Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,812 Year: 3,069/9,624 Month: 914/1,588 Week: 97/223 Day: 8/17 Hour: 4/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How is Natural selection a mechanism?
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 2415 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 76 of 191 (815652)
07-22-2017 11:23 AM


The idea that the brain "Prodcuces" consciousness is problematic. Consciousness is not like food being turned into waste product and emerging as faeces. What emerges is entirely private. Only I experience my headache.
Also giving things like dreams or thought a physical description is controversial or impossible they do not have spatial temporal qualities. So for instance what is the spatial temporal quality of a thought such as "I am going to regret being rude to my boss"
These kind of things , semantic and representational properties including mental representation is hard to explain. In what way can neuronal activty represent or capture experience and who does it represent to? (homunculi). I have vivid memories and these are not memories of neurons firing or neurotransmitter activity. So the brain looks like it contains neurons, support cells, blood and so on but not images that we experince or semantics. Where is the experincer (the undeniable subject of experice)

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Taq, posted 07-24-2017 3:38 PM AndrewPD has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 77 of 191 (815655)
07-22-2017 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by AndrewPD
07-22-2017 11:01 AM


RAZD writes:
We can observe brain activity and the neuron patterns for different thoughts.
This is not true.
How is this not true -- is MRI giving us false information?
Observing brain activity is not observing consciousness. ...
Curiously I did not say it was.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by AndrewPD, posted 07-22-2017 11:01 AM AndrewPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by AndrewPD, posted 07-22-2017 3:32 PM RAZD has replied

  
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 2415 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 78 of 191 (815663)
07-22-2017 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by RAZD
07-22-2017 12:02 PM


In brain scanning what I remember is that they use statistics to estimate a brain region involved in behaviour and mental activity. So the ensuing graph is a representation over time not a one on one correlation.
It is not clear however what this brain activity is doing, so claims of finding brain regions resonsible for X have to taken with a pinch of salt. Brain lesions have showed that lots of "thoughts" or perceptions and cognitions break down in weird ways. So for example people can lose the ability to name living things but not inanimate objects. United perceptions that we take for granted break down so there is no simple single perception to be mapped on the brain.
Also motions including blinking, breathing and environmental effects brain activity so there are always confounding factors in analysing brain activity and a brain region may just carry a connection from one region to another and not be the source off a function.
Here is a bizzare example of 90% brain loss and normal functioning.
Meet The Man Who Lives Normally With Damage to 90% of His Brain : ScienceAlert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by RAZD, posted 07-22-2017 12:02 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by RAZD, posted 07-22-2017 3:57 PM AndrewPD has replied
 Message 83 by Taq, posted 07-24-2017 3:35 PM AndrewPD has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 79 of 191 (815664)
07-22-2017 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by AndrewPD
07-22-2017 3:32 PM


How would you design an experiment/test?
It is not clear however what this brain activity is doing, so claims of finding brain regions resonsible for X have to taken with a pinch of salt. Brain lesions have showed that lots of "thoughts" or perceptions and cognitions break down in weird ways. So for example people can lose the ability to name living things but not inanimate objects. United perceptions that we take for granted break down so there is no simple single perception to be mapped on the brain.
But we do know that it is doing something ... when there is no activity there is no there there.
Here is a bizzare example of 90% brain loss and normal functioning.
Page Not Found : ScienceAlert
Conversely, have you heard of the "god-helmet?"
Holy visions
Inducing thoughts, interesting (and potentially frightening) concept.
As a person with a "degree was in Psychology and Philosophy of mind," how would you design an experiment/test to learn more about the relation of brain activity to consciousness?
If it is an emergent facility, how could we define the threshold? using animals with different levels?
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by AndrewPD, posted 07-22-2017 3:32 PM AndrewPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by AndrewPD, posted 07-23-2017 2:18 PM RAZD has replied

  
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 2415 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 80 of 191 (815710)
07-23-2017 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by RAZD
07-22-2017 3:57 PM


Re: How would you design an experiment/test?
RAZD writes:
As a person with a "degree was in Psychology and Philosophy of mind," how would you design an experiment/test to learn more about the relation of brain activity to consciousness?
If it is an emergent facility, how could we define the threshold? using animals with different levels?
It all depends on your definition of consciousness.
I personally differentiate between consciousnesss and the contents of consciousness.
Brain injury can effect the contents of your consciousness however so can stubbing your toe or eating an ice cream.
I don't know what would class as a minimal state of consciousness with limited content but consciousness needs a perceiver to be subject of experience.
We speculate about other minds through analogy.
This is problematic in terms of anthropomorphism but also having exagerated confidence in our knowledge of others minds.
Psychology and neuroscience (to a lesser extent) ultimately are dependent on verbal feedback. You do something to someone or their brain and then ask questions. (or simply have conversation with no brain scans (psychiatry etc))
I don't think language locates conciousness, for instance you can read my post without having any information about my location or body. So if on poking someones brain they say "I saw a red flash" does not locate their consciousness but it does show some relationship with the brain region and the induced experience.
I accept Thomas Nagel's claim that "Objectivity is a view from nowhere"
There is no objective way to percieve the world.
10 people observing a tree does not make its existence more concrete as each person is having a personal perception.
And we now know that trees are composed of complex physical interactions like quantum physics phenomena, more empty space than it seems and are possibly colourless. So perception is posited to create models of the world in each mind making us trapped in our own mind (mental representations) on this model.
What would an unobserved tree appear like? Also the word tree is a concept that doesn't capture essences so you have to imagine an observed world with no observer interference, no input from constructive perceptual mechanisms or conceptual division.
Consciousness is indisposable to science and it is minds that see purpose and function and patterns etc. A reality with no consciousness would be irrelavant. Like an invisible machine doing irrelevant but inexplicable things noone cared about. The problem with successful pattern spotting by humans is it goes overboard foisting problemtic paradigms on us including religions.
Unfortunately some people are trying to foist that model on humans.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by RAZD, posted 07-22-2017 3:57 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Pressie, posted 07-24-2017 8:20 AM AndrewPD has not replied
 Message 85 by RAZD, posted 07-24-2017 4:13 PM AndrewPD has replied
 Message 88 by Modulous, posted 07-24-2017 6:37 PM AndrewPD has replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 81 of 191 (815764)
07-24-2017 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by AndrewPD
07-23-2017 2:18 PM


Re: How would you design an experiment/test?
AndrewPD writes:
It all depends on your definition of consciousness. I personally differentiate between consciousnesss and the contents of consciousness....
Ah, a great word salad to follow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by AndrewPD, posted 07-23-2017 2:18 PM AndrewPD has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 82 of 191 (815804)
07-24-2017 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by AndrewPD
07-22-2017 11:11 AM


AndrewPD writes:
Emergent properties are properties created by atomic interactions they rely on prexistent dispositions or "availabilities" as explained or described through atomic and chemical theories (Physics/chemistry). None of these theories relies on Darwinian evolution.
There is limit as to what could happen on a planet with only one or two elements or just water.
I thought evolution was supposed to occur after a primeval soup had formed and this soup therefore has to have available dispositions that things can emerge from.
So in what way does evolution explain these available dispositions (ie dispostions that natural "laws" allow or control or do not prohibit")
So for instance if you diamond very little will happen to it over long periods of time. It doesn't have the suitable dispositions. In this way "Hair" could not evolve if chemistry did not allow it.
In what way can evolution NOT explain emergent properties found in biological species? I am still waiting for this explanation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by AndrewPD, posted 07-22-2017 11:11 AM AndrewPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by AndrewPD, posted 07-25-2017 3:16 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 83 of 191 (815806)
07-24-2017 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by AndrewPD
07-22-2017 3:32 PM


AndrewPD writes:
It is not clear however what this brain activity is doing, so claims of finding brain regions resonsible for X have to taken with a pinch of salt.
There is zero doubt among scientists that consciousness is the product of the physical brain that occurs through physical processes. We don't need to know the fine details to understand the gross phenomenon.
Brain lesions have showed that lots of "thoughts" or perceptions and cognitions break down in weird ways. So for example people can lose the ability to name living things but not inanimate objects. United perceptions that we take for granted break down so there is no simple single perception to be mapped on the brain.
Yet more evidence that consciousness is a physical product of the physical brain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by AndrewPD, posted 07-22-2017 3:32 PM AndrewPD has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 84 of 191 (815808)
07-24-2017 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by AndrewPD
07-22-2017 11:23 AM


AndrewPD writes:
The idea that the brain "Prodcuces" consciousness is problematic. Consciousness is not like food being turned into waste product and emerging as faeces. What emerges is entirely private. Only I experience my headache.
It isn't entirely private. Your brain activity can be measured.
You might as well say your heart beating and the act of pooping are also entirely private because only you experience your heart beating and your feces moving through your gut.
In what way can neuronal activty represent or capture experience and who does it represent to? (homunculi). I have vivid memories and these are not memories of neurons firing or neurotransmitter activity. So the brain looks like it contains neurons, support cells, blood and so on but not images that we experince or semantics. Where is the experincer (the undeniable subject of experice)
Can you point to any consciousness existing outside of active neurons?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by AndrewPD, posted 07-22-2017 11:23 AM AndrewPD has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 85 of 191 (815812)
07-24-2017 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by AndrewPD
07-23-2017 2:18 PM


Re: How would you design an experiment/test?
No experiment yet ...
It all depends on your definition of consciousness.
So take your definition and run with it.
I personally differentiate between consciousnesss and the contents of consciousness.
Seems to me you can't have consciousness without content, and that content would define the consciousness in question.
Brain injury can effect the contents of your consciousness however so can stubbing your toe or eating an ice cream.
Cutting of a hand can effect the way you handle things.
I don't know what would class as a minimal state of consciousness with limited content but consciousness needs a perceiver to be subject of experience.
So let's take a level of consciousness and see what happens: the ability to recognize self in a mirror. Chimps can, cat's don't. What is the difference in their brains?
There is no objective way to percieve the world.
10 people observing a tree does not make its existence more concrete as each person is having a personal perception.
Unless they independently describe the tree is such detail that one description can be verified in another, that the details in common for all 10 observers show consilience and the probability of valid descriptions.
For instance if I say chair, you have an idea of what I am talking about without even seeing the chair, because we have all had experiences with multiple things that are all called chair, that all share details in common which gives us an amorphous picture of the entity to envisage. If I fill in details, such as wooden back and cushioned seat, that picture becomes more defined and less amorphous. I can continue filling in details and the picture keeps getting sharper.
If I try to describe something you have not experienced it is more difficult.
What would an unobserved tree appear like? ...
Well we would know it doesn't make a sound and the husband is still wrong ... OSLT.
It seems a loaded question: what would something unobserved look like when observed ... not having been observed the little details would not be known, so how could those details be described?
One could certainly provide an amorphous generalization of all trees as a starting point, like we just did with the chair.
Consciousness is indisposable to science and it is minds that see purpose and function and patterns etc. A reality with no consciousness would be irrelavant ...
To people. It would not be irrelevant to organisms living in it in spite of a lack of consciousness. Are trees conscious?
I look forward to your experiment.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by AndrewPD, posted 07-23-2017 2:18 PM AndrewPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by AndrewPD, posted 07-24-2017 5:40 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 91 by AndrewPD, posted 07-24-2017 8:25 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 2415 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 86 of 191 (815815)
07-24-2017 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by RAZD
07-24-2017 4:13 PM


Re: How would you design an experiment/test?
Razd writes:
So let's take a level of consciousness and see what happens: the ability to recognize self in a mirror. Chimps can, cat's don't. What is the difference in their brains?
Persistent vegetative state is an example of the difficulty in assessing states of consciousness. There also other states where it is not possible to assess whether people are conscious.
There have been several disturbing cases where anesthesia failed, people were paralysed by medication and operated on whilst consciousness.
Razd writes:
Unless they independently describe the tree is such detail that one description can be verified in another, that the details in common for all 10 observers show consilience and the probability of valid descriptions.
The Mller-Lyer illusion is an example of a persistent illusion almost everyone experiences (identical lines appear different length). You can have a collective illusion and collectively accepted false theory. (Sun revolving the earth) It only take one persons conscious state or theory to discover something new or correct a misaprehension.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by RAZD, posted 07-24-2017 4:13 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Taq, posted 07-24-2017 5:49 PM AndrewPD has replied
 Message 92 by RAZD, posted 07-24-2017 9:24 PM AndrewPD has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 87 of 191 (815816)
07-24-2017 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by AndrewPD
07-24-2017 5:40 PM


Re: How would you design an experiment/test?
AndrewPD writes:
There have been several disturbing cases where anesthesia failed, people were paralysed by medication and operated on whilst consciousness.
Yet more evidence that consciousness is a product of a physical brain. Anesthetics bind to receptors on neurons which can alter consciousness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by AndrewPD, posted 07-24-2017 5:40 PM AndrewPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by AndrewPD, posted 07-24-2017 7:46 PM Taq has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 88 of 191 (815820)
07-24-2017 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by AndrewPD
07-23-2017 2:18 PM


Re: How would you design an experiment/test?
I don't know what would class as a minimal state of consciousness with limited content but consciousness needs a perceiver to be subject of experience.
Does the perceiver have consciousness - and if so - does the consciousness of the perceiver have a perceiver? And if so - does the perceiver of consciousness' perceiver have consciousness?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by AndrewPD, posted 07-23-2017 2:18 PM AndrewPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by AndrewPD, posted 07-24-2017 8:05 PM Modulous has replied

  
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 2415 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 89 of 191 (815822)
07-24-2017 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Taq
07-24-2017 5:49 PM


Re: How would you design an experiment/test?
Taq writes:
Yet more evidence that consciousness is a product of a physical brain. Anesthetics bind to receptors on neurons which can alter consciousness.
No it only proves consciousness can interact with the brain. It doesn't prove it is being produced but that it is being prevented or altered.
The classic analogy is a radio. A radio doesn't create a radio programme but interacts with it and damaging the radio affects the transmission.
If someone stands in front you that alters your consciousness as does stubbing your toe.
The issue I raised here is whether evolution explains emergent proprties. I don't personally think consciousness is an emergent property. There are dualist positions and panpsychics and idealists in the literature.
Now if consciousness is some kind of emergent property leaking out of neuronal synapses that is still a mystery and I don't see what role evolution has in explaining that, or natural selection. Consciousness is just one of the most unusual properties of reality being private, subjective and non spatial temporal but any property in reality is not logical neccessary and is essentially mysterious.
If only one atom existed you could wonder why.
Anyhow as I posted earlier there are cases like the man with 90% of his brain missing which make large areas of the brain redundant for consciousness or neural correlates.
Whatever the brain mind relatonship is it is not simple or reductive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Taq, posted 07-24-2017 5:49 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Taq, posted 07-25-2017 3:27 PM AndrewPD has replied

  
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 2415 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 90 of 191 (815823)
07-24-2017 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Modulous
07-24-2017 6:37 PM


Re: How would you design an experiment/test?
[Modulous]Does the perceiver have consciousness - and if so - does the consciousness of the perceiver have a perceiver? And if so - does the perceiver of consciousness' perceiver have consciousness?[/qs]
I suppose you are alluding to the homuncular regress problem.
I am simply differentiating between being conscious and what we are conscious of.
If I look to my left I might see a tall green tree, then I look to my right and see a red car. The contents of my consciousness have changed but I haven't. The perciever is the consciousness. It is a subjective self perspective, self reflection nonetheless is another issue.
I don't know what consciousness other than reflecting on my experiences so I couldn't give an answer on what, but I can know when it is being misrepresented and does not match my experiences.
On common theories of perception everything is modeled in the mind leaving us with no direct access to the external world which is implausible and also raises fatal skepticism I suppose, but it follows from perceptual models and tracking sensory organ pathways. There is some evidence from brain lesions that reality can involve construction.
A dualist would say consciousness interacts with the brain to get access to this reality. Rather like we have invented devices like microscopes to heighten or fine tune our perceptions.
Idealism and panpsychism somehow see consciousness as a fundamental property suffusing or replacing "matter" These ideas challenge Physicalism and materialism as positions. Materialism has a problem with consciousness because it doesn't describe conscious qualities or account for subjectivity (this may have changed somewhat with Q.P.). The problem with volitional movement and non epiphenomenal consciousness is explaining mind-body interaction.
So eliminativist materialists try to eliminate the mental from descriptions (but clearly fail) Behaviourism tried something similar. So attempts to claim mind and body interaction either lead to atempts to eliminate the mind, a return to dualist or idealism. I think idealism is the strongest position because it favours only the mental and doesn't have a model of matter as inanimate balls bumping each other ruthlessly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Modulous, posted 07-24-2017 6:37 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Modulous, posted 07-25-2017 3:17 PM AndrewPD has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024