Consciousness

[DBT]

But there is a physical reason, which I described in my last post and numerous other posts.

DBT,

Whom, or what, are you referring to when you say "I", and "my"?

The body of information called memory. Which, if disfunctional, results in the dissolution of self, me, I/self identity.

Did your brain, or your fingers, type out those letters?

Your brain is trapped inside your skull, so it can't type. It needs fingers (those cylindrical, fleshy & bony, tangible digits that sprout like leaves from your hand) to do that.

Obviously the brain is connected to the fingers by means of being a part of the same organism of which it is the central processor sending signals to body parts...to type, to stand, to walk..

And senses (5) with which to gather information about the environment outside that prison of obdurate bone; that it (your brain) may process that data and form means of behavior for you (whatever that is) to go about your business.

There is no I in t-e-a-m, and there is no I inside your brain. Your brain is inside of you, right? I think we agree about that.

You, being the 'whole' person. <<< not the 'persona' manufactured by your (whatever that refers to) brain. I mean the actual, material, meaty body that you (there's that word again) see in the mirror every morning.

Assuming they have mirrors down under, where women glow and men plunder?

It's not a 'team' but it is a functional system.

 

[WAB]

Exactly.

A person.

 

[WAB]

The one I love is Dennett's; "Consciousness Explained"

What an ass. The book explains nothing.

Haven't read it, but I trust you, so I won't trouble myself.

I've only seen a handful of Chalmers' talks, but I've read several of his papers. Moore & Searle I know only from fly-by reading and some research I've mostly forgotten. Unfortunately.

I recall Searle doing the arm-raising thing, in text and video; I vaguely recall kennethamy mentioning Moore.

Where are fast and kennethamy? I believe the latter has passed away. And I think I've seen fast's posts hereabouts? Most of them over my head.

At some point I'm going to whip out my Spinoza and mention Jung. Then all hell will break loose!

/takes off prophet hat

 

[fromderinside]

So you are saying agency can be differential reproductive success via interaction. Agency is interaction. I don't see an actor in any of this. In fact all I see is a process description. And that is pretty detached from cause and effect or purpose which I believe is a requirement for agency.

Walking across the ground is interacting with the environment. Flying in the air is interacting with the environment.

Finding food is interacting with the environment.

Finding a mate and mating is interacting with the environment.

You don't see an actor in that? The actor is the thing walking or flying or searching or mating.

Is this just a stupid game you're playing?

I see. The thing doing. WTF. How do you know the thing is doing? Robots walk. No one accuses them of being agents. They are robots. Designed and built things. They do as programmed. So they are not doing are they. Humans are biological machines. What makes them different? Oh. Yeah, they are conscious.

I sense a circle forming here. If I can't get him to fall for being conscious I get him fall for they are things that do. Sorry mate. No ring, brass or any other.

 

[Juma]

We know that you need to have a brain to have conciousness. We know that you can have a brain but no concioudness.
There is no evidence whatsoever of conciousness without a brain.
We have even good understanding of where in the brain different subsystem resides.
So yes, we know that concioussness is something the brain does.
You are free to keep your head in the sand, but dont expect anyone to respect your opinion.

Yes. Brain activity is involved. Brain activity is a necessary condition.

Nobody disputes that.

But until we understand what consciousness actually is we can't say that brain activity is the only thing involved.

There is no getting around this.

Getting around what? Are you suggesting conciousness is some other underected state of matter/energy/what?
Whe know what the world consists of: particles and their corresponding fields. There is nothibg else that could be involved in this.

 

[Juma]

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

None of us remember a time before our long term memory developed.

Obviously the ability to conceptualize possible future outcomes has evolutionary/reproductive advantages...

It has advantages to a consciousness IF the consciousness can act upon it.

A brain has no need of a consciousness for long term planning. Just memory and some unconscious "programs".

No extra thing (consciousness) needs to be aware of what the animal is doing for it to do things if it can do things based on preexisting "programs".

So either the animal is working with preexisting "programs" and consciousness is a complete waste.

Or the animal needs consciousness because it is initiating action, like planning.

Which is certainly the basis of human institutions like the criminal justice system, which holds people accountable for the things they do.
If the person has no control that is an absurd practice.

That would be correct either way.

If consciousness has no control then the idea of punishment is an absurdity.

If these neuro "scientists" actually believed that consciousness had no control they would raise their voice loudly in unison to end our system of punishment.

What? Any reasonable well programmed goal oriented agent would change its behaviour if there are goal related punishments involved.
whether the agent is conscious or not is totally irrelevant.

 

[WAB]

Walking across the ground is interacting with the environment. Flying in the air is interacting with the environment.

Finding food is interacting with the environment.

Finding a mate and mating is interacting with the environment.

You don't see an actor in that? The actor is the thing walking or flying or searching or mating.

Is this just a stupid game you're playing?

I see. The thing doing. WTF. How do you know the thing is doing? Robots walk. No one accuses them of being agents. They are robots. Designed and built things. They do as programmed. So they are not doing are they. Humans are biological machines. What makes them different? Oh. Yeah, they are conscious.

I sense a circle forming here. If I can't get him to fall for being conscious I get him fall for they are things that do. Sorry mate. No ring, brass or any other.

What is it you really want for the human race, fromder? Do you want a world with freethinking, peace-loving, active individuals? Would you rather live in the Stepford Wives' world? Huxley's Brave New World? Orwell's communist nightmare?

Why are you so dead-set against consciousness and agency?

What are you afraid of?

 

[DBT]

What we would rather may be quite different to what we actually get whether we like it or not. Perhaps the question is: where are we heading? What is the World going to be like in fifty or a hundred years?

 

[untermensche]

The one I love is Dennett's; "Consciousness Explained"

What an ass. The book explains nothing.

Nothing is perfect, but it's far better than anything you can offer.

Being able to put together a bunch of bad arguments is not offering anything.

Dennett is a lovely man, with a bunch of bad ideas.

 

[untermensche]

Walking across the ground is interacting with the environment. Flying in the air is interacting with the environment.

Finding food is interacting with the environment.

Finding a mate and mating is interacting with the environment.

You don't see an actor in that? The actor is the thing walking or flying or searching or mating.

Is this just a stupid game you're playing?

I see. The thing doing. WTF. How do you know the thing is doing? Robots walk. No one accuses them of being agents. They are robots. Designed and built things. They do as programmed. So they are not doing are they. Humans are biological machines. What makes them different? Oh. Yeah, they are conscious.

I sense a circle forming here. If I can't get him to fall for being conscious I get him fall for they are things that do. Sorry mate. No ring, brass or any other.

Yes the thing interacting is the thing interacting.

And the thing replicating is the thing replicating.

Both are necessary for natural selection.

But what drives the process is interaction, not replication.

 

[untermensche]

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

None of us remember a time before our long term memory developed.



It has advantages to a consciousness IF the consciousness can act upon it.

A brain has no need of a consciousness for long term planning. Just memory and some unconscious "programs".

No extra thing (consciousness) needs to be aware of what the animal is doing for it to do things if it can do things based on preexisting "programs".

So either the animal is working with preexisting "programs" and consciousness is a complete waste.

Or the animal needs consciousness because it is initiating action, like planning.

Which is certainly the basis of human institutions like the criminal justice system, which holds people accountable for the things they do.
If the person has no control that is an absurd practice.

That would be correct either way.

If consciousness has no control then the idea of punishment is an absurdity.

If these neuro "scientists" actually believed that consciousness had no control they would raise their voice loudly in unison to end our system of punishment.

What? Any reasonable well programmed goal oriented agent would change its behaviour if there are goal related punishments involved.
whether the agent is conscious or not is totally irrelevant.

Now we have entered the world of human psychology.

And punishment is a very inefficient way to change behavior and can many times create worse behavior.

 

[untermensche]

The one I love is Dennett's; "Consciousness Explained"

What an ass. The book explains nothing.

Haven't read it, but I trust you, so I won't trouble myself.

I've only seen a handful of Chalmers' talks, but I've read several of his papers. Moore & Searle I know only from fly-by reading and some research I've mostly forgotten. Unfortunately.

I recall Searle doing the arm-raising thing, in text and video; I vaguely recall kennethamy mentioning Moore.

Where are fast and kennethamy? I believe the latter has passed away. And I think I've seen fast's posts hereabouts? Most of them over my head.

At some point I'm going to whip out my Spinoza and mention Jung. Then all hell will break loose!

/takes off prophet hat

The last thing I want you to do is trust me.

You should be very suspicious of me.

Suspicious of all others.

That is the beginning of original thought.

 

[Juma]

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

None of us remember a time before our long term memory developed.



It has advantages to a consciousness IF the consciousness can act upon it.

A brain has no need of a consciousness for long term planning. Just memory and some unconscious "programs".

No extra thing (consciousness) needs to be aware of what the animal is doing for it to do things if it can do things based on preexisting "programs".

So either the animal is working with preexisting "programs" and consciousness is a complete waste.

Or the animal needs consciousness because it is initiating action, like planning.

Which is certainly the basis of human institutions like the criminal justice system, which holds people accountable for the things they do.
If the person has no control that is an absurd practice.

That would be correct either way.

If consciousness has no control then the idea of punishment is an absurdity.

If these neuro "scientists" actually believed that consciousness had no control they would raise their voice loudly in unison to end our system of punishment.

What? Any reasonable well programmed goal oriented agent would change its behaviour if there are goal related punishments involved.
whether the agent is conscious or not is totally irrelevant.

Now we have entered the world of human psychology.

And punishment is a very inefficient way to change behavior and can many times create worse behavior.

Worst try to dodge the real question by changing subject ever.

 

[Juma]

I see. The thing doing. WTF. How do you know the thing is doing? Robots walk. No one accuses them of being agents. They are robots. Designed and built things. They do as programmed. So they are not doing are they. Humans are biological machines. What makes them different? Oh. Yeah, they are conscious.

I sense a circle forming here. If I can't get him to fall for being conscious I get him fall for they are things that do. Sorry mate. No ring, brass or any other.

What is it you really want for the human race, fromder? Do you want a world with freethinking, peace-loving, active individuals? Would you rather live in the Stepford Wives' world? Huxley's Brave New World? Orwell's communist nightmare?

Why are you so dead-set against consciousness and agency?

What are you afraid of?

Ignorance.

 

[OLDMAN]

Jesus, next thing you know they'll be pulling out Schorders fucking cat. Oh, look...things are acting strange on a sub-particle level....that means anything is possible.

 

[Juma]

Jesus, next thing you know they'll be pulling out Schorders fucking cat. Oh, look...things are acting strange on a sub-particle level....that means anything is possible.

No. Only what actually is there is really possible. All the rest isnt there exactly because it wasnt possible.

 

[fromderinside]

Remember to separate the apples from the oranges. For instance everything in the quantum world happen at the place and time of here and now in the macro world.

 

[ryan]

Please watch this interview with the neuroscientist who created the integrated information theory , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBIwuA1KZLE . It's a nice 4 minute explanation of a possible consequence of what I am trying to say.

Sorry, no time or patience for watching videos on a discussion forum...can you give your own description?

DBT you must keep learning about aboutness. He briefly mentions it in "what it's like to be ...". You won't believe or accept it from me, but I think hearing it from different people will be more effective. I mean it's only 4 minutes of thousands of hours you will spend in the future discussing this topic without really connecting with people more familiar with concepts like the ones he discusses. Like it or not, neuroscientists like him are not totally happy with explaining it all with only the physics/biology that we currently understand them to be.

Yes it is about irreducibility, which is poison for science, but then again, space-time is irreducible. A very thin slice of space-time will not have a 3rd spatial dimension. In other words, a sample of 4d space-time does not have a very fundamental intrinsic property of what is harmoniously. And that is math really saying this, something of deductive logic.

 

[ryan]

Did you read any part of the paper I posted? There is an objective whole of some parts of the brain. In other words, the consciousness is irreducible.

Yes I read the paper. He speaks about unity, not "whole"

Unity: The state of being united or joined as a whole.

from Oxford Dictionary

Glad to see you are really trying to understand what I am talking about.

 

[Juma]

Sorry, no time or patience for watching videos on a discussion forum...can you give your own description?

DBT you must keep learning about aboutness. He briefly mentions it in "what it's like to be ...". You won't believe or accept it from me, but I think hearing it from different people will be more effective. I mean it's only 4 minutes of thousands of hours you will spend in the future discussing this topic without really connecting with people more familiar with concepts like the ones he discusses. Like it or not, neuroscientists like him are not totally happy with explaining it all with only the physics/biology that we currently understand them to be.

Yes it is about irreducibility, which is poison for science, but then again, space-time is irreducible. A very thin slice of space-time will not have a 3rd spatial dimension. In other words, a sample of 4d space-time does not have a very fundamental intrinsic property of what is harmoniously. And that is math really saying this, something of deductive logic.

Redicivility does not mean that the parts should have the same properties as the combination of the parts.
Spacetime is reducible to three space dimensions and a time dimension.

And, no, the film was NOT about irreducibility.