Consciousness

[DBT]

You should understand that response time between perception is measurable, you can test it yourself with online reflex tests to get an exact figure of your range of response times and your average;

https://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime

As you should understand that the fMRI experiments are able to show brain activity prior to visual/motor action response allowing predictions to be made before the subject is aware of which button to press.

Plus you continue to ignore the physics of cognition. Inputs precede transmission of information which precedes processing and memory integration which precedes conscious representation.

You can't escape the fact of this, so you have to ignore it because it doesn't suit your own beliefs, yet it makes your position obsolete, null and void, unfounded, without support, legless. You have nothing, sorry.

There is NOTHING objective about guessing when you think some metal activity is beginning.

It is a purely subjective exercise. Of course even subjective guesses can be timed to the millisecond, if a button is pushed. And the times can be averaged. But that doesn't make them objective.

In terms of saying something about consciousness, this is a silly joke.

It amazes me people can swallow it and even defend it.

Bravo, well done, I see you that you are still avoiding the issue of the sequence of cognitive events necessary for consciousness formation. Which shows your notion of autonomous consciousness for what it is, an unsupported claim that has no merit.

 

[untermensche]

There is NOTHING objective about guessing when you think some metal activity is beginning.

It is a purely subjective exercise. Of course even subjective guesses can be timed to the millisecond, if a button is pushed. And the times can be averaged. But that doesn't make them objective.

In terms of saying something about consciousness, this is a silly joke.

It amazes me people can swallow it and even defend it.

Bravo, well done, I see you that you are still avoiding the issue of the sequence of cognitive events necessary for consciousness formation. Which shows your notion of autonomous consciousness for what it is, an unsupported claim that has no merit.

You don't have the slightest clue what happens when somebody wills their arm to move.

You do not understand any sequence within it.

Hint: Willing your arm to move is not responding to a request to move at a given time from an experimenter.

You have never once observed what happens in the brain when a person freely moves their arm.

 

[George S]

The slightest clue? Okay.

When somebody wills their arm to move, they imagine a goal -- generate arm movement. Their subconscious knows (yes the subconscious "knows," perhaps much more than the conscious) which muscles to contract and relax to make the arm match the imagined image. The brain sends the proper signals to get the job done if all is functioning normally. "I can't move my arm" is indicative of abnormality.

"Will" is exercised in the imagination. Sometimes much more complicated than mere muscle movement. If I have the ability to swim the willed thought may be standing on the far shore, and as I let the unconscious attend to that goal, I enjoy the pure experience of swimming.

Sequence, eh? See above: Idea --> action --> does the current state match the idea? --> stop, otherwise choose an action and loop.

"Will" is not the thing here, though. It is consciousness.

You claim that your incorrigible* experience of consciousness is the essence of consciousness. The feeling of being a point of view. The Cartesian Theatre.

What level clue would satisfy you that "you" are part of your brain. An emergent property. Exact neurons firing when the arm is willed to move? Region of the brain responsible for arm movement? The psychological subconscious that knows what you do not? The demonstration of the ideomotor reflex?

Hint: A request, or even a disguised suggestion, to do something may well lead from idea to action subconsciously.

Of course I have never once observed what happens in the brain when a different person does anything at all. I cannot know what their internal ideas are, what their subconscious knows, which neurons to fire. I suppose that some scientists have observed real-time images of a brain doing arm movement at some level. We might see a difference if the suggestion is to move various body parts ad lib. One of them is almost sure to be a freely moving arm.
____
* Your testimony about your consciousness is incorrigibly true. I can never know. (ETA)

 

[untermensche]

What does it mean physiologically to "imagine a goal"?

Can you explain what is specifically happening in the brain when you imagine something which allows the imagining to take place?

 

[George S]

What does it mean physiologically to "imagine a goal"?

Can you explain what is specifically happening in the brain when you imagine something which allows the imagining to take place?

(Bye the way, robot, you still haven't proved you are not. How could you know?)

As for what is happening during imagination....

1) Dreams -- imagination unconstrained by natural law.
2) Day Dreams and Plans -- imagination constrained by natural law but unconstrained by reality.
3) Consciousness -- imagination constrained by reality.

You are imagination of yourself constrained by reality.
Plans include a model of your future self in the Day Dream.

 

[untermensche]

What does it mean physiologically to "imagine a goal"?

Can you explain what is specifically happening in the brain when you imagine something which allows the imagining to take place?

(Bye the way, robot, you still haven't proved you are not. How could you know?)

As for what is happening during imagination....

1) Dreams -- imagination unconstrained by natural law.
2) Day Dreams and Plans -- imagination constrained by natural law but unconstrained by reality.
3) Consciousness -- imagination constrained by reality.

You are imagination of yourself constrained by reality.
Plans include a model of your future self in the Day Dream.

This is not what I asked you.

I asked for a physiological explanation, not mere conjecture about general features of complete physiological products.

Products known only from subjective reporting, not through any understanding of what the brain is doing.

I can get just as much "information" from anybody with a consciousness.

Your "definition" of "robot" is not worth anything.

 

[DBT]

Bravo, well done, I see you that you are still avoiding the issue of the sequence of cognitive events necessary for consciousness formation. Which shows your notion of autonomous consciousness for what it is, an unsupported claim that has no merit.

You don't have the slightest clue what happens when somebody wills their arm to move.

You do not understand any sequence within it.

Hint: Willing your arm to move is not responding to a request to move at a given time from an experimenter.

You have never once observed what happens in the brain when a person freely moves their arm.

It may be you who has not the slightest clue.....have you considered that possibility?

Or the possibility that your post is a display of outrage and denial designed to again avoid the clear and undeniable sequence of events necessary for formation of consciousness.

Sight, for example (being an attribute of consciousness), cannot precede sensory input of information, nerve transmission, processing, integration, etc. Consciousness is built on this information. It is inseparable from it.

But of course, you cannot deal with this because your belief does not allow it. Hence your mantra being regularly trotted out along with your displays of outrage and denial.

That's what happens when you have no case to argue.

 

[bilby]

Bravo, well done, I see you that you are still avoiding the issue of the sequence of cognitive events necessary for consciousness formation. Which shows your notion of autonomous consciousness for what it is, an unsupported claim that has no merit.

You don't have the slightest clue what happens when somebody wills their arm to move.

You do not understand any sequence within it.

Hint: Willing your arm to move is not responding to a request to move at a given time from an experimenter.

You have never once observed what happens in the brain when a person freely moves their arm.

You have yet to demonstrate that it is even coherent to discuss a person freely moving their arm.

I contend that it is quite possible that freedom in this context is illusory; That moving ones arm is an action that is entirely dictated by circumstances, and that the illusion of freedom exists only because the details of those circumstances are inscrutable - One might just as well claim that Hurricane Irma freely chose to make landfall on the west coast of Florida rather than the east coast. Of course, hurricanes don't make choices (free or otherwise); they are unpredictable because we cannot know all of the details of the myriad external influences upon them. The question is, what evidence do you have that brains make choices, and do not simply respond in a deterministic (but chaotic) fashion to the myriad external influences upon them? Why should we believe (as you clearly do) that brains are somehow fundamentally different from other chaotic and complex physical systems?

How do we know that there is such a thing as a free choice at all? It may feel like there is; But lots of things that are demonstrably false feel like they are true, so that's no guide at all.

 

[untermensche]

You don't have the slightest clue what happens when somebody wills their arm to move.

You do not understand any sequence within it.

Hint: Willing your arm to move is not responding to a request to move at a given time from an experimenter.

You have never once observed what happens in the brain when a person freely moves their arm.

It may be you who has not the slightest clue.....have you considered that possibility?

Or the possibility that your post is a display of outrage and denial designed to again avoid the clear and undeniable sequence of events necessary for formation of consciousness.

Sight, for example (being an attribute of consciousness), cannot precede sensory input of information, nerve transmission, processing, integration, etc. Consciousness is built on this information. It is inseparable from it.

But of course, you cannot deal with this because your belief does not allow it. Hence your mantra being regularly trotted out along with your displays of outrage and denial.

That's what happens when you have no case to argue.

No I am serious.

I do not think the timing of guesses should ever pass as objective science.

 

[fromderinside]

It may be you who has not the slightest clue.....have you considered that possibility?

That's what happens when you have no case to argue.

No I am serious.

I do not think the timing of guesses should ever pass as objective science.

So the method is the problem? Every human interaction in an experiment, unless direct testimonial response, is a guess.

Testimonial response is also not objective since it is rational person to rational person with no operations controlling measurement.

Hell, one can manufacture arguments that any human involvement in the construction of experiments is not objective so science goes into the shit can.

What a wonderful world you live in.

Oh wait. I see. Trump. Woo Woo.

 

[untermensche]

No I am serious.

I do not think the timing of guesses should ever pass as objective science.

So the method is the problem? Every human interaction in an experiment, unless direct testimonial response, is a guess.

Testimonial response is also not objective since it is rational person to rational person with no operations controlling measurement.

Hell, one can manufacture arguments that any human involvement in the construction of experiments is not objective so science goes into the shit can.

What a wonderful world you live in.

Oh wait. I see. Trump. Woo Woo.

The timing could be objectified.

But that would require being able to understand the brain activity associated with conscious decisions and not rely on subjective reporting for any information about experience.

 

[fromderinside]

The timing could be objectified.

But that would require being able to understand the brain activity associated with conscious decisions and not rely on subjective reporting for any information about experience.

No it doesn't. We can get from five photons to perception "I see something". By using human input from a properly constructed experiment permitting limited photons to arrive at the retina, part through calculation of eye physical properties relative to light, and by taking measures of light arriving on the retina in each trial we get the data required for the specification.

 

[untermensche]

The timing could be objectified.

But that would require being able to understand the brain activity associated with conscious decisions and not rely on subjective reporting for any information about experience.

No it doesn't. We can get from five photons to perception "I see something". By using human input from a properly constructed experiment permitting limited photons to arrive at the retina, part through calculation of eye physical properties relative to light, and by taking measures of light arriving on the retina in each trial we get the data required for the specification.

The question is one timing. Timing to the millisecond.

And the timing right now is completely subjective (a guess) because we have no idea what ANY brain activity is actually doing.

If we knew what the activity was doing we would not have to rely on subjective reporting.

 

[DBT]

The simple fact of physics, the necessity of inputs preceding transmission, the necessity of processing of inputs preceding integration of information and the necessity of integration of information preceding conscious experience completely negates everything you claim in defense of your indefensible position on autonomous consciousness. As it does your irrelevant example of lifting your arm at will, which of course does not take into account the prior steps, described above, which shapes, forms and generates you and your will to raise your arm. Which you dutifully ignore, habitually falling back to your mantra - ''you know nothing'' you know nothing'' - meanwhile making claims of knowledge for yourself.

Sorry, you don't have a leg to stand on.

 

[fromderinside]

Actually timing is not the problem. The problem is trusting observers are good enough when they are thinking to detect occurrence of decision event. If they are, timing can be found by controlled use additional instructions and measures. Other methods can be used to track on going brain activity at known regions and centers where such activity is located. J. D. Haynes seems pretty good at doing this sort of process.

 

[untermensche]

The simple fact of physics, the necessity of inputs preceding transmission, the necessity of processing of inputs preceding integration of information and the necessity of integration of information preceding conscious experience completely negates everything you claim in defense of your indefensible position on autonomous consciousness. As it does your irrelevant example of lifting your arm at will, which of course does not take into account the prior steps, described above, which shapes, forms and generates you and your will to raise your arm. Which you dutifully ignore, habitually falling back to your mantra - ''you know nothing'' you know nothing'' - meanwhile making claims of knowledge for yourself.

Sorry, you don't have a leg to stand on.

There is no physics that makes it impossible for the will to move the arm.

All that is required is that the will be something that is able to direct energy of some kind.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually timing is not the problem. The problem is trusting observers are good enough when they are thinking to detect occurrence of decision event. If they are, timing can be found by controlled use additional instructions and measures. Other methods can be used to track on going brain activity at known regions and centers where such activity is located. J. D. Haynes seems pretty good at doing this sort of process.

The whole fucking thing is based on timing. Based on the timing of when people GUESS they are beginning some mental activity. As if there is some clear awareness of exactly when we begin activity that never ends while awake.

Change the timing of these guesses by a few milliseconds and the whole hypothesis collapses.

 

[fromderinside]

Well gee guy. I guess we have to throw away Fechner, Weber, Stevens, Mountcastle, Neff and Plomp work then. What really matter is that humans can detect an event like awareness of decision. That proven finding correct time even by phychophysical methods is a cake walk. First step is having reliable reports, then reliable reports liked to neural behavior, then narrowing down parameters like time, intensity, decision processes, etc. etc. etc. We've been successfully doing just that sine the late 1700s.

 

[DBT]

There is no physics that makes it impossible for the will to move the arm.

All that is required is that the will be something that is able to direct energy of some kind.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually timing is not the problem. The problem is trusting observers are good enough when they are thinking to detect occurrence of decision event. If they are, timing can be found by controlled use additional instructions and measures. Other methods can be used to track on going brain activity at known regions and centers where such activity is located. J. D. Haynes seems pretty good at doing this sort of process.

The whole fucking thing is based on timing. Based on the timing of when people GUESS they are beginning some mental activity. As if there is some clear awareness of exactly when we begin activity that never ends while awake.

Change the timing of these guesses by a few milliseconds and the whole hypothesis collapses.

Right on cue, there's the mantra. You deliberately ignore the fact of a sequence of cognitive events beginning with inputs via sensory organs...which is not a guess, or a belief, or speculation but a fact of physics and biological architecture, which makes not only the issue of when a decision becomes conscious or when a button is pressed because the prior processing is a necessity and a fact.

It is this that makes your claims laughable.....but you persist with your fallacies regardless.

 

[untermensche]

There is no physics that makes it impossible for the will to move the arm.

All that is required is that the will be something that is able to direct energy of some kind.

- - - Updated - - -



The whole fucking thing is based on timing. Based on the timing of when people GUESS they are beginning some mental activity. As if there is some clear awareness of exactly when we begin activity that never ends while awake.

Change the timing of these guesses by a few milliseconds and the whole hypothesis collapses.

Right on cue, there's the mantra. You deliberately ignore the fact of a sequence of cognitive events beginning with inputs via sensory organs...which is not a guess, or a belief, or speculation but a fact of physics and biological architecture, which makes not only the issue of when a decision becomes conscious or when a button is pressed because the prior processing is a necessity and a fact.

It is this that makes your claims laughable.....but you persist with your fallacies regardless.

I'm ignoring nothing.

You are ignoring the only evidence we have concerning the will.

The will is not explained in any way in any of your experiments. There is simply a prejudice that exists concerning it.

You will your arm to move and it does.

You can run this experiment as many times as you choose.

 

[untermensche]

Well gee guy. I guess we have to throw away Fechner, Weber, Stevens, Mountcastle, Neff and Plomp work then. What really matter is that humans can detect an event like awareness of decision. That proven finding correct time even by phychophysical methods is a cake walk. First step is having reliable reports, then reliable reports liked to neural behavior, then narrowing down parameters like time, intensity, decision processes, etc. etc. etc. We've been successfully doing just that sine the late 1700s.

A subjective report about timing to the millisecond is NEVER considered a reliable report.