Consciousness and the illusion of choice

[Ten oz]

 

Identification requires prior conscious perception, which is the means by which identification is initially established.

 

 

All but that last one--subconscious--is an aspect of consciousness relative to brain function. Although some adhere to a colloquial interpretation, it's a type of influence rather than an aspect because subconscious is not a state of brain function. The distinction between unconscious and subconscious, as I so often describe, is analogous to a person and a package--unconscious denote the person while subconscious describes the package that person either receives or delivers.

Identifying and knowing doesn't require thought. I can identify thing without any thought. It is something that actually takes conscious attention being paid to even notice.I probably identified several thousand objects today with total indifference and no conscious effort.

 

I see this as far more nuance than you do. You seem to be saying that everything I know must pass through on conscious for me to be aware of it and that simply isn't the way I experience the world. I do things, have thoughts, knowledge, and etc were only after the fact think back do I consciously know or understand what happened. I think everyone does. Consciousness simply isn't a requirement to experience reality. And by consciousness, in this context, I mean the perceived sense of thought or think we all have and not conciousness more broadly.

Edited May 15, 2017 by Ten oz

[DrmDoc]

Identifying and knowing doesn't require thought. I can identify thing without any thought. It is something that actually takes conscious attention being paid to even notice.I probably identified several thousand objects today with total indifference and no conscious effort.

 

I see this as far more nuance than you do. You seem to be saying that everything I know must pass through on conscious for me to be aware of it and that simply isn't the way I experience the world. I do things, have thoughts, knowledge, and etc were only after the fact think back do I consciously know or understand what happened. I think everyone does. Consciousness simply isn't a requirement to experience reality. And by consciousness, in this context, I mean the perceived sense of thought or think we all have and not conciousness more broadly.

 

Using your squirrel analogy, consider a scenario where that particular squirrel has never seen, tasted, or experienced an acorn before. Would that squirrel then crave something it has never consciously perceived or experienced? That scenario describes the purview of our conscious, we can't unconsciously desire or respond to a stimuli without it's initial passage through our conscious conduit. Indeed, everything you know must have passed through your conscious at some point in your life for you to have acquired that knowledge. If you will, consider whether you would even know what the word "knowledge" defines without some initial conscious encounter with that word? We learn via conscious awareness and then, subsequently, conform our responses to that awareness. We may experience a thing but not know what we've experienced without the context our conscious perception provides.

[tar]

DrmDoc,

 

But in Ten Oz's defense, on what basis does a squirrel decide to eat her first acorn? There should be some unconscious need or impulse that makes the first nibble happen. Or something about the taste encoded in her chemical reward system , that makes her want to do it again.

 

Regards, TAR

Or perhaps she is copying the behavior she sees other squirrels engaged in.

Edited May 16, 2017 by tar

[DrmDoc]

DrmDoc,

 

But in Ten Oz's defense, on what basis does a squirrel decide to eat her first acorn? There should be some unconscious need or impulse that makes the first nibble happen. Or something about the taste encoded in her chemical reward system , that makes her want to do it again.

 

Regards, TAR

Or perhaps she is copying the behavior she sees other squirrels engaged in.

 

Indeed, the squirrel's unconscious need might be hunger but it wouldn't hunger specifically for something it has never consciously perceived or experienced; therefore, the response to specifically obtain that first acorn would not exist without some prior conscious perceptual experience specific to acorns.

[tar]

DrmDoc,

 

I am leaning still in Ten Oz's direction. That there are some "decisions" already coded in the DNA. That is, a female peacock responds to the beauty of the males display. It triggers her dopamine reward system, perhaps. I have absolutely no data on that, a pure speculation, but I am guessing that when I "feel good" when I see a female form, there is something built into my makeup. Perhaps there is a "match" between the female form shape residing in my mental makeup, that is pleasing. Does a squirrel have such a thing for acorns? Maybe. Or there could be a complex of stimuli that together "mean" food. And sure enough, you go over and nibble on the round wood thing and once you eat through the cover you get that sweet meat.

 

So, perhaps Ten Oz is correct to think that there are many things already decided. Squirrels like acorns, people like blueberries.

 

We put everything into our mouths when we are babies, but perhaps we are looking for something. Something about a nipple, tells us we found the right thing, and sucking would be a good "decision". Reflex, but with a purpose, and a certain rational. And although we keep sucking on the pacifier, even though no milk comes, we do indeed get our hunger satisfied when we suck on the bottle, or mother's nipple.

 

We had a cluster of fat squirrels this spring, as they would hang off the gutter and jump onto the bird feeder, a little house hanging under the eave.

When I would let the dog out, she would bark at and chase the squirrels over the fence, sending birdseed flying as the squirrels jump would violently swing the feeder. Once spring came, we stopped feeding the birds and the squirrels chewed into the house to get the last seeds. I repaired it, and we thought we would finish the bag and no longer feed them. So, we left it empty for a few days and I looked out one morning and a squirrel (I figure) had chewed the whole thing up. The little shingles off the roof, the corner posts, the place where the birds would stand all around was all in pieces. Oh, that is right, I had moved it unto a chair on the deck, hoping no self respecting squirrel would get that close to the door the dog would come storming out of. Anyway, the point is, the squirrels "thought" if they chewed on this thing, somehow food would be found. The feeder was empty of seeds, but they chewed it up anyway. So I do not think the squirrel would have to have run into an acorn before to eat into one. There where no birdfeeders and deck chairs and such, through evolution. But chewing into hard brown wood, and getting a reward, was something that had happened to squirrels for thousands of generations. There must be something, built into a squirrel, that told them chewing up my feeder was a good decision.

 

So the illusion of choice, that Ten Oz is talking about, is not far fetched. Perhaps we get hooked on drugs that simulate actual victory and completion, and survival goals, because we are wired to seek those neurotransmitters. And some decisions that we make are, like Ten Oz suggests, already decided on, by our pheromones and hormones and by the archetypical memories

we have, already encoded in our body/brain/heart complex. After all, the choice to put one foot in front of the other, is somewhat already decided if you have two feet.

 

Regards, TAR

a dog or horse can choose to trot or canter or gallop

we only can choose to walk or jog or sprint

Edited May 16, 2017 by tar

[DrmDoc]

DrmDoc,

 

I am leaning still in Ten Oz's direction. That there are some "decisions" already coded in the DNA. That is, a female peacock responds to the beauty of the males display. It triggers her dopamine reward system, perhaps. I have absolutely no data on that, a pure speculation, but I am guessing that when I "feel good" when I see a female form, there is something built into my makeup.

 

I understand and I agree that their are innate, preprogramed responses to stimuli such as nesting or a female peacock's attraction to colorful male plumage. However, again, these are all responses that cannot be engaged without a conscious conduit. A squirrel, for example, is stimulated to hunger by instinct but cannot engage that instinct or response without the conscious perception and capability to do so. Again, this is a system of input and output, where output is dependent on input for its form, content, and expression.

Edited May 16, 2017 by DrmDoc

[Ten oz]

@ DrmDoc, as mentioned earlier I don't see it as binary. Unconscious translating sensors and conscious acting. I see consciousness as a whole being segmented. For the sake of this conversation we are saying unconscious and conscious. It is very complex. There are things I know, things I think I know but don't, things I want, things I feel, feelings I don't understand, things I have learned, things I have forgot, things I have misremembered, and on and on and on. Some of this One am consciously aware of. Some of it I am not. The nuances are different for everyone.

 

Consider synesthetes. They can experience the world very differently. They can internalize numbers as colors and dates as imagined physical distances. There unconscious processes information differently and uses different pathways than is typical. Or consider children who grow up exposed to violence. Studies show that depending on the stage of brain development exposure to violence can alter grow of various parts of the brain and effect language, aggression, or have latent effects that take several years to surface. Conscious perspective simply having it limitations.

 

I have been trying to pay better attention to the thoughts that pop into my head since creating this thread. Today I was walking to walk. Nice sunny morning. Half way to work it accorded to me that if I continued walking the route I was walking I would being staying in the sun and would start to sweat prior to arriving at work. Attach to this thought was an alternative route I should walk. With that information, I will start to sweat and an alternate route, I began to consciously think about. First I had to determine if the alternate route would provide shade. So I wondered what angle the sun was rising from in relationship to the alternate route. As I wondered where things were in space, without a conscious demand to do so, I looked up over my left shoulder directly at the point the sun traveling. At that moment I knew the alternate route was good and chose to walk it. Was it really a choice? Seems to me in retrospect it was a passive order. My unconscious decided to walk an alternative route to get out of the sun and presented it to my perceived conscious as a idea/choice. Then when I wasn't sure where the sun vs myself and the route were in space my unconscious turned my head to show me which prompted my decision. Mind you this all took a second. Choices/thoughts like this present themselves all day. Often I don't even notice. I am aware of the outcome but not involved in the thought or initiation of the action. In this case I think the only reason I noticed and momentarily was consciously involved is because I have been consciously trying to notice these things.

@ tar, is fairness to the squirrels the feeder probably had a strong mouth watering odor of seeds.

[tar]

Ten Oz,

 

Perhaps the difference between "conscious" thought and unconscious thought, in our this discussion understanding, is similar or analogous to a waking state, and a dream state. That is, there are symbols understood in a dream state, that are not translatable into English. Same way, as your normal switch of routes would have happened, the symbols understood, without you having to pay attention to the situation, enough to put it into words, that would be understandable on the thread. That is our convention of conscious vs. unconscious could be analogous to "phrased in English" vs "experienced in native understanding".

 

Regards, TAR

[goldglow]

Having digested the posts, i would suggest now, for myself at least, that the conscious/unconscious relationship is reciprocal, wherein i consciously make the first, original,

subjective choices based on perception and, i hope, intelligence. These choices are then stored as memory in the objective unconscious which, in turn, " reminds " me of these choices when necessary. Without the conscious participation, nothing could be added to the unconscious, or come from the unconscious and, without the unconscious participation, i would not be able to recall my former choices, or any of my experiences. So, i can only say, in my (vain) opinion, that freedom of choice - if i am right, of course, is not an illusion.

Edited May 17, 2017 by goldglow

[dimreepr]

Having digested the posts, i would suggest now, for myself at least, that the conscious/unconscious relationship is reciprocal, wherein i consciously make the first, original,

 

I have to say the majority of this thread would evince, you've got this relationship backwards.

[Ten oz]

@ dimreepr I think one of the challenges here is how intimately we experience whatever label we choose to assign the rolling monologue in our heads. We imagine it as being the epitome of who we are. Implying that other parts of our minds, which we don't perceive interactively, make decision for us feels foreign. As though it is being implied that we have no control or choice at all. That isn't the case of course. All of my brain is part of me. Regardless of where various thoughts and ideas arise it is still from within us. It is just hard to imagine it. Hard to feel intimate and connected with thoughts we aren't knowingly creating in real time. There is a clear bias, in my opinion, toward wanting to believe we consciously control who we are. That clearly isn't true though. At least not for everyone. Not for people with schizophrenia, ADHD, depression, addiction, and etc, etc, etc. Everyone isn't the same and the health of our bodies, nature of our upbringing, genetics, environment, and etc all play a role in shaping us and during the most important years of brain development we has no control over those shaping factors.

[Jampelyang]

When you deal with Consciousness, you should understand like existence, it is Impermanence. To translate what Consciousness is, you have to break it down. Best example is: The Mind, it is what you are using right now to read and think about this, then the Consciousness that reside when you are sleeping, but also is hidden in the shadows of the Mind, taking in fragments of what you are reading. Those that have Lucid Dreams and remember them, have the Awareness of that Consciousness. The Mind is linked to all your senses, so memories carry imprints of sight, sound, taste, smell. It goes Senses then Mind then Consciousness. That Consciousness is active 24/7, pulls in "Data", makes the attempt to figure out possible futures. That weird feeling with Deja Vu is that Consciousness. You have not "lived" this life before, there is a way to connect with past lives, merely fragments that are embedded in that Consciousness. With a Mind you have the ability to choose, ability to advance intelligence, the ability to survive in a habitat, but the Mind is Impermanence, just like Memories, just like habitats. There are two ways which Consciousness ceases: 1. When this Universe folds into itself and the other is a secret.

[DrmDoc]

@ DrmDoc, as mentioned earlier I don't see it as binary. Unconscious translating sensors and conscious acting. I see consciousness as a whole being segmented. For the sake of this conversation we are saying unconscious and conscious. It is very complex. There are things I know, things I think I know but don't, things I want, things I feel, feelings I don't understand, things I have learned, things I have forgot, things I have misremembered, and on and on and on. Some of this One am consciously aware of. Some of it I am not. . .

 

Let's begin again for a place of empirical certainty where I think we can both agree on the science. Physically, we operating on a system of input and output, wherein without the input or intake of nutrients our body cannot sustain the energy output essential to life and survival. Neurologically, our central nervous system (CNS) is comprised of a system of neural relays dedicated to bringing sensory information (tactile, aural, oral, ocular, etc.) into brain structure (afferent neurons) and a system of relays dedicated to the delivery of directives and motor commands from brain structure (efferent neurons). Regardless of our personal beliefs, empirically, we are physiologically and neurologically binary.

 

If we agree that our unconscious resides in brain structure, then we must agree, given the science, that no sensory information or stimuli reaches that structures without passing through our brain's afferent neural systems. We experience life and accumulate knowledge by way of our afferent neural systems. This means that we can't accumulate knowledge on how to respond to our experiences without the information we receive through our afferent systems. Admittedly, there are behaviors we engage that do not require prior knowledge or experience; e.g., a newborn seems to instinctively knows how to suckles its mother's tit without the appearance of prior experience. However, thought requires language and language requires conscious experience to acquire.

 

The science suggests there's only one path (inward) for the accumulation of the language at the basis of thought. Conversely, the science also suggests there's only one neural path (outward) for the expression of thought. It's a binary system and if we were to assign a relative nature of consciousness to the separate aspects of that system, it afferent aspects most aligns with our conscious nature while its efferent aspects aligns with our unconscious nature.

Edited May 17, 2017 by DrmDoc

[tar]

Ten Oz,

 

Earlier you were speculating that there must be a survival reason why people "feel" they are making a choice.

 

I have two possible avenues to explore.

 

One, the dopamine reward system is structured to reward a person, for doing it right, so they do it again and again. Making the right choice, provides dopamine, making the wrong choice provides hardship and possibly death and an inability to provide for and protect oneself and one's offspring, Therefore making the right choice, or thinking you did, makes you feel good, so the mere act of choosing makes one feel good. "What do you want for dinner?" "I don't know, what do you want?'

 

Or, perhaps, the language thing, should be looked at a little deeper. We have now, and such a thing would have had to develop, a way to share what is going on in our unconscious with another mind. The word, the symbol, the call, the sign, to sneak up around the prey, putting the same "thought" in another mind. As we developed this feature, we could document our correct choices in stone, or song or latter on papyrus. You chose to build a trap, and others can use it.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited May 18, 2017 by tar

[goldglow]

Having digested the posts, i would suggest now, for myself at least, that the conscious/unconscious relationship is reciprocal, wherein i consciously make the first, original,

subjective choices based on perception and, i hope, intelligence. These choices are then stored as memory in the objective unconscious which, in turn, " reminds " me of these choices when necessary. Without the conscious participation, nothing could be added to the unconscious, or come from the unconscious and, without the unconscious participation, i would not be able to recall my former choices, or any of my experiences. So, i can only say, in my (vain) opinion, that freedom of choice - if i am right, of course, is not an illusion.

 

 

I have to say the majority of this thread would evince, you've got this relationship backwards.

 

If i'm wrong, i'm wrong, but are you really saying that you think the memory comes before the experience? So you knew what curry tasted like before you ate it, you knew what a tree looked like before you saw one, you could sing your national anthem before you heard it, you knew what wool felt like before you felt it and you knew what hydrogen sulphide smelled like before you smelled it ? By the same token, you knew what was in my post before i posted it, and chose to reply to it before you'd read it.

[tar]

goldglow,

 

Consider the phrase "logic would dictate."

 

I perhaps could have known your post and prepared this response.

 

And why do you figure rotten eggs smell BAD to everyone, and honeysuckle blooms smell GOOD. These judgements are predictable. Already built in.

 

Regards, TAR

It is possible as well that you heard the national anthem in utero, and that satisfying tunes are constructed of notes that complete harmonizing chords. Listen to a great piece of music, and "predict" the next note. Sure, you probably heard it before, and the theme is most likely copied into other tunes, and hummed and whistled by passers by, but we, as humans have the ability to fill in the blanks, see the form of a deer obscured behind trees...and the ability to satisfyingly complete a musical phrase.

Why, I would be willing to bet that you can cho​ose the next thing I am about to

Try being married to the same person for 35 years, you can often know what the other person is going to say or do, before they say or do it.

 

Now try existing, as a species on the same planet, for 100s of thousands of generations. Not surprising we feel we know the place a little.

And, not surprising that we "fit".

an interesting fact about life, in terms of what you may have experienced and what was built in, is the fact that a woman is born with a full complement of eggs

 

That means, that half of you, is as old as your mom.

 

1/4 of you was around when your grandmother was born.

 

1/8 when your great grandmother was conceived (or shortly thereafter)...

 

Some of you, was actually on the planet, when Lucy was born.

[DrmDoc]

goldglow,

 

Consider the phrase "logic would dictate."

 

I perhaps could have known your post and prepared this response.

 

And why do you figure rotten eggs smell BAD to everyone, and honeysuckle blooms smell GOOD. These judgements are predictable. Already built in.

 

Regards, TAR

It is possible as well that you heard the national anthem in utero, and that satisfying tunes are constructed of notes that complete harmonizing chords. Listen to a great piece of music, and "predict" the next note. Sure, you probably heard it before, and the theme is most likely copied into other tunes, and hummed and whistled by passers by, but we, as humans have the ability to fill in the blanks, see the form of a deer obscured behind trees...and the ability to satisfyingly complete a musical phrase.

Why, I would be willing to bet that you can cho​ose the next thing I am about to

Try being married to the same person for 35 years, you can often know what the other person is going to say or do, before they say or do it.

 

Now try existing, as a species on the same planet, for 100s of thousands of generations. Not surprising we feel we know the place a little.

And,there not surprising that we "fit".

 

Other than anecdotal, no evidence exist for precognition, which is having knowledge of an experience before it occurs. However, we can make fairly accurate predictions of an impending experience based on an accumulation of prior knowledge and experiences. A fetus's in-utero experience is indeed a source of prior knowledge and experience. Conversely, we are born with certain preprogrammed response to stimuli that do not require prior experience; however, those responses primarily regard our physical reflexes and the emotions tied to those reflexes. When considering whether there's a preprogramed element to the nature of thought--wherein, thoughtful insight appears to emerge spontaneously and without prior knowledge or experience--there truly isn't an preprogram, precognitive, or intuitive element to thought. Thought is experienced based, which means we can't generate that seemingly intuitive thought response without the prior experiences enabling that response.

[dimreepr]

@ dimreepr I think one of the challenges here is how intimately we experience whatever label we choose to assign the rolling monologue in our heads. We imagine it as being the epitome of who we are. Implying that other parts of our minds, which we don't perceive interactively, make decision for us feels foreign. As though it is being implied that we have no control or choice at all. That isn't the case of course. All of my brain is part of me. Regardless of where various thoughts and ideas arise it is still from within us.

 

Even if all decisions are made by the brain that is you, for me, there's a clear distinction between reaction and planning.

 

Reacting to the current stimuli, such as fear, love, disgust etc. is obviously sub/pre-conscious and given that we are all subject to this pre-conscious reaction it doesn't matter what brain makes it.

 

Planning seems to be far more subtle and nuanced, not every brain will make the same decisions for any given situation.

 

That clearly isn't true though. At least not for everyone. Not for people with schizophrenia, ADHD, depression, addiction, and etc, etc, etc. Everyone isn't the same and the health of our bodies, nature of our upbringing, genetics, environment, and etc all play a role in shaping us and during the most important years of brain development we has no control over those shaping factors.

 

 

 

 

I think bringing up abnormalities (as highlighted) to the norm only muddies the waters, essentially we are clones (within a bell curve) and whilst I agree we have no control over our individual shaping factors, I don't agree that we're not capable of breaking the cycle, depression or addiction, for instance, I have.

Edited May 18, 2017 by dimreepr

[goldglow]

goldglow,

 

Consider the phrase "logic would dictate."

 

I perhaps could have known your post and prepared this response.

 

And why do you figure rotten eggs smell BAD to everyone, and honeysuckle blooms smell GOOD. These judgements are predictable. Already built in.

 

Regards, TAR

 

 

 

Considered it TAR, and my logic still tells me i can't have a memory of something i haven't experienced. If i could, wouldn't my brain be swamped with millions of memories swirling around in everyone's head since Lucy was a girl? I had no memory of flying in an airplane until i had flown in one. Again, honeysuckle might smell lovely, but i wouldn't know until i smelled it - i can't smell someone else's memory of the honeysuckle perfume. Past generations, too, may have seen clouds before, but they didn't see the moving, changing clouds i saw today with my eyes. We may all have a common ancestry, but Lucy's consciousness isn't my consciousness: i have very fond memories of working on a traveling fair in America - i didn't get those from Lucy, or anyone else. Your post was really good, but i think we will have to agree to disagree.

 

P.S. Was it " say "?

[tar]

DrmDoc,

 

While I am not suggesting magical precognition, I am a believer in logic. Like on the court shows I watch, the judges know when somebody is lying, when they make up a story that is just not how a reasonable person would react under the manufactured situation, a person will "decide" on a thing that works, that makes sense. In this sense, I can "guess" what dimreepr might be struggling with (and overcoming), without actually reading his mind.

 

In the context of input and output, you have to allow for millions of years of evolution as input. In the context of input and output, you have to allow for input into others, to become part of your tool box. That is, if the apple hits Galileo on the head, and he tells you about it, it is as if the apple hit you in the head.

 

In any case, making the choice NOT to step off the cliff, is a choice already somewhat made. Even children and dogs have a hard time walking on glass with nothing but a drop beneath it.

 

Regards, TAR

 

so if I "decide" that rotten things smell bad (that might contain bacteria and maggots and toxins that will make me sick or kill me), and flowers smell good (that attract bees, and pollination, and later there is fruit and seeds in the fruit that I can eat to survive,) how much of the decision was actually made by the history of my genes, already

or I can choose to read Jampelyang's impermanence as a real thing, that reflects on the history of our genes as an enduring thread that ties us to the past and present and future, even though our own consciousness is fleeting and impermanent, without requiring a magical former life

 

​We really actually are connected to our ancestors by both physical genes and by the works, and decisions, and discoveries they have made.

Edited May 18, 2017 by tar

[dimreepr]

so if I "decide" that rotten things smell bad (that might contain bacteria and maggots and toxins that will make me sick or kill me), and flowers smell good (that attract bees, and pollination, and later there is fruit and seeds in the fruit that I can eat to survive,) how much of the decision was actually made by the history of my genes, already

 

You're missing my point, you don't decide what smells bad, you just loose your stomach.

[tar]

I used dictate, because we are considering the unconscious being in the driver's seat. To this, logic is what is true. True is what actually is, regardless of what we think. To this, what is going on, behind the scenes, under the layer of conscious thought, is actual matching of the real world, against our model of it, so that we can maneuver through it and manipulate it for our advantage. The thing that works, will be decided on, sometimes, without our being able to put it into words, or consider it, a conscious thought.

dimreepr,

 

but why would one smell make you lose your stomach and another move you to poetry?

 

Regards, TAR

and more importantly, why do we all make the same choice of which makes us sick and which makes us happy?

Edited May 18, 2017 by tar

[dimreepr]

 

dimreepr,

 

but why would one smell make you lose your stomach and another move you to poetry?

 

Regards, TAR

and more importantly, why do we all make the same choice of which makes us sick and which makes us happy?

 

 

I don't know, but it's not logical.

[tar]

sure it is

 

if you have just ingested a larva filled, toxin filled piece of meat, it is a good idea to throw up and get it out of your body

 

or if you smell the flowers its a good idea to feel good about the place and hang around and eat the fruit that comes

or find the honey

[dimreepr]

sure it is

 

if you have just ingested a larva filled, toxin filled piece of meat, it is a good idea to throw up and get it out of your body

 

or if you smell the flowers its a good idea to feel good about the place and hang around and eat the fruit that comes

or find the honey

 

That's not logic, it's a reaction.