Could our actions be decided by our conscious mind?

[Speakpigeon]

Koyaanisqatsi, do you remember that?

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).

"Indeed, at best it would be the exact opposite of what he did."

Yet, here is DBT's confirmation of what I thought that he thinks the premises true and that he has already said it several times.

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.

Of course, it's factually not true that he has already said it several times but what matters here is how we each interpreted what he had actually said.

So, you we're wrong in your interpretation. I was correct.

So, on the face of it, my English definitely seems better than yours.

Sorry that my post should all be in English. I do hope you are still capable of understanding the gist of it.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

This is a flat lie. You are lying. You're a liar.

The quote here is not a quote of the OP.

This is a flat lie. You are lying. You're a liar.

Non-sequitur.

Prove it.

You can't.

First, because the conclusion follows from the premises.

Second, even if it was a non-sequitur, you would be unable to prove it because you don't understand modal logic.

That you don't understand model logic is evidence by your justification for your belief that it is a non-sequitur:

First, you've falsely equated the groups of neurons in P1 and P2.

What P1 and what P2?!

There are no P1 or P2 in my argument. You're just making stuff up. You are constantly misrepresenting what I said and you're a liar.

I don't equate anything. The argument equates the conscious mind of a person and the state of a group of neurons. That's it. No other equation. You can't even read the argument properly.

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."

Who said it necessarily did?!

You're just making stuff up. You're reading things into the argument that aren't there.

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

The rest is too idiotic to respond too. Just register yourself as soon as possible into a nursing home, one without Internet connection.
EB

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Jtfc.

 

[DBT]

Of course, it's factually not true that he has already said it several times but what matters here is how we each interpreted what he had actually said.

You seem to be deliberately acting obtuse in order to misdirect and score points when your opponent assumes the obvious. When you asked, ''do you think that the premises are true?'' I assumed that you meant 'do you have any issues or disputes with the premises' - to which I said, I do not.

Which means that I have no dispute with your premises, and did not from the beginning.

If you something else, some private meaning or significance of your own, that is not clear in the question. Nor is it relevant to the flaw in your argument. The flaw being your conclusion. A conclusion that does not follow from the premises, for the given reasons.

So, you we're wrong in your interpretation. I was correct.

So, on the face of it, my English definitely seems better than yours.

Sorry that my post should all be in English. I do hope you are still capable of understanding the gist of it.
EB

You are a wrong, you carefully word your questions in order to misdirect and when you get the result you desire, you think have achieved some sort of justification.

You are wrong, but too proud to see it. Both your argument your subsequent tactics for seeking justification are flawed. Your conceit is the filter through which you see victories where no victories exist.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Of course, it's factually not true that he has already said it several times but what matters here is how we each interpreted what he had actually said.

You seem to be deliberately acting obtuse in order to misdirect and score points when your opponent assumes the obvious. When you asked, ''do you think that the premises are true?'' I assumed that you meant 'do you have any issues or disputes with the premises' - to which I said, I do not.

Which means that I have no dispute with your premises, and did not from the beginning.

If you something else, some private meaning or significance of your own, that is not clear in the question. Nor is it relevant to the flaw in your argument. The flaw being your conclusion. A conclusion that does not follow from the premises, for the given reasons.

So, you we're wrong in your interpretation. I was correct.

So, on the face of it, my English definitely seems better than yours.

Sorry that my post should all be in English. I do hope you are still capable of understanding the gist of it.
EB

You are a wrong, you carefully word your questions in order to misdirect and when you get the result you desire, you think have achieved some sort of justification.

You are wrong, but too proud to see it. Both your argument your subsequent tactics for seeking justification are flawed. Your conceit is the filter through which you see victories where no victories exist.

I wasn't talking about my argument, here. I was talking about Koyaanisqatsi's interpretation of what you posted.

He got it wrong, I got it right.
EB

 

[DBT]

He got it right. You got it wrong. I doubt that want to understood what I said because it would mean that you would realize that your argument was wrong.....and we can't have that, eh? Mr EB can never be wrong.