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

[fromderinside]

...and that totality can be logically divided into parts and those parts can be parsed into groups which become elements in catalogs all of which comprise the ongoing experience. We are not unitary processors which is what is shown when one sense produces multiple elements at the same time, just as it can be also a unitary processor when, necessarily, all elements comprising, say, a sensory experience of precedence need be passed though a single filter.

The point is what one calls an experience can be instantaneous or it can be procedural or it can be scenic or particular in scope. Emotive elements can be moved around since they are not processed through the same channels as are sense or computing, or verbal aspects of what is the experience.

What is subjective about experience even identical experiences is that they are particular to the individual at the time of experience.

What I find funny is that many generalize from that uniqueness to claim that things processed through the same elements are necessarily unique as well. Clearly, when one experiences red as pure sense it is the red others process. Yet, because it is gobbledy-gooked up with emotion leaving experiences and the like it is claimed it can only be a subjective thing.

An experience can be distilled to objective elements as experience as those who preach mind control have shown. That is the nature of experience.

 

[untermensche]

You have to know how an experience is generated before you can divide anything.

 

[fromderinside]

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.

Oops. There goes a pillar.

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

Let me explain. 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.

Humans favor coherent information processing the processing of speech over extraneous information processing of the radnom twig breaking is social situations. On the other hand humans at rest process clicks in preference to speech. It provides the first alert for awakening through the continued monitoring of sound during sleep through the auditory channel.

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

Your don't know anything is cast aside.

Even if it weren't true that we know these things it is patently demonstrably false that we have to know anything to do something. Such rubbish. Really.

 

[untermensche]

You didn't explain in any way how the brain creates the experience of "hearing".

You didn't explain in any way what is happening when a person says they hear something.

 

[WAB]

What do we know about what happens - metaphysics (or just plain physics, metaphysics being the philosophical term, not the scientific term).

How do we know how it happens - epistemology.

 

[untermensche]

The phenomena of experience is not the one dimensional stuff of modern so-called neurosciences.

There is not even a way to conceive of modeling it with any known phenomena.

That is a greater ignorance than merely not having a model.

Not even being able to know where to start to create a model.

 

[fromderinside]

You didn't explain in any way how the brain creates the experience of "hearing".

You didn't explain in any way what is happening when a person says they hear something.

Did you read anywhere in my post any comment about the brain creating anything? No. So why do you drag that dead fish over the trail.?

My guess is you can't deny the generalizations I made on research I conducted. That's all I can conclude since you failed to respond to those findings.

Do you deny that we can change what and how we experience by using our understanding of how we hear, see, smell, touch, taste, are joint and muscle aware? I clearly said that we can and we can do it consistently and we do it habitually. so suggesting we know nothing falls by the wayside. That is not a valid criticism. Obviously we know something because we can show effect due to that knowledge.

 

[DBT]

I am saying rational things like: All you can learn is how to artificially elicit an artificial experience. You do not learn how a brain generates an experience.

And you are saying nonsense like:

So according to you, all of the research, experiments and analysis that has been done over many decades by people who's aim is to better understand the brain and its functions has been an utter waste of time and nothing has been learned

Others can decide who is reasonable.

What I did was point out the implications of your absurd claims. You have in fact rejected practically all the research, experiments and analysis by the researchers themselves, which is practically everything that I have quoted and cited.

That is the tragedy of your position.

You reject the implications of research, the descriptions of the researchers and anything else that you don't agree with. You don't agree, not because you have studied and formed an understanding of the research but because you ''can lift your arm at will'' - meanwhile ignoring the means by which you have your experience.

It is indeed quite tragic.


Quote;
''we presented evidence that the brain, when tricked by optical and sensory illusions, can quickly adopt another human form as its own, no matter how different it is. We designed two experiments. In the first one, the researchers fitted the head of a mannequin with two cameras connected to two small screens placed in front of the volunteer's eyes, so that the volunteer could see what the mannequin saw

When the mannequin's camera eyes and the volunteer's head, complete with the camera goggles, were directed downwards, the volunteer saw the dummy's body where he or she would normally have seen his or her own body. By simultaneously touching the stomachs of both the volunteer and the mannequin, we could create the illusion of body swapping.''

 

[DBT]

You have to know how an experience is generated before you can divide anything.

Yet you make your claims - smart consciousness operating a dumb brain, etc - regardless of your own objections.

 

[untermensche]

I am saying rational things like: All you can learn is how to artificially elicit an artificial experience. You do not learn how a brain generates an experience.

And you are saying nonsense like:

So according to you, all of the research, experiments and analysis that has been done over many decades by people who's aim is to better understand the brain and its functions has been an utter waste of time and nothing has been learned

Others can decide who is reasonable.

What I did was point out the implications of your absurd claims. You have in fact rejected practically all the research, experiments and analysis by the researchers themselves, which is practically everything that I have quoted and cited.

No what you did was ignorant stupidity.

You are not any kind of expert on the research. You can barely read.

You have a bunch of fantasies about what the research shows. You think guesses about the timing of human inklings is science.

You don't have one tiny shred of objective information about the human consciousness. You do not even know what it is objectively.

 

[DBT]

What I did was point out the implications of your absurd claims. You have in fact rejected practically all the research, experiments and analysis by the researchers themselves, which is practically everything that I have quoted and cited.

You are not any kind of expert on the research. You can barely read.

You have a bunch of fantasies about what the research shows. You think guesses about the timing of human inklings is science.

You don't have one tiny shred of objective information about the human consciousness. You do not even know what it is objectively.

What a dummy spit.

I didn't make any claims about what the research shows. I pointed out that I provided quotes and analysis by the researchers themselves. It is the researchers who describe their experiments and their results, while providing their own analysis.

Sadly, it appears that you can't handle the truth.

 

[untermensche]

You have done nothing but give bad interpretations of the research.

In all the research you have provided there is not one objective model of consciousness.

The phenomena is not objectively understood.

And when we look at the research we see it is things like the averaging of subjective guesses about the timing of inklings. To the millisecond.

It is absurd nonsense.

 

[Subsymbolic]

You have done nothing but give bad interpretations of the research.

In all the research you have provided there is not one objective model of consciousness.

The phenomena is not objectively understood.

And when we look at the research we see it is things like the averaging of subjective guesses about the timing of inklings. To the millisecond.

It is absurd nonsense.

So, you didn't bother grasping the difference between the Hard and Easy problem then.

Doesn't it ever worry you that, as far as I can see, every single person you interact with here doesn't ever agree with a word you say?

 

[untermensche]

You have done nothing but give bad interpretations of the research.

In all the research you have provided there is not one objective model of consciousness.

The phenomena is not objectively understood.

And when we look at the research we see it is things like the averaging of subjective guesses about the timing of inklings. To the millisecond.

It is absurd nonsense.

So, you didn't bother grasping the difference between the Hard and Easy problem then.

Doesn't it ever worry you that, as far as I can see, every single person you interact with here doesn't ever agree with a word you say?

I know of no easy problems in the complete absence of any testable model.

And if you had any ability to observe you would see that I mainly refute bad ideas. (Ideas in my opinion that are bad) If I agree with something I am usually silent about it.

Many people these days have very bad ideas about the brain and what we know about it.

You think articles about locations in the brain explain phenomena.

 

[DBT]

You are so fixated with your own experience of agency - lifting your arm at will - that you refuse to see any distinctions between what is understood in relation to cognition and motor action, and what is not....you refuse to consider the mechanisms and means of your conscious experience of agency.

 

[untermensche]

You are so fixated with your own experience of agency - lifting your arm at will - that you refuse to see any distinctions between what is understood in relation to cognition and motor action, and what is not....you refuse to consider the mechanisms and means of your conscious experience of agency.

I spent 25 years working with stroke patients.

Therapy for a stroke patient that has lost the connection between their mind and their body is to try to reattach them by working with the mind, their "will", not the body. And people with stronger "wills" many times get more return. They "will" their brain to reconfigure and adjust.

And without this "willing" the brain does not just do it on it's own. There is some natural return but to maximize your return after a stroke takes months of daily mental work.

When somebody tells me the mind does not move the body I just sigh in disbelief at their naive delusion.

Especially if it is based on nothing but the averaging of the timing of random subjective guesses about the beginnings of inklings.

You have ivory tower bullshit knowledge.

I have real world knowledge about real people.

 

[untermensche]

The will: The total energy a person can direct towards their brain by using their mind. Mental energy.

It is something that can increase or decrease over time.

If one practices repeatedly directing "mental energy" towards some task eventually less "mental energy" is required to accomplish it.

We use very little "mental energy" to walk around. We barely have to be aware we are doing it.

 

[fromderinside]

Do you actually believe in Dean Drive will?

 

[untermensche]

Do you actually believe in Dean Drive will?

I believe what I can experience over and over again.

Do you honestly think the ideas you produce are just a reflex and your mind had no power to shape them?

 

[DBT]

You are so fixated with your own experience of agency - lifting your arm at will - that you refuse to see any distinctions between what is understood in relation to cognition and motor action, and what is not....you refuse to consider the mechanisms and means of your conscious experience of agency.

I spent 25 years working with stroke patients.

I have real world knowledge about real people.

In that case you should understand that the symptoms of stroke are a consequence of a brain condition, which is manifested in a various ways, the damage to the brain effecting both bodily functions and the mind/cognition of the patient. It is not the mind that is the cause of the condition, but the brain, blood clots, etc, yet you veer off into uncharted territory that is not supported by evidence.