Consciousness

[DBT]

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.
.

Says you. Which means nothing at all. Apart from your own irrational beliefs, autonomous consciousness, it is quite clear that the brain is a highly evolved information processor that gathers information via its senses and generates an interactive internal 'map' of the world and self based on its available information base and inputs, which we call consciousness.

 

[ryan]

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.

Experiences are absolute truth. Nothing is false about an experience. Everything else is questionable.

 

[DBT]

It's the content of experience that is questionable. What someone is experiencing may be a hallucination, seeing things that aren't there to be seen.

 

[untermensche]

You don't know how it happens.

You don't have the first clue.
.

Says you. Which means nothing at all. Apart from your own irrational beliefs, autonomous consciousness, it is quite clear that the brain is a highly evolved information processor that gathers information via its senses and generates an interactive internal 'map' of the world and self based on its available information base and inputs, which we call consciousness.

OK. Here's your test to see if you are full of it.



Tell me what the person above was experiencing since you understand the activity so well.

 

[bilby]

Says you. Which means nothing at all. Apart from your own irrational beliefs, autonomous consciousness, it is quite clear that the brain is a highly evolved information processor that gathers information via its senses and generates an interactive internal 'map' of the world and self based on its available information base and inputs, which we call consciousness.

OK. Here's your test to see if you are full of it.

View attachment 11137

Tell me what the person above was experiencing since you understand the activity so well.

Here's a test to see if you are full of it - tell me how many people are wearing red shirts in Central Park, New York City in this photo:

 

[untermensche]

That's a PET scan.

That's as good as it gets.

We do not have any better resolution.

 

[bilby]

That's a PET scan.

That's as good as it gets.

We do not have any better resolution.

So you accept that your challenge was fucking stupid?

 

[untermensche]

That's a PET scan.

That's as good as it gets.

We do not have any better resolution.

So you accept that your challenge was fucking stupid?

It just points out the state of our understanding of brain activity.

It just shows that those who claim we understand brain activity are full of it.

There is activity and it increases here and then increases there. And nobody understands why or how.

 

[bilby]

So you accept that your challenge was fucking stupid?

It just points out the state of our understanding of brain activity.

It just shows that those who claim we understand brain activity are full of it.

There is activity and it increases here and then increases there. And nobody understands why or how.

Ah. The compelling and not at all fallacious Argument from Ignorance.

 

[untermensche]

You seem confused.

The claim is that we do not understand brain activity.

That is not a refutation.

 

[bilby]

You seem confused.

The claim is that we do not understand brain activity.

That is not a refutation.

Your claim is that because you don't understand it, it is not, and cannot be, understood.

That doesn't require refutation; it is a simple fallacy. Your use of the Royal 'we' notwithstanding.

 

[untermensche]

You seem confused.

The claim is that we do not understand brain activity.

That is not a refutation.

Your claim is that because you don't understand it, it is not, and cannot be, understood.

That doesn't require refutation; it is a simple fallacy. Your use of the Royal 'we' notwithstanding.

If it can be understood I can understand it.

There is some knowledge about how individual cells work.

There are scans that show what areas are "more active". These areas are specific to individuals but sometimes share a general location between individuals.

That's it.

There is no further understanding.

 

[bilby]

Your claim is that because you don't understand it, it is not, and cannot be, understood.

That doesn't require refutation; it is a simple fallacy. Your use of the Royal 'we' notwithstanding.

If it can be understood I can understand it.

I stand in awe at your humility.

 

[DBT]

Says you. Which means nothing at all. Apart from your own irrational beliefs, autonomous consciousness, it is quite clear that the brain is a highly evolved information processor that gathers information via its senses and generates an interactive internal 'map' of the world and self based on its available information base and inputs, which we call consciousness.

OK. Here's your test to see if you are full of it.

View attachment 11137

Tell me what the person above was experiencing since you understand the activity so well.

That's right, present a strawman so you feel that you are actually making a point instead of demonstrating a lack of understanding of the subject matter. Keep up the good work of refuting your own beliefs.

 

[untermensche]

That's right, present a strawman so you feel that you are actually making a point instead of demonstrating a lack of understanding of the subject matter. Keep up the good work of refuting your own beliefs.

My point is you are full of shit.

You have no understanding of brain activity.

None.

Nobody understands it. Nobody knows how activity occurs or why. Some look at activity and try to correlate it to subjective reporting. Which isn't an understanding of anything.

 

[fromderinside]

First don't think of the brain as a CPU. If one has to think of it in computer terms it is system, indeed, part of the nervous system, where results of much activity is processed into a person's command and control functions. Adjusted and updated behavioral commands are initiated there which set and adjust ongoing local input and output activity. So looking at brain activity cannot tell us what a person is thinking or even what a person is doing. That always becomes apparent at the outputs of the nervous system taken together.

Of course we understand brain activity. We can predict what is going to happen next by observing it along with and through models we've developed for the rest of nervous system activity.

Your blow hole is really getting tired. All you do is point at a haystack and ask where is the pin. What's obvious is the pin is where some farmer or player on the farm dropped it for the machinery of the farm to pick up and process it along with the hay into bales which were then put in one stack or another. So the pin probably isn't even in the hay stack at which you point.

 

[untermensche]

First don't think of the brain as a CPU. If one has to think of it in computer terms it is system, indeed, part of the nervous system, where results of much activity is processed into a person's command and control functions. Adjusted and updated behavioral commands are initiated there which set and adjust ongoing local input and output activity. So looking at brain activity cannot tell us what a person is thinking or even what a person is doing. That always becomes apparent at the outputs of the nervous system taken together.

Of course we understand brain activity. We can predict what is going to happen next by observing it along with and through models we've developed for the rest of nervous system activity.

Your blow hole is really getting tired. All you do is point at a haystack and ask where is the pin. What's obvious is the pin is where some farmer or player on the farm dropped it for the machinery of the farm to pick up and process it along with the hay into bales which were then put in one stack or another. So the pin probably isn't even in the hay stack at which you point.

I am tired of the faithful and their lies about understanding anything about brain activity.

You cannot predict anything of significance.

If people are forced to make an either/or decision that only involves one side of the body crude predictions can be made, like which side will likely move next, with statistical analysis of the "cloud" of preparatory "activity".

That isn't an understanding of anything. It is just a worthless trick.

It isn't a prediction of anything of significance.

 

[untermensche]

Here's your chance. Make a prediction:



What is that person going to do 20 seconds from now?

 

[fromderinside]

First don't think of the brain as a CPU. If one has to think of it in computer terms it is system, indeed, part of the nervous system, where results of much activity is processed into a person's command and control functions. Adjusted and updated behavioral commands are initiated there which set and adjust ongoing local input and output activity. So looking at brain activity cannot tell us what a person is thinking or even what a person is doing. That always becomes apparent at the outputs of the nervous system taken together.

Of course we understand brain activity. We can predict what is going to happen next by observing it along with and through models we've developed for the rest of nervous system activity.

Your blow hole is really getting tired. All you do is point at a haystack and ask where is the pin. What's obvious is the pin is where some farmer or player on the farm dropped it for the machinery of the farm to pick up and process it along with the hay into bales which were then put in one stack or another. So the pin probably isn't even in the hay stack at which you point.

I am tired of the faithful and their lies about understanding anything about brain activity.

You cannot predict anything of significance.

If people are forced to make an either/or decision that only involves one side of the body crude predictions can be made, like which side will likely move next, with statistical analysis of the "cloud" of preparatory "activity".

That isn't an understanding of anything. It is just a worthless trick.

It isn't a prediction of anything of significance.

Unfortunately you aren't talking to the 'faithful'. You are responding to one who actually modeled human behavior, aviator behavior actually, in proving instantiations of it in proving and demonstrating function in modern aircraft systems that are now used, as modeled, activity in live Ariel Combat and time critical decision situations. Believe me the faithful can't do this, nor can your hand waving deny the depth of what we know and replicate successfully in models.

Oh, and we were doing this in the 1990s.

Here is an example: Digital Human Modelling for Vehicle and Workplace https://www.researchgate.net/profil...ace_Design/links/54f90ca60cf210398e97297e.pdf

Never once was it necessary to model human consciousness beyond some time variables for latency control and switching tasks used in managing workload modelling.

 

[DBT]

That's right, present a strawman so you feel that you are actually making a point instead of demonstrating a lack of understanding of the subject matter. Keep up the good work of refuting your own beliefs.

My point is you are full of shit.

You have no understanding of brain activity.

None.

Nobody understands it. Nobody knows how activity occurs or why. Some look at activity and try to correlate it to subjective reporting. Which isn't an understanding of anything.

That's right spit the dummy, throw a tantrum, abuse your opponent for something that was not said, or even implied, meanwhile ignoring what was actually said and the actual evidence being presented that supports brain agency rather than your notions of disembodied consciousness.