There isn't really a 'freewill problem'.

[bilby]

I find it totally unsurprising that untermensche is confused, baffled, and perhaps a little frightened by the concept of self awareness.

Self awareness is apparently completely alien to him.

 

[DBT]

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

Ah, yes, subjective experience, but a whole class of our subjective experience is subject to testing on a daily basis whenever we interact with the external world, a world that is objective, a world that does not accommodate flawed perception/subjective representation of its objects and events as we go about our daily lives.

 

[untermensche]

I find it totally unsurprising that untermensche is confused, baffled, and perhaps a little frightened by the concept of self awareness.

Self awareness is apparently completely alien to him.

Are you claiming that awareness does not require both that which is aware and that which it is aware of?

Make an argument.

I will show you your errors as I do everyday. You are a masochist.

 

[bilby]

I find it totally unsurprising that untermensche is confused, baffled, and perhaps a little frightened by the concept of self awareness.

Self awareness is apparently completely alien to him.

Are you claiming that awareness does not require both that which is aware and that which it is aware of?

Make an argument.

They could both be the same thing.

I will show you your errors as I do everyday. You are a masochist.

You will fail to grasp the simple point, as you do everyday. You are an imbecile.

 

[untermensche]

They could both be the same thing.

No they cannot and you could never demonstrate that total nonsense.

To be aware means there is the thing aware and there is the thing it is aware of. Two distinct things.

It cannot be any other way.

Do you ever get tired of being totally wrong?

 

[bilby]

They could both be the same thing.

No they cannot and you could never demonstrate that total nonsense.

To be aware means there is the thing aware and there is the thing it is aware of. Two distinct things.

It cannot be any other way.

Do you ever get tired of being totally wrong?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

 

[Speakpigeon]

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

Ah, yes, subjective experience, but a whole class of our subjective experience is subject to testing on a daily basis whenever we interact with the external world, a world that is objective, a world that does not accommodate flawed perception/subjective representation of its objects and events as we go about our daily lives.

Sure, but the way tests are carried out is inevitably objective so what is really tested is the brain, not our subjective experience. It's not reality which is objective, it's our everyday and scientific descriptions of it which are objective. And the only reality we know is subjective and there's no possible flaw in knowledge. Our objective descriptions are still putative and the only ones that are possibly flawed.

And of course, humans have successfully gone about their daily lives well before we had anything like a scientific model of the world. Indeed, most living things have managed well enough for billions of years without even a mind to rely on.
EB

 

[untermensche]

They could both be the same thing.

No they cannot and you could never demonstrate that total nonsense.

To be aware means there is the thing aware and there is the thing it is aware of. Two distinct things.

It cannot be any other way.

Do you ever get tired of being totally wrong?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

I suspect you are not capable of understanding that is not a demonstration of your absurd totally wrong comment so I will ignore it.

I have empathy for the handicapped and unfortunate.

 

[beero1000]

They could both be the same thing.

No they cannot and you could never demonstrate that total nonsense.

To be aware means there is the thing aware and there is the thing it is aware of. Two distinct things.

It cannot be any other way.

Do you ever get tired of being totally wrong?

I find your lack of self-awareness disturbing.

 

[fromderinside]

Pumping stuff down a hole beero100. "Be aware" to the unaware.

 

[untermensche]

They could both be the same thing.

No they cannot and you could never demonstrate that total nonsense.

To be aware means there is the thing aware and there is the thing it is aware of. Two distinct things.

It cannot be any other way.

Do you ever get tired of being totally wrong?

I find your lack of self-awareness disturbing.

I find your inability to make any coherent argument on any topic a defining feature.

 

[fromderinside]

So things are not going well with training of untermenche on the fallacy of dualistic reasoning?

Here’s the formal argument:
1. The masked man has the property of being someone I believe robbed the bank
2. My father lacks the property of being someone I believe robbed the bank

3. Therefore, my father is not identical with the masked man.

This is a bad argument because it could still be the case that my father is the masked man, despite both premises being true. What this illustrates is that arguing along this style is invalid when the property in question involves someone’s psychological attitude.

Now is Descartes’ argument similar?
1. My body possesses the property of being something the existence of which I doubt
2. I don’t posses the property of being something the existence of which I doubt

3. Therefore, I am not identical with my body

Oooooohhhhhhh-ah

 

[untermensche]

You are dancing around the issue because you have no answer to it.

Tell me how there is awareness without the thing that has the ability to be aware.

Then tell me how there is awareness without the things the thing that can be aware is aware of.

Tell me how it occurs without both.

Your song and dance is not applicable.

Answer THIS, not some other unconnected case.

 

[Kharakov]

I find your lack of self-awareness disturbing.

I find your inability to make any coherent argument on any topic a defining feature.

Your amazing analytic capabilities, combined with your devotion to speaking the truth, have led to no less than 7897 sarcastic comments about your intelligence and veracity.

 

[Emily Lake]

But that has nothing to do with 'will'

I suppose at this point, I've got to ask... what do you consider "will"?

 

[Emily Lake]

Fifth, how could you possibly know that your second-level impression that your first-level impression that experience confirms your model is proof that there's something out there that conforms to your model?

The model conforms to reality, not the other way around.

 

[Emily Lake]

Eighth: you are real, and we both know that because we are both you

I certainly don't know you're something real out there.

And yet, if you knew I'm real, I should probably know you are.

So, no, sorry, I don't buy that.

remember?

Sure. I also remember it didn't make sense talking of your consciousness as being me.

I accept that different people's consciousnesses, at least their "bare consciousnesses", or "minimal consciousnesses", are likely identical. But that doesn't mean there is necessarily just one, unique, consciousness, for all of us.

And even if there is just one for all of us, there's no good reason to use "me" to refer to it since we use "me" to refer to our own self, not to our bare consciousness, which is not even something we normally talk about.
EB

Hmm. Maybe you're winning your argument. I find myself more and more inclined to treat you as if you don't exist

 

[Emily Lake]

Funny thing is it ceases to be an illusion when you realize that it's an illusion.

This doesn't make any sense at all to me.

 

[Emily Lake]

Yes, dualism.

Consciousness is not the same thing as the brain.

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?

It's not dualism, at least not in the sense that you seem to be implying. The 'something else' that is needed is a process.

The brain, by itself, as a physical thing, isn't a mind. It's a brain. Just like your body, as a physical thing, isn't you. Just like a forest with a bunch of plants and animals, as a physical thing, isn't an ecosystem. Consciousness is a process that operates on the physical structure of the brain. If you alter the physical structure, the process changes. The two are neither synonymous nor discrete.

 

[beero1000]

I find your lack of self-awareness disturbing.

I find your inability to make any coherent argument on any topic a defining feature.

And here I was thinking I was being clever enough in mocking you with a double entendre Star Wars reference. Everybody's a critic!