Consciousness

[untermensche]

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.

The problem is I know the state of the research.

And we have no current understanding of any specific brain activity.

All we can do is make up stories about what it is doing. And totally rely on subjective reports when looking at consciousness. Something we all do every day.

And some cling to these threadbare stories that have no evidence to support them as if they are facts.

Stories like the brain just moves the arm for no discovererable reason and also makes you think you are doing it with your will.

Stories no child would believe, but with the right brain washing you can get gullible adults to buy it.

 

[bilby]

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.

I am disinterested in a pharmacist's assessment of my level of intelligence or education.

You should consider the work of Kruger and Dunning in this field.

 

[fromderinside]

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.

Re bad definitions: I agree. Try using good definitions like the ones I provided above.

Re no definitions: Therefore you must quite operating without either JTB or empirical definitions. A belief is not justified if there is exception to that belief. Ergo if you claim every time you want your arm to rise it rises is countered by circumstances where your arm rises when you are not conscious you no longer can claim JTB.

re experience unclear: NSRR

re sometimes it is clear: without a good handle on cause that result can never be claimed, see above.

re repeatedly: JTB must be universal rather preponderant so only a fool is one who claims preponderant is "proof"

Now read the Wiki piece which summarizes nicely. Then read Crick and subsequent scientists in pursuit of consciousness. Digest it. Try to form you own definitions based on that and other knowledge you own- 'Your own' means definitions you can operationalize and demonstrate - meaning constructs not held by just you.

Unless you do these things your inputs to this thread are a complete failure.

 

[untermensche]

You have a bad unsupported hypothesis.

And no intelligence to see how bad it is.

Good for you.

I am disinterested in a pharmacist's assessment of my level of intelligence or education.

You should consider the work of Kruger and Dunning in this field.

You have bad ideas you can't support.

You claim the brain somehow some way decides on it's own to move the arm. Before it does this it creates a false impression in consciousness to make consciousness think it is doing something to move the arm.

It is a story only a child would believe.

And something you can support in no way.

Yes, I am only a lowly physical therapist then pharmacist.

But I know when people are full of it and doing nothing more than trying to pass bad opinion off as fact.

You have nothing but ignorance and the stupid insults that come along with it.

 

[untermensche]

Re bad definitions: I agree. Try using good definitions like the ones I provided above.

It's a terrible definition that flies in the face of facts.

To have consciousness requires that which is conscious of things and the things it is conscious of.

That is the bare bones definition.

So a physiological definition has to conform with this or it is not a definition.

 

[fromderinside]

To have consciousness requires that which is conscious of things and the things it is conscious of.

What you just wrote is circular. Ergo it is not a definition.

The definitions and conditions in the wiki article and, I suppose, of Crick a NOBEL winner, the fact givers, draws a jeer from the factless one. Who'da thunk.

Sometimes scrawling on and envelope is good literature. Your scrawls, however being without reference nor fact, are not among of them.

What the brain does is deal with external and internal information to generate information with which bodily output engines produce relevant activity. It's kinda like the product an engineer might create which takes external information, processes it with algorithms in on board computers and generates appropriate signals for operating devices to execute whatever functions required by the situation in which it was designed to function.

Both of the above are are processes. Processes can be read at different places in them. That generally is some sub process, or function. We don't need to justifiy those readouts with some 'desire' or 'want' since we know they are part of the overall process in which they are functioning.

I think it is fair to say that humans are machines that require energy to function and require the capacity to produce replacements else they cease to be. Wanting and desiring are just internal terms these beings use to help themselves participate successfully in their societies.

 

[untermensche]

To have consciousness requires that which is conscious of things and the things it is conscious of.

What you just wrote is circular. Ergo it is not a definition.

The definitions and conditions in the wiki article and, I suppose, of Crick a NOBEL winner, the fact givers, draws a jeer from the factless one. Who'da thunk.

Sometimes scrawling on and envelope is good literature. Your scrawls, however being without reference nor fact, are not among of them.

What the brain does is deal with external and internal information to generate information with which bodily output engines produce relevant activity. It's kinda like the product an engineer might create which takes external information, processes it with algorithms in on board computers and generates appropriate signals for operating devices to execute whatever functions required by the situation in which it was designed to function.

It is not circular.

It is explanatory. It explains the situation.

It points out what at the very least MUST exist for consciousness to exist.

Saying the brain "deals" with things is laughable in one it's complete ignorance of what the brain is actually doing and two in the easy ability to ignore this fact.

 

[George S]

What you just wrote is circular. Ergo it is not a definition.

The definitions and conditions in the wiki article and, I suppose, of Crick a NOBEL winner, the fact givers, draws a jeer from the factless one. Who'da thunk.

Sometimes scrawling on and envelope is good literature. Your scrawls, however being without reference nor fact, are not among of them.

What the brain does is deal with external and internal information to generate information with which bodily output engines produce relevant activity. It's kinda like the product an engineer might create which takes external information, processes it with algorithms in on board computers and generates appropriate signals for operating devices to execute whatever functions required by the situation in which it was designed to function.

It is not circular.

It is explanatory. It explains the situation.

It points out what at the very least MUST exist for consciousness to exist.

Consciousness is that which experiences the sensation of being aware of (conscious of) the environment. This requires neurology. When a nerve is blocked I am not aware of pain.
The will to act is the ideomotor reflex.(   Ideomotor Phenomenon) That is, ideas lead to motor action. Sometimes unconsciously, as in a blush, and sometimes consciously as in the will to raise an arm. Sometimes the neural pathway to action is blocked. Sometimes I want, wish, or will to raise my arm when it is "asleep" and it fails to happen.

When the ideas are not self-generated but environmentally generated the neurology may act without conscious intent. A person may blush -- and be unable to will it to stop -- at hearing certain words. When ideas are self-generated the body may react without conscious intent. Thinking about a possible future event may lead to increased heart rate or involuntary voiding of the bowels. Or it may be as simple as "I think I'll lift my arm" and it happens.

 

[untermensche]

It is not circular.

It is explanatory. It explains the situation.

It points out what at the very least MUST exist for consciousness to exist.

Consciousness is that which experiences the sensation of being aware of (conscious of) the environment. This requires neurology. When a nerve is blocked I am not aware of pain.
The will to act is the ideomotor reflex.(   Ideomotor Phenomenon) That is, ideas lead to motor action. Sometimes unconsciously, as in a blush, and sometimes consciously as in the will to raise an arm. Sometimes the neural pathway to action is blocked. Sometimes I want, wish, or will to raise my arm when it is "asleep" and it fails to happen.

When the ideas are not self-generated but environmentally generated the neurology may act without conscious intent. A person may blush -- and be unable to will it to stop -- at hearing certain words. When ideas are self-generated the body may react without conscious intent. Thinking about a possible future event may lead to increased heart rate or involuntary voiding of the bowels. Or it may be as simple as "I think I'll lift my arm" and it happens.

Is it possible to have a bare bones definition?

In human consciousness it is never just being conscious. It is always being conscious OF something.

So the bare bones definition of human consciousness is that which experiences AND the things it experiences.

If this can't be agreed upon then I wonder what better bare bones definition could be given that actually explains the situation.

Is blushing an unconscious event or a conscious one?

Is it driven by ones thoughts or merely by the brain?

 

[George S]

Consciousness is that which experiences the sensation of being aware of (conscious of) the environment. This requires neurology. When a nerve is blocked I am not aware of pain.
The will to act is the ideomotor reflex.(   Ideomotor Phenomenon) That is, ideas lead to motor action. Sometimes unconsciously, as in a blush, and sometimes consciously as in the will to raise an arm. Sometimes the neural pathway to action is blocked. Sometimes I want, wish, or will to raise my arm when it is "asleep" and it fails to happen.

When the ideas are not self-generated but environmentally generated the neurology may act without conscious intent. A person may blush -- and be unable to will it to stop -- at hearing certain words. When ideas are self-generated the body may react without conscious intent. Thinking about a possible future event may lead to increased heart rate or involuntary voiding of the bowels. Or it may be as simple as "I think I'll lift my arm" and it happens.

Is it possible to have a bare bones definition?

In human consciousness it is never just being conscious. It is always being conscious OF something.

So the bare bones definition of human consciousness is that which experiences AND the things it experiences.

If this can't be agreed upon then I wonder what better bare bones definition could be given that actually explains the situation.

Is blushing an unconscious event or a conscious one?

Is it driven by ones thoughts or merely by the brain?

Blushing is driven by particular thoughts normally induced by some external event. Blushing on demand is not a "thing."

It would have been nice if you had addressed what I said. Simplified just for you.

1) Consciousness requires neurology. No neurology, no consciousness.

2) Will requires neurology. No ideomotor reflex, no willful action. No nerve to the arm leaves will to raise an arm ineffective.

Did you even read the Wiki article I referenced?

 

[untermensche]

Is it possible to have a bare bones definition?

In human consciousness it is never just being conscious. It is always being conscious OF something.

So the bare bones definition of human consciousness is that which experiences AND the things it experiences.

If this can't be agreed upon then I wonder what better bare bones definition could be given that actually explains the situation.

Is blushing an unconscious event or a conscious one?

Is it driven by ones thoughts or merely by the brain?

Blushing is driven by particular thoughts normally induced by some external event. Blushing on demand is not a "thing."

It would have been nice if you had addressed what I said. Simplified just for you.

1) Consciousness requires neurology. No neurology, no consciousness.

2) Will requires neurology. No ideomotor reflex, no willful action. No nerve to the arm leaves will to raise an arm ineffective.

Did you even read the Wiki article I referenced?

If we can't start somewhere we can't go anywhere.

If we can't come to a bare bones philosophical understanding of consciousness we have no way to find it in the brain.

If you think consciousness is not both that which is conscious of things and the things it is conscious of make your case.

As far as blushing.

It is thoughts that may arise in a situation but it is still thoughts having a physiological effect.

It is impossible to say if it is the thoughts causing the effect or the brain just doing it on its own.

Your ideas are early 20th century Behaviorism.

Discredited a long time ago.

 

[George S]

Blushing is driven by particular thoughts normally induced by some external event. Blushing on demand is not a "thing."

It would have been nice if you had addressed what I said. Simplified just for you.

1) Consciousness requires neurology. No neurology, no consciousness.

2) Will requires neurology. No ideomotor reflex, no willful action. No nerve to the arm leaves will to raise an arm ineffective.

Did you even read the Wiki article I referenced?

If we can't start somewhere we can't go anywhere.

If we can't come to a bare bones philosophical understanding of consciousness we have no way to find it in the brain.

If you think consciousness is not both that which is conscious of things and the things it is conscious of make your case.

As far as blushing.

It is thoughts that may arise in a situation but it is still thoughts having a physiological effect.

It is impossible to say if it is the thoughts causing the effect or the brain just doing it on its own.

Your ideas are early 20th century Behaviorism.

Discredited a long time ago.

"Consciousness requires neurology." -- not addressed
"Will requires neurology." -- not addressed.
Try again.

 

[untermensche]

If we can't start somewhere we can't go anywhere.

If we can't come to a bare bones philosophical understanding of consciousness we have no way to find it in the brain.

If you think consciousness is not both that which is conscious of things and the things it is conscious of make your case.

As far as blushing.

It is thoughts that may arise in a situation but it is still thoughts having a physiological effect.

It is impossible to say if it is the thoughts causing the effect or the brain just doing it on its own.

Your ideas are early 20th century Behaviorism.

Discredited a long time ago.

"Consciousness requires neurology." -- not addressed
"Will requires neurology." -- not addressed.
Try again.

I am saying that the neurological explanation has to at the least meet the bare bones definition or it is not explaining consciousness.

Try understanding something.

 

[fromderinside]

What you just wrote is circular. Ergo it is not a definition.

The definitions and conditions in the wiki article and, I suppose, of Crick a NOBEL winner, the fact givers, draws a jeer from the factless one. Who'da thunk.

Sometimes scrawling on and envelope is good literature. Your scrawls, however being without reference nor fact, are not among of them.

What the brain does is deal with external and internal information to generate information with which bodily output engines produce relevant activity. It's kinda like the product an engineer might create which takes external information, processes it with algorithms in on board computers and generates appropriate signals for operating devices to execute whatever functions required by the situation in which it was designed to function.

It is not circular.

It is explanatory. It explains the situation.

It points out what at the very least MUST exist for consciousness to exist.

Saying the brain "deals" with things is laughable in one it's complete ignorance of what the brain is actually doing and two in the easy ability to ignore this fact.

Your bare bones aren't bones at all.

What is not circular about conscious being conscious of that of which it is conscious? Where is a link to anything other than a word which gives more meaning to the word. Wouldst that the night be night of the night. Or put more simply C being C of that which is C.

A horseshoe crab has receptors that send signals to neurons that interact with each other to produce ascending fields of signal of what is received by the receptors to its forebrain. Those fields are used to enhance signal and diminish signals outside the neurons where the signal were stimulated by those inputs. That is a process. The process is called lateral inhibition. Through that capability remote cells receive enhanced differences between signal and not signal that produces a representation of the outline of thing which generated the receptor signals. That representation is compared with other representations stored by the HS crab to distinguish food from threat from rock. The result of that process is the crab can take action to ignore rocks and to approach food. We call that ability to compare and act awareness. It has no  Tegmentum

Since HS crabs have little memory they can only distinguish food/threat from not edible. We move on to the Manta Ray which has some memory, therefore it can distinguish food from threat and both from not edible. That is the minimum threshold for the notion of consciousness. Wallah it has a Tegmentum

 

[untermensche]

It is not circular.

It is explanatory. It explains the situation.

It points out what at the very least MUST exist for consciousness to exist.

Saying the brain "deals" with things is laughable in one it's complete ignorance of what the brain is actually doing and two in the easy ability to ignore this fact.

What is not circular about conscious being conscious of that of which it is conscious?

Yes. You recognize the duality of the situation.

Something "conscious of" AND that which it is "conscious of".

Pointing out that a duality exists and MUST exist is not circular.

It is merely explanatory.

 

[fromderinside]

No it is only circular but also it is meaningless. Note the C is C of what is C. A construction signifying nothing. C is C Cing C.

 

[untermensche]

No it is only circular but also it is meaningless. Note the C is C of what is C. A construction signifying nothing. C is C Cing C.

Your inability to deal with actual ideas is noted.

Pointing out a necessary duality contained within a concept is not making a circular argument.

To think it is shows some serious problems with basic reasoning.

To have consciousness a duality is necessary. You must have both that which has the ability to be conscious of things AND the things it can be conscious of.

Any physiological explanation of consciousness that does not explain both parts of this duality is not an explanation at all.

It is an empty claim.

 

[fromderinside]

You nailed it. Necessary dualities are evidence there is nothing there.

Banishing the Homunculus, by H. Barlow http://file:///C:/Users/kendrick n williams/Downloads/barlow-1995-25113 (1).pdf

H Barlow is the same H Barlow one who predicted the Barlow face detector in visual systems. (a homunculus)

Guess how he handled it in this article?

If one needs help here is a commentary on Barlow's article by David Mumford

Feedback and the Homunculus https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c150/418e467d135896dc18b8ad6941b426047800.pdf

a tidbit

.... In this architecture, one has the feeling that the essential component of thought has not been analyzed and that at the decision stage, there is still the need for a little man to look at the refined description of the sensory input, to think it over and decide how he wants to modify his master plan. If not that, then we seem to be thrown back on a Rod Brooks-style finite state automata at the top level, and this seems awfully stupid compared to our image of ourselves. .....

 

[untermensche]

You nailed it. Necessary dualities are evidence there is nothing there.

Running away from necessities and pretending you are explaining something is a game for children.

Blue is not red. A duality exists between them. They are not the same thing.

Claiming that dualities are somehow impossible is merely once again to deny the obvious.

 

[fromderinside]

We were talking necessary dualities bud. Nothing about dualities in general. Just those that are used as explanations for such as agency. If you think for a moment anyone thinks a cell or group of cells is deciding or aware of something you need a serious adjustment. Life other than that that produces it's own sugar by photosynthesis is a system, a machine that functions IAC with it's design in designated regions.

If you are one of the turkeys among us who insists it has something that decides for it making it unlike other animals you haven't kept up.