The Illusion of Self

[DBT]

The point is subjective guesses about the timing of urges to move is not objective data.

It can never be objective data.

And those that claim it is objective data are either mindless or liars.

You move when and how you choose to move.

There is no invisible mind below the scenes causing movement before you will it.

The brain has one mind and the brain has no clue what that mind is experiencing.

Just like a gene has no idea what it's end product is.

You still haven't said anything relevant. What exactly are you talking about?

Are you trying to say that mind/consciousness/behaviour is not the work or function of the brain? Are you trying to say the brain is the receiver of sort of mysterious cosmic waves? The receptor of Cosmic consciousness?

What? Can you offer anything?

 

[untermensche]

The point is subjective guesses about the timing of urges to move is not objective data.

It can never be objective data.

And those that claim it is objective data are either mindless or liars.

You move when and how you choose to move.

There is no invisible mind below the scenes causing movement before you will it.

The brain has one mind and the brain has no clue what that mind is experiencing.

Just like a gene has no idea what it's end product is.

You still haven't said anything relevant. What exactly are you talking about?

Are you trying to say that mind/consciousness/behaviour is not the work or function of the brain? Are you trying to say the brain is the receiver of sort of mysterious cosmic waves? The receptor of Cosmic consciousness?

What? Can you offer anything?

I have said many relevant things.

Your absurd opinion with nothing to back it up is noted.

What is your background?

You appear to have ZERO real world knowledge about anything.

If you are a quadriplegic that can't work I am sorry.

 

[DBT]

The point is subjective guesses about the timing of urges to move is not objective data.

It can never be objective data.

And those that claim it is objective data are either mindless or liars.

You move when and how you choose to move.

There is no invisible mind below the scenes causing movement before you will it.

The brain has one mind and the brain has no clue what that mind is experiencing.

Just like a gene has no idea what it's end product is.

You still haven't said anything relevant. What exactly are you talking about?

Are you trying to say that mind/consciousness/behaviour is not the work or function of the brain? Are you trying to say the brain is the receiver of sort of mysterious cosmic waves? The receptor of Cosmic consciousness?

What? Can you offer anything?

I have said many relevant things.

Your absurd opinion with nothing to back it up is noted.

What is your background?

You appear to have ZERO real world knowledge about anything.

If you are a quadriplegic that can't work I am sorry.

So still no explanation of your position. Thought not. Just more wailing and gnashing of teeth. Can you not explain your position on the relationship between mind and brain?

 

[fromderinside]

When really what neuroscience is supposed to explain is experience. What it is and how we have it.

No way. Science explains behavior. Neuroscience explains animal behavior.

However since experience is subjective behavior neuroscience of behavior can be used to provide insight in to how experience is formed.

What is it about the principles of behavior that leads one to use or need experience?

OF course you've got a pocket full of Ad Hominin to apply to this.

 

[untermensche]

I have said many relevant things.

Your absurd opinion with nothing to back it up is noted.

What is your background?

You appear to have ZERO real world knowledge about anything.

If you are a quadriplegic that can't work I am sorry.

So still no explanation of your position. Thought not. Just more wailing and gnashing of teeth. Can you not explain your position on the relationship between mind and brain?

Tell me your background and I will engage with you.

You seem to be nothing but some naive fool that has read some nonsense and spews it back without a thought in between.

 

[untermensche]

When really what neuroscience is supposed to explain is experience. What it is and how we have it.

No way. Science explains behavior. Neuroscience explains animal behavior.

However since experience is subjective behavior neuroscience of behavior can be used to provide insight in to how experience is formed.

What is it about the principles of behavior that leads one to use or need experience?

OF course you've got a pocket full of Ad Hominin to apply to this.

Experience is brain behavior. Neuroscience is the science of brain behavior. Psychology (a soft science meaning not tied to chemistry or physics and not a science that makes accurate predictions about much) is the science of human behavior.

The creation of that which is aware of experience is brain behavior.

Experience is that which we have no doubt is there.

All the rest is speculation.

Science must first explain what we know is there.

Conjecture about things that are there but not apparent to the mind are secondary.

 

[DBT]

I have said many relevant things.

Your absurd opinion with nothing to back it up is noted.

What is your background?

You appear to have ZERO real world knowledge about anything.

If you are a quadriplegic that can't work I am sorry.

So still no explanation of your position. Thought not. Just more wailing and gnashing of teeth. Can you not explain your position on the relationship between mind and brain?

Tell me your background and I will engage with you.

You seem to be nothing but some naive fool that has read some nonsense and spews it back without a thought in between.

Get off your high horse, my background is not the issue. You use the 'background' ploy because you are at a loss. Your inability to grasp the nature and significance of the research is the problem, and has been all along.

 

[untermensche]

A large part of pharmacy school is devoted to learning how to read the primary research. At least my pharmacy program did that.

And we were taught to look at the research skeptically.

Never to just accept the conclusions of the researchers who can easily be blinded by confirmation bias and other biases.

You seem to have no ability to look at any research skeptically.

What is your background that you seem ashamed of?

I wonder why you think subjective reports about "urges" are objective data.

 

[fromderinside]

Oh, I see. You are the blind man feeling the elephant belly.

I'm writing the next bit just to set you off.

I am a twenty years retired post-doctorate trained research scientist who specialized in Human Engineering, Psychometrics, Psychophysics, and modelling of human performance in complex technical environments such as tactical A/C operation, training, situation awareness, and workload. I conducted research and designed and evaluated systems at National Labs, Universities, and Major Aircraft manufacturers for over 30 years.

Back to your post.

To your points. No.

Brain behavior can create experience which is a subjective state not too tightly tied to what lead to it's expression. In other words experience is a cluster of activities construct which reconcile what, where, when, and how one is doing well enough usually to continue pursuing whatever is being done.

Experience does not directly reflect anything one is doing. Rather experience provides an operating theater through which one acts or enlists existing developing models to sustain, modify, reverse or otherwise do.

As I said it is subjective since it is separate from activity. Yet, in part, experience is a result of what one is executing as material behavior. It is an awareness model of attended behavior raised to current consciousness if you really want to complete the subjective arena.

 

[DBT]

A large part of pharmacy school is devoted to learning how to read the primary research. At least my pharmacy program did that.

And we were taught to look at the research skeptically.

Never to just accept the conclusions of the researchers who can easily be blinded by confirmation bias and other biases.

You seem to have no ability to look at any research skeptically.

What is your background that you seem ashamed of?

I wonder why you think subjective reports about "urges" are objective data.

Again, your request for background information is a ploy. It has no bearing on the current state of neuroscience research or results. I have no reason to provide you with my personal details.

The fact remains, everything you say is contrary to the research and its results. You are not being skeptical or rational, you simply reject anything and everything that contradicts your faith based beliefs.

Even worse, in spite of numerous requests you have not described what you see as the relationship between brain and mind beyond vague comments that are no better than hand waving.

 

[untermensche]

You think the timing of subjective guesses about invisible events can be done with accuracy.

What is your background?

If it is laughable then that explains a lot.

 

[untermensche]

Oh, I see. You are the blind man feeling the elephant belly.

I'm writing the next bit just to set you off.

I am a twenty years retired post-doctorate trained research scientist who specialized in Human Engineering, Psychometrics, Psychophysics, and modelling of human performance in complex technical environments such as tactical A/C operation, training, situation awareness, and workload. I conducted research and designed and evaluated systems at National Labs, Universities, and Major Aircraft manufacturers for over 30 years.

Back to your post.

To your points. No.

Brain behavior can create experience which is a subjective state not too tightly tied to what lead to it's expression. In other words experience is a cluster of activities construct which reconcile what, where, when, and how one is doing well enough usually to continue pursuing whatever is being done.

Experience does not directly reflect anything one is doing. Rather experience provides an operating theater through which one acts or enlists existing developing models to sustain, modify, reverse or otherwise do.

As I said it is subjective since it is separate from activity. Yet, in part, experience is a result of what one is executing as material behavior. It is an awareness model of attended behavior raised to current consciousness if you really want to complete the subjective arena.

And you think energy has information about color.

You can't set me off.

You are twenty years removed from any real questioning and it is apparent.

I am glad you now understand the brain is creating all of experience.

Including color.

You must ignore that there is this science called "psychology" to make your claims.

 

[fromderinside]

Psychology is a soft science lacking a unifying theory. Most psychologists give credence to < .05 being significant. Many even try to make correlations act as material evidence. No, for the most part psychology is not a science. There are scientific results coming from some domains though. Unfortunately most of neuroscience is still speculation. Especially in the realm of consciousness study. The Law of Association is just that association. We have no real understanding how experience relates to what's going on that we believe results in it. Freud, Jung, and the rest? Speculation that makes a good read.

I almost moved from behavioral biology to psychiatric neurochemistry at a Federal Hospital in the LA area until I realized it was all about 'proving' silly couch psychiatry-philosophy. About as much use as serotonin and lithium therapy. Bwaaah.

 

[untermensche]

Lithium has been used for bipolar disorder for a long time.

I agree that psychology is a soft science.

But it exists because neuroscience is not the study of human behavior.

Neuroscience is the study of the behavior of the nervous system.

 

[fromderinside]

If a labeled feeling can be masked or calibrated by energy then it's time parameters can be measured fairly accurately (millisecond level).

Doesn't promote it to materiality but does imply it may someday found to have a material basis. Fear and adrenalin come to mind.

Mental workload can actually be measured if we can calibrate cellular energy rates of oxygen uptake. Pretty expensive though.

Great. Tell me about it. Tell me how the basilar membrane, ascending and descending nervous processes thereof aren't about subserving hearing, a behavior category relating to the use of of acoustic energy to navigate, communicate, direct sensors, etc.

 

[untermensche]

If a labeled feeling can be masked or calibrated by energy then it's time parameters can be measured fairly accurately (millisecond level).

The beginning of "urges" can't be described with accuracy.

And seeing physiological events a mere .35 seconds from a guess about "urges" suggests the urge caused it.

But of course prejudice and conformation bias says otherwise.

 

[fromderinside]

The beginnings of urges are much different than the awareness of urges. We're mostly talking about chemistry here.

You are probably the most consistent demonstrator of confirmation bias here with your .35.

I wonder why when we know the range of athletes movement reaction time to guns sound speed which is known to be about 1000 ft/second is one to two tenths of a second that we choose something near the low end of that range for standard delay? Are we making a judgment that reaction time correlates with twitch muscle reactivity supposedly correlates with athleticism? After all 1-4 tenths of a second diminishes in effect on measured times between 100 yards and a marathon.

IOW you are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

 

[untermensche]

The beginnings of urges are much different than the awareness of urges. We're mostly talking about chemistry here.

What is apparent to all of us is it is the mind that generates the movement.

We do not experience the arm just reaching out and grabbing the can of beer.

We first experience thirst and we have intelligence and memory and know how to deal with that experience so we tell the body to reach out and grab the can then tell the arm to bring the can to the mouth. Then we somehow initiate the reflexive behavior of swallowing. We do not prevent the beer from entering the lungs with the will. The body does not leave this important task to the will.

So the beginning of the urge is the beginning of when we command the finger to move.

When exactly we begin our command is not something we can see. All we can do is subjectively guess about the timing.

You are probably the most consistent demonstrator of confirmation bias here with your .35.

My bias is subjective guesses about invisible events could easily be off by that much.

I wonder why when we know the range of athletes movement reaction time to guns sound speed which is known to be about 1000 ft/second is one to two tenths of a second that we choose something near the low end of that range for standard delay?

That is not an invisible URGE.

It is reaction to an anticipated stimulus.

 

[fromderinside]

No. Actually it's an intention to react which is invisible, although anticipation is also invisible. In fact both of those could be described as urges.

 

[DBT]

You think the timing of subjective guesses about invisible events can be done with accuracy.

What is your background?

If it is laughable then that explains a lot.

My background is none of your business. Resorting to ad homs means that you have lost the argument. Not that you had one to begin with. Why don't you answer questions? What do you believe is the connection between brain and mind? Do you believe the brain is the receiver of cosmic consciousness? A ghost in the machine? What do you believe? Can you not give a clear account of your beliefs?