Consciousness

[untermensche]

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.

Using the word "physical" places few limitations on the situation.

Consciousness sifting through ideas and deciding which are good and which are bad, based on the ideas not some "program" in the brain, is a "physical" event. It happens.

How it happens is the question.

Consciousness is along for the ride, thinking it's in control.

That is the claim some people make with their consciousness.

It is nonsense.

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.

No. That is children young enough you can fool them.

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?

No his brain did not.

Some "module" of brain activity called consciousness did.

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.

We only know that "issues" appear to consciousness.

We have no evidence brains, outside of consciousness, have any idea what "issues" are.

 

[fromderinside]

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.

You mistake evidence for rationalization sir.

 

[George S]

I think, therefore I'm quantum

From The Quantum Age (c) 2014 by Brian Clegg
________________________________________________
The most extreme -- and most contentious -- overlap between quantum theory and biology is that consciousness itself is a quantum phenomenon.....
[Roger] Penrose proposed that the brain is capable of computation that would be impossible using conventional mechanisms, with the probablistic nature at the heart of quantum theory explaining this extra capability.
[This] idea ... does not seem to stretch the bounds of probability to too great an extent, though as yet the jury is out.
--------------------------------------------
One of the most dramatic and important biological processes that is likely to involve high-level quantum effects is photosynthesis.... One of the steps of this intricate process is the fastest known chemical reaction in extistence, taking place in a trillionth of a second.

 

[DBT]

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.

There you go again. Misrepresent, ignore and dismiss everything that has been said, all of the evidence that has been provided, everything the researchers themselves are saying about their experiments and results....and just repeat unfounded assertions and objections. When in doubt, rinse and repeat.

It is you who refuses to deal with the results of the given experiments. It is you who is in denial of the information provided. Your only recourse being the ploys and gambits you engage with.

Again, there is no evidence to even suggest that the brain generates an autonomous decision maker in the form of consciousness. Or your other assertion, that the brain may be a receiver of consciousness.

 

[untermensche]

There you go again. Misrepresent, ignore and dismiss everything that has been said, all of the evidence that has been provided, everything the researchers themselves are saying about their experiments and results....and just repeat unfounded assertions and objections. When in doubt, rinse and repeat.

It is you who refuses to deal with the results of the given experiments. It is you who is in denial of the information provided. Your only recourse being the ploys and gambits you engage with.

Again, there is no evidence to even suggest that the brain generates an autonomous decision maker in the form of consciousness. Or your other assertion, that the brain may be a receiver of consciousness.

You simply refuse to discuss the experiments. You present them as if they were written by the gods.

If you did actually discuss the results you might understand that just labeling some activity as "unconscious" doesn't make it so. Especially since the subjects are conscious the whole time.

You have faith in labels. Nothing more.

Your Emperor has no clothes.

But since you won't or can't discuss any of these studies maybe you will answer a question.

Is your brain forcing you to write all this nonsense?

Are you being forced to write it?

Or are you writing it freely without any compulsion?

 

[fromderinside]

You simply refuse to discuss the experiments. You present them as if they were written by the gods.

If you did actually discuss the results you might understand that just labeling some activity as "unconscious" doesn't make it so. Especially since the subjects are conscious the whole time.

You have faith in labels. Nothing more.

But since you won't or can't discuss any of these studies maybe you will answer a question.

THE study.

Moruzzi G & Magoun H W. Brain stem reticular formation and activation of the EEG ttps://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9bb6/6426597e45b12f36aa88d6d8ea5b120d4ea5.pdf

 

[untermensche]

You simply refuse to discuss the experiments. You present them as if they were written by the gods.

If you did actually discuss the results you might understand that just labeling some activity as "unconscious" doesn't make it so. Especially since the subjects are conscious the whole time.

You have faith in labels. Nothing more.

But since you won't or can't discuss any of these studies maybe you will answer a question.

THE study.

Moruzzi G & Magoun H W. Brain stem reticular formation and activation of the EEG ttps://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9bb6/6426597e45b12f36aa88d6d8ea5b120d4ea5.pdf

In that study how is consciousness defined and how is it located?

I ask you the same questions you conveniently ignore.

Is your brain forcing you to write all this nonsense?

Are you being forced to write any of it?

Or are you writing it freely without any compulsion?

 

[fromderinside]

The study is about how consciousness is defined. Activation and arousal are states required for consciousness. Later we'll share some Sokolov with you where you'll learn the structure of,. sources and inputs to, and pathways of, the reticular activating system. Then later you be exposed to Locus Coeruleus which is the source of one of the more important attending networks in the brain. Soon you'll find that most of the brain is involved in what you call consciousness. Its an adventure. Hop on board.

You tend to forget. I've told you of this knowledge many times though citations of, excerpts from, and studies by, those who study how animals become aware and handle themselves and the world about them.

 

[DBT]

[
You simply refuse to discuss the experiments. You present them as if they were written by the gods.

A poor attempt at dodging the issue. The experiments clearly show the brain as a modular system where motor action can be separated from conscious awareness of that action and vice versa. The experimenters simply describe their results. Nothing is made up, there is no conjecture. Just straight forward descriptions of the experiments and their results. Which you do everything in your power to avoid discussing. You just dismiss, time and time again.

Your Emperor has no clothes.

The Emperor in this thread being you.

But since you won't or can't discuss any of these studies...

Why won't you discuss the issues raised in terms of your beliefs?

Explain what you think is happening using your claims of autonomous consciousness; '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.''

''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.''

Deal with these results, Mr Untermesche, without resorting to denial and repetitive mantras

Are you being forced to write it?

Or are you writing it freely without any compulsion?

That's just clueless. It's as if you haven't understood a word that's been said....brains have evolved for the very purpose of interacting with their environment, both internal (bodily conditions) and external inputs (sensory inputs).

 

[untermensche]

The study is about how consciousness is defined. Activation and arousal are states required for consciousness. Later we'll share some Sokolov with you where you'll learn the structure of,. sources and inputs to, and pathways of, the reticular activating system. Then later you be exposed to Locus Coeruleus which is the source of one of the more important attending networks in the brain. Soon you'll find that most of the brain is involved in what you call consciousness. Its an adventure. Hop on board.

You tend to forget. I've told you of this knowledge many times though citations of, excerpts from, and studies by, those who study how animals become aware and handle themselves and the world about them.

You fail miserably.

Nowhere in that "study" is consciousness defined. Nowhere is it located.

The people who did it don't have the slightest clue what consciousness is.

Hint: Consciousness is that which experiences arousal.

It is that which decides to act or not act.

It is that which sets action into motion.

 

[OLDMAN]

The study is about how consciousness is defined. Activation and arousal are states required for consciousness. Later we'll share some Sokolov with you where you'll learn the structure of,. sources and inputs to, and pathways of, the reticular activating system. Then later you be exposed to Locus Coeruleus which is the source of one of the more important attending networks in the brain. Soon you'll find that most of the brain is involved in what you call consciousness. Its an adventure. Hop on board.

You tend to forget. I've told you of this knowledge many times though citations of, excerpts from, and studies by, those who study how animals become aware and handle themselves and the world about them.

You fail miserably.

Nowhere in that "study" is consciousness defined. Nowhere is it located.

The people who did it don't have the slightest clue what consciousness is.

Hint: Consciousness is that which experiences arousal.

It is that which decides to act or not act.

It is that which sets action into motion.

Seems obvious the brain filters incoming information with existing experiences in memory and gives a representation of reality.
That is what brains do....how they function as organs. Not all creature have brains, but have developed other systems to detect the reality that surrounds them.
These systems are clearly a survival function.
If you ignore the elephants in the room, you can get a woo factor out of anything.

 

[untermensche]

A poor attempt at dodging the issue. The experiments clearly show the brain as a modular system where motor action can be separated from conscious awareness of that action and vice versa. The experimenters simply describe their results. Nothing is made up, there is no conjecture. Just straight forward descriptions of the experiments and their results. Which you do everything in your power to avoid discussing. You just dismiss, time and time again.

No they do not.

But you would actually have to discuss them to learn this.

No study defines the activity of any "module" of the brain. "Modules" are imaginary conceptions. Not anything that has ever been defined or exposed or demonstrated.

Your entire position consists of imaginary conceptions with no correspondence to anything real in the brain.

Nothing you claim can be demonstrated.

You cannot demonstrate that the brain can move the arm without an order from consciousness. You don't know what an order from consciousness looks like. All you can do is make absurd claims. And claims that fly in the face of experience. So you are also making the absurd claim that experience is a lie. WITH NO EVIDENCE!!!

You do not know what consciousness is and therefore what it does and is capable of doing.

Consciousness is not defined in terms of physiology in any of the nonsense you present and you cannot define it in physiological terms.

Your empty and worthless claims are getting old. I am tired of having to look at them.

Your Emperor has no clothes.

 

[untermensche]

Seems obvious the brain filters incoming information with existing experiences in memory and gives a representation of reality.
That is what brains do....how they function as organs. Not all creature have brains, but have developed other systems to detect the reality that surrounds them.
These systems are clearly a survival function.
If you ignore the elephants in the room, you can get a woo factor out of anything.

Seems obvious I move my arm at "will".

Seems obvious "I" decide which ideas I will support and reject, not my brain.

I doubt my brain knows what an idea is, apart from this specific "module" of the brain experienced as consciousness.

The brain takes "information" and converts it into presentations for consciousness.

If consciousness has no power to act on these presentations this is an absurd waste of energy.

 

[fromderinside]

Nowhere in that "study" is consciousness defined. Nowhere is it located.

The people who did it don't have the slightest clue what consciousness is.

Hint: Consciousness is that which experiences arousal.

It is that which decides to act or not act.

It is that which sets action into motion.

Your failings as a reader don't excuse you from being told so. M&M found the locus in the hind brain where if inputs were cut off somnolence resulted. That is if input didn't get past that point there was no arousal. Its just as you stated arousal is the experience of becoming aware.

So if you just shut up, read, try to understand, you will be rewarded by how much we know about your precious consciousness. Your nay saying and hand waving just magnifies your lack of understanding to the rest of us.

You really need to try to contribute, to move past unsupported silly syllogisms, and get at the work you claim about which nothing is known. What is true in my last statement is that you know nothing about the study of consciousness. You can your take training for care for all the patients you want, but, without critical examination and test you will learn nothing.

Time to end the one liners and get on with a discussion. Failing that I see no reason to continue trying to get you up to speed.

Yes you will continue to fill pages and pages with denials and taunts, all empty.

 

[OLDMAN]

Seems obvious the brain filters incoming information with existing experiences in memory and gives a representation of reality.
That is what brains do....how they function as organs. Not all creature have brains, but have developed other systems to detect the reality that surrounds them.
These systems are clearly a survival function.
If you ignore the elephants in the room, you can get a woo factor out of anything.

Seems obvious I move my arm at "will".

Seems obvious "I" decide which ideas I will support and reject, not my brain.

I doubt my brain knows what an idea is, apart from this specific "module" of the brain experienced as consciousness.

The brain takes "information" and converts it into presentations for consciousness.

If consciousness has no power to act on these presentations this is an absurd waste of energy.

Now you are ignoring the elephant of childhood development, when we learn motor skills, long before we become conscious of ourselves... or "me".
Again, if we were the only animal doing this, then something else might be going on...but clearly it isn't the case.

 

[untermensche]

Seems obvious I move my arm at "will".

Seems obvious "I" decide which ideas I will support and reject, not my brain.

I doubt my brain knows what an idea is, apart from this specific "module" of the brain experienced as consciousness.

The brain takes "information" and converts it into presentations for consciousness.

If consciousness has no power to act on these presentations this is an absurd waste of energy.

Now you are ignoring the elephant of childhood development, when we learn motor skills, long before we become conscious of ourselves... or "me".
Again, if we were the only animal doing this, then something else might be going on...but clearly it isn't the case.

?

What we learn is how to control our bodies with our "minds".

We learn what we must do to get the arm to move for us, the way we want it to move and when we want it to move.

Are you claiming you can't move your arm at "will"?

Because the only people who can't do it have neurological problems. They had a stroke or a spinal cord injury or a brain tumor or some other kind of trauma. Intact humans can move all their limbs at "will".

 

[untermensche]

Nowhere in that "study" is consciousness defined. Nowhere is it located.

The people who did it don't have the slightest clue what consciousness is.

Hint: Consciousness is that which experiences arousal.

It is that which decides to act or not act.

It is that which sets action into motion.

Your failings as a reader don't excuse you from being told so. M&M found the locus in the hind brain where if inputs were cut off somnolence resulted.

Your horrible writing invites bad readings.

So if we disrupt brain activity in some place we induce sleep.

So what?

This is not any kind of explanation of consciousness.

Consciousness is the ability to be conscious of things.

Shutting it off artificially tells us NOTHING about how it works. It tells us nothing about how cells create the ability to be conscious of things.

All it tells us is how it can be shut off artificially.

That you think this is any kind of explanation of consciousness is amazing.

 

[fromderinside]

No, no, no. You didn't read the study. The brain was transected at the lower hind brain. Without input from below that point there is no arousing.

The rest of your post is no less than semi random typing based on your presumptions.

I'm not going to review 70 years of research just so you get on page with where consciousness research has come. We know the requirement for wakefulness in mammals, the circuits where arousal, attending, and decision making, and we're pretty far along in tracing exactly how humans order and organize inputs from within the beast and from outside the beast. We are pretty sure of many of the mechanics of memory, types of memory, and reasons for such memories to arise. And we know a lot about how and why the cortex is able to trade from one set of processes to others.

What we don't understand is how you can be so remiss about having this information yet yelling at the top of your rationaliser about how little we know about consciousness.

 

[DBT]

Now you are ignoring the elephant of childhood development, when we learn motor skills, long before we become conscious of ourselves... or "me".
Again, if we were the only animal doing this, then something else might be going on...but clearly it isn't the case.

?

What we learn is how to control our bodies with our "minds".

We learn what we must do to get the arm to move for us, the way we want it to move and when we want it to move.

Are you claiming you can't move your arm at "will"?

Because the only people who can't do it have neurological problems. They had a stroke or a spinal cord injury or a brain tumor or some other kind of trauma. Intact humans can move all their limbs at "will".

You are missing the elephant in the room. You don't consider what posters are trying to tell you. You ignored the questions I raised in relation to the described experiments and their results (typically), only to repeat your favourite mantras. You are clearly wrong about consciousness being an autonomous agency, but refuse to even consider the possibility.

 

[untermensche]

No, no, no. You didn't read the study. The brain was transected at the lower hind brain. Without input from below that point there is no arousing.

The rest of your post is no less than semi random typing based on your presumptions.

I'm not going to review 70 years of research just so you get on page with where consciousness research has come. We know the requirement for wakefulness in mammals, the circuits where arousal, attending, and decision making, and we're pretty far along in tracing exactly how humans order and organize inputs from within the beast and from outside the beast. We are pretty sure of many of the mechanics of memory, types of memory, and reasons for such memories to arise. And we know a lot about how and why the cortex is able to trade from one set of processes to others.

What we don't understand is how you can be so remiss about having this information yet yelling at the top of your rationaliser about how little we know about consciousness.

I fail to see where we differ?

Cut away parts of the brain and a person is unconscious.

This tells us nothing about consciousness.

You don't have the slightest clue what consciousness is.

You don't know how the brain creates a thought or how it creates that which is aware of the thought.

You don't know how the brain creates one aspect of experience.

You know how to disrupt brain activity you don't understand and make an animal fall asleep. Nothing else.