Consciousness

[untermensche]

In a Libet-type experiment how is consciousness observed?

As you should know by now, conscious experience is related to the electrical activity being detected within the brain with subject response and decision making and that predictions of decision to be made prior to the subject's experience of making the decision has been achieved to a degree well above chance. This can only improve with new technology.

The subject is conscious the entire time.

Which observed "activity" is consciousness and which is not?

 

[DBT]

As you should know by now, conscious experience is related to the electrical activity being detected within the brain with subject response and decision making and that predictions of decision to be made prior to the subject's experience of making the decision has been achieved to a degree well above chance. This can only improve with new technology.

The subject is conscious the entire time.

Which observed "activity" is consciousness and which is not?

As I've already said, the subject displays all of the elements associated with being conscious and the details as reported by the conscious subject are related to the electrochemical activity being imaged or detected (fMRI,EEG,etc) within various structures of their brain....which can also be stimulated to produce certain thoughts, feelings and emotions, which in turn confirms that it is indeed these regions and this activity that is producing the phenomena.

 

[fromderinside]

I agree. Consciousness is a state represented by much more than some laddie claiming it to egocentrically define and experience.

 

[untermensche]

The subject is conscious the entire time.

Which observed "activity" is consciousness and which is not?

As I've already said, the subject displays all of the elements associated with being conscious and the details as reported by the conscious subject are related to the electrochemical activity being imaged or detected (fMRI,EEG,etc) within various structures of their brain....which can also be stimulated to produce certain thoughts, feelings and emotions, which in turn confirms that it is indeed these regions and this activity that is producing the phenomena.

The brain is doing all kinds of things. Regulating respiration, relaying "information" from the senses, creating the visual and auditory experience, allowing for the understanding of language, and many other things.

All kinds of things are happening below the level of consciousness.

But there is also consciousness and all that goes with it.

Are you claiming consciousness is isolated in one part of the brain? Are you claiming that when some part of the brain is artificially stimulated that is where all the activity involved in the subjective reporting takes place?

Sure scientists try to compare subjective reports to brain activity.

But they don't understand any of the specific activity above the level of the individual cell. There is no understanding of how cells work together to do anything related to consciousness.

How do we make objective claims about which observed activity is consciousness and which is not?

 

[none]

I just noticed this thread is in meta-physics, no wonder I can't parse the gibberish

 

[ryan]

I just noticed this thread is in meta-physics, no wonder I can't parse the gibberish

You just noticed that now?! You must almost never come on this thread.

- - - Updated - - -

I know; I am a sucker for the trolls.

 

[none]

it's one of the threads where a person doesn't need a brain

 

[fromderinside]

Don't you mean brane?

 

[none]

the sky is falling

 

[Kharakov]

the sky is falling

It's better than falling into the sky.

 

[DBT]

As I've already said, the subject displays all of the elements associated with being conscious and the details as reported by the conscious subject are related to the electrochemical activity being imaged or detected (fMRI,EEG,etc) within various structures of their brain....which can also be stimulated to produce certain thoughts, feelings and emotions, which in turn confirms that it is indeed these regions and this activity that is producing the phenomena.

The brain is doing all kinds of things. Regulating respiration, relaying "information" from the senses, creating the visual and auditory experience, allowing for the understanding of language, and many other things.

All kinds of things are happening below the level of consciousness.

But there is also consciousness and all that goes with it.

Are you claiming consciousness is isolated in one part of the brain? Are you claiming that when some part of the brain is artificially stimulated that is where all the activity involved in the subjective reporting takes place?

Sure scientists try to compare subjective reports to brain activity.

But they don't understand any of the specific activity above the level of the individual cell. There is no understanding of how cells work together to do anything related to consciousness.

How do we make objective claims about which observed activity is consciousness and which is not?

You really aren't reading anything I say, or it is being filtered by your beliefs to the point where your interpretation of what I say bears no resemblance to what I actually write.

Of course this is to be expected....how else can you maintain an untenable set of beliefs that have no merit.

 

[untermensche]

The brain is doing all kinds of things. Regulating respiration, relaying "information" from the senses, creating the visual and auditory experience, allowing for the understanding of language, and many other things.

All kinds of things are happening below the level of consciousness.

But there is also consciousness and all that goes with it.

Are you claiming consciousness is isolated in one part of the brain? Are you claiming that when some part of the brain is artificially stimulated that is where all the activity involved in the subjective reporting takes place?

Sure scientists try to compare subjective reports to brain activity.

But they don't understand any of the specific activity above the level of the individual cell. There is no understanding of how cells work together to do anything related to consciousness.

How do we make objective claims about which observed activity is consciousness and which is not?

You really aren't reading anything I say, or it is being filtered by your beliefs to the point where your interpretation of what I say bears no resemblance to what I actually write.

Of course this is to be expected....how else can you maintain an untenable set of beliefs that have no merit.

This is a complete dodge.

The fact is when looking at brain activity nobody understands which of it is related to consciousness and which is not.

Nothing about the activity is understood.

Stimulating one part of the brain and getting a subjective report in no way implies all the activity involved in the report occurred at that location.

Your claims are absurd, that's why you can't defend them. Your Emperor has no clothes.

 

[DBT]

You really aren't reading anything I say, or it is being filtered by your beliefs to the point where your interpretation of what I say bears no resemblance to what I actually write.

Of course this is to be expected....how else can you maintain an untenable set of beliefs that have no merit.

This is a complete dodge.

You can only say that if you ignore everything I've said, quoted and linked for the purpose of explaining the subject matter, which you are clearly doing, which means that you are dodging all that has been said to date.

The fact is when looking at brain activity nobody understands which of it is related to consciousness and which is not.

Nothing about the activity is understood.

Stimulating one part of the brain and getting a subjective report in no way implies all the activity involved in the report occurred at that location.

Your claims are absurd, that's why you can't defend them. Your Emperor has no clothes.

Rinse and repeat when in doubt...which is all the time.

 

[untermensche]

This is a complete dodge.

You can only say that if you ignore everything I've said, quoted and linked for the purpose of explaining the subject matter, which you are clearly doing, which means that you are dodging all that has been said to date.

The fact is when looking at brain activity nobody understands which of it is related to consciousness and which is not.

Nothing about the activity is understood.

Stimulating one part of the brain and getting a subjective report in no way implies all the activity involved in the report occurred at that location.

Your claims are absurd, that's why you can't defend them. Your Emperor has no clothes.

Rinse and repeat when in doubt...which is all the time.

Dodge, dodge, dodge.

You can't address it. Cognitive dissonance?

There is a lot of activity in the brain.

And you can in no way tell me which of it is consciousness and which is not.

I suspect you will this dodge again.

You have to admit it is true. If you are honest.

 

[DBT]

You are funny, Mr Untermensche....understanding the brain and consciousness is a work in progress, but nobody except fringe eccentrics cling to the idea of autonomous consciousness, or brain as a receiver. There is more than sufficient evidence to show that brain state relates to state of consciousness. That evidence is your downfall. Only in a manner of speaking, because you never had a position to fall from.

 

[ryan]

Can somebody (karakov? fromderinside?) explain what "branes" or "the sky is falling" has to do with arguing for metaphysics being gibberish? My poetic deciphering skills are not all that great.

 

[none]

sky is falling is a reference to the claims of metaphysics, gibberish is the reference

 

[ryan]

sky is falling is a reference to the claims of metaphysics, gibberish is the reference

I see.

 

[untermensche]

You are funny, Mr Untermensche....understanding the brain and consciousness is a work in progress, but nobody except fringe eccentrics cling to the idea of autonomous consciousness, or brain as a receiver. There is more than sufficient evidence to show that brain state relates to state of consciousness. That evidence is your downfall. Only in a manner of speaking, because you never had a position to fall from.

Your ignorant objection to an "autonomous consciousness", when you have no understanding of consciousness is amusing.

Science has to explain how consciousness moves the arm at will.

Not pretend it doesn't happen every day.

Saying that the brain is actually moving the arm but tricking consciousness into thinking it is moving the arm is not only absurd, it is not supported by any real understanding of brain activity, and it is unfalsifiable, so not even able to be science.

You pretend to understand something about brain activity to pretend you know something about the will.

It is insanity on top of insanity.

 

[fromderinside]

The brain does the work of moving the arm. The brain does the work of putting together the information anticipatory of any action at all. Conscious is just a convenient term naive humans use as an excuse for claiming they are actually in charge of the machine. Originally the ability to distinguish food from other was considered what conscious meant. It was only after man developed language that he was able to attribute, quite erroneously, what he wanted as the stuff of being conscious. Conscious is a label for a process the human brain, primarily, carries out in doing things. It is not a thing inherent in man, it is code for what man does when he thinks, another code word, he's intending, yet another code word.

You use and demands are so far off the mark it is remarkable that anyone even tries to inform you of your obvious lack of understanding of the subject.