Consciousness

[untermensche]

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. .....

Strawman.

Nobody is proposing a homunculus.

There is no little man in the brain with an arm moving an arm.

There is a conscious "will" moving it, sometimes.

A "will" is not a homunculus.

A duality between that which can experience and the things it can experience is not a homunculus.

But it is the bare bones necessity of consciousness.

And any physiological so-called explanation that doesn't explain both parts of the duality is nonsense.

 

[none]

That's because mind body duality is pseudoscience

 

[untermensche]

That's because mind body duality is pseudoscience

If consciousness can influence the brain then it is a part of the body.

That part of the body that can make the brain move the arm at will.

 

[none]

We got pictures of it

 

[DBT]

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.

No you don't. You reject the current state of the research and everything that researchers say about their research wherever and whenever it disagrees with your unfounded beliefs. Which is ever time an article is provided to show the errors of your beliefs.

You say you understand the research but your beliefs demonstrate that you don't.

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

Another example of a false claim. There has been enough material provided to show what is understood and what is not yet understood.

You yourself claim to understand something, the autonomy of consciousness as a decision maker, brain as a receiver, even while claiming nobody understands anything... and in every instance you happen to have it wrong

 

[DBT]

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.
.

Your example is something you made up. The errors have been pointed out numerous times, yet you continue to use your fatally flawed example, which only serves to demonstrate your poor understanding of the subject matter and your refusal to consider that you may be wrong, or show a willing to learn.

 

[DBT]

That's because mind body duality is pseudoscience

If consciousness can influence the brain then it is a part of the body.

That part of the body that can make the brain move the arm at will.

It is the brain that forms and generates conscious activity, inputs from various sources, senses, organs, limbs, etc, being represented in the form of mental images, feelings of hunger, thirst, desires and fears, needs and wants and actions to be taken for reasons related to objects and events and internal sensations....

 

[untermensche]

If consciousness can influence the brain then it is a part of the body.

That part of the body that can make the brain move the arm at will.

It is the brain that forms and generates conscious activity, inputs from various sources, senses, organs, limbs, etc, being represented in the form of mental images, feelings of hunger, thirst, desires and fears, needs and wants and actions to be taken for reasons related to objects and events and internal sensations....

And the brain forms consciousness.

And consciousness moves the arm at will.

You are saying nothing and making no point.

 

[fromderinside]

When was the last time the shrill untermenche ever posted evidence, not self reporting, evidence.

He probably wasn't born yet.

Philosophy depends on being current with the state of knowledge. Saying "I will" this or "I will" that is hearsay testimony at best.

 

[untermensche]

When was the last time the shrill untermenche ever posted evidence, not self reporting, evidence.

He probably wasn't born yet.

Philosophy depends on being current with the state of knowledge. Saying "I will" this or "I will" that is hearsay testimony at best.

There is no objective evidence of consciousness.

Pointing to the brain and saying "there" doesn't count.

Posting studies that only have a connection to consciousness in the form of subjective reporting is pretending to understand something.

Self delusion.

 

[none]

so why are images of the brain's activity different from person to person in regards to what they are thinking?
why can we predict what a person's brain activity looks like when they are depressed or happy?
why is this?

 

[untermensche]

so why are images of the brain's activity different from person to person in regards to what they are thinking?
why can we predict what a person's brain activity looks like when they are depressed or happy?
why is this?

This is not done by understanding the activity.

It may be possible to do tricks based on computer analysis of the LOCATION of relative activity.

This is not an understanding of any activity.

 

[none]

so why are images of the brain's activity different from person to person in regards to what they are thinking?
why can we predict what a person's brain activity looks like when they are depressed or happy?
why is this?

This is not done by understanding the activity.

It may be possible to do tricks based on computer analysis of the LOCATION of relative activity.

This is not an understanding of any activity.

Just like taking a photograph of a moving car, it's a record of thought

 

[untermensche]

This is not done by understanding the activity.

It may be possible to do tricks based on computer analysis of the LOCATION of relative activity.

This is not an understanding of any activity.

Just like taking a photograph of a moving car, it's a record of thought

It is a picture of relative activity.

All activity is considered the same thing. The only thing looked at is level, not kind.

So the activity that creates an emotion is considered the same thing as the activity that creates the experience of blue.

Nothing is understood about activity except location of relative intensity. How the activity is doing anything is not understood.

And consciousness may be a quantum effect of brain activity and invisible to the eye.

 

[none]

Its a picture of a brain having a thought, not some "maybe" scenario

 

[untermensche]

Its a picture of a brain having a thought, not some "maybe" scenario

If "thought" is a quantum effect, it is not.

You cannot take pictures of quantum effects with any known scan.

 

[none]

Its a picture of a brain having a thought, not some "maybe" scenario

If "thought" is a quantum effect, it is not.

You cannot take pictures of quantum effects with any known scan.

Thought is a brain activity, we know that and speculating otherwise is speculation
I'm using evidence not argument or inference solely

 

[untermensche]

If "thought" is a quantum effect, it is not.

You cannot take pictures of quantum effects with any known scan.

Thought is a brain activity, we know that and speculating otherwise is speculation
I'm using evidence not argument or inference solely

Again, if "thought" is some quantum effect it is not anything we can see in a scan.

 

[none]

Thought is a brain activity, we know that and speculating otherwise is speculation
I'm using evidence not argument or inference solely

Again, if "thought" is some quantum effect it is not anything we can see in a scan.

That isn't evidence Its more argument, I've had enough of your nonsense
This is simple, I have evidence you don't and you are unwilling to admit the evidence is valid and speculate post after post without any evidence
Since your speculating without any evidence you might as well say black holes or stochastic background is responsible for consciousness or Russell's tea pot, flying Spaghetti Monster
They are all just as explanatory

 

[DBT]

It is the brain that forms and generates conscious activity, inputs from various sources, senses, organs, limbs, etc, being represented in the form of mental images, feelings of hunger, thirst, desires and fears, needs and wants and actions to be taken for reasons related to objects and events and internal sensations....

And the brain forms consciousness.

And consciousness moves the arm at will.

You are saying nothing and making no point.

That's the point where you fail and fail badly. Movement intention has been shown to initiate milliseconds prior to conscious report. Not only that but the two functions can be separated to the point where subjects believe they have moved their arm but have not, or that they have in fact moved their arm but conscious report being blocked they assert that they have not moved a muscle.

I have provided links to experiments several time, but of course dismissed by you because it doesn't agree with your own fallacious ideas.