Consciousness

[untermensche]

Untermensch -

I don't know anything

Therefore nobody knows anything

Therefore you don't know anything

Therefore what I know is correct.

Since you see valid criticism as this you are clearly a very stupid person.

Hint: Claiming we know absolutely nothing about the generation of consciousness is not claiming we know nothing.

And pointing out how empty the claims are of people who say we do is very important.

But you are too stupid to know what is and isn't important.

You can ape the ideas of others, if somebody teaches you, but you have no ability to form or understand an original idea.

Why don't you go read a book or something and let the people who can actually discuss things originally do it.

 

[fromderinside]

untermenches, your last post was a bad demonstration of Trumpian agilities. When you return to discussion you'll go back on my respond list.

 

[ryan]

For

And there it is again, right on cue.

and

untermenches, your last post was a bad demonstration of Trumpian agilities. When you return to discussion you'll go back on my respond list.

It is correct to say that we don't know how the consciousness emerges. And, we don't know what it is either. That's a lot we don't know.

And I see Untermensche is being more specific about what we don't know like the mystery of conscious generation instead of saying that we know anything about the consciousness like before.

What are you disagreeing with, if you are disagreeing?

 

[George S]

For



and

untermenches, your last post was a bad demonstration of Trumpian agilities. When you return to discussion you'll go back on my respond list.

It is correct to say that we don't know how the consciousness emerges. And, we don't know what it is either. That's a lot we don't know.

And I see Untermensche is being more specific about what we don't know like the mystery of conscious generation instead of saying that we know anything about the consciousness like before.

What are you disagreeing with, if you are disagreeing?

Our untermensche asserted that there must be a separate experiencer to experience the sights and sounds in response to vision and hearing. This is the consciousness. To be conscious is to be that experiencer. Assumes a singular experiencer (in need of proof). It was proposed that that separate experiencer was the pattern of brain activity. And the response is, essentially, experiments be damned. They explain how experience is generated to be presented to the consciousness. And no one knows the experience of being the receiver of experience other than by being conscious.

 

[untermensche]

untermenches, your last post was a bad demonstration of Trumpian agilities. When you return to discussion you'll go back on my respond list.

You can't hide from this by claiming everybody who disagrees with you is Trump-like.

 

[untermensche]

It is correct to say that we don't know how the consciousness emerges. And, we don't know what it is either. That's a lot we don't know.

Yes. Not knowing how the brain produces consciousness means we do not know what it is.

Except as something experienced.

And since we do not even know what it is it is insanity to make claims about what it can and can't do.

All we can say is that when we lift our arm at will we must consciously do "something" to accomplish it.

It never just lifts on its own.

 

[untermensche]

Our untermensche asserted that there must be a separate experiencer to experience the sights and sounds in response to vision and hearing. This is the consciousness. To be conscious is to be that experiencer. Assumes a singular experiencer (in need of proof). It was proposed that that separate experiencer was the pattern of brain activity. And the response is, essentially, experiments be damned. They explain how experience is generated to be presented to the consciousness. And no one knows the experience of being the receiver of experience other than by being conscious.

You cannot experience anything unless you are separated from it.

Experience requires something that can experience AND the things it can experience.

It can't happen any other way.

If all you have are the things that can be experienced but nothing experiencing them you do not have consciousness.

 

[ryan]

It is correct to say that we don't know how the consciousness emerges. And, we don't know what it is either. That's a lot we don't know.

Yes. Not knowing how the brain produces consciousness means we do not know what it is.

Except as something experienced.

And since we do not even know what it is it is insanity to make claims about what it can and can't do.

All we can say is that when we lift our arm at will we must consciously do "something" to accomplish it.

It never just lifts on its own.

Right, but would you agree that we know some things about the consciousness such as its property to allow it to "work with" the body on some level? That is knowledge, however small; it is still knowledge about the consciousness.

 

[untermensche]

Yes. Not knowing how the brain produces consciousness means we do not know what it is.

Except as something experienced.

And since we do not even know what it is it is insanity to make claims about what it can and can't do.

All we can say is that when we lift our arm at will we must consciously do "something" to accomplish it.

It never just lifts on its own.

Right, but would you agree that we know some things about the consciousness such as its property to allow it to "work with" the body on some level? That is knowledge, however small; it is still knowledge about the consciousness.

We know our subjective experience of consciousness. That is all.

If the brain creates consciousness we don't have the slightest idea how it does it.

If consciousness is something made by the brain but we don't have the slightest idea how the brain does it then we don't have the slightest idea what consciousness is.

Knowing how the brain does it is understanding how some kind of activity results in conscious experience.

It is not knowing what part of the brain lights up when somebody is experiencing something.

 

[DBT]

For



and

untermenches, your last post was a bad demonstration of Trumpian agilities. When you return to discussion you'll go back on my respond list.

It is correct to say that we don't know how the consciousness emerges. And, we don't know what it is either. That's a lot we don't know.

And I see Untermensche is being more specific about what we don't know like the mystery of conscious generation instead of saying that we know anything about the consciousness like before.

What are you disagreeing with, if you are disagreeing?

We don't know how the brain forms conscious experience, but it is abundantly clear that it does...for the numerous reasons already given.

Which is not to say that we don't know anything about consciousness. We do. We know how to alter and modify it or switch it off (general anesthetic), stimulate thoughts and feelings using electrical stimulation of various brain regions, etc, we know that our perception of the world is directly related to information gathered by the senses, information that is processed and an internal subjective representation formed....the latter part being the greatest challenge to understand.

The problem with Untermensche's claim being his insistence on the autonomy of consciousness, for which there is no evidence, it being quite clear from what we know, that it is the brain alone that forms consciousness and responds to information received by initiating a related motor response: moving an arm at 'will' or unconsciously whatever the situation demands. the brain forming both the conscious will to ''lift my arm'' and the motor actions, muscle contractions, etc, required for ''lifting my arm''

 

[untermensche]

It is correct to say that we don't know how the consciousness emerges. And, we don't know what it is either. That's a lot we don't know.

And I see Untermensche is being more specific about what we don't know like the mystery of conscious generation instead of saying that we know anything about the consciousness like before.

What are you disagreeing with, if you are disagreeing?

We don't know how the brain forms conscious experience, but it is abundantly clear that it does...for the numerous reasons already given.

Yes in terms of consciousness you can like a caveman point to the brain and grunt "there consciousness".

But that's as much as you can do.

Which means you know absolutely nothing about what consciousness is or could do.

 

[ryan]

Right, but would you agree that we know some things about the consciousness such as its property to allow it to "work with" the body on some level? That is knowledge, however small; it is still knowledge about the consciousness.

We know our subjective experience of consciousness. That is all.

If the brain creates consciousness we don't have the slightest idea how it does it.

If consciousness is something made by the brain but we don't have the slightest idea how the brain does it then we don't have the slightest idea what consciousness is.

That does not follow. We can know some things indirectly without knowing everything about it. The consciousness has the property of correlation with certain functions or processes of matter. That is knowing something about it.

Like everything else, we gain more and more insight into what we are trying to understand. The consciousness is just much harder and thus progress is slower.

 

[DBT]

We don't know how the brain forms conscious experience, but it is abundantly clear that it does...for the numerous reasons already given.

Yes in terms of consciousness you can like a caveman point to the brain and grunt "there consciousness".

But that's as much as you can do.

Which means you know absolutely nothing about what consciousness is or could do.

You continue to respond to your own version of what I said, what you like to imagine I said, which is not what I actually said, so does not relate to what I said.

 

[untermensche]

Yes in terms of consciousness you can like a caveman point to the brain and grunt "there consciousness".

But that's as much as you can do.

Which means you know absolutely nothing about what consciousness is or could do.

You continue to respond to your own version of what I said, what you like to imagine I said, which is not what I actually said, so does not relate to what I said.

I am telling you what you are.

Despite your claims to the contrary.

All you can do is point to the brain like a child points to a cow and proclaim "consciousness there".

That is ALL you have.

A hypothesis.

 

[untermensche]

We know our subjective experience of consciousness. That is all.

If the brain creates consciousness we don't have the slightest idea how it does it.

If consciousness is something made by the brain but we don't have the slightest idea how the brain does it then we don't have the slightest idea what consciousness is.

That does not follow. We can know some things indirectly without knowing everything about it. The consciousness has the property of correlation with certain functions or processes of matter. That is knowing something about it.

Like everything else, we gain more and more insight into what we are trying to understand. The consciousness is just much harder and thus progress is slower.

It most certainly does follow.

If consciousness is merely something generated by the brain then that is what it is, something generated by the brain.

So to claim you know what it is requires showing how it was generated not thinking it is.

If you can't show how it was generated claiming it was generated is an empty claim.

 

[George S]

That does not follow. We can know some things indirectly without knowing everything about it. The consciousness has the property of correlation with certain functions or processes of matter. That is knowing something about it.

Like everything else, we gain more and more insight into what we are trying to understand. The consciousness is just much harder and thus progress is slower.

It most certainly does follow.

If consciousness is merely something generated by the brain then that is what it is, something generated by the brain.

Tautology is tautology. True, that.

So to claim you know what it is requires showing how it was generated not thinking it is.

A conclusion from a tautology. "So ..." {rewording what you said}->>"To claim to know what consciousness is requires showing how it was generated."
As a general pattern it is a clearly not always the case. I claim to know what an automobile is without knowing how it was generated. So what ... makes consciousness so special as to require knowledge of how it is made by the brain and neurology to know what it is.

If you can't show how it was generated claiming it was generated is an empty claim.

And the restatement of the thesis is again asserted.

There is no argument being made here. Merely assertion. One good assertion deserves another, don't you think?

It is not the case that consciousness is supernatural. Anything that occurs (for really, really reals) is the very definition of natural. Anything that affects reality is natural.
Origins are difficult. Compare gravity with consciousness:
Gravity is mysterious. Think about the state of reality with no mass so no gravity and no mass so no energy. This is "nothing." No time for anything to happen. And if that state of nothing ever were to have been the whole of reality it was, apparently, unstable. The uncertainty principle asserts itself. That is time zero. The ultimate beginning, the uncaused cause: instability.
Consciousness arises. I daresay most would agree that a fertilized ovum is unconscious. Then embryology happens and somewhere along the line a similar instability yields consciousness. One infinitesimal moment before which the answer to "is it conscious?" was "no" and in less time than it takes to say that answer it was "yes."

This is the "how" of it. The "who" of it now exists. The "what" of it is consciousness. The "where" of it is somewhere inside the human skin. The "when" is unclear. The first moment of consciousness is not remembered. The "why" is apparent evolutionary advantage for species in our size range.

 

[untermensche]

As a general pattern it is a clearly not always the case. I claim to know what an automobile is without knowing how it was generated. So what ... makes consciousness so special as to require knowledge of how it is made by the brain and neurology to know what it is.

You can claim to know how an internal combustion engine works just by looking at the car?

So we could do an experiment and show people cars and they will be able to tell us how an internal combustion engine works?

The only way to know how an internal combustion works is to know all the parts and know what is happening to cause them to do what they are doing.

In terms of consciousness we don't even know the parts no less understand what is causing them to do what they are doing.

 

[George S]

As a general pattern it is a clearly not always the case. I claim to know what an automobile is without knowing how it was generated. So what ... makes consciousness so special as to require knowledge of how it is made by the brain and neurology to know what it is.

You can claim to know how an internal combustion engine works just by looking at the car?

So we could do an experiment and show people cars and they will be able to tell us how an internal combustion engine works?

The only way to know how an internal combustion works is to know all the parts and know what is happening to cause them to do what they are doing.

In terms of consciousness we don't even know the parts no less understand what is causing them to do what they are doing.

Apparently you did not understand what I wrote.

I did not claim to know how an internal combustion engine works just by looking at a car. This called inventing a straw man. How about a straw child?

You are saying a child cannot know what a chair is good for without knowing how it is made?

So you say a child cannot know what consciousness is for without knowing how it is made?

I paralleled the origin of gravity and reality, of which we can have no knowledge other than "apparently," to the origin of consciousness.

 

[untermensche]

You can claim to know how an internal combustion engine works just by looking at the car?

So we could do an experiment and show people cars and they will be able to tell us how an internal combustion engine works?

The only way to know how an internal combustion works is to know all the parts and know what is happening to cause them to do what they are doing.

In terms of consciousness we don't even know the parts no less understand what is causing them to do what they are doing.

Apparently you did not understand what I wrote.

I did not claim to know how an internal combustion engine works just by looking at a car. This called inventing a straw man. How about a straw child.

You are saying a child cannot know what a chair is good for without knowing how it is made?

So you say a child cannot know what consciousness is for without knowing how it is made?

I paralleled the origin of gravity and reality, of which we can have no knowledge other than "apparently," to the origin of consciousness.

I am saying your argument is nonsense.

An analogy to the brain is my example.

And a chair is not something that has activity below the surface that needs to be explained to explain it.

You simply do not know how to make an analogy that fits the case. I wonder why? Some bias?

 

[George S]

As a general pattern it is a clearly not always the case. I claim to know what an automobile is without knowing how it was generated. So what ... makes consciousness so special as to require knowledge of how it is made by the brain and neurology to know what it is.

You can claim to know how an internal combustion engine works just by looking at the car?

So we could do an experiment and show people cars and they will be able to tell us how an internal combustion engine works?

The only way to know how an internal combustion works is to know all the parts and know what is happening to cause them to do what they are doing.

In terms of consciousness we don't even know the parts no less understand what is causing them to do what they are doing.

Consciousness, whatever it is, arises during embryology.

Awareness of self arises later.

Awareness of willful control of self arises later still.

We know the answers to what, when, where and why. How? Evolution.