Consciousness

[none]

Besides being completely ridiculous

 

[bilby]

Argument of the form 'I don't understand this, therefore nobody understands it, therefore I shall refuse to listen to anyone who claims to understand it, (so I can never begin to understand it ... and repeat)' is the saddest excuse for an epistemology ever.

Is there a logical fallacy called the 'Argument from LaLaLa I'm not Listening'?

It's beyond fucking pathetic. Seriously.

 

[untermensche]

Argument of the form 'I don't understand this, therefore nobody understands it, therefore I shall refuse to listen to anyone who claims to understand it, (so I can never begin to understand it ... and repeat)' is the saddest excuse for an epistemology ever.

Is there a logical fallacy called the 'Argument from LaLaLa I'm not Listening'?

It's beyond fucking pathetic. Seriously.

That's great.

Now all you have to do is demonstrate something.

Talking about imaginary "patterns" is not demonstrating anything.

An explanation is going from the activity of something, presumably neurons, all the way to the ability to have conscious experience. With every step explained.

Then it is understood.

It is not understood just because it is most likely the result of some activity of neurons.

Things like the conscious "will" and the ability of consciousness to plan and execute are not understood by merely saying "the brain does it".

Talk about fucking pathetic.

The crowd that says "the brain does it" and thinks they have explained something.

 

[bilby]

Argument of the form 'I don't understand this, therefore nobody understands it, therefore I shall refuse to listen to anyone who claims to understand it, (so I can never begin to understand it ... and repeat)' is the saddest excuse for an epistemology ever.

Is there a logical fallacy called the 'Argument from LaLaLa I'm not Listening'?

It's beyond fucking pathetic. Seriously.

That's great.

Now all you have to do is demonstrate something.

You first.

Talking about imaginary "patterns" is not demonstrating anything.

An explanation is going from the activity of something, presumably neurons, all the way to the ability to have conscious experience. With every step explained.

Then it is understood.

It is not understood just because it is most likely the result of some activity of neurons.

Things like the conscious "will" and the ability of consciousness to plan and execute are not understood by merely saying "the brain does it".

Talk about fucking pathetic.

The crowd that says "the brain does it" and thinks they have explained something.

Are you suggesting that the brain doesn't do it?

Or that knowing that 'the brain doesn't do it' is wrong, is not explaining something?

We don't need to know everything in order to know something.

 

[DBT]

Do you experience?

If you do there must be something capable of having experience.

Call it a person, call it consciousness, it doesn't matter.

It is the same thing. "Person" is just a label to show that an individual consciousness is unique.

In everyday usage "person" is also an agent, a thing that makes decisions and acts on them.

I am not saying there is nothing that can be said about the experience of consciousness.

I have said there is no physiological explanation for how consciousness arises out of a bunch of cells.

You contradict yourself in every second post. How many times have I said that it doesn't matter that we don't know how a brain forms consciousness because all the available evidence supports the proposition that it does, regardless of us not knowing how.

Yet you still repeat the manta - ''You don't even know what consciousness is in terms of brain physiology and activity. All you know about consciousness is your subjective experience of having one'' - over and over even though you yourself are presumably in the situation but this doesn't stop you making all sorts of unsupported claims of autonomous conscious agency, brain as a receiver, etc. Oh, the irony.

 

[untermensche]

You contradict yourself in every second post. How many times have I said that it doesn't matter that we don't know how a brain forms consciousness because all the available evidence supports the proposition that it does, regardless of us not knowing how.

Yet you still repeat the manta - ''You don't even know what consciousness is in terms of brain physiology and activity. All you know about consciousness is your subjective experience of having one'' - over and over even though you yourself are presumably in the situation but this doesn't stop you making all sorts of unsupported claims of autonomous conscious agency, brain as a receiver, etc. Oh, the irony.

I have not contradicted myself once in this thread.

I have not said stupid things like that which experiences is the same thing as that which it experiences.

So now in a thread about consciousness some are saying what it actually is does not matter.

If they feel that way they should go. They are beyond useless. They spew bad erroneous conclusions not supported by any evidence.

And I do not only claim I can move my arm at "will".

I do it everyday.

 

[PyramidHead]

How does the way your consciousness experiences something differ from the way my consciousness experiences something? We can talk about how our brains differ, how they process information in different ways depending on their current state. But you're talking about something apart from the brain, so that probably doesn't apply. How do you know that your consciousness is different from mine, with regards to the way it experiences things?

You start with a human has to experience as a human. It cannot experience as a horse.

And experience has an effect on consciousness. Consciousness is a living thing and it ages and grows and if it lives too long it begins to deteriorate.

A different set of experience will create a different human consciousness.

I'm not sure I agree with any of that. If anything, the specifics of what species, what brain, what kind of experiences, etc. are a separate issue if you insist that consciousness is distinct from that which it experiences. The experience of undergoing changes, growing old, deteriorating, and so on are things that are experienced by consciousness, not consciousness itself.

Consciousness is a silent, unchanging watcher that experiences various phenomena subjectively as qualia, regardless of what those phenomena are or what kind of brain gives rise to this ability. If you like, it also exerts an influence upon the organism that harbors it. But experiences don't leave a signature or a residue upon the surface of consciousness; those are aspects of particular brains belonging to particular organisms.

If the sensation of pain is not consciousness, and consciousness is that which feels the pain, then by the same reasoning, the sensation of being me instead of you or the sensation of remembering my high school prom are not consciousness either, they are sensations experienced by consciousness. I don't see any way to maintain that any consciousness is unique without invoking souls that ride around in the heads of individual beings.

 

[untermensche]

You start with a human has to experience as a human. It cannot experience as a horse.

And experience has an effect on consciousness. Consciousness is a living thing and it ages and grows and if it lives too long it begins to deteriorate.

A different set of experience will create a different human consciousness.

I'm not sure I agree with any of that. If anything, the specifics of what species, what brain, what kind of experiences, etc. are a separate issue if you insist that consciousness is distinct from that which it experiences. The experience of undergoing changes, growing old, deteriorating, and so on are things that are experienced by consciousness, not consciousness itself.

Experiencing as a human is not something different from experience. A human experiences the colors a human can experience. It experiences the sounds and sensations a human can experience. It experiences the thoughts, with a human language, that a human can experience. It has the memory capacity of a human. It has the understanding of a human.

But for a living animal there is never just experiencing. There is experiencing with the understanding of a bear, experiencing with the understanding of a cat, and experiencing with the understanding of a human.

So a human experiences things in a way and with an understanding a human can experience them.

But actual experience in the world is unique and all brains develop from slightly different instructions and under different conditions and stimulations in the womb and are all therefore also unique.

So everyone has a unique brain and has unique experiences but is experiencing as a human can experience with the understanding of a human, which changes with age.

Consciousness is a silent, unchanging watcher that experiences various phenomena subjectively as qualia, regardless of what those phenomena are or what kind of brain gives rise to this ability. If you like, it also exerts an influence upon the organism that harbors it. But experiences don't leave a signature or a residue upon the surface of consciousness; those are aspects of particular brains belonging to particular organisms.

I don't agree with that at all. Consciousness is active, it picks goals, and it plans, and it executes those plans. It tells the arm to move and it does.

And a 40 year old consciousness "watches" differently than a 4 year old consciousness. To watch with the "wisdom" of experience is to see in a different way. So not only does consciousness have access to memory but memory changes the way consciousness "watches" the world.

If the sensation of pain is not consciousness, and consciousness is that which feels the pain, then by the same reasoning, the sensation of being me instead of you or the sensation of remembering my high school prom are not consciousness either, they are sensations experienced by consciousness. I don't see any way to maintain that any consciousness is unique without invoking souls that ride around in the heads of individual beings.

There is no sensation of being you. There is you experiencing sensation. But only experiencing as a human can experience with the understanding of a human.

And you look at the world and even experience your sensations differently than you did when you were 4.

 

[bilby]

 

[DBT]

And I do not only claim I can move my arm at "will".

I do it everyday.

Yet persistently avoid considering the means by which your experience of agency is being produced.

And your contradictions are there for anyone to see, even if you can't see them yourself.

 

[untermensche]

And I do not only claim I can move my arm at "will".

I do it everyday.

Yet persistently avoid considering the means by which your experience of agency is being produced.

And your contradictions are there for anyone to see, even if you can't see them yourself.

You don't know how it happens.

You don't have the first clue.

You see activity appear and pretend you understand what is going on based on preconceptions.

 

[bilby]

Yet persistently avoid considering the means by which your experience of agency is being produced.

And your contradictions are there for anyone to see, even if you can't see them yourself.

You don't know how it happens.

You don't have the first clue.

You see activity appear and pretend you understand what is going on based on preconceptions.

The assumption that an observation's cause is in accordance with physical law doesn't seem to me to be an unreasonable one.

It's a preconception, to be sure. But one you should have, in the absence of overwhelming reasons to reject it.

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how incomprehensible, must be something possible.

 

[fromderinside]

As you know I'm holding a position that consciousness is an explanation that is homocentric, one I believe that has never found a home. i don't think it is an explanation of anything at all. I do think humans decide, choose, react, do, etc. I believe humans also construct an operating model of their world upon which they individually depend for deciding, choosing, doing, etc which is probably more a social arena model than anything else.

By social arena I mean some sort of structure which includes mostly nearby individuals, parents, children, friends, cohorts, and some official actors that come from categories like judiciary, clerical, operational, and the like that the individual uses to model for doing such as deciding. This might seem like, to some who are familiar with Kurt Lewin, a social theater. It can be seen like a place where moods, tendencies, desires, needs, and the like, apply value to particular issues which are included when decisions are made or actions initiated.

Consciousness is first of all an ability to be conscious of things, to experience them.

Humans did not invent the ability to experience.

They have that ability.

They have consciousness. It is not a matter for discussion.

The only thing to discuss is: What is this ability to be conscious of things?

What you are talking about is the psychology of the human, a whole different topic.

Are you saying that an organism, say a Manta Ray which is able to process things according to some criteria are conscious they are so doing?

I hope not. They are processing things because their brain has the capacity to sort food from non food things whether or not some Maisie is viewing the scene. There need be no independent awareness. In my view consciousness can be separate from activity. Since such things are not possible I deny the very idea of conscious and consciousness.

So let me be clear, you are saying that if a Manta Ray is able to distinguish food from rocks it possesses the attribute consciousness.All we have is the fact that the Manta Ray eats other than rocks. Yet, the Manta Ray has the very systems deemed necessary for consciousness according to those who pursue that canard. ...and the circle is completed.

 

[untermensche]

You don't know how it happens.

You don't have the first clue.

You see activity appear and pretend you understand what is going on based on preconceptions.

The assumption that an observation's cause is in accordance with physical law doesn't seem to me to be an unreasonable one.

It's a preconception, to be sure. But one you should have, in the absence of overwhelming reasons to reject it.

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how incomprehensible, must be something possible.

You cannot eliminate autonomy from the equation.

If a person is sitting there and moves their arm at "will" then you have movement where no movement existed.

Something had to initiate it.

I say it is consciousness.

You say it the brain somehow and for some reason. But the brain still had to initiate movement. It had to behave autonomously in your scenario.

You are no closer to an explanation of anything with your hypothesis of the brain initiating movement, for some unexplained and inexplicable reason and in some unexplained manner.

 

[untermensche]

Are you saying that an organism, say a Manta Ray which is able to process things according to some criteria are conscious they are so doing?

I'm not going to make any positive claims about the experience of consciousness in a Manta Ray.

People that do that are just making things up.

 

[George S]

And now for something completely different.

[YOUTUBE]DEyiugDVQ6o[/YOUTUBE]

 

[fromderinside]

Are you saying that an organism, say a Manta Ray which is able to process things according to some criteria are conscious they are so doing?

I'm not going to make any positive claims about the experience of consciousness in a Manta Ray.

People that do that are just making things up.

A whole bunch of humans self reporting such claims are probably doing so as well.

 

[untermensche]

A whole bunch of humans self reporting are probably doing so too.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not going to make any positive claims about the experience of consciousness in a Manta Ray.

People that do that are just making things up.

A whole bunch of humans self reporting such claims are probably doing so as well.

Not about the experience of their own consciousness.

The thing that can be least questioned is direct experience. I may be mistaken about what I am experiencing at a given moment but there is no doubt I am experiencing it.

The experience of others is much more in doubt.

 

[fromderinside]

One's direct experience like repeatedly seeing the sun come up in the east and setting in the west as experiences? Wanna defend that? It turns out direct experiences are often illusions, false, or accident among other possibilities.

Finding common ground among experiences might be of some use, may be related to reality somehow, maybe not, but, certainly more than one's individual experiences?

All the above is beside the point. What really matters is the Manta Ray distinguishes food from not food and survives as do humans. Experience is just a little tinkling bell making one happy that one is superior to others.

 

[untermensche]

One's direct experience like repeatedly seeing the sun come up in the east and setting in the west as experiences? Wanna defend that? It turns out direct experiences are often illusions, false, or accident among other possibilities.

Finding common ground among experiences might be of some use, may be related to reality somehow, maybe not, but, certainly more than one's individual experiences?

All the above is beside the point. What really matters is the Manta Ray distinguishes food from not food and survives as do humans. Experience is just a little tinkling bell making one happy that one is superior to others.

The experience is exactly the same if one says the sun in moving or the earth is turning.

And I said that personal experience is more reliable and unquestioned than reports of the experiences from other people.

Direct experience has more weight than reports of experience.

Reports of UFO abduction are open to doubt.