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.
Ok, where's your evidence that even that claim is true?
Lois
The behavior of all organisms occur according to 2 basic formulas:
Stimulus - Response (a behavior), and Stimulus - Response - Reinforcement
Also the individual organism's history of exposures to such contingencies, impacts how those formulas actualize in the behavior of the individual organism.
These are fundamental principles of behavior, that have been demonstrated, beyond any credible contention.
Something that one observes can be a stimulus. Something that one observes can be reinforcement. You agree that consciousness is a kind of observation. So how could it be that such "observations" NEVER impact subsequent behavior?
I can agree with that distinction of the terms brain and "mind", UNLESS, it leads one to forget or conclude that "feelings, thoughts, consciousness, and subconscious" are not ALSO products of "firing neurons, the metabolism of neurons, ... electro-chemical pulse", that occur mostly in the brain (along with the assist and support of other organs, such as organs related to perception, and those involved in hormone distribution, and organs involved in speech production).
I hope you don't think that I forget that. I always stressed that the mind is the functioning brain.
Indeed. I don't want anyone else to forget it.
To what do you think those 2 terms actually refer?
And what is one vs. the other?
TimB: did you get a satisfactory answer? Why were you asking?
I was interested in hearing other's views on the topic. I appreciated your input, and the participation of others who expressed their thoughts.
Although it is easy for you to come up with a coherent conception of the topic, I don't think that it is so easy for most folks.
(Especially, I think the concept of "subconscious" is used rather ubiquitously, without consideration of what is actually being spoken about.)
Thank you TimB. The topic produced dialogue that was very interesting to this one. I don't mind exposing how much I don't know when a genuine opportunity to know more is presented.
I've learned a lot here over the years. Threads like this keep me coming back.
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.
I have no dogmatic certainty of anything. i go by evidence. There is evidence that we make decisions before we are aware of them, but thete is NO evidence that I know of that our consciousness has any influence on our decisions, which means the default is that conscious control has not bern proven. A default statement is not a dogmatic statement. It is a scientofic statement. The burden of proof is on the person(s) making a claim. If no objective evidence is forthcoming from the person(s) making the claim--in this case that we have conscious control--we must assume that the claim is false, or at least unproven. That is not dogma. It is a scientific default position for when no evidence has been provided for a claim. If we have something called a "sub-conscious" mind (for which there is also no evidence, incidentally) then by definition that "mind" is not conscious. How is it different from all the billions of phenomena we are not conscious of? Either we are conscious of something or we are not. By claiming a "sub conscious" you are trying to create something that is neither conscious nor unconscious. You are suugesting a third state between consciousness and unconsciousness. Where is your evidence that such a thing exists or can exist?
And you continue to ignore the fact that observations, even if only observed in retrospect of a particular action, can, themselves, impact subsequent behavior.
What observations are you referring to? I have never heard of observations having an impact on anything. Please provide details.
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 supersede genetic and environmental determinants?
Okay, where's your evidence that your representation of that claim is accurate?
My claim is that you have no evidence for free will or that we make decisions consciously. Prove me wrong.
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 supersede genetic and environmental determinants?
Okay, where's your evidence that your representation of that claim is accurate?
My claim is that you have no evidence for free will or that we make decisions consciously. Prove me wrong.
That's okay Lois, I couldn't prove anything to do and don't pretend to try.
I was asking specifically about this claim.
Meanwhile we have repeated evidence that we make decisions before we are aware of them.
~~~~~~~~~~~
To be honest, I'm not so concerned about other's evidence (since much of it turns out to talk upon talk and little more), my thing is trying to understand what I'm experiencing, and then trying to communicate it. Though the little gems I come up with now and then, seems to leave others with yawns. So it goes.
Consider me a specter who tosses in his two cents now and then. ;-)
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.
I have no dogmatic certainty of anything. i go by evidence. There is evidence that we make decisions before we are aware of them, but thete is NO evidence that I know of that our consciousness has any influence on our decisions, which means the default is that conscious control has not bern proven. A default statement is not a dogmatic statement. It is a scientofic statement. The burden of proof is on the person(s) making a claim. If no objective evidence is forthcoming from the person(s) making the claim--in this case that we have conscious control--we must assume that the claim is false, or at least unproven. That is not dogma. It is a scientific default position for when no evidence has been provided for a claim. If we have something called a "sub-conscious" mind (for which there is also no evidence, incidentally) then by definition that "mind" is not conscious. How is it different from all the billions of phenomena we are not conscious of? Either we are conscious of something or we are not. By claiming a "sub conscious" you are trying to create something that is neither conscious nor unconscious. You are suugesting a third state between consciousness and unconsciousness. Where is your evidence that such a thing exists or can exist?
And you continue to ignore the fact that observations, even if only observed in retrospect of a particular action, can, themselves, impact subsequent behavior.
What observations are you referring to? I have never heard of observations having an impact on anything. Please provide details.
Lois, If you don't understand how observations impact anything. Put on a real blindfold (other than just the metaphorical one that you have on this subject) and find out whether it effects anything that you do.
As far as the term "sub-conscious" not referring to anything for which there is evidence: I think that is similar to claiming that there is no evidence that a flowering plant that has not yet blossomed, will ever produce a blossom. This claim is sort of true, in that an individual plant, in lieu of necessary conditions, may actually never blossom, but the claim is completely erroneous, if this bit of truth is over-generalized to suggest that there is no evidence of the potential of any flowering plant to ever blossom.
As far as distinguishing the concepts of "conscious", "subconscious", and "unconscious", GdB has already given some reasonable defining traits on those terms.