Understanding Consciousness: Awareness vs. Attention

[fromderinside]

Pedestals. Now that's something to which one can aspire.

 

[untermensche]

One more time into the breach .....

 Reticular activating system The reticular formation is essential for governing some of the basic functions of higher organisms and is one of the phylogenetically oldest portions of the brain.

 Sensory processing the process that organizes sensation from one’s own body and the environment, thus making it possible to use the body effectively within the environment;

 Lateral inhibition the capacity of an excited neuron(s) to reduce the activity of its neighbors

 Attention behavioral and cognitive process of selectively concentrating on a discrete aspect of information, whether deemed subjective or objective, while ignoring other perceivable information. You'll read stuff on  Cocktail party effect - even here you'll miss the part played by noise (other voices, footsteps etc) that provides information useful for resolving serial spoken content - that are far from instructive on what is attention

 Awareness neural systems that regulate attention serve to attenuate awareness among complex animals whose central and peripheral nervous system provides more information than cognitive areas of the brain can assimilate.

...are all instructive when considering how and to what we attend.

(bias of a sensory neuroscientist and physiologist) Cognitive psychologists often mess things up by concentrating on the cortex and mediation leading to mostly bad science. Their attempts at explanation are similar to what one would expect by trying to explain what's going on listening to a lowered microphone in Times Square. Admirable as some of these explanations be their research materials are just too far removed from direct effects to limit alternatives. Even looking at oxygen uptake (metabolism) isn't meaningful beyond "look, see that". Obviously they are much closer to saying something meaningful than are philosophers who don't tend to get fluids on their shirts when studying and theorizing while insisting on mostly prescientific understandings.

As much as I admire the work of Crick and Koch (2003, 2005) I take their conclusions about structures necessary for consciousness with a lot of seasoning if it is to stay down.

I notice when you describe attention you say "selectively" concentrates. I say "willfully" concentrates. What the experience can be.

What causes you to concentrate on this or that?

When you switch from one cube to another when looking at a Necker cube what causes the switch to take place?

Nowhere in all your talk about brain processes do you talk about what allows us to switch cubes at will.

Can you concentrate on one thing and tell me what allows us to switch cubes at will.

Just that, nothing else.

If you claim I can't switch cubes at will that is just a lie.

 

[fromderinside]

Nope. My example of attention switching is a frog sensing movement in peripheri to which target it now attends. (you sitting at a stoplight when a bus pulls up on your right to which your attention is drawn leading you try to stop your movement by hitting the brake). Not willful at all. This is freshman general psych stuff.

 

[untermensche]

Nope. My example of attention switching is a frog sensing movement in peripheri to which target it now attends. (you sitting at a stoplight when a bus pulls up on your right to which your attention is drawn leading you try to stop your movement by hitting the brake). Not willful at all. This is freshman general psych stuff.

That is no explanation of anything.

All you have said is that attention can change for a different reason. I asked you to willfully direct your attention to one thing.

The question is: What is causing you to see one cube then another, AT WILL?

What is causing this willful switch from one cube to another?

Specifically. In the human. Not the frog.

Your model is completely lacking any explanation of this clear ability.

You are merely pretending this clear repeatable ability doesn't exist.

The ostrich method of "science".

 

[fromderinside]

The answer is, IAC with my examples , the will isn't directing anything 'cause it's imaginary.

So there you go wrapping yourself around an imaginary axel trying to get out of the way of the determinist freight train coming down the tracks. In this case the options are always there and it's more useful to see contrasts and options rather than no to do so. Fitness yano. Consequently one invents the phenomenal self out of whole cloth to explain what is taking place. Imagine that? Didn't think so.

Long live Wegner!

 

[untermensche]

You're the one wrapped in a pretzel denying the obvious.

What do I use to switch cubes at will?

Your claims that I don't switch cubes at will is not true.

 

[fromderinside]

-nm

 

[Speakpigeon]

Nope. My example of attention switching is a frog sensing movement in peripheri to which target it now attends.

Me, I really don't know what it is like to be a frog.

(you sitting at a stoplight when a bus pulls up on your right to which your attention is drawn leading you try to stop your movement by hitting the brake). Not willful at all. This is freshman general psych stuff.

I agree with that. It's just elementary. We all understand that. I mean, human beings, not frogs or untermensches.
EB

 

[bilby]

Nope. My example of attention switching is a frog sensing movement in peripheri to which target it now attends.

Me, I really don't know what it is like to be a frog.

You profile location information suggests otherwise. /ethnicslur

 

[Speakpigeon]

The answer is, IAC with my examples , the will isn't directing anything 'cause it's imaginary.

You don't seem to realise that it is the brain which is wholly imaginary. There's nothing at all which is actually a brain except our representation of a brain. Brains are only representations of something else we don't know what. So, they're imaginary. The something else isn't imaginary but then, we don't know what that is. Or at least, don't don't know what that is any more than we know any red flower beyond our subjective representation of a red flower.

Will is not imaginary. Will is whatever that gets to decide what we seem to be doing. I can will my finger to flex or to rise or to point. I do it very reliably and other people can even testify to it, if they will.

I would grant you that will isn't the likely force moving my neurons to fire this or that way but that's not what I had ever meant by "will".

The proper standard for deciding that will gets to decide anything can't be higher than our standard for deciding what will is and does in the first place, and it's never been a scientific standard.

You're plodding around applying the scientific standard to our ordinary notions of everyday life, but this is clearly irrelevant, except to a few people like you.

You would do well instead trying to find how to say something relevant using your scientific expertise.

The problem is, you're obviously not willing to and your scientific expertise apparently isn't quite enough to help you there.

You've learnt things all your life but you just forgot to learn how to talk about them.

We're all a bit too specialised, I guess.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Nope. My example of attention switching is a frog sensing movement in peripheri to which target it now attends.

Me, I really don't know what it is like to be a frog.

You profile location information suggests otherwise. /ethnicslur

Definitely too tempting to resist I'm sure but thanks for giving me a good, hearty Gaulois laugh early in the morning.
EB

 

[bilby]

You profile location information suggests otherwise. /ethnicslur

Definitely too tempting to resist I'm sure but thanks for giving me a good, hearty Gaulois laugh early in the morning.
EB

You're welcome. I tried smoking a Gaulois early in the morning and all I got was a coughing fit.

 

[fromderinside]

You're plodding around applying the scientific standard to our ordinary notions of everyday life, but this is clearly irrelevant, except to a few people like you.

You would do well instead trying to find how to say something relevant using your scientific expertise.
.
EB

Later

Speakpigeon writes: I agree with that. It's just elementary. We all understand that. I mean, human beings, not frogs ....

We could slog though excuse based discourse about humans or misrepresentation based sloppy discussion treating such as mind as brain, putting a physical face on a metaphorical construct as some are prone. Nothing more ordinary that that, right?

What it comes down to is you pick and choose by varying selective criteria with what you should include in your discourse.

I, for instance, tend to relate inventiveness and insight to situation and physical surroundings such as one insightful aborigine taking some bamboo and some palm leaves found nearby to introduce building a structure to keep out direct sun and rain to mates. I'm pretty sure you can come up with other situations which aren't normal that will later become normal yourself. Since I've learned that both frogs and human have brains roughly similar in design and function I'm prepared to expand discussion of determinism to observations and experiments with frogs since they are much less important to us than are other humans.

I think the discussion you want to have have already been had residing in books and on tablets and paper and precursors to such. That's history. Obviously not remotely related to on topic here. All I can fathom from your posted attitude is that you want to feel superior for some reason. You objectively aren''t accomplishing even that feeling are you.

 

[Speakpigeon]

You profile location information suggests otherwise. /ethnicslur

Definitely too tempting to resist I'm sure but thanks for giving me a good, hearty Gaulois laugh early in the morning.
EB

You're welcome. I tried smoking a Gaulois early in the morning and all I got was a coughing fit.

You couldn't possibly smoke a Gaulois. Only a Gauloise. "Cigarette" is feminine in French. Hence, feminine Gauloises, and Gitanes, too.

Close, but no cigar.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

You're plodding around applying the scientific standard to our ordinary notions of everyday life, but this is clearly irrelevant, except to a few people like you.

You would do well instead trying to find how to say something relevant using your scientific expertise.
.
EB

Later

Speakpigeon writes: I agree with that. It's just elementary. We all understand that. I mean, human beings, not frogs ....

We could slog though excuse based discourse about humans or misrepresentation based sloppy discussion treating such as mind as brain, putting a physical face on a metaphorical construct as some are prone. Nothing more ordinary that that, right?

What it comes down to is you pick and choose by varying selective criteria with what you should include in your discourse.

I, for instance, tend to relate inventiveness and insight to situation and physical surroundings such as one insightful aborigine taking some bamboo and some palm leaves found nearby to introduce building a structure to keep out direct sun and rain to mates. I'm pretty sure you can come up with other situations which aren't normal that will later become normal yourself. Since I've learned that both frogs and human have brains roughly similar in design and function I'm prepared to expand discussion of determinism to observations and experiments with frogs since they are much less important to us than are other humans.

I think the discussion you want to have have already been had residing in books and on tablets and paper and precursors to such. That's history. Obviously not remotely related to on topic here. All I can fathom from your posted attitude is that you want to feel superior for some reason. You objectively aren''t accomplishing even that feeling are you.

I'm not sure if you understand frogs but it seems you don't get humans too well.

You should try taking what people say at face value. Sometimes, it just works fine.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

I will when someone comes along whose values aren't primarily saving face.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I will when someone comes along whose values aren't primarily saving face.

We're having a bad day today?

Here the sun is having a bright shine and the sky's a luminous blue.

I'll have some red wine for lunch, to your health, if that can help.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Did.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Two glasses of Chinon, no more (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinon_AOC).

Just fantastic! Just excellent!

And apple pie at the end of the meal. And a little cup of black café. And I didn't have to pay anything at all! That's really unfair, I think. I'm just having a great day out!
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Did.

So, all is forgiven?

Waiting anxiously for your reply!
EB