Consciousness Trilemma

[The Grand Nudger]

Then consciousness doesn't exist, since there is no such happening, only the happened, Benny.

That's kind of the crux of their entire point. If -you- insist that consciousness is something that it is not and cannot be, then consciousness does not exist. That it seems that way, to you, to all of us...is no certifier that it is that way...and specifically in this case, it demonstrably isn't and logically could not be..in the absence of some unknown element x. I mean that in the strongest possible sense. Some unkown element x that is distinct from the brain, and has it's very own physics, unrelated to or divorced from the physics of literally every other object in existence....but also some unknown element x that can forcibly overcome the limitations of the brain. See, we know the brain can't do what you think consciousness is. So whatever consciousness actually is is not only capable of doing that thing..but jacking the brain into lockstep with it, in spite of it's limitations. It's capable of fooling your brain into thinking that you're doing what cannot be done.

Obviously, no one attempting a material explanation of consciousness wastes much time with that noise. Maybe, just maybe, it's not some mysterious element x doing any of that, but the brain itself.

[WinterHold]

Then consciousness doesn't exist, since there is no such happening, only the happened, Benny.

That's kind of the crux of their entire point.  If -you- insist that consciousness is something that it is not and cannot be, then consciousness does not exist.  That it seems that way, to you, to all of us...is no certifier that it is that way...and specifically in this case, it demonstrably isn't and logically could not be..in the absence of some unknown element x.  I mean that in the strongest possible sense.  Some unkown element x that is distinct from the brain, and has it's very own physics, unrelated to or divorced from the physics of literally every other object in existence....but also some unknown element x that can forcibly overcome the limitations of the brain.  See, we know the brain can't do what you think consciousness is.  So whatever consciousness actually is is not only capable of doing that thing..but jacking the brain into lockstep with it, in spite of it's limitations.  It's capable of fooling your brain into thinking that you're doing what cannot be done.  

Obviously, no one attempting a material explanation of consciousness wastes much time with that noise.  Maybe, just maybe, it's not some mysterious element x doing any of that, but the brain itself.

I think consciousness is a product of the brain; in other words our minds are rigged to generate it.
In terms of experience: our minds have enough nerves and enough connection ability to write down the experience.
 
I would say that debating it is just an escape attempt from reality: why aren't we stone or just some dirt particles? 

I call consciousness the soul:

Sura 38, Page 457, The Quran:
(71) [So mention] when your Lord said to the angels, "Indeed, I am going to create a human being from clay.
(72) So when I have proportioned him and blew into him of My soul, then fall down to him in prostration."

The verse from the Quran proves that there's something different about humanity: God himself blew his soul unto us; I think the what makes us conscious and above all: different.
The physical representation of that soul is the way our brains are rigged; that's why many think that God himself is living inside our heads; that we are God.
But we aren't. That's a mere consciousness that woke us up to this life.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think consciousness is a product of the brain; in other words our minds are rigged to generate it.
In terms of experience: our minds have enough nerves and enough connection ability to write down the experience.

So, the brain generates the "soul", then?  
 

I would say that debating it is just an escape attempt from reality: why aren't we stone or just some dirt particles? 

Because you had a human mommy and daddy.

I call consciousness the soul:

Sura 38, Page 457, The Quran:
(71) [So mention] when your Lord said to the angels, "Indeed, I am going to create a human being from clay.
(72) So when I have proportioned him and blew into him of My soul, then fall down to him in prostration."

The verse from the Quran proves that there's something different about humanity: God himself blew his soul unto us; I think the what makes us conscious and above all: different.
The physical representation of that soul is the way our brains are rigged; that's why many think that God himself is living inside our heads; that we are God.
But we aren't. That's a mere consciousness that woke us up to this life.

That verse proves nothing, and contradicts your own earlier remarks. Did god blow my consciousness/soul/mind into existence, or is the brain "rigged to generate it"?

Allow me to suggest that this is one subject where the proposition of souls and gods is entirely worthless. A subject in which the quran is not qualified to speak, because the authors knew absolutely nothing of the matter.

[Edwardo Piet]

Then consciousness doesn't exist, since there is no such happening, only the happened, Benny.

That's an utterly incoherent statement. You can't have a 'was happening' or a 'will be happening' without a 'happening'.

You make logical contradictions and simply deny that you're making them.

We KNOW consciousness exists. To be aware of the nonexistence of consciousness is to be aware i.e. conscious. Therefore it's not nonexistent it's existent! You are making a self-defeating argument. You make such ridiculously contradictory statements. You can't experience pain or suffering or happiness without consciousness. We KNOW consciousness exists. And to call it an existent illusion is to say that it seems to be one way but is in fact another way... but the seeming itself is consciousness so that's just another illogical conclusion.

As I have repeatedly spelled out for your stupid fucking brain: The fact that what we are conscious of is something that was produced by unsonscious areas of our brain a moment before we experienced it consciously does not make conscious experience itself when we experience it an illusion.

I was just watching a talk where Dennett compared the so-called 'illusion of consciousness' to what he calls the 'user illusion' on a computer screen... the fact that what we see on the screen seems to be how the comptuer works when in reality that's not what's going on in the computer at all. Yes but what's on the screen is not a fucking illusion. It's really there and your eyes are really seeing it. This is analogous to the stupid fucking error he makes with consciousness. It doesn't matter if what's going on in the brain in unconscious areas that lead to your consciousness is completely different to how you experience it consciously... that doesn't make your conscious experience an illusion.

For fuck's sake. Dennett talks about you thinking you are conscious of things you're not really conscious of... but the thinking you're conscious in itself is a state of consciousness. This is a profound confusion on his part. He says it only 'seems' that you are conscious. Well, guess what, when you seem to be conscious of something that itself is the experience of consciousness that we call consciousness. The seeming is the being. There's no fucking illusion. Not knowing how consciousness is produced or the delay of consciousness doesn't fucking make the experience an illusion.

An experiential illusion can only be applied to something that is experienced on the inside that in the outside isn't happening... but when we're talking about consciousness we're only talking about what's happening on the inside. And what seems to be happening to you is what seems to be happening to you. That's just a fucking tautology.

So much stupid.

[pocaracas]

Sura 38, Page 457, The Quran:
(71) [So mention] when your Lord said to the angels, "Indeed, I am going to create a human being from clay.
(72) So when I have proportioned him and blew into him of My soul, then fall down to him in prostration."

The verse from the Quran proves that there's something different about humanity: God himself blew his soul unto us; I think the what makes us conscious and above all: different.
The physical representation of that soul is the way our brains are rigged; that's why many think that God himself is living inside our heads; that we are God.
But we aren't. That's a mere consciousness that woke us up to this life.

"proves" is such a strong word, when applied in this context...
I'd go with "tries to establish"... given that it requires many presuppositions... first among them: the Quran represents an authority.


Yep, brains are rigged
Enjoy the video:
https://www.ted.com/talks/rebecca_saxe_h..._judgments

[Edwardo Piet]

Consciousness IS the happening.  The rest is just content.

But then, when you say you experience your consciousness directly, what do you mean?  You experience its happeningness?

Wut? Yes consciousness is the experience of consciousness happening. Consciousness is experiential in nature and experiences happen in your brain.

[bennyboy]

Consciousness IS the happening.  The rest is just content.

But then, when you say you experience your consciousness directly, what do you mean?  You experience its happeningness?

If I said you "experience your consciousness," then you are right to be confused.  That was a malformed idea.

[pocaracas]

Then consciousness doesn't exist, since there is no such happening, only the happened, Benny.

That's an utterly incoherent statement. You can't have a 'was happening' or a 'will be happening' without a 'happening'.

You make logical contradictions and simply deny that you're making them.

We KNOW consciousness exists. To be aware of the nonexistence of consciousness is to be aware i.e. conscious.  Therefore it's not nonexistent it's existent! You are making a self-defeating argument. You make such ridiculously contradictory statements. You can't experience pain or suffering or happiness without consciousness. We KNOW consciousness exists. And to call it an existent illusion is to say that it seems to be one way but is in fact another way... but the seeming itself is consciousness so that's just another illogical conclusion.

As I have repeatedly spelled out for your stupid fucking brain: The fact that what we are conscious of is something that was produced by unsonscious areas of our brain a moment before we experienced it consciously does not make conscious experience itself when we experience it an illusion.

I was just watching a talk where Dennett compared the so-called 'illusion of consciousness' to what he calls the 'user illusion' on a computer screen... the fact that what we see on the screen seems to be how the comptuer works when in reality that's not what's going on in the computer at all. Yes but what's on the screen is not a fucking illusion. It's really there and your eyes are really seeing it. This is analogous to the stupid fucking error he makes with consciousness. It doesn't matter if what's going on in the brain in unconscious areas that lead to your consciousness is completely different to how you experience it consciously... that doesn't make your conscious experience an illusion.

For fuck's sake. Dennett talks about you thinking you are conscious of things you're not really conscious of... but the thinking you're conscious in itself is a state of consciousness. This is a profound confusion on his part.  He says it only 'seems' that you are conscious. Well, guess what, when you seem to be conscious of something that itself is the experience of consciousness that we call consciousness. The seeming is the being. There's no fucking illusion. Not knowing how consciousness is produced or the delay of consciousness doesn't fucking make the experience an illusion.

An experiential illusion can only be applied to something that is experienced on the inside that in the outside isn't happening... but when we're talking about consciousness we're only talking about what's happening on the inside. And what seems to be happening to you is what seems to be happening to you. That's just a fucking tautology.

So much stupid.

So much vitriol, Hammy... calm down.

I admit I mostly skimmed all of your and Khem's posts, but I noticed this bit about what is perceived doesn't happen simultaneous with the actual world events.
This reminded me of the concept of Real-Time Control... essentially, to act fast enough so that the system doesn't change from when it was sensed to the time of acting upon it.

So, as I see it, the time it takes for our brains to process information and make a conscious decision is, for the most part, irrelevant. We operate in Real-Time.
Our present is a present with a small and mostly irrelevant delay.

[Edwardo Piet]

Oh, well then........all false memory must be false experiential and false consciousness?

Nope because you're equivocating with 'false memory'.

A 'false memory' is opposed to a 'true memory' in that it is a memory that represents something that didn't happen that you merely believe happened. The belief and false memory itself is very real. Being incorrect about something does not make that incorrect judgement an ureality. You're conflating falsehood with unreality and pretending like false memories are illusory when they're not they're real experiences of things that didn't really happen that you are deluded about. They're as real as experiences of memories about things that really did happen the only difference is you're deluded about the truth about it happening. You think it is an experience of something that happened when it's an experience of something that never happened. It's a delusion not an illusion and you're confusing a 'false memory' with an 'unreal memory'. False memories are as real  experientially as true memories... it's merely that the former is delusional the latter is not. Delusions are not illusions.

Likewise... being deluded about the nature of how your consciousness works makes your judgements false but it doesn't make them unreal. You really are conscious and your consciousness is really happening. It's not an illusion and it's not non-existent. The whole of knowing anything to be true in external reality relies on the reality of consciousness. You can't use science to rule out the very thing you need to know anything scientific.

When your logic fails you just bury your head in the sand further.

Seeming to experience is the same as experiencing to an eliminative materialist, as well.  They just don't think that this consciousness is what it seems to be.

And it's hilarious that they think that their consciously thinking that consciousness isn't real isn't real when they're really thinking it.

This whole thing is a confusion over the difference between a delusion and an illusion. You can be wrong about how your brain works and it doesn't make your concious experience 'unreal'. Just as you can be wrong about how a computer works but it doesn't make what's on the screen an 'illusion'. You're really seeing a computer screen. The analogy Dennett gives betrays his fundamental confusion over consciousness and why his book Consciousness Explained has been nicknamed Consciousness Ignored.

[The Grand Nudger]

Then consciousness doesn't exist, since there is no such happening, only the happened, Benny.

That's an utterly incoherent statement. You can't have a 'was happening' or a 'will be happening' without a 'happening'.

Irrelevant, since my comment only denies that consciousness is or can be a happening.  Sure, happenings turn into happeneds and without one you can't have the other, but so what?  That doesn't change the fact that consciousness is and cannot be any present seeming, any happening... so..if it's described as such..then it either doesn't exist, or is illusory.  You...physically cannot be experiencing an apple "in the present". Whatever that present seeming is is necessarily delayed and colated by many regions of the brain over some span of time. You can, physically, be experiencing an executive summary of composite time. If consciousness is insistred to be the former..it does not exist. If you will allow for consciousness to be the latter, it might exist...but you've -already- denied the accuracy of it's own self reporting. You've acknowledged that the way seeming itself seems..is in error, which is exactly what eliminative materialists propose.

Which would you prefer?  Obviously, I don't demand that consciousness own report of itself be accurate.  That it's not some present thing doesn't, in my view of consciousness, lead to the inexorable conclusion that it does not exist.  Hell, personall...... I suspect that these mental states -do- map, I don't agree with eliminative materialists. I do, however, think that what they map to will be alot more like the eliminative materialist view of consciousness than the cartesian view. So, my disagreement with them is, at times, semantic. I commonly use the computer analogy to show that -all- processing is distributed over space and time. The work a cpu does is only central and discrete with reference to the other components...internally, a cpu also has dimensions and exists in time. It's processing happens over the surface of the chip and through time..but that doesn't stop us from calling it a cpu. Eliminative materialists take issue, in computer analogy terms, that our brains -have- a cpu. Well, cpus don't have internal cpus either. I think that in their (understandable) focus on the brain, they set themselves off searching for the cpus cpu, when it;s simpler to consider the brain the -body's- cpu.

You make logical contradictions and simply deny that you're making them.

We KNOW consciousness exists. To be aware of the nonexistence of consciousness is to be aware i.e. conscious.  Therefore it's not nonexistent it's existent! You are making a self-defeating argument. You make such ridiculously contradictory statements. You can't experience pain or suffering or happiness without consciousness. We KNOW consciousness exists. And to call it an existent illusion is to say that it seems to be one way but is in fact another way... but the seeming itself is consciousness so that's just another illogical conclusion.

"OFC consciousness exists, it's just not what you think it is"

As I have repeatedly spelled out for your stupid fucking brain: The fact that what we are conscious of is something that was produced by unsonscious areas of our brain a moment before we experienced it consciously does not make consciousness itself an illusion.

What is the conscious area, and what is the unconscious area? Where is the physical humonculus?  

I was just watching a talk where Dennett compared the so-called 'illusion of consciousness' to what he calls the 'user illusion' on a computer screen... the fact that what we see on the screen seems to be how the computer works when in reality that's not what's going on in the computer at all. Yes but what's on the screen is not a fucking illusion. It's really there and your eyes are really seeing it.

In the same way, your consciousness' own report of itself is real, it's just in demonstrable error.  You, for example, think it's a physical humonculus in the present.  Eliminative materialists do not need to invoke time traveling data being fed to a non-existent region of the brain.  

This is analogous to the stupid fucking error he makes with consciousness. It doesn't matter if what's going on in the brain in unconscious areas that lead to your consciousness is completely different to how you experience it consciously... that doesn't make your conscious experience an illusion.

What conscious areas?  That would clear up a whole lot.  In fact, if you could point to the conscious area you will have cracked the nut of consciousness entirely, showing that it does map to discrete mental states..upending all of nuerology in the process.  

For fuck's sake. Dennett talks about you thinking you are conscious of things you're not really conscious of... but the thinking you're conscious in itself is a state of consciousness. This is a profound confusion on his part.  He says it only 'seems' that you are conscious. Well, guess what, when you seem to be conscious of something that itself is the experience of consciousness that we call consciousness. The seeming is the being. There's no fucking illusion. Not knowing how consciousness is produced or the delay of consciousness doesn't fucking make the experience an illusion.

Again, it;s not an issue of "not knowing how consciousness is produced" - consciousness as described -cannot- be produced that way..cheifly...because information processing takes time and there is no humonculus, at least no physical humonculus.  Even if there were, it would only delay reduction.  How is that nonexistent (non)physical humonculus conscious?  How does it, do it?  

An experiential illusion can only be applied to something that is experienced on the inside that in the outside isn't happening... but when we're talking about consciousness we're only talking about what's happening on the inside. And what seems to be happening to you is what seems to be happening to you. That's just a fucking tautology.

So much stupid.

Your description of whats happening on the inside is without evidence, and a great amount of evidence to the contrary exists, so?

If a person insists that consciousness is x, and it is not, or cannot be x..then consciousness as described does not exist. This statement only proceeds logically -from their insistence on inaccuracy-. If a person is willing to let go of that insistence, that seeming must be the way it seems to be, then there's no need to say consciousness does not exist.