Non-fluent condciousness?

S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#2
I don't see any explanation for how consciousness is produced.

Seems like there's saying there's some unconscious "information processing" before consciousness happens.

But "information" requires a mind, or they have some definition of "information" that needs to be explained.

In short, not convincing at all IMO.
 
#3
The piece its about information gathering (and processing as noted already), it hardly comes close to explaining "emergence" of any kind. Even from a materialistic perspective, it falls short of explaining much. Nevermind any of the "extended" capabilities that are discussed here. But, of course, a sensationalistic headline is always a sure click.

PS- How many of these "explanations" for conciousness get reported a year? It seems like such a common occurrence that now I'm almost cynical about these hypotheses.
 
Last edited:
#4
Hey all,

Just came about an interesting piece of news about a theory of a non-fluent consciouness:

https://translate.google.de/translate?hl=de?sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://www.media.uzh.ch/de/medienmitteilungen/2016/Gehirn-erzeugt-Bewusstsein.html

What do you think? A valid argument for the brain creates consciousness faction?
The actual paper is here...

https://documents.epfl.ch/groups/e/ep/epflmedia/www/20160412_ConsciousnessTimeSlices/Manuscript_PLoS Biology.pdf

...but it's gonna take a lot of work to understand it properly, and the historical studies that it's argument is based on.

I've only got as far as looking at just one single reference in their paper - Phi colour phenomena (regarding colour/movement) but all that's done is open up lots of questions on this new area, and I'd need to get to grips with it before I can go any further.

It looks worthwhile persevering with though over the next few months, as it introduces me to lots of new studies...
 
#5
I guess one has to wait for further research, as so often. But if it is confirmed (I just skimmed through the text) that
their "model challenges prominent theories on philosophy of mind, which assume that consciousness is a continuous stream", I think we can at least doubt the theory of "mind at large", for this would need consciousness as a continuous stream, if I understand it correctly.
 
#9
I guess one has to wait for further research, as so often. But if it is confirmed (I just skimmed through the text) that
their "model challenges prominent theories on philosophy of mind, which assume that consciousness is a continuous stream", I think we can at least doubt the theory of "mind at large", for this would need consciousness as a continuous stream, if I understand it correctly.
I doubt it's particularly helpful to think in terms of it being either one thing, or the other... in your example, either the disembodied mind, or, a perfectly isolated brain.

Even from a very conservative viewpoint, you know that what's perceived out there, is apparently being perceived within my head (my brain), and thus my head and brain are also my perceptions... one does tend to come full circle... I don't think there is a problem of infinite regress, I just think one needs to accept that perception is feedback loop-like, and completely contextual within space-time.
 
#11
I doubt it's particularly helpful to think in terms of it being either one thing, or the other... in your example, either the disembodied mind, or, a perfectly isolated brain.

Even from a very conservative viewpoint, you know that what's perceived out there, is apparently being perceived within my head (my brain), and thus my head and brain are also my perceptions... one does tend to come full circle... I don't think there is a problem of infinite regress, I just think one needs to accept that perception is feedback loop-like, and completely contextual within space-time.
If we assume that consciousness is not fluent, but more like a camera that takes pictures every other second, what happens inbetween those seconds? All that we perceive and know, we know due to being conscious. At least it seems that there IS an outside world that is independent from the observer.
 
#12
If we assume that consciousness is not fluent, but more like a camera that takes pictures every other second, what happens inbetween those seconds? All that we perceive and know, we know due to being conscious. At least it seems that there IS an outside world that is independent from the observer.
There's no particular reason to separate the outside world from the observer. It might be so, but it also might not.
 
#13
If we assume that consciousness is not fluent, but more like a camera that takes pictures every other second, what happens inbetween those seconds? All that we perceive and know, we know due to being conscious. At least it seems that there IS an outside world that is independent from the observer.
So, you think that the rate of information processing somehow expands into quantum physics? Sure, we should just ignore the recent Bell-inspired experiments that try to (and apparently suceed) close the loopholes and go back to naive realism.

It's not like we get a few dozen similar hypotheses that claim to "unravel the mystery of conciousness" (from both immaterialist *and* materialist camps, I might add) every year.
 
#16
So, you think that the rate of information processing somehow expands into quantum physics? Sure, we should just ignore the recent Bell-inspired experiments that try to (and apparently suceed) close the loopholes and go back to naive realism.

It's not like we get a few dozen similar hypotheses that claim to "unravel the mystery of conciousness" (from both immaterialist *and* materialist camps, I might add) every year.
Can you give me a link to those recent studies?
Thank God that there are new hypotheses every year, would get kinda boring if not ;)
 
#17
No problem. Can you answer this, totally unrelated, question: What is your stance on psi in general?
I haven't made up my mind, yet. It seems that certain experiments indicate that psi phenomena are real while other scientist deny the results of these. As I never had a personal experience regarding psi, I have to rely on the professionals to come to a conclusion. And it seems very unlikely that this will happen in the next decades :)
So I am uncertain, but if they exist, I think they are very subtle.
 
#19
Regarding never having had a personal experience of psi, in my view this may be a matter of perspective. For example if someone said they had never had a personal experience of oxygen, one might consider that a fair comment, unless one is a chemist, it isn't something one can know. On the other hand, one's entire existence is an interaction with oxygen, every moment involves it. From this analogy, it is purely a matter of whether or not one labels the experience that way or labels it in some other way. My own personal view is that psi is mundane and ubiquitous, it permeates our lives so much that it may be ignored.
 
#20
You'll find that out (or not) when you die, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be having this experience without a brain.
No disagreement here ;)

Typoz said:
Regarding never having had a personal experience of psi, in my view this may be a matter of perspective. For example if someone said they had never had a personal experience of oxygen, one might consider that a fair comment, unless one is a chemist, it isn't something one can know. On the other hand, one's entire existence is an interaction with oxygen, every moment involves it. From this analogy, it is purely a matter of whether or not one labels the experience that way or labels it in some other way. My own personal view is that psi is mundane and ubiquitous, it permeates our lives so much that it may be ignored.
Could of course be. Let's rephrase my wording: I have never consciously experienced anything that I, with my knowledge, would attribute to any kind of psi phenomenon.
 
Top