Consciousness

[Darat]

No. "Why?" suggests that there is meaning to it. I'm an atheist, and a pretty hard one at that. I don't believe, fundamentally, there is a meaning to anything.

I want to know how the Universe (via the brain) gives rise to subjective experience. ...snip...

Sorry I misunderstood your post.

We know for definite that consciousness is part of what the brain does, ignoring the processing going on elsewhere we know there is nothing additional to the brain doing its thing.

We now know our "subjective" experience is the result of processes in certain areas of the brain and we can interrupt that, alter it via physical interventions (chemical and/or electromagnetism). In other words, "mind control"!!!

We are also learning to read our minds so even our subjective i.e. internal experiences are already albeit at a very crude level available to other people.

Saying that it shoudn't be, or doesn't need to be, explained - à la "Just accept this is the way it is and never question it" - strikes me as a rather religionist answer, and I find that distasteful.

Nothing else in the Universe is untouchable by investigation and experimentation, why should this be?
...snip..

No one is saying it shouldn't be, no idea where you got that idea from. Indeed this thread is all about how science has been investigating our minds.

But at some point it will all boil down to "The Laws of Physics" or TLOP. (That is a blast from the past for our older members.)

I've also heard of people who don't have an inner voice.

https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/inside-the-mind/human-brain/inner-voice.htm

Of course, knowing that some people don't have an inner voice and others don't have inner imaging makes me think about people who don't have either, if there are such people. They would probably just have unsymbolised thinking.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/pristine-inner-experience/201111/thinking-without-words

Yeah it is a fascinating area of study.

What I was astonished to learn was Aphantasia was described as far back as 1880 yet it had sat there ignored by researchers for over a hundred years.

 

[Darat]

Can you see red with your eyes open?

Seeing things with your eyes closed or not doesn't change what you see with your eyes open.

I don't see things when I close my eyes. Static I guess.

Are you also Aphantasic?

 

[Darat]

Sure.

I can watch the track. The starting line is clearly marked.

I have a stop watch. The lines are clearly marked.

When the starting gun occurs, I can start my watch, and record when they run by the markings on the track.

I can see their position, and determine their velocity, and acceleration.

Can I do any of those things with the mind?

None of that shows me the "run".

 

[Mike Helland]

We know for definite that consciousness is part of what the brain does,

I used to think that.

Does the brain include the brain stem?

Who decides?

I think minds invented the brain.

The brain exists in time and space, which only exist through observation and measurement.

 

[Mike Helland]

None of that shows me the "run".

A video camera could record 60 frames per second of that run.

Would watching the video show you the run?

If not, what is missing?

 

[Mike Helland]

Are you also Aphantasic?

I think so.

I also just heard about it.

I also think I could force myself to see things, but spent the last few decades not.

The test I heard is how many windows does your childhood home have?

If you can vividly see your child home and count the windows in the picture, you see pictures.

If you remember the number, and reconstruct the mental image, you're aphantastic.

All that said, p-zombies are about what you see with your eyes open.

Not closed.

Do you see red with your eyes open?

 

[Darat]

I used to think that.

Does the brain include the brain stem?

Who decides?

I think minds invented the brain.

The brain exists in time and space, which only exist through observation and measurement.

All completely irrelevant to what we are disussing.

 

[Darat]

A video camera could record 60 frames per second of that run.

Would watching the video show you the run?

If not, what is missing?

Why it is the "run" that is missing! - all you are showing me is different still frames, point out the run please.

 

[Mike Helland]

Why it is the "run" that is missing! - all you are showing me is different still frames, point out the run please.

I thought is that earlier message:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13513959&postcount=89

That was an exaggeration.

Are you being playful in that same character, or can you not actually describe what's missing from the positions, velocities, and accelerations of the run?

Edited by Agatha: 

Removed breach of rule 0 and rule 12

 

[Scorpion]

We know for definite that consciousness is part of what the brain does

NO ! we don't.

 

[Darat]

I thought is that earlier message:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13513959&postcount=89

That was an exaggeration.

Are you being playful in that same character, or can you not actually describe what's missing from the positions, velocities, and accelerations of the run?

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to match quoted post

Still waiting for you point out where the "run" is..... It's almost as if "the run" is a process that a physical system creates....

 

[Mike Helland]

Still waiting for you point out where the "run" is..... It's almost as if "the run" is a process that a physical system creates....

I gave you a few examples.

You won't specify what's lacking, vindicating the caricature.

 

[Belz...]

Is there something else in the same category as the subjective experience?

Depends what kind of category you have in mind.

It doesn't fit into any category.

Wait a minute. Category of what?

 

[Scorpion]

Stop it. You have demonstrated that your recollections and claims are biased and unreliable. Use objective, demonstrated facts instead. I'm not interested in your perspective.

I said I had a series of electric shocks of over a hundred volts passed through my brain, and since the brain works on less than half a volt such a large shock should have completely wiped my memory permanently. But it didn't. My memories returned within a week.

Therefore memories are not stored electrically.

That is my experience, and it is absolutely true.

 

[Belz...]

I said I had a series of electric shocks of over a hundred volts passed through my brain, and since the brain works on less than half a volt such a large shock should have completely wiped my memory permanently.

Why would you think it should do that?

Therefore memories are not stored electrically.

They are indeed not. They are stored physically.

That is my experience, and it is absolutely true.

As you can see, since you don't know what you're talking about, your interpretation of your experiences, assuming everything indeed happened, is untrustworthy.

 

[Mike Helland]

Depends what kind of category you have in mind.

I see what ya did there.

To me, there are two big classifications.

Objective: meters, seconds, kilograms, math, science, history, unraveling the mystery that all started with a big bang

Subjective: love/hate, red/blue, happy/sad.

Agree with that?

Anything missing?

 

[Belz...]

I want to know how the Universe (via the brain) gives rise to subjective experience.

Have you considered that the question, and the thought behind it, are just poorly constructed?

Saying that it shoudn't be, or doesn't need to be, explained - à la "Just accept this is the way it is and never question it" - strikes me as a rather religionist answer, and I find that distasteful.

Have you considered that the answer may be true but that it just feels unsatisfactory to you?

Nothing else in the Universe is untouchable by investigation and experimentation, why should this be?

No one said it wasn't. What we're saying is that your perception of yourself might not correspond to reality.

 

[Belz...]

Is that a fact?

We can measure lift.

What physical magnitudes does mind affect?

Quite a bit of things, actually. You can tell when someone's conscious by looking at brain activity, for instance.

A video camera could record 60 frames per second of that run.

Would watching the video show you the run?

If not, what is missing?

You are completely missing Darat's point: he can argue this to death by always keeping some special "runness" aspect of running that you can't observe but that is claimed to be an essential aspect fo the action, the same you are doing with mind. But using words in this way doesn't mean there's seomthing real there, regardless of your feelings on the matter.

To me, there are two big classifications.

Objective: meters, seconds, kilograms, math, science, history, unraveling the mystery that all started with a big bang

Subjective: love/hate, red/blue, happy/sad.

They are only "subjective" so long as they are only accessible to you. As soon as that's no longer true they become objective. In other words the very same thing can be subjective and objective... and therefore subjectivity is not a distinct category.

 

[Belz...]

NO ! we don't.

Yes, we do. All of the aspects of mind can be altered or shut off by playing with the brain. If mind wasn't a function of the brain, some part of it would be beyond alteration through the brain.

 

[Mike Helland]

They are only "subjective" so long as they are only accessible to you. As soon as that's no longer true they become objective. In other words the very same thing can be subjective and objective... and therefore subjectivity is not a distinct category.

A meter is objective, and not subjective.

Do you agree?