Consciousness as experience buffer.

baraka

farfromglorified wrote:

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.

Oh, I see, then I agree with you completely! How about that for a change!

farfromglorified wrote:

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.

Very good, ffg!

farfromglorified

baraka wrote:

Oh, I see, then I agree with you completely! How about that for a change!

Oh...then I take it all back

even flow?

Ahnimus wrote:

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.

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.

baraka

farfromglorified wrote:

Oh...then I take it all back

You big meanie!

farfromglorified

baraka wrote:

You big meanie!

baraka

Collin wrote:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1580394,00.html
The Mystery of Consciousness
By STEVEN PINKER
Friday, Jan. 19, 2007
Time Magazine


Interesting read.

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.

Ahnimus

Collin wrote:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1580394,00.html
The Mystery of Consciousness
By STEVEN PINKER
Friday, Jan. 19, 2007
Time Magazine


Interesting read.

Yup. Good article. Glad they mentioned Francis Crick and Kristof Koch who spent the last 30 years answering this question.

Ahnimus

baraka wrote:

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.

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.

farfromglorified

Ahnimus wrote:

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?

Ahnimus

farfromglorified wrote:

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.

Honestly, I wouldn't go to a magic show and if I did I would remain silent. Why? Because not everyone can handle truth.

Ahnimus

farfromglorified wrote:

How do you explain the rapist then? Who's shoes did he put himself into?

I think you misunderstood. I'm not saying that role association is a motivation to rape or be raped, it's a motivation for morality. The act it's self is carried out by other mechanics.

farfromglorified

Ahnimus wrote:

I think you misunderstood. I'm not saying that role association is a motivation to rape or be raped, it's a motivation for morality. The act it's self is carried out by other mechanics.

Are you not saying that the foundation of morality is empathy?

Ahnimus

farfromglorified wrote:

Are you not saying that the foundation of morality is empathy?

I'm saying that the foundation of morality is wanting to improve our environments for ourselves.

farfromglorified

Ahnimus wrote:

I'm saying that the foundation of morality is wanting to improve our environments for ourselves.

So the foundation of morality is a moral judgment (wanting to improve)??? Isn't that circular logic?

Rats of Multa

farfromglorified wrote:

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.

from my interpretation of what you are saying to Ahnimus, i disagree with you.

the "I" does not have to be recognized [i.e. "awareness"] for such an entity [i.e. "ego"] to exist beneath "instinct" for said instincts to occur....

[or maybe i'm making a mistake from the outside of this conversation?]

Ahnimus

farfromglorified wrote:

So the foundation of morality is a moral judgment (wanting to improve)??? Isn't that circular logic?

I guess it depends on your logic circuits. My logic system has no problem comprehending the concept.

Ahnimus

Rats of Multa wrote:

from my interpretation of what you are saying to Ahnimus, i disagree with you.

the "I" does not have to be recognized [i.e. "awareness"] for such an entity [i.e. "ego"] to exist beneath "instinct" for said instincts to occur....

[or maybe i'm making a mistake from the outside of this conversation?]

Right, or we have to consider that all instinctual creatures have consciousness, and that MPD and other neurological disorders actually give rise to dual consciousness.

Heh, anyway, all the facts are out there if anyone really cared for truth. I think most people just like their fantasies.

angelica

Rats of Multa wrote:

from my interpretation of what you are saying to Ahnimus, i disagree with you.

the "I" does not have to be recognized [i.e. "awareness"] for such an entity [i.e. "ego"] to exist beneath "instinct" for said instincts to occur....

[or maybe i'm making a mistake from the outside of this conversation?]

Can you define what you mean by "ego" here. Are you meaning the Self? That you refer to this existing beneath instinct is what is throwing me off here.

My understanding is that farfromglorified recognizes an "entity" exists without an ego, just not a conscious awareness of one's "entity-hood"--also known as the sense of "I". Or the sense of awareness that gives rise to reflecting on one's actions, past, future or sense of mortality, etc.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Heh, anyway, all the facts are out there if anyone really cared for truth. I think most people just like their fantasies.

The facts are out there. Where we run into problems is with which philosophies people use to tie the facts together with. It makes all the difference in the world.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Can you define what you mean by "ego" here. Are you meaning the Self? That you refer to this existing beneath instinct is what is throwing me off here.

My understanding is that farfromglorified recognizes an "entity" exists without an ego, just not a conscious awareness of one's "entity-hood"--also known as the sense of "I". Or the sense of awareness that gives rise to reflecting on one's actions, past, future or sense of mortality, etc.

Ok, but thoughts come from the brain, not the consciousness. The brain gives rise to thoughts and consciousness is aware of them. The thought "I" is not a conscious manifestation.