Consciousness

[untermensche]

You have to completely understand what something is doing internally to model it.

Well, that's a doozy.

How does the brain change it's activity? Internal controls. Understanding that is understanding something about function. Modeling external behavior with statistical models explains absolutely nothing about function.

 

[untermensche]

You didn't have a point.

Really. Your point is we can't do model it because we don't know everything about it. Not true. How do you think we know how to model generation of a neural pulse. We may not know from which neruons impulse energy was received but we do know it is propagated along the membrane to the axon hillock where it is integrated in a very specific way to produce an action potential. We know the nature of action potentials, the relation between pulse creation and propagation and the underlying principles of both. However we can model these with analogs very cheaply providing very accurate models which we can test to determine how and whether to modify our models or our understanding of underlying properties. We use almost any physical approach to meet requirements for increasing our knowledge about and how neurons function. We've done this since Sherrington invented the convenient synapse concept from which we eventually got us to understand neurotransmitter production transmission and uptake principles. Ferchrissake untermenche you are flotsam made up of jetsam wandering in a strange land.

Your know nothing assertions are really getting to be strange and scary.

What are the internal controls of propagation? All of them?

I have never claimed to have all knowledge.

I've only claimed that I can tell the difference between a rational argument and nonsense.

But if you can understand something then you can explain it.

But you have explained nothing. Made some wild claims but explained or proved not a bit of it.

 

[fromderinside]

You need to show me one of my wild claims and you need to demonstrate how and why it is wild. Remember if you understand it you can explain it.

 

[OLDMAN]

You didn't have a point.

Really. Your point is we can't do model it because we don't know everything about it. Not true. How do you think we know how to model generation of a neural pulse. We may not know from which neruons impulse energy was received but we do know it is propagated along the membrane to the axon hillock where it is integrated in a very specific way to produce an action potential. We know the nature of action potentials, the relation between pulse creation and propagation and the underlying principles of both. However we can model these with analogs very cheaply providing very accurate models which we can test to determine how and whether to modify our models or our understanding of underlying properties. We use almost any physical approach to meet requirements for increasing our knowledge about and how neurons function. We've done this since Sherrington invented the convenient synapse concept from which we eventually got us to understand neurotransmitter production transmission and uptake principles. Ferchrissake untermenche you are flotsam made up of jetsam wandering in a strange land.

Your know nothing assertions are really getting to be strange and scary.

What are the internal controls of propagation? All of them?

I have never claimed to have all knowledge.

I've only claimed that I can tell the difference between a rational argument and nonsense.

But if you can understand something then you can explain it.

But you have explained nothing. Made some wild claims but explained or proved not a bit of it.

This is an argument from ignorance, we don't know everything, therefore we know nothing...so let's pretend it could be anything.

 

[bilby]

Reality is under no obligation to pander to our desires or fears. untermensche wants substance dualism to be real, but he can't argue effectively for it, so he falls back on arguing against monism. It's easier to tear down other people's hypotheses than to defend your own.

bilby,

Of course the problems of materialist reduction don't support a dualist theory of reality, but without proven materialism we can't close the door on dualism.

The show goes on.

A.

Of course we can close the door on dualism. In the absence of any evidence for dualism, we shouldn't be opening the door to begin with - it is a needless and unparsimonious entity.

Dualism is on an equal footing with Russell's Teapot in terms of plausibility - we cannot prove it is nonexistent, but you would nevertheless need to be crazy to assume that it is real.

 

[untermensche]

You didn't have a point.

Really. Your point is we can't do model it because we don't know everything about it. Not true. How do you think we know how to model generation of a neural pulse. We may not know from which neruons impulse energy was received but we do know it is propagated along the membrane to the axon hillock where it is integrated in a very specific way to produce an action potential. We know the nature of action potentials, the relation between pulse creation and propagation and the underlying principles of both. However we can model these with analogs very cheaply providing very accurate models which we can test to determine how and whether to modify our models or our understanding of underlying properties. We use almost any physical approach to meet requirements for increasing our knowledge about and how neurons function. We've done this since Sherrington invented the convenient synapse concept from which we eventually got us to understand neurotransmitter production transmission and uptake principles. Ferchrissake untermenche you are flotsam made up of jetsam wandering in a strange land.

Your know nothing assertions are really getting to be strange and scary.

What are the internal controls of propagation? All of them?

I have never claimed to have all knowledge.

I've only claimed that I can tell the difference between a rational argument and nonsense.

But if you can understand something then you can explain it.

But you have explained nothing. Made some wild claims but explained or proved not a bit of it.

This is an argument from ignorance, we don't know everything, therefore we know nothing...so let's pretend it could be anything.

I am asking somebody to explain their bullshit.

Not ignorance. Skepticism.

 

[untermensche]

You need to show me one of my wild claims and you need to demonstrate how and why it is wild. Remember if you understand it you can explain it.

This is your claim.

Some auditory phenomena act like they were being processed through a Fourier Filter.

Your wild claim is that understanding what some auditory phenomena is somewhat like gives you an overall understanding of something.

The brain has controls. Or activity could not change.

When we look at brain activity we see increased activity here and then there. A constant flux involving trillions of elements. But it's all meticulously controlled and synchronized.

You can't tell me anything about any controls. Most likely many exist within the cell.

 

[George S]

It is logically possible reality began as I keyed the "I". Complete with memory.
My reality, the only reality I will ever know is always now. Reality began, is now and, someday will end.
It is a journey. Enjoy the trip; the end is not so interesting.
Love wastefully.
Cast your own shadow; be in no-one's shade.

Our untermensche could be right in some reality. But attacking science because the experience of experience is unexplained is a non-sequitor. A lot is known about the mechanics. This may explain how the feeling of having caused my arm to raise is done. And still not explain the feeling other than to expect our experience of similar voluntary actions would be similar, we being both human, thou and I.

Real . . . for now.

Now . . . the only reality.

 

[untermensche]

It is logically possible reality began as I keyed the "I". Complete with memory.
My reality, the only reality I will ever know is always now. Reality began, is now and, someday will end.
It is a journey. Enjoy the trip; the end is not so interesting.
Love wastefully.
Cast your own shadow; be in no-one's shade.

Our untermensche could be right in some reality. But attacking science because the experience of experience is unexplained is a non-sequitor. A lot is known about the mechanics. This may explain how the feeling of having caused my arm to raise is done. And still not explain the feeling other than to expect our experience of similar voluntary actions would be similar, we being both human, thou and I.

Real . . . for now.

Now . . . the only reality.

Nobody can attack science.

But one can point out bad science.

When a study depends on the timing of human guesses it is not objective.

 

[fromderinside]

This is your claim.

Some auditory phenomena act like they were being processed through a Fourier Filter.

Your wild claim is that understanding what some auditory phenomena is somewhat like gives you an overall understanding of something.

No. I'm claiming that some auditory functions can be productively modeled by existing processes like fourier filters. Further I'm claiming mush more than you suggest. I'm claiming that by substituting the fourier filter as a model for an auditory process can provide a tool, like a microscope or a telescope, to examine other properties in auditory processing. The idea is similar to model used by Hodgkin and Huxley in early evaluation of underlying process for action potential transmission through a myelinated neural axon.

For instance, we have insufficient information about atmospheric mechanics to build analytic representations, yet we can build numerical models using data that we do have to predict weather further and further out from the present.

 

[untermensche]

Modeling external behavior of cells has limited purpose. Not much different from modeling where people go and coming up with a theory of psychology. People hang out in groups then they hang out by themselves. Sometimes they hang out in large groups. It says something about psychology, but not much.

What is needed is an understanding of internal controls and any external controls.

In the brain billions and trillions of elements are continually working in perfect synchronicity to produce a consistent stable and incredibly complicated result.

What is controlling that synchronicity? What are the controls? How is it happening?

That is important.

Modeling external behavior of neurons will give you no answers to this.

 

[aupmanyav]

What is controlling that synchronicity? What are the controls? How is it happening?

It is a huge network. Some 10 billion switches.

 

[untermensche]

What is controlling that synchronicity? What are the controls? How is it happening?

It is a huge network. Some 10 billion switches.

That's a hypothesis.

 

[fromderinside]

Beginning with "working in perfect synchrony" and following up "with produce a consistent stable" result you produce for yourself a model you can't justify as basis for your 'understanding of internal controls and external controls" both of which are other models you can't justify.

Where do you get synchronicity? Speculation based on your unfounded assertions methinks.

How do you know control is needed?

Even in my limited studies of processing along the auditory pathway from transduction to basis for perception I found evidence for trades and variation all along the pathway. Time preservation was demonstrated by orientation signal tracking and signal certainty was obviously enabled by both association and negative moderation processes. but such as changes in intensity, frequency, masking noiese and tones, visual signal competition for precedence all suggest certainty and and synchronicity was often uncertain.

BTW that 'external' modeling was no such thing. It was modeling of ion transport along the neuron's axon and at the axon hillock. You arte way in over your head here.

Obviously your certainties are speculations based on unconfirmed processes. They are no basis for physical predictions whatever.

 

[untermensche]

Where do you get synchronicity? Speculation based on your unfounded assertions methinks.

Have you ever seen actual brain activity?

You can only look at increases but what you see are millions of lights suddenly turning on in unison, or waves of millions of lights moving across the brain.

That is synchronicity.

And the fact that something incredibly complicated arises from it shows it is highly controlled.

But this is a bunch of cognitive dissonance it seems.

You can see the behavior and have the incredibly complicated experiences but don't seem to comprehend what would be needed to have them.

 

[fromderinside]

That of which you describe is evidence of malfunction. It can occur as a result of many conditions including brain damage, a stroke, genetic derived structure and function etc. Most studies of such brain behavior are the result of the study of abnormal conditions. So if you want to use a sick brain model go ahead. Some of my work centered around using ERPs as indices of hearing threshold in those who are unable to behaviorally respond. The derived indicators weren't sensitive enough for that purpose.

 

[untermensche]

That of which you describe is evidence of malfunction. It can occur as a result of many conditions including brain damage, a stroke, genetic derived structure and function etc. Most studies of such brain behavior are the result of the study of abnormal conditions. So if you want to use a sick brain model go ahead. Some of my work centered around using ERPs as indices of hearing threshold in those who are unable to behaviorally respond. The derived indicators weren't sensitive enough for that purpose.

What?

This is as if you did not read a word I wrote.



https://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinmurnane/2016/05/19/a-real-time-visualization-of-electrical-activity-in-the-brain-is-here-and-its-beautiful/#6c66c1ba4cca

That activity looks random and chaotic.

But to create a complex structured and consistently structured result takes incredibly intricate control.

That you think things can just happen without control is amazing.

 

[fromderinside]

I say nothing about control. If there is control it is local and specific to modality. However, as I noted in conversation about neural activity within the acoustic ascending neural system, there is continuous interaction of incoming information with recent processing of outgoing information. Such processes could, without demanding meaning, result in something between autocorrelation and holographic representation of information in the auditory mode. Looking at others working in somatosensory, visual, and pain sensory ascending processes it seems similar results are obtained there as well. Extending such reasoning to interaction between systems it is relatively easy to see that ongoing incoming information is a primary generator of behavioral direction over an extended chunk of time (perhaps several seconds) at the first level of processing.

All I see as synchronicity of electrical activity in the brain are rhythms alpha, beta, delta, and gamma. Even those are probably only affective accompaniment to actual processes. System wide the only evidence that exists beyond Jungian speculation is electrical activity such at petite, grand, mal seizure electrical activity and various sensory microphonic activity. Just putting the record in to better focus away from your hand waving. I'd rather keep my discussion focused on material issues rather than woo woo speculations including outdated psycho theoretical theory.

 

[DBT]

That of which you describe is evidence of malfunction. It can occur as a result of many conditions including brain damage, a stroke, genetic derived structure and function etc. Most studies of such brain behavior are the result of the study of abnormal conditions. So if you want to use a sick brain model go ahead. Some of my work centered around using ERPs as indices of hearing threshold in those who are unable to behaviorally respond. The derived indicators weren't sensitive enough for that purpose.

What?

This is as if you did not read a word I wrote.



https://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinmurnane/2016/05/19/a-real-time-visualization-of-electrical-activity-in-the-brain-is-here-and-its-beautiful/#6c66c1ba4cca

That activity looks random and chaotic.

But to create a complex structured and consistently structured result takes incredibly intricate control.

That you think things can just happen without control is amazing.

There is no central controller. The closest you could hope for is Executive function, but that's not even close to what you believe.

Abstract

''This review presents neuroimaging studies which have explored the cerebral substrates of the central executive component of the working memory model proposed by Baddeley and Hitch [Working memory (1986); Recent advances in learning and motivation (1974)]. These studies have demonstrated that different executive functions (manipulating and updating of information, dual-task coordination, inhibition and shifting processes) not only recruit various frontal areas, but also depend upon posterior (mainly parietal) regions. Such results are in agreement with the hypothesis that executive functions rely on a distributed cerebral network not restricted to anterior cerebral areas. Moreover, the intervention of similar prefrontal regions in a large number of executive tasks suggests that the central executive functioning must be understood in terms of different interactions between a network of regions rather than in terms of a specific association between one region and one higher-level cognitive process.''

 

[bilby]

That of which you describe is evidence of malfunction. It can occur as a result of many conditions including brain damage, a stroke, genetic derived structure and function etc. Most studies of such brain behavior are the result of the study of abnormal conditions. So if you want to use a sick brain model go ahead. Some of my work centered around using ERPs as indices of hearing threshold in those who are unable to behaviorally respond. The derived indicators weren't sensitive enough for that purpose.

What?

This is as if you did not read a word I wrote.



https://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinmurnane/2016/05/19/a-real-time-visualization-of-electrical-activity-in-the-brain-is-here-and-its-beautiful/#6c66c1ba4cca

That activity looks random and chaotic.

But to create a complex structured and consistently structured result takes incredibly intricate control.

That you think things can just happen without control is amazing.

That a self-described anarchist thinks that things cannot just happen without control is fucking hilarious.