Consciousness

[George S]

All behavior may be reflexive but merely showing that some behavior is reflexive does not prove it.

We can't make leaps like that.

OK some rational stuff back at you.

First I didn't make a leap.

You just did. Implicit in your statement is that some behavior is due to free will.

All empirical evidence goes toward showing "If this happens then that happens". That's true even for QM.

There is no proof or even empirical evidence of free will. In fact current philosophy has no anchor for the notion of free will.

I agree humans can show intent. Since they exist in a material world whatever they surmise is made up of information in the past. What they plan to do may be in the future, but, it is both incomplete and colored with legacy, consequently error.

So if there is something that is of person, if it is of person in the past with models for conduct in the future which usually don't align with the future in which it is executed. If there is a conscious it is because there is benefit to the living for having such a mechanism, that conscious and modeling and injecting the models into the future are better that pure reaction for the the being.

Consciousness as prediction that is better than unconscious reflex. Interesting. If in the past Good Things followed an action, do it again. This is done by making certain pathways easier physically. Unlearning ... Replacing that first version learned is difficult. Especially when the expected Good Thing has been happening only sometimes.
Consciousness as the physical linking of certain neurons.
Consciousness as mechanism. A self-modifying mechanism -- you can change your mind. A future modeling mechanism with self as a possible actor in that model. A robot mechanically following nature's laws of chemistry and electricity and QM and gravity. So human consciousness is what it feels like to be a conscious robot. Self programming and self aware.
Incorporating -- making corporal -- the Axiom of Experience. In the past the future has been like the past so in the future the future will likely be like the past. Every species used this axiom realized as genes. 99% of the time this hasn't worked. 99% of all species extinct. Conscious species have genes that have created a mechanism that works in real time.
This mechanism was unrealized instructions encoded in a zygote which lead to another zygote. A Rube Goldberg way for a group of genes in a cell to replicate those complex chemicals in a new single cell. Desire -- discontent -- drives behavior -- hungry, thirsty, horny, sleepy among others.
The main program : When not content do something about it.

 

[bilby]

OK some rational stuff back at you.

First I didn't make a leap.

You just did. Implicit in your statement is that some behavior is due to free will.

It is either that or a lot of conscious experience is some elaborate insane trick.

Totally unneeded for anything.

A brain may need to experience if it is just an elaborate reflex. But it has no need of this thing called consciousness experiencing as well.

All empirical evidence goes toward showing "If this happens then that happens". That's true even for QM.

When you cause you arm to move by your will don't you feel as if you are doing something with your mind?

What you are doing with your mind moves the arm.

This happens and then that happens.

I agree humans can show intent. Since they exist in a material world whatever they surmise is made up of information in the past. What they plan to do may be in the future, but, it is both incomplete and colored with legacy, consequently error.

If this were true no progress could exist.

If all you could do is react to the past you could not create anything new that didn't exist in the past.

That's nonsense.

Compare: If all you have to build with is bricks, you could not build anything that wasn't a brick.

All you can do is react to the past. And creativity, as we experience it, is in no way impaired by that fact.

 

[fromderinside]

George S wrote: prediction that is better than unconscious reflex.

On average yes.

George S wrote: When not content do something about it.

If content is full, sexually satisfied, etc, then yes on average

There's always room for uncertainty. I like to think the Saber Tooth Cat went down the right road too far.

 

[untermensche]

It is either that or a lot of conscious experience is some elaborate insane trick.

Totally unneeded for anything.

A brain may need to experience if it is just an elaborate reflex. But it has no need of this thing called consciousness experiencing as well.

All empirical evidence goes toward showing "If this happens then that happens". That's true even for QM.

When you cause you arm to move by your will don't you feel as if you are doing something with your mind?

What you are doing with your mind moves the arm.

This happens and then that happens.

I agree humans can show intent. Since they exist in a material world whatever they surmise is made up of information in the past. What they plan to do may be in the future, but, it is both incomplete and colored with legacy, consequently error.

If this were true no progress could exist.

If all you could do is react to the past you could not create anything new that didn't exist in the past.

That's nonsense.

Compare: If all you have to build with is bricks, you could not build anything that wasn't a brick.

All you can do is react to the past. And creativity, as we experience it, is in no way impaired by that fact.

If all we can do is react to behavior using bricks from the past we can't create new brick using behavior.

We can act based on ideas gained in the past.

Whether it is nothing but reaction is the question.

 

[fromderinside]

Compare: If all you have to build with is bricks, you could not build anything that wasn't a brick.

All you can do is react to the past. And creativity, as we experience it, is in no way impaired by that fact.

I agree completely except we may be on a path that no longer has brick making materials .... that saber tooth cat thingy where creativity becomes obsession or something like that.

 

[DBT]

OK. Let's see who the liar is.

View attachment 11513

What is this person experiencing? You claim to have some understanding of brain activity.

A claim that is ridiculous as we will see right here.

So I said one thing and you interpret what I said in a completely different way. A way that suits your own agenda but bears no relationship to what I actually said.

Now please pay attention, read carefully, take off your blinkers.

Here is what I actually said on the issue of your fMRI images;

I quote;
''Another of my comments being that [your] static fMRI pictures of the brain, as you present, cannot be related to anything because we the readers do not have access to the context, the lab, the subject, or the experiment being performed....''

Do try to grow up, Mr Untermensche, and stop playing childish games.

 

[untermensche]

OK. Let's see who the liar is.

View attachment 11513

What is this person experiencing? You claim to have some understanding of brain activity.

A claim that is ridiculous as we will see right here.

So I said one thing and you interpret what I said in a completely different way. A way that suits your own agenda but bears no relationship to what I actually said.

Now please pay attention, read carefully, take off your blinkers.

Here is what I actually said on the issue of your fMRI images;

I quote;
''Another of my comments being that [your] static fMRI pictures of the brain, as you present, cannot be related to anything because we the readers do not have access to the context, the lab, the subject, or the experiment being performed....''

Do try to grow up, Mr Untermensche, and stop playing childish games.

That's a PET scan, not fMRI.

You really don't have a clue about any of this.

You merely ape the conclusions of others.

I might as well be dealing with the wall. It can provide the same responses.

Understanding brain activity is not comparing the location of a tiny bit of activity you don't understand to subjective reports.

Understanding brain activity is being able to look at the specific activity (not location) and make comments about it.

 

[fromderinside]

Understanding brain activity is being able to look at the specific activity (not location) and make comments about it.

Indeed! Predicting free choices for abstract intentions http://www.pnas.org/content/110/15/6217.long

Powerpoint slide for teaching http://www.pnas.org/content/110/15/6217/F3.expansion.html

What say you to the idea that intention arises out of unconscious preparation of 'intended' behavior? i.e. response was prepared before intention becomes part of awareness. Or the scientists knew response from site specific brain activity before one being recorded was aware she was intending that response.

 

[untermensche]

Understanding brain activity is being able to look at the specific activity (not location) and make comments about it.

Indeed! Predicting free choices for abstract intentions http://www.pnas.org/content/110/15/6217.long

Powerpoint slide for teaching http://www.pnas.org/content/110/15/6217/F3.expansion.html

What say you to the idea that intention arises out of unconscious preparation of 'intended' behavior? i.e. response was prepared before intention becomes part of awareness. Or the scientists knew response from site specific brain activity before one being recorded was aware she was intending that response.

You can't use activity you do not understand or know how it arose to make claims about consciousness.

You are ahead of time saying consciousness can cause no activity.

So when you see activity you never see it as an aspect of consciousness.

Nothing but a lot of self fulfilling prophesies.

Not knowledge.

 

[fromderinside]

Didn't read it did you. Glass house and all that. Read the article. Examine the procedures. Then, and only then, untermenche comment how your superior knowledge is sooooo far above that of Jon Dylan Haynes and his research team.

 

[DBT]

So I said one thing and you interpret what I said in a completely different way. A way that suits your own agenda but bears no relationship to what I actually said.

Now please pay attention, read carefully, take off your blinkers.

Here is what I actually said on the issue of your fMRI images;

I quote;
''Another of my comments being that [your] static fMRI pictures of the brain, as you present, cannot be related to anything because we the readers do not have access to the context, the lab, the subject, or the experiment being performed....''

Do try to grow up, Mr Untermensche, and stop playing childish games.

That's a PET scan, not fMRI.

It's hard to tell at a glance (not being that interested in your game, your posts or the absurd claims you make ) given the similarity between images.

Not that it makes the slightest difference to what I said, be it PET scans or fMRI or EEG, my point stands....as I said several times, I don't have access to the experiments, the subjects being tested or the real time imagery, be it EEG, PET or fMRI, therefore I can't comment on the context of any image you care to post, or what the depicted brain activity may be related to other than which region appears to be active. That is an example of your strawman and your childish game playing.

You merely ape the conclusions of others.

No, I am merely referring to the state of the research as expressed by the researchers themselves talking about their experiments and results.

You on the other hand are merely offering your own opinion regardless of the evidence, research or what the researchers are saying

And then acting like a brat whenever someone points out your fallacies.


For example; Brain Imaging Techniques and Their Applications in Decision-Making Research

Abstract
''Advanced noninvasive neuroimaging techniques such as EEG and fMRI allow researchers to directly observe brain activities while subjects perform various perceptual, motor, and/or cognitive tasks. By combining functional brain imaging with sophisticated experimental designs and data analysis methods, functions of brain regions and their interactions can be examined. A nascent field called neuroeconomics has recently emerged as a result of the enormous success of applications of functional brain imaging techniques in the study of human decision-making. In this article, we first provide an overview of brain imaging techniques, focusing on the recent developments in multivariate analysis and multi-modal data integration. We then present several studies on risky decision making, intertemporal choice, and social decision making, to illustrate how neuroimaging techniques can be used to advance our knowledge on decision making. Finally, we discuss challenges and future directions in neuroeconomics.''

 

[untermensche]

Didn't read it did you. Glass house and all that. Read the article. Examine the procedures. Then, and only then, untermenche comment how your superior knowledge is sooooo far above that of Jon Dylan Haynes and his research team.

I know how the trick is done.

But a lot of hoops have to be jumped through to get any kind of results.

It is an elaborate trick.

Not an explanation of any kind of brain activity.

 

[fromderinside]

I asked you to read the article so you couold recite how the trick is done, the hoops that need be jumped through, then explain how it is an elaborate trick and why it is not an explanation of any kind of brain activity or go home.

Obviously you are going home.

 

[untermensche]

I asked you to read the article so you couold recite how the trick is done, the hoops that need be jumped through, then explain how it is an elaborate trick and why it is not an explanation of any kind of brain activity or go home.

Obviously you are going home.

If a person is forced to either use their left hand or right you can get enough space between preparatory activity in the brain to know which hand a person wants to use. This just reflects that after a lifetime of moving our patterns and choices become somewhat stereotypical.

But in these studies if the subject is allowed to not move at the last instant by their own "will" no researcher can predict that.

 

[George S]

I asked you to read the article so you couold recite how the trick is done, the hoops that need be jumped through, then explain how it is an elaborate trick and why it is not an explanation of any kind of brain activity or go home.

Obviously you are going home.

If a person is forced to either use their left hand or right you can get enough space between preparatory activity in the brain to know which hand a person wants to use. This just reflects that after a lifetime of moving our patterns and choices become somewhat stereotypical.

But in these studies if the subject is allowed to not move at the last instant by their own "will" no researcher can predict that.

Please show the research that shows that last-second decisions are not predictable. It was my understanding that the action potentials precede the conscious awareness of the decision.

A quick Bing search found: http://exploringthemind.com/the-min...al-your-decisions-7-seconds-before-you-decide

In a kind of spooky experiment, scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences reveal that our decisions are made seconds before we become aware of them.
In the study, participants could freely decide if they wanted to press a button with their right or left hand.
The only condition was that they had to remember when they made the decision to either use their right hand or left hand.
Using fMRI, researchers would scan the brains of the participants while all of this was going on in order to find out if they could in fact predict which hand the participants would use BEFORE they were consciously aware of the decision.

The Results

Show

By monitoring the micro patterns of activity in the frontopolar cortex, the researchers could predict which hand the participant would choose 7 SECONDS before the participant was aware of the decision.
“Your decisions are strongly prepared by brain activity. By the time consciousness kicks in, most of the work has already been done,” said study co-author John-Dylan Haynes, a Max Planck Institute neuroscientist.
I don’t even know where to begin here! I know from the hypnosis research that the unconscious pretty much controls everything and that consciousness is extremely limited.
But, I do find it a bit disconcerting that decisions are made by unconscious me 7 seconds before conscious me…
I am not the only one.

 

[untermensche]

In early 2016, PNAS published a paper by researchers in Berlin, Germany, The point of no return in vetoing self-initiated movements, in which the authors set out to investigate whether human subjects had the ability to veto an action (in this study, a movement of the foot) after the detection of its Bereitschaftspotential (BP).[58] The Bereitschaftspotential, which was discovered by Kornhuber & Deecke in 1965,[27] is an instance of unconscious electrical activity within the motor cortex, quantified by the use of EEG, that occurs moments before a motion is performed by a person: it is considered a signal that the brain is "getting ready" to perform the motion. The study found evidence that these actions can be vetoed even after the BP is detected (i. e. after it can be seen that the brain has started preparing for the action). The researchers maintain this is evidence for the existence of at least some degree of free will in humans:[59] previously, it had been argued[60] that, given the unconscious nature of the BP and its usefulness in predicting a person's movement, these are movements that are initiated by the brain without the involvement of the conscious will of the person.[61][62] The study showed that subjects were able to "override" these signals and stop short of performing the movement that was being anticipated by the BP. Furthermore, researchers identified what was termed a "point of no return": once the BP is detected for a movement, the person could refrain from performing the movement only if they attempted to cancel it 200 milliseconds or longer before the onset of the movement. After this point, the person was unable to avoid performing the movement. Previously, Kornhuber & Deecke underlined that absence of conscious will during the early Bereitschaftspotential (termed BP1) is not a proof of the non-existence of free will, as also unconscious agendas may be free and non-deterministic. According to their suggestion, man has relative freedom, i.e. freedom in degrees, that can be in- or decreased through deliberate choices that involve both conscious and unconscious (panencephalic) processes.[63]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will

 

[George S]

In early 2016, PNAS published a paper by researchers in Berlin, Germany, The point of no return in vetoing self-initiated movements, in which the authors set out to investigate whether human subjects had the ability to veto an action (in this study, a movement of the foot) after the detection of its Bereitschaftspotential (BP).[58] The Bereitschaftspotential, which was discovered by Kornhuber & Deecke in 1965,[27] is an instance of unconscious electrical activity within the motor cortex, quantified by the use of EEG, that occurs moments before a motion is performed by a person: it is considered a signal that the brain is "getting ready" to perform the motion. The study found evidence that these actions can be vetoed even after the BP is detected (i. e. after it can be seen that the brain has started preparing for the action). The researchers maintain this is evidence for the existence of at least some degree of free will in humans:[59] previously, it had been argued[60] that, given the unconscious nature of the BP and its usefulness in predicting a person's movement, these are movements that are initiated by the brain without the involvement of the conscious will of the person.[61][62] The study showed that subjects were able to "override" these signals and stop short of performing the movement that was being anticipated by the BP. Furthermore, researchers identified what was termed a "point of no return": once the BP is detected for a movement, the person could refrain from performing the movement only if they attempted to cancel it 200 milliseconds or longer before the onset of the movement. After this point, the person was unable to avoid performing the movement. Previously, Kornhuber & Deecke underlined that absence of conscious will during the early Bereitschaftspotential (termed BP1) is not a proof of the non-existence of free will, as also unconscious agendas may be free and non-deterministic. According to their suggestion, man has relative freedom, i.e. freedom in degrees, that can be in- or decreased through deliberate choices that involve both conscious and unconscious (panencephalic) processes.[63]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will

Thanks! That 1965 research is replaced by the 2010 research I referenced. You are out of date.

 

[untermensche]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will

Thanks! That 1965 research is replaced by the 2010 research I referenced. You are out of date.

The issue is predictability within the window that veto is possible.

Do you know how short a period of time we are talking about?

Yes, once the signal from the will to move has been given you cannot take it back.

 

[fromderinside]

My view is there are behavioral possibilities being processed all the time many competing for control or advantage in decision process. Several are at various stages of preparation at any given time. The one chosen often is not the one most likely up to the point of no return which may vary depending on the value changes at the last movement. In any case every one is prepped prior to execution responding to each of its drivers from past activity. No veto anywhere, just computations in likelihood processes.

If you've ever watched a moth or a butterfly in flight you'd know what I write is correct.

 

[bilby]

If a person is forced to either use their left hand or right you can get enough space between preparatory activity in the brain to know which hand a person wants to use. This just reflects that after a lifetime of moving our patterns and choices become somewhat stereotypical.

But in these studies if the subject is allowed to not move at the last instant by their own "will" no researcher can predict that.

Please show the research that shows that last-second decisions are not predictable. It was my understanding that the action potentials precede the conscious awareness of the decision.

A quick Bing search found: http://exploringthemind.com/the-min...al-your-decisions-7-seconds-before-you-decide

In a kind of spooky experiment, scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences reveal that our decisions are made seconds before we become aware of them.
In the study, participants could freely decide if they wanted to press a button with their right or left hand.
The only condition was that they had to remember when they made the decision to either use their right hand or left hand.
Using fMRI, researchers would scan the brains of the participants while all of this was going on in order to find out if they could in fact predict which hand the participants would use BEFORE they were consciously aware of the decision.

The Results

Show

By monitoring the micro patterns of activity in the frontopolar cortex, the researchers could predict which hand the participant would choose 7 SECONDS before the participant was aware of the decision.
“Your decisions are strongly prepared by brain activity. By the time consciousness kicks in, most of the work has already been done,” said study co-author John-Dylan Haynes, a Max Planck Institute neuroscientist.
I don’t even know where to begin here! I know from the hypnosis research that the unconscious pretty much controls everything and that consciousness is extremely limited.
But, I do find it a bit disconcerting that decisions are made by unconscious me 7 seconds before conscious me…
I am not the only one.

That's completely incredible, and I am finding it very hard to accept, and not a little uncomfortable to imagine.

Show

I had no idea that people actually used Bing for searches.