Decision is not a conscious act

[Bahman]

I think the error is in Point 3. Did you base that on psychological research, personal experience, or philosophical considerations?

You can do it on your own, try to think of two subjects at the same time with full focus if you can. You can try listen to news and read a simple book with full focus and then try to recall the content of both, if you can. This does not mean that information about two content don’t arrive to your sensory system, you just could not construct the knowledge of the subjects at the same time, since for constructing knowledge you need the full focus on one subject.

 

[Bahman]

The error is in the initial premise, that a “decision” of one over another, is a single act.

I didn’t say that decision is two acts, it is one act when two subjects are involved.

 

[Bahman]

No, it is nothing more than propaganda.

Linus2nd

Decision cannot be conscious act since otherwise we couldn’t be free. In another word, you cannot become conscious of free will since otherwise people wouldn’t doubt about it. The freedom of action -if you accept that it exits- is an anomalous entity hence it cannot be experienced.

 

[Bahman]

I don’t want to rob you of your dreams, but philosophy is not your forte.

I would be happier if you would open a line of discussion tell me which premise is wrong.

 

[tonyrey]

Decision cannot be conscious act since otherwise we couldn’t be free. In another word, you cannot become conscious of free will since otherwise people wouldn’t doubt about it. The freedom of action -if you accept that it exits- is an anomalous entity hence it cannot be experienced.

There is a vast difference between **understanding **our freedom and accepting its existence. Every statement you make implies that you can choose what to believe! Otherwise you should regard yourself as a biological machine which may be churning out nonsense…

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Decision cannot be conscious act since otherwise we couldn’t be free. In another word, you cannot become conscious of free will since otherwise people wouldn’t doubt about it. The freedom of action -if you accept that it exits- is an anomalous entity hence it cannot be experienced.

It isn’t worth debating. You are wrong, based on Catholic teaching. Our source of truth in such matters is the teaching authority of the Magisterium of the Church. We could defend it philosophically. However, we are never required to convince skeptics, especially those who have never demonstrated an inclination to be reasonable.

This is not a reflection on such personalities, it merely an acknowledgement of the fruitlessness of such efforts.

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

It isn’t worth debating. You are wrong, based on Catholic teaching. Our source of truth in such matters is the teaching authority of the Magisterium of the Church. We could defend it philosophically. However, we are never required to convince skeptics, especially those who have never demonstrated an inclination to be reasonable.

This is not a reflection on such personalities, it merely an acknowledgement of the fruitlessness of such efforts.

Linus2nd

I promise to be reasonable. What is wrong with original argument, then we can spend sometimes to discuss about “Free will is anomalous entity hence it cannot be experienced” or other stuff.

 

[Aloysium]

1. Decision is the act of choosing between subjects
2. The act decision needs existence of subjects in mind for excluding one in favour of others
3. Consciousness is the ability to experience one subject and only one subject at a time
4. The act decision cannot be done in conscious mind since only one subject is subject of experience at any given time
5. Decision is not a conscious act

This means that decision is subconscious act.

1. decision=choosing, 1=1 - I get that
2. consciousness is whole (not one subject at a time)
3. consciousness and action are united in the person but if you want to say the equivalent of my index finger not being my pinky - ok
4. again consciousness is a part of the whole that includes action that is the person; there is only one thing at a time - me in relation to other
5. you have not said anything (according to your definitions) more significant than biting is not chewing - if you sparate things from what is a holistic entity, you will get nonsense.

I find that you use very powerful words in ways that sterilize them, depriving them of significant meaning. It is a sort of mundane blasphemy. When you will want to speak about the miraculous, the mysteries of existence, what is sacred, you will find you will have nothing that points to those truths.

 

[empther]

Decision cannot be conscious act since otherwise we couldn’t be free.

:bigyikes:

You see, friends, when you’re pushing the atheist agenda you can write any kind of humbug you want and get away with it.

In another word, you cannot become conscious of free will since otherwise people wouldn’t doubt about it.

:bigyikes:

Also…
You see, friends, when you’re pushing the atheist agenda you can write any kind of humbug you want and get away with it.

The freedom of action -if you accept that it exits- is an anomalous entity hence it cannot be experienced.

:bigyikes:

Furthermore…
You see, friends, when you’re pushing the atheist agenda you can write any kind of humbug you want and get away with it.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

How do you compare 5 and 10? You need to explain how the act comparison between 5 and 10 is made. You cannot do this act in your conscious mind since you cannot focus on two subjects, 5 and 10, at the same time. “Compare” in your example is in fact the act of “decision”.

I can’t evaluate the statement 10>5? I assure you that if your defnition of consciousness excludes the ability to evaluate a simple floating point operation, you are almost certainly mistaken.

 

[djchez]

I didn’t say that decision is two acts, it is one act when two subjects are involved.

And I am saying you are wrong in your definition of “decision”. For example, I may decide to go to the store. In doing so, I have necessarily, and at least by implication, eliminated first every other possibility. I do not need to have multiple subjects in mind in order to decide. if I am faced with a “choice” between going to the store or going to the park, I first eliminate one - one subject, one separate act, and then I “decide” as above, another act. I do not need to have both subjects in mind. We would term this process “decision”, but it is a process - a process of elimination.

So when you say that “decision” between is an act, it is not. This is your error.

 

[Bahman]

1. consciousness is whole (not one subject at a time)

No, you cannot be conscious of two subjects at a time. Try to read a book and listen to news to see that you could be conscious of content of one topic at a time.

1. consciousness and action are united in the person but if you want to say the equivalent of my index finger not being my pinky - ok

This is logically impossible since the act decision requires two subjects, this requires following steps:

1. We have to become aware of subjects one after another (read previous comment) since we cannot become aware of both at the same time. This require to become conscious of the first subject first, then deliver it to subconsciousness, become conscious the second subject, then deliver it to subconsciousness. The information about the subjects has to go to subconsciousness since otherwise we couldn’t focus and bring the second subject into consciousness.
2. Once two subjects are in subconsciousness, then we can decide about them there. Decision is an anomalous action, performed in subconsciousness. We can discuss it further if you wish.
3. Once decision is made, then the whole subject (subjects+decision) is brought to consciousness and here we say that we become conscious of decision.

1. again consciousness is a part of the whole that includes action that is the person; there is only one thing at a time - me in relation to other

Can you please elaborate? You first say that consciousness is the whole then part of whole.

1. you have not said anything (according to your definitions) more significant than biting is not chewing - if you sparate things from what is a holistic entity, you will get nonsense.

That is conclusion and it has to be simple.

 

[Bahman]

:bigyikes:

You see, friends, when you’re pushing the atheist agenda you can write any kind of humbug you want and get away with it.

:bigyikes:

Also…
You see, friends, when you’re pushing the atheist agenda you can write any kind of humbug you want and get away with it.

:bigyikes:

Furthermore…
You see, friends, when you’re pushing the atheist agenda you can write any kind of humbug you want and get away with it.

You are not adding much with copy and past of a single sentence. If you want to argue, then you are welcome. First what is wrong with those phrase?

 

[Bahman]

I can’t evaluate the statement 10>5? I assure you that if your defnition of consciousness excludes the ability to evaluate a simple floating point operation, you are almost certainly mistaken.

Yes you can’t yet you think you can since that evaluation is very simple and it just look that can be performed by one instruction in consciousness. In another word once you realize that 10>5 then the whole is presented as a single subject in your consciousness. Try this: 45857881275012385>?<45856881175012385 and tell me which inequality (> or <) is correct. Just focus on your eyes movement as well to see how do you really compare them since once you eyes move to left then you become conscious of the first number and vice versa.

 

[Bahman]

I do not need to have multiple subjects in mind in order to decide. if I am faced with a “choice” between going to the store or going to the park, I first eliminate one - one subject, one separate act, and then I “decide” as above, another act. I do not need to have both subjects in mind.

Eliminating one subject is equal to choosing another. There are two subjects involved in your decision, first, “going to part” and second “going to store”. Try to bring both subjects into your consciousness to see that you cannot. Moreover the act decision between two subjects requires the relevance of two subjects, once one of them loses its relevance then you are of course left with one subject hence there is not need for decision.

 

[djchez]

Eliminating one subject is equal to choosing another.

Prove this.

 

[Bahman]

Prove this.

Suppose you have subjects A and B under consideration.

1. You reject A and you are left with B
2. You Choose B

The outcome of both scenarios which turns into an action is subject B.

 

[empther]

You are not adding much with copy and past of a single sentence. If you want to argue, then you are welcome. First what is wrong with those phrase?

If anybody is so naive as to still give your posts some credit at this late date,
***then there is no help for them! *** :crying:

 

[djchez]

Suppose you have subjects A and B under consideration.

1. You reject A and you are left with B
2. You Choose B

The outcome of both scenarios which turns into an action is subject B.

Being “left with B” is not an act on my part. Rejecting A is one act. Choosing B is another act. These are two separate acts

Since I’ve rejected A, I no longer have it under consideration. So I consider B, and make my decision. This shows that I do not need to have both subjects in mind concurrently to make a decision.

 

[Bahman]

Being “left with B” is not an act on my part. Rejecting A is one act. Choosing B is another act. These are two separate acts

Since I’ve rejected A, I no longer have it under consideration. So I consider B, and make my decision. This shows that I do not need to have both subjects in mind concurrently to make a decision.

Ok, I have two questions from you: Suppose that you are focusing on subject A trying to decide whether you should reject it or not. This act require the knowledge whether other subject namely B is available, otherwise you may reject A and later find out that there is no other subject, lets call this subject C. This means that you have to be conscious of two subjects namely A and C which is logically impossible. 1) How do you resolve this problem? 2) Second, assume you ignore C and reject A, how do you retrieve subject B into consciousness?