Present some evidence that we have conscious control. I have seen none, only speculation and wishful thinking.Explain you to me why being conscious is an evolutionary advantage when it has no causal influence. And you never explained why a thermostat does not control the temperature of a room. Every negative feedback system is an example of a system that has some control. And we are full of such systems, and some of them are conscious: if you are getting cold, you turn the thermostat higher: that is a conscious act, that works against the influence you do not like: the coldness in the room.
I didn't start it this time. Just happy to put in my two-cents worth and do my best keep the discussion scientific.You did:
It's all determined, even what we think of as consciousness. Our consciousness is determined by genes and other natural factors. Our consciousness is in control of nothing. It is only observational.These have all nothing to do with the difference between 'conscious' and 'subconscious': you are telling in what sense they are the same. Exactly the opposite what TimB was asking for.
That seems contrary to your computer analogy of the hard disk as subconscious and ram as conscious the hard disk is 1 source for information to be loaded in ram.Then you are interpreting it differently than I meant, an inherent risk when using comparisons... Where do you see the contradiction? I don't see any.
Is the DNA in a gene being passed to RNA to make protein what you are referring to?In the posting you quoted here I was not saying anything about DNA or proteins, that was my other posting. I relativised Lois' vulgar determinism, showing that which genes are expressed is controlled by the environment including our conscious decisions, and therefore genes do not control us in the absolute sense Lois is presenting. Genes are just one of the many causal factors that influence our behaviour. But from the other side our behaviour determines which genes will be expressed (e.g. if I exercise strength training, my genes that code for creating muscle filaments are read). Therefore the metaphor of genes as blueprints for proteins is a much better one than genes that are determining us. There is simply much more going on. See Epigenetics]. Lois puts consciousness at the end of a causal chain (which is already conceptually wrong, because the brain does not 'cause' consciousness; consciousness is what a correct working brain does), that on its turn has no influence at all ("it is only observational", she says). But if consciousness has no causal effects, then it also cannot be an evolutionary advantage: nature would not be able to distinguish between organisms that have consciousness, and organisms that haven't.
I think Genes do much more than passing a DNA blueprint to RNA to make a specific protein. I also think LoisL is right. Maybe just not by your definition.Maybe a bit more. They might guide enzymes to the place where to find the DNA to be replicated, but the main function is simply to code for strings of amino-acids, also called polypeptides i.e. proteins. I suggest you start reading Wikipedia: - DNA] - Transcription] - Protein biosynthesis] Otherwise you have to take my word for it. I miss any argument in your viewpoint, AMH. You are just saying you believe Lois is right. But all of this has not much to do with the question about conscious/subconscious...
Therefore the metaphor of genes as blueprints for proteins is a much better one than genes that are determining us. There is simply much more going on. See Epigenetics].This delves slightly into an area of interest for me. Darwinian vs. LaMarck. Not black and white by any means...but perhaps a small illustration of how theory can become a meme. An unbending regimen that scoffs at previous experiments that perhaps were not fully developed...but buried under ridicule and heresy. And now some are having to go back and reconsider...
...However DarronS wrote that the subconscious of the mind, not of the brain. The question that arises then, is what is a mental phenomenon (i.e. a phenomenon of the mind) that can in principle never be conscious? Maybe some people have examples: maybe subluminal messages? But that is a fussy domain...I suggest that the concept of "the mind", distinct from the brain, is also a fussy/fuzzy domain.
Here we go again
It is written in the tea leaves.But Lois started! :grrr: I would love to understand more about genes. From what little I think I understand, I believe Loisl is right. I think that Lois goes off track at the point where she so confidently, and unilaterally, asserts: "Our consciousness is in control of nothing. It is only observational." I think that being conscious and observing also plays a role in "control". (Not in the sense of being THE ultimate control, but in the sense of having an important impact.) In fact, it seems nonsensical to me, to suggest otherwise. Do you have any empirical evidence for that supposition? Meanwhile we have repeated evidence that we make decisions before we are aware of them. To assume we have conscious control assumes we have free will. Do you have any empirical evidence that we have free will? That our consciousness can sipersede genetic and environmental determinants? If being conscious is not completely superfluous, as Lois suggests, then I wonder, to what degree is it useful? And could it be more useful to become more conscious of what typically remains subconscious? There is an overwhelming amount of empirical evidence that the behavior of all organisms is effected by environmental stimuli, and also, often, by the consequences that occur upon the elicitation or emission of a given behavior by the individual organism AND by the individual organism's history of exposure to such stimuli and consequences. This certainly goes on, much of the time, regardless of the organism being conscious of it. My contention is that, SOMETIMES, being conscious of particular stimuli and consequences is an added element in the process, i.e., being conscious of, e.g., thinking about stimuli, and consequences, can, itself, SOMETIMES, be an added stimuli or consequence. I am not making any dogmatic assertions about free will, here. I am not making any overarching claims about WE being IN CONTROL. I am not claiming that being conscious of something SUPERCEDES other underlying determinants. I am simply claiming that being conscious of something can often be an important element as a determinant of subsequent behavior.
...However DarronS wrote that the subconscious of the mind, not of the brain. The question that arises then, is what is a mental phenomenon (i.e. a phenomenon of the mind) that can in principle never be conscious? Maybe some people have examples: maybe subluminal messages? But that is a fussy domain...I suggest that the concept of "the mind", distinct from the brain, is also a fussy/fuzzy domain. Agreed.
Yes agreed but, fussy, fuzzy domains are fun to play in sometimes, just remember to come up for air.Yes, these ideas are fun to play with, mainly because no one can define them concretely. We know something is going on in our brains, and we know there is a difference between the conscious and subconscious, but getting precise is difficult if not impossible.
Present some evidence that we have conscious control. I have seen none, only speculation and wishful thinking.Explain you to me why being conscious is an evolutionary advantage when it has no causal influence. And you never explained why a thermostat does not control the temperature of a room. Every negative feedback system is an example of a system that has some control. And we are full of such systems, and some of them are conscious: if you are getting cold, you turn the thermostat higher: that is a conscious act, that works against the influence you do not like: the coldness in the room. Is the thermostat in conscious control or is it just responding to a program?
Present some evidence that we have conscious control. I have seen none, only speculation and wishful thinking.Explain you to me why being conscious is an evolutionary advantage when it has no causal influence. And you never explained why a thermostat does not control the temperature of a room. Every negative feedback system is an example of a system that has some control. And we are full of such systems, and some of them are conscious: if you are getting cold, you turn the thermostat higher: that is a conscious act, that works against the influence you do not like: the coldness in the room. Is the thermostat in conscious control or is it just responding to a program? Jees, Lois, no one thinks that a thermostat is ever conscious. He's just saying that someone who is conscious, sometimes, re-sets the thermostat. You are saying that the person who re-sets the thermostat, would have done so whether they were conscious of anything or not. i.e., it doesn't matter whether the person noticed they were hot or cold, or whether they noticed themselves going to and re-setting the thermostat to a certain temperature, or whether they had any memory of what a thermostat is, where it is, and how to set it. And you base this dogmatic certainty of yours, on some experiments that seem to indicate that we may often take actions before we are aware that we were going to take the particular action. You do not seem to understand that you are overgeneralizing from the results of a limited amount of research that has its own limitations. And you continue to ignore the fact that observations, even if only observed in retrospect of a particular action, can, themselves, impact subsequent behavior.
Is the thermostat in conscious control or is it just responding to a program?You are moving the goal posts: first it was just control, now it is conscious control. Of course a thermostat has no consciousness, so it has also no conscious control*. And if you want, you can call the way it functions a (simple) program (it does not respond to a program, it works due to its program). But it has control: without it we could not use them to regulate temperature. But we, our brains, are extremely complex programs. Complex programs lead to new functions. A thermostat cannot calculate, a pocket calculator can. A simple pocket calculator cannot generate virtual realities, a PC can. And some systems are so complex, they can virtually try out different scenarios for actions and anticipate future possibilities: the only systems we really know until now that can do that are higher animals, such as we are. And obviously, this capability is consciousness. So to say that we are just running a (very complex) program, and saying we are at least partially in conscious control is in our case the same. The point you consistently fail to see is that consciousness is a program running in our brain (and not some soul entity that is just observing what happens). And just as a thermostat has (very limited) control over its environment, our consciousness has also some control over its environment. But just as a thermostat, that does not mean that we are undetermined systems. We are determined, and we have control over our environment. You see a contradiction where there is none. * See, adjectives can be very important...
I suggest that the concept of "the mind", distinct from the brain, is also a fussy/fuzzy domain.Sorry for the fuzz. Of course I meant 'fuzzy'. And no, the difference between the brain and the mind is conceptually easy to make: if you talk about firing neurons, the metabolism of neurons, about electro-chemical pulse, you talk about the brain. If you talk about feelings, thoughts, consciousness, and subconscious, we are talking about the mind. Let's go back to DarronS' description:
subconscious refers to the processes that go on in the background in our minds, of which we are unaware.The problem, in my opinion, lies in the word 'processes'. If Darron meant 'physical processes' then it is wrong: we are never aware of physical process in our brains. If he means mental processes, then he is right. But then maybe we need the description I gave: what would a mental process be that at least potentially cannot be conscious at all? E.g. the Libet experiments]: the action potential that is measured shortly before the subject says he was choosing to flex his hand is a physical process. One could say it is an unconscious process, but not a subconscious, because we will never be aware of this action potential itself. One should not mixup the meanings of 'unconscious' and 'subconscious'. A lot of confusion in the debate about consciousness and free will arises from such unclear use of concepts.
I think you said the conscious (RAM) does not get information from the subconscious (hard disk) Now I think you meant not from subconscious per SE, but from the protein made by the DNA RNA process.No, I did not imply that at all, on the contrary. In a computer there is a continuous exchange of data and program parts between the harddisk and RAM. But programs can only run in RAM. So the information on the harddisk is available to RAM, but first it must be explicitly fetched before it can be used. So this is my comparison with the content of the subconscious. It is there, but not explicitly in consciousness: but it can in principle be fetched when it is needed. E.g. before you read this sentence, you might not have been actually thinking what you have eaten yesterday evening; now that you explicitly are asked you do remember. So it came from the subconscious into consciousness. So most of your memory is nearly always subconscious.
Jees, Lois, no one thinks that a thermostat is ever conscious. ....Missed this. Exactly what I mean.
Meanwhile we have repeated evidence that we make decisions before we are aware of them. To assume we have conscious control assumes we have free will. Do you have any empirical evidence that we have free will? That our consciousness can sipersede genetic and environmental determinants?I believe that would be a misinterpretation, reading too much into studies that basically involved rote behavior and that really only showed that the brain has the ability to anticipate situations and events. [Sorry about that Tim, I should have noticed that. :sick: ]
I suggest that the concept of "the mind", distinct from the brain, is also a fussy/fuzzy domain.Sorry for the fuzz. Of course I meant 'fuzzy'. And no, the difference between the brain and the mind is conceptually easy to make: if you talk about firing neurons, the metabolism of neurons, about electro-chemical pulse, you talk about the brain. If you talk about feelings, thoughts, consciousness, and subconscious, we are talking about the mind. Let's go back to DarronS' description:
subconscious refers to the processes that go on in the background in our minds, of which we are unaware.The problem, in my opinion, lies in the word 'processes'. If Darron meant 'physical processes' then it is wrong: we are never aware of physical process in our brains. If he means mental processes, then he is right. But then maybe we need the description I gave: what would a mental process be that at least potentially cannot be conscious at all? E.g. the Libet experiments]: the action potential that is measured shortly before the subject says he was choosing to flex his hand is a physical process. One could say it is an unconscious process, but not a subconscious, because we will never be aware of this action potential itself. One should not mixup the meanings of 'unconscious' and 'subconscious'. A lot of confusion in the debate about consciousness and free will arises from such unclear use of concepts. Thanks for clearing that up, GDB. You said it better than I did because you understand the subject more thoroughly.
I started reading this thread a few days ago and wanted to post, but the more I thought about what to write, the less I knew what to write. I’ll think I have an idea, but when I think about how to communicate it, I end up getting lost in thinking about it and find out I really don’t know what I thought I knew.
My poor brain doesn’t know what’s going on inside of it!
And no, the difference between the brain and the mind is conceptually easy to makeYes it is. The brain is an actual organ made of tissue. The word "mind" is a conceptual language device.
If you talk about feelings, thoughts, consciousness, and subconscious, we are talking about the mind.Actually were still talking about the brain. Of course because the word "mind" is a conceptual language device we could apply it too. But science studying feelings, thoughts, consciousness etc etc would be talking about the brain.
Let's go back to DarronS' description: The problem, in my opinion, lies in the word 'processes'. If Darron meant 'physical processes' then it is wrong: we are never aware of physical process in our brains.Darron did mean physical processes, and why would he be wrong? Just because we are not "aware" of them doesn't mean he is wrong. They are physical processes.
If he means mental processes, then he is right. But then maybe we need the description I gave: what would a mental process be that at least potentially cannot be conscious at all?That would be another conceptual language device...the word "sub-conscious". Just like "mental process".
A lot of confusion in the debate about consciousness and free will arises from such unclear use of concepts.Yeah, no kidding. Darron! When you're right, you're right. This was just a huge semantic bomb!!
Meanwhile we have repeated evidence that we make decisions before we are aware of them. To assume we have conscious control assumes we have free will. Do you have any empirical evidence that we have free will? That our consciousness can sipersede genetic and environmental determinants?I believe that would be a misinterpretation, reading too much into studies that basically involved rote behavior and that really only showed that the brain has the ability to anticipate situations and events. JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT: The red quote above is NOT mine. It was inserted by Lois as a response to me.