There isn't really a 'freewill problem'.

[Speakpigeon]

First:

Sure they do. They refer to whatever image or impression is created in the mind by the hallucination. The model I create of my environment when I think the room is spinning is a representation of my sensation of vertigo and how it relates to my ability to navigate. I may THINK it's about the actual world, but I can be wrong about that like anything else. The point is that there's no meaningful way to talk about a model that isn't a model of _______.

The point is that reference is defined by belief. What the hallucination refers to is what you believe your hallucination to be. And hallucinations are only hallucinations if what we believe they are is wrong.

So, again, it's not true that "The existence of models requires the existence of something they are attempting to model" as you claimed.

Seems you've decided to change the meaning of every word we use: first "me", now "hallucination"... What next?
EB

- - - Updated - - -

Second:

People make a lot of noises about the metaphysical side of things, but in the end all they can possibly mean is something about their internal experience, and how it might be expected to change under certain circumstances. The metaphysical framework is only a mental projection, in other words, a helpful way of describing the content of experience and how experiences are related to one another. A world in which there is nothing "out there" would be empirically indistinguishable from a "full" world, provided the experience of interacting with (whatever we believe to be) our environment is the same.

So now you're changing the meaning of "meaning" itself!

Good job.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Third:

We all have the experience that we can't trust experience.

And knowledge is not a guarantee of absolute certainty, just a way of labeling claims that have passed a generally acknowledged threshold of evidence. I think you're asking too much of the concept of knowledge.

The meaning of knowledge is that if somebody knows it's true then it's true. Full stop. No buts, no ifs.

I use the meaning of "knowledge" as people use the word. Even the "Justified True Belief" definition of knowledge, with which I disagree, does nonetheless require the metaphysical certainty that the believed fact be true. So, I agree with them on that at least.

Obviously, people get a little bit carried away and will often say they know stuff even when they're not even convinced themselves that they do. But the usual use of the word is that people will say they know whenever they believe they know. The difference between me and them is that I say that we don't know anything about the world out there, and they will say that while they may sometimes be wrong in claiming they know something, they will nonetheless be correct most of the time, or at least often enough for the notion of knowledge to make sense.

So we disagree on that.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

As in our previous conversations, I think we may be saying something similar but looking at it in different ways. We both agree that epistemic certainty about metaphysical propositions is impossible, but you see that as a genuine threat to knowledge and I see it as a linguistic problem with no empirical implications.

Sure, we agree on something, which is good.

But the argument is about what we disagree on.

I'm taking what people mean by "knowledge" as a given. If you start redefining key concepts, the conversation becomes impossible. Untermensche has a similar problem and look at how difficult everybody finds talking to him. So, I start from the ordinary meaning of knowledge and look at what it is we know. My observation is that we know our qualia and that's it.

The rest, we can only believe, with varying degree of confidence and justification. Scientists will be more confident and will be recognised, rightly or wrongly, as having better justification.
EB

 

[PyramidHead]

As in our previous conversations, I think we may be saying something similar but looking at it in different ways. We both agree that epistemic certainty about metaphysical propositions is impossible, but you see that as a genuine threat to knowledge and I see it as a linguistic problem with no empirical implications.

Sure, we agree on something, which is good.

But the argument is about what we disagree on.

I'm taking what people mean by "knowledge" as a given. If you start redefining key concepts, the conversation becomes impossible. Untermensche has a similar problem and look at how difficult everybody finds talking to him. So, I start from the ordinary meaning of knowledge and look at what it is we know. My observation is that we know our qualia and that's it.

The rest, we can only believe, with varying degree of confidence and justification. Scientists will be more confident and will be recognised, rightly or wrongly, as having better justification.
EB

This is all a derail from the topic of the thread, so we can leave it at that. Epistemology isn't my strong suit anyway.

 

[Treedbear]

This is the vexing part of the free will argument. "I could have chosen to have had chocolate instead of vanilla." I'm sorry to have to choose the trivial example everyone seems to use, but it just doesn't work well with any other type of decision. Very important decisions are very obviously determined by what the perceived outcome will be. Even to the point that it becomes controversial whether it was or wasn't a matter of free will or coercion. All choices are made under some degree of influence, external and/or internal. So "I could have" if what? I "felt" differently? But then my feelings would have to be uncaused, which is unlikely the case. Why is it desirable to have had absolutely no reason for having made a choice?

It's not a case of having no reason for having made a choice. It's a matter of actually making a choice - of actually choosing... not having the universe dictate ones actions and then supply us all with a very complex delusion of having made a choice.

I see. You want to be independent from the universe. Good luck. I still make choices in a completely deterministic universe. Isn't it enough that these choices are completely unique to you? Doesn't that give you sufficient ownership of them?

Look - a very large portion of my job revolves around doing analysis and providing information and recommendation to my business clients so that they can make an informed choice in a complex situation. By your account... everything I do for a living is an elaborate hoax perpetrated by ??? in order to make me think that I'm doing analysis, solving problems, and weighing options so that I can present a completely and totally false set of illusory options to my clients so they can pretend to make a choice, even though they don't actually have any choice and they're going to make the same choice no matter what, because it's all scripted somehow.

That approach means that somewhere around 40% of the activities that humans engage in are all mass delusions that serve no purpose. The other 60% involves autonomic functions and sleep.

It means that every word you "chose" to write, in order to "convince" me of your viewpoint is wasted time. You should totally just run on instinct, and screw all this thinking bullshit. It's all an illusion anyway, so why bother - be the smart one and cut through the delusion of choice. Just run on your gut, man! It's totally gonna free up a lot of time.

Funny thing is it ceases to be an illusion when you (1st, give up any supernatural, religious, and neo-Platonist beliefs) realize that it's an illusion. I bother because I am expressing what I am as a unique individual, a member of the human species, part of the evolution of life on Earth. That's where I look for meaning. Purpose has everything to do with the continuance of that life. Being a part of the universe and all of existence is far more meaningful and sublime than any reverence a God could hope to inspire. And the unique thing about humans is that they can think and create. So doing that brings feelings of fulfillment. I'm playing my unique role. And why would you think the choices I make don't have consequences? Running on your gut would be a choice.

 

[untermensche]

I have never said otherwise....but not only observations of the natural world, but what other people have discovered....knowledge being built over time, transmitted first through observation and oral transmission then the written word, Guilds formed, etc....

What you miss is the real world direction towards an idea that only is accessible to consciousness.

An idea no evolved mechanism could force a human towards since the mechanisms preceded the idea.

Dualism again. A homunculus in the form of consciousness as the director of the brain.

Yes, dualism.

Consciousness is not the same thing as the brain.

And our experience is that consciousness can command the brain to do things.

No homunculus, just consciousness commanding. Nobody thinks the consciousness is a little man in the head. It is a totally unexplained phenomena.

The question for science is how does consciousness do it?

 

[bilby]

Dualism again. A homunculus in the form of consciousness as the director of the brain.

Yes, dualism.

Consciousness is not the same thing as the brain.

And our experience is that consciousness can command the brain to do things.

No homunculus, just consciousness commanding. Nobody thinks the consciousness is a little man in the head. It is a totally unexplained phenomena.

The question for science is how does consciousness do it?

The question for dualists is 'what the fuck are you on about?'

If 'something else' is needed for a brain to be conscious, then why isn't 'another something else' needed for the 'something else' to be conscious?

For a person who doesn't believe in infinity, you don't half love pointlessly arguing positions that logically lead either to infinite regress, or to special pleading.

Dualism cannot work without one or the other. If anything can be conscious in its own right, why presume something other than what can be seen to exist - the brain?

What is gained by this pointless lack of parsimony?

I can see how it works for people who start from the premise that a God exists and is important; but why would an atheist not reject dualism for the waste of intellectual effort that it so clearly is?

To be an atheist and a dualist, one would need to have no grasp of even the most basic principles of logic and reason.

Oh, wait.

Sorry, I forgot who I was talking to.

 

[untermensche]

If 'something else' is needed for a brain to be conscious, then why isn't 'another something else' needed for the 'something else' to be conscious?

Something else is not needed for a brain to be conscious.

But there is this thing that has awareness of brain products, like color.

So something is aware of blue. There is not just blue.

The issue is: What is this thing that is aware of blue?

It is not a brain. It is a product of brain activity. Two distinct things.

Thus one has a dualism.

How is there awareness without a dualism?

Awareness is that which is aware and the things it is aware of. A dualism is inherent to awareness.

 

[DBT]

Dualism again. A homunculus in the form of consciousness as the director of the brain.

Yes, dualism.

Consciousness is not the same thing as the brain.

And our experience is that consciousness can command the brain to do things.

No homunculus, just consciousness commanding. Nobody thinks the consciousness is a little man in the head. It is a totally unexplained phenomena.

The question for science is how does consciousness do it?

Your reasoning is still flawed. There is no consciousness without a functional brain actively processing information, light, pressure waves, airborne molecules, etc, and representing this information in conscious form as sight, sound, smell and so on, with associated thoughts and feeling....this being the foundation of our conscious experience of the world and self.

There is no separation. Consciousness is whatever the brain is doing and when the brain stops what it is doing, consciousness is no more.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Yes, dualism.

No, not necessarily.

Consciousness is not the same thing as the brain.

And our experience is that consciousness can command the brain to do things.

No homunculus, just consciousness commanding. Nobody thinks the consciousness is a little man in the head. It is a totally unexplained phenomena.

The question for science is how does consciousness do it?

Yes to all that.

Good summary.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

What is this thing that is aware of blue?

It is not a brain. It is a product of brain activity. Two distinct things.

Thus one has a dualism.

How is there awareness without a dualism?

Awareness is that which is aware and the things it is aware of. A dualism is inherent to awareness.

This is incoherent. You'd need to make up your mind where you think dualism comes from.

Is it from having "two distinct things", i.e. awareness and brain, or is it something inherent to awareness on its own?
EB

 

[untermensche]

What is this thing that is aware of blue?

It is not a brain. It is a product of brain activity. Two distinct things.

Thus one has a dualism.

How is there awareness without a dualism?

Awareness is that which is aware and the things it is aware of. A dualism is inherent to awareness.

This is incoherent. You'd need to make up your mind where you think dualism comes from.

Is it from having "two distinct things", i.e. awareness and brain, or is it something inherent to awareness on its own?
EB

The dualism is the distinction between a brain, an organ made of cells.

And consciousness, not an organ made of cells.

 

[untermensche]

Dualism again. A homunculus in the form of consciousness as the director of the brain.

Yes, dualism.

Consciousness is not the same thing as the brain.

And our experience is that consciousness can command the brain to do things.

No homunculus, just consciousness commanding. Nobody thinks the consciousness is a little man in the head. It is a totally unexplained phenomena.

The question for science is how does consciousness do it?

Your reasoning is still flawed. There is no consciousness without a functional brain actively processing information, light, pressure waves, airborne molecules, etc, and representing this information in conscious form as sight, sound, smell and so on, with associated thoughts and feeling....this being the foundation of our conscious experience of the world and self.

There is no separation. Consciousness is whatever the brain is doing and when the brain stops what it is doing, consciousness is no more.

There are many absolute separations.

To be conscious of something requires being separated from it.

To be conscious of blue means there is blue and there is the thing aware of blue.

An absolute separation. You can't have consciousness without this separation.

 

[Speakpigeon]

What is this thing that is aware of blue?

It is not a brain. It is a product of brain activity. Two distinct things.

Thus one has a dualism.

How is there awareness without a dualism?

Awareness is that which is aware and the things it is aware of. A dualism is inherent to awareness.

This is incoherent. You'd need to make up your mind where you think dualism comes from.

Is it from having "two distinct things", i.e. awareness and brain, or is it something inherent to awareness on its own?
EB

The dualism is the distinction between a brain, an organ made of cells.

And consciousness, not an organ made of cells.

You've already said that, don't you remember?

You've also said "dualism is inherent to awareness".

So, which is your position?

You don't seem to know your butt from your nose.
EB

 

[DBT]

Your reasoning is still flawed. There is no consciousness without a functional brain actively processing information, light, pressure waves, airborne molecules, etc, and representing this information in conscious form as sight, sound, smell and so on, with associated thoughts and feeling....this being the foundation of our conscious experience of the world and self.

There is no separation. Consciousness is whatever the brain is doing and when the brain stops what it is doing, consciousness is no more.

There are many absolute separations.

To be conscious of something requires being separated from it.

To be conscious of blue means there is blue and there is the thing aware of blue.

An absolute separation. You can't have consciousness without this separation.

You appear to be confusing the distinction between the external world and a brains mental representation of it based on information acquired from the senses with consciousness and brain activity. Consciousness being a form of brain activity and not separate from it in the same way as the objects and events that are external to it....except for information input.

 

[Speakpigeon]

There are many absolute separations.

To be conscious of something requires being separated from it.

To be conscious of blue means there is blue and there is the thing aware of blue.

An absolute separation. You can't have consciousness without this separation.

You don't know that.

Just explain why that would be so.
EB

 

[untermensche]

The dualism is the distinction between a brain, an organ made of cells.

And consciousness, not an organ made of cells.

You've already said that, don't you remember?

You've also said "dualism is inherent to awareness".

So, which is your position?

You don't seem to know your butt from your nose.
EB

Both are kinds of dualisms.

I am not the one claiming dualisms are somehow irrational.

You seem to think petty nitpicking of irrelevant aspects you add to arguments is rational discourse.

 

[untermensche]

There are many absolute separations.

To be conscious of something requires being separated from it.

To be conscious of blue means there is blue and there is the thing aware of blue.

An absolute separation. You can't have consciousness without this separation.

You don't know that.

Just explain why that would be so.
EB

Awareness is something we take for granted.

But it requires both the thing that is aware, what we call the mind or consciousness, without understanding what it is.

And it also requires all the things the consciousness can be aware of; colors and sounds and emotions and thoughts, etc..

You can't have awareness or consciousness without this separation.

It is inherent to the concept.

We invented the concept because we are a thing aware of other things.

 

[untermensche]

Your reasoning is still flawed. There is no consciousness without a functional brain actively processing information, light, pressure waves, airborne molecules, etc, and representing this information in conscious form as sight, sound, smell and so on, with associated thoughts and feeling....this being the foundation of our conscious experience of the world and self.

There is no separation. Consciousness is whatever the brain is doing and when the brain stops what it is doing, consciousness is no more.

There are many absolute separations.

To be conscious of something requires being separated from it.

To be conscious of blue means there is blue and there is the thing aware of blue.

An absolute separation. You can't have consciousness without this separation.

You appear to be confusing the distinction between the external world and a brains mental representation of it based on information acquired from the senses with consciousness and brain activity. Consciousness being a form of brain activity and not separate from it in the same way as the objects and events that are external to it....except for information input.

No there is a distinction beyond that.

If the brain is making representations of the external world and something is aware of them then there are both the representations and the thing aware of them. Two things.

 

[Speakpigeon]

There are many absolute separations.

To be conscious of something requires being separated from it.

To be conscious of blue means there is blue and there is the thing aware of blue.

An absolute separation. You can't have consciousness without this separation.

You don't know that.

Just explain why that would be so.
EB

Awareness is something we take for granted.

But it requires both the thing that is aware, what we call the mind or consciousness, without understanding what it is.

And it also requires all the things the consciousness can be aware of; colors and sounds and emotions and thoughts, etc..

You can't have awareness or consciousness without this separation.

It is inherent to the concept.

We invented the concept because we are a thing aware of other things.

Right, it ain't good enough, by a long shot.

You're just repeating yourself.

Try again!

___________________________________

It is inherent to the concept.
We invented the concept because we are a thing aware of other things.

That's seriously idiotic.

God exist.
It's inherent in the concept.
We invented the concept because we are the creatures God created.
See?
EB