Consciousness

[ryan]

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.

I put "conserved". Why do you keep putting preserved??????

I am so tired of this. I don't want to talk to you about this anymore.

 

[Treedbear]

...
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.

Not necessarily the only thing. I still have trouble with the idea of qualia. Why do I see a color such as red or have a taste such as sweet? It helps us distinguish differences of course. But it's still a mystery to me.

But I can see a purpose to consciousness, especially as it pertains to the notion of free will. As I've said before, I see the brain as a model-making machine. It somehow creates models of things in its environment and it can do so subconsciously. Actually mostly subconsciously. In other words it acts like a machine. I see the self (and by inference the conscious awareness of self) as a model that develops from a very young age. Before one is even aware of what a brain is. It's like an interactive book used to keep records of past behavior in order that the brain can predict what the self is likely to do in the future. The will represents the predicted outcome. I predict I'll choose chocolate when I go out for ice cream. When the prediction turns out to be wrong and I come back with vanilla it's because "I changed my mind", when in fact it was just a bad guess. So consciousness can effect the outcome but it doesn't control it anymore than a character in a book does. But it's not an illusion. It ceases to be an illusion when one realizes its an abstract representation. Just like all the other things we know of. We know things by their relationships to other things. Not as some absolute essence. So the bottom line is that consciousness can have a purpose and yet not be the source of one's motivation, or will.

 

[OLDMAN]

...
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.

Not necessarily the only thing. I still have trouble with the idea of qualia. Why do I see a color such as red or have a taste such as sweet? It helps us distinguish differences of course. But it's still a mystery to me.

But I can see a purpose to consciousness, especially as it pertains to the notion of free will. As I've said before, I see the brain as a model-making machine. It somehow creates models of things in its environment and it can do so subconsciously. Actually mostly subconsciously. In other words it acts like a machine. I see the self (and by inference the conscious awareness of self) as a model that develops from a very young age. Before one is even aware of what a brain is. It's like an interactive book used to keep records of past behavior in order that the brain can predict what the self is likely to do in the future. The will represents the predicted outcome. I predict I'll choose chocolate when I go out for ice cream. When the prediction turns out to be wrong and I come back with vanilla it's because "I changed my mind", when in fact it was just a bad guess. So consciousness can effect the outcome but it doesn't control it anymore than a character in a book does. But it's not an illusion. It ceases to be an illusion when one realizes its an abstract representation. Just like all the other things we know of. We know things by their relationships to other things. Not as some absolute essence. So the bottom line is that consciousness can have a purpose and yet not be the source of one's motivation, or will.

Your brain shuts you down every night, it compiles, memorizes, and mixes thoughts together...all without your imput or awareness. It obviously doesn't need you to do this, you are a waste of energy it must save. If you are injured and only have enough energy to run the heart and lungs, then your brain will put you in a coma, until things improve. "You" are not in control.

 

[WAB]

Anyway: I thought Wegner (fixed spelling) 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?

Who knows? That's not my specialty. I deal with humans, who are conscious. Well, most of them.

A better question: Are you conscious?

 

[untermensche]

...
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.

Not necessarily the only thing. I still have trouble with the idea of qualia. Why do I see a color such as red or have a taste such as sweet? It helps us distinguish differences of course. But it's still a mystery to me.

But I can see a purpose to consciousness, especially as it pertains to the notion of free will. As I've said before, I see the brain as a model-making machine. It somehow creates models of things in its environment and it can do so subconsciously. Actually mostly subconsciously. In other words it acts like a machine. I see the self (and by inference the conscious awareness of self) as a model that develops from a very young age. Before one is even aware of what a brain is. It's like an interactive book used to keep records of past behavior in order that the brain can predict what the self is likely to do in the future. The will represents the predicted outcome. I predict I'll choose chocolate when I go out for ice cream. When the prediction turns out to be wrong and I come back with vanilla it's because "I changed my mind", when in fact it was just a bad guess. So consciousness can effect the outcome but it doesn't control it anymore than a character in a book does. But it's not an illusion. It ceases to be an illusion when one realizes its an abstract representation. Just like all the other things we know of. We know things by their relationships to other things. Not as some absolute essence. So the bottom line is that consciousness can have a purpose and yet not be the source of one's motivation, or will.

What you call a predicted outcome is called a habit.

Humans have habits. They have tendencies.

But humans are able to change habits as well.

The reason why "will" is the most important issue is because an animal that has "will" can have dignity and purpose.

An animal that has no "will" is just a puppet going through a charade.

And "free will" is a redundancy. If something has "will" that means it can make "free" as opposed to "forced" decisions.

 

[untermensche]

Your brain shuts you down every night, it compiles, memorizes, and mixes thoughts together...all without your imput or awareness. It obviously doesn't need you to do this, you are a waste of energy it must save. If you are injured and only have enough energy to run the heart and lungs, then your brain will put you in a coma, until things improve. "You" are not in control.

The brain does not "decide" to do anything.

It makes no "decisions".

Everything it does it does because of some innate "programming".

But the human "will", now that is something capable of making decisions.

Like what time to go to sleep.

The struggle to fall asleep, that I think most have experienced, is a great example of the dual nature of human existence. The "will" fighting with the "machine".

 

[Juma]

Your brain shuts you down every night, it compiles, memorizes, and mixes thoughts together...all without your imput or awareness. It obviously doesn't need you to do this, you are a waste of energy it must save. If you are injured and only have enough energy to run the heart and lungs, then your brain will put you in a coma, until things improve. "You" are not in control.

The brain does not "decide" to do anything.

It makes no "decisions".

Everything it does it does because of some innate "programming".

But the human "will", now that is something capable of making decisions.

Like what time to go to sleep.

The struggle to fall asleep, that I think most have experienced, is a great example of the dual nature of human existence. The "will" fighting with the "machine".

and legs doesnt walk, it makes no steps.
But the human "will", that is something that can take steps...

 

[Juma]

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.

I put "conserved". Why do you keep putting preserved??????

Sorry, wasnt aware of that mistake.

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

 

[OLDMAN]

The fly moves across the desk. It does this of it's apparent free will. Yet it has no brain to speak of, but still gives off the illusion of free will.

 

[untermensche]

The fly moves across the desk. It does this of it's apparent free will. Yet it has no brain to speak of, but still gives off the illusion of free will.

There is nothing "apparent" about the "will" of a fly.

But to me it feels as if "I" decide when to go to bed, not just the sensation of being tired.

I sense I have control over things. My movements, which ideas I accept or reject, what things I will say.

Not total control but a measure of control.

If others feel as if they have no control at all I have never heard of this.

 

[bilby]

The fly moves across the desk. It does this of it's apparent free will. Yet it has no brain to speak of, but still gives off the illusion of free will.

A tornado is unpredictable in its movements and effects. It appears to have free will. Some even believe it to be guided by a god or other intelligence, or to exhibit malice or mercy.

It's all just a part of the typically human error that assigns agency where none exists. Why we should be surprised that we do this to ourselves, when we do it so prolifically to everything else I do not know.

Why smart people would be fooled by it, when they are smart enough to see that the weather has neither will nor intent (despite its unpredictability) I do not know. I guess people are not as smart as they give themselves credit for. Which is also unsurprising.

 

[ryan]

I put "conserved". Why do you keep putting preserved??????

Sorry, wasnt aware of that mistake.

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

So rivers disappear do they? Do rivers really disappear, or does the water go somewhere else? Then I can make a raw egg disappear by cooking it? Maybe you are correct semantically, but you know as well as I nothing is disappearing from that egg.

 

[bilby]

Sorry, wasnt aware of that mistake.

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

So rivers disappear do they? Do rivers really disappear, or does the water go somewhere else? Then I can make a raw egg disappear by cooking it? Maybe you are correct semantically, but you know as well as I nothing is disappearing from that egg.

The river disappears, the water does not - at least, not for a lot longer. The mass/energy that the river is composed from may even be eternal. But it's not the same river when the water is in a cloud half a world away, or when the water has been built into carbohydrates by a forest. And it's not a raw egg once it's cooked and eaten.

Fundamentals are conserved - mass/energy cannot be destroyed - but structures and processes are ephemeral. Atoms can (and do) appear and disappear, as do cells, brains, people, rivers, and raw eggs. Unless you are going to claim that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of reality, like mass/energy, angular momentum, quantum spin, or electric charge, then your statements about things being conserved are meaningless in this context.

 

[untermensche]

Sorry, wasnt aware of that mistake.

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

So rivers disappear do they? Do rivers really disappear, or does the water go somewhere else? Then I can make a raw egg disappear by cooking it? Maybe you are correct semantically, but you know as well as I nothing is disappearing from that egg.

If I light a match a flame appears and then disappears.

The flame exists because of a "process".

A process that begins and ends.

 

[Juma]

Sorry, wasnt aware of that mistake.

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

So rivers disappear do they? Do rivers really disappear, or does the water go somewhere else? Then I can make a raw egg disappear by cooking it? Maybe you are correct semantically, but you know as well as I nothing is disappearing from that egg.

Particles decays into other particles....

you have somehow totally blinded yourself for the fact that a lot (maybe all) of what exists in this world is not static objects but dynamic processes. Have you never thought what the frequency of the wave of particles means? That particles are mere wavefunction maximas? That time is a dimension as is the space dimensions?

What there is is interaction between processes in time. That is all there is.

Atoms are processes. They are structures of interaction between particles (waves)
Particles are processes they are structures of interactions between smaller parts.

You seem to have some magical view of the physical matter as some sort of substance that
Is always there.
Something like a sort of deistic lego.

 

[DBT]

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].

No, the hard problem is understanding how the brain forms conscious experience. That the brain is forming this activity is quite clear... we just don't know how.

We do know how to override the brain and switch consciousness off. We know how to alter consciousness, we know how to disrupt consciousness, we know how to warp consciousness, we even know how to control consciousness to some degree, Delgado, et al, but we don't know how the brain is generating it. There lies the problem.

 

[fromderinside]

A better question: Are you conscious?

Best answer: Consciousness, if it exists. is a socially derived state. Since I'm apparently posting to your, probably human created, posts, Yes, right now I'm experiencing consciousness.

 

[WAB]

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].

No, the hard problem is understanding how the brain forms conscious experience. That the brain is forming this activity is quite clear... we just don't know how.

We do know how to override the brain and switch consciousness off. We know how to alter consciousness, we know how to disrupt consciousness, we know how to warp consciousness, we even know how to control consciousness to some degree, Delgado, et al, but we don't know how the brain is generating it. There lies the problem.

When I had my one and only psychotic break in 2012, during which I was taken to the ER, I began to lose all confidence in my presumed self-control. This was something that lasted about 36 hours, during which I have only brief flashes of recollection, all of them bizarre. I had no facial recognition, until after about 24 hours - everyone looked like primitive, Flinstones people to me - I babbled incoherently (I mean even less coherently than normal, like now ) about having some divine commission that had something to do with turning time backwards toward the Big Bang. Secret messages from God were coming over my cell phone, and it was my job to wind the clock back to start and then make sure time started again, lest all living beings be caught in the Big Bang eternally, which would be a living hell of sound and fire and mayhem! I vividly remember talking to my sister and nephew in rapid fire speech, explaining to them how precarious the situation was, and that they only had to listen to me to ensure that the universe would be set to rights once I got us back to the Big Bang and made sure every being in the universe didn't get stuck there forever.

Long story longer - I've gone (from 2012 to now) from a firebrand free-will defending schlemiel to a holy-crap-I-don't-know-WHF-is-going-on schlemazel, which is okay since I rather enjoy flying through life by the seat of my pants.

However, I still (please forgive me) can't understand what bothers certain people about consciousness? Why is it so hard to just accept that consciousness is a fact of existence, like hands and feet, rocks, Ozzy Osbourne, and diapers? I don't see why speculating about it is unsavory or threatening to humanity at this point.

That being said, I'm not a scientist (I'm sure this is news to everyone! ), so I can't be inside your (meaning those of you who are scientists) labcoats and grok just WTH the problem is. I don't mean you, DBT, since you don't seem to have a problem acknowledging consciousness. I mean fromderinside, and others I vaguely recall, unless my addled brain is imagining those others...

I also need to try and understand what the evolutionary utility of consciousness is, if we would be absolutely the same without it?

I'm with untermensche, in that I think we humans obviously have a strong, common sense of autonomy. It's not for me to say whether this is an illusion or not (even though I said I thought it was in a prior post). I don't have the knowledge or expertise in that area to even offer an opinion that would be worth a damn to anyone but me.

That being said, it seems to me that since we have this sense of autonomy, there are probably only good reasons for us to have it? I don't know about any of you, but I rather like having a sense of autonomous control over what I do. I can't imagine what the benefits would be to this body I lug around if there were to be no conscious ME to look around and enjoy MYself.

What possible use is there, to deny consciousness as a brute fact of reality? Is it just out of a sense of being a dedicated scientist (and I have nothing but sincere admiration and immense gratitude for scientists - no joking here), and not accepting anything remotely smacking of subjectivity? Or do you literally think that consciousness is an illusion. And, if it's an illusion, an illusion is nothing without a [something?] for the illusion to operate on. Is that something just a physical body? A biological organism capable of locomotion, equipped with sensory apparatus, going about its business with...well what business, and why?

Why does an automaton need a sense of identity? Has evolution made a mistake?

Why would meat puppets evolve? If a meat puppet would be the same without consciousness, and do the same things, why have humans evolved to the point that we are self-aware as beings that can type a whole bunch of squiggly stuff like I just did < Oh crap, there's that word again!

"Run away, run away!!!" < Monty Python when the cow comes over the castle wall...

- - - Updated - - -

Hey we cross-posted. How serrendipidititioouss. - Well, you posted while I was typing away with these strange things that sprout from my wrists... : /

Thanks for your answer, fromder.

 

[DBT]

What possible use is there, to deny consciousness as a brute fact of reality?

Sounds like you had quite a wild ride. The best of it being that it was treatable and you recovered. Which has to be a good thing.

As for some denying the existence of consciousness, that appears odd, but often the trick lies in how some folks happen to define consciousness.

 

[untermensche]

A better question: Are you conscious?

Best answer: Consciousness, if it exists. is a socially derived state. Since I'm apparently posting to your, probably human created, posts, Yes, right now I'm experiencing consciousness.

The nature of a person's consciousness arises out of the interaction of pre-existing internal "programming" and the world as experienced.

A child in Japan speaks Japanese, not Greek.

But consciousness is the ability to experience.

That is something that exists in anticipation of future experience, not just based on old experience.

Humans with consciousness plan and do things in the present to reach those goals.

The only question is whether they do it as they experience it, as a consciousness that plans and then controls.

Or whether this experience is some illusion?

Consciousness that has control as mere illusion is a consciousness that serves no purpose. It exists but is not needed in any way. The question is then why?