Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[RJG]

What if my decision to plant an apple tree in the autumn endures from now , late June, until the best planting time in the early autumn. I'd be conscious of that decision for three months ,but may be uncertain as to the best site in the garden to plant the tree, or change my mind about which sort of apple tree I want.Briefly, what constitutes a decision, or even is there such a brainmind event as deciding.

If everything we are conscious of has already happened, then "deciding" (or “consciously making a decision”) is logically impossible. Consciously experiencing thoughts (such as "where best to plant") does not mean that we consciously chose, caused, or scripted these particular thoughts to experience. "Consciously causing our conscious experiences" is an X<X logical impossibility.



************

We cannot change the past…

Yes, I fully agree.

Consciousness obviously has a causal effect on our actions.

"Obviously"? ...it only appears “obvious” to those that have been indoctrinated to believe in this impossibility. "Conscious-causation" is not only scientifically impossible, but also logically impossible on at least two fronts. (1 - as a simple oxymoron; the before-after terms defeat each other, and 2 - the X<X impossibility; we can't be conscious of something before we are conscious of it).

That which we impact is in the PRESENT, even if we have observed them just a tiny bit in the past.

There are two NOW’s (i.e., two “present” moments). There is the “now” in real-time, and there is the “now” in conscious-time. Our physical body reacts in real-time, but we don’t know it until we become conscious of it 200+ milliseconds later (conscious-time). Conscious-time lags real-time by 200+ milliseconds. (...or real-time leads conscious time by 200+ milliseconds).

[Lagayascienza]

Everything we are conscious of has already happened; it is long gone. We can't change the past.

The delay does not stop us freely making decisions…

"Freely"??? How is it possible to "freely" make a decision that had already been made? …it's too late!!!

Our consciousness of the decision came AFTER the decision was already made. And likewise, we had no conscious say-so (or "freedom") in any of the thoughts, reasons, predispositions, etc that determined our decision. We can't be conscious of something BEFORE we are conscious of it. Plain and simple. X<X is logically impossible.

"Free"-will (conscious causation, conscious control) is a "myth"; a religious wishful feel-good belief based on pure blind indoctrinated faith. Period. If we are serious about seeking truths in reality, then we need to get past this point of believing in the impossible.

This is supposed to be a philosophy forum (seeking truths), and not a religious forum (seeking justification for wishful beliefs).

Your vehemence that you are right and others wrong is difficult to understand. If you have a look at, for example, SEP you will find that:

Causal determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature. The idea is ancient, but first became subject to clarification and mathematical analysis in the eighteenth century. Determinism is deeply connected with our understanding of the physical sciences and their explanatory ambitions, on the one hand, and with our views about human free action on the other. In both of these general areas there is no agreement over whether determinism is true (or even whether it can be known true or false), and what the import for human agency would be in either case.

My reading of the philosophical literature on free will leads me to the same conclusion. Causal determinism, and the 200-millisecond delay on which you rely, do not preclude free will. If it were as simple as that, it would be a done deal and smart philosophers would not be still arguing about it after two millennia.

My reasons, memories, predispositions, knowledge, etc are enduring and are all present in my brain and available to inform my subconscious as it comes up with options. And as it does so my consciousness monitors progress, albeit, maybe, with a slight delay. So the first oprion my brain comes up with might present to consciousness and be rejected, in which case I will do some more cogitating until further options present to consciousness and I might choose from these further options. Decsions do not magically pop into existence in a 200 millisecond vacuum. They depend on what I already know, believe, like, want etc.

I happen to have a preference for the color blue. I believe, and others tell me, that I look better in blue than other in colors. Therefore, when I’m shopping for clothes my preferences and beliefs will inform my decisions about what to buy even if I am not consciously thinking about which color I look better in. We don’t need to consciously know the state of every neuron and synapse and the electrochemical communications between them in order to freely make a decision. We do not even know what the activity in the prefrontal cortex in the 200-millisecind period before we make a decision signifies. It may be just the brain booting up so that it’s ready to make a conscious decision. Your dogged reliance on it seems overly hasty to me.

[RJG]

Laga, my argument has NOTHING to do with determinism. Trying to twist my argument into a determinism argument is the true "red herring".

My argument is about the simple logical impossibility of being conscious of something BEFORE we are conscious of it. X<X is logically impossible!

[Lagayascienza]

RJG, I am not twisting your argument. I am trying to alert you to the fact that the question of whether we have free will is as much dependant on whether determinsim is true or not as it is on any delay in mental processing.

And, as mentioned, we do not even know what the activity in the prefrontal cortex in the 200-millisecond period before we make a decision signifies. It may be just the brain booting up so that it’s ready to make a conscious decision. And even if a decision were made prior to our becoing aware of it, our reasons, memories, beliefs, predispositions, knowledge, etc are all available to our subconcious processing in that 200-millisecond period and will inform decisions which will reflect those reasons, memories, beliefs, predispositions, knowledge, etc. Any decision will still be ours. And if they are not ours, then whose are they?

Moreover, it is overly simplistic to say that because there is some activity in the pre-frontal cortex 200-milliseconds before we make a decision, the activity signifies a decision being made. You do not know if that is so. No one does yet. Not the neuroscientists and not the philosophers. So, the question of free will is by no means settled on that basis.

[Lagayascienza]

And, BTW, I am not saying that we are conscious of anything before we are conscious of it. That would indeed be impossible. What I am saying is that when we are conscious of a decision, it will have been a decision informed by our own current reasons, memories, beliefs, predispositions, knowledge, etc. (whether we are fully conscious of these or not) and will therefore be our own decision. There is nothing impossible or magical about that. Whereas there would be something impossible and magical about a decision being formed by nobody and nothing in a 200-millisecond vacuum. And that is why I say that the 200-milleseconds is a red herring.

[Belinda]

And, BTW, I am not saying that we are conscious of anything before we are conscious of it. That would indeed be impossible. What I am saying is that when we are conscious of a decision, it will have been a decision informed by our own current reasons, memories, beliefs, predispositions, knowledge, etc. (whether we are fully conscious of these or not) and will therefore be our own decision. There is nothing impossible or magical about that. Whereas there would be something impossible and magical about a decision being formed by nobody and nothing in a 200-millisecond vacuum. And that is why I say that the 200-milleseconds is a red herring.

But your reasons, beliefs, memories, predispositions, knowledge and so on are caused. How could they uncaused? You are free to choose your favourite colour however your choice was caused.

[Lagayascienza]

Yes, that's true, Belinda. Everything is caused. And just because everything is caused, does not mean that free will is impossible. If I am of sound mind, and if I make an important decision which is caused by a combination of reasons, desires, memories, beliefs, predispositions, knowledge, etc. which I currently have, then, if there in no coercion, it will be my decision for which I must accept responsibility. It does not matter that I am the way I am because of the way the universe is or was. If I had had different reasons, desires etc., then I could have, and probably would have, made a different decision. That's what having free will means to me.

If I go shopping for some bread and like the look of a crusty white Vienna loaf then, if next day, I find that I wish I had bought a wholemeal sourdough, it's no good me going back to the baker and saying that, bcause of the way all the particles in the universe were yesterday, my decison to buy the Vienna was not arrived at freely and that I'd therefore like to exchange the Vienna for a sour dough or get a refund. It was my decision to by the Vienna loaf and not the universe's. It was a decision based on my desire at the time. And my desire for the Vienna, however caused, was a desire I was ok with at the time.

Or let's say a person of sound mind poisons his or her spouse in order to claim the life insurance money. Would anything in that person's past, or anything about the state of their neurons, absolve them of responsibilty for the murder? They were of sound mind, so I cannot see why it should, even if determinism were true. And I think it largely is true. But I don't see how it precludes free will based on our reasons, desires, memories, beliefs, predispositions, knowledge, etc.

[RJG]

And, BTW, I am not saying that we are conscious of anything before we are conscious of it. That would indeed be impossible. What I am saying is that when we are conscious of a decision, it will have been a decision informed by our own current reasons, memories, beliefs, predispositions, knowledge, etc. (whether we are fully conscious of these or not) and will therefore be our own decision. There is nothing impossible or magical about that.

Agreed. The "being conscious of an experience" is not impossible, whereas "consciously causing the experience" is impossible.

Whereas there would be something impossible and magical about a decision being formed by nobody and nothing in a 200-millisecond vacuum. And that is why I say that the 200-milleseconds is a red herring.

The 'amount' of delay is irrelevant. It is the 'existence' of the delay that is relevant to the X<X logical impossibility, as it establishes the chronological relationship between the "consciousness-of-X", and the "X" itself. (...i.e., we can't logically be "conscious-of-X" without there first being an "X" to be conscious of; we can't be conscious of something before we are conscious of it!).


********
Note: another logical impossibility of "conscious causation" (consciously causing our conscious experiences) comes in the form of X=~X (aka oxymoron).

"Consciousness" is an 'after-effect' (the consciousness-of-X is after the X) whereas "causation" is a 'before-effect' (the causation-of-X is before the X).

The two terms defeat (contradict) themselves, rendering "conscious causation" as a simple oxymoron on par with "married bachelors" and "square circles".

[Lagayascienza]

RJG, let’s have a closer look at your argument. You say:

P1. EVERYTHING we are conscious of, are of past events.
P2. Past events are unchangeable.
C1. Therefore, EVERYTHING we are conscious of, is unchangeable.
C2. Therefore, consciousness has no causal role in any of our actions.
C3. Therefore, "conscious-causation", aka conscious control, free-will, and mental causation, are all logically impossible.

Let’s unpack this.

P1. EVERYTHING we are conscious of, are of past events.

But is this right? Can't we also be conscious of desires, beliefs, knowledge, reasons, inclinations, etc. that endure through the past and which can exist into the present. These desires, reasons, knowledge etc are certainly part of who I am and are always in my subconscious to inform decisions, even when I am not actively thinking about them. I can also plan future events with these reasons, desires, etc in my subconscious or actively in mind in the present. So I don’t see how it is true to say that all we can ever be conscious of is past events.

P2. Past events are unchangeable.

True.

C1. Therefore, EVERYTHING we are conscious of, is unchangeable.

Again, I question whether this is true because we can be conscious of past and present reasons, desires, beliefs, etc . As mentioned above, desires, beliefs, knowledge, reasons, inclinations, etc can endure and exist into the present. And I can change my beliefs, acquire new desires, update my knowledge, and find new reasons for decisions as new information becomes available. Desires, beliefs, knowledge, reasons, inclinations, etc. can all be subject to change and are available to consciousness, even if it is with a 200-millisecond delay, which is less than the blink of an eye. Moreover, that miniscule delay may not even be the time in which a decision is made. It might just be the brain getting ready to make a decision and would, therefore, not preclude us freely making decisions in the present.

C2. Therefore, consciousness has no causal role in any of our actions.

Really? Try actively making a decision whilst you are unconscious. Say, for example, I need to think about where to invest my savings in order to get the best returns for my retirement. Fixed term bank deposit? Shares? Government bonds? This is not the sort of decision I can make without looking at the returns available and calculating risk. And doing that requires consciousness. It does with me, anyway.

C3. Therefore, "conscious-causation", aka conscious control, free-will, and mental causation, are all logically impossible.

I’m not convinced that your premises are true. (Or, at least, I’m not convinced that they are necessarily true) And if any of your premises are untrue, then your conclusion will be wrong.

Philosophers have been at the problem of free will for millennia and will be at it for a long time to come. We cannot solve the problem of free will with a syllogism because we don’t have all the necessary facts. It is possible that activity in the pre-frontal cortex during the 200-milliseconds before a decision presents to consciousness, signifies nothing but the brain booting up in readiness for us to make a conscious decision. It certainly feels that way.

The issue of the 200-milliseconds has not yet been decided and won’t be decided until we can see what’s happening at the level of neurones and synapses and whether and how that activity correlates with consciousness of anything. And that is a long way from becoming possible, if it ever will be.

Therefore, the issue of the 200-millisecond delay, and the deeper issue of whether we have free will, are going to remain undecided for the foreseeable future. In which case, isn’t it a bit premature to be declaring that “conscious-causation", aka conscious control, free-will, and mental causation, are all logically impossible”?

[RJG]

P1. EVERYTHING we are conscious of, are of past events.

But is this right? Can't we also be conscious of desires, beliefs, knowledge, reasons, inclinations, etc….

Yes, but these experiences that we are conscious of naturally precede our consciousness of them. (We can't be conscious-of-X without there first being an X to be conscious of. When we are conscious, we are conscious of something, not nothing).

...that endure through the past and which can exist into the present.

Yes, but don't forget that the "present" that we are conscious of is actually the "past" in real-time.

I can also plan future events with these reasons, desires, etc in my subconscious or actively in mind in the present.

You can't actually "plan future events", you can only experience the thoughts (of planning future events) that have already been scripted for you.

So I don’t see how it is true to say that all we can ever be conscious of is past events.

It is because of this differential in time -- that which happens in reality (in real-time), and that which happens in the conscious mind of the observer (in conscious-time). More specifically, it is the time delay from an event happening in reality to the conscious realization of that event.


*******

...we can be conscious of past and present reasons...

Logically (and scientifically), we can only be conscious of "past" reasons, not "present" ones. And the past reasons have already been witten/scripted/caused/created for us.


--- There is nothing that we can consciously cause because everything we are conscious of has already been caused. ---

[Lagayascienza]

[quote-RJG]Yes, but these experiences that we are conscious of naturally precede our consciousness of them. (We can't be conscious-of-X without there first being an X to be conscious of. When we are conscious, we are conscious of something, not nothing).[/quote]

Yes, but that does not mean that we cannot be conscious of them when it comes time to make a new decision. The desires, beliefs, knowledge, reasons, inclinations, etc. may have developed in the past but they can inform present decisions even if we are not consciously aware of them. And if I am conscious of them, I can say, ok, I've spent an hour carefully considering X, Y and Z and, on balance, my decision is D. My calculations all add up, and D is the rational thing to do in this case, so D it is. Take my scenario above about deciding where to put my retirement savings. If you are saying that consciousness had nothing to do with it then I can't agree. I couldn't even begin to do those calculations unless I was conscious, and aware of and able to juggle compound interest, returns and risks.

And let's say I am of sound mind and that there is no coercion and that I decide on D. In what sense would that decision not have been my own and freely taken?

[Belinda]

Yes, that's true, Belinda. Everything is caused. And just because everything is caused, does not mean that free will is impossible. If I am of sound mind, and if I make an important decision which is caused by a combination of reasons, desires, memories, beliefs, predispositions, knowledge, etc. which I currently have, then, if there in no coercion, it will be my decision for which I must accept responsibility. It does not matter that I am the way I am because of the way the universe is or was. If I had had different reasons, desires etc., then I could have, and probably would have, made a different decision. That's what having free will means to me.

If I go shopping for some bread and like the look of a crusty white Vienna loaf then, if next day, I find that I wish I had bought a wholemeal sourdough, it's no good me going back to the baker and saying that, bcause of the way all the particles in the universe were yesterday, my decison to buy the Vienna was not arrived at freely and that I'd therefore like to exchange the Vienna for a sour dough or get a refund. It was my decision to by the Vienna loaf and not the universe's. It was a decision based on my desire at the time. And my desire for the Vienna, however caused, was a desire I was ok with at the time.

Or let's say a person of sound mind poisons his or her spouse in order to claim the life insurance money. Would anything in that person's past, or anything about the state of their neurons, absolve them of responsibilty for the murder? They were of sound mind, so I cannot see why it should, even if determinism were true. And I think it largely is true. But I don't see how it precludes free will based on our reasons, desires, memories, beliefs, predispositions, knowledge, etc.

To the extent that you were free to choose you are responsible for your choice. Those who are more free than others are so by having more choices. Lifeless things such as robots and coffee tables have no choices, whereas trees and jelly fish choose despite they never become conscious what they have done, or so we presume.
The difference between the choices of men and those of other animals is that men orient their choices towards the future whereas (we presume) all other living things never give a conscious thought to the future. Moreover , irresponsible human personalities don't care much about the future, not even their own wellbeing.

Whatever you do at the place and time you did it was what you could not have done otherwise. You felt you had a free choice as to which loaf you bought but you did not.
Your future is largely a matter of chance so it's open and to the extent that you are a free man, you can change your mind until the future becomes the past. Your freedom and your responsibility are two sides of the same coin, and you don't need to hypothesise that there exists something you call "free will".

To take your illustration of the man who kills his wife to get her insurance money, this man lacked the knowledge that his wife was a person too, and not a mere means to an end. He was unfree and could not take responsibility. May be, if the killer realised too late that she was a person too , he felt remorse. If he does feel remorse then he will be all the more able to take responsibility for what he did: freedom and responsibility two sides of the same coin.

[Sy Borg]

Consciousness obviously has a causal effect on our actions.

"Obviously"? ...it only appears “obvious” to those that have been indoctrinated to believe in this impossibility. "Conscious-causation" is not only scientifically impossible, but also logically impossible on at least two fronts. (1 - as a simple oxymoron; the before-after terms defeat each other, and 2 - the X<X impossibility; we can't be conscious of something before we are conscious of it).

"Indoctrinated"? Are you serious? Consciousness does nothing but impact on our actions - that's why it evolved.

What do you think consciousness does other than impact on our actions? Why do you think organisms evolved to be conscious? Mentality is enormously expensive in terms of energy. The brain takes up 2% of our mass and 20% of our resources ... and you are telling the forum that the mind is an inconsequential passenger? Your notion is blatantly irrational.

That which we impact is in the PRESENT, even if we have observed them just a tiny bit in the past.

There are two NOW’s (i.e., two “present” moments). There is the “now” in real-time, and there is the “now” in conscious-time. Our physical body reacts in real-time, but we don’t know it until we become conscious of it 200+ milliseconds later (conscious-time). Conscious-time lags real-time by 200+ milliseconds. (...or real-time leads conscious time by 200+ milliseconds).

That would make sense if there was no such thing as memory, if we were like mindless language models that simply respond to new stimuli with zero reference to that which came before.

[RJG]

Your notion is blatantly irrational.

Not so. The impossibility of “conscious causation” is very rational. Even though this particular truth goes against our indoctrinated beliefs, its logic is very sound and rational. In other words, we shouldn’t always believe what we’ve been told. We get truths (and falses) from logic, not from our indoctrinated beliefs.

-- Logic tells us that a conscious time delay is an unavoidable fact, (which leads to the impossibility of conscious causation)
-- Science tells us that this time delay is at least 200 milliseconds in duration.

Here is my logic:

• P1. Instantaneous detection/sensing etc. is not logically (nor scientifically) possible. This includes human conscious experiencing (sensing, detecting, translating, and the interpreting involved in the conscious recognition of sensory and neural activity). A time delay is an unavoidable fact.
  P2. None of our conscious processes or events are exempt from this time delay, as ALL processes and events consume time.
  C1. Therefore, EVERYTHING that we are conscious of, has already happened; are of past events.

• P1. EVERYTHING we are conscious of, are of past events.
  P2. Past events are unchangeable.
  C1. Therefore, EVERYTHING we are conscious of, is unchangeable.
  C2. Therefore, consciousness has no causal role in any of our actions.
  C3. Therefore, "conscious-causation", aka conscious control, free-will, and mental causation, are all logically impossible.

Sy, you seem pretty adamant that “conscious causation” is possible …what logic supports this belief? …can you present a syllogism that shows how it is possible to have conscious causation?

[Belinda]

Your notion is blatantly irrational.

Not so. The impossibility of “conscious causation” is very rational. Even though this particular truth goes against our indoctrinated beliefs, its logic is very sound and rational. In other words, we shouldn’t always believe what we’ve been told. We get truths (and falses) from logic, not from our indoctrinated beliefs.

-- Logic tells us that a conscious time delay is an unavoidable fact, (which leads to the impossibility of conscious causation)
-- Science tells us that this time delay is at least 200 milliseconds in duration.

Here is my logic:

• P1. Instantaneous detection/sensing etc. is not logically (nor scientifically) possible. This includes human conscious experiencing (sensing, detecting, translating, and the interpreting involved in the conscious recognition of sensory and neural activity). A time delay is an unavoidable fact.
  P2. None of our conscious processes or events are exempt from this time delay, as ALL processes and events consume time.
  C1. Therefore, EVERYTHING that we are conscious of, has already happened; are of past events.

• P1. EVERYTHING we are conscious of, are of past events.
  P2. Past events are unchangeable.
  C1. Therefore, EVERYTHING we are conscious of, is unchangeable.
  C2. Therefore, consciousness has no causal role in any of our actions.
  C3. Therefore, "conscious-causation", aka conscious control, free-will, and mental causation, are all logically impossible.

Sy, you seem pretty adamant that “conscious causation” is possible …what logic supports this belief? …can you present a syllogism that shows how it is possible to have conscious causation?

RJG's explanations lack the explanation of the reflex arc which is the most basis feed-back mechanism of the human nervous system, and illustrates in sort of slow motion how events come to be conscious events.