Consciousness

[DBT]

Not more autonomy nonsense!

YOU are claiming brain activity on it's own acts autonomously and makes decisions.

I am claiming consciousness, an aspect of brain activity, does it.

There is NO substantial difference in those positions in terms of autonomy.

Autonomous real world decisions are not explained in either case.

Unbelievable,

You contradict yourself from sentence to sentence.

The 'autonomy nonsense' is your nonsense. You have been arguing for autonomy of consciousness, which is nonsense.

YOU are claiming brain activity on it's own acts autonomously and makes decisions.

Not quite. Brain activity requires a brain. It requires functional neural networks to process information and represent it in conscious form. A functional brain being the agency of regulating body functions, shaping and generating conscious activity and activating motor response in relation to decisions made.

I am claiming consciousness, an aspect of brain activity, does it.

And there we have it, folks, the inexplicable magical autonomy of consciousness.

 

[fromderinside]

Oh scratch. You just ran in to a door again. You really need to know whether the door is open before you try to enter

You are dead wrong here.

Subjects are asked to guess when they think they are just starting to make some mental activity that causes movement.

It is absurdity upon absurdity.

Nothing objective can come from it.

We are talking about milliseconds and human guessing.

A game for clowns.

Here comes an appeal to authority. My masters was Auditory gap detection and my doctorate was Ayuditory thresholds of moving sound sources, both psychophycial groups of studies where physical and psychophysical methods were very well defined and controlled. Outputs are used for determining such as information processing capacities and basses for processing intelligible signals and can be replicated with neurophysiological studies demonstrating essentially the same capacities and responsiveness.

Haynes and others are expert in gathering subjective outputs from observers that are quite rigorous following protocols where both method and response is very repeatable and reliable. The field is quite well developed and sophisiticated. Outpust form such studies for the basis form many of the most successful theories in such as flight control and pilot training another field where I have significant experience.

You can take it to the bank that the methods are robust and repeatable and correlate with corresponding physical data and neurophysicial data align quite well.

So blow your appeal to authority horn. Fortunately, If you are interested I can give you both the history and methods involved well aligned breakthroughs in hearing vision, odor, touch, etc apparatus used by persons who have deficiencies in these areas.

The most damning part of your response is the arrogance you show. These studies were done under approved protocols based on years of studies producing useful results, many standardized in handbooks for such scientific work. If it were you dong the study I'd agree you wouldn't have the vaguest notion how to control or conduct the subjective part of the study.

However all these studies were done by teams lead with senior scientists with strong reputations. I suggest you stop clanging such as 'guess' and 'absurdity' as if these were Sunday school novices having a lark.

Your entire line of reasoning is fraught with lack of knowledge about what you are shouting essentially "fake news" about.

It is very evident experimenters used collateral validating information to assure the 'guesses' were apt such as reaction time, eye movements, queuing intervals etc. Why would one go to the trouble of constructing a study if they were just going to say guess whenever you want. there many criteria outlined to observers which experimenters had confidence would yield reliable subjective data.

The only clown here is the one passing out ad hoc one liners.

 

[untermensche]

You can take it to the bank that the methods are robust and repeatable and correlate with corresponding physical data and neurophysicial data align quite well.

They are asking subjects to guess something.

Then pretending the guess counts for objective data.

It is worthless.

Worse than worthless since fools are trying to pass it off as scientific knowledge.

 

[untermensche]

And there we have it, folks, the inexplicable magical autonomy of consciousness.

Why is an aspect of brain activity making decisions more miraculous than your unexplained claim that brain activity makes decisions?

You cannot escape the fact that new and unique decisions continually have to be made in some way.

 

[DBT]

And there we have it, folks, the inexplicable magical autonomy of consciousness.

Why is an aspect of brain activity making decisions more miraculous than your unexplained claim that brain activity makes decisions?

The architecture and evolved function of brains being to process information from the environment and interact with it is a physical process. You on the other hand invoke magic. As if 'consciousness' takes on a life of its own in order to make decisions. You are the one proposing an inexplicable additional layer of explanation when there is no evidence to support it.

You cannot escape the fact that new and unique decisions continually have to be made in some way.

You cannot escape the fact that all evidence supports brain agency and not some inexplicable form of autonomy of consciousness.

Yet the absence of evidence to support your claim doesn't have any effect on your assertions.

 

[untermensche]

Why is an aspect of brain activity making decisions more miraculous than your unexplained claim that brain activity makes decisions?

The architecture and evolved function of brains being to process information from the environment and interact with it is a physical process. You on the other hand invoke magic. As if 'consciousness' takes on a life of its own in order to make decisions. You are the one proposing an inexplicable additional layer of explanation when there is no evidence to support it.

Consciousness is an evolved function of the brain.

The ability to move the arm at will is an evolved function.

It is all evolved function.

No appeals to magic anywhere.

You cannot escape the fact that new and unique decisions continually have to be made in some way.

You cannot escape the fact that all evidence supports brain agency and not some inexplicable form of autonomy of consciousness.

Yet the absence of evidence to support your claim doesn't have any effect on your assertions.

"Brain agency" is just some phrase pulled from thin air. It has no scientific definition in terms of brain activity.

You have explained it in no way. You understand it in no way.

There is no more magic in saying the will moves the arm than in saying the brain somehow and for some reason decides to move the arm.

Saying the brain does it on it's own however is absurd.

 

[fromderinside]

You can take it to the bank that the methods are robust and repeatable and correlate with corresponding physical data and neurophysicial data align quite well.

They are asking subjects to guess something.

Then pretending the guess counts for objective data.

It is worthless.

Worse than worthless since fools are trying to pass it off as scientific knowledge.

So let me get this straight. So you are being asked to indicate when you think some particular event is taking place. The event is known. You are to respond in the interval when something is being measured in the known interval where the act is going to happen if it does happen. You are being asked for you to need gather what you can from the possibilities they've briefed you on what those indications may be. ...and you simply guessing? On top of this the experiment has been completely explained to you. You've been asked to take practice trials so you can get your methods together for answering the required question. You have been debriefed before the actual trials begin on whether or what you have been doing is effective. ...and you are guessing?

Are you serious?


Seems there is little wiggle room for guessing. You know the interval. You know what is to happen. You have been briefed and practiced on what you can look for as indications of what you are being asked. Your responses have been deemed consistent enough with the parallel data they are gathering to be useful after many practice trials. yes you are guessing. But, no more than if a cue was signaled two seconds before a stimulus interval in which you were to listen to an experimental condition and respond whether it was same or different, one or two events, present or absent. The only difference is you are using a set of indicators you have to make the 'now' choice rather than being asked to say A or B.

 

[DBT]

The architecture and evolved function of brains being to process information from the environment and interact with it is a physical process. You on the other hand invoke magic. As if 'consciousness' takes on a life of its own in order to make decisions. You are the one proposing an inexplicable additional layer of explanation when there is no evidence to support it.

Consciousness is an evolved function of the brain.

Brains have evolved the means to form and generate conscious activity, consciousness does not evolve on its own. It can only do what the brain is capable of doing.

Your autonomy of consciousness idea has no evidential support and consequently, no merit.

The ability to move the arm at will is an evolved function.

Both will and moving at will being a brain function. Will and movement being separable in experiments and brain function problems. The subject reporting movement when no movement is taking place. Or a subject reporting no movement when movement is taking place.

But of course, you ignore all experiments. You ignore what experts in the field are saying. You ignore all evidence. You simply repeat your own beliefs.

 

[untermensche]

They are asking subjects to guess something.

Then pretending the guess counts for objective data.

It is worthless.

Worse than worthless since fools are trying to pass it off as scientific knowledge.

So let me get this straight. So you are being asked to indicate when you think some particular event is taking place.

Subjects are asked to GUESS when they think they have begun some mental activity.

To the millisecond.

I want you to think of a cow and I want you, TO THE MILLISECOND, to tell me when you begin to see the cow in your mind's eye.

It is an absurd exercise and you should know better. You claim to have done research.

If so, you should fully understand the difference between objective data and the timing of a SUBJECTIVE GUESS.

You should know better.

 

[untermensche]

Consciousness is an evolved function of the brain.

Brains have evolved the means to form and generate conscious activity, consciousness does not evolve on its own. It can only do what the brain is capable of doing.

Your autonomy of consciousness idea has no evidential support and consequently, no merit.

What are you talking about?

It is the only position WITH evidence.

I tell my arm to move and it does. It doesn't move before I tell it. It moves when I tell it.

Every time.

The evidence is overwhelming.

On the other hand what you have is subjects being asked to guess something.

And you are trying to pass this subjective guessing off as objective knowledge.

Too funny!!!

 

[fromderinside]

So let me get this straight. So you are being asked to indicate when you think some particular event is taking place.

Subjects are asked to GUESS when they think they have begun some mental activity.

To the millisecond.

I want you to think of a cow and I want you, TO THE MILLISECOND, to tell me when you begin to see the cow in your mind's eye.

It is an absurd exercise and you should know better. You claim to have done research.

If so, you should fully understand the difference between objective data and the timing of a SUBJECTIVE GUESS.

You should know better.

You have no idea at all what the is the subjective procedure.

Read this: Reckoning the moment of reckoning in spontaneous voluntary movement http://www.pnas.org/content/113/4/817.full

...However, according to Schultze-Kraft et al. (9), the final 200 ms before movement onset is precisely when one can no longer veto the movement. Therefore, their data argue against the idea of the last 200 ms being a window of opportunity for acts of “free won’t,” and instead suggest that the subjectively reported time of the urge to move, although imprecise, is an accurate estimate of the time of the neural commitment to move.

A correct comment is that the report of urge to move is correct with 300 ms to spare. Also it isn't to the millisecond. Such isn't necessary to demonstrate the you first relation between consciousness and action.

Oh Scraatch

 

[DBT]

Brains have evolved the means to form and generate conscious activity, consciousness does not evolve on its own. It can only do what the brain is capable of doing.

Your autonomy of consciousness idea has no evidential support and consequently, no merit.

What are you talking about?

It is the only position WITH evidence.

I tell my arm to move and it does. It doesn't move before I tell it. It moves when I tell it.

Every time.

The evidence is overwhelming.

On the other hand what you have is subjects being asked to guess something.

And you are trying to pass this subjective guessing off as objective knowledge.

Too funny!!!

You still ignore the means by which your experience is formed and generated. You still ignore the timing of cognitive events from sensory input to processing to consciousness formation. You still ignore evidence for brain state determining conscious experience. You still ignore the experiments. You still ignore what researchers are saying. You just repeat your mantra of subjective experience....which is exposed for what it is whenever there is brain malfunction. But believe whatever you like...your belief means nothing. You merely have faith.

Quote;
''Aready several seconds before we consciously make a decision its outcome can be predicted from unconscious activity in the brain. This is shown in a study by scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences in Leipzig, in collaboration with the Charité University Hospital and the Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience in Berlin. The researchers from the group of Professor John-Dylan Haynes used a brain scanner to investigate what happens in the human brain just before a decision is made. "Many processes in the brain occur automatically and without involvement of our consciousness. This prevents our mind from being overloaded by simple routine tasks. But when it comes to decisions we tend to assume they are made by our conscious mind. This is questioned by our current findings."


''They were free to make this decision whenever they wanted, but had to remember at which time they felt they had made up their mind. The aim of the experiment was to find out what happens in the brain in the period just before the person felt the decision was made. The researchers found that it was possible to predict from brain signals which option participants would take already seven seconds before they consciously made their decision. Normally researchers look at what happens when the decision is made, but not atwhat happens several seconds before. The fact that decisions can be predicted so long before they are made is a astonishing finding.''

''This unprecedented prediction of a free decision was made possible by sophisticated computer programs that were trained to recognize typical brain activity patterns preceding each of the two choices. Micropatterns of activity in the frontopolar cortex were predictive of the choices even before participants knew which option they were going to choose''

 

[untermensche]

What is the "Button Press"? What is initiating the button press? And is there time between when a person wants the button pressed and when it is actually pressed? Maybe a fraction of a second?

It is nothing but a SUBJECTIVE GUESS!!!!! A guess to when some mental activity begins as if the lines to such a thing are clear. It is a subjective feeling, nothing more. You cannot make something objective out of it. Every subject will have different subjective feelings and make guesses differently.

And we are talking about a tiny FRACTION OF ONE SECOND.

You can't turn it into something objective with fancy graphics. It can NEVER be turned into something objective except by undisciplined minds.

What is the OBJECTIVE beginning of a conscious decision?

You actually have to know what consciousness is to answer that one. But it is very difficult question.

So in the mean time third raters who apparently will buy anything without question content themselves with a bunch of nonsense about subjective human guesses.

 

[fromderinside]

Uh, I think you missed something. The neurophysiologic data and sites indicate where when activity is ongoing. Connecting an observer's impression of when she thinks deciding has begun is only confirmatory of what is already presumed. Dumb sh-t raises foot from resting position and comes down on foot pedal after she thinks deciding has begun.

The time course of the foot activity with a 200 ms presumption of how long it takes to get muscle to follow command is in line with reaction time studies. Even under most favorable presumptions the foot pedal push is too late to suggest any possibility of veto is possible after awareness of possible veto activity.

Conclusion: Action precedes awareness.

and one!

 

[DBT]

Uh, I think you missed something. The neurophysiologic data and sites indicate where when activity is ongoing. Connecting an observer's impression of when she thinks deciding has begun is only confirmatory of what is already presumed. Dumb sh-t raises foot from resting position and comes down on foot pedal after she thinks deciding has begun.

The time course of the foot activity with a 200 ms presumption of how long it takes to get muscle to follow command is in line with reaction time studies. Even under most favorable presumptions the foot pedal push is too late to suggest any possibility of veto is possible after awareness of possible veto activity.

Conclusion: Action precedes awareness.

and one!

Yeah, I think our Mr Untermesche tends to miss more than just something. He appears to miss a whole lot of something. A whole lot of something that adds up to practically everything that's relevant to the issue of brain agency.

 

[untermensche]

Uh, I think you missed something. The neurophysiologic data and sites indicate where when activity is ongoing. Connecting an observer's impression of when she thinks deciding has begun is only confirmatory of what is already presumed. Dumb sh-t raises foot from resting position and comes down on foot pedal after she thinks deciding has begun.

The time course of the foot activity with a 200 ms presumption of how long it takes to get muscle to follow command is in line with reaction time studies. Even under most favorable presumptions the foot pedal push is too late to suggest any possibility of veto is possible after awareness of possible veto activity.

Conclusion: Action precedes awareness.

and one!

What causes the button to be pressed?

You are defending nothing but subjective guessing and invented stories about brain activity that is not understood in the least beyond it's timing and gross location.

Pathetic.

You maybe can try to sell this nonsense to others but it is PURE SUBJECTIVITY masking as science.

I await a study where consciousness is dealt with objectively.

 

[fromderinside]

It presses itself as far as you are concerned. That is just as likely as your current whine since you didn't read any of the material provided so you know nothing about the experiment, the strength of the study, the bases upon which the study was built.

After you use the study and data from a refuting study, maybe you would have standing to comment. Right now all you have is your opinion and your beliefs.

Given others have actually taken the time to study this problem your opinions are worthless unless you find a study which objectively disputes what we've posted here.

Nuff sed.

 

[untermensche]

It presses itself as far as you are concerned. That is just as likely as your current whine since you didn't read any of the material provided so you know nothing about the experiment, the strength of the study, the bases upon which the study was built.

After you use the study and data from a refuting study, maybe you would have standing to comment. Right now all you have is your opinion and your beliefs.

Given others have actually taken the time to study this problem your opinions are worthless unless you find a study which objectively disputes what we've posted here.

Nuff sed.

Your claims about the alleged strength of a study that relies on human guessing are not persuasive. When all is centered around the timing of a human guess it is all worthless.

Show me a study where a conscious decision is understood objectively.

Not this trash that merely confirms absurd preconceptions and does nothing else.

 

[DBT]

Uh, I think you missed something. The neurophysiologic data and sites indicate where when activity is ongoing. Connecting an observer's impression of when she thinks deciding has begun is only confirmatory of what is already presumed. Dumb sh-t raises foot from resting position and comes down on foot pedal after she thinks deciding has begun.

The time course of the foot activity with a 200 ms presumption of how long it takes to get muscle to follow command is in line with reaction time studies. Even under most favorable presumptions the foot pedal push is too late to suggest any possibility of veto is possible after awareness of possible veto activity.

Conclusion: Action precedes awareness.

and one!

What causes the button to be pressed?

You are defending nothing but subjective guessing and invented stories about brain activity that is not understood in the least beyond it's timing and gross location.

Pathetic.

You maybe can try to sell this nonsense to others but it is PURE SUBJECTIVITY masking as science.

I await a study where consciousness is dealt with objectively.

What causes the button to be pressed? The brain that is being presented with the available options and possible actions to be taken. The brain does this by gathering information from its immediate environment, processing this information in relation to its own base of information gained through experience, memory and learning, weighing the options according to its base of criteria and making conscious the decision - thoughts popping into awareness - and performing the motor action of pressing the chosen button.

 

[rousseau]

Consciousness is not a thing, but a process of inference about the future

This is why I'm so goddamned stressed all the time, because my mind is really great at worrying about the future.