The subjective observer is a fictional character

[Bruce Burleson]

Yeah! I have that too. I just have to trust it. If I'm listening at a group meeting all these things come to me to say and then when it's 'Show Time!' I just start weaving it all together.

In fact, the more conscious I am of the process, the more likely I am to mess up. The more I let it flow, the better it is. Consciousness gets in the way at times.

[Bruce Burleson]

I don't mean to leave out the remark that we do a lot of processing of environmental conditions without pushing it up into the linguistic, which is where we finally establish it as "conscious". There's a whole host of simple experiments, though, in which organisms respond non-linguistically to stimuli, such as pressing a button.

The brain does not need consciousness to function adequately. Perhaps all of us have had the experience of driving on "automatic pilot" and then suddenly realizing that 10 miles and 10 minutes have gone by and we didn't even realize it. Your brain was operating a complex piece of machinery and didn't even need "you."

My brain insists that I'm the one that causes all of the trouble in my life. Sometimes it's worse than being married.

Consciousness is a little like insanity - we are talking to ourselves. You really have to control it to keep from going crazy. Too much introspection leads to too many voices - not just like being married, but being married to a whole harem of sisters.

[SpeedOfSound]

Yeah! I have that too. I just have to trust it. If I'm listening at a group meeting all these things come to me to say and then when it's 'Show Time!' I just start weaving it all together.

In fact, the more conscious I am of the process, the more likely I am to mess up. The more I let it flow, the better it is. Consciousness gets in the way at times.

My definition of a spiritual path is a combination of learning to trust my automatic self and learning to make changes in it as I deem necessary for integrity and consistency. It's like making repairs and then trusting the structure to bear weight.

[Bruce Burleson]

My definition of a spiritual path is a combination of learning to trust my automatic self and learning to make changes in it as I deem necessary for integrity and consistency. It's like making repairs and then trusting the structure to bear weight.

So consciousness becomes another stimulus for the brain, just like our other senses. It provides more input for the brain and directs the brain when it finds it necessary. The brain creates its own stimuli.

[SpeedOfSound]

All that stuff I was saying about neural plasticity has practical uses. Unconscious processes can be made conscious and restructured to make lasting changes in your behavior.

1. Anything that you make conscious will more likley become conscious in the future.
2. The more connections or associations you make with it the stronger and more salient the conscious experience will be.
3. Just under conscious contexts can be programmed that will last for up to a week or more.
4. These contexts can be used to thrust a previously unconscious action into the light so that it can be modified.

I have used this for learning or just remembering where I left off in a book or DVR program. My first great success was with learning to never again use the sugar bowl spoon to stir my coffee. I found that knowing that it was a physiological process in neurons that involved time and focused attention made much more sense of the process than my previous reliance on just magical thinking about the brain.

I have since used this same technique to make lasting changes in the way I interface with others and to eliminate things about my personality that I don't care for.

Better living through molecular biology.

[SpeedOfSound]

My definition of a spiritual path is a combination of learning to trust my automatic self and learning to make changes in it as I deem necessary for integrity and consistency. It's like making repairs and then trusting the structure to bear weight.

So consciousness becomes another stimulus for the brain, just like our other senses. It provides more input for the brain and directs the brain when it finds it necessary. The brain creates its own stimuli.

That is the beauty of this organ. I just posted something that is also pertinent.

[SpeedOfSound]

When I previously described the above technique someone on RDF called it cognitive therapy on steroids.

[Bruce Burleson]

I have since used this same technique to make lasting changes in the way I interface with others and to eliminate things about my personality that I don't care for.

I read something recently about the rise in the rate of autism that caught my attention. Autism is, essentially, the inability to recognize other minds. There is a correlation between noise levels that infants are exposed to and the incidence of autism. Constant background noise overloads the young brain, making too many neurons fire together and preventing the formation of critical networks or maps. Neurons that fire together wire together, and too much of this can subject these kids to seizure activity, causing significant damage. It seems that autism, to a degree, is a deficiency of consciousness, or at least it leads to that in a way. Consciousness is required to "interface with others" as you put it, and autistic children can't do this - they see other people as things that move and make noise, but there is no recognition of personhood. Perhaps they don't even have a real sense of self-awareness. There is new hope, I understand, that with the new understanding of brain plasticity that even autistic kids can be coaxed out of their shell and taught to relate to people.

[jamest]

If nothing else, this discussion has highlighted some of the rational problems faced by those wishing to explain human behaviour in terms of a 'brain model'. For obvious [and explained] reasons, for example, we cannot have brain models that depend upon brains making assumptions about a reality beyond their own internal states. And neither can we have brain models that depend upon the brain giving external meaning to its own internal states. What is needed, then, is a brain model whereby the brain's internal responses to the external environment suffice to produce appropriate behaviour/response to that environment without the brain knowing about the external realm. I might budge on some issues, but on the issue of the brain knowing nothing more than its own internal states, I remain anchored to the spot.

Currently, my main issue is that the brain does seem to know about a reality external to its own states. And what is my reason or evidence for this claim? - 'Our' thoughts and words.

... If you reduce the 'I' to the brain, then intrinsically, whatever 'I' claim that I am thinking and feeling and saying, must be attributed to the brain itself. And the fact is this: practically all humans (except a small minority) think, feel & act, as though the world beyond itself is real. This should be obvious, as most of our responses are emotionally-driven: we fear the consequences of fucking up, for example.

My mind brain is currently awhirl with lots of questions for which 'brain models' seem insufficient to answer. For example:

1) If we require a 'brain model' whereby the brain's internal responses to the external environment suffice to produce appropriate response amidst that environment, then why does the brain require 'emotion' to produce the appropriate behaviour?
2) If the brain [evidently] needs emotion to produce 'appropriate' (self-serving) behaviour, and brain states are just responses to the environment, then from whence cometh 'emotion'? Certainly, the environment cannot be responsible for a self-serving attitude, or associated emotions that drive it.
3) If the response to the external environment is a consequence of a self-serving attitude, then how can we say that the brain's internal responses to the external environment suffice to produce appropriate response amidst that environment?

I have more questions like these. The point that I'm trying to make, is that ultimately, a model of the brain will make no sense unless it addresses such questions. No model will ever be acclaimed that fails to address reasoning... whilst simultaneously failing to impress, empirically. Unfortunately, all of this chatter about finite state machines et al, isn't really getting us anywhere. It's just conjecture that fails to address the rationale behind the issues, and has no sufficient empirical backing, either, to be of any worth in this discussion.

What was supposed to be a philosophical debate has turned into a pseudoscientific debate, that is oblivious to any rational concerns... so it seems.

[jamest]

Maybe off topic.

I have been asked why I argue with guys like LI and james and others of that CosmoCon ilk. I owe them a serious debt. In the last two years I have been spurred to educate myself in ways that I never could of without them. While their arguments don't seem to change a hell of a lot mine have. Almost daily. They provide me with a little anger oriented incentive and an outline of material to digest and things to consider.

The philosophical backing to my neurology studies and the amount of world-view self-searching I have done with their help could never have been obtained in any other way, at any price.

So to my arch-enemies...

It works both ways, which is why I'm not a member of an idealist forum.

[Surendra Darathy]

1) If we require a 'brain model' whereby the brain's internal responses to the external environment suffice to produce appropriate response amidst that environment, then why does the brain require 'emotion' to produce the appropriate behaviour?
2) If the brain [evidently] needs emotion to produce 'appropriate' (self-serving) behaviour, and brain states are just responses to the environment, then from whence cometh 'emotion'? Certainly, the environment cannot be responsible for a self-serving attitude, or associated emotions that drive it.
3) If the response to the external environment is a consequence of a self-serving attitude, then how can we say that the brain's internal responses to the external environment suffice to produce appropriate response amidst that environment?

Anatomy (and its accompanying processes of physiology) are the result of evolution, not of design. If this anatomy and physiology did not produce more or less appropriate responses to the environment, the organism would not survive. Survival to maturity and bearing offspring suffices to show that the appropriate response was produced.

Bacteria show something about the minimum necessary anatomy and physiology to ensure evolutionary fitness. Brains are clearly not necessary. However, evolution builds out from the wall of minimum complexity to explore many possible configurations for viable evolutionary branches. We do not know that a big brain coupled to an overactive endocrine system is really an evolutionary advantage in the long run. Some of us suspect it is not.

[jamest]

Anatomy (and its accompanying processes of physiology) are the result of evolution, not of design.

Fyi, I'm not against the process of 'evolution'. Yet, I am against those adherents of said theory who think that this refutes God's existence. Why would evolution rule-out God? As I always say, it only rules-out ideas on a par with biblical-literalism.

If this anatomy and physiology did not produce more or less appropriate responses to the environment, the organism would not survive.

Limbs don't move coherently unless the brain orchestrates their actions. If a bazooka-like protrusion should emerge from my chin, tomorrow, it will be of no significance to me unless my brain has access to the user manual. That is, 'I' won't be able to use it to blast your cat off your monitor unless my brain can effect that action. So, we cannot say that 'anatomy' is significant without the brain - that is, the brain must be of primary significance, here.

[jamest]

Bacteria show something about the minimum necessary anatomy and physiology to ensure evolutionary fitness. Brains are clearly not necessary.

Fundamentally, this is a metaphysical discussion. As such, you cannot [justifiably] assert what something can or cannot do, without a brain.

That is, for the sake of argument, I am willing to accept that brains can effect human behaviour; but now you're [significantly] stretching beyond that.

[Surendra Darathy]

Anatomy (and its accompanying processes of physiology) are the result of evolution, not of design.

Fyi, I'm not against the process of 'evolution'. Yet, I am against those adherents of said theory who think that this refutes God's existence. Why would evolution rule-out God? As I always say, it only rules-out ideas on a par with biblical-literalism.

James, a previous post of yours suggested that the brain "requires" emotion to produce appropriate behaviour. I quoted part of that post above, and reproduce it here:

why does the brain require 'emotion' to produce the appropriate behaviour?

My point about evolution (and that it is not demonstrably a product of design) is that the neuroanatomy and the endocrine systems coevolved. Emotion is coupled to neuroanatomy by means of the endocrine system. Had it indeed been "designed' that way, I would call the job a "cock-up". But we are not here to discuss deities and whether their descriptions are in any wise coherent, or can possibly be so.

If this anatomy and physiology did not produce more or less appropriate responses to the environment, the organism would not survive.

Limbs don't move coherently unless the brain orchestrates their actions. If a bazooka-like protrusion should emerge from my chin, tomorrow, it will be of no significance to me unless my brain has access to the user manual. That is, 'I' won't be able to use it to blast your cat off your monitor unless my brain can effect that action. So, we cannot say that 'anatomy' is significant without the brain - that is, the brain must be of primary significance, here.

I have pointed out that not all organisms have "brains". Even very simple organisms like planaria have light sensitive spots on their anatomy. Organisms have to be in touch with their environment, simply to maintain the energetics of living.

Bacteria show something about the minimum necessary anatomy and physiology to ensure evolutionary fitness. Brains are clearly not necessary.

Fundamentally, this is a metaphysical discussion. As such, you cannot [justifiably] assert what something can or cannot do, without a brain.

I'm making no assertions about organisms. It is evident that some organisms do not possess brains, and it is evident that they make a living. However, I do assert that, until you manage your own forum, and beg me to participate until I give in, you shall not be dictating to me what sort of discussion we are going to have here in this public forum.

That is, for the sake of argument, I am willing to accept that brains can effect human behaviour; but now you're [significantly] stretching beyond that.

A previous question of yours assumed that emotion was "necessary" to the functioning of human beings, an implication which clearly treads on the territory of science. I simply explained to you that emotions and cognition coevolved. It is not I who is stretching the limits of this discussion.

[SpeedOfSound]

What was supposed to be a philosophical debate has turned into a pseudoscientific debate, that is oblivious to any rational concerns... so it seems.

Excuse me but where is the pseudoscience in this thread and whose debating it?

What do you mean by pseudoscience?