Humans really don't know what they're doing?

[WAB]

We don't 'know' how an experience is generated in detail...

^ That wins the Understatement of the Century Thus Far Award (UCTFA). Not only is the how not known "in detail", it is not known at all. You've got a truckload of quantitative, statistical, measurable data: you've got megatons of whats, but the how remains elusive.

The hard problem remains, Dennet's premature and slightly pretentious (to put it kindly) "Consciousness Explained" notwithstanding. Discussed in depth, over lots of text? Sure. Rigorously researched, tested, tested again, over & over? Sure. But "explained?" — in terms of whats whens & wheres? Sure. In terms of how, or, for that matter, why? No.

...yet we know enough about how they are generated to make use of that to control and guide what we experience. In many domain that would be called discipline. One can also understand how information is processed in humans well enough to determine where an experience can be unitary or generalized.

Absolutely. Nothing to object to there.

 

[untermensche]

You clearly have no idea. You reject anything and everything that does not happen to coincide with your beliefs....

That's a joke.

I have 25 years of actually working with people, helping them slowly reconnect their mind to their body.

What do you have except your faith?

No study you can provide even knows what the mind is no less can say something about it.

Yet they all rely on the mind to supply subjective reports.

Since you haven't answered the bloow I'm repeating it.

That's either BS or untrue depending on how you roll. We can learn to experience in particular ways as many religions and psychic disciplines teach us. We wouldn't be able to run sensory experiments if humans were not experientially pliable. soi we don't have to know we just have to be taught or to discover. The BS comes from your demonstrated doctrinaire approach to the topic.​

Humans have a psychology. Not just a physiology.

That's a feature of their mind.

That is true.

We don't 'know' how an experience is generated in detail

You don't know the first thing about what an experience is.

No less know how to generate it.

Total bullshit is not much of an argument.

I conducted an experiment where I required observers to report when they could detect a gap between tones presented serially. the only way they could get there was to suspend disbelief enough to accept individual tones can coexist in sequences which is experientially impossible. Observers successfully achieved this task allowing me to write a paper about the shape and form of basic auditory processing at one ear. The theory explains why tones of different durations are perceptually treated separately from tones of equal duration. The of observed delay of perceiving a click in favor of tone of more or less equal duration for instance.

You were a psychologist studying human psychology. The ability of humans to "suspend disbelief".

They did it with their active mind.

That's great.

So we do know something about the conditions under which we experience.

You know some correlations between stimulations and subjective reports.

Not a thing about how the brain generates the "objects" of the subjective reports. The objects of the mind.​

 

[DBT]

You clearly have no idea. You reject anything and everything that does not happen to coincide with your beliefs....

That's a joke.

I have 25 years of actually working with people, helping them slowly reconnect their mind to their body.

What do you have except your faith?

No study you can provide even knows what the mind is no less can say something about it.

Yet they all rely on the mind to supply subjective reports.

As I said, your claimed experience does not show in your comments about brain state and function in relation to mind. You reject the evidence, you reject descriptions from reliable source material on the nature of strokes, their effect on the brain, etc,

You just re-assert your claimed 25 years experience when it is obvious that you don't understand the relationship between brain damage and its effects on both the body and the mind.

Sorry, you may not see it, you may not want to see it, and it's clear that you don't want to. but there it is. Any objective reader can see that, the evidence on one hand, your claims and denials on the other.

 

[untermensche]

You clearly have no idea. You reject anything and everything that does not happen to coincide with your beliefs....

That's a joke.

I have 25 years of actually working with people, helping them slowly reconnect their mind to their body.

What do you have except your faith?

No study you can provide even knows what the mind is no less can say something about it.

Yet they all rely on the mind to supply subjective reports.

As I said, your claimed experience does not show in your comments about brain state and function in relation to mind. You reject the evidence, you reject descriptions from reliable source material on the nature of strokes, their effect on the brain, etc,

You just re-assert your claimed 25 years experience when it is obvious that you don't understand the relationship between brain damage and its effects on both the body and the mind.

Sorry, you may not see it, you may not want to see it, and it's clear that you don't want to. but there it is. Any objective reader can see that, the evidence on one hand, your claims and denials on the other.

My experience shows in the people I helped regain their mind-body connection.

If it were up to you they would not have recovered anything.

You and your silly ideas based on nothing are of no use to an actual person after a stroke. You claim a person can't use their mind to move their arm based on the timing of subjective inklings. Utter nonsense.

You have bad ivory tower "knowledge" that is useless in the real world with real living people.

 

[DBT]

As I said, your claimed experience does not show in your comments about brain state and function in relation to mind. You reject the evidence, you reject descriptions from reliable source material on the nature of strokes, their effect on the brain, etc,

You just re-assert your claimed 25 years experience when it is obvious that you don't understand the relationship between brain damage and its effects on both the body and the mind.

Sorry, you may not see it, you may not want to see it, and it's clear that you don't want to. but there it is. Any objective reader can see that, the evidence on one hand, your claims and denials on the other.

My experience shows in the people I helped regain their mind-body connection.

If it were up to you they would not have recovered anything.

You and your silly ideas based on nothing are of no use to an actual person after a stroke. You claim a person can't use their mind to move their arm based on the timing of subjective inklings. Utter nonsense.

You have bad ivory tower "knowledge" that is useless in the real world with real living people.

They are not my ideas. It is the current state of research and development;


Quote;
''Injury to, and disease in, the brain often provides crucial insights on the role of its different parts. A dramatic example is the injury suffered by American railway foreman, Phineas Gage in 1848. Before his accident, Gage was liked by friends and acquaintances who considered him to be honest, trustworthy, hard working and dependable. A freak accident caused a metal tamping rod to enter under his left zygomatic arch and exit through the top of his skull (Barker, 1995).

The accident left him with little if any intellectual impairment but after the accident, Gage became vulgar, irresponsible, capricious and prone to profanity. The company that had previously regarded him as the most efficient and capable of their employees dismissed him from his job. His change in character after the accident made this the index case for personality change due to frontal lobe damage. Subsequent studies (See, for example, Blumer and Benson, 1975) have shown a wide spectrum of abnormal behaviour (compulsive and explosive actions, lack of inhibition, unwarranted maniacal suspicion and alcohol and drug abuse) after injuries to and disease in the frontal or temporal lobes and their pathways to the deeper regions of the brain.''

''Similar abnormalities also follow chemical derangements in the brain.

Modern marvels such as computerised tomography and magnetic resonance imaging of the nervous system have provided significant additional data. Functional magnetic resonance imaging now allows us to further localise function within the structure of the brain and correlate abnormalities of its structure and function.''


''Neurologists and neurosurgeons see patients with injured or diseased brains. Neurosurgeons attempt restoration of the internal structure of the brain to normalcy or correct disordered function in select areas by such modes as deep brain stimulation or ablation. Some operations are performed on patients who are awake. Observations on patients provided clues to the functions of the mind in relation to the structure of the brain. ‘When a surgeon sends an electrical current into the brain, the person can have a vivid, lifelike experience. When chemicals seep into the brain, they can alter the person’s perception, mood, personality, and reasoning. When a patch of brain tissue dies, a part of the mind can disappear: a neurological patient may lose the ability to name tools, recognize faces, anticipate the outcome of his behaviour, empathize with others, or keep in mind a region of space or of his own body… Every emotion and thought gives off physical signals, and the new technologies for detecting them are so accurate that they can literally read a person’s mind and tell a cognitive neuroscientist whether the person is imagining a face or a place. Neuroscientists can knock a gene out of a mouse (a gene also found in humans) and prevent the mouse from learning, or insert extra copies and make the mouse learn faster. Under the microscope, brain tissue shows a staggering complexity—a hundred billion neurons connected by a hundred trillion synapses—that is commensurate with the staggering complexity of human thought and experience… And when the brain dies, the person goes out of existence’ (Pinker, 2003).''

 

[untermensche]

Yes. Brain damage can have all kinds of effects.

That does not change the fact that to get a person to regain movement after a stroke you have to get them to use their mind in the process.

It is all about using the power of the mind to influence the brain to reorganize.

And your ivory tower nonsense can't change that.

Lucky for you in your ivory tower you don't have to help anybody after a stroke.

You don't have to actually demonstrate one claim you make in living humans.

 

[DBT]

It is clear that you cannot see the error of your reasoning, if it is the brain that forms and generates mind - as the evidence supports - then it must follow that mind is, and does, whatever the brain is doing based on its own state and condition...and that any therapy that helps recovery must stimulate the brain in order to bring about recovery, which is expressed as improvement in mind function.

You have not understood the article, the research or the evidence.

 

[untermensche]

It is clear that you cannot see the error of your reasoning, if it is the brain that forms and generates mind - as the evidence supports - then it must follow that mind is, and does, whatever the brain is doing based on its own state and condition...and that any therapy that helps recovery must stimulate the brain in order to bring about recovery, which is expressed as improvement in mind function.

You have not understood the article, the research or the evidence.

The mind is a product of the brain. An entity, created by some kind of activity.

A phenomena in the world. A unique phenomena unlike any other.

As a distinct entity it can theoretically have an influence on only one thing.

The brain.

 

[ruby sparks]

It is clear that you cannot see the error of your reasoning, if it is the brain that forms and generates mind - as the evidence supports - then it must follow that mind is, and does, whatever the brain is doing based on its own state and condition...and that any therapy that helps recovery must stimulate the brain in order to bring about recovery, which is expressed as improvement in mind function.

You have not understood the article, the research or the evidence.

The mind is a product of the brain. An entity, created by some kind of activity.

A phenomena in the world. A unique phenomena unlike any other.

As a distinct entity it can theoretically have an influence on only one thing.

The brain.

Leaving aside whether it's 'distinct' or not (that could mean or imply lots of different things as a consequence, including autonomy and agency for example) because we will probably disagree on that, we could agree that mind can or might have 'influence'.

So in another thread, I tried an analogy with activity (eg brain activity) switching on, via an 'activity sensor', a light (analagous to consciousness) in which I said that the nature of the light is wholly dependent on the activity generating it. But that wouldn't stop the light, at least in the analogy, having influence (causality). One could imagine a machine where the activity is, say, two windmills (one on the left and one on the right) going around, and triggering the light. One can imagine that the light, in turn, could trigger more activity, if there were photoelectric cells connected to the windmills. Then there would be some sort of feedback looping.

What is harder to imagine is how the light could choose to direct itself to one windmill rather than another unless that specific 'instruction' was 'sent' by (or was in) the activity. This, I think, is the paradox and in a system with feedback it's a sort of chicken and egg question as to what influences what.

It is even harder to imagine that there is no separate light, that 'going around' just happens to feel like something (a sensation of 'light') to the windmills (they are very, very complex windmills made up of trillions and trillions of vastly interconnected parts) and this could be the case even if the light did affect the activity, but it would just be one integral aspect of something affecting another aspect of something, a bit like how the speed of a car can affect the steering of the car.

I tend to think that mind (whatever it is) can affect brain. I certainly don't know how, but then I don't know how brain can apparently create mind either.

- - - Updated - - -

We don't 'know' how an experience is generated in detail...

^ That wins the Understatement of the Century Thus Far Award (UCTFA). Not only is the how not known "in detail", it is not known at all. You've got a truckload of quantitative, statistical, measurable data: you've got megatons of whats, but the how remains elusive.

The hard problem remains, Dennet's premature and slightly pretentious (to put it kindly) "Consciousness Explained" notwithstanding. Discussed in depth, over lots of text? Sure. Rigorously researched, tested, tested again, over & over? Sure. But "explained?" — in terms of whats whens & wheres? Sure. In terms of how, or, for that matter, why? No.

Sometimes I think it's possible to take a view on this. We don't know exactly how or why life or gravity exists or emerges, but we just settle for the explanations of a 'this happens then this happens' sort. Not knowing the how or why of consciousness niggles us, perhaps unnecessarily, in a way that gravity and life doesn't. I think that Dennett tries to do something similar for consciousness. So we don't know what goes on in the sausage machine, but we can see what comes out if we put things into it or we can see how it works at least down to some level even if not the bottom one.

And if we ever manage to make a robot that has consciousness, and assuming we can convince ourselves it's actually experiencing it, then we would probably stop asking how it happens the way we do now, even if it would still be a mystery in many respects.

 

[untermensche]

Leaving aside whether it's 'distinct' or not (that could mean or imply lots of different things as a consequence, including autonomy and agency for example) because we will probably disagree on that, we could agree that mind can or might have 'influence'.

To have a world constructed from ideas requires something having the ability to autonomously work with ideas.

Whether one says the brain uses ideas autonomously or the mind uses ideas autonomously it does not matter.

It is no more explained by saying the brain uses ideas autonomously.

And it is no less explained by saying the mind uses ideas autonomously.

But the brain could just use ideas if it could do such a thing. It does not need presentations of ideas in the form of thoughts.

So in another thread, I tried an analogy with activity (eg brain activity) switching on, via an 'activity sensor', a light (analagous to consciousness) in which I said that the nature of the light is wholly dependent on the activity generating it. But that wouldn't stop the light, at least in the analogy, having influence (causality). One could imagine a machine where the activity is, say, two windmills (one on the left and one on the right) going around, and triggering the light. One can imagine that the light, in turn, could trigger more activity, if there were photoelectric cells connected to the windmills. Then there would be some sort of feedback looping.

We're not going to elicit how the mind works by thinking about "material" objects.

It is a living "entity". A living "device".

An evolved decision making "device". The use in having a mind is so it can learn to make productive decisions. The key word is "learn".

 

[ruby sparks]

But the brain could just use ideas if it could do such a thing. It does not need presentations of ideas in the form of thoughts.

Are there ideas if there are no thoughts?

- - - Updated - - -

An evolved decision making "device". The use in having a mind is so it can learn to make productive decisions. The key word is "learn".

I really don't have much problem with that. I'm just not sure what role the mind actually plays during it or whether it's doing what it feels like it's doing though, or whether it's doing all that it feels like it's doing. You're just taking it more or less at face value. That's ok. It's probably pragmatic. Most people probably have a similar approach.

 

[untermensche]

But the brain could just use ideas if it could do such a thing. It does not need presentations of ideas in the form of thoughts.

Are there ideas if there are no thoughts?

Probably not.

Can something have a thought and not know they are having a thought and not know they are a distinct thing having the thought?

 

[ruby sparks]

But the brain could just use ideas if it could do such a thing. It does not need presentations of ideas in the form of thoughts.

Are there ideas if there are no thoughts?

Probably not.

Can something have a thought and not know they are having a thought and not know they are a distinct thing having the thought?

I don't know.

Regarding the first (having a thought and not knowing it) this did come up before and it was suggested that it may be possible, that all it would take is for the thought not to be remembered (perhaps not laid down in memory at all). Counter-intuitive I know, but then a lot of this is, and mysterious and odd too.

As to not knowing that if one has a thought, that one doesn't know that one is a distinct thing, as they say, we can't know what it's like to be a bat (and a bat can't tell us what he thinks it's like).

My guess is that other animals are conscious, at least some of them. Whether they have 'thoughts' or not or just experience 'qualia' I don't know. I do think it's possible that if one doesn't have a robust sense of self, what we usually call 'thoughts' might not be possible. It all depends on exactly what we mean when we use words to try to express what we think we mean.

 

[DBT]

Yes. Brain damage can have all kinds of effects.

That does not change the fact that to get a person to regain movement after a stroke you have to get them to use their mind in the process.

It is all about using the power of the mind to influence the brain to reorganize.

And your ivory tower nonsense can't change that.

Lucky for you in your ivory tower you don't have to help anybody after a stroke.

You don't have to actually demonstrate one claim you make in living humans.

You completely misunderstand the process, the article I provided and the evidence cited. It is the brain that forms mind. Mind has no independence from the very brain activity that is generating it. There are feedback loops between inputs and conscious activity that alter both the brain (connectivity) and consequently mind as it improves with fresh input and better brain function.

If the mind improves it is because the underlying mechanisms of mind are recovering from an injury or chemical imbalance, or it does not.

Your error lies in ignoring the sequence of cognition an the role of input in rewiring the brain

You mistake the action that therapy has on the brain, exercises that stimulate recovery, with some sort of autonomous power of the mind,

In other words, you base your model and your belief on surface appearances.

 

[fromderinside]

Humans have a psychology. Not just a physiology.

That's a feature of their mind.


You don't know the first thing about what an experience is.

No less know how to generate it.

Total bullshit is not much of an argument.

You were a psychologist studying human psychology. The ability of humans to "suspend disbelief".

They did it with their active mind.

That's great.


You know some correlations between stimulations and subjective reports.

Not a thing about how the brain generates the "objects" of the subjective reports. The objects of the mind.

The structure of the brain is both physiology and anatomy it is definitely not psychology nor a feature of the mind. Psychology is the study of behavior.. The structure of psychology includes the individual being acting.

Experience, and object are abstractions used to order what we know into systems which is another abstraction. Looked at that way one can say experience is information about what one does which are communicated through capsules called objects to form systems. Since all of these are human inventions it is obvious humans know much about them. Usually we call such systems theories through which we can pass information verifying and exploring them.

When you can put your definitions in such a simple order as I just managed you will have a basis for making an argument. So far all you have done is use symbols to shout your beliefs which are still very privately held, therefore not information at all since they communicate no more than an emotion, another abstraction, we use to describe such as you spout.

 

[untermensche]

If the mind improves it is because the underlying mechanisms of mind are recovering from an injury or chemical imbalance, or it does not.

Absolutely wrong.

There are all kinds of studies of people who did not actively use their mind after a stroke and they on average do not get as much return of voluntary movement. The key is using the power of your mind to get the brain to reorganize and change it's function.

That word means something: Voluntary.

The "power of the mind" means something.

And your talk about a sequence of events you have never seen because you do not know what the mind is or how it works is gibberish.

What is the sequence of events on the quantum scale as the mind moves the arm?

 

[untermensche]

The structure of the brain is both physiology and anatomy it is definitely not psychology nor a feature of the mind.

Structure is only anatomy.

Psychology is the study of behavior.

Like when a human suspends belief.

 

[DBT]

If the mind improves it is because the underlying mechanisms of mind are recovering from an injury or chemical imbalance, or it does not.

Absolutely wrong.

There are all kinds of studies of people who did not actively use their mind after a stroke and they on average do not get as much return of voluntary movement. The key is using the power of your mind to get the brain to reorganize and change it's function.

That word means something: Voluntary.

The "power of the mind" means something.

And your talk about a sequence of events you have never seen because you do not know what the mind is or how it works is gibberish.

What is the sequence of events on the quantum scale as the mind moves the arm?

''Voluntary'' does not pop into existence by magic, the illusionary magic of conscious will...that is what you are suggesting.

You are wrong.

Voluntary actions are the the work of the brain. Motor actions are the work of the brain,

It is the brain that initiates all motor actions and all related perceptions of conscious agency. Consciousness does not create itself.

Motor actions are not initiated by conscious activity, it being two different forms of brain activity that can be separated and have been separated in experiments.

I have provided the experiments, the studies and citations.

You ignore it all and just assert your own beliefs.

 

[untermensche]

''Voluntary'' does not pop into existence by magic, the illusionary magic of conscious will...that is what you are suggesting.

No mention of magic.

A decision making "entity" created by the brain makes a decision and informs the brain.

Voluntary actions are the the work of the brain. Motor actions are the work of the brain,

The mind orders the brain to carry out the work. The mind is a switch. It is a switch that can be lightly tapped or pressed hard.

It is the brain that initiates all motor actions and all related perceptions of conscious agency.

The initiation can come from a product of brain activity. The mind. Something that evolved to do it.

Consciousness does not create itself.

Of course not. But it does give the brain the order to move the arm.

 

[fromderinside]

The structure of the brain is both physiology and anatomy it is definitely not psychology nor a feature of the mind.

Structure is only anatomy.

Psychology is the study of behavior.

Like when a human suspends belief.

You see all the trouble you get in to when you haven't a frame for what you try to relate? Package your thinking within a coherent frame and may then we'll be able to discuss things.