• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Consciousness

Not quite. The brain is doing it all from inputs to propagation of information, processing, motor action initiation, readiness potential and conscious representation of motor action and intention to act. The whole works. There being no ghost in the machine acting upon the brain.

Do you even read what you write?

Unlike you, yes I do.

You are claiming the brain is doing everything.

So what is included in everything?

Everything that is the function of a brain, obviously; regulating body functions, gathering information from the external world and responding wherever necessary with motor actions and conscious representation.

One thing is consciousness is under the impression it is freely moving based on subjective choices using the "will".

The brain itself forms conscious will.

So you are claiming the brain is creating this false impression since it is doing everything.

You are claiming the brain is continually tricking consciousness, continually creating false impressions.

Again with your strawman, the brain works in the way it has evolved to work. There is mechanism by which to be aware of information before readiness potential is achieved, nor would it serve a useful purpose.

Absurd, only a child would buy it.

No, that's your position with magical substance dualism. Something that was rejected long ago by everyone except theists and new age philosophers.
 
But there is also willful movement. Movement initiated by consciousness.

To deny that is just as ridiculous.

To deny the overwhelming evidence that contradicts your claim is what is really ridiculous:

Abstract
''Are we in command of our motor acts?The popular belief holds that our conscious decisions are the direct causes of our actions. However, overwhelming evidence from neurosciences demonstrates that our actions are instead largely driven by brain processes that unfold outside of our consciousness. To study these brain processes, scientists have used a range of different functional brain imaging techniques and experimental protocols, such as subliminal priming. Here, we review recent advances in the field and propose a theoretical model of motor control that may contribute to a better understanding of the pathophysiology of movement disorders such as Parkinson's disease.''

Introduction
''In daily life, we usually have the feeling that we are the authors of the actions we make, that the decisions we make and the corresponding movements we perform are consciously initiated and controlled. The belief that our actions are caused by our mental states, and these mental states are causally independent from brain processes reflects a dualistic philosophy (Descartes, 1641). However, the current scientific view holds that human actions and mental states are both biologically determined and stem from patterns of neural activity in the brain.''

Yes the GREAT DECEIVER model of consciousness.

Only those incapable of forming mental connections do not see the absolute absurdity of this model.

You want me to believe that an enormous amount of brain activity is devoted to tricking consciousness into thinking consciousness is acting on ideas and conceptions and desires and plans, but actually that is all a trick. The brain is acting robot fashion without any input from consciousness. The brain creates this consciousness but really has absolutely no use for it.

As absurd a model as I have ever seen.

No matter how many times you present it ape-like without being able to intellectually defend it in the least.
 
So you are claiming the brain is creating this false impression since it is doing everything.

You are claiming the brain is continually tricking consciousness, continually creating false impressions.
Again with your strawman, the brain works in the way it has evolved to work. There is mechanism by which to be aware of information before readiness potential is achieved, nor would it serve a useful purpose.

Saying consciousness evolved does not say anything about what consciousness can do or what it is. There is no use served by saying it. It is a given.

And the second sentence is unintelligible.

What serves no useful purpose is having consciousness think it can move the arm without being able to actually move it.

What serves no useful purpose is having consciousness being aware of the bear without being able to do something about it.
 
Sound is an experience. It is something the brain creates, like it creates the visual experience.

It is not something that exists in any other way than as an experience and as the way the experience is created. Sound is not something out in the world, anywhere.

As far as a whole perception, maybe not always but if I hear the word "dog" what part of the perception am I missing?
When you hear the word dog you almost dont hear the sound at all. You hear a symbol representing the spoken word "dog".

Listening to someone speaking in a language you do not understand sounds very different from when you understand it.

As a musician I have transcribed a lit of arrangements and can assure you thst it is very diffucult to get around theese symbols and hear what they actually play.

I agree language is a special case. The brain does all kinds of things with sound when it comes to language. The sounds one hears can be effected by what you see. The McGurk effect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGurk_effect

The development of language is very far beyond the development of hearing.

Using language probably muddies the water.

But if I hear just a tone, I am not hearing some fraction. I am hearing a whole tone.
 
Personally, I'm very clear as to what I mean when I talk of consciousness. But I do accept that what other people understand of whatever I may say may not make much sense to them. So you have to make this distinction between what the subject knows about his own subjective experience and what he can successfuly convey to others. Our limitations come from our poor means of communication (as dilby would say, we can't communicate directly between our minds). Still, that doesn't make the experience of consciousness unclear. What is really unclear in relation to consciousness is how consciousness relates, and indeed could possibly relate, to the physical world. Yet, this unclarity has nothing to do with consciousness itself, or our private experience of it, which can truly be said to be perfect, and has everything to do with our limitations in what we know of the physical world, for the thing which is really unclear is truly the physical world. Humanity has spend a tremendous amount of time and energy trying to understand it and we certainly have made significant progress but not to the point where our scientific theories could help us relate what we understand of the physical world to what we know as our subjective experience, i.e. consciousness, except to say something we've always known that what we mean by "physical world" is essentially the thing we believe must somehow determine what's going on within our subjective experience.

It seems to me that people want to believe that there is a mover in the system, because we have a sense that there is, but that does not make it true. Rather, I state 'we are human', because whatever the objective reality behind our experience is, it is static and unchangeable. Discussing 'mind' and 'consciousness' won't change it, whatever it is.
It seems to me that people want to believe that there is a mover in the system, because we have a sense that there is, but that does not make it true. I mean that it may not be true that there's anything like a physical world which would somehow explain what's going on within our subjective experience.

See, it works both ways.


My best guess? We're living things which have an inherent relationship to the environment via our sensory systems, and neural mechanisms developed to react to stimulus in the context of the society in which we evolved. What people term 'consciousness' is actually just describing 'awareness', the constant input and processing of sensory stimuli from the environment.
What I experience as consciousness, especially two aspects, that of qualia and that of subjective experience, certainly are not explained as some kind of effect of our brain processes. If you feel differently it certainly explains why we would disagree, not why we would have differing experiences.

Think about this one: if we were born with no sensory receptors would 'consciousness' be possible? So, in that way to be conscious is analogous with being aware.
It's not clear to me that subjective experience stops if sensory inputs are cut off or even if the brain is removed or destroyed. What would clearly stop, presumably, would be the particular kind of qualia associated with the particular kind of brain humans have. So it all depends on the actual 'nature' of consciousness. Obviously, if you choose to 'guess' that consciousness is entirely a physical product of the activity of the brain then it would stop entirely. But then again you have no basis for so guessing except straws in the wind.
EB

What do you mean by 'qualia'? What do you mean by 'subjective experience'?
Qualia is self-explanatory: it's the quality of whatever you experience. Redness considered in itself rather than as some sort of information about the material world.

Subjective experience is just another expression for the original idea of consciousness, which may be knowing a perception of the world but is certainly the experience of qualia as an experiencing subject.
EB
 
So within 10 ms after acoustic energy arrives at the ears processing has sent results of time difference processing to the system which guides the head to turn toward the direction of the incoming acoustic energy. Its been processes and behavior is beginning to bring the eyes to the direction where the energy arises and we're experiencing it by some consciousness operator?

How about when a single frequency is sent through a transducer for three ms and when we pass it back through our system we experience it as a click but when it is passed through the transducer for 200 ms we experience it as a tone? Are you saying that when we do either it must be passed through consciousness to be appreciated as a sound? RU kidding me?

You misunderstand how we process energy input clearly.

The reflexes to turn the head and the experience of sound are two separate "processes".

I do not claim there is no reflexive movement. That would be ridiculous.

But there is also willful movement. Movement initiated by consciousness.

To deny that is just as ridiculous.

Click processing, including time difference between ears is acoustic processing. What one experiences changes radically with such outputs from the auditory system which, of course, is part of experience. The same transient analyses that produces head turn also produces sensation (experience) of click, which I pointed out above is part of acoustic analysis producing the experience of tone, which is part of the process producing the acoustic perception.

So why is it necessary for there to be willful movement experience separate from 'reflex movement when both can be traced to onset and processing of the same acoustic information.

You really do saw yourself from experience when you parse it so severely.

Me, I limit something akin to conscious experience to recovered memory of acoustic processing, both which produce auditory experience' The recovered memory isn't complete. It is only the attended processing driven by other processors meant to patch together a personal view of a what and where which one can relate to how one is doing in the remaining alive process. This isn't really conscious though is it. It's a patchwork of attending reviewed slowly enough and narrowly enough that one can 'choose' what to do after the fact about maintaining or altering one's perceived condition in the staying alive business.

I'm pretty sure one who experiences a photo shoot of your behavior in the presence of stimulation comes away with a much different view of your experience than is the one you cling to so stubbornly. If you see the camera shoot you will see it is different from your experience at the time when you compare memories of both. This is the first step in realizing your conscious experience is there to protect you from what others see. Maybe you could learn from it?

On the other hand all experience processed is one's experience. How do you feel about deciding with a sloppy outline of your experience? Obviously, you think enough of it to call it conscious experience, even experience, the real thing. I, on the other hand, am more realistic more empirical too.
 
The reflexes to turn the head and the experience of sound are two separate "processes".

I do not claim there is no reflexive movement. That would be ridiculous.

But there is also willful movement. Movement initiated by consciousness.

To deny that is just as ridiculous.

Click processing, including time difference between ears is acoustic processing.

And the cost of tea in China is good.

Yes, I know there are a few things known about how the brain reacts to sound energy.

None of it describes how the experience of sound is created or how the thing that experiences sound is created.

There MUST be a division between what is experienced and that which experiences it.

Those that confuse sound energy with sound are as bad as somebody who confuses light with vision.

So why is it necessary for there to be willful movement experience separate from 'reflex movement when both can be traced to onset and processing of the same acoustic information.

The necessity is because that is the experience. The experience is not that some sound is forcing me to reach for the cup. The experience is that I reach for it freely with nothing forcing me.

Again you are another proponent of the BIG DECEIVER model.

You are claiming that every perception of consciousness that it is making choices and decisions is an illusion.

It is there but it serves no purpose to the animal.

Just experiencing and unable to initiate anything.

An absurd model to draw from a few minor reflexes.
 
Again with your strawman, the brain works in the way it has evolved to work. There is mechanism by which to be aware of information before readiness potential is achieved, nor would it serve a useful purpose.

Saying consciousness evolved does not say anything about what consciousness can do or what it is. There is no use served by saying it. It is a given.

I've been through that numerous time. There is no need to repeat it in each and every post.

[
And the second sentence is unintelligible.


Unintelligible to you, specifically. To anyone who has read up on the subject, it is quite basic.

It being your substance dualism that's really not intelligible - the belief that consciousness - which is quite clearly the role and function of a brain. That this inexplicable, unfalsifiable, non material, undetectable is the entity which effects and controls the brain with no apparent connection.

Absurd given the evidence to the contrary.
 
Saying consciousness evolved does not say anything about what consciousness can do or what it is. There is no use served by saying it. It is a given.

I've been through that numerous time. There is no need to repeat it in each and every post.

[
And the second sentence is unintelligible.


Unintelligible to you, specifically. To anyone who has read up on the subject, it is quite basic.

It being your substance dualism that's really not intelligible - the belief that consciousness - which is quite clearly the role and function of a brain. That this inexplicable, unfalsifiable, non material, undetectable is the entity which effects and controls the brain with no apparent connection.

Absurd given the evidence to the contrary.

Argument by incredulity.

You simply do not understand logic or reason.

You have an absurd model where consciousness exists but does nothing.

It is a model for retarded baboons.
 
To deny the overwhelming evidence that contradicts your claim is what is really ridiculous:

Abstract
''Are we in command of our motor acts?The popular belief holds that our conscious decisions are the direct causes of our actions. However, overwhelming evidence from neurosciences demonstrates that our actions are instead largely driven by brain processes that unfold outside of our consciousness. To study these brain processes, scientists have used a range of different functional brain imaging techniques and experimental protocols, such as subliminal priming. Here, we review recent advances in the field and propose a theoretical model of motor control that may contribute to a better understanding of the pathophysiology of movement disorders such as Parkinson's disease.''

Introduction
''In daily life, we usually have the feeling that we are the authors of the actions we make, that the decisions we make and the corresponding movements we perform are consciously initiated and controlled. The belief that our actions are caused by our mental states, and these mental states are causally independent from brain processes reflects a dualistic philosophy (Descartes, 1641). However, the current scientific view holds that human actions and mental states are both biologically determined and stem from patterns of neural activity in the brain.''

Yes the GREAT DECEIVER model of consciousness.

Only those incapable of forming mental connections do not see the absolute absurdity of this model.

You want me to believe that an enormous amount of brain activity is devoted to tricking consciousness into thinking consciousness is acting on ideas and conceptions and desires and plans, but actually that is all a trick. The brain is acting robot fashion without any input from consciousness. The brain creates this consciousness but really has absolutely no use for it.

As absurd a model as I have ever seen.

No matter how many times you present it ape-like without being able to intellectually defend it in the least.

Your strawman is itself a dualist idea, so it CANNOT be what DBT is claiming, despite your insistence that it must be.

The brain could only trick the consciousness if the two things were separate entities; And they are NOT.

The brain tricks the brain. Because that's all there is. And the 'enormous amount of effort' is pure fiction on your part. It's effortless - indeed, it happens because not fooling itself would require too much effort, and isn't worth the cost. Evolution produces 'good enough', not 'perfect'.

If you think that the brain is always 100% accurate in its self assessments, then you are even stupider than you appear - brains are incredibly easy to fool, and fool themselves all the time.

Consciousness is just a property of brains. We don't need to know why in order to know that it is true, any more than we need to know about chlorophyll in order to know that greenness isn't something received by grass from some hypothetical other dimension. Greenness is a property of grass; consciousness is a property of working brains. I don't want you to believe that an enormous amount of grass activity is devoted to tricking greenness into being green, but actually that is all a trick. In fact, if I was to suggest that that's what you believe about grass, you would think that I was crazy.

Guess what I think of you, given that you claim I believe that an enormous amount of brain activity is devoted to tricking consciousness into thinking consciousness is acting on ideas and conceptions and desires and plans, but actually that is all a trick? Can you guess how that claim you make about my beliefs makes me think about you? (Hint: It starts with 'c' and ends with 'razy'). :rolleyes:
 
There MUST be a division between what is experienced and that which experiences it.

So why is it necessary for there to be willful movement experience separate from 'reflex movement when both can be traced to onset and processing of the same acoustic information.

The necessity is because that is the experience. The experience is not that some sound is forcing me to reach for the cup. The experience is that I reach for it freely with nothing forcing me.

Funny thing. I went out today and stood looking at a wooded area where birds were flying and the sound of the ocean could be heard beyond. I just looked. Then that little controller of vocalizations tried to intervene. I ignored it and went back to just looking.

Sometimes a bird caught my attention. Soon however I just went back to watching. A feeling or two flowed over me as I stared. My partner was walking in the wooded area and I was waiting for her to return.

I presume that little pest that tried to intervene with words is that about which you are speaking. Funny. Without deciding it just shut up and left me watching. Then I thought of my cat.

She does things. She does things that aren't in sequences related to my interfering with what's going on with her. Or maybe not since she usually does what I suggest after some indecent bit. Obviously she's able to do things with intention. Just as most people are most of the time able to do things with intention without being in control or deciding to do otherwise. To see trees and hear oceans beyond I need no agency. Its part of that human that I am. Yes processing is experience. That I've constructed a rationale for most things has little to do with whether my experiences are this or that since I'm getting inputs all the time. In fact, the ears are a prime example of a sense that is open for business all the time.

Can you think of anything beyond a bit of long term memory and language why a cat should not have a consciousness?

Bottom line is you seem to be making the same errors philosophers and psychiatrists make about humans. It is enough that evolution provided an ability to identify and class things for evolution to connect the dots between hunger, sex drive, escaping threats, and the rest for us to form intents without a new machine that just doesn't have any other purpose than to make humans unique in their own eyes.
 
Yes the GREAT DECEIVER model of consciousness.

Only those incapable of forming mental connections do not see the absolute absurdity of this model.

You want me to believe that an enormous amount of brain activity is devoted to tricking consciousness into thinking consciousness is acting on ideas and conceptions and desires and plans, but actually that is all a trick. The brain is acting robot fashion without any input from consciousness. The brain creates this consciousness but really has absolutely no use for it.

As absurd a model as I have ever seen.

No matter how many times you present it ape-like without being able to intellectually defend it in the least.

Your strawman is itself a dualist idea, so it CANNOT be what DBT is claiming, despite your insistence that it must be.

The brain could only trick the consciousness if the two things were separate entities; And they are NOT.

:rolleyes:

Yes, indeed,it's such a simple point. Something that should be easily understood, yet here we are 24 pages on and it still can't be explained clearly enough for Mr untermensche to grasp.

Quite fascinating in a sad kind of way, as an example of someone refusing to accept reasoned, well supported principles in favour of an idea, independent consciousness, that that has no support or evidence, a except for the faith of new age gurus and their followers, an idea that was discredited long ago.
 
Artificially witching consciousness on and off;

''ONE moment you’re conscious, the next you’re not. For the first time, researchers have switched off consciousness by electrically stimulating a single brain area.

Scientists have been probing individual regions of the brain for over a century, exploring their function by zapping them with electricity and temporarily putting them out of action. Despite this, they have never been able to turn off consciousness – until now.

Although only tested in one person, the discovery suggests that a single area – the claustrum – might be integral to combining disparate brain activity into a seamless package of thoughts, sensations and emotions. It takes us a step closer to answering a problem that has confounded scientists and philosophers for millennia – namely how our conscious awareness arises.

The hidden key

Many theories abound but most agree that consciousness has to involve the integration of activity from several brain networks, allowing us to perceive our surroundings as one single unifying experience rather than isolated sensory perceptions.

One proponent of this idea was Francis Crick, a pioneering neuroscientist who earlier in his career had identified the structure of DNA. Just days before he died in July 2004, Crick was working on a paper that suggested our consciousness needs something akin to an orchestra conductor to bind all of our different external and internal perceptions together.

With his colleague Christof Koch, at the Allen Institute for Brain Science in Seattle, he hypothesised that this conductor would need to rapidly integrate information across distinct regions of the brain and bind together information arriving at different times. For example, information about the smell and colour of a rose, its name, and a memory of its relevance, can be bound into one conscious experience of being handed a rose on Valentine’s day.

The pair suggested that the claustrum – a thin, sheet-like structure that lies hidden deep inside the brain – is perfectly suited to this job (Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society B, doi.org/djjw5m).

It now looks as if Crick and Koch were on to something. In a study published last week, Mohamad Koubeissi at the George Washington University in Washington DC and his colleagues describe how they managed to switch a woman’s consciousness off and on by stimulating her claustrum. The woman has epilepsy so the team were using deep brain electrodes to record signals from different brain regions to work out where her seizures originate. One electrode was positioned next to the claustrum, an area that had never been stimulated before.

When the team zapped the area with high frequency electrical impulses, the woman lost consciousness. She stopped reading and stared blankly into space, she didn’t respond to auditory or visual commands and her breathing slowed. As soon as the stimulation stopped, she immediately regained consciousness with no memory of the event. The same thing happened every time the area was stimulated during two days of experiments (Epilepsy and Behavior, doi.org/tgn).

To confirm that they were affecting the woman’s consciousness rather than just her ability to speak or move, the team asked her to repeat the word “house” or snap her fingers before the stimulation began. If the stimulation was disrupting a brain region responsible for movement or language she would have stopped moving or talking almost immediately. Instead, she gradually spoke more quietly or moved less and less until she drifted into unconsciousness. Since there was no sign of epileptic brain activity during or after the stimulation, the team is sure that it wasn’t a side effect of a seizure.''
 
....The brain could only trick the consciousness if the two things were separate entities; And they are NOT....

Utter hopeless ignorance.

Consciousness is an ability. An ability to be conscious of things.

One of those things is the perception that it has the ability to move the arm at "will". A false impression according to some here.

The brain is an object.

When the ignorance is this deep it seems a lost cause.
 
.....It takes us a step closer to answering a problem that has confounded scientists and philosophers for millennia – namely how our conscious awareness arises.....

It's funny, we've been taking these "steps closer" for decades yet still can't even say what specific activity generates consciousness.

The field of neural science is overflowing with delusion.

This ability to "turn off" consciousness will become a weapon, nothing more.

It explains nothing about what consciousness is, only that some part of the brain must be functioning properly to see it. It in no way proves that consciousness emanates or originates from this area. It may just be a vital junction point.
 
Last edited:
Are you claiming that if humans can't detect it it definitely doesn't exist?

Yes, but only within the precision of our existing technology, which is more than adequate for dealing with anything on the scale of the brain. We've accounted for every significant effect at the quantum, chemical and cellular levels. The activity of individual neurons is predictable using existing models. If there are undetected effects then they are insignificant.
So according to you subjective experience is not significant. Good to know.



Now, contrary to what untermensche suggested, human beings do detect subjective experience. They even routinely report on it. The difficulty is that one cannot apparently detect somebody else's subjective experience and that some people seem either to be oblivious of their own subjective experience or somehow to opt for pigheaded denial. Or possibly they don't have it at all, which would be the most extraordinary of circumstances.


I also didn't know that existence was predicated on scientific provability. So many new things to learn in this time of alternative truths. :thinking:
EB
 
That is not an explanation of anything. If I cut off your leg you can't run, that doesn't explain how muscles work.

Of course altering the brain alters what it can do, but how the activity of the brain and the experience of consciousness are connected is completely unknown.

If you don't know what consciousness even is you can't say what can and can't affect it.

We know what the brain is made out of, biological cells, and we know what kind of forces cells interact with, and we also know that if there were other forces or particles that could interact with brain cells, we would have detected them already. It's not a matter of not knowing what we don't know, it's a matter of knowing that we've eliminated the possibility.
No, it's just that the science of the brain may never explain consciousness. It's somewhat like restricting yourself to the rules of chess to explain a game of chess. There are no other rules allowed so you are tempted to explain the game with only the known rules yet the rules don't actually explain any particular game of chess.
EB
 
Because I can say, "I'm conscious of my consciousness" the word is just a word. It has no objective existence except as brain behavior.

It's like the word "speed." You can't have speed without an object in motion. "Speed" is just describing behavior, it can't stand by itself.
Since when objectivity is a prerequisite to existence?! Who decides on such matters?!

Consciousness has subjective existence and subjective existence is existence.

And, what's more, it's the only existence we actually know. Objective existence is only a belief, an inference from perception, inference that is from our subejctive impression that our percepts are indicative of a certain objectively material world.

In effect, what scientists have done so far is to redefine the notion of consciousness as whatever set of objective properties of the brain that they think broadly fit the bill and then run away like headless chickens sure they've explained the mystery when in fact they're merely talking about something else altogether.

I'm not even sure why they seem so intent on trying to reduce the idea of subjective experience to nothing. You can't do that. Human beings experience subjectively, they have consistently reported on their subjective experience for centuries, they keep reporting on it in spite of what scientists say today and you can't redact reality away. And, I personally fail to see how any explanation in terms of neurons and synapses could succeed. Scientists may have to think outside the objectivity box to make any progress.
EB
 
Because current science has no idea what consciousness is, not even a conception of it. All science knows is a little about how the brain works but nothing to connect any of those workings with consciousness beyond the unenlightened; disruption of normal workings produces a disruption of consciousness which tells us nothing about what consciousness is.
Consciousness is a word we've invented that describes an active brain as compared to a dead brain. Science certainly knows and understands what is consciousness. If the brain were discovered to be some kind of strange and unknown "receiver" - you'll have to describe what you mean - science about the brain would most certainly change.
No. The term consciousness was first used by an English theologian with a moral perspective and then a new use was coined by I think Locke and his perspective was no longer moral but still subjectivist. It's only much later that scientists started to use the term with an objectivist perspective. It's the classical highjack together with a complete loss of memory and an outrageous rewritting of history. Welcome to 1984, people. You deserve your Trump. Congratulation.

So science can probably be said to explain objective consciousness and no big deal here but it doesn't explain subjective consciousness and it certainly doesn't explain what I experience subjectively.
EB
 
What if all of the natural world is a detailed simulation that allows us many ways of interacting with other consciousnesses?

Our brains could be part of the simulation that gives us direct access to our consciousnesses, rather than being the "direct cause" of our consciousnesses.
Actually, not bad at all as a new paradigm! :D
EB
 
Back
Top Bottom