Consciousness

[bilby]

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 I am 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.

FTFY.

Your worthless claims grew old long ago.

As you refuse to support your claims, then that's fine; I shall continue to assume that they are the drivel that they appear to be.

If you have any interest in not being wrong any time soon, then you might start by looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursion

 

[untermensche]

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 I am 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.

FTFY.

Your worthless claims grew old long ago.

As you refuse to support your claims, then that's fine; I shall continue to assume that they are the drivel that they appear to be.

I forgot I was dealing with a three year old that takes glee in eating his own shit.

Your analogy is worthless and idiotic.

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

Here is what you have to do to remain relevant here.

Explain how there can be experience without BOTH a thing capable of having experience AND the things it is capable of experiencing.

Explain.

 

[bilby]

FTFY.

Your worthless claims grew old long ago.

As you refuse to support your claims, then that's fine; I shall continue to assume that they are the drivel that they appear to be.

I forgot I was dealing with a three year old that takes glee in eating his own shit.

Your analogy is worthless and idiotic.

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

Here is what you have to do to remain relevant here.

Explain how there can be experience without BOTH a thing capable of having experience AND the things it is capable of experiencing.

Explain.

They can both be the same thing.

 

[untermensche]

I forgot I was dealing with a three year old that takes glee in eating his own shit.

Your analogy is worthless and idiotic.

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

Here is what you have to do to remain relevant here.

Explain how there can be experience without BOTH a thing capable of having experience AND the things it is capable of experiencing.

Explain.

They can both be the same thing.

No they can't.

That is why you have NO argument at all. Once again.

Merely a worthless claim.

 

[bilby]

They can both be the same thing.

No they can't.

Why the fuck not?

I have asked you this again and again, and you have made no attempt to answer. This is fundamental to your claim; You need to answer this question, but you refuse to do so.

That is why you have NO argument at all. Once again.

Merely a worthless claim.

 

[untermensche]

No they can't.

Why the fuck not?

I have asked you this again and again, and you have made no attempt to answer. This is fundamental to your claim; You need to answer this question, but you refuse to do so.

That is why you have NO argument at all. Once again.

Merely a worthless claim.

For there to be experience there must be something that experiences. Certainly you are not so blind to say there can be experience without something that can experience.

Now tell me how there is experience if there is a thing capable of having an experience and nothing else?

And tell me how any experience is not a separate thing from the thing that experiences it?

There is not one bit of logic to your position. You can't and won't defend it with reason.

 

[bilby]

Why the fuck not?

I have asked you this again and again, and you have made no attempt to answer. This is fundamental to your claim; You need to answer this question, but you refuse to do so.

That is why you have NO argument at all. Once again.

Merely a worthless claim.

For there to be experience there must be something that experiences. Certainly you are not so blind to say there can be experience without something that can experience.

I have never made any such suggestion. I have, however, repeatedly pointed out that if the experiencer is experiencing itself, there need not be two entities. And you have repeatedly claimed (and refused to support in any way) that there must be two entities.

Now tell me how there is experience if there is a thing capable of having an experience and nothing else?

No, YOU have a claim to defend. If you can't do it, then man up and admit it; Don't try to reverse the burden of proof.

And tell me how any experience is not a separate thing from the thing that experiences it?

No, YOU tell me how it MUST be a separate thing; or withdraw your claim.

There is not one bit of logic to your position. You can't and won't defend it with reason.

Indeed, you appear to be playing 'logical fallacy bingo'; Perhaps next you could try circular reasoning?

 

[DBT]

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

Another strawman.

The brain is clearly capable of having experiences (only if functional). In fact that is a large part of the role and function of a brain, to form an experience of the external world and self in conscious form.


You continue to misrepresent what posters are actually saying in favour of what you want to believe they are saying.

 

[untermensche]

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

Another strawman.

The brain is clearly capable of having experiences (only if functional). In fact that is a large part of the role and function of a brain, to form an experience of the external world and self in conscious form.

You continue to misrepresent what posters are actually saying in favour of what you want to believe they are saying.

"I" am not the brain.

It is likely "I" am some production of the brain.

So when "I" experience it is me experiencing, not the brain.

The question, that hasn't been answered in thousands of posts and won't be answered in thousands more is: What am "I"?

You saying that "I" and the brain are the same thing is absolute nonsense.

 

[untermensche]

For there to be experience there must be something that experiences. Certainly you are not so blind to say there can be experience without something that can experience.

I have never made any such suggestion. I have, however, repeatedly pointed out that if the experiencer is experiencing itself, there need not be two entities. And you have repeatedly claimed (and refused to support in any way) that there must be two entities.

If it is experiencing anything then it is not "itself".

Because "itself" is a thing that has the ability to experience.

And if a thing that can experience experiences anything then a dichotomy exists between that which is experiencing and that which is experienced.

The concept of experience has within it this inescapable dichotomy.

If there is experience there must be two things.

A thing capable of having an experience.

A thing capable of being an experience.

You cannot escape this with an absurdity that experience is a thing that can experience experiencing a thing that can experience, experiencing itself in other words.

 

[DBT]

Another strawman.

The brain is clearly capable of having experiences (only if functional). In fact that is a large part of the role and function of a brain, to form an experience of the external world and self in conscious form.

You continue to misrepresent what posters are actually saying in favour of what you want to believe they are saying.

"I" am not the brain.

It is likely "I" am some production of the brain.

So when "I" experience it is me experiencing, not the brain.

The question, that hasn't been answered in thousands of posts and won't be answered in thousands more is: What am "I"?

You saying that "I" and the brain are the same thing is absolute nonsense.

Your reasoning is flawed. You being the product of the activity of a brain are not a separate and autonomous entity having your own experiences because both you and 'your' experiences are being shaped, formed and generated by brain activity while it is consciously active, after which it switches both you and 'your' experiences off, you are then asleep.

You saying that "I" and the brain are the same thing is absolute nonsense

There you go again, responding not to what I actually said but what you'd like to believe I said.

 

[untermensche]

Your reasoning is flawed. You being the product of the activity of a brain are not a separate and autonomous entity...

"I" am surely a separate entity.

With a degree of autonomy.

It is "I" that expresses these ideas. Not a brain. The brain is what allows "I" to express things.

It is the tool "I" uses to survive in the world.

 

[DBT]

Your reasoning is flawed. You being the product of the activity of a brain are not a separate and autonomous entity...

"I" am surely a separate entity.

With a degree of autonomy.

It is "I" that expresses these ideas. Not a brain. The brain is what allows "I" to express things.

It is the tool "I" uses to survive in the world.

Completely mistaken. For example, in the moments when you can't recall a name or where you put your keys it's because the neural connections/memory recall was not made in that instance in time (but maybe a few seconds or minutes later). You don't generate your thoughts or feelings, these enter consciousness in response to inputs. You don't will consciousness into being, the brain does that featuring 'you' as an aspect of that activity...nor is awareness of self always present; one may be absorbed in a movie or a book, awareness being focused on the object of interest.

 

[bilby]

I have never made any such suggestion. I have, however, repeatedly pointed out that if the experiencer is experiencing itself, there need not be two entities. And you have repeatedly claimed (and refused to support in any way) that there must be two entities.

If it is experiencing anything then it is not "itself".

Because "itself" is a thing that has the ability to experience.

And if a thing that can experience experiences anything then a dichotomy exists between that which is experiencing and that which is experienced.

The concept of experience has within it this inescapable dichotomy.

If there is experience there must be two things.

A thing capable of having an experience.

A thing capable of being an experience.

You cannot escape this with an absurdity that experience is a thing that can experience experiencing a thing that can experience, experiencing itself in other words.

If there's an absurdity here, why are you unable to demonstrate it?

You claim it's absurd. Why the fuck should anyone take your word for it?

Prove it, or retract it.

 

[fromderinside]

So what are the operations of experience? Could they be the mere existence of shapes on the retina being transmitted as outlines of the entities from which they came. That is to say is there a process one can find that sorts boundaries of shapes into regions enclosing object color or some other uniformity. Could that process be the result of the method of processing itself, the way in which visual information is organized in the brain by edges and enclosures through a process where transitions are emphasized as would be the case with competing information arriving which permits emphasis of edges. Perhaps something like the process of lateral inhibition in neural conduction where edges are emphasized by suppression of non edge processing in favor of edge processing.

Would the above be one of the operations underlying experience? Does there need be anything more than the result of edges being produced by such processing for one to experience the edges, boundaries about an object? Is not defining the process sufficient fro one to call experience?

What I described a living thing by doing what it can do producing boundaries whereby objects can be separated and defined as different from a mish mash of pixels, yet not requiring a consciousness or separate thing to produce that 'experience'. Merely an organizing principle evolved in neural transmission of information from retina to cortex. Not a mind. Not a conscious. Just a groups of cells interacting with another group of cells producing something that can be used for fitness benefit being so used resulting in the being surviving where others who don't have that process don't survive. Having that process encoded in genetic material communicating it from one generation to the next.

Seems a huge waste of thinking to believe there is something underlying that process or those process making up something that thinks about them. Why not just leave things the way they appear. Does the manta need to form a concept to pursue something moving?

 

[untermensche]

"I" am surely a separate entity.

With a degree of autonomy.

It is "I" that expresses these ideas. Not a brain. The brain is what allows "I" to express things.

It is the tool "I" uses to survive in the world.

Completely mistaken. For example, in the moments when you can't recall a name or where you put your keys it's because the neural connections/memory recall was not made in that instance in time (but maybe a few seconds or minutes later). You don't generate your thoughts or feelings, these enter consciousness in response to inputs. You don't will consciousness into being, the brain does that featuring 'you' as an aspect of that activity...nor is awareness of self always present; one may be absorbed in a movie or a book, awareness being focused on the object of interest.

You can't explain what memory is or how we use our will to remember things.

You have no idea how any of that occurs.

All we know is that when we want to remember a name we so "something" in our mind and many times the name comes to us.

The same as when we move our arm at will.

Your assurances that we don't move or remember at will are hollow unsupported absurdities.

 

[untermensche]

If it is experiencing anything then it is not "itself".

Because "itself" is a thing that has the ability to experience.

And if a thing that can experience experiences anything then a dichotomy exists between that which is experiencing and that which is experienced.

The concept of experience has within it this inescapable dichotomy.

If there is experience there must be two things.

A thing capable of having an experience.

A thing capable of being an experience.

You cannot escape this with an absurdity that experience is a thing that can experience experiencing a thing that can experience, experiencing itself in other words.

If there's an absurdity here, why are you unable to demonstrate it?

You claim it's absurd. Why the fuck should anyone take your word for it?

Prove it, or retract it.

Your inability to understand something, again, is no reason to retract anything.

To have experience requires a thing that can experience AND the things it can experience. TWO things are required.

There is no other way.

Which is why you can't give any explanation for another way that makes any sense.

If one thing is aware of another you have two things. If there is awareness you need two things.

If something is aware of some part of itself then the thing and the part are two things.

You are such a waste of time. Just a random idiot they let in here.

 

[untermensche]

So what are the operations of experience?

First you need operations creating something capable of experiencing.

Then you need operations creating the things that can be experienced.

Then you need operations to inform one of the other.

 

[George S]

Your reasoning is flawed. You being the product of the activity of a brain are not a separate and autonomous entity...

"I" am surely a separate entity.

With a degree of autonomy.

It is "I" that expresses these ideas. Not a brain. The brain is what allows "I" to express things.

It is the tool "I" uses to survive in the world.

There are two of "I" -- me and my body. So intertwined that the body's desires are my desires. I hunger, I thirst, I need to sleep. My body's pain is my pain. Before the operation that bit of flesh was part of me; now those cells with my body's DNA are not me. I am one -- a body-mind.
My point of view is literally from these eyes. In the middle of a head I cannot see. My eyes on my face are not seen by me.

That "I" you speak of is character in a story imagined by a brain. "I" am imagined into existence by a brain -- my brain. A character imrovising lines on the stage of shared reality? No, "I" write my lines as "I" decide, improvising lines for that body-mine to act out in reality.

 

[untermensche]

"I" am surely a separate entity.

With a degree of autonomy.

It is "I" that expresses these ideas. Not a brain. The brain is what allows "I" to express things.

It is the tool "I" uses to survive in the world.

There are two of "I" -- me and my body. So intertwined that the body's desires are my desires. I hunger, I thirst, I need to sleep. My body's pain is my pain. Before the operation that bit of flesh was part of me; now those cells with my body's DNA are not me. I am one -- a body-mind.
My point of view is literally from these eyes. In the middle of a head I cannot see. My eyes on my face are not seen by me.

That "I" you speak of is character in a story imagined by a brain. "I" am imagined into existence by a brain -- my brain. A character imrovising lines on the stage of shared reality? No, "I" write my lines as "I" decide, improvising lines for that body-mine to act out in reality.

I think there is just one "I".

The thing that has some control over the body.

The thing aware of the pain of the body.

When they put this "I" to sleep with propofol they can cut the body open and operate on it. For hours. If the "I" is not aware of pain then no pain exists.