What If Consciousness Comes First?

[atanu]

What is the source of knowledge? Sensory information. This is processed by a brain that is the result of evolution, making at least some of the conclusions reliable.

The correlation between conscious states and brain states does, in fact, suggest exactly what Dennett says.

There is no conscious agent in brain states. Brain states do not claim “ I am intelligent “. That is Dennet’s imposition.

 

[Polymath257]

There is no conscious agent in brain states. Brain states do not claim “ I am intelligent “. That is Dennet’s imposition.

The brain states are what are 'aware' of the sensory information, and which do internal models. That *is* consciousness, so yes, they *are* the 'conscious agent'. Through the modeling of internal state, they do declare 'I am conscious'. In fact, that is precisely what they are doing *right now* when you or I declares ourself to be conscious.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Once again, the brain has evolved to process information. It is reliable, at least in some situations, because it *had* to be for survival. So we have a working processor with some basic information wired in. On top of that, we get sensory information.

Yes, we do learn the word 'no' via our senses. If you never hear the word 'no', and are never conditioned to its meaning, you will never understand that vocalization.

Yes, and you learn it form other humans and then we regress through time and presto, now you answer this:
Did the evolution of language happen only for words with external referent or are some words about processes in brains.
The problem is that the word "no" had to come form somewhere and according to your model that is unanswered.
So is the word "no" about something in the world outside brains or is it inside brains?

You are not the first one to have given that answer and it is incomplete, because in its absurd version humans have been around for ever, but that is not the case, right?
So where do the word "no" come from? Outside or inside the brain?

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, and you learn it form other humans and then we regress through time and presto, now you answer this:
Did the evolution of language happen only for words with external referent or are some words about processes in brains.
The problem is that the word "no" had to come form somewhere and according to your model that is unanswered.
So is the word "no" about something in the world outside brains or is it inside brains?

You are not the first one to have given that answer and it is incomplete, because in its absurd version humans have been around for ever, but that is not the case, right?
So where do the word "no" come from? Outside or inside the brain?

Well, before there was the evolution of language (or maybe concurrently), there was the development of the theory of mind: understanding that other people may not have the same set of information you do and will make decisions based on what they know, not necessarily what you know.

Some other primates shows theory of mind. It is an ability that has evolved.

So, states of mind are something that are part of our environment and eventually get words associated to them. In the case of 'no', it seems pretty straightforward: I don't want you to do something, I make an utterance and prevent you from doing it. I make the same utterance whenever I don't want you to do that thing.

So, the word 'no' both expresses my desire as well as directing you to stop what you are doing.

/E: It seems, for example, that a dog growl is often a communication of the thought 'no'.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, before there was the evolution of language (or maybe concurrently), there was the development of the theory of mind: understanding that other people may not have the same set of information you do and will make decisions based on what they know, not necessarily what you know.

Some other primates shows theory of mind. It is an ability that has evolved.

So, states of mind are something that are part of our environment and eventually get words associated to them. In the case of 'no', it seems pretty straightforward: I don't want you to do something, I make an utterance and prevent you from doing it. I make the same utterance whenever I don't want you to do that thing.

So, the word 'no' both expresses my desire as well as directing you to stop what you are doing.

/E: It seems, for example, that a dog growl is often a communication of the thought 'no'.

So the "no" is not based on external sensory experience alone?
What about: I don't want? Desire? Directing? Stop?
Are these all only external sensory alone?
Are there words, which have no direct external sensory experience referent?

I get empiricism. I am just checking if all words have their meaning from direct external sensory experience?

 

[Polymath257]

So the "no" is not based on external sensory experience alone?
What about: I don't want? Desire? Directing? Stop?
Are these all only external sensory alone?
Are there words, which have no direct external sensory experience referent?

I get empiricism. I am just checking if all words have their meaning from direct external sensory experience?

The brain is able to model internal state within itself. Desires are brain states.

Did I ever say that all was 'external sensory alone'? No. In fact, I specifically pointed out that the brain is wired through evolution with certain survival information prior to any sensory input. I specifically pointed out that the brain processes information and, in fact, stores and retrieves it. There is such a thing as memory (again, done by the brain) and we often act because of things we remember.

We do have internal states. And those internal states *are* brain states. Those are two, equivalent, ways of describing the exact same phenomenon.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The brain is able to model internal state within itself. Desires are brain states.

Did I ever say that all was 'external sensory alone'? No. In fact, I specifically pointed out that the brain is wired through evolution with certain survival information prior to any sensory input. I specifically pointed out that the brain processes information and, in fact, stores and retrieves it. There is such a thing as memory (again, done by the brain) and we often act because of things we remember.

We do have internal states. And those internal states *are* brain states. Those are two, equivalent, ways of describing the exact same phenomenon.

We are getting somewhere. Now if we were looking at a cat, I could ask you to point at the cat. Now point to a no in a brain.
Looking at a brain is not the same as being a brain.

You are reductive as to internal versus brain states. I am non-reductive. Internal states are caused by brain states, but can't be reduced to being equivalent.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The brain is able to model internal state within itself. Desires are brain states.

Did I ever say that all was 'external sensory alone'? No. In fact, I specifically pointed out that the brain is wired through evolution with certain survival information prior to any sensory input. I specifically pointed out that the brain processes information and, in fact, stores and retrieves it. There is such a thing as memory (again, done by the brain) and we often act because of things we remember.

We do have internal states. And those internal states *are* brain states. Those are two, equivalent, ways of describing the exact same phenomenon.

Take 2: How do you see that in a brain: And those internal states *are* brain states. To me that sentence is an internal state and says not about it being observed in a brain. It is in some sense just a rule. The rule is that internal states are brain states, though we can't observe that rule in a brain.

 

[Polymath257]

Take 2: How do you see that in a brain: And those internal states *are* brain states. To me that sentence is an internal state and says not about it being observed in a brain. It is in some sense just a rule. The rule is that internal states are brain states, though we can't observe that rule in a brain.

I am having trouble making sense of what you are saying. Why is that sentence an internal state? Does the fact that it is not observed in the brain mean it cannot be so observed?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am having trouble making sense of what you are saying. Why is that sentence an internal state? Does the fact that it is not observed in the brain mean it cannot be so observed?

That sentence is internal because it is conceptual. It is an idea in your head. I have no problem with some versions of physicalism, but I don't accept reductive ones.
Forget the color "red" for a moment. Focus on the words: ... makes sense to me. Okay, you know how to makes a full sentence out of that, right? Now tell how you see that? You don't, you know that it makes sense as a quale. That is the limit of science in effect. We can describe it, but we can't do it using science. because we can't observe that it makes sense.

 

[Polymath257]

That sentence is internal because it is conceptual. It is an idea in your head. I have no problem with some versions of physicalism, but I don't accept reductive ones.

Yes, it is *literally* in your head. It is a process of the brain.

Forget the color "red" for a moment. Focus on the words: ... makes sense to me. Okay, you know how to makes a full sentence out of that, right?

Yes, the sentence 'makes sense to me' is a full sentence. is that what you mean?

Now tell how you see that?

See what? That this is a full sentence?

You don't, you know that it makes sense as a quale.

I know it makes sense by processing the words (I can point to the parts of the brain that do this).

That is the limit of science in effect. We can describe it, but we can't do it using science. because we can't observe that it makes sense.

Again, I am having trouble making sense of what you are saying. What is the 'it' you are referring to here? The determination that this was a 'full sentence'? And why do you think that making sense of this is impossible via science? It seems to me to be perfectly possible to do so. We can watch the brain making sense of that sentence (although getting the required time resolution isn't easy).

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, it is *literally* in your head. It is a process of the brain.


Yes, the sentence 'makes sense to me' is a full sentence. is that what you mean?


See what? That this is a full sentence?


I know it makes sense by processing the words (I can point to the parts of the brain that do this).



Again, I am having trouble making sense of what you are saying. What is the 'it' you are referring to here? The determination that this was a 'full sentence'? And why do you think that making sense of this is impossible via science? It seems to me to be perfectly possible to do so. We can watch the brain making sense of that sentence (although getting the required time resolution isn't easy).

No, you don't watch that. You see a brain and then apply your rule. I get that is indirect evidence, but you don't see it. You infer it, because of your rule.
I am get how you made that rule. It matches a lot of observation about influence on the brain, e.g. alcohol.

But I am of another tradition than you. I get why it makes sense, but I also get that you can't observe that it makes sense. That is the quale.

 

[Polymath257]

No, you don't watch that. You see a brain and then apply your rule. I get that is indirect evidence, but you don't see it. You infer it, because of your rule.
I am get how you made that rule. It matches a lot of observation about influence on the brain, e.g. alcohol.

But we *can* watch it via various brain scanning technologies we now have. We can actually watch the differences in the brain as it does various activities. This allows us to pinpoint many of the areas of the brain that perform such activities as language processing, expression of various emotions (anger, compassion, etc), where planning happens, etc.

But I am of another tradition than you. I get why it makes sense, but I also get that you can't observe that it makes sense. That is the quale.

I have to admit that I have never been able to make sense out of the noun 'quale' as opposed to 'sensory information'. What is the difference?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
I have to admit that I have never been able to make sense out of the noun 'quale' as opposed to 'sensory information'. What is the difference?

Have you ever had a moment of clarity, when it went click in your brain and you got it. Now it makes sense. I am 54 years old and I don't get them that often anymore because I have been doing "understanding the world" for many years. But I can recall them.
Another version is the feeling of flow, when you are in a creative "zone". And then there is love

Now the problem is that there are no reason for you to have these experiences, because they don't follow from a physical, chemical and computational model of the brain. You ought to be a p-zombie, but you are not. You have 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.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

The interesting word is processing.
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy | Psychology Today
Mentalization-Based Therapy | Psychology Today UK
What Is Metacognitive Therapy And How Can It Help Anxiety? | MHM
Metacognition
https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/Images/272307-metacognition.pdf
Self-Reflective Awareness: A Crucial Life Skill

Now don't read those. They are not all about mental disorders and they don't have anything in common with "processing", because that is not really relevant. The 5% are passive and only an afterthought, right?

As for the second part: Here it is a fun fact. Yes, I do think you are on to something for my bolded part. But there is more and it is not that simple. It is a part of my, but not all of my. I know, because I have been subject to some of the techniques in the links above. But there is more. You have missed that this "processing" can do more than what you describe and now consider me a broken analog clock. You still have to check if I got "lucky" and spotted that you missed something. You haven't addressed that. You simply explained that away as irrelevant by looking at my personality. Can anybody say - defense mechanism. You should know if that is the case. So I am asking you about that.
Now you seem well trained to I leave it to you to do what you do. But I can still spot if you don't tackle my actual point. There is apparently more to the 5%, than you claim.
So learn to divide personality and the actual point I raised.

More self-assured hubris and pomposity. All of these therapies, practices, and techniques, are used to treat a dysfunctional brain. Since the function of the brain is to process, store, learn, control, and compartmentalize internal and external sensory input, It is these processes that the therapies are treating. What did you think these treatments were targeting in the brain? Did you think there was a sentient being(consciousness) inside our mind, that we need to convince to change our behavior? Unfortunately, most mental illnesses are treated chemically(drugs). Do you think that these drugs are not prescribed to target certain mental processes within the brain?

Again you didn't understand my simile. Let me try something different. Everything that you are actively perceiving now, or feeling now make up your conscious mental state(5%). It is also the state of awareness that uses logic and reasoning. This 5% is never running the show. Compare this state to a lifetime of sensations, perceptions, thoughts, feelings, memories, and bits of information that we have experienced and forgotten. This is what makes up our unconscious mental state. This state also includes all the bad feelings, fears, anxieties, and other experiences that the brain buries to protect itself(metaphorically speaking). Did you know that unconscious learning and bias can occur in this state as well?

It is our subconscious mind that causes us to feel emotionally and physically uncomfortable whenever you attempt to do anything new or different. It is against changing any of our established patterns of behavior and beliefs. It is this state of mind that pulls us back toward our comfort zone each time we try something new. Even just thinking about doing something different from what we're accustomed to, will make us feel tense and uneasy. All your habits of thinking and acting are also stored in our subconscious mind.

Therefore 95% of the human condition is programed by our subconscious and unconscious mind. Nature(evolution) has decided that it is more energy efficient, for the brain to use less energy when making conscious decisions about everyday aspects of the human condition. Can you imagine how much energy the brain would require, to consciously make decisions about all our bodily functions? It already uses around 20% of the total energy consumed by the body. I'm afraid the last part of your post was far too cryptic for my understanding. It would also be more honest if you would address a specific point in my post, instead of a specific word.

 

[atanu]

The brain states are what are 'aware' of the sensory information, and which do internal models. That *is* consciousness, so yes, they *are* the 'conscious agent'. Through the modeling of internal state, they do declare 'I am conscious'. In fact, that is precisely what they are doing *right now* when you or I declares ourself to be conscious.

But why? Why must a brain enclosed in your body respond to a brain enclosed in my body? And are you asserting what you are asserting without the extant consciousness? Why does a brain enclosed in a dead body does not claim any such thing as "I am xyzzy"? Where is the feeling of sadness or of elation in the brain? Where is the correlate of consciousness in brain?

Why a brain should desire to make love, drink beer and believe that a beer bottle is available in the fridge?

Is the brain not the deity then, impelling so-called Poly to run after desires?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

More self-assured hubris and pomposity. All of these therapies, practices, and techniques, are used to treat a dysfunctional brain. ...

No, they are not - Self-Reflective Awareness: A Crucial Life Skill

Self-Reflective Awareness (SRA) is probably the single most important competency that we teach in the doctoral program in professional psychology that I direct.

So all physiologist have dysfunctional brains.

That is about it. I stop reading after that line.

Here is another -
Metacognition

Metacognitive practices increase students’ abilities to transfer or adapt their learning to new contexts and tasks (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, p. 12; Palincsar & Brown, 1984; Scardamalia et al., 1984; Schoenfeld, 1983, 1985, 1991). They do this by gaining a level of awareness above the subject matter: they also think about the tasks and contexts of different learning situations and themselves as learners in these different contexts. When Pintrich (2002) asserts that “Students who know about the different kinds of strategies for learning, thinking, and problem solving will be more likely to use them” (p. 222), notice the students must “know about” these strategies, not just practice them. As Zohar and David (2009) explain, there must be a “conscious meta-strategic level of H[igher] O[rder] T[hinking]” (p. 179).

All students have dysfunctional brains.

 

[Polymath257]

But why? Why must a brain enclosed in your body respond to a brain enclosed in my body?

Well, it doesn't directly. It responds to the light reflected from your face, the sounds produced by your vocal cords, the touch of your hand stimulating the nerves, etc.

Information goes both ways through a variety of media and through the nerves to be processes by the brain.

And are you asserting what you are asserting without the extant consciousness? Why does a brain enclosed in a dead body does not claim any such thing as "I am xyzzy"? Where is the feeling of sadness or of elation in the brain? Where is the correlate of consciousness in brain?

Well, a dead brain doesn't have active neurons, so cannot have the patterns of neural fire corresponding to consciousness.

Why a brain should desire to make love, drink beer and believe that a beer bottle is available in the fridge?

How much detail do you want?

The hormones our body produces affect the patterns of neural firing, leading to searching behavior for a sex partner. Memories stored in the brain contain information about the pleasurable sensations produced from imbibing beer and also information that a cold one is in the refrigerator.

We can link this up to production of dopamine in the brain in anticipation of pleasurable reactions (which are also processing in the brain).

Is the brain not the deity then, impelling so-called Poly to run after desires?

Huh? I *am* my brain state.

 

[atanu]

I have to admit that I have never been able to make sense out of the noun 'quale' as opposed to 'sensory information'. What is the difference?

1. Your belief or disbelief of subjective experience does not mean that subjective experiences are not real and immediate.
2. Sensory information does not equal to a cognising subject and its subjective experience. Information is objective, which requires a subject for it to be known. Experience, OTOH, is internal.

 

[Polymath257]

1. Your belief or disbelief of subjective experience does not mean that subjective experiences are not real and immediate.

Did I say that I disbelieve in subjective experiences? I simply think they are, like all thoughts, feelings, etc, brain processes.

I have also never been able to distinguish the term 'quale' from 'having a sensory experience'. What is the difference?

2. Sensory information does not equal to a cognising subject and its subjective experience. Information is objective, which requires a subject for it to be known. Experience, OTOH, is internal.

Information does not need to be known to be information.

OK, so experience is internal to the brain. It is yet another process happening in the brain. So?