Consciousness

[untermensche]

I don't know what you mean by "stream of consciousness".

The consciousness is a living thing like everything about the human. It grows, it changes. Nightly it seems to stop for a while but starting up is a continuation, not an origin.

An origin is something completely new. Not a continuation of something well known.

You really don't know what is meant by "stream of consciousness"? Webster has, "the continuous unedited chronological flow of conscious experience through the mind". But I expect you to already know this.

As for origin, I am being very specific in that it is a part of a larger continuous identity that originates/begins every morning.

No I do not know what is meant by "stream of consciousness".

It seems a BS idea.

There is simply a kind of consciousness in a particular kind of universe.

That the word "stream" can abstractly be applied is not adding anything. It is already included in the experience of consciousness.

And I have no idea what you mean by "larger identities".

 

[ryan]

You really don't know what is meant by "stream of consciousness"? Webster has, "the continuous unedited chronological flow of conscious experience through the mind". But I expect you to already know this.

As for origin, I am being very specific in that it is a part of a larger continuous identity that originates/begins every morning.

No I do not know what is meant by "stream of consciousness".

It seems a BS idea.

There is simply a kind of consciousness in a particular kind of universe.

That the word "stream" can abstractly be applied is not adding anything. It is already included in the experience of consciousness.

And I have no idea what you mean by "larger identities".

I didn't believe that you could talk so much about the consciousness and not understand these terms, but I sure do now.

Just in case you want to learn something about these concepts:

http://www.cell.com/current-biology...m/retrieve/pii/S0960982205006615?showall=true

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness-unity/#UniPerIde See Section 5.2

 

[untermensche]

No I do not know what is meant by "stream of consciousness".

It seems a BS idea.

There is simply a kind of consciousness in a particular kind of universe.

That the word "stream" can abstractly be applied is not adding anything. It is already included in the experience of consciousness.

And I have no idea what you mean by "larger identities".

I didn't believe that you could talk so much about the consciousness and not understand these terms, but I sure do now.

Just in case you want to learn something about these concepts:

http://www.cell.com/current-biology...m/retrieve/pii/S0960982205006615?showall=true

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness-unity/#UniPerIde See Section 5.2

I know people use the term.

I am saying it is a redundancy.

Consciousness exists in time. Whatever that is.

Things that exist is time undergo change.

You can call this a "stream" if you like, but that is not a technical term or a term that adds anything.

 

[DBT]

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.

So where does that leave you with your ideas of panpsychism?

Panpsychism explains the origin of the consciousness in terms of its existence with one or more fundamental particles. The unification problem would remain a mystery (Except that entanglement seems to be the most obvious solution).

Panpsychism doesn't explain anything, panpsychism is itself inexplicable. It is just an idea. An idea that is not testable because there is nothing that can be examined. But we do have brains to examine and test in relation to brain conditions and how they relate to conscious experience...which may be reported by a subject or inferred through the behaviour of a subject, be it rational or erratic.

 

[DBT]

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?

Sometimes when I encounter extreme ignorance I get frustrated.

You are frustrated by your own inability to grasp the nature and implications of the research as it currently stands. Which clearly points to brain agency.

Hence your lack of a rational argument and your hand waving (moving your hands at will but wilfully ignoring how this function and experience is being produced)

 

[Juma]

no, it isnt. You say nothing about the epiphenomen.
There is nothing in what you describe that singles out the epiphenomen and thus is not an observation of it.

I observe that I sm aware. But it is clearly no epiphenomen since it affects my brain so I can write about it.

Why can't the brain just do what it does while it generates these thoughts?

What? What the hell are you talking about?
Every bloody post from you is totally detached from what i write.

Please respond to this verbatim question:
You stated that the epiphenomen of awareness cannot cause anything.
That means that the part of me that is aware is not able to pass this information, that i am aware, on to anyone else.

 

[ryan]

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.

So where does that leave you with your ideas of panpsychism?

Panpsychism explains the origin of the consciousness in terms of its existence with one or more fundamental particles. The unification problem would remain a mystery (Except that entanglement seems to be the most obvious solution).

Panpsychism doesn't explain anything,

It being a fundamental property of matter simplifies the problem by leaving the "how" question irrelevant. The "what" question is that the consciousness is a physically inert property. The "why" question becomes irrelevant if one assumes epiphenomenalism.

It's simple, and it doesn't assume that the consciousness does not exist. No explanation seems better.

 

[ryan]

Why can't the brain just do what it does while it generates these thoughts?

What? What the hell are you talking about?
Every bloody post from you is totally detached from what i write.

Please respond to this verbatim question:
You stated that the epiphenomen of awareness cannot cause anything.
That means that the part of me that is aware is not able to pass this information, that i am aware, on to anyone else.

Not necessarily, one brain might just be setting up, or preparing, another brain with only physical communication which allows the receiving brain to come to the thought of the other brain.

 

[Juma]

What? What the hell are you talking about?
Every bloody post from you is totally detached from what i write.

Please respond to this verbatim question:
You stated that the epiphenomen of awareness cannot cause anything.
That means that the part of me that is aware is not able to pass this information, that i am aware, on to anyone else.

Not necessarily, one brain might just be setting up, or preparing, another brain with only physical communication which allows the receiving brain to come to the thought of the other brain.

How is this a response to my post? Have you totally lost your mind?
I do NOT speak of basic brain functions as thoughts.
I sm speaking of awereness, the alleged epiphenomen.

 

[ryan]

Not necessarily, one brain might just be setting up, or preparing, another brain with only physical communication which allows the receiving brain to come to the thought of the other brain.

How is this a response to my post? Have you totally lost your mind?
I do NOT speak of basic brain functions as thoughts.
I sm speaking of awereness, the alleged epiphenomen.

That means that the part of me that is aware is not able to pass this information, that i am aware, on to anyone else.

Yes, that is correct. But why can't one brain physically prepare, by communication, another brain to have the same thought about awareness? The nonphysical awareness doesn't have to be communicated.

 

[Juma]

How is this a response to my post? Have you totally lost your mind?
I do NOT speak of basic brain functions as thoughts.
I sm speaking of awereness, the alleged epiphenomen.

That means that the part of me that is aware is not able to pass this information, that i am aware, on to anyone else.

Yes, that is correct. But why can't one brain physically prepare, by communication, another brain to have the same thought about awareness? The nonphysical awareness doesn't have to be communicated.

why would it? If awereness is sn EPIPHENOMEN then even the first brain dont know anything about awareness since the awareness is an EPIPHENOMEN. Duh.

 

[ryan]

That means that the part of me that is aware is not able to pass this information, that i am aware, on to anyone else.

Yes, that is correct. But why can't one brain physically prepare, by communication, another brain to have the same thought about awareness? The nonphysical awareness doesn't have to be communicated.

why would it? If awereness is sn EPIPHENOMEN then even the first brain dont know anything about awareness since the awareness is an EPIPHENOMEN. Duh.

Brain state A => mental thought A. A = wow, what a nice day

Brain state B => mental thought B. B = hello neighbor

Brain state C => mental thought C. C = wow, Juma just doesn't get it

Brain state D => mental thought D. D = I have awareness, how neat

.
.
.

 

[Juma]

That means that the part of me that is aware is not able to pass this information, that i am aware, on to anyone else.

Yes, that is correct. But why can't one brain physically prepare, by communication, another brain to have the same thought about awareness? The nonphysical awareness doesn't have to be communicated.

why would it? If awereness is sn EPIPHENOMEN then even the first brain dont know anything about awareness since the awareness is an EPIPHENOMEN. Duh.

Brain state A => mental thought A. A = wow, what a nice day

Brain state B => mental thought B. B = hello neighbor

Brain state C => mental thought C. C = wow, Juma just doesn't get it

Brain state D => mental thought D. D = I have awareness, how neat

.
.
.

"Nice weather": observed by seeing the sun an feeling the warnth.
"Hello neigbour": observed by seein and recognicibg the neighboor
"Wow, Juma dont get it": observed text in post, logical reasonong and finally reached, a faulty, conclusion
"I have awarenes": awareness observed by the brain (thus not an epiphenomen)

You see, every post that you post argues for MY point: epihenomenalism is impossible since awareness definitely do affects the brain.

 

[DBT]

It being a fundamental property of matter simplifies the problem by leaving the "how" question irrelevant.

The proposition that consciousness is a fundamental property of matter is a hypothetical assumption, therefore does nothing to simplify the problem. Nor does panpsychism explain evidence that links the presence and expression of mind/consciousness to brain states.

 

[Thomas II]

 

[George S]

There are people who do not remember any yesterdays. They wake up each morning with no memory. There is no "stream of" consciousness, only consciousness.

 

[George S]

Remember "The Dress?" Different people saw different colors for the same frequencies. Their epiphenomenon is different. (Sci-Show has scienced the shit out of this. Turns out it is the brain compensating for presumed lighting.)

 

[untermensche]

Remember "The Dress?" Different people saw different colors for the same frequencies. Their epiphenomenon is different. (Sci-Show has scienced the shit out of this. Turns out it is the brain compensating for presumed lighting.)

There is also this:

Giving my colorblind Papa EnChroma glasses

 

[ryan]

Brain state A => mental thought A. A = wow, what a nice day

Brain state B => mental thought B. B = hello neighbor

Brain state C => mental thought C. C = wow, Juma just doesn't get it

Brain state D => mental thought D. D = I have awareness, how neat

.
.
.

"Nice weather": observed by seeing the sun an feeling the warnth.
"Hello neigbour": observed by seein and recognicibg the neighboor
"Wow, Juma dont get it": observed text in post, logical reasonong and finally reached, a faulty, conclusion
"I have awarenes": awareness observed by the brain (thus not an epiphenomen)

You see, every post that you post argues for MY point: epihenomenalism is impossible since awareness definitely do affects the brain.

The brain state of "I have awareness" is the physical correlate to the mental state of "I have awareness". Keep them separated except from the stem of every beginning to every "conscious stream".

It could work mechanically. Because the brain has feedback loops (affects itself), the mental correlate would also affect itself. This could be where the mental identity detects itself.

 

[ryan]

It being a fundamental property of matter simplifies the problem by leaving the "how" question irrelevant.

The proposition that consciousness is a fundamental property of matter is a hypothetical assumption, therefore does nothing to simplify the problem. Nor does panpsychism explain evidence that links the presence and expression of mind/consciousness to brain states.

For the very last time, I will try to explain why panpsychism is appealing. We will go little by little.

Based on inductive reasoning, we expect things should be conserved. What is here today should be here tomorrow. If something is not in a position anymore, it must have moved to another position. Does this make sense? Do you have any examples of something existing now but might not later? Some people have said that a square disappears when you stretch it; is this something you agree with?