Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Research finds it might not be consciousness that drives the human mind

Expand Messages
  • Steve Kurtz
    ... ————————————— Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd. Voltaire (1770)
    Message 1 of 5 , 25 Nov, 2017



      —————————————
      Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
      Voltaire (1770)

    • Helmut L
      I happen to agree, at least witb the first five paragraphs that I read. I stopped here: It’s easy to assume that these contents of consciousness are
      Message 2 of 5 , 25 Nov, 2017

        I happen to agree, at least witb the first five paragraphs that I read.

        I stopped here: " It’s easy to assume that these contents of consciousness are somehow chosen, caused or controlled by our personal awareness – after all, thoughts don’t exist until until we think them. But in a new research paper in Frontiers of Psychology, we argue that this is a mistake.", and looked very briefly at the original articles and the study. - https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01924/full :

        I think this "Despite the compelling subjective experience of executive self-control, we argue that “consciousness” contains no top-down control processes and that “consciousness” involves no executive, causal, or controlling relationship with any of the familiar psychological processes conventionally attributed to it. In our view, psychological processing and psychological products are not under the control of consciousness. In particular, we argue that all “contents of consciousness” are generated by and within non-conscious brain systems in the form of a continuous self-referential personal narrative that is not directed or influenced in any way by the “experience of consciousness.” is too absolute.
        The last paragraph says: " As a real, but essentially non–executive, emergent property associated with the selective internal broadcasting of non-conscious outputs that form the personal narrative, we consider personal awareness to lack adaptive significance in much the same way as rainbows or eclipses. The non-consciously generated personal narrative on the other hand forms the basis for both significant individual and social adaptive advantage. The main evolutionary advantage, lies in the selective public transmission of contents of the personal narrative, again under the control of non-conscious systems, and the sharing of these essentially private contents (thoughts, feelings, and information) with others in the local and wider social group. As part of this adaptive process, individuals are predisposed not only to transmit information from their own personal narrative but also to receive and process the externally and culturally transmitted outputs from others. In becoming available to others the broadcast (and re-broadcast) content of individual personal narratives supports the mutual understanding of the drivers behind thought and behavior. This in turn facilitates the dissemination of ideas and beliefs, and ultimately the construction of resilient supra-individual social, cultural, and legal systems which has contributed to the stability and evolutionary adaptedness of the species."

        ?

        HL
        www.ecoglobe.ch/scenarios
        www.ecoglobe.ch/requiem

        Le 25 nov. 2017 15:28, "Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> a écrit :
         




        —————————————
        Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
        Voltaire (1770)

      • Steve Kurtz
        My take on this is that the group is the responsible unit of social mammals. Humans are social mammals. Living in clans and tribes for the vast majority of our
        Message 3 of 5 , 25 Nov, 2017
          My take on this is that the group is the responsible unit of social mammals. Humans are social mammals. Living in clans and tribes for the vast majority of our history, we evolved tribal/social behavior patterns which were evolutionarily selected in the individual members. Loners died out as easy reproduction, defense, team hunting, etc didn’t apply to them. The responsibility of protecting and aiding the tribe fell to the group, with leadership of course. Deviants who didn’t benefit group well-being were corrected, then punished/ostracized/killed if they didn’t change. Free will isn’t needed for this as I see things. Feedback occurs continuously. The narratives and behavior that were successful over time were evolutionarily selected.

          Steve


          "...In becoming available to others the broadcast (and re-broadcast) content of individual personal narratives supports the mutual understanding of the drivers behind thought and behavior. This in turn facilitates the dissemination of ideas and beliefs, and ultimately the construction of resilient supra-individual social, cultural, and legal systems which has contributed to the stability and evolutionary adaptedness of the species.




          On Nov 25, 2017, at 4:55 PM, Helmut L helmut.lubbers@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:


          I happen to agree, at least witb the first five paragraphs that I read.

          I stopped here: " It’s easy to assume that these contents of consciousness are somehow chosen, caused or controlled by our personal awareness – after all, thoughts don’t exist until until we think them. But in a new research paper in Frontiers of Psychology, we argue that this is a mistake.", and looked very briefly at the original articles and the study. - https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01924/full :

          I think this "Despite the compelling subjective experience of executive self-control, we argue that “consciousness” contains no top-down control processes and that “consciousness” involves no executive, causal, or controlling relationship with any of the familiar psychological processes conventionally attributed to it. In our view, psychological processing and psychological products are not under the control of consciousness. In particular, we argue that all “contents of consciousness” are generated by and within non-conscious brain systems in the form of a continuous self-referential personal narrative that is not directed or influenced in any way by the “experience of consciousness.” is too absolute.
          The last paragraph says: " As a real, but essentially non–executive, emergent property associated with the selective internal broadcasting of non-conscious outputs that form the personal narrative, we consider personal awareness to lack adaptive significance in much the same way as rainbows or eclipses. The non-consciously generated personal narrative on the other hand forms the basis for both significant individual and social adaptive advantage. The main evolutionary advantage, lies in the selective public transmission of contents of the personal narrative, again under the control of non-conscious systems, and the sharing of these essentially private contents (thoughts, feelings, and information) with others in the local and wider social group. As part of this adaptive process, individuals are predisposed not only to transmit information from their own personal narrative but also to receive and process the externally and culturally transmitted outputs from others. In becoming available to others the broadcast (and re-broadcast) content of individual personal narratives supports the mutual understanding of the drivers behind thought and behavior. This in turn facilitates the dissemination of ideas and beliefs, and ultimately the construction of resilient supra-individual social, cultural, and legal systems which has contributed to the stability and evolutionary adaptedness of the species."

          ?

          HL
          www.ecoglobe.ch/scenarios
          www.ecoglobe.ch/requiem

          Le 25 nov. 2017 15:28, "Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> a écrit :
           




          —————————————
          Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
          Voltaire (1770)




          —————————————
          Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
          Voltaire (1770)

        • narguimbau@earthlink.net
          Is the last paragraph 100% bullshit or maybe as low as 98% bullshit?  If there is anything non-bullshit in the paragraph, could someone (1) tell me what it
          Message 4 of 5 , 26 Nov, 2017

            Is the last paragraph 100% bullshit or maybe as low as 98% bullshit?  If there is anything non-bullshit in the paragraph, could someone (1) tell me what it is, and (2) tell me how its truth or falsity could be demonstrated with accepted scientific methodology.  As an example, take the following statement: "In our view, psychological processing and psychological products are not under the control of consciousness"  I do not believe that is subject to scientific verification, because if nothing else, I don't believe that any detectable activity in the brain can be separated out and definitively declared to be "psychological processing" or a "psychological product" or an act of "consciousness."  If that is impossible, then how is it possible to prove or disprove the statement?


            On 11/25/2017 4:55 PM, Helmut L helmut.lubbers@... [gaiapc] wrote:.
             

            I happen to agree, at least witb the first five paragraphs that I read.

            I stopped here: " It’s easy to assume that these contents of consciousness are somehow chosen, caused or controlled by our personal awareness – after all, thoughts don’t exist until until we think them. But in a new research paper in Frontiers of Psychology, we argue that this is a mistake.", and looked very briefly at the original articles and the study. - https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01924/full :

            I think this "Despite the compelling subjective experience of executive self-control, we argue that “consciousness” contains no top-down control processes and that “consciousness” involves no executive, causal, or controlling relationship with any of the familiar psychological processes conventionally attributed to it. In our view, psychological processing and psychological products are not under the control of consciousness. In particular, we argue that all “contents of consciousness” are generated by and within non-conscious brain systems in the form of a continuous self-referential personal narrative that is not directed or influenced in any way by the “experience of consciousness.” is too absolute.
            The last paragraph says: " As a real, but essentially non–executive, emergent property associated with the selective internal broadcasting of non-conscious outputs that form the personal narrative, we consider personal awareness to lack adaptive significance in much the same way as rainbows or eclipses. The non-consciously generated personal narrative on the other hand forms the basis for both significant individual and social adaptive advantage. The main evolutionary advantage, lies in the selective public transmission of contents of the personal narrative, again under the control of non-conscious systems, and the sharing of these essentially private contents (thoughts, feelings, and information) with others in the local and wider social group. As part of this adaptive process, individuals are predisposed not only to transmit information from their own personal narrative but also to receive and process the externally and culturally transmitted outputs from others. In becoming available to others the broadcast (and re-broadcast) content of individual personal narratives supports the mutual understanding of the drivers behind thought and behavior. This in turn facilitates the dissemination of ideas and beliefs, and ultimately the construction of resilient supra-individual social, cultural, and legal systems which has contributed to the stability and evolutionary adaptedness of the species."

            ?

            HL
            www.ecoglobe.ch/scenarios
            www.ecoglobe.ch/requiem

            Le 25 nov. 2017 15:28, "Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> a écrit :
             



            —————————————
            Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
            Voltaire (1770)


          • Steve Kurtz
            Definitions, Nick. In philosophical analyses, assumptions must be made and people argue all the time about them. What is known is that specific brain damages
            Message 5 of 5 , 26 Nov, 2017
              Definitions, Nick. In philosophical analyses, assumptions must be made and people argue all the time about them. What is known is that specific brain damages affect specific behaviors and experiences, and that fMRIs can pinpoint brain activity which coincides with specific behaviors and experiences.

              As far as “definitely declared to be…" goes, science uses best available data to *contingently* support hypotheses and theories. So the statement, as I see it, is not claimed to be absolute truth, it is a theory supported by data, subject to being overturned.

              If you or anyone else has evidence of human consciousness that is not derived from the brain and nervous system, please present it to the world so it can be subject to falsification.

              Steve

              On Nov 26, 2017, at 3:47 PM, 'narguimbau@...' narguimbau@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:


              Is the last paragraph 100% bullshit or maybe as low as 98% bullshit?  If there is anything non-bullshit in the paragraph, could someone (1) tell me what it is, and (2) tell me how its truth or falsity could be demonstrated with accepted scientific methodology.  As an example, take the following statement: "In our view, psychological processing and psychological products are not under the control of consciousness"  I do not believe that is subject to scientific verification, because if nothing else, I don't believe that any detectable activity in the brain can be separated out and definitively declared to be "psychological processing" or a "psychological product" or an act of "consciousness."  If that is impossible, then how is it possible to prove or disprove the statement?


              On 11/25/2017 4:55 PM, Helmut L helmut.lubbers@... [gaiapc] wrote:. 
               

              I happen to agree, at least witb the first five paragraphs that I read.

              I stopped here: " It’s easy to assume that these contents of consciousness are somehow chosen, caused or controlled by our personal awareness – after all, thoughts don’t exist until until we think them. But in a new research paper in Frontiers of Psychology, we argue that this is a mistake.", and looked very briefly at the original articles and the study. - https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01924/full :

              I think this "Despite the compelling subjective experience of executive self-control, we argue that “consciousness” contains no top-down control processes and that “consciousness” involves no executive, causal, or controlling relationship with any of the familiar psychological processes conventionally attributed to it. In our view, psychological processing and psychological products are not under the control of consciousness. In particular, we argue that all “contents of consciousness” are generated by and within non-conscious brain systems in the form of a continuous self-referential personal narrative that is not directed or influenced in any way by the “experience of consciousness.” is too absolute.
              The last paragraph says: " As a real, but essentially non–executive, emergent property associated with the selective internal broadcasting of non-conscious outputs that form the personal narrative, we consider personal awareness to lack adaptive significance in much the same way as rainbows or eclipses. The non-consciously generated personal narrative on the other hand forms the basis for both significant individual and social adaptive advantage. The main evolutionary advantage, lies in the selective public transmission of contents of the personal narrative, again under the control of non-conscious systems, and the sharing of these essentially private contents (thoughts, feelings, and information) with others in the local and wider social group. As part of this adaptive process, individuals are predisposed not only to transmit information from their own personal narrative but also to receive and process the externally and culturally transmitted outputs from others. In becoming available to others the broadcast (and re-broadcast) content of individual personal narratives supports the mutual understanding of the drivers behind thought and behavior. This in turn facilitates the dissemination of ideas and beliefs, and ultimately the construction of resilient supra-individual social, cultural, and legal systems which has contributed to the stability and evolutionary adaptedness of the species."

              ?

              HL
              www.ecoglobe.ch/scenarios
              www.ecoglobe.ch/requiem

              Le 25 nov. 2017 15:28, "Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> a écrit :
               



              —————————————
              Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
              Voltaire (1770)




              —————————————
              Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
              Voltaire (1770)

            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.