martillo

Literature? I loked for studies about consciousness in slow processes and didn't find anything. May be could be a good field of research... Seems not. So obvious that would need no demonstration. But also could be a good field of research... No. I didn't expect something different from you. That's why I didn't want to continue discussing with you and still don't want to but you continue asking me things. I should not answer you anymore...

Well, seems obvious for me, let me try to explain my viewpoint... The reality we live is composed with objects in it (we included) and process happening internally in those objects (we included) and externally between those objects. The processes inside us include those you mention neural processes happening very fast where may be some choices/decisions are taken and the correspondent actions happen before our consciousness takes place, fine. I would call them intuitive "quite instantaneous" choices/decisions and actions we perform. Now, outside of us we can perceive processes with our senses (eyes, years, etc.) happening much more slowly. Slowly enough that we can intervene in them with conscious choices/decisions and posterior conscious actions. We are conscious about those process and the actions we perform to "drive" them someway. That's the way we can consciously act in our reality. Your link presents evidence just to the "intuitive "quite instantaneous" choices/decisions and actions we perform" I mentioned above. There's no analysis on slow processes. There's no analysis on conscious processes. My evidence is present in the process of answering you here in this thread what I have already posted to you, repeated in the post above and repeated again now about the example I already gave to you: "Seems you are not considering that if the subject we are considering runs at a small enough velocity the brain have time to transform some quantity of "chemo-electric" information it receives to language, rationalize on it and finally take a choice/decision on some possible action we could perform in consequence. " "For instance in the given example of discussing here in the forum: at some moment I saw your post but took my time to read it, understand it, rationalize about, google something, drink some soda, elaborate an answer and finally write this answer to you." "I don't know exactly how the brain is capable to do all that. May be is all "chemo-electrical", I don't know. As I said some time ago the process of thinking is still a mystery for me. But I know I made some purely rational choices/decisions in that process BEFORE the final decision to post it." Why do you continue ignoring this as evidence? You mentioned nothing about it. If you ignore this as evidence how could I continue discussing with you? What kind of evidence would you consider as valid one?

I don't agree with you at all and seems useless to discuss with you, I have already told you. Don't you remember all of our previous discussions even with an example as you asked? For instance: I would ask you which is your experience? Do you experience your entire life just as an spectator of yourself in the reality you live? I mean remembering Hawking citation: useless to think at some time about what to do because the future is predetermined and you can do nothing to change anything? Then, useless to think about anything in your entire life? I would also ask: why are you discussing with me then? Wouldn't it be because it could at lest be useful to solve some problem? Problem yours, mine or whoever could read this thread? I don't experience my life that way. I feel as I'm driving my life as I can confronting problems I find in my way. Problems I could solve thinking and doing something about. For me the future is not predetermined and I can think and do things towards some things I would like in that future. That would be in summary my experience. Which is your experience? Please answer this appropriately. I know neuronal cells can interchange information through electric impulses and chemical neuro-transmitters. Seems you are not considering that if the subject we are considering runs at a small enough velocity the brain have time to transform some quantity of "chemo-electric" information it receives to language, rationalize on it and finally take a choice/decision on some possible action we could perform in consequence. For instance in the given example of discussing here in the forum: at some moment I saw your post but took my time to read it, understand it, rationalize about, google something, drink some soda, elaborate an answer and finally write this answer to you. I don't know exactly how the brain is capable to do all that. May be is all "chemo-electrical", I don't know. As I said some time ago the process of thinking is still a mystery for me. But I know I made some purely rational choices/decisions in that process BEFORE the final decision to post it. In summary quite now I was able to make choices/decisions. I think you are lost in a very unreal wrong belief about neuronal brain and consciousness and you don't have any intention to reconsider it. As I already told you I will not discuss anymore about this with you.

Who do do not have consciousness" Spectators or non spectators? There are always conditions present in any situation, right? The conditions are constraints for our actions. I can say that there are always conditions present with some degree of freedom but the degree of freedom is zero sometimes. Sometimes there is not zero degree of freedom and we are able to make choices or decisions. We can say "will" does exist. Sometimes there is zero degree of freedom and actually no choice or decision is possible. We can say the "will" is null or that it doesn't actually exist.

The future. In Determinism the future is always completely determined by the past and the current conditions. We are actors of some things but as our actions are completely determined by the past and current conditions everything in Determinism is determined by them. There's no possibility for us to make choices or decisions and so the "will" does not exist at all ever. In my position that is not the case. The future is not always completely determined by the past and the current conditions only. We do have the possibility sometimes to make conscious choices or decisions with some degree of freedom and so the "will" does exist sometimes. But sometimes only. Other times that possibility does not exist and everything is determined by the past and current conditions and the "will" is null, not available or does not exist as you prefer to say it. I can perfectly agree with that (just marking a little correction). By the way, as you mentioned Hume I took a look at Wikipedia about him. As I said, I agree with some things about some philosophers while not agreeing in other things. I agree with the rationalism of Descartes but without the concept of innate ideas and knowledge agreeing with Hume in his "blank slate" analogy of our mind being completely empty in our birth. We birth with the faculty of reason but not with any previous idea or knowledge. For me Rationalism and Empiricism complement each other. But this is another topic...

Now you bring into place the consciousness subject... Well, sometimes we make unconscious choices decisions as well. For instance sometimes we are so convinced of something that we not need to think about anything before making a choice or decision. May be in this case I agree in that "the neural machinery has already led to it". But sometimes we have enough time to think about some subject and be totally conscious while making a choice or decision. In this case I would say that the conscious neural machinery led to it. The "conscious neural machinery" of course would be what let us think and rationalize about some subject. Wouldn't that be right for your way of thinking about?

I have already said time ago that it all depends on the conditions that are always present. Depending on the conditions there is more or less degree of freedom in the possibility to make choices/decisions. Sometimes the conditions allow the possibility to make choices/decisions. In this cases the "will" exist. Sometimes the conditions don't allow any choice/decision and in this case the "will" is null (zero degree of freedom) and we can say it is not available or that it doesn't actually exist as you wish.

That remembered me Galileo Galilei dilemma he would had when he retracted in front of the church...

And good for the turnings too...

Yes, that study helps a lot. +1 Same image as in the study @swansont mentioned, it looks much better this way. +1

I have already perfectly understood your deterministic position. I think you also have understood mine near to the "free will". As @studiot mentioned some time ago we reached an impasse where no part is going to give an inch. Is the "eternal" impasse between (the mutually exclusive) "free will" and "determinism" and you know, we are not going to solve it here in this thread as I could realize. I find it to be an endless discussion that I don`t have the intention to follow. The only thing I will do is to clarify some things about my point of view near to the "free will". I will not try to solve the impasse. What I say is that what really exist sometimes is a "will" defined as "the possibility to make choices/decisions sometimes". My position actually agrees with the "free will" except that I make the observation that actually, in reality, it is not so free as the given name and the dictionaries definitions determine. It exist but no so free because there are always some conditions present. That's why I tried to give just a corrected name and a just corrected definition. The name just "will" without any qualifiers seems possible since I have found it in some searches of definitions I have made and it is adopted in some places as in the article I mentioned. The unique problem is that popularly, like in the @studiot conception, the term "will" without qualifier is more associated to want, intention, desire, etc. and seems something difficult to change. I think my position can be well understood by you and anyone else now so, end of the discussion for me. Seems to me that the unique way to solve the impasse is if you can accept that the "will" I mention does exist sometimes but only sometimes. Other times it does not exist when we have no possibility to make a choice/decision. I must also point out that the conflict cannot be solved with just one example. There are examples for both cases. By the way I would mention that in Spanish exist a specific name for that "will" I'm considering and so there's no conflict, it is called "albedrío".

Yes, is that visually for me the tail could not compensate well his big head but seems a problem in my perception only. I'm assuming now that this subject has already been analyzed deep enough even with digital simulation procedures on the mass, forces, weight, torque, etc. I'm realizing now that my speculation actually would not work. Thanks for the comment.

Thanks for the clarification. I'm realizing it is a problem with my visual perception only...

No, no, I have been changing my mind on the subject. I have already commented that it was a silly thought of mine: And after looking at the tree and some other searches I arrived to: My last thinking is now the following: May be a joke but I didn't get it...

I understand now that the path of evolution from a swimming aquatic lifestyle to after walking land lifestyles have happened at much earlier ages in the evolution of the life in the planet with much more primitive beings than I thought. The real problem I have with the T Rex, which is the cause oh having posted this thread, is a visual one. Looking at any image made of the T Rex my perception is that it present too much weigh in the front of the legs than in the back of them. It is said everywhere that the T Rex walked on two legs using the tail for balance. In my visual perception the shown tail would not be enough to achieve the balance with that so big head the T Rex has. That's why I like to think in the T Rex as an amphibious more likely to be in the water most of the time. But it must be a problem of my perception. I assume now that this subject has been already studied deep enough and that would not be the case.

Many questions at the same time. I will answer them one by one: What doesn't matter because changes nothing is discussing with you. The experience is not the same, I care. You don't understand the "software" at all. Because I know I am an actor and I can do something about what is happening: I will stop discussing with you because this discussion has no sense at all for me.

You got confused. I was referring to your ideas when I said: I tried to mean you are a total determinist. Mot me. I see you as a determinist. I'm not. Just for you to give a good answer. If you are an spectator you are not an actor of your life. You can't be both at the same time. Spectators can't do anything about what is happening. If you consider everybody as spectator you are a determinist. Nobody can do anything to change what is going on and so a predetermined future. That is determinism.

I would ask you which is your experience? Do you experience your entire life just as an spectator of yourself in the reality you live? I mean remembering Hawking citation: useless to think at some time about what to do because the future is predetermined and you can do nothing to change anything? Then, useless to think about anything in your entire life? I would also ask: why are you discussing with me then? Wouldn't it be because it could at lest be useful to solve some problem? Problem yours, mine or whoever could read this thread? I don't experience my life that way. I feel as I'm driving my life as I can confronting problems I find in my way. Problems I could solve thinking and doing something about. For me the future is not predetermined and I can think and do things towards some things I would like in that future. That would be in summary my experience. Which is your experience? Please answer this appropriately.

That topic about our consciousness being a "post-dictive" illusion of the mind and we being just a spectator of what is happening in our reality, as you agreed, is another topic for me. May be you should open a new thread for that but even in a new one I don't know if I could give a positive contribution... One thing I'm sure: that is a very strong determinism, total determinism, absolutely.

Sorry, no more...

Seems that was a silly thought... Looking on "archosaurs" at Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archosaur) now...

Genealogy trees experts are welcome. Which are currently considered the ancestors of the tyrannosaurus? Thinking in the line of evolution from water to land of living beings...

I think in a long path of evolution from a swimming aquatic lifestyle to after walking land lifestyles and yet after flying air lifestyles. I could think in tyrannosaurus as an amphibious descendant of crocodiles adapting to the walking land lifestyle for instance. Of course several branches of descendants could be opened from crocodiles. Tyrannosaurus could be just one of them I think. Why not to think in such possibility? Seems a very natural one.

How can you be so certain? I can't believe I would have to demonstrate that to you. Do you consider yourself as just an spectator of your own life? Don't you feel you intervene in your reality? Now you will tell me that is just a "post-dictive" illusion, isn't it? Sorry, I can't follow the discussion in this path of thoughts.

This is quite what I'm talking about: (from a page of National geographic in Spanish I have just found: https://www.nationalgeographic.com.es/ciencia/unas-huellas-fosiles-encontradas-rioja-revelan-que-algunos-dinosaurios-podian-nadar_20929) This is a spinosaurus not a tyrannosaurus of course but well illustrates my point of view.