tornpentacle t1_iufwgx3 wrote
Reply to comment by shukufuku in Conscious Reality Is Only a Memory of Unconscious Actions, Scientists Propose In Radical New Theory by mossadnik
Consciousness ≠ involvement in decisionmaking. Consciousness is simply awareness of events. In our case, as humans, there is certainly a correlation between past sensations witnessed by the sensory organs and future "output" (i.e. movements, thoughts, etc). In turn, those outputs act as inputs which again influence the outputs, and so on and so forth until cessation of consciousness. The brain is essentially a feedback loop, with the external inputs being constantly filtered (like in the initial pass through our nervous system to the brain, including the regions of the brain responsible for processing sensory information) then re-filtered (cognition). This introduces an appearance of randomness, especially when we examine other people's behavior (as we are often quick to explain our reasons for our own behavior).
Revelec458 t1_iugssvv wrote
Interesting.
Kailaylia t1_iugjl06 wrote
>Consciousness is simply awareness of events.
There's no such thing as simple awareness of events.
All awareness is contextual, being influenced by our perceptions of the past, our current expectations, and fears or hopes for the future.
tornpentacle t1_iuh19mm wrote
Those are also inputs in the network. And there most certainly is such thing as that.
kaveldun t1_iugx02x wrote
This is 100% speculative pseudo stuff.
tornpentacle t1_iuh1bjy wrote
No, it is how the brain works, written in simple terms rather than in technical language.
kaveldun t1_iuh1osx wrote
Nope. Science doesn't know what consciousness is, how/why it exists or even how to define it. You're confusing cognitive processes with consciousness/subjectivity.
Read up on the hard problem of consciousness - it's "hard" for a reason, and there is not even almost a consensus on how to go about conceptualising it.
Dry_Turnover_6068 t1_iuhgnc5 wrote
Consciousness is a word used to describe the dynamic collection of cognitive processes that people possess.
There doesn't seem to be any kind of "consciousness particle" (i.e. physical spirit) so science has had a hard time pinning this down to a certain "thing". A hard problem to be sure.
[deleted] t1_iui8a82 wrote
[removed]
tornpentacle t1_iuiyh09 wrote
Science does indeed know "what consciousness is". Perhaps you've been listening to silly old non-scientist David Chalmers, who believes in magic? His entire schtick is ignoring the fact that consciousness can be (and has been) fully explained from a neurological standpoint. You don't need spooky magic for consciousness. In fact, your initial response to me applies far more to Chalmers's unscientific ramblings than to the observable, empirically-verified description of the mechanism of consciousness that has been established over decades of scientific research.
tornpentacle t1_iujs2qu wrote
Just wanted to add that this is an absurd discussion to even have in the science subreddit, because David Chalmers is not a scientist, and has no understanding of the workings of the brain (or else he would realize that conscious experience is fully explained via physical means that can be understood and observed). Chalmers's "hard problem" only presents difficulty to people without knowledge of neurology and cognition...because people with knowledge in those fields can and have elucidated the nature and origin of conscious experience via purely physical means.
red75prime t1_iuhihjz wrote
The description is so high-level that a PID controller matches it.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments