Consciousness

[Juma]

It is the brain that makes sense of the world through its internal subjective model of the world - which we call 'mind' - this being the essential role of conscious mind.

But remember that the mind is unified; the brain is not (unless QM), thus the binding problem.

Please explain what you mesn with the phrase "the binding" problem. What is bound towhat snd why is that a problem?

 

[untermensche]

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.

Many of our impressions are not false. A few rare impressions are.

False impressions are the rare exception.

There is no reason to think these impressions of being able to move the arm are false.

The assumption should be they are accurate, like the shape of the cup.

 

[ryan]

But remember that the mind is unified; the brain is not (unless QM), thus the binding problem.

Please explain what you mesn with the phrase "the binding" problem. What is bound towhat snd why is that a problem?

I have tried to explain this to you a 100 different ways. Our discussion over the last few days actually relates to it.

From what is understood so far, the brain's activity does not correlate to our experiences structurally. The brain's neurological activity is segregated throughout while the consciousness is unified. Why is the consciousness unified with whole thoughts (whole thoughts that themselves require a binding of activity, incorporated into the consciousness, a larger whole.) while the brain's activity is discretely active as separated neurons fire?

 

[George S]

For your viewing pleasure: start at 3:00
[YOUTUBE]IErZ9n2FevY[/YOUTUBE]

 

[ryan]

For your viewing pleasure: start at 3:00
[YOUTUBE]IErZ9n2FevY[/YOUTUBE]

I don"t see a link.

 

[DBT]

The subjective experience of taste, colour, sensation, etc, is 'the hard problem of consciousness' - so obviously it is not understood how a brain forms its perception/experience of the world. My point is simply that the available evidence points to this perception/experience being a physical activity of a brain. Chemical and structural connectivity changes (drugs, etc) alter perception, thought and feelings in specific ways and so on.

I'm sorry to be pedantic, but what data exist to support whether the bolded phrasing is true, rather than perception/experience being the result of a physical activity of a brain, and not identical to this activity?

The distinction seems odd seeing that we only have evidence for physical brain activity, which is an electrochemical process, chemical transmitters, synaptic connections, ion flow, modulated impulses transmitting information to the 'global workspace' where patterns of firings represent conscious activity.

Consciousness is a result of this activity but that doesn't mean that it is some inexplicable non material spooky imagery happening in the fifth dimension.

Best guess, it's probably patterns of firings that are somehow perceived in the form of imagery and sensation...like pixels on a screen seen as recognizable shapes, forms and events even though we are seeing dots on a flat screen.

 

[DBT]

You simply don't comprehend. It is beyond your capacities presently.

But a consciousness that can command nothing, force nothing, has no use.

.

Pleas stop repeating this stupid irrelevant mantra. I did not say consciousness has no function. I said the very opposite and described the function of consciousness several times.

Which you ignore only to repeat your mantra.

Deal with what I said, not what I did not say.

Here is the question I put to you. Please deal with it;

How is it possible for consciousness to order (your wording) the brain when it is the brain that is forming and generating consciousness on the basis of information from its senses with memory function/integration enabling recognition?

Given this relationship, consciousness can have no possible autonomy from the very mechanism that is generating it.

It cannot act independently, as you imply.

Which does not mean consciousness has no use or role to play, it does, and I have described that function and role.

Can you just answer the question?

 

[Juma]

Please explain what you mesn with the phrase "the binding" problem. What is bound towhat snd why is that a problem?

I have tried to explain this to you a 100 different ways. Our discussion over the last few days actually relates to it.

No, you have never tried to examine what the supposed problem is. You have supposed that there is a problem and then jumped to trying to explain th alleged problem.

From what is understood so far, the brain's activity does not correlate to our experiences structurally.

Of course they correlate. Being processed, refined etc does not remove the fact tgat they are correlated.

The brain's neurological activity is segregated throughout while the consciousness is unified. Why is the consciousness unified with whole thoughts (whole thoughts that themselves require a binding of activity, incorporated into the consciousness, a larger whole.) while the brain's activity is discretely active as separated neurons fire?

In what way is the consciousness "unified"? I dont think it is.
Do you mean that the "first person perspective" seems to be just one?

 

[untermensche]

You simply don't comprehend. It is beyond your capacities presently.

But a consciousness that can command nothing, force nothing, has no use.

Pleas stop repeating this stupid irrelevant mantra. I did not say consciousness has no function. I said the very opposite and described the function of consciousness several times.

The fact that you see the serious flaws in your ideas as irrelevant is not surprising.

But a consciousness that can do nothing has no use.

The brain already has access to all external stimulation. The brain already can make sense of it.

It does not need some passive observer hanging around for no reason.

And that is what you are claiming consciousness is, a passive observer.

Either consciousness is active and has a purpose or it is passive and has none.

How is it possible for consciousness to order (your wording) the brain when it is the brain that is forming and generating consciousness on the basis of information from its senses with memory function/integration enabling recognition?

That is what we need to figure out. How consciousness can act as some kind of controlling feedback.

But to answer that we actually have to know what consciousness is.

Right now we don't have the first clue.

 

[PyramidHead]

I'm sorry to be pedantic, but what data exist to support whether the bolded phrasing is true, rather than perception/experience being the result of a physical activity of a brain, and not identical to this activity?

The distinction seems odd seeing that we only have evidence for physical brain activity, which is an electrochemical process, chemical transmitters, synaptic connections, ion flow, modulated impulses transmitting information to the 'global workspace' where patterns of firings represent conscious activity.

If that was the only evidence we had, there would be no hard problem. In addition to the evidence of brain activity, we have this extra layer of sensations and appearances. No other instance of 'activity' or 'process' is accompanied by such phenomena, so far as we know. This indicates we need to treat subjective experience as a thing in itself, not just what another thing is doing.

Consciousness is a result of this activity but that doesn't mean that it is some inexplicable non material spooky imagery happening in the fifth dimension.

Best guess, it's probably patterns of firings that are somehow perceived in the form of imagery and sensation...like pixels on a screen seen as recognizable shapes, forms and events even though we are seeing dots on a flat screen.

That's not a bad guess nor is it a bad analogy. But I'll continue to emphasize that we know what patterns of neural firings look like, we can peer inside the brain to watch them happen, and they look absolutely nothing like the taste of a carrot. Until there is at least a hint of a suggestion about how to cross this gulf, the door is still open to some version of dualism or at least dual-aspect monism.

 

[George S]

For your viewing pleasure: start at 3:00
[YOUTUBE]IErZ9n2FevY[/YOUTUBE]

I don"t see a link.

See it now? -- Executive Summary: over 90% of human neurological activity is unconscious.

 

[untermensche]

See it now? -- Executive Summary: over 90% of human neurological activity is unconscious.

A lot of speculation. Interesting speculation.

Very few answers.

As far as human versus animal consciousness I think human language, especially the ability to understand the language of others, creates a completely different kind of consciousness.

It widens the individual consciousness extremely to include bits of the consciousness of others.

 

[ryan]

No, you have never tried to examine what the supposed problem is. You have supposed that there is a problem and then jumped to trying to explain th alleged problem.

what way is the consciousness "unified"? I dont think it is.
Do you mean that the "first person perspective" seems to be just one?

To know what it means to be unified, think about what is not unified in your mind. You know that there are memories that are currently not being accessed and experienced. You know there are other minds experiencing colors that you aren't ecperiencing. Or if you are in a deep thought, you may not be conscious of the blue sky in your sight (they call this selective awareness which is strange and fascinating if you haven't looked into it).

Anyways, clearly there is something that is unified about your consciousness and something that is not/discontinuous, namely the unconsciousness and everything else.

Of course they correlate. Being processed, refined etc does not remove the fact tgat they are correlated.

The activity correlates just fine, but only the activity, and only certain activity at that. But it doesn't correlate structurally. For me or for you, there are only certain parts of your own activity that correlate to consciousness, but none of the inactivity that occupies so much of the brain correlates. That structure just doesn't fully correlate to your "space" of conscious existence. In this respect, there is a sort of dual existence that filters out any inactivity that isn't known to correlate.

(Read to the end before picking apart pieces to argue against)

The main problem is that you wouldn't be able to predict such a thing as a unified consciousness by knowing what we know about all of the parts. Every other known physical phenomena can pretty much be predicted using the standard model and the laws of physics (reducibility).

The other part of the binding problem is the stuff inside this "unified stream of consciousness" can be compared. For example, if you see a truck, you know it's not a car. You know at least 2 things about 1 thing. They call this the "aboutness". And you know that you know 2 things, not just 1 thing and then 1 thing. The concept of the aboutness requires a unity of understanding from multiple pieces of information.

To understand what I am trying to explain - while holding judgement untill the end of the post - think about the consciousness as the part of the cruise ship we only get experience as a customer and the brain as the whole ship. For the vacationers there is a sort of perfect world, but in the background there are people on and off the ship that contribute as well as the machinery behind the scenes; all this is never seen.

But unlike the consciousness, the boat has a spatial dimension that we can follow from the customer space to the spaces that have less appealing aspects of the boat. There are no nonexistant places because we have a 3d space to navigate through. But when I am visually emerged infront of a white wall, where's the unconscious stuff working behind the scenes? Why can't I get to the "workers scrubbing the cooking grills"? And why can't the people looking in go from the "machinery" to the ship's presentation for the customers? Obviously I can't go where there is no brain activity; it just doesn't exist for my conscious space. What does this say about our supposed 4d space and time?

And you can't solve the problem by just saying that the consciousness is the activity because that is the same problem just restated. Why does something else exist just for certain processes (does it have a function/purpose), what is this conscious stuff (the ontological question) and how does matter without conscious properties form a new property that we call the consciousness (question of origin/reducibility)?

The why, what and how questions I ask are rhetorical because there are no obvious or agreed upon answers to them.

 

[ryan]

DAMN! reading back, the boat analogy was not at all a good representation of the binding problem because I LEFT OUT A HUGE PART OF THE PROBLEM (too late to erase it). Here's a proper analogy; at least I am certain now that I feel it is a way better representation of the binding problem.

Give me one more chance.

The binding problem can be seen like the squares of a chessboard. Imagine that a whole restaurant is analogous to the whole brain; and a chessboard, with no pieces, is analogous to the mind. So far, science has only been able to correlate each table in the restaurant (neural activity) to each square on the chessboard (mental representations).

But the chessboard and it's squares are unified while it's correlates (the tables) are not. There are spaces between the tables, people walking past, chairs, a kitchen etc.

Some people say that there is only one or the other true representation of the universe (physicalism or idealism). But we have 2 descriptions depending on the point of view, subjective or objective, that do not match. In terms of physicalism, where does the stuff in-between the tables go when making a mental account??? And similarly for idealism, there are other things between the tables in the physical account that do not show up in the mental account???

One description is bounded together or unified, and the other is not. And so far any attempt to make a full correlation between the two descriptions does not match one-to-one as one would expect.

 

[DBT]

Pleas stop repeating this stupid irrelevant mantra. I did not say consciousness has no function. I said the very opposite and described the function of consciousness several times.

The fact that you see the serious flaws in your ideas as irrelevant is not surprising.

You are not even representing my 'ideas' - which are not my ideas - you only respond to your own version. A version that bears no resemblance to what I say.

But a consciousness that can do nothing has no use.

OMG, there it is again. What is the matter with you?

I repeatedly describe the role and function of consciousness but your reply has no relationship to what I say.

I say one thing and you respond as if I said the very opposite of what I actually said.

Frankly, it's quite bizarre.

Nor have you addressed the question I put to you, instead engaging with vague arm waving in an attempt to avoid the issue.

Here is the question again;

How is it possible for consciousness to order (your wording) the brain when it is the brain that is forming and generating consciousness?

Can you answer the question or not? It is your claim after all!!!

 

[DBT]

The distinction seems odd seeing that we only have evidence for physical brain activity, which is an electrochemical process, chemical transmitters, synaptic connections, ion flow, modulated impulses transmitting information to the 'global workspace' where patterns of firings represent conscious activity.

If that was the only evidence we had, there would be no hard problem. In addition to the evidence of brain activity, we have this extra layer of sensations and appearances. No other instance of 'activity' or 'process' is accompanied by such phenomena, so far as we know. This indicates we need to treat subjective experience as a thing in itself, not just what another thing is doing.

We don't actually know that there is another layer. There is no additional layer for pixels on a screen forming images as interpreted by a brain with that ability.

For all we know, something similar may be happening within the brain; patterns of firings being interpreted as imagery and sensation through information processing.

But we don't know. So at this stage it's just not warranted to assume additional layers of some spooky non material agency.

As it currently stands, consciousness can be manipulated structurally, electrically or chemically, stimulating quite specific conscious emotions, thoughts and actions. Which strongly indicates a physical process of perception and thought formation, etc.

 

[ryan]

The fact that you see the serious flaws in your ideas as irrelevant is not surprising.

You are not even representing my 'ideas' - which are not my ideas - you only respond to your own version. A version that bears no resemblance to what I say.

But a consciousness that can do nothing has no use.

OMG, there it is again. What is the matter with you?

I repeatedly describe the role and function of consciousness but your reply has no relationship to what I say.

I say one thing and you respond as if I said the very opposite of what I actually said.

Frankly, it's quite bizarre.

Nor have you addressed the question I put to you, instead engaging with vague arm waving in an attempt to avoid the issue.

Here is the question again;

How is it possible for consciousness to order (your wording) the brain when it is the brain that is forming and generating consciousness?

Can you answer the question or not? It is your claim after all!!!

DBT, this is not hard to answer. Feedback loops, where the output becomes the input, are a possible answer to your question.

 

[DBT]

You are not even representing my 'ideas' - which are not my ideas - you only respond to your own version. A version that bears no resemblance to what I say.

But a consciousness that can do nothing has no use.

OMG, there it is again. What is the matter with you?

I repeatedly describe the role and function of consciousness but your reply has no relationship to what I say.

I say one thing and you respond as if I said the very opposite of what I actually said.

Frankly, it's quite bizarre.

Nor have you addressed the question I put to you, instead engaging with vague arm waving in an attempt to avoid the issue.

Here is the question again;

How is it possible for consciousness to order (your wording) the brain when it is the brain that is forming and generating consciousness?

Can you answer the question or not? It is your claim after all!!!

DBT, this is not hard to answer. Feedback loops, where the output becomes the input, are a possible answer to your question.

That's no answer, sorry. Feedback loops are brain activity, therefore brain agency. There is no consciousness unless the brain is generating conscious activity. Consciousness therefore has no autonomy and cannot 'order' the brain, the very mechanism that gives conscious form and function.

Note 'form and function' - which does not mean the Strawman Mr Untermenche keeps building.

 

[untermensche]

The fact that you see the serious flaws in your ideas as irrelevant is not surprising.

You are not even representing my 'ideas' - which are not my ideas - you only respond to your own version. A version that bears no resemblance to what I say.

I'm giving you the logical conclusions of your ideas.

You are claiming consciousness is passive. It can initiate no action, like a passive "camera" it can "see", it can experience the representations created by the brain.

A passive "camera" observes what is going on but can do nothing, initiate nothing, move nothing.

You are also saying the brain is a self contained "machine". It does not take any orders from consciousness. it just does what it does and consciousness is purely passive. A passive "camera".

But a self contained machine has no need of a passive "camera" to record it's activity.

Take the passive "camera" away and the machine works exactly the same.

If you attach a passive camera to your car it will not change the performance. And then taking it away will not change the performance either.

No self contained machine needs a passive "camera" observing its activity.

A passive consciousness is a consciousness that is not needed in the least.

This is the conclusion from the claim that consciousness is passive and not active. No matter who makes that claim.

 

[untermensche]

That's no answer, sorry. Feedback loops are brain activity, therefore brain agency. There is no consciousness unless the brain is generating conscious activity. Consciousness therefore has no autonomy and cannot 'order' the brain, the very mechanism that gives conscious form and function.

Note 'form and function' - which does not mean the Strawman Mr Untermenche keeps building.

You completely ignore emergent phenomena. Like magnetism arising out of a moving current.

The hypothesis is that activity of the brain somehow creates an emergent phenomena capable of providing a "willed" feedback.

This phenomena is not something the brain is doing. Actually the brain has no idea it exists. It is something that arises because of what the brain is doing.

When we talk about consciousness we are talking about something exclusive to evolved animals, at least I am, it is a unique phenomena.

It may have unique features we do not see elsewhere in nature. The phenomena may be limited to the activity of brains.