Consciousness

[JoeMorgue]

Maybe we only think we're conscious?

Sometimes I feel like all my decision making is just post-hoc justification for what I was going to do anyway. There's even some science to support this (In certain situations).

Well yeah, that's why all of this is so pointless and stupid.

We make a bunch of unconsciousness decisions and THEN our brains essentially create a narrative where we decided to do them.

That's one of those "facts" things that make this whole debate pointless.

 

[Belz...]

Maybe we only think we're conscious?

Sometimes I feel like all my decision making is just post-hoc justification for what I was going to do anyway. There's even some science to support this (In certain situations).

That seems very clear, as of now.

I don't know why that bothers people so much. It doesn't change anything.

 

[Darat]

That seems very clear, as of now.

I don't know why that bothers people so much. It doesn't change anything.

I agree with you - it is what it is. It's interesting in that like a lot of what science has discovered it is "counter-intuitive" and I'm sure we'll learn a lot of useful stuff by studying the process but in the end we are still the same as when we didn't know this curious wrinkle.

 

[JoeMorgue]

As I've said before the concept of brain damage, especially Split-Brain patients, completely break the stupid philosophical handwringing over "consciousness."

 

[JoeMorgue]

That seems very clear, as of now.

I don't know why that bothers people so much. It doesn't change anything.

I agree with you - it is what it is. It's interesting in that like a lot of what science has discovered it is "counter-intuitive" and I'm sure we'll learn a lot of useful stuff by studying the process but in the end we are still the same as when we didn't know this curious wrinkle.

This is also my response to the entire loooooooooooooooong and stupid debate about "Free Will."

Nothing changes either way. Literally nothing.

 

[Myriad]

Well yeah, that's why all of this is so pointless and stupid.

We make a bunch of unconsciousness decisions and THEN our brains essentially create a narrative where we decided to do them.

That's one of those "facts" things that make this whole debate pointless.

While split brain research has clearly shown that the brain has the capability to construct such narratives even when the real source of the decision is entirely different, I don't agree that it's well-established that under normal conditions such narratives are only constructed after the decision is made. I think it's more likely that the process of creating the narrative is more integrated with the process of making the decision, even if the precise sequence is different than what we experience consciously (that is, what the constructed narrative says it was).

Of course, "making a decision" is something that only happens on that abstract narrative level. Nothing in nature makes a decision; neither rocks, hurricanes, digital circuitry, nor neurons act on anything besides cause and effect and quantum randomness. So how can "your mind" make a decision? Because your mind happens on that abstract narrative level too, as a character in the narrative your brain constructs. Superman can fly; your mind can make decisions.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It's not just split brains thought. That's just most obvious example.

Brain damage in general, the very fact that if you damage your brain your "consciousness" will operate differently, is the point.

We are so far beyond the point where looking for any aspect of the "you" outside of normal completely non-woo functioning of a functioning neuro-system (and this includes doing exactly that and then swearing up and down you are aren't doing it as many here are doing) is anywhere near reasonable.

As I said in this, the Jabba, and many other threads. "You" are not a singular thing or indeed a thing at all. You are multiple processes.

 

[Belz...]

I agree with you - it is what it is. It's interesting in that like a lot of what science has discovered it is "counter-intuitive" and I'm sure we'll learn a lot of useful stuff by studying the process but in the end we are still the same as when we didn't know this curious wrinkle.

That's why P0lka's earlier question about what it "feels" like is so irrelevant. Reality has been demonstrated to be decidedly counter-intuitive, and to act with total disregard for our feelings.

 

[p0lka]

Has it really cycled back to 'it's just what it does, no need for further investigation'?

 

[Belz...]

Has it really cycled back to 'it's just what it does, no need for further investigation'?

I don't know. Who said that? Your imagination, again?

 

[p0lka]

I don't know. Who said that? Your imagination, again?

Well the word 'pointless' is being thrown around. Seems like there's an element of dismissal regarding it?

But I might well be wrong, what's your translation of the 'pointless this, pointless that' statements?
edit:
What do you mean again?

check post #287 for the first iteration of it, it's not anyone's imagination.

 

[Belz...]

Well the word 'pointless' is being thrown around. Seems like there's an element of dismissal regarding it?

But I might well be wrong, what's your translation of the 'pointless this, pointless that' statements?

If you made some effort to understand Joe's post for comprehension rather than focus on a single word you might avoid this sort of interpretation.

 

[Darat]

Has it really cycled back to 'it's just what it does, no need for further investigation'?

Nope as that argument hasn't been put forward by anyone but you.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

While split brain research has clearly shown that the brain has the capability to construct such narratives even when the real source of the decision is entirely different, I don't agree that it's well-established that under normal conditions such narratives are only constructed after the decision is made. I think it's more likely that the process of creating the narrative is more integrated with the process of making the decision, even if the precise sequence is different than what we experience consciously (that is, what the constructed narrative says it was).

Of course, "making a decision" is something that only happens on that abstract narrative level. Nothing in nature makes a decision; neither rocks, hurricanes, digital circuitry, nor neurons act on anything besides cause and effect and quantum randomness. So how can "your mind" make a decision? Because your mind happens on that abstract narrative level too, as a character in the narrative your brain constructs. Superman can fly; your mind can make decisions.

It seems to me that "making a decision" has considerable value from an evolutionary standpoint. If parts of your brain want to flee while other parts want to fight (which apparently happens sometimes in nature), having the brain send mixed signals to your muscles concerning the direction in which they should move the corporate body can be counter-productive. In such situations, survival can depend on arriving at a quick consensus, what we might call a decision.

Of course, inappropriate "freezing" is also a behavior observed in nature, and some instances of that behavior might be attributed to failure to arrive at a quick decision.

 

[bruto]

While split brain research has clearly shown that the brain has the capability to construct such narratives even when the real source of the decision is entirely different, I don't agree that it's well-established that under normal conditions such narratives are only constructed after the decision is made. I think it's more likely that the process of creating the narrative is more integrated with the process of making the decision, even if the precise sequence is different than what we experience consciously (that is, what the constructed narrative says it was).

Of course, "making a decision" is something that only happens on that abstract narrative level. Nothing in nature makes a decision; neither rocks, hurricanes, digital circuitry, nor neurons act on anything besides cause and effect and quantum randomness. So how can "your mind" make a decision? Because your mind happens on that abstract narrative level too, as a character in the narrative your brain constructs. Superman can fly; your mind can make decisions.

It's been many a year (many a decade come to that) since I read the stuff in detail, but I seem to remember that William James's Psychology took a pretty good stab at this issue. He was, I think, the first to suggest that in certain situations the reaction and the narrative overlap so much that they are as good as simultaneous, and that one can as easily be said to cause the other as the other way around - that is, for example, that when you see a lion and run away, you can say that you ran away because you were afraid, but as easily say you were afraid because you ran away, so intertwined are the reactions.

This idea was later (in my opinion) misinterpreted by B.F. Skinner to say just that the reaction causes the narrative, and that the truth is that you are afraid because you run away.* Skinner's view has become something of a psychological mondegreen, citing the authority of James for something he did not say.

* e.t.a. Of course this could be a kind of self-fulfilling statement. If you are afraid but do not run, you may not be represented in the statistics, since the lion will eat you. It's a little like Benny Hill's observation that parachutes must be perfect because you never hear complaints about their failure.

 

[Venom]

This is also my response to the entire loooooooooooooooong and stupid debate about "Free Will."

Nothing changes either way. Literally nothing.

It does. There is potential for change in criminal justice matters, and if not, then in the court of public opinion.

 

[Pixel42]

* e.t.a. Of course this could be a kind of self-fulfilling statement. If you are afraid but do not run, you may not be represented in the statistics, since the lion will eat you. It's a little like Benny Hill's observation that parachutes must be perfect because you never hear complaints about their failure.

There was a great example of survivor bias in a documentary I saw a while back about the first explorer to cross the Gobi desert. Close to death he prayed to God, and the very next day he stumbled across an oasis. Miracle! "Many such stories are told by those who come out of the desert" said one of the talking heads, somewhat portentously. Then he thought for a second and added, in rather more normal tones, "Of course, those who don't stumble across water, don't come out of the desert".

 

[Darat]

It does. There is potential for change in criminal justice matters, and if not, then in the court of public opinion.

Doesn't seem to be any change at all in the justice system despite this being known for well over a decade.

And what change do you think there will be?

 

[JoeMorgue]

It does. There is potential for change in criminal justice matters, and if not, then in the court of public opinion.

No there isn't. If it's not Johnny's fault he shoots up the liquor store because he doesn't have free will, then the Judge sentencing him to 40 years of hard labor has the exact same reason/excuse.

That's ALWAYS the problem with the "Free Will" discussion. Actions and responses to actions are given different rules.

If people can't change their actions because they don't have free will, then it makes absolutely no sense to expect us to change our actions in response to their actions.

 

[Venom]

Doesn't seem to be any change at all in the justice system despite this being known for well over a decade.

And what change do you think there will be?

The insanity defense is just the tip of the iceberg on the range of circumstances we can rule a defendant being "not as guilty as he could be". And neuroscience actually has not intervened in the courtroom to the extent that it could, and that would surely threaten the status quo. What we already know about behavioral biology isn't as mainstream as little factoids about ethnicity, gender, childbirth, etc. but that's probably what it'd take for larger society to see criminals from this perspective. And I hope as we learn more about the brain more change will come, assuming we don't regress into a post-truth world as some fear.

No there isn't. If it's not Johnny's fault he shoots up the liquor store because he doesn't have free will, then the Judge sentencing him to 40 years of hard labor has the exact same reason/excuse.

In short, we lock Johnny up. We don't call him evil, depraved, subhuman, for his crime. We don't have to dehumanize him to quarantine him from society. THAT's the difference.

And the judge has that same excuse to the extent that he's never heard of this new defense and pretends he cannot find a way to think through it. I mean if he's just going to be a dick about it to spite Johnny for his excuse that is.