Consciousness

[fromderinside]

In my bizarre world trees usually have green leaves or needles that provide oxygen to the atmosphere.

In your world oxygen produces itself.

Maybe you can demonstrate how that works.

You persist in chanting your misled belief that self reporting is invalid method when that's all you do.

untermenche's principle: Ignore myself

'Why' is a mystery to you.

Why is that.

 

[untermensche]

In your world oxygen produces itself.

Worthless strawman.

In my world we know consciousness knows what an idea is.

There is not one bit of evidence a brain does.

 

[fromderinside]

In your world oxygen produces itself.

Worthless strawman.

In my world we know consciousness knows what an idea is.

There is not one bit of evidence a brain does.

So your world works without a brain. A brain that receives and processes input, performs analytic tasks, provides for control and execution of all output, controls life preserving actions.

Your consciousness has no parts, references, instancing processes.

Welcome to the world of sify mind meld.

Show

fantasy land

 

[untermensche]

A brain need not know what an idea is.

A product of the brain , consciousness, may be the only thing that knows what an idea is.

That which creates the thing that understands an idea need not understand the idea.

You have no evidence of anything besides consciousness that can understand and act on an idea.

What you need is an idea to somehow get around this.

 

[DBT]

You see, that kind of remark ignores everything I have said about brain agency, including all that I have provided in the way of experiments, evidence and analysis by the researchers themselves....

BULLSHIT!!!!

You had your chance to defend the research and we found it was nothing more than the timing of human guesses.

Instead of apologizing as a decent human would you just ignore this fact that totally destroys your absurd position.

You have nothing. You offer nothing. You stopped providing anything of use long ago.

You are a broken record fixated on bad arguments that have been shown to be bad arguments.

You deny a person can will their arm to move.

You deny clear facts.

There is nothing more to discuss with you. You have been done for a long time.

I only even respond to you as a courtesy.

There is no need to defend the research. The research and its evidence is quite solid. The research quite clearly supports brain agency. That is overwhelming consensus amongst researchers and anyone who actually considers the evidence in an objective manner.

Which you do not do. You simply reject all research, reject all evidence, reject whatever researchers have to say....why? well, because it does not agree with your belief in autonomy of consciousness.

And you still ignore the undeniable physics of cognition, that inputs precede transmission of information, which precedes propagation of information within neural networks, which precedes processing and conscious representation/conscious experience of self thinking and acting.

There is no way around this for you, hence your dummy spits. You have no case. You don't have a leg to stand on....huff and puff about that fact as much as you like.

 

[DBT]

A brain need not know what an idea is.

A product of the brain , consciousness, may be the only thing that knows what an idea is.

That which creates the thing that understands an idea need not understand the idea.

You have no evidence of anything besides consciousness that can understand and act on an idea.

What you need is an idea to somehow get around this.

There is nothing to get around. There is no duality. Consciousness is inseparable from an active functional brain forming and generating streams of conscious activity. If you have an idea, it's because the brain brought the idea to consciousness. Consciousness did not do it. The brain does it.

 

[untermensche]

A brain need not know what an idea is.

A product of the brain , consciousness, may be the only thing that knows what an idea is.

That which creates the thing that understands an idea need not understand the idea.

You have no evidence of anything besides consciousness that can understand and act on an idea.

What you need is an idea to somehow get around this.

There is nothing to get around. There is no duality. Consciousness is inseparable from an active functional brain forming and generating streams of conscious activity. If you have an idea, it's because the brain brought the idea to consciousness. Consciousness did not do it. The brain does it.

Consciousness is separated from many brain functions.

Consciousness does not experience how the brain creates vision. It only experiences the final product.

We know it experiences the final product.

There is no reason to think the brain itself experiences vision.

Or knows what an idea is.

You seem to think you can cast magic spells by saying "duality" and "autonomy". You don't have a clue how these concepts pertain. And have no valid arguments concerning them. You merely say them as a way to comfort yourself those rare moments you can perceive you understand nothing about what is going on in the brain.

There is no need to defend the research. The research and its evidence is quite solid.

The research is looking at the timing of human guesses.

Sure they are looking at the guesses well.

But human guesses are a subjective phenomena. Trying to objectify them is absolute nonsense.

 

[fromderinside]

You have no evidence of anything besides consciousness that can understand and act on an idea.

What you need is an idea to somehow get around this.

I do. Genetic processes by randomly bumping into obstacles built up physical systems that can produce a successful animal that can imagine what it's situation will very likely be in the near future, develop a plan and act on it as mechanisms which, on average, increase the likelihood of that animal's surviving. We see the results of that process in the development of such as the brain across speciation as found in the human. We know that some other species have the ability to plan and communicate much as humans do even though they don't have our manipulative dexterity for physically shaping material tools. Apes, dolphins, and dogs can form and act on ideas.

All of what is summarized above can be found in scientific literature which is where I gathered it.

All you have is self knowing a faulty process detached from physical basis through which you somehow give a notion of consciousness other than a physical base without explanation. Scientists can, by plan, use stimuli to elicit actions from the brain of an individual. Scientists give evidence of knowing the source and nature of such capability, publish it, let other scientists repeat it. You can only wave your hands and say it's there, it's there.

 

[DBT]

There is nothing to get around. There is no duality. Consciousness is inseparable from an active functional brain forming and generating streams of conscious activity. If you have an idea, it's because the brain brought the idea to consciousness. Consciousness did not do it. The brain does it.

Consciousness is separated from many brain functions.

Consciousness does not experience how the brain creates vision. It only experiences the final product.

We know it experiences the final product.

There is no reason to think the brain itself experiences vision.

Or knows what an idea is.

You seem to think you can cast magic spells by saying "duality" and "autonomy". You don't have a clue how these concepts pertain. And have no valid arguments concerning them. You merely say them as a way to comfort yourself those rare moments you can perceive you understand nothing about what is going on in the brain.

There is no need to defend the research. The research and its evidence is quite solid.

The research is looking at the timing of human guesses.

Sure they are looking at the guesses well.

But human guesses are a subjective phenomena. Trying to objectify them is absolute nonsense.

So you still avoid the irrefutable fact of physics; that sensory inputs precede transmission of information, which precedes propagation of information within neural networks, which precedes processing and conscious representation/conscious experience of self thinking and acting, and continue to run through the briar's and brambles of your unfounded belief.

 

[untermensche]

So you still avoid the irrefutable fact of physics; that sensory inputs precede transmission of information, which precedes propagation of information within neural networks, which precedes processing and conscious representation/conscious experience of self thinking and acting, and continue to run through the briar's and brambles of your unfounded belief.

There is no part of physics that says a thought can't produce energy and move the arm with it.

You have been reduced to just making things up.

 

[fromderinside]

Information theory's connection to entropy takes care of that. Energy is required to produce information. As I see it the thought is merely the message, information, produced by the brain of the human. In other words, your great claim is a ho hum been there done that. The thought causes nothing beyond the information.

 

[DBT]

So you still avoid the irrefutable fact of physics; that sensory inputs precede transmission of information, which precedes propagation of information within neural networks, which precedes processing and conscious representation/conscious experience of self thinking and acting, and continue to run through the briar's and brambles of your unfounded belief.

There is no part of physics that says a thought can't produce energy and move the arm with it.

You have been reduced to just making things up.

So you still avoid the physics of cognition....it is not 'your' thought that magically moves 'your' arm, but the system as a whole beginning - you guessed it - with the sequence of events, starting with inputs, processing and prompts and ending with the related motor action.....which is not carried out with/by thought but neural mechanisms in response to information inputs, processing, etc, etc.

Your idea has no evidential support, is not logical and has no merit. Yet you maintain it in the face of evidence to the contrary for your own personal reasons.

 

[untermensche]

Information theory's connection to entropy takes care of that. Energy is required to produce information. As I see it the thought is merely the message, information, produced by the brain of the human. In other words, your great claim is a ho hum been there done that. The thought causes nothing beyond the information.

You don't have the vaguest idea what a thought is physically.

Not the slightest clue.

Yet you think you can make some comments about it beyond your experience.

What a fucking joke!!

 

[untermensche]

There is no part of physics that says a thought can't produce energy and move the arm with it.

You have been reduced to just making things up.

So you still avoid the physics of cognition....it is not 'your' thought that magically moves 'your' arm, but the system as a whole beginning - you guessed it - with the sequence of events, starting with inputs, processing and prompts and ending with the related motor action.....which is not carried out with/by thought but neural mechanisms in response to information inputs, processing, etc, etc.

Your idea has no evidential support, is not logical and has no merit. Yet you maintain it in the face of evidence to the contrary for your own personal reasons.

It is something done in the mind, call it a thought, call it the will, it doesn't matter. Nobody has the slightest idea what it is physically.

But if this "thought" is not carried out the arm will not move.

There is no evidence it is not this "thought" initiating action. Not one shred of evidence. Not even the timing of guesses.

 

[fromderinside]

Information theory's connection to entropy takes care of that. Energy is required to produce information. As I see it the thought is merely the message, information, produced by the brain of the human. In other words, your great claim is a ho hum been there done that. The thought causes nothing beyond the information.

You don't have the vaguest idea what a thought is physically.

Not the slightest clue.

Yet you think you can make some comments about it beyond your experience.

What a fucking joke!!

Actually I do. Thermodynamics of Information (http://jordanmhorowitz.mit.edu/sites/default/files/documents/natureInfo.pdf ) provides a fairly good description of where we are in cataloging energy requirements for information production. Recent articles those of us on the deterministic side have presented make it pretty clear energy uptake in the form of metabolic activity (O₂ uptake) for metabolism at neurons associated with decision making, language production, articulation associated with the transmission of information production and delivery. So we are preceding with continued advances in our understanding.

You on the other hand have nothing better that thought so philosophers 3500 year ago that thought is something utterly different from material things, not an iota of progress over that span. SAD.

 

[bilby]

You don't have the vaguest idea what a thought is physically.

Not the slightest clue.

Yet you think you can make some comments about it beyond your experience.

What a fucking joke!!

You should read that back to yourself in front of a mirror, and take a good hard look at yourself.

I know you won't. But you really, really should.

 

[untermensche]

You don't have the vaguest idea what a thought is physically.

Not the slightest clue.

Yet you think you can make some comments about it beyond your experience.

What a fucking joke!!

Actually I do. Thermodynamics of Information (http://jordanmhorowitz.mit.edu/sites/default/files/documents/natureInfo.pdf ) provides a fairly good description of where we are in cataloging energy requirements for information production. Recent articles those of us on the deterministic side have presented make it pretty clear energy uptake in the form of metabolic activity (O₂ uptake) for metabolism at neurons associated with decision making, language production, articulation associated with the transmission of information production and delivery. So we are preceding with continued advances in our understanding.

You on the other hand have nothing better that thought so philosophers 3500 year ago that thought is something utterly different from material things, not an iota of progress over that span. SAD.

Translation.

You don't have a clue what a thought is physically.

 

[bilby]

Actually I do. Thermodynamics of Information (http://jordanmhorowitz.mit.edu/sites/default/files/documents/natureInfo.pdf ) provides a fairly good description of where we are in cataloging energy requirements for information production. Recent articles those of us on the deterministic side have presented make it pretty clear energy uptake in the form of metabolic activity (O₂ uptake) for metabolism at neurons associated with decision making, language production, articulation associated with the transmission of information production and delivery. So we are preceding with continued advances in our understanding.

You on the other hand have nothing better that thought so philosophers 3500 year ago that thought is something utterly different from material things, not an iota of progress over that span. SAD.

Translation.

You don't have a clue what a thought is physically.

Translation:

Untermensche's ignorance is better than everyone else's ignorance.

 

[untermensche]

Translation.

You don't have a clue what a thought is physically.

Translation:

Untermensche's ignorance is better than everyone else's ignorance.

What you have to do is explain what a thought is physically to show me wrong.

Saying it is brain activity, or activity in the brain is not an answer unless you can correlate a specific thought to specific activity and show how the activity produced the effect to prove it is the activity producing the effect.

 

[fromderinside]

Translation:

Untermensche's ignorance is better than everyone else's ignorance.

What you have to do is explain what a thought is physically to show me wrong.

Saying it is brain activity, or activity in the brain is not an answer unless you can correlate a specific thought to specific activity and show how the activity produced the effect to prove it is the activity producing the effect.

Lucky you. You ignore requests for support for your position. Then you cavalierly broadside attempts by others to point you toward the fact that thought is just information yielded by a brain processing inputs and processes according to it's genetically proven mechanics. A thought is just information based on work the brain carries out. A thought is information. It has no physical element. Thought is produced by defined work that is physical.

Had you any knowledge of physical processes you should have known that by now. As Um said "dotard".