Consciousness

[George S]

We share a sense of being in a body. Having a point of view. I am not my hand or nose. Nor brain. A human body is trillions of bacteria sized cooperating living cells. They recognize intruders and invaders and kill them. I am not consciously aware of this.
I am an imagined thing, a point of view imagined by a brain. We can imagine what it might be like to be a dog. We can imagine what it might be like to be a god who sees all existence from the outside. We can imagine an afterlife.
Without a brain to imagine me into existence I am not.

 

[DBT]

We share a sense of being in a body. Having a point of view. I am not my hand or nose. Nor brain. A human body is trillions of bacteria sized cooperating living cells. They recognize intruders and invaders and kill them. I am not consciously aware of this.
I am an imagined thing, a point of view imagined by a brain. We can imagine what it might be like to be a dog. We can imagine what it might be like to be a god who sees all existence from the outside. We can imagine an afterlife.
Without a brain to imagine me into existence I am not.

Yes, indeed. It's a pity our friend untermensche cannot grasp that basic principle..

 

[untermensche]

We share a sense of being in a body. Having a point of view. I am not my hand or nose. Nor brain. A human body is trillions of bacteria sized cooperating living cells. They recognize intruders and invaders and kill them. I am not consciously aware of this.
I am an imagined thing, a point of view imagined by a brain. We can imagine what it might be like to be a dog. We can imagine what it might be like to be a god who sees all existence from the outside. We can imagine an afterlife.
Without a brain to imagine me into existence I am not.

We have experience, yes.

We most certainly cannot imagine what it is like to be a dog. We can pretend we know.

But we don't have the slightest idea.

What I would like is for somebody to rationally address this:

What I am being asked to accept is the BIG DECEIVER model of the brain.

According to this model the brain is continually deceiving consciousness into thinking consciousness is making choices and decisions, but the brain is actually making all decisions robot fashion.

It is an absurd model that needs a lot of explaining.

Why have this consciousness thinking it is making decisions? In this model it is absolutely unneeded.

Why this continual waste of neural energy if according to people here it is not needed?

This is in need of serious explanation.

Why the continual deception? Why this incredible waste of energy? According to some the brain does not need consciousness in the least. The brain makes all decisions and also makes consciousness think consciousness is making them for some reason. An absurd model if I ever heard one. Explain.

Why can nobody address this?

 

[DBT]

We share a sense of being in a body. Having a point of view. I am not my hand or nose. Nor brain. A human body is trillions of bacteria sized cooperating living cells. They recognize intruders and invaders and kill them. I am not consciously aware of this.
I am an imagined thing, a point of view imagined by a brain. We can imagine what it might be like to be a dog. We can imagine what it might be like to be a god who sees all existence from the outside. We can imagine an afterlife.
Without a brain to imagine me into existence I am not.

We have experience, yes.

We most certainly cannot imagine what it is like to be a dog. We can pretend we know.

But we don't have the slightest idea.

What I would like is for somebody to rationally address this:

What I am being asked to accept is the BIG DECEIVER model of the brain.

According to this model the brain is continually deceiving consciousness into thinking consciousness is making choices and decisions, but the brain is actually making all decisions robot fashion.

It is an absurd model that needs a lot of explaining.

Why have this consciousness thinking it is making decisions? In this model it is absolutely unneeded.

Why this continual waste of neural energy if according to people here it is not needed?

This is in need of serious explanation.

Why the continual deception? Why this incredible waste of energy? According to some the brain does not need consciousness in the least. The brain makes all decisions and also makes consciousness think consciousness is making them for some reason. An absurd model if I ever heard one. Explain.

Why can nobody address this?

Where do you get this idea of a division or dichotomy - ''According to this model the brain is continually deceiving consciousness into thinking consciousness is making choices and decisions, but the brain is actually making all decisions robot fashion'' - when nobody has said such a thing?

There is simply no feedback loop between consciousness, which is an activity of a brain, and the neural activity feeding information into consciousness in order to form mental representation.

There is no 'fooling' - it's simply how it works. Information is not conscious until it achieves readiness potential and is made conscious.

The brain and its conscious activity are not two separate things (that is your substance dualism fallacy), one fooling the other (that is your strawman), but that brains have evolved to form mental representation of their environment and body map, including conscious self, in order to interact with the external world. To be aware of nerve impulses serves no purpose.

Why can nobody address this?

There is nothing to address, It's just a strawman that you like to spruik. It's not something anyone else is claiming. Do some reading on neuroscience. Substance dualism is a dead duck, and has been dead for a long time...yet here you are strenuously trying to resurrect its carcass.

 

[untermensche]

Where do you get this idea of a division or dichotomy - ''According to this model the brain is continually deceiving consciousness into thinking consciousness is making choices and decisions, but the brain is actually making all decisions robot fashion'' - when nobody has said such a thing?

Are you that blind?

That is ALL you have said, over and over. The same thoughtless aping of the conclusions of others.

You have claimed that actually before consciousness moves the arm the brain has moved into action and was really doing the moving.

Consciousness thinks it is initiating the movement but that is somehow just a trick. A lot of brain activity goes into tricking consciousness. For some unknown reason.

The BIG DECEIVER model of consciousness.

Absurd.

And in need of serious explanation.

Either consciousness initiates movement and its perceptions are accurate or consciousness does not initiate movement and the perception is really the brain tricking consciousness somehow and for some reason.

No other choice exists.

 

[fromderinside]

There is a very big hole in your assertion. The experience of the entity is while the being experiences, the being who experiences the experience is another.

This makes no sense at all.

Sound is experienced.

By only one thing.

Not by the brain. By a consciousness.

This goes back to the biggest flaw in your model.

Why is there a consciousness experiencing sound if it has no control over the body to respond?

An organism with no capability to process sound does not experience sound, one which has such equipment has the capability to experiences sound. There is no need to introduce consciousness for the organism to experience it. After the fact most any organism with the capability to process and retain memory of sounds has the ability to run what it has through existing pathways to experience it again in what might be called by some a conscious way. In other words I accept one might experience what one has, at the time of the events experienced, again as a matter of volition. Such does not make such a volitional act a demand attribute for passing that information through the system at the time it was presented. The being experiences by having the capacity to process.

One need not have a 'center' or 'agent' to be aware of what one is doing by processing acoustic information for which one has such capacity. In fact, demonstrably, many things which are processes are never attended to at the time, but are, nevertheless retained in memory. Most stuff that is processed is never stored thus being lost to the organism for volitional remembering, re-experiencing. It is this latter which I think you are confusing as a consciousness agent. The fact that mirror cells fire to external acts and to internal processed information, are in the ascending and descending pathways, and provide spoken reports that are identical should be enough for anyone to understand that no experiencing agent is needed to do either.

 

[bilby]

Where do you get this idea of a division or dichotomy - ''According to this model the brain is continually deceiving consciousness into thinking consciousness is making choices and decisions, but the brain is actually making all decisions robot fashion'' - when nobody has said such a thing?

Are you that blind?

That is ALL you have said, over and over. The same thoughtless aping of the conclusions of others.

You have claimed that actually before consciousness moves the arm the brain has moved into action and was really doing the moving.

Consciousness thinks it is initiating the movement but that is somehow just a trick. A lot of brain activity goes into tricking consciousness. For some unknown reason.

The BIG DECEIVER model of consciousness.

Absurd.

And in need of serious explanation.

Either consciousness initiates movement and its perceptions are accurate or consciousness does not initiate movement and the perception is really the brain tricking consciousness somehow and for some reason.

No other choice exists.

It's probably not worth the effort to point out, but there was more than one paragraph in DBT's post, and by reacting only to the first paragraph without apparently having read the rest, you simply come across as a ranting fool, obsessed with defending an erroneous belief.

Not that anyone expected otherwise at this stage. But I thought I would mention it anyway, just in case there's still a glimmer of hope left for you.

 

[DBT]

Where do you get this idea of a division or dichotomy - ''According to this model the brain is continually deceiving consciousness into thinking consciousness is making choices and decisions, but the brain is actually making all decisions robot fashion'' - when nobody has said such a thing?

Are you that blind?

No, that's still you. You ignoring all research in favour of substance dualism...a belief that has no evidential support.

That is ALL you have said, over and over. The same thoughtless aping of the conclusions of others.

On the contrary, what I am pointing out to you is well supported by evidence. Which I have supplied, studies, quotes and descriptions made by researchers based on their work.

Consequently, it is you who hold a position that is not only not supported but practically universally rejected by neuroscientists.

You have claimed that actually before consciousness moves the arm the brain has moved into action and was really doing the moving.

Not quite. The brain is doing it all from inputs to propagation of information, processing, motor action initiation, readiness potential and conscious representation of motor action and intention to act. The whole works. There being no ghost in the machine acting upon the brain.

The BIG DECEIVER model of consciousness. And in need of serious explanation.


Absurd.

No. That is your Strawman...your rationale for ghosts and magic.

 

[untermensche]

You have claimed that actually before consciousness moves the arm the brain has moved into action and was really doing the moving.

Not quite. The brain is doing it all from inputs to propagation of information, processing, motor action initiation, readiness potential and conscious representation of motor action and intention to act. The whole works. There being no ghost in the machine acting upon the brain.

Do you even read what you write?

You are claiming the brain is doing everything.

So what is included in everything?

One thing is consciousness is under the impression it is freely moving based on subjective choices using the "will".

So you are claiming the brain is creating this false impression since it is doing everything.

You are claiming the brain is continually tricking consciousness, continually creating false impressions.

But if the brain can move all on its own there is absolutely no need for this false impression. It serves no purpose.

In your model the brain is using a lot of precious energy for no purpose what-so-ever.

Absurd, only a child would buy it.

 

[untermensche]

This makes no sense at all.

Sound is experienced.

By only one thing.

Not by the brain. By a consciousness.

This goes back to the biggest flaw in your model.

Why is there a consciousness experiencing sound if it has no control over the body to respond?

An organism with no capability to process sound does not experience sound, one which has such equipment has the capability to experiences sound. There is no need to introduce consciousness for the organism to experience it. After the fact most any organism with the capability to process and retain memory of sounds has the ability to run what it has through existing pathways to experience it again in what might be called by some a conscious way. In other words I accept one might experience what one has, at the time of the events experienced, again as a matter of volition. Such does not make such a volitional act a demand attribute for passing that information through the system at the time it was presented. The being experiences by having the capacity to process.

One need not have a 'center' or 'agent' to be aware of what one is doing by processing acoustic information for which one has such capacity. In fact, demonstrably, many things which are processes are never attended to at the time, but are, nevertheless retained in memory. Most stuff that is processed is never stored thus being lost to the organism for volitional remembering, re-experiencing. It is this latter which I think you are confusing as a consciousness agent. The fact that mirror cells fire to external acts and to internal processed information, are in the ascending and descending pathways, and provide spoken reports that are identical should be enough for anyone to understand that no experiencing agent is needed to do either.

What good would it do an organism to "process" sound if it could not experience it?

You don't need to "process" energy into sound to react and respond to it. You only need to "process" it into sound to experience it.

And consciousness and experience are inseparable. You do not have the latter without the former.

You cannot have experience without that which experiences. This is the inescapable logic of these concepts.

If there is nothing which experiences there is no experience. A thermostat reacts it does not experience.

 

[Juma]

An organism with no capability to process sound does not experience sound, one which has such equipment has the capability to experiences sound. There is no need to introduce consciousness for the organism to experience it. After the fact most any organism with the capability to process and retain memory of sounds has the ability to run what it has through existing pathways to experience it again in what might be called by some a conscious way. In other words I accept one might experience what one has, at the time of the events experienced, again as a matter of volition. Such does not make such a volitional act a demand attribute for passing that information through the system at the time it was presented. The being experiences by having the capacity to process.

One need not have a 'center' or 'agent' to be aware of what one is doing by processing acoustic information for which one has such capacity. In fact, demonstrably, many things which are processes are never attended to at the time, but are, nevertheless retained in memory. Most stuff that is processed is never stored thus being lost to the organism for volitional remembering, re-experiencing. It is this latter which I think you are confusing as a consciousness agent. The fact that mirror cells fire to external acts and to internal processed information, are in the ascending and descending pathways, and provide spoken reports that are identical should be enough for anyone to understand that no experiencing agent is needed to do either.

What good would it do an organism to "process" sound if it could not experience it?

You don't need to "process" energy into sound to react and respond to it. You only need to "process" it into sound to experience it.

And consciousness and experience are inseparable. You do not have the latter without the former.

You cannot have experience without that which experiences. This is the inescapable logic of these concepts.

If there is nothing which experiences there is no experience. A thermostat reacts it does not experience.

How would anything be able to react on sounds ifit didnt process it? To detect direction, type of sound (tiger or a bee?) you have to process it.

 

[untermensche]

What good would it do an organism to "process" sound if it could not experience it?

You don't need to "process" energy into sound to react and respond to it. You only need to "process" it into sound to experience it.

And consciousness and experience are inseparable. You do not have the latter without the former.

You cannot have experience without that which experiences. This is the inescapable logic of these concepts.

If there is nothing which experiences there is no experience. A thermostat reacts it does not experience.

How would anything be able to react on sounds ifit didnt process it? To detect direction, type of sound (tiger or a bee?) you have to process it.

The phrase is; "process it into sound".

Yes it must be processed in some way, but not into something that is experienced as a whole.

No need to turn into some perception.

It does not need to be turned into more than a signal to react. Perceptions are not signals to react. They are representations of energy in the world.

There is no need to make a representation of the energy unless there is something to perceive the representation.

 

[fromderinside]

The phrase is; "process it into sound".

The phrase as I wrote it is "... to process sound ..." Which means just that.

We don't process acoustic stimuli into sound. We process acoustic energy for time differences between arrival at the ears, for information in the acoustic energy that provides advantage to us. It turns out humans gain most advantage when acoustic energy is processed is as near to what it was when it arrived at the ear so we can identify, understand, enjoy, and a variety of other advantages processing it provides. acoustic energy processing may be be assigned names such as sound or time or speech, or chirp, or melody, etc. We definitely do not process it into sound. Sound is a modern English term. We were processing acoustic energy well before we even had language.

Direct from the keyboard of Dr. Psychoacoustics

 

[untermensche]

The phrase is; "process it into sound".

The phrase as I wrote it is "... to process sound ..." Which means just that.

We don't process acoustic stimuli into sound. We process acoustic energy for time differences between arrival at the ears, for information in the acoustic energy that provides advantage to us. It turns out humans gain most advantage when acoustic energy is processed is as near to what it was when it arrived at the ear so we can identify, understand, enjoy, and a variety of other advantages processing it provides. acoustic energy processing may be be assigned names such as sound or time or speech, or chirp, or melody, etc. We definitely do not process it into sound. Sound is a modern English term. We were processing acoustic energy well before we even had language.

Direct from the keyboard of Dr. Psychoacoustics

Sound is what we experience. And when it is music it can actually motivate us to move.

However you want to describe it sound is the experience.

Creating the experience requires "processing".

And to have an experience requires that which experiences. To have sound requires more than just the processing of energy. It requires the production of a consciousness.

You refuse to include "that which experiences" in your models. In that none of them address consciousness no less explain it.

 

[fromderinside]

And to have an experience requires that which experiences. To have sound requires more than just the processing of energy. It requires the production of a consciousness.

So within 10 ms after acoustic energy arrives at the ears processing has sent results of time difference processing to the system which guides the head to turn toward the direction of the incoming acoustic energy. Its been processes and behavior is beginning to bring the eyes to the direction where the energy arises and we're experiencing it by some consciousness operator?

How about when a single frequency is sent through a transducer for three ms and when we pass it back through our system we experience it as a click but when it is passed through the transducer for 200 ms we experience it as a tone? Are you saying that when we do either it must be passed through consciousness to be appreciated as a sound? RU kidding me?

You misunderstand how we process energy input clearly.

 

[Juma]

How would anything be able to react on sounds ifit didnt process it? To detect direction, type of sound (tiger or a bee?) you have to process it.

The phrase is; "process it into sound".

Yes it must be processed in some way, but not into something that is experienced as a whole.

No need to turn into some perception.

It does not need to be turned into more than a signal to react. Perceptions are not signals to react. They are representations of energy in the world.

There is no need to make a representation of the energy unless there is something to perceive the representation.

Sound isnt a "whole perception". Whag you hear are information bits extracted from what reached your ear. You hear symbols for what the brain found in The data from the ears.

 

[untermensche]

And to have an experience requires that which experiences. To have sound requires more than just the processing of energy. It requires the production of a consciousness.

So within 10 ms after acoustic energy arrives at the ears processing has sent results of time difference processing to the system which guides the head to turn toward the direction of the incoming acoustic energy. Its been processes and behavior is beginning to bring the eyes to the direction where the energy arises and we're experiencing it by some consciousness operator?

How about when a single frequency is sent through a transducer for three ms and when we pass it back through our system we experience it as a click but when it is passed through the transducer for 200 ms we experience it as a tone? Are you saying that when we do either it must be passed through consciousness to be appreciated as a sound? RU kidding me?

You misunderstand how we process energy input clearly.

The reflexes to turn the head and the experience of sound are two separate "processes".

I do not claim there is no reflexive movement. That would be ridiculous.

But there is also willful movement. Movement initiated by consciousness.

To deny that is just as ridiculous.

 

[untermensche]

The phrase is; "process it into sound".

Yes it must be processed in some way, but not into something that is experienced as a whole.

No need to turn into some perception.

It does not need to be turned into more than a signal to react. Perceptions are not signals to react. They are representations of energy in the world.

There is no need to make a representation of the energy unless there is something to perceive the representation.

Sound isnt a "whole perception". Whag you hear are information bits extracted from what reached your ear. You hear symbols for what the brain found in The data from the ears.

Sound is an experience. It is something the brain creates, like it creates the visual experience.

It is not something that exists in any other way than as an experience and as the way the experience is created. Sound is not something out in the world, anywhere.

As far as a whole perception, maybe not always but if I hear the word "dog" what part of the perception am I missing?

 

[Juma]

Sound isnt a "whole perception". Whag you hear are information bits extracted from what reached your ear. You hear symbols for what the brain found in The data from the ears.

Sound is an experience. It is something the brain creates, like it creates the visual experience.

It is not something that exists in any other way than as an experience and as the way the experience is created. Sound is not something out in the world, anywhere.

As far as a whole perception, maybe not always but if I hear the word "dog" what part of the perception am I missing?

When you hear the word dog you almost dont hear the sound at all. You hear a symbol representing the spoken word "dog".

Listening to someone speaking in a language you do not understand sounds very different from when you understand it.

As a musician I have transcribed a lit of arrangements and can assure you thst it is very diffucult to get around theese symbols and hear what they actually play.

 

[DBT]

But there is also willful movement. Movement initiated by consciousness.

To deny that is just as ridiculous.

To deny the overwhelming evidence that contradicts your claim is what is really ridiculous:

Abstract
''Are we in command of our motor acts?The popular belief holds that our conscious decisions are the direct causes of our actions. However, overwhelming evidence from neurosciences demonstrates that our actions are instead largely driven by brain processes that unfold outside of our consciousness. To study these brain processes, scientists have used a range of different functional brain imaging techniques and experimental protocols, such as subliminal priming. Here, we review recent advances in the field and propose a theoretical model of motor control that may contribute to a better understanding of the pathophysiology of movement disorders such as Parkinson's disease.''

Introduction
''In daily life, we usually have the feeling that we are the authors of the actions we make, that the decisions we make and the corresponding movements we perform are consciously initiated and controlled. The belief that our actions are caused by our mental states, and these mental states are causally independent from brain processes reflects a dualistic philosophy (Descartes, 1641). However, the current scientific view holds that human actions and mental states are both biologically determined and stem from patterns of neural activity in the brain.''