mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Please explain more.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What If Consciousness Comes First?
- Thread starter sun rise
- Start date
Please explain more.
About which?
As an example of information that isn't known, think of a fossil that has not yet been discovered. It contains information about the properties of the living thing that lived ages ago, but that information is not known to anyone.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Then it is not information. It is first information when it informs somebody. Information is a relationship between a thing or whatever and somebody which are informed by it.
Yes, the fossil can become information, but that requires a human.
Do you have any link to this?
Huh? OK, we are clearly using a different definition of the term 'information'. yes, that fossil contains information and nobody knows it. That is *why* we search for fossils: because they contain information we want to learn. It is information long before anyone learns it.
I'm trying to understand what you want a link to: that fossils contain information about the past?
/E: hmm....maybe there is a confusion about the difference between 'information' and 'knowledge'. Not all information is known, but everything known is information. And I agree, it takes some sort of processing for information to become known.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Okay, I get it know. You use a different definition and I see the point.
I believe I gave you an answer about qualia. Do you think you have time to look at that?
What If Consciousness Comes First?
I get them all the time, partly because I am an active researcher in math.
yes, I certainly have these feelings.Another version is the feeling of flow, when you are in a creative "zone". And then there is love
And I disagree here. In the first (the aha!), this happens because processing information takes time and the brain may not have completed its processing immediately. When it does, and things fall together, you get the 'aha!'.
Feeling 'in the flow' is more a feeling of comfort with how your thoughts are going, which is the internal representation of the internal state in the brain.
Love is an emotion carried by the limbic system (with all too little involvement of the frontal cortex).
ALL of these seem to follow from the physical processing of information in the brain. So where are the qualia?
That is the problem with your model. You ought to be a p-zombie, but I take it you are not. If you are, please turn yourself into science. They need you to study your brain.
And I disagree. I think that if you know *all* the physical information, you would be able to say what the experiences are. if you had *detialed* information about the processes in the brain, you would be able to tell from that information that someone just had an 'aha!' moment or was 'in the flow' or 'feeling in love'.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Who do you have feelings? I mean in a physical, chemical, computational and evolutionary sense? Such a system don't need them, it is just cause and effect. There is no need for them in a physical world. There are physical process, yes! But why are there internal states of feeling? How come you have internal states of feeling?
You haven't answered that!
And that is qualia! There are no need for them in a psychical world, so have come you have that? Internal states of feeling?
Of course they are required for complex enough processing of information! it becomes important to keep track of internal state. I don't expect a fly, for example, to have a 'flow' or 'aha!' moments, but I would be shocked if chimps do not.
And I see no reason why such are not fully explainable by physical processes in the brain.
Partly because I see it as obvious. We have internal states because information about self is a useful thing to processing the types of information humans often come into contact with.
I disagree. ALL of these are perfectly understandable as brain processes. The brain is processing *all* the information available to it, including sensory information, memory, plans, etc. So those 'internal states of feeling' are simply part of the memory and processing of information abut itself.
Huh? Very unique. You mean the physical processes of brain somehow have 'self awareness' and subjective experiences? Or are you saying that there is nothing like 'self awareness' and no subjective experience? Do mean that brain processes develop will and desire? Or are you saying that there is no will and desire?
Your statements seem more like assertions of religionists, sans any evidence.
Again. Can you give some evidence, instead of just asserting? Or are you indicating that matter-mind distinction is not true?
Last edited:
Truly Enlightened
Well-Known Member
Do you believe that ALL students, and ALL psychologist(and physiologist), or everyone else on the planet, have dysfunctional brains? Are the three therapies you listed not used, as a method of treating a dysfunctional brain? When I say dysfunctional, I mean any emotional, physical, social, chemical, physiological, or genetic anomalies of the brain. Or, a brain that is not functioning normally.
Cognitive behavioral THERAPY
"Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is a form of psychotherapy that treats problems and boosts happiness by modifying dysfunctional emotions, behaviors, and thoughts. Unlike traditional Freudian psychoanalysis, which probes childhood wounds to get at the root causes of conflict, CBT focuses on solutions, encouraging patients to challenge distorted cognitions and change destructive patterns of behavior.".
Mentalization-Based THERAPY:
" MBT can be an effective treatment for increasing the capacity to mentalize in people with borderline personality disorder, antisocial personality, addiction, eating disorders, and depression, even when other treatments have been unsuccessful."
Metacognitive THERAPY:
"Metacognitive therapy (MCT) is another layer up from cognitive behavioural therapy. In CBT, we are dealing with we thinking. In MCT, we are dealing with we thinking about thinking. MCT practitioners are able to deliver effective treatment to patients with anxiety disorders, trauma, depression and personality disorders.".
"Both Metacognition and Self-Reflective Awareness are tools/strategies used in addressing mental health issues/conditions. These tools/strategies, allow patients to mentally create new narratives, by thinking and reflecting on their own mental processes.".
So yes, All these 3 therapies you mentioned are used to treat a dysfunctional brain(mental issue), using some of the methods/tools you mentioned. Are these therapies NOT used as a method for treating different forms of mental illnesses?
It is intellectually dishonest to cherry-pick only the parts of a post that allows you to parrot a pre-scripted response. But to get even that wrong, raises questions of competency. I would suggest in the future, that you read my entire post. This would at least give your responses some context and relevance. So, did you have any relevant comments concerning my outline of the different states of consciousness? How about anything relevant to this thread? Or, is there another word you simply wish to define?
Cognitive behavioral THERAPY
"Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is a form of psychotherapy that treats problems and boosts happiness by modifying dysfunctional emotions, behaviors, and thoughts. Unlike traditional Freudian psychoanalysis, which probes childhood wounds to get at the root causes of conflict, CBT focuses on solutions, encouraging patients to challenge distorted cognitions and change destructive patterns of behavior.".
Mentalization-Based THERAPY:
" MBT can be an effective treatment for increasing the capacity to mentalize in people with borderline personality disorder, antisocial personality, addiction, eating disorders, and depression, even when other treatments have been unsuccessful."
Metacognitive THERAPY:
"Metacognitive therapy (MCT) is another layer up from cognitive behavioural therapy. In CBT, we are dealing with we thinking. In MCT, we are dealing with we thinking about thinking. MCT practitioners are able to deliver effective treatment to patients with anxiety disorders, trauma, depression and personality disorders.".
"Both Metacognition and Self-Reflective Awareness are tools/strategies used in addressing mental health issues/conditions. These tools/strategies, allow patients to mentally create new narratives, by thinking and reflecting on their own mental processes.".
So yes, All these 3 therapies you mentioned are used to treat a dysfunctional brain(mental issue), using some of the methods/tools you mentioned. Are these therapies NOT used as a method for treating different forms of mental illnesses?
It is intellectually dishonest to cherry-pick only the parts of a post that allows you to parrot a pre-scripted response. But to get even that wrong, raises questions of competency. I would suggest in the future, that you read my entire post. This would at least give your responses some context and relevance. So, did you have any relevant comments concerning my outline of the different states of consciousness? How about anything relevant to this thread? Or, is there another word you simply wish to define?
Some brain processes *are* the experience of self-awareness. others *are* the 'will to do something' and others *are* the emotion of 'love'.
Your statements seem more like assertions of religionists, sans any evidence.
Except that we *do* have evidence. We have brain scans galore that show where and when in the brain these emotions, feeling, etc are processed. We know how, if certain areas of the brain are damaged, these abilities are affected. We can point to where planing happens, where different emotions happen, etc.
How much do you want? There is tons of evidence going back to brain studies of bullet injuries over 100 years ago to more recent brain scans showing which areas of the brain are active in real time. We can point to what happnes when we become aware of something, etc.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Now I can count 6 and I stated: "They are not all about mental disorders..."
Truly Enlightened
Well-Known Member
Still huffing and bluffing, distorting and avoiding I see. I never said they are all about mental illness. Those are YOUR words to force-fit your own narrative. I originally said, "All of these therapies, practices, and techniques, are used to treat a dysfunctional brain.". I also said in the last post, " So yes, All the 3 therapies you mentioned are used to treat a dysfunctional brain(mental issue), using some of the methods/tools you mentioned.". I have demonstrated that my statement is true and accurate. In spite of how much you try to load a sentence(3 therapies, and 3 techniques, skills and practices). Do you think that the therapies, tools, skills, and strategies you mentioned, are NOT used to treat mental illnesses? Please answer carefully, I can provide examples, and personal experiences.
So, do you have any meaningful comments about my explanations of the different types of consciousness, and the true substance of my post? Or, will you continue to cherry-pick words and sentences, to imply what does not exist? To avoid exposing what does exist? Never mind, I really don't expect you to answer anything.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
"All of these therapies, practices, and techniques, are both used to treat a dysfunctional brain and have other uses.
You write voluminously with a veneer of science. But there is not a single answer to my simple questions.
1. Correlation is not evidence of causation.
2. Correlation may suggest causation when the categories are same. So brain states may indicate tissue damage but does not explain why there is pain. In short, there is no correlate of consciousness and there is no causal explanation to bridge the gap between a physical effect (brain state) and subjective experience of pain.
3. There is no actual subjective experience in the third party records.
It does not explain why a dead brain has no self sense. Invoking some unknown mechanism cannot help you.
You have not answered why a brain in your body is compelled to respond. Is there a willful person there?
Let a dead brain say so.
...
In short, correlation of brain states to bodily states does not close the causal gap between 'CONSCIOUSNESS' and the physical changes in brain.
1. Correlation is not evidence of causation.
2. Correlation may suggest causation when the categories are same. So brain states may indicate tissue damage but does not explain why there is pain. In short, there is no correlate of consciousness and there is no causal explanation to bridge the gap between a physical effect (brain state) and subjective experience of pain.
3. There is no actual subjective experience in the third party records.
It does not explain why a dead brain has no self sense. Invoking some unknown mechanism cannot help you.
You have not answered why a brain in your body is compelled to respond. Is there a willful person there?
Let a dead brain say so.
...
In short, correlation of brain states to bodily states does not close the causal gap between 'CONSCIOUSNESS' and the physical changes in brain.
Well, evidence, but not conclusive evidence. Other patternns of causation need to be considered.
When two types of events are consistently correlated, both in location and time, it is reasonable to conclude that they are simply different aspects of the same phenomenon.
In this case, the brain state that is caused by tissue damage *is* the feeling of pain. Every time that brain state occurs, the subject reports pain. If there is tissue damage, but there is an anesthetic, there is no correlate brain state and also no pain.
At some point it becomes silly to say they are even different phenomena.
What does that even mean? There are reports of such subjective experiences and those reports correlate to the brain states.
Of course it does. If the brain is dead, there is no neural fire. If there is no neural fire, there is no *pattern* of neural fire. And, since *experiences* are such patterns there is no experience and no consciousness.
It follows the laws of physics. The sensory data coming in (light, sounds, taste, etc) interact *physically* with the receptors, which generate nerve signals, which are transmitted to the brain, which is, itself, a collection of nerves, so the nerves in the brain respond to the signals coming in. That evaluation is 'programmed' by evolution to produce signals that stimulate motor neurons to act in ways appropriate for survival.
Now, the brain is a *massively* parallel processor, so *at the same time*, other parts of the brain are interpreting these signals for relevance to plans, to emotions, and to anything else that might be relevant.
Let a dead brain say so.
Sorry, but you need to have patterns of neural firing to get consciousness. That is what *all* the data show.
I don't see it as a 'causal gap'. I see the two as different sides of exactly the same phenomenon: one as the brain itself interprets its own state and one for the information available externally.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Take 2:
So a pre/non-scientific human finds a fossil and it is the same information as it is to a scientist, who works with fossil.
Well, no! Sorry, it is not information. It is information to some humans and not others. You should check a claim, before you use it and see if it matches reality. You know - that which some humans call science.
Take 2:
So a pre/non-scientific human finds a fossil and it is the same information as it is to a scientist, who works with fossil.
Well, no! Sorry, it is not information. It is information to some humans and not others. You should check a claim, before you use it and see if it matches reality. You know - that which some humans call science.
The snark isn't necessary.
I would say the fossil is still information, but some don't know how to interpret it.
So, for example, suppose we have a book in a language neither of us read. Does the book have information? I would say that it does, but neither of us can access it.
Or, for example, a tablet in a language nobody currently knows how to read. it has information (whatever the writers intended, at least), but nobody today can access it.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
There is no information in a book in itself. It requires a human, who can read it.
Lets us do necessary. For a book to contain information, it is necessary that a human can read it. There is no information in it in itself. If you removed all humans as for books, there would be no information. Only paper and ink as chemical substances.
OK, I simply disagree with that definition of the word 'information'. The book has a LOT of information. Some people know how to access it and others do not. But the information itself is still there.
And I disagree that if you remove all humans there would be no information. There simply would be nobody to think about it. But it would still be there.
As an example, there is light coming from a star that carries information about the composition and temperature of that star. if nobody actually sees that light or if someone sees it that cannot interpret it, that information is lost. But it was still there. if someone with knowledge of how to interpret it accessed it, they could tell somehting about that star.