Neuroscientist loses a 25-year bet on consciousness — to a philosopher

[Daylight63]

If you want to believe evolution gave us a conspicuous and palpable sense of self-identity and self-awareness as an illusion, that's your choice.

And you are free to ignore all the science discussed on this topic. That's your choice.

I tend to think evolution is not out to trick us.

No one said that. But you seem incapable of understanding what was actually written. I wish I could explain it more clearly to you but your bias is pretty severe.

 

[Cypress]

Who's "us," Cypress?

A "conspicuous and palpable sense of self-identity and self-awareness" seems to provide an unfortunately large percentage of us with no
seriously productive capabilities to speak of.

Donald Tru.mp, for example, was just elected President of the United States for a second time,
this when every [what should have been obvious] indication was that this would, as it clearly will, destroy our democracy.

I've never been a doom and gloomer. Democracy has been ever under threat since 305 BC in Athens.

I'd rather believe that disasters like this occur merely due to the random confluence of atomic matter.
If we got to this point through self-awareness, than hell ought to be real

Good point. We really don't know of a reason why DNA molecules, quarks, and electrons can be conscious. Maybe nature could have just made us be zombies.

"A philosophical zombie is a being in a thought experiment in the philosophy of mind that is physically identical to a normal human being but does not have conscious experience." - Wikipedia

 

[Cypress]

And you are free to ignore all the science discussed on this topic. That's your choice.



No one said that. But you seem incapable of understanding what was actually written. I wish I could explain it more clearly to you but your bias is pretty severe.

I don't think there is anywhere remotely close to a consensus that our palpable sense of self-identity is just an illusion.

I cannot think of any other examples where biological evolution was out to trick us or delude us. Why would it trick us in this one facet?

The tools three billion years of evolution gave us seem to be adapted to perceiving the world, our abilities, our perceptions to be realistic approximations of reality.

 

[Daylight63]

I don't think there is anywhere remotely close to a consensus that our palpable sense of self-identity is just an illusion.

Nor am I arguing for such a consensus.

I cannot think of any other examples where biological evolution was out to trick us or delude us. Why would it trick us in this one facet?

One facet? Did you not read what I posted earlier? Oh, yeah, sorry, I forgot.

The tools three billion years of evolution gave us seem to be adapted to perceiving the world, our abilities, our perceptions to be realistic approximations of reality.

Certainly you KNOW that your perception is highly processed, right? I mean people have been aware of this fact for decades.

Why the World Is Not What It Seems

The brain fills in the blanks, sometimes with things that don't exist.

www.psychologytoday.com

Your brain sees things you don't

A study indicates that our brains perceive objects in everyday life of which we may never be aware. The finding challenges currently accepted models about how the brain processes visual information.

www.sciencedaily.com

How the Brain Fills in the Blanks

Our eyes are not cameras, but the brain fills in what the senses give us to create a coherent picture of the world. In that sense, the world as we see it is partly an illusion.

www.psychologytoday.com

 

[Cypress]

Nor am I arguing for such a consensus.



One facet? Did you not read what I posted earlier? Oh, yeah, sorry, I forgot.



Certainly you KNOW that your perception is highly processed, right? I mean people have been aware of this fact for decades.

Why the World Is Not What It Seems

The brain fills in the blanks, sometimes with things that don't exist.

www.psychologytoday.com

Your brain sees things you don't

A study indicates that our brains perceive objects in everyday life of which we may never be aware. The finding challenges currently accepted models about how the brain processes visual information.

www.sciencedaily.com

How the Brain Fills in the Blanks

Our eyes are not cameras, but the brain fills in what the senses give us to create a coherent picture of the world. In that sense, the world as we see it is partly an illusion.

www.psychologytoday.com

I don't read links to articles. I expect people to adequately explain them in their own words. Most of the time people who provide links have only skimmed the article for 20 seconds, and can't be trusted to be experts on the science.

"Brain fills in the blanks" is not proof that self identity is an illusion.

I've never been impressed with the statements that your subconscious decides to get a glass of water two seconds before you are consciously aware of it. That's not impressive. Your subconscious is still you. Even Sigmund Freud doesn't deny this.

Moreover, a human life is a lot more than thinking about getting a glass of water or going to the bathroom. Decisions about getting married, which college to go to, how to do experiments to test for gravitational waves are not decisions made over the course of five seconds. Much if not most of human thought are long, drawn out affairs of deep contemplation, introspection, reflection.

Talking about a a hasty decision to drink a glass of water is almost laughable to bring up in that context.

If you want to believe a ghost in the machine decided who you were going to marry, that's your choice.

 

[Daylight63]

I don't read links to articles.

Understood. There is a lot to read in this space and if one lacks a natural sense of curiosity it can probably feel overwhelming.

I expect people to adequately explain them in their own words.

Heaven knows I tried. But you just blew past it. So I thought I'd let others try.

If you want to believe a ghost in the machine decided who you were going to marry, that's your choice.

You do realize that the "ghost in the machine" concept is actually quite opposite of my position, right?

 

[Hume]

Everything you do is based on memory of some past, external event that shaped the neurological structure of your brain. When you reach for a glass of water, your brain is doing so based on memories, it's not relearning the action each time. When you start and finish a sentence, your brain is doing so based on memories.

And, even if you want to distinguish between memories and decisions to take action, i.e. get up to get a drink, the thoughts behind them occur the same way. That way is one where you have no idea what the thought is going to be until it enters consciousness. There may be no external constraints of any kind, but that doesn't change the reality of how thoughts occur to you, the fact that don't control the content of them and that you have no way to stop them, yet those actions are going to determine every intentional action you make.

Look, you think some mystical power is causing your actions. I think it is super creepy.

 

[Daylight63]

Look, you think some mystical power is causing your actions. I think it is super creepy.

No one said anything about "mystical powers". It's just your brain.

Remember: you don't actually know how your brain works. No one really does. It has already been established in this thread that your brain does a LOT of "behind the scenes" processing of stimuli that you are completely unaware of. So why do you think you are fully aware of how thought and intention arise in your brain?

 

[Hume]

So why do you think you are fully aware of how thought and intention arise in your brain?

I never even discussed it. It was only in response to the person talking about the brain.

 

[Daylight63]

I never even discussed it. It was only in response to the person talking about the brain.

But you are making claims about where your thoughts arise from. I am simply curious why you think you know how your brain is functioning? It's a legitimate question given that the brain is KNOWN to do a lot of on-board in-real-time processing of stimuli meaning you don't experience the world as it is, but rather via your samples.

The brain is far more complex than we give it credit for and we give it a LOT of credit for complexity.

 

[Hume]

But you are making claims about where your thoughts arise from. I am simply curious why you think you know how your brain is functioning? It's a legitimate question given that the brain is KNOWN to do a lot of on-board in-real-time processing of stimuli meaning you don't experience the world as it is, but rather via your samples.

The brain is far more complex than we give it credit for and we give it a LOT of credit for complexity.

I really have no interest in how my brain functions. That is for neuroscientists to work out. I am interested in the use of thought.

 

[Daylight63]

I really have no interest in how my brain functions.

Thank you for letting us all know on a thread dedicated to how the brain functions.

That is for neuroscientists to work out. I am interested in the use of thought.

The brain is the ONLY organ in your body that thinks. Ergo you clearly have an interest in brain function.

 

[Hume]

Thank you for letting us all know on a thread dedicated to how the brain functions.



The brain is the ONLY organ in your body that thinks. Ergo you clearly have an interest in brain function.

Whatever. You're a boring troll

 

[Daylight63]

Whatever. You're a boring troll

No, I'm someone who is interested in the topic of the thread. I am the one on here who is actually discussing the topic.

 

[Hume]

No, I'm someone who is interested in the topic of the thread. I am the one on here who is actually discussing the topic.

You are a troll and stalker.

 

[Daylight63]

You are a troll and stalker.

How am I a fucking stalker, you loon? Seriously no one wants to stalk a fucking douchebag like you. So please, just drop the whole stalker thing.

It's a FUCKING PUBLIC FORUM, DIPSHIT.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I don't think there is anywhere remotely close to a consensus that our palpable sense of self-identity is just an illusion.

I cannot think of any other examples where biological evolution was out to trick us or delude us. Why would it trick us in this one facet?

The tools three billion years of evolution gave us seem to be adapted to perceiving the world, our abilities, our perceptions to be realistic approximations of reality.

If one believes in a soul AKA supernatural form of post-mortem existence, then isn't life an illusion? A choice to believe "this is all there is" or "this is a gift of a greater existence"?

 

[ZenMode]

Einstein's thought experiments on relativity were not based on memory of a past event. No one ever traveled at the speed of light, and witnessed the distortion of time and space.

Everything you do does not include traveling at the speed of light.

 

[ZenMode]

Look, you think some mystical power is causing your actions. I think it is super creepy.

The reality of how we operate, and the ramifications for free will, is not a comfortable reality for everyone.

 

[Hume]

The reality of how we operate, and the ramifications for free will, is not a comfortable reality for everyone.

I have never had the problems you refer to. Nor do I ever bother with whether my will is free or not, there are no consequences. Which is why I do not see what is supposed to be controversial.