Consciousness

[untermensche]

Dropping hints for weeks now. It's how the cells organize bringing one to a moving present. Part of that organizing is presenting an image others take as safe.

You only talk of effects.

And you only know about the effects because you have a consciousness.

You delude yourself into thinking you know about them some other way.

You do not have the slightest idea how the activity of cells could possibly create any of the effects.

 

[untermensche]

You don't establish things by wishing they were established.

You establish them by explaining them.

Consciousness is understood when it is understood exactly how cells create it.

Not before.

Take your own statement and apply your own claim of dumb brain with smart autonomous consciousness as the operator to that statement and see how absurd your objection appears to the objective reader. The irony, as considerable as it is, is probably the least of your many problems in logic and reason.

The dumb brain hypothesis has as much evidence as the "brain does everything" hypothesis.

There is no reason, none, to have something aware of the world that cannot act upon it.

Consciousness is certainly aware if the world.

And we have countless experiences of acting upon the world based on ideas in consciousness.

The idea that consciousness cannot move the arm is the idea that has absolutely no evidence to support it. The science of human guesses doesn't count as evidence of anything.

It is a wild insane position.

 

[fromderinside]

Dropping hints for weeks now. It's how the cells organize bringing one to a moving present. Part of that organizing is presenting an image others take as safe.

You only talk of effects.

And you only know about the effects because you have a consciousness.

You delude yourself into thinking you know about them some other way.

You do not have the slightest idea how the activity of cells could possibly create any of the effects.

Consciousness is an effect of brain process awareness being passed through one of several, or, several at a time output devices. I mentioned obvious output process called subvocalization, spatially integrated visual map, proprioception, social empathy or mood reflection. There's a bunch of them. No more different than several instances of attending being processed in parallel through which our awareness moves.

From my perspective the only deluding is yours being pronounced without evidence or structure.

As I said I'm not concerned about cells since it can be shown there are many different cell groups that work more or less independently and autonomously. What's more of interest is how different processes communicate and interact with each other to form the overall illusion of now. Cell is no more an atom than is a building infrastructure if you need an analog.

 

[DBT]

Take your own statement and apply your own claim of dumb brain with smart autonomous consciousness as the operator to that statement and see how absurd your objection appears to the objective reader. The irony, as considerable as it is, is probably the least of your many problems in logic and reason.

The dumb brain hypothesis has as much evidence as the "brain does everything" hypothesis.

There is no reason, none, to have something aware of the world that cannot act upon it.

Consciousness is certainly aware if the world.

And we have countless experiences of acting upon the world based on ideas in consciousness.

The idea that consciousness cannot move the arm is the idea that has absolutely no evidence to support it. The science of human guesses doesn't count as evidence of anything.

It is a wild insane position.

Which still ignores the fact that it is the brain that forms and generates both consciousness and movement/motor actions/ response.


''Almost all of behavior involves motor function, from talking to gesturing to walking. But even a simple movement like reaching out to pick up a glass of water can be a complex motor task to study. Not only does your brain have to figure out which muscles to contract and in which order to steer your hand to the glass, it also has to estimate the force needed to pick up the glass. Other factors, like how much water is in the glass and what material the glass is made from, also influence the brains calculations. Not surprisingly, there are many anatomical regions which are involved in motor function.''




Figure 1a: Principal cortical domains of the motor system. The primary motor cortex (M1) lies along the precentral gyrus, and generates the signals that control the execution of movement. Secondary motor areas are involved in motor planning. The plane of section is elaborated in figure 1b.

 

[DBT]

Forgot to post the link for quoted article; https://brainconnection.brainhq.com/2013/03/05/the-anatomy-of-movement/

 

[fromderinside]

The dumb brain hypothesis has as much evidence as the "brain does everything" hypothesis.

There is no reason, none, to have something aware of the world that cannot act upon it.

Consciousness is certainly aware if the world.

And we have countless experiences of acting upon the world based on ideas in consciousness.

The idea that consciousness cannot move the arm is the idea that has absolutely no evidence to support it. The science of human guesses doesn't count as evidence of anything.

It is a wild insane position.

Both hypotheses are straw men. The brain cannot be dumb and the brain cannot do everything are both nonstarters. the brain is known to process and the brain is known to have reflex processes. So one must start somewhere else.

Just as your brain hopypotheses are herrings so is your "conscious must cause" proposal. Without showing connecting between consciousness and effector there is no argument to be had along those lines. Awareness is not a cause nor is being aware evidence of consciousness.

So having put all your herring in their coffins we should now move on.

 

[ruby sparks]

The idea that consciousness cannot move the arm is the idea that has absolutely no evidence to support it.

I haven't been following the thread, but if anyone said that, I wouldn't agree. I'd agree that consciousness can assist in moving an arm.

But it doesn't always or anywhere nearly always assist, and if and when it does, the exact role of consciousness in the process is complicated.

 

[ruby sparks]

So possibly more than cells are involved

For instance? I don't think I've heard you explain what you think consciousness is or how it arises.

 

[untermensche]

So possibly more than cells are involved

For instance? I don't think I've heard you explain what you think consciousness is or how it arises.

At this point I can only speculate as to what kind of things it might be.

It might be a cellular effect, some effect of cellular activity.

It might be some electrical effect, the effect of an electric current running in a certain pattern, possibly through some kind of biological switches. This is probably the most likely answer IMO. Since we can see with computer chips what kinds of things can be done by running current through switches.

It might be a magnetic effect of some kind, possibly involving the flow of electric current and the flow of iron in the blood.

It might be some unknown quantum effect.

It might be some other effect I am not even considering.

It might be a combination of two or more effects.

I can only speculate at this point what it might be. I have no idea what it is objectively.

 

[ruby sparks]

So possibly more than cells are involved

For instance? I don't think I've heard you explain what you think consciousness is or how it arises.

At this point I can only speculate as to what kind of things it might be.

It might be a cellular effect, some effect of cellular activity.

It might be some electrical effect, the effect of an electric current running in a certain pattern, possibly through some kind of biological switches. This is probably the most likely answer IMO. Since we can see with computer chips what kinds of things can be done by running current through switches.

It might be a magnetic effect of some kind, possibly involving the flow of electric current and the flow of iron in the blood.

It might be some unknown quantum effect.

It might be some other effect I am not even considering.

It might be a combination of two or more effects.

I can only speculate at this point what it might be. I have no idea what it is objectively.

So, would it be fair to say that you are at least inclined to think of it as arising out of what we might call 'physical' causes?

It's not a trick question. I'm not about to jump down your neck if you say yes.

Consciousness is complicated. I don't think anyone can fully explain it, not yet anyways. Maybe never.

 

[untermensche]

The idea that consciousness cannot move the arm is the idea that has absolutely no evidence to support it.

I haven't been following the thread, but if anyone said that, I wouldn't agree. I'd agree that consciousness can assist in moving an arm.

But it doesn't always or anywhere nearly always assist, and if and when it does, the exact role of consciousness in the process is complicated.

There is a philosophical question in this category of Metaphysics.

There is no need for the consciousness to be aware of the lion if it can do nothing about it.

There is no need for the consciousness to be aware of the fruit if it can do nothing about it.

There is no need for the consciousness to be aware of the potential mate if there is nothing it can do about it.

Consciousness is such a complicated and costly thing in terms of energy.

If it could do nothing it would not likely exist. If any aspect of it showed up by chance it would not remain long unless there was a need for it.

 

[untermensche]

At this point I can only speculate as to what kind of things it might be.

It might be a cellular effect, some effect of cellular activity.

It might be some electrical effect, the effect of an electric current running in a certain pattern, possibly through some kind of biological switches. This is probably the most likely answer IMO. Since we can see with computer chips what kinds of things can be done by running current through switches.

It might be a magnetic effect of some kind, possibly involving the flow of electric current and the flow of iron in the blood.

It might be some unknown quantum effect.

It might be some other effect I am not even considering.

It might be a combination of two or more effects.

I can only speculate at this point what it might be. I have no idea what it is objectively.

So, would it be fair to say that you are at least inclined to think of it as arising out of what we might call 'physical' causes?

It's not a trick question. I'm not about to jump down your neck if you say yes.

Consciousness is complicated. I don't think anyone can fully explain it, not yet anyways. Maybe never.

"Physical" just means we know about it. There is evidence for it's existence.

It is possible there are things we don't know about yet. It is possible us humans here on our little planet have not been exposed to all the evidence yet. There may be evidence we don't even see as evidence now. Like possibly some quantum effect that is necessary for the generation of consciousness.

 

[ruby sparks]

If it could do nothing it would not likely exist. If any aspect of it showed up by chance it would not remain long unless there was a need for it.

That is one argument for its existence, yes. And personally, I think it's quite a decent argument. I'm not going to go all out and say it is the case (that might rule out the possibility of it being neutral in terms of evolutionary fitness) but I don't need to, because I don't accept that consciousness can do nothing. It can, imo.

One question then is how much and in what ways.

 

[ruby sparks]

"Physical" just means we know about it. There is evidence for it's existence.

Strictly speaking, that would be 'known physical'

ETA: I'm not, at a stretch, even totally averse to using the word 'supernatural', if we mean stuff that we can't yet explain.

It is possible there are things we don't know about yet. It is possible us humans here on our little planet have not been exposed to all the evidence yet. There may be evidence we don't even see as evidence now.

Yes.

Like possibly some quantum effect that is necessary for the generation of consciousness.

I agree. It's possible. But we wouldn't be calling that particular possible cause non-physical, yeah?

 

[ruby sparks]

I would add this though. We don't need to know what consciousness is to study it. For example, we can tell, quite well, when it's operating and when it isn't. So it's like a light on a dimmer switch. We may not know how the light works, but we can tell if it's on or off or partly either. You can even know this about yourself. And we can 'detect' it in others, because they can either tell us or not. There may be issues with self-reporting, but by and large it's a useful way.

 

[ruby sparks]

There is evidence to suggest that brain activity has to reach and cross a certain threshold before consciousness arises. Sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn't.

I might add that I don't think I can necessarily consciously decide when it does and when it doesn't, even if sometimes my conscious thoughts play a role. I'm not generally in charge of the levels of my brain activity.

 

[untermensche]

I agree. It's possible. But we wouldn't be calling that particular possible cause non-physical, yeah?

If some god that could perform miracles walked on water or turned water into wine, those would be physical events if you saw them.

"Physical" is just a word that catches all that we can observe in some way. There are no limits on it.

 

[untermensche]

I would add this though. We don't need to know what consciousness is to study it. For example, we can tell, quite well, when it's operating and when it isn't. So it's like a light on a dimmer switch. We may not know how the light works, but we can tell if it's on or off or partly either. You can even know this about yourself. And we can 'detect' it in others, because they can either tell us or not. There may be issues with self-reporting, but by and large it's a useful way.

We do know exactly what consciousness is. Subjectively.

And subjective experience may not be the final word but to overturn it would take an objective understanding, not tricks.

 

[ruby sparks]

We do know exactly what consciousness is.

I already agreed with you on that. There's no need to say it again.

There are, I'm saying, still aspects of consciousness that we can explore.

- - - Updated - - -

If some god that could perform miracles walked on water or turned water into wine, those would be physical events if you saw them.

"Physical" is just a word that catches all that we can observe in some way. There are no limits on it.

In principle, I agree.

 

[ruby sparks]

We do know exactly what consciousness is. Subjectively.

Whoops. I misread this the first time. I thought it said we don't know.

Ok, we can know what it is subjectively, in that we can know what it feels like. But subjectivity doesn't necessarily allow us to explain or understand it, what it is, what it does, how it arises, etc.