Consciousness

[DBT]

Brain damage can lead to abnormal function. Delusions.

What does this tell us about the ability of consciousness to move the arm?

How is this a response to what I said?

We do not understand the language of brain activity.

We do not know what any of it means.

All we can do is relate subjective reports (delusions) with parts that are damaged.

Whether damaged or functional, it is the state of the brain in any given moment in time that determines the expression of consciousness, healthy or delusional, and consequently, how a person sees the world, self and he or she responds, decisions made and carried out, some rational and beneficial, some irrational and destructive. Basic stuff. Not controversial. Of course, it doesn't suit your own belief in autonomy of consciousness.

 

[untermensche]

I don't care how you want to label it.

You have no understanding of how a "brain state" becomes conscious experience.

You do not understand one word of the language of brain activity.

All you know is the difference between no activity and activity and between some activity and different activity.

 

[fromderinside]

Your no understanding is seriously wrong. We find and track up to 19 different perceptual stages in the brain. We can anticipate changes by just changing specific inputs is very well defined ways. We know where a particular finger is determined by tracing from motor cortex to specific language cortex so that when we stimulate one we record a particular finger verbal signal which we can replicate by stimulating that area too.

Much is know about consciousness, what it is, how it works, what it denotes and whether the the I wish to lift my hand actually leads to one sending signals that actually lead to hand raising.

So get on you little nickel pony and gallop off to mama.

 

[untermensche]

Your no understanding is seriously wrong. We find and track up to 19 different perceptual stages in the brain.

That is knowing the location of activity.

Not decoding the language of activity.

We can anticipate changes by just changing specific inputs is very well defined ways.

Again, only changes in location, not nature of activity.

To you it is the same kind of activity that creates vision as creates an itch.

It is all just activity to you.

All that differs is where it occurs.

We know where a particular finger is determined by tracing from motor cortex to specific language cortex so that when we stimulate one we record a particular finger verbal signal which we can replicate by stimulating that area too.

Playing around with external electricity is not an explanation of the language of brain activity.

Your song and dance must be getting tiring.

 

[DBT]

I don't care how you want to label it.

You have no understanding of how a "brain state" becomes conscious experience.

You do not understand one word of the language of brain activity.

All you know is the difference between no activity and activity and between some activity and different activity.

There it is, the Mantra, all the while you yourself claiming to know that consciousness is autonomous from the brain, but whenever backed into a corner ignore all evidence to the contrary and chant the mantra.....''you don't know'' ''you don't know''....

 

[untermensche]

I don't care how you want to label it.

You have no understanding of how a "brain state" becomes conscious experience.

You do not understand one word of the language of brain activity.

All you know is the difference between no activity and activity and between some activity and different activity.

There it is, the Mantra, all the while you yourself claiming to know that consciousness is autonomous from the brain, but whenever backed into a corner ignore all evidence to the contrary and chant the mantra.....''you don't know'' ''you don't know''....

I have figured out what you mean by "mantra".

"That same damn truth again about not knowing one word of the language of brain activity".

 

[fromderinside]

So if we know the location, the action of neurons at the location, the responsibility of those neurons and their relations with other also known and understood neurons and we can accurately predict what observers will do know when all these things take place what following all this activity you still say we know nothing about what the brain does or what consciousness is. You have some sort of screwed up understanding of what neuroscientists can do and actually succeed at performing.

The language of brain activity in binary, just trillions and trillions of biological switches churning out the information that forms the many operas ongoing in the brain. some of which leave you with the belief that you are an agent, can predict, can choose. It all comes down to hearing those little voices in your head, which aren't in your head, they're usually subvocalizing activity, and visual arena activity you choose to see as consciousness as your conscious world.

You can shovel all the turds you need to make yourself beieve yyour are on to something, but, it's just Maezel, that little thing you believe is speaking for you.

 

[bilby]

There it is, the Mantra, all the while you yourself claiming to know that consciousness is autonomous from the brain, but whenever backed into a corner ignore all evidence to the contrary and chant the mantra.....''you don't know'' ''you don't know''....

I have figured out what you mean by "mantra".

"That same damn truth again about not knowing one word of the language of brain activity".

It's more "I know nothing, therefore nobody knows anything, therefore I know I am right", which is pretty much your usual standard of logic.

 

[DBT]

I have figured out what you mean by "mantra".

"That same damn truth again about not knowing one word of the language of brain activity".

It's more "I know nothing, therefore nobody knows anything, therefore I know I am right", which is pretty much your usual standard of logic.

That's it. But sadly, our Mr Untermensche appears impervious to anyone or anything that does not agree his beliefs. It's a tragedy. A minor one, but a tragedy nonetheless.

 

[untermensche]

It's more "I know nothing, therefore nobody knows anything, therefore I know I am right", which is pretty much your usual standard of logic.

That's it. But sadly, our Mr Untermensche appears impervious to anyone or anything that does not agree his beliefs. It's a tragedy. A minor one, but a tragedy nonetheless.

You do not understand anything about how brain activity translates to conscious experience.

You do not even have a working model to explain how something like that could be possible.

It is a lie to say you do.

The only thing you know about consciousness is the experience of your own.

That is the only way you are able to make any comments about it at all.

You can't make one comment about consciousness that was not some subjective report.

 

[fromderinside]

I'm going to do some introspection here.

When I begin to consider consciousness, even before I look in with a keyword search. I sit back and consider mine. Right now I'm at my computer. So I see the keyboard and screen and tower with attachments. There is color. There are sounds disembodied I think because they emanate from the tower and my ears, tinnitus, there is some discomfort, I am recovering from a congestive bout, and my lower back tends to ache all the time. It is hard to keep typing since I have little energy. All that at the same time. Not unified, but together separately. All this is there constantly conscious, usually aware, sometimes swinging to something to which I attend such as correcting typos.

Seems pretty obvious to me all these perceptions are individual brought together in the instant to support whatever I am or plan to do.

They are there constantly even when I'm concentrating elsewhere. I don't concentrate on smells much, neve have, even though I am pretty good at picking up scents.

So there's a catalog.

What lies under that? Well vision is a pretty dominant sense and audition is on all the time even during somnolence. Aches and pains and limb and body awareness are usually necessary so they are accounted. Like tinnitus, blood flow is sometimes pretty import so ....

Doesn't seem to be set up for anything in particular other than general awareness. But when I decide on something I find all sorts of other information is popping up whether before or after I really can't fathom. I often think it's before and then find it's after. So is consciousness the theater or is it the particular?

Drilling down I find that the arena plays a major part in my deciding. If it is A to whom I am responding or writing his last post has been analyzed and pooped out. If it is B then I am biased to be agreeable regardless of what I just read. These conditions seem to be true for me most of the time. For such as the arm moving because I decide that's bunk on it's face since my arm usually demands I keep it where it is.

Just a little exercise.

 

[Treedbear]

A theater is incomplete as a metaphor for consciousness since it implies there is an audience. How does the brain provide that audience? That's the paradox.

Ah, sweet Iago. Dost thou not see the audience there captive in the scene. The brain provides itself as witness. Neat trick. That which creates the scene must experience the scene for awareness. It does so by being convinced it's after the fact visions are what it is planning. Yes a madman, a witness lost in time. ...

Interesting ...

"Breaking the fourth wall" is any instance in which this performance convention, having been adopted more generally in the drama, is violated. This can be done through either directly referencing the audience, the play as a play, or the characters' fictionality. The temporary suspension of the convention in this way draws attention to its use in the rest of the performance.

Perhaps it's what's responsible for conscious experience. I've been saying the brain creates models as its modus operandi. The self is just a model like any other only much more intricate. Consciousness is what happens when any other model references the self. Which would be like "breaking the 4th wall".

 

[Treedbear]

Seriously. I understand autonomy in the sense of an individual person being free from the coersion of others. Although, in the strictest sense, even coerced decisions are simply decisions made under adverse conditions. But what is autonomy from one's own brain and the processes which determine one's perceptions and acquired values and preferences? The physical brain doesn't simply carry out the commands of an autonomous self. It provides all the input and algorithms by which it obtains feedback and awareness. Autonomy would entail making blind decisions, or choosing to make them randomly, or else basing them on some entirely disparate set of values. And, aside from reactions based on a few inherited instincts, the latter would require dualism.

Autonomy of consciousness is the ability to make decisions based on ideas. Based on thinking.

Consciousness is that which thinks.

The brain is just it's tool.

First, I'll be the first to say I don't understand what conscious experience is. Why do I see a particular color red for instance? But there's no reason to think that red exists apart from certain neuronal stimulation, along with the algorithms in the brain that filter those physical signals and reinterpret them with respect to conditioning from past experience. Likewise I don't see how ideas can arise from anything other than the brain's processes. There must just be something unique about how the brain interprets these processes when consciously thinking. Afterall, the brain interprets reality unconsciously most of the time. What we call ideas arise out of that, under certain specific conditions. We experience things as ideas just as we experience things as colors. I can imagine the color red but it's always in context with respect to, say, an apple or other red object. When I actually look at a red object with my eyes it becomes vivid.

 

[untermensche]

First, I'll be the first to say I don't understand what conscious experience is. Why do I see a particular color red for instance? But there's no reason to think that red exists apart from certain neuronal stimulation, along with the algorithms in the brain that filter those physical signals and reinterpret them with respect to conditioning from past experience.

Red exists as two things. The neuronal mechanisms that produces it AND the experience of it.

The question is: What does the brain make "red" for? Is it constructed for the brain and consciousness? Or is it constructed just for consciousness?

All we know for certain is the brain constructs "red" for consciousness.

We have no evidence the brain itself experiences red.

But of course the brain itself is somehow generating consciousness. But we have no evidence the brain itself experiences the things consciousness experiences.

Just like the computer chip that creates "red" on the screen does not experience the "red".

Likewise I don't see how ideas can arise from anything other than the brain's processes.

Sure.

But likewise we do not know if the brain itself experiences thoughts.

We only know consciousness does.

If consciousness is the only thing experiencing thoughts then it is the only thing that can act on them.

 

[DBT]

Seriously. I understand autonomy in the sense of an individual person being free from the coersion of others. Although, in the strictest sense, even coerced decisions are simply decisions made under adverse conditions. But what is autonomy from one's own brain and the processes which determine one's perceptions and acquired values and preferences? The physical brain doesn't simply carry out the commands of an autonomous self. It provides all the input and algorithms by which it obtains feedback and awareness. Autonomy would entail making blind decisions, or choosing to make them randomly, or else basing them on some entirely disparate set of values. And, aside from reactions based on a few inherited instincts, the latter would require dualism.

Autonomy of consciousness is the ability to make decisions based on ideas. Based on thinking.

Consciousness is that which thinks.

The brain is just it's tool.

Nonsense. What you say goes against all evidence that shows the very opposite of what you claim. A persons whole personality and behaviour changes when they suffer brain damage or deterioration through disease.

Contrary to your unfounded claims, much has been learned from studying brain damage and its effect on cognition, behaviour and decision making...all directly related to brain condition.

 

[untermensche]

Autonomy of consciousness is the ability to make decisions based on ideas. Based on thinking.

Consciousness is that which thinks.

The brain is just it's tool.

Nonsense. What you say goes against all evidence that shows the very opposite of what you claim. A persons whole personality and behaviour changes when they suffer brain damage or deterioration through disease.

Contrary to your unfounded claims, much has been learned from studying brain damage and its effect on cognition, behaviour and decision making...all directly related to brain condition.

You have no evidence a brain experiences ideas on it's own.

Therefore you have no evidence a brain can act on ideas.

 

[DBT]

Magic then? Pure comedy more like it.

 

[untermensche]

Magic then? Pure comedy more like it.

Magic or consciousness itself can influence the brain.

That would be done with some form of energy.

Not magic.

 

[fromderinside]

Put an O'scope connection at the output of a radio output tube instead of an amplifier and speaker is my analogy of what you are so messed up about. You put the wrong interface so you can still believe what the brain does is not meaningful to us. Instead of hearing intelligible words you see wavy lines on a screen.

It''s all in the transducer untermenche, it's all in the transducer. Better yet, consider auditory cortex as your transducer and your voice as your speaker - your subvocal muscular activity if you want things to remain mysterious - and it becomes clear what the brain has done.

But, hey here's just another little bit of analysis for you to overcome with your beliefs.

Go to it.

 

[untermensche]

Put an O'scope connection at the output of a radio output tube instead of an amplifier and speaker is my analogy of what you are so messed up about. You put the wrong interface so you can still believe what the brain does is not meaningful to us. Instead of hearing intelligible words you see wavy lines on a screen.

It''s all in the transducer untermenche, it's all in the transducer. Better yet, consider auditory cortex as your transducer and your voice as your speaker - your subvocal muscular activity if you want things to remain mysterious - and it becomes clear what the brain has done.

But, hey here's just another little bit of analysis for you to overcome with your beliefs.

Go to it.

The point seems to sail over your head.

The brain definitely makes things that consciousness is aware of.

But there is no evidence the brain itself is aware of thoughts.

The only evidence is that consciousness is aware of them.

If the brain itself is not aware of thoughts and only consciousness is aware of them then only consciousness could possibly act on them.