• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Consciousness

You are not making any comment on my position.

The issue is HOW the brain is making consciousness.

Not WHERE?

Ablation studies only tell about where.

They tell us NOTHING about HOW.

A steady supply of oxygen is a necessary condition for consciousness.

How is oxygen involved in the production of consciousness?
 
You are not making any comment on my position.

The issue is HOW the brain is making consciousness.

Not WHERE?

Ablation studies only tell about where.

They tell us NOTHING about HOW.

A steady supply of oxygen is a necessary condition for consciousness.

How is oxygen involved in the production of consciousness?

Not every reply to you has to be a comment on your position. It could be that you just said something really wrong and I'm trying to help you understand why it was wrong. Have you ever admitted you were wrong about something?
 
You are not making any comment on my position.

The issue is HOW the brain is making consciousness.

Not WHERE?

Ablation studies only tell about where.

They tell us NOTHING about HOW.

A steady supply of oxygen is a necessary condition for consciousness.

How is oxygen involved in the production of consciousness?

Not every reply to you has to be a comment on your position. It could be that you just said something really wrong and I'm trying to help you understand why it was wrong. Have you ever admitted you were wrong about something?

No you are nitpicking and misinterpreting.

I am talking about the alleged brain "activity" that produces consciousness.

Ablation studies tell us NOTHING about that.
 
Not every reply to you has to be a comment on your position. It could be that you just said something really wrong and I'm trying to help you understand why it was wrong. Have you ever admitted you were wrong about something?

No you are nitpicking and misinterpreting.

I am talking about the alleged brain "activity" that produces consciousness.

Ablation studies tell us NOTHING about that.

Sigh
 
No you are nitpicking and misinterpreting.

I am talking about the alleged brain "activity" that produces consciousness.

Ablation studies tell us NOTHING about that.

Sigh

Sure.

All your fury was over nothing.

My focus throughout this thread has been on the alleged "activity" that produces consciousness.

People claim it is the brain doing it.

I say, fine.

What specific activity?

Don't give me some uselessness like, "all of it".
 

Sure.

All your fury was over nothing.

My focus throughout this thread has been on the alleged "activity" that produces consciousness.

People claim it is the brain doing it.

I say, fine.

What specific activity?

Don't give me some uselessness like, "all of it".

I have not studied neurology, so I may be mistaken here or there. Nevertheless. Due to MRI studies we know which areas of the brain light up when telling truth or lying. They are different. The conscious effort of making it up is different from the unconscious non-effort of remembering. We know that our consciousness lags reality. It takes time for a sensory experience to be processed. The amygdala may give you a fear response before you are consciously aware of the same information. One case is the startle reflex. When someone announces "I'll think about it" what does he mean? That he will consciously reason about his past experience and reach a conclusion later. There is both conscious and unconscious reasoning. Everyone know that "If he's six feet tall then I'm a monkey's uncle" as meaning he's not six feet tall [hidden premise:I am not a monkey's uncle.] Yet few know that denying the consequent disproves the premise having proved it consciously. A strange experiment was done in which three groups of high school basketball students were given different off season regimens. 1/3 did nothing, 1/3 practiced at the gym, and 1/3 imagined practicing and hitting every shot. At the beginning of the next season the last group improved most. The power of self belief. There is so much more. Specific enough?
 
...Due to MRI studies we know which areas of the brain light up when telling truth or lying....

That would be nice.

Were it true.

It all depends on how much practice one has in deception.

The hypothesis is that people will use more prefrontal activity and things like that when lying.

It is not direct detection of lies or any kind of understanding of brain activity.

But a practiced liar will not use any more brain activity to lie then they will to tell the truth.
 
Sure.

All your fury was over nothing.

My focus throughout this thread has been on the alleged "activity" that produces consciousness.

People claim it is the brain doing it.

I say, fine.

What specific activity?

Don't give me some uselessness like, "all of it".

I have not studied neurology, so I may be mistaken here or there. Nevertheless. Due to MRI studies we know which areas of the brain light up when telling truth or lying. They are different. The conscious effort of making it up is different from the unconscious non-effort of remembering. We know that our consciousness lags reality. It takes time for a sensory experience to be processed. The amygdala may give you a fear response before you are consciously aware of the same information. One case is the startle reflex. When someone announces "I'll think about it" what does he mean? That he will consciously reason about his past experience and reach a conclusion later. There is both conscious and unconscious reasoning. Everyone know that "If he's six feet tall then I'm a monkey's uncle" as meaning he's not six feet tall [hidden premise:I am not a monkey's uncle.] Yet few know that denying the consequent disproves the premise having proved it consciously. A strange experiment was done in which three groups of high school basketball students were given different off season regimens. 1/3 did nothing, 1/3 practiced at the gym, and 1/3 imagined practicing and hitting every shot. At the beginning of the next season the last group improved most. The power of self belief. There is so much more. Specific enough?

About training just by thinking: That is NOT the power of self belief. As a musician I do this a lot: playing excercises on my saxophone in my mind only. That enforces the fine control of muscles and the makes "paths" in the brain. Thats why it works.
 
They are learning something.

Learning areas. Some area is involved in vision, or maybe even involved somehow in recognition of horizontal lines.

Areas associated with some function, that's what we know from ablation.

But it is all a stalling tactic.

We already know the brain is involved.

The question is: How is it doing it? How is it involved?

Not where is it doing it.

Since we know something about local brain function when we are presented with a subject which had that function who now hasn't got that part we can confirm what is known and modify what is changed from what we know.

Funny thing happened on the way to knowing how parts of the brain function is that when something goes wrong other parts of the brain associated with the parts gone wrong change their sources to those that remain to do some of the things that the missing part provided. Blind people use visual cortex to provide location information available from auditory and somesthetic inputs. Wow. Who'da thunk?

On a very simplistic level the process of lateral inhibition, negative polarization of cells nearby those stimulated increase target precision is one of those things we know, have known since the 19th century, and know it now as a fundamental process of sensory conduction.

Another basic is association. Information in any channel is associated with similar information previously in that channel and with similar information in other channels. Its another principle of brain functional organization we've known since the 19th century. Where did you get your education anyway.
 
They are learning something.

Learning areas. Some area is involved in vision, or maybe even involved somehow in recognition of horizontal lines.

Areas associated with some function, that's what we know from ablation.

But it is all a stalling tactic.

We already know the brain is involved.

The question is: How is it doing it? How is it involved?

Not where is it doing it.

Since we know something about local brain function when we are presented with a subject which had that function who now hasn't got that part we can confirm what is known and modify what is changed from what we know.

Funny thing happened on the way to knowing how parts of the brain function is that when something goes wrong other parts of the brain associated with the parts gone wrong change their sources to those that remain to do some of the things that the missing part provided. Blind people use visual cortex to provide location information available from auditory and somesthetic inputs. Wow. Who'da thunk?

On a very simplistic level the process of lateral inhibition, negative polarization of cells nearby those stimulated increase target precision is one of those things we know, have known since the 19th century, and know it now as a fundamental process of sensory conduction.

Another basic is association. Information in any channel is associated with similar information previously in that channel and with similar information in other channels. Its another principle of brain functional organization we've known since the 19th century. Where did you get your education anyway.

The fact that the brain can actually attempt to transfer function from one part of the brain to another in the event of damage, the plasticity of the brain, just makes the whole thing much more complicated.

We don't understand the physiology of consciousness more by understanding the brain has a certain level of plasticity.
 
The correlation and relationship between consciousness and brain is established to the point where there is not a single example of consciousness that is not directly related to the workings of a functional brain. The architecture and state of the brain being expressed in the form and function of conscious output and associated behaviour patterns.

I'd like to hear your answer to his question, though. I actually agree with everything you wrote, but I can't deny that we're still talking about two things that are tightly correlated, not one thing.

I'd say it's more than correlation. If you drink alcohol you reach the point where your cognitive functions are effected. Which alters conscious perception, decision making and response times.

Keep drinking and you pass out. Your consciousness is switched off because the brain is so intoxicated that it's unable to sustain conscious activity.

This is not mere correlation. It is causation. Repeatable. Testable. Confirmable. Alcohol and other chemical substances interfere with brain function, which in turn effects its production/expression of conscious activity.
 
No, seriously, you need to stop and have a good hard look at what you are saying. It's bad. You seem to be a decent enough guy but you not doing yourself any favours by posting this stuff.

Your comments are hilarious.

You have no ability to reason. No ability to deal with ideas.

No ability to think independently.

You have been spoon fed a bunch of garbage you don't understand.

And it is frustrating to you that people keep pointing out how little you actually know.

No, that's still you. You get frustrated with your inability to argue your case, not being able to deal with the evidence stacked against you, you throw a dummy spit and resort to insulting your opponent.

Sorry, you have lost. Not that you had any chance to begin with...not having a case to argue.
 
I'd say it's more than correlation. If you drink alcohol you reach the point where your cognitive functions are effected. Which alters conscious perception, decision making and response times.

Keep drinking and you pass out. Your consciousness is switched off because the brain is so intoxicated that it's unable to sustain conscious activity.

This is not mere correlation. It is causation. Repeatable. Testable. Confirmable. Alcohol and other chemical substances interfere with brain function, which in turn effects its production/expression of conscious activity.

It shows that normal brain function is associated with consciousness. A CORRELATION exists.

It doesn't say how consciousness is achieved or exclude the possibility that something external to the brain is also involved.

To exclude externalities the phenomena must be understood.
 
Your comments are hilarious.

You have no ability to reason. No ability to deal with ideas.

No ability to think independently.

You have been spoon fed a bunch of garbage you don't understand.

And it is frustrating to you that people keep pointing out how little you actually know.

No, that's still you. You get frustrated with your inability to argue your case, not being able to deal with the evidence stacked against you, you throw a dummy spit and resort to insulting your opponent.

Sorry, you have lost. Not that you had any chance to begin with...not having a case to argue.

I insult people trying to sell me nonsense.

I have lost nothing.

You have nothing.

You have no understanding of consciousness beyond your own subjective experience.

Not one bit.
 
No, that's still you. You get frustrated with your inability to argue your case, not being able to deal with the evidence stacked against you, you throw a dummy spit and resort to insulting your opponent.

Sorry, you have lost. Not that you had any chance to begin with...not having a case to argue.

I insult people trying to sell me nonsense.

I have lost nothing.

You have nothing.

You have no understanding of consciousness beyond your own subjective experience.

Not one bit.

There, there, Lad...a few deep breaths and you'll feel better. Unless you breath too deep for too long and get dizzy and fall over...excess oxygen effecting the brain and thereby consciousness. ;)
 
I'd say it's more than correlation. If you drink alcohol you reach the point where your cognitive functions are effected. Which alters conscious perception, decision making and response times.

Keep drinking and you pass out. Your consciousness is switched off because the brain is so intoxicated that it's unable to sustain conscious activity.

This is not mere correlation. It is causation. Repeatable. Testable. Confirmable. Alcohol and other chemical substances interfere with brain function, which in turn effects its production/expression of conscious activity.

It shows that normal brain function is associated with consciousness. A CORRELATION exists.

It doesn't say how consciousness is achieved or exclude the possibility that something external to the brain is also involved.

To exclude externalities the phenomena must be understood.

Nah, getting drunk is testable and repeatable and the effects of alcohol on the brain and thereby the cognitive process is well understood. People have been doing it for centuries.

Cause and effect. Consume enough alcohol and you get drunk. Which effects the brains cognitive functions and conscious experience. Reliable as Orbital Mechanics.
 
I'd like to hear your answer to his question, though. I actually agree with everything you wrote, but I can't deny that we're still talking about two things that are tightly correlated, not one thing.

I'd say it's more than correlation. If you drink alcohol you reach the point where your cognitive functions are effected. Which alters conscious perception, decision making and response times.

Keep drinking and you pass out. Your consciousness is switched off because the brain is so intoxicated that it's unable to sustain conscious activity.

This is not mere correlation. It is causation. Repeatable. Testable. Confirmable. Alcohol and other chemical substances interfere with brain function, which in turn effects its production/expression of conscious activity.

Okay, I agree with all that too. But that just brings me back to what I said before, this is a case of one thing causing changes in another thing. The one thing is the brain, the other thing is...? I would say this other thing has an independent existence and isn't fully described as merely a brain activity/process/configuration; those are the things that cause it to happen or to come into existence. Or is that false, and the activity/process/configuration somehow is consciousness in all its subjectivity? Is this even a meaningful question? There is probably no experiment that could decide the answer, but that could just mean we've run up against the limit of our conceptual tools. On this point I tend to agree with the new mysterians.
 
After thinking it through and reading this thread a bit it seems like we have a constantly shifting attentional/awareness focal point, and we are 'conscious of' things via that shifting focal point. So 'consciousness' describes the relationship between the brain and objects of awareness/attention, whether that object is an internal representation of the imagination, or something external.

Further, how the brain represents the object is contingent on what we know about the object. So having more knowledge necessarily changes our representation of the external world.

It seems intuitive at face, but I don't think a lot of people explicitly realize that exact point.
 
I'd say it's more than correlation. If you drink alcohol you reach the point where your cognitive functions are effected. Which alters conscious perception, decision making and response times.

Keep drinking and you pass out. Your consciousness is switched off because the brain is so intoxicated that it's unable to sustain conscious activity.

This is not mere correlation. It is causation. Repeatable. Testable. Confirmable. Alcohol and other chemical substances interfere with brain function, which in turn effects its production/expression of conscious activity.

Okay, I agree with all that too. But that just brings me back to what I said before, this is a case of one thing causing changes in another thing. The one thing is the brain, the other thing is...? I would say this other thing has an independent existence and isn't fully described as merely a brain activity/process/configuration; those are the things that cause it to happen or to come into existence. Or is that false, and the activity/process/configuration somehow is consciousness in all its subjectivity? Is this even a meaningful question? There is probably no experiment that could decide the answer, but that could just mean we've run up against the limit of our conceptual tools. On this point I tend to agree with the new mysterians.

I hope you have better luck getting through than I did. DBT does not seem willing to really understand the "what it's like to be ..." articulation. There is what it's like to be X and there is what it's like not to be X. Why do I only know what it's like to be me, but you don't? It's just not even a scientific question/concern. It has no physical explanation because there is no physical difference between subjectivity X and no subjectivity of X.

DBT will just stick to scientific knowledge and will never know anything was left out.
 
Back
Top Bottom