Consciousness

[fromderinside]

I stepped on a bug today. Saw bug stepped on same, then I realized it was an ant. My intent was obvious but my consciousness since I had already stepped on the 'bug' before I processed it was an ant. Reconstructing it went a bit like this bug stomp then conscious it was bug, ant, and I had reflexively stomped on it. No thoughts up to point I determined what kind of bug it was after I had already stomped on it. So choosing, not really, conscious, not really, machine, absolutely, rationalization about what I had done, obviously after the fact even more after than usual when I believe I'm conscious.

Whole can of worms about intent depending on will and consciousness required at all blown away by simple act of stomping bug then realizing the whole event that had just occurred.

Only for those who want to contribute on why a machine would include consciousness, intent, and will. My thought, rationalization purposes. Why? We can articulate events and history.

 

[untermensche]

I stepped on a bug today. Saw bug stepped on same, then I realized it was an ant. My intent was obvious but my consciousness since I had already stepped on the 'bug' before I processed it was an ant. Reconstructing it went a bit like this bug stomp then conscious it was bug, ant, and I had reflexively stomped on it. No thoughts up to point I determined what kind of bug it was after I had already stomped on it. So choosing, not really, conscious, not really, machine, absolutely, rationalization about what I had done, obviously after the fact even more after than usual when I believe I'm conscious.

Whole can of worms about intent depending on will and consciousness required at all blown away by simple act of stomping bug then realizing the whole event that had just occurred.

Only for those who want to contribute on why a machine would include consciousness, intent, and will. My thought, rationalization purposes. Why? We can articulate events and history.

Your intentions here are to use these words to pretend you know something about intention and consciousness.

But despite your incredibly fascinating story about ants you can still lift your arm at "will".

 

[DBT]

I stepped on a bug today. Saw bug stepped on same, then I realized it was an ant. My intent was obvious but my consciousness since I had already stepped on the 'bug' before I processed it was an ant. Reconstructing it went a bit like this bug stomp then conscious it was bug, ant, and I had reflexively stomped on it. No thoughts up to point I determined what kind of bug it was after I had already stomped on it. So choosing, not really, conscious, not really, machine, absolutely, rationalization about what I had done, obviously after the fact even more after than usual when I believe I'm conscious.

Whole can of worms about intent depending on will and consciousness required at all blown away by simple act of stomping bug then realizing the whole event that had just occurred.

Only for those who want to contribute on why a machine would include consciousness, intent, and will. My thought, rationalization purposes. Why? We can articulate events and history.

Your intentions here are to use these words to pretend you know something about intention and consciousness.

But despite your incredibly fascinating story about ants you can still lift your arm at "will".

His brain generating both the will to lift his arm, for whatever reason, and the action itself. Will doesn't move limbs, the brain does, just as it reports the intention, reason and action in conscious form.

After all this time, you still have no idea.

 

[untermensche]

Your intentions here are to use these words to pretend you know something about intention and consciousness.

But despite your incredibly fascinating story about ants you can still lift your arm at "will".

His brain generating both the will to lift his arm, for whatever reason, and the action itself. Will doesn't move limbs, the brain does, just as it reports the intention, reason and action in conscious form.

After all this time, you still have no idea.

You claim his brain for some unknown reason just generated his "will" to move his arm, but if I showed you scans of his brain activity you could not point to where this alleged "will" of his brain is. You could not explain one thing about how it works.

You know nothing about the "will" physiologically. All you know about it is through your own experience with your own "will".

All you know about it is you can lift your arm at "will".

To deny it is to be blind.

 

[none]

what about octopus?
they have 9 brains, they seem to be conscious having an awareness of self and environment
what is the argument there unter?

 

[untermensche]

what about octopus?
they have 9 brains, they seem to be conscious having an awareness of self and environment
what is the argument there unter?

Where humans and octopi merge on the "tree of life" is a long time ago.

Once there is a brain it can "move" in many directions. Natural selection will produce many changes.

Maybe understanding how consciousness is achieved in an octopus would help understand how it is achieved in the human.

But we are no closer to understanding it in the octopus as in the human.

The problem is not that we can't chop brains apart or do all kinds of intrusive experiments.

We have done that to a lot of animals.

 

[fromderinside]

But despite your incredibly fascinating story about ants you can still lift your arm at "will".

I think my point was it is uncertain that will exists or is at the base of anything living things do. It's more likely that our arms lift unconsciously, that we then invent something from which we ascribe why it rose. After all, we are social beings where appearance is everything. For instance, I don't thin k for a second that I adjusted my upper are because I wanted to move it. Rather my upper arm had been constrained by my seating at this keyboard and twitched to adjust pressures and relax it.

 

[Copernicus]

A robot can certainly lift its appendages "at will", so what is the difference between a robot and a human being (so-called "meat robot") lifting an arm "at will"?

 

[DBT]

His brain generating both the will to lift his arm, for whatever reason, and the action itself. Will doesn't move limbs, the brain does, just as it reports the intention, reason and action in conscious form.

After all this time, you still have no idea.

You claim his brain for some unknown reason just generated his "will" to move his arm, but if I showed you scans of his brain activity you could not point to where this alleged "will" of his brain is. You could not explain one thing about how it works.

You know nothing about the "will" physiologically. All you know about it is through your own experience with your own "will".

All you know about it is you can lift your arm at "will".

To deny it is to be blind.

It was a strawman then and it's a strawman now and it'll be a strawman next time you use it as an excuse to ignore the fact that all the evidence points to brain agency and there being no evidence for your autonomous consciousness idea....which nobody takes seriously.

 

[untermensche]

But despite your incredibly fascinating story about ants you can still lift your arm at "will".

I think my point was it is uncertain that will exists or is at the base of anything living things do. It's more likely that our arms lift unconsciously, that we then invent something from which we ascribe why it rose. After all, we are social beings where appearance is everything. For instance, I don't thin k for a second that I adjusted my upper are because I wanted to move it. Rather my upper arm had been constrained by my seating at this keyboard and twitched to adjust pressures and relax it.

There is nothing uncertain about it.

I lift my arm at "will".

Every time I choose to do it.

No uncertainty.

Your claims are just bad reasoning. Just because some uncertainty exists that does not mean all is uncertain.

 

[untermensche]

You claim his brain for some unknown reason just generated his "will" to move his arm, but if I showed you scans of his brain activity you could not point to where this alleged "will" of his brain is. You could not explain one thing about how it works.

You know nothing about the "will" physiologically. All you know about it is through your own experience with your own "will".

All you know about it is you can lift your arm at "will".

To deny it is to be blind.

It was a strawman then and it's a strawman now and it'll be a strawman next time you use it as an excuse to ignore the fact that all the evidence points to brain agency and there being no evidence for your autonomous consciousness idea....which nobody takes seriously.

Strawman?

It is the clearest evidence possible.

I "will" my arm to move and it does. Every time.

Nothing clear about saying it doesn't.

And convoluted stories about how it is really the brain doing it but making consciousness think it is doing it are for children.

 

[untermensche]

A robot can certainly lift its appendages "at will", so what is the difference between a robot and a human being (so-called "meat robot") lifting an arm "at will"?

A robot does not think. It does not have a "will".

A robot is no way a subject.

It is pure object.

It is not analogous to the human which is both subject and object.

 

[DBT]

It was a strawman then and it's a strawman now and it'll be a strawman next time you use it as an excuse to ignore the fact that all the evidence points to brain agency and there being no evidence for your autonomous consciousness idea....which nobody takes seriously.

Strawman?

It is the clearest evidence possible.

I "will" my arm to move and it does. Every time.

Nothing clear about saying it doesn't.

And convoluted stories about how it is really the brain doing it but making consciousness think it is doing it are for children.

You are a funny fellow;

''If free will does not generate movement, what does? Movement generation seems to come largely from the primary motor cortex, and its input comes primarily from premotor cortices, parts of the frontal lobe just in front of the primary motor cortex. The premotor cortices receive input from most of the brain, especially the sensory cortices (which process information from our senses), limbic cortices (the emotional part of the brain), and the prefrontal cortex (which handles many cognitive processes). If the inputs from various neurons “compete,” eventually one input wins, leading to a final behavior. For example, take the case of saccadic eye movements, quick target-directed eye movements. Adding even a small amount of electrical stimulation in different small brain areas can lead to a monkey's making eye movements in a different direction than might have been expected on the basis of simultaneous visual cues.4 In general, the more we know about the various influences on the motor cortex, the better we can predict what a person will do.'' M. Hallett. Clinical Neurophysiology

 

[untermensche]

Strawman?

It is the clearest evidence possible.

I "will" my arm to move and it does. Every time.

Nothing clear about saying it doesn't.

And convoluted stories about how it is really the brain doing it but making consciousness think it is doing it are for children.

Movement generation seems to come largely from the primary motor cortex, and its input comes primarily from premotor cortices, parts of the frontal lobe just in front of the primary motor cortex.

Note the word "seems". We do not know.

Also note all that is discussed are regions of the brain, locations. Activity is not understood in the least.

So movement is generated by locations in the brain. That is your big "insight".

Thanks.

 

[George S]

Movement generation seems to come largely from the primary motor cortex, and its input comes primarily from premotor cortices, parts of the frontal lobe just in front of the primary motor cortex.

Note the word "seems". We do not know.

Also note all that is discussed are regions of the brain, locations. Activity is not understood in the least.

So movement is generated by locations in the brain. That is your big "insight".

Thanks.

What you call "will" is brain activity. The arm moves by a chain of brain activity. No surprise.

 

[untermensche]

Note the word "seems". We do not know.

Also note all that is discussed are regions of the brain, locations. Activity is not understood in the least.

So movement is generated by locations in the brain. That is your big "insight".

Thanks.

What you call "will" is brain activity. The arm moves by a chain of brain activity. No surprise.

The questions remain.

What initiates the brain to move the arm?

Why does it do it?

Why does the brain move the arm but make consciousness think it is doing it with the "will"?

Saying the brain does it because of "circumstances" is to say nothing. It is behaviorism. A disproven theory.

 

[fromderinside]

I think my point was it is uncertain that will exists or is at the base of anything living things do. It's more likely that our arms lift unconsciously, that we then invent something from which we ascribe why it rose. After all, we are social beings where appearance is everything. For instance, I don't thin k for a second that I adjusted my upper are because I wanted to move it. Rather my upper arm had been constrained by my seating at this keyboard and twitched to adjust pressures and relax it.

There is nothing uncertain about it.

I lift my arm at "will".

Every time I choose to do it.

No uncertainty.

Your claims are just bad reasoning. Just because some uncertainty exists that does not mean all is uncertain.

The only thing certain about your argument is that you said it.

You have no idea, no externally verifiable evidence, why you lift your arm so you interpose an intervening variable 'my will' which is just so many words rationalizing your feelings.

How about those time your arm raises when you don't consciously choose it which occur when you are walking, running defending yourself, doing routine work, sleeping, etc.?

A whole lot of uncertainty and unknowing arm raising from any observer's point of view.

My reasoning take into account all these situations. Your account is very selective and ........chirp .......... chirp.............chirp.............sigh ........

You can only account for yourself when you are conscious and conscious of you being conscious which selective and unverified personal phenomena report.

You argue like the old sailor telling the young lad at the beach about the world being flat when the ship is seen disappearing over the horizon. You ignore evidence in favor of your beliefs.

 

[untermensche]

You have no idea, no externally verifiable evidence, why you lift your arm so you interpose an intervening variable 'my will' which is just so many words rationalizing your feelings.

To overthrow the evidence of experience requires actual evidence, not opinion.

I know that I can choose to move my arm at any time.

I can choose to not move it.

I do not have to focus on moving my arm, but I can.

The brain allows me to not have to focus on my arm at all times.

And responds to my "will" to move it.

 

[none]

I thought that the issue of consciousness being awareness of self and environment even if partially aware was already settled
I mean remove some portion of the brain and it affects a persons awareness
the only thing I see unter promoting is the definition of the word consciousness is unsettled
plus the brain can be stimulated so that extremities move and the subject reports that they wanted it moved so they moved it not that it was outside stimuli
the sky is not falling, these aren't difficult concepts to grasp
isn't that what his argument is hinged on, that conciseness is some ambiguous concept of theory?
I think this is different than mind theory in that we do have a unambiguous definition of consciousness
I mean if you want to splash and throw rocks of denial it doesn't look like you've thought this out
what exactly is occurring if it is not a rather rudimentary function of the brain that is producing these results?
not that I really want to know, because it seems you are deliberately denying what so many have understood
i see it as haggling over the definition, not unlike what happens when the landlord comes around

 

[Copernicus]

A robot can certainly lift its appendages "at will", so what is the difference between a robot and a human being (so-called "meat robot") lifting an arm "at will"?

A robot does not think. It does not have a "will".

But it does "think" in the sense that it senses its surroundings, weighs options, and executes actions, just like animals do. So what is it about brains that makes them different from thinking machines? Notice that I'm not denying there are differences. I am asking you to tell me what you think is fundamentally different about brains such that we cannot be thought of as mechanical flesh?

A robot is no way a subject.

It is pure object.

That is utter nonsense. Robots can be subjects of sentences. They can commit actions, just as any inanimate object can. Here's an example: "The rock broke the window." "Rock" is the subject.

It is not analogous to the human which is both subject and object.

You appear to know as much about language as you do about brains.