Consciousness

[untermensche]

Nor does pretending there is a mind at all.

The only questions are: What is the mind and what can it do?

If there is experience there has to be that which can experience. That which can experience is a mind.

If there is experience as a human has experience there is a mind.

It's only one's brain that produces thought...

That is not in dispute. That brain creates thoughts FOR the mind, for the consciousness.

But the question is: Can a thought force the brain to create another?

 

[fromderinside]

The answer to all your fantasies are found in the workings of the brain and it's interactions with output devices.

Humans don't have a language at birth. They do have the capacity to develop language from exposure to it from parents and others as their brains develop.

Humans don't see objects and faces at birth. They do have the capacity to develop understanding of objects and manipulation of objects through expose to them as their brains develop.

Similar gains arrive though other senses over time and brain development.

Ultimately we have representations in the brain of space filled with objects, people, and actions represented in several areas of the visual cortex. Aligned with these are feels, sounds, smells, proprioceptions, etc, all generated primarily in cortex and indexed for use by decision processes which can be represented by referencing each aspect.

Any and all of this can be selectively attended all without a homunculus or theater on which to separately play.

The musculature, skeleton, lungs, heart, eyes hands, etc, can be controlled by this marvelous organ and referenced in relevant output sections where they exist when processed.

Not a mind, not a consciousness, not an homunclulus, not a faerie, just the product of the brain which creates, orchestrates, and appreciates all to which it has access.

Now I have a lot more evidence for what I just described than you can muster with any number of persons screaming they have minds and I can point to sources, activities, references, and consequences, of all these things by just doing experiments with the brain.

Whereas you have your chorus an nothing else. You nave no physical basis, no conceptual basis for developing and supporting your conjectures other than your conjectures.

So sad.

You through your method don't even have a logical possibility of demonstrating mind or conscious.

 

[DBT]

Self testimony. Really?

falling, falling, falling, ......

Universal testimony vs. the science of human guessing.

Except the physics of information acquisition, transmission and processing is not ''guessing'' - it is a physical process and it must necessarily precede consciousness. It is something your carefully ignore in order to assert an unfounded belief.

 

[untermensche]

The answer to all your fantasies are found in the workings of the brain and it's interactions with output devices.

Humans don't have a language at birth. They do have the capacity to develop language from exposure to it from parents and others as their brains develop.

Humans don't see objects and faces at birth. They do have the capacity to develop understanding of objects and manipulation of objects through expose to them as their brains develop.

Similar gains arrive though other senses over time and brain development.

Ultimately we have representations in the brain of space filled with objects, people, and actions represented in several areas of the visual cortex. Aligned with these are feels, sounds, smells, proprioceptions, etc, all generated primarily in cortex and indexed for use by decision processes which can be represented by referencing each aspect.

No. We have representations in our minds, not our brains.

The brain is a slave that is not only generating consciousness but is generating everything consciousness is aware of.

The only freedom in the system is the mind, not the dumb brain.

That is why humans have cultural evolution. Because they are more than dumb brains.

 

[DBT]

The answer to all your fantasies are found in the workings of the brain and it's interactions with output devices.

Humans don't have a language at birth. They do have the capacity to develop language from exposure to it from parents and others as their brains develop.

Humans don't see objects and faces at birth. They do have the capacity to develop understanding of objects and manipulation of objects through expose to them as their brains develop.

Similar gains arrive though other senses over time and brain development.

Ultimately we have representations in the brain of space filled with objects, people, and actions represented in several areas of the visual cortex. Aligned with these are feels, sounds, smells, proprioceptions, etc, all generated primarily in cortex and indexed for use by decision processes which can be represented by referencing each aspect.

No. We have representations in our minds, not our brains.

There is no mind without a functional brain forming and shaping mind. Every feature of ''mind'' is related to information acquired by the senses, processed and sorted and in part represented in conscious form, sight, sound, thoughts, feelings, conscious actions....which we call mind/consciousness.

The brain is a slave that is not only generating consciousness but is generating everything consciousness is aware of.

The only freedom in the system is the mind, not the dumb brain.

That is why humans have cultural evolution. Because they are more than dumb brains.

That's absurd. A practically incoherent description of the brain/mind relationship.

 

[untermensche]

The brain is a slave that is not only generating consciousness but is generating everything consciousness is aware of.

The only freedom in the system is the mind, not the dumb brain.

That is why humans have cultural evolution. Because they are more than dumb brains.

That's absurd. A practically incoherent description of the brain/mind relationship.

You say that as if you have any understanding of the mind or how the mind relates to the brain, beyond your experience of your own mind.

The mind is an effect, something generated.

That which works ceaselessly to generate it and make representations for it is the slave to it, not the master.

They looked in the brain for the mind for one afternoon and did not find it.

Obviously it is not there.

 

[DBT]

That's absurd. A practically incoherent description of the brain/mind relationship.

You say that as if you have any understanding of the mind or how the mind relates to the brain, beyond your experience of your own mind.

The mind is an effect, something generated.

That which works ceaselessly to generate it and make representations for it is the slave to it, not the master.

They looked in the brain for the mind for one afternoon and did not find it.

Obviously it is not there.

You are the one claiming that nothing is understood yet making noises like you know a lot about it, ie, that the brain is dumb but the mind is smart because it transcends the brain and its ability and capacity, the brain being the very agency that you imply is forming mind.

That is the absurd part.

 

[George S]

Double Subject Fallacy

From https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-...jectivity-identity-self-reflection-and-choice

Many neuroscientific results are presented without sufficiently nuanced philosophical knowledge. This can lead to cartoonish and potentially harmful conceptions of the brain, and by extension, of human behavior, psychology, and culture. Concepts related to the mind are among the hardest to pin down, and yet some neuroscientists give the impression that there are no issues that require philosophical reflection.

Because of a certain disdain for philosophy (and sometimes even psychology!), some neuroscientists end up drawing inappropriate inferences from their research, or distorting the meaning of their results.

One particularly egregious example is the "double subject fallacy", which was recently discussed in an important paper:



"Me & my brain": exposing neuroscience's closet dualism.

Here's the abstract of the paper:

Our intuitive concept of the relations between brain and mind is increasingly challenged by the scientific world view. Yet, although few neuroscientists openly endorse Cartesian dualism, careful reading reveals dualistic intuitions in prominent neuroscientific texts. Here, we present the "double-subject fallacy": treating the brain and the entire person as two independent subjects who can simultaneously occupy divergent psychological states and even have complex interactions with each other-as in "my brain knew before I did." Although at first, such writing may appear like harmless, or even cute, shorthand, a closer look suggests that it can be seriously misleading. Surprisingly, this confused writing appears in various cognitive-neuroscience texts, from prominent peer-reviewed articles to books intended for lay audience. Far from being merely metaphorical or figurative, this type of writing demonstrates that dualistic intuitions are still deeply rooted in contemporary thought, affecting even the most rigorous practitioners of the neuroscientific method. We discuss the origins of such writing and its effects on the scientific arena as well as demonstrate its relevance to the debate on legal and moral responsibility.

untermensche is not alone.

 

[untermensche]

I am saying the brain does not necessariky know what the mind knows.

The personification of the brain is the error here.

 

[fromderinside]

Scientists say a person is a thing and one of it's elements, the brain, is a thing at that reduced level.

Where do you put mind? It's obviously not a thing. At most it's a conversational convenience relating to explaining cause re: the person, just as is Barlow's face detector cell just a causal hook for human consumption in cats. There is no
Barlow face detector, there is just a cell that is caught responding usually when Barlow's face is presumed visible to the cat. It's not something on which to hang scientific explanation obviously. No six sigma will be forthcoming. It's just a rhetorical 'thing' to put in front of the unwashed who are assumed to be looking for causality explanation at the perceptual level.

The mind is no more apt as a scientific thing of study in psychology than it is in neuroscience for the same reasons as listed above. Sure wild theories have been concocted on such presumptions, but as they should given their 'creation', they are always falsified.

 

[untermensche]

Scientists say a person is a thing and one of it's elements, the brain, is a thing at that reduced level.

Scientists talking about "things"?

Scientists TRY to figure out how the brain creates a consciousness.

They are no closer today then they were 20 years ago.

They have no workable model. No idea how it could possibly be done. Not a clue.

 

[fromderinside]

Yeah, I know. That's why we using certifiable Global Operator Models back in the nineties.

Scientists actually try to figure our how the nervous system works in detail.

Trying to understand consciousness belongs to psychiatry and philosophy.

 

[untermensche]

Yeah, I know. That's why we using certifiable Global Operator Models back in the nineties.

Scientists actually try to figure our how the nervous system works in detail.

Trying to understand consciousness belongs to psychiatry and philosophy.

Things go into your mind and are twisted into something else.

Who would love to be able to explain how a brain generates a living and acting consciousness?

Anybody looking at a brain.

Know anybody doing that?

 

[fromderinside]

You've been reading too much Science fiction untermenche.

 

[DBT]

From https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-...jectivity-identity-self-reflection-and-choice

Many neuroscientific results are presented without sufficiently nuanced philosophical knowledge. This can lead to cartoonish and potentially harmful conceptions of the brain, and by extension, of human behavior, psychology, and culture. Concepts related to the mind are among the hardest to pin down, and yet some neuroscientists give the impression that there are no issues that require philosophical reflection.

Because of a certain disdain for philosophy (and sometimes even psychology!), some neuroscientists end up drawing inappropriate inferences from their research, or distorting the meaning of their results.

One particularly egregious example is the "double subject fallacy", which was recently discussed in an important paper:



"Me & my brain": exposing neuroscience's closet dualism.

Here's the abstract of the paper:

untermensche is not alone.

It's more like a brain develops self identity, name, language, life experience, etc, so the conscious self does not have a brain, but it is the brain that has a self. A self that may disintegrate if memory function fails. Self being a body of information in the form of memory.

 

[fromderinside]

Yeah. Why why don't people realize that the same system that can distinguish food from other also distinguish one from othersusing the same capacities?

 

[untermensche]

You've been reading too much Science fiction untermenche.

You can ignore everything important and claim to have knowledge.

The important question is: How does a brain generate a consciousness?

That is what all these neuroscientists said they were going to discover when they began.

Now of course that shows itself to be a very difficult problem.

I know. Let's pretend the problem doesn't exist anymore.

 

[DBT]

You've been reading too much Science fiction untermenche.

You can ignore everything important and claim to have knowledge.

The important question is: How does a brain generate a consciousness?

That is what all these neuroscientists said they were going to discover when they began.

Now of course that shows itself to be a very difficult problem.

I know. Let's pretend the problem doesn't exist anymore.

You yourself ignore everything important...research, results, evidence, analysis by researchers and on and on it goes.

Every time I point out the physical necessity of an order events, information input, transmission, propagation, processing, etc, prior to consciousness, you ignore that as well.

 

[untermensche]

You can ignore everything important and claim to have knowledge.

The important question is: How does a brain generate a consciousness?

That is what all these neuroscientists said they were going to discover when they began.

Now of course that shows itself to be a very difficult problem.

I know. Let's pretend the problem doesn't exist anymore.

You yourself ignore everything important...research, results, evidence, analysis by researchers and on and on it goes.

Every time I point out the physical necessity of an order events, information input, transmission, propagation, processing, etc, prior to consciousness, you ignore that as well.

You've said that nonsense about 50 times and it means NOTHING.

One aspect of brain function is to turn stimulation of sensory cells into an experience for consciousness. The brain is the slave of consciousness and works ceaselessly to service it.

But you are claiming that is all there is.

It isn't.

There is also the brain function where the brain moves the arm at the command of consciousness. Like it creates the color blue at the command of the sensory nerves.

Two different functions.

The thing that is alive and interacting with the world is consciousness. Not a dumb brain that is it's slave.

 

[DBT]

You yourself ignore everything important...research, results, evidence, analysis by researchers and on and on it goes.

Every time I point out the physical necessity of an order events, information input, transmission, propagation, processing, etc, prior to consciousness, you ignore that as well.

You've said that nonsense about 50 times and it means NOTHING.

One aspect of brain function is to turn stimulation of sensory cells into an experience for consciousness. The brain is the slave of consciousness and works ceaselessly to service it.

But you are claiming that is all there is.

It isn't.

There is also the brain function where the brain moves the arm at the command of consciousness. Like it creates the color blue at the command of the sensory nerves.

Two different functions.

The thing that is alive and interacting with the world is consciousness. Not a dumb brain that is it's slave.

That what I say is meaningless to you is understandable given your position. Which is why you reject research, evidence and analysis by experts in the field. It does not suit your own unfounded beliefs.

Movement Intention After Parietal Cortex Stimulation in Humans;
''Parietal and premotor cortex regions are serious contenders for bringing motor intentions and motor responses into awareness. We used electrical stimulation in seven patients undergoing awake brain surgery. Stimulating the right inferior parietal regions triggered a strong intention and desire to move the contralateral hand, arm, or foot, whereas stimulating the left inferior parietal region provoked the intention to move the lips and to talk. When stimulation intensity was increased in parietal areas, participants believed they had really performed these movements, although no electromyographic activity was detected. Stimulation of the premotor region triggered overt mouth and contralateral limb movements. Yet, patients firmly denied that they had moved. Conscious intention and motor awareness thus arise from increased parietal activity before movement execution.''