Consciousness

[George S]

no, no, no, no,...... consciousness is an awareness and or a prediction. Based on it one can act. One is the person, the primary actors of the person are the twitches and squirts. One may be conscious of some of them, but, consciousness did not initiate them. Consciousness is either after the fact, or., an awareness of things coming together as in an understanding of what's going on, or, a preview/review of things. One might say one makes a conscious decision, but, one has to act to execute that decision.

As far as I'm concerned consciousness is like a movie of things recently past or a preview of things that may come or be. It has lots of face validity but no construct nor functional validity in the theatre of living. Metabolism is what drives life.

Like a movie projected in 360 degree 3D. But of course, as Yogi said, "Predicting is hard, especially about the future." Is Clinton guilty or not guilty; predicting the past has its problems, too. Imagining probable pasts and futures is what consciousness does. The best we can do is probability in either direction.

<Physics> The Schrodinger Equation predicts the future probabilistically. Nature doesn't know the future either. Now comes Feynman who develops QED (the most accurate theory in physics) which asserts that when a photon is detected it came all possible ways weighted by probability. Nature doesn't know the past, either; it uses circumstantial evidence and takes its best guess. </physics>

 

[DBT]

Not really.

Your self evident propositions can and do have explanations other than panpsychism. Which itself does not explain consciousness.

Forget panpsychism for a moment, do you believe that the mental state is an intermediary state that is physically necessary to link the stimulus to the physical reaction of the stimulus? Or is there just a physical process with a parallel mind? Or is there just a physical process?

Based on the evidence, chemicals, currents, connectivity, etc, effecting changes (which can be quite specific) to consciousness, I'd say that consciousness is a physical activity of a brain.

 

[untermensche]

It doesn't matter one bit what you say after you say "consciousness can do nothing".

Where did I say that?

It is all you have said.

Are you changing your tune suddenly and claiming that consciousness can move the arm? Can do anything?

A consciousness that can initiate no action is a consciousness that has no purpose at all. It is not needed for anything.

Consciousness doesn't exist without the presence of a brain generating consciousness.

Blah blah blah. This does not address the point.

Is it too hard for you to understand?

The brain is the agency of both consciousness and motor action. The two functions can even be separated. Consciousness without the ability to move limbs in relation to desires and needs, and under certain conditions, actions that are not conscious; unconscious actions.

Yeah yeah, the brain, blah blah blah.

There is no need for something to be aware of the brain moving the arm.

In your hypothesis consciousness serves no purpose at all.

It is there but does absolutely nothing.

It has features but none are needed.

According to you the brain does everything. It moves the arm and for some reason also creates a consciousness which is aware that the brain is moving the arm and also thinking IT is moving the arm.

In your model the brain creates a consciousness so it can play tricks on it and make it believe it is initiating thoughts and actions.

As absurd a model as could possibly exist.

You can't escape this conclusion.

It is your conclusion. A conclusion that has no real relationship to what I said.

You want to run away hard from the logical conclusions of your hypothesis.

You just want to present it and pretend there are no logical consequences to it.

I understand why.

But a consciousness that can initiate no action is a consciousness not needed in the least.

 

[fromderinside]

no, no, no, no,...... consciousness is an awareness and or a prediction. Based on it one can act. One is the person, the primary actors of the person are the twitches and squirts. One may be conscious of some of them, but, consciousness did not initiate them. Consciousness is either after the fact, or., an awareness of things coming together as in an understanding of what's going on, or, a preview/review of things. One might say one makes a conscious decision, but, one has to act to execute that decision.

As far as I'm concerned consciousness is like a movie of things recently past or a preview of things that may come or be. It has lots of face validity but no construct nor functional validity in the theatre of living. Metabolism is what drives life.

Like a movie projected in 360 degree 3D. But of course, as Yogi said, "Predicting is hard, especially about the future." Is Clinton guilty or not guilty; predicting the past has its problems, too. Imagining probable pasts and futures is what consciousness does. The best we can do is probability in either direction.

<Physics> The Schrodinger Equation predicts the future probabilistically. Nature doesn't know the future either. Now comes Feynman who develops QED (the most accurate theory in physics) which asserts that when a photon is detected it came all possible ways weighted by probability. Nature doesn't know the past, either; it uses circumstantial evidence and takes its best guess. </physics>

I'm thinking any processor (think consciousness as feedback process from multiple deterministic processes) would likely use at least Baysian or Maximum likelihood like approach to finding emerging patterns.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]But a consciousness that can initiate no action is a consciousness not needed in the least.

[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]I've wadded the paper and now I'm spanking you saying "bad dog, bad dog, you are repeating in illogical of Trumpian rank".[/FONT]

 

[untermensche]

no, no, no, no,...... consciousness is an awareness and or a prediction. Based on it one can act. One is the person, the primary actors of the person are the twitches and squirts. One may be conscious of some of them, but, consciousness did not initiate them. Consciousness is either after the fact, or., an awareness of things coming together as in an understanding of what's going on, or, a preview/review of things. One might say one makes a conscious decision, but, one has to act to execute that decision.

As far as I'm concerned consciousness is like a movie of things recently past or a preview of things that may come or be. It has lots of face validity but no construct nor functional validity in the theatre of living. Metabolism is what drives life.

Like a movie projected in 360 degree 3D. But of course, as Yogi said, "Predicting is hard, especially about the future." Is Clinton guilty or not guilty; predicting the past has its problems, too. Imagining probable pasts and futures is what consciousness does. The best we can do is probability in either direction.

<Physics> The Schrodinger Equation predicts the future probabilistically. Nature doesn't know the future either. Now comes Feynman who develops QED (the most accurate theory in physics) which asserts that when a photon is detected it came all possible ways weighted by probability. Nature doesn't know the past, either; it uses circumstantial evidence and takes its best guess. </physics>

Consciousness is not the movie.

It is that which is aware of the movie.

 

[fromderinside]

Like a movie projected in 360 degree 3D. But of course, as Yogi said, "Predicting is hard, especially about the future." Is Clinton guilty or not guilty; predicting the past has its problems, too. Imagining probable pasts and futures is what consciousness does. The best we can do is probability in either direction.

<Physics> The Schrodinger Equation predicts the future probabilistically. Nature doesn't know the future either. Now comes Feynman who develops QED (the most accurate theory in physics) which asserts that when a photon is detected it came all possible ways weighted by probability. Nature doesn't know the past, either; it uses circumstantial evidence and takes its best guess. </physics>

Consciousness is not the movie.

It is that which is aware of the movie.

Read! Neither of us said consciousness is a movie.

 

[untermensche]

Consciousness is not the movie.

It is that which is aware of the movie.

Read! Neither of us said consciousness is a movie.

The point needs to be made.

Consciousness is not all the sensations and perceptions and thoughts.

It is that which is aware of it all.

And aware of it all in a particular way based on memories and experiences.

And it is also that which in ordinary life fully and firmly believes it is moving the arm and moving the thoughts to form plans.

 

[untermensche]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]But a consciousness that can initiate no action is a consciousness not needed in the least.

[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]I've wadded the paper and now I'm spanking you saying "bad dog, bad dog, you are repeating in illogical of Trumpian rank".[/FONT]

Easy to say.

A little harder to demonstrate.

What purpose does a consciousness that merely is aware the brain is moving the arm serve?

How does this awareness help the animal?

If the brain is moving the arm it is already aware in some way. Fully aware of the situation and moving the arm for some reason in it.

Why is this additional awareness (consciousness) needed?

Again, harder to demonstrate.

 

[DBT]

Where did I say that?

It is all you have said.

Are you changing your tune suddenly and claiming that consciousness can move the arm? Can do anything?

A consciousness that can initiate no action is a consciousness that has no purpose at all. It is not needed for anything.

Consciousness doesn't exist without the presence of a brain generating consciousness.

Blah blah blah. This does not address the point.

Is it too hard for you to understand?

The brain is the agency of both consciousness and motor action. The two functions can even be separated. Consciousness without the ability to move limbs in relation to desires and needs, and under certain conditions, actions that are not conscious; unconscious actions.

Yeah yeah, the brain, blah blah blah.

There is no need for something to be aware of the brain moving the arm.

In your hypothesis consciousness serves no purpose at all.

It is there but does absolutely nothing.

It has features but none are needed.

According to you the brain does everything. It moves the arm and for some reason also creates a consciousness which is aware that the brain is moving the arm and also thinking IT is moving the arm.

In your model the brain creates a consciousness so it can play tricks on it and make it believe it is initiating thoughts and actions.

As absurd a model as could possibly exist.

You can't escape this conclusion.

It is your conclusion. A conclusion that has no real relationship to what I said.

You want to run away hard from the logical conclusions of your hypothesis.

You just want to present it and pretend there are no logical consequences to it.

I understand why.

But a consciousness that can initiate no action is a consciousness not needed in the least.

Sorry, but you appear to have lost it. I point something out but you respond to some version of your own interpretation.

Your version and your conclusion has nothing to do with what I said.

Either read more carefully or don't willfully misrepresent what I say, whatever the case may be.

 

[untermensche]

Sorry, but you appear to have lost it. I point something out but you respond to some version of your own interpretation.

Your version and your conclusion has nothing to do with what I said.

Either read more carefully or don't willfully misrepresent what I say, whatever the case may be.

Are you claiming that consciousness can or cannot give the brain an order, force it, to move the arm?

Can consciousness give the brain an order, force it, to do anything? To imagine a pig?

Just answer this. Just briefly as you can answer the exact questions asked.

 

[fromderinside]

Thought you'd never ask.

Consciousness of arm movement is feedback to confirm prediction from prediction apparatus going in to things like "Is it real"

Awareness after the fact confirms controls taken before conscious awareness of them were as predicted

Everything we do is in anticipation of what we expect is happening before we are aware that things went as planned.

Consciousness of work done appropriate by one permits reduction of tension causing uncertainty.

Again, easy to demonstrate - I think you meant justify - utility of feedback interpretation processes.

It really isn't all that hard if you understand that consciousness is a 'past' function.

 

[ryan]

Forget panpsychism for a moment, do you believe that the mental state is an intermediary state that is physically necessary to link the stimulus to the physical reaction of the stimulus? Or is there just a physical process with a parallel mind? Or is there just a physical process?

Based on the evidence, chemicals, currents, connectivity, etc, effecting changes (which can be quite specific) to consciousness, I'd say that consciousness is a physical activity of a brain.

Once we isolate the exact physical process for the experience of say red, then what? (I already assume that there is some physical process that correlates exactly to the experience red.)

Imagine that we have a complete physical description of someone's experience of red for say 5 seconds. We will know about everything but the experience itself. We will have an objective account for it but we will not be given the subjective account that the person will have.

 

[Juma]

Based on the evidence, chemicals, currents, connectivity, etc, effecting changes (which can be quite specific) to consciousness, I'd say that consciousness is a physical activity of a brain.

Once we isolate the exact physical process for the experience of say red, then what? (I already assume that there is some physical process that correlates exactly to the experience red.)

Imagine that we have a complete physical description of someone's experience of red for say 5 seconds. We will know about everything but the experience itself. We will have an objective account for it but we will not be given the subjective account that the person will have.

Why would you need that?
Note that you do not know how that description will look like.
I believe will find some completely new, but it will not be new particles or forces.

 

[ryan]

Once we isolate the exact physical process for the experience of say red, then what? (I already assume that there is some physical process that correlates exactly to the experience red.)

Imagine that we have a complete physical description of someone's experience of red for say 5 seconds. We will know about everything but the experience itself. We will have an objective account for it but we will not be given the subjective account that the person will have.

Why would you need that?
Note that you do not know how that description will look like.
I believe will find some completely new, but it will not be new particles or forces.

It is such a strange problem that even new particles wouldn't even help. Even if there were new elementary particles found only in systems with consciousness, we would still be left with the exact same problem.

You say something completely new; I agree. But I think completely new cannot be the usual physicalism that explains everything else.

 

[untermensche]

Thought you'd never ask.

Consciousness of arm movement is feedback to confirm prediction from prediction apparatus going in to things like "Is it real"

Awareness after the fact confirms controls taken before conscious awareness of them were as predicted

Everything we do is in anticipation of what we expect is happening before we are aware that things went as planned.

Consciousness of work done appropriate by one permits reduction of tension causing uncertainty.

Again, easy to demonstrate - I think you meant justify - utility of feedback interpretation processes.

It really isn't all that hard if you understand that consciousness is a 'past' function.

Why does the brain need something to be aware of the movement in addition to itself? Does the brain not have access to visual input, proprioceptive input? Why does it need something conscious of the movement thinking it is initiating movement for feedback?

It makes no sense.

You are grasping at desperate straws.

You have a glimmer of the problem of a consciousness that cannot initiate anything.

Such a thing is not needed in the least.

 

[George S]

Qualia. Those things we might describe as being a sensation -- the result of sensory input. Like seeing red.
Having these qualia appear is what it is like to be a human being sensing the world. Sensory deprivation leads to an urgent need to feel or taste or see or smell something -- anything. That's consciousness ... aware of being aware. In addition there is imagination. I imagine me. I imagine you. I imagine a plan. Consciousness is aware of the content of imagination.
Consciousness is a president who has a staff and congress who sometimes do not do what he says. Sometimes I can consciously decide and yet when the rubber meets the road there is a skid.
I can reason. I can learn. I can plan ahead. ("I" includes my body-mind.) This affects the future. Self affecting the state of future self. Self will. Consciousness is that which names itself 'self.'

 

[untermensche]

Qualia. Those things we might describe as being a sensation -- the result of sensory input. Like seeing red.
Having these qualia appear is what it is like to be a human being sensing the world. Sensory deprivation leads to an urgent need to feel or taste or see or smell something -- anything. That's consciousness ... aware of being aware. In addition there is imagination. I imagine me. I imagine you. I imagine a plan. Consciousness is aware of the content of imagination.
Consciousness is a president who has a staff and congress who sometimes do not do what he says. Sometimes I can consciously decide and yet when the rubber meets the road there is a skid.
I can reason. I can learn. I can plan ahead. ("I" includes my body-mind.) This affects the future. Self affecting the state of future self. Self will. Consciousness is that which names itself 'self.'

It is being aware in a particular way.

First limited by genes then shaped as possible by experience.

So in the end you and your neighbor can see the same movie and have completely different opinions.

I think many believe they freely choose their opinions. They are not forced to have them. They can clearly see alternatives but have reasons to not accept them.

I see human consciousness as a layer of control over base animal drives.

The drives can always surface and control can be slippery but if control is practiced and seen first hand in others it can be improved over time.

Consciousness also has a measure of control over movements. It can plan and then initiate an action of the body. But it is not controlling things like coordination so it does not have total control.

Consciousness can control the imagination. It can imagine a green ball if it wants to.

It can also control and sort and rate and order thoughts.

Consciousness basically creates an entire unique world view in thought. Based on the ideas it accepts and rejects.

And consciousness can also use this unique world view in thought to express unique ideas in language.

Consciousness is really the only thing of any value in the universe. That is why we talk about it so much.

It has separated itself from all things external and is a witness of the universe somehow.

 

[DBT]

Sorry, but you appear to have lost it. I point something out but you respond to some version of your own interpretation.

Your version and your conclusion has nothing to do with what I said.

Either read more carefully or don't willfully misrepresent what I say, whatever the case may be.

Are you claiming that consciousness can or cannot give the brain an order, force it, to move the arm?

Can consciousness give the brain an order, force it, to do anything? To imagine a pig?


Just answer this. Just briefly as you can answer the exact questions asked.

The questions are wrong.

How can consciousness, which is something the brain is forming and generating and constantly updating while consciously active, order the very agency that is forming and generating it?

Your questions imply autonomy of consciousness.

 

[DBT]

Based on the evidence, chemicals, currents, connectivity, etc, effecting changes (which can be quite specific) to consciousness, I'd say that consciousness is a physical activity of a brain.

Once we isolate the exact physical process for the experience of say red, then what? (I already assume that there is some physical process that correlates exactly to the experience red.)

Imagine that we have a complete physical description of someone's experience of red for say 5 seconds. We will know about everything but the experience itself. We will have an objective account for it but we will not be given the subjective account that the person will have.

What difference does that make for the issue of brain agency?

 

[ryan]

Once we isolate the exact physical process for the experience of say red, then what? (I already assume that there is some physical process that correlates exactly to the experience red.)

Imagine that we have a complete physical description of someone's experience of red for say 5 seconds. We will know about everything but the experience itself. We will have an objective account for it but we will not be given the subjective account that the person will have.

What difference does that make for the issue of brain agency?

None, it would be useless to the brain.

So you can go with two substances, physical and mental, or you can go with one fundamental substance composed of mind and body, thus panpsychism.