Consciousness

[untermensche]

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.

You are only able to point out nonsense.

You are incapable of imputing anything and learning. You are incapable of thinking.

There is no external stimulation that is in any way making a move of the arm at this second desirable.

But I can move it at will based only on my desire to do it.

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.

Try to follow.

I have extremely clear and repeatable evidence.

I desire for my arm to move and it does.

Every time.

You have nothing more. You have no greater understanding of the situation.

 

[untermensche]

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.

Some structures that no longer serve a purpose may whither and exist as a vestigial remnant.

But consciousness is expansive and grows.

And if it can in some way act there are clear survival advantages to that.

I don't buy your instant and desperate hypothesis.

Vestigial structures are rare and few.

Reaching for that as an explanation is most likely wrong.

 

[fromderinside]

One of the great failings of rational argument is the tendency to drop concepts without really defining them. Consciousness is one of those which has come under much debate without proper setup of our current state of knowledge. No referential background has been acknowledged by some. Instead will (without operations) and intent (without operations or examples) are used as bludgeons without proper definition and understanding of that for which they are claimed as conditions for consciousness (also without being operatioalized or framed by replicable example)

In a attempt to correct this failing in this thread I present the following

So far this discussion has raged in the form of argument without much substantiation. How about a little more definitive analysis of what is necessary for a nervous system to possess consciousness a discussion of what are the various levels and activities of consciousness as summarized and outlined in  Neural correlates of consciousness before we go off requiring this or that about consciousness?

I've already provided access to baseline analysis, but, just in case here's an update:
The claustrum’s proposed role in consciousness is supported by the effect and target localization of Salvia divinorum http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnint.2014.00020/full

and Humans use internal models to construct and update a sense of verticality https://academic.oup.com/brain/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/brain/awq311

I'm sure most will nod that science has indeed been busy updating philosophical understanding awareness and consciousness delivering antecedents, examples, and experimental results.

I leave quote mining to the group.

 

[untermensche]

Bad definitions based on preconceptions and conjecture are no better than no definitions.

When there are no definitions all we have is experience.

Sometimes experience is unclear.

Sometimes it is very clear.

When something can be done repeatedly at "will" it is only fools who say it can't.

 

[none]

mind boggling

 

[untermensche]

this was talk about feeding trolls

Your ignorance does not make anybody a troll.

The issues are intention and will and what consciousness is and can do.

You have no ability to discuss any of them.

 

[none]

mind boggling

Your ignorance does not make anybody a troll.

The issues are intention and will and what consciousness is and can do.

You have no ability to discuss any of them.

what would convince you that there is a practical definition of consciousness and that consciousness is measured by brain activity?

 

[untermensche]

Your ignorance does not make anybody a troll.

The issues are intention and will and what consciousness is and can do.

You have no ability to discuss any of them.

what would convince you that there is a practical definition of consciousness and that consciousness is measured by brain activity?

That is not even an issue.

The thing of most interest in terms of consciousness is what can it do. Is our sense of "will" accurate or a deception?

The physiology of consciousness has to be known precisely to begin to answer that question.

It is not known more than something most likely arising from cellular activity in the brain.

 

[none]

what would convince you that there is a practical definition of consciousness and that consciousness is measured by brain activity?

That is not even an issue.

The thing of most interest in terms of consciousness is what can it do. Is our sense of "will" accurate or a deception?

The physiology of consciousness has to be known precisely to begin to answer that question.

It is not known more than something most likely arising from cellular activity in the brain.

so whats you definition of consciousness? is it scientific??

 

[bilby]

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.

You are only able to point out nonsense.

You are incapable of imputing anything and learning. You are incapable of thinking.

There is no external stimulation that is in any way making a move of the arm at this second desirable.

But I can move it at will based only on my desire to do it.

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.

Try to follow.

I have extremely clear and repeatable evidence.

I desire for my arm to move and it does.

Every time.

You have nothing more. You have no greater understanding of the situation.

I was going to point out that the idea that your 'desire' arises without being prompted by some external stimulus is laughable, because everybody's brain is constantly taking in new information, and processing older information, so no such isolation could ever be tested.

Testing this would be impossible, unless we had a subject that never learned anything, and never thought about what it had experienced.

And then I realised to whom I was talking, and now I am less certain.

 

[untermensche]

That is not even an issue.

The thing of most interest in terms of consciousness is what can it do. Is our sense of "will" accurate or a deception?

The physiology of consciousness has to be known precisely to begin to answer that question.

It is not known more than something most likely arising from cellular activity in the brain.

so whats you definition of consciousness? is it scientific??

The definition is that evolved trait experienced subjectively by humans.

What it is objectively is only a question.

 

[untermensche]

I was going to point out that the idea that your 'desire' arises without being prompted by some external stimulus is laughable, because everybody's brain is constantly taking in new information, and processing older information, so no such isolation could ever be tested.

Testing this would be impossible, unless we had a subject that never learned anything, and never thought about what it had experienced.

And then I realised to whom I was talking, and now I am less certain.

You're talking to somebody with more education than you in these areas. Somebody who has read about these topics more deeply and extensively than you.

I am the one making salient points and I am met with nothing but bad opinion.

You have some hypothesis where desire arises.

I say I can generate the desire to lift my arm any time I wish.

 

[none]

so whats you definition of consciousness? is it scientific??

The definition is that evolved trait experienced subjectively by humans.

What it is objectively is only a question.

So it's an ongoing phenomenon?

 

[untermensche]

The definition is that evolved trait experienced subjectively by humans.

What it is objectively is only a question.

So it's an ongoing phenomenon?

You have a consciousness. You can say what it is.

We are awake and asleep and for times in between.

It is something that changes and grows.

What a person is at two is not what they are at twenty. But they have a consciousness at both ages, a different consciousness.

 

[none]

So it's an ongoing phenomenon?

You have a consciousness. You can say what it is.

We are awake and asleep and for times in between.

It is something that changes and grows.

What a person is at two is not what they are at twenty. But they have a consciousness at both ages, a different consciousness.

what is the definition of trait?
you brought it

 

[beero1000]

I was going to point out that the idea that your 'desire' arises without being prompted by some external stimulus is laughable, because everybody's brain is constantly taking in new information, and processing older information, so no such isolation could ever be tested.

Testing this would be impossible, unless we had a subject that never learned anything, and never thought about what it had experienced.

And then I realised to whom I was talking, and now I am less certain.

You're talking to somebody with more education than you in these areas. Somebody who has read about these topics more deeply and extensively than you.

I am the one making salient points and I am met with nothing but bad opinion.

You have some hypothesis where desire arises.

I say I can generate the desire to lift my arm any time I wish.

Aren't you a pharmacist?

 

[bilby]

I was going to point out that the idea that your 'desire' arises without being prompted by some external stimulus is laughable, because everybody's brain is constantly taking in new information, and processing older information, so no such isolation could ever be tested.

Testing this would be impossible, unless we had a subject that never learned anything, and never thought about what it had experienced.

And then I realised to whom I was talking, and now I am less certain.

You're talking to somebody with more education than you in these areas.

No, I am talking to you - Somebody who has no possible knowledge of what level of education I have, and who is therefore unqualified to make the claim you just made.

I am the one making salient points and I am met with nothing but bad opinion.

You have that exactly backwards.

You have some hypothesis where desire arises.

Indeed I do; While all you have is a bald assertion of faith, that fails to rise to the level of hypothesis:

I say I can generate the desire to lift my arm any time I wish.

Feel free to show this, or at the very least to provide examples of how this claim could, in principle, be falsified.

 

[DBT]

You are only able to point out nonsense.

You are incapable of imputing anything and learning. You are incapable of thinking.

There is no external stimulation that is in any way making a move of the arm at this second desirable.

But I can move it at will based only on my desire to do it.

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.

Try to follow.

I have extremely clear and repeatable evidence.

I desire for my arm to move and it does.

Every time.

You have nothing more. You have no greater understanding of the situation.

I was going to point out that the idea that your 'desire' arises without being prompted by some external stimulus is laughable, because everybody's brain is constantly taking in new information, and processing older information, so no such isolation could ever be tested.

Testing this would be impossible, unless we had a subject that never learned anything, and never thought about what it had experienced.

And then I realised to whom I was talking, and now I am less certain.

Maybe he's a special case, being a knucklehead when it comes to understanding what the current state of neurological research tells us, but can't or won't grasp....this research apparently not catering to Mr Untermensche's wants and needs, no, he's different. Maybe his brain works on the principle of Magic, like the Harry Potter of TFT. Who knows.

 

[untermensche]

You're talking to somebody with more education than you in these areas. Somebody who has read about these topics more deeply and extensively than you.

I am the one making salient points and I am met with nothing but bad opinion.

You have some hypothesis where desire arises.

I say I can generate the desire to lift my arm any time I wish.

Aren't you a pharmacist?

Yes.

That is where I got an education in brain anatomy and physiology.

To understand a drug you have to understand what it is doing.

Hypotheses about consciousness are wide. Our actual understandings are extremely narrow.

 

[untermensche]

You have some hypothesis where desire arises.

Indeed I do; While all you have is a bald assertion of faith, that fails to rise to the level of hypothesis:

You have a bad unsupported hypothesis.

And no intelligence to see how bad it is.

Good for you.