Kedaman & Simonm Reality Debate (and anyone else brave enough to enter)

[kedaman]

simon

Why do I have the sensation of control if I don't?

What happened to the "its not testable - its not scientific" idea?
sensations are testable, having control has no practical implications, so why not drop the term? Do you even bother defining it?

Why do you think that? I do have the sensation of control? It is because I feel in control that there is a purpose to living.

Thats what I meant.

[simonm]

Kedaman

What happened to the "its not testable - its not scientific" idea?
sensations are testable, having control has no practical implications, so why not drop the term? Do you even bother defining it?

Actually it is testable.

Everytime I have the intention to move a limb and I am not physically obstructed, I believe it will move as intended. That is my theory and I can test it.

[kedaman]

Simon
How do you define to have control?

[simonm]

To be in control is to be the instigator. The will behind the cause of the effect.

[kedaman]

How do you define to be the instigator?

Sorry if I go on like this, but you need an experience which is possible to identify.

[simonm]

How do you define to be the instigator?

Sorry if I go on like this, but you need an experience which is possible to identify.

I have already defined it enough.

I see no value in substituting more words. If you don't understand what I mean already, you never will.

[kedaman]

if it is this

The will behind the cause of the effect.

then are you saying that everyone that wants a specific process to happen, even though they have nothing to do with it, are in control of the process?

[simonm]

It doesn't work like that Kedaman.

I have a theory that I am in control of my arm. Therefore I test it by running a series of experiments testing how often my arm moves and how often I intend it to move.

I conduct these experiments and my theory is not falsified.

Now, it doesn't mean that my theory is correct, but it has not been falsified.

If you can come up with a better theory, let me know.

[KayJay]

<Please ignore, or better, delete my post, should either or both of you find the same incongruent to your ongoing discussion.>

OK then, the context of the discussion is considering whether or not we can know that there exists a physical, objective reality around us or are we merely being deceived in some way?

The above quote was from one of the earlier posts in the thread. I have read through the 5 odd pages of this thread, albeit sporadically. I understand that this conversation/discussion/debate/argument/exchange-of-thoughts, etc. has reached a stage where the fact (postulate?) that one percieves a sense of control over one's action(s), inlcuding one's thought of initiating action(s) (Realist) is proof of an objective existence as opposed to the competing school of thought viz: Instrumentalists: Que Sera Sera, Whatever will be will be; and which further says that

"Maya, Maya; Ellam Maya. Chaya, Chaya; Ellam Chaya" (Illusion, Illusion, Everything's an Illusion. Shadow, Shadow, Everything's a Shadow).

nb: Skillfull soldiers armed with Occam's Sword (I consider myself one of them) would point out that a "Shadow" cannot exist without something to cast a shadow. But, Poetic licence. You should get a picture what the above means.

Am I right in summarising thus far? If so, kindly permit me to pick from the previous post. "The will behind the cause of the effect".

Any understanding presupposes two discrete things (there I have shown my hand. Existence Exists). Perception and Evaluation. Perception without Evaluation is automation. Evaluation without Perception is nonsense, i.e. it cannot be.

Automation (I bundle "Instinct" as well into this term) is something that is present to some extent or other in all Sentient Beings. But that alone is insufficient as a tool to comprehend Existence. Even to admit that there is no such thing as Existence and that what we see, hear, feel, do, think, etc. is a fleeting sensory perception is to admit to making an evaluation and thus a comprehension of the situation occurs.

To comprehend reality around us, that is to make a judgement, concrete and discrete existence of that "reality" is a priori. Else the Oxford English Dictionary (or Websters) should define "Comprehension" as something totally and utterly different.

"Control", what I shall henceforth term as "Volition", is an objective and independent faculty of a Sentient Being (the Sixth Sense). I agree with the previous poster who said something to the extent that one chooses to move a limb and then proceeds to move that limb and then comprehends that the limb has been moved. Yes, Volition exists. One can choose. What is limited is the number of Choices.

Most proponents of the "Illusion/Deception" theory confuse the limited number of choices available with having no choice at all. The two are markedly different. A stone exists. I kick that stone barefoot. I will feel pain. Neither the stone nor my foot nor my pain is a deception or an Illusion. I can choose not to kick the stone, and therefore not feel pain. It would be ridiculous to say now that as I have not kicked the stone, "Kicking" and "Pain" do not exist. They do. The choices are "Do I Kick" and hence "Do I feel pain" or "Do I not kick" and hence "Do I not feel pain". The second choice is not a negation of choices but a choice of not to make a choice. The Choice of not to make a choice is the ultimate proof that there is Volition.

Now having established that Volition exists, let us now proceed to prove that Reality exists.

Volition results in actions or thoughts. Both are internal in their subjects and may or may not be external in their objects. When the subject and object of the thoughts and actions are discrete there is no dichotomy. When they point to the same entity, some confusion occurs. Occam, having provided a strong tool to handle such situations, comes to our assitance. When I think of myself, or in an even more introverted mood, when I think about my thinking about thoughts, the subject/object discrimination can be made by identifying functions being performed by the entity. It is possible to define that which thinks, that which is thought of, even when that which thinks is thinking of itself. Its difficult but nevertheless possible. It is possible for me to think of my thoughts and maintain a distinction between this current thought and that thought that I am thinking of. The function of the subject (my thinking) is perception, the function of the object (again my thinking) is that of being percieved. Gazing at one's navel, is a pretty invigourating excercise. Such analyses of the actions and thoughts leads to a marked distinction of a perception and evaluation of the subject and the object.

Thus,

Sentient Subject ---> Volition ---> Actions/Thoughts ---> Analyses - --> Perception ---> Evaluation -->Establishment of Discreteness.

Having established discrete objects and subjects, Reality, being a collection of subjects and objects, is concrete and discrete. It is "Real". We are not being decieved by an Illusion.

I trust I contributed something constructive to this discussion. Thank you for Ur patience

Kind regards

Kaushik Janardhanan

[simonm]

Thankyou for your insightful contribution.

[KayJay]

Ur welcome

No offence meant; I take it U meant it as such (Its so dam___ dificult to judge on such fora)

Regards

KayJay

[simonm]

I pretty much agree with all you said although I don't really follow your last leg to proove the existence of reality.

However, I was never really claiming that our sensation of control over our own actions was proof of an objective reality. We has someone migrated from one topic to another.

What we are really discussing at the moment is whether conscious plays a part in controlling our behaviour or not. Does it just observe or does it go beyond that to actually effect our behaviour as well?

Kedaman asserts that it merely observes. Indeed, I have heard similar arguments from others before.

Someone once said to me that consciousness must be either entirely passive (merely observing) or must have some duality to it (be partly metaphysical in nature). If consciousness has some kind of effect on the physical (which indeed it must if it is to have some effect on our behaviour) then there must be some way in which such interactions can be observed. However, consciousness is not objectively observable. The only reason why we believe it to exist attall is because we are self-aware. We cannot construct any kind of test that will reveal whether a particular entity is consious or not.

Therefore, consiousness must have absolustely no effect on our actions whatsoever or it must partially reside metaphysically (which would not be detectable).

[KayJay]

Ok. Understood. Co-incidentally (??) I am currently reading a book titled "the riddle of the origin of consciousness". Will post once I grasp whats outlined there.

[kedaman]

Simon

It doesn't work like that Kedaman.

what doesn't work how? If you define to have control, to be the will behind a process, then there's no distinction between "to have control" and "to experience control". The reason I want a definition is only to separate them. Once we do that we analyze the practical implications of the differences - otherways there wont be any empirical evidence supporting your theory. Without this distinction your theory is already falsified.

Kedaman asserts that it merely observes.

I derive the first definition here:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=consciousness
The state or condition of being conscious.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=conscious
and conscious here:
Having an awareness of one's environment and one's own existence, sensations, and thoughts.
own existence in the sense of awareness of one's mechanical self.



KayJay

"Control", what I shall henceforth term as "Volition", is an objective and independent faculty of a Sentient Being (the Sixth Sense). I agree with the previous poster who said something to the extent that one chooses to move a limb and then proceeds to move that limb and then comprehends that the limb has been moved. Yes, Volition exists. One can choose. What is limited is the number of Choices.

I think there's no basis for objectiveness, its a theory that cannot be tested. What do you think of determinism? Mechanical processes suggest determinism, choices suggests non-determinism, I argue all your choices are mechanical because after all its easier to keep track on just mechanical processes. Where does these choices come from? What are their nature?

btw welcome to the discussion