Consciousness

[DBT]

I have also said that we clearly experience ourselves, our consciousness, as having a measure of control.

Why we should think we have some control but don't is an unanswered mystery.
.

To which I replied by explaining and providing evidence that it is the brain that generates consciousness, self identity and a sense of agency. If this brain function fails, not only consciousness disintegrates but self identity and the sense of control.

Which makes it quite clear that the brain is the agent of consciousness, self identity and your sense of control, even though it's not understood how the brain form this experience. An experience that fails in the presence of memory function breakdown.....then you have no control in relation to the specific dysfunction of connectivity.

Conscious self is not an autonomous agent residing in the brain or consciousness as a director of actions


Quote;
''People suffering from Alzheimer's disease are not only losing their memory, but they are also losing their personality. In order to understand the relationship between personality and memory, it is important to define personality and memory. Personality, as defined by some neurobiologists and psychologists, is a collection of behaviors, emotions, and thoughts that are not controlled by the I-function. Memory, on the other hand, is controlled and regulated by the I-function of the neocortex. It is a collection of short stories that the I-function makes-up in order to account for the events and people. Memory is also defined as the ability to retain information, and it is influenced by three important stages. The first stage is encoding and processing the information, the second stage is the storing of the memory, and the third stage is memory retrieval. There are also the different types of memories like sensory, short-term, and long-term memory. The sensory memory relates to the initial moment when an event or an object is first detected. Short-term memories are characterized by slow, transient alterations in communication between neurons and long-term memories (1). Long-term memories are marked by permanent changes to the neural structure''


The terminal Stages of the disease, and the consequences of such a profound memory loss being; Symptoms:
''Can't recognize family or image of self in mirror.
Loses weight even with good diet.
Little capacity for self-care.
Can't communicate with words.
May put everything in mouth or touch everything.
Can't control bowels, bladder.
May have seizures, experience difficulty swallowing, skin infections.

 

[DBT]

No, I base my remark on all that you've said in multiple threads and posts.

That is your problem then. I am just talking about the topic at hand (I can't imagine how me being an immaterial powerless shadow has anything to do with what we were discussing before, but I am sure you will try to make a connection anyway.). Maybe we are just on here to discuss philosophical topics.

There is no problem, the topic at hand lies at the heart of your beliefs about the nature of consciousness, as did all the threads before it and all that you have said on the topic from the beginning to the end.

You are so all or nothing, black or white, in such an uncertain subject. I told you countless times that I was just arguing for the possibility of QM decision-making. And now I am arguing for the possibility that there is a non-physical difference between consciousness and that which is not conscious.

It's not about black or white or extremes or conjecture, but what the available evidence supports,

What the available evidence supports is the proposition that brain is the agency of consciousness, self identity and motor actions....these being the evolved functions of the unbelievably complex neural networks and structures of a brain, the expression of consciousness, self identity/awareness being related to the state and condition of the brain.

Now, you probably don't like it, and you probably reject it, but that's how it currently stands according to the available evidence, like it or not.

What I "hope and desire" isn't going to change what reality actually is.

Exactly right. But nevertheless, hopes and desires do skew beliefs in favour of what is hoped for and desired.

 

[fromderinside]

What I "hope and desire" isn't going to change what reality actually is.

One would hope one's hopes and desires were related to one's world state wouldn't one?

If not, as untermenche would write, why have them.

Treating consciousness as coming from a blank slate just isn't going to do.

 

[ryan]

That is your problem then. I am just talking about the topic at hand (I can't imagine how me being an immaterial powerless shadow has anything to do with what we were discussing before, but I am sure you will try to make a connection anyway.). Maybe we are just on here to discuss philosophical topics.

There is no problem, the topic at hand lies at the heart of your beliefs about the nature of consciousness, as did all the threads before it and all that you have said on the topic from the beginning to the end.

You are so all or nothing, black or white, in such an uncertain subject. I told you countless times that I was just arguing for the possibility of QM decision-making. And now I am arguing for the possibility that there is a non-physical difference between consciousness and that which is not conscious.

It's not about black or white or extremes or conjecture, but what the available evidence supports,

What the available evidence supports is the proposition that brain is the agency of consciousness, self identity and motor actions....these being the evolved functions of the unbelievably complex neural networks and structures of a brain, the expression of consciousness, self identity/awareness being related to the state and condition of the brain.

Now, you probably don't like it, and you probably reject it, but that's how it currently stands according to the available evidence, like it or not.

There is no evidence that provides a physical explanation of aboutness and the what it's likeness problems. There is evidence of our own subjectivity, and there is evidence of a correlation to the physical - a choppy one at that - but there is no scientific explanation to fill in the gaps or attempt to explain the consciousness itself.

The only scientific explanation I could find is the Integration Information Theory, but that requires characteristics of panpsychism and even another dimension for the shapes of qualia (the "q-space"). That is a possible scientific explanation if it had to make an explanation today. And I think it even relies on technology that has not even been conceived yet to attempt to falsify it.

 

[ryan]

What I "hope and desire" isn't going to change what reality actually is.

One would hope one's hopes and desires were related to one's world state wouldn't one?

Thinking that I live in a reality that I don't will only cause confusion and problems. I might as well go for the truth even if it sucks and since that's all there is anyways.

If not, as untermenche would write, why have them.

Treating consciousness as coming from a blank slate just isn't going to do.

I don't know what you mean.

 

[untermensche]

I have also said that we clearly experience ourselves, our consciousness, as having a measure of control.

Why we should think we have some control but don't is an unanswered mystery.
.

To which I replied by explaining and providing evidence that it is the brain that generates consciousness, self identity and a sense of agency. If this brain function fails, not only consciousness disintegrates but self identity and the sense of control.

You have provided your OPINION based on NO evidence. It is the position you start with. You do not demonstrate it in any way.

You have NO evidence of consciousness. You do not even know what it is.

You don't even have an inkling.

Stop pretending you do.

I actually worked with Parkinson's patients for years.

It is damage to the brain.

All you are saying is that a damaged brain does not work like an undamaged brain.

You have said nothing about the abilities of consciousness in an undamaged brain.

 

[PyramidHead]

There is no evidence that provides a physical explanation of aboutness and the what it's likeness problems. There is evidence of our own subjectivity, and there is evidence of a correlation to the physical - a choppy one at that - but there is no scientific explanation to fill in the gaps or attempt to explain the consciousness itself.

The only scientific explanation I could find is the Integration Information Theory, but that requires characteristics of panpsychism and even another dimension for the shapes of qualia (the "q-space"). That is a possible scientific explanation if it had to make an explanation today. And I think it even relies on technology that has not even been conceived yet to attempt to falsify it.

I checked out the Wiki page for IIT. It's interesting stuff, but this caught my eye:

IIT addresses the mind-body problem by proposing an identity between phenomenological properties of experience and causal properties of physical systems: The conceptual structure specified by a complex of elements in a state is identical to its experience.

This doesn't seem like it fares any better than saying phenomenological properties are just brain states. Neither a brain state nor a "conceptual structure" are anything like the experience of smelling sulfur, for example. The guy who originated IIT says in the manifesto:

Qualia space (Q) is a space where each axis represents a possible state of the complex, each point is a probability distribution of its states, and arrows between points represent the informational relationships among its elements generated by causal mechanisms (connections). Together, the set of informational relationships within a complex constitute a shape in Q that completely and univocally specifies a particular experience.

Again, this is not a satisfying explanation, as a network of relationships can be fully reduced to a list--however absurdly long--of all its connections, but a person reading the list will presumably not experience whatever is specified by the list. Maybe I'm missing something in the terminology. Still, a promising endeavor that takes the right approach (moving from the subjective to the underlying mechanism, rather than starting with the brain and looking for the subjective).

 

[ryan]

I checked out the Wiki page for IIT. It's interesting stuff, but this caught my eye:

IIT addresses the mind-body problem by proposing an identity between phenomenological properties of experience and causal properties of physical systems: The conceptual structure specified by a complex of elements in a state is identical to its experience.

This doesn't seem like it fares any better than saying phenomenological properties are just brain states. Neither a brain state nor a "conceptual structure" are anything like the experience of smelling sulfur, for example. The guy who originated IIT says in the manifesto:

Qualia space (Q) is a space where each axis represents a possible state of the complex, each point is a probability distribution of its states, and arrows between points represent the informational relationships among its elements generated by causal mechanisms (connections). Together, the set of informational relationships within a complex constitute a shape in Q that completely and univocally specifies a particular experience.

Again, this is not a satisfying explanation, as a network of relationships can be fully reduced to a list--however absurdly long--of all its connections, but a person reading the list will presumably not experience whatever is specified by the list. Maybe I'm missing something in the terminology. Still, a promising endeavor that takes the right approach (moving from the subjective to the underlying mechanism, rather than starting with the brain and looking for the subjective).

I am not sure what year that quote was from, but I believe Giulio has tweaked ITT over the years to explain more and to answer objections.

Here is a great explanation in his own words:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vl8J3K_ZLkg&list=PLMDgR9XqmpVT7ZJVKc_N0oKdEV3Aq7cFS This is an 8 part series of under 10 minutes each. There are so many interesting things that he talks about; I wouldn't know where to direct you. But anyway, he explains everything quite clearly, simply and straightforward.

 

[PyramidHead]

I checked out the Wiki page for IIT. It's interesting stuff, but this caught my eye:



This doesn't seem like it fares any better than saying phenomenological properties are just brain states. Neither a brain state nor a "conceptual structure" are anything like the experience of smelling sulfur, for example. The guy who originated IIT says in the manifesto:

Qualia space (Q) is a space where each axis represents a possible state of the complex, each point is a probability distribution of its states, and arrows between points represent the informational relationships among its elements generated by causal mechanisms (connections). Together, the set of informational relationships within a complex constitute a shape in Q that completely and univocally specifies a particular experience.

Again, this is not a satisfying explanation, as a network of relationships can be fully reduced to a list--however absurdly long--of all its connections, but a person reading the list will presumably not experience whatever is specified by the list. Maybe I'm missing something in the terminology. Still, a promising endeavor that takes the right approach (moving from the subjective to the underlying mechanism, rather than starting with the brain and looking for the subjective).

I am not sure what year that quote was from, but I believe Giulio has tweaked ITT over the years to explain more and to answer objections.

Here is a great explanation in his own words:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vl8J3K_ZLkg&list=PLMDgR9XqmpVT7ZJVKc_N0oKdEV3Aq7cFS This is an 8 part series of under 10 minutes each. There are so many interesting things that he talks about; I wouldn't know where to direct you. But anyway, he explains everything quite clearly, simply and straightforward.

I can't watch YouTube videos at work. Can you give me the gist of it? I get that integrated information may be the defining quality of systems that give rise to consciousness, but it seems there must always be a gap between any "roadmap" of inter-relationships and the actual sensation they produce, and thus we are back where we started with no further understanding of the latter.

 

[fromderinside]

One would hope one's hopes and desires were related to one's world state wouldn't one?

Thinking that I live in a reality that I don't will only cause confusion and problems. I might as well go for the truth even if it sucks and since that's all there is anyways.

If not, as untermenche would write, why have them.

Treating consciousness as coming from a blank slate just isn't going to do.

I don't know what you mean.

First I'd argue you don't know what is reality so thinking something about it is wasteful in any respect unless it pays off and you get to keep living - and you don't know that either. But, hey, Bayes had some pretty good notions on probabilities.

A blank slate is an empty sheet. Can be anything from a void, to, well a blank slate. Its something philosophers once thought with which humans came into the world. Have you tapped your patella recently?

 

[ryan]

I checked out the Wiki page for IIT. It's interesting stuff, but this caught my eye:



This doesn't seem like it fares any better than saying phenomenological properties are just brain states. Neither a brain state nor a "conceptual structure" are anything like the experience of smelling sulfur, for example. The guy who originated IIT says in the manifesto:

Qualia space (Q) is a space where each axis represents a possible state of the complex, each point is a probability distribution of its states, and arrows between points represent the informational relationships among its elements generated by causal mechanisms (connections). Together, the set of informational relationships within a complex constitute a shape in Q that completely and univocally specifies a particular experience.

Again, this is not a satisfying explanation, as a network of relationships can be fully reduced to a list--however absurdly long--of all its connections, but a person reading the list will presumably not experience whatever is specified by the list. Maybe I'm missing something in the terminology. Still, a promising endeavor that takes the right approach (moving from the subjective to the underlying mechanism, rather than starting with the brain and looking for the subjective).

I am not sure what year that quote was from, but I believe Giulio has tweaked ITT over the years to explain more and to answer objections.

Here is a great explanation in his own words:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vl8J3K_ZLkg&list=PLMDgR9XqmpVT7ZJVKc_N0oKdEV3Aq7cFS This is an 8 part series of under 10 minutes each. There are so many interesting things that he talks about; I wouldn't know where to direct you. But anyway, he explains everything quite clearly, simply and straightforward.

I can't watch YouTube videos at work. Can you give me the gist of it? I get that integrated information may be the defining quality of systems that give rise to consciousness, but it seems there must always be a gap between any "roadmap" of inter-relationships and the actual sensation they produce, and thus we are back where we started with no further understanding of the latter.

But he is summing it up a lot already. If I summarize an already very concentrated summary, I don't know that it would be coherent. He answers scientific and philosophic questions and concerns from a neurophysiologist, the interviewer. The neurophysiologist is clearly well versed in the philosophical issues, and then asks Giulio how IIT can solve the problems. Giulio answers them and discusses ITT in a very direct and clear manner. So I highly recommend you hear it straight from the horse's mouth.

 

[ryan]

Thinking that I live in a reality that I don't will only cause confusion and problems. I might as well go for the truth even if it sucks and since that's all there is anyways.

If not, as untermenche would write, why have them.

Treating consciousness as coming from a blank slate just isn't going to do.

I don't know what you mean.

First I'd argue you don't know what is reality so thinking something about it is wasteful in any respect unless it pays off and you get to keep living - and you don't know that either. But, hey, Bayes had some pretty good notions on probabilities.

A blank slate is an empty sheet. Can be anything from a void, to, well a blank slate. Its something philosophers once thought with which humans came into the world. Have you tapped your patella recently?

Are you saying that the consciousness kind of comes from nothing and that it encompasses a sort of "microcosmic bubble"?

But then we can still know that reality is capable of these "bubbles" and that there is something outside of it. The bubble, we have to assume, interacts with that which is outside of the bubble. Everything that the bubble does not interact with is unknowable, sure, but quite irrelevant - left to wonder.

 

[untermensche]

Thinking that I live in a reality that I don't will only cause confusion and problems. I might as well go for the truth even if it sucks and since that's all there is anyways.

If not, as untermenche would write, why have them.

Treating consciousness as coming from a blank slate just isn't going to do.

I don't know what you mean.

First I'd argue you don't know what is reality so thinking something about it is wasteful in any respect unless it pays off and you get to keep living - and you don't know that either. But, hey, Bayes had some pretty good notions on probabilities.

A blank slate is an empty sheet. Can be anything from a void, to, well a blank slate. Its something philosophers once thought with which humans came into the world. Have you tapped your patella recently?

Are you saying that the consciousness kind of comes from nothing and that it encompasses a sort of "microcosmic bubble"?

But then we can still know that reality is capable of these "bubbles" and that there is something outside of it. The bubble, we have to assume, interacts with that which is outside of the bubble. Everything that the bubble does not interact with is unknowable, sure, but quite irrelevant - left to wonder.

Yes, consciousness is a living thing, not something static.

It grows and changes and then after a while declines.

 

[ryan]

Thinking that I live in a reality that I don't will only cause confusion and problems. I might as well go for the truth even if it sucks and since that's all there is anyways.

If not, as untermenche would write, why have them.

Treating consciousness as coming from a blank slate just isn't going to do.

I don't know what you mean.

First I'd argue you don't know what is reality so thinking something about it is wasteful in any respect unless it pays off and you get to keep living - and you don't know that either. But, hey, Bayes had some pretty good notions on probabilities.

A blank slate is an empty sheet. Can be anything from a void, to, well a blank slate. Its something philosophers once thought with which humans came into the world. Have you tapped your patella recently?

Are you saying that the consciousness kind of comes from nothing and that it encompasses a sort of "microcosmic bubble"?

But then we can still know that reality is capable of these "bubbles" and that there is something outside of it. The bubble, we have to assume, interacts with that which is outside of the bubble. Everything that the bubble does not interact with is unknowable, sure, but quite irrelevant - left to wonder.

Yes, consciousness is a living thing, not something static.

It grows and changes and then after a while declines.

I think fromderinside is talking about the idea that consciousness truly emerges, which essentially means that it comes from nothing a void.

 

[Juma]

Thinking that I live in a reality that I don't will only cause confusion and problems. I might as well go for the truth even if it sucks and since that's all there is anyways.

If not, as untermenche would write, why have them.

Treating consciousness as coming from a blank slate just isn't going to do.

I don't know what you mean.

First I'd argue you don't know what is reality so thinking something about it is wasteful in any respect unless it pays off and you get to keep living - and you don't know that either. But, hey, Bayes had some pretty good notions on probabilities.

A blank slate is an empty sheet. Can be anything from a void, to, well a blank slate. Its something philosophers once thought with which humans came into the world. Have you tapped your patella recently?

Are you saying that the consciousness kind of comes from nothing and that it encompasses a sort of "microcosmic bubble"?

But then we can still know that reality is capable of these "bubbles" and that there is something outside of it. The bubble, we have to assume, interacts with that which is outside of the bubble. Everything that the bubble does not interact with is unknowable, sure, but quite irrelevant - left to wonder.

Yes, consciousness is a living thing, not something static.

It grows and changes and then after a while declines.

I think fromderinside is talking about the idea that consciousness truly emerges, which essentially means that it comes from nothing a void.

No. It comes from structured movement of particles. Not from void.

 

[untermensche]

Yes, consciousness is a living thing, not something static.

It grows and changes and then after a while declines.

I think fromderinside is talking about the idea that consciousness truly emerges, which essentially means that it comes from nothing a void.

It comes in a certain way because of genetic expression.

We have the consciousness of a human, a specific human, not just some generic free floating "consciousness".

 

[ryan]

Juma, Unter, I am making no personal comment on the idea of an emergent consciousness. I am simply trying to ask fromderinside if that is what he was talking about.

 

[fromderinside]

Thinking that I live in a reality that I don't will only cause confusion and problems. I might as well go for the truth even if it sucks and since that's all there is anyways.

If not, as untermenche would write, why have them.

Treating consciousness as coming from a blank slate just isn't going to do.

I don't know what you mean.

First I'd argue you don't know what is reality so thinking something about it is wasteful in any respect unless it pays off and you get to keep living - and you don't know that either. But, hey, Bayes had some pretty good notions on probabilities.

A blank slate is an empty sheet. Can be anything from a void, to, well a blank slate. Its something philosophers once thought with which humans came into the world. Have you tapped your patella recently?

Are you saying that the consciousness kind of comes from nothing and that it encompasses a sort of "microcosmic bubble"?

But then we can still know that reality is capable of these "bubbles" and that there is something outside of it. The bubble, we have to assume, interacts with that which is outside of the bubble. Everything that the bubble does not interact with is unknowable, sure, but quite irrelevant - left to wonder.

Yes, consciousness is a living thing, not something static.

It grows and changes and then after a while declines.

I think fromderinside is talking about the idea that consciousness truly emerges, which essentially means that it comes from nothing a void.

No. It comes from structured movement of particles. Not from void.

I try. Still, my 'splaining needs 'splaining. I'll give you 'structured' for the moment even though I don't really think that is so except at the macro level. I'm pretty sure time isn't determinant at the micro level, just order, action, and consequence.

R:No I'm not talking about emergent anything. Physical law, interaction, combination, and all that with probable changes in dimensions between small and large.

 

[DBT]

To which I replied by explaining and providing evidence that it is the brain that generates consciousness, self identity and a sense of agency. If this brain function fails, not only consciousness disintegrates but self identity and the sense of control.

You have provided your OPINION based on NO evidence. It is the position you start with. You do not demonstrate it in any way.

Nope, it is you offering your opinion in an attempt to maintain your beliefs.

I simply point to the fact that brain condition equals condition of consciousness, self identity/awareness and sense of control.

Plus I have given abundant evidence to support what I point out.

It's not even controversial, there are countless examples of patients in various stages of memory function decline that demonstrates the relationship between brain condition and progressive loss of conscious abilities and sense of control....which never was under the control of consciousness because it is the brain that forms and generates not only consciousness but self in relation to conscious actions decided and carried out.

Once the underlying mechanisms begin to fail, the nature of the agency becomes evident, ie, that it is the state and condition of a brain that determines all conscious output/experience and all actions that are decided and carried out.

But because you have your own beliefs, I don't expect you to accept the fact of brain agency.

I suspect that you prefer something other worldly, some mysterious agency from beyond the physical realm

 

[untermensche]

Talking about what happens when a brain is damaged tells us NOTHING about what that brain is doing when fully intact.

You lack the ability to draw logical conclusions.

If I take one of the tires off your car it won't work properly.

That tells us nothing about how an internal combustion engine works.