Consciousness

[Juma]

Yes? The mind is a PROCESS. A stone falls. When it hits the ground the it bounces and then halts. The fall has stopped. The fall is a PROCESS.

If the mind is just a process, then why do you think there is so much discussion about it? I mean nobody questions the possible duality of a heart or a hand. 1000's of years and you have the answer which is that the mind is actually just a process. That's like saying, ah ha, skin is actually skin!

Why this bullshit about "just a process"? I clearified that one fundamental propert of conciousness is that it a process. A helluva complex one.

That comment on skin is just weird.

 

[ryan]

If the mind is just a process, then why do you think there is so much discussion about it? I mean nobody questions the possible duality of a heart or a hand. 1000's of years and you have the answer which is that the mind is actually just a process. That's like saying, ah ha, skin is actually skin!

What this bullshit about "just a process"? I clearified that one fundamental propert of conciousness is that it a process.

But did you really think I was only talking about the stuff we already know exists? I know that when a process stops it no longer exists.

Go back now, and hopefully you will know what I was getting at.

 

[Juma]

What this bullshit about "just a process"? I clearified that one fundamental propert of conciousness is that it a process.

But did you really think I was only talking about the stuff we already know exists? I know that when a process stops it no longer exists.

Go back now, and hopefully you will know what I was getting at.

This makes no sense. You were gibbering about that conciousness could not be destroyed. Which is obviously false since conciousness is a process.

 

[WAB]

But did you really think I was only talking about the stuff we already know exists? I know that when a process stops it no longer exists.

Go back now, and hopefully you will know what I was getting at.

This makes no sense. You were gibbering about that conciousness could not be destroyed. Which is obviously false since conciousness is a process.

Oh nonsense, ryan's hardly "gibbering". He seems to be orchestrating quite a fruitful dialogue with several people here.

Lovecraft's ghouls 'gibber'. Ryan doesn't gibber.

- - - Updated - - -

My I thrust my hand loosely closed upward and opened the hand whilst I looked up at my hand. What did you do? Why you looked up expecting to see the object I had in my hand flying upward. Sorry. Nothing there. Same with consciousness. It comes and goes with little other than circumstantial evidence it ever existed. It is nothing beyond what surrounding events suggest. As Wegner wrote it is an illusion.

Holy moly, and I thought I was the funniest guy in this thread!

 

[DBT]

Well, it's not exactly no. As I've said several times, the brain responds to the objects and events of the external world by means of its conscious representation of the objects and events of the external world.

Which makes consciousness a useful means of interacting with the external world. After all, that is its evolutionary role.

Hmmm, now this last part seems like the answer to my question is yes.

It's neither yes or no. Your question is flawed. Consciousness, based on the evidence we have, appears to be a process/activity of a brain...having evolved to enable a coherent, functional representation of the external world in relation to self, the organism, the person, the self, I, me, in order to be able to consciously interaction with the external world. Which obviously has huge advantages to not only survival, but to be able to thrive.

 

[WAB]

This makes no sense. You were gibbering about that conciousness could not be destroyed. Which is obviously false since conciousness is a process.

Oh nonsense, ryan's hardly "gibbering". He seems to be orchestrating quite a fruitful dialogue with several people here.

Lovecraft's ghouls 'gibber'. Ryan doesn't gibber.

- - - Updated - - -

My I thrust my hand loosely closed upward and opened the hand whilst I looked up at my hand. What did you do? Why you looked up expecting to see the object I had in my hand flying upward. Sorry. Nothing there. Same with consciousness. It comes and goes with little other than circumstantial evidence it ever existed. It is nothing beyond what surrounding events suggest. As Wegner wrote it is an illusion.

Holy moly, and I thought I was the funniest guy in this thread!

Anyway: I thought Wenger was saying that the feeling of autonomy (free will) is an illusion - which I happen to now agree with wholeheartedly. I didn't think he meant that consciousness was an illusion. Or did he?

 

[untermensche]

Yes? The mind is a PROCESS. A stone falls. When it hits the ground the it bounces and then halts. The fall has stopped. The fall is a PROCESS.

If the mind is just a process, then why do you think there is so much discussion about it? I mean nobody questions the possible duality of a heart or a hand. 1000's of years and you have the answer which is that the mind is actually just a process. That's like saying, ah ha, skin is actually skin!

The question about consciousness is the question of control.

Can it control the body, control the thoughts?

Presently there are those who won't say it outright for some reason but everything they say leads one to conclude they believe that consciousness is only effect, it can control nothing. Some even call it an illusion.

So when you struggle to fall asleep it is some "effect" struggling to do something the brain knows it needs.

This position is irrational and creates many philosophical problems. Unfortunately in this thread the people who put forward this belief have no ability to deal with the philosophical implications of their claims.

A consciousness that controls nothing is not needed in any way.

The only thing that gives a consciousness purpose is if it has the ability to move the body and control the thoughts. Otherwise it is not needed at all. A brain does not need it since a brain works on "programming" not through some "will".

The brain does not decide to make the visual representation for consciousness. It does not decide to regulate the blood pressure or make movement smooth and coordinated. It cannot make decisions like that.

 

[fromderinside]

Anyway: I thought Wenger was saying that the feeling of autonomy (free will) is an illusion - which I happen to now agree with wholeheartedly. I didn't think he meant that consciousness was an illusion. Or did he?

 Daniel Wegner is my gee. Where there is no free will will consciousness ever venture, or, are automatons conscious?

 

[ryan]

But did you really think I was only talking about the stuff we already know exists? I know that when a process stops it no longer exists.

Go back now, and hopefully you will know what I was getting at.

This makes no sense. You were gibbering about that conciousness could not be destroyed. Which is obviously false since conciousness is a process.

Yes, we know there's a process; we can all agree on that. And we know that processes can cease to exist at a place in time; we can all agree on that.

 

[ryan]

Hmmm, now this last part seems like the answer to my question is yes.

It's neither yes or no. Your question is flawed. Consciousness, based on the evidence we have, appears to be a process/activity of a brain...having evolved to enable a coherent, functional representation of the external world in relation to self, the organism, the person, the self, I, me, in order to be able to consciously interaction with the external world. Which obviously has huge advantages to not only survival, but to be able to thrive.

Nobody is arguing those parallels of brain activity and the consciousness. The hard problem is about assuming that there is something more than just brain activity. But it's a hard problem because there doesn't seem to be any way to demonstrate it.

Maybe your stance is that there is no problem in the first place. Some people take this stance. But I can't ignore the fact that something unexpressible exists in addition to my brain activity simply because it feels like [unexpressible].

 

[ryan]

If the mind is just a process, then why do you think there is so much discussion about it? I mean nobody questions the possible duality of a heart or a hand. 1000's of years and you have the answer which is that the mind is actually just a process. That's like saying, ah ha, skin is actually skin!

The question about consciousness is the question of control.

No, what about parallelism? I think parallelism is quite popular.

 

[untermensche]

The question about consciousness is the question of control.

No, what about parallelism? I think parallelism is quite popular.

I introduced some of the logical difficulties in having a consciousness that has no control.

Most importantly, a consciousness with no control is a superfluous unneeded appendage.

If all I can do is experience the sight of the bear but have no control over the body then the experience of the bear is not needed. It is superfluous. The brain could move the body without making this representation for consciousness to experience.

The brain does not need to make a representation for consciousness if the brain is controlling everything. All the brain would need is some way of recognizing the bear and responding to that recognition. The brain that controls everything has no need of a consciousness. It only needs recognition for itself. This other thing, consciousness, that experiences serves a brain that controls everything no purpose.

The matter of control, of the "will" is the central philosophical topic within the overall topic of consciousness.

Whether a person in some way has the ability to make choices, or whether the brain makes all choices and the "will" is some illusion created by the brain for some reason is the most important topic within the overall topic of consciousness. It is the only thing that actually matters.

 

[ryan]

This makes no sense. You were gibbering about that conciousness could not be destroyed. Which is obviously false since conciousness is a process.

Oh nonsense, ryan's hardly "gibbering". He seems to be orchestrating quite a fruitful dialogue with several people here.

Lovecraft's ghouls 'gibber'. Ryan doesn't gibber.

Thanks, but you might as well tell the wind to stop blowing. Juma is simply just an awful person to deal with on TF.

 

[ryan]

No, what about parallelism? I think parallelism is quite popular.

I introduced some of the logical difficulties in having a consciousness that has no control.

Most importantly, a consciousness with no control is a superfluous unneeded appendage.

If all I can do is experience the sight of the bear but have no control over the body then the experience of the bear is not needed. It is superfluous. The brain could move the body without making this representation for consciousness to experience.

The brain does not need to make a representation for consciousness if the brain is controlling everything. All the brain would need is some way of recognizing the bear and responding to that recognition. The brain that controls everything has no need of a consciousness. It only needs recognition for itself. This other thing, consciousness, that experiences serves a brain that controls everything no purpose.

The matter of control, of the "will" is the central philosophical topic within the overall topic of consciousness.

Whether a person in some way has the ability to make choices, or whether the brain makes all choices and the "will" is some illusion created by the brain for some reason is the most important topic within the overall topic of consciousness. It is the only thing that actually matters.

It would seem like parallelism is not very interesting at a glance, but there is actually a lot to it. And it's really the only way I can see consciousness and science coexisting without one contradicting the other.

 

[untermensche]

It would seem like parallelism is not very interesting at a glance, but there is actually a lot to it. And it's really the only way I can see consciousness and science coexisting without one contradicting the other.

Science is not contradicted by consciousness. Science just can't explain how the phenomena arises.

Not being able to explain something doesn't mean you will never be able to explain it.

But science is how we explain things.

As imperfect as it is we have no other way.

 

[bilby]

Oh nonsense, ryan's hardly "gibbering". He seems to be orchestrating quite a fruitful dialogue with several people here.

Lovecraft's ghouls 'gibber'. Ryan doesn't gibber.

Thanks, but you might as well tell the wind to stop blowing. Juma is simply just an awful person to deal with on TF.

Ipse dixit.

 

[ryan]

It would seem like parallelism is not very interesting at a glance, but there is actually a lot to it. And it's really the only way I can see consciousness and science coexisting without one contradicting the other.

Science is not contradicted by consciousness. Science just can't explain how the phenomena arises.

Not being able to explain something doesn't mean you will never be able to explain it.

But science is how we explain things.

As imperfect as it is we have no other way.

Maybe, but the "what it's like" phenomenon is just so so so strange. I just don't know how the scientific method is going to deal with supporting what it's like to be someone/something.

 

[untermensche]

Science is not contradicted by consciousness. Science just can't explain how the phenomena arises.

Not being able to explain something doesn't mean you will never be able to explain it.

But science is how we explain things.

As imperfect as it is we have no other way.

Maybe, but the "what it's like" phenomenon is just so so so strange. I just don't know how the scientific method is going to deal with supporting what it's like to be someone/something.

What it is like to be a human is to think you are moving your body and parsing your thoughts and forming your expressions with your "will".

The "will" is at the center of what it is like to be a human.

 

[Juma]

This makes no sense. You were gibbering about that conciousness could not be destroyed. Which is obviously false since conciousness is a process.

Yes, we know there's a process; we can all agree on that. And we know that processes can cease to exist at a place in time; we can all agree on that.

It was you that put propsed that all physical things are preserved.
That is clearly false since physical things as rivers, birds, planets are born and withers away.
That the components that they are made of remains is of no importance.
A structure is also physical.

 

[ryan]

Maybe, but the "what it's like" phenomenon is just so so so strange. I just don't know how the scientific method is going to deal with supporting what it's like to be someone/something.

What it is like to be a human is to think you are moving your body and parsing your thoughts and forming your expressions with your "will".

The "will" is at the center of what it is like to be a human.

What????? No it's not. It could be about will but it is also about things like what it is like to experience pain, colors etc.