Consciousness

[ryan]

Please watch this interview with the neuroscientist who created the integrated information theory , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBIwuA1KZLE . It's a nice 4 minute explanation of a possible consequence of what I am trying to say.

 

[DBT]

Please watch this interview with the neuroscientist who created the integrated information theory , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBIwuA1KZLE . It's a nice 4 minute explanation of a possible consequence of what I am trying to say.

Sorry, no time or patience for watching videos on a discussion forum...can you give your own description?

 

[DBT]

But there is a physical reason, which I described in my last post and numerous other posts.

Quote;
''Hence the brain is the author and producer of conscious sensation of the world and self interacting with its objects and events.

Sight does not exist unless the brain forms visual experience of its environment on the basis of information it receivers from its senses, made comprehensible by memory integration, for example, it being difficult to navigate an environment without this faculty.''

But you are just glossing over the problem; there is literally a god/spirit/consciousness in the gaps. The mystery lies in the terms you take for grated like integration and comprehension. In a quantified universe, there are no objectively whole phenomena like integration (except for space-time, but we are talking about biology) and comprehension. Things in the universe are only suppose to happen in discrete, nonlocal units that are the particles of the Standard model and the behaviors of them.

Functions like memory integration and its loss have been discussed in this thread and other threads, basically synaptic connectivity failure resulting in a failure of memory integration which in turn results in an inability to recognise whatever is in front of your eyes even though the information is being transmitted the optic nerve to the visual cortex and processed but the failure of memory function resulting in the experience of incomprehensible imagery, the inability to recognise.

 

[WAB]

But there is a physical reason, which I described in my last post and numerous other posts.

DBT,

Whom, or what, are you referring to when you say "I", and "my"?

Did your brain, or your fingers, type out those letters?

Your brain is trapped inside your skull, so it can't type. It needs fingers (those cylindrical, fleshy & bony, tangible digits that sprout like leaves from your hand) to do that.

And senses (5) with which to gather information about the environment outside that prison of obdurate bone; that it (your brain) may process that data and form means of behavior for you (whatever that is) to go about your business.

There is no I in t-e-a-m, and there is no I inside your brain. Your brain is inside of you, right? I think we agree about that.

You, being the 'whole' person. <<< not the 'persona' manufactured by your (whatever that refers to) brain. I mean the actual, material, meaty body that you (there's that word again) see in the mirror every morning.

Assuming they have mirrors down under, where women glow and men plunder?

 

[Juma]

You didnt explain what you refer to by the word "whole" here.

Did you read any part of the paper I posted? There is an objective whole of some parts of the brain. In other words, the consciousness is irreducible.

Yes I read the paper. He speaks about unity, not "whole"

 

[Juma]

Please watch this interview with the neuroscientist who created the integrated information theory , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBIwuA1KZLE . It's a nice 4 minute explanation of a possible consequence of what I am trying to say.

It has nothing to do with what you are saying. He says: we are the only thing that knows how to is to be something.we should cherish the shapes in our mind. That he dont believe the mind survives the death of the body. And som more. But nothing about wholeness of the mind or really anything of how the mind works.

 

[untermensche]

If you have two cats and all you find is a broken cup on the ground. Does the evidence tell us which cat did it? Or even if a cat did it. Looking at results does not always tell you something about causes.

Nobody has the slightest clue which physiological process is resulting in consciousness.

Nobody can logically make claims as to all the conditions needed for consciousness until that is known.

No matter how many times you falsely claim it.

You're a dogmatist.

Not a scientist.

No. that's still you. No matter how much evidence for brain agency is being presented to you, you interpret it in a way that suits your own unfounded, discredited version of 'reality' - oh, that could mean the brain as a receiver. This despite the fact that there is nothing to indicate the validity of this interpretation.

There being no evidence for brain as a receiver of disembodied consciousness. The very opposite being the case.

And no matter how many links and quotes I provide which have the researchers themselves talking about their experiments and case studies and their implications, referring to brain states and their corresponding effect on expressions of conscious output, you simply brush everything aside and re-assert your position of faith.

There lies the dogma, irrationality and unwillingness to face the facts. Brushing anything that doesn't suit your needs or is too difficult to address and simply re-asserting your claims and focusing on your opponent instead of what is being said; the argument, the evidence and assessments by researchers who are experts in their field.

Sorry, you have nothing.

Nobody is claiming that brain activity is not a part of it.

But only an ignorant liar claims they know the brain is the only thing involved.

All you are capable of doing is aping the conclusions of others.

You have no ability for independent thinking.

Philosophical or rational arguments are wasted on you.

You are a dogmatist.

Not a scientist.

 

[untermensche]

Why does the brain need a persona to figure things out?

A brain can just react to stimulus. It has no need of a persona.

A persona is only needed is the persona can initiate action.

Exactly.

It is clear.

But this is a logical argument.

Something some here have no ability to even address.

 

[untermensche]

Yes, the brain goes to all this trouble to make representations of the world for consciousness to experience.

But a representation does not need to be made for a brain to understand things.

Either the brain is just a bunch of "reflexes" and "programs" and therefore has no need to make presentations for a consciousness. So it makes consciousness for no reason at all.

Or the brain does it because consciousness itself has an ability to initiate certain actions.

Which is certainly the basis of human institutions like the criminal justice system, which holds people accountable for the things they do.

If the person has no control that is an absurd practice.

The brain is the person, this isn't hard...unless your trying to make it into something else.

Saying "the brain is the person" is a meaningless statement.

You obviously are incapable of even discussing this.

 

[Juma]

No. that's still you. No matter how much evidence for brain agency is being presented to you, you interpret it in a way that suits your own unfounded, discredited version of 'reality' - oh, that could mean the brain as a receiver. This despite the fact that there is nothing to indicate the validity of this interpretation.

There being no evidence for brain as a receiver of disembodied consciousness. The very opposite being the case.

And no matter how many links and quotes I provide which have the researchers themselves talking about their experiments and case studies and their implications, referring to brain states and their corresponding effect on expressions of conscious output, you simply brush everything aside and re-assert your position of faith.

There lies the dogma, irrationality and unwillingness to face the facts. Brushing anything that doesn't suit your needs or is too difficult to address and simply re-asserting your claims and focusing on your opponent instead of what is being said; the argument, the evidence and assessments by researchers who are experts in their field.

Sorry, you have nothing.

Nobody is claiming that brain activity is not a part of it.

But only an ignorant liar claims they know the brain is the only thing involved.

All you are capable of doing is aping the conclusions of others.

You have no ability for independent thinking.

Philosophical or rational arguments are wasted on you.

You are a dogmatist.

Not a scientist.

Of course the brain is not all there is to a person, there is the rest of the body. But that wasnt what you ment, was it?

 

[untermensche]

Nobody is claiming that brain activity is not a part of it.

But only an ignorant liar claims they know the brain is the only thing involved.

All you are capable of doing is aping the conclusions of others.

You have no ability for independent thinking.

Philosophical or rational arguments are wasted on you.

You are a dogmatist.

Not a scientist.

Of course the brain is not all there is to a person, there is the rest of the body. But that wasnt what you ment, was it?

You actually went to the trouble to type that?

Look up at the title of the thread.

That is what is being discussed.

Nobody has any idea if brain activity is the only thing responsible for the phenomena of consciousness.

Because the phenomena is completely unexplained.

 

[Juma]

Of course the brain is not all there is to a person, there is the rest of the body. But that wasnt what you ment, was it?

You actually went to the trouble to type that?

Look up at the title of the thread.

That is what is being discussed.

Nobody has any idea if brain activity is the only thing responsible for the phenomena of consciousness.

Because the phenomena is completely unexplained.

We know that you need to have a brain to have conciousness. We know that you can have a brain but no concioudness.
There is no evidence whatsoever of conciousness without a brain.
We have even good understanding of where in the brain different subsystem resides.
So yes, we know that concioussness is something the brain does.
You are free to keep your head in the sand, but dont expect anyone to respect your opinion.

 

[untermensche]

You actually went to the trouble to type that?

Look up at the title of the thread.

That is what is being discussed.

Nobody has any idea if brain activity is the only thing responsible for the phenomena of consciousness.

Because the phenomena is completely unexplained.

We know that you need to have a brain to have conciousness. We know that you can have a brain but no concioudness.
There is no evidence whatsoever of conciousness without a brain.
We have even good understanding of where in the brain different subsystem resides.
So yes, we know that concioussness is something the brain does.
You are free to keep your head in the sand, but dont expect anyone to respect your opinion.

Yes. Brain activity is involved. Brain activity is a necessary condition.

Nobody disputes that.

But until we understand what consciousness actually is we can't say that brain activity is the only thing involved.

There is no getting around this.

 

[Elixir]

The effect of a given stimulus upon the brain is not a given - not by a LONG shot. Our perceptions are very modular, and depend greatly on prior experience.
A person who is raised in a western urban environment whose peripheral vision registers something vaguely rectangular, moving into an obscured area of the field of vision will almost always register "car going around corner". Someone raised in a jungle - not so much. People with similar experiential databanks process basic visual stimuli in similar ways.

Put a person in a dark room, and project one dot oscillating horizontally at 1 cycle every two seconds, and they will usually report what we could call an "absolute" perception - what makes it absolute is the agreement of almost everyone that "a dot moving back and forth" is what they "saw". Add another dot somewhere below the first dot, and have it move exactly reciprocally to the first dot (top dot moves left as bottom dot moves right etc.) and MOST people (but not all) will actually perceive a stick with lit ends being rotated.

The "persona" is an outgrowth of a huge number of modules of perception that a person accrues over time. No two people's experiential sets are identical, so we seem (especially to ourselves) to be unique - just like everyone else. It's really just the sum of our perceptual biases.

Yes, the brain goes to all this trouble to make representations of the world for consciousness to experience.

But a representation does not need to be made for a brain to understand things.

I disagree. There's a reason none of us remembers things we have done or seen prior to having a set of experiences within which to contextualize them. Awareness can proceed without context, but not self-awareness.

Either the brain is just a bunch of "reflexes" and "programs" and therefore has no need to make presentations for a consciousness. So it makes consciousness for no reason at all. Or the brain does it because consciousness itself has an ability to initiate certain actions.

Obviously the ability to conceptualize possible future outcomes has evolutionary/reproductive advantages...

Which is certainly the basis of human institutions like the criminal justice system, which holds people accountable for the things they do.
If the person has no control that is an absurd practice.

That would be correct either way.

 

[untermensche]

I disagree. There's a reason none of us remembers things we have done or seen prior to having a set of experiences within which to contextualize them. Awareness can proceed without context, but not self-awareness.

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

None of us remember a time before our long term memory developed.

Obviously the ability to conceptualize possible future outcomes has evolutionary/reproductive advantages...

It has advantages to a consciousness IF the consciousness can act upon it.

A brain has no need of a consciousness for long term planning. Just memory and some unconscious "programs".

No extra thing (consciousness) needs to be aware of what the animal is doing for it to do things if it can do things based on preexisting "programs".

So either the animal is working with preexisting "programs" and consciousness is a complete waste.

Or the animal needs consciousness because it is initiating action, like planning.

Which is certainly the basis of human institutions like the criminal justice system, which holds people accountable for the things they do.
If the person has no control that is an absurd practice.

That would be correct either way.

If consciousness has no control then the idea of punishment is an absurdity.

If these neuro "scientists" actually believed that consciousness had no control they would raise their voice loudly in unison to end our system of punishment.

 

[Elixir]

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

None of us remember a time before our long term memory developed.

And why do you suppose THAT is? It's because there is no context within which to preserve events and actions, even though we are "aware" of them as they occur, We have all the wiring for memory even at birth, but without established circuits - modules of perception as I described previously - there is no recall.

Obviously the ability to conceptualize possible future outcomes has evolutionary/reproductive advantages...

It has advantages to a consciousness IF the consciousness organism can act upon it.

FIFY

A brain has no need of a consciousness for long term planning. Just memory and some unconscious "programs".

That would seem to imply that there is no evolutionary advantage to the organism. I disagree.

No extra thing (consciousness) needs to be aware of what the animal is doing for it to do things if it can do things based on preexisting "programs".

I don't see consciousness per se doing anything - I see organisms doing things. Most are aware, some are self-aware. Consciousness doesn't seem to be an either/or proposition, but rather to exist on a spectrum.

So either the animal is working with preexisting "programs" and consciousness is a complete waste. Or the animal needs consciousness because it is initiating action, like planning.

I think that's a false dichotomy. Most of our realities are a mix of programs of which we are aware, and those of which we are not. All the programs - whether or not we are aware of them - are emergent properties of experience and retention.

If consciousness has no control then the idea of punishment is an absurdity.

That's a different subject really. It is what it is. There are exceptions in law for those who are incapable of understanding why what they did might warrant punishment... once I got a ticket for driving an unregistered vehicle, when I was driving a drunken friend home in his own car (with expired plates). I went to court and when asked to enter a plea, I asked the judge whether I should plead guilty on the basis of the technical transgression, or innocent because I felt no regret or guilt. He said "well, it should be the same thing". When I began to explain that it was not, he snapped at me "Look - Pay the $100 fine, or go to jail, bail yourself out and hire a lawyer to make the case!". Needless to say, I paid the fine.

 

[untermensche]

And why do you suppose THAT is? It's because there is no context within which to preserve events and actions, even though we are "aware" of them as they occur, We have all the wiring for memory even at birth, but without established circuits - modules of perception as I described previously - there is no recall.

No, it is because the brain has not developed to the point that lasting long term memories are possible.

The brain develops over a lifespan. The processes that move "information" from short term memory to long term memory are not present at birth, develop at about the age of 2 to 4, are very good in youth but degrade in middle age.

The brain is a living thing that goes through "pre-programmed" changes during it's lifespan. Just as puberty is "pre-programmed" at birth.

The brain has a window of opportunity for language acquisition, probably for many cognitive functions.

Obviously the ability to conceptualize possible future outcomes has evolutionary/reproductive advantages...

It has advantages to a consciousness IF the consciousness organism can act upon it.

FIFY

The brain has no need of it to act.

The brain does not need the world in some visual representation to act on it.

This is a philosophical point and many are incapable of understanding.

Take vision. Vision first exists as some "signal" down the optic nerves after stimulation of receptor cells in the retina.

Then it is scattered to several functional areas of the brain, mainly in the occipital lobe.

Then the brain takes this scattered information and turns it into the thing consciousness experiences, vision.

Since the brain can produce a coherent picture from this scattered activity the brain understands the scattered activity.

There is no need for a brain to also produce a coherent picture for consciousness. The brain already fully understands the activity in a scattered state.

Creating a coherent picture for consciousness does not help the organism. It only helps consciousness.

...I don't see consciousness per se doing anything....

Take your right arm and lift it up over your head.

You just experienced consciousness doing something.

Do you not trust your own experiences?

Why would the brain create faulty experiences? That would serve no purpose at all.

It is what it is.

It is what it is because we experience our consciousness as being in control of things.

 

[WAB]

Take your right arm and lift it up over your head.- u.

Moore & Searle live! As does Keats:

This living hand, now warm and capable
Of earnest grasping, would, if it were cold
And in the icy silence of the tomb,
So haunt thy days and chill thy dreaming nights
That thou wouldst wish thine own heart dry of blood
So in my veins red life might stream again,
And thou be conscience-calmed--see here it is--
I hold it towards you.


But how is Chalmers doing? I've been thinking that DBT is Chalmers, pulling our collective leg(s). Chalmers is from the land down under too, if I reckalekt right.



Just kidding, DBT! And by the way, there's another play coming.

 

[untermensche]

The one I love is Dennett's; "Consciousness Explained"

What an ass. The book explains nothing.

 

[DBT]

The one I love is Dennett's; "Consciousness Explained"

What an ass. The book explains nothing.

Nothing is perfect, but it's far better than anything you can offer.