analogy: the float is distinct from the wave. Clear?

Since you did not comprehend the difference between explicit and implicit, it's understandable how you may have missed this, but a superior English speaker would not.

Basically, you have been making the exact same category error/assertion/assumption UM has without ever once proving it; that a "mind" is somehow a distinct object in its own right and not merely an illusion born of process (like the image projected onto a screen that we call a "film" or the illusion that the bird is actually inside the cage in a thaumatrope). You are simply declaring that the mind is a separate, distinct object. As with UM, that's not something you get to just fiat. You have to provide a legitimate, cogent and exhaustive argument and support it with some kind of evidence.

UM never does that. He thinks he does that--he petulantly insists he does that--but that's a different matter.

And you know this is true (that you need to support such an assertion), because you tried to hedge your OP syllogism with "may" rather than "is" (as I believe Ryan pointed out). But of course, "may" can apply to anything or nothing. "Is" otoh, is a direct claim, which is why you avoided it.

ETA: Here, it's easy to show you what you did by properly formatting your OP:

Premise 1 - A conscious mind is the state of a group of neurons in a person's brain;
Premise 2 - What somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in their brain;
Conclusion - Therefore, what somebody does is determined by the conscious mind of that person.

You should now be able to see that your conclusion is non-sequitur.

 

[fromderinside]

Seriously? First of all, I thought you put him on ignore. Secondly:

Hey.

Speakpigeion is better than that. He can undo what he hath done and it wasn't ignore DBT.

 

[ronburgundy]

Available evidence strongly suggests that our experience of conscious mind is an activity of neural networks.....

That is a lie.

There is nothing that connects the latest fad "neural networks" to the phenomena of consciousness, the phenomena of an active living mind.

Neural networks can at most organize electricity.

To the brain electricity elicits a reflex.

The most a neural network could explain is a reflex.

It could never explain the phenomena of a mind experiencing the color blue.

Not sure what your on about with "synchronicity" or why you'd bring a unscientific woo charlatan like Jung into any intellectual conversion. However, there is a mountain of evidence showing causal dependence of subjective experience on neural activity. There are brain damage studies showing that damage to specific networks (whether due to tumors, lesions, or traumas) alter subjective emotions, thoughts, and even abilities to experience various sensory phenomena even though the the brain is still processing the sensory input on the sensory/motor cortex. Among those is all the evidence related to CTE (concussions). There are brain surgery patients who have been made to experience smells and emotions via direct electrical stimulation of brain regions. There are countless drug studies showing causal dependence of subjective mental states of emotion and sensory experience to chemical alterations to neural pathways.

 

[ronburgundy]

Thank you to discuss the following argument, its two premises and its validity.

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;
Conclusion - Therefore, for all we know, what somebody does may be determined by the conscious mind of this person.
EB

Thank you to restrict yourself to facts and logic.
EB

It seems the internal logic is sound.
A is the same as B
A implies(leads to) C
Therefore, B implies(leads to) C.

There is strong evidence to support the second premise. However, the first premise is questionable, because it presumes A and B are identical rather than B (the mind) being an effect or byproduct of A (neural activity/states).

If both the mind and our actions are products of neural states, then the mind and our actions (B and C) have no direct causal relation and are merely correlated via shared dependence on the brain.

Similarly, the mind could be the same as or equal to a particular subset of brain states that are the caused by states of other neurons that are not themselves directly tied to mental experience. Those other brain states can then impact the motor cortex to control out actions. In this scenario, the mind (B) and our actions (C) are not dependent on each other, rather they are related as following:
A determines D and E
D is B
E determines C.
Thus, B and C covary but B does not determine C.

 

[Speakpigeon]

That is hard to believe, since he spells it all out, but, ok. I'll repeat it.

He's saying that in the OP argument, the "conscious mind" is inseparable from the brain wave (essentially, it IS the brain wave), and that is determined by the state of a group of neurons. Clear?

What you say is very clear but that is not in the least what the argument says.

The argument doesn't say that the mind is determined by the state of a group of neurons.

If you want to be taken seriously shading light on DBT's sayings, you better start by reading my own posts and not make up some redacted version of them.

Then in your analogous argument, the float (analogous to the "conscious mind") is separate from the wave.

Yes, the float is separate from the wave.

No, the float is not the analogue of the conscious mind.

Please read the argument. Apparently, you haven't.

OP: the "mind" simply is the wave.

It is misleading to say that "the mind simply is the wave". The wave is the analogue of the mind.

Analogy: the float is distinct from the wave. Clear?

Of course it is distinct. The float is distinct from the wave because the float is not the analogue of the mind.

Please read again the two arguments. Please take your time. Please stop misrepresenting what they say...

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;
Conclusion - Therefore, for all we know, what somebody does may be determined by the conscious mind of this person.

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

Since you did not comprehend the difference between explicit and implicit,

???

You must be joking, right?! You really think I don't understand the difference between explicit and implicit??? Whoa.

it's understandable how you may have missed this, but a superior English speaker would not.

Right now, you're demonstrating your inferior English skills by having shown yourself unable to compare the two arguments.

Basically, you have been making the exact same category error/assertion/assumption UM has without ever once proving it;

Your sentence here doesn't make sense. If you don't have the time to write proper sentences, please ignore me.

that a "mind" is somehow a distinct object in its own right and not merely an illusion born of process (like the image projected onto a screen that we call a "film" or the illusion that the bird is actually inside the cage in a thaumatrope). You are simply declaring that the mind is a separate, distinct object.

This is complete nonsense.

First, what you describe here as a category error doesn't fit with the notion of category error. To say that the mind is a separate entity is not a category error. So much for your English skills. Please, get yourself a dictionary.

Second, there is in the argument about the conscious mind no suggestion that the mind would be a separate entity. The phrase "somebody's conscious mind may be the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain" doesn't say that the mind is a separate entity.

I suggest you re-train yourself starting from kindergarten.

As with UM, that's not something you get to just fiat. You have to provide a legitimate, cogent and exhaustive argument and support it with some kind of evidence.

When you make idiotic claims about what I posted, please provide the evidence by quoting the relevant bit. Learn how to debate in a rational way. If you can't do that, go play in the courtyard.

And you know this is true (that you need to support such an assertion),

And you don't support your own assertions about what I say.

You're making assertions by the shitload about what I said without once quoting the relevant bit of my posts.

because you tried to hedge your OP syllogism with "may" rather than "is" (as I believe Ryan pointed out). But of course, "may" can apply to anything or nothing.

This is idiotic. If we know that the Earth is flat, then it is not true that for all we know the Earth may not be flat. See? I guess probably not.

"Is" otoh, is a direct claim, which is why you avoided it.

"May" is a direct claim. I have no reason to say "is" if I think it would make the premise false.

So, given that the premise is true, where is it I say that the mind is a separate entity? And so, where is the "category error"? And so why should I justify anything.

This thread is about the validity of the argument about the conscious mind. So, whether the premises are true in fact doesn't matter in the least. So, your point here is a derail and this shows you just don't understand English very well.

ETA: Here, it's easy to show you what you did by properly formatting your OP:

Premise 1 - A conscious mind is the state of a group of neurons in a person's brain;
Premise 2 - What somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in their brain;
Conclusion - Therefore, what somebody does is determined by the conscious mind of that person.

You should now be able to see that your conclusion is non-sequitur.

So, you think you've demonstrated that my argument is a non-sequitur?!

Gosh, Jesus Bloody-Mary Sainte Vierge.

You redacted my argument into a different argument and then claim my argument is a non-sequitur on the basis of your redacted argument?! How idiotic do you think that is?

Please, ignore me.

You've shown yourself unable to understand anything very much of this thread. So, please, keep out and go play in the courtyard with the other children.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Thank you to discuss the following argument, its two premises and its validity.

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;
Conclusion - Therefore, for all we know, what somebody does may be determined by the conscious mind of this person.
EB

Thank you to restrict yourself to facts and logic.
EB

It seems the internal logic is sound.
A is the same as B
A implies(leads to) C
Therefore, B implies(leads to) C.

OK, it's much better but please, keep to the proper vocabulary. The argument is valid or it is not. To say that the "logic is sound" can only bring confusion in the feverish minds of people like DBT.

There is strong evidence to support the second premise.

Good.

Some people like DBT and Koyaanisqatsi could learn concision here.

However, the first premise is questionable, because it presumes A and B are identical rather than B (the mind) being an effect or byproduct of A (neural activity/states).

No, not that A and B are identical. Only that they may be identical. Your reading skills have thereby been proved deficient.

So, please answer this question: Do you know they are not? Do you know that the mind is an effect or a byproduct of neural states?!

If both the mind and our actions are products of neural states, then the mind and our actions (B and C) have no direct causal relation and are merely correlated via shared dependence on the brain.

Sure. The argument does say any different. What's your point?

Similarly, the mind could be the same as or equal to a particular subset of brain states that are the caused by states of other neurons that are not themselves directly tied to mental experience. Those other brain states can then impact the motor cortex to control out actions. In this scenario, the mind (B) and our actions (C) are not dependent on each other, rather they are related as following:
A determines D and E
D is B
E determines C.
Thus, B and C covary but B does not determine C.

Sure, The argument does say any different. What's your point?

Well, you started out rather good, and suddenly your attention span faltered and you started to read something into the argument that wasn't there and you started making irrelevant and pointless comments.

Nothing else much to say.

Still, you get better marks than the DBTs and Koyaanisqatsies of this world.
EB

 

[DBT]

Please, ignore me.

You said that you had put me on ignore....yet here we are. Being put on ignore by you is not an insult or a punishment or sense of failure. It is a blessing. It is the best possible outcome. It hasn't worked so far, but hopefully you can stay true to your word. You yourself, being so incredibly conceited, are worthy of ignoring.

You've shown yourself unable to understand anything very much of this thread. So, please, keep out and go play in the courtyard with the other children.
EB

No, that's you. You have shown yourself to be not only willfully ignorant...perhaps it comes naturally, who knows, but childishly petulant whenever someone makes a comment not to your liking. There are many examples of your arrogant comments.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Please, ignore me.

You said that you had put me on ignore....yet here we are. Being put on ignore by you is not an insult or a punishment or sense of failure. It is a blessing. It is the best possible outcome. It hasn't worked so far, but hopefully you can stay true to your word. You yourself, being so incredibly conceited, are worthy of ignoring.

You've shown yourself unable to understand anything very much of this thread. So, please, keep out and go play in the courtyard with the other children.
EB

No, that's you. You have shown yourself to be not only willfully ignorant...perhaps it comes naturally, who knows, but childishly petulant whenever someone makes a comment not to your liking. There are many examples of your arrogant comments.

DBT, concerning the premises of the argument on the Conscious Mind, do you think that the premises are true?

Yes or no?
EB

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Please read again the two arguments.

Better yet, I'll properly format them both so that you can plainly see what you've done wrong. Again. First the OP:

Premise 1 - A conscious mind is the state of a group of neurons in that person's brain;
Premise 2 - What somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in that person's brain;
Conclusion - Therefore, what somebody does is determined by the conscious mind of that person.

Non-sequitur. First, you've falsely equated the groups of neurons in P1 and P2. Just because one group of neurons may result in a "conscious mind" (whatever the hell that is), that does not necessarily mean that the same group of neurons determines "what somebody does."

What you need to do, then, is format it this way:

Premise 1 - A conscious mind is a particular state of a group of neurons in that person's brain;
Premise 2 - What somebody does is determined by the same particular state of a group of neurons in that person's brain;
Conclusion - Therefore, what somebody does is determined by the conscious mind of that person.

Which is likewise non-sequitur and has additional problems of its own. To start with, P1. We don't know whether or not a "conscious mind" is in fact a "particular state of a group of neurons in that person's brain." If anything, what it seems to be is a phenomenon generated by a change in state of various neurons in that person's brain. Which neurons? We don't know, hence "various neurons" rather than "a group of neurons."

Also, a category error. A "conscious mind" (in so far as we use those terms) is, at best, a vague, ill-defined placeholder term, while "what somebody does" is actually the "set of actions somebody has taken or can take."

Iow, as with UM, you are trying to conflate a verb with a noun. So you need to rephrase again to:

Premise 1 - A conscious mind is a phenomenon generated by a change in state of various neurons in that person's brain;
Premise 2 - The set of actions somebody has taken or can take is determined by the same change in state of the same various neurons in that person's brain;
Conclusion - Therefore, the set of actions somebody has taken or can take is determined by the conscious mind of that person.

Which, as you can see, is still non-sequitur, because P2 has, as a base assumption, the conclusion! I.e., that "the set of actions..." is simply a condition of (or subset of) the same "change in state" and the same "various neurons," but that is exactly what it is you're trying to prove. So, we'd have to remove "same" from P2 and we get:

Premise 1 - A conscious mind is a phenomenon generated by a change in state of various neurons in that person's brain;
Premise 2 - The set of actions somebody has taken or can take is determined by a change in state of various neurons in that person's brain;
Conclusion - Therefore, the set of actions somebody has taken or can take is determined by the conscious mind of that person.

Which, once again, due to the same category error (verb/noun), is likewise non-sequitur. Even if you could ever justify "the same change in state of the same various neurons," you still can't get away from the category error of a process and an outcome. Or, rather, that the particular process results in the particular outcome.

In short, you can't ever establish that the phenomenon we call "mind" can "determine" what actions you take.

Now apply the same deconstruction to your analogue syllogism:

Premise 1 - A wave on a planet is a phenomenon generated by a change in state of various water molecules in the sea on that planet;
Premise 2 - What a float on a planet does is determined by the same change in state of various water molecules in the sea on that planet;
Conclusion - Therefore, what a float on a planet does is determined by a wave on that planet.

Sequitur. No such false equivalences, or vague definitions, or category errors, or unjustified assumptions, etc.

ETA: Once again, "may" is off the table in a truth claim as it does the precise opposite of what a syllogism is intended to do; it hedges and therefore automatically makes any syllogism trivial. In short, it's: P1 may lead to P2 which may allow C.

Well, no shit. No one cares about what may allow C. Anything may allow C. We only care whether or not C obtains (is derived from) P1 and P2.

Iow, what it is, not what it may be. You dig? Of course you don't.

 

[DBT]

You said that you had put me on ignore....yet here we are. Being put on ignore by you is not an insult or a punishment or sense of failure. It is a blessing. It is the best possible outcome. It hasn't worked so far, but hopefully you can stay true to your word. You yourself, being so incredibly conceited, are worthy of ignoring.



No, that's you. You have shown yourself to be not only willfully ignorant...perhaps it comes naturally, who knows, but childishly petulant whenever someone makes a comment not to your liking. There are many examples of your arrogant comments.

DBT, concerning the premises of the argument on the Conscious Mind, do you think that the premises are true?

Yes or no?
EB

I've already said they are, several times. So obviously the answer is yes.