Consciousness

[DBT]

The same fallacy over and over again.

If we send someone a package by airmail and upon destination it's picked up by by a van and delivered to the recipients mailing address you can't just say that packages travel between sender and recipient by van.

The process involves both aircraft and van.

The van alone can't cross oceans, that's the role an aircraft plays, Same with neurons, information is sent between cells using electrical signals (the 'aircraft' ) and the information conveyed crosses the synaptic cleft using chemical messengers (the 'vans')

So the conveyance of information between cells is both electrical and chemical. You can't separate the two, if this is disrupted information is not received by the recipient cell. Connectivity is broken or disrupted.

Please stop repeating your fallacies.

You're just wrong.

A cell has the ability to say "no". To stop the transmission. A cell does not have to release neurotransmitter just because it is stimulated. And the cell does not have one terminal. A cell can send transmitter from one terminal and not another. This is how the brain controls activity. Some cells say "yes" and some say "no". How the brain does this is completely unknown.

The situation is nothing like electricity running through a wire.

With external stimulation you are forcing cells to fire. You are removing their ability to control activity, removing their ability to say "no".

It is a totally unnatural situation that does not tell us one thing about what consciousness is or how it is achieved.

That has nothing to do with what I said. You are running off into the woods and brambles and weeds in order to avoid admitting to the fact that communication between cells is both electrical and chemical: an electrochemical activity.

 

[untermensche]

You're just wrong.

A cell has the ability to say "no". To stop the transmission. A cell does not have to release neurotransmitter just because it is stimulated. And the cell does not have one terminal. A cell can send transmitter from one terminal and not another. This is how the brain controls activity. Some cells say "yes" and some say "no". How the brain does this is completely unknown.

The situation is nothing like electricity running through a wire.

With external stimulation you are forcing cells to fire. You are removing their ability to control activity, removing their ability to say "no".

It is a totally unnatural situation that does not tell us one thing about what consciousness is or how it is achieved.

That has nothing to do with what I said. You are running off into the woods and brambles and weeds in order to avoid admitting to the fact that communication between cells is both electrical and chemical: an electrochemical activity.

Tell me how the brain controls activity.

If cells do not say "no" how is there any control of anything?

You don't seem to want to take any path that might actually lead to an understanding of consciousness.

 

[George S]

That has nothing to do with what I said. You are running off into the woods and brambles and weeds in order to avoid admitting to the fact that communication between cells is both electrical and chemical: an electrochemical activity.

Tell me how the brain controls activity.

If cells do not say "no" how is there any control of anything?

You don't seem to want to take any path that might actually lead to an understanding of consciousness.

You don't say what your understanding of consciousness is.
You instead question every response with something like "No, that's not it."
Many here have given the physical cause of consciousness, and yet you claim that physical answers are not enough.
What would be a satisfactory explanation for you? What would constitute an "understanding of consciousness?"
How would the sentence that exhibited an "understanding of consciousness" begin?

 

[Rayschism]

A serious question.

Would consciousness and awareness be a part of evolution?

In evolution, isn't brain size considered to be an indication of intelligence and so would brain size be an indication of consciousness and awareness?

Even Neanderthals had rock art, used caves for shelters, and buried their dead with items in their graves, I believe.

 

[George S]

A serious question.

Would consciousness and awareness be a part of evolution?

I can't imagine any reason that the answer could be no.

In evolution, isn't brain size considered to be an indication of intelligence and so would brain size be an indication of consciousness and awareness?

That is unclear. The largest brains are in the water dwelling mammals.

Even Neanderthals had rock art, used caves for shelters, and buried their dead with items in their graves, I believe.

The Neanderthals did not die out. They interbred. Many northern Europeans carry Neanderthal genes.

We can each of us feel what it is like to react by reflex. Reflex comes about by straightforward natural selection. It acts over generations. Learning is a way to build a reflex-like action. As you know we can train other species. A dog can easily learn a dozen commands.
Reasoning fills the gap left by reflex and learning. It is a way of predicting the future which surely has an evolutionary advantage. Unlike reflex which is learned over generations, and situational learning (If A then B -- always) reasoning is for new and novel situations. Reasoning is for planning a future.

It is quite clear that immobile organisms do not need a brain. There are tunicates which have eyes and a brain in their larval form which enable them to find a place to settle down. Then they absorb their brain and eyes.

 

[Rayschism]

Also, here's something that is actually pretty weird.

Jellyfish have an awareness of their surroundings. They can navigate through mazes. Yet they don't have a brain like other animals and humans do or other anatomy like nervous systems like we do, so how can they have this awareness?

 

[George S]

Also, here's something that is actually pretty weird.

Jellyfish have an awareness of their surroundings. They can navigate through mazes. Yet they don't have a brain like other animals and humans do or other anatomy like nervous systems like we do, so how can they have this awareness?

Our brain is not the whole story. The whole neurology contributes. Jellyfish have neurology, just not a central node.

 

[Rayschism]

Also, here's something that is actually pretty weird.

Jellyfish have an awareness of their surroundings. They can navigate through mazes. Yet they don't have a brain like other animals and humans do or other anatomy like nervous systems like we do, so how can they have this awareness?

Our brain is not the whole story. The whole neurology contributes. Jellyfish have neurology, just not a central node.

How would neurology contribute to consciousness and awareness?

Also, are consciousness and awareness the same thing?

 

[George S]

Our brain is not the whole story. The whole neurology contributes. Jellyfish have neurology, just not a central node.

How would neurology contribute to consciousness and awareness?

Also, are consciousness and awareness the same thing?

I don't think so. Even a single celled creature may be "aware" of light and move toward it -- or away from it. It must be "aware" of what is food and what is not.

Consciousness might be described as the experience of what is called the Cartesian Theater. That is, the gestalt of awareness. Knowing of all that is around. Seeing with these eyes, feeling with this body. The feeling of being a separate thing that has a body. The ability to take an alternate point of view.
In addition to your conscious you have an unconscious. Perhaps more than one unconscious. The whom you talk to when you have internal dialog. Your unconscious's goal is to keep you alive. Run the lungs, the heart, the liver, the digestion. It includes instinct.
Conscious is the reasoner, that which computes and weighs alternatives.
An analogy is that the conscious is the union boss of an unruly union. Sometimes reacting in unexpected ways. Ever wonder Why did I do that!? The rationalizer of all actions of the unconscious. The explainer of why.

 

[untermensche]

Tell me how the brain controls activity.

If cells do not say "no" how is there any control of anything?

You don't seem to want to take any path that might actually lead to an understanding of consciousness.

You don't say what your understanding of consciousness is.
You instead question every response with something like "No, that's not it."
Many here have given the physical cause of consciousness, and yet you claim that physical answers are not enough.
What would be a satisfactory explanation for you? What would constitute an "understanding of consciousness?"
How would the sentence that exhibited an "understanding of consciousness" begin?

I have said that our only understanding of consciousness is our subjective experience of having one.

There is no physical understanding of what it is.

We can look at the brain and we can see all kinds of activity. Electrical conduction along cell membranes. Release of neurotransmitters. Increased uptake of glucose. Blood flowing through vessels.

We see activity here and activity there.

And we have no idea what any of it means or how it moves from place to place in the brain, or which activity is related to consciousness and which is not.

I am given something like the Lebet experiment and told it says something about consciousness only to find the only place consciousness is even mentioned is in the form of subjective reporting. There is no understanding of any brain activity or why it arises. Just after the fact labels attached to activity that is not understood in the least.

I criticize because the claims of understanding are baseless and warrant criticism.

 

[George S]

You don't say what your understanding of consciousness is.
You instead question every response with something like "No, that's not it."
Many here have given the physical cause of consciousness, and yet you claim that physical answers are not enough.
What would be a satisfactory explanation for you? What would constitute an "understanding of consciousness?"
How would the sentence that exhibited an "understanding of consciousness" begin?

I have said that our only understanding of consciousness is our subjective experience of having one.

There is no physical understanding of what it is.

We can look at the brain and we can see all kinds of activity. Electrical conduction along cell membranes. Release of neurotransmitters. Increased uptake of glucose. Blood flowing through vessels.

We see activity here and activity there.

And we have no idea what any of it means or how it moves from place to place in the brain, or which activity is related to consciousness and which is not.

I am given something like the Lebet experiment and told it says something about consciousness only to find the only place consciousness is even mentioned is in the form of subjective reporting. There is no understanding of any brain activity or why it arises. Just after the fact labels attached to activity that is not understood in the least.

I criticize because the claims of understanding are baseless and warrant criticism.

We have a different understanding of understanding, it seems.
I don't yet know what you mean by understanding. What would it mean, I ask again, to understand consciousness. I agree that the only way to know anything about what it feels like to have it is from the inside of a conscious being.
Nevertheless, we -- humankind -- understand a lot about how it is produced. We observe that there are locations in the neurology responsible for reflexes. We observe that consciousness can be altered. We can be in an abnormal, altered state due to electric, magnetic, and physical stimulation.

I wonder whether a robot could be conscious. How could we ever know?
Perhaps consciousness is what it is like to be a biological robot. How could we ever know?
But it is part of being a body/mind called human. I am fairly confident that many other mammals are conscious.
Nagel asks "What is it like to be a bat?" in Dennett's The Minds I which I suggest you read. It is a set of articles written by many authors addressing consciousness. Perhaps you might get an idea there.

You claim: And we have no idea what any of it means or how it moves from place to place in the brain, or which activity is related to consciousness and which is not.
That is hyperbole. We do have many ideas of how it moves from place to place in the neurology. We know that, at least some, is related to consciousness. We know that some is related to unconscious activity.

We do know that much of consciousness is distributed. It is not just here nor there but everywhere.

You say that it can only be understood by experiencing it. So you claim to understand it that way. Okay. Some psychologists would agree. And?

 

[untermensche]

I have said that our only understanding of consciousness is our subjective experience of having one.

There is no physical understanding of what it is.

We can look at the brain and we can see all kinds of activity. Electrical conduction along cell membranes. Release of neurotransmitters. Increased uptake of glucose. Blood flowing through vessels.

We see activity here and activity there.

And we have no idea what any of it means or how it moves from place to place in the brain, or which activity is related to consciousness and which is not.

I am given something like the Lebet experiment and told it says something about consciousness only to find the only place consciousness is even mentioned is in the form of subjective reporting. There is no understanding of any brain activity or why it arises. Just after the fact labels attached to activity that is not understood in the least.

I criticize because the claims of understanding are baseless and warrant criticism.

We have a different understanding of understanding, it seems.
I don't yet know what you mean by understanding. What would it mean, I ask again, to understand consciousness.

To understand anything first of all means knowing what it is.

In all the activity we see in the brain, which is the specific activity that results in consciousness?

 

[George S]

We have a different understanding of understanding, it seems.
I don't yet know what you mean by understanding. What would it mean, I ask again, to understand consciousness.

To understand anything first of all means knowing what it is.

In all the activity we see in the brain, which is the specific activity that results in consciousness?

I know what consciousness is. It is an emergent property of the neurology. We consider a human not to be able to experience consciousness if they are brain-dead.

I do not know exactly which neurons must be excised to remove consciousness. But certain sensory (conscious) experiences (sight, sound, pain, etc.) do have identifiable regions activated.

 

[DBT]

Tell me how the brain controls activity.

Your question is wrong. You should understand by now that the brain is a modular system where each region, Thalamus, Hyperthalamus, Visual cortex, auditory cortex, etc, has certain functions that contribute to the functioning of the brain as a whole....allowing for a degree of plasticity where one region may compensate for damage to another.

If cells do not say "no" how is there any control of anything?

Cells are information receivers, processors and transmitters, they respond according their inputs and function. Memory function largely determines response. The failure of memory function ends the ability to respond rationally.

You don't seem to want to take any path that might actually lead to an understanding of consciousness.

That's still you. One one hand you say that nobody knows anything about consciousness and on the other you act like you know a lot, yet it's clear that you don't have a very good understanding of the subject matter, the research, experiments or evidence.

 

[bilby]

A computer chip contains thousands of transistors.

Each of these, apparently, has the ability to say 'no', because otherwise computers couldn't control anything.

Apparently the concept of software is one that untermensche has never encountered.

I hesitate to even suggest that software, when running, is a dynamic pattern of the states of the various hardware components of a computer, in case his head explodes - being exposed to new ways of thinking about reality appears to be a frightening experience for him.

But it's OK - doubtless his trusty defence mechanism of calling me stupid and telling me that I don't understand anything, followed by a repetitive demand for proof of something only he believes to be of any relevance to my analogy, will see him through without the need to apply thought to a situation in which he might not be the authority he imagines himself to be.

And yes, I am aware that there are many dissimilarities between brains and computers. None of which are actually relevant to the point I am making here.

 

[untermensche]

To understand anything first of all means knowing what it is.

In all the activity we see in the brain, which is the specific activity that results in consciousness?

I know what consciousness is. It is an emergent property of the neurology. We consider a human not to be able to experience consciousness if they are brain-dead.

I do not know exactly which neurons must be excised to remove consciousness. But certain sensory (conscious) experiences (sight, sound, pain, etc.) do have identifiable regions activated.

This is not an explanation of anything.

It is not an understanding of anything.

We both use the word "understanding" the same way.

 

[untermensche]

Tell me how the brain controls activity.

Your question is wrong. You should understand by now that the brain is a modular system where each region, Thalamus, Hyperthalamus, Visual cortex, auditory cortex, etc, has certain functions that contribute to the functioning of the brain as a whole....allowing for a degree of plasticity where one region may compensate for damage to another.

In other words: You don't have the slightest clue so you will randomly name parts of the brain and pretend you understand something by doing so.

This pretense to knowledge gets old.

If cells do not say "no" how is there any control of anything?

Cells are information receivers, processors and transmitters, they respond according their inputs and function. Memory function largely determines response. The failure of memory function ends the ability to respond rationally.

So you agree, or what?

You just randomly recite things like a robot without any connection to the point you have referenced.

If cells can say "no" then the situation is nothing like electricity running through a wire.

- - - Updated - - -

A computer chip contains thousands of transistors.

Each of these, apparently, has the ability to say 'no', because otherwise computers couldn't control anything.

Apparently the concept of software is one that untermensche has never encountered.

I hesitate to even suggest that software, when running, is a dynamic pattern of the states of the various hardware components of a computer, in case his head explodes - being exposed to new ways of thinking about reality appears to be a frightening experience for him.

But it's OK - doubtless his trusty defence mechanism of calling me stupid and telling me that I don't understand anything, followed by a repetitive demand for proof of something only he believes to be of any relevance to my analogy, will see him through without the need to apply thought to a situation in which he might not be the authority he imagines himself to be.

And yes, I am aware that there are many dissimilarities between brains and computers. None of which are actually relevant to the point I am making here.

Are you claiming the brain is a computer chip?

Because it is nothing like a computer chip and it works nothing like a computer chip.

And nothing like consciousness is the result of a computer chip.

I think you are pulling things from your ass in the hopes they mean something.

 

[bilby]

Your question is wrong. You should understand by now that the brain is a modular system where each region, Thalamus, Hyperthalamus, Visual cortex, auditory cortex, etc, has certain functions that contribute to the functioning of the brain as a whole....allowing for a degree of plasticity where one region may compensate for damage to another.

In other words: You don't have the slightest clue so you will randomly name parts of the brain and pretend you understand something by doing so.

This pretense to knowledge gets old.

If cells do not say "no" how is there any control of anything?

Cells are information receivers, processors and transmitters, they respond according their inputs and function. Memory function largely determines response. The failure of memory function ends the ability to respond rationally.

So you agree, or what?

You just randomly recite things like a robot without any connection to the point you have referenced.

If cells can say "no" then the situation is nothing like electricity running through a wire.

- - - Updated - - -

A computer chip contains thousands of transistors.

Each of these, apparently, has the ability to say 'no', because otherwise computers couldn't control anything.

Apparently the concept of software is one that untermensche has never encountered.

I hesitate to even suggest that software, when running, is a dynamic pattern of the states of the various hardware components of a computer, in case his head explodes - being exposed to new ways of thinking about reality appears to be a frightening experience for him.

But it's OK - doubtless his trusty defence mechanism of calling me stupid and telling me that I don't understand anything, followed by a repetitive demand for proof of something only he believes to be of any relevance to my analogy, will see him through without the need to apply thought to a situation in which he might not be the authority he imagines himself to be.

And yes, I am aware that there are many dissimilarities between brains and computers. None of which are actually relevant to the point I am making here.

Are you claiming the brain is a computer chip?

Because it is nothing like a computer chip and it works nothing like a computer chip.

I think you are pulling things from your ass in the hopes they mean something.

Well, I called it.

Yes, I am claiming that the brain is a computer chip. Square, black, loads of little metallic legs. You got me.

 

[beero1000]

In other words: You don't have the slightest clue so you will randomly name parts of the brain and pretend you understand something by doing so.

This pretense to knowledge gets old.

If cells do not say "no" how is there any control of anything?

Cells are information receivers, processors and transmitters, they respond according their inputs and function. Memory function largely determines response. The failure of memory function ends the ability to respond rationally.

So you agree, or what?

You just randomly recite things like a robot without any connection to the point you have referenced.

If cells can say "no" then the situation is nothing like electricity running through a wire.

- - - Updated - - -

A computer chip contains thousands of transistors.

Each of these, apparently, has the ability to say 'no', because otherwise computers couldn't control anything.

Apparently the concept of software is one that untermensche has never encountered.

I hesitate to even suggest that software, when running, is a dynamic pattern of the states of the various hardware components of a computer, in case his head explodes - being exposed to new ways of thinking about reality appears to be a frightening experience for him.

But it's OK - doubtless his trusty defence mechanism of calling me stupid and telling me that I don't understand anything, followed by a repetitive demand for proof of something only he believes to be of any relevance to my analogy, will see him through without the need to apply thought to a situation in which he might not be the authority he imagines himself to be.

And yes, I am aware that there are many dissimilarities between brains and computers. None of which are actually relevant to the point I am making here.

Are you claiming the brain is a computer chip?

Because it is nothing like a computer chip and it works nothing like a computer chip.

I think you are pulling things from your ass in the hopes they mean something.

Well, I called it.

Yes, I am claiming that the brain is a computer chip. Square, black, loads of little metallic legs. You got me.

It gets so old so fast.

Anyway, I decided to look into this claim:

He thinks the strength of a magnetic field is what induces currents. Faraday's law goes back to the 1830s and is covered in basic physics classes.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a retraction though. Doubling down is more likely.

Not induce currents, distort electrical effects.

So called "patterns" of electrical events.

A strong magnetic field would distort any such "patterns".

While it's absolutely incorrect that static magnetic fields influence electrical effects directly, I couldn't rule out all secondary or diamagnetic effects in a complex system like the human body. So I looked it up:

Perhaps the most innocuous component of the MRI exam is the magnetic field strength. Studies of more than 100 million individuals worldwide at 1.5 T have revealed no unavoidable effects from static magnetic field exposure at this level. The same can also be said for the thousands of subjects that have now been studied at fields of 3 and 4 tesla. Our initial studies in both animal and human subjects demonstrated no demonstrable cardiac, physiological, or cognitive effects from exposure to the field strength of 8 T.

So there's that. Still not holding my breath for a retraction.

 

[George S]

I know what consciousness is. It is an emergent property of the neurology. We consider a human not to be able to experience consciousness if they are brain-dead.

I do not know exactly which neurons must be excised to remove consciousness. But certain sensory (conscious) experiences (sight, sound, pain, etc.) do have identifiable regions activated.

This is not an explanation of anything.

It is not an understanding of anything.

We both use the word "understanding" the same way.

Well, I tried.