Definition of Consciousness: 2nd Poll

[untermensche]

You asked me about deciding on a motion of the arm in the mind then causing that motion with the mind. So the options were 'move' or 'don't move' the arm. I showed you a relevant example related to moving a finger instead. The bottom line is consciousness is involved in some of the reasons you move your arm or finger but not all. Therefore, there are, de facto, non-conscious processes causing you to act. It's that simple. And it happens every second. Your body is, let's say for the sake of argument, doing a thousand different things right now, and only a tiny proportion of them are 'waiting' for conscious instruction, including your arm or finger movements.

I am a huge critic of the conclusions some draw from these kinds of experiments.

The bottom line is the researchers have no idea which activity is somehow related to an act of consciousness and which is not.

This research is just emperor's new clothes as far as I'm concerned. A shared delusion that any brain activity is actually understood.

A bunch of stories about something not understood at all.

...I still think all you're saying is that consciousness is involved in those decisions in which consciousness is involved...

What is your experience with making a decision?

Say you want a new toaster.

Do you think your brain has evolved systems that make those kinds of decisions?

Of do you make that decision entirely in your mind using knowledge available to your mind?

 

[Treedbear]

...
What is your experience with making a decision?

Say you want a new toaster.

Do you think your brain has evolved systems that make those kinds of decisions?

Of do you make that decision entirely in your mind using knowledge available to your mind?

The unique thing about brains is that they evolve much more quickly than purely genetic systems will allow. I think of concepts and ideas as similar to new species. They're partly due to random mutations but more often rely on the natural metamorphosis of earlier ideas. That's what brains do. The concept of "mind" seems to come from the premise that ideas just pop into existence out of nothing. I prefer to think of mind as everything the brain does. Consciousness is one particular aspect of that. It's not necessarily connected with doing things. It's the mystery of experiencing things. That's the hard part of the problem. The rest is a diversion.

 

[untermensche]

...
What is your experience with making a decision?

Say you want a new toaster.

Do you think your brain has evolved systems that make those kinds of decisions?

Of do you make that decision entirely in your mind using knowledge available to your mind?

The unique thing about brains is that they evolve much more quickly than purely genetic systems will allow.

They are incredibly complex functional systems. Small changes to complex functional systems that don't destroy them can have large effects.

I think of concepts and ideas as similar to new species.

Concepts exist because language exists.

The natural phenomena is language. And language is a system with infinite possibilities, no mutations are necessary to have in theory infinite phrases. Without language ideas can exist but concepts can't. Ideas do not have to be in language but concepts do.

These are not the same thing.

The concept of "mind" seems to come from the premise that ideas just pop into existence out of nothing.

No. The concept of mind exists because something is aware of ideas that both pop into existence and something is aware of the way ideas can be purposely worked with to create something useful with them.

It is possible to actively use ideas to create other ideas and concepts or become aware of other ideas.

They are not just something that one is aware of. They are tools people can work with using their will.

 

[Treedbear]

...
What is your experience with making a decision?

Say you want a new toaster.

Do you think your brain has evolved systems that make those kinds of decisions?

Of do you make that decision entirely in your mind using knowledge available to your mind?

The unique thing about brains is that they evolve much more quickly than purely genetic systems will allow.

They are incredibly complex functional systems. Small changes to complex functional systems that don't destroy them can have large effects.

So it seems we can agree that the brain evolves quickly enough to accommodate how to buy a toaster.

I think of concepts and ideas as similar to new species.

Concepts exist because language exists.

The natural phenomena is language. And language is a system with infinite possibilities, no mutations are necessary to have in theory infinite phrases. Without language ideas can exist but concepts can't. Ideas do not have to be in language but concepts do.

These are not the same thing.

I agree they're not the same thing (of course, that's why I mentioned them both). I don't agree that concepts require language. I can conceive of things without having to verbalize them. A baby can conceive of a bottle without having a word for it. Ideas, though, might require language because they are the conscious realization (i.e.; experience) of a new concept that solves some problem the unconscious brain has been working on. Ideas can arise without the effort of will.

The concept of "mind" seems to come from the premise that ideas just pop into existence out of nothing.

No. The concept of mind exists because something is aware of ideas that both pop into existence and something is aware of the way ideas can be purposely worked with to create something useful with them.

Both then. I don't limit the mind to only the state of consciousness. If you do that's something we can agree to disagree on.

It is possible to actively use ideas to create other ideas and concepts or become aware of other ideas.

They are not just something that one is aware of. They are tools people can work with using their will.

We agree again. But not completely as to where those ideas and concepts originate and evolve. We both believe that place is the mind. I think we just don't agree on what the mind comprises.

 

[ruby sparks]

The bottom line is the researchers have no idea which activity is somehow related to an act of consciousness and which is not.

All they need to do is show that many actions are not initiated by consciousness. And they aren't.

Let's just agree to disagree.

 

[bilby]

Well that didn't take long to degenerate into mud slinging.

Idiotic pests are hard to control.

They do not listen or learn.

They have no rational arguments or thoughtful opinions.

And despite all of that, here you are.

Again.

You have the brain, a bunch of cells, and you have the consciousness, whatever it is made of.

Consciousness is the thing that orders the brain to move the arm.

Two different entities.

Again, and again, and again.

But nothing new, and nothing supported by a shred of actual evidence.

You do not listen or learn.

You have no rational arguments or thoughtful opinions.

Again.

 

[bilby]

You asked me about deciding on a motion of the arm in the mind then causing that motion with the mind. So the options were 'move' or 'don't move' the arm. I showed you a relevant example related to moving a finger instead. The bottom line is consciousness is involved in some of the reasons you move your arm or finger but not all. Therefore, there are, de facto, non-conscious processes causing you to act. It's that simple. And it happens every second. Your body is, let's say for the sake of argument, doing a thousand different things right now, and only a tiny proportion of them are 'waiting' for conscious instruction, including your arm or finger movements.

I am a huge critic of the conclusions some draw from these kinds of experiments.

The bottom line is the researchers have no idea which activity is somehow related to an act of consciousness and which is not.

This research is just emperor's new clothes as far as I'm concerned. A shared delusion that any brain activity is actually understood.

A bunch of stories about something not understood at all.

...I still think all you're saying is that consciousness is involved in those decisions in which consciousness is involved...

What is your experience with making a decision?

Say you want a new toaster.

Do you think your brain has evolved systems that make those kinds of decisions?

Of do you make that decision entirely in your mind using knowledge available to your mind?

Ah, the famous untermensche 'Nobody understands anything, therefore my understanding is the only valid option' argument.

It's self refuting, which saves time; but we lose all the time saved, by dint of its apparently endless repetition.

 

[DBT]

Free will as the possibility to have chosen to do otherwise:

''The compatibalist's argument that the concept of ''can choose otherwise '' is analytically definable in terms of the hypothetical notion that agents would have chosen otherwise. ''He could have done otherwise'' is false. That is to say, our man might be such that, if he had chosen to do otherwise, then he would have done otherwise, and yet also such that could not have done otherwise. Suppose, after all, that our murderer could not have chosen, or could not have decided, to do otherwise. Then the fact that he happens also to be a man such that, if he had chosen not to shoot he would not have shot, would make no difference. For if he could not have chosen not to shoot, then he would could not have done anything other than just what it was that he did do. Chisholm (1964, 27)


''What I cannot understand is how I could have reasonably chosen to do otherwise, how I could have reasonably chosen B, given exactly the same prior deliberation that led me to choose A, the same information deployed, the same consequences considered, the same assessments made, and so on. Kane (57)''

As far as I am concerned, the idea that we can do otherwise in exactly the same circumstances is...impossible to explain, using current knowledge. And that's arguably quiite a low bar. A higher one that would arguably be needed for free will would be "freely willing to decide to do otherwise in exactly the same circumstances".

So, what some compatibilists say is that the capacities for agency we have (which they call free will but which I prefer not to) allow us to choose to do otherwise in different circumstances.

And this, they say, and I largely agree, is where the capacity to churn out (in a determined and/or random way) future virtual scenarios, does change the game somewhat. I think this holds whether the scenarios are experienced consciously or not.

Could have done otherwise under identical circumstances should include identical brain condition that existed in the first instance...but because time and experience irrevocably alters conditions to the point where there are never identical circumstances within anyones lifetime.

If someone made a wrong decision in a given set of circumstances in the first instance, the second time similar circumstances arise, the brain has additional information/experience to deal with the choices being presented, thus enabling a different outcome. Which is learning and rational decision making but not free will.

 

[ruby sparks]

Could have done otherwise under identical circumstances should include identical brain condition that existed in the first instance...but because time and experience irrevocably alters conditions to the point where there are never identical circumstances within anyones lifetime.

If someone made a wrong decision in a given set of circumstances in the first instance, the second time similar circumstances arise, the brain has additional information/experience to deal with the choices being presented, thus enabling a different outcome. Which is learning and rational decision making but not free will.

I'd agree.

The capacity which the system that calls itself me especially enjoys is the virtual time-travelling feature. This seems to aid decision-making in a way that appears to be almost unique among other systems. The system which calls itself me is at the same time intellectually (though perhaps not emotionally) aware that even that is all 'just playing out' like everything else in the universe and that the 'me' is mostly just a spectator*.

On a practical note, perhaps the most profound thing to realise is that if I were another system, I'd have done what the other system did, which means my system should in many cases be grateful it isn't the other system and not be too hard on it.

*ETA: Sorry, I should have said the user illusion my system calls 'me' feels like a spectator.

 

[untermensche]

They are incredibly complex functional systems. Small changes to complex functional systems that don't destroy them can have large effects.

So it seems we can agree that the brain evolves quickly enough to accommodate how to buy a toaster.

We agree on no such thing.

Evolution is a change in genetic makeup, not using ideas instead of reflexes to make decisions.

You don't even know what evolution is.

 

[untermensche]

The bottom line is the researchers have no idea which activity is somehow related to an act of consciousness and which is not.

All they need to do is show that many actions are not initiated by consciousness. And they aren't.

Let's just agree to disagree.

They have not shown anything near that.

They look at brain activity and do not have the slightest idea which is consciousness and which is not.

I will not agree with people making wild claims that do not have any evidence to back them up.

Science does not have the slightest idea how human decisions are made. They can in no way exclude consciousness from the process. That is just a temporary religion based on ignorance, not knowledge.

 

[Treedbear]

They are incredibly complex functional systems. Small changes to complex functional systems that don't destroy them can have large effects.

So it seems we can agree that the brain evolves quickly enough to accommodate how to buy a toaster.

We agree on no such thing.

Then what was the point of your comment that small changes can have large effects? I assumed you meant small genetic changes can lead to complex behavior, such as what is required for assessing toaster options.

Evolution is a change in genetic makeup, not using ideas instead of reflexes to make decisions.

You don't even know what evolution is.

Evolution:

1. any process of formation or growth; development:
the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.

2. a product of such development; something evolved :
The exploration of space is the evolution of decades of research.

3. Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

#1 applies to how the brain forms ideas and concepts, and so their relative merits (in my assessment).

 

[untermensche]

We agree on no such thing.

Then what was the point of your comment that small changes can have large effects?

A single mutation can have huge effects on a very complex functional system.

Some hypothesize that the language capacity arose because of a single mutation.

Mutations are evolution, not thinking about something.

 

[DBT]

Evolution of the brain enabled some species to experience and to feel, to think and to respond accordingly...

 

[Subsymbolic]

We agree on no such thing.

Then what was the point of your comment that small changes can have large effects?

A single mutation can have huge effects on a very complex functional system.

Some hypothesize that the language capacity arose because of a single mutation.

Mutations are evolution, not thinking about something.

Actually, the underlying process on which selection acts is almost inevitably sexual recombination. More to the point, evolution isn’t simply mutation or recombination. Mind you, think of all the things that have to be in place for language to happen, both
physiologically and in terms of neural mechanism... A single mutation? I can’t think of anyone who suggests that, can you link to someone?

 

[untermensche]

Evolution of the brain enabled some species to experience and to feel, to think and to respond accordingly...

And it enabled the consciousness to decide to move the arm and cause it.

 

[untermensche]

A single mutation can have huge effects on a very complex functional system.

Some hypothesize that the language capacity arose because of a single mutation.

Mutations are evolution, not thinking about something.

Actually, the underlying process on which selection acts is almost inevitably sexual recombination. More to the point, evolution isn’t simply mutation or recombination. Mind you, think of all the things that have to be in place for language to happen, both
physiologically and in terms of neural mechanism... A single mutation? I can’t think of anyone who suggests that, can you link to someone?

So you don't know something and I am supposed to do a research project?

I did you the favor and told you about something you had no idea existed.

Do a little work yourself.

 

[bilby]

A single mutation can have huge effects on a very complex functional system.

Some hypothesize that the language capacity arose because of a single mutation.

Mutations are evolution, not thinking about something.

Actually, the underlying process on which selection acts is almost inevitably sexual recombination. More to the point, evolution isn’t simply mutation or recombination. Mind you, think of all the things that have to be in place for language to happen, both
physiologically and in terms of neural mechanism... A single mutation? I can’t think of anyone who suggests that, can you link to someone?

So you don't know something and I am supposed to do a research project?

I did you the favor and told you about something you had no idea existed.

Do a little work yourself.

Yeah, damn right. How DARE people ask you for evidence to support your wild-assed claims. They are obviously right, so it's completely unnecessary for you to have any basis for making them.

 

[untermensche]

So you don't know something and I am supposed to do a research project?

I did you the favor and told you about something you had no idea existed.

Do a little work yourself.

Yeah, damn right. How DARE people ask you for evidence to support your wild-assed claims. They are obviously right, so it's completely unnecessary for you to have any basis for making them.

It's like asking for a link to show water is wet.

But go ahead make yourself look even dumber. Keep it up.

 

[bilby]

So you don't know something and I am supposed to do a research project?

I did you the favor and told you about something you had no idea existed.

Do a little work yourself.

Yeah, damn right. How DARE people ask you for evidence to support your wild-assed claims. They are obviously right, so it's completely unnecessary for you to have any basis for making them.

It's like asking for a link to show water is wet.

"It's obvious to me, and should be obvious to everyone" is not evidence, nor a path to truth.

But go ahead make yourself look even dumber. Keep it up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection