Consciousness

[untermensche]

Whether it has a benefit or not is inconsequential if it's physically impossible.

Of course I assume it is possible.

Consciousness is a phenomena that has the ability to exert control over brain activity and thus can move the thoughts and the body in a limited manner.

The only question is how.

But first we have to understand the phenomena.

 

[PyramidHead]

...I don't actually believe it....

That you don't believe your own experience is odd.

When the alarm rings in the morning do you just observe your body rising out of bed?

Or is it effort?

Even sometimes with a little moaning.

If it is experienced as "effort" then it is experienced as something that is "willed", something that must be done, not just going for a fun ride.

If you really believe that then we are done.

It is totally contradictory to my everyday experience.

It is as if I am talking to an alien creature.

Talking about what I regard as experience is impossible.

Whether I experience it and whether I take my experience at face value are two different things. When I experience something, but later investigation causes me to doubt the accuracy of my experience, I can change my belief about it even if the experience itself stays the same.

 

[untermensche]

That you don't believe your own experience is odd.

When the alarm rings in the morning do you just observe your body rising out of bed?

Or is it effort?

Even sometimes with a little moaning.

If it is experienced as "effort" then it is experienced as something that is "willed", something that must be done, not just going for a fun ride.

If you really believe that then we are done.

It is totally contradictory to my everyday experience.

It is as if I am talking to an alien creature.

Talking about what I regard as experience is impossible.

Whether I experience it and whether I take my experience at face value are two different things. When I experience something, but later investigation causes me to doubt the accuracy of my experience, I can change my belief about it even if the experience itself stays the same.

Immediate impressions are what define experience.

You are dismissing experience with a story later on.

A question is: Why somebody thinks a story saying that experience is a lie is necessary?.

What is needed first is an explanation of what consciousness actually is.

Then we will know what it can do. Not before.

Until then what we know best, and should trust most, is our immediate experience.

 

[PyramidHead]

I think you should seriously re-examine the premise in bold. It has been suggested (and, according to one researcher, proven mathematically) that an accurate model of an organism's surroundings will never confer as much genetic fitness as a model that presents a distorted or incomplete picture in order to maximize reproductive success.

Are you saying that to navigate the brain creates a false impression of obstacles?

How is this helpful for navigation?

I didn't say anything about obstacles. The brain creates a model of the environment that evolved to help us survive in a particular environment with particular pressures. There is no reason to assume that the model also just so happens to yield an honest, accurate picture of reality independent of survival concerns. Our perceptual tools are honed to interpret a certain amount of information at a certain scale and ignore things that are less crucial. Our cognitive abilities are prone to over-estimate our chances of success, because having this trait caused our ancestors to take more risks that eventually paid off in terms of reproductive fitness. We're using an old operating system, full of bugs and optimized to be good enough for savanna-dwellers to live long enough to have babies. It would be surprising if the picture of reality generated by our sensory apparatus is anything close to the "real" world.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Ryan, for once you are absolutely right here.

The binding problem cannot be ignored. It's a bit overrated but only in the sense that no qualia can be explained in material or physical terms, unless somebody smarter finds a new paradigm for material and physical phenomena. Binding is just one unexplainable quale among others.
EB

 

[PyramidHead]

Whether it has a benefit or not is inconsequential if it's physically impossible.

Of course I assume it is possible.

Consciousness is a phenomena that has the ability to exert control over brain activity and thus can move the thoughts and the body in a limited manner.

Then you're assuming the very thing that is under question. I don't see how this is germane to a discussion.

Immediate impressions are what define experience.

You are dismissing experience with a story later on.

Quite correct. I do it all the time when I think I see a shadowy figure looming by my door at night, and then remember that's just where I hung my coat.

A question is: Why somebody thinks a story saying that experience is a lie is necessary?.

What is needed first is an explanation of what consciousness actually is.

Then we will know what it can do. Not before.

Until then what we know best, and should trust most, is our immediate experience.

Says who? You're basically demanding that we refuse to update our intuition with any new evidence until we have a complete explanation of what we're trying to understand. I'd rather make incremental improvements to my beliefs based on what information we have, unfinished though it may be. For example, we don't actually know why the moon appears larger when it is near the horizon. Independent tests show that it is, in fact, exactly the same size high in the sky. Your approach would be to ignore that fact and stick to our initial impression until we can explain the source of the illusion.

 

[untermensche]

Are you saying that to navigate the brain creates a false impression of obstacles?

How is this helpful for navigation?

I didn't say anything about obstacles. The brain creates a model of the environment that evolved to help us survive in a particular environment with particular pressures. There is no reason to assume that the model also just so happens to yield an honest, accurate picture of reality independent of survival concerns. Our perceptual tools are honed to interpret a certain amount of information at a certain scale and ignore things that are less crucial. Our cognitive abilities are prone to over-estimate our chances of success, because having this trait caused our ancestors to take more risks that eventually paid off in terms of reproductive fitness. We're using an old operating system, full of bugs and optimized to be good enough for savanna-dwellers to live long enough to have babies. It would be surprising if the picture of reality generated by our sensory apparatus is anything close to the "real" world.

Survival concerns are best served by making an accurate representation of whatever is out there.

They are not served by creating a false impression.

But the brain does more, like create color, to make what is out there more easily recognizable.

 

[untermensche]

Of course I assume it is possible.

Consciousness is a phenomena that has the ability to exert control over brain activity and thus can move the thoughts and the body in a limited manner.

Then you're assuming the very thing that is under question. I don't see how this is germane to a discussion.

I am assuming my immediate experience is accurate.

Immediate impressions are what define experience.

You are dismissing experience with a story later on.

Quite correct. I do it all the time when I think I see a shadowy figure looming by my door at night, and then remember that's just where I hung my coat.

What was your clear and repeatable impression here?

Says who? You're basically demanding that we refuse to update our intuition with any new evidence until we have a complete explanation of what we're trying to understand. I'd rather make incremental improvements to my beliefs based on what information we have, unfinished though it may be. For example, we don't actually know why the moon appears larger when it is near the horizon. Independent tests show that it is, in fact, exactly the same size high in the sky. Your approach would be to ignore that fact and stick to our initial impression until we can explain the source of the illusion.

There is nothing to justify your beliefs.

They can't be justified in the absence of an understanding of what consciousness actually is.

At least there is the evidence of immediate experience to justify mine.

 

[PyramidHead]

I didn't say anything about obstacles. The brain creates a model of the environment that evolved to help us survive in a particular environment with particular pressures. There is no reason to assume that the model also just so happens to yield an honest, accurate picture of reality independent of survival concerns. Our perceptual tools are honed to interpret a certain amount of information at a certain scale and ignore things that are less crucial. Our cognitive abilities are prone to over-estimate our chances of success, because having this trait caused our ancestors to take more risks that eventually paid off in terms of reproductive fitness. We're using an old operating system, full of bugs and optimized to be good enough for savanna-dwellers to live long enough to have babies. It would be surprising if the picture of reality generated by our sensory apparatus is anything close to the "real" world.

Survival concerns are best served by making an accurate representation of whatever is out there.

They are not served by creating a false impression.

But the brain does more, like create color, to make what is out there more easily recognizable.

You don't have any justification whatsoever to know that is true. Did you read Dr. Hoffman's paper and interview? Why would our perceptual system bother discriminating between two phenomena that are both detrimental to survival when it can achieve the same goal with less energy by treating them as equivalent? This is just an abstract example of course.

 

[untermensche]

Survival concerns are best served by making an accurate representation of whatever is out there.

They are not served by creating a false impression.

But the brain does more, like create color, to make what is out there more easily recognizable.

You don't have any justification whatsoever to know that is true. Did you read Dr. Hoffman's paper and interview? Why would our perceptual system bother discriminating between two phenomena that are both detrimental to survival when it can achieve the same goal with less energy by treating them as equivalent? This is just an abstract example of course.

If you are jumping branch to branch in the trees getting an accurate representation of the trees is essential.

Also having something to differentiate the trees from the background is essential.

 

[PyramidHead]

Then you're assuming the very thing that is under question. I don't see how this is germane to a discussion.

I am assuming my immediate experience is accurate.

Then you're just flatly wrong. Nothing very interesting about that.

There is nothing to justify your beliefs.

They can't be justified in the absence of an understanding of what consciousness actually is.

At least there is the evidence of immediate experience to justify mine.

So I take it you think the moon is actually larger when it's close to the horizon than when it's high in the sky, even though when you measure it with more precise instruments it turns out they are the same size. Got it.

So far, no physical event in the brain has been traced back to consciousness as its originator. In every case that has been observed, the cause is just another physical event happening in the brain. Whatever consciousness turns out to be, it has to at least be consistent with what we've discovered about the brain so far.

 

[PyramidHead]

You don't have any justification whatsoever to know that is true. Did you read Dr. Hoffman's paper and interview? Why would our perceptual system bother discriminating between two phenomena that are both detrimental to survival when it can achieve the same goal with less energy by treating them as equivalent? This is just an abstract example of course.

If you are jumping branch to branch in the trees getting an accurate representation of the trees is essential.

Also having something to differentiate the trees from the background is essential.

What you don't need is the ability to detect the cosmic radiation that might be bombarding one tree but not the one next to it. That information has no bearing on your ability to jump between branches, so having it wouldn't give you an edge over the competition. On the contrary, having a sensitive enough organ to detect cosmic radiation would probably incur a large cost in energy that might be better spent jumping between branches instead of looking at cosmic radiation.

 

[untermensche]

I am assuming my immediate experience is accurate.

Then you're just flatly wrong. Nothing very interesting about that.

You haven't demonstrated that.

There is nothing to justify your beliefs.

They can't be justified in the absence of an understanding of what consciousness actually is.

At least there is the evidence of immediate experience to justify mine.

So I take it you think the moon is actually larger when it's close to the horizon than when it's high in the sky, even though when you measure it with more precise instruments it turns out they are the same size. Got it.

Optical illusions are not the brain misleading you about the external world.

The moon is there.

It is not a trick.

Judgements about relative size of distant objects in the sky is probably not something the visual system evolved to be good at.

So far, no physical event in the brain has been traced back to consciousness as its originator.

Consciousness has not been found anywhere in the brain.

In terms of brain function there is no explanation of consciousness.

All we know about it is through reports of people with it and our own experience with it.

 

[PyramidHead]

Then you're just flatly wrong. Nothing very interesting about that.

You haven't demonstrated that.

There is nothing to justify your beliefs.

They can't be justified in the absence of an understanding of what consciousness actually is.

At least there is the evidence of immediate experience to justify mine.

So I take it you think the moon is actually larger when it's close to the horizon than when it's high in the sky, even though when you measure it with more precise instruments it turns out they are the same size. Got it.

Optical illusions are not the brain misleading you about the external world.

What else could they possibly be?

 An optical illusion (also called a visual illusion) is an illusion caused by the visual system and characterized by visually perceived images that differ from objective reality. The information gathered by the eye is processed in the brain to give a percept that does not tally with a physical measurement of the stimulus source.

The moon is there.

It is not a trick.

Judgements about relative size of distant objects in the sky is probably not something the visual system evolved to be good at.

Yes... it's almost as if accuracy about the external world is not always correlated with evolutionary fitness. Where have I heard that before?

So far, no physical event in the brain has been traced back to consciousness as its originator.

Consciousness has not been found anywhere in the brain.

In terms of brain function there is no explanation of consciousness.

All we know about it is through reports of people with it and our own experience with it.

Which is why it makes sense to be agnostic about the claim that consciousness can control our physical brains, rather than assuming it must.

 

[ryan]

Ryan, for once you are absolutely right here.

The binding problem cannot be ignored. It's a bit overrated but only in the sense that no qualia can be explained in material or physical terms, unless somebody smarter finds a new paradigm for material and physical phenomena. Binding is just one unexplainable quale among others.
EB

Yeah somebody smarter, or somebody at the right point of progression at the right time for the collective understanding of the consciousness.

If only there were some unified physical phenomenon that could correlate unified thoughts to it. But that would be crazy; it would have to be some kind of "entanglement" of matter or some kind of "spooky" non-local instantaneous action from a distance working as one object. Oh if nature would just give us this holistic property of individual parts that we need.

 

[untermensche]

Optical illusions are not the brain misleading you about the external world.

What else could they possibly be?

What is the "process" of making size judgements about things seen in the past?

Is it a cognitive process or a process of vision?

It is a bad judgement based on accurate information.

As opposed to what you claim is happening.

A false impression deliberately created.

It is apples and oranges.

Limitations of cognition are not the same as deliberately creating a false impression.

Which is why it makes sense to be agnostic about the claim that consciousness can control our physical brains, rather than assuming it must.

What you're suggesting is not agnostic indifference.

It is claiming that clear experience is a deliberately created false impression.

And pretending that is some given.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Ryan, for once you are absolutely right here.

The binding problem cannot be ignored. It's a bit overrated but only in the sense that no qualia can be explained in material or physical terms, unless somebody smarter finds a new paradigm for material and physical phenomena. Binding is just one unexplainable quale among others.
EB

Yeah somebody smarter, or somebody at the right point of progression at the right time for the collective understanding of the consciousness.

If only there were some unified physical phenomenon that could correlate unified thoughts to it. But that would be crazy; it would have to be some kind of "entanglement" of matter or some kind of "spooky" non-local instantaneous action from a distance working as one object. Oh if nature would just give us this holistic property of individual parts that we need.

But we have it.

We don't know how we got to have it but we have it.

The question of whether it's given by nature or something altogether not so natural is moot. Interesting but moot.

In fact, I'm far from convinced it would be in my interest that Trump-like idiots could start fiddling with my holistic property.
EB

 

[PyramidHead]

What else could they possibly be?

What is the "process" of making size judgements about things seen in the past?

Is it a cognitive process or a process of vision?

It is a bad judgement based on accurate information.

As opposed to what you claim is happening.

A false impression deliberately created.

It is apples and oranges.

Limitations of cognition are not the same as deliberately creating a false impression.

Which is why it makes sense to be agnostic about the claim that consciousness can control our physical brains, rather than assuming it must.

What you're suggesting is not agnostic indifference.

It is claiming that clear experience is a deliberately created false impression.

And pretending that is some given.

Could you quote where I said it was a deliberately created false impression? Thanks.

 

[untermensche]

Could you quote where I said it was a deliberately created false impression? Thanks.

The impression is, the experience is of moving the arm at "will".

You are claiming it is a false impression.

And the brain is deliberately creating the impression. It is not an accident. If it is experienced it is deliberately created.

So it is a deliberately created false impression.

 

[PyramidHead]

Could you quote where I said it was a deliberately created false impression? Thanks.

The impression is, the experience is of moving the arm at "will".

You are claiming it is a false impression.

And the brain is deliberately creating the impression. It is not an accident. If it is experienced it is deliberately created.

So it is a deliberately created false impression.

As I expected. Thanks. I'm claiming it's not necessarily a true impression, as many of our impressions are false; and since they are false without being deliberate fabrications, this impression may also be false without being a deliberate fabrication. The possibility you seem to be ruling out is that our illusion of agency is no different from the many other perceptual illusions we are vulnerable to, does not imply deception or trickery. Knowing what we know about the brain and about physical causation, I can't share your certitude about that.