The Inter Mind

What you think about how you think.
User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8008
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Poodle » Wed Aug 30, 2017 12:05 pm

Then we appear to be in agreement, Dimebag.

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 690
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Dimebag » Wed Aug 30, 2017 7:53 pm

Poodle wrote:Then we appear to be in agreement, Dimebag.

Yes, it does. :)

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9619
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Aug 30, 2017 8:00 pm

Seriously unlikely.

I predict that consciousness will prove to be a function of the neural network, just like all other brain processing functions. It will be an evolutionary adaptation, developed to impove survival and reproduction, like everything else. All the mystical mumbo jumbo will be tossed out the window.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 220
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Thu Aug 31, 2017 12:06 am

Poodle wrote:Has it never occurred to you, Steve, that asking what Consciousness (complete with upper case C) is could easily be identified with searching for the sound of one hand clapping?

Thank you for the UC. Haven't looked at it that way. Maybe.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 220
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Thu Aug 31, 2017 12:07 am

Nikki Nyx wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:When new principles are discovered they become part of Science no matter how nonsensical they might have seemed at first.
Not if these new principles are unsupported by factual evidence, they're not.

The statement presumed the evidence was there.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 220
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Thu Aug 31, 2017 12:13 am

Dimebag wrote:
Poodle wrote:Has it never occurred to you, Steve, that asking what Consciousness (complete with upper case C) is could easily be identified with searching for the sound of one hand clapping?

Science does not busy itself with describing what things are in and of themselves, but rather by describing something based on smaller constituent parts and their associations with one another. And once such a part is indivisible, it exists in an abstract and indescribable form, and only in relation to other abstract forms. For example, charge, energy, spin. These are quantities which endow certain functions and relations between higher level constituents, but in and of themselves are purely abstract terms with no real substance. It could be that consciousness is something which will receive a similar level of description, only in purely abstract terms.

Yes, I think Science will eventually go outside the box and find the answer to Consciousness someday. But there may be new principles and methods that must be found.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9619
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Aug 31, 2017 1:23 am

It amazes me, Steve that you continue to believe it must be some kind of magic. The neural networks that drive our brain are capable of immense complication, and enormous abilities. Yet consciousness, which as far as we know, does not require any more complex systems than, for example, creating a visual model of reality inside our brains, is rejected by you as a possible construct of that neural network.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9681
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Aug 31, 2017 1:57 am

What is the "mystery" of the Consciousness that provokes this thread?

Seems to me Lance nailed it just above. Consciousness is pretty well understood, more details becoming known all the time. The outside parameters are well understood and worked with all the time.

Its similar to weather. We understand weather quite well. Being able to predict the number of rain drops to fall on any square foot may never be reached.... but we understand it. Same with Consciousness. Its an emergent property of complexity. The number of raindrops, may never be reached..... but stay away from thunder storms if you don't want to get wet.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 690
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Dimebag » Thu Aug 31, 2017 2:14 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Seriously unlikely.

I predict that consciousness will prove to be a function of the neural network, just like all other brain processing functions. It will be an evolutionary adaptation, developed to impove survival and reproduction, like everything else. All the mystical mumbo jumbo will be tossed out the window.

Can you show that the concept of consciousness being an evolutionary adaptation, is mutually exclusive to the concept that consciousness is a discrete property of the universe which can be manipulated and harnessed? I don't think I have ever claimed that consciousness would come to exist otherwise, than by the process of evolution. In the same way that evolution has harnessed basic properties of the subatomic level to achieve all of the processes which enable organisms to survive and function, why could consciousness not be the same, a combination of the exploitation of lower level properties of the universe, which when combined in certain ways, gives properties which could not have been achieved otherwise through other mechanistic means?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9619
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Aug 31, 2017 2:57 am

Dimebag

What you are suggesting is magic by another name. Any mysterious power not explained by science can be called magic. Scientists do not invoke magic. They look to normal physical phenomena to explain other normal physical phenomena.

Life has not, by the way, harnessed subatomic properties. Life is based on the chemistry of carbon. Atoms and molecules, not subatomic.

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 690
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Dimebag » Thu Aug 31, 2017 5:00 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Dimebag

What you are suggesting is magic by another name. Any mysterious power not explained by science can be called magic. Scientists do not invoke magic. They look to normal physical phenomena to explain other normal physical phenomena.

Life has not, by the way, harnessed subatomic properties. Life is based on the chemistry of carbon. Atoms and molecules, not subatomic.

How do pigeons develop the ability to navigate via magnetic fields? Yes, by atoms and by molecules, but through their combinations they can harness other physical aspects leading to useful outcomes. In the same way, I am proposing, evolution may have found some loophole to exploit and achieve a goal (create a system wide "scratchpad", by which different areas of a brain can contribute to and share a space, and allow whatever "language" that each system uses, to be universally understood and acted upon).

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9681
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Aug 31, 2017 5:05 am

There are no loopholes.

JEBUS GET A DICTIONARY.

All you are stumbling towards is a silly restatement of what "materialism" is all about. You can buy books about it.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9619
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Aug 31, 2017 5:27 am

Nothing magic about magnetic fields.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1914
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Nikki Nyx » Fri Sep 01, 2017 1:35 am

SteveKlinko wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:When new principles are discovered they become part of Science no matter how nonsensical they might have seemed at first.
Not if these new principles are unsupported by factual evidence, they're not.

The statement presumed the evidence was there.
You've advocated for any number of concepts that are not based in evidence, so I had no evidence to make such a presumption about your statement.
...it used to be so simple, once upon a time.
Because the universe was full of ignorance all around and the scientist panned through it like a prospector crouched over a mountain stream, looking for the gold of knowledge among the gravel of unreason, the sand of uncertainty, and the little whiskery eight-legged swimming things of superstition.
—Terry Pratchett, from Witches Abroad

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1914
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Nikki Nyx » Fri Sep 01, 2017 1:38 am

Poodle wrote:Has it never occurred to you, Steve, that asking what Consciousness (complete with upper case C) is could easily be identified with searching for the sound of one hand clapping?
You mean "cl?" :P
...it used to be so simple, once upon a time.
Because the universe was full of ignorance all around and the scientist panned through it like a prospector crouched over a mountain stream, looking for the gold of knowledge among the gravel of unreason, the sand of uncertainty, and the little whiskery eight-legged swimming things of superstition.
—Terry Pratchett, from Witches Abroad

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1914
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Nikki Nyx » Fri Sep 01, 2017 1:55 am

Dimebag wrote:How do pigeons develop the ability to navigate via magnetic fields?
Vision-based magnetoreception is the current theory, I believe.

Q. How did dogs develop a sense of smell that's thousands of times better than ours?
A. They have up to 300 million olfactory receptors...we have 5-6 million.

Q. How do bats navigate in the dark?
A. Echolocation.

Evolution provides us with what we need to survive. I feel certain there's an extremely good reason why we don't have 300 million olfactory receptors. Image
...it used to be so simple, once upon a time.
Because the universe was full of ignorance all around and the scientist panned through it like a prospector crouched over a mountain stream, looking for the gold of knowledge among the gravel of unreason, the sand of uncertainty, and the little whiskery eight-legged swimming things of superstition.
—Terry Pratchett, from Witches Abroad

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8008
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Poodle » Fri Sep 01, 2017 7:15 am

Nikki Nyx wrote:
Poodle wrote:Has it never occurred to you, Steve, that asking what Consciousness (complete with upper case C) is could easily be identified with searching for the sound of one hand clapping?
You mean "cl?" :P

I was rather thinking of 'ap'.

User avatar
Cadmusteeth
Regular Poster
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Location: Colorado Springs, CO

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Cadmusteeth » Sat Sep 02, 2017 4:00 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote: I feel certain there's an extremely good reason why we don't have 300 million olfactory receptors. Image

It's because of our color vision. If we can easily see what looks good we don't have as great a need to smell it out.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 220
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Sat Sep 02, 2017 6:57 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:It amazes me, Steve that you continue to believe it must be some kind of magic. The neural networks that drive our brain are capable of immense complication, and enormous abilities. Yet consciousness, which as far as we know, does not require any more complex systems than, for example, creating a visual model of reality inside our brains, is rejected by you as a possible construct of that neural network.

Yes you really don't understand the Explanatory Gap and the Hard Problem. It's easy to say Visual Model of Reality (VMR). But saying VMR explains nothing about how the VMR works. You're just saying VMR in place of the word Consciousness. I don't reject that the Brain creates this VMR (Conscious experience) I just say nobody understands what it is. Stick with the conscious experience of the color Red. Here's the situation:

1) Neural Activity for Red happens
2) A Conscious Red experience (Red VMR) happens

Nobody knows how 1) produces 2). That is the Explanatory Gap and the Hard Problem of Consciousness.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 220
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Sat Sep 02, 2017 7:11 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:What is the "mystery" of the Consciousness that provokes this thread?

Seems to me Lance nailed it just above. Consciousness is pretty well understood, more details becoming known all the time. The outside parameters are well understood and worked with all the time.

Its similar to weather. We understand weather quite well. Being able to predict the number of rain drops to fall on any square foot may never be reached.... but we understand it. Same with Consciousness. Its an emergent property of complexity. The number of raindrops, may never be reached..... but stay away from thunder storms if you don't want to get wet.

You say Consciousness is an Emergent Property of Complexity. But that explains nothing. You are just calling Consciousness a different name and saying it is explained. You do not understand the Explanatory Gap or the Hard Problem.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9619
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Sep 02, 2017 7:24 pm

Steve

You do not need to know all the details to understand that it is not magic.
The visual model is processed in the visual cortex. This can be pretty much 'watched ' as it happens through NMR. In the same way, when conscious processes are taking place, NMR shows activity in the cerebral cortex.

I do not know how the Big Bang happened, but it happened. I do not need to know all the details of consciousness to know it is not magic.

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4060
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby gorgeous » Sat Sep 02, 2017 7:29 pm

Any mysterious power not explained by science can be called magic. ---really ? who says so? ......therefore quantum physics is magic...remote viewing verified by science labs is magic....lasers were magic until known, radiation was magic until known......how did you come into existence? magic...
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8008
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Poodle » Sat Sep 02, 2017 8:31 pm

Dimebag wrote:... In the same way, I am proposing, evolution may have found some loophole to exploit and achieve a goal ...

Well, we agreed for a little while, Dimebag. But please tell me that you don't REALLY believe that evolution is a proactive phenomenon which can 'exploit' loopholes and 'achieve' goals. It does neither. It is a mechanical response to a varying environment and 'improvement' is merely one viable variation amongst many which fail. Many species never produced that viable variation.

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 690
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Dimebag » Sun Sep 03, 2017 2:17 am

Poodle wrote:
Dimebag wrote:... In the same way, I am proposing, evolution may have found some loophole to exploit and achieve a goal ...

Well, we agreed for a little while, Dimebag. But please tell me that you don't REALLY believe that evolution is a proactive phenomenon which can 'exploit' loopholes and 'achieve' goals. It does neither. It is a mechanical response to a varying environment and 'improvement' is merely one viable variation amongst many which fail. Many species never produced that viable variation.

Of course it is the environment which provides the need for evolution to occur, I don't deny that. Speaking of evolution in a teleological manner is a simple shorthand. The "goal" is any chance adaptation which allows the organism to survive. Of course I admit that each step which allowed consciousness to occur was a gradual one, adding small functional improvements over time, and of course as this happened the organisms behaviour changes meaning previous adaptations become less prevalent.

What we cannot deny is that evolution over time has lead to species with consciousness. How consciousness actually occurs physiologically is not certain. What I am certain of is that nature is like a trickling water which will find many crevices which would never occur to anyone to traverse. The crevices are like the possible adaptations which might occur, and over time the form of an organism will change, just as the water finds the path of least resistance and falls into a new balance point.

Confidencia
Poster
Posts: 257
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 9:43 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Confidencia » Sun Sep 10, 2017 6:25 pm

Dimebag wrote:
Poodle wrote:
Dimebag wrote:... In the same way, I am proposing, evolution may have found some loophole to exploit and achieve a goal ...

Well, we agreed for a little while, Dimebag. But please tell me that you don't REALLY believe that evolution is a proactive phenomenon which can 'exploit' loopholes and 'achieve' goals. It does neither. It is a mechanical response to a varying environment and 'improvement' is merely one viable variation amongst many which fail. Many species never produced that viable variation.


What we cannot deny is that evolution over time has lead to species with consciousness.


All that exists is consciousness, Even a rock is consciousness. There is consciousness at rest and consciousness in movement. One is organic the other inorganic.

Evolution is just a particular way of thinking, a mode of thought but you talk of it as if it is a decisive factor. Your consciousness did not evolve, it suddenly appeared and it will suddenly disappear.

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 690
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Dimebag » Sun Sep 10, 2017 8:04 pm

Confidencia wrote:
Dimebag wrote:
Poodle wrote:
Dimebag wrote:... In the same way, I am proposing, evolution may have found some loophole to exploit and achieve a goal ...

Well, we agreed for a little while, Dimebag. But please tell me that you don't REALLY believe that evolution is a proactive phenomenon which can 'exploit' loopholes and 'achieve' goals. It does neither. It is a mechanical response to a varying environment and 'improvement' is merely one viable variation amongst many which fail. Many species never produced that viable variation.


What we cannot deny is that evolution over time has lead to species with consciousness.


All that exists is consciousness, Even a rock is consciousness. There is consciousness at rest and consciousness in movement. One is organic the other inorganic.

Evolution is just a particular way of thinking, a mode of thought but you talk of it as if it is a decisive factor. Your consciousness did not evolve, it suddenly appeared and it will suddenly disappear.

What purpose would consciousness serve a rock? Rocks have no sense organs, so they would have no sensory experience. They have no brains, so they could have no thoughts. They display no behaviour of any kind, they have no physical capacity, so we have no way to infer consciousness. What you say is purely speculation, with absolutely no basis for true and justified belief. When you sleep, in a deep sleep, you have no consciousness, when you are given general anaesthesia you lose total consciousness. This is what it is like to be a rock.... Nothing. Because the rock has no means to be conscious.

Confidencia
Poster
Posts: 257
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 9:43 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Confidencia » Mon Sep 11, 2017 6:05 am

Dimebag wrote:
Confidencia wrote:
Dimebag wrote:
Poodle wrote:
Dimebag wrote:... In the same way, I am proposing, evolution may have found some loophole to exploit and achieve a goal ...

Well, we agreed for a little while, Dimebag. But please tell me that you don't REALLY believe that evolution is a proactive phenomenon which can 'exploit' loopholes and 'achieve' goals. It does neither. It is a mechanical response to a varying environment and 'improvement' is merely one viable variation amongst many which fail. Many species never produced that viable variation.


What we cannot deny is that evolution over time has lead to species with consciousness.


All that exists is consciousness, Even a rock is consciousness. There is consciousness at rest and consciousness in movement. One is organic the other inorganic.

Evolution is just a particular way of thinking, a mode of thought but you talk of it as if it is a decisive factor. Your consciousness did not evolve, it suddenly appeared and it will suddenly disappear.

What purpose would consciousness serve a rock? Rocks have no sense organs, so they would have no sensory experience. They have no brains, so they could have no thoughts. They display no behaviour of any kind, they have no physical capacity, so we have no way to infer consciousness. What you say is purely speculation, with absolutely no basis for true and justified belief. When you sleep, in a deep sleep, you have no consciousness, when you are given general anaesthesia you lose total consciousness. This is what it is like to be a rock.... Nothing. Because the rock has no means to be conscious.



The conscious as well as the unconscious are aspects of consciousness. Therefore in deep sleep or when you are under general anaesthetic you do not loose total consciousness you merely loose the self conscious aspect of consciousness. In other words you experience a memory lapse. The sensations which you loose under this influence are related to the self conscious aspect of consciousness and are contained in your memory, hence the reason why you don't remember anything when you come around.

It is you that imagines a sense of purpose, for consciousness there is no such thing. Your waking state is one of ignorance and there can be no justification for a belief based on ignorance.

User avatar
digress
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1679
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 2:11 am
Custom Title: doomer
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby digress » Wed Sep 13, 2017 12:58 am

The Greeks philosophized the atoms existence, Steven Higgs philosophized the Boson, so to does SteveKlinko philosophize this gap in neurological understanding between brain and experience. I think this video better summarizes the 'hard problem'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fajfkO_X0l0&t=1s

This is a great topic. I read almost every response up to page 12 over many days, but it became redundant so I skipped over into my response. I understand the problem presented though I've zero insight on how it will be solved.

I'm disappointed again by how SteveKlinko has been called a religious thinker. It would be as if I came to this board to discuss the possibility of the existence of a deity and by demonstrating my argument I'm then ridiculed as a believer. Discussion and speculation in an idea is not a warrant for belief. And nothing I read of SteveKlinko's argument suggests he is a woowooer.

Great topic. I will continue following this discussion.
  God is an idea.  

"For now, I am going to err on the side of freedom of speech..." -Pyrrho
"Every instance that has always existed is a piece of evidence that God is not needed." -yrreg
"I am not a concept..." -Confidencia

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 690
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Dimebag » Wed Sep 13, 2017 2:17 am

Cadmusteeth wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote: I feel certain there's an extremely good reason why we don't have 300 million olfactory receptors. Image

It's because of our color vision. If we can easily see what looks good we don't have as great a need to smell it out.

It is fairly clear that our organism places out of all the senses the visual sense as the most important and informative. The very nature of the way the sense operates, I think, must shape the way the sense appears to us subjectively. Take vision for example, and compare it to something like smell. Vision allows us to infer something which correlates directly with something "out there", and for that reason, our vision is displayed as being "out there". By having a visual scene which changes as we move and as the world changes, we can move beyond mere instinctual reactions to direct our behaviour. We can plan an action and "play it out" in our head, imagining ourselves moving through the visual scene, interacting with certain objects, etc, and evaluate actions as being beneficial or not. If we perceived light in the same way we perceive say, smell, we could not imagine ourselves within that kind of sense modality, it would not allow the kind of planning and higher level understanding of our environment.

I guess what I'm saying is, maybe our subjective senses are the way they are, because of what we do with them as well as the nature of what is stimulating the senses and what those stimulations represent, that doesn't necessarily explain what creates the different experiential nature of each sense, but it gives us some reason why we have different types of sensory experience.

Obviously there is more that needs to be said to flesh out this idea, but this is just a preliminary thought.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1914
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sat Sep 16, 2017 4:46 pm

Dimebag wrote:
Cadmusteeth wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote: I feel certain there's an extremely good reason why we don't have 300 million olfactory receptors. Image
It's because of our color vision. If we can easily see what looks good we don't have as great a need to smell it out.
It is fairly clear that our organism places out of all the senses the visual sense as the most important and informative.
I think you've hit on it with that last word: Our visual senses provide us with the most information.

Not that the others aren't important. If, on the walk from house to car, I smell a skunk, I jiggle my keys to make extra noise, and keep my eyes opened and ears pealed for the critter. If, on that same walk, I hear the howling of coyotes fairly close, I quicken my step whilst looking around to make sure none of the pack is near.

But our visual senses provide us with an overwhelming amount of information in a single second, to the extent that our brains filter most of it from our conscious awareness, although the brain still processes and stores that information. Movement in our peripheral vision tends to startle us until we identify it, so there's a process for distinguishing between visual stimuli that are possible dangers and those that are benign. But our brain prepares to behave as if it is a danger...guilty until proven innocent. ;)

It's rather staggering to consider just how many bytes of information the brain processes in a single second, the manner in which it makes decisions without the involvement of our conscious awareness, and the fact that neural plasticity allows us some level of autonomy over this immensely powerful computer, actually "reprogramming" subroutines in some cases.
...it used to be so simple, once upon a time.
Because the universe was full of ignorance all around and the scientist panned through it like a prospector crouched over a mountain stream, looking for the gold of knowledge among the gravel of unreason, the sand of uncertainty, and the little whiskery eight-legged swimming things of superstition.
—Terry Pratchett, from Witches Abroad

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9681
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Sep 16, 2017 4:49 pm

Nope. Take the birds. Better eyesight and better noses. The better fit for: wait for it..........................................: their environmental niche.

An actual expert probably knows the reason "why." Just another bad design ?????
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 220
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Tue Sep 19, 2017 11:03 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Steve

You do not need to know all the details to understand that it is not magic.
The visual model is processed in the visual cortex. This can be pretty much 'watched ' as it happens through NMR. In the same way, when conscious processes are taking place, NMR shows activity in the cerebral cortex.

I do not know how the Big Bang happened, but it happened. I do not need to know all the details of consciousness to know it is not magic.

Studying the Neural Correlates of Consciousness can tell you many things about the Brain, but it really says nothing about what Consciousness actually is. Science must show me how Neurons firing in a Brain causes that Brain to have a Conscious experience of Red. The only thing Science can say is that Neurons have fired for Red. It can not even begin to explain how that leads to a Conscious experience of Red.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 220
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Tue Sep 19, 2017 11:55 pm

digress wrote:The Greeks philosophized the atoms existence, Steven Higgs philosophized the Boson, so to does SteveKlinko philosophize this gap in neurological understanding between brain and experience. I think this video better summarizes the 'hard problem'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fajfkO_X0l0&t=1s

This is a great topic. I read almost every response up to page 12 over many days, but it became redundant so I skipped over into my response. I understand the problem presented though I've zero insight on how it will be solved.

I'm disappointed again by how SteveKlinko has been called a religious thinker. It would be as if I came to this board to discuss the possibility of the existence of a deity and by demonstrating my argument I'm then ridiculed as a believer. Discussion and speculation in an idea is not a warrant for belief. And nothing I read of SteveKlinko's argument suggests he is a woowooer.

Great topic. I will continue following this discussion.

Welcome to the discussion and Thank You for the good words.

I have seen that video before. It's a pretty good and I watched the whole thing again just to refresh my memory of it. The thing that I might criticize is that he says the Conscious experience of Self is an illusion. He doesn't really explain how it is an illusion. I have never said too much about the Self. As you have read, I talk about the experience of the color Red which involves an implied Self that is doing the experiencing. I think that when we finally understand the experience of Conscious Red, and Conscious Light in general, we will have to incorporate some sort of Conscious Mind into the explanation. What is the thing that is experiencing the color Red? I don't see how it's just an illusion.

User avatar
digress
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1679
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 2:11 am
Custom Title: doomer
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby digress » Wed Sep 20, 2017 3:34 am

SteveKlinko wrote:
digress wrote:The Greeks philosophized the atoms existence, Steven Higgs philosophized the Boson, so to does SteveKlinko philosophize this gap in neurological understanding between brain and experience. I think this video better summarizes the 'hard problem'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fajfkO_X0l0&t=1s

This is a great topic. I read almost every response up to page 12 over many days, but it became redundant so I skipped over into my response. I understand the problem presented though I've zero insight on how it will be solved.

I'm disappointed again by how SteveKlinko has been called a religious thinker. It would be as if I came to this board to discuss the possibility of the existence of a deity and by demonstrating my argument I'm then ridiculed as a believer. Discussion and speculation in an idea is not a warrant for belief. And nothing I read of SteveKlinko's argument suggests he is a woowooer.

Great topic. I will continue following this discussion.

Welcome to the discussion and Thank You for the good words.

I have seen that video before. It's a pretty good and I watched the whole thing again just to refresh my memory of it. The thing that I might criticize is that he says the Conscious experience of Self is an illusion. He doesn't really explain how it is an illusion. I have never said too much about the Self. As you have read, I talk about the experience of the color Red which involves an implied Self that is doing the experiencing. I think that when we finally understand the experience of Conscious Red, and Conscious Light in general, we will have to incorporate some sort of Conscious Mind into the explanation. What is the thing that is experiencing the color Red? I don't see how it's just an illusion.


I'll need your help in clarifying what you mean by saying we will -- incorporate a conscious mind into the explanation. By "conscious mind" do you mean that feeling of a locus of consciousness riding around inside the head? That you're inside a body like a passenger is inside a vehicle? Because it appears that is what you are saying by suggesting that feeling is not an illusion based on what Sam Harris stated.
  God is an idea.  

"For now, I am going to err on the side of freedom of speech..." -Pyrrho
"Every instance that has always existed is a piece of evidence that God is not needed." -yrreg
"I am not a concept..." -Confidencia


Return to “Brain, Mind, & Consciousness”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests