5 ms·

I think the conclusions the author makes are way too broad. What generates consciousness, appears to me to be a function of what the neurons are all 'doing'. T

I think the conclusions the author makes are way too broad. What generates consciousness, appears to me to be a function of what the neurons are all 'doing'. The brain has two features that are devoted to linguistic processing, and you have to activate them in order to find words for the things you think. Thoughts that 'bubble up' all the way to linguistic representation in the mind are definitely conscious, while it's also possible to make some sense out of brain activity that doesn't quite find words. For example, playing ping pong or some other sport would be exceedingly difficult if you had to use the linguistic part of your brain in order to make sense of what you're doing. If you meditate, you can focus on that 'line' between when thoughts become linguistic and when they don't, and if you do trance work, you can block out the sensory world and so generate experiences using 'only' the mind. From here, you can work out that brain activity becomes conscious at some point. Also, obviously there is brain activity that does not reach consciousness, the brain for example needs to do things like regulate heartbeat, and certain aspects of our experience we're only dimly conscious of much of the time. Consciousness is a continuum, not a binary. So our brains can be doing a lot that we're not aware of.

drb91 8y ago
> Thoughts that 'bubble up' all the way to linguistic representation in the mind are definitely conscious, while it's also possible to make some sense out of brain activity that doesn't quite find words. For example, playing ping pong or some other sport would be exceedingly difficult if you had to use the linguistic part of your brain in order to make sense of what you're doing. Conscious brain activity always struck me as the primary meaning of "thought". The idea of conflating "thought" with unconscious brain activity just seems to devalue the word itself rather than bring some utility or added understanding to the table. Personally, I don't think of breathing as a thought at all, or my heart beating, even though it's evidently controlled by the brain, evidently also the source of thoughts. I only really ever have evidence of thoughts as distinct from other brain functions because I experience them consciously.
- Retric 8y ago
  I regularly have non linguistic thoughts. Picture trying to pack a suitcase into the nearly full list trunk of your car and it's all objects not words. Chess is a great example you picture a 'move' as a new layout. Practicing physical activities falls under the same kind of thing where I can focus on where to place my foot or when to breathe etc even when not doing the activity.
  - vinceguidry 8y ago
    Personally, I believe it's the same part of your brain that forms words that also thinks conceptually. Words are never that far from human cognition. If you want to get a sense for what non-linguistic thought would be, think more like your dog. The two language areas are the only functional difference between us and the animals. Once you start getting into the realm of things that dogs or other animals can't do, you're thinking linguistically.
    - Retric 8y ago
      This is the kind of thing you can look at using MRI scans and not all thoughts involve the linguistic centers of the brain.
      - vinceguidry 8y ago
        I'm not disputing that and I left my MRI machine in my other pants, so we'll have to go on intuition until someone with an MRI decides to investigate.
    - btmorex 8y ago
      Please explain https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphasia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphasia then My own personal anecdotal experience is that thinking in words is far, far slower than skipping them and sticking to concepts and connections.
      - vinceguidry 8y ago
dlwdlw 8y ago
In the book “The Elephant in the Brain”, the author makes the argument that our consciousness is entirely the PR department of the brain, making explanations for the “company” but not truly knowing what’s really going on. That is, all our thoughts are post-event justifications to make us feel good. There’s this famous experiment where they show two different things to each eye of a brain divided patient. The patient would then follow instructions from 1 eye, but provide a justification based on what the other eye saw. Like a PR rep having to do the job but with email and communication being down. The PR rep has to interpret things in a way that is in harmony to the external environment. Making the self seem self-less or hardworking or moral, etc... Where it gets interesting is that the resulting PR effects affect the environment which then trigger new behaviors resulting in new PR spin. The PR rep has a degree of control over the system yet at the core of it, the PR rep is installed by language/culture/society and is somewhat of an outsider. Like an overly idealistic justice warrior sent to whitewash some corrupt company and being frustrated by the job.
- crazygringo 8y ago
  This is similar to the thesis of Antonio Damasio's "Descartes' Error", which argues that all our decisions are ultimately taken by an unconscious emotional part of the brain, and that the conscious reasoning part is merely one of many inputs to the unconscious decision-making part. Which means we literally can never explain the "why" behind any decision we make, because we never know it -- yet that is our true "self", our free will if you choose to interpret it that way. It's why we can have every rational reason to not eat the cookie, and zero rational reason to eat it (we're not hungry and we rationally know it's in our best interest to lose weight)... and then we eat it anyways. We can't give any rational explanation for why we ate it... it just comes down to, in the end, I wanted to due to emotional factors I can only hypothesize in hindsight. It's a pretty powerful thesis.
  - NihilumExNil 8y ago
    No, I don't believe this. Rather, as you note inhibition, you rationalize an excuse before hand, here that you have no control over your actions, and as that has so far always worked out, as far as immediate gratification is concerned whereas detriment is harder to grasp, the inhibition is inhibited. The mind is complex and for every prohibitive experience you have an inhibition to find an excuse to justify your actions. Of course, in habitual actions these processes are pretty deeply ingrained, quick, and hence not very conscious compared to much more complex problems that might even compete for attention. Still though, the rationalization of what was done can only come after wards. That is correct.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
perl4ever 8y ago
Surely nobody who is reasonably high-functioning operates with a "single-threaded" consciousness. Isn't it a common experience to work out problems in your sleep or while doing other tasks? If there's no thought going on beyond the surface of your awareness, where do these solutions come from? I find analyzing a problem is facilitated by using words to describe it out loud or in writing, but there is clearly something that operates simultaneously apart from the target of my focus, because the description is not the analysis. Also, I find your description of meditating not really in line with my experience - what I think of as meditating is focusing on a mantra in order to suppress conscious thought, gently pushing it away every time it resurfaces. "Generating experiences" would be the opposite of meditating to me.

drb91 8y ago

> Thoughts that 'bubble up' all the way to linguistic representation in the mind are definitely conscious, while it's also possible to make some sense out of brain activity that doesn't quite find words. For example, playing ping pong or some other sport would be exceedingly difficult if you had to use the linguistic part of your brain in order to make sense of what you're doing. Conscious brain activity always struck me as the primary meaning of "thought". The idea of conflating "thought" with unconscious brain activity just seems to devalue the word itself rather than bring some utility or added understanding to the table. Personally, I don't think of breathing as a thought at all, or my heart beating, even though it's evidently controlled by the brain, evidently also the source of thoughts. I only really ever have evidence of thoughts as distinct from other brain functions because I experience them consciously.

Retric 8y ago
I regularly have non linguistic thoughts. Picture trying to pack a suitcase into the nearly full list trunk of your car and it's all objects not words. Chess is a great example you picture a 'move' as a new layout. Practicing physical activities falls under the same kind of thing where I can focus on where to place my foot or when to breathe etc even when not doing the activity.
- vinceguidry 8y ago
  Personally, I believe it's the same part of your brain that forms words that also thinks conceptually. Words are never that far from human cognition. If you want to get a sense for what non-linguistic thought would be, think more like your dog. The two language areas are the only functional difference between us and the animals. Once you start getting into the realm of things that dogs or other animals can't do, you're thinking linguistically.
  - Retric 8y ago
    This is the kind of thing you can look at using MRI scans and not all thoughts involve the linguistic centers of the brain.
    - vinceguidry 8y ago
      I'm not disputing that and I left my MRI machine in my other pants, so we'll have to go on intuition until someone with an MRI decides to investigate.
  - btmorex 8y ago
    Please explain https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphasia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphasia then My own personal anecdotal experience is that thinking in words is far, far slower than skipping them and sticking to concepts and connections.
    - vinceguidry 8y ago

dlwdlw 8y ago

In the book “The Elephant in the Brain”, the author makes the argument that our consciousness is entirely the PR department of the brain, making explanations for the “company” but not truly knowing what’s really going on. That is, all our thoughts are post-event justifications to make us feel good. There’s this famous experiment where they show two different things to each eye of a brain divided patient. The patient would then follow instructions from 1 eye, but provide a justification based on what the other eye saw. Like a PR rep having to do the job but with email and communication being down. The PR rep has to interpret things in a way that is in harmony to the external environment. Making the self seem self-less or hardworking or moral, etc... Where it gets interesting is that the resulting PR effects affect the environment which then trigger new behaviors resulting in new PR spin. The PR rep has a degree of control over the system yet at the core of it, the PR rep is installed by language/culture/society and is somewhat of an outsider. Like an overly idealistic justice warrior sent to whitewash some corrupt company and being frustrated by the job.

crazygringo 8y ago
This is similar to the thesis of Antonio Damasio's "Descartes' Error", which argues that all our decisions are ultimately taken by an unconscious emotional part of the brain, and that the conscious reasoning part is merely one of many inputs to the unconscious decision-making part. Which means we literally can never explain the "why" behind any decision we make, because we never know it -- yet that is our true "self", our free will if you choose to interpret it that way. It's why we can have every rational reason to not eat the cookie, and zero rational reason to eat it (we're not hungry and we rationally know it's in our best interest to lose weight)... and then we eat it anyways. We can't give any rational explanation for why we ate it... it just comes down to, in the end, I wanted to due to emotional factors I can only hypothesize in hindsight. It's a pretty powerful thesis.
- NihilumExNil 8y ago
  No, I don't believe this. Rather, as you note inhibition, you rationalize an excuse before hand, here that you have no control over your actions, and as that has so far always worked out, as far as immediate gratification is concerned whereas detriment is harder to grasp, the inhibition is inhibited. The mind is complex and for every prohibitive experience you have an inhibition to find an excuse to justify your actions. Of course, in habitual actions these processes are pretty deeply ingrained, quick, and hence not very conscious compared to much more complex problems that might even compete for attention. Still though, the rationalization of what was done can only come after wards. That is correct.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

perl4ever 8y ago

Surely nobody who is reasonably high-functioning operates with a "single-threaded" consciousness. Isn't it a common experience to work out problems in your sleep or while doing other tasks? If there's no thought going on beyond the surface of your awareness, where do these solutions come from? I find analyzing a problem is facilitated by using words to describe it out loud or in writing, but there is clearly something that operates simultaneously apart from the target of my focus, because the description is not the analysis. Also, I find your description of meditating not really in line with my experience - what I think of as meditating is focusing on a mantra in order to suppress conscious thought, gently pushing it away every time it resurfaces. "Generating experiences" would be the opposite of meditating to me.