Consciousness

[untermensche]

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.

It does not think in any sense.

There is no "it" sensing anything. There may be sensors but nothing aware of thoughts.

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.

Being the subject of a sentence is not literally being a subject.

 

[untermensche]

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

You have explained nothing about intention.

Are you able to move your arm "at will"?

If you can then you know how to make your brain do things.

 

[Copernicus]

But it does "think" in the sense that it senses its surroundings, weighs options, and executes actions, just like animals do.

It does not think in any sense.

I explained the sense in which it "thinks". I invited you to explain the sense in which brains "think" that is different. I know that it's not an easy thing to do, but that is actually the position that you seem to be defending--that there is something about "thought" that is not mechanical. Or am I misunderstanding you?

There is no "it" sensing anything. There may be sensors but nothing aware of thoughts.

Actually, that is what sensors do. They sense things. That is why they have that name. It explains their function. Animals also sense things. They have what are called "sense organs".

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.

Being the subject of a sentence is not literally being a subject.

Then explain what you mean by "subject" and "object" in this context. I can't read your mind.

Untermensche, I asked you a question twice, and you refused to even acknowledge it. So I'll ask a third time.

Consider this claim: We are "meat robots" in the sense that there is no need to attribute conscious or unconscious thought to anything but brain activity. Do you agree or disagree? Why?

 

[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

You have explained nothing about intention.

Are you able to move your arm "at will"?

If you can then you know how to make your brain do things.

oddly the brain is responsible for motor control
introduce alcohol into the blood stream and the brain behaves differently
this is more evidence that biochemical reactions drive the individual's brain and subsequently the rest of the body
now, lets just say you are right... can you resist the biochemical reactions of intoxication?

 

[untermensche]

It does not think in any sense.

I explained the sense in which it "thinks". I invited you to explain the sense in which brains "think" that is different. I know that it's not an easy thing to do, but that is actually the position that you seem to be defending--that there is something about "thought" that is not mechanical. Or am I misunderstanding you?

To think is to experience thoughts. Many of these thoughts are in language.

There is no "it" sensing anything. There may be sensors but nothing aware of thoughts.

Actually, that is what sensors do. They sense things. That is why they have that name. It explains their function. Animals also sense things. They have what are called "sense organs".

To be conscious is not just to have sense organs. It is to be aware of what the brain is making of the "information" from these sense organs.

A robot has the sense organ but no awareness of what some brain is making of it.

Being the subject of a sentence is not literally being a subject.

Then explain what you mean by "subject" and "object" in this context. I can't read your mind.

You don't have to read minds. This is common knowledge.

To BE a subject is to be a person. To have thoughts and memories and emotions and drives. To have all these "internal" experiences.

To experience requires two things. That which is capable of experiencing things and the things it is capable of experiencing.

The ability to experience is to be a subject.

To experience is not just reacting as a robot sensor. It is to have "internal" representations and an awareness of the representations.

We are "meat robots" in the sense that there is no need to attribute conscious or unconscious thought to anything but brain activity. Do you agree or disagree? Why?

The term "meat robot' is a meaningless term.

We are living animals with a vibrant "internal" life.

And saying that consciousness is brain activity is a hypothesis.

 

[none]

yeah really why should one believe that consciousness is brain activity when you can live in denial?
why are there different states of the brain, why is there brain activity?

 

[bilby]

The idea of an independent 'will' that spontaneously generates motor activity, is exactly as believable as the idea of an external 'God' that spontaneously generated the universe - in fact, it's the exact same idea, just being presented at a different scale.

The problem for both variants of this idea is that there is no evidence whatsoever to support this; no mechanism by which it could be so; and, worst of all, that the proposed 'solution' fails to even address the fundamental problem. If the 'will' is independent of the brain and body on which it acts, then how does the will decide to act? Does the will have a meta-will that decides when it should stimulate the will into action on the basis of the instructions from the meta-meta-will, that is acting in accordance with the meta-meta-meta will, and so ad infinitum?

When the question is 'why did I decide to move my finger?', the answer 'Because my brain processed a number of inputs, and that was the final result' is an answer, because the next question is a new question - 'What inputs were processed, and how?'. It might or might not be the correct answer - but it is at least an answer, that can be further examined and tested.

But if the answer to 'why did I decide to move my finger?' is 'Because a separate entity called "will" decided to do it', then that is NOT an answer - it's just kicking the can down the road, because the obvious next question is 'why did the "will" decide to move my finger?', which is essentially the same question we started with.

 

[untermensche]

The idea of an independent 'will' that spontaneously generates motor activity, is exactly as believable as the idea of an external 'God' that spontaneously generated the universe - in fact, it's the exact same idea, just being presented at a different scale.

What is unbelievable is a brain that goes to all the trouble of both making representations and something aware of the representations that cannot act on the representations.

What is unbelievable is a brain that just moves the arm for some reason while consciousness is under the impression the arm is moving because of an effort, an act of will.

What is unbelievable is that a great deal of brain activity is devoted to creating false impressions of conscious directing of the will that serve no purpose.

Since you have no idea what the "will" is, talking about what it can and cannot do is the religion here.

All we know is what it appears to us to do. We know no more about it.

 

[none]

What's wired is that brain activity can be recorded outside the brain, that thinking produces a result that can be quantified and repeatedly and reliably be measured and predicted

 

[untermensche]

What's wired is that brain activity can be recorded outside the brain, that thinking produces a result that can be quantified and repeatedly and reliably be measured and predicted

Why is there thinking?

Why is there something aware of thinking?

If the thing aware of thinking can take no action there is no need for it.

 

[bilby]

The idea of an independent 'will' that spontaneously generates motor activity, is exactly as believable as the idea of an external 'God' that spontaneously generated the universe - in fact, it's the exact same idea, just being presented at a different scale.

What is unbelievable is a brain that goes to all the trouble of both making representations and something aware of the representations that cannot act on the representations.

What is unbelievable is a brain that just moves the arm for some reason while consciousness is under the impression the arm is moving because of an effort, an act of will.

What is unbelievable is that a great deal of brain activity is devoted to creating false impressions of conscious directing of the will that serve no purpose.

Since you have no idea what the "will" is, talking about what it can and cannot do is the religion here.

All we know is what it appears to us to do. We know no more about it.

I don't give a flying fuck what is or is not 'believable'. What matters is what is, or is not, an explanation; and once the non-explanations have been weeded out, which explanations are, or are not, compatible with observations of reality.

What you, I, or anyone else can or can't believe is of no interest to anyone who cares about reality; If you could just grasp that simple concept, then you would spend a lot less time making a damn fool of yourself. It wouldn't hurt if you were to read past the first line of people's responses occasionally too - although perhaps you will never find out that I gave you this advice.

People find Gods and 'will' believable, but that has no value in assessing their reality. Both are demonstrably false beliefs - not because they are hard to believe, but because they cannot be a useful answer to any questions.

 

[none]

What's wired is that brain activity can be recorded outside the brain, that thinking produces a result that can be quantified and repeatedly and reliably be measured and predicted

Why is there thinking?

because nature produced it

Why is there something aware of thinking?

because nature produced it

If the thing aware of thinking can take no action there is no need for it.

luckily humans take action based on what is decided by their brains, we have plenty of evidence for that matter of fact you are that way.

 

[untermensche]

What is unbelievable is a brain that goes to all the trouble of both making representations and something aware of the representations that cannot act on the representations.

What is unbelievable is a brain that just moves the arm for some reason while consciousness is under the impression the arm is moving because of an effort, an act of will.

What is unbelievable is that a great deal of brain activity is devoted to creating false impressions of conscious directing of the will that serve no purpose.

Since you have no idea what the "will" is, talking about what it can and cannot do is the religion here.

All we know is what it appears to us to do. We know no more about it.

I don't give a flying fuck what is or is not 'believable'. What matters is what is, or is not, an explanation; and once the non-explanations have been weeded out, which explanations are, or are not, compatible with observations of reality.

Since nobody has the slightest idea what the "will" is in terms of brain physiology there are no explanations. There are no objective observations.

All we have is clear experience.

I can "will" my arm to move any time I want it to.

When all we have is clear experience to claim it is some deception is a hypothesis from outer space.

 

[untermensche]

Why is there thinking?

because nature produced it

Nature does not produce things for no reason.

Why is there something aware of thinking?

because nature produced it

Not close to any kind of answer. Why would nature do such a thing?

We can understand why nature produced the eye if there is something that can respond to the visual experience the eye allows.

If there is nothing to respond there is no reason for the eye.

If consciousness cannot respond to the things it experiences there is no reason to experience them.

If the thing aware of thinking can take no action there is no need for it.

luckily humans take action based on what is decided by their brains, we have plenty of evidence for that matter of fact you are that way.

There is no evidence your brain understands any of the concepts you just used.

There is only evidence your consciousness understands them.

 

[none]

I think you might get an award if you have the answer to why humans were produced

 

[untermensche]

I think you might get an award if you have the answer to why humans were produced

Individual species are random contingencies but structures with function that increases reproductive success, like the eye, are not randomly kept and modified.

But a structure has to provide reproductive success to be kept and modified.

If consciousness can take no action it can provide no additional reproductive success.

There would be no reason for it to be around.

 

[none]

So you can't say the reason but base your reasoning on the reason, rrrrright

 

[DBT]

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.

As pointed out numerous times, inputs stimulate brain response. External sensory information may require an action...getting out of the way of a car, a question asked, a challenge or request being made - can you lift your arm - or internal stimuli in the form of desires and needs, feel thirsty/get a drink.

 

[DBT]

I don't give a flying fuck what is or is not 'believable'. What matters is what is, or is not, an explanation; and once the non-explanations have been weeded out, which explanations are, or are not, compatible with observations of reality.

Since nobody has the slightest idea what the "will" is in terms of brain physiology there are no explanations. There are no objective observations.

All we have is clear experience.

I can "will" my arm to move any time I want it to..

Therefore you yourself claim to know something even while ''claiming nobody has the slightest idea what the "will" is in terms of brain physiology there are no explanations'' and in the process contradict yourself and further undermine any credibility you may have had on the subject matter...which wasn't much to begin with, sorry to say.

 

[bilby]

I think you might get an award if you have the answer to why humans were produced

Individual species are random contingencies but structures with function that increases reproductive success, like the eye, are not randomly kept and modified.

But a structure has to provide reproductive success to be kept and modified.

If consciousness can take no action it can provide no additional reproductive success.

There would be no reason for it to be around.

Not so. It's perfectly reasonable for anything that provides no evolutionary benefit to continue to exist, as long as it is not highly detrimental to reproductive success.

The risk of appendicitis has yet to eliminate the appendix, after all.

And it's quite possible that the experience of 'will' has some evolutionary benefit - your inability to imagine one is not evidence for its nonexistence, it's just evidence of your lack of imagination.

Or 'will' could be a side effect of some other brain function that has benefits for populations that have it.

All you have is a non-answer based on your own lack of imagination. That's fine if you want to believe; but it's useless if you want to persuade others to agree with your beliefs.

Your idea of a will that is independent of brain function is a needless entity, with zero evidentiary support. The only thing it has going for it as a hypothesis is that you like it, and that you are able to successfully ignore the compelling arguments against it on the basis of your ignorance, incredulity, and lack of imagination.

Your 'brain as receiver' hypothesis was exploded years ago, and only deliberately maintained ignorance of the science allows you to keep it as part of your counterfactual worldview.