On Consciousness

[Zeuzzz]

Physical manipulation of the brain can turn consciousness off and on like a light bulb.

Yep. It shuts off it's mechanism by which it experiences the external reality we live in half our lives.

The other half of our lives we're not even consciously aware of this reality.

Why do we sleep, pixy?

Why does every living animal on earth also sleep?

I've started a thread on this before. Maybe you were asleep when I started the thread.

Sleeping seems to have an uber-evolutionary nature. Nothings evolved to not need it.

So: No. You are firmly in "not even wrong" territory there.

How so?

 

[Belz...]

I know, I can tell.

Then this post is a contradiction to your earlier post. Which one is correct ?

 

[Belz...]

PixyMisa got slammed by Piggy (better than I could, I must admit).

Nonsense. There's some visible mudslinging by two posters tired of repeating the same thing to each other. Unfortunately this translates in other participants and lurkers not knowing which one to believe.

 

[Belz...]

Sigh. I don't know how to explain to someone I have absolutely nothing in common with and so no similar reference points we can work with to explain it. I tried before but you just said I was malfunctioning

Zeuzzz, just because you find it mysterious doesn't mean it is. Which, of course, doesn't mean it isn't. But your contention that somehow it should be obvious to Pixy that it is is a bit pretentious.

 

[Belz...]

Because consciousness creates the brain, it's not the brain that creates consciousness. Everything comes down to that basic fact.

I'm sorry, what ? That doesn't even make sense unless you're a solipsist.

 

[Zeuzzz]

I'm nothing you might want to label me as.

I'm a human.

Trained in science and scepticism.

And kickboxing, so careful

 

[PixyMisa]

Yep. It shuts off it's mechanism by which it experiences the external reality we live in half our lives.

The other half of our lives we're not even consciously aware of this reality.

Right. The brain creates consciousness. You got it the wrong way round.

 

[PixyMisa]

PixyMisa got slammed by Piggy (better than I could, I must admit).

Piggy was angrily incoherent, yes.

If you follow PixyMisa's ideas than you are behind the times and uninformed (as well as probably not understanding what other people mean when they say phenomenal consciousness).

People don't appear to mean anything when they say "phenomenal consciousness". "Phenomenal", like "qualia", is a codeword to indicate that they have given up thinking about the problem and are looking for magic - in your case, the CEMI nonsense.

Computationalists do not think that the physics of the brain has anything to offer except a means of knowing what 'calculations' the brain is performing.

Not "calculations", computation. The brain is a computer.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Probably that our conscious thoughts and general wellbeing are one of the primary factors that determine our physiological mental and physical health, rather than them being a neurochemical imbalances to be cured by medication and drugs alone.

Wrong.

 

[tensordyne]

It's such a common thing for people to label those who disagree with them "cultists", it's sad. You have no idea what a cultist is, and it's hard to believe you could have anything to contribute to a conversation with such poor knowledge. Well, at least you didn't compare your opposition to Nazis. Next time, maybe ?

There will not be a next time. I do not have the patience of Piggy. Believe what you will, but to me when a bunch of people say the same thing without reason, it looks like a cult mentality. Repeat your tired ideas as much as you want about Brain Function being 'you' and other such absurdly simplistic conceptions, I do not care. Bye.

 

[PixyMisa]

There will not be a next time. I do not have the patience of Piggy. Believe what you will, but to me when a bunch of people say the same thing without reason, it looks like a cult mentality.

Yes, but that's precisely what you are doing. We are discussing concrete ways to model physical processes; you are invoking magic to explain magic.

 

[tensordyne]

People don't appear to mean anything when they say "phenomenal consciousness". "Phenomenal", like "qualia", is a codeword to indicate that they have given up thinking about the problem and are looking for magic - in your case, the CEMI nonsense.

The arrogance above is astounding. There are a group of people who are talking about a concept you do not understand (we can all agree amongst ourselves what the concepts such as consciousness mean), so instead of thinking about what those people are saying, even provisionally trying to figure out their mindset, you label it magic.

I perfectly understand your mindset. You do not understand mine. Now I remember why I stay away from Cultists. They are annoying.

Not "calculations", computation. The brain is a computer.

The universe is a computer, so is your liver. That does not help you predict anything. Piggy has your number and you are too freaking brain-washed to admit it. Bye.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Right. The brain creates consciousness. You got it the wrong way round.

No I said exactly what I said, and you've just interpreted it though your ego and materialistic filter to mean the opposite of what I meant.

Consciousness and subconsciousness precludes the brain and gives rise to it. And you can't prove otherwise.

Neurochemistry and our brain is a great example of consciousness manifesting an extremely complex material system that we're doing a great job researching.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Yes, but that's precisely what you are doing. We are discussing concrete ways to model physical processes; you are invoking magic to explain magic.

The only person that evoked magic was you, just then.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Fair enough. I'm definitely open to any discussion of counterexamples, or just questions of how can this model account for such-and-such a behaviour...

Fair enough, indeed. Here's a puzzling behavioral finding: People, rats and pigeons, as well as other animals, show the intermittant reinforcement .effect. Responses that are followed by reinfocement every time they occur, show swfter later extinction than responses that are only intermittantly reinforced. As you probably know, but others may not, extinction is a procedure where no responses are reinforced and a process that is said to be completed when no further responses are emitted by the animal.*
Several theories have been tested over the last 70 years and none have satifactorily accounted for the effect.
*Every year in Rat Lab, some student will mistakenly say "My rat is extinct!" when the rat stops pressing the lever.

 

[Mr. Scott]

C (part marks?) ;]

Thanks, blobru!

The correct answer is "A"

I think it's a lot like Dennett's examination of the painting of figures on the bridge. The mind does not fill in missing details, it creates an illusion of filling in missing details. In the case of the poll, a detail falls into a blind spot created by expectation. One could claim that the detail is filled in, by an editor in the brain replacing the existing word with the expected word, but this is clearly not the case. While focusing on the question, a critical detail is ignored.

We are conscious of far less than we think.

From Dennett's "The Magic of Consciousness" -- figures on the bridge (29:00) which also is relevant to Piggy's hallucination claim ("you don't have to do any painting in the brain"):

I like what this poll suggests about consciousness. Answer without hesitation:

According to The Bible, which of the below is closest to the number of animals Moses brought onto the ark:

A) 20
B) 200
C) 2,000
D) 20,000

Answer with A, B, C, or D. I will explain after a few answers are posted.

(the poll was suggested by Marcus' book "Kluge: The Haphazard Evolution of the Human Mind" chapter on language)

 

[Jeff Corey]

...we can all agree amongst ourselves what the concepts such as consciousness mean...

No, we can't. I don't even agree that the poll exhausts all the possible positions.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Fair enough, indeed. Here's a puzzling behavioral finding: People, rats and pigeons, as well as other animals, show the intermittant reinforcement .effect. Responses that are followed by reinfocement every time they occur, show swfter later extinction than responses that are only intermittantly reinforced. As you probably know, but others may not, extinction is a procedure where no responses are reinforced and a process that is said to be completed when no further responses are emitted by the animal.*
Several theories have been tested over the last 70 years and none have satifactorily accounted for the effect.
*Every year in Rat Lab, some student will mistakenly say "My rat is extinct!" when the rat stops pressing the lever.

I love this effect! I used to drive my cats wild by using random, or intermittent reinforcement. I surmise when reinforcement is consistent, the impulse to conserve energy kicks in and the animal tries to find out how little it needs to do to get the reward. When it's intermittent or random reinforcement, curiosity kicks in, and the animal energetically seeks the secret to consistent reinforcement (also in the hope of conserving energy).

Not sure what this has to do with consciousness studies, though. The brain's mechanism behind compulsive gambling is almost entirely in the subconscious.

 

[Mr. Scott]

No, we can't. I don't even agree that the poll exhausts all the possible positions.

The middle possibility, consciousness is not data processing and it's not magic, doesn't seem to explain anything. I feel it's the position of people who aren't familiar with the power of data processing, and are also unwilling to believe in magic.

 

[PixyMisa]

Fair enough, indeed. Here's a puzzling behavioral finding: People, rats and pigeons, as well as other animals, show the intermittant reinforcement .effect. Responses that are followed by reinfocement every time they occur, show swfter later extinction than responses that are only intermittantly reinforced. As you probably know, but others may not, extinction is a procedure where no responses are reinforced and a process that is said to be completed when no further responses are emitted by the animal.*
Several theories have been tested over the last 70 years and none have satifactorily accounted for the effect.
*Every year in Rat Lab, some student will mistakenly say "My rat is extinct!" when the rat stops pressing the lever.

Very good question. I strongly suspect, though, that the model as I've described it is to general to predict this behaviour; that is, it can account for it - but only in that the behaviour is consistent with the model; it doesn't exclude other behaviours.