Consciousness

[Juma]

The leg is not passed on to the next generation, the genes are. Each leg belongs to a single individual thus legs cannot evolve. The leg rots with its owner while the genes are passed on and are combined and selected.

If the genes are passed aspects of the leg are potentially passed.

It is the success of the leg that determines which genes are passed.

Not the success of genes that determine which leg is passed.

Genes don't have success or failure. Legs do.

It is not the success of individual legs that are important but that that the genes are capable of consistantly generate useful legs on each individual animal. A single perfect leg on a single animal isnt worth anything if the genes cannot make syure that the offspring will have similar legs.

 

[DBT]

You cannot limit existence with your imagination.

Again, if it exists it is not non material. The term non-material refers to things like thoughts and ideas, not processes that allow their production by a mind.

It serves the purpose of providing a centralised 'map' of the world and self by which the brain navigates its environment. It is something the brain is forming from information gathered from multiple sources.

A centralized map is not needed by the brain. It is only needed by consciousness itself.

The brain controls all kinds of things without centralized maps. Brains do not need centralized maps to operate. They can make sense of information in a very fractured state.

How many times do I have to say this before it is comprehended?

The brain does not need depictions or synthesis of information into a presentation to act on it.

Only a consciousness needs those things.

And it only needs them if it can act on them.

Presentations to a consciousness that cannot act on them is a complete waste of energy. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

For someone who says that we know nothing about consciousness, you seem to think you know an awful lot about consciousness.

But unfortunately none of supported by evidence, instead based on unfounded ideas from religion and new age philosophy.

 

[untermensche]

If the genes are passed aspects of the leg are potentially passed.

It is the success of the leg that determines which genes are passed.

Not the success of genes that determine which leg is passed.

Genes don't have success or failure. Legs do.

It is not the success of individual legs that are important but that that the genes are capable of consistantly generate useful legs on each individual animal. A single perfect leg on a single animal isnt worth anything if the genes cannot make syure that the offspring will have similar legs.

The leg is all that can have success or failure.

It is what is interacting with the world, not genes.

 

[untermensche]

You cannot limit existence with your imagination.

Again, if it exists it is not non material. The term non-material refers to things like thoughts and ideas, not processes that allow their production by a mind.



A centralized map is not needed by the brain. It is only needed by consciousness itself.

The brain controls all kinds of things without centralized maps. Brains do not need centralized maps to operate. They can make sense of information in a very fractured state.

How many times do I have to say this before it is comprehended?

The brain does not need depictions or synthesis of information into a presentation to act on it.

Only a consciousness needs those things.

And it only needs them if it can act on them.

Presentations to a consciousness that cannot act on them is a complete waste of energy. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

For someone who says that we know nothing about consciousness, you seem to think you know an awful lot about consciousness.

But unfortunately none of supported by evidence, instead based on unfounded ideas from religion and new age philosophy.

This is clearly way beyond your capacities to even address.

Brains do not need centralized maps to operate. And consciousness isn't even a centralized map, whatever that is, it is a locus of experience. It is something capable of experience, the only thing capable of experience.

Only a consciousness would need to experience. A brain just needs to somehow understand and react. It has no need to create an experience.

This requires the ability to think, not just the ability to ape back the bad conclusions of others.

 

[fromderinside]

If the genes are passed aspects of the leg are potentially passed.

It is the success of the leg that determines which genes are passed.

Not the success of genes that determine which leg is passed.

Genes don't have success or failure. Legs do.

First, methods of selection are not an explanation of the process of evolution or even of selection. You seem to be spouting discounted geneticist social solution methods from the 19 hundreds.

Genes, legs, neither are sduitable models for carrying the process of evolution. Neither is relevant. Genes are passed, legs are not passed. Genes that provide bio-molecules that sustain or improve leg function are passed. The analytic solution is via a population model one which I've been describing for some time now.. That is why in this game, decision theory outcomes are the apt arbiter of whether an environmental condition or a physiological flaw drive genes this way or that resulting in successfully reproduced outcomes.

It is not the aspect of the being that is weak it is the aspect of the being that is successful. That is why it is a capability to organize, order, count and remember that tells us the genetic composition olfactory and visual function that provide organism the appropriate category of function that drives advantage for consciousness. All genetic adaptations that lead to improvements in identification of enemies and food are favored, even those that ultimately are rejected as conditions change.

We know what drives evolution of consciousness. We know when these adaptations were in place so we know the route they took if we just analyze the genetic composition of the beings in that pathway looking for trends in genetic success. Therefore we know that memory, discrimination, attention, and articulation are the elements of the thing we think is consciousness. It need not be greater than that. We need not look for an invisible unbelievable quantum bullet to provide the genesis for the capability we wish to find. All aspects of consciousness are captured by the grouping of these traits.

More completely, we know that quantum behavior doesn't enter into macro function since macro function remains deterministic - is well described by and consistent with physical law - whilst quantum activity ,as it has been functionally modeled does not. Of course the distinction between the two may be as simple as rewriting time-space'. So your quantum faerie is a non-starter.

So King, having found a method to determine the source and pathway of elements included in the consciousness construct and having reduced non-standard science suppositions to faerie tales, this case is closed.

 

[DBT]

For someone who says that we know nothing about consciousness, you seem to think you know an awful lot about consciousness.

But unfortunately none of supported by evidence, instead based on unfounded ideas from religion and new age philosophy.

This is clearly way beyond your capacities to even address.

Yet you believe that you yourself are addressing something that you yourself claim is currently unknown and therefore you yourself know nothing about while in the process arguing for something you know nothing about (in your own words) ignoring all evidence that clearly refutes everything you say.

 

[untermensche]

If the genes are passed aspects of the leg are potentially passed.

It is the success of the leg that determines which genes are passed.

Not the success of genes that determine which leg is passed.

Genes don't have success or failure. Legs do.

First, methods of selection are not an explanation of the process of evolution or even of selection.

As usual I have little idea what you're babbling about.

Selection is based on reproductive success.

If the leg (and many other things) is not successful those genes are not going anywhere.

The success of the entire animal determines which genes move on.

Nothing else.

...we know that quantum behavior doesn't enter into macro function since macro function remains deterministic....

We know no such thing. We understand a fraction of reality. Far more we don't know than we do.

Making things up is not very persuasive.

 

[untermensche]

This is clearly way beyond your capacities to even address.

Yet you believe that you yourself are addressing something that you yourself claim is currently unknown and therefore you yourself know nothing about while in the process arguing for something you know nothing about (in your own words) ignoring all evidence that clearly refutes everything you say.

What can consciousness in itself initiate?

I don't want a story.

Just the specific things that can be initiated by a consciousness.

 

[DBT]

Yet you believe that you yourself are addressing something that you yourself claim is currently unknown and therefore you yourself know nothing about while in the process arguing for something you know nothing about (in your own words) ignoring all evidence that clearly refutes everything you say.

What can consciousness in itself initiate?

I don't want a story.

Just the specific things that can be initiated by a consciousness.

I've already explained numerous times that according to the available evidence the brain forms conscious representation of its available information from the senses and memory function in order to navigate the world. Losing sight means that you no longer have visual representation of your environment...and so.

So it is obviously not consciousness that's doing these things but the brain acting through the medium of consciousness, that the brain itself is forming.

A distinction that you apparently cannot accept, yet the evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of brain agency.

You ignored the evidence I provided in the form of prosopagnosia, a condition where the eyes are fully functional and memory function is otherwise relatively normal but cannot be integrated in relation to face recognition because the neural architecture that performs this specific task is either damaged or never developed properly in the first place.

This is a brain function disorder that manifests as an inability to recognise faces even though the eyes and memory function are in working order, prosopagnosia, this condition being a problem of information processing;

''Prosopagnosia is a neurological disorder characterized by the inability to recognize faces. The term prosopagnosia comes from the Greek words for “face” and “lack of knowledge.” Depending upon the degree of impairment, some people with prosopagnosia may only have difficulty recognizing a familiar face; others will be unable to discriminate between unknown faces, while still others may not even be able to distinguish a face as being different from an object. Some people with the disorder are unable to recognize their own face.''

''Prosopagnosia is not related to memory dysfunction, memory loss, impaired vision, or learning disabilities. Prosopagnosia is thought to be the result of abnormalities, damage, or impairment in the right fusiform gyrus (the area in red, right), a fold in the brain that appears to coordinate the neural systems that control facial perception and memory.'

 

[WAB]

So where were we?

 

[DBT]

So where were we?

Here. Wherever you go, you are there, which means here. You have not been here for a long time, but now here you are.

 

[fromderinside]

Selection is based on reproductive success.

If the leg (and many other things) is not successful those genes are not going anywhere.

The success of the entire animal determines which genes move on.

Nothing else.

If one looks at environment one might find things other than reproductive success. Many genes change or switch depending on environmental and social factors. Some of these changes are passed on.

So while reproduction is required it may take place at the wrong time and in the wrong place.

In addition some advantageous gene combinations become disadvantageous with the wrong mate due to the competitive nature of genes within each contributing partner. So while the genes you get are just that, due to changes in conditions and available alleles in the productive result fitness may be negatively impacted by previously advantaged combinations. The simplest example I can think of for reproductive negative genetic results are in systematic paring of near related kin.

So it is incorrect one's success of proving offspring which survive to reproduce is not determinate of fitness nor which genes move on.

It is best said that genes are selfish, sometimes foolishly so, but it is the genes and their state and availability that drive evolution. One's leg has nothing to do with it.

 

[untermensche]

What can consciousness in itself initiate?

I don't want a story.

Just the specific things that can be initiated by a consciousness.

I've already explained numerous times that according to the available evidence the brain forms conscious representation of its available information from the senses and memory function in order to navigate the world. Losing sight means that you no longer have visual representation of your environment...and so.

So it is obviously not consciousness that's doing these things but the brain acting through the medium of consciousness, that the brain itself is forming.

A distinction that you apparently cannot accept, yet the evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of brain agency.

You ignored the evidence I provided in the form of prosopagnosia, a condition where the eyes are fully functional and memory function is otherwise relatively normal but cannot be integrated in relation to face recognition because the neural architecture that performs this specific task is either damaged or never developed properly in the first place.

This is a brain function disorder that manifests as an inability to recognise faces even though the eyes and memory function are in working order, prosopagnosia, this condition being a problem of information processing;

''Prosopagnosia is a neurological disorder characterized by the inability to recognize faces. The term prosopagnosia comes from the Greek words for “face” and “lack of knowledge.” Depending upon the degree of impairment, some people with prosopagnosia may only have difficulty recognizing a familiar face; others will be unable to discriminate between unknown faces, while still others may not even be able to distinguish a face as being different from an object. Some people with the disorder are unable to recognize their own face.''

''Prosopagnosia is not related to memory dysfunction, memory loss, impaired vision, or learning disabilities. Prosopagnosia is thought to be the result of abnormalities, damage, or impairment in the right fusiform gyrus (the area in red, right), a fold in the brain that appears to coordinate the neural systems that control facial perception and memory.'

Yes, with subjective reporting problems with brain function can be seen. It proves nothing.

You cannot answer a question directly.

People unable to answer direct questions are usually trying to sell you something. That is clearly the case here.

I'll repeat it. If the answer is "nothing" then just say it as a honest person would. I don't need a song and dance.

What action can the consciousness initiate on it's own?

 

[untermensche]

Selection is based on reproductive success.

If the leg (and many other things) is not successful those genes are not going anywhere.

The success of the entire animal determines which genes move on.

Nothing else.

If one looks at environment one might find things other than reproductive success. Many genes change or switch depending on environmental and social factors. Some of these changes are passed on.

So while reproduction is required it may take place at the wrong time and in the wrong place.

In addition some advantageous gene combinations become disadvantageous with the wrong mate due to the competitive nature of genes within each contributing partner. So while the genes you get are just that, due to changes in conditions and available alleles in the productive result fitness may be negatively impacted by previously advantaged combinations. The simplest example I can think of for reproductive negative genetic results are in systematic paring of near related kin.

So it is incorrect one's success of proving offspring which survive to reproduce is not determinate of fitness nor which genes move on.

It is best said that genes are selfish, sometimes foolishly so, but it is the genes and their state and availability that drive evolution. One's leg has nothing to do with it.

The gene only survives if the entire animal has reproductive success. No single gene can ensure that.

It is the animal that either fails or succeeds. The entire animal.

This nonsense about "selfish genes" is a bad conclusion based on bad reasoning.

Genes are bookkeepers. They record evolutionary change. They cause it in no way. Success or failure of the entire animal is what causes evolutionary change.

Genes allow the possibility of change through random mutation. But a mutation has no way of ensuring it's success. It moves on only if the entire animal is successful.

Animals interacting with the world and either succeeding or failing is what drives evolution. Genes are merely bookkeepers recording the results.

 

[fromderinside]

The gene only survives if the entire animal has reproductive success. No single gene can ensure that.

It is the animal that either fails or succeeds. The entire animal.

This nonsense about "selfish genes" is a bad conclusion based on bad reasoning.

Genes are bookkeepers. They record evolutionary change. They cause it in no way. Success or failure of the entire animal is what causes evolutionary change.

Genes allow the possibility of change through random mutation. But a mutation has no way of ensuring it's success. It moves on only if the entire animal is successful.

Animals interacting with the world and either succeeding or failing is what drives evolution. Genes are merely bookkeepers recording the results.

In order

So?

So?

How so?

Really? This explains site gene competition, environmental induced gene methylation with generational transmission, gene injection and assimilation, etc? Maybe that was thought 70 years ago....naw

you are repeating yourself,. I find that a common practice among those who take their Gould's as producing recital scripture. Evolution is much more complex where the action is at the gene level whatever the environment for those who enter it. If you don't understand its OK to say so.

Don't expect anything different from me. I'a F***ing reductionist ferchissake.

 

[untermensche]

Read some Gould. You'll understand, maybe. I'm not going to teach you everything.

If you can't comprehend the implications from the fact that genes are merely bookkeepers then I have trouble believing you can understand anything.

Dawkins' attempt to look at genes as agents of change was imaginative and interesting.

But a total failure and not true.

 

[fromderinside]

Read some Gould.

Dawkins' attempt to look at genes as agents of change was imaginative and interesting.

I did. You should read some Burt and Trivers, say "Genes in Conflict". Then you should get acquainted with how genes outside the body become part of one's genetic makeup, or, how  methylation (see DNA/RNA methylation), a form of  alkylation , modifies genes responding to social and other environmental conditions which are passed on.

Actually it Was  George Williams (biologist), predating Dawkins by over twenty years who introduced the selfish gene when he destroyed Wynne-Edwards' group selection hypothesis. All that is accepted along these social lines by biologists and evolutionists is Kin selection.

 

[untermensche]

Read some Gould.

Dawkins' attempt to look at genes as agents of change was imaginative and interesting.

I did. You should read some Burt and Trivers, say "Genes in Conflict". Then you should get acquainted with how genes outside the body become part of one's genetic makeup, or, how  methylation (see DNA/RNA methylation), a form of  alkylation , modifies genes responding to social and other environmental conditions which are passed on.

Actually it Was  George Williams (biologist), predating Dawkins by over twenty years who introduced the selfish gene when he destroyed Wynne-Edwards' group selection hypothesis. All that is accepted along these social lines by biologists and evolutionists is Kin selection.

You claim to have read Gould.

Group selection hypothesis says that selection occurs at the group level.

Williams and Dawkins claim it occurs at the level of the gene.

Where does Gould say it is?

 

[DBT]

I've already explained numerous times that according to the available evidence the brain forms conscious representation of its available information from the senses and memory function in order to navigate the world. Losing sight means that you no longer have visual representation of your environment...and so.

So it is obviously not consciousness that's doing these things but the brain acting through the medium of consciousness, that the brain itself is forming.

A distinction that you apparently cannot accept, yet the evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of brain agency.

You ignored the evidence I provided in the form of prosopagnosia, a condition where the eyes are fully functional and memory function is otherwise relatively normal but cannot be integrated in relation to face recognition because the neural architecture that performs this specific task is either damaged or never developed properly in the first place.

This is a brain function disorder that manifests as an inability to recognise faces even though the eyes and memory function are in working order, prosopagnosia, this condition being a problem of information processing;

''Prosopagnosia is a neurological disorder characterized by the inability to recognize faces. The term prosopagnosia comes from the Greek words for “face” and “lack of knowledge.” Depending upon the degree of impairment, some pe ople with prosopagnosia may only have difficulty recognizing a familiar face; others will be unable to discriminate between unknown faces, while still others may not even be able to distinguish a face as being different from an object. Some people with the disorder are unable to recognize their own face.''

''Prosopagnosia is not related to memory dysfunction, memory loss, impaired vision, or learning disabilities. Prosopagnosia is thought to be the result of abnormalities, damage, or impairment in the right fusiform gyrus (the area in red, right), a fold in the brain that appears to coordinate the neural systems that control facial perception and memory.'

Yes, with subjective reporting problems with brain function can be seen. It proves nothing.

For a start; it is not merely subjective reporting. The subject in fact cannot recognise faces when a set of options are presented. The condition is debilitating.

Now, you might like to try and argue that these people are all lying and acting when they are being tested, looking puzzled when they are shown pictures of faces of people who are well known to them, yet clearly cannot distinguish the faces of family and friends from strangers. Good luck with that.

You cannot answer a question directly.

I have. The evidence against your claims is overwhelming. But of course you can't accept any of it because you have your own preferences; Substance dualism and your homunculus. Ideas that died years ago, except in religious and new age culture.

 

[untermensche]

Yes, with subjective reporting problems with brain function can be seen. It proves nothing.

For a start; it is not merely subjective reporting. The subject in fact cannot recognise faces when a set of options are presented. The condition is debilitating.

I've known about the condition, and similar conditions for a long time. You are not telling me things I don't know. Oliver Sacks', 'The man who mistook his wife for a hat', is a classic. The book came out in 1985.

But the only way we know these conditions exist is through subjective reporting. All we know about these conditions is what we can get from subjective reporting. We cannot look at a brain or any brain scan and conclude a person has this condition.

Consciousness does not create the visual representation. It experiences it. Consciousness is that which experiences, not that which creates the experience. If does not have "face recognition software". But when the "software" is working properly consciousness can recognize faces. Consciousness needs proper brain function for recognition of everything. You are making no point.

You cannot answer a question directly.

I have. The evidence against your claims is overwhelming. But of course you can't accept any of it because you have your own preferences; Substance dualism and your homunculus. Ideas that died years ago, except in religious and new age culture.

Talking about some claim of mine is not answering the question directly. It is a song and dance.

It is clear your prejudices and preconceptions guide your conclusions. Not any data.

Consciousness is a completely unexplained phenomena. You cannot limit the explanation a priori.

That is irrational and what people with strong prejudices do.