On Consciousness

[Zeuzzz]

What do you think psychologists think?

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.

 

[PixyMisa]

This threads an amazing example of lack of interdisciplinary understanding between disparate fields of science.

Certainly not on the computational side of things. Computational neuroscience^WP is inherently interdisciplinary, since it's the intersection of neuroscience, cognitive science and psychology with electrical engineering, computer science, mathematics and physics. (As Wikipedia puts it.)

The materialist doesn't even accept that consciousness exists or means anything worthy of discussion.

No. I am a materialist.

 

[Zeuzzz]

No. I am a materialist.

I know, I can tell.

 

[PixyMisa]

I didn't know that. I still don't.

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.

But what does fall out of this model includes things like attention - since only part of the computer is running the consciousness loop, you can only ever be consciously aware of part of the processing going on in the rest of the brain. It doesn't require awareness to be exactly as we find it, but it does predict that focusing conscious attention on one task necessarily diminishes your awareness of other things.

(That doesn't include unobserved or impossible behaviours, but I know that you're not particularly interested in those either.)

 

[PixyMisa]

I know, I can tell.

Then why do you keep making patently false statements like that?

 

[tensordyne]

And Pixy saved me the trouble of responding.

PixyMisa got slammed by Piggy (better than I could, I must admit). 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). I do not have time for such people. If you are one of them, good bye.

Pardon my ignorance, but 'comp.lit'? (comparative literature?? - I did google it) and who said that physics is a subset of computational physics? - certainly not me. I sense another straw man...

Of course, Computational Literalists, comp.lit. Got it from Piggy. As far as I can tell it refers to a complex of ideas.

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. If you can understand why Physics is not a subset of Computational Physics you will see why such statements are nonsense.

Er, that's exactly what we have been doing... what did you think we were talking about?

Very well, what did you want to talk about?

 

[Zeuzzz]

Then why do you keep making patently false statements like that?

I can tell your a materialist. Which you said yourself. So how am I wrong?

 

[Zeuzzz]

So what is your position Pixy? Explain to us the mystery of consciousness.

..... No wait.

I guess in your case it's the definition of consciousness.

 

[PixyMisa]

I can tell your a materialist. Which you said yourself. So how am I wrong?

The usual way: You make stuff up without any care to consistency or factual accuracy.

The materialist doesn't even accept that consciousness exists or means anything worthy of discussion.

This is not true. It's not even a parody of the materialist position. It's just rubbish.

 

[PixyMisa]

So what is your position Pixy? Explain to us the mystery of consciousness.

What mystery?

I guess in your case it's the definition of consciousness.

I just did.

 

[Zeuzzz]

What mystery?

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]

I just did.

What?

 

[Zeuzzz]

Have you ever written a reply longer than three sentences pixy? like a long well thought out coherent argument? It's like im speaking to an algorithm with a finite amount of characters assigned per reply sometimes, and the failsafe being:

if does not compute:
type reply: No
or
Wrong
/end loop

 

[PixyMisa]

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

Try science.

Have you ever written a reply longer than three sentences pixy? like a long well thought out coherent argument?

Obviously. But to elicit such, you have to make sense yourself, rather than posting complete rubbish.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Certainly not on the computational side of things. Computational neuroscience^WP is inherently interdisciplinary, since it's the intersection of neuroscience, cognitive science and psychology with electrical engineering, computer science, mathematics and physics. (As Wikipedia puts it.)


No. I am a materialist.

Yes, wiki that great academic fountain of all emcompassing knowledge

Its not what you say, in my opinion.

If I were to write that I'd say

it's the misapplication and intersection between neuroscience, cognitive science and psychology with electrical engineering, computer science, mathematics and physics which, although being a novel idea, has to date not shown any of the main consciousness qualia attributes we as conscious people are familiar with.

 

[PixyMisa]

If I were to write that I'd say

it's the misapplication and intersection between neuroscience, cognitive science and psychology with electrical engineering, computer science, mathematics and physics which, although being a novel idea, has to date not shown any of the main consciousness qualia attributes we as conscious people are familiar with.

What are qualia? Why do you think they exist? Why do you think that computational neuroscience is a "misapplication" of neuroscience, cognitive science, psychology, electrical engineering, computer science, mathematics and/or physics?

 

[Zeuzzz]

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

 

[Belz...]

I do not like liars.

Neither do I. The rest of your post changes NOTHING of the statement I quoted. Your contention that it somehow does is a lie. Also, calling someone a cultist, or even proving that they are, does not negate their arguments.

You cut out "See Piggy refs above." If you guys want to act like Cultists do not get pissed off when someone calls you on it.

Another lie.

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 ?

 

[PixyMisa]

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

Physical manipulation of the brain can turn consciousness off and on like a light bulb. So: No. You are firmly in "not even wrong" territory there.

 

[Belz...]

Well, I already have, but sure.

Although I do agree with you on the idea, Pixy, that's not what I asked. When I asked for real science, I was expecting something more substantial, like links and references.