• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

The Illusion of Self

Not with any known activity? Why would you believe that? Is normal brain activity just for show? A charade?

We have no model of consciousness based on electrical activity.

We have no model of consciousness based on cellular activity.

We have no model of consciousness base on the movement of blood through the brain.

We have no model of consciousness period.

It is not associated with any known activity.

The electrochemical activity of a brain is related to thought and decision making to the point where a decision can be predicted, fMRI imaging, before the subject is aware of making that decision (conscious representation)

Not only that, sight is related to the visual cortex, sound to the auditory cortex, the physical apparatus of sensory experience, etc, etc....so to propose a non detectable shadow process is absurd.

You could argue that there is more to the process than we understand, and you'd be right....but that doesn't mean an entirely seperate activity at work.

Your belief has no merit.
 
Yes. It's called self awareness and it arises in the same manner as does sensation except it is reporting on what systems are doing and what sensing is occurring together forming options for behavior in a continuously changing collage of awareness. Do you really believe that is you?

Go away.

It is much easier to know what some thing in front of us is than to know how it arose.

It is much easier to study the human pelvis than to know exactly how it arose.

How things arise is usually just a subjective guess.

But you MUST know what something is before you can even speculate on how it arose.

We have no clue what the mind is or what the phenomena of experience (consciousness) that takes place in the mind is.

Your claims to know how something arose without even knowing what that something is is laughable.

You are very funny.

Yet there are scientists already at work over the last 120 years doing just that. Try laughing this 2013 product off.

I think you need read the whole thing, peruse the references, consider your premises, then take you foot out of your mouth. If you don't read it and reply I'll probably find a bit or three in the document that will address your attempted weasel.

The evolutionary and genetic origins of consciousness in the Cambrian Period over 500 million years ago https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00667/full

Abstract

Vertebrates evolved in the Cambrian Period before 520 million years ago, but we do not know when or how consciousness arose in the history of the vertebrate brain. Here we propose multiple levels of isomorphic or somatotopic neural representations as an objective marker for sensory consciousness. All extant vertebrates have these, so we deduce that consciousness extends back to the group's origin. The first conscious sense may have been vision. Then vision, coupled with additional sensory systems derived from ectodermal placodes and neural crest, transformed primitive reflexive systems into image forming brains that map and perceive the external world and the body's interior. We posit that the minimum requirement for sensory consciousness and qualia is a brain including a forebrain (but not necessarily a developed cerebral cortex/pallium), midbrain, and hindbrain. This brain must also have (1) hierarchical systems of intercommunicating, isomorphically organized, processing nuclei that extensively integrate the different senses into representations that emerge in upper levels of the neural hierarchy; and (2) a widespread reticular formation that integrates the sensory inputs and contributes to attention, awareness, and neural synchronization. We propose a two-step evolutionary history, in which the optic tectum was the original center of multi-sensory conscious perception (as in fish and amphibians: step 1), followed by a gradual shift of this center to the dorsal pallium or its cerebral cortex (in mammals, reptiles, birds: step 2). We address objections to the hypothesis and call for more studies of fish and amphibians. In our view, the lamprey has all the neural requisites and is likely the simplest extant vertebrate with sensory consciousness and qualia. Genes that pattern the proposed elements of consciousness (isomorphism, neural crest, placodes) have been identified in all vertebrates. Thus, consciousness is in the genes, some of which are already known.
 
Not with any known activity? Why would you believe that? Is normal brain activity just for show? A charade?

We have no model of consciousness based on electrical activity.

We have no model of consciousness based on cellular activity.

We have no model of consciousness base on the movement of blood through the brain.

We have no model of consciousness period.

It is not associated with any known activity.

The electrochemical activity of a brain is related to thought and decision making to the point where a decision can be predicted, fMRI imaging, before the subject is aware of making that decision (conscious representation)

Not only that, sight is related to the visual cortex, sound to the auditory cortex, the physical apparatus of sensory experience, etc, etc....so to propose a non detectable shadow process is absurd.

You could argue that there is more to the process than we understand, and you'd be right....but that doesn't mean an entirely seperate activity at work.

Your belief has no merit.

There is electrical activity in the brain as a side consequence of cellular activity.

But we understand electricity very well. There is no known electrical effect that comes anywhere near producing a conscious mind.

There is no model showing how electrical activity could give rise to a consciousness.

We are nowhere near being able to say that consciousness is some electrical effect.
 
Yet there are scientists already at work over the last 120 years doing just that. Try laughing this 2013 product off.

I think you need read the whole thing, peruse the references, consider your premises, then take you foot out of your mouth. If you don't read it and reply I'll probably find a bit or three in the document that will address your attempted weasel.

The evolutionary and genetic origins of consciousness in the Cambrian Period over 500 million years ago https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00667/full

Abstract

Vertebrates evolved in the Cambrian Period before 520 million years ago, but we do not know when or how consciousness arose in the history of the vertebrate brain. Here we propose multiple levels of isomorphic or somatotopic neural representations as an objective marker for sensory consciousness. All extant vertebrates have these, so we deduce that consciousness extends back to the group's origin. The first conscious sense may have been vision. Then vision, coupled with additional sensory systems derived from ectodermal placodes and neural crest, transformed primitive reflexive systems into image forming brains that map and perceive the external world and the body's interior. We posit that the minimum requirement for sensory consciousness and qualia is a brain including a forebrain (but not necessarily a developed cerebral cortex/pallium), midbrain, and hindbrain. This brain must also have (1) hierarchical systems of intercommunicating, isomorphically organized, processing nuclei that extensively integrate the different senses into representations that emerge in upper levels of the neural hierarchy; and (2) a widespread reticular formation that integrates the sensory inputs and contributes to attention, awareness, and neural synchronization. We propose a two-step evolutionary history, in which the optic tectum was the original center of multi-sensory conscious perception (as in fish and amphibians: step 1), followed by a gradual shift of this center to the dorsal pallium or its cerebral cortex (in mammals, reptiles, birds: step 2). We address objections to the hypothesis and call for more studies of fish and amphibians. In our view, the lamprey has all the neural requisites and is likely the simplest extant vertebrate with sensory consciousness and qualia. Genes that pattern the proposed elements of consciousness (isomorphism, neural crest, placodes) have been identified in all vertebrates. Thus, consciousness is in the genes, some of which are already known.

They don't even know what they are looking for beyond the word "consciousness".

That word is not defined or understood.

You can't look for something until you know what it is.

Show me what consciousness is.

What is it that experiences that sunset and cool breeze as being out there in the world and is happy?
 
I'm pretty sure the appearance of self-other predated the rise of vision. I'm pinning my wagers on chemical processes such as detecting useful and harmful molecules. That opens the door to across membrane transport and differentiation. There needs to be some sort of distinguisher of what is me and what is other. Once that marker has been established it is a simple matter to apply it to whatever is sensed. The code could be as simple as evidence from which cell accompanying the message outside to the information being processed.

The majestic orchestration of self-other follows in due course out of necessity for surviving without consuming oneself.

I've kept my Microbiology text from college for 14 years, finally it pays off.
 
The electrochemical activity of a brain is related to thought and decision making to the point where a decision can be predicted, fMRI imaging, before the subject is aware of making that decision (conscious representation)

Not only that, sight is related to the visual cortex, sound to the auditory cortex, the physical apparatus of sensory experience, etc, etc....so to propose a non detectable shadow process is absurd.

You could argue that there is more to the process than we understand, and you'd be right....but that doesn't mean an entirely seperate activity at work.

Your belief has no merit.

There is electrical activity in the brain as a side consequence of cellular activity.

But we understand electricity very well. There is no known electrical effect that comes anywhere near producing a conscious mind.

There is no model showing how electrical activity could give rise to a consciousness.

We are nowhere near being able to say that consciousness is some electrical effect.

So you are saying the electrochemical activity of the brain serves no purpose? It's just a charade? That it's your non material shadow activity that is not detectable, testable or explainable that is the real agent of consciousness?
 
I am saying we have no idea how consciousness arises.

And we know electricity pretty well.

Consciousness is not an electrical effect as far as we know.
 
You know full well that brain activity in relation to consciousness not just a matter of 'elecricity'

I nor anybody has the slightest clue what activity results in consciousness.

We can study all kinds of activity in the brain.

There is no model for how any of it can produce the phenomena of consciousness.

We have no clue how brains do it or what is required to do it.
 
You know full well that brain activity in relation to consciousness not just a matter of 'elecricity'

I nor anybody has the slightest clue what activity results in consciousness.

We can study all kinds of activity in the brain.

There is no model for how any of it can produce the phenomena of consciousness.

We have no clue how brains do it or what is required to do it.


We know that the brain shows detectable activity in response to any given input or stimuli....feelings of love, hate, anxiety, etc, can be induced by simply applying current to the related brain regions. Predictions on decisions can be made milliseconds before the subject is aware of making the decision, etc, etc.

Just because everything is not understood doesn't mean nothing is understood. One thing is clear, consciousness is directly related to brain activity, and without it there is no evidence of mind or consciousness.
 
milliseconds? upwards of 20 seconds from the red blue button exercise if I recall correctly
 
You know full well that brain activity in relation to consciousness not just a matter of 'elecricity'

I nor anybody has the slightest clue what activity results in consciousness.

We can study all kinds of activity in the brain.

There is no model for how any of it can produce the phenomena of consciousness.

We have no clue how brains do it or what is required to do it.

We know that the brain shows detectable activity in response to any given input or stimuli....feelings of love, hate, anxiety, etc, can be induced by simply applying current to the related brain regions. Predictions on decisions can be made milliseconds before the subject is aware of making the decision, etc, etc.

Just because everything is not understood doesn't mean nothing is understood. One thing is clear, consciousness is directly related to brain activity, and without it there is no evidence of mind or consciousness.

Consciousness is not a rise or fall in activity.

It is a steady experience when awake. There are not any noticeable breaks. I continually experience when awake. What I remember depends on memory capacity.

Stimulation might lead to experience but I am not experiencing the stimulation. I am experiencing how the brain reacts to that stimulation.

The brain lives in service to the mind. It is continually trying to convert stimulation into experience. The brain trying to make sense of novel external electrical stimulation does not explain anything except that cells can be stimulated by electricity.
 
As for your claims above you are wrong about consciousness variability, about what consciousness is like when you are awake, about experiencing how the brain reacts to events. Finally brain activity in response to input and bodily conditions specifically generates what and how you act and perceive.

Were have you been for the last 65 years?

 Arousal

 Awareness

 Attention

 Perception

 Neural correlates of consciousness
 
That is not consciousness.

Arousal is not consciousness.

Consciousness is sometimes being more aroused and sometimes being less. Consciousness is the something that can be aroused.

The arousal changes but the consciousness remains constant.

Like sometimes the consciousness is more happy and sometimes less.
 
We know that the brain shows detectable activity in response to any given input or stimuli....feelings of love, hate, anxiety, etc, can be induced by simply applying current to the related brain regions. Predictions on decisions can be made milliseconds before the subject is aware of making the decision, etc, etc.

Just because everything is not understood doesn't mean nothing is understood. One thing is clear, consciousness is directly related to brain activity, and without it there is no evidence of mind or consciousness.

Consciousness is not a rise or fall in activity.

It is a steady experience when awake. There are not any noticeable breaks. I continually experience when awake. What I remember depends on memory capacity.

Stimulation might lead to experience but I am not experiencing the stimulation. I am experiencing how the brain reacts to that stimulation.

The brain lives in service to the mind. It is continually trying to convert stimulation into experience. The brain trying to make sense of novel external electrical stimulation does not explain anything except that cells can be stimulated by electricity.

No brain activity, no consciousness. No brain activity = death. Simple as that. It's undeniable.
 
We know that the brain shows detectable activity in response to any given input or stimuli....feelings of love, hate, anxiety, etc, can be induced by simply applying current to the related brain regions. Predictions on decisions can be made milliseconds before the subject is aware of making the decision, etc, etc.

Just because everything is not understood doesn't mean nothing is understood. One thing is clear, consciousness is directly related to brain activity, and without it there is no evidence of mind or consciousness.

Consciousness is not a rise or fall in activity.

It is a steady experience when awake. There are not any noticeable breaks. I continually experience when awake. What I remember depends on memory capacity.

Stimulation might lead to experience but I am not experiencing the stimulation. I am experiencing how the brain reacts to that stimulation.

The brain lives in service to the mind. It is continually trying to convert stimulation into experience. The brain trying to make sense of novel external electrical stimulation does not explain anything except that cells can be stimulated by electricity.

No brain activity, no consciousness. No brain activity = death. Simple as that. It's undeniable.

No blood flow = no consciousness.

Obviously consciousness is created by the flowing of blood.
 
That is not consciousness.

Arousal is not consciousness.

Consciousness is sometimes being more aroused and sometimes being less. Consciousness is the something that can be aroused.

The arousal changes but the consciousness remains constant.

Like sometimes the consciousness is more happy and sometimes less.

I give you information which you Trump about. Not a discussion. Little else one can accomplish responding to your repetitive chants.

What the hell does happiness and sadness have to do with whether there is consciousness. Happy. Sad, conscious. To save time there are consciousness more likely to result in approach and withdrawal or seeking and avoiding behaviors. Woo woo.

Your responses have reached the point where you aren't discussing anything rather you are just typing words signaling you may be robot.
 
That is not consciousness.

Arousal is not consciousness.

Consciousness is sometimes being more aroused and sometimes being less. Consciousness is the something that can be aroused.

The arousal changes but the consciousness remains constant.

Like sometimes the consciousness is more happy and sometimes less.

I just give you information if you want to be Trump about it the is little else one can do.

What the hell does happiness and sadness have to do with whether there is consciousness. Happy. Sad, conscious. To save time there are consciousness is more likely to result in approach and withdrawal sometimes to seeking and avoiding behaviors. Woo woo.

Your responses have reached the point where you aren't discussing anything rather you are just typing words signaling you may be robot.

You gave me information that does not explain consciousness in any way. It does not even begin to explain consciousness since you have no clue what consciousness is.

Stop patting yourself on the back Donald.

Happiness waxes and wanes like arousal.

They are not consciousness.

Consciousness is to experience the color red and have no doubt you are experiencing the color red.

If you are aroused you may have other thoughts running through your mind. You may even have reflexive movements. You may be planning movement or planning to attack.

But you still know you are experiencing red as you experience it. Consciousness has not changed.
 
Back
Top Bottom