Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

cpwm17

(3,829 posts)
54. Since consciousness is extremely difficult for science to study
Tue May 13, 2014, 02:10 PM
May 2014

Last edited Tue May 27, 2014, 08:44 AM - Edit history (1)

that leaves a lot of room for laymen to speculate. It's all in good fun.

If I understand what you mean by "construct", then I guessing you are using a different definition of consciousness than me. Since it is consciousness itself that assists our brains in their activities, then any brain activities that create consciousness can't be created with the assistance of consciousness itself. That's almost like saying consciousness creates itself. So consciousness has to be made totally by the unconscious brain.

If you mean that consciousness is made in the brain, regardless of whether consciousness assists, then that has to be correct.

Yes, it is a big mystery how our consciousness can operate with the modular nature of our brains, even though consciousness doesn't seem to be modular. Probably consciousness is created in multiple locations throughout the brain, but they somehow communicate, such that your brain has one goal at a time.

In addition to making it possible for us to think, do, and learn, I think consciousness forces the complex brain to act as one. This is important, of course, since we only have one body so the brain needs to have only one self.

I think you understood much of what I wrote. I think that the unavoidable force from the feelings experienced in our consciousness is what drives the whole operation of our brains. That is why we are conscious, in my opinion.

When you touch something hot with your finger, the pain you experience has an obvious purpose. That is an extreme example, but when you come right down to it, every moment of your waking life your are experiencing positive and negative feelings (usually very subtle feelings from emotions and related feelings, and these feelings are created from your brain's pattern recognition of your thoughts and senses) while you are reacting to your environment and your thoughts. These feelings are an unavoidable force that cannot be avoided by your brain. The strength of the feelings forces you to choose (the stronger feeling at the moment gets the attention, automatically), and the same feelings drive your thoughts and actions. And the strength of the feelings determines what you learn and remember. The whole process forces the brain to act as one.

It's probably impossible to know exactly how the brain makes consciousness and how all of this works, but in my opinion, consciousness and its feelings kills multiple birds with one stone. So evolution found consciousness very useful in order to create complex animated life.

So consciousness seems to be a trick evolution found to create complex animated life. Consciousness is a way the brain can force itself to act. But almost everything that happens in the brain happens outside of consciousness. The brain is a black box and we as individuals have almost no idea how our brains work and really how our decisions are reached. When we talk, words flow out and we have no idea where they come from in the brain.

But we do have this profound experience of consciousness; and consciousness is a witness to some thoughts, our environment through our senses, and our positive and negative feelings. But we are really not the author of any of it:

We may be the conscious witness of these thoughts, but we are not their authors. Thoughts just arrive....

There has been a long controversy as to whether subjectively ‘free’ decisions are determined by brain activity ahead of time. We found that the outcome of a decision can be encoded in brain activity of prefrontal and parietal cortex up to 10 s before it enters awareness. This delay presumably reflects the operation of a network of high-level control areas that begin to prepare an upcoming decision long before it enters awareness.

http://fieldlines.org/2012/04/21/free-will-the-local-miracle/

So we really have no conscious free will. Our conscious-selve are along for the ride. We just have to hope that our brains, with the critical feedback from our consciousness, make the right decisions.
your comments seem to rely heavily on "infinite", a term that doesn't appear in the dawkins extract unblock May 2014 #1
Yup. You have it right. longship May 2014 #2
Richard Dawkins didn't bring up "infinite" cpwm17 May 2014 #5
if your quibble is about the finite number of finite genes required to for your counscious-self unblock May 2014 #6
That was just minor aside concerning Richard Dawsons' assumptions cpwm17 May 2014 #9
No, you still don't understand the concept skepticscott May 2014 #11
I Googled it cpwm17 May 2014 #13
I got 133 hits. Igel May 2014 #14
Thanks for the nice reply cpwm17 May 2014 #20
from your selfish perspective, with an understanding of this concept, you would recognize unblock May 2014 #34
I think it's also well analogized (is that a word?) by AleksS May 2014 #51
Not all improbable coincidences are created equal cpwm17 May 2014 #59
The other two posters here have explained it nicely skepticscott May 2014 #35
When you Google "necessary improbability" cpwm17 May 2014 #36
You are confusing large numbers, which are finite intaglio May 2014 #3
You apparently don't understand the concept skepticscott May 2014 #4
I can guess what "necessary improbability" means cpwm17 May 2014 #8
Your particular consciousness was no more a "goal" skepticscott May 2014 #10
From my perspective it is a goal cpwm17 May 2014 #12
Your consciousness is an emergent property of many different processes of the brain... Humanist_Activist May 2014 #41
I am sorry you spent edhopper May 2014 #7
Are you arguing that Dawkins claims you do not exist? LiberalAndProud May 2014 #15
No, I just think he should rethink some of his assumptions concerning consciousness cpwm17 May 2014 #21
I'm not terribly familiar with theories of multiverse. LiberalAndProud May 2014 #24
I've heard similar speculations concerning the multiverse cpwm17 May 2014 #40
While his explanation makes some sense when describing the biologic entity that is a person, cbayer May 2014 #16
Based on the fact that ones consciousness diminishes or dies from brain damage cpwm17 May 2014 #22
I tend to lean towards it all being neurochemical, but cbayer May 2014 #23
" the top of the multiverse's, or even this universe's, food chain" Warren Stupidity May 2014 #25
(somewhat aside) I used to wonder how other species experience their "universes". pinto May 2014 #17
I've wondered that as well. cbayer May 2014 #18
LOL. Maybe there's only now to them...not such a bad thing in some ways. pinto May 2014 #19
Consciousness is the result of neural activity, and no two brains are the same arcane1 May 2014 #26
Are you certain you are gone? Is that a belief, by any chance? cbayer May 2014 #27
It is what the evidence points to. arcane1 May 2014 #28
I think you are most likely right, but I don't really know. cbayer May 2014 #29
Indeed, I certainly don't know. arcane1 May 2014 #30
You really must. It will awaken and revitalize the tiredest of souls. cbayer May 2014 #31
Thanks for the encouragement, I need it! :) arcane1 May 2014 #32
My guess is that it's Venus Jim__ May 2014 #48
I meant to take my star gazer app on deck last night, but forgot it. cbayer May 2014 #49
You can claim that it is impossible for a consciousness to return after the body dies cpwm17 May 2014 #33
The twin issue is fascinating. cbayer May 2014 #37
Yes, I see why it could be tempting to believing in a soul cpwm17 May 2014 #38
I don't know and am not sure we will ever know. cbayer May 2014 #39
there is no twin issue with respect to consciousness. Warren Stupidity May 2014 #52
Your mistake is assuming that consciousness is, in itself, an individual process of the brain... Humanist_Activist May 2014 #42
In my way of looking at things, what you describe is personality, not consciousness. cbayer May 2014 #43
I would consider your personality as a part of your consciousness... Humanist_Activist May 2014 #44
I see your point. I think we may be just speaking from different definitions. cbayer May 2014 #45
I blame you for what I'm doing now, watching Crash Course: Psychology on youtube... Humanist_Activist May 2014 #46
Lol, hope you enjoy it. cbayer May 2014 #47
Where I write about a brain process that creates consciousness cpwm17 May 2014 #50
I think its better to say "construct" rather than illusion... Humanist_Activist May 2014 #53
Since consciousness is extremely difficult for science to study cpwm17 May 2014 #54
I think the easiest way to think of consciousness is that its an emergent property of complex... Humanist_Activist May 2014 #57
Multicellular animal life did not evolve until 520 million years ago cpwm17 May 2014 #58
My bad! WovenGems May 2014 #55
And they're all Republicans cpwm17 May 2014 #56
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Consciousness: often even...»Reply #54