Consciousness

[DBT]

It is clear your prejudices and preconceptions guide your conclusions. Not any data.

No. That's still you.

As any objective reader can see for themselves, I have provided descriptions, studies, experiments and examples of brain conditions that clearly show that it is brain state and condition and brain state and condition alone that determines the form and expression of consciousness in very specific ways.

While you on the other hand, offer nothing but assertions like ''Consciousness is a completely unexplained phenomena'' - all the while asserting your thoroughly discredited substance dualism and homunculus conjecture'

That is irrational and what people with strong prejudices do.

Hilarious. That shows you have as much understanding of irony as neuroscience....virtually none.

 

[untermensche]

No. That's still you.

As any objective reader can see for themselves, I have provided descriptions, studies, experiments and examples of brain conditions that clearly show that it is brain state and condition and brain state and condition alone that determines the form and expression of consciousness in very specific ways.

While you on the other hand, offer nothing but assertions like ''Consciousness is a completely unexplained phenomena'' - all the while asserting your thoroughly discredited substance dualism and homunculus conjecture'

That is irrational and what people with strong prejudices do.

Hilarious. That shows you have as much understanding of irony as neuroscience....virtually none.

You think posting a study with bad conclusions, and defending those conclusions in NO way, is providing something.

You are incapable of original thought.

Incapable of defending anything.

You at least provide some bad studies so I can understand your problem. Even if your deficiencies makes explaining the weaknesses of those studies to you impossible.

You have a model where consciousness is given all these presentations yet can initiate no action.

A silly irrational model for children.

And you can defend it in NO way.

 

[fromderinside]

I did. You should read some Burt and Trivers, say "Genes in Conflict". Then you should get acquainted with how genes outside the body become part of one's genetic makeup, or, how  methylation (see DNA/RNA methylation), a form of  alkylation , modifies genes responding to social and other environmental conditions which are passed on.

Actually it Was  George Williams (biologist), predating Dawkins by over twenty years who introduced the selfish gene when he destroyed Wynne-Edwards' group selection hypothesis. All that is accepted along these social lines by biologists and evolutionists is Kin selection.

You claim to have read Gould.



Where does Gould say it is?

Obviously he held a different view than do Burt and Trivers else Gould wouldn't have claimed "... under the broader criterion of emergent fitness , any species level trait that imparts an irreducible fitness in their interaction with the environment defines a true process of selection at the species level. whether the trait itself be aggregate or emergent."

After roundly criticizing both Dawkins and Williams inappropriately with selected quote out of context The Dear One Gould goes on to build a structure obviously favoring proto-communist, from each to each, principles. Not only does Dear One Gould miss intra and inter-genetic competition, neither does he understand the physics.

Two, two, two for the price of one. A process which is a rational argument with final fixed criteria.

First, emergence is a place holder, a convenient fiction, for those who don't have all the relevant data about combination at hand to make proclamations. If you were a reductionist you'd know that combination only reflects properties of the combined and are fully dependent on the properties of each.

Second, one never has the final, compete description of species, so one cannot define species adequately to use Gould's hand waving which would be imposing religious strictures on the science from which he uses words without understanding.

You were brilliant. You sent me right to the place where Dear One Gould's house of cards fall. Thank you for forcing me to go back to find his true believer gem.

 

[untermensche]

Obviously he held a different view than do Burt and Trivers else Gould wouldn't have claimed "... under the broader criterion of emergent fitness , any species level trait that imparts an irreducible fitness in their interaction with the environment defines a true process of selection at the species level. whether the trait itself be aggregate or emergent."

Gould espoused a Hierarchical Theory of selection. Species is viewed as an "individual" but not the sole agent of selection.

It isn't just Gould. It is David Hull as well.

Hull defined selection as: "a process in which the differential extinction and proliferation of interactors cause the differential perpetuation of the replicators that produced them." He said "evolution through natural selection requires an interplay between replication and interaction. Both processes are necessary. Neither process by itself is sufficient."

For Gould and many others, the causality of natural selection is interaction. Replication in itself in not an agent. Only interactors can be an agent.

The central arguments of "selfish genes" as causal agents are logically incoherent.

Which is why you don't attempt to make the argument but merely make claims.

First, emergence is a place holder, a convenient fiction, for those who don't have all the relevant data about combination at hand to make proclamations. If you were a reductionist you'd know that combination only reflects properties of the combined and are fully dependent on the properties of each.

The term Gould uses is "emergent fitness".

The leg that can run and the hand that can grasp and the arm that can throw. They all together make the animal more fit than just having one alone. The sum of the parts is greater than the parts alone.

Calling it a "place holder" is just weird.

 

[WAB]

So where were we?

Here. Wherever you go, you are there, which means here. You have not been here for a long time, but now here you are.

I self-banned for a while. It's been nearly 2 years. But, it seems like you guys are stuck in the same arguments you (we) were having when I left...hence my hopefully humorous "So where were we."

I needed to take a lengthy break, but I asked my good friend Kharakov to ask Ray if I could have the ban lifted, and he was gracious in complying.

I don't know if I should keep the Loretta joke going or go back to one of my usernames:

WilliamB
Gulielmus Beta

I kind of like Gulielmus Beta (William B in Latin), but I decided to drop it when I discovered that Aleister Crowley and his band of hedonistic heathens [just kiddin'] liked to use Latinized names in their whackadoodle [just kiddin'] gatherings.

So anyway...

I see we're still arguing about consciousness. I note that during my absence neuroscientists and philosophers aren't any closer to figuring out how it occurs. And I see that the arguments here and elsewhere haven't really broken new ground or done much of anything except to frustrate the hell out of everybody involved.

I've learned a hell of a lot more by being my usual boring as hell and bookwormy self since I've been gone, and I will no doubt irritate the dickens out of just about all of you. But that was the only thing I was ever any good at here and on just about every board I spend any amount of time on.

*Cracks knuckles*

So, the first thing I want to say is that I might as well put anyone who won't come out and admit that they're conscious on ignore, since I see no point in arguing with people who are not conscious. If you want me to put you on ignore so's I won't irritate the living daylights out of you, just let me know.

But seriously...I will try not to be a pain in the collective a55. I will mind my manners and acknowledge my superiors, which are probably the whole frackin' lot of ya!

I will post more poems in the poetry thread, since I've been writing rabidly. I'm also on the cusp of getting famous and taking over the entire world with my incredibly amazing super-fantastic whackadoodle poetry. Once I gain autarch status, I promise I will take over America and demote the Orange Clown to dishwasher in the White House. I sincerely hope that will ingraciate most of you to my cause - which, in case I haven't mentioned, is quietly taking over the world and building the largest harem since Solomon.

I promise not to crush any of you under my heel during my dramatic and insidious rise to power.

And by the way, just so you know, I just bought a blue turban, after discovering the number 42,108,133 on the back of my shaved noggin, in tiny little squiggles. It was horrifying, but I have managed to come to terms with it, plus buy a wig, for the days when the turban is at the cleaners.

More later...

 

[Treedbear]

It sounds like you want to abandon any attempt at a rational scientific approach to understanding anything at all (let alone consciousness) because we can't explain existence "in the first place". It's such a common mistake humanity makes to think that we need to fill that gap no matter what the cost to our intellectual integrity. We don't know what caused the big bang, so God. We can't explain consciousness, so disembodied spirits.

I start from the idea that the brain's basic function is to create models of the world and the objects in it. All brains do. One special model is that of the self. We generallly attribute consciousness to human beings alone. At least that's the common view. I prefer to think of it as a spectrum across the animal kingdom. More complex brains have a greater ability to see relationships between the various models they create and to utilize metaphor in creating meaning. It allows us to assign probabilities and make predictions. So it is that humans model their own self image after the models of others around them, especially while learning what and who we are as an infant. The self plays an important role in how we interact with our environment. So if the self is just a model based on intimate personal awareness it stands to reason that its purpose is to allow the brain to predict what changes will take place and how it will interact within itself and to outside stimuli. I think that the particularly subjective experience that we call consciousness is due to the predominance of the self model as it enters into all the brain experiences. And that it becomes particularly relevant and distinct when we are aware of ourselves with respect to the things in our external environment.

All I see in your explanation is more objective quantities and it works to some extent but it certainly doesn't work for explaining the subjectivity of the qualitative experience I at least have.

Thanks for that. I always try to take an objective approach to things. That's sometimes a problem for me. But I'm not just saying that the model of the self includes the qualitative experiences you have, but also the subjectivity of those things. In other words I treat subjectivity as a concept. We assign it to our selves as well as to the selves of others, but we withhold it from most animals. Why? I don't know, but it probably indicates that subjectivity is a basic cultural meme.

I'm all for science but I'm also not dogmatic and when I see a failure to explain I report a failure to explain.
EB

I'm counting on that.

 

[DBT]

You think posting a study with bad conclusions, and defending those conclusions in NO way, is providing something.

You are incapable of original thought.

Incapable of defending anything.

You at least provide some bad studies so I can understand your problem. Even if your deficiencies makes explaining the weaknesses of those studies to you impossible.

You have a model where consciousness is given all these presentations yet can initiate no action.

A silly irrational model for children.

And you can defend it in NO way.

No. That's still you, the irony of which you still don't appear to grasp.

Your first major error being that these are my conclusions when it is the researchers themselves that reach these conclusions.....which has nothing to do with me personally or what I may happen to infer.

I even supplied quotes by researchers commenting on the nature and implication of their experiments, stating that the available evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of brain agency, that your substance dualism and Homunculi ideas were rejected long ago

You are on your own according to the science Mr untermensche, but in fine company with new age gurus and religion in general.

I think that truth is the underlying cause of your obvious bad humour.

 

[untermensche]

Your first major error being that these are my conclusions when it is the researchers themselves that reach these conclusions.....which has nothing to do with me personally or what I may happen to infer.

That is my point.

You are able to throw out a bunch of bad conclusions but not able to support them with argument.

These studies make wild conclusions not supported by the evidence.

I have pointed out many errors, but it is worthless. You can't address them.

You cannot address philosophical objections. You cannot address logical objections.

You just throw it out and act as if it is manna from the gods.

I think that truth is the underlying cause of your obvious bad humour.

I have no bad humor.

When people actually try to defend the ideas they put forth.

 

[WAB]

It would be just as absurd to dismiss consciousness as it would be to dismiss reality. EB

I know I'm late to the party. When I saw how many responses there were, I presumed this was an old old thread, and that maybe I had participated in it. But I go back to page one, and see that the thread is barely a month old! Holy crap! This is an even busier place than when I left back in 2015.

Anyway, I'm only a few posts in but I had to stop and agree with EB here. I really can't understand why the word consciousness is such a bugbear for you sciency types. Let's say nothing is gained by us folksy types hanging on to the word. But, by the same token, what would be gained by getting rid of the word? What benefit would there be to making the word consciousness disappear from the lexicon?

This is an honest question. I know I said I am planning on taking over the world soon and becoming Autarch of Earth, but there's nothing to worry about yet, since this sinister rise to absolute (and absolutely corruptible) power will probably take me a few years, and I see no reason for you guys not to humor me for now, while I'm still relatively harmless.

But seriously, I really don't understand it. I can understand wanting to wipe out terms like free will, since it has all that religious baggage hanging onto it, and, at the end of the day, we probably wouldn't be inconvenienced or put out at all without that highly irritating (to some) expression.

But consciousness? It's really a cool word with plenty of 's' sounds, and everybody knows what it means, and it isn't associated with any tribal/cultish belief systems. Plus it has three syllables and chicks really like it when you use big words. Especially if you wear glasses and look more like Harrison Ford than Woody Allen. I kind of look like John Malkovich crossed with F. Murray Abraham, so I haven't got a chance with chicks anyway. I don't even use the word chicks. It just sounds funny if you use it at least three times in a single post.

 

[DBT]

That is my point.

You are able to throw out a bunch of bad conclusions but not able to support them with argument.

These studies make wild conclusions not supported by the evidence.

I have pointed out many errors, but it is worthless. You can't address them.

You cannot address philosophical objections. You cannot address logical objections.

You just throw it out and act as if it is manna from the gods.

I think that truth is the underlying cause of your obvious bad humour.

I have no bad humor.

When people actually try to defend the ideas they put forth.

The irony is quite breathtaking coming from someone who is arguing for substance dualism, homunculi, astral mind, soul or whatever, which are not accepted as viable explanations for consciousness, but considered to fall into the category of religious beliefs.

Your position is based on faith, not reason and certainly not science.

 

[untermensche]

The irony is quite breathtaking coming from someone who is arguing for substance dualism, homunculi, astral mind, soul or whatever, which are not accepted as viable explanations for consciousness, but considered to fall into the category of religious beliefs.

Your position is based on faith, not reason and certainly not science.

You do not understand the difference between arguing FOR something and merely stating the facts that current knowledge does not exclude them.

 

[DBT]

The irony is quite breathtaking coming from someone who is arguing for substance dualism, homunculi, astral mind, soul or whatever, which are not accepted as viable explanations for consciousness, but considered to fall into the category of religious beliefs.

Your position is based on faith, not reason and certainly not science.

You do not understand the difference between arguing FOR something and merely stating the facts that current knowledge does not exclude them.

I understand it very well. It is a fallacy. Your position is founded upon your own version of the god of the gaps. ''We don't yet fully understand x (consciousness), therefore god (non material mind) agency is possible''

There is no more evidence for 'god' than there is for substance dualism, homunculus, quantum consciousness or soul.

The evidence we do have is heavily stacked in favour of brain agency... that not being my belief but the general consensus in the field of neuroscience.

You don't have a leg to stand on.

 

[fromderinside]

Gould espoused a Hierarchical Theory of selection. Species is viewed as an "individual" but not the sole agent of selection.

...

For Gould and many others, the causality of natural selection is interaction. Replication in itself in not an agent. Only interactors can be an agent.

......

First, emergence is a place holder, a convenient fiction, for those who don't have all the relevant data about combination at hand to make proclamations. If you were a reductionist you'd know that combination only reflects properties of the combined and are fully dependent on the properties of each.

The term Gould uses is "emergent fitness".

The leg that can run and the hand that can grasp and the arm that can throw. They all together make the animal more fit than just having one alone. The sum of the parts is greater than the parts alone.

Calling it a "place holder" is just weird.

Gould's argument reads like a Jesus freak's understanding systems and processes. of Emergent fitness is nonsensical given fixed species definition is required as a prerequisite for forming the emergent fitness construct. As I wrote there is no fixed species definition, perhaps a state in species, a snapshot, but, how can that be specified as anything other than a state in process? If there ere a fixed species definition then there is no emergence, there is only fitness. Or, if current fitness is in combination with previous fitness there is only aggregate fitness.

When you use such as running leg or grasping hand you are talking about something other than an irreducible state.

There are so many holes in Dear One Gould's definitions one needs belly holders to restrain violent guffaws from appearing every time they're spoken.

 

[Juma]

Gould espoused a Hierarchical Theory of selection. Species is viewed as an "individual" but not the sole agent of selection.

It isn't just Gould. It is David Hull as well.

Hull defined selection as: "a process in which the differential extinction and proliferation of interactors cause the differential perpetuation of the replicators that produced them." He said "evolution through natural selection requires an interplay between replication and interaction. Both processes are necessary. Neither process by itself is sufficient."

For Gould and many others, the causality of natural selection is interaction. Replication in itself in not an agent. Only interactors can be an agent.

The central arguments of "selfish genes" as causal agents are logically incoherent.

Which is why you don't attempt to make the argument but merely make claims.

First, emergence is a place holder, a convenient fiction, for those who don't have all the relevant data about combination at hand to make proclamations. If you were a reductionist you'd know that combination only reflects properties of the combined and are fully dependent on the properties of each.

The term Gould uses is "emergent fitness".

The leg that can run and the hand that can grasp and the arm that can throw. They all together make the animal more fit than just having one alone. The sum of the parts is greater than the parts alone.

Calling it a "place holder" is just weird.

That you have benefits from combining parts is not "emergence".

 

[untermensche]

You do not understand the difference between arguing FOR something and merely stating the facts that current knowledge does not exclude them.

I understand it very well. It is a fallacy. Your position is founded upon your own version of the god of the gaps. ''We don't yet fully understand x (consciousness), therefore god (non material mind) agency is possible''

There is no more evidence for 'god' than there is for substance dualism, homunculus, quantum consciousness or soul.

The evidence we do have is heavily stacked in favour of brain agency... that not being my belief but the general consensus in the field of neuroscience.

You don't have a leg to stand on.

You think badly labeling things amounts to an argument. It is not better than posting bad conclusions you can't defend.

My position is that consciousness, the ability to have experience, is a completely unexplained phenomena.

All we know about consciousness is our own subjective experience and the subjective reporting of others.

We know nothing about consciousness in terms of physiological processes. We know a bit about brain physiology but not one iota about how any of that physiology relates to consciousness.

So claims about what consciousness cannot possibly be are empty speculations based on no evidence.

 

[untermensche]

That you have benefits from combining parts is not "emergence".

Sure it is. A kind of emergence.

In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence is a phenomenon whereby larger entities arise through interactions among smaller or simpler entities such that the larger entities exhibit properties the smaller/simpler entities do not exhibit.

An arm is the emergence of muscles and ligaments and bones all acting together to form a functional entity.

 

[DBT]

I understand it very well. It is a fallacy. Your position is founded upon your own version of the god of the gaps. ''We don't yet fully understand x (consciousness), therefore god (non material mind) agency is possible''

There is no more evidence for 'god' than there is for substance dualism, homunculus, quantum consciousness or soul.

The evidence we do have is heavily stacked in favour of brain agency... that not being my belief but the general consensus in the field of neuroscience.

You don't have a leg to stand on.

You think badly labeling things amounts to an argument. It is not better than posting bad conclusions you can't defend.

How many times does it need pointing out that brain agency is not my conclusion but a universally accepted view held by researchers? Of course there is a religious minority who hold to ideas such as quantum consciousness, universal consciousness/mind, etc. But it is these beliefs that are neither supported by evidence or accepted by the majority of researchers.

Now don't go claiming that the following descriptions and conclusions are my beliefs or something that is unique to me.....that is your position, it is your position that is not supported by evidence or accepted by researchers;

Again;
''Cognitive neuroscientists persistently talk about neural representations. For example, a recent paper stated that ‘the role of the prefrontal cortex in visual attention is to provide neural representations of to-be-attended information’13. We prefer to use more neutral terms, such as ‘patterns of neural activity',for neurophysiological states. However, we suggest that it might be convenient to refer to the contents of consciousness (that is, phenomenal consciousness) as mental representations; mental entities that can stand for things in the outside world, and can usually be reported. When I remember something I have a mental representation of a past event. When I imagine something I have a mental representation of something that could occur in the outside world. When I perceive something I have a mental representation of something currently in the outside world. To say that we are conscious of something (or aware of something) is equivalent to saying that we have a mental representation of something.''

''Given that all mental activity derives from brain activity, it follows that all mental representations have corresponding neural activities. However, not all neural activities have corresponding mental representations. This is the crucial lesson taught us by phenomena such as blindsight14; behaviour can be guided by neural responses to visual stimuli in the absence of any awareness. In some cases, highly processed information can be used unconsciously, as evidenced in masked priming experiments15.''


More;
''....we postulate that this availability results from the entry of sensory stimuli processed by the posterior visual areas into a global neuronal workspace (14–16), which mobilizes excitatory neurons with long-distance axons, capable of interconnecting sensory and high level areas into global brain-scale states of activity (Fig. 1 A ). The neurons that are temporarily mobilized inhibit other surrounding workspace neurons, which thus become unavailable for processing other stimuli. As a consequence of this selection process, when a piece of information such as the identity of a stimulus accesses a sufficient subset of workspace neurons, their activity becomes self-sustained and can be broadcasted via long-distance connections to a vast set of defined areas, thus creating a global and exclusive availability for a given stimulus, which is then subjectively experienced as conscious.''

Abstract
''Are we in command of our motor acts?The popular belief holds that our conscious decisions are the direct causes of our actions. However, overwhelming evidence from neurosciences demonstrates that our actions are instead largely driven by brain processes that unfold outside of our consciousness. To study these brain processes, scientists have used a range of different functional brain imaging techniques and experimental protocols, such as subliminal priming. Here, we review recent advances in the field and propose a theoretical model of motor control that may contribute to a better understanding of the pathophysiology of movement disorders such as Parkinson's disease.''

Introduction
''In daily life, we usually have the feeling that we are the authors of the actions we make, that the decisions we make and the corresponding movements we perform are consciously initiated and controlled. The belief that our actions are caused by our mental states, and these mental states are causally independent from brain processes reflects a dualistic philosophy (Descartes, 1641). However, the current scientific view holds that human actions and mental states are both biologically determined and stem from patterns of neural activity in the brain.''

 

[ryan]

No possible known mechanism. Within the realm of current knowledge. Which is not complete.

Claiming humans understand everything or even have access to all possible phenomena is not demonstrable.

Nor necessary.

QFT is complete at human scales. It is fundamental to the theory that forces have particles that carry them; and that those particles have predictable masses; and that sufficient energy will generate all particles below a given mass.

The LHC has demonstrated that the only possible unknown forces must either be too short-range to allow separation of the hypothetical soul from the body (by many orders of magnitude) or too long range to have measurable effects on scales smaller than that of Solar Systems.

There's plenty we don't know. But the things we DO know are sufficient to rule out a lot of hypothetical ideas - the whole point of scientific research is to start from 'anything is possible', and then eliminate impossible hypotheses until we are left with useful knowledge.

Amongst those things now known to be impossible are perpetual motion machines; homeopathic medicines; and dualism.

Lots of people still believe that these things are possible, and the technical term for such people is 'mistaken', 'uneducated' or simply 'wrong'. These things are NOT possible, and there's no unknown extra information that could arise to suddenly change that assessment, that would not also require the total abandonment of huge chunks of well established experimental evidence.

Big scientific revolutions don't do that. When relativity superseded Newton's theory of gravity, objects continued to fall when dropped; pendula continued to swing at predictable rates; and tides continued to ebb and flow.

We may well show that QFT is 'wrong', just as Einstein showed that universal gravitation was 'wrong'. But we can be sure that it's not wrong enough for any future discoveries to enable the existence of disembodied minds or souls. Just as we can be sure that any future correction to Relativity will not cause objects to fall up.

Yep, and just like 120 years ago when they warned people not to get into physics research because it was practically complete, here we go again. There were just a few small tiny issues like light that they needed to explain first. Oh what a nasty little Pandora box that was.

 

[Juma]

Sure it is. A kind of emergence.

In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence is a phenomenon whereby larger entities arise through interactions among smaller or simpler entities such that the larger entities exhibit properties the smaller/simpler entities do not exhibit.

An arm is the emergence of muscles and ligaments and bones all acting together to form a functional entity.

Emergence is a dynamic effect. The arm as a combination lf its parts or the combination of legs to firm a walking person is in essence a static combination. (Even though the legs are moving)
Read this:http://atransdisciplinaryapproach.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/de-wolf-emergence.pdf

 

[untermensche]

Gould's argument reads like a Jesus freak's understanding systems and processes.

Actually that describes the idea that genes can have agency. Mere bookkeeping oblivious to all interaction as an active process of change.

Genes persist because whole animals succeed. No other way. They are as passive as an entity can be. They stay or go based on overall actions of the whole animal, not because they want to or can control anything.

You mistake effect; genes surviving, with cause; animal succeeding.

of Emergent fitness is nonsensical given fixed species definition is required as a prerequisite for forming the emergent fitness construct.

Since Gould espouses the Hierarchical Theory of Selection where selection occurs at many levels, demes, species, clades and others, that is not true at all.