Question regarding Daniel Dennett's quote

[iNow]

You can't experience a sensation without being aware of it.

Quick point of order: This is untrue. Galvanic skin response, changes in heartbeat and breathing, digestion activities, and many similar autonomic functions will shift as a result of sensations that themselves often never enter conscious awareness.

[KipIngram]

Quick point of order: This is untrue. Galvanic skin response, changes in heartbeat and breathing, digestion activities, and many similar autonomic functions will shift as a result of sensations that themselves often never enter conscious awareness.

 

Well, I think he phrased it as an "automatic truth," in that anything *experienced* is experienced by *awareness*. As opposed to many things that are detected and acted on without rising to the level of awareness. It's a nit over how we are defining the word "experience." If experience means "anything that happens to the body," then he's wrong as you noted. If experience means "experienced by awareness," then he's automatically right by definition.

[Carrock]

 

You can't experience a sensation without being aware of it.

Quick point of order: This is untrue. Galvanic skin response, changes in heartbeat and breathing, digestion activities, and many similar autonomic functions will shift as a result of sensations that themselves often never enter conscious awareness.

 

I suspect this is a definitional issue.

There are myriad stimuli which never or rarely enter conscious awareness, many of which never or only sometimes reach the brain.

Are you saying these stimuli are experienced as sensations, which implies substantial unnecessary processing, not merely acted upon, by the 'autonomic' nervous system?

 

Evidence that e.g. the spinal cord or the skin experiences sensations?

 

 

Xposted with KipIngram.

Edited May 30, 2017 by Carrock

[iNow]

Simplified: Your definition of sensation seems far too narrow.

[Carrock]

Simplified: Your definition of sensation seems far too narrow.

What is your definition of sensation?

And which definition of sensation are you referring to as 'too narrow'?

[iNow]

Our bodies sense things and react all of the time without us being aware or conscious of it. The mosquito bite. The acid in our juice. The pollens in the air. The filament used when testing tactile sensitivity makes the skin red even if we don't consciously perceive it...All of these things are sensations. All of them trigger responses in us. Few of them ever enter conscious awareness.

 

My pushback was on your suggestion that sensation by definition implies conscious awareness. It simply doesn't, at least not by most definitions of sensation used in neurobiology.

 

Otherwise, I suspect we're pretty closely aligned on the other points.

Edited May 31, 2017 by iNow

[Eise]

How can you discuss a logical construction which does not occur in the/your mind?

 

You said this:

 

e.g. if you introspectively analyze your own consciousness, is it possible to include that aspect of your consciousness which is aware of your self analysis?

If not, self awareness is not subject to your analysis.

If yes, it should be possible to include awareness of self analysis, awareness of awareness of self analysis, awareness of awareness of awareness of self analysis,.....

 

I took this as a real process in the mind. As such I think this does not exist. If I am aware of my computer mouse, then I am aware of it. Full stop. There is no awareness of awareness of something. Try it out, but really, not as logical construction.

 

Most of what we 'observe' visually is actually a very clever construct in our brains i.e. inner states.

If you blink or shut your eyes while looking at your mouse, you no longer observe it through the senses and are only conscious of it in inner states, but I doubt your consciousness significantly changes.

 

I am pretty sure it is a huge difference in the brain. But that is rather speculative, but that holds for your remark too.

 

I prefer infinite regression.

But in reality there are no infinite regressions. The bug always stops somewhere. The best place to stop an infinite regression is at the first step, as in the awareness of a mouse, of which you are aware, and of which you are aware again, etc.

 

It's not fully susceptible to scientific or philosophical analysis because they both implicitly regard consciousness as axiomatic.

 

What does the bold phrase mean?

My pushback was on your suggestion that sensation by definition implies conscious awareness. It simply doesn't, at least not by most definitions of sensation used in neurobiology.

 

So you in fact only deny a definition, not an empirical fact. Pretty strong then, to say that something is 'untrue' just because you use another definition of the word 'sensation' than Carrock.

[iNow]

To what specific empirical fact do you refer? From my perspective, you continue arguing from a position itself rooted in a flawed understanding of how our nervous system actually functions. As I've now articulated clearly and repeatedly, awareness is not prerequisite for sensation.

[StringJunky]

To what specific empirical fact do you refer? From my perspective, you continue arguing from a position itself rooted in a flawed understanding of how our nervous system actually functions. As I've now articulated clearly and repeatedly, awareness is not prerequisite for sensation.

 

 

Sensation: In medicine and physiology, sensation refers to the registration of an incoming (afferent) nerve impulse in that part of the brain called the sensorium, which is capable of such perception. Therefore, the awareness of a stimulus as a result of its perception by sensory receptors. (Sensory is here synonymous with sensation.)

 

The word "sensation" comes (as does the term "sensorium") from the Latin sensus, "the faculty of perceiving."

 

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=15731

Sensation pertains to conscious awareness of stimuli. You can have unconscious perception of stimuli but not unconscious sensation as that would be an oxymoron.

Edited June 3, 2017 by StringJunky

[iNow]

Alternatively:

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensation_(psychology)

Sensation is the body's detection of external or internal stimulation (e.g., eyes detecting light waves, ears detecting sound waves). Perception utilizes the brain to make sense of the stimulation (e.g., seeing a chair, hearing a guitar).

 

Sensation involves three steps:

 

1. Sensory receptors detect stimuli.

2. Sensory stimuli are transduced into electrical impulses (action potentials) to be decoded by the brain.

3. Electrical impulses move along neural pathways to specific parts of the brain wherein the impulses are decoded into useful information (perception).

 

For example, when touched by a soft feather, mechanoreceptors which are sensory receptors in the skin register that the skin has been touched. That sensory information is then turned into neural information through a process called transduction. Next, the neural information travels down neural pathways to the appropriate part of the brain, wherein the sensations are perceived as the touch of a feather.

 

Children are often taught five basic senses: seeing (i.e., vision), hearing (i.e., audition), tasting (i.e., gustation), smelling (i.e., olfaction), and touching. However, there are actually many more senses including vestibular sense, kinesthetic sense, sense of thirst, sense of hunger, and cutaneous sense to name a few.

See also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychophysics

Edited June 3, 2017 by iNow

[StringJunky]

Alternatively:

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensation_(psychology)

 

See also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychophysics

The way I see it is that perception is the full set and sensation is the conscious subset of of perception.

[Eise]

To what specific empirical fact do you refer? From my perspective, you continue arguing from a position itself rooted in a flawed understanding of how our nervous system actually functions. As I've now articulated clearly and repeatedly, awareness is not prerequisite for sensation.

 

According your definition of sensation.

 

KipIngram more or less showed everything that can be said about it here. Instead of understanding it, you keep discussing who is right.

 

It is so simple: using your definition, you are right. Using Carrock's and StringJunky's you are wrong.

 

Also, how do you conclude that I have a f'lawed understanding of of how our nervous system actually functions'? Because I, as KipIngram, noticed that the truth of you proposition ('that is untrue') depends on the meaning you use for the word 'sensation'?

[iNow]

What are you asking me and how does it matter?

[Eise]

What are you asking me and how does it matter?

 

Do you recognise these sentences with the question marks at the end? The first sentence with the question mark is a real question, the second is a possible suggestion, which might correct or not, therefore I also put a question mark at the end.

 

It does matter because I would like to follow your thinking. I can't see how you come to the conclusion that 'my understanding of of how our nervous system actually functions is flawed', and I want to understand that.

[iNow]

I'm coupling your comments here with our exchanges on the topic of freewill. In each of these exchanges, your comments seem rooted in fallacious premises. Your logic is sound, but IMO your foundation is not.

[Eise]

I'm coupling your comments here with our exchanges on the topic of freewill. In each of these exchanges, your comments seem rooted in fallacious premises. Your logic is sound, but IMO your foundation is not.

 

Please name me these fallacious premises.

[iNow]

Please name me these fallacious premises.

This isn't comprehensive, but here are a few problematic positions:

Only conscious programs can write such texts as you do.

There will always be left some basic elements that cannot be explained.

Physics can and never will explain the basis of consciousness.(...) Every physical basis that implements the functions needed has consciousness. That is the reason you can forget to explain consciousness by any fundamental law of physics, because these details do not matter.

Awareness is the capability of a system to universally anticipate possible events and how its own actions might affect them.

You do as if consciousness for inner states is the same as for objects I observe through the senses, in other words, that the 'awareness of a sensation' is in itself again a sensation.

If I say 'I am aware that you are conscious of pain' I am not reporting that I am in pain. That another person is in pain is not a report of an inner state of mine.

whatever free will is, you are not forced to do anything by your brain processes.

Looking for free will on the level of chemical reactions, is looking at the wrong place. All these concepts describe higher order phenomena, which essence does not lie in its physical substrate. (...) it is almost impossible to understand how the brain can give rise to such phenomena. (...) The inevitability of chemical reactions has nothing to do with inevitability of events, when consciousness and will are involved.

Same for mental events: of course they must exist in some physical substrate. They must be implemented somewhere to exist. But their essence is not the actual implementation. That means that the context in which the concept of free will has a meaning, lies not in the actual implementation, in this case the chemical processes in your brain. Of course, on higher level these chemical processes are your motives, beliefs, thoughts and wishes. (they do not cause them).

the exact order of brain processes and consciousness is not relevant.

Given how remedially inaccurate some of these premises are, it's quite challenging to accept as valid your conclusions drawn from them, regardless how otherwise sound are your logic chains.

Edited June 4, 2017 by iNow

[StringJunky]

This isn't comprehensive, but here are a few problematic positions:

 

Given how remedially inaccurate some of these premises are, it's quite challenging to accept as valid your conclusions drawn from them, regardless how otherwise sound are your logic chains.

I think you need to learn to understand he's saying. And cutting sarcasm won't cut it either. When it comes to trying to be both philosophical and scientific Eise is quite competent and eloquent, bearing in mind English is not his native language. I don't agree with everything he says but I respect what he has to say. I'll give you this piece of advice: the more certain you are, the more you should doubt your own certainty.

[iNow]

Perhaps I'm being daft. Sure. It happens.

 

That doesn't change how fundamentally mistaken and misguided are positions like these:

"You are not forced to do anything by your brain processes."

"It's almost impossible to understand how the brain can give rise to such phenomenon."

"The exact order of brain processes and consciousness is not relevant."

[Raider5678]

Perhaps I'm being daft. Sure. It happens.

 

That doesn't change how fundamentally mistaken and misguided are positions like these:

"You are not forced to do anything by your brain processes."

"It's almost impossible to understand how the brain can give rise to such phenomenon."

"The exact order of brain processes and consciousness is not relevant."

I feel bad for you man.

Life must suck for you.

[iNow]

I feel bad for you man.

Life must suck for you.

Appreciate your thoughts. Do you have anything intelligent to offer, or are you content being as useful as a knitted condom?

[Raider5678]

Appreciate your thoughts. Do you have anything intelligent to offer, or are you content being as useful as a knitted condom?

How do you explain ambition and greed?

Racism and religiousness?

[Eise]

This is what you said:

 

To what specific empirical fact do you refer? From my perspective, you continue arguing from a position itself rooted in a flawed understanding of how our nervous system actually functions. As I've now articulated clearly and repeatedly, awareness is not prerequisite for sensation.

 

And then you give a list that does not contain one single proposition of mine concerning 'our nervous system'.

 

This isn't comprehensive, but here are a few problematic positions:

Given how remedially inaccurate some of these premises are, it's quite challenging to accept as valid your conclusions drawn from them, regardless how otherwise sound are your logic chains.

 

You just compiled a list of propositions you do not agree with.

Nowhere I am contradicting present 'understanding of how our nervous system actually functions'. I am contradicting some of your philosophical ideas. Your problem is that you think that these are scientific ideas.

 

That doesn't change how fundamentally mistaken and misguided are positions like these:

1. "You are not forced to do anything by your brain processes."
2. "It's almost impossible to understand how the brain can give rise to such phenomenon."
3. "The exact order of brain processes and consciousness is not relevant."

1. Yep, you still do not understand this, do you? There is no 'you' independent of your brain processes. 'You' is brain processes. It makes no sense to say some process is forced by itself. Saying 'you' is forced by brain processes is like saying that something is forced to happen because it happens.
2. Yep. Try to understand chess by studying the workings of the flip-flops of a computer running a chess program. Next try to understand mathematics by studying the brain processes of a mathematician.
3. Yep. You took this out of its context. If you take my definition of free will ('A person is said to have free will if he is able to act according his own motivations') then it is not relevant. If I brake for a child on the road and this action is already induced before I am completely conscious of my action, it is still according to my motivation. I am really very motivated not to overrun children.

Edited June 5, 2017 by Eise

[iNow]

This is what you said:

 

And then you give a list that does not contain one single proposition of mine concerning 'our nervous system'.

Perhaps you're unaware that the brain is a part of the nervous system? That's the only way your comment here makes sense given that each of my three primary challenges referenced your premises/assumptions specifically about the brain.

 

There is no 'you' independent of your brain processes. 'You' is brain processes. It makes no sense to say some process is forced by itself.

The brain is not an indivisible whole, but is instead made up of parts, and those parts made up of even smaller units subject to the laws of physics and chemistry. Your mistake seems to be in the assumption (both implicit and explicit) that the brain is a single indivisible entity or unified whole, which is remedially false.

 

Saying 'you' is forced by brain processes is like saying that something is forced to happen because it happens.

Except it's not because my comments are specific to the underlying chemistry driving everything.

 

If I brake for a child on the road and this action is already induced before I am completely conscious of my action, it is still according to my motivation. I am really very motivated not to overrun children.

Its unclear to me why you've introduced the topic of motivation since it supports both our arguments equally. We agree there's a response, but seem to disagree what has initiated the response.

 

My position (oversimplified) is that the response occurred prior to conscious awareness, and that consciousness is required to allow a proper assignment of freedom and control. I know you disagree. You don't think consciousness is required for assignment of control and freedom, and that's okay, but it is the core of this impasse between us.

 

 

[mp][/mp]

How do you explain ambition and greed?

Racism and religiousness?

Simplified: Evolution selected for those individuals who could more successfully acquire resources (i.e. It favored ambition and greed, or at least the impulses that ultimately lead to those two things) and tribal groupings / pack strength plus shared stories (I.e. Us/them identifications and proto-religion) enhanced that process by making it easier to pool resources, protect from plunderers, and learn from peers... but that's all deeply off topic. Open a new thread if you wish to explore. Edited June 5, 2017 by iNow

[Eise]

Perhaps you're unaware that the brain is a part of the nervous system? That's the only way your comment here makes sense given that each of my three primary challenges referenced your premises/assumptions specifically about the brain.

 

So which premise of assumption explicitly?

 

Surely not this:

 

The brain is not an indivisible whole, but is instead made up of parts, and those parts made up of even smaller units subject to the laws of physics and chemistry. Your mistake seems to be in the assumption (both implicit and explicit) that the brain is a single indivisible entity or unified whole, which is remedially false.

 

Where did I deny this, or where does my argument explicitly build on the idea that the brain would be a single, unified whole?

 

Except it's not because my comments are specific to the underlying chemistry driving everything.

 

Yes, in some sense you are right. But my point is that the 'you' is not caused by this chemistry, but can be identified by it. The relationship between the low level physics and chemistry of the brain on one side, and the higher cognitive functions of the brain on the other, is not a causal relation, but an identity relation. Therefore it makes no sense to say that 'you' are forced to do anything by your brain processes', because 'you' is part of the brain processes themselves. Or do you think that 'you', or more general consciousness, is a recognisable subsystem of the brain? A place where everything comes together, but powerless against all the other parts of the brain, a spectator only?

 

Its unclear to me why you've introduced the topic of motivation since it supports both our arguments equally. We agree there's a response, but seem to disagree what has initiated the response.

 

Then what do you think initiated the response, and what do you think I am proposing?

 

My position (oversimplified) is that the response occurred prior to conscious awareness, and that consciousness is required to allow a proper assignment of freedom and control.

 

Can you explain this, please? What role does consciousness play in relation to freedom and control?

 

You don't think consciousness is required for assignment of control and freedom, and that's okay, but it is the core of this impasse between us.

 

It is also a quite simplified version of what I think. Of course I think consciousness plays a role, otherwise it would be difficult to me being aware of my wishes and beliefs. In many sports the needed reaction time is too short to have consciousness involved in every step and action. But I will still recognise my actions as my own actions, i.e. as free actions.

 

Simply said: Benjamin Libet could not have done his experiments if he could not instruct his subjects first. And for understanding instructions, one needs consciousness.