Consciousness

[DBT]

You don't seem to understand.

If the claim is that some activity results in consciousness then an understanding involves talking about the nature of specific activity.

Not the location of activity that is not understood.

You keep making the same logical error over and over like a broken record.

You are claiming that knowing where activity occurs is understanding the nature of the activity.

Nonsense.

That's like saying that knowing the moon appears to move across the sky is understanding the nature of gravity.

Which still misses the point that something is understood about consciousness, vision, hearing, touch, smell, thoughts, feelings, etc, in relation to brain structures, eyes, ears, visual cortex, auditory cortex activity, etc, its disruptions, pathologies, flaws and faults, how to alter conscious activity or turn it off. Your claim that nothing is known is patently false.

 

[fromderinside]

Yes, the brain takes activity from many places and makes something whole out of it

I don't think anybody is assuming the brain is only doing one thing. It is doing a lot of things at once. Consciousness only being one of them.

Mostly in terms of consciousness is the visual experience. This takes up a lot of brain activity.

But consciousness is not aware of any of this activity. It is only aware of the product of the activity. The visual experience.

So the question is: Which activity in the brain is consciousness and which is not?

On that topic we know nothing.

Thing thinking. As for one thing at a time you are doing that for your view of consciousness.

You are aware of what you are looking at. You are aware of the field eye search has accumulated. you are aware of your verticality. you are aware of the sounds on which you are focusing and the sounds from which the sounds your are focusing emanate. You are aware of all that is touching you, the wind, the heat of the sun, the water on your hand.

Yet, you are not aware that the sounds of which you are aware are out of order, the verticality of which you are aware isn't actually vertical, the visual events going on now of which you have processed of which contradicts that which you eyes are now looking upon, the false step you are about to take which you have processed but which you are unaware.

Sampling some of what has been processed and of which you have been or are aware while not being aware of other things you have processes which are important to you. All these signs suggest feelings are wave like, like one set of stone causes ripples are preferred over others because of whim. I'm saying consciousness is like that. You are feeling consistently along a single line in the theater about and within you and you are calling it consciousness. It's not that consciousness is unaware of all this.

Both scenarios are present, that consciousness has been deceived and that consciousness follows feelings rather than observations or sense data.

Decisions were made. Sense data was misinterpreted in favor of pattern and context. A twig break is more important than is a call so it is placed first. A movement to the side is more important than the statue before you so you turn your head. These are things that demand attention and consideration necessarily placed before things of interest. They are colored with potential danger, a fear feeling rather than good, comfort, satiety feeling.

It is from feeling that consciousness arises. Consciousness does not result from the passing though a particular prefrontal structure of certain information.

Consciousness is determined. Consciousness arises as the result of feelings referenced by what one is doing which in turn is referenced by what one has decided or been enticed precious to current consciousness feelings.

Is it any wonder that vision and tale dominate consciousness. We are continuously generating narratives, plans of action, which serve as both producers and recruiters of particular brain activity reference and color. Consciousness is not a guide. It is a reflection of feeling referencing arenas of sensory context, it is a fiction created as context, reason, for doing and being.

 

[untermensche]

You don't seem to understand.

If the claim is that some activity results in consciousness then an understanding involves talking about the nature of specific activity.

Not the location of activity that is not understood.

You keep making the same logical error over and over like a broken record.

You are claiming that knowing where activity occurs is understanding the nature of the activity.

Nonsense.

That's like saying that knowing the moon appears to move across the sky is understanding the nature of gravity.

Which still misses the point that something is understood about consciousness, vision, hearing, touch, smell, thoughts, feelings, etc, in relation to brain structures, eyes, ears, visual cortex, auditory cortex activity, etc, its disruptions, pathologies, flaws and faults, how to alter conscious activity or turn it off. Your claim that nothing is known is patently false.

Nothing is known about how the activity in cells becomes consciousness.

NOTHING.

Yes, there are some things known about the senses, but our knowledge does not extend to understanding how the brain turns sensory input into a conscious experience.

Not one aspect of the generation of conscious experience is understood. The only understanding of consciousness in any study are subjective reports.

But that is something everybody knows about already.

 

[fromderinside]

Putting the discussion about reptile consciousness aside, I'm fairly confident with the likelihood that receiving information from various cortex and thalami integration centers puts the genesis of consciousness where Crick put it, in locations where there are psychotropic substance receptors.*

*^{_{Written this way to force you to refer to articles I referenced.}}

 

[untermensche]

Putting the discussion about reptile consciousness aside, I'm fairly confident with the likelihood that receiving information from various cortex and thalami integration centers puts the genesis of consciousness where Crick put it, in locations where there are psychotropic substance receptors.*

*^{_{Written this way to force you to refer to articles I referenced.}}

I think he is wrong.

I see consciousness in humans as a more modern layer of control over these primitive "centers", whatever a "center" is. But in times of perceived threat these primitive centers can exert greater control.

The human is "tamed" and is something different.

Just as a "tamed" dog is something different.

 

[untermensche]

You are aware of what you are looking at. You are aware of the field eye search has accumulated. you are aware of your verticality. you are aware of the sounds on which you are focusing and the sounds from which the sounds your are focusing emanate. You are aware of all that is touching you, the wind, the heat of the sun, the water on your hand.

Yet, you are not aware that the sounds of which you are aware are out of order, the verticality of which you are aware isn't actually vertical, the visual events going on now of which you have processed of which contradicts that which you eyes are now looking upon, the false step you are about to take which you have processed but which you are unaware.

The question is why are you aware of some finished product if you can't act on that experience?

Having something aware of anything the brain is doing, even finished products, is a redundancy if the brain is doing everything.

If the brain can transform some activity into a finished product it understands the activity. It has to or it couldn't turn it into something else.

If the brain already understands the activity it can act on it. There is no reason to turn it into a finished product for some consciousness to be aware of.

 

[fromderinside]

Re: your first response to FDI

^_.

Just as a "tamed" dog is something different.

Whose obedient robot is our human then? "Look out! Too late." Now there's a fair view of consciousness.


Re:your second response to FDI

The question is why are you aware of some finished product if you can't act on that experience?

Having something aware of anything the brain is doing, even finished products, is a redundancy if the brain is doing everything.

If the brain can transform some activity into a finished product it understands the activity. It has to or it couldn't turn it into something else.

If the brain already understands the activity it can act on it. There is no reason to turn it into a finished product for some consciousness to be aware of.

Connections between awareness and action are all about. It's that affect we use to justify what we do that is consciousness. From being aware of seeing a token to responding that we have seen the token appropriately are the stuff of psycho=physics and sensory processing, off attention and of awareness, of which transmitters impact all of these known pathways and structures. So awareness-action are not done, but, fairly well defined work. That little bastard of which you often chime we know nothing is only that if it is put between aware and action as a causal agency which it surely is not.

the brain is doing everything. it's our fixation that we are causal agents acting with free will that is the Poloniius of Hamlet. Not funny, ha ha. It's why I've been tracing out a narrative of feeling, impression, called consciousness with knowledge of all the tools, but, just there to justify itself and the person's actions for the most part. We are material thing, machines, not of some superior intelligence who deemed us to have will and freedom, nor even some romantic noble presence waiting for the final tragic scene.

The consciousness of which you speak is some finished history very favorable to it's author, but, not reality, a decider, architect, or promoter. It is merely the the echo of the the human voice on the stage the visual system has written standing tall.

 

[fromderinside]

-deleted -

Refer to post above.

 

[DBT]

Which still misses the point that something is understood about consciousness, vision, hearing, touch, smell, thoughts, feelings, etc, in relation to brain structures, eyes, ears, visual cortex, auditory cortex activity, etc, its disruptions, pathologies, flaws and faults, how to alter conscious activity or turn it off. Your claim that nothing is known is patently false.

Nothing is known about how the activity in cells becomes consciousness.

NOTHING.

Yes, there are some things known about the senses, but our knowledge does not extend to understanding how the brain turns sensory input into a conscious experience.

Not one aspect of the generation of conscious experience is understood. The only understanding of consciousness in any study are subjective reports.

But that is something everybody knows about already.

You ignore what is understood. You ignore evidence that supports what is understood. You ignore researchers when they describe their experiments, evidence and understanding. You ignore the fact that because something is not understood this doesn't mean that nothing is understood. Then you assert what you yourself presume you know, the autonomy of consciousness, yada, yada. And there lies the absurdity of your position. A position set in granite regardless of its lack of merit.

 

[untermensche]

Whose obedient robot is our human then? "Look out! Too late." Now there's a fair view of consciousness.

I am saying brain development did not end at the reptile.

To tame something is to have more control over it but it is also for the thing tamed to have more control over itself.

Connections between awareness and action are all about.

This is pure behaviorism. It is saying all is reflex even without evidence of any reflex for many things.

To sit and arbitrarily lift your arm as a person may do.

What do we say is the cause of the reflex?

If we cannot point to some specific cause we are doing nothing but speculating.

 

[fromderinside]

I am saying brain development did not end at the reptile.

Did anyone say that? Really? What I read was reptile brain development went in another direction. Even that isn't saying reptiles aren't conscious. It's just saying that possibilities for a feeling of the overall situation must arise differently than in mammals.

To tame something is to have more control over it but it is also for the thing tamed to have more control over itself.

So slavery should be practiced then. Geez.

Connections between awareness and action are all about.

This is pure behaviorism. It is saying all is reflex even without evidence of any reflex for many things.
To sit and arbitrarily lift your arm as a person may do.

What do we say is the cause of the reflex?

If we cannot point to some specific cause we are doing nothing but speculating.

Behaviorism is a school of psychology which adheres to the notion of determinism. It is not an indictment of the observation that all living things must follow deterministic rules. ... and it's not the point of what I said. So many roads so many red herrings drug across them ....

Crabs lift their arms too. I wonder what is their world view? If you're going to say crabs are reflexive then you need to say humans are reflexive. Else everything has consciousness. Look at that wind blowing. I wonder where air's consciousness resides?

When you can show me a unique cause I will show you it's unique effect. Cause is a matter of point of view. I'm talking about a feeling not a material thing which is a point I've been making for some time now. Just because we live in a deterministic world we don't ask where did that breeze come from? We know it's bound up in the mechanics of a thermal dynamic because we've run experiments showing that is true. The lifted arm comes from stimulation of a particular place in the motor cortex which his where effective responses become apparent after all information for the outside world are collated with all the historical information is processed by the human brain before and with that segment of neural tissue. That we are aware, er, conscious of that is another matter all together.

 

[untermensche]

Did anyone say that? Really? What I read was reptile brain development went in another direction. Even that isn't saying reptiles aren't conscious. It's just saying that possibilities for a feeling of the overall situation must arise differently than in mammals.

Good. Then no more talk of reptilian brains and the primitive reflexes that go with them.

To tame something is to have more control over it but it is also for the thing tamed to have more control over itself.

So slavery should be practiced then. Geez.

Are children "free"?

Childhood is a form of slavery for the good of the child, if one is a decent parent. It is not a form of slavery for the good of some master.

Behaviorism is a school of psychology which adheres to the notion of determinism. It is not an indictment of the observation that all living things must follow deterministic rules. ... and it's not the point of what I said. So many roads so many red herrings drug across them ....

You have a way of using a lot of words to say nothing. It is Pure Skinnerism. Pure Behaviorism.

I understand why you don't like Chomsky.

He showed that to be absolute nonsense like 70 years ago.

Crabs lift their arms too.

So? This is not a point of any kind.

This is about what humans report. Not what is just observed.

 

[fromderinside]

You don't make any sense. Mammals demonstrate reflexes , stereotyped behavior, even such as bonding activity and critical periods. What is different about reptiles and mammals are those areas related to what scientists are focusing upon as candidates for consciousness.

Don't hold lack of our inability to communicate with them about why crabs raise arms against their likelihood of consciousness. If you do I'm going to have to reject any spoken or signed language as legitimate testimony about anything. What is apparent is crabs and humans raise arms. Why they do it is anyone's guess.

I see you're still snorting behaviorism and Skinnerism, two very different things, things very different from the analysis of behavior and brain as your Fake News chant. Please note my emphasis on determinism proves true whenever it is empirically examined. Your unprovable statement to the contrary is just an arm wave. Nothing more fake than someone asking another to prove a negative to counter one's own bad analysis.

As for a child being a slave, obviously you have no children. Children are basically helpless for several months after which they exert ever more authority on their environment and familay as they mature. For instance they throw tantrums as toddlers, they intentionally ignore requests, they change as they mature, and they are, as our species proves, beings that develop and mature until they are over thirty. Parents only have responsibility for them until legal age. Parents can't do a thing physically to children in most societies although some do and most get taken down for those acts. Equating childhood parenting realtionship with slavery is most fowl.

Sop having destroyed your points against my statements not even relevant to my points, remains is your task of trying to find some rational as basis of criticism of those points. For instance you still maintain consciousness is a thing rather than an affect as I demonstrated and your counter needs for some rationality around your need to find a suitable cause in point of view.

As I point out stimulation of proper area of motor cortex results in arm raising. Why should anyone then believe it's actual cause is consciousness, given you nor anyone else can locate it or trace it's command from that source through the motor cortex to the arm.

 

[untermensche]

You don't make any sense. Mammals demonstrate reflexes , stereotyped behavior, even such as bonding activity and critical periods. What is different about reptiles and mammals are those areas related to what scientists are focusing upon as candidates for consciousness.

If my thesis is that consciousness is a layer of control over primitive impulses it makes perfect sense. But it is a layer of control that requires experience, education and practice. Most importantly it requires models, other people exerting control.

But if the animal perceives a threat primitive life saving reflexes can become exaggerated and can exert greater control and overpower conscious control.

Don't hold lack of our inability to communicate with them about why crabs raise arms against their likelihood of consciousness. If you do I'm going to have to reject any spoken or signed language as legitimate testimony about anything. What is apparent is crabs and humans raise arms. Why they do it is anyone's guess.

One can tell you that my arm raises at my "will", on my command. The other cannot.

We cannot assume the crab is consciously doing something as we do "something" to raise the arm.

As for a child being a slave, obviously you have no children. Children are basically helpless for several months after which they exert ever more authority on their environment and familay as they mature. For instance they throw tantrums as toddlers, they intentionally ignore requests, they change as they mature, and they are, as our species proves, beings that develop and mature until they are over thirty. Parents only have responsibility for them until legal age. Parents can't do a thing physically to children in most societies although some do and most get taken down for those acts. Equating childhood parenting realtionship with slavery is most fowl.

That children resist their temporary slavery is not evidence it is not slavery.

I specifically said it is a form of slavery for the good of the child. The child is told where they will live, when they will go to bed. They will be forced to go to school and participate.

It is a life of slavery, not freedom.

As I point out stimulation of proper area of motor cortex results in arm raising. Why should anyone then believe it's actual cause is consciousness, given you nor anyone else can locate it or trace it's command from that source through the motor cortex to the arm.

Just because we can apply an artificial external force to the brain and stimulate it into some action that is no reason to think we can't also do it with our minds.

 

[fromderinside]

My turn to be short and sweet:

1. You have no idea whether the crab is able to communicate it intends to raise it's arm. We don't understand how crabs communicate. So you're stuck on that one.

2. Slavery is involuntary and for purposes of others. I child rearing is involuntary and the purpose of child development, even with adult supervision, is self motivated.

 

[untermensche]

My turn to be short and sweet:

1. You have no idea whether the crab is able to communicate it intends to raise it's arm. We don't understand how crabs communicate. So you're stuck on that one.

When you can communicate with the crabs Dr Doolittle you will have a point.

2. Slavery is involuntary and for purposes of others. I child rearing is involuntary and the purpose of child development, even with adult supervision, is self motivated.

Nobody volunteers to be born into some family.

There is always a measure of parental control, not just supervision. Because children do stupid things like walk into traffic.

And a child is the human without much control.

The adult is the human with more.

 

[fromderinside]

As wiill you when you can introduce us to a physical consciousness.

Thank you for saying things are determined. If you can find a consciousness in that please introduce it to us.

 

[untermensche]

As wiill you when you can introduce us to a physical consciousness.

You know that when you will your arm to move you do "something" in your mind to move it.

And you know when you don't do that "something" the arm does not move.

The question is: What exactly are you doing to get that arm to move?

Pretending the brain for some unknown reason just moves it is absurd.

It is a claim that can't be supported with any evidence.

 

[DBT]

It's not 'pretending brain.'' It is brain.

All of the evidence supports that it is brain agency.

No evidence to suggest otherwise.

Your claims have no merit.

You talk about the necessity of testing all concepts but make no effort to test your own concepts and beliefs, instead invoking some magical autonomy to consciousness.

That is shameful.

 

[untermensche]

It's not 'pretending brain.'' It is brain.

All of the evidence supports that it is brain agency.

No evidence to suggest otherwise.

Your claims have no merit.

You talk about the necessity of testing all concepts but make no effort to test your own concepts and beliefs, instead invoking some magical autonomy to consciousness.

That is shameful.

You use words as if they are magic spells.

The term "brain agency" is meaningless.

It is just applying something of consciousness to the brain.

Only consciousness has agency.

The brain works on evolved "programming". It has no idea the external world exists. That is not agency.