There isn't really a 'freewill problem'.

[untermensche]

Saying we are aware is slightly different from saying we are children of some god.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Sure, and being me is certainly different from being you!

So, I guess that makes you wrong always?

Cool.


Now, just try to articulate what's correct in your awareness argument that would be wrong in my God argument.

It seems you could do with somebody else's brain.
EB

 

[untermensche]

It's a terrible analogy.

We know we are aware.

All we really know is we have awareness of things.

There is no doubt.

 

[DBT]

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.

The thing being aware of the external world being the brain that is forming a representation of the external world based on information acquired by its senses. It is the brain that is aware through means of its own consciousness forming activity.

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

Not necessarily.

Not necessarily two things.

It is the brain that is aware through means of its own consciousness forming activity.

Not necessarily.

Not necessarily the brain.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

 

[DBT]

Not necessarily.

Not necessarily the brain.
EB

How so? Can you give bit more detail?

 

[untermensche]

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.

Not necessarily.

Not necessarily two things.

You make no sense.

To be aware is to be aware "of" something "by" something. Two things needed.

That is the only way awareness could exist.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Not necessarily.

Not necessarily the brain.
EB

How so? Can you give bit more detail?

What you actually know to exist is your own subjective experience. That's it. And it's the only bit that's beyond the shadow of a doubt. The brain is something you have to believe that it exists, and therefore, maybe, it doesn't exist at all as such. So, it is at least reasonable to conceive that there's another explanation than the existence of something like "a brain". What we understand as brains may just be our naive representation of whatever there is in fact instead of brains.

That being said, I have no idea to offer as to how we could get to whatever there really is instead of brains. So, basically, I'm satisfied to trust scientists to eventually get the best answer that can be got.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

Not necessarily.

Not necessarily two things.

You make no sense.

To be aware is to be aware "of" something "by" something. Two things needed.

That is the only way awareness could exist.

Pretty idiotic argument.

To be God is to exist necessarily. So God exists necessarily.
EB

 

[untermensche]

You make no sense.

To be aware is to be aware "of" something "by" something. Two things needed.

That is the only way awareness could exist.

Pretty idiotic argument.

To be God is to exist necessarily. So God exists necessarily.
EB

I am examining the concept of awareness.

To have awareness you need two thing.

You cannot have just the thing aware. It needs something to be aware of.

And if you just have the thing and nothing else aware of it there is no awareness.

Your position makes no sense.

Creating some grammatical analogy is never an argument.

 

[Speakpigeon]

You make no sense.

To be aware is to be aware "of" something "by" something. Two things needed.

That is the only way awareness could exist.

Pretty idiotic argument.

To be God is to exist necessarily. So God exists necessarily.
EB

I am examining the concept of awareness.

To have awareness you need two thing.

You cannot have just the thing aware. It needs something to be aware of.

And if you just have the thing and nothing else aware of it there is no awareness.

Your position makes no sense.

Creating some grammatical analogy is never an argument.

???

You are the one making an ontological argument based on syntax. Syntax cannot have any ontological import.

We describe everything in the world in terms of objects and then effects on objects, i.e. one thing, the effect, and a second thing, the object affected. Yet, we still think of the world as an ontological unit.

Your position makes no sense.

There's nothing I can do if you don't try to understand.
EB

 

[untermensche]

How is there awareness without the thing that is aware?

How is there awareness without the things the thing that is aware is aware of?

Please explain how awareness takes place without both.

 

[fast]

How is there awareness without the thing that is aware?

How is there awareness without the things the thing that is aware is aware of?

Please explain how awareness takes place without both.

I agree with you. There is no awareness of something unless there is a something to be aware of. How could I be aware of a six-legged duck unless there was in fact a six-legged duck to be aware of?

If I have a box of cookies, there is both the box and the cookies, and if I discard one, then I still have the other, but I cannot be aware of the box of cookies if one (the box) or the other (the cookies) have been discarded. I could be aware of the box of cookies only if there is a box of cookies. Take away the box, then I'm aware of the cookies but neither the box or the box of cookies.

There is no calculable length of a box unless there is a box with a length to calculate.

But, is there length? A box has length, but is there length? Take away the box from room, we can calculate the length of the room. Does that mean there is length? Take away the room, we can calculate the length of something else. Take away everything, there still might be the length of the largest inner square.

Length, like time, is a dimension. Because we attribute properties to them and even go so far as to make calculations attributable to them, and even though they don't physically exist, we still say and even treat them like they do.

Kinda like awareness? Nay, length is a dimension. Awareness, well, that's not a dimension. Can I be aware without there something to be aware of? Hmm, self awareness is still awareness of something--the self. So, no self, then no awareness of the self, but there could be a box without a self or awareness.

 

[Juma]

How is there awareness without the thing that is aware?

How is there awareness without the things the thing that is aware is aware of?

Please explain how awareness takes place without both.

I agree with you. There is no awareness of something unless there is a something to be aware of. How could I be aware of a six-legged duck unless there was in fact a six-legged duck to be aware of?

If I have a box of cookies, there is both the box and the cookies, and if I discard one, then I still have the other, but I cannot be aware of the box of cookies if one (the box) or the other (the cookies) have been discarded. I could be aware of the box of cookies only if there is a box of cookies. Take away the box, then I'm aware of the cookies but neither the box or the box of cookies.

There is no calculable length of a box unless there is a box with a length to calculate.

But, is there length? A box has length, but is there length? Take away the box from room, we can calculate the length of the room. Does that mean there is length? Take away the room, we can calculate the length of something else. Take away everything, there still might be the length of the largest inner square.

Length, like time, is a dimension. Because we attribute properties to them and even go so far as to make calculations attributable to them, and even though they don't physically exist, we still say and even treat them like they do.

Kinda like awareness? Nay, length is a dimension. Awareness, well, that's not a dimension. Can I be aware without there something to be aware of? Hmm, self awareness is still awareness of something--the self. So, no self, then no awareness of the self, but there could be a box without a self or awareness.

You can definitely be aware of stuff that isnt there. It is called hallucination.

 

[untermensche]

If there is an hallucination there is that which is aware of it too.

Always two things with all awareness.

(1) That which is aware.

(2) And that which it is aware of.

 

[fast]

How is there awareness without the thing that is aware?

How is there awareness without the things the thing that is aware is aware of?

Please explain how awareness takes place without both.

I agree with you. There is no awareness of something unless there is a something to be aware of. How could I be aware of a six-legged duck unless there was in fact a six-legged duck to be aware of?

If I have a box of cookies, there is both the box and the cookies, and if I discard one, then I still have the other, but I cannot be aware of the box of cookies if one (the box) or the other (the cookies) have been discarded. I could be aware of the box of cookies only if there is a box of cookies. Take away the box, then I'm aware of the cookies but neither the box or the box of cookies.

There is no calculable length of a box unless there is a box with a length to calculate.

But, is there length? A box has length, but is there length? Take away the box from room, we can calculate the length of the room. Does that mean there is length? Take away the room, we can calculate the length of something else. Take away everything, there still might be the length of the largest inner square.

Length, like time, is a dimension. Because we attribute properties to them and even go so far as to make calculations attributable to them, and even though they don't physically exist, we still say and even treat them like they do.

Kinda like awareness? Nay, length is a dimension. Awareness, well, that's not a dimension. Can I be aware without there something to be aware of? Hmm, self awareness is still awareness of something--the self. So, no self, then no awareness of the self, but there could be a box without a self or awareness.

You can definitely be aware of stuff that isnt there. It is called hallucination.

You may have a mental experience and think you are aware of something, but if the something you think you're aware of isn't there, then you are not aware that it is or that it isn't there.

 

[fast]

If there is an hallucination there is that which is aware of it too.

Always two things with all awareness.

(1) That which is aware.

(2) And that which it is aware of.

Yes. In the case of an hallucination, we are aware that we think something is there. If we are in a situation where we think we might be susceptible to hallucinations (a survivalist in the desert), he'd be aware of the dangers and question whether what he thinks is actually there.

 

[fromderinside]

cummon. That which is aware is that which is aware of it. One thing from two perspectives. Are those perspectives things?

 

[Juma]

You can definitely be aware of stuff that isnt there. It is called hallucination.

You may have a mental experience and think you are aware of something, but if the something you think you're aware of isn't there, then you are not aware that it is or that it isn't there.

Then you are just discussion a labelling matter. Not actually analysing a real world problem.
Have fun with that...