Consciousness

[untermensche]

Quick. Hide it. Don't want the untermenche to see this. If he does I'm afraid science will be outlawed.

You have a different definition of "science".

Stimulating a brain in some place and eliciting a memory tells you nothing about what a memory is or how one experiences one.

 

[fromderinside]

They are getting there if you see the implications. They know where to stimulate to recover a particular memory. Not too far away from getting a handle on neurochemistry of memory.

The overall play is being orchestrated with brain work. Funny thing that. A brain genetically defined which receives input from senses that is processed by neurons genetically defined produce output to effectors genetically defined to produce what you lamely call experience. Science has determined paths, functions, processes which produce outputs from inputs and storage, also determined by science to produce your precious little firework.

BTW the beginnings of understanding how neurons act on muscle fibers was when a man in the seventeenth century noted that muscles twitched as a result of fluids being dropped on them. It took a couple hundred years and a bit of research - that disgusting word again, eh - to get to The Early History of the Biochemistry of Muscle Contraction: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2234565/ where modern methods began being developed. So if you want to know how neuron gets muscle to do its thing you might try reading up a bit.

 

[DBT]

How and why your finger moves when a current is applied says something about the nature of movement, nerves and muscles. Just as applying current to various regions of the brain tells us something about the role these structures play, emotion here, memory integration there, motor action initiation and so on...but for you this is an inconvenient truth.

Plus research does only involve ''applying electricity'' to brain structures, as well you know. But that too is an inconvenient truth for your unfounded beliefs and denial of anything and everything that contradicts them...which is pretty much everything related to science and research.

What does stimulating a nerve tell you about how the nerve gets the muscle to contract?

Strange question given that information on motor action studies and experiments and analysis is readily available, nor is just about ''applying electricity'' which is your strawman (habitual misrepresentation of what your opponents are saying)

For example;

HOW DO MUSCLES CREATE MOVEMENT?
''Electronic signals are sent through the nuerons of the brain to the sight of desired movment. When they reach this spot the signals close an electric pathway and tell to muscle to expand or contract.''


Mechanism of Muscle Contraction

''So, how do the thick and thin filaments generate muscle contraction? The attraction between the myosin head and the myosin-binding site of actin are strong enough that the bond can form spontaneously. Once the two proteins are bound, the myosin protein undergoes a conformational change, or a change in protein shape, that 'cocks' the head. Like the oar stroke of a rower, the movement of the myosin head causes the thin filament to move.

This is where the Z disc comes into play. Without the anchoring the Z disc provides, the thick filaments would simply slide past the thin filaments in opposite directions. By anchoring the thin filaments in place, movement generated by the myosin heads instead causes the muscle cell to contract and, by extension, cause our body to move.''

 

[untermensche]

In my scenario the only information you have is when you stimulate a nerve the finger moves. Nothing else.

Like these silly brain stimulation studies where all you have is a stimulation of some area and then a complicated response.

Try again. If all you know is that stimulating a nerve cause a finger to move, what do you know about how a nerve makes a finger move?

 

[fromderinside]

Yes your scenario is a wisp of a thing isn't it. For complex systems there are complex solutions and there are drivers that get at most efficient, least energy, and other constraints imposed by complex systems management., In more or less the same way that afferent neurons 'find' edges descending neurons 'find' macro targets of muscles to move and they fire in such a way as to result in coordinating movement. That is neurons when they fire send both go signals down their pathways and no-go signals to nearby neurons producing a targeted instruction for particular groups of muscles to contract or relax. As you should know muscles are arranged in the body in complementary groups permitting coordinated movements along bone anchored muscles. See  Muscle coordination for overview and Coordination of muscle activity to assure stability of the lumbar spine https://g-se.com/uploads/blog_adjun...ctivity_to_assure_stability_of_the_lumbar.pdf for particular application

Abstract: The intention of this paper is to introduce some of the issues surrounding the role of muscles to ensure spine stability fordiscussion—it is not intended to provide an exhaustive review and integration of the relevant literature. The collection of workssynthesized here point to the notion that stability results from highly coordinated muscle activation patterns involving many muscles,and that the recruitment patterns must continually change, depending on the task. This has implications on both the prevention ofinstability and clinical interventions with patients susceptible to sustaining unstable events. 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

 

[untermensche]

My scenario is as complicated as these brain stimulation studies that tell you absolutely nothing about how the brain does anything.

 

[fromderinside]

Again, ignorant spouting it's ignorance for all to see in the face of evidence.

In advanced development and in even in pre-certification evaluation  human performance modeling often works as well as piloted performance testing on tactical and commercial AC at much lower cost and risk. Besides less rick to A/C and pilot standardized processes usually out perform predictions of utility by golden arm pilots who are usually selected to fly such A/C. You can inform yourself by referring to skinny article like the wiki article or more informative sources like Increasing Aviation Safety Using Human Performance Modeling Tools: An AirMan-machine Integration Design and Analysis System Application
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdo...0CCB5843?doi=10.1.1.97.1549&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Which will take you to such as Army's MANPRINT (a document of over a thousand pages which often refers to more detailed documentation) which is HFE's detailed guide to test and evaluation from DSARC I: Concept to DSARC 6: Post Acceptance T&E with topics, procedures, tools, tests, reports and responsibilities.

But, hey, you know it all already so don't trouble yourself. I'm just presenting this bit of information in hope you will learn something new.

As for knowing nothing we're infinitely removed from that state on our way to knowing almost everything about genesis and propagation of experience.

 

[untermensche]

So how does a brain create the experience of a memory since you seem to think that artificially eliciting one tells us something about the mechanics of memory production?

 

[George S]

So how does a brain create the experience of a memory since you seem to think that artificially eliciting one tells us something about the mechanics of memory production?

There was a time when no one could tell us the mechanics of gravity production. We knew it was there and Newton wrote up mathematics that described what, but not how, it was happening. Later, along came Einstein and improved on Newton's work.

Now is a time when no one can tell us the mechanics of memory production. We do know quite a bit about it, though. We can describe what, but not always how, memory is activated. We know that there are neurons that activate while recalling a memory. We know that strong emotion makes an event memorable. We know that repetition cements memory. We may know we have forgotten something. As for the mechanics? Our best scientists are working on the problem.

 

[untermensche]

When you can't remember something right away what exactly enables you to "find " the memory? What process is that?

 

[George S]

When you can't remember something right away what exactly enables you to "find " the memory? What process is that?

Process, as I said, is quite unknown.

However, removal of parts of the brain remove memory. We know what, but not how.

 

[untermensche]

When you can't remember something right away what exactly enables you to "find " the memory? What process is that?

Process, as I said, is quite unknown.

However, removal of parts of the brain remove memory. We know what, but not how.

Yes I know all that.

So obviously these stimulation studies do not tell us anything about how the brain stores or creates the experience of a memory.

But my question is the same as: How does the mind move the arm? How does the mind get the brain to access a memory?

 

[George S]

Process, as I said, is quite unknown.

However, removal of parts of the brain remove memory. We know what, but not how.

Yes I know all that.

So obviously these stimulation studies do not tell us anything about how the brain stores or creates the experience of a memory.

But my question is the same as: How does the mind move the arm? How does the mind get the brain to access a memory?

We know that, in the end, a coordinated set of muscles act in a certain sequence. Eye-hand coordination is a baby's way of learning that coordinated set.

We know that the proximal cause of any muscle acting is a signal from a neuron. We know that these signals come from a particular area of the brain and is the same area in all normal subjects. We know that neurons send a signal when the strength (integral sum) of their inputs reaches a certain threshold.

There is no specific area of the brain that has been identified as the mind, although the pre-frontal cortex seems to play a significant part. (See One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest)

The word mind is a psychological term. It is what it feels like to be the observer of the world who possesses a body, and the brain is merely another part of the body. It feels as if "I" can, through will alone, move my arm. As it happens this is not the case. There are many times and situations when I cannot move a particular arm. Cutting the nerve between the arm muscles and the brain accomplishes this. Damaging that part of the brain that nerve connects to does also. A temporary version of this is an arm "falling asleep."

We know some of the how of when the mind (some or all of the neurons in the brain) wills an arm to move.

I recommend The Mind's I -- Fantasies and Reflections on Self and Soul edited by Hofstadter and Dennett

On Pages 383-384 we find An Unfortunate Dualist by Raymond M. Smullyan (From his book This Book Needs No Title (1980)

Once upon a time there was a dualist. He believed that mind and matter are separate substances. Just how they interacted he did not pretend to know -- this was one of the "mysteries" of life. But he was sure they were quite separate substances.
This dualist, unfortunately, led an unbearably painful life -- [psychologically].
.
.
.
Then came the discovery of the miracle drug! Its effect on the taker was to annihilate the soul or mind entirely but to leave the body functioning exactly as before. ... Absolutely no observable change came over the taker; the body continued to act just as if it had a soul [or mind]. ...
Do you believe that such a drug is impossible in principle? Assuming you believe it is possible, would you take it? Would you regard it as immoral? Is it tantamount to suicide?

Do you, untermensche, believe that such a drug is logically or physically possible?

 

[George S]

The essay concludes ...

So he took it and then waited the time interval in which it is supposed to work. At the end of the interval he angrily exclaimed: "Damn it, this stuff hasn't helped at all! I still have a soul [or mind] and am suffering as much as ever!

Doesn't all this suggest that perhaps there might be something just a little wrong with dualism?

The next essay is What Is It Like to Be a Bat? by Thomas Nagel

Consciousness is what makes the mind-body problem really intractable.

Then he engages in a discussion of holism and reductionism. And eventually arrives at his thesis that:

Consciousness in any conscious living animal is exactly what it is like to be that animal.

 

[untermensche]

Yes I know all that.

So obviously these stimulation studies do not tell us anything about how the brain stores or creates the experience of a memory.

But my question is the same as: How does the mind move the arm? How does the mind get the brain to access a memory?

We know that, in the end, a coordinated set of muscles act in a certain sequence. Eye-hand coordination is a baby's way of learning that coordinated set.

Yes the mind is learning how to control the body. The will is learning to control the body.

As it learns to control the thoughts at a later time.

We know that the proximal cause of any muscle acting is a signal from a neuron. We know that these signals come from a particular area of the brain and is the same area in all normal subjects. We know that neurons send a signal when the strength (integral sum) of their inputs reaches a certain threshold.

We can certainly take the signal back to the motor cortex.

But what I'm talking about is obviously something that ultimately causes the motor cortex to fire.

How many steps away is unknown. How the mind does it is unknown.

There is no specific area of the brain that has been identified as the mind, although the pre-frontal cortex seems to play a significant part. (See One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest)

The mind is not a place in the brain. It is something that arises from brain activity. It is a structure created by the brain. A structure that grows and changes.

The word mind is a psychological term.

It was not invented by psychology. It is merely recognized as a fact.

And again I do not dislike Dennett the man but I despise his work on the consciousness. There is nothing there.

I have been familiar with his work since about the mid 80's on.

...Then came the discovery of the miracle drug! Its effect on the taker was to annihilate the soul or mind entirely but to leave the body functioning exactly as before. ... Absolutely no observable change came over the taker; the body continued to act just as if it had a soul [or mind]. ...

Do you, untermensche, believe that such a drug is logically or physically possible?

I'll believe it when I see it.

I was not taught about that drug in pharmacy school. Where exactly would it work and what exactly would it do?

 

[fromderinside]

So how does a brain create the experience of a memory since you seem to think that artificially eliciting one tells us something about the mechanics of memory production?

Let me put things in simple mechanistic terms. A lens (filter) trransforms photons from a distant star into a large star image while a corresponding spectrum analyzer transforms those photons into spectral lines defining the chemical makeup of that star. Just so photons fall upon human photo receptors and are similarly converted into information in the brain that produces representations of that from which the photons came.

Similarly electronic information from a recording studio are transformed to magnetic representations of the event from which the electronic information came. So too does electro-chemical information produced by signals processed by the nervous system representing information received through the senses into equivalent representations of that information.

It is relatively simple to see how living matter can evolve systems that provide advantage to that living matter. Taking that imperative one can develop guidelines for what an organism develops to provide such advantages.

No hand waving just an outline of deterministic realization of as system.

Our problem has always been how to reverse engineer those capabilities into a coherent representation of man.

What you consistently provide is denial of possibility.

We don't have a problem with the question or the answer. We have a problem with your attitude.

I, for one, plan to provide bits and pieces of what we know until you realize the scientific process relating to consciousness is becoming more and more robust with many answers either qualitatively known or close to being known.

 

[DBT]

When you can't remember something right away what exactly enables you to "find " the memory? What process is that?

The brain is establishing connections when there was a momentary lapse/failure to recall. You could not remember because the link was not made in that moment in time. when it was established, you remember. It came to mind in a flash of insight, you had the experience of remembering.

The complete experience of a conscious you, you failing to recall and you recalling something that was momentarily forgotten is produced by the brain.

Information in, information processed, information represented in conscious form, actions taken.

 

[untermensche]

When you can't remember something right away what exactly enables you to "find " the memory? What process is that?

The brain is establishing connections when there was a momentary lapse/failure to recall. You could not remember because the link was not made in that moment in time. when it was established, you remember. It came to mind in a flash of insight, you had the experience of remembering.

The complete experience of a conscious you, you failing to recall and you recalling something that was momentarily forgotten is produced by the brain.

Information in, information processed, information represented in conscious form, actions taken.

You are pulling facts from you ass. You have no idea how any of this happens.

What causes the brain to search for a memory?

Why does it have to search? Why does the brain fail sometimes to find it?

 

[untermensche]

So how does a brain create the experience of a memory since you seem to think that artificially eliciting one tells us something about the mechanics of memory production?

Let me put things in simple mechanistic terms. A lens (filter) trransforms photons from a distant star into a large star image while a corresponding spectrum analyzer transforms those photons into spectral lines defining the chemical makeup of that star. Just so photons fall upon human photo receptors and are similarly converted into information in the brain that produces representations of that from which the photons came.

Similarly?

Prove it.

You are pretending to understand a process you know nothing about.

 

[fromderinside]

Similary?

No I'm just describing an obvious deterministic process as supported by measured performance of systems throughout the human sensorium. From senses to consistency of naming there is always a trend toward most faithful representation of what is presented. Auditory, visual, and somaesthetic, reported minimums approach within 4% percent of that of an ideal observer. Sense receptor performance, in humans, approaches near minimum capture of information from input.

When using a tactic to predict future events, whether maximizing or optimizing, human behavior approaches to occurrence of a phenomena humans operate at very near ideal performance.

It's as if by random change over generations evolution of human systems tend toward optimum performance just as one would expect of an engineer designing similar systems. So the models to which I applied to human filtering and decision making are appropriate.

Knowing nothing is not operative here since I do know much about all of these processes as I just indicated above.

Your problem is you have no approach at all so you try to denigrate the work and knowledge of others in best Trump tradition.