Consciousness

[untermensche]

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'm just fine.

It is true.

But don't feel bad.

Nobody has the slightest idea what consciousness is, beyond their subjective experience of it.

You are not alone.

 

[DBT]

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 brainactivity/process/configuration.

I don't see that consciousness is in any way separable from the brain and its electrochemical activity of information representation. Consciousness appears to be an evolved function of sufficiently complex brains....working up the scale from rudimentary perception of the world by light sensitive cells transmitting information to small bundles of interconnected neurons providing a sense of light and shadow and movement to respond to (danger, food, shelter, etc), through to the incredibly complex human brain...each producing a representation of world and self in accordance to what its architecture enables.

Pattern recognition (enabled by memory function) is considered the key to consciousness. Somehow, we don't know how, the patterns of firings are interpreted by the system of recognition as conscious sensation.

Quote;
''Neuroscientists have repeatedly pointed out that pattern recognition represents the key to understanding cognition in humans. Pattern recognition also forms the very basis by which we predict future events, i e. we are literally forced to make assumptions concerning outcomes,and we do so by relying on sequences of events experienced in the past.''

''Huettel et al. point out that their study identifies the role various regions of prefrontal cortex play in moment-to-moment processing of mental events in order to make predictions about future events. Thus implicit predictive models are formed which need to be continuously updated, the disruption of sequence would indicate that the PFC is engaged in a novelty response to pattern changes. As a third possible explanation, Ivry and Knight propose that activation of the prefrontal cortex may reflect the generation of hypotheses, since the formulation of an hypothesis is an essential feature of higher-level cognition.
A monitoring of participants awareness during pattern recognition could provide a test of the PFC’s ability to formulate hypotheses concerning future outcomes.''

 

[DBT]

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.

The problem lies not with me. I just stay with the evidence. I have repeatedly pointed out that how the brain forms consciousness is not currently understood but that all of the evidence points to brain agency....and I have provided much evidence to support what I point out. Which is not considered controversial, in fact being the prevailing view in neuroscience.

So the problem lies not with me or what I point out, but your own assertions. Assertions that are based on speculation and not evidence, assertions that are not accepted as viable explanations for consciousness by anyone except the fringe element.

 

[ryan]

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 brainactivity/process/configuration.

I don't see that consciousness is in any way separable from the brain and its electrochemical activity of information representation.

Sorry DBT, but you are obviously dodging the question or not understanding it. If you say that A is inseparable from B, you are indirectly implying that there are two things, body and mind.

 

[ryan]

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.

The problem lies not with me. I just stay with the evidence. I have repeatedly pointed out that how the brain forms consciousness is not currently understood but that all of the evidence points to brain agency....and I have provided much evidence to support what I point out. Which is not considered controversial, in fact being the prevailing view in neuroscience.

So the problem lies not with me or what I point out, but your own assertions. Assertions that are based on speculation and not evidence, assertions that are not accepted as viable explanations for consciousness by anyone except the fringe element.

This is like saying that you have a telescope and you are seeing all kinds of things. But because you can't see the telescope with the telescope, you don't believe it exists. (telescope being subjectivity of course)

 

[DBT]

The problem lies not with me. I just stay with the evidence. I have repeatedly pointed out that how the brain forms consciousness is not currently understood but that all of the evidence points to brain agency....and I have provided much evidence to support what I point out. Which is not considered controversial, in fact being the prevailing view in neuroscience.

So the problem lies not with me or what I point out, but your own assertions. Assertions that are based on speculation and not evidence, assertions that are not accepted as viable explanations for consciousness by anyone except the fringe element.

This is like saying that you have a telescope and you are seeing all kinds of things. But because you can't see the telescope with the telescope, you don't believe it exists. (telescope being subjectivity of course)

Nope. That's not it at all. Speculation is fine, but you guys go too far, taking speculative ideas as legitimate models for consciousness.

Postulating quantum consciousness or panpsychism may be interesting but still doesn't explain consciousness in any way, shape or form.

Meanwhile the evidence is all stacked in favour of brain agency.

 

[DBT]

I don't see that consciousness is in any way separable from the brain and its electrochemical activity of information representation.

Sorry DBT, but you are obviously dodging the question or not understanding it. If you say that A is inseparable from B, you are indirectly implying that there are two things, body and mind.

Sorry, but you need to look at your own failings, unfounded speculation being spruiked as viable explanations....which they are not. And I've already said that how the brain forms conscious representation of information is not understood....hence there is nothing I can say about that.

All I can do is point to the evidence in favour of brain agency, which is the nearly universally accepted model, except of course for the fringe ideas, idealists and mavericks...which happens to be your position.

 

[ryan]

This is like saying that you have a telescope and you are seeing all kinds of things. But because you can't see the telescope with the telescope, you don't believe it exists. (telescope being subjectivity of course)

Nope. That's not it at all. Speculation is fine, but you guys go too far, taking speculative ideas as legitimate models for consciousness.

Postulating quantum consciousness or panpsychism may be interesting but still doesn't explain consciousness in any way, shape or form.

Meanwhile the evidence is all stacked in favour of brain agency.

Here you go again using agency as a strawman. We are only talking about the existence of the mind as a thing in addition to the brain; that's it. You avoided PyramidHead, and now you are avoiding me.

 

[DBT]

Nope. That's not it at all. Speculation is fine, but you guys go too far, taking speculative ideas as legitimate models for consciousness.

Postulating quantum consciousness or panpsychism may be interesting but still doesn't explain consciousness in any way, shape or form.

Meanwhile the evidence is all stacked in favour of brain agency.

Here you go again using agency as a strawman. We are only talking about the existence of the mind as a thing in addition to the brain; that's it. You avoided PyramidHead, and now you are avoiding me.

I avoided nothing. I clearly said that there is no evidence for something additional.

As a certain form of brain activity is classed as conscious activity, there is no additional consciousness.

The brain appears to be doing it, forming the information content of consciousness, generating it and perceiving its patterns in the form of images, thoughts and feelings; sensation.

Substance dualism is dead in the water.

I've already said this numerous times but you ignore what I say, repeat the questions and then claim I don't address your questions.

It's like groundhog day.

 

[ryan]

Here you go again using agency as a strawman. We are only talking about the existence of the mind as a thing in addition to the brain; that's it. You avoided PyramidHead, and now you are avoiding me.

I avoided nothing. I clearly said that there is no evidence for something additional.

As a certain form of brain activity is classed as conscious activity, there is no additional consciousness.

The brain appears to be doing it, forming the information content of consciousness, generating it and perceiving its patterns in the form of images, thoughts and feelings; sensation.

Substance dualism is dead in the water.

But why are you talking about it like it's another thing. Look at what I put in bold.

I've already said this numerous times but you ignore what I say, repeat the questions and then claim I don't address your questions.

It's like groundhog day.

Look back; you weren't addressing Pyramid's question explicitly.

 

[DBT]

I avoided nothing. I clearly said that there is no evidence for something additional.

As a certain form of brain activity is classed as conscious activity, there is no additional consciousness.

The brain appears to be doing it, forming the information content of consciousness, generating it and perceiving its patterns in the form of images, thoughts and feelings; sensation.

Substance dualism is dead in the water.

But why are you talking about it like it's another thing. Look at what I put in bold.

That's just the limitations of language. I may say 'I am conscious' even though it is the brain is forming both the experience of consciousness and self being conscious, with no substance or entity separation. The wording doesn't mean that a different substance is introduced during conscious activity.

Which I have already said in other threads.

It is the brain forming consciousness using its own substance and its activity (not that there is a 'user' which is a example of the problem with semantics). The brain is doing what it has evolved to do. Nothing comes from elsewhere during conscious representation of information, except information from the external world via the senses of course.

 

[PyramidHead]

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 brainactivity/process/configuration.

I don't see that consciousness is in any way separable from the brain and its electrochemical activity of information representation. Consciousness appears to be an evolved function of sufficiently complex brains....working up the scale from rudimentary perception of the world by light sensitive cells transmitting information to small bundles of interconnected neurons providing a sense of light and shadow and movement to respond to (danger, food, shelter, etc), through to the incredibly complex human brain...each producing a representation of world and self in accordance to what its architecture enables.

When two things are inseparable, like twins who never leave each other's side, the fact is that they are still two things. I'll leave out the rest about pattern recognition because it has to to with cognition and not consciousness (which by now I hope you understand I mean subjective experience).

Actually, cognition is a good way to illustrate why I am interested in this. I don't have any problem saying that cognition is a function of the brain, or even just an activity of the brain. It's very much a 'how' question. Once we understand the process of cognition, we will understand cognition.

The subjective experience of the mind, including perhaps the subjective experience of cognition, is a totally separate topic, even though it may in reality be inseparable from whatever the brain is doing--cognition, for instance. I am not asking about how the brain produces consciousness, and I don't disagree that it produces consciousness in its entirety; what I am interested in is the ontological status of what is being produced.

You used the word 'representation'... a representation is always a point-to-able phenomenon, distinct from the procedure that gave rise to it (and distinct from what is being represented!). We can point to a digital display and identify it as representation of some state of the computer, a scoreboard as a representation of the activity of the opposing teams, a ledger as a representation of monetary transactions. It's always something publicly observable. So, if you're being consistent, you can't really say that consciousness is a representation of the world created by the activity of the brain, but also is one and the same thing as the activity of the brain as it represents the world. That's like saying a digital display is both a representation of the computer's internal activity and simultaneously no more than that exact internal activity. Representations are independent from what they represent, even if they can't be separated from it.

None of this goes against what is known about brain agency. I would venture to say the two topics are scarcely related.

 

[ryan]

But why are you talking about it like it's another thing. Look at what I put in bold.

That's just the limitations of language. I may say 'I am conscious' even though it is the brain is forming both the experience of consciousness and self being conscious, with no substance or entity separation. The wording doesn't mean that a different substance is introduced during conscious activity.

So you are identifying experience as something that is formed by the consciousness but it is not itself a thing that exists. How does this make any sense DBT?

 

[PyramidHead]

That's just the limitations of language. I may say 'I am conscious' even though it is the brain is forming both the experience of consciousness and self being conscious, with no substance or entity separation. The wording doesn't mean that a different substance is introduced during conscious activity.

So you are identifying experience as something that is formed by the consciousness but it is not itself a thing that exists. How does this make any sense DBT?

I was thinking about this too. It sometimes makes sense to refer to things even if don't exist as objects or substances. Like "the well-being of our baseball team" or "the possibility that I will get fired". You could talk about those things, and even say how they are related to the physical world, without committing to them being actual separate entities. It could be that DBT is thinking of consciousness in that way, as something like a concept/idea that only exists as an abstraction. If so, then we are talking about totally different things.

 

[ryan]

So you are identifying experience as something that is formed by the consciousness but it is not itself a thing that exists. How does this make any sense DBT?

I was thinking about this too. It sometimes makes sense to refer to things even if don't exist as objects or substances. Like "the well-being of our baseball team" or "the possibility that I will get fired". You could talk about those things, and even say how they are related to the physical world, without committing to them being actual separate entities. It could be that DBT is thinking of consciousness in that way, as something like a concept/idea that only exists as an abstraction. If so, then we are talking about totally different things.

There is just no denying the concrete existence of the subjectivity of experiences; that's what we know exists for sure. The objectivity is what is discovered through each subjective account since all births of scientists/mankind. We all grow and create an objective map/model/construct in each of our subjective spaces. We start with inner experiences and go from there.

You can't start with objectivity in your own subjective space and take subjectivity out of existence - it has to be in there as something in addition to the construction of the apparent objective reality.

Science puts everything in a agreed upon objective map/model/construct. There is no place or use for subjectivity in it, but each one of us knows it's there. Subjectivity exists as something additional to objectivity.

DBT just can't see than non-mental instruments only able to detect non-mental phenomena and that only send non-mental information are obviously not going to find evidence for mental phenomena (mind), something we all know we have.

 

[Juma]

That's just the limitations of language. I may say 'I am conscious' even though it is the brain is forming both the experience of consciousness and self being conscious, with no substance or entity separation. The wording doesn't mean that a different substance is introduced during conscious activity.

So you are identifying experience as something that is formed by the consciousness but it is not itself a thing that exists. How does this make any sense DBT?

There are more to existence than being a thing...

 

[ryan]

So you are identifying experience as something that is formed by the consciousness but it is not itself a thing that exists. How does this make any sense DBT?

There are more to existence than being a thing...

Like?

What could possibly exist that is not a thing? It would be no-thing, nothing.

That is not logical by definition.

 

[Juma]

There are more to existence than being a thing...

Like?

Think about it.

 

[ryan]

Like?

Think about it.

What could possibly exist that is not a thing? It would be no-thing, nothing.

That is not logical by definition.

 

[Juma]

There are more to existence than being a thing...

Like?

What could possibly exist that is not a thing? It would be no-thing, nothing.

That is not logical by definition.

Patterns have a life beyond that what makes up the pattern.
Waves moves between different media.
The waves have an existence in themselves.