Consciousness

[untermensche]

It is quite clear consciousness moves the arm at will.

No evidence shows otherwise.

There is unexplained activity that occurs as consciousness prepares to move that is labeled "unconscious".

The only problem is the person is not unconscious so labeling it as "unconscious" activity is just pretending to understand it.

You have nothing but a pretense to knowledge.

Nothing.

We know what happens when the arm is made to move, and we know what parts of the arm are relevant for that. Those parts are connected to the brain, which transmits signals to the arm, causing its muscles to contract. This results in movement. The signals that originate in the brain do not pop up at random. They are the results of previous signals, which themselves are the products of prior brain states and external stimuli, and so on. What I am trying to say here is that a causal explanation for the intentional movement of one's arm can be constructed without referring to anything other than the physical inputs and outputs of the central and peripheral nervous systems. There is no room for an external director, whose choice to move the arm appears as a causal component like a lightning bolt from Zeus, without any preceding physical events giving rise to it.

The physical explanation for a human being moving her arm is almost exactly the same as the explanation of a fish moving its fin, or an insect moving its wing. There are differences in complexity, but the overall pathway from electrochemical signal to the contraction of muscular or skeletal structure follows the same physical rules in both cases. Are you saying that the insect's consciousness moves its wing at will?

The issue is merely one of labels.

Activity appears. Activity that when let loose will move the arm.

Some call this activity "unconscious" movement, even though no movement has occurred when we see the activity.

I call it conscious preparatory activity. Consciousness prepares to move, then gives the signal. It does not just give the signal.

All these studies show is that conscious preparation and anticipation has real effects.

 

[untermensche]

This is called sweeping the problem under the rug.

And pretending it does not exist.

If the brain can initiate action where no action existed then there is no reason consciousness, a "module" of the brain can't do the same.

Labeling an argument without evidence is not reason. Claiming something without example is not reason. You are unreasonable.

The evidence is clear.

I say that consciousness moves the arm.

Some say that the brain does it somehow and for some reason.

That is merely sweeping the problem under the rug and pretending to deal with it.

 

[PyramidHead]

We know what happens when the arm is made to move, and we know what parts of the arm are relevant for that. Those parts are connected to the brain, which transmits signals to the arm, causing its muscles to contract. This results in movement. The signals that originate in the brain do not pop up at random. They are the results of previous signals, which themselves are the products of prior brain states and external stimuli, and so on. What I am trying to say here is that a causal explanation for the intentional movement of one's arm can be constructed without referring to anything other than the physical inputs and outputs of the central and peripheral nervous systems. There is no room for an external director, whose choice to move the arm appears as a causal component like a lightning bolt from Zeus, without any preceding physical events giving rise to it.

The physical explanation for a human being moving her arm is almost exactly the same as the explanation of a fish moving its fin, or an insect moving its wing. There are differences in complexity, but the overall pathway from electrochemical signal to the contraction of muscular or skeletal structure follows the same physical rules in both cases. Are you saying that the insect's consciousness moves its wing at will?

The issue is merely one of labels.

Activity appears. Activity that when let loose will move the arm.

But it does not appear from nowhere, which would be the case if consciousness were a distinct directing entity, separate from the brain. The signal comes from elsewhere in the brain, which is stimulated by something in the body, which responds to something in the environment. Again, the same is true of a salmon or a fruit fly. If consciousness is what moves your arm, it must also be what moves their appendages. I ask again, is a fruit fly consciously willing its wings to vibrate, or is it just reacting to external stimuli? If it's just reacting to stimuli, how do you know the brain isn't doing the same thing, with no need for conscious will?

 

[untermensche]

The issue is merely one of labels.

Activity appears. Activity that when let loose will move the arm.

But it does not appear from nowhere, which would be the case if consciousness were a distinct directing entity, separate from the brain. The signal comes from elsewhere in the brain, which is stimulated by something in the body, which responds to something in the environment. Again, the same is true of a salmon or a fruit fly. If consciousness is what moves your arm, it must also be what moves their appendages. I ask again, is a fruit fly consciously willing its wings to vibrate, or is it just reacting to external stimuli? If it's just reacting to stimuli, how do you know the brain isn't doing the same thing, with no need for conscious will?

How it appears is completely unknown.

But it does appear when a person anticipates a movement and is preparing for one.

So to claim it is somehow "unconscious" is dubious.

 

[PyramidHead]

Let's draw it out visually (and would you look at that, I'm back in this thread).

The prevailing scientific explanation of me intentionally moving my arm is this:

stable brain activity keeping me alive and functioning ---> external stimulus of reading untermensche's post ---> information integration in the frontal lobe ---> signal transfer to structures that govern movement ---> electro-chemical propagation down nerve endings through the spinal column ---> contraction of arm muscles

This is a complete explanation. As we fill in each step with additional knowledge, it will just be "how" knowledge that tells us more about the physical goings-on at each stage of the process.

If we assume consciousness has some separate administrative function apart from what the brain is doing, we get this:

stable brain activity keeping me alive and functioning ---> external stimulus of reading untermensche's post ---> information integration in the frontal lobe ---> ZAP! consciousness intervenes and generates an electro-chemical signal ---> signal transfer to structures that govern movement ---> electro-chemical propagation down nerve endings through the spinal column ---> contraction of arm muscles

If consciousness can cause things to happen that would not happen otherwise, it must have the power to create physical events that have no physical precursors. Out of nowhere, consciousness inserts a signal manifested from thin air, like a billiard ball already in motion suddenly appearing on the table. This is what you must believe if you think consciousness has causal powers that supersede the brain. Otherwise, the causal chain of physical events from A to B to C would be sufficient to get your arm to move. Does this not seem outlandish to you?

 

[PyramidHead]

But it does not appear from nowhere, which would be the case if consciousness were a distinct directing entity, separate from the brain. The signal comes from elsewhere in the brain, which is stimulated by something in the body, which responds to something in the environment. Again, the same is true of a salmon or a fruit fly. If consciousness is what moves your arm, it must also be what moves their appendages. I ask again, is a fruit fly consciously willing its wings to vibrate, or is it just reacting to external stimuli? If it's just reacting to stimuli, how do you know the brain isn't doing the same thing, with no need for conscious will?

How it appears is completely unknown.

But it does appear when a person anticipates a movement and is preparing for one.

So to claim it is somehow "unconscious" is dubious.

If you could map every neural and peripheral connection in a person at rest, the same person preparing to move their arm, and the same person moving their arm, you would be able to trace the chain of events across the three states and form a complete physical story that accounts for the movement of their arm. If you are correct, this must be impossible even in principle; without consciousness, the arm will simply not move, and no amount of knowledge about brain states can fully capture consciousness. Yet, we have every reason to believe that the sequence of events in the person is just a more complicated version of the corresponding sequence in lifeforms that presumably lack consciousness and act solely on impulse. Do you see the problem here? The gears all move together without trouble and get the clock to chime when it does, but you're proposing that someone is outside, pushing the gears along, even though they would turn just fine without him pushing them.

 

[untermensche]

Let's draw it out visually (and would you look at that, I'm back in this thread).

The prevailing scientific explanation of me intentionally moving my arm is this:

stable brain activity keeping me alive and functioning ---> external stimulus of reading untermensche's post ---> information integration in the frontal lobe ---> signal transfer to structures that govern movement ---> electro-chemical propagation down nerve endings through the spinal column ---> contraction of arm muscles

You left out the conscious decision.

Consciousness can say "no" I will not move my arm, or "yes" I will.

What you describe is a reflex.

We know what a reflex is. We have all sneezed. We try to hold it off but "bam" reflex. We lose control.

This is nothing like a reflex. A thought to move is not a reflex.

It is a decision to act or not.

stable brain activity keeping me alive and functioning ---> external stimulus of reading untermensche's post ---> information integration in the frontal lobe ---> ZAP! consciousness intervenes and generates an electro-chemical signal ---> signal transfer to structures that govern movement ---> electro-chemical propagation down nerve endings through the spinal column ---> contraction of arm muscles

There is no difference between "ZAP! consciousness intervenes" and "ZAP! the brain does it somehow and for some reason".

They are both identical in terms of understanding.

But one conforms to experience.

 

[untermensche]

How it appears is completely unknown.

But it does appear when a person anticipates a movement and is preparing for one.

So to claim it is somehow "unconscious" is dubious.

If you could map every neural and peripheral connection in a person at rest, the same person preparing to move their arm, and the same person moving their arm, you would be able to trace the chain of events across the three states and form a complete physical story that accounts for the movement of their arm. If you are correct, this must be impossible even in principle; without consciousness, the arm will simply not move, and no amount of knowledge about brain states can fully capture consciousness. Yet, we have every reason to believe that the sequence of events in the person is just a more complicated version of the corresponding sequence in lifeforms that presumably lack consciousness and act solely on impulse. Do you see the problem here? The gears all move together without trouble and get the clock to chime when it does, but you're proposing that someone is outside, pushing the gears along, even though they would turn just fine without him pushing them.

Consciousness is that which throws a few switches.

It makes the final decision in a few cases.

You can artificially throw a switch by introducing electricity but that is nothing like what happens when consciousness throws a switch.

 

[PyramidHead]

You left out the conscious decision.

Consciousness can say "no" I will not move my arm, or "yes" I will.

What you describe is a reflex.

We know what a reflex is. We have all sneezed. We try to hold it off but "bam" reflex. We lose control.

This is nothing like a reflex. A thought to move is not a reflex.

It is a decision to act or not.

I accounted for that with information integration in the frontal lobe. The stimulus of reading your post is filtered through all of the accumulated memories and opinions stored in my brain, culminating in the decision to move my arm.

stable brain activity keeping me alive and functioning ---> external stimulus of reading untermensche's post ---> information integration in the frontal lobe ---> ZAP! consciousness intervenes and generates an electro-chemical signal ---> signal transfer to structures that govern movement ---> electro-chemical propagation down nerve endings through the spinal column ---> contraction of arm muscles

There is no difference between "ZAP! conscious intervenes" and "ZAP! the brain does it somehow and for some reason".

They are both identical in terms of understanding.

But one conforms to experience.

That's where you've gone off the rails. In literally every example of a physical phenomenon with a known cause, it has turned out to be a physical cause. We have every reason to speculate that in the future, when we explain physical phenomena that are currently mysterious, the explanation will be a description of physical events operating in lawlike or probabilistic ways. It's just a basic assumption of science. On the other hand, we have never successfully explained something by saying "the physical process was about to terminate until a magic signal appeared out of nowhere and literally moved the atoms somewhere else". That's a hypothesis with no observations to its name, and I doubt any are forthcoming.

 

[untermensche]

I accounted for that with information integration in the frontal lobe. The stimulus of reading your post is filtered through all of the accumulated memories and opinions stored in my brain, culminating in the decision to move my arm.

stable brain activity keeping me alive and functioning ---> external stimulus of reading untermensche's post ---> information integration in the frontal lobe ---> ZAP! consciousness intervenes and generates an electro-chemical signal ---> signal transfer to structures that govern movement ---> electro-chemical propagation down nerve endings through the spinal column ---> contraction of arm muscles

There is no difference between "ZAP! conscious intervenes" and "ZAP! the brain does it somehow and for some reason".

They are both identical in terms of understanding.

But one conforms to experience.

That's where you've gone off the rails. In literally every example of a physical phenomenon with a known cause, it has turned out to be a physical cause. We have every reason to speculate that in the future, when we explain physical phenomena that are currently mysterious, the explanation will be a description of physical events operating in lawlike or probabilistic ways. It's just a basic assumption of science. On the other hand, we have never successfully explained something by saying "the physical process was about to terminate until a magic signal appeared out of nowhere and literally moved the atoms somewhere else". That's a hypothesis with no observations to its name, and I doubt any are forthcoming.

"Physical" is just an honorary term to mean "it objectively exists".

If the mechanism for consciousness to move the arm exists then it is physical.

 

[PyramidHead]

If you could map every neural and peripheral connection in a person at rest, the same person preparing to move their arm, and the same person moving their arm, you would be able to trace the chain of events across the three states and form a complete physical story that accounts for the movement of their arm. If you are correct, this must be impossible even in principle; without consciousness, the arm will simply not move, and no amount of knowledge about brain states can fully capture consciousness. Yet, we have every reason to believe that the sequence of events in the person is just a more complicated version of the corresponding sequence in lifeforms that presumably lack consciousness and act solely on impulse. Do you see the problem here? The gears all move together without trouble and get the clock to chime when it does, but you're proposing that someone is outside, pushing the gears along, even though they would turn just fine without him pushing them.

Consciousness is that which throws a few switches.

It makes the final decision in a few cases.

You can artificially throw a switch by introducing electricity but that is nothing like what happens when consciousness throws a switch.

Is that true in all organisms that move around, or just in humans and higher animals? Why can we explain the movement of most organisms without invoking this mysterious switch-throwing entity?

- - - Updated - - -

I accounted for that with information integration in the frontal lobe. The stimulus of reading your post is filtered through all of the accumulated memories and opinions stored in my brain, culminating in the decision to move my arm.

stable brain activity keeping me alive and functioning ---> external stimulus of reading untermensche's post ---> information integration in the frontal lobe ---> ZAP! consciousness intervenes and generates an electro-chemical signal ---> signal transfer to structures that govern movement ---> electro-chemical propagation down nerve endings through the spinal column ---> contraction of arm muscles

There is no difference between "ZAP! conscious intervenes" and "ZAP! the brain does it somehow and for some reason".

They are both identical in terms of understanding.

But one conforms to experience.

That's where you've gone off the rails. In literally every example of a physical phenomenon with a known cause, it has turned out to be a physical cause. We have every reason to speculate that in the future, when we explain physical phenomena that are currently mysterious, the explanation will be a description of physical events operating in lawlike or probabilistic ways. It's just a basic assumption of science. On the other hand, we have never successfully explained something by saying "the physical process was about to terminate until a magic signal appeared out of nowhere and literally moved the atoms somewhere else". That's a hypothesis with no observations to its name, and I doubt any are forthcoming.

"Physical" is just an honorary term to mean "it objectively exists".

If the mechanism for consciousness to move the arm exists then it is physical.

Finally, what is consciousness? You're about to give me an operational definition: consciousness is that which __________. But I'm not asking what it does, I'm asking what you think it is. If it's not a magic signal, and it's just a physical event caused by the physical events that happened before it like anything else in nature, then you've lost the ballgame and should admit to DBT and fromderinside that they were right all along.

 

[untermensche]

Is that true in all organisms that move around, or just in humans and higher animals? Why can we explain the movement of most organisms without invoking this mysterious switch-throwing entity?

Nothing any more mysterious than saying some brain came up with the Theory of Relativity by itself with a bunch of reflexes.

Finally, what is consciousness? You're about to give me an operational definition: consciousness is that which __________. But I'm not asking what it does, I'm asking what you think it is. If it's not a magic signal, and it's just a physical event caused by the physical events that happened before it like anything else in nature, then you've lost the ballgame and should admit to DBT and fromderinside that they were right all along.

Consciousness can only be talked about as a subjective experience. It is not known objectively at all.

But experience is clear.

Consciousness decides to move the arm and it moves. It does not just move on it's own like a reflex.

The patellar reflex can move the leg. When it happens the person does not feel like they are moving the leg.

Humans know the difference between reflex and movement due to reflection and decision.

 

[PyramidHead]

Nothing any more mysterious than saying some brain came up with the Theory of Relativity by itself with a bunch of reflexes.

What alternative explanation would you offer? That Einstein's brain was puttering along according to cause and effect in the observable world, until an uncaused event called Einstein's consciousness stepped in and rearranged his brain cells? Is that really what you believe about reality?

Finally, what is consciousness? You're about to give me an operational definition: consciousness is that which __________. But I'm not asking what it does, I'm asking what you think it is. If it's not a magic signal, and it's just a physical event caused by the physical events that happened before it like anything else in nature, then you've lost the ballgame and should admit to DBT and fromderinside that they were right all along.

Consciousness can only be talked about as a subjective experience. It is not known objectively at all.

But experience is clear.

Consciousness decides to move the arm and it moves. It does not just move on it's own like a reflex.

The patellar reflex can move the leg. When it happens the person does not feel like they are moving the leg.

Humans know the difference between reflex and movement due to reflection and decision.

We used to think there was a difference in kind between the many species of organisms on the planet, but now we know they differ only by degrees from a common ancestor. We used to think the Sun was one type of celestial object while the stars were another, but this too turned out to be a difference in degree (namely, distance). Experience is often mistaken.

You aren't answering any of the questions I'm asking directly, which is pretty telling. I will remind you one last time: all of the powers you attribute to consciousness in its capacity to move arms can be found in organisms that are not necessarily conscious. Another way of putting this is to say consciousness is not necessary to explain why organism A moves its limbs, but you insist that something about organism B, namely homo sapiens, is literally inexplicable in terms of cause and effect unless you insert an uncaused mover that is permanently invisible and can affect matter through some means not yet dreamed up by the sciences.

 

[untermensche]

What alternative explanation would you offer? That Einstein's brain was puttering along according to cause and effect in the observable world, until an uncaused event called Einstein's consciousness stepped in and rearranged his brain cells? Is that really what you believe about reality?

I believe that consciousness can create imaginary objects at will.

I believe consciousness can sift ideas and accept some and reject others.

I believe the Theory of Relatively was an act of will. Like most people.

You aren't answering any of the questions I'm asking directly, which is pretty telling.

I'm answering everything that is possible. You just don't like the answers.

I will remind you one last time: all of the powers you attribute to consciousness in its capacity to move arms can be found in organisms that are not necessarily conscious.

Which is not an explanation or even a comment about human consciousness.

 

[PyramidHead]

I believe that consciousness can create imaginary objects at will.

I believe consciousness can sift ideas and accept some and reject others.

I believe the Theory of Relatively was an act of will. Like most people.

But you're not saying anything here, because you could replace "consciousness" and "will" with "the brain" and the same people would agree. Actually, MORE people would agree. I kind of doubt very many people think Einstein decided to concoct his theory by sheer force of will, including Einstein himself, who often maintained he was simply following the internal logic of his equations. You may just be using the word "consciousness" to talk about the same thing that DBT and fromderinside are describing at a more fine-grained level of specificity.

 

[untermensche]

I believe that consciousness can create imaginary objects at will.

I believe consciousness can sift ideas and accept some and reject others.

I believe the Theory of Relatively was an act of will. Like most people.

But you're not saying anything here, because you could replace "consciousness" and "will" with "the brain" and the same people would agree. Actually, MORE people would agree. I kind of doubt very many people think Einstein decided to concoct his theory by sheer force of will, including Einstein himself, who often maintained he was simply following the internal logic of his equations. You may just be using the word "consciousness" to talk about the same thing that DBT and fromderinside are describing at a more fine-grained level of specificity.

The brain did not evolve to invent the Theory of Relativity.

That is something outside any possible "programming".

Saying it was a reflex is not very plausible.

And you cannot replace "consciousness" and "will" with "brain" and have it conform with experience.

Our experience is not one of merely acquiring opinions as a reflex. It is also one of looking at some issues carefully and coming to a conclusion based on the issues, not some "programming" in the brain.

 

[DBT]

Empty rhetoric and hand waving. Ignore research, evidence, the commentary of researchers and analysts and dismiss anything that doesn't support your own version of alternate reality. Well done, Mr Untermensche.

Address the comments.

If you can.

All these researchers see is activity arise where it was not.

That is all they have.

The rest is imagination.

They have no understanding of what caused it to arise or how it arose.

I have addressed your comments throughout this thread. You just ignore anything that I say. It doesn't matter to you who points out the flaws in your beliefs. It doesn't matter that a truck load of evidence has been provided to refute your beliefs, you blithely dismiss everything that is put before you and just reassert your own unsupported claims.

 

[DBT]

Nothing any more mysterious than saying some brain came up with the Theory of Relativity by itself with a bunch of reflexes.

Finally, what is consciousness? You're about to give me an operational definition: consciousness is that which __________. But I'm not asking what it does, I'm asking what you think it is. If it's not a magic signal, and it's just a physical event caused by the physical events that happened before it like anything else in nature, then you've lost the ballgame and should admit to DBT and fromderinside that they were right all along.

Consciousness can only be talked about as a subjective experience. It is not known objectively at all.

But experience is clear.

Consciousness decides to move the arm and it moves. It does not just move on it's own like a reflex.

The patellar reflex can move the leg. When it happens the person does not feel like they are moving the leg.

Humans know the difference between reflex and movement due to reflection and decision.

Nothing you say here is supported by evidence;

Consciousness and Intention
''Where in the brain are our intentions formed and how do we become aware of these intentions? Desmurget et al. (p. 811; see the Perspective by Haggard) investigated the effect of direct cortical stimulation of parietal and premotor regions in patients undergoing brain surgery for tumor removal. Stimulation of the parietal lobe provoked the conscious experience of wanting to move the upper limb, lips, or tongue without any concomitant motor activity. When stimulation intensity was increased, patients believed that they had actually moved or talked, but again no muscle activity was detected. When, however, the premotor region of the frontal lobes was stimulated, real complex multijoint movements were induced. However, patients did not experience these movements as produced by a conscious internal act of will. Indeed, they were not even aware that they had moved. Increasing stimulation intensity increased the amplitude or complexity of the movement but never made it reach consciousness.''

''Parietal and premotor cortex regions are serious contenders for bringing motor intentions and motor responses into awareness. We used electrical stimulation in seven patients undergoing awake brain surgery. Stimulating the right inferior parietal regions triggered a strong intention and desire to move the contralateral hand, arm, or foot, whereas stimulating the left inferior parietal region provoked the intention to move the lips and to talk. When stimulation intensity was increased in parietal areas, participants believed they had really performed these movements, although no electromyographic activity was detected. Stimulation of the premotor region triggered overt mouth and contralateral limb movements. Yet, patients firmly denied that they had moved. Conscious intention and motor awareness thus arise from increased parietal activity before movement execution.''

 

[untermensche]

Address the comments.

If you can.

All these researchers see is activity arise where it was not.

That is all they have.

The rest is imagination.

They have no understanding of what caused it to arise or how it arose.

I have addressed your comments throughout this thread. You just ignore anything that I say. It doesn't matter to you who points out the flaws in your beliefs. It doesn't matter that a truck load of evidence has been provided to refute your beliefs, you blithely dismiss everything that is put before you and just reassert your own unsupported claims.

You have never addressed this once. You have presented it as a religious dogma. You don't even think you need to comment.

These are the facts.

Activity arises that nobody knows how or why.

Some people call this unknown activity "unconscious movement". Even though nothing moves when you see it.

What it really is is "conscious preparation for a soon to be delivered movement order".

Address this.

For the first time.

Nothing you say here is supported by evidence;

You have no evidence.

Bad labeling of activity that is not understood in the least. Labeling according to prejudices, not any evidence.

That is all you have.

Your Emperor has no clothes.

 

[PyramidHead]

But you're not saying anything here, because you could replace "consciousness" and "will" with "the brain" and the same people would agree. Actually, MORE people would agree. I kind of doubt very many people think Einstein decided to concoct his theory by sheer force of will, including Einstein himself, who often maintained he was simply following the internal logic of his equations. You may just be using the word "consciousness" to talk about the same thing that DBT and fromderinside are describing at a more fine-grained level of specificity.

The brain did not evolve to invent the Theory of Relativity.

That is something outside any possible "programming".

Saying it was a reflex is not very plausible.

If every physical event has a physical cause, and everything that happens in the brain is a physical event, Einstein's theorizing was the result of a complex series of physical events and nothing else. Consciousness is along for the ride, thinking it's in control. It's like these two kids holding controllers that aren't plugged into anything, thinking they have some influence over what's happening on the screen, while the dad (the brain) is actually making things happen.

And you cannot replace "consciousness" and "will" with "brain" and have it conform with experience.

So Einstein's brain didn't come up with the theory of relativity? You do realize that after he died, Einstein's brain was preserved and subjected to rigorous testing to find out what made it special. Do you think they should have looked at his spleen instead?

Our experience is not one of merely acquiring opinions as a reflex. It is also one of looking at some issues carefully and coming to a conclusion based on the issues, not some "programming" in the brain.

The brain is where "the issues" are represented as information distributed among neural connections. All you are saying is that we think we have free will. That's not very good evidence. Lots of people think they were created by God. Our experience is just wrong if we think our consciousness has the magical ability to jiggle the actual molecules in our brains when physical precursors alone wouldn't have done so.