Consciousness

[untermensche]

Of course it is. I provided quotes and links to studies that involve electrical brain stimulation, chemicals, masking, etc, the last time this subject came up, which clearly show a direct relationship between brain state and its conscious experience.

And it tells us nothing about what consciousness is or what scale or even possible dimension it is generated in.

Obviously it does tell us something, that consciousness is a form of electrochemical brain activity and that it is a physical process.

Just because the brain is involved it does not mean that is where consciousness originates.

We've been through this before.

The brain could just be some kind of "receiver" of consciousness.

And none of the current science would change.

Because current science has no idea what consciousness is, not even a conception of it. All science knows is a little about how the brain works but nothing to connect any of those workings with consciousness beyond the unenlightened; disruption of normal workings produces a disruption of consciousness which tells us nothing about what consciousness is.

Most fridge owners do not know how their refrigerator works, yet it is clear to them that it is indeed the mechanism of the fridge that cools the air inside it.

Just as it is clear that most of the brains activity is unconscious information processing that regulates both bodily functions and forms conscious sensations in relation to body and external environment, even if we don't know precisely how the sensations of consciousness are being formed by the brain.

Preposterous.

Humans understand how refrigerators make clod air.

They don't have the slightest ideas how a brain creates consciousnesses or what part of brain activity is creating consciousness.

They don't know what scale or even dimension consciousness is created in.

 

[fromderinside]

Preposterous.

Humans understand how refrigerators make clod air.

Really? How does an an conditioner cool air. No I'm not talking about the fact that it exchanges cool air for warm air by extracting cool air form what may be a even warmer air outdoors. How does the air conditioner do that? What principles of physics apply specifically and how do they accomplish the act of air cooling through use of those principles?

Seems to me these principles are just as mystical to most of us as are:

They don't have the slightest ideas how a brain creates consciousnesses or what part of brain activity is creating consciousness.

They don't know what scale or even dimension consciousness is created in.

DBT presents a nice overview of what we know about how the nervous system works. You adding that we don't know the dimension from which consciousness arises which isn't true. That's a specious assertion with no evidence to support it. Within the framework through which science details principles of consciousness we know how it works quite well. Changing the subject or speculating about what may exist without evidence isn't part of the scientific method from which we specify anything.

You, on the other hand, present nothing but "maybe if there were faeries of this sort or that sort".

I've just given you two ways to make points,. Either explain air conditioning as would a physicist or present evidence of your dimensional faeries. Doing those would at least let you in the door of a physicists' discussion.

 

[untermensche]

Really? How does an an conditioner cool air. No I'm not talking about the fact that it exchanges cool air for warm air by extracting cool air form what may be a even warmer air outdoors. How does the air conditioner do that? What principles of physics apply specifically and how do they accomplish the act of air cooling through use of those principles?

Seems to me these principles are just as mystical to most of us as are:

Is this some kind of argument?

Are you claiming humans don't understand how refrigerators make cold air?

They don't have the slightest ideas how a brain creates consciousnesses or what part of brain activity is creating consciousness.

They don't know what scale or even dimension consciousness is created in.

DBT presents a nice overview of what we know about how the nervous system works. You adding that we don't know the dimension from which consciousness arises which isn't true. That's a specious assertion with no evidence to support it. Within the framework through which science details principles of consciousness we know how it works quite well. Changing the subject or speculating about what may exist without evidence isn't part of the scientific method from which we specify anything.

You, on the other hand, present nothing but "maybe if there were faeries of this sort or that sort".

I've just given you two ways to make points,. Either explain air conditioning as would a physicist or present evidence of your dimensional faeries. Doing those would at least let you in the door of a physicists' discussion.

We have no idea which dimension conscious is created in.

We have no knowledge what-so-ever about how consciousness is created.

We do know a lot about how brains work. But have nothing to connect any of this knowledge to the production of consciousness.

 

[DBT]

We have no knowledge what-so-ever about how consciousness is created.

You can believe that if you like, but nevertheless it is overwhelmingly accepted by researchers in neuroscience that it is the brain forming shaping and generating the sensations we call consciousness, vision based on information via the eyes, hearing based on information via the ears, etc, and their associated feelings and thoughts....

We do know a lot about how brains work. But have nothing to connect any of this knowledge to the production of consciousness.

That's just not true. As I pointed out above, the many attributes and features of the sensation we call 'consciousness' is directly related to the brain's sense organs and their condition in relation to the structures of the brain and their condition. Any of which can be altered or disrupted or fooled by chemical, electrical or mechanical means. And in quite specific way, so we have repeat-ability and predictability.

 

[Kharakov]

What if all of the natural world is a detailed simulation that allows us many ways of interacting with other consciousnesses?

Our brains could be part of the simulation that gives us direct access to our consciousnesses, rather than being the "direct cause" of our consciousnesses.

We have a mass of neurons that are capable of extremely complex interactions.

Or we have a persistently generated illusion of neural structures and the natural universe, an illusion that requires persistence and depth (both in the brain direction, down to atomic structures, and in the space direction, up to distant large scale structures) in order to make us care about it.

If you knew the world was generated last Thursday, would you care about it as much? Would everyone?

Now let's say there is some way to connect to another dimension or natural process we have no clear conception of but is the origin of consciousness.

Let's call it consciousness.

Ok, but then you still need to explain what causes consciousness!

Persistent consciousnesses. There are different layers and scales of consciousness.

It's just placing it conveniently beyond our capability of ever discovering or even asking anything about it.

That persistent consciousnesses have mastered the ability to cause our consciousnesses?

Kind of like the argument for God as "The Uncaused Cause". By definition it doesn't need an explanation.

Why doesn't it need an explanation?

Unless you have some other source of evidence for such a theory it's pure woo.

Similar to the hypothesis that the the natural world is not a persistent illusion. So what?

 

[DBT]

What if all of the natural world is a detailed simulation that allows us many ways of interacting with other consciousnesses?

Our brains could be part of the simulation that gives us direct access to our consciousnesses, rather than being the "direct cause" of our consciousnesses.

Assuming the World is a simulation, consciousness would seem to be a part of the simulation related to specific entities with specific bundles of information sorting programs: animals with brains.

Anything external or outside of our program/simulation would be the programmers, the Super Aliens/type 4 civilisation who generate Universes as a means of entertainment, filling their eternal existence and near terminal anniui with some resemblance of meaning.

 

[Kharakov]

Yes, being able to generate endless bliss and orgasms is totally boring, especially when you have love for other beings that have fought through everlasting ennui. Break on thru, to the other's IDE. Shit, I'd works too.

 

[untermensche]

You can believe that if you like, but nevertheless it is overwhelmingly accepted by researchers in neuroscience that it is the brain forming shaping and generating the sensations we call consciousness, vision based on information via the eyes, hearing based on information via the ears, etc, and their associated feelings and thoughts....

The brain is doing all kinds of things. It is regulating heart rate, regulating blood pressure, regulating breathing, creating emotions, and doing all kinds of things "below" the level of consciousness.

The brain is doing a lot more than creating consciousness.

So saying brain function = consciousness is utter ignorance and meaninglessness.

The question is: Which specific brain activity is creating consciousness and how?

As of today we don't have the slightest clue and really have nowhere to look to begin to even answer these questions.

We have no conception of how electrical impulses created by cells ends up as consciousness.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Apparently mirror cells are important all over the brain. Leads me to believe that consciousness, if one must continue to harbor such a term, is an individual's chief social rationalist.

Mirror neurons is yesterdays news. We're back to not knowing what they're for.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

As of today we don't have the slightest clue and really have nowhere to look to begin to even answer these questions.

We have no conception of how electrical impulses created by cells ends up as consciousness.

Which is exactly the same as saying we have no idea how a runner's electrical impulses created by cells ends up as speed.

 

[George S]

Do you experience consciousness?
I, myself, am a biological robot.
What I feel is what it is like to be a biological robot.

 

[Treedbear]

We have a mass of neurons that are capable of extremely complex interactions.

Or we have a persistently generated illusion of neural structures and the natural universe, an illusion that requires persistence and depth (both in the brain direction, down to atomic structures, and in the space direction, up to distant large scale structures) in order to make us care about it.

If you knew the world was generated last Thursday, would you care about it as much? Would everyone?

I don't understand. Are you saying the existence of neural structures we call the brain as well as our concept of the natural universe is an illusion? Show me the evidence.

Now let's say there is some way to connect to another dimension or natural process we have no clear conception of but is the origin of consciousness.

Let's call it consciousness.

I don't understand. Are you suggesting the connection itself is what we call consciousness, or is consciousness or source of consciousness what is being connected to (which is simply what I meant)?

Ok, but then you still need to explain what causes consciousness!

Persistent consciousnesses. There are different layers and scales of consciousness.

But you still haven't explained consciousness. That just makes the path to explain it more obscure.

It's just placing it conveniently beyond our capability of ever discovering or even asking anything about it.

That persistent consciousnesses have mastered the ability to cause our consciousnesses?

What are they? Seems an aweful lot like god(s) so far.

Kind of like the argument for God as "The Uncaused Cause". By definition it doesn't need an explanation.

Why doesn't it need an explanation?

It's usual purpose is to explain what is said to be unexplainable. Creation, morality, out of body experiences, winning the lottery, the election of Donald Trump, etc. (Sorry about that, but it's true.) Regardless, I don't see the point of speculating for it's own sake when it can prove nothing.

Unless you have some other source of evidence for such a theory it's pure woo.

Similar to the hypothesis that the the natural world is not a persistent illusion. So what?

Children's fairy tales. Not science.

 

[DBT]

You can believe that if you like, but nevertheless it is overwhelmingly accepted by researchers in neuroscience that it is the brain forming shaping and generating the sensations we call consciousness, vision based on information via the eyes, hearing based on information via the ears, etc, and their associated feelings and thoughts....

The brain is doing all kinds of things. It is regulating heart rate, regulating blood pressure, regulating breathing, creating emotions, and doing all kinds of things "below" the level of consciousness.

The brain is doing a lot more than creating consciousness.

So saying brain function = consciousness is utter ignorance and meaninglessness.

You are misinterpreting what I said. I have already said that most of the regulatory and information activity is unconscious. I have said this numerous times. Too many times, yet this is your response.

The question is: Which specific brain activity is creating consciousness and how?

As of today we don't have the slightest clue and really have nowhere to look to begin to even answer these questions.

We have no conception of how electrical impulses created by cells ends up as consciousness.

The parts of the brain that are represented by the lit up areas as seen on fMRI, is the conscious activity. Subjects are asked to think of certain things and the brain responds to the questions with activity in regions that correspond to the feeling and emotions being invoked by the questions.

 

[untermensche]

The brain is doing all kinds of things. It is regulating heart rate, regulating blood pressure, regulating breathing, creating emotions, and doing all kinds of things "below" the level of consciousness.

The brain is doing a lot more than creating consciousness.

So saying brain function = consciousness is utter ignorance and meaninglessness.

You are misinterpreting what I said. I have already said that most of the regulatory and information activity is unconscious. I have said this numerous times. Too many times, yet this is your response.

You're saying things but don't have a clue about the consequences of your words.

If the brain is doing many things than saying consciousness arises through brain activity is an empty meaningless statement.

What specific activity and how exactly does consciousness arise from it?

When that is explained then consciousness is understood. Not before.

The question is: Which specific brain activity is creating consciousness and how?

As of today we don't have the slightest clue and really have nowhere to look to begin to even answer these questions.

We have no conception of how electrical impulses created by cells ends up as consciousness.

The parts of the brain that are represented by the lit up areas as seen on fMRI, is the conscious activity. Subjects are asked to think of certain things and the brain responds to the questions with activity in regions that correspond to the feeling and emotions being invoked by the questions.

That is a sheer guess posing as knowledge.

The lit up areas just represent increased activity. They do not represent all activity.

And saying consciousness is "lit up areas" again is meaningless and explains nothing about what consciousness is.

It doesn't tell us what scale or dimension consciousness is created in. It doesn't tell us anything beyond the knowledge that consciousness and the brain have some correlation.

 

[DBT]

You are misinterpreting what I said. I have already said that most of the regulatory and information activity is unconscious. I have said this numerous times. Too many times, yet this is your response.

You're saying things but don't have a clue about the consequences of your words.

The irony of that remark no doubt escapes you.

If the brain is doing many things than saying consciousness arises through brain activity is an empty meaningless statement.

That doesn't follow from anything I have said or anything found in research. That the brain functions in both unconscious and conscious forms is universally accepted by researchers.

What specific activity and how exactly does consciousness arise from it?

When that is explained then consciousness is understood. Not before.

You persist with the strawman that because we don't understand how the brain forms mental imagery and sensation, we cannot know that it is the brain that's responsible for this phenomena. That is not true.

The evidence - which you refuse to accept or consider - clearly links consciousness to physical electro-chemical brain activity; sight being directly related to information gathered by the eyes, hearing related to information from the ears, etc.

The question is: Which specific brain activity is creating consciousness and how?

As of today we don't have the slightest clue and really have nowhere to look to begin to even answer these questions.

Not true. There is a verifiable link between the electrochemical activity of a brain and subject reports of what they are seeing, feeling and thinking in relation to activity in various regions of their brain...which can be electrically or chemically disrupted at any time.

You refuse to consider this evidence and just repeat the assertion; ''we don't know, therefore it could be magical.''

 

[DBT]

Do you experience consciousness?
I, myself, am a biological robot.
What I feel is what it is like to be a biological robot.

To say 'Robot' seems a bit harsh. Implying an inability to adapt to changing circumstances.

 

[DBT]

''The hypothesis that the brain creates consciousness, however, has vastly more evidence for it than the hypothesis that consciousness creates the brain. Damage to the fusiform gyrus of the temporal lobe, for example, causes face blindness, and stimulation of this same area causes people to see faces spontaneously. Stroke-caused damage to the visual cortex region called V1 leads to loss of conscious visual perception. Changes in conscious experience can be directly measured by functional MRI, electroencephalography and single-neuron recordings. Neuroscientists can predict human choices from brain-scanning activity before the subject is even consciously aware of the decisions made. Using brain scans alone, neuroscientists have even been able to reconstruct, on a computer screen, what someone is seeing.
Thousands of experiments confirm the hypothesis that neurochemical processes produce subjective experiences. The fact that neuroscientists are not in agreement over which physicalist theory best accounts for mind does not mean that the hypothesis that consciousness creates matter holds equal standing''

''No one denies that consciousness is a hard problem. But before we reify consciousness to the level of an independent agency capable of creating its own reality, let's give the hypotheses we do have for how brains create mind more time. Because we know for a fact that measurable consciousness dies when the brain dies, until proved otherwise, the default hypothesis must be that brains cause consciousness. I am, therefore I think.''

 

[Juma]

Do you experience consciousness?
I, myself, am a biological robot.
What I feel is what it is like to be a biological robot.

And how do you know that?

 

[untermensche]

Not true. There is a verifiable link between the electrochemical activity of a brain and subject reports of what they are seeing, feeling and thinking in relation to activity in various regions of their brain...which can be electrically or chemically disrupted at any time.

There is a correlation.

Correlations do not demonstrate causation or explain how things work. There is a strong correlation between the radio and the song I'm hearing, but the radio is not the only thing involved.

We have NO CLUE how cellular activity is translated into consciousness.

We don't even know where to begin to look.

If you disagree tell me how cellular activity becomes consciousness. Step by step. How is this activity in cells creating something capable of a unified subjective experience?

Until you can explain that you haven't demonstrated anything with all your talk of the brain.

Consciousness is a completely unexplained phenomena. Brains are involved, but what else is involved is completely unknown. So to say it is just brains is merely a dogmatic superstition.

To understand any phenomena you need to explain why it arises, not point to where it arises.

You are a pre-Newtonian scientist pointing to the earth and thinking you have explained gravity and claiming the earth is the only thing involved in the production of gravity.

 

[George S]

Do you experience consciousness?
I, myself, am a biological robot.
What I feel is what it is like to be a biological robot.

To say 'Robot' seems a bit harsh. Implying an inability to adapt to changing circumstances.

And how do you know that?

It is one way of looking at behavior.

All behavior is unconscious at the time of that behavior. (Libet, et al) Adaptability to changing circumstances is the very reason for a brain. We learn. So do other mammals. Learning is a capability of a robot like Data.

Evolution is smarter that you are. Evolution explores everything. If it needs quantum effects it uses it. If it needs an on-board computer it builds one. A computer can be built up from exactly one logical structure: NAND (not AND). A NAND takes two inputs and generates an output if either or both of the inputs are not present. Neurology is capable of implementing NAND. Neurology is capable of being an on-board computer.

The conscious is a passenger on a bus it is not driving; the spokesman for the body/mind responsible for explaining why the body/mind did what it did. Responsible for telling the driver where to go. Consciousness is the on-board computer capable of reasoning.
The driver (unconscious) is responsible for taking input from the environment and remembering patterns so the next time that pattern is seen it may be avoided, altered or repeated depending on the feedback from the environment, and presenting it to the conscious for decision-making by the on-board computer.

This is an advantage, of course. At one time you had to consciously drive. It was a complex process. Now you can drive quite unconsciously, even driving while talking or thinking.