DavidMcC wrote:... Of course, in the dream state of consciousness, you are under the illusion that you are fully conscious (ie, awake), but that only applies to the dream state.

I never dream about being conscious. I hardly think it at all even when awake.

GrahamH wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:...
Are you sliding toward consciousness as the illusion that we are conscious?

Ahem! How do you have any illusion about yourself at all without being conscious? Doesn't your above sentence imply an oxymoron?

On the face os yes, it seems to imply that. However, ideas of mind already embrace a duality of cognition (easy problem, functional) and subjectivity (hard problem)....

I'm sorry, but that does not make sense to me. Can you put it another way?

SpeedOfSound wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:... Of course, in the dream state of consciousness, you are under the illusion that you are fully conscious (ie, awake), but that only applies to the dream state.

I never dream about being conscious. I hardly think it at all even when awake.

So, you are never in your own dreams?
I don't seem to dream these days (or never remember them, there is no way to know, if you don't accept that REM eye movements necessarily imply dreaming, but I often used to, and I remember finding myself being chased in a field, by an animal. I all seemed quite real, and I was relieved when I woke up and found that it was all just a nightmare! Of course, while I was asleep, it never occurred to me that the scene wasn't real - that I was only dreaming, but then that is characteristic of the dream state of consciousness - an inability to think things through and come to a rational conclusion.

kennyc wrote:

GrahamH wrote:....

Does thermostat 'cognition' allow for mind modelling? Can a thermostat understand itself as a subject having experiences? If so then I'd call it conscious.

and this is where you misunderstand the analogy. You first have to understand what a feedback loop/system is and then you have to recognize that that is exactly the function of consciousness, in the same manner as a thermostat is in its system.

It has nothing to do with what you think of as subjective experience, but certainly a thermostat is aware of and senses the environment and makes conscious decisions based on that experience/awareness/sensation. So yes it does 'model' its environment its 'mind' even as simple as it is.

Fallacy of composition. Consciousness involves feedback, therefore all feedback is consciousness.
That makes you a pan-psychist because all physical interaction is feedback. A influences B influences A.

How does feedback = experience? How does a loop = mind?

You are evading the thing to be explained entirely and labelling all physical interaction as 'awareness'. that is meaningless, unless you simply do want to believe in panpsychism.

Nope. You are making up stuff that doesn't exist. That's not how science works.

GrahamH wrote:... Virtual mental states are as integrated into brain as sensory states. The brain selects what to 'render in the virtual space' and responds to that rendering.

...

IMO, there is no such thing as a "sensory state", only "mental states". Sensory input is handled by non-conscious areas of the cortex, and acts as input to conscious neural circuits (by which we become aware of the input), influencing mental states.

SpeedOfSound wrote:Like kenny says. Throwing out the phrase 'self-model' is not helping us. What is a self-model and why is it necessary to have the self prefix? If I were hooked up to the Mars rover instead of my body I wouldn't be conscious? I suspect you think I would be conscious so we can lose the self part.

Next think about what that hookup means and how a model is the sum of many such hookups. Then you get down to the thermostat reduction.

'self model' means two things:
a) a model that includes your physical extent, pose and manoeuvrability (body model) and
b) a model of mind extension of the body model that maps behavioural dispositions and a prioritised subset of sensory events.

Model of self body + model of self mind.

You can have a model of some other body or some other mind. The brain could be said to model the physics of bodies for evasion, motion planning etc, but those are less relavent to a discussion of subjective consciouness, where we want to understand the meaning of 'what it's like to be'.

If you brains was hooked upt to a Mars rover then perhaps your body model element adapts to model the rover. The mind model may adapt a bit as well. What seems to you to be you is not fixed (see rubber hand). The brain monitors the body to maintain it's model (see Damassio. See 'Out of body')

The model shuts down when you are onconsious, or you lose consciousness because the model shuts down, but integrating with a different body would not make you unconscious.

Whether we could be conscious without a body, for more than a short time, is an open question. It could be the case that without the pulse, withi sensori-motor feedback, the model wolud decohere, degrade to noise, and there would be no 'you'.

I suggest an integrated body/mind model. Do you think that applies to thermostats? Can a thermostat even sense its own extents?

DavidMcC wrote:

GrahamH wrote:... Virtual mental states are as integrated into brain as sensory states. The brain selects what to 'render in the virtual space' and responds to that rendering.

...

IMO, there is no such thing as a "sensory state", only "mental states". Sensory input is handled by non-conscious areas of the cortex, and acts as input to conscious neural circuits (by which we become aware of the input), influencing mental states.

I know, and we are unlikely to agree. You think there are 'conscious neural circuits' and I don't. You are in Kenny's boat there, and he obviously hasn't got a clue.

Does feedback == consciousness? Why? How? What does that equality mean? What makes some neural feedback conscious and other feedback, neural or not, unconscious? It looks distinctly like a case of - 'and then the magic happens'.

If 'temperature control feedback' = consciousness then elementary particles are aware.

No, you clearly don't understand what a feedback system is or how it is being used in the context of consciousness. You are making a fundamental logic error in an attempt to support your beliefs.

David's characterization of consciousness as a separate process of the brain which is fed input/monitors sensory input (as well as memories, emotional state, etc) is absolutely right-on.

kennyc wrote:No, you clearly don't understand what a feedback system is or how it is being used in the context of consciousness. You are making a fundamental logic error in an attempt to support your beliefs.

David's characterization of consciousness as a separate process of the brain which is fed input/monitors sensory input (as well as memories, emotional state, etc) is absolutely right-on.

I know what feedback is. Do you want to discuss PID loops, ANN adaptive controls, Control theory? Do you want to explain how two electrons interacting is not feedback?

Feel free to post your special sauce definition if you have one that explains anything about how it is that you are conscious.

I note you have nothing to say to explain how feedback is supposed to result in my feeling of amusement at your content-free 'you don't understand!' posts.

Of course consciousness is involved with sensory monitoring, memory, emotional state also forward planning, empathy, blah, blah blah. But that doesn't explain it. It gives us no concepts that could allow any understanding. It's your mantra - feedback = consciousness. try a bit harder, please!

No special sauce required. That's what you (and Chalmers and etc) are attempting to add.

again you express your ignorance when you claim feedback = consciousness. You clearly don't comprehend the basic issues at hand.

kennyc wrote:No special sauce required. That's what you (and Chalmers and etc) are attempting to add.

again you express you ignorance when you claim feedback = consciousness. You clearly don't comprehend the basic issues at hand.

Come on Kenney, don't tease us if you think you can explain something about how it is that there are conscious entities then explain it!
How about starting by plainly stating how it is that you, me and thermostats experience warmth.

Been there, done that, (post #118) not going to argue with you. But I will continue to point out the errors, ignorance, and un-supportable claims that you and others (such as Chalmers) make. Just like the above post.

kennyc wrote:Been there, done that, (post #118) not going to argue with you. But I will continue to point out the errors, ignorance, and un-supportable claims that you and others (such as Chalmers) make. Just like the above post.

OK, continue to ignore the defining feature of consciousness and abuse the language, and I'll ignore your posts.

GrahamH wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

GrahamH wrote:... Virtual mental states are as integrated into brain as sensory states. The brain selects what to 'render in the virtual space' and responds to that rendering.

...

IMO, there is no such thing as a "sensory state", only "mental states". Sensory input is handled by non-conscious areas of the cortex, and acts as input to conscious neural circuits (by which we become aware of the input), influencing mental states.

I know, and we are unlikely to agree. You think there are 'conscious neural circuits' and I don't. You are in Kenny's boat there, and he obviously hasn't got a clue.

A couple of years back,on this site, I explained my model of the NCCe (ie the enabling neural circuits for C). They are connected in continuous, almost fully excitatory loops with the PFC and thalamus, that enable a thought to be retained in the brain, instead of going up in a puff of smoke, as the neural signals vanish, due to the absence of a holding loop.

Does feedback == consciousness? Why? How? What does that equality mean? What makes some neural feedback conscious and other feedback, neural or not, unconscious? It looks distinctly like a case of - 'and then the magic happens'.

If 'temperature control feedback' = consciousness then elementary particles are aware.

The multiple branches of the loop within the neocortex that enable something more complex than thermostat operation.
As discussed before, he excitation migrates, so that neurons are protected from damage by over-stimulation.

Yes, David, you explained the T_C loops, and the persistence of excitation. Those are all fair enough. I have no particular disagreement with you on that, but it goes nowhere at all in explaining why or how that produces experiences for a subjective mind. We can focus on the topology of loops and regions or we can think about information content in those loops and regions. My interest here is what it means to be conscious. How is experience known/had?

Can a brain understand? Can a physical system generate semantics/meaning?

GrahamH wrote:Yes, David, you explained the T_C loops, and the persistence of excitation. Those are all fair enough. I have no particular disagreement with you on that, but it goes nowhere at all in explaining why or how that produces experiences for a subjective mind. We can focus on the topology of loops and regions or we can think about information content in those loops and regions. My interest here is what it means to be conscious. How is experience known/had?

What it 'means' to be conscious it to survive, to have a survival advantage. It's nothing more than that.

What does it 'mean' to have fingernails? What does it 'mean' to digest food?

As far as 'how' we are conscious, we are trying to explain that to you, but you are not listening due apparently to your bias and/or beliefs.

kennyc wrote:

GrahamH wrote:Yes, David, you explained the T_C loops, and the persistence of excitation. Those are all fair enough. I have no particular disagreement with you on that, but it goes nowhere at all in explaining why or how that produces experiences for a subjective mind. We can focus on the topology of loops and regions or we can think about information content in those loops and regions. My interest here is what it means to be conscious. How is experience known/had?

What it 'means' to be conscious it to survive, to have a survival advantage. It's nothing more than that.

What does it 'mean' to have fingernails? What does it 'mean' to digest food?

As far as 'how' we are conscious, we are trying to explain that to you, but you are not listening due apparently to your bias and/or beliefs.

You are trying to 'explain' that mind merely in terms of a benefit of some functions of mind. It seems you have nothing to say about consciousness.

digestion and fingernails are not semantic functions. Thinking is. Consciousness is about knowing and predicting ourselves and others, about recognising what physical extent is self vs not self. I don't want to down-play digestion, but it isn't like subjectivity. It doesn't help to explain phenomenal consciousness.

I shan't be 'listening' to your posts unless you engage with the subject.

GrahamH wrote:Yes, David, you explained the T_C loops, and the persistence of excitation. Those are all fair enough. I have no particular disagreement with you on that, but it goes nowhere at all in explaining why or how that produces experiences for a subjective mind. We can focus on the topology of loops and regions or we can think about information content in those loops and regions. My interest here is what it means to be conscious. How is experience known/had?

It is not obvious that that can be answered. Nor is it obvious that it needs to be, scientifically, other than getting more and more precise information about what different qualia correspond to in terms of neural activity, in different people.