Nothing can cause consciousness

[Nihilist]

No offense is taken.

Could you please tell me what you don’t understand so I can elaborate further.

Sure- do you mean just ‘individual consciousness’- in the sense you or I have consciousness? Or are you talking in some other, less obvious, sense?

Of course, free will cannot exist without consciousness (e.g. a stone cannot have free will, or an unconscious body). But I don’t see how that means that there can be no cause of consciousness. Whatever ‘causes’ you or me (God, or nature, or whatever), caused also the consciousness of you or me. Consciousness means nothing more than having a functioning means of perception and cognition. Whatever causes the brain and the senses to work, also causes consciousness.

Are you reifying ‘consciousness’? Consciousness is just word to designate the state of an organism having perception and/or cognition. It is not a ‘thing’ or a ‘being’.

 

[Bahman]

Sure- do you mean just ‘individual consciousness’- in the sense you or I have consciousness? Or are you talking in some other, less obvious, sense?

I was talking about individual consciousness.

Of course, free will cannot exist without consciousness (e.g. a stone cannot have free will, or an unconscious body). But I don’t see how that means that there can be no cause of consciousness. Whatever ‘causes’ you or me (God, or nature, or whatever), caused also the consciousness of you or me. Consciousness means nothing more than having a functioning means of perception and cognition. Whatever causes the brain and the senses to work, also causes consciousness.

This is the problem. The freedom of will comes from consciousness and that cannot be caused otherwise our will always is caused by something and we could not be free.

Are you reifying ‘consciousness’? Consciousness is just word to designate the state of an organism having perception and/or cognition. It is not a ‘thing’ or a ‘being’.

Consciousness is an ability like free will and that is where I have problem with you. It is superior to free will since consciousness could exist without any requirement, to think or do anything especial for example, but free will cannot exist without consciousness.

 

[Nihilist]

This is the problem. The freedom of will comes from consciousness and that cannot be caused otherwise our will always is caused by something and we could not be free.

.

Consciousness are freedom of will can both be caused. Freedom of will does mean it is uncaused- it just means that we have the experience of making decisions. That’s not incompatible with having a cause.

 

[inocente]

1. Free will is the ability to make a decision on a given situation

My car has the ability to decide to switch off the engine when it comes to a stop, say at a junction, and then to restart the engine when the brake pedal is released.

According to your definition, my car has free will.

2) Free will depends on consciousness at the latest stage as without consciousness our decision would not be free

From (1) my car not only has free will, but necessarily also has consciousness.

Your thought

If you don’t intend to give my car moral liberty and self awareness then you need to have another go at defining what you mean by free will and by consciousness.

 

[Bahman]

Consciousness are freedom of will can both be caused. Freedom of will does mean it is uncaused- it just means that we have the experience of making decisions. That’s not incompatible with having a cause.

Could you please elaborate how we could be free if our freedom is caused!?

 

[Bahman]

My car has the ability to decide to switch off the engine when it comes to a stop, say at a junction, and then to restart the engine when the brake pedal is released.

According to your definition, my car has free will.

From (1) my car not only has free will, but necessarily also has consciousness.

If you don’t intend to give my car moral liberty and self awareness then you need to have another go at defining what you mean by free will and by consciousness.

Your car cannot apparently do otherwise when you reach to a junction. Isn’t it?

 

[Nixbits]

Inocente, I don’t agree that your car has free will. I don’t think the analogy is correct.

A car does not ‘decide’. That is, it does not make a decision using free will. The electrical or electronic control system of the car will respond to (name removed by moderator)uts (e.g. motion sensor, engine running signal, time delay) and deterministically operate an output (e.g. switch the engine off). It is programmed (in hardware, firmware or software). It is not a ‘decision’ in the sense of free will. Given the same situation, the car will do the same thing every time, unless it malfunctions.

 

[Nixbits]

Bahman, I don’t understand the relationship you imply between freedom and causation.

If I open the cage door and release my pet parrot I have given it freedom. It can now do things that it previously could not because of the constraint of its captivity. I caused that freedom. But the parrot is still free.

Similarly, my consciousness and free will could be said to be caused by my parents. Their action caused me to come into being. But I have free will (as far as I can tell). I can choose to open that cage door or not. Even though the start of me having free will was ‘caused’ by someone else’s action.

Please explain what you mean when you disagreed with Nihilist about this?

 

[inocente]

Your car cannot apparently do otherwise when you reach to a junction. Isn’t it?

If it thinks the air con will run down the battery then it will decide to keep the engine running. And so on, it’s quite smart.

Free will doesn’t mean making non-deterministic decisions. If it did then making choices by flipping a coin would count as free will, and making a logical choice would not count as free will (since logic alone determines the choice).

Inocente, I don’t agree that your car has free will. I don’t think the analogy is correct.

A car does not ‘decide’. That is, it does not make a decision using free will. The electrical or electronic control system of the car will respond to (name removed by moderator)uts (e.g. motion sensor, engine running signal, time delay) and deterministically operate an output (e.g. switch the engine off). It is programmed (in hardware, firmware or software). It is not a ‘decision’ in the sense of free will. Given the same situation, the car will do the same thing every time, unless it malfunctions.

Welcome .

That’s even worse though, since if you redefine “decide” to require free will, then it just becomes circular - “decide” and “free will” just become synonyms.

The usual definition of “decide” is to make a choice from a number of alternatives. The definition doesn’t constrain how the choice is made.

My car definitely doesn’t have free will by any usual definition, I’m pointing out that the OP is a long way from any usual definition.

 

[Bahman]

Bahman, I don’t understand the relationship you imply between freedom and causation.

If I open the cage door and release my pet parrot I have given it freedom. It can now do things that it previously could not because of the constraint of its captivity. I caused that freedom. But the parrot is still free.

Similarly, my consciousness and free will could be said to be caused by my parents. Their action caused me to come into being. But I have free will (as far as I can tell). I can choose to open that cage door or not. Even though the start of me having free will was ‘caused’ by someone else’s action.

Please explain what you mean when you disagreed with Nihilist about this?

Assume a world that the causality rules. You cannot have free will in this world as every event, lets say Y, is determined by another event X. In another word there exist a chain of causality initiated by one event and that event determine the future hence there dose not exist any freedom in this world. In another word there is will in this word but no free will. One has to break the chain of causality at one point and that should be when consciousness gives rise since you can consciously pause a decision, make a favorite and even an unfavorite decision. Every thing is up to consciousness at this point and does not have any dependence on how we reach to that situation following a chain of causality.

 

[Bahman]

If it thinks the air con will run down the battery then it will decide to keep the engine running. And so on, it’s quite smart.

Lets forget about your car because we all know that how a computer inside a machine works. If X do Y otherwise do Z, etc.

Free will doesn’t mean making non-deterministic decisions. If it did then making choices by flipping a coin would count as free will, and making a logical choice would not count as free will (since logic alone determines the choice).

Conscious decision is in fact a non-deterministic process which grant us free will otherwise there is no free will. And conscious decision is not like flipping a coin.

 

[inocente]

Lets forget about your car because we all know that how a computer inside a machine works. If X do Y otherwise do Z, etc.

Conscious decision is in fact a non-deterministic process which grant us free will otherwise there is no free will. And conscious decision is not like flipping a coin.

What style of philosophy is this, where you “forget” about everything that disproves your argument, and decree by fiat anything which you never got close to proving?

 

[wittgenstein]

For free will to be real you only need to be conscious of thoughts. You don’t need to cause any thought and what you cause is action.

You do not have to cause your thoughts to have free will?
First see posts 4,12,13 and 18.
…
“Honestly, I cannot understand what people mean when they talk about the freedom of the human will. I have a feeling, for instance, that I will something or other; but what relation this has with freedom I cannot understand at all. I feel that I will to light my pipe and I do it; but how can I connect this up with the idea of freedom? What is behind the act of willing to light the pipe? Another act of willing? Schopenhauer once said: Der Mensch kann was er will; er kann aber nicht wollen was er will (Man can do what he will but he cannot will what he wills).”
― Albert Einstein
FROM
goodreads.com/quotes/515722-honestly-i-cannot-understand-what-people-mean-when-they-talk
“Supposing I teach someone the use of the word “yellow” by repeatedly pointing to a yellow patch and pronouncing the word. On another occasion I make him apply what he has learnt by giving him the order, “choose a yellow ball out of this bag”. What was it that happened when he obeyed my order? I say “possibly just this: he heard my words and took a yellow ball from the bag”. Now you may be inclined to think that this couldn’t possibly have been all; and the kind of the thing that you would suggest is that he imagined something yellow when he understood the order, and then chose a ball according to his image. To see that this is not necessary remember that I could have given him the order, “Imagine a yellow patch”. Would you still be inclined to assume that he first imagines a yellow patch, just understanding my order, and then imagines a yellow patch to match the first?”
Wittgenstein ( plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/ )
FROM
geocities.jp/mickindex/wittgenstein/witt_blue_en.html
The above is another way of showing that to say that consciousness creates thoughts creates an infinite regress.

 

[Bahman]

What style of philosophy is this, where you “forget” about everything that disproves your argument, and decree by fiat anything which you never got close to proving?

What your car dose is not something that we call it free decision. It is based on simple “if” algorithm, once a condition is satisfied then it does something specific. And how your example does disprove my argument!?

 

[wittgenstein]

Perhaps I have been debating an issue different than the title of this thread. My point is that if consciousness causes thoughts, a paradox results.
However, the title of this thread is, " nothing can cause consciousness. " Are you saying that consciousness is an uncaused causer?

 

[Nixbits]

Hmm, I’m getting lost. Let’s see if I understand what Bahman is saying.

Let’s assume every event Y is caused by another event X. There is no free will if X can ONLY cause Y. But if X can cause Y or Z, then free will may exist. There is a chain of causality of the events that actually happened, but it’s not the only chain of causality that COULD have happened.

The thing that makes the free-will choice between Y or Z must be an entity with consciousness. So free will requires consciousness. I think I agree with this. I think free will is a property of a conscious being.

But I don’t think that these logical steps tell you anything about whether or not consciousness can be caused.

I, along with another person, could choose to create a baby. A free will choice. I then carry out various acts that deterministically result in the birth of a baby that has, or will develop, consciousness. Consciousness has been caused or, more precisely, one new consciousness has been caused to come into existence. There was at least one free will decision in the chain of causality that caused it to happen. Having decided to create a baby, we cannot choose to make a baby that will not have, or develop, consciousness. That part is deterministic.

Surely this consciousness (the ability of the baby to experience and affect things) is ‘caused’ by the biochemical processes involved in the development of a human brain.

Does this address what you are thinking of, Bahman, or am I on the wrong track?

 

[Bahman]

Perhaps I have been debating an issue different than the title of this thread. My point is that if consciousness causes thoughts, a paradox results.
However, the title of this thread is, " nothing can cause consciousness. " Are you saying that consciousness is an uncaused causer?

What I am saying is that consciousness is primary hence it cannot be caused or in another word it is uncaused caused. It however can be influenced.

 

[Nixbits]

OK. What do you mean by ‘consciousness is primary’? I have no idea what that means. And what does ‘uncaused caused’ mean?

You need to find more precise language. You’re just re-stating your conclusion without providing any justification for it.

 

[Bahman]

Hmm, I’m getting lost. Let’s see if I understand what Bahman is saying.

Let’s assume every event Y is caused by another event X. There is no free will if X can ONLY cause Y. But if X can cause Y or Z, then free will may exist. There is a chain of causality of the events that actually happened, but it’s not the only chain of causality that COULD have happened.

The thing that makes the free-will choice between Y or Z must be an entity with consciousness. So free will requires consciousness. I think I agree with this. I think free will is a property of a conscious being.

That is one of the case and you need consciousness to decide whether you would do Y or Z. Another case could be when X1 can potentially cause Y1 but you could pause Y1 and wait for another option X2 which can potentially cause Y2 and then decide or wait even longer.

But I don’t think that these logical steps tell you anything about whether or not consciousness can be caused.

Ok, lets look at the argument again:

1. Free will is real and it is the ability to make a free decision on a given situation with at least two options
2. Free will is constitute of three different qualities namely recognizing options, consciousness and action where options are potential and action is actual with a bridge so called consciousness
3. Form (2) we can deduce that free will depends on consciousness at the latest stage of decision as without consciousness our decision would not be free
4. From (3) we can deduce that nothing can formally cause consciousness since otherwise our decision would not be free and it is caused by another thing

I, along with another person, could choose to create a baby. A free will choice. I then carry out various acts that deterministically result in the birth of a baby that has, or will develop, consciousness. Consciousness has been caused or, more precisely, one new consciousness has been caused to come into existence. There was at least one free will decision in the chain of causality that caused it to happen. Having decided to create a baby, we cannot choose to make a baby that will not have, or develop, consciousness. That part is deterministic.

Surely this consciousness (the ability of the baby to experience and affect things) is ‘caused’ by the biochemical processes involved in the development of a human brain.

But when exactly the baby becomes conscious? Is that biochemical processes that cause consciousness? If yes, then how we could be free? How something which is caused by biochemical process can give us freedom to act arbitrary?

 

[Nixbits]

Is consciousness a yes or no thing? Or are there degrees of consciousness?

Irrespective of the answer to this, at some point we could agree that the baby develops consciousness. You asked how that baby can be free (i.e. have free will) and how a consciousness that developed as a result of biochemical processes can have the freedom to act arbitrarily.

I could argue that free will is an inherent property of consciousness. Once a being has consciousness then it has free will. The property of having free will has no dependence on what caused the consciousness to develop.

So, again, going back to your argument, how do you deduce in statement 4 that nothing can formally cause consciousness? And what do you mean by the word ‘formally’? I don’t understand how you derive statement 4 from statements 1 to 3.