Jay !!
- Thread starter Robbo
- Start date
Frickin hell Jay, I'm still trying to put together a creditable response whilst endeavouring to maintain some form of intellectual integrity .... It's put me up against the ropes that's for sure
PS I agree with Jay, a great post, I thorougly enjoyed reading it.
My own personal feeling has always been that our consciousness arises purely as an emergent phenomenon of the brain's ability to perceive and take into account both past and projected future events.
It would then be the ability to stall the subconscious/instinctive/reflexive responses to immediately present events and take into account those past experiences and projected future events before forming a response to any situation. This would clearly provide an evolutionary advantage, i.e. if you are chased by a predator, remembering that you've been down this route and it leads to a dead end provides the ability to consider taking a different route and avoid being cornered killed.
Just my little thoughts. I'm not even going to attempt to keep up with that post of Bambulus'. I've heard of some of that stuff, the subconscious processing a decision half a second before you consciously become aware of it etc and have read that with much interest.
On the point of the conscious mind being a slave to the subconsious, I like to think it's akin to a man believing himself to be in charge of his household when he's married. ;-)
It would then be the ability to stall the subconscious/instinctive/reflexive responses to immediately present events and take into account those past experiences and projected future events before forming a response to any situation. This would clearly provide an evolutionary advantage, i.e. if you are chased by a predator, remembering that you've been down this route and it leads to a dead end provides the ability to consider taking a different route and avoid being cornered killed.
Just my little thoughts. I'm not even going to attempt to keep up with that post of Bambulus'. I've heard of some of that stuff, the subconscious processing a decision half a second before you consciously become aware of it etc and have read that with much interest.
On the point of the conscious mind being a slave to the subconsious, I like to think it's akin to a man believing himself to be in charge of his household when he's married. ;-)
Thanks guys, I spent an entire year devoted to studying consciousness. It was my favourite module by far.
That certainly is a benefit of consciousness - prior planning and problem solving. Our ability to visually perceive something in the mind and use this to solve problems and plan routes has given the human species the edge when manipulating the environment to suit their own needs (something we have done spectacularly well).
However, I'm not entirely sure if being consciously aware of this is the beneficial part. Part of the problem is deciphering whether or not consciousness evolved to perform these tasks specifically, or if the evolution of consciousness for some other reason has simply improved them.
For example, crows have the kind of problem solving ability that indicates prior planning, but we have no other indication of if this process in consciously performed - which is exactly the problem. Because consciousness cannot be measured or even seen, we cannot make the same kind of judgements about it that we usually would when comparing evolved traits to those of other animals. We don't even know if they are conscious, in the same way that we are.
Maybe so, but I personally think consciousness is a hinderence in high-stress events. People usually refer to the fight or flight response, and they talk about this being a completely innate and unavoidable behaviour - it's as if the body just takes over in these situations in order to attain the best possible survival. Adrenal function goes nuts, muscle strength and speed increases, neural signals become much faster, heart rate, oxygen intake, energy usage and all that - all completely subconscious and uncontrollable, and it's usually these that give the best results.
Ever slipped while rock climbing? Somehow you manage to grab the nearest possible grip to keep yourself up, even if you didn't know it was there. It's pure instinct, and you're too busy calling yourself an idiot to even pay attention properly.
The great thing about learning is that it's also mostly subconscious. Sometimes we make an active decision to remember things, but sod if we're always successful at it because of that.
If you've heard about the Pavlovian conditioning, vicarious learning and generally social learning theory, you can probably guess that this kind of learning (creating reflexes, which occur regardless of consciousness) happens subconsciously. The very best learning happens in our sleep, when the body is busy replacing damaged proteins and strengthening neural pathways.
Don't worry, I'm barely keeping up with myself. It's only been a few months out of uni and I'm already a bit rusty
And that's not a bad metaphor!
If this was to happen, and you committed the assault like you said, then the events followed and you relived you life having not bashed the guy's head in and so forth, him upstairs reset time or rewound time for you to replay you life yeah I think 'he' would remember.
You're sat watching a programme on tv, you hit the rewind button and go back a minute or so, you press play again and you remember you've done it my view on it
AL
You're sat watching a programme on tv, you hit the rewind button and go back a minute or so, you press play again and you remember you've done it
my view on it AL
there isn't a rewind button. If there was, It would have been used in 1994, and you would never have heard of Gwen Stefani. The fact that you have heard of Gwen Stefani proves my point.
Also, if there is a God - Please explain jedwood.
Also, if there is a God - Please explain jedwood.
Firstly, apologies for the delay Jack, it took a long time to do because it took a long time for me to put together and to ensure I was as precise as I could be.
OK, here we go :-
My reference to James’s intellectual position was confined to him in that particular time period, and the fact he hadn’t sufficient grasp of modern relevant scientific data that could enable him to differentiate between free will and any determinism is academic mate, no pun intended.
This of course can only be the case if I believe that even after the scientific data I have read confirms free will and persuades me we possesses it.
Basically, I believe his position then is roughly the same as what I believe now, even though he didn’t have access to the literature I have read.
I think, but not absolutely sure the point you are making is that because he had no access to modern research, his position was somehow undermined; I don’t think it was because a better descriptive would be his position wasn’t as scientifically informed as he would like; My contention therefore is, that even if he had been, his position still wouldn’t change.
But for this to be the case, I will therefore have to answer/rebut some later points you make ..
B, the fact reflex actions give the impression there’s no free will involved [and I agree to this wholeheartedly] I would however qualify it by saying this, reflex action would have developed as we evolved through the millennia… the capacity to invoke an action that doesn’t require the extra mediated time of conscious deliberation and consequent action would prove beneficial to any species for obvious survival benefits.
The point is though; the existence of a set of human actions being reflex in no way undermines the fact that the major part of our conscious living is in fact, free will at work.
Reflex actions evolved not to replace free will but to compliment it.
As for some of these processes not involving the brain?
I’ll beg to differ because one of the most basic of reflex tests used by doctors, tapping the front of the knee, is done to check the neuronal integrity of both sensory and motor abilities through the spinal cord up to the brain and back down again resulting in the consequent knee jerk.
All reflex actions are mediated by the brain, they may not be mediated by a conscious decision but that’s not the same as your proposition that reflexes go nowhere near the brain.
I may well be missing your point here but I think you’re suggesting the possibility of some forms of life don’t have conscious minds but do have subconscious abilities and you then pose the question [on the basis just mentioned] can there be free will without consciousness?
To answer that question, I’d agree, you cannot have free will without some form of consciousness but … I also believe you framed that question, or rather set it up after you had based it upon a false premise.
I do not believe there are life forms that have subconscious abilities without there being some form of attendant consciousness.
Unconscious actions are definitely not the same as subconscious activity.
You cannot say that any life form that seemingly exists on reflex actions alone might have subconscious abilities that are similar to that of our own subconscious workings.
I think we need to nail down some semantic vagaries here or we’re gonna start drifting. Sometimes people get confused with subconscious and unconscious, I’m sure you are well aware of the distinction between the two.
A computer can make unconscious decisions based upon its programming but it can no way be described as possessing a subconscious.
Unconscious merely means ‘not conscious’ whereas subconscious means there are mental functions operating that complement our conscious working by running parallel neuronal activity with any resultant higher order action being an integral interaction of the two.
It’s absolutely predictable people will conclude their minds are the product of conscious thought … and to also describe their mental identity as distinct from others.
To explain my position on mind/conscious/subconscious/soul might help us at this point.
I believe there is a distinction that can be drawn between mind and body, to me, it’s an obvious conclusion but at this time, unproven.
As for the brain/mind?
Some people will advocate consciousness [self-awareness] is an emergent phenomenon of our physical brain structure’s workings. This is most certainly not an irrational conclusion even though it’s not really provable at the moment.
we can speculate but as of yet, I am unaware of any research that can explain emergent properties of consciousness.
I believe the architecture; the integrated action of both chemical and electrical activity houses the mind rather than being the result of it.
The unique structure [of each person] of neuronal arrangements in the brain is there to facilitate one’s individuality but does not produce it.
This of course prompts the question as to where the mind/soul came from or how does it become inextricably woven into our very being?
If you take a look at life’s evolutionary trail from single cell organisms up to multicellular arrangements such as animals and ourselves, we cannot help but notice there seems to be a gradual gradient of complexity as we evolved. We evolved with higher and higher cognitive abilities mainly because any improvement in cognitive function is gonna be naturally selectable for obvious reasons.
A natural conclusion if we were to extrapolate this evolutionary trend is to believe the human mind is the culmination of this trend and whilst I agree the architecture of the brain can be the result, I do not believe it can account for our sense of self, our soul if you like.
This is god given in my mind … it’s obvious I cannot prove this through experiment or any form of theoretical process, it just comes down to what I feel to be the most likely.
I used to believe our soul would be the emergent property of our brain’s evolved complexity but as of yet, I have seen no sign either in other animals or in computers of any development that would approximate to human consciousness. I am not talking about human mental functions here, I am talking about self-awareness which of course is distinguishable from mere function alone.
This is where, leastwise for me, things get tricky when drawing the distinction between unconscious and subconscious, they seem to have a degree of overlap as against exhibiting a clear distinction.
This apparent overlap obviously impairs our ability to not only differentiate between the two but also to fully understand their functionality.
I’m not quite sure how you can assign the relative responsibilities between conscious and subconscious functions in saying the vast majority of the brain’s function is subconscious.
I agree with the notion of the majority of the brain’s functionality is unconscious but this is different …. Our autonomic system is one just example.
These actions can be described as sub-conscious in terms of strict definition but the classical meaning of sub-conscious is a parallel mental process that is interwoven, inextricably so, with our conscious mind.
Unconscious, on the other hand describes the ability of the brain to act independently of the conscious mind [not the brain], it circumvents that part of our thinking.
To me, in humans at least, the unconscious functions do not need conscious thought to achieve their roles whereas the sub-conscious cannot be untangled from consciousness.
I think you may have fallen into a trap here in believing the communication between conscious and subconscious functionality is unidirectional, I believe it bidirectional.
As we grow up, our conscious mind shovels shed-loads of experience toward the subconscious… as an example of this, if you look at ‘association’, this is where a child who might have a bad experience, something like eating a particular substance that makes the child vomit … that experience is filtered by the subconscious and then logs that feeling of sickness with that particular substance … it’s Pavlovian in some sense.
The point is, a subconscious mind helps us get through life by remembering bad associations and then are used by the conscious mind to then make decisions; this process is distinct from our normal memory functions and ability.
You may forget about that experience in terms of conscious recollection but that experience will have been logged and formulated in the subconscious mind for use at a later date.
When you say the conscious and subconscious are the same, if true, then why do we even have two words to describe the same thing .. that makes no sense at all to me.
It’s absolutely true we cannot identify physical locations in the brain that are totally responsible for either conscious or sub-conscious but this doesn’t mean we can then suggest they are the same thing .. it just means we have not yet been able to accurately describe their interaction.
Think of my position like this, when you hear a single violin being played, you hear a particular set of notes .. you can hear exactly what’s being played from that single instrument.
There is a direct connection between what’s perceived audibly and what’s being played.
Everything that single violin does in terms of string vibration is entirely identifiable with what’s heard [I’m not talking about anything outside of people’s hearing limitations here].
Now, if you listen to symphonic violins [multiple violins all playing the same notes] and they play a piece of music, a transformation occurs, there’s an emergent property that goes beyond the sum of its parts … you don’t hear a strict amalgamation of all those violins, the sound you do hear is an integrated harmonic and is therefore an emergent property of them all and cannot be identified when looking at the single violins in isolation. If I were to say to you that there is no distinction between resultant harmonics of symphonic violins and each violin, I’d be wrong in the same way I think you are. There are most certainly two different phenomena [violins and resultant harmonic signature] but you cannot readily see the distinguishing line … we have harmonic resonance as an emergent phenomenon but not as a direct summation of multiple violins; basically, the whole is greater than its component parts.
And just because we cannot identify a dividing line that has physical boundaries does not mean we have a single phenomenon.
I’m not comfortable with the notion of our brain’s apparent ability to make a decision half a second before we are conscious of it …. And so at this point, I am gonna Google this hypothesis to read just how you, or anybody can suggest the decision’s been made before we are conscious of it. ….. , I will only ever access Google if it saves me time in asking you to explain what you mean and having to wait for the subsequent reply ..ok, I read some ….. I think the problem we have in interpreting sub-conscious brain activity before the conscious mind operates in terms of decision making is because we cannot say with absolute surety that the sub-conscious neuronal activity has actually made a decision before being integrated into conscious thought [awareness].
It’s a bit like this, think of a computer and the way it works … you have a microprocessor that can approximate a brain with the memory being a hard drive.
If we use a computer to come up with a set of decisions such as playing a game of chess … the output of that computer is gonna look something pawn on king 2 to king4 [something like that form].
If you look at the integrated functions of that computer, you cannot suggest that because the hard drive is firing up and being accessed before outputting the next move, you cannot suggest that the fired up hard drive has made a decision before the microprocessor had processed all the data which in this case approximates human consciousness.
It’s the same thing mate, you cannot assume in any way, that just because you have subconscious activity doesn’t mean it’s made a decision before the conscious mind outputs.
I agree with what you are saying in that the majority of brain activity can be described as sub-conscious but I don’t agree with your conclusions.
Just because
We are talking about free will here and the ability of our conscious mind to facilitate that free will.
I think the mistake you could be making here is concluding that because the subconscious mind seems to function a lot more than the conscious, you immediately then identify it is the controller with the conscious mind playing a somewhat subservient role fooling the individual into concluding the conscious mind is in control.
Once again, I maintain that just because a particular area of brain activity is dominant in terms of amount of work, this does not mean it is in control.
Think of a construction crew building a bridge, the vast amount of work is being done by the construction crew but they are told where to go and what to do by their management.
It is not therefore reasonable to assume the greater workload is cause for believing this gives control …it gives the illusion of control if you witness the physical construction of the bridge.
I do not think the geocentric position was ever deemed impossible, if it was, this was not because there was evidence to unequivocally prove we were in a heliocentric world, it’s just that religious doctrine [because of the power it wielded] at that time elected to believe what coincided with their religious position and ignored the scientific evidence in favour of the prima facia evidence.
This is merely an example of religious intransigence in the face of conflicting scientific evidence; a position adopted in mistaken faith as against scientific proof.
I adopt the position of the conscious mind being in control not through electing to ignore scientific evidence because the jury’s still out on this one; there is no absolute proof of either the conscious mind is in control or indeed the subconscious.
This lack of unequivocal proof for either position allows me to then allowing my mind to select what’s more reasonable as against ignoring any outright scientific proof to the contrary as the geocentric people most certainly did.
Phew, that made my brain hurt …..I need rest …..
Interesting read Robbo. I particularly liked your analogy of hard drive and microprocessor to the idea of the subconscious brain activity before the conscious is aware or makes a decision.
Your argument does make some sense to me. It's only via EEG's etc that activity has been seen in the brain before the subject is consciously aware of a decision. It does make sense to me that the delay could simply be the brain accessing stored information and experiences before it is processed. When you start to think about the amount of data this could include, memories of previous experience, sensory memories, stuff read or seen on TV etc, it's perfectly conceivable that there should be some delay while this is accessed and filtered.
Even considering that, it would still be a remarkable feat that the brain can access, pre-process and pass on the data to the 'processing core' or conscious mind in that time frame.
Definitely food for thought.
Your argument does make some sense to me. It's only via EEG's etc that activity has been seen in the brain before the subject is consciously aware of a decision. It does make sense to me that the delay could simply be the brain accessing stored information and experiences before it is processed. When you start to think about the amount of data this could include, memories of previous experience, sensory memories, stuff read or seen on TV etc, it's perfectly conceivable that there should be some delay while this is accessed and filtered.
Even considering that, it would still be a remarkable feat that the brain can access, pre-process and pass on the data to the 'processing core' or conscious mind in that time frame.
Definitely food for thought.