< 1 2 3 4 > 
 
   
 

Could our actions be decided by our conscious mind?

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15809
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
27 December 2018 13:09
 
GAD - 27 December 2018 11:28 AM
Jefe - 27 December 2018 10:15 AM
Speakpigeon - 27 December 2018 08:07 AM

for those who are capable and motivated to articulate their views.
EB

With such a kindly and glowing invitation, why would one ever consider not participating?

Not the most social thread for sure, but what we do know is that for all we know the mind is the state of neurons in the brain, that is what all evidence we have points to and there is no evidence for anything else. Randomness doesn’t change that, and no, there is no actual evidence for quantum anything.

That’s not the point. He posted a presumptive syllogism and asked for logical critique. I provided it, in particular showing that it wasn’t a valid syllogism. He freaked, and started insisting that his every word was sacred. So he’s not really interested in interaction or discussion (he could, after all, have tried to defend his statements as being a legitimate syllogism, but obviously couldn’t).

 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7082
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
27 December 2018 13:55
 
burt - 27 December 2018 01:09 PM
GAD - 27 December 2018 11:28 AM
Jefe - 27 December 2018 10:15 AM
Speakpigeon - 27 December 2018 08:07 AM

for those who are capable and motivated to articulate their views.
EB

With such a kindly and glowing invitation, why would one ever consider not participating?

Not the most social thread for sure, but what we do know is that for all we know the mind is the state of neurons in the brain, that is what all evidence we have points to and there is no evidence for anything else. Randomness doesn’t change that, and no, there is no actual evidence for quantum anything.

That’s not the point. He posted a presumptive syllogism and asked for logical critique. I provided it, in particular showing that it wasn’t a valid syllogism. He freaked, and started insisting that his every word was sacred. So he’s not really interested in interaction or discussion (he could, after all, have tried to defend his statements as being a legitimate syllogism, but obviously couldn’t).

I’m with Burt.
The sloppy syllogism combined with the attitude greatly reduces my inclination.

 
 
Speakpigeon
 
Avatar
 
 
Speakpigeon
Total Posts:  168
Joined  01-10-2017
 
 
 
28 December 2018 02:37
 
Jefe - 27 December 2018 01:55 PM

I’m with Burt.

Please don’t reproduce.

Jefe - 27 December 2018 01:55 PM

The sloppy syllogism


Whatever, as long as you don’t try to argue your childish claim here.

Jefe - 27 December 2018 01:55 PM

combined with the attitude greatly reduces my inclination.

Yeah, and just in time! You almost fell off your chair.
You’re doing well, keep going.
EB

 
Speakpigeon
 
Avatar
 
 
Speakpigeon
Total Posts:  168
Joined  01-10-2017
 
 
 
28 December 2018 02:44
 

Given the obstructing comments by bilious customers, I think it’s just as well if I put the OP here again:

Speakpigeon - 23 December 2018 11:39 AM

Thank you to discuss the following argument, its two premises and its validity.

Premise 1 - For all we know, somebody’s conscious mind may be the state of a group of neurons in this person’s brain;
Premise 2 - What somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person’s brain;
Conclusion - Therefore, for all we know, what somebody does may be determined by the conscious mind of this person.
EB

Thank you to restrict yourself to facts and logic.
EB

 
Gone
 
Avatar
 
 
Gone
Total Posts:  34
Joined  04-01-2019
 
 
 
07 January 2019 01:42
 
burt - 27 December 2018 01:09 PM

That’s not the point. He posted a presumptive syllogism and asked for logical critique. I provided it, in particular showing that it wasn’t a valid syllogism. He freaked, and started insisting that his every word was sacred. So he’s not really interested in interaction or discussion (he could, after all, have tried to defend his statements as being a legitimate syllogism, but obviously couldn’t).

I could have this wrong but is a ‘presumptive syllogism’ a case where claiming a fact fits a known law, it is an instantiation of it ?
The limits of my knowledge, the limits of what I can dig up on line and the limits of my own library force me to ask. The form of my question may itself be confused so I’d appreciate correction if such is the case.
I doing so I trust I’m not being an instance of a ‘bilious customer’, whatever that is.

[ Edited: 07 January 2019 01:46 by Gone]
 
 
Speakpigeon
 
Avatar
 
 
Speakpigeon
Total Posts:  168
Joined  01-10-2017
 
 
 
08 January 2019 07:01
 
Dissily Mordentroge - 07 January 2019 01:42 AM
burt - 27 December 2018 01:09 PM

That’s not the point. He posted a presumptive syllogism and asked for logical critique. I provided it, in particular showing that it wasn’t a valid syllogism. He freaked, and started insisting that his every word was sacred. So he’s not really interested in interaction or discussion (he could, after all, have tried to defend his statements as being a legitimate syllogism, but obviously couldn’t).

I could have this wrong but is a ‘presumptive syllogism’ a case where claiming a fact fits a known law, it is an instantiation of it ?
The limits of my knowledge, the limits of what I can dig up on line and the limits of my own library force me to ask. The form of my question may itself be confused so I’d appreciate correction if such is the case.
I doing so I trust I’m not being an instance of a ‘bilious customer’, whatever that is.

I didn’t find any reference about the expression “presumptive syllogism” as a special terminology, but I took it as reference to the fact that I explicitly submitted my argument for criticism.
I didn’t check whether it was a known syllogism, but I’m sure it’s valid.
The question is more about the premises and whether people can accept them. Unfortunately, the only poster potentially with evidence that one premise may not be true didn’t proceed with presenting it.
Apparently, the state of some group of neurons decided against it.
EB

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15809
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
08 January 2019 09:55
 
Dissily Mordentroge - 07 January 2019 01:42 AM
burt - 27 December 2018 01:09 PM

That’s not the point. He posted a presumptive syllogism and asked for logical critique. I provided it, in particular showing that it wasn’t a valid syllogism. He freaked, and started insisting that his every word was sacred. So he’s not really interested in interaction or discussion (he could, after all, have tried to defend his statements as being a legitimate syllogism, but obviously couldn’t).

I could have this wrong but is a ‘presumptive syllogism’ a case where claiming a fact fits a known law, it is an instantiation of it ?
The limits of my knowledge, the limits of what I can dig up on line and the limits of my own library force me to ask. The form of my question may itself be confused so I’d appreciate correction if such is the case.
I doing so I trust I’m not being an instance of a ‘bilious customer’, whatever that is.

As I was using the word, it was just a statement that was presented as a syllogism but in fact was not. The standard syllogistic form is: All A is C; All B is A; therefore All B is C (there are 19 valid syllogistic forms). But as presented we had A is C; B is C; therefore B is A and that doesn’t work (e.g., all dogs are animals, all cats are animals, therefore all dogs are cats).

 
Speakpigeon
 
Avatar
 
 
Speakpigeon
Total Posts:  168
Joined  01-10-2017
 
 
 
08 January 2019 11:55
 
burt - 08 January 2019 09:55 AM

As I was using the word, it was just a statement that was presented as a syllogism but in fact was not. The standard syllogistic form is: All A is C; All B is A; therefore All B is C (there are 19 valid syllogistic forms). But as presented we had A is C; B is C; therefore B is A and that doesn’t work (e.g., all dogs are animals, all cats are animals, therefore all dogs are cats).

You explanation here doesn’t make sense. There is no mention of syllogism in the OP. It’s an argument and the question is whether it’s valid or not. I hope you understand that there are arguments that are valid and recognised as such which are not of the syllogistic forms identified by Aristotle. So your insistance on “19 valid syllogistic forms” is a red herring derail.
Your reading of the argument as of the form “A is C; B is C; therefore B is A” is obviously wrong and shows you don’t understand the form of the argument and therefore you don’t understand the argument.
For your information, I already have a number of people agreeing that it is valid. And usually it’s “obviously valid”.

I repeat the argument here for those who may want to check for themselves whether the form is valid:

Premise 1 - For all we know, somebody’s conscious mind may be the state of a group of neurons in this person’s brain;
Premise 2 - What somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person’s brain;
Conclusion - Therefore, for all we know, what somebody does may be determined by the conscious mind of this person.

Still, if anyone can argue that it is invalid, I’m interested.
EB

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15809
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
08 January 2019 12:17
 
Speakpigeon - 08 January 2019 11:55 AM
burt - 08 January 2019 09:55 AM

As I was using the word, it was just a statement that was presented as a syllogism but in fact was not. The standard syllogistic form is: All A is C; All B is A; therefore All B is C (there are 19 valid syllogistic forms). But as presented we had A is C; B is C; therefore B is A and that doesn’t work (e.g., all dogs are animals, all cats are animals, therefore all dogs are cats).

You explanation here doesn’t make sense. There is no mention of syllogism in the OP. It’s an argument and the question is whether it’s valid or not. I hope you understand that there are arguments that are valid and recognised as such which are not of the syllogistic forms identified by Aristotle. So your insistance on “19 valid syllogistic forms” is a red herring derail.
Your reading of the argument as of the form “A is C; B is C; therefore B is A” is obviously wrong and shows you don’t understand the form of the argument and therefore you don’t understand the argument.
For your information, I already have a number of people agreeing that it is valid. And usually it’s “obviously valid”.

I repeat the argument here for those who may want to check for themselves whether the form is valid:

Premise 1 - For all we know, somebody’s conscious mind may be the state of a group of neurons in this person’s brain;
Premise 2 - What somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person’s brain;
Conclusion - Therefore, for all we know, what somebody does may be determined by the conscious mind of this person.

Still, if anyone can argue that it is invalid, I’m interested.
EB

Your original post:

Speakpigeon - 23 December 2018 11:39 AM

Thank you to discuss the following argument, its two premises and its validity.

Premise 1 - For all we know, somebody’s conscious mind may be the state of a group of neurons in this person’s brain;
Premise 2 - What somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person’s brain;
Conclusion - Therefore, for all we know, what somebody does may be determined by the conscious mind of this person.
EB

Thank you to restrict yourself to facts and logic.
EB


You ask for discussion of the two premises and the validity of the argument. Then you request that responses be restricted to facts and logic. Logically, the argument in not sound. And it is stated in syllogistic form so it is quite reasonable, when requested to limit responses to facts and logic to comment on the argument as a syllogism. As for the question of fact, it’s trivial. It simply states some current assumptions in neuroscience as two premises and then draws an assumed conclusion but the connection between the premises and the conclusion doesn’t work for the indicated logical reasons. Rather, it’s a further assumption not supported by the premises. It is completely reasonable to suppose both premises are true and yet deny the conclusion: it could be, for all we know, that the collection of neurons in the brain has no connection to the collections of neurons involved in apparently conscious acts, or it could be that there is some further group of neurons that operates both so that it only appears that our actions are determined by our conscious mind. These various positions have been long debated. You are perfectly free to argue otherwise, but need to do so restricted to facts and logic, as per your initial request.

 
Speakpigeon
 
Avatar
 
 
Speakpigeon
Total Posts:  168
Joined  01-10-2017
 
 
 
08 January 2019 12:54
 
burt - 08 January 2019 12:17 PM
Speakpigeon - 08 January 2019 11:55 AM
burt - 08 January 2019 09:55 AM

As I was using the word, it was just a statement that was presented as a syllogism but in fact was not. The standard syllogistic form is: All A is C; All B is A; therefore All B is C (there are 19 valid syllogistic forms). But as presented we had A is C; B is C; therefore B is A and that doesn’t work (e.g., all dogs are animals, all cats are animals, therefore all dogs are cats).

You explanation here doesn’t make sense. There is no mention of syllogism in the OP. It’s an argument and the question is whether it’s valid or not. I hope you understand that there are arguments that are valid and recognised as such which are not of the syllogistic forms identified by Aristotle. So your insistance on “19 valid syllogistic forms” is a red herring derail.
Your reading of the argument as of the form “A is C; B is C; therefore B is A” is obviously wrong and shows you don’t understand the form of the argument and therefore you don’t understand the argument.
For your information, I already have a number of people agreeing that it is valid. And usually it’s “obviously valid”.

I repeat the argument here for those who may want to check for themselves whether the form is valid:

Premise 1 - For all we know, somebody’s conscious mind may be the state of a group of neurons in this person’s brain;
Premise 2 - What somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person’s brain;
Conclusion - Therefore, for all we know, what somebody does may be determined by the conscious mind of this person.

Still, if anyone can argue that it is invalid, I’m interested.
EB

Your original post:

Speakpigeon - 23 December 2018 11:39 AM

Thank you to discuss the following argument, its two premises and its validity.

Premise 1 - For all we know, somebody’s conscious mind may be the state of a group of neurons in this person’s brain;
Premise 2 - What somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person’s brain;
Conclusion - Therefore, for all we know, what somebody does may be determined by the conscious mind of this person.
EB

Thank you to restrict yourself to facts and logic.
EB


You ask for discussion of the two premises and the validity of the argument. Then you request that responses be restricted to facts and logic. Logically, the argument in not sound. And it is stated in syllogistic form so it is quite reasonable, when requested to limit responses to facts and logic to comment on the argument as a syllogism. As for the question of fact, it’s trivial. It simply states some current assumptions in neuroscience as two premises and then draws an assumed conclusion but the connection between the premises and the conclusion doesn’t work for the indicated logical reasons. Rather, it’s a further assumption not supported by the premises. It is completely reasonable to suppose both premises are true and yet deny the conclusion: it could be, for all we know, that the collection of neurons in the brain has no connection to the collections of neurons involved in apparently conscious acts, or it could be that there is some further group of neurons that operates both so that it only appears that our actions are determined by our conscious mind. These various positions have been long debated. You are perfectly free to argue otherwise, but need to do so restricted to facts and logic, as per your initial request.

So, you also don’t understand the English words “may” and “for all we know”.
Right, I think conversation with you is a waste of my time. Thanks anyway for trying.
EB

 
Gone
 
Avatar
 
 
Gone
Total Posts:  34
Joined  04-01-2019
 
 
 
08 January 2019 23:10
 

Given the repetition in this argument of the phrase ‘for all we know’ makes any attempt at refutation null and void - well that’s how I read it.

“Premise 1 - For all we know, somebody’s conscious mind may be the state of a group of neurons in this person’s brain;
Premise 2 - What somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person’s brain;
Conclusion - Therefore, for all we know, what somebody does may be determined by the conscious mind of this person.”

 
 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15809
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
08 January 2019 23:16
 
Speakpigeon - 08 January 2019 12:54 PM
burt - 08 January 2019 12:17 PM
Speakpigeon - 08 January 2019 11:55 AM
burt - 08 January 2019 09:55 AM

As I was using the word, it was just a statement that was presented as a syllogism but in fact was not. The standard syllogistic form is: All A is C; All B is A; therefore All B is C (there are 19 valid syllogistic forms). But as presented we had A is C; B is C; therefore B is A and that doesn’t work (e.g., all dogs are animals, all cats are animals, therefore all dogs are cats).

You explanation here doesn’t make sense. There is no mention of syllogism in the OP. It’s an argument and the question is whether it’s valid or not. I hope you understand that there are arguments that are valid and recognised as such which are not of the syllogistic forms identified by Aristotle. So your insistance on “19 valid syllogistic forms” is a red herring derail.
Your reading of the argument as of the form “A is C; B is C; therefore B is A” is obviously wrong and shows you don’t understand the form of the argument and therefore you don’t understand the argument.
For your information, I already have a number of people agreeing that it is valid. And usually it’s “obviously valid”.

I repeat the argument here for those who may want to check for themselves whether the form is valid:

Premise 1 - For all we know, somebody’s conscious mind may be the state of a group of neurons in this person’s brain;
Premise 2 - What somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person’s brain;
Conclusion - Therefore, for all we know, what somebody does may be determined by the conscious mind of this person.

Still, if anyone can argue that it is invalid, I’m interested.
EB

Your original post:

Speakpigeon - 23 December 2018 11:39 AM

Thank you to discuss the following argument, its two premises and its validity.

Premise 1 - For all we know, somebody’s conscious mind may be the state of a group of neurons in this person’s brain;
Premise 2 - What somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person’s brain;
Conclusion - Therefore, for all we know, what somebody does may be determined by the conscious mind of this person.
EB

Thank you to restrict yourself to facts and logic.
EB


You ask for discussion of the two premises and the validity of the argument. Then you request that responses be restricted to facts and logic. Logically, the argument in not sound. And it is stated in syllogistic form so it is quite reasonable, when requested to limit responses to facts and logic to comment on the argument as a syllogism. As for the question of fact, it’s trivial. It simply states some current assumptions in neuroscience as two premises and then draws an assumed conclusion but the connection between the premises and the conclusion doesn’t work for the indicated logical reasons. Rather, it’s a further assumption not supported by the premises. It is completely reasonable to suppose both premises are true and yet deny the conclusion: it could be, for all we know, that the collection of neurons in the brain has no connection to the collections of neurons involved in apparently conscious acts, or it could be that there is some further group of neurons that operates both so that it only appears that our actions are determined by our conscious mind. These various positions have been long debated. You are perfectly free to argue otherwise, but need to do so restricted to facts and logic, as per your initial request.

So, you also don’t understand the English words “may” and “for all we know”.
Right, I think conversation with you is a waste of my time. Thanks anyway for trying.
EB

What is a waste of your time is your inability to actually engage in a conversation rather than being defensive regarding comments on your posts. You are unable to answer my comments so resort to stupidity.

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15809
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
08 January 2019 23:18
 
Dissily Mordentroge - 08 January 2019 11:10 PM

Given the repetition in this argument of the phrase ‘for all we know’ makes any attempt at refutation null and void - well that’s how I read it.

“Premise 1 - For all we know, somebody’s conscious mind may be the state of a group of neurons in this person’s brain;
Premise 2 - What somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person’s brain;
Conclusion - Therefore, for all we know, what somebody does may be determined by the conscious mind of this person.”

Exactly, it’s not a matter of refutation but rather pointing out the inadequacy of the statements. And the posters error is in the “therefore,” which does not follow from the premises. He asks for comment and then can’t take the heat.

 
Speakpigeon
 
Avatar
 
 
Speakpigeon
Total Posts:  168
Joined  01-10-2017
 
 
 
09 January 2019 02:57
 
Dissily Mordentroge - 08 January 2019 11:10 PM

Given the repetition in this argument of the phrase ‘for all we know’ makes any attempt at refutation null and void - well that’s how I read it.

“Premise 1 - For all we know, somebody’s conscious mind may be the state of a group of neurons in this person’s brain;
Premise 2 - What somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person’s brain;
Conclusion - Therefore, for all we know, what somebody does may be determined by the conscious mind of this person.”

Not quite.
Refutation could be produced in two ways. Either you prove the argument invalid, i.e. you show that somehow the conclusion doesn’t follow necessarily from the premises, or you prove at least one of the premises false.
As far as I can tell, the argument is valid and I’m pretty sure about that. Still, you’re right that the phrase “for all we know” is essential in this respect in that the conclusion couldn’t be more assertive than the premises without invalidating the argument. The first premise is made weak by its own “for all we know”, and this compels the repetition of the “for all we know” in the conclusion itself. Without it, the argument would be invalid.
Still, you could also try to show how at least one of the premises false. The “for all we know” doesn’t make that impossible.
For premise 1, maybe someone could somehow prove that we know in fact that somebody’s conscious mind isn’t the state of a group of neurons in this person’s brain. I doubt very much anybody knows such a thing, so I’m pretty confident only idiots will claim premise 1 false, even though that situation might come to change in the future.
For premise 2, I chose to eschew the “for all we know” to take the point of view most scientists would support, in effect what they believe rather than what they may or may not know, i.e. that what somebody does is indeed determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person’s brain, even though you could argue that it might not be the case after all. So, here a few people will either claim that premise 2 is false or that it might well be false. I’m aware of only two people who seemed to lean this way but they declined to explain themselves properly or to support their claim with hard science.
So, no, the phrase “for all we know” doesn’t make it irrefutable but not all people will want to refute it the only way I think it might be, if at all.
One objection, to be more specific, is that nature might not be deterministic after all, contrary to what many scientists have long claimed, and this could falsify premise 2 which relies on the word “determine”. But, this would have to be argued properly and no one volunteered to do that.
EB

 
Speakpigeon
 
Avatar
 
 
Speakpigeon
Total Posts:  168
Joined  01-10-2017
 
 
 
09 January 2019 03:03
 
burt - 08 January 2019 11:18 PM
Dissily Mordentroge - 08 January 2019 11:10 PM

Given the repetition in this argument of the phrase ‘for all we know’ makes any attempt at refutation null and void - well that’s how I read it.

“Premise 1 - For all we know, somebody’s conscious mind may be the state of a group of neurons in this person’s brain;
Premise 2 - What somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person’s brain;
Conclusion - Therefore, for all we know, what somebody does may be determined by the conscious mind of this person.”

Exactly, it’s not a matter of refutation but rather pointing out the inadequacy of the statements. And the posters error is in the “therefore,” which does not follow from the premises. He asks for comment and then can’t take the heat.

Even this is incoherent. On the face of it you’re explicitly agreeing with DM even though what he says here implies that the argument is valid while you are claiming it isn’t. That’s a straightforward self-contradictory statement you just made here, of your own accord, all in the same post. Ignoring you is definitely the best sensible people will do.
EB

 
 < 1 2 3 4 >