Consciousness as experience buffer.
Ahnimus
Posts: 10,560
I just thought of this.
Because the brain gives emergence to consciousness and decisions are made 300ms prior to awareness, it seems that the purpose of consciousness eludes us.
Perhaps what actually occurs is everything that constitutes experience is placed into a buffer(s) and stored as an experience event. The stored events are later referenced like maps of what occurred with a previous experience.
Alternatively the experiences occur instantaneously and autonomously and immediately stored into reciprocal engrams.
Because the brain gives emergence to consciousness and decisions are made 300ms prior to awareness, it seems that the purpose of consciousness eludes us.
Perhaps what actually occurs is everything that constitutes experience is placed into a buffer(s) and stored as an experience event. The stored events are later referenced like maps of what occurred with a previous experience.
Alternatively the experiences occur instantaneously and autonomously and immediately stored into reciprocal engrams.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
I never thought of it as the first two sentences described.
I have had thoughts of us as something "greater" than ourselves poking into this "world", thus only part of yourself is known.
And I do believe there are filters (that a separate selection of or all can be removed) that reduce reality to Try to make it more comprehensible.
But because of that time span between event and experience I would say that it is being prepackaged as you say, because the stored event maps are there. It is important to make sure your maps are in good order.
Scientifically speaking it appears to have no purpose. Some neuroscientists like Prof. Kristof Koch speculate that it is responsible for long-term planning. As much as I respect Prof. Koch, I disagree. I think consciousness only serves it's purpose as a seat of awareness. All awareness is experienced in the consciousness, the consciousness does not appear to do anything else.
In essence, it's the same reason you have a mirror in your bathroom.
Hmm, well I think instinct is a completely separate set of functions.
Instinct would be like, "Oh I gotta eat.", "That round thing dangling from that branch smells good and my mouth waters from looking at it and smelling it.", "I think I should eat it."
Consciousness is the experience of everything.
It is. And it's a set of functions you don't have.
Instinct would not be like "Oh I gotta eat" or "I think I should eat it." There is no I in the absence of consciousness. There is only eat, eat, eat.
That's wonderfully meaningless.
Consciousness is your ability to recognize your existence and what it means and entails as an active agent. It is not the "experience of everything".
You are going to have to both quantify and qualify what you are trying to say. Because it's not making any sense to me. There is most definitely an "I".
Do you understand your own words when you say 'seat of awareness'?
I think so. I mean, I said it right?
You did say it. But I'm not sure you understand what it means.
With an absence of consciousness, how can you have a "seat of awareness?"
I don't think you can, and that's not what I am saying. I'm attributing the purpose of consciousness to awareness.
Ok. Then how can there be an "I" in the absence of awareness?
I guess it depends on how you define "I". It sounds like you need "I" to include some kind of soul or spirit. Because without either of those two things, "I" simply describes the being that is using it.
Hehe...no. What is needed for there to be an "I" is awareness. And what is needed for awareness is consciousness. The entire purpose of consciousness is to provide an "I", which in turn provides the faculties of self-examination, logic, and something you so commonly attribute to magic known as free will.
"It" would describe a being. Only "I" can be used to describe a being that is consciously aware.
No that's wrong. I'm sorry.
Hehe...don't apologize to me.
Well, it'd just take way to long to disprove all of that and I think you honestly believe it to the point you will never change.
"I think"??? Hehe...no. It reacts, or so I've been told.
ffg's description of consciousness is pretty much on par, ahnimus, although I'm not so sure about the free will=magic comment. I'm suprised you disagreed.
Here's an interesting question.......How about, what is the origin of moral consciousness? Is that learned or innate?
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I was being fascetious there. Ahnimus is constantly challenging people here to explain to him how free-will is magic. I've tried to explain in the past why free-will doesn't have to be magic, obviously to little avail.
Ahnimus, unfortunately, would be the guy who goes to the magic show and, when he discovers the smoke and mirrors and trapdoors, would declare that the magician doesn't exist.
The Mystery of Consciousness
By STEVEN PINKER
Friday, Jan. 19, 2007
Time Magazine
Interesting read.
naděje umírá poslední
Oh, I see, then I agree with you completely! How about that for a change!
Very good, ffg!
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Oh...then I take it all back
What happens to the blind guy who you throw a ball at. Does he flinch 300ms before it hits him. I see a problem with the fact you don't think we make up our minds. That is just me. The blind guy would make the choice only after the ball has hit him. Thus he then controls what he is going to do. No predetermined factor at all.
You big meanie!
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Very interesting read, indeed. You might enjoy this one http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/aparthib/evolutionary_morality.htm
as it pertains to the question I asked earlier about origin of moral consciousness. I'm not sure I 'buy' it, but it is interesting, to say the least. Definitely thought-provoking.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Yup. Good article. Glad they mentioned Francis Crick and Kristof Koch who spent the last 30 years answering this question.
The answers are quite simple when you remove the haze of mysticism that engulfs our societies.
Morality, is a selfish mechanism. We put ourselves in the shoes of others.
"That woman was raped, I wouldn't want to be raped." that role playing gives us morality. We want to stop others from being harmed so that we will not be harmed either.
It's all pretty simple, but there is a lot to realize to truly understand it. What appears as conscious experience isn't the whole truth about ourselves.
How do you explain the rapist then? Who's shoes did he put himself into?
Honestly, I wouldn't go to a magic show and if I did I would remain silent. Why? Because not everyone can handle truth.