• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Consciousness

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.

But all they have understood so far is that we are conscious because of discrete signals. That doesn't explain our ability to know of concepts like before and after. We would only be conscious for instantaneous blips of time and at individual neurotransmissions. We wouldn't even know of the concept of space or memory either.

It literally doesn't add up and can't add up with the universe ... biology ... physics as we it so far. There is a big problem of consciousness and it doesn't seem to be reducible to the Standard model or any of the particle's properties that we know of.

You even used to say that there is a unexplained problem; that's all I am saying.
 
Yes I read the paper. He speaks about unity, not "whole"

Unity: The state of being united or joined as a whole.

from Oxford Dictionary
What he means is that a lot of disparate neurosignals is united in a single conciousness.
That is something else than to say that it contains the whole information.
Thus it is a unification of neurosignals but not near the whole of neurosignals.

It is neither a whole in itself since contains a lot of disparate stuff: thought, feelings, sounds, imagery, forms, surfacestructure etc, whatever we have senses for (about 30-40 of them)
 
Last edited:
DBT you must keep learning about aboutness. He briefly mentions it in "what it's like to be ...". You won't believe or accept it from me, but I think hearing it from different people will be more effective. I mean it's only 4 minutes of thousands of hours you will spend in the future discussing this topic without really connecting with people more familiar with concepts like the ones he discusses. Like it or not, neuroscientists like him are not totally happy with explaining it all with only the physics/biology that we currently understand them to be.

Yes it is about irreducibility, which is poison for science, but then again, space-time is irreducible. A very thin slice of space-time will not have a 3rd spatial dimension. In other words, a sample of 4d space-time does not have a very fundamental intrinsic property of what is harmoniously. And that is math really saying this, something of deductive logic.
Redicivility does not mean that the parts should have the same properties as the combination of the parts.

I love that you left out "intrinsic". Are you on here to make strawmen or do you actually give a crap about the discussion?
 
Unity: The state of being united or joined as a whole.

from Oxford Dictionary
What he means is that a lot of disparate neurosignals is united in a single conciousness.
That is something else than to say that it contains the whole information.
Thus it is a unification of neurosignals but not near the whole of neurosignals.

It is neither a whole in itself since contains a lot of disparate stuff: thought, feelings, sounds, imagery, forms, surfacestructure etc, whatever we have senses for (about 30-40 of them)

At 2:57, he says that the "shapes" that are "inside" ourselves are "maximum irreducible conceptual structure". It is the "integrated information" as he puts it that exists in addition to matter, but in his opinion would not exist without matter.
 
it doesn't seem to be reducible to the Standard model or any of the particle's properties that we know of..
How the fuck can you know that when dont know what conciousness is?

Take any physical quality of nature/physics, like something as fundamental as spin, and let's see what happens when we look for a mind. We see that it has a certain physical quality/property [check]. Now it may or may not have a very simple mind. If it does have a mind we can't say that its mind is spin because spin is its own thing. It would have to have dual properties of spin and mind.
 
Now we have entered the world of human psychology.

And punishment is a very inefficient way to change behavior and can many times create worse behavior.
Worst try to dodge the real question by changing subject ever.

Nothing to dodge but nonsense.

You have no point.

Prove me wrong.
 
What is it you really want for the human race, fromder? Do you want a world with freethinking, peace-loving, active individuals? Would you rather live in the Stepford Wives' world? Huxley's Brave New World? Orwell's communist nightmare?

Why are you so dead-set against consciousness and agency?

What are you afraid of?
Ignorance.

Ignorance? Not so. No-one on this thread has showed signs of ignorance. There has to be another reason.

Unter - by trust I mean simply that I can see that you are thinking rationally here. But you're right about not trusting anyone else's word. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Unter - by trust I mean simply that I can see that you are thinking rationally here. But you're right about not trusting anyone else's word. Thanks.

There is a problem here if we try to talk about the science of consciousness.

Because there is no science of consciousness.

Science doesn't have the slightest idea what it is.

Saying it is brain activity is like explaining how a computer works by saying it is chip activity.

Doesn't explain anything.

Everybody that has a consciousness knows a lot more about it than science.
 
Nothing is perfect, but it's far better than anything you can offer. ;)

Being able to put together a bunch of bad arguments is not offering anything.

Dennett is a lovely man, with a bunch of bad ideas.


That's what you say about everyone and everything you disagree with. You of course don't have a bad argument because you have no argument, or evidence. You have assertion, merely asserting your beliefs without regard for actual evidence and actual arguments based on evidence as presented by experts in their field.
 
So according to the available evidence, just as I have been describing for a number of years on this forum, and its earlier incarnations, the following picture emerges;


Piecing together
the currently popular theories suggests the following general picture for how the brain creates consciousness, proceeding from the neuron to society:


Neural circuits organize statistical input and output: The brain is processing sensory input and generating motor output on a continual basis, functioning basically as a statistical information processing and prediction machine.

Memory constructs a dynamic model of the world: One aspect of how the brain works is that it generates an interactive dynamic model of the world based on the statistical information received from the senses. This model includes an understanding of the environment, a representation of the physical body itself (body image; the way you know your hand is yours and not somebody else's), a representation of other beings in the social world (parents, friends, society, animals), and ultimately a representation of oneself. The representation of oneself may be an extension of social modeling reflected back onto oneself (the purported owner of one's perceptual experiences); it may also be the "actor" responsible for the observed behavior represented by the body image (perception of "agency").

Information integration unifies coherent perception: One aspect of the "conscious field" is that it appears unified, complete, coherent, and self-aware, even though experiments show it is not. This may be made possible by extensive feedback pathways within the brain, which exchange information between brain areas, unify perception into a single coherent point of view, and drive the brain's representation of the body's identity toward a consistent model of goal-directed voluntary action.

Episodic memory creates identity through personal narrative: In humans in particular, "one-shot memory" is able to store an episodic record of the events we experience along with causal models and explanations. This "episodic memory" is organized into a multi-layer narrative on many time scales. Our knowledge of our own personal history forms our identity of who we are, which further supports our understanding of that entity, which is being aware, experiencing perceptions, and causing actions — our "self."

Social structure reinforces a model of reality and agency: Society and human culture further reinforce this "mutually developed" model of who we are, who other people are, who they think we are, what we think they think of us, etc. There are many levels of recurrent nesting of representations of our personal and social identities, both within our own brain and distributed across the brains of our family, community, and social relations.

Language codifies social reality and supports transmission of cultural beliefs: All of this is brought into a crisp structured social-conceptual framework using language. Language is a culturally-transmitted conceptual system with a spontaneously developed sequential coding scheme (words and grammar). Language allows society to operate within a common belief system that is kept synchronized across individuals. This belief system includes concepts such as personal responsibility, intentional action, truth, knowledge, and other core belief frameworks that provide a foundation to our conscious experience.

Thus the brain plays a role in generating and maintaining a model of the world that includes "us," and also includes "us" believing we are having self-aware experiences. In modern human society, this is further supported by a shared reality and belief system that we acquire from infancy through cultural transmission, human language, episodic memory, and personal identity.
 
What he means is that a lot of disparate neurosignals is united in a single conciousness.
That is something else than to say that it contains the whole information.
Thus it is a unification of neurosignals but not near the whole of neurosignals.

It is neither a whole in itself since contains a lot of disparate stuff: thought, feelings, sounds, imagery, forms, surfacestructure etc, whatever we have senses for (about 30-40 of them)

At 2:57, he says that the "shapes" that are "inside" ourselves are "maximum irreducible conceptual structure". It is the "integrated information" as he puts it that exists in addition to matter, but in his opinion would not exist without matter.
Yes. And what has this to do with anything you said?
 
Unter - by trust I mean simply that I can see that you are thinking rationally here. But you're right about not trusting anyone else's word. Thanks.

There is a problem here if we try to talk about the science of consciousness.

Because there is no science of consciousness.

Science doesn't have the slightest idea what it is.

Saying it is brain activity is like explaining how a computer works by saying it is chip activity.

Doesn't explain anything.

Everybody that has a consciousness knows a lot more about it than science.

So you mean that everyone that runs computer programs knows more of how computers work than those that study the actual workings (chips, the structure of chips, how they are connected and what signals are sent where) of computers?

You are fool believing that because we dont know everything we then know nothing.

How do you suggest that we should proceed to solve the mystery of conciousness?
 
So according to the available evidence, just as I have been describing for a number of years on this forum, and its earlier incarnations, the following picture emerges;


Piecing together
the currently popular theories suggests the following general picture for how the brain creates consciousness, proceeding from the neuron to society:


Neural circuits organize statistical input and output: The brain is processing sensory input and generating motor output on a continual basis, functioning basically as a statistical information processing and prediction machine.

Memory constructs a dynamic model of the world: One aspect of how the brain works is that it generates an interactive dynamic model of the world based on the statistical information received from the senses. This model includes an understanding of the environment, a representation of the physical body itself (body image; the way you know your hand is yours and not somebody else's), a representation of other beings in the social world (parents, friends, society, animals), and ultimately a representation of oneself. The representation of oneself may be an extension of social modeling reflected back onto oneself (the purported owner of one's perceptual experiences); it may also be the "actor" responsible for the observed behavior represented by the body image (perception of "agency").

Information integration unifies coherent perception: One aspect of the "conscious field" is that it appears unified, complete, coherent, and self-aware, even though experiments show it is not. This may be made possible by extensive feedback pathways within the brain, which exchange information between brain areas, unify perception into a single coherent point of view, and drive the brain's representation of the body's identity toward a consistent model of goal-directed voluntary action.

Episodic memory creates identity through personal narrative: In humans in particular, "one-shot memory" is able to store an episodic record of the events we experience along with causal models and explanations. This "episodic memory" is organized into a multi-layer narrative on many time scales. Our knowledge of our own personal history forms our identity of who we are, which further supports our understanding of that entity, which is being aware, experiencing perceptions, and causing actions — our "self."

Social structure reinforces a model of reality and agency: Society and human culture further reinforce this "mutually developed" model of who we are, who other people are, who they think we are, what we think they think of us, etc. There are many levels of recurrent nesting of representations of our personal and social identities, both within our own brain and distributed across the brains of our family, community, and social relations.

Language codifies social reality and supports transmission of cultural beliefs: All of this is brought into a crisp structured social-conceptual framework using language. Language is a culturally-transmitted conceptual system with a spontaneously developed sequential coding scheme (words and grammar). Language allows society to operate within a common belief system that is kept synchronized across individuals. This belief system includes concepts such as personal responsibility, intentional action, truth, knowledge, and other core belief frameworks that provide a foundation to our conscious experience.

Thus the brain plays a role in generating and maintaining a model of the world that includes "us," and also includes "us" believing we are having self-aware experiences. In modern human society, this is further supported by a shared reality and belief system that we acquire from infancy through cultural transmission, human language, episodic memory, and personal identity.

If only you understood how little your are saying with this.

It is like saying we have explained the internal combustion engine by saying the tires spin when the car moves.

There is no physiological explanation for consciousness. Not even a working conception.

Nobody has the slightest clue how the activity of cells results in the ability to experience something.

In terms of actual physiology leading to consciousness phrases like "Neural circuits" and "Information integration" are completely meaningless. They are pieces of jargon pretending to explain something.
 
There is a problem here if we try to talk about the science of consciousness.

Because there is no science of consciousness.

Science doesn't have the slightest idea what it is.

Saying it is brain activity is like explaining how a computer works by saying it is chip activity.

Doesn't explain anything.

Everybody that has a consciousness knows a lot more about it than science.

So you mean that everyone that runs computer programs knows more of how computers work than those that study the actual workings (chips, the structure of chips, how they are connected and what signals are sent where) of computers?

You are fool believing that because we dont know everything we then know nothing.

How do you suggest that we should proceed to solve the mystery of conciousness?

The first sentence doesn't follow from my statements at all.

To even think it does shows a real lack of rational thinking.

The second statement is something you pulled from your ass and has nothing to do with anything I have said.

The question you ask is important.

And nobody has the slightest clue how to proceed. But of course people have careers centered around "publish or perish" and journals have space to fill. And the topic of human consciousness is at the center of human thinking and it is what makes humans distinct from all other animals. So a bunch of nonsense that explains nothing about consciousness exists.

Nothing is understood in terms of how a bunch of cells could produce a subjective "being".

There is not even a hypothesis.

What is needed most is rational humility and something absent now, an acknowledgement of how little we understand. But humans are arrogant creatures and like to pretend they know more than they do. And many have no ability for original thought which creates a lot of mindless herd-like behavior.
 
So you mean that everyone that runs computer programs knows more of how computers work than those that study the actual workings (chips, the structure of chips, how they are connected and what signals are sent where) of computers?

You are fool believing that because we dont know everything we then know nothing.

How do you suggest that we should proceed to solve the mystery of conciousness?

The first sentence doesn't follow from my statements at all.

To even think it does shows a real lack of rational thinking.

The second statement is something you pulled from your ass and has nothing to do with anything I have said.

The question you ask is important.

And nobody has the slightest clue how to proceed. But of course people have careers centered around "publish or perish" and journals have space to fill. And the topic of human consciousness is at the center of human thinking and it is what makes humans distinct from all other animals. So a bunch of nonsense that explains nothing about consciousness exists.

Nothing is understood in terms of how a bunch of cells could produce a subjective "being".

There is not even a hypothesis.

What is needed most is rational humility and something absent now, an acknowledgement of how little we understand. But humans are arrogant creatures and like to pretend they know more than they do. And many have no ability for original thought which creates a lot of mindless herd-like behavior.
Which leaves you there standing like a grumpy old bridge troll whining "everything is shit. we dont know nothing" when everone else tries to find a way to solve the problem.

Everyone agrees that we hasnt solved the problem yet, but your sad whining is pathetic.
 
Which leaves you there standing like a grumpy old bridge troll whining "everything is shit. we dont know nothing" when everone else tries to find a way to solve the problem.

Everyone agrees that we hasnt solved the problem yet, but your sad whining is pathetic.

I see this as the last desperate gasp of somebody who has nothing to add.

If humans have no physiological explanation of consciousness then pointing it out is insight, not whining.
 
Which leaves you there standing like a grumpy old bridge troll whining "everything is shit. we dont know nothing" when everone else tries to find a way to solve the problem.

Everyone agrees that we hasnt solved the problem yet, but your sad whining is pathetic.

I see this as the last desperate gasp of somebody who has nothing to add.

If humans have no physiological explanation of consciousness then pointing it out is insight, not whining.
Pointing out the obvious is not insight.
And writing the same lame comment that "shutup, we dont know" is whining.

What we can do is following the evidence. The evidence points at the brain.
The conciousness is working through the brain and nowhere else. This is obvious.
So the obvious way forward is to investigate how the brain works.
 
Back
Top Bottom