Consciousness

[untermensche]

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.

If you want to discuss studies present them.

But nothing can be done simply with abstracts.

These are preliminary studies that raise more questions than they answer. They do not explain anything.

But if one has a strong enough prejudice they might cause an ignorant person to think they do.

 

[George S]

There is something "like it" to be conscious. The patterns of activity in the human brain generate the first person experience. Seeming to be a viewer of external reality.
Is there something "like it" to be a jellyfish? ... to be a sponge? ... to be a flea? ... to be a cockroach? ... to be a wasp? ... to be a tadpole? ... to be a fish? ... to be a dragonfly? ... to be a mouse? ... to be a bat?
Does a man know what it is like to be a woman? Does a woman know what it is like to be a man? Does anyone else know what it is like to be you?
I know there is something like it to be drunk. There is something like it to be stoned. There is something like it to be knocked unconscious. Is there something like it to be under anesthesia? Is there something like it to be physically hurt? ... to be emotionally hurt? ... to be burning?

A dream is imagination. In a dream I can do things I cannot when awake. I can fly. I can be president of the world. I can be a crook. I can be a priest.
A daydream is imagination constrained more than a sleeping dream. What could be if everything went a certain way.
Consciousness is imagination constrained by external experiential reality.

 

[fromderinside]

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.

You're even wrong there, we don't start with mind. We start with how does one get information from the world and use it to advantage for staying alive and reproducing. Mind is a human social construct. Scientist's don't presume mind, else they wouldn't exam rays and anemone for clues about behaving with the ultimate goal of explaining human behavior. It's not sensible that we presume a mind when the nervous system is a piling up and modifying, in increments, of nervous function and capability.

Note, mind is singular suggesting designed. It isn't.

 

[Juma]

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.

What on earth are you talking about?
Epiphenomalism is an impossible idea. If it where true, noone would be able to discuss it since the observer would not be able to make the brain think about it, less even discuss it with other brains. Or write papers about it...

 

[fromderinside]

It is not "philosophy".

It is experience. Repeated experience.

Science has to actually include experience in any explanation.

Yes, science deals with experience. It controls uncontrolled parameters through procedures and operations. For instance a threshold is operationally defined as say the average signal strength to which a human performs appropriate responses. Control procedures generally minimize difference in experience trial to trial, between observers and within observers over the course of the experiment.

The goal of science is to find physical constants which can then be used to with other discovered constants to explain a variety of behaviors. The reason for control in experiments is to account for differences in 'experience', in other words take out experience as a random variable, in pursuit of behavioral constants such as visual and hearing thresholds, sensory attending, inclusion of attending in awareness, and included awareness of attending in consciousness.

It is the very reason you are not understanding what I'm writing. Attending, in science is defined by specific operations which capture what are the parameters of of what constitutes attending such as signal sensor- precept relations and what attending may or may not lead to down the line.

Attending would never be defined by scientists as one's willing (what the hell is that if it is anything) something to occur (whatever that might be if anything at all). That's not even the language of a philosopher which has much more to it that such at what you wrote and I just analyzed.

 

[untermensche]

You're just wrong.

Many scientists are very interested in the "will" and the "willful" focusing of the attention.

But the problem is far too hard to try to answer with current understandings and much simpler questions have no explanation.

So some study reflexes and how the attention can be effected by reflexes.

And some think because they can study reflexes they have explained everything.

It would be funny were it not so pathetic.

 

[DBT]

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.

If you want to discuss studies present them.

But nothing can be done simply with abstracts.

The abstracts and articles give summaries and descriptions of the experiments performed and the results obtained.

The basic descriptions of brain to mind/consciousness relationships are right there in the quotes and links that I provided. They say what they say and what they say is what I have been pointing out, the state and condition of a brain is reflected in conscious output, be it rational or irrational, adaptive or maladaptive.

You are still dodging the issue in order to maintain a set of beliefs that are not supported by research, evidence or the researchers who work in the field.

 

[DBT]

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.

A certain type of brain activity is the activity that activates conscious experience.....which can be manipulated, modified, induced to produce feeling and thoughts through electrical stimulation of brain regions or switched off on demand.

In the 1980’s, several teams at different universities developed tools to record and stimulate different parts of the brain. For example, Apostolos Georgopoulos at Johns Hopkins University inserted single electrodes into different parts of the motor region of a macaque monkey’s brain, recording how various neurons responded to different directions its arm moved. In the intervening decades, scientists have advanced and refined this ability, allowing them unprecedented control over certain manipulatable areas of the brain.

 

[untermensche]

If you want to discuss studies present them.

But nothing can be done simply with abstracts.

The abstracts and articles give summaries and descriptions of the experiments performed and the results obtained.

The basic descriptions of brain to mind/consciousness relationships are right there in the quotes and links that I provided. They say what they say and what they say is what I have been pointing out, the state and condition of a brain is reflected in conscious output, be it rational or irrational, adaptive or maladaptive.

You are still dodging the issue in order to maintain a set of beliefs that are not supported by research, evidence or the researchers who work in the field.

That's not how it works sweet pea.

Just because some study is published does not make it worth anything. It does not make the conclusions of the study accurate.

Bad research is published all the time. In fact most published research is worthless. It merely takes up space in journals and is a dead end that goes nowhere.

If you're unwilling to actually examine and discuss the research don't present the worthless abstracts as if you are doing something.

Your pretense is annoying. You do not have one single bit of information about consciousness that anybody with one doesn't already have. All you know are your subjective experiences. Nothing else. You don't have the slightest clue what brain activity is leading to your experience.

 

[untermensche]

The abstracts and articles give summaries and descriptions of the experiments performed and the results obtained.

When looking at any study there are several questions that need to be asked.

How does this study define "consciousness"?

Does it define "consciousness"?

Does it examine natural processes?

Or does it examine unnatural processes like the application of electricity to the brain?

How much does it rely on subjective reporting?

This is just off the top of my head. People who do this for a living will have many more questions.

Why don't you take the first abstract you presented and answer these?

 

[fromderinside]

You're just wrong.

Many scientists are very interested in the "will" and the "willful" focusing of the attention.

But the problem is far too hard to try to answer with current understandings and much simpler questions have no explanation.

So some study reflexes and how the attention can be effected by reflexes.

And some think because they can study reflexes they have explained everything.

It would be funny were it not so pathetic.

They may call themselves scientists. Your post lays lie to their claims.

Reflexes are fun. Programmed actions are fun. Organizing sensation is fun. Learning function of cortex is fun. Learning relation of frontal cortex to language cortex is fun. Following ionic and chemical flow in nervous tissue it fun. Its all fun and meaningful. If you want to just concentrate on the thing that is most obvious and least operable go for it. Science is a step by step process, organization level by organization level (physics, chemistry, biology behavioral science, etc.). Some try to please the "I want it now" crowd and either get rich or fall into disrepute. Science goes on. Your carping goes on. Things are as they are and and so are you.

Happey day of remembering greatness tomorrow untermenche

Maybe we'll engage again.

 

[ryan]

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.

What on earth are you talking about?
Epiphenomalism is an impossible idea. If it where true, noone would be able to discuss it since the observer would not be able to make the brain think about it, less even discuss it with other brains. Or write papers about it...

What happens out there causes what happens mentally, and one of those things that it causes is mental thoughts about epiphenomenalism.

Epiphenomenalism is the best of a bunch of bad options.

 

[ryan]

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.

A certain type of brain activity is the activity that activates conscious experience.....which can be manipulated, modified, induced to produce feeling and thoughts through electrical stimulation of brain regions or switched off on demand.

Yes, I think I have made it clear over the past few years that I agree that the brain generates consciousness. The consciousness is something that is generated from brain processes.

In the 1980’s, several teams at different universities developed tools to record and stimulate different parts of the brain. For example, Apostolos Georgopoulos at Johns Hopkins University inserted single electrodes into different parts of the motor region of a macaque monkey’s brain, recording how various neurons responded to different directions its arm moved. In the intervening decades, scientists have advanced and refined this ability, allowing them unprecedented control over certain manipulatable areas of the brain.

 

[untermensche]

You're just wrong.

Many scientists are very interested in the "will" and the "willful" focusing of the attention.

But the problem is far too hard to try to answer with current understandings and much simpler questions have no explanation.

So some study reflexes and how the attention can be effected by reflexes.

And some think because they can study reflexes they have explained everything.

It would be funny were it not so pathetic.

They may call themselves scientists. Your post lays lie to their claims.

Reflexes are fun. Programmed actions are fun. Organizing sensation is fun. Learning function of cortex is fun. Learning relation of frontal cortex to language cortex is fun. Following ionic and chemical flow in nervous tissue it fun. Its all fun and meaningful. If you want to just concentrate on the thing that is most obvious and least operable go for it. Science is a step by step process, organization level by organization level (physics, chemistry, biology behavioral science, etc.). Some try to please the "I want it now" crowd and either get rich or fall into disrepute. Science goes on. Your carping goes on. Things are as they are and and so are you.

Happey day of remembering greatness tomorrow untermenche

Maybe we'll engage again.

Sure. Research where a few answers can be found is fun.

That is not the case with consciousness.

There is not one study that even knows what it is.

And no study that has a clue what conscious directing of the attention is.

 

[fromderinside]

Well, like most things, If it's considered common and no scientist has the vaguest notion what it is, it probably isn't. My position as I have noted many times.

The thing is we have had remarkable success understanding how and why the brain and NS work, but some in the folk and tea community insist we know nothing.

 

[untermensche]

Well, like most things, If it's considered common and no scientist has the vaguest notion what it is, it probably isn't. My position as I have noted many times.

The thing is we have had remarkable success understanding how and why the brain and NS work, but some in the folk and tea community insist we know nothing.

Why must I constantly have to remind you that I am talking about experience?

Repeated, consistent experience.

We even get excited about the prospect of focusing the attention on some favorite show or sporting event.

A science that does not address and explain experience is not a science.

 

[fromderinside]

Yeah, experience. Let me remind you that experience got a flat earth theory where we were at the center of God's universe. Some pretty impressive thinkers worked those.

The idea is to not get excited. Instead we look at the physical possibilities, current theory, and try to find situations that provide potential critical issue experiments. With consciousness as you describe it we've blown that one away as if it were imaginary. Conciousness went with will which went starting with Libet as many of have reviewed over the past few years here. As even you have said science can't get a handle on consciousness as you see it. Most recent studies have resorted to some language related mechanism as a situation recorder from the position of the individual. I gave you my best shot long ago.

Now it's just pumping sand down a hole to get at what you think is consciousness in control of us for whatever reason. Tell you what. When you come up with a unitary mechanism that is not designed other than by a million or so years of circumstance and happenstance, I will come back and talk with you. Until then don't waste your time on me. I'm going to keep pointing out the roadblocks and exceptions to a philosopher's design of consciousness as nothing more than updated priestly ranting. When you come around, not arguing for your pet awareness or attention concept I may note that. Probably not.

 

[untermensche]

Yeah, experience. Let me remind you that experience got a flat earth theory where we were at the center of God's universe. Some pretty impressive thinkers worked those.

The idea is to not get excited. Instead we look at the physical possibilities, current theory, and try to find situations that provide potential critical issue experiments. With consciousness as you describe it we've blown that one away as if it were imaginary. Conciousness went with will which went starting with Libet as many of have reviewed over the past few years here. As even you have said science can't get a handle on consciousness as you see it. Most recent studies have resorted to some language related mechanism as a situation recorder from the position of the individual. I gave you my best shot long ago.

Now it's just pumping sand down a hole to get at what you think is consciousness in control of us for whatever reason. Tell you what. When you come up with a unitary mechanism that is not designed other than by a million or so years of circumstance and happenstance, I will come back and talk with you. Until then don't waste your time on me. I'm going to keep pointing out the roadblocks and exceptions to a philosopher's design of consciousness as nothing more than updated priestly ranting. When you come around, not arguing for your pet awareness or attention concept I may note that. Probably not.

Whether experience is accurate or not, it is there.

It can't simply be ignored as if it isn't there.

Any real science has to explain it.

Any honest science has to seriously address it.

 

[ryan]

Fromderinside, your argument that science should have found it doesn't work because science may never find the actual consciousness given possible natures of it. The consciousness may be a reflection of matter. All matter might have this reflection. Matter detects other matter, but it doesn't seem to detect consciousness.

Similarly, consciousness may just be an intrinsic property of matter that has no physical property that allows it to be detected.

 

[DBT]

The abstracts and articles give summaries and descriptions of the experiments performed and the results obtained.

The basic descriptions of brain to mind/consciousness relationships are right there in the quotes and links that I provided. They say what they say and what they say is what I have been pointing out, the state and condition of a brain is reflected in conscious output, be it rational or irrational, adaptive or maladaptive.

You are still dodging the issue in order to maintain a set of beliefs that are not supported by research, evidence or the researchers who work in the field.

That's not how it works sweet pea.

When all else fails and you have no argument, get cute. That's the way. Hopefully getting cute may cover the failure of your unfounded beliefs, is that it?

Just because some study is published does not make it worth anything. It does not make the conclusions of the study accurate.

That's just sad. All of the studies ever performed point directly to the brain as the agency of mind/consciousness.

Bad research is published all the time. In fact most published research is worthless. It merely takes up space in journals and is a dead end that goes nowhere.

In that case all the experiments ever performed are 'bad experiments' and all of the research and thinking that have been put into this field of study is 'bad research'.......according to Mr Untermensche.

I don't think so.