0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: cheryl j on 20/12/2014 06:19:23... What's more, very diverse or widely genetically separated groups, (like humans and crows in the example above) may share some attributes or abilities, but not others. There is convergent evolution with physical traits. But what I find interesting about convergent evolution of specific traits associated with consciousness is that it demonstrates that our view of consciousness as this unified, either/or, all or nothing "thing" is likely wrong. Consciousness is not some additional, special stuff that was somehow tacked on to a system so it could experience itself- it is the system. Consciousness has an evolutionary past and rudimentary forms. Substance dualist philosophers who only look at the human mind and all its grandeur and insist there is no way it can be produced by cellular activity- there is no way you can get this from that - ignore evolution which says, yes you can, and this is how it happened.Yes, I absolutely agree; the evolutionary context is crucial to understanding the basis and origins of consciousness. Taking a limited anthropocentric view is bound to raise puzzling questions and arguments from incredulity in the absence of such context.
... What's more, very diverse or widely genetically separated groups, (like humans and crows in the example above) may share some attributes or abilities, but not others. There is convergent evolution with physical traits. But what I find interesting about convergent evolution of specific traits associated with consciousness is that it demonstrates that our view of consciousness as this unified, either/or, all or nothing "thing" is likely wrong. Consciousness is not some additional, special stuff that was somehow tacked on to a system so it could experience itself- it is the system. Consciousness has an evolutionary past and rudimentary forms. Substance dualist philosophers who only look at the human mind and all its grandeur and insist there is no way it can be produced by cellular activity- there is no way you can get this from that - ignore evolution which says, yes you can, and this is how it happened.
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg446864#msg446864 date=1419027906]Quote from: DonQuichotte on 19/12/2014 21:56:00Who said otherwise then ? Did i say that Libet endorsed those beliefs or your distortions of what they mean ?...Who said that consciousness can exist independently of its brain ,in this life at least , under normal circumstances ,that is ? Did i say otherwise ? Uh, yeah you have, repeatedly. Back peddling at it's worst. Do I really have to go back and dig up all your quotes??
Who said otherwise then ? Did i say that Libet endorsed those beliefs or your distortions of what they mean ?...Who said that consciousness can exist independently of its brain ,in this life at least , under normal circumstances ,that is ? Did i say otherwise ?
QuoteWhat separate entity ? The one in your imagination, i guess : Once again : consciousness and its brain are inseparable in this life at least .Who said otherwise ? ,although near death experiences have shown that consciousness can exist without its brain after the clinical "near death " of the brain .Strange Kafkaian accusations again.Amazing .hahahaha. That sentence is as Kafkaian as it gets!
What separate entity ? The one in your imagination, i guess : Once again : consciousness and its brain are inseparable in this life at least .Who said otherwise ? ,although near death experiences have shown that consciousness can exist without its brain after the clinical "near death " of the brain .Strange Kafkaian accusations again.Amazing .
Quote from: cheryl j on 19/12/2014 22:25:06Quote from: DonQuichotte on 19/12/2014 21:56:00Who said otherwise then ? Did i say that Libet endorsed those beliefs or your distortions of what they mean ?...Who said that consciousness can exist independently of its brain ,in this life at least , under normal circumstances ,that is ? Did i say otherwise ? Uh, yeah you have, repeatedly. Back peddling at it's worst. Do I really have to go back and dig up all your quotes??QuoteWhat separate entity ? The one in your imagination, i guess : Once again : consciousness and its brain are inseparable in this life at least .Who said otherwise ? ,although near death experiences have shown that consciousness can exist without its brain after the clinical "near death " of the brain .Strange Kafkaian accusations again.Amazing .hahahaha. That sentence is as Kafkaian as it gets! I think you're right Cheryl; I also noticed he seemed to have changed his position. He's not going to admit it, but what he's saying now is different from what he said at the outset:"consciousness is neither in the brain nor is it brain activity"
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 19/12/2014 21:56:00Who said otherwise then ? Did i say that Libet endorsed those beliefs or your distortions of what they mean ?...Who said that consciousness can exist independently of its brain ,in this life at least , under normal circumstances ,that is ? Did i say otherwise ? Uh, yeah you have, repeatedly. Back peddling at it's worst. Do I really have to go back and dig up all your quotes??QuoteWhat separate entity ? The one in your imagination, i guess : Once again : consciousness and its brain are inseparable in this life at least .Who said otherwise ? ,although near death experiences have shown that consciousness can exist without its brain after the clinical "near death " of the brain .Strange Kafkaian accusations again.Amazing .hahahaha. That sentence is as Kafkaian as it gets!
"What you don't understand is that no physical reality or matter can exist without consciousness = "matter " exists only when observed , so, consciousness precedes the existence of "matter ""
But then he also said:".. I am NOT here to "defend " or talk about the work of those non-materialist scientists thus ,also because it would cost me too much time and energy i cannot afford ."
Cough... []
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 19/12/2014 21:06:58dlorde , alancalverd : What particular word , concept , sentence or whatever exactly can't you understand from the following ? : I understand every word. It's bunkum. See reply #890 above.
dlorde , alancalverd : What particular word , concept , sentence or whatever exactly can't you understand from the following ? :
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg446871#msg446871 date=1419032352]Quote from: DonQuichotte on 19/12/2014 20:49:39...Libet 's theory says that consciousness as a non-physical process does arise from brain activity indeed .... not the same as assuming that brain activity produces consciousness...So consciousness arising from brain activity is different from brain activity producing consciousness - how? []
...Libet 's theory says that consciousness as a non-physical process does arise from brain activity indeed .... not the same as assuming that brain activity produces consciousness...
QuoteThe point is : all those mentioned neuroscientists and philosophers did acknowledge the non-physical nature of consciousness (that's a good start in the right direction ) , in the non-substance dualistic sense indeed , even though they assumed that consciousness can arise from the brain as an alleged emergent phenomena .So what are you now saying - have you changed your mind and now espouse property dualism instead of substance dualism? Have you now come to terms with consciousness as an emergent phenomenon of brain activity?
The point is : all those mentioned neuroscientists and philosophers did acknowledge the non-physical nature of consciousness (that's a good start in the right direction ) , in the non-substance dualistic sense indeed , even though they assumed that consciousness can arise from the brain as an alleged emergent phenomena .
If not, why all this harping on about it?
Personally, I'm quite happy with a property dualistic perspective; I agree that consciousness can reasonably be seen as an emergent phenomenon of brain activity - I'm prepared to accept labelling it as 'non-physical' in that sense (although I think it's misleading, with a risk of equivocation with the 'non-physical' of substance dualist immaterialism). But if you're moving in that direction, or thinking about it, congratulations, I think you'll find it rewarding.
Quote from: domkarr on 20/12/2014 04:26:51thanks for the concise reply dlord and sorry if i was jumping up on horse that has already been ridden to death, i am just trying to catch up with everyone else.I hope it's not too annoying explaining to the newbie but could I ask another?Feel free - it's good to have fresh questions and another viewpoint - this thread is a bit stale!QuoteAs I understand it, although I am probably wrong, The consciousness is a kind of intangible substantial entity that our brains have built or evolution built in order to guide the mind and body through life. then there is the sub-conscious, a secondary but in no way lesser form of automated guiding tool, that our brains and bodies use to navigate life. Then we have the mind and that is yet another tool but one that is used by the brain more as a data bank of sorts and also the reference for human emotive responses, learned behaviors and so on. then there is the housing for these tools, the hardware, the brain, where various chemical and electrical functions (much like a computer) allow us to assemble reality by using these functions in conjunction with the aforementioned tools to create the marvelous machine that is us (humanity).There aren't really any 'wrong' definitions or meanings for these labels - it's really a moveable feast, with different meanings dependent on context and usage. If there's any field that supports Wittgenstein's idea that meaning is usage, it's this one. What counts is that we try to understand what others are talking about.I see the mind as what the brain does (excluding the low-level automatic body management stuff); the 'mental faculties' in general. It can be awake, asleep, conscious, unconscious, focused, unfocused, emotional, etc. Consciousness is a particular state of mind, a mode of brain operation, typically involving (in humans) awareness, responsiveness, a sense of self, a sense of agency and control, etc. The subconscious is where the bulk of the activity occurs, updating the consciousness with significant events on a 'need to know' basis. Subconscious processing (System 1 thought) involves multiple highly parallel processes of which we are not aware, producing fast one-shot results; conscious processing (System 2) provides a scratchpad or workspace where these results can be held, manipulated and sent for further System 1 processing. This deliberative System 2 thinking is slow, sequential, and effortful, and we are consciously aware of it. Beyond this, interpretations vary wildly, but it seems clear, from medical and experimental evidence, that consciousness isn't quite what it seems to be; the sense of self is explicitly constructed from the mapping & integration of a number of sensory streams (hence OBEs), and the sense of agency is largely retrospective - we become aware of decisions & actions by subconscious processes and have the sense they were consciously made. I currently see consciousness having a monitoring and coordinating role with the subconscious processes, using their processing facilities for resolving non-trivial problems, forward planning, controlling social interaction, etc. I see the aware self as a simplified, idealised model of the system (the mind as a whole), used in planning and 'what-if' scenarios, and playing the role of an interface for social interaction - a kind of social avatar or representative. As a model and representative of the whole system, it must be given a sense of agency or it would feel like a helpless passenger, and a sense of self awareness arises out of the constructed sense of self and the reflective need to model its own behaviour (e.g. in forward planning).QuoteAs mr. quichotte pointed out, how do we explain instances where people have outer body experiences?I have heard a bit on the subject and there are all sorts of ideas about it but has there ever been a definite answer? []The evidence suggests the OBEs are due to anomalous functioning of the area(s) of the brain dealing with the location component of the sense of self. Streams of sensory information from eyes, ears (balance), and proprioception (position of arms & legs, skin touch sensors, etc) are used to maintain a dynamic sense of location and orientation. This is part of what is called Multisensory Integration. If you mess with these data streams, you can cause problems, for example, if balance information from the ears conflicts with information from the eyes, you may become disoriented or nauseous. If you mess with visual information and touch information you can get identification errors, e.g. the rubber hand illusion; this is a minor example of the Body Transfer Illusion (bear with me!), where, using a similar technique you can be deceived into thinking you are in a different body entirely. If you mess with the brain areas where this sensory integration occurs and the sense of location is generated, you can get all kinds of weird effects, including the sense of being located outside the body (often above it, for some reason), or having no bodily boundaries and being located everywhere (psychoactive drugs may do this - giving a sense of 'cosmic consciousness'). Most OBEs occur under extreme circumstances of stress, pain, oxygen deprivation, influence of drugs, seizures, epilepsy, etc., where there is likely to be some impairment to general levels of consciousness, and even partial dream state. In these circumstances, visual imagery may be constructed to match the sensation, either from existing knowledge and expectations or from scratch (e.g. floating above the scene of the accident or operating theatre, or floating through an alien landscape). It's not clear exactly when these images and experiences actually occur, as they are always recalled after the fact; there may be components from prior to losing consciousness and/or as consciousness returns. Partial memories and gaps may be filled in and elaborated on recall. OBEs of varying intensity have been artificially generated by stimulating areas of the brain with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS).Quote... how can anyone say for certain that this is not some kind of telekinetic response to death?Or as Don says a force not yet found?People who are dead don't report any experiences (people commonly report they died or were declared clinically dead, but these days it's generally an exaggeration for their heart stopping temporarily, or just an example that the clinical assessment of death isn't 100% reliable). Nevertheless, when death is a possibility, there is often severe physiological or mental stress, which could be expected to generate anomalous experiences. As for telekinesis, there is no convincing evidence for it, despite over a hundred years of attempts to find some (although many fraudsters have been exposed), and no plausible mechanism (the brain barely produces enough electrical potential to be detectable by sensitive EEG electrodes on the scalp). The clincher is that our best physical model of the world (quantum field theory) tells us there are no unknown fields or forces that are long range enough and strong enough to significantly interact with matter at human scales (see The Higgs Boson and the Fundamental Nature of Reality for fascinating details).Bear in mind also that there are probably Nobel prizes and a whole new field of serious research awaiting any scientists who can demonstrate reliable and repeatable instances of telekinesis, or any 'paranormal' phenomena, and millions of dollars in prize challenge awards from skeptic organizations. There is also a whole industry generating revenue from unproven paranormal claims.
thanks for the concise reply dlord and sorry if i was jumping up on horse that has already been ridden to death, i am just trying to catch up with everyone else.I hope it's not too annoying explaining to the newbie but could I ask another?
As I understand it, although I am probably wrong, The consciousness is a kind of intangible substantial entity that our brains have built or evolution built in order to guide the mind and body through life. then there is the sub-conscious, a secondary but in no way lesser form of automated guiding tool, that our brains and bodies use to navigate life. Then we have the mind and that is yet another tool but one that is used by the brain more as a data bank of sorts and also the reference for human emotive responses, learned behaviors and so on. then there is the housing for these tools, the hardware, the brain, where various chemical and electrical functions (much like a computer) allow us to assemble reality by using these functions in conjunction with the aforementioned tools to create the marvelous machine that is us (humanity).
As mr. quichotte pointed out, how do we explain instances where people have outer body experiences?I have heard a bit on the subject and there are all sorts of ideas about it but has there ever been a definite answer? []
... how can anyone say for certain that this is not some kind of telekinetic response to death?Or as Don says a force not yet found?
You're deliberately trying to play some nasty tricks here :
There is not much 'difference " between the identity theory and between emergent property theory regarding consciousness and its brain indeed anyway
... blah ...
Quote from: alancalverd on 19/12/2014 23:44:26Quote from: DonQuichotte on 19/12/2014 21:06:58dlorde , alancalverd : What particular word , concept , sentence or whatever exactly can't you understand from the following ? : I understand every word. It's bunkum. See reply #890 above.Try to address that specific post of mine then ,or rather try to refute it lol
Wonderful response, dlorde. Excellent summary!
Only the modern substance dualism and idealist monism are consistent with QM , and can thus remain in the competition regarding the possible theories of consciousness .Materialism and property dualism ( the latter is just yet another paradoxical form of materialism and panpsychism in disguise thus ) ,for example , are incompatible with QM that has been encountering consciousness.
Regarding substance dualism "dreaded interaction problem " , that has been solved by QM
P.S.: dlorde :All materialistic (mis)interpretations of QM are just pathetic desperate attempts to rescue the determinism of reductionist materialism ,including the MW interpretation of QM,since consciousness is no material process , let alone an emergent phenomena from brain activity .
The materialistic so-called standard model of quantum field theory has to be thus approximately correct and fundamentally false , in its turn, since materialism is false ,and since it cannot account for consciousness+ since Bell's theorem and its related experiments have challenged the classical locality, classical realism and classical determinism (not to mention the classical causally closed universe ) upon which materialism was built
Furthermore , all materialistic physiological and psychological "explanations " (away ) of the effects of placebo / nocebo , of biofeedback training in controlling the autonomic nervous system , of near death experiences , of out of body experiences (the real ones that are not induced by drugs at least ) , the effects of meditation, mindfulness , the materialistic "explanations " (away ) of epigenetics , and of psi phenomena , including remote viewing ....have been refuted .I can provide you with all those refutations, if you want to .
As mr. quichotte pointed out, how do we explain instances where people have outer body experiences?I have heard a bit on the subject and there are all sorts of ideas about it but has there ever been a definite answer? []for instance how can anyone say for certain that this is not some kind of telekinetic response to death?Or as Don says a force not yet found? Even as I wrote that I felt a bit like a fool for bringing it up as i have trouble dealing with something i cannot prove. but I'm seeking to catch up with the conversation and find better understanding of the topic, not to throw doubt on anyone and certainly I don't think I need to fuel the conversation []
I don’t know if you’re familiar with Rupert Sheldrake (Don is a fan). Among other psi related projects, he was involved with research about whether people can detect when someone they can’t see is staring at them. Mainstream science really did give Sheldrake a fair shake on this one, in my opinion, and it got a lot of press. For one, it’s a common experience that many people report having had – feeling that someone is staring at them without being aware of, or recalling, any sound or visual cue that they were present. Secondly, it seems like something that, if it could exist, it should exist, because of the huge survival advantage it would give any prey that could detect nonphysically whether a predator was watching them. It sounds entirely reasonable that if there where anyway to do this, some species in the rich diversity of nature over millions of years would have developed that ability. But the original study could never be consistently replicated, and there were no subsequent studies that provided any more insight as to how or why or under what circumstances it happens or doesn’t happen. Like other psi experiments, research fizzled out at that point, much to Sheldrake's annoyance.
Sheldrake was also involved in the 'dogs can tell when their masters are coming home' study, which claimed some kind of psychic link by which a dog could tell when his master left work. Replication - with the same dog -failed, and a number of plausible mundane explanations were found, including poor controls (I think one explanation showed the dog was responding to falling levels of his master's scent in the house).
You have to try to prove first that consciousness can arise from the biological evolution lol , from physics and chemistry .Clearly , the biological evolution can never intrinsically account for either the origin , nature or emergence of consciousness , let alone for its 'evolution " .Furthermore, all consciousness studies have not been able so far , if ever , to answer how aware consciousness emerges ,in the first place to begin with, what its origin might be..
This is the next book I'd like to read:Consciousness and the Brain Deciphering How the Brain Codes Our Thoughts (2014) by Stanislas Dehaenehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_and_the_Brain
Three Arguments for the Consciousness of Cephalopods. http://io9.com/5626679/three-arguments-for-the-consciousness-of-cephalopods .
author=alancalverd link=topic=52526.msg446935#msg446935 date=1419109849]Quote from: DonQuichotte on 20/12/2014 18:31:04Quote from: alancalverd on 19/12/2014 23:44:26Quote from: DonQuichotte on 19/12/2014 21:06:58dlorde , alancalverd : What particular word , concept , sentence or whatever exactly can't you understand from the following ? : I understand every word. It's bunkum. See reply #890 above.Try to address that specific post of mine then ,or rather try to refute it lol"Conscious aware observation has to be made anyway , at the end of the measurement chain,"Why "has to be made"? Only if a sentient being wants to know the answer. But the interactions we use for measurement are exactly the same as those that go on elsewhere in the universe where there are no sentient beings, and apparently have always gone on, long before any sentient being evolved.
If you believe that your observation, at the end of a series of events that began several billion years ago (and was more recently mediated by other sentient beings) is what determined all those events, you are insufferably vain or completely insane.