Consciousness

[untermensche]

Do you disagree the brain is a evolutionary genetic aggregate?

I also believe that what we call mere matter has properties beyond our comprehension. We have split it apart to the extent of our abilities. But what it is beyond our abilities is not known.

Saying something arises out of matter is not an explanation of anything.

It is not a limitation of any kind.

Things are limited AFTER they are explained, not before.

 

[DBT]

I've been through this too many times, consciousness is the brains working model/representation of the external world in relation to self....self being a representation of physical body and self identity - gender, language, likes, dislikes, education, pastimes, career and so on.

A means with which to interact with the world through a body of information being represented in virtual form, imagery, sight, sound, touch, smell, taste as sensations within the brains 'global workspace/conscious activity' which is constantly fed new information via the senses and memory function....and disintegrates if this information flow is disrupted, rendering the person impaired in relation to the nature of the disruption, blind/eyes/ visual cortex, unable to think, recognise/memory function and so on.

Consciousness being an organisms interface with the World.

I didn't ask what consciousness is. I have a subjective consciousness. I know the things consciousness is. You have no understanding beyond subjective reports. No physiological explanation of one single aspect of experience.

I asked: What can it do? What task can it carry out? What process can it initiate?

A passive observer is not "interaction" with the world.

Interaction with the world is seeing the flower and initiating movement to examine it.

So again what can consciousness do?

What action can it take?

Consciousness is a critical part of brain function, information coming together from various regions of the brain into a comprehensive work space. It is not something separate from the brain, not an independent controller or non material entity that a brain tunes into like a radio.

Another non-answer. The question was, what action can it take, not where do you think it is located.

Or does it initiate nothing?

The brain is the sole agent of regulating body functions, forming representation of world and self and responding to its inputs and memory base, forming imagery and sensation as a means to navigate.

Consciousness itself has no independence. In any given moment of conscious activity, it is whatever a brain is doing.

The information state of a brain, architecture, chemistry, electrical impulses, is reflected in its expression of consciousness

You can't answer a direct question.

In your model consciousness does nothing, initiates nothing, it has desires but has no way to fulfill them. It is pure passivity. In other words completely unnecessary.

You can't simply state what you believe and answer simple questions directly so we get this song and dance instead of simple answers.

Your nonsense is on display for all to see.

The problem is, you haven't understood a word I said, which is understandable because you have your own unfounded position to defend, hence the feigned incomprehension.

You asked 'what can consciousness do' and that is precisely what I described; provide a mental representation of the world and self, vision, hearing, feelings, thoughts, etc, as a means with which to interact with the world.

You ignore this and descend into your gutter tactics of mock outrage and feigned incomprehension.

So on the contrary, it is your nonsense that is on display for all to see....including your substance dualism, an idea that is universally rejected by neuroscience. The stuff of new age gurus, incense and chanting mantras.

Your expertise in that little field of fantasy, myth and magic is there for all to see.

 

[untermensche]

The problem is, you haven't understood a word I said....

Not likely possible.

You asked 'what can consciousness do' and that is precisely what I described; provide a mental representation of the world and self, vision, hearing, feelings, thoughts, etc, as a means with which to interact with the world.

If consciousness is providing a mental representation what is it presenting it to?

And as a means for what to interact with the world?

If consciousness only passively receives what the brain gives it and can initiate nothing why is it needed for interaction with the world?

An unthinking unfeeling robot can interact with the world. Pure reflex can interact with the world. Reflex can entail incredibly complex information and response. A computer is pure reflex. It has no "inner life".

There is no need for a locus of awareness for there to be interaction with the world. Nothing needs to be synthesized as a presentation or representation if it can be understood in a fractured state, which is how all information exists in the brain for some time.

...gutter tactics of mock outrage...

See, that shows creativity.

It is not mock anything I assure you.

The model is absurd.

It is a model allegedly that explains consciousness as that which can initiate nothing.

Again, this is not mock outrage it is simple logic. If consciousness can initiate nothing it is not needed at all.

Again this is not mock outrage it is simple logic. There is no need for consciousness to be aware of the bear if it can initiate nothing.

The brain can understand "bear" in a fractured state, in a brain state. It has no need to synthesize it for consciousness to react to it.

A synthesized presentation of "bear" serves the brain no purpose.

But it serves consciousness one.

If consciousness can act.

Again none of this is mock outrage. It is simple logic.

 

[fromderinside]

Do you disagree the brain is a evolutionary genetic aggregate?

I also believe that what we call mere matter has properties beyond our comprehension. We have split it apart to the extent of our abilities. But what it is beyond our abilities is not known.

Saying something arises out of matter is not an explanation of anything.

It is not a limitation of any kind.

Things are limited AFTER they are explained, not before.

You don't get it do you. Even in hearing evolution can't produce optimums. All that can be expected is better than other options. For nervous systems this is compounded trillions of times so that a result of 'me', for likely all matters, will never be more than an illusion. Your assertion of a consciousness is equal to the possibility that the earth was created no more than 6000 years ago and for similar reasons.

 

[untermensche]

I also believe that what we call mere matter has properties beyond our comprehension. We have split it apart to the extent of our abilities. But what it is beyond our abilities is not known.

Saying something arises out of matter is not an explanation of anything.

It is not a limitation of any kind.

Things are limited AFTER they are explained, not before.

You don't get it do you. Even in hearing evolution can't produce optimums. All that can be expected is better than other options. For nervous systems this is compounded trillions of times so that a result of 'me', for likely all matters, will never be more than an illusion. Your assertion of a consciousness is equal to the possibility that the earth was created no more than 6000 years ago and for similar reasons.

All you have to do is explain the production of consciousness and then you can make claims about its scope and limitations.

You can't make claims based merely on evolutionary origin.

It is reasonable to restrict your explanation to what is known about matter.

But if many many geniuses with a lot of resources can't find an explanation in 25 years perhaps they are not looking in the right place.

 

[DBT]

Not likely possible.

You asked 'what can consciousness do' and that is precisely what I described; provide a mental representation of the world and self, vision, hearing, feelings, thoughts, etc, as a means with which to interact with the world.

If consciousness is providing a mental representation what is it presenting it to?

And as a means for what to interact with the world?

If consciousness only passively receives what the brain gives it and can initiate nothing why is it needed for interaction with the world?

An unthinking unfeeling robot can interact with the world. Pure reflex can interact with the world. Reflex can entail incredibly complex information and response. A computer is pure reflex. It has no "inner life".

There is no need for a locus of awareness for there to be interaction with the world. Nothing needs to be synthesized as a presentation or representation if it can be understood in a fractured state, which is how all information exists in the brain for some time.

...gutter tactics of mock outrage...

See, that shows creativity.

It is not mock anything I assure you.

The model is absurd.

It is a model allegedly that explains consciousness as that which can initiate nothing.

Again, this is not mock outrage it is simple logic. If consciousness can initiate nothing it is not needed at all.

Again this is not mock outrage it is simple logic. There is no need for consciousness to be aware of the bear if it can initiate nothing.

The brain can understand "bear" in a fractured state, in a brain state. It has no need to synthesize it for consciousness to react to it.

A synthesized presentation of "bear" serves the brain no purpose.

But it serves consciousness one.

If consciousness can act.

Again none of this is mock outrage. It is simple logic.

There is no logic in your faith in non material consciousness.

You asked me 'what can consciousness do' - to which I pointed out that it provides, vision, hearing, etc, in the form of mental map of the world in relation to self, an evolved means with which a brain interacts with the world. Straightforward enough, yet you just keep repeating the same question.

 

[untermensche]

There is no logic in your faith in non material consciousness.

Material is just a ceremonial word to describe all that exists. It says nothing about how things exist.

Consciousness, we can agree, is that which is aware of impressions, perceptions, sensations and experiences. It is a locus of experience. I also happen to think it can initiate movement and expression and thought. To me it serves a purpose beyond passive observer.

It has an existence, a "material" existence.

But you have not given any explanation for why this locus of experience exists, why these presentations to consciousness exist. Why they are needed at all.

Why does the brain need to make a presentation for consciousness to interact with the world? The brain does not need presentations to understand. The brain structures our languages without any need for a presentation. It helps maintain blood pressure without any need for a presentation. It does not need presentations to do things.

..an evolved means with which a brain interacts with the world...

The brain has no need of a locus of experience to interact with the world. It does not need to synthesize energy into a presentation to interact with the world.

It does not need to understand anything to interact with the world. Interaction can be pure reflex. Which is really what you believe human behavior is anyway. If behavior is pure reflex and consciousness can't initiate anything there is no need for consciousness. It is an extravagant waste of energy.

If you don't understand this I'm sorry, but it is true.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Understanding consciousness means identifying and understanding the specific processes that generate it.

I'm not sure that even that can be regarded as a necessarily good bet. That seems a typically materialistic kind of explanation.
EB

It doesn't refer to any specific kind of explanation.

Only that one is necessary to say you understand.

I should have said "it's a typically mechanistic kind of explanation", i.e. processes and what they may generate. It's typically the kind of explanation we look for to explain the material world but that it's good enough for the material world is no justification that it should be good enough for explaining subjective consciousness. So we should try instead to forget mechanistic processes and expand our views as to what kind of explanation would be acceptable for subjective consciousness. But I'm rather pessimistic. I think we still understand very little of reality and see no good reason to believe we should be able to understand it at some point in the future.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

You can't make claims based merely on evolutionary origin.

Really? Evolution has very good explanations in the macro world while quantum effects penetrating into the macro world aren't shown.

So there it is. You lose again.

 

[untermensche]

You can't make claims based merely on evolutionary origin.

Really? Evolution has very good explanations in the macro world while quantum effects penetrating into the macro world aren't shown.

So there it is. You lose again.

Consciousness evolved therefore............?

Therefore what?

How exactly is it limited?

What evidence do you have of its limitations?

You don't even know where to find it.

If you search that brain a little longer maybe you will. Maybe not.

I don't know what winning is here but we have no winners.

We have as far as I can see 2 absurd models.

One says that consciousness exists but can do nothing, can initiate nothing, so it is completely unnecessary.

The other says that consciousness is not really a thing, despite it clearly being a locus of experience. And experientially the planner of all things.

I await a winner.

 

[untermensche]

Understanding consciousness means identifying and understanding the specific processes that generate it.

I'm not sure that even that can be regarded as a necessarily good bet. That seems a typically materialistic kind of explanation.
EB

It doesn't refer to any specific kind of explanation.

Only that one is necessary to say you understand.

I should have said "it's a typically mechanistic kind of explanation", i.e. processes and what they may generate. It's typically the kind of explanation we look for to explain the material world but that it's good enough for the material world is no justification that it should be good enough for explaining subjective consciousness. So we should try instead to forget mechanistic processes and expand our views as to what kind of explanation would be acceptable for subjective consciousness. But I'm rather pessimistic. I think we still understand very little of reality and see no good reason to believe we should be able to understand it at some point in the future.
EB

We see things like televisions where pictures arise because of materials and "processes".

It's not a bad start to think that maybe some "process" creates consciousness.

But we know of no specific "process" that does. We know of no specific brain activity that produces consciousness.

If things can arise without a "process" I have no idea.

 

[fromderinside]

Consciousness evolved therefore............?

I believe I hinted at therefore in a couple of my latest posts. As a matter of principle evolution impacts genes, those that produce proteins most effective in cells of any sort tend to be retained through surviving offspring than those that are less effective. The easiest way to approach such systems is by looking at populations of proteins in a game theory or decision theory way. Within that suite neural cells, systems, and structures, also are rewarded by increased performance of their constituents.

The only thing here is that there be no design imposed. This is because genes, gene groups, gene organizations, are the units of heredity. There is no subsystem of genes that are known to be responsible for cerebrum, thalamus, pons, or cerebellum or pathway development. It's all about how proteins and perhaps to some extent, how cells perform. Ergo the concentration on game/decision approaches to understanding evolutionary effects resulting in fitness. This leave us with finding combinations that drive behavior toward a particular outcome. For consciousness that primary factor seems to be social and and articulation related.

Obviously the changes that permitted senses to identify, collate, and retain, threats and sustenance were the of great importance in creating awareness of that which is helpful and that which is harmful. The rest is just taking the process out to observed behaviors and differences in those behaviors as time and speciation went on. It is why I pointed you to the Hagfish as a probable initial conscious species (after Crick) through vision and other species developed similar capacities through scent or chemical differentiation.

So I leave you with a mechanism and rationale for conscious evolution in vertebrates and other species. What my pov does not include is anything that has a purpose or seminal cause. The reason for that is in the very nature through which evolution works which of just overviewed again. In fact it is the reason why I have such huge doubts that consciousness as presented through science and philosophy as an entity, a physical source, exists.

The best that can be expected is there will be a combination of social behaviors for which a single decision equation applies resluting is a driver for what is today called social consciousness.

 

[DBT]

Material is just a ceremonial word to describe all that exists. It says nothing about how things exist.

It has nothing to do with the question of how things exist, this being another issue entirely, but the fact that that something does verifiably exist. Your non material is not verifiable, nor is it needed to explain brain function....it is the stuff of new age gurus, incense and tinkle of brass bells.

Consciousness, we can agree, is that which is aware of impressions, perceptions, sensations and experiences. It is a locus of experience. I also happen to think it can initiate movement and expression and thought. To me it serves a purpose beyond passive observer.

It serves the purpose of providing a centralised 'map' of the world and self by which the brain navigates its environment. It is something the brain is forming from information gathered from multiple sources.

It has an existence, a "material" existence.

Obviously, considering consciousness, according to available evidence, is an electrochemical activity of a brain.

But you have not given any explanation for why this locus of experience exists, why these presentations to consciousness exist. Why they are needed at all.

You should try to read what I say. I have repeated the purpose conscious representation in my last few posts. In brief, as a means of navigation and response. If sight is lost, for example, the brain is unable to form a visual representation of its environment....which makes navigation far more difficult, being blind, instead depending on other senses, hearing, touch, smell...

Why does the brain need to make a presentation for consciousness to interact with the world? The brain does not need presentations to understand. The brain structures our languages without any need for a presentation. It helps maintain blood pressure without any need for a presentation. It does not need presentations to do things.

See the explanation above.

If you don't understand this I'm sorry, but it is true.

If you can't understand the benefits of sight, sound, smell, etc, as a means of navigating and interacting with the world, there is no hope.

 

[DBT]

A brain function disorder that manifests as an inability to recognise faces even though the eyes and memory function are in working order, prosopagnosia, this condition being a problem of information processing;

''Prosopagnosia is a neurological disorder characterized by the inability to recognize faces. The term prosopagnosia comes from the Greek words for “face” and “lack of knowledge.” Depending upon the degree of impairment, some people with prosopagnosia may only have difficulty recognizing a familiar face; others will be unable to discriminate between unknown faces, while still others may not even be able to distinguish a face as being different from an object. Some people with the disorder are unable to recognize their own face.''

''Prosopagnosia is not related to memory dysfunction, memory loss, impaired vision, or learning disabilities. Prosopagnosia is thought to be the result of abnormalities, damage, or impairment in the right fusiform gyrus (the area in red, right), a fold in the brain that appears to coordinate the neural systems that control facial perception and memory.''

 

[untermensche]

Consciousness evolved therefore............?

I believe I hinted at therefore in a couple of my latest posts. As a matter of principle evolution impacts genes, those that produce proteins most effective in cells of any sort tend to be retained through surviving offspring than those that are less effective. The easiest way to approach such systems is by looking at populations of proteins in a game theory or decision theory way. Within that suite neural cells, systems, and structures, also are rewarded by increased performance of their constituents.

The only thing here is that there be no design imposed. This is because genes, gene groups, gene organizations, are the units of heredity. There is no subsystem of genes that are known to be responsible for cerebrum, thalamus, pons, or cerebellum or pathway development. It's all about how proteins and perhaps to some extent, how cells perform. Ergo the concentration on game/decision approaches to understanding evolutionary effects resulting in fitness. This leave us with finding combinations that drive behavior toward a particular outcome. For consciousness that primary factor seems to be social and and articulation related.

Obviously the changes that permitted senses to identify, collate, and retain, threats and sustenance were the of great importance in creating awareness of that which is helpful and that which is harmful. The rest is just taking the process out to observed behaviors and differences in those behaviors as time and speciation went on. It is why I pointed you to the Hagfish as a probable initial conscious species (after Crick) through vision and other species developed similar capacities through scent or chemical differentiation.

So I leave you with a mechanism and rationale for conscious evolution in vertebrates and other species. What my pov does not include is anything that has a purpose or seminal cause. The reason for that is in the very nature through which evolution works which of just overviewed again. In fact it is the reason why I have such huge doubts that consciousness as presented through science and philosophy as an entity, a physical source, exists.

The best that can be expected is there will be a combination of social behaviors for which a single decision equation applies resluting is a driver for what is today called social consciousness.

Suppose the ability of subjective experience is some unknown quantum effect. We don't know what it is.

And a specific arrangement of proteins with a specific activity gives rise to it.

How is this prevented merely by saying the animal evolved?

 

[untermensche]

It has nothing to do with the question of how things exist, this being another issue entirely, but the fact that that something does verifiably exist. Your non material is not verifiable, nor is it needed to explain brain function....it is the stuff of new age gurus, incense and tinkle of brass bells.

You cannot limit existence with your imagination.

Again, if it exists it is not non material. The term non-material refers to things like thoughts and ideas, not processes that allow their production by a mind.

It serves the purpose of providing a centralised 'map' of the world and self by which the brain navigates its environment. It is something the brain is forming from information gathered from multiple sources.

A centralized map is not needed by the brain. It is only needed by consciousness itself.

The brain controls all kinds of things without centralized maps. Brains do not need centralized maps to operate. They can make sense of information in a very fractured state.

How many times do I have to say this before it is comprehended?

The brain does not need depictions or synthesis of information into a presentation to act on it.

Only a consciousness needs those things.

And it only needs them if it can act on them.

Presentations to a consciousness that cannot act on them is a complete waste of energy. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

 

[fromderinside]

How is this prevented merely by saying the animal evolved?

One needs to start by staying in focus.. In effect the genes producing peptides and proteins in animals that reproduced reflect evolution. Who gives much a=of a damn about the animal which is the product of aggregate genetic evolution. To suggest that it was the animal which evolved completely misses the point. If it were the animal that evolved it might be appropriate to suggest such as structures and systems evolved. Nope just another modification in effective biological molecules is what is evolving. Suggesting that a set of macro conditions lead to their evolution misses the fine structure of the process. The animal may reflect the molecular evolution in some ways but it is not the animal that evolved.

 

[untermensche]

How is this prevented merely by saying the animal evolved?

One needs to start by staying in focus.. In effect the genes producing peptides and proteins in animals that reproduced reflect evolution. Who gives much a=of a damn about the animal which is the product of aggregate genetic evolution. To suggest that it was the animal which evolved completely misses the point. If it were the animal that evolved it might be appropriate to suggest such as structures and systems evolved. Nope just another modification in effective biological molecules is what is evolving. Suggesting that a set of macro conditions lead to their evolution misses the fine structure of the process. The animal may reflect the molecular evolution in some ways but it is not the animal that evolved.

The animal evolves. The leg interacting with the world either successfully or unsuccessfully determines it's design. The genes are merely what first allows random change and then records the changes that are successful. Genes are bookkeepers. Passive. Driving nothing and determining nothing.

But this is beyond the point.

You can't limit what consciousness is by how it arrived when we are talking about matter. Matter has effects we cannot see with the naked eye.

The only way we know about quantum effects is by discovering them.

None are deduced by any model.

The models are built to explain observed behavior not predict behavior that has not been observed.

 

[Juma]

One needs to start by staying in focus.. In effect the genes producing peptides and proteins in animals that reproduced reflect evolution. Who gives much a=of a damn about the animal which is the product of aggregate genetic evolution. To suggest that it was the animal which evolved completely misses the point. If it were the animal that evolved it might be appropriate to suggest such as structures and systems evolved. Nope just another modification in effective biological molecules is what is evolving. Suggesting that a set of macro conditions lead to their evolution misses the fine structure of the process. The animal may reflect the molecular evolution in some ways but it is not the animal that evolved.

The animal evolves. The leg interacting with the world either successfully or unsuccessfully determines it's design. The genes are merely what first allows random change and then records the changes that are successful. Genes are bookkeepers. Passive. Driving nothing and determining nothing.

But this is beyond the point.

You can't limit what consciousness is by how it arrived when we are talking about matter. Matter has effects we cannot see with the naked eye.

The only way we know about quantum effects is by discovering them.

None are deduced by any model.

The models are built to explain observed behavior not predict behavior that has not been observed.

The leg is not passed on to the next generation, the genes are. Each leg belongs to a single individual thus legs cannot evolve. The leg rots with its owner while the genes are passed on and are combined and selected.

 

[untermensche]

The animal evolves. The leg interacting with the world either successfully or unsuccessfully determines it's design. The genes are merely what first allows random change and then records the changes that are successful. Genes are bookkeepers. Passive. Driving nothing and determining nothing.

But this is beyond the point.

You can't limit what consciousness is by how it arrived when we are talking about matter. Matter has effects we cannot see with the naked eye.

The only way we know about quantum effects is by discovering them.

None are deduced by any model.

The models are built to explain observed behavior not predict behavior that has not been observed.

The leg is not passed on to the next generation, the genes are. Each leg belongs to a single individual thus legs cannot evolve. The leg rots with its owner while the genes are passed on and are combined and selected.

If the genes are passed aspects of the leg are potentially passed.

It is the success of the leg that determines which genes are passed.

Not the success of genes that determine which leg is passed.

Genes don't have success or failure. Legs do.