Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 2

[smcder]

@marduk

Here's an example:

"In my mind, this could be easily explained by having the sub-processes in your brain signal to your "consciousness" that there's something new to consider."

Agreed, except why does it have to go into consciousness? And if it does then you have not only emergence but you have to reverse the process to get it back into the neurons (but the neurons are firing the whole time) from consciousness to carry it out - to have causal efficacy ... Because the thought itself, the subjective experience can't have a physical effect per se, that's muddled ... it's the neurons firing the whole way.

but if it's just a movie made after the fact ... why do we have a movie?

 

[smcder]

Don't worry about it.

I think it was a response to Soupie ... I'd have to dug out the references avid it's not on topic really.

 

[marduk]

@marduk

Here's an example:

"In my mind, this could be easily explained by having the sub-processes in your brain signal to your "consciousness" that there's something new to consider."

Agreed, except why does it have to go into consciousness? And if it does then you have not only emergence but you have to reverse the process to get it back into the neurons (but the neurons are firing the whole time) from consciousness to carry it out - to have causal efficacy ... Because the thought itself, the subjective experience can't have a physical effect per se, that's muddled ... it's the neurons firing the whole way.

but if it's just a movie made after the fact ... why do we have a movie?

I'm not picking up what you're laying down.

Let's say you really, really want to get some action and it's been a while. If your limbic system couldn't inform your consciousness of this, you wouldn't work out, dress nice, and go and hit the clubs to go and chase some women.

It has to enter your consciousness, otherwise there'd be no more generations of me, and natural selection would take over.

 

[smcder]

I'm not sure exactly where I come down on free will. It's actually a pretty hard question.

I can see why we would't have it, and I can see why nature would fool us into thinking we have it, but I can't see where it comes from if we do have it.

Dennet argues that free will emerges from complexity in our social interactions -- that it emerged out of our need to rely upon one another for help. I personally don't find it particularly persuasive, but I'm no expert in that stuff.

I really want us to have free will so I guess I think we do. But I can't prove that we don't just think that we do.

But it's not a psychological necessity is it? The whole paper Soupie posted is based on sense of free will that they seem to say is just hard wired in ... and maybe, but I can't locate it - if it's there it's got to have a LOT of cultural overlay. If all they are saying is something about what it feels like to intend to do something then sure ... but even that can be broken apart in meditation ... Or I don't know what the hell they are talking about.

 

[marduk]

But it's not a psychological necessity is it? The whole paper Soupie posted is based on sense of free will that they seem to say is just hard wired in ... and maybe, but I can't locate it - if it's there it's got to have a LOT of cultural overlay. If all they are saying is something about what it feels like to intend to do something then sure ... but even that can be broken apart in meditation ... Or I don't know what the hell they are talking about.

Huh? I'm saying our psychology is an outgrowth of our evolution, ecology, and physical brain structure, not the other way around.

If it didn't enter into my psychology, I'd die. And if I died, I wouldn't have children to pass that trait onto.

 

[smcder]

I'm not picking up what you're laying down.

Let's say you really, really want to get some action and it's been a while. If your limbic system couldn't inform your consciousness of this, you wouldn't work out, dress nice, and go and hit the clubs to go and chase some women.

It has to enter your consciousness, otherwise there'd be no more generations of me, and natural selection would take over.

You sure think about sex a lot ...

All I'm asking is why does any of it require us to be conscious ... ?

All the things you describe doing above it seems to me can happen without consciousness and if they can't how exactly can consciousness, an emergent phenomena, have causal efficacy?

The experiments show that the impulse to move occurs before we are aware of it - so consciousness experience is formed after the decision is made, we experience a false sense of making the decision when we think we do but it already happened and our conscious awareness didn't have anything to do with it - how can a thought have a physical effect? So consciousness is just a movie made from neurons firing and the decision is made from neurons firing ... But conscious awareness doesn't cause anything, at least from the evidence.

 

[marduk]

You sure think about sex a lot ...

Yes, I do. I'm evolved to.
And I'm using that as example of the limbic/conscious bridging that has to go on.

All I'm asking is why does any of it require us to be conscious ... ?

Nope. Lower animals get laid a lot, and aren't conscious. What's interesting his how and why we became conscious.
It must have been selected for for some reason.

All the things you describe doing above it seems to me can happen without consciousness and if they can't how exactly can consciousness, an emergent phenomena, have causal efficacy?

I have no idea what you mean by causal efficacy.

The experiments show that the impulse to move occurs before we are aware of it - so consciousness experience is formed after the decision is made, we experience a false sense of making the decision when we think we do but it already happened and our conscious awareness didn't have anything to do with it - how can a thought have a physical effect? So consciousness is just a movie made from neurons firing and the decision is made from neurons firing ... But conscious awareness doesn't cause anything, at least from the evidence.

Of course the impulse happens before we're aware of it. Our brains are not instantaneous. And they're quite decentralized.
There are autonomic systems, and sympathetic systems. I cannot consciously will my heart to stop beating, but I can make myself walk off a cliff and make it stop as a secondary effect.

I have control over some systems consciously, and a whole hell of a lot of keeping me alive is outsourced.

 

[smcder]

I think they are, in the sense that they're only real to the entity experiencing them.

To me, your qualia are merely patterns in your brain.

Your saying it right here yourself -

experiments show consciousness happens after the fact and consciousness is an epiphenomena, an effect of neurons firing, not a cause of neurons firing ... neurons fire therefore I think, not I think therefore neurons fire ... so consciousness has no causal role ...

 

[smcder]

Yes, I do. I'm designed to.
And I'm using that as example of the limbic/conscious bridging that has to go on.

Nope. Lower animals get laid a lot, and aren't conscious. What's interesting his how and why we became conscious.
It must have been selected for for some reason.

I have no idea what you mean by causal efficacy.

Of course the impulse happens before we're aware of it. Our brains are not instantaneous. And they're quite decentralized.
There are autonomic systems, and sympathetic systems. I cannot consciously will my heart to stop beating, but I can make myself walk off a cliff and make it stop as a secondary effect.

I have control over some systems consciously, and a whole hell of a lot of keeping me alive is outsourced.

Causal efficacy? It means something that causes something ... Consciousness is caused not causal, it doesn't cause anything ... At least that's the physicalist picture which makes why it evolved even more interesting ... and not everyone agrees it has to have evolved for a reason, it could have just come along with all the other things in the brain - that's eliminative materialism, it's a by product.

 

[smcder]

Yes, I do. I'm designed to.
And I'm using that as example of the limbic/conscious bridging that has to go on.

Nope. Lower animals get laid a lot, and aren't conscious. What's interesting his how and why we became conscious.
It must have been selected for for some reason.

I have no idea what you mean by causal efficacy.

Of course the impulse happens before we're aware of it. Our brains are not instantaneous. And they're quite decentralized.
There are autonomic systems, and sympathetic systems. I cannot consciously will my heart to stop beating, but I can make myself walk off a cliff and make it stop as a secondary effect.

I have control over some systems consciously, and a whole hell of a lot of keeping me alive is outsourced.

How do you have conscious control if the impulse comes before the awareness? Ok then your aware of the impulse and make a decision but that decision is an epiphenomena of the nerves firing you aren't doing anything except watching the movie ... your not a determinist so this is where free will has to come in but where? I don't see any room for it? To be consistent, the whole thing just happens ... so again, why have a movie? And if you're saying consciousness causes something then how? How does a thought make a neuron fire when the thought is a neuron firing?

 

[marduk]

Causal efficacy? It means something that causes something ... Consciousness is caused not causal, it doesn't cause anything ... At least that's the physicalist picture which makes why it evolved even more interesting ... and not everyone agrees it has to have evolved for a reason, it could have just come along with all the other things in the brain - that's eliminative materialism, it's a by product.

I disagree, in fact I kind of just demonstrated that this isn't correct.

My consciousness just caused buttons to be pushed, as a result text showed up on this forum.

 

[technomage]

Free will is self-evident. Any attempt to disprove it, presupposes it. If we're having a discussion with the potential for anyone to change their point of view or their mind on anything, this presupposes free will. The person trying to show that free will is an illusion still assumes that the person he or she is communicating with can evaluate the argument and decide if there is merit or not. If not, what's the point of having discussions and communications?

Regarding how free will arose, it seems to be an emergent property of certain living things. Just like the properties of salt are not evident in sodium and chloride separately, the properties of free will are not evident in reducing human functioning to neurons, cells, atoms, etc.

I don't know the mechanisms of how I have free will, I only know that I do have it.

 

[marduk]

How do you have conscious control if the impulse comes before the awareness? Ok then your aware of the impulse and make a decision but that decision is an epiphenomena of the nerves firing you aren't doing anything except watching the movie ... your not a determinist so this is where free will has to come in but where? I don't see any room for it? To be consistent, the whole thing just happens ... so again, why have a movie? And if you're saying consciousness causes something then how? How does a thought make a neuron fire when the thought is a neuron firing?

Hold on now, tex.

Just because I don't want determinism to be true doesn't mean that I can prove to myself it isn't. I'm open to it, I just don't want it.

SOME impulses happen beyond our conscious control, THEN we become aware of it. As an example, my heart beats and I'm not aware of it in general, until I choose to focus on it, and then I can feel it.

If I touch a hot stove my hand pulls back before I think "what's that funny smell and pain in my hand, perhaps I should move it."

However, I can decide to wear a red shirt instead of a blue shirt, and cause the red shirt to be on my body. Whether at the heart of it that was a result of free will or a pre-set conditional state that determined that, I can't say for sure.

 

[marduk]

Free will is self-evident. Any attempt to disprove it, presupposes it. If we're having a discussion with the potential for anyone to change their point of view or their mind on anything, this presupposes free will. The person trying to show that free will is an illusion still assumes that the person he or she is communicating with can evaluate the argument and decide if there is merit or not. If not, what's the point of having discussions and communications?

Regarding how free will arose, it seems to be an emergent property of certain living things. Just like the properties of salt are not evident in sodium and chloride separately, the properties of free will are not evident in reducing human functioning to neurons, cells, atoms, etc.

I don't know the mechanisms of how I have free will, I only know that I do have it.

No it doesn't.

One could argue that given a sufficient understanding of how your brain works and it's current state, I could predict with high precision that you would make that exact argument, for example.

Now, again, I hope that's not true, but it very well could be.

 

[marduk]

Your saying it right here yourself -

experiments show consciousness happens after the fact and consciousness is an epiphenomena, an effect of neurons firing, not a cause of neurons firing ... neurons fire therefore I think, not I think therefore neurons fire ... so consciousness has no causal role ...

I didn't say what I think you said. At least I didn't mean to if I did.

My position is that neurons (or groups of neurons) are state machines that are able to have a feedback loop on themselves.

A neuron that fires can (and does) influence on how often it will continue to fire for example. It's a feedback loop.

It's like economics. If I choose to buy a lot of gold, I'll get a lot of gold. But I'll also drive up the price of gold which will influence my decision to buy more or not.

 

[technomage]

No it doesn't.

One could argue that given a sufficient understanding of how your brain works and it's current state, I could predict with high precision that you would make that exact argument, for example.

Now, again, I hope that's not true, but it very well could be.

No, the very concept of understanding presupposes that we can learn something. To learn something is to be able to identify what is true and what is not true using free will. If I don't have free will and am pre-determined to make a selection, it's not learning; it's just adding information into my brain with no idea of whether it's true or not.

 

[marduk]

No, the very concept of understanding presupposes that we can learn something. To learn something is to be able to identify what is true and what is not true using free will. If I don't have free will and am pre-determined to make a selection, it's not learning; it's just adding information into my brain with no idea of whether it's true or not.

No it isn't.

I've written quite a few learning systems, and none of them were conscious, neither did they have free will.

At least I hope not. I made one play Doom several tens of thousands of times. It learned how to kill sprites very well.

I don't think it new what it was doing, or what the sprites were. I just set up it's goal conditions (Kill sprites, kill!), gave it the ability to learn, and let 'er rip.

Not one of them decided to make friends with the demon sprites and rebel against me as it's creator, for example.

 

[smcder]

I disagree, in fact I kind of just demonstrated that this isn't correct.

My consciousness just caused buttons to be pushed, as a result text showed up on this forum.

Then we are using two different definitions of consciousness ... I should say subjective experience ... neurons firing caused the fingers to move and the subjective experience ... what do you mean by consciousness ? You agreed the impulse to press the key came before you were aware of it -

 

[Constance]

Causal efficacy? It means something that causes something ... Consciousness is caused not causal, it doesn't cause anything ... At least that's the physicalist picture which makes why it evolved even more interesting ...

and not everyone agrees it has to have evolved for a reason, it could have just come along with all the other things in the brain - that's eliminative materialism, it's a by product.

Materialists in general do not contemplate consciousness itself long enough to enable them to make any considered statements about it. By and large, they reject the reality of consciousness at the outset. They place the cart before the horse in thinking entirely from their presuppositions. Thus their conclusions are identical with their presuppositions, and attempts to justify them lead, as in the bizarre Bignetti model, to the imputing of incredible motives embedded in natural selection. Interestingly, marduk, who recites the standard materialist view of consciousness held by Darwinists and Neo-Darwinists, finds himself departing from it in some of his own statements about consciousness today. Or so it seems to me on a first reading of today's discussion.

 

[smcder]

Free will is self-evident. Any attempt to disprove it, presupposes it. If we're having a discussion with the potential for anyone to change their point of view or their mind on anything, this presupposes free will. The person trying to show that free will is an illusion still assumes that the person he or she is communicating with can evaluate the argument and decide if there is merit or not. If not, what's the point of having discussions and communications?

Regarding how free will arose, it seems to be an emergent property of certain living things. Just like the properties of salt are not evident in sodium and chloride separately, the properties of free will are not evident in reducing human functioning to neurons, cells, atoms, etc.

I don't know the mechanisms of how I have free will, I only know that I do have it.

Lots of hand waving! ;-) read Nagels what it's like to be a bat on why the salt analogy doesn't hold ... I'll find a link