Consciousness

[untermensche]

Very little of our lives are conscious.

We sleep a lot.

And it is possible to be lazy and work off habit and to not attend very hard to much.

But it is also possible to attend very hard to many things.

Attending is a process through which sensors are directed to or tuned to stimuli. this is the primary way humans attend.

Sure, but it is something seemingly under conscious control.

We choose to attend to this or that.

Nothing is forcing us, or there is no experience of being forced.

You were force to be born. You are coerced (forced)to fit within your family, clan, party, company, etc. etc. etc.

Actually for a while there they were forced to conform to me.

I bellowed and they came running.

You nature forces you most often to consider consequences of what you are thinking of doing.

If any time is left feel free to feel you choose what your are or will do.

Our choices are not infinite.

But that does not mean the choices we can make are forced.

 

[DBT]

I thought it was clear enough, especially after everything I've said in the last ten years and countless threads. But maybe the past is instantly forgotten by some, that being convenient I guess.

Your question was - Okay, but does it affect anything? - and I pointed out its function. Nobody has ever claimed that consciousness has no function....it just isn't autonomous. It does what the brain is doing for, basically, the purpose I mentioned.

"Nobody has ever claimed that consciousness has no function"??? How about epiphenomenalists?

I'm not aware that we have any on this forum. And not all epiphenomenalists claim that consciousness has absolutely no role or function. If they do, they are wrong for the given reasons.

Anyways, we start with the mind. The mind detects itself and what other apparent minds are saying about it. These minds discover physical properties that make up the mind. But the mind is still there too. It is something extra to the physical properties, totally correlated to its physical properties but there nonetheless.

I don't know what you mean by the ''mind detects itself'' unless you mean self awareness....which is not being disputed. The mind has a different quality to the electrochemical activity that forms and generates mind, but that doesn't mean that it is in any way separate or autonomous. Different qualities form or emerge when the right conditions are present and active.

 

[DBT]

Attention can be reflexive.

But most of the time it is seemingly under conscious control.

I choose to attend to this or that. And I choose how hard I will attend.

Nothing is forcing me.

Except the underlying mechanism that is producing the whole show of you acting out your life, which is beneath the threshold of conscious experience...so you ignore it regardless of the research and evidence that contradicts what you experience and feel.

 

[fromderinside]

But it is also possible to attend very hard to many things.

You are using attend in a conscious philosophical context while I'm using attend in a scientific biological context. Very little in common between our use of attending. If I set up attend then you need to take that into account when you use attend countering my statements. Otherwise we may as well be swinging separate doors. See my definitional statement below.

Attending is a process through which sensors are directed to or tuned to stimuli. this is the primary way humans attend.

Sure, but it is something seemingly under conscious control.

We choose to attend to this or that.

Nothing is forcing us, or there is no experience of being forced.

Here's where you go off the rails and back into philosophical attending. Note my use of attended was in relation to is clearly in a biological, not philosophical context. If there is no consciousness of it does not mean it didn't take place. One is clearly unconscious of an attending when you sense a bus at the corner while you are stopped for a light and you suddenly crunch down on your brake. You brake because the forward motion of the bus leads to you responding as if you are moving. You didn't think about this. It happened and all you are conscious of is of your car seemingly going forward. Was that braking not forced?

You were forced to be born. You are coerced (forced)to fit within your family, clan, party, company, etc. etc. etc.

Actually for a while there they were forced to conform to me.

I bellowed and they came running.

You bellowed because you were hungry, uncomfortable, lonely, afraid, etc. So your parent came to calm you and attend to you. You were forced to bellow by the way since you had no idea what was causing you to not feel good at it was the only option nature had provided for you to get attention.

You nature forces you most often to consider consequences of what you are thinking of doing.

If any time is left feel free to feel you choose what your are or will do.

Our choices are not infinite.

But that does not mean the choices we can make are forced.

Didn't say that. I said most attended things are unconscious and never rise to consciousness and very often not even to an awareness.

You can't take an acknowledged biological attend and try to shoe horn it into a belief attend since it never rises to consciousness. When you say attend you are interpreting your subvocalized thought which you call consciousness. Go ahead and quibble about whether consciousness is just subvocalization, but, don't try to shoe horn a biological scientific use of a term into a feeling based philosophical term. The biological construct is based on operations which can be reliably repeated and demonstrated while the philosophical interpretation is based, as I wrote, on belief and scientifically considered phenomena (can't be validated by others by repeating actions).

 

[ryan]

I believe I provided you a citation to the difference between attending and awareness. Here it is again: Attention and Awareness Aren’t The Same https://www.psychologicalscience.or...nd-awareness-arent-the-same.html#.WO6qf4jyuUk

There are several ways one can be attending to things. One is something happens to draw your attention such as a twig snaps or there is a sudden movement off from your primary view. Is such cases you turn your head toward the the attention demanding source. If you are involved in a conversation, an interesting conversation with one you like or admire, you may not become aware that you have turned your head as you keep talking. But your sensory system is processing the information from the vicinity of the source.Here you are conscious of the one with whom you are conversing, probably not conscious of the fact you have just turned your head, but you may become aware there is a fly at which you unconsciously swat your hand.

So we have the full boat. You are conscious of your conversation, you are aware because your unconscious is aware of the fly, and you are attending, but unaware of the the fact that you turned your head while you are unconsciously aware of a fly which of which you are not conscious. Things may develop to the point where you include your awareness of the fly in your consciousness where you may include that awareness in your conversation as you move your head back to focus on your conversee.

You will recall the conversation, you may recall you swatted at a fly during that conversation, but, you may not be aware that you turned your head to point your sensors in the direction of the fly.

Now as to your assertions that science does or does not recognize conscious awareness. Science does recognize consciousness, awareness and the combination conscious awareness. Scientists disagree on the composition, purpose, and functions of these attributes.

None of this is relevant to whether one attends in some operationally defined high or low state. It is obvious by the differences in the operations of what is defined as high and low consciousness. Idle gaze on random a environmental object may or may not become relevant depending on what the state of consciousness relating to that gaze.

Abhorring a vacuum (not a scientific term, but useful here), one becomes aware of something, anything within one's gaze if there is nothing else one finds relevant. That is the gaze, perhaps the movement of an object upon which one is gazing will determine whether one becomes aware and conscious of the object, otherwise meaningless, in the observer's gaze field.

Please don't go to 'feeling' in this conversation. Humans are wired to make choices relevant to certain important circumstances. Surprising things can be life threatening. Consequently we are wire to process that kind of stuff almost as a reflex. Conversations with individuals can be life threaten so we generally remain conscious of such. In between sense systems, neural hormonal systems, body state systems, all have processes and connections to our arousal and attentional nervous system where interesting outcomes arise. like what I outlined above. I hope this helps

My suggestion to you is consider the human a set of systems and processes which all interact, sometimes confusingly, to provide the best surviving individual they can given our complex history. We are not one thing except by molecular arrangement. IOW we are of many minds, instincts, reflexes, more or less getting along in a single corpus.

Okay, I think I know what's going on here. Science will use "awareness" not for its actual existence but for its physical correlation to its mental existence.

But we still start with a mind, and we look for physical correlations to mental states. And I will agree that there are many one-to-one matches between mental and physical brain states and will probably be all there is. But the mind is still there in addition to its physical correlates. We can't detect other minds, but we can detect its physical correlates.

 

[ryan]

"Nobody has ever claimed that consciousness has no function"??? How about epiphenomenalists?

I'm not aware that we have any on this forum. And not all epiphenomenalists claim that consciousness has absolutely no role or function. If they do, they are wrong for the given reasons.

Yes, all epiphenomenalists do claim that the mind has no effect on the physical, "Epiphenomenalism is a position in the philosophy of mind according to which mental states or events are caused by physical states or events in the brain but do not themselves cause anything.". from http://www.iep.utm.edu/epipheno/

Anyways, we start with the mind. The mind detects itself and what other apparent minds are saying about it. These minds discover physical properties that make up the mind. But the mind is still there too. It is something extra to the physical properties, totally correlated to its physical properties but there nonetheless.

I don't know what you mean by the ''mind detects itself'' unless you mean self awareness....which is not being disputed. The mind has a different quality to the electrochemical activity that forms and generates mind, but that doesn't mean that it is in any way separate or autonomous. Different qualities form or emerge when the right conditions are present and active.

Of course not autonomous and not necessarily separate, but the mind is distinct from the physical properties that we are able to detect. I can agree that the mind is a quality of matter, and this quality exists as a result but in addition to its physical correlates.

 

[untermensche]

Attention can be reflexive.

But most of the time it is seemingly under conscious control.

I choose to attend to this or that. And I choose how hard I will attend.

Nothing is forcing me.

Except the underlying mechanism that is producing the whole show of you acting out your life, which is beneath the threshold of conscious experience...so you ignore it regardless of the research and evidence that contradicts what you experience and feel.

No research demonstrates anything close to that.

There is some research yes.

But it is so preliminary it is worthless for explaining any physiological phenomena. No part of brain physiology is explained beyond some of the workings of single cells. How cells work with each other to create things like vision and thinking is still complete mystery.

That anybody would try to hold this nothing up as an explanation of these matters is absurd.

 

[untermensche]

You are using attend in a conscious philosophical context while I'm using attend in a scientific biological context. Very little in common between our use of attending. If I set up attend then you need to take that into account when you use attend countering my statements. Otherwise we may as well be swinging separate doors. See my definitional statement below.

The science has to explain what is actually happening. It isn't science if it doesn't explain why I think I am consciously shifting my attention from one thing to another.

In other words, there is no science that explains this.

Here's where you go off the rails and back into philosophical attending. Note my use of attended was in relation to is clearly in a biological, not philosophical context.

You're simply not talking about the phenomena of attending.

Where the attention is "willfully" focused on this and that.

Of course for an animal to focus its attention it must have something to focus, like vision, and hearing, and the mind.

You are merely talking about the things the person can focus, not "attention".

Attention is an active process.

I must chose to attend to some matter.

Unless I am startled and the attention is momentarily drawn to some sound or sight.

I said most attended things are unconscious and never rise to consciousness and very often not even to an awareness.

Nothing one attends to is unconscious.

There may be stimulation that excites the brain somehow that one does not attend to.

Of course once the brain is stimulated the memory can be stimulated too.

So while one does not attend to some stimulus one may remember it.

 

[Juma]

I'm not aware that we have any on this forum. And not all epiphenomenalists claim that consciousness has absolutely no role or function. If they do, they are wrong for the given reasons.

Yes, all epiphenomenalists do claim that the mind has no effect on the physical, "Epiphenomenalism is a position in the philosophy of mind according to which mental states or events are caused by physical states or events in the brain but do not themselves cause anything.". from http://www.iep.utm.edu/epipheno/

Anyways, we start with the mind. The mind detects itself and what other apparent minds are saying about it. These minds discover physical properties that make up the mind. But the mind is still there too. It is something extra to the physical properties, totally correlated to its physical properties but there nonetheless.

I don't know what you mean by the ''mind detects itself'' unless you mean self awareness....which is not being disputed. The mind has a different quality to the electrochemical activity that forms and generates mind, but that doesn't mean that it is in any way separate or autonomous. Different qualities form or emerge when the right conditions are present and active.

Of course not autonomous and not necessarily separate, but the mind is distinct from the physical properties that we are able to detect. I can agree that the mind is a quality of matter, and this quality exists as a result but in addition to its physical correlates.

Epiphenomenalists are self refuting since if epiphenomenalism was true then how would anyone be able communicate the matter?

 

[fromderinside]

In order

1. BS. Science actually demonstrates how sudden external events changes one from considering one thing to another. The bus coming oup on the right is an example. One is focus on whatever, then one is focused on why one hit the brake.

2. Your attempt to sift from attending to focus isn't even clever. From a scientific point of view when one has eyes directed forward when a sound such as a branch breaking comes from the right one almost always turns one's head to the right just as I represented in my example of one talking to another, turning one's head and continues to talk to the other since the event leading to the head turn wasn't relevant to the speaker. That one may invent an excuse for turning right if questioned, but, usually she just turns back to the one with whom she is talking without any break in conversation or explanation for why she turned her head. Nor does she remember the sound leading to her head turn. Consciousness simply wasn't involve in the head turn.

3. Really? How does one explain breaking when the bus seen out of the corner of one's eye leads to a brake crush? How does one explain whay one doesn't remember a sound that obvious preceded a head turn during a conversation that isn't remembered later.

As for remembering is is much more likely one won't remember a head turn while in discussion or when one is pursuing a target on a screen while it is much less likely one will not attend to a stimulus and remember it later. Most of the time some invented 'memory' will be offered for a behavior observed to an event where the actual event will not be remembered. This kind of fits in with Libet's work in the late seventies.

 

[untermensche]

In order

1. BS. Science actually demonstrates how sudden external events changes one from considering one thing to another. The bus coming oup on the right is an example. One is focus on whatever, then one is focused on why one hit the brake.

Just like there is a reflex to pull the hand from the fire there is a reflex to turn the head and attend to some sudden sound or movement.

But there is also the ability to move the hand at "will" and point the attention to some chosen thing at "will".

Both phenomena exist, not just the reflexes.

Your attempt to sift from attending to focus isn't even clever.

Focusing the attention is what one can do with it.

They are not two things. Focusing is an aspect of attention. It is merely a label to describe what we can do with our attention.

We can focus our attention towards some matter.

Attention is an active process. Not a reflex.

 

[fromderinside]

Just like there is a reflex to pull the hand from the fire there is a reflex to turn the head and attend to some sudden sound or movement.

But there is also the ability to move the hand at "will" and point the attention to some chosen thing at "will".

Both phenomena exist, not just the reflexes.

Your attempt to sift from attending to focus isn't even clever.

Focusing the attention is what one can do with it.

They are not two things. Focusing is an aspect of attention. It is merely a label to describe what we can do with our attention.

We can focus our attention towards some matter.

Attention is an active process. Not a reflex.

You are wasting my time.

Scientific use of attention is formed though operational definitions. Philosophical use of atttention is just about anything anyone wants to do with it. As a topic in philosophy it's just a tea and cakes thing. As a topic in life sciences it is a fundamental pillar in sensation, perception, and learning theory. One of these things is better than the other. OK. Moving on.

I point out a fundamental part that attention plays in cognition and you play with the word attention. nuff sed.

 

[untermensche]

Just like there is a reflex to pull the hand from the fire there is a reflex to turn the head and attend to some sudden sound or movement.

But there is also the ability to move the hand at "will" and point the attention to some chosen thing at "will".

Both phenomena exist, not just the reflexes.



Focusing the attention is what one can do with it.

They are not two things. Focusing is an aspect of attention. It is merely a label to describe what we can do with our attention.

We can focus our attention towards some matter.

Attention is an active process. Not a reflex.

You are wasting my time.

Scientific use of attention is formed though operational definitions. Philosophical use of atttention is just about anything anyone wants to do with it. As a topic in philosophy it's just a tea and cakes thing. As a topic in life sciences it is a fundamental pillar in sensation, perception, and learning theory. One of these things is better than the other. OK. Moving on.

It is not "philosophy".

It is experience. Repeated experience.

Science has to actually include experience in any explanation.

 

[ryan]

Yes, all epiphenomenalists do claim that the mind has no effect on the physical, "Epiphenomenalism is a position in the philosophy of mind according to which mental states or events are caused by physical states or events in the brain but do not themselves cause anything.". from http://www.iep.utm.edu/epipheno/

Anyways, we start with the mind. The mind detects itself and what other apparent minds are saying about it. These minds discover physical properties that make up the mind. But the mind is still there too. It is something extra to the physical properties, totally correlated to its physical properties but there nonetheless.

I don't know what you mean by the ''mind detects itself'' unless you mean self awareness....which is not being disputed. The mind has a different quality to the electrochemical activity that forms and generates mind, but that doesn't mean that it is in any way separate or autonomous. Different qualities form or emerge when the right conditions are present and active.

Of course not autonomous and not necessarily separate, but the mind is distinct from the physical properties that we are able to detect. I can agree that the mind is a quality of matter, and this quality exists as a result but in addition to its physical correlates.

Epiphenomenalists are self refuting since if epiphenomenalism was true then how would anyone be able communicate the matter?

I don't think epiphenomenalism is complete as is. I just think it's the best start.

But the communication is a more general problem for the consciousness called aboutness/intentionality.

 

[DBT]

Except the underlying mechanism that is producing the whole show of you acting out your life, which is beneath the threshold of conscious experience...so you ignore it regardless of the research and evidence that contradicts what you experience and feel.

No research demonstrates anything close to that.

Yes it does. I provided ample research to support what I say, but you typically either brush it aside or ignore it altogether,

Another small sample;

A parietal-premotor network for movement intention and motor awareness
''It is commonly assumed that we are conscious of our movements mainly because we can sense ourselves moving as ongoing peripheral information coming from our muscles and retina reaches the brain. Recent evidence, however, suggests that, contrary to common beliefs, conscious intention to move is independent of movement execution per se. We propose that during movement execution it is our initial intentions that we are mainly aware of. Furthermore, the experience of moving as a conscious act is associated with increased activity in a specific brain region: the posterior parietal cortex. We speculate that movement intention and awareness are generated and monitored in this region. We put forward a general framework of the cognitive and neural processes involved in movement intention and motor awareness.''

Movement Intention After Parietal Cortex Stimulation in Humans;
''Parietal and premotor cortex regions are serious contenders for bringing motor intentions and motor responses into awareness. We used electrical stimulation in seven patients undergoing awake brain surgery. Stimulating the right inferior parietal regions triggered a strong intention and desire to move the contralateral hand, arm, or foot, whereas stimulating the left inferior parietal region provoked the intention to move the lips and to talk. When stimulation intensity was increased in parietal areas, participants believed they had really performed these movements, although no electromyographic activity was detected. Stimulation of the premotor region triggered overt mouth and contralateral limb movements. Yet, patients firmly denied that they had moved. Conscious intention and motor awareness thus arise from increased parietal activity before movement execution.''

Quote;
we presented evidence that the brain, when tricked by optical and sensory illusions, can quickly adopt another human form as its own, no matter how different it is. We designed two experiments. In the first one, the researchers fitted the head of a mannequin with two cameras connected to two small screens placed in front of the volunteers eyes, so that the volunteer could see what the mannequin saw.

When the mannequins camera eyes and the volunteers head, complete with the camera goggles, were directed downwards, the volunteer saw the dummys body where he or she would normally have seen his or her own body. By simultaneously touching the stomachs of both the volunteer and the mannequin, we could create the illusion of body swapping.''


Mr untermensche, you have no case to argue. You never had a case to argue....yet you argue regardless of having no evidence to support your assertions and no case to present.

 

[DBT]

Of course not autonomous and not necessarily separate, but the mind is distinct from the physical properties that we are able to detect. I can agree that the mind is a quality of matter, and this quality exists as a result but in addition to its physical correlates.

It's your assertion ''but in addition to'' its physical correlates that is problematic. It is problematic because it suggests that the physical process of consciousness formation is conjuring something from an external source, mind out of the ether, the astral realm or the twilight zone....

 

[ryan]

Of course not autonomous and not necessarily separate, but the mind is distinct from the physical properties that we are able to detect. I can agree that the mind is a quality of matter, and this quality exists as a result but in addition to its physical correlates.

It's your assertion ''but in addition to'' its physical correlates that is problematic. It is problematic because it suggests that the physical process of consciousness formation is conjuring something from an external source, mind out of the ether, the astral realm or the twilight zone....

The consciousness is basically just a reflection of the physical from the physical. At least that's the best explanation that I know. Your explanation pretends that consciousness does not exist. It's the easy way out but also the wrong way out.

 

[DBT]

It's your assertion ''but in addition to'' its physical correlates that is problematic. It is problematic because it suggests that the physical process of consciousness formation is conjuring something from an external source, mind out of the ether, the astral realm or the twilight zone....

The consciousness is basically just a reflection of the physical from the physical. At least that's the best explanation that I know. Your explanation pretends that consciousness does not exist. It's the easy way out but also the wrong way out.

Where you get that from based on anything I have ever said is beyond me. I suspect that you are playing games, ryan. Saying whatever come to mind regardless of what is actually said.

 

[ryan]

The consciousness is basically just a reflection of the physical from the physical. At least that's the best explanation that I know. Your explanation pretends that consciousness does not exist. It's the easy way out but also the wrong way out.

Where you get that from based on anything I have ever said is beyond me. I suspect that you are playing games, ryan. Saying whatever come to mind regardless of what is actually said.

The "consciousness" that you believe in is just a scientific name for a certain kind of brain activity. I am talking about the actual consciousness.

 

[OLDMAN]

The spider builds a beautiful web. It does so from instinct. Knowledge actually passed on from generation of spiders before it. If we ignore what we know about genetics and different species of spiders, we could easily pretend this knowledge is transmitted some other way. But we have to ignore reality. Einstein warned Schroder not to ignore reality. I would think at this stage in history only a fool would argue with Einstein.