Quote:Again, NOT what we were even talking about. OH MY GOD

It is what YOU were talking about.
Are you on drugs ?

Typical Everena. No actual addressing of the POINT. Always the deflection and evasion.
YOU just said "everything we do we do consciously". I just proved you WRONG.

(November 23, 2018 at 4:19 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:

Quote:Again, NOT what we were even talking about. OH MY GOD

It is what YOU were talking about.
Are you on drugs ?

Typical Everena. No actual addressing of the POINT. Always the deflection and evasion.
YOU just said "everything we do we do consciously". I just proved you WRONG.

Bucky-- did you even read your own links?
And no, I do not do drugs.

(November 23, 2018 at 3:48 pm)Everena Wrote:

(November 23, 2018 at 3:27 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: C'mon people, we're slowing down here!  Everybody needs to pitch in and do their part so we can reach 1K as soon as possible!

Do you feel like you have a fairly good grasp on what conscious self-awareness is? Would you like to chime in? Scientists have speculated that consciousness might be an emergent property generated by computations in our brain. The paramecium, however, appears to be conscious, but has no brain. Thoughts?

I know basically nothing about paramecium, so I can't speak intelligently to that subject. For my part, I am persuaded that consciousness is an aspect of a material process, though I freely admit the evidence is not conclusive. It's entirely possible that we are simply fooling ourselves due to biases and paradigms which we have largely inherited. However, on the other side of the coin, the evidence for competing hypotheses as to the nature of consciousness is extremely poor, and in many cases outright laughable. That doesn't in and of itself mean the hypotheses are wrong, but failing they step up their game, there is little 'reason' to take them seriously. It's a very deep subject which most people are content to merely skim the surface regarding, and only just long enough to find justification to believe a view they already had.

Quote:Bucky-- did you even read your own links?

Yes I picked them for a reason ... they prove you wrong., for the reason I stated above.
Don't you get tired of not addressing anything relevant ?

(November 23, 2018 at 3:48 pm)Everena Wrote:

(November 23, 2018 at 3:27 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: C'mon people, we're slowing down here!  Everybody needs to pitch in and do their part so we can reach 1K as soon as possible!

Do you feel like you have a fairly good grasp on what conscious self-awareness is? Would you like to chime in? Scientists have speculated that consciousness might be an emergent property generated by computations in our brain. The paramecium, however, appears to be conscious, but has no brain. Thoughts?

I know basically nothing about paramecium, so I can't speak intelligently to that subject.  For my part, I am persuaded that consciousness is an aspect of a material process, though I freely admit the evidence is not conclusive.  It's entirely possible that we are simply fooling ourselves due to biases and paradigms which we have largely inherited.  However, on the other side of the coin, the evidence for competing hypotheses as to the nature of consciousness is extremely poor, and in many cases outright laughable.  That doesn't in and of itself mean the hypotheses are wrong, but failing they step up their game, there is little 'reason' to take them seriously.  It's a very deep subject which most people are content to merely skim the surface regarding, and only just long enough to find justification to believe a view they already had.

Oh, and I missed one of your questions. No, I wouldn't say that I have a good grasp on what conscious self-awareness is. I have a firmer grasp at the center than at the edges, but those edges raise very important questions. The simple question of what it means to have a subconscious introduces numerous difficulties. And that the likely bulk of species that posses it are both silent and beyond our ability to inspect their experience, many questions are simply deep in the shadow of our ignorance.

(November 23, 2018 at 4:46 pm)Everena Wrote: And no, I do not do drugs.

Then your god must have really hated you when he made you.

Neuro-science knows pretty much exactly which part of the brain is responsible for which  function.
https://www.health24.com/Mental-Health/B...s-20120721
If one part is damaged (for example by a stroke), that function is decreased or stops altogether.

Anyone who claims that consciousness is not emergent from these physical structures, when in the absence of health in that area,  
the function ceases, has the burden of creating a complete alternate explanation.

Epigenetic memories are thought to be stored in DNA. An entirely physical process. 
https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-...ost-animal

(November 23, 2018 at 4:47 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(November 23, 2018 at 3:48 pm)Everena Wrote: Do you feel like you have a fairly good grasp on what conscious self-awareness is? Would you like to chime in? Scientists have speculated that consciousness might be an emergent property generated by computations in our brain. The paramecium, however, appears to be conscious, but has no brain. Thoughts?

I know basically nothing about paramecium, so I can't speak intelligently to that subject.  For my part, I am persuaded that consciousness is an aspect of a material process, though I freely admit the evidence is not conclusive.  It's entirely possible that we are simply fooling ourselves due to biases and paradigms which we have largely inherited.  However, on the other side of the coin, the evidence for competing hypotheses as to the nature of consciousness is extremely poor, and in many cases outright laughable.  That doesn't in and of itself mean the hypotheses are wrong, but failing they step up their game, there is little 'reason' to take them seriously.  It's a very deep subject which most people are content to merely skim the surface regarding, and only just long enough to find justification to believe a view they already had.

I find the subject matter fascinating, and have hopes of it potentially solving some of the mysteries of our existence.
 
The material process that they speculated about initially, and spent billions and billions of dollars of research money on, was one conducted by the AI people. They were comparing our brains to computers, and accordingly, many believed that copying the brain's neurons and synaptic connections would reproduce brain functions including consciousness. So they were committed to 'mapping the brain', cataloging each neuron's shape and connections with the artificial intelligence people promoting the idea that consciousness can exist in computers, and that we can 'upload' our minds into silicon when our biological bodies give out.
So, to see if they were right, AI researchers have simulated the entire, already-mapped nervous system (302 neurons) of the tiny worm C elegans. C elegans clearly exhibits some conscious behaviors, like. moving in response to stimuli etc. But the artificial C elegans simulated by the AI people just sits there, with no functional behavior at all. AI can't even simulate the easy problems in simple brains.
I personally find it alarming that anyone would ever even develop such a ridiculous hypothesis in the first place, and then spend billions of dollars on it, but boys will be boys and I guess it's good they finally ruled that out as a possibility.
So what does that leave us with? Well, you know what I think and I guess only time will tell.

---

(November 23, 2018 at 4:53 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:

Quote:Bucky-- did you even read your own links?

Yes I picked them for a reason ... they prove you wrong., for the reason I stated above.
Don't you get tired of not addressing anything relevant ?

You are so lost about what the topic we are discussing even is! And no, the articles discussing what our minds do while we are unconscious did not in any way prove me wrong either.

---

(November 23, 2018 at 5:04 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: Neuro-science knows pretty much exactly which part of the brain is responsible for which  function.
https://www.health24.com/Mental-Health/B...s-20120721
If one part is damaged (for example by a stroke), that function is decreased or stops altogether.

Anyone who claims that consciousness is not emergent from these physical structures, when in the absence of health in that area,  
the function ceases, has the burden of creating a complete alternate explanation.

Epigenetic memories are thought to be stored in DNA. An entirely physical process. 
https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-...ost-animal

As I already explained to you, that means nothing. The theory is that the brain is a receiver of our consciousness. If the receiver is damaged, the same exact thing would happen. And memory and conscious self-awareness are two completely different things.

(November 23, 2018 at 5:21 pm)Everena Wrote:

(November 23, 2018 at 4:47 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: I know basically nothing about paramecium, so I can't speak intelligently to that subject.  For my part, I am persuaded that consciousness is an aspect of a material process, though I freely admit the evidence is not conclusive.  It's entirely possible that we are simply fooling ourselves due to biases and paradigms which we have largely inherited.  However, on the other side of the coin, the evidence for competing hypotheses as to the nature of consciousness is extremely poor, and in many cases outright laughable.  That doesn't in and of itself mean the hypotheses are wrong, but failing they step up their game, there is little 'reason' to take them seriously.  It's a very deep subject which most people are content to merely skim the surface regarding, and only just long enough to find justification to believe a view they already had.

I find the subject matter fascinating, and have hopes of it potentially solving some of the mysteries of our existence.
 
   The material process that they speculated about initially, and spent billions and billions of dollars of research money on, was one conducted by the AI people. They were comparing our brains to computers, and accordingly, many believed that copying the brain's neurons and synaptic connections would reproduce brain functions including consciousness. So they were committed to 'mapping the brain', cataloging each neuron's shape and connections with the artificial intelligence people promoting the idea that consciousness can exist in computers, and that we can 'upload' our minds into silicon when our biological bodies give out.
   So, to see if they were right,  AI researchers have simulated the entire, already-mapped nervous system (302 neurons) of the tiny worm C elegans. C elegans clearly exhibits some conscious behaviors, like. moving in response to stimuli etc. But the artificial C elegans simulated by the AI people just sits there, with no functional behavior at all. AI can't even simulate the easy problems in simple brains.
      I personally find it alarming that anyone would ever even develop such a ridiculous hypothesis in the first place, and then spend billions of dollars on it, but boys will be boys and I guess it's good they finally ruled that out as a possibility.
 So what does that leave us with? Well, you know what I think and I guess only time will tell.

(November 23, 2018 at 5:32 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(November 23, 2018 at 5:21 pm)Everena Wrote: I find the subject matter fascinating, and have hopes of it potentially solving some of the mysteries of our existence.
 
   The material process that they speculated about initially, and spent billions and billions of dollars of research money on, was one conducted by the AI people. They were comparing our brains to computers, and accordingly, many believed that copying the brain's neurons and synaptic connections would reproduce brain functions including consciousness. So they were committed to 'mapping the brain', cataloging each neuron's shape and connections with the artificial intelligence people promoting the idea that consciousness can exist in computers, and that we can 'upload' our minds into silicon when our biological bodies give out.
   So, to see if they were right,  AI researchers have simulated the entire, already-mapped nervous system (302 neurons) of the tiny worm C elegans. C elegans clearly exhibits some conscious behaviors, like. moving in response to stimuli etc. But the artificial C elegans simulated by the AI people just sits there, with no functional behavior at all. AI can't even simulate the easy problems in simple brains.
      I personally find it alarming that anyone would ever even develop such a ridiculous hypothesis in the first place, and then spend billions of dollars on it, but boys will be boys and I guess it's good they finally ruled that out as a possibility.
 So what does that leave us with? Well, you know what I think and I guess only time will tell.

http://www.artificialbrains.com/openworm#news