A conscious decision is one we know we have made.
I see no problem here at all. — charleton

If the self is by product of brain activity then it could not create a chain of causality since brain activity respects causality unless we are dealing with a magic.

Of course there are habits that one isn't always conscious of. But you are claiming you drive while unconscious - and live to tell about it. This is an entirely different matter. — Rich

I am conscious when I am deriving. I think of something else rather than deriving. Deriving seems that is is done automatically. I cannot make any memory of deriving all the time that I am unconscious of deriving too. Maybe I just cannot recall.

But apparently you also believe you can drive unconsciously, and that consciously you are only aware of a single thing. — apokrisis

I normally think of something else than deriving. That is true in most of the time something bothers the field of my consciousness.

So how does it all fit together for you if you reject a more scientific view? — apokrisis

I don't see what is the problem.

Deriving seems that is is done automatically. — bahman

Part of driving is learned habit (body/muscle memory). Part of it better be quite conscious as I described. You are perceiving an image and consciously making decisions based upon what you perceive. You might see dozens of cars in front of you and make a decision to leave the road, or otherwise.

Part of driving is learned habit (body/muscle memory). Part of it better be quite conscious as I described. You are perceiving an image and consciously making decisions based upon what you perceive. You might see dozens of cars in front of you and make a decision to leave the road, or otherwise. — Rich

Sometimes I see the car in the background. It is matter of focus. I can just focally focus on one thing at any moment. I do mistake if what I am trying to do is new otherwise things seems to be automatic.

[sorry for the bad english]

well, I think that the question is: how to conciliate the 'becoming' with the 'will'?

the 'forever changing' with the necessity to make decisions, to be objective;

and how to grasp the reality from inumerals appearances;

at least seems to be, 'ontologically';

I don't see what is the problem. — bahman

I get the impression you believe nature is Newtonian deterministic and therefore free will becomes a problem. But that is a limited view of causality even within physics these days, let alone neuroscience.

I am talking of a view of brain function where it accumulates many degrees of freedom - all the many things it might concretely do (and so also, not do). And then attention acts top down to constrain or bound these freedoms in useful, goal achieving, fashion.

So free will is just rational choice, voluntary action. There is a vast variety of things we could be thinking or doing at any instant. We accumulate a vast store of habits and ideas - concrete skills and notions. Then we must constrain this huge variety of possibilities during every conscious moment so that we limit ourselves to thoughts and actions best adapted to the needs and opportunities of the moment.

To speak of free will is really just to note that we have a socially constructed sense of self that lies over our voluntary behaviour - another level of filter to bound the possible variety of our behaviour. We can consciously weigh what might best suit us personally against what might best suit some wider communal identity we participate in.

So a constraints-based causality avoids the philosophical problems that a physical determinism would seem to create.

Everybody can only focally be conscious of one thing at a time. — bahman

I think that the average person is aware of about six objects at once, without having to count them. So this premise is incorrect, we are focally conscious of numerous different things at the very same time.

That’s more a measure of how many items we can hold at once in working memory. Each item needs to be processed serially or individually. That is why tests present you with a succession of items to be remembered.

In computational terms, you are talking about the mental scratchpad used as temporary storage for what you want to keep close of hand. Attention is needed to fetch them back into close focus.

You’ve mixed up that story with the other one which tests perceptual grouping. At a glance, we can see that there are one, two, three or then “many” of some object in a collection. If the objects are arranged - as a square, as a hexagon - we can then see the wholeness of the pattern and the number we associate with it. With a random arrangement, we would have to go back to some form of serial inspection.

The take home is that cognition is hierarchical. Attention is at the top of the tree as the narrowest useful view. We only want a single viewpoint defining our state of mind at any time so as to “arrive at a decision” about what we are experiencing.

So attention has to balance the conceptual possibilities in terms of lumping or splitting. It is a dynamical choice itself, not some fixed bandwidth spotlight. It can see the whole just as much as it can see the parts. It’s job is to find the particular perceptual balance at any given moment.

You’ve mixed up that story with the other one which tests perceptual grouping. At a glance, we can see that there are one, two, three or then “many” of some object in a collection. If the objects are arranged - as a square, as a hexagon - we can then see the wholeness of the pattern and the number we associate with it. With a random arrangement, we would have to go back to some form of serial inspection. — apokrisis

No, I'm talking about the number of different objects around us which we can be consciously aware of at the same time. This is what you call holding in one's working memory.

That’s more a measure of how many items we can hold at once in working memory. — apokrisis

I would say that this is another way of saying the same thing as me. To be in one's working memory, means that the person is consciously aware of that thing. So if the person is able to hold six items in one's working memory, this means that the person is consciously aware of all six of those items at the same time. Bahman claimed that we can only have one item at a time in our working memory.

To be in one's working memory, means that the person is consciously aware of that thing. — Metaphysician Undercover

Working memory is one step back from the attentional spotlight (granting that all these distinctions are somewhat crude and computational).

So you can only have a definite working memory having been consciously attentive of something. But having it in working memory doesn't have to mean you are currently attending to it. It is only close at hand and being held as a distinct "snapshot".

So if the person is able to hold six items in one's working memory, this means that the person is consciously aware of all six of those items at the same time. — Metaphysician Undercover

There is also iconic memory - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iconic_memory

This shows how we can hold "a whole scene" in mind as an unprocessed sensory pattern before selective attention gets to work on it.

So while I find the cog-sci approach clunky, the various component processes it identifies are based on solid experimental distinctions.

If you want to talk about working memory being "conscious", that boils down to its contents being easily recallable, highly discriminated, and so generally reportable.

The whole concept of "being consciously aware" is problematic as it imports an unwanted degree of binary definiteness into what is going on. It leaves us with little else except the claim neural activity is either conscious or unconscious. It is implicitly dualistic.

Yet even so, it makes more sense to talk of working memory as being what we have just consciously attended and could easily bring back into attention. It is not the bit of the world - some particular viewpoint - that is our currently experienced one.

Although as also said, attention itself can range from tightly focused to a very defocused and vague state. We can gaze off and not be thinking anything in particular. We can even switch to a deliberate vigilant state where we have cleared the decks to allow the unexpected to break through.

So attention itself can be decomposed in a variety of ways that can be explained in terms of neurological structures or paths.

1) We need at least two choices for a decision
2) We can be conscious of one choice at any given time
3) Therefore conscious decision is impossible — bahman

Say you have a choice between two courses of action.

Consider each of the two options separately, one at a time, writing down its merits and demerits.

Now, repeatedly look from one option's merit list to the other option's merit list. Remembering how you felt about the first option's merits, do you feel as strongly about the 2nd option's merits?

Do the same with the demerits.

Follow your impression, your intuitive feeling.

Michael Ossipoff

I get the impression you believe nature is Newtonian deterministic and therefore free will becomes a problem. But that is a limited view of causality even within physics these days, let alone neuroscience. — apokrisis

This is basically physicalism to best of my understanding rather than only Newtonian determinism. Under physicalism we are interested to know what would be final state of a system given initial state. That is determinism too.

I am talking of a view of brain function where it accumulates many degrees of freedom - all the many things it might concretely do (and so also, not do). And then attention acts top down to constrain or bound these freedoms in useful, goal achieving, fashion.

So free will is just rational choice, voluntary action. There is a vast variety of things we could be thinking or doing at any instant. We accumulate a vast store of habits and ideas - concrete skills and notions. Then we must constrain this huge variety of possibilities during every conscious moment so that we limit ourselves to thoughts and actions best adapted to the needs and opportunities of the moment.

To speak of free will is really just to note that we have a socially constructed sense of self that lies over our voluntary behaviour - another level of filter to bound the possible variety of our behaviour. We can consciously weigh what might best suit us personally against what might best suit some wider communal identity we participate in.

So a constraints-based causality avoids the philosophical problems that a physical determinism would seem to create. — apokrisis

I agree. I can achieve this understanding by simple introspection. The question is how we could mentally reach to such a state of affair which we could act freely. Given a brain, I cannot see how free will is possible within physicalism/determinism.

I think that the average person is aware of about six objects at once, without having to count them. So this premise is incorrect, we are focally conscious of numerous different things at the very same time. — Metaphysician Undercover

Perhaps you could. I can be only be focally conscious of one thing at any time. I of course could keep a few thing in my working memory.

Say you have a choice between two courses of action.

Consider each of the two options separately, one at a time, writing down its merits and demerits.

Now, repeatedly look from one option's merit list to the other option's merit list. Remembering how you felt about the first option's merits, do you feel as strongly about the 2nd option's merits?

Do the same with the demerits.

Follow your impression, your intuitive feeling.

Michael Ossipoff — Michael Ossipoff

This is selection based on weight.

Perhaps you could. I can be only be focally conscious of one thing at any time. I of course could keep a few thing in my working memory. — bahman

It seems to me, like I am always consciously aware of many things at the same time. I hear many different things going on around the room, I look around and see many different things. Perhaps you are different from me in that respect, but don't you hear many different things going on at once?

The whole concept of "being consciously aware" is problematic as it imports an unwanted degree of binary definiteness into what is going on. — apokrisis

I guess it depends on how one defines "conscious", and how one defines "at any given time". But I think bahman's premise that we cannot be conscious of more than one option at any given time is clearly false. To me "conscious" specifically implies being aware of a multitude of things. "At any given time" is quite vague, but we'd have to shorten that period of time to an unreasonably short duration to have any hope of limiting the conscious mind to being aware of just one thing at a time. I think we would probably have to shorten that duration to the point where we couldn't say that the mind is even conscious of anything. So to give the mind a long enough time to qualify as being conscious, would be enough time that the mind would be conscious of multiple things. Therefore I believe that being conscious is being aware of multiple things at the same time.

You are driving while unconscious? Ok. — Rich

This is an interesting question. I've often found myself arrive at a destination with a fully fledged plan, devised whilst on the journey, of who to meet, what to say, or what to buy, shops to visits etc... With not a single conscious memory of the journey I just made; that is to say - not in any detail, never consciously choosing a gear, never thinking about how much brake to use, or whether I chose to take the racing line across the roundabouts.

As I said, certain aspects of driving (and many, many or things in our lives) are habitual. However, if you are driving while completely unconscious, in all probability you and other people will be dead pretty fast.

I wish people, when creating a philosophical paradigm, would just observe what is happening. It's so much more useful to have a philosophy that actually makes sense.

It seems to me, like I am always consciously aware of many things at the same time. I hear many different things going on around the room, I look around and see many different things. Perhaps you are different from me in that respect, but don't you hear many different things going on at once? — Metaphysician Undercover

I can hear many things in a noisy place but they are garbled. I can of course focally focus on one thing to hear carefully.

To be aware of many different things is distinct from focusing on one particular thing. To focus on one particular thing requires a conscious decision concerning the many different things which you are aware of.

Okay what about this.
I often read late at night in bed. Sometimes what I read sends my mind off in a different direction and though I do not stop reading, I am thinking about something completely different within a few seconds. I can cover two or three pages reading away happily yet not taking in what I am reading.
When I swipe back I can find the exact place where I seemed to have left the narrative, and when I re-read the same couple of pages, it can seem familiar but I'm not consciously aware of having taken in the contents.
Anyone have this experience?

Take me in.

you're suggesting that the sub-conscious makes the decision before you're conscious of it?

you're suggesting that the sub-conscious makes the decision before you're conscious of it? — David Solman

Yes.

you're suggesting that the sub-conscious makes the decision before you're conscious of it? — David Solman

Yes. — bahman

Checks out.

Unconscious determinants of free decisions in the human brain:

There has been a long controversy as to whether subjectively ‘free’ decisions are determined by brain activity ahead of time. We found that the outcome of a decision can be encoded in brain activity of prefrontal and parietal cortex up to 10 s before it enters awareness. This delay presumably reflects the operation of a network of high-level control areas that begin to prepare an upcoming decision long before it enters awareness.

Thanks for the reference.

but you can still change that decision. Even if you're subconscious makes a choice you're still able to think twice and change the outcome instead of not thinking at all and going with the first decision that pops into your head. In fact, I don't believe that most decisions are made like this. I think that when it comes to an important decision, one will certainly think about it and make a conscious decision.

Stupid things that don't have any consequences will likely only require a quick decision without a thought process so I think it really depends on the individual and the possible consequence of the decision. If the decision has possible bad consequences then that person is likely to think about it and make a conscious decision on what will be best for them.

What if the second decision is also unconscious?

if the choice you had to make requires you to come up with more than one decision then you need to have put some thought into it, otherwise you would have decided already with the first subconscious choice. if there is a second choice then that one has to be a conscious one