Consciousness

[fromderinside]

What believers call conscious is mainly articulating rehearsal visual memory. Kind of being in a scene and talking to yourself.

Live with it. You're losing both arguments.

 

[untermensche]

What believers call conscious is mainly articulating rehearsal visual memory. Kind of being in a scene and talking to yourself.

Live with it. You're losing both arguments.

What the deluded say about consciousness is they somehow understand every aspect of it by simply mentioning one of countless things it does.

 

[untermensche]

What believers call conscious is mainly articulating rehearsal visual memory. Kind of being in a scene and talking to yourself.

What is interesting about this though, and I do not doubt it happens, is it supports Chomsky's hypothesis that language first arrived as "self talk" and the verbal expression part is just a crude add on made capable by the fact that humans or their ancestors were already making sounds that were not language but fairly complicated.

 

[DBT]

Consciousness is not memory.

Consciousness has access to memory.

Memory function is woven into the 'fabric' of consciousness. Without memory enabling recognition there is no consciousness as we experience it. Only incomprehensible sensation that's cannot be remembered or understood by the subject/patient.

You should at least know that much by now.

 

[untermensche]

Consciousness is not memory.

Consciousness has access to memory.

Memory function is woven into the 'fabric' of consciousness. Without memory enabling recognition there is no consciousness as we experience it. Only incomprehensible sensation that's cannot be remembered or understood by the subject/patient.

You should at least know that much by now.

Memory is interwoven into consciousness.

Olfaction is interwoven into consciousness.

Proprioception is interwoven into consciousness.

Consciousness is that thing with access to all of this. The brain connects consciousness to these experiences.

But consciousness experiences these things. It is not these things.

Consciousness is that which experiences. And it is possible to experience without memory.

 

[fromderinside]

What believers call conscious is mainly articulating rehearsal visual memory. Kind of being in a scene and talking to yourself.

What is interesting about this though, and I do not doubt it happens, is it supports Chomsky's hypothesis that language first arrived as "self talk" and the verbal expression part is just a crude add on made capable by the fact that humans or their ancestors were already making sounds that were not language but fairly complicated.

s.t.r.e.t.c.h. Rehearsal going on before, during, and after performance, especially during performance. What does one say when one has speech and no language? Why he practices various ways for making what he want's to say in a form that communicates to the other. Like a baby trying out her ability with making sound to repeat what has already been said by the other. Ah, those delicious little mirror cells.

 

[untermensche]

What is interesting about this though, and I do not doubt it happens, is it supports Chomsky's hypothesis that language first arrived as "self talk" and the verbal expression part is just a crude add on made capable by the fact that humans or their ancestors were already making sounds that were not language but fairly complicated.

s.t.r.e.t.c.h. Rehearsal going on before, during, and after performance, especially during performance. What does one say when one has speech and no language? Why he practices various ways for making what he want's to say in a form that communicates to the other. Like a baby trying out her ability with making sound to repeat what has already been said by the other. Ah, those delicious little mirror cells.

No stretch.

We can plan and we can learn and we can remember without words.

Language is first a thinking ability.

The thinking is needed first to be able to comprehend something like a sentence.

 

[DBT]

Memory function is woven into the 'fabric' of consciousness. Without memory enabling recognition there is no consciousness as we experience it. Only incomprehensible sensation that's cannot be remembered or understood by the subject/patient.

You should at least know that much by now.

Memory is interwoven into consciousness.

Olfaction is interwoven into consciousness.

Proprioception is interwoven into consciousness.

Consciousness is that thing with access to all of this. The brain connects consciousness to these experiences.

But consciousness experiences these things. It is not these things.

Consciousness is that which experiences. And it is possible to experience without memory.

Consciousness is not separate to these things. It is composed of these attributes, features, abilities and limitations. When memory is lost, it all falls apart. Memory is the enabler of consciousness, of being aware, of recognition and understanding, without it, all is lost to meaningless sensation.

You should at least understand that much.

Consciousness is that which experiences. And it is possible to experience without memory.

Completely and utterly wrong. Consciousness is the experience. There is no experience without the information content that consciousness is composed of.

And it is possible to experience without memory.

Only as an unrecognized sensation that is not understood by the patient. That is the point. That being what I said....which is not consciousness as 'you' experience it to be (consciousness itself being the experience).

 

[untermensche]

Memory is interwoven into consciousness.

Olfaction is interwoven into consciousness.

Proprioception is interwoven into consciousness.

Consciousness is that thing with access to all of this. The brain connects consciousness to these experiences.

But consciousness experiences these things. It is not these things.

Consciousness is that which experiences. And it is possible to experience without memory.

Consciousness is not separate to these things.

It sure is.

Consciousness is that which experiences all things.

To experience something you have to be separated from it in some way.

It is "I" that experiences memory and "I" that can bring some memories to the surface with my will.

When we try to remember a name, just like moving the arm, we do "something" in our mind to initiate the process.

Completely and utterly wrong. Consciousness is the experience. There is no experience without the information content that consciousness is composed of.

Absolute nonsense.

Experience consists in BOTH that which is capable of experience AND the things it can possibly experience.

You cannot have experience without both.

You cannot just have the things experienced. How are they experienced? What are they experienced by?

You cannot just have some free floating experience.

You need something capable of having experience as well.

You could not be more lost or talking more irrationally.

But it is good your ignorance comes to light like this. It shows why you are talking nonsense. You don't even know what you are looking for.

 

[untermensche]

Is there actually somebody who believes you can have experiences without something capable of having them?

 

[fromderinside]

We can plan and we can learn and we can remember without words.

Language is first a thinking ability.

The thinking is needed first to be able to comprehend something like a sentence.

The way you put it 'remember without words'. Its as if you were looking up sort of language structured retrieval system. Needn't be the case you know. Chemical similarity or neural path similarity are sufficient. So language need not be there beyond physical attribute like chemical structure or repeated stimulation or compatible, mirror, cells. Managing choices leads naturally to sorting donchano. Then there's that damnable popping up of language capabilities among different taxa getting in the way of some sudden encompassing capability revolution.

Sentences? You do understand how neonates arrive at language don't you? It's an iterative developmental process where things like object, self, reference are worked out over time through what appears to be something like trial and error. Of course that's compounded with getting sounds right. Kind of a broad brush of how sorting becomes a thing.

Have you ever watched a cat faced with a choice? Obvious processing going on then a decision and an execution without much evidence of short term memory consolidation because the same choice leads to the same pattern later over the same time frame.

Contiguous and remembered patterns in humans are much different you say. Of course. Humans have integrated long term, short term, and processing memories as a package which facilities the obvious thinking going on in such as deer, chickens, and cats along with various steps in continuous processing capabilities leading to that of advanced three dimensional processing birds, predatory, arboreal and sea going mammals, along with man.

 

[bilby]

Is there actually somebody who believes you can have experiences without something capable of having them?

There is no evidence of such a person here; And I for one would be quite surprised if there was such a 'somebody' amongst the posters in this thread.

Is there actually any reason whatsoever to accept your extraordinary claim that "To experience something you have to be separated from it in some way"?

Because that sounds to me like it is both:
A) Absolutely central to your position on this subject; and
B) Total bollocks

Which could be the reason why everyone else here thinks your position is fucking nuts. (Although it does go some way towards explaining your apparent total lack of self awareness, which would be a necessary result were your claim to be true).

 

[untermensche]

Is there actually somebody who believes you can have experiences without something capable of having them?

There is no evidence of such a person here; And I for one would be quite surprised if there was such a 'somebody' amongst the posters in this thread.

Is there actually any reason whatsoever to accept your extraordinary claim that "To experience something you have to be separated from it in some way"?

Because that sounds to me like it is both:
A) Absolutely central to your position on this subject; and
B) Total bollocks

Which could be the reason why everyone else here thinks your position is fucking nuts. (Although it does go some way towards explaining your apparent total lack of self awareness, which would be a necessary result were your claim to be true).

Explain how there is experience without BOTH something capable of experiencing AND the things it is capable of experiencing?

That which experiences is not that which it experiences and that which is experienced is not that which experiences it.

How is there experience without this separation?

Explain. Explain ONE thing for once.

 

[untermensche]

We can plan and we can learn and we can remember without words.

Language is first a thinking ability.

The thinking is needed first to be able to comprehend something like a sentence.

The way you put it 'remember without words'. Its as if you were looking up sort of language structured retrieval system. Needn't be the case you know. Chemical similarity or neural path similarity are sufficient. So language need not be there beyond physical attribute like chemical structure or repeated stimulation or compatible, mirror, cells. Managing choices leads naturally to sorting donchano. Then there's that damnable popping up of language capabilities among different taxa getting in the way of some sudden encompassing capability revolution.

Not observed language. Maybe some bad understanding of what language is and blindness to the ways in which it is universal.

Sentences? You do understand how neonates arrive at language don't you? It's an iterative developmental process where things like object, self, reference are worked out over time through what appears to be something like trial and error. Of course that's compounded with getting sounds right. Kind of a broad brush of how sorting becomes a thing.

Language grows in the individual through exposure without effort.

Like the visual system you need exposure for the language system to develop fully.

And understanding sentence structure is innate not learned.

If it were merely something learned we would not see the universalities in sentence structures across the entire species.

Have you ever watched a cat faced with a choice? Obvious processing going on then a decision and an execution without much evidence of short term memory consolidation because the same choice leads to the same pattern later over the same time frame.

I agree. Cats think and plan without language. And they initiate movement based on their mental plans. Language is not necessary for that.

 

[bilby]

There is no evidence of such a person here; And I for one would be quite surprised if there was such a 'somebody' amongst the posters in this thread.

Is there actually any reason whatsoever to accept your extraordinary claim that "To experience something you have to be separated from it in some way"?

Because that sounds to me like it is both:
A) Absolutely central to your position on this subject; and
B) Total bollocks

Which could be the reason why everyone else here thinks your position is fucking nuts. (Although it does go some way towards explaining your apparent total lack of self awareness, which would be a necessary result were your claim to be true).

Explain how there is experience without BOTH something capable of experiencing AND the things it is capable of experiencing?

I don't claim that there is.

That which experiences is not that which it experiences and that which is experienced is not that which experiences it.

It MIGHT not be; but your claim that it MUST not be is totally unsupported, and is the source of your error.

How is there experience without this separation?

Why shouldn't there be? Why can't something experience itself?

Explain. Explain ONE thing for once.

Understand. Try to understand ONE thing for once.

Consider the possibility that your assumptions might be wrong; That way you stand a small chance of actually learning something.

You are making a claim: "To experience something you have to be separated from it in some way". You appear to think that this is obviously true - so obviously true that you need not demonstrate its truth. I disagree; I think it is quite possibly false in the context of consciousness - that consciousness might well be the brain experiencing itself. IF you care about persuading anyone other than yourself, THEN you need to show reasons to believe that your claim is true. That YOU think it is obvious simply doesn't cut it.

 

[untermensche]

Explain how there is experience without BOTH something capable of experiencing AND the things it is capable of experiencing?

I don't claim that there is.

Fine. Then you are saying TWO things are necessary. Not one.

If you have TWO things and not one then of course there is a separation.

Your "ideas" are very bad on this.

 

[bilby]

I don't claim that there is.

Fine. Then you are saying TWO things are necessary. Not one.

If you have TWO things and not one then of course there is a separation.

Your "ideas" are very bad on this.

You really cannot be this stupid, can you?

Read the whole of my post:

Explain how there is experience without BOTH something capable of experiencing AND the things it is capable of experiencing?

I don't claim that there is.

That which experiences is not that which it experiences and that which is experienced is not that which experiences it.

It MIGHT not be; but your claim that it MUST not be is totally unsupported, and is the source of your error.

How is there experience without this separation?

Why shouldn't there be? Why can't something experience itself?

Explain. Explain ONE thing for once.

Understand. Try to understand ONE thing for once.

Consider the possibility that your assumptions might be wrong; That way you stand a small chance of actually learning something.

You are making a claim: "To experience something you have to be separated from it in some way". You appear to think that this is obviously true - so obviously true that you need not demonstrate its truth. I disagree; I think it is quite possibly false in the context of consciousness - that consciousness might well be the brain experiencing itself. IF you care about persuading anyone other than yourself, THEN you need to show reasons to believe that your claim is true. That YOU think it is obvious simply doesn't cut it.

 

[untermensche]

Why can't something experience itself?

Which of the two do you think you can get rid of?

Can you have experience without something that is capable of experiencing things?

Can you have experience without the things that can be experienced?

Just explain how you can have experience and not have BOTH.

Something that is experiencing is not the thing experienced.

A separation MUST exist for there to be experience.

 

[bilby]

Why can't something experience itself?

Which of the two do you think you can get rid of?

Can you have experience without something that is capable of experiencing things?

Can you have experience without the things that can be experienced?

Just explain how you can have experience and not have BOTH.

Something that is experiencing is not the thing experienced.

A separation MUST exist for there to be experience.

WHY NOT?

Prove it.

If a cat moves itself to the corner of the room, do we need two cats: one to be moved to the corner, and the other to do the moving?

Why the fuck do we need two separate entities when a thing is experienced, but not when a thing is moved?

Or do you actually think that there must be two cats?

 

[untermensche]

Prove it.

If a cat moves itself to the corner of the room, do we need two cats: one to be moved to the corner, and the other to do the moving?

Why the fuck do we need two separate entities when a thing is experienced, but not when a thing is moved?

Or do you actually think that there must be two cats?

That's about the worst analogy I have ever heard.

A cat moving is not like a consciousness experiencing in any way.

I don't know where to begin it is so idiotic.

Show me how there can be EXPERIENCE, not movement, not cats shitting on the rug, without both something that experiences AND the things it experiences.

Tell me how there can only be one thing.

Again, explain ONE thing for once.

Your worthless claims grow old.