Whose brain is it anyway?

[another1]

You mean you are just making things up?

Looks like everyone is. Sure, I am. How could you put it any differently?

You do know that you are experiencing things. There is no doubt of that.

I feel as if I am experiencing things, yeah.

It can be moved. It can be driven to madness.

It does not have total control of anything.

Just a speck of sometimes slippery control over a few things

I'm kinda lost in that part. The arm you're saying? I was pointing out that the I in this situation is more like the arm, and whatever is controlling the I-arm is where me, myself, and I actually are. And wherever that may be is not in my body. May be in my chair or my rug. My animals. Air. Just not inside my body and for damn sure not my brain.

 

[Peez]

The idea is something that 10 years ago would have been science fiction,” says biochemist James Eberwine of the University of Pennsylvania. “We were taught that every cell has the same DNA, but that's not true.”

It bugs me when people make such, well, false statements. We have known for decades that DNA replication is imperfect, and that therefore each time a cell divides there is a chance that the two 'daughter' cells will not be identical. It would be hard to imagine that each of the billions upon billions of cells in your body are genetically identical (even ignoring obviously different cells such as erythrocytes and B-lymphocytes). What may be new here is just how significant this may be in the functioning of our brains.

Peez

 

[untermensche]

You do know that you are experiencing things. There is no doubt of that.

I feel as if I am experiencing things, yeah.

You know you feel like you are experiencing things.

It is apparent to you. That is all it takes to know something.

If something is apparent we know we are aware of it.

It can be moved. It can be driven to madness.

It does not have total control of anything.

Just a speck of sometimes slippery control over a few things

I'm kinda lost in that part. The arm you're saying? I was pointing out that the I in this situation is more like the arm, and whatever is controlling the I-arm is where me, myself, and I actually are. And wherever that may be is not in my body. May be in my chair or my rug. My animals. Air. Just not inside my body and for damn sure not my brain.

OK we'll start slow.

Move your index finger.

 

[another1]

You know you feel like you are experiencing things.

I know that I feel like I am experiencing things, and experience a feeling as if I know, but I really can't say for sure untermensche

It is apparent to you. That is all it takes to know something.

If something is apparent we know we are aware of it.

Subtract the we and I have no reason to disagree. Can only speak for myself. I moved my left finger. Is that alright? What does this have to do with what is apparent? And what happened to the satellites? They're more fun than moving digits and whatnot. Can't indulge me with some fantasticals just for fun? I haven't the slightest idea what we are talking about by the way. you mentioned starting something and I'd like to know what that would be. If it ends in satellites I'm down for it.

 

[untermensche]

I know that I feel like I am experiencing things, and experience a feeling as if I know, but I really can't say for sure untermensche.

You certainly can.

If you feel you are experiencing things then you know you are experiencing those "feelings".

The only way to have feelings is to experience them.

I moved my left finger. Is that alright?

What did you use to move it with?

 

[another1]

untermensche, I've tried this hundreds of times. These exercises don't work. My mind is not inside my skull. I can't explain this to you but out of boredom I will play.

What did you use to move it with?

I moved my finger with joints. On that note, I need to smoke another. I'd like to get you baked and say weird shit. But for some reason I doubt you'd flinch.

The only way to have feelings is to experience them.

I remember feelings. I may even experience them. Where do you think memories are stored, and what causes the feeling that one is feeling feelings?

What do you think the satellites look like? Irrelevant if they're impossible to see, huh. Fancy any strange external mind hypotheses? There are plenty to go around. Salvia-stimulated satellite suppositions are one of my main interests. Thank you for your response by the way.

 

[DBT]

Consciousness and Intention
''Where in the brain are our intentions formed and how do we become aware of these intentions? Desmurget et al. (p. 811; see the Perspective by Haggard) investigated the effect of direct cortical stimulation of parietal and premotor regions in patients undergoing brain surgery for tumor removal. Stimulation of the parietal lobe provoked the conscious experience of wanting to move the upper limb, lips, or tongue without any concomitant motor activity. When stimulation intensity was increased, patients believed that they had actually moved or talked, but again no muscle activity was detected. When, however, the premotor region of the frontal lobes was stimulated, real complex multijoint movements were induced. However, patients did not experience these movements as produced by a conscious internal act of will. Indeed, they were not even aware that they had moved. Increasing stimulation intensity increased the amplitude or complexity of the movement but never made it reach consciousness.''

''Parietal and premotor cortex regions are serious contenders for bringing motor intentions and motor responses into awareness. We used electrical stimulation in seven patients undergoing awake brain surgery. Stimulating the right inferior parietal regions triggered a strong intention and desire to move the contralateral hand, arm, or foot, whereas stimulating the left inferior parietal region provoked the intention to move the lips and to talk. When stimulation intensity was increased in parietal areas, participants believed they had really performed these movements, although no electromyographic activity was detected. Stimulation of the premotor region triggered overt mouth and contralateral limb movements. Yet, patients firmly denied that they had moved. Conscious intention and motor awareness thus arise from increased parietal activity before movement execution.''

 

[untermensche]

untermensche, I've tried this hundreds of times. These exercises don't work. My mind is not inside my skull. I can't explain this to you but out of boredom I will play.

I moved my finger with joints. On that note, I need to smoke another. I'd like to get you baked and say weird shit. But for some reason I doubt you'd flinch.

You're not playing. You're evading, running away.

Joints don't move anything.

The anatomy of the finger is not what caused the finger to move, in a manner you decide to move it and at a time you decide to move it.

The only way to have feelings is to experience them.

I remember feelings. I may even experience them. Where do you think memories are stored, and what causes the feeling that one is feeling feelings?

If you experience a memory then you are that which experienced a memory.

You can't make the subjective part of consciousness mysterious by pretending it is.

Our experiences are clear. We clearly have them.

If there are experiences there must be something capable of having them.

 

[fromderinside]

You're not playing. You're evading, running away.

Joints don't move anything.

The anatomy of the finger is not what caused the finger to move, in a manner you decide to move it and at a time you decide to move it.

The only way to have feelings is to experience them.

I remember feelings. I may even experience them. Where do you think memories are stored, and what causes the feeling that one is feeling feelings?

If you experience a memory then you are that which experienced a memory.

You can't make the subjective part of consciousness mysterious by pretending it is.

Our experiences are clear. We clearly have them.

If there are experiences there must be something capable of having them.

So you philosophically dumped on another1 in a science thread. Happy? What is causality again?  Causal Determinism  Causality

 

[fromderinside]

Every neuron in a human brain could have a different genome from all the others (albeit mainly single nucleotide variations, but with many larger differences).

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...eurons-are-genetically-alike/?linkId=37171391

Fascinating.

The brain less an organ, more a community of cells whose somewhat anarchic development is put in check by the casing of a skull. The brain less an organ, and more as happenstance where brief equilibrium is reached between the intrinsic dynamic of the cells population's development and the usefulness of this compact community of billions of cells to the unsuspecting organism within its specific environment. Such an unlikely equilibrium.

And that's how we get all those ideas? The weirdness of it all! It sort of joins with other discoveries or ideas: Special Relativity, General Relativity, Quantum Physics, the Big Bang, Dark Matter and Dark Energy, String Theory...

Curiouser and curiouser!
EB

What happened between DNA may be unique to each neuron and not an organ? Yes, I believe these two statements define the conflict summaries. If ontogeny is to have any meaning the brain is at least a system of organs serving as the center of the nervous system command and control system for the being reiterated and extended over time and conditions. Not an organ, perhaps a system of organs, perhaps an organ adapted to situations and conditions, perhaps more.

To me there is not much weird here. The modern vertebrate auditory system evolved from a lateral line motion detecting system and an spatial orienting swim bladder ferchrissake.

 

[untermensche]

You're not playing. You're evading, running away.

Joints don't move anything.

The anatomy of the finger is not what caused the finger to move, in a manner you decide to move it and at a time you decide to move it.

I remember feelings. I may even experience them. Where do you think memories are stored, and what causes the feeling that one is feeling feelings?

If you experience a memory then you are that which experienced a memory.

You can't make the subjective part of consciousness mysterious by pretending it is.

Our experiences are clear. We clearly have them.

If there are experiences there must be something capable of having them.

So you philosophically dumped on another1 in a science thread. Happy? What is causality again?  Causal Determinism  Causality

How is any of this "dumping"? It is philosophical foundation.

No science is without it.

And nothing is science that ignores it.

 

[fromderinside]

Be rational then untermenche. The thread is Natural science.

We'd be nowhere without rules and conventions surrounding discussion.

 

[bilby]

You're not playing. You're evading, running away.

Joints don't move anything.

The anatomy of the finger is not what caused the finger to move, in a manner you decide to move it and at a time you decide to move it.

Sure; But then, YOU don't decide to move your fingers either.

If another1 was gullible enough to go along with your absurd experiment, then what caused his finger to move wasn't his 'mind', any more than it was his muscles. The muscles only act because the brain sends the appropriate signals to them; And the brain only acts because YOUR POST sent the appropriate signal to it.

I am prepared to believe that you are UNAWARE that your decisions are the response to the totality of the inputs of your senses, as processed by the brain; But I cannot accept your apparent belief that you are able to make decisions without reference to those inputs.

There is no 'first mover' in your brain that drives what it decides; Just inputs and memories.

I understand that you find this fact unpalatable; But it remains a fact whether you like it or not. Brains respond (often in very complex ways) to their inputs and memories - and there is nothing else. it FEELS as though there is something else, but when we use the scientific method, in place ouf our feelings, we see that there cannot be anything else.

Of course, you are welcome to argue that your feelings are a better guide to reality than the scientific method is; But then everyone will, quite rightly, laugh at you.

 

[untermensche]

Be rational then untermenche. The thread is Natural science.

We'd be nowhere without rules and conventions surrounding discussion.

Like I said, Natural Science has a philosophical foundation.

Trying to remove philosophy is not doing science.

It is folly.

Pretending there can be experience without both that which experiences and the things it can experience is folly.

 

[untermensche]

You're not playing. You're evading, running away.

Joints don't move anything.

The anatomy of the finger is not what caused the finger to move, in a manner you decide to move it and at a time you decide to move it.

Sure; But then, YOU don't decide to move your fingers either.

If another1 was gullible enough to go along with your absurd experiment, then what caused his finger to move wasn't his 'mind', any more than it was his muscles. The muscles only act because the brain sends the appropriate signals to them; And the brain only acts because YOUR POST sent the appropriate signal to it.

I am prepared to believe that you are UNAWARE that your decisions are the response to the totality of the inputs of your senses, as processed by the brain; But I cannot accept your apparent belief that you are able to make decisions without reference to those inputs.

There is no 'first mover' in your brain that drives what it decides; Just inputs and memories.

I understand that you find this fact unpalatable; But it remains a fact whether you like it or not. Brains respond (often in very complex ways) to their inputs and memories - and there is nothing else. it FEELS as though there is something else, but when we use the scientific method, in place ouf our feelings, we see that there cannot be anything else.

Of course, you are welcome to argue that your feelings are a better guide to reality than the scientific method is; But then everyone will, quite rightly, laugh at you.

You haven't explained how anything happens.

And of course there must be a "first mover".

If there is initiation of movement from rest then there was some first step in that initiation.

Unless you think it happened by magic.

Nobody claims there is no first step.

The faithful claim the brain initiates it on its own somehow, but there is still initiation. There is still the sudden appearance of increased activity.

 

[bilby]

Sure; But then, YOU don't decide to move your fingers either.

If another1 was gullible enough to go along with your absurd experiment, then what caused his finger to move wasn't his 'mind', any more than it was his muscles. The muscles only act because the brain sends the appropriate signals to them; And the brain only acts because YOUR POST sent the appropriate signal to it.

I am prepared to believe that you are UNAWARE that your decisions are the response to the totality of the inputs of your senses, as processed by the brain; But I cannot accept your apparent belief that you are able to make decisions without reference to those inputs.

There is no 'first mover' in your brain that drives what it decides; Just inputs and memories.

I understand that you find this fact unpalatable; But it remains a fact whether you like it or not. Brains respond (often in very complex ways) to their inputs and memories - and there is nothing else. it FEELS as though there is something else, but when we use the scientific method, in place ouf our feelings, we see that there cannot be anything else.

Of course, you are welcome to argue that your feelings are a better guide to reality than the scientific method is; But then everyone will, quite rightly, laugh at you.

You haven't explained how anything happens.

And of course there must be a "first mover".

If there is initiation of movement from rest then there was some first step in that initiation.

Unless you think it happened by magic.

Nobody claims there is no first step.

The faithful claim the brain initiates it on its own somehow, but there is still initiation. There is still the sudden appearance of increased activity.

The only 'first mover' is the Big Bang.

The brain doesn't EVER initiate anything on its own. It processes inputs (including memories) and generates outputs from those inputs. There is (and can be) NOTHING else.

The input that leads to a large output can be small. But it cannot be absent.

 

[untermensche]

The only 'first mover' is the Big Bang.

The brain doesn't EVER initiate anything on its own. It processes inputs (including memories) and generates outputs from those inputs. There is (and can be) NOTHING else.

The input that leads to a large output can be small. But it cannot be absent.

If the arm is still and there is no initiation of something it will not move.

You are talking nonsense.

Of course there is initiation. There must be.

The question is how?

Repeating the sing song phrase "input/output" explains absolutely nothing.

 

[DBT]

The anatomy of the finger is not what caused the finger to move, in a manner you decide to move it and at a time you decide to move it.

Which still ignores the fact that it is a brain that is 'doing' you, doing 'your' conscious experience, the decision you feel you make and the motor action that follows.

 

[untermensche]

The anatomy of the finger is not what caused the finger to move, in a manner you decide to move it and at a time you decide to move it.

Which still ignores the fact that it is a brain that is 'doing' you, doing 'your' conscious experience, the decision you feel you make and the motor action that follows.

The brain is creating consciousness for a reason.

Because consciousness is good at making decisions.

And it gets better with experience.

 

[DBT]

Which still ignores the fact that it is a brain that is 'doing' you, doing 'your' conscious experience, the decision you feel you make and the motor action that follows.

The brain is creating consciousness for a reason.

Because consciousness is good at making decisions.

And it gets better with experience.

That makes no sense. What you are implying is that the brain is creating an independent agency in the form of consciousness. Something that can do what the brain cannot, hence the brain creates something autonomous that takes control of decision making. Convoluted, illogical and has no evidential support.