Consciousness

[untermensche]

If I can move my arm with a thought then a thought is a form of potential energy. An organized "entity" that utilizes the energy extracted from ATP.

At least the thought to move the arm is.

 

[Treedbear]

If I can move my arm with a thought then a thought is a form of potential energy. An organized "entity" that utilizes the energy extracted from ATP.

At least the thought to move the arm is.

I think we are kind of on the same track. We're just using different metaphors for how the brain processes information. And of course it involves the dynamics of potential and kinetic energy in the form or chemical reactions. You see thoughts as similar to entities, while I see concepts as similar to species or individual organisms in an ecosystem. I think mine provides more insight into understanding the brain's functionality. But I'm no expert for sure.

In order to adapt my model to yours I'd need to introduce a hypothetical zookeeper. Or maybe a sheppard to so many sheep. Or better yet a sheppard whistling signals to his dog who figures out how to get the sheep going in the right direction. The dog represents the thought. The sheppard sees the big picture. But what the sheppard represents in this picture I can't imagine without resorting to dualism.

I have a different theory. My hypothesis includes a specialized model the brain creates which we call the self (or the "Self" or "I"). It's unique in obvious ways, since it includes things only we can know and experience on a more continuous and immediate basis than anything else. Most things that the brain interacts with require some kind of reference to the self, and I think this fact must be the key to what we mean by conscious experience. It's anything the brain does that requires this interaction. Given that most processes in the brain are unconscious and might be refered to as the "easy problem", I tend to think that consciousness is simply another one of those interactions between models. The main difference being that one of the models is the all-important self.

 

[George S]

If I can move my arm with a thought then a thought is a form of potential energy. An organized "entity" that utilizes the energy extracted from ATP.

At least the thought to move the arm is.

I think we are kind of on the same track. We're just using different metaphors for how the brain processes information. And of course it involves the dynamics of potential and kinetic energy in the form or chemical reactions. You see thoughts as similar to entities, while I see concepts as similar to species or individual organisms in an ecosystem. I think mine provides more insight into understanding the brain's functionality. But I'm no expert for sure.

In order to adapt my model to yours I'd need to introduce a hypothetical zookeeper. Or maybe a sheppard to so many sheep. Or better yet a sheppard whistling signals to his dog who figures out how to get the sheep going in the right direction. The dog represents the thought. The sheppard sees the big picture. But what the sheppard represents in this picture I can't imagine without resorting to dualism.

I have a different theory. My hypothesis includes a specialized model the brain creates which we call the self (or the "Self" or "I"). It's unique in obvious ways, since it includes things only we can know and experience on a more continuous and immediate basis than anything else. Most things that the brain interacts with require some kind of reference to the self, and I think this fact must be the key to what we mean by conscious experience. It's anything the brain does that requires this interaction. Given that most processes in the brain are unconscious and might be refered to as the "easy problem", I tend to think that consciousness is simply another one of those interactions between models. The main difference being that one of the models is the all-important self.

Exactly.

The metaphor I use is the consciousness as the leader of an unruly union. Sometimes those members just do what they want regardless of what I want. Most of the time they behave. And sometimes I have to justify an action I did not order.

And, well yes, the self is imaginary. It is an idea in mental space as a model of an actor in the world. The world is modeled inside as a worldview.

The past cannot effect us except through memory. Memory of self and worldview is imagined by the brain.
Tomorrow is, as yet (Einstein notwithstanding), an imagined future.
The now is the result of chance and self motivation.

You are the center of the universe. But so is everyone else. Each at the center of an expanding sphere of past events. The further we look the farther back in time we see. Way out there in any direction we find an opaque wall, and just beyond that, time zero. Note that the spheres of time zero of any two of us don't overlap. The time at the center of each sphere goes 1 second per second. Each location in the universe is the center of an expanding sphere of time in 3-space currently 13.8 billion years in radius..
Flip the picture and put time zero in the center of an expanding sphere of 3-space points. Each of us is on the surface of an expanding sphere 13.8 billion light years in radius. Each point is connected to the center by a unique line. It may twist about but no two ever intersect.

You are at the center of a universe. Your singularity.

 

[fromderinside]

Viewer's head explodes on camera.

Now the quibble.

The past cannot effect us except through memory.

Everything you consciously do imposes a load on your physical being of which your nervous system is a part. So your past comes along for the ride whether you desire it to or no.

End of Private Extremely Obvious' comment.

 

[Treedbear]

...
You are at the center of a universe. Your singularity.

Interesting. The cosmic self. I have a more humble analogy. You know those reflective lawn ornaments that sit in the middle of gardens. As you approach it you see your self at the center. No matter which angle you come from it's the same you. The thing that changes is the reflection of your environment. It's like whichever region of the brain has access to the self will see the same image but with respect to it's own range of associations. But the image is virtual. The focal point is imaginary.

 

[George S]

Viewer's head explodes on camera.

Now the quibble.

The past cannot effect us except through memory.

Everything you consciously do imposes a load on your physical being of which your nervous system is a part. So your past comes along for the ride whether you desire it to or no.

End of Private Extremely Obvious' comment.

The past has already effected us by now. What we do have of it right now is memory, right?

May chance treat you kindly, my friend, and all your choices be optimal.

Treatment for exploding heads involves ethanol or THC. Your choice.

 

[untermensche]

If I can move my arm with a thought then a thought is a form of potential energy. An organized "entity" that utilizes the energy extracted from ATP.

At least the thought to move the arm is.

I think we are kind of on the same track. We're just using different metaphors for how the brain processes information. And of course it involves the dynamics of potential and kinetic energy in the form or chemical reactions. You see thoughts as similar to entities, while I see concepts as similar to species or individual organisms in an ecosystem. I think mine provides more insight into understanding the brain's functionality. But I'm no expert for sure.

In order to adapt my model to yours I'd need to introduce a hypothetical zookeeper. Or maybe a sheppard to so many sheep. Or better yet a sheppard whistling signals to his dog who figures out how to get the sheep going in the right direction. The dog represents the thought. The sheppard sees the big picture. But what the sheppard represents in this picture I can't imagine without resorting to dualism.

I have a different theory. My hypothesis includes a specialized model the brain creates which we call the self (or the "Self" or "I"). It's unique in obvious ways, since it includes things only we can know and experience on a more continuous and immediate basis than anything else. Most things that the brain interacts with require some kind of reference to the self, and I think this fact must be the key to what we mean by conscious experience. It's anything the brain does that requires this interaction. Given that most processes in the brain are unconscious and might be refered to as the "easy problem", I tend to think that consciousness is simply another one of those interactions between models. The main difference being that one of the models is the all-important self.

It's not really a track.

It's a stranded train. It is just the experience. Not any kind of explanation of the experience.

But we all know what a reflex feels like.

Our leg jumps without our control when struck by a hammer. That is a reflex.

And we clearly distinguish this kind of experience from just sitting in a room and kicking our leg for no reason.

We are in control in one situation and not in control in the other.

We sense we are in control.

Either this sense is an elaborate hoax or the sense corresponds to a real ability.

There are many in this thread who see the brain as an elaborate prankster. Creating a sensation of control when no such control exists.

The brain as The Joker hypothesis of neurophysiology.

 

[fromderinside]

Viewer's head explodes on camera.

Now the quibble.

Everything you consciously do imposes a load on your physical being of which your nervous system is a part. So your past comes along for the ride whether you desire it to or no.

End of Private Extremely Obvious' comment.

The past has already effected us by now. What we do have of it right now is memory, right?

May chance treat you kindly, my friend, and all your choices be optimal.

Treatment for exploding heads involves ethanol or THC. Your choice.

Memory is among the least impactful changes pushing you now from the past. Effects of the past are not a passing thing. Epigenetic transformations have set in, physiology patterns are being forced to change, aging is taking place, mercury and lead is impacting you more each day ....

Had you turned off the TV your head wouldn't have exploded in the first place.

 

[DBT]

The evolved brain is the instrument that allows consciousness to make decisions based on ideas.

An idea is a form of potential brain energy.

There it is again, your inexplicable and unfounded notion of autonomy of consciousness.....asserted and reasserted in the face of all evidence to the contrary, ie, that the activity of the brain from sensory input and information processing is feeding information into conscious activity, therefore what you see, feel, hear, think decide and act upon is determined by that very input milliseconds prior to awareness of one's decision and action. Which is well supported by evidence, Haynes, Haggard, Hallet, etc.

 

[bilby]

I think we are kind of on the same track. We're just using different metaphors for how the brain processes information. And of course it involves the dynamics of potential and kinetic energy in the form or chemical reactions. You see thoughts as similar to entities, while I see concepts as similar to species or individual organisms in an ecosystem. I think mine provides more insight into understanding the brain's functionality. But I'm no expert for sure.

In order to adapt my model to yours I'd need to introduce a hypothetical zookeeper. Or maybe a sheppard to so many sheep. Or better yet a sheppard whistling signals to his dog who figures out how to get the sheep going in the right direction. The dog represents the thought. The sheppard sees the big picture. But what the sheppard represents in this picture I can't imagine without resorting to dualism.

I have a different theory. My hypothesis includes a specialized model the brain creates which we call the self (or the "Self" or "I"). It's unique in obvious ways, since it includes things only we can know and experience on a more continuous and immediate basis than anything else. Most things that the brain interacts with require some kind of reference to the self, and I think this fact must be the key to what we mean by conscious experience. It's anything the brain does that requires this interaction. Given that most processes in the brain are unconscious and might be refered to as the "easy problem", I tend to think that consciousness is simply another one of those interactions between models. The main difference being that one of the models is the all-important self.

It's not really a track.

It's a stranded train. It is just the experience. Not any kind of explanation of the experience.

But we all know what a reflex feels like.

Our leg jumps without our control when struck by a hammer. That is a reflex.

And we clearly distinguish this kind of experience from just sitting in a room and kicking our leg for no reason.

We are in control in one situation and not in control in the other.

We sense we are in control.

Either this sense is an elaborate hoax or the sense corresponds to a real ability.

There are many in this thread who see the brain as an elaborate prankster. Creating a sensation of control when no such control exists.

The brain as The Joker hypothesis of neurophysiology.

Well, given that the other hypotheses have been shown to be incompatible with observation, and that one hasn't, reasonable people are bound to accept it, whether they like the implications or not.

You, on the other hand, are more comfortable with accepting hypotheses that you like, regardless of the observed evidence against their being correct. This may be stupidity, or cowardice, or simple ignorance; but it's not reasonable, no matter how comforting it might be.

 

[fromderinside]

The past has already effected us by now. What we do have of it right now is memory, right?

what I wrote

Primarily, if taken in context of relation of action to now. One cannot move forward without moving a leg, but, one can predict where that foot will fall if one is climbing a ledge. That prediction comes form knowing where one has been and what one can do given what one has received from senses and muscle feedback. Whether it is a successful prediction depends on whether one is alive after one's foot has moved.

Just covering a base here.

 

[untermensche]

It's not really a track.

It's a stranded train. It is just the experience. Not any kind of explanation of the experience.

But we all know what a reflex feels like.

Our leg jumps without our control when struck by a hammer. That is a reflex.

And we clearly distinguish this kind of experience from just sitting in a room and kicking our leg for no reason.

We are in control in one situation and not in control in the other.

We sense we are in control.

Either this sense is an elaborate hoax or the sense corresponds to a real ability.

There are many in this thread who see the brain as an elaborate prankster. Creating a sensation of control when no such control exists.

The brain as The Joker hypothesis of neurophysiology.

Well, given that the other hypotheses have been shown to be incompatible with observation....

Which observation? Please be specific.

What exactly has been observed and where specifically was it observed?

In you own words since you claim to know.

 

[fromderinside]

... the option to do otherwise ... from Libet forward. Latest, in my notes, with Haggard.

 

[untermensche]

what I wrote

Primarily, if taken in context of relation of action to now. One cannot move forward without moving a leg, but, one can predict where that foot will fall if one is climbing a ledge. That prediction comes form knowing where one has been and what one can do given what one has received from senses and muscle feedback. Whether it is a successful prediction depends on whether one is alive after one's foot has moved.

Just covering a base here.

Have you ever heard of something called proprioception?

It allows us to know where our body is, not where it has been, with our eyes closed.

Like all senses it can be developed and when not relied on very much becomes weak.

 

[bilby]

Well, given that the other hypotheses have been shown to be incompatible with observation....

Which observation? Please be specific.

What exactly has been observed and where specifically was it observed?

In you own words since you claim to know.

If I see further than others, it is because I stand upon the shoulders of giants.

I do not claim to know; I claim that it is known. The time when a single man could know all that was known, is long since past; and the search for truth via the means of scientific research is a collective endeavour.

Your insane insistence that you can know a useful fraction of that which is true, as an independent individual, and your even more insane insistence on single combat to resolve questions, is the reason why you are invariably defeated in every battle of wits - and most likely also explains why you are incapable of understanding that you have been defeated.

You can challenge an army to fight against you alone; you can even rationalise that you didn't really lose, because they cheated by outnumbering you millions to one. But nobody else thinks you are clever, or a winner, or even sane, for having done so.

Ignoring the evidence because it doesn't 'belong to' the individual with whom you are conversing is madness. To do so preemptively, before it has even been presented, doubly so.

You should seek professional help.

"Which observation?": A huge number of them.

"Be specific?": You mean, "Make it simple enough for untermensche to understand" - which is clearly impossible.

"In your own words": What the fuck makes you think that that demand is reasonable, or that you have the authority to set the terms of debate? If someone other than me proves you wrong, does that somehow make you less wrong because it wasn't me who demonstrated it? You're fucking nuts if you think that that is a great argument.

You will defeat any argument, as long as it is made within the terms of rules you have arbitrarily chosen, and which boil down to "except ones that might defeat me".

Seriously, seek professional help.

 

[Treedbear]

I think we are kind of on the same track. We're just using different metaphors for how the brain processes information. And of course it involves the dynamics of potential and kinetic energy in the form or chemical reactions. You see thoughts as similar to entities, while I see concepts as similar to species or individual organisms in an ecosystem. I think mine provides more insight into understanding the brain's functionality. But I'm no expert for sure.

In order to adapt my model to yours I'd need to introduce a hypothetical zookeeper. Or maybe a sheppard to so many sheep. Or better yet a sheppard whistling signals to his dog who figures out how to get the sheep going in the right direction. The dog represents the thought. The sheppard sees the big picture. But what the sheppard represents in this picture I can't imagine without resorting to dualism.

I have a different theory. My hypothesis includes a specialized model the brain creates which we call the self (or the "Self" or "I"). It's unique in obvious ways, since it includes things only we can know and experience on a more continuous and immediate basis than anything else. Most things that the brain interacts with require some kind of reference to the self, and I think this fact must be the key to what we mean by conscious experience. It's anything the brain does that requires this interaction. Given that most processes in the brain are unconscious and might be refered to as the "easy problem", I tend to think that consciousness is simply another one of those interactions between models. The main difference being that one of the models is the all-important self.

It's not really a track.

It's a stranded train. It is just the experience. Not any kind of explanation of the experience.

But we all know what a reflex feels like.

Our leg jumps without our control when struck by a hammer. That is a reflex.

And we clearly distinguish this kind of experience from just sitting in a room and kicking our leg for no reason.

We are in control in one situation and not in control in the other.

We sense we are in control.

Either this sense is an elaborate hoax or the sense corresponds to a real ability.

There are many in this thread who see the brain as an elaborate prankster. Creating a sensation of control when no such control exists.

The brain as The Joker hypothesis of neurophysiology.

As I said, I admit I have no explanation for the subjective experience, or hard problem. I entered the discussion by addressing the very important issue you raised about motivation:

Mind/brain/consciousness is indeed more complex than any of us can possibly describe. However, it is nothing like you describe in terms of autonomy. Your belief puts your position firmly in the realm of eccentric ideas and beliefs, Deepak Choptra territory for sure. Faith rather than evidence based reason.

...
You don't have the slightest clue how the brain does anything or what motivates the brain to do anything.
...
When you show me what motivates the brain to do anything THEN you can begin to talk about autonomy.

... My only contribution has to do with this issue of what motivates the brain. For me it must have something to do with how the human brain (and brains in general) evolved. ...

I offered an explanation and you replied:

The evolved brain is the instrument that allows consciousness to make decisions based on ideas.

An idea is a form of potential brain energy.

Which I assume is the stranded train you mentioned. But my theory didn't require subjective experience. So I guess I should have reiterated that instead of implying that my model might accomodate a solution. Nevertheless, what I went on to say about the role of the self in decision making doesn't actually require subjective consciousness experience. But it does provide one important factor in how the human brain, at least, is motivated to make decisions.

 

[fromderinside]

Primarily, if taken in context of relation of action to now. One cannot move forward without moving a leg, but, one can predict where that foot will fall if one is climbing a ledge. That prediction comes form knowing where one has been and what one can do given what one has received from senses and muscle feedback. Whether it is a successful prediction depends on whether one is alive after one's foot has moved.

Just covering a base here.

Have you ever heard of something called proprioception?

It allows us to know where our body is, not where it has been, with our eyes closed.

Like all senses it can be developed and when not relied on very much becomes weak.

Oh you mean that function partially controlled by inner ear, acoustic nucleus time differences, and neck muscle guidance system, that proprioceptive system guidance system.

Nope. no idea.

How about you tell us about it, how it is put together and how it works.

Geez man. Why did you think I mentioned cliff climbing? I had a bad night?

Next time get past that mouse trap people set to find whether another has read what is written.

 

[untermensche]

Have you ever heard of something called proprioception?

It allows us to know where our body is, not where it has been, with our eyes closed.

Like all senses it can be developed and when not relied on very much becomes weak.

Oh you mean that function partially controlled by inner ear, acoustic nucleus time differences, and neck muscle guidance system, that proprioceptive system guidance system.

Nope. no idea.

How about you tell us about it, how it is put together and how it works.

Geez man. Why did you think I mentioned cliff climbing? I had a bad night?

Next time get past that mouse trap people set to find whether another has read what is written.

It is clear you have no idea what it is.

The inner ear has nothing to do with it.

It is about receptors in the joints that tell the brain about joint position. Not the position of the body in relation to the horizontal.

 

[beero1000]

Oh you mean that function partially controlled by inner ear, acoustic nucleus time differences, and neck muscle guidance system, that proprioceptive system guidance system.

Nope. no idea.

How about you tell us about it, how it is put together and how it works.

Geez man. Why did you think I mentioned cliff climbing? I had a bad night?

Next time get past that mouse trap people set to find whether another has read what is written.

It is clear you have no idea what it is.

The inner ear has nothing to do with it.

It is about receptors in the joints that tell the brain about joint position. Not the position of the body in relation to the horizontal.

Nothing to do with it? My textbooks say there are receptors for proprioception in the inner ear, but I guess it figures that you'd be wrong again... typical. Still overwhelmingly confident about your own abilities though, no matter how lacking they are...

 

[DBT]

Oh you mean that function partially controlled by inner ear, acoustic nucleus time differences, and neck muscle guidance system, that proprioceptive system guidance system.

Nope. no idea.

How about you tell us about it, how it is put together and how it works.

Geez man. Why did you think I mentioned cliff climbing? I had a bad night?

Next time get past that mouse trap people set to find whether another has read what is written.

It is clear you have no idea what it is.

The inner ear has nothing to do with it.

It is about receptors in the joints that tell the brain about joint position. Not the position of the body in relation to the horizontal.

It is clear that you don't understand. Even while confidently asserting that you do know.