Where is your experience?

[BravesFan]

I hope we're both wrong, but yeah I'm smelling a "Woo Gotcha" setup as well.

These sorts of questions about "where our thoughts come from and where do they live?" ...etc Always seem to end in woo. I understand why, it's a strange concept our consciousness. To ponder one's own thoughts origins or what makes us up and to then imagine that it isn't a "place" like there isn't a thought bank waiting to spit out thoughts in our heads, but it's just a bunch of little parts doing their jobs....well, it's a complex ,yet oddly simple, thing to ponder.

But just because something is weird to imagine, doesn't mean that it isn't the truth. Especially when we have the evidence to back it up. Much more evidence than any woo explanation I have read anyway.

 

[SezMe]

I hope that's not what this is all about, cuz yeah, who I am is in my noggin (well and the penis, musn't forget that) lol

I promise - absolutely promise - to never call you a pecker head.

 

[IMST]

I wonder if we feel our consciousness to be behind our eyes because sight is the strongest sense with which we experience the world.
It would be interesting to know if someone who has been blind all their lives, and use other senses to compensate, feel their consciousness to be elsewhere.

Phil

I don't know, and it's an interesting question. My guess, though, is that it'd stay in about the same place since our strongest sense in hearing is located in about the same plane.

 

[Marduk]

The experience that makes you feel you, its inside your head?
.

specifically experience is a function of memory

short answer :memory is stored in the brain

long answer : human memory is twofold, there is short term (where did I leave my keys) and long term (what is my name)

Short-term memory is supported by transient patterns of neuronal communication, dependent on regions of the frontal lobe (especially dorsolateral prefrontal cortex) and the parietal lobe. Long-term memories, on the other hand, are maintained by more stable and permanent changes in neural connections widely spread throughout the brain. The hippocampus is essential (for learning new information) to the consolidation of information from short-term to long-term memory, although it does not seem to store information itself. Without the hippocampus, new memories are unable to be stored into long-term memory, and there will be a very short attention span.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory

/end thread

 

[BravesFan]

I promise - absolutely promise - to never call you a pecker head.

I just put it on a tee for ya didn't I?.......sigh....

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Thanks for all the replies, first of all, I have to address some posts that (following the long tradition at JREF) insist in wanting to see an attempt to bring some "supernatural" claims regarding consciousness as (maybe) something "magical" (in the sense that it can't fit current theoretical models that work well with scientific endeavors)... or maybe see me attempting to bring some kind of "dualism" to the table, that would attempt to introduce an obscure "substance" different to "matter"... Well, I'm very sorry to disappoint such highly anticipated expectative.

Something else calls my attention, most of the answers I have received predictably fit a unsophisticated account of reality called "naive realism" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naïve_realism and http://www.theoryofknowledge.info/theories-of-perception/naive-realism/ for references). So... right from the start, no, things are not as easy as some want to see them.

First of all, let's give a little review to the (I believe) accepted current paradigm... The "mind" is some kind of software that runs on a computer, which is the brain. It has been mentioned that it is a process, not a thing, and in that sense, it also can be adequately said that, if it runs on the brain, then if I wanted to point out where it is I should point to the head. So far so good. But simple experiments show that that account is very unrealistic and a naive approach.

Remember that I asked about where is your experience located, the "sensation of being you". Well, let's think about this for a moment, every time you "feel yourself" you are contained in an specific place... and that place is linked to your senses. There are multiple experiments in which (this was accurately pointed out by someone in the thread) your senses are cheated by using videocameras for example, and the "sense of you" is drastically altered.

Let's take this a step further. Let's say we have the technology to extract your brain from your body, and that we can put it in a machine and link this machine with your body through your senses... In this way, your seeing, proprioception, your hearing, everything, would be transmitted from your body to your brain. Let's say that you are not aware of this operation and so, when we wake you up you feel exactly normal, so, we give you a ticket and you take a train...

Let's go back to the original question: if I wanted to point at you... where should I point to?

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Lobotomies wouldn't turn people into drooling vegetables.

They didn't, really. At least not in general. If this was the case, they wouldn't have been performed.

 

[steve s]

That sounds really interesting. Do you have a linky?

Here it is on youtube. It's called a brinicle.



Steve S

 

[Foster Zygote]

Let's go back to the original question: if I wanted to point at you... where should I point to?

Again, my brain. That is where my conscious experiences occur.

It is clear from your condescending tone as you imply our lack of sophistication, naïveté and desire to oversimplify the issue that you feel that you have raised some very clever point that has countered the observation that consciousness occurs in the brain. But you have not accomplished this.

In your hypothetical experiment involving remotely sending sensory data to a disembodied brain to give it the sensation of being somewhere that said brain is not, the conscious experience is still taking place within the disembodied brain, is it not? Just what do you think you have demonstrated?

We are well aware that our senses can be fooled. What does that have to do with consciousness taking place within the brain?

 

[SezMe]

Bodhi Dharma Zen, the brain-in-a-vat scenario has been extensively explored in philosophical and fiction writing. Anyone who has done more than cursory reading in these topics has come across it more than once. As Foster Zygote suggests, you have not put anything new on the table. To answer your question that is the title of this thread, our experience is in our brain. Do you have a different place for it that you can express without getting on your high horse?

 

[MuDPhuD]

Something else calls my attention, most of the answers I have received predictably fit a unsophisticated account of reality called "naive realism" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naïve_realism and http://www.theoryofknowledge.info/theories-of-perception/naive-realism/ for references). So... right from the start, no, things are not as easy as some want to see them.

Your link to the "theories of knowledge" page on naive realism is to a poorly written and brief page. While the link to Wikipedia doesn't work for me, their entry on naive realism is at least coherent. By this description naive realism is not "unsophisticated" as you suggest, but it would seem "scientific realism" might be more in line with the common view held by the posters above ( with which I agree). Speaking for myself, perceived colors are obviously dependent on the genetics of our visual pigments, and on lighting conditions. This doesn't change the constancy of the objects (i.e., an apple) independent of our observation of them. That an apple may be both red, and grey depending on the level of light does not change the apple itself, only the brain's perception of it differs.
This model only breaks down at the atomic level and not all physicists apparently believe that it must.

What is your preferred alternative to scientific realism?

 

[Stomatopoda]

They didn't, really. At least not in general. If this was the case, they wouldn't have been performed.

Close enough. Very little difference between lobotomy and murder. It's killing the person, either way. The former just replaces them with a different one.

 

[Lowpro]

<snip for brevity>
Let's go back to the original question: if I wanted to point at you... where should I point to?

I think the most accurate answer in the case of localization of the "neural correlates of consciousness" relies on the dissertation by Cristof Koch in "The Quest for Consciousness" which I highly recommend reading. I have a feeling BDZ that this conversation isn't going to move forward without some heavy reading at some point =\

 

[Halfcentaur]

Thanks for all the replies, first of all, I have to address some posts that (following the long tradition at JREF) insist in wanting to see an attempt to bring some "supernatural" claims regarding consciousness as (maybe) something "magical" (in the sense that it can't fit current theoretical models that work well with scientific endeavors)... or maybe see me attempting to bring some kind of "dualism" to the table, that would attempt to introduce an obscure "substance" different to "matter"... Well, I'm very sorry to disappoint such highly anticipated expectative.

Something else calls my attention, most of the answers I have received predictably fit a unsophisticated account of reality called "naive realism" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naïve_realism and http://www.theoryofknowledge.info/theories-of-perception/naive-realism/ for references). So... right from the start, no, things are not as easy as some want to see them.

First of all, let's give a little review to the (I believe) accepted current paradigm... The "mind" is some kind of software that runs on a computer, which is the brain. It has been mentioned that it is a process, not a thing, and in that sense, it also can be adequately said that, if it runs on the brain, then if I wanted to point out where it is I should point to the head. So far so good. But simple experiments show that that account is very unrealistic and a naive approach.

Remember that I asked about where is your experience located, the "sensation of being you". Well, let's think about this for a moment, every time you "feel yourself" you are contained in an specific place... and that place is linked to your senses. There are multiple experiments in which (this was accurately pointed out by someone in the thread) your senses are cheated by using videocameras for example, and the "sense of you" is drastically altered.

Let's take this a step further. Let's say we have the technology to extract your brain from your body, and that we can put it in a machine and link this machine with your body through your senses... In this way, your seeing, proprioception, your hearing, everything, would be transmitted from your body to your brain. Let's say that you are not aware of this operation and so, when we wake you up you feel exactly normal, so, we give you a ticket and you take a train...

Let's go back to the original question: if I wanted to point at you... where should I point to?

It's right where it feels like it is. The whole process is a completely arbitrary illusion. We can demonstrate that. It's not like your mind is magically leaving your body, it's all part of the emergent illusion we call perception. If you transfer your frame of reference to a machine while your body is somewhere safe transmitting your sense of self through a complex system of connections, then your sense of self is actually going to be in the machine. It's still being generated by the brain. Your sense of things is no more tangible than a photograph or movie is actually the reality it captured via a record of light and sound that has been encoded.

You seem to be obfuscating this issue for some reason. At this moment, barring technology and tricks with neural plasticity and immersion and disassociation, we're all in our heads behind our eyeballs. So you would point at our eyeballs.

You seem to be asking a question to make a point, and you seem to be waiting for a certain answer. Why?

 

[Paul2]

You seem to be asking a question to make a point, and you seem to be waiting for a certain answer. Why?

Yes, the intellectually honest thing to do would be to state a claim and support it.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Again, my brain. That is where my conscious experiences occur.

It is clear from your condescending tone as you imply our lack of sophistication, naïveté and desire to oversimplify the issue that you feel that you have raised some very clever point that has countered the observation that consciousness occurs in the brain. But you have not accomplished this.

In your hypothetical experiment involving remotely sending sensory data to a disembodied brain to give it the sensation of being somewhere that said brain is not, the conscious experience is still taking place within the disembodied brain, is it not? Just what do you think you have demonstrated?

We are well aware that our senses can be fooled. What does that have to do with consciousness taking place within the brain?

Bodhi Dharma Zen, the brain-in-a-vat scenario has been extensively explored in philosophical and fiction writing. Anyone who has done more than cursory reading in these topics has come across it more than once. As Foster Zygote suggests, you have not put anything new on the table. To answer your question that is the title of this thread, our experience is in our brain. Do you have a different place for it that you can express without getting on your high horse?

err, who said I was bringing some sort of a "new theory"? so at least you two (don't worry I'm sure you are not alone), after performing the extraction of your brain, would be in the train, right next to me, and would say, well, "my sensation of being me is in a vat in a laboratory"... right. Sure, sure.

Of course, the scenario is not new by any means, (I never claimed it to be ) that doesn't make those experiments any less interesting, and excuse me but, I enjoy thinking about this topics, as they do test our beliefs about what we are, where are we located, what constitutes the "sense of being", and so on.

And so, you are confused, the "sensation of you being you" is in your senses (as it is obvious)... now, it is linked to your brain, and arguably it is produced by the relation between your brain and your senses... that's another matter, but at least you two failed miserabily in locating your experience, further confirming my belief about your model of reality is based on naive realism.

 

[Lowpro]

err, who said I was bringing some sort of a "new theory"? so at least you two (don't worry I'm sure you are not alone), after performing the extraction of your brain, would be in the train, right next to me, and would say, well, "my sensation of being me is in a vat in a laboratory"... right. Sure, sure.

Of course, the scenario is not new by any means, (I never claimed it to be ) that doesn't make those experiments any less interesting, and excuse me but, I enjoy thinking about this topics, as they do test our beliefs about what we are, where are we located, what constitutes the "sense of being", and so on.

And so, you are confused, the "sensation of you being you" is in your senses (as it is obvious)... now, it is linked to your brain, and arguably it is produced by the relation between your brain and your senses... that's another matter, but at least you two failed miserabily in locating your experience, further confirming my belief about your model of reality is based on naive realism.

You have to remember who you are on this forums XD. You don't seem to be humbled by just how linked the senses are to your brain. Propriorecepters are quite uninformative without the brain...

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Your link to the "theories of knowledge" page on naive realism is to a poorly written and brief page. While the link to Wikipedia doesn't work for me, their entry on naive realism is at least coherent. By this description naive realism is not "unsophisticated" as you suggest, but it would seem "scientific realism" might be more in line with the common view held by the posters above ( with which I agree). Speaking for myself, perceived colors are obviously dependent on the genetics of our visual pigments, and on lighting conditions. This doesn't change the constancy of the objects (i.e., an apple) independent of our observation of them. That an apple may be both red, and grey depending on the level of light does not change the apple itself, only the brain's perception of it differs.
This model only breaks down at the atomic level and not all physicists apparently believe that it must.

What is your preferred alternative to scientific realism?

It is unsophisticated and naive, a scientific account is preferable (and I would believe that it is preferred by JREF members). There is a fine line between naive realists and scientific realism, and of course, every naive realist I have found acts like if what he/she REALLY is a scientific realist, but it is rare. I can understand that, of course, as naive realism is all that is needed for daily life. Its like keeping figures of speech like "the sun rises" even when we believe otherwise (that the earths rotation creates the appearance of the sun rising).

Now as for my own stance, well, I have argued extensively about it, and it is difficult to explain it in few words. Here, this would be a good introduction to it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism

 

[BravesFan]

Just like I thought, self grandizing wooish nonsense........yawwwwn

"I am so wonderful because me goofy idea is so much more sophisticated than you unwashed horde of miscreants. look at me pet the golden unicorn..."

If i had a quarter for every time I've heard that spiel on this site I'd have about $42

 

[Lowpro]

Just like I thought, self grandizing wooish nonsense........yawwwwn

"I am so wonderful because me goofy idea is so much more sophisticated than you unwashed horde of miscreants. look at me pet the golden unicorn..."

If i had a quarter for every time I've heard that spiel on this site I'd have about $42

Actually model dependent realism isn't too controversial. The woo that can stem from it is that model dependent realism has to eliminate the experience altogether and because of that elimination woo's believe it must mean free reign for weird ideas.

A good example is when me and BDZ and some other guy (I can't remember his name) were discussing how what you "see" via the faculties you have isn't truly what you see based on the theory of model-dependent realism. I would argue that the apple is green because the light reflecting off of it is of a particular wavelenth(s) that my brain summates as being green, and that this is relatively consistent throughout whatever I see (ie: Green is green because that wavelength is transduced into a specific signal) but Model Dependent realism can't even rely on this as an accurate assessment on if the apple is green because I am not even "seeing" the light, I am only interpreting the light; that is that the experience I feel isn't necessarily the reality that exists, because all I can perceive is based solely on my faculties even if they are consistent and the experiences themselves are understood based on their mechanics. THIS is why it's considered "naive" realism; it's not meant to be a petulant slap, just that really the word naive fits, even if it may be used as a pejorative.

Because of THAT gap (I consider it a gap in communication) there are woo's that have free reign. I don't think BDZ is a woo though. Have I explained it BDZ or did I miss something? I can't say that I'm convined of naive's realism as anything more than a "caveat emptor" towards the theory of realism, and I am not sure if you've been able to dismiss the answers the OP question "Where is our experience" as being in the brain, but I will admit I'm piqued by model dependent realism.