On Consciousness

[dlorde]

So I am not sure we are using the language the same way.

Me too

Crying is common, but it is not universal. So say you have panic, which is a high level of arousal caused by the parasympathetic system. The arousal is defiantly part of a homeostasis system. So under the broad term of behavior, it is a biological behavior.

But the responses to that arousal is generally not, one is innate, the other is not. Does that language make sense?

Yes, thanks.

I consider conditioning, shaping and association to be learning.
Something is not technically an instinct if it can be shaped.

So responses like salivation (e.g. at the scent of food) are technically not instinctive if they can be conditioned?

So again the consequence that creates the conditioning may be biological in nature, ie the CNS responds that is shaped by conditioning, but I would say that is the product of conditioning and shaping.

Sorry, I can't parse this.

What I was asking for (in traditional JREF sceptic way) was evidence for the claim, e.g. links to supporting research.

Consider a thought experiment where fertilized egg is gestated in an artificial womb, and the child is born and raised by machines to the age of 15, on an island without large animals or people. Assuming this is survivable, would the machines have recorded play behaviour? smiles or laughter when happy? crying when sad? Suppose he/she could feed the birds - would he/she show a sense of fairness? compassion for the weak? etc.

IOW what behaviours are considered to be independent of human contact & socialization, and which are not; and in particular, what is the evidence for this?

 

[Dancing David]

Its interesting that breathing is both instinctive and conscious simultaneously.

Yes it is but it would be better to say autonomic/involuntary and voluntary.

 

[Dancing David]

So responses like salivation (e.g. at the scent of food) are technically not instinctive if they can be conditioned?

I think that the term instinctive is where we get in trouble and the science community has gotten away from it.

I would also point out that salivation in response to the scent of food would probably be a conditioned response. But I would hate to say that as a hard line in the internet. There may be research on it, just like food aversion after vomiting is a conditioned response, one that seems in fact to be a very strong one., so possibly predisposed biologically.

Sorry, I can't parse this.

Sure, it was off the cuff gobbledy gook.

-So again the mechanisms and processes that create the conditioning may be biological in nature. The CNS processes that shape association and conditioning are biological, but I would say that they are conditioning and shaping, so they are of course biological but not driven by genetics so much.

But it would appear that the vomit/aversion mechanism is a strong one, so there may be a strong biological predisposition or genetic component.

What I was asking for (in traditional JREF sceptic way) was evidence for the claim, e.g. links to supporting research.

Sure, which is why I asked for one behavior to research.

Consider a thought experiment where fertilized egg is gestated in an artificial womb, and the child is born and raised by machines to the age of 15, on an island without large animals or people. Assuming this is survivable, would the machines have recorded play behaviour?

Good question, are the machines made to reinfoce and engage in play behavior they way humans do?

Sure the child will play, but often there is a huge amount of rearing in play.

smiles or laughter when happy? crying when sad?

That one is hard to say, there is again a huge amount of social definition and reinforcement in how we express emotions, the biological states would be there, but I can not even guess what would happen.

Again there is some research that shows affective blunting in children whose parents have affective blunting, but I haven't read about it in a long time. I don't know what teh regression analysis would show now.

Suppose he/she could feed the birds - would he/she show a sense of fairness? compassion for the weak? etc.

there is some preliminary research into this is cross species studies but nothing huge I know of.

IOW what behaviours are considered to be independent of human contact & socialization, and which are not; and in particular, what is the evidence for this?

There are the three reflexes.

I am biased and can not answer the question well, I went to the University of Illinois, a publish or perish school. The psychology classes I took were all through the behavioral lens at a behavioral department. The anthropology classes I all took were all from a school with a heavy influence in functional, economic and social/political exchange models.

The bias I was taught , even in ethology classes, was that there is little evidence for much genetic driven behavior in humans. They focused on other animals in the discussion of those behaviors. So I went to a biased school, a long time ago. There are social dominance hierarchies in humans and other species, but there is also a lot of conditioning that goes on as well.

part of it is that it is viewed through different models and lenses, so what was seen as 'dominant males' in one theory might been seen as 'individual variation' in another.

I can't give you a good answer, people have discussed Steven Pinker's work in threads here. I find it inconclusive and suggestive.

 

[dlorde]

I think that the term instinctive is where we get in trouble and the science community has gotten away from it.

Yes, there is a bit of a language problem - that's why I decided a thought experiment might be a better approach.

So again the mechanisms and processes that create the conditioning may be biological in nature. The CNS processes that shape association and conditioning are biological, but I would say that they are conditioning and shaping, so they are of course biological but not driven by genetics so much.

I see. It's a fine line...

Sure, which is why I asked for one behavior to research.

Er, either play, or sense of fairness

Good question, are the machines made to reinfoce and engage in play behavior they way humans do?

No; that's the next experiment.

Sure the child will play, but often there is a huge amount of rearing in play.

Understood. So the rudiments of play are 'built in'.

...there is some research that shows affective blunting in children whose parents have affective blunting, but I haven't read about it in a long time.

This could equally well be learnt, or conditioned, or whatever... (what's good for the goose... )

There are the three reflexes.

Tsk, I expected more

I am biased and can not answer the question well...
I can't give you a good answer...

OK, thanks for addressing the question, and an honest answer. I'm not entirely convinced of the claim, but I'm a lot more aware of the issues - which is a Good Thing

 

[Mr. Scott]

Its interesting that breathing is both instinctive and conscious simultaneously.

I bet most conscious control of breathing arrived with speaking.

I think generally we consciously control things we have feedback for, and most muscle movements are a blend between conscious and unconscious control.

Arm movement is a good example. We don't consciously control each muscle, however we can reach out for something consciously. If I told you to tense your bicep muscle, you couldn't unless you practiced it or did it indirectly by moving your arm in the way you know would tense it. As a general rule, we have no conscious control of individual muscles -- only the limbs the muscles control. With practice and feedback, what we can learn to control consciously of our bodies seems almost unlimited.

Now, what's really interesting is how controlling things can start consciously and, with practice, become automatic, like playing a musical instrument. We first learn to, say, consciously press each piano key, and after years of conscious practice, we can just command the hands to play something sad, and the now unconscious processes make it happen.

 

[PixyMisa]

I bet most conscious control of breathing arrived with speaking.

And swimming. Well, not sure exactly what degree of that is conscious.

 

[Mr. Scott]

And swimming. Well, not sure exactly what degree of that is conscious.

Yea, I'd thought of that. What's salient to me is how much of what the brain does is not conscious. When we prepare to speak, we don't need to consciously take a breath, for example. We've been swimming since we were amphibians while controlling our lungs (presumably) unconsciously.

It is interesting that on command we will take a deep breath, hold our breath and exhale easily, yet we go for days or months breathing with no conscious attention to it at all.

In technical terms, the implementation seems pretty simple.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Oh, Pixy, remember I mentioned an anti-sphexish routine I wrote for a video game, and you said it might qualify as conscious depending how it worked? Let me know what you think.

It's a racing game and the enemy normally made progress without effort, but if an opponent knocked it off course it could get stuck and sphex away endlessly. It looked stupid and spoiled the game.

So now, its enemy intelligence is constantly keeping track of which way it was going a moment ago, and if it was making progress. If it noticed that for a few seconds it didn't make any progress, it would go back to the way it remembered it was going a moment ago for a moment, then resume its normal behavior.

It's "conscious" of its progress or lack of progress, and changes strategy if it notices lack of progress, using its memory of what it was doing before it got stuck.

The only think it lacks is infinite flexibility to see it's getting stuck in spite of its normal escape algorithm and concocting new strategies to resume forward progress, but that's a lot to ask of humans, too.

 

[Dancing David]

Er, either play, or sense of fairness

That is a great topic, so it will be play. But I am starting sub work (woo hoo at a position that pays double) and then school starts so it will take me a while to do a literature review.

 

[dlorde]

That is a great topic, so it will be play. But I am starting sub work (woo hoo at a position that pays double) and then school starts so it will take me a while to do a literature review.

For my part, I wouldn't expect you to spend time on a literature review - if it was that important to me, I'd be getting involved myself. It just caught my attention in passing. But if you're going do it for your own satisfaction, I'd be interested to hear the results

 

[Dancing David]

It is both, that is the problem with looking at questions like this, you will have lots of researchers doing lots of research. Some will have controls and rationales, others won't so it takes a while to find good research. Normally it would take two or three days to skim the more recent stuff, but...

 

[Roboramma]

Like I pointed out to Pixy…I’m not about to ring up my physics prof. cousin and ask him to run some equations on who I’m gonna date….or anything else for that matter. Life…is…not…rational. Don’t they teach that at uni?

Asking someone who has no information about something to use analytical tools that aren't useful when applied to the problem under discussion wouldn't be rational.

On the other hand, what is rational is applying rational analysis to an understanding of your own emotional and sexual responses to a person (as well as anything else that's relevant) when determining who to date.

For instance, you might meet a girl that you like but who is planning on moving half way around the world next month. You may also know that you are neither interested in a fling nor in moving half way around the world yourself. In that case you can rationally decide not to date her. Of course, other factors may come in to the analysis.

Asking a physics prof about this sort of question is like asking your accountant to do heart surgery.

 

[amadej37]

The Deceived Soul

I read the book "The Deceived Soul" by Galina Dymkova published by Publish America.
Everything that I heard about this book is true. My mother got rid of depression, which she was suffering for more than 27 years. Personally, I got help by exercises from the book, which the author, Galina Dymkova, a Russian healer offers. She refers to only one source, and it is Higher Consciousness. I recommend this book with all my heart.

 

[Belz...]

I read the book "The Deceived Soul" by Galina Dymkova published by Publish America.
Everything that I heard about this book is true. My mother got rid of depression, which she was suffering for more than 27 years. Personally, I got help by exercises from the book, which the author, Galina Dymkova, a Russian healer offers. She refers to only one source, and it is Higher Consciousness. I recommend this book with all my heart.

Welcome to the forum, but what does that have to do with anything ?

 

[Dancing David]

Welcome amdej37

 

[dlorde]

... I got help by exercises from the book, which the author, Galina Dymkova, a Russian healer offers. She refers to only one source, and it is Higher Consciousness. I recommend this book with all my heart.

"In this book I continue my dialogue with God or, as I often like to call him, the Higher Consciousness".

'Nuff said.

 

[trebor]

"In this book I continue my dialogue with God or, as I often like to call him, the Higher Consciousness".

'Nuff said.

My car is God?

 

[Mr. Scott]

File this under "strange things the brain does":

I was watching Saving Private Ryan today (for the first time), and there's a morph near the end that, in 10 seconds, turns Matt Damon's face into his character in old age. I didn't expect it, and it came across as a "pop" (a jump cut in film terms). I thought "that's strange, Speilburg wouldn't do that," so I backed it up and watched it again carefully, and sure enough, it's a very gradual morph -- not a jump cut.

Now, I'm pretty sure the face recognition model was not picking up the slow morph. When it decoded a different face, it sent a signal of sudden change as if the film was just cut to a new shot.

Why I mention this here is how it so much seemed like Cartesian theater^WP -- as if the face module was presenting the "who's face is this" data to "me." I'm not a fan of the Cartesian theater hypothesis and am still fascinated by the illusion.

 

[dlorde]

...Now, I'm pretty sure the face recognition model was not picking up the slow morph. When it decoded a different face, it sent a signal of sudden change as if the film was just cut to a new shot.

Why I mention this here is how it so much seemed like Cartesian theater^WP -- as if the face module was presenting the "who's face is this" data to "me." I'm not a fan of the Cartesian theater hypothesis and am still fascinated by the illusion.

Faces in the real world don't generally morph from familiar to unfamiliar, so our attentional focus may not pick it up until it is significantly different, at which point it's likely to cause considerable cognitive dissonance.

I have noticed how smoothly it works in the other direction though; when meeting someone I haven't seen for many years, I often don't recognise them at all at first, though there may be a vague sense of familiarity. Once I've identified them, the features of their face start to feel increasingly familiar, until after 15 or 20 minutes, they look completely familiar and very much as I remember them. I've just unconsciously remapped - morphed - their current features into my memory of their old identity. If I now look at a picture of them as I previously knew them, that old image looks unexpectedly different.

 

[Dancing David]

Explain how your belief in GOD affects your understanding of the nature of consciousness.

My fault, I had posted an unintended taunt that they responded to.