Re: Two Studies. Visual Cortex does not see. Consciousness is not thought.
On 08 Apr 2012, at 20:31, meekerdb wrote: On 4/8/2012 6:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I also think you're wrong to single out the Occident. The Orient has effectively combined religion and politics too. I agree. I was just citing Occident, because I know it better, and the political use has been quite effective and general. I am not sure there has been a buddhist state anywhere, nor a taoist state. In South Korea buddhism is recognized as an official religion (among others) Yes, but that is different. In my country some religion are officially recognized, and others not. For example catholicism is recongnized, but scientology is not. and so it ia funded by the government. Yes, that's the idea. I am not catholic, but I pay taxes a part of which can be used for religious purpose. Scientology get also money, but they have to use corruption, and things like that. A few years ago this led to the strange sight of a melee of buddhist monks fighting in the street with rocks and bottles and sticks over which sect was the *true* buddhism which should get the government funds. Yes, but again, that is different from having a state which imposes the same religion to all the subjects, like materialism in the USSR, or Christianism in the Roman Empire after +500.. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Two Studies. Visual Cortex does not see. Consciousness is not thought.
On 4/8/2012 6:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I also think you're wrong to single out the Occident. The Orient has effectively combined religion and politics too. I agree. I was just citing Occident, because I know it better, and the political use has been quite effective and general. I am not sure there has been a buddhist state anywhere, nor a taoist state. In South Korea buddhism is recognized as an official religion (among others) and so it ia funded by the government. A few years ago this led to the strange sight of a melee of buddhist monks fighting in the street with rocks and bottles and sticks over which sect was the *true* buddhism which should get the government funds. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Two Studies. Visual Cortex does not see. Consciousness is not thought.
On 07 Apr 2012, at 21:54, meekerdb wrote: On 4/7/2012 1:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The fake political use of religion, which lasts since a long time in occident, can only be promoted by the rejection of free-will and conscience. I agree with most of what you write about free-will, but the above seems empirically false. Organized religion and the political use of it has always assumed free will and the guilt of the individual. OK. At one time even animals were tried and convicted for crimes. Interesting. Ir reminds me a scene in a café where someone (drunk) was proposing a biscuit to a dog, but insisted that the dog stand up before. The dog was old and did not learn that trick, so he just get more and more nervous. Everyone was trying to convince the guy that it was nonsense to insist that the dog does the gesture, but the guy insisted up to the point the dog get really nervous and bite him (and get the biscuit!). To convict an animal does not make much sense, but they do have some free will and responsibility, and by using some serious tone in the voice, or some reward/punishment we can teach them. I also remember a cat who did look like he was felling guilty of something, and eventually we discovered he did pee in the living. Between human and higher mammals, it is just a question of degree, I think. I also think you're wrong to single out the Occident. The Orient has effectively combined religion and politics too. I agree. I was just citing Occident, because I know it better, and the political use has been quite effective and general. I am not sure there has been a buddhist state anywhere, nor a taoist state. Of course the antic pharaonic religion where the reason of the state existence, so that religion has been used before the christians as a way to build an identity for the people, and a reason for the king and family to keep the power, justified by the divine. For the Muslim religion has been political at the start, and some East countries have used religion indirectly. Shintoism does contribute to politics in Japan, but is not part of the constitutional rules. More research on this might be interesting. It is rather normal that the political leaders try to use the fundamental belief/science (or their time) to their profit. The marxist and materialist have also politicized science, but it led quickly to catastrophes, so that they took distance with it (cf Lyssenko's genetics). So you are right, anything related to profound question end up soon or later as tools to consolidate power. The use of health politics in the USA illustrates a similar phenomenon, and basically the idea is "we will do the thinking for you", but it is just a matter of controlling you. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Two Studies. Visual Cortex does not see. Consciousness is not thought.
Thanks Evgenii, Yes, that looks really good. I'm going to save it to read tomorrow on the plane. Craig On Apr 7, 2:22 am, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: > Craig, > > You may like this paper as well > > Klemm, W. (2010). Free will debates: Simple experiments are not so > simple, Advances in Cognitive > Psychologyhttp://versita.metapress.com/content/l820g65u22883625/fulltext.pdf > > I have seen it on a Russian cite: > > http://nature-wonder.livejournal.com/189090.html > > Evgenii > > On 06.04.2012 14:17 Craig Weinberg said the following: > > > > > > > > > Two more reasons to suspect that consciousness is received through the > > brain directly as primitive sense rather than decoded as complex > > information. > > > "The data from the seven participants were unambiguous. Paying > > attention to the target consistently and strongly increased the fMRI > > activity, regardless of whether the subject saw the target or not. > > This result was expected because many previous studies had shown that > > attending to a signal reinforces its representation in the cortex. > > Much more intriguing, though, was that whether or not the stimulus was > > consciously perceived made no difference to signal strength. > > Visibility didn t matter to V1; what did was whether or not selective > > visual attention focused on the grating. Indeed, the experimentalists > > could not decode from the signal whether or not the subject saw the > > stimulus." > > >http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=consciousness-does-n... > > > "We expected to see the outer bits of brain, the cerebral cortex > > (often thought to be the seat of higher human consciousness), would > > turn back on when consciousness was restored following anesthesia. > > Surprisingly, that is not what the images showed us. In fact, the > > central core structures of the more primitive brain structures > > including the thalamus and parts of the limbic system appeared to > > become functional first, suggesting that a foundational primitive > > conscious state must be restored before higher order conscious > > activity can occur" > > >http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-04/aof-sst040412.php -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Two Studies. Visual Cortex does not see. Consciousness is not thought.
On 4/7/2012 1:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The fake political use of religion, which lasts since a long time in occident, can only be promoted by the rejection of free-will and conscience. I agree with most of what you write about free-will, but the above seems empirically false. Organized religion and the political use of it has always assumed free will and the guilt of the individual. At one time even animals were tried and convicted for crimes. I also think you're wrong to single out the Occident. The Orient has effectively combined religion and politics too. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Two Studies. Visual Cortex does not see. Consciousness is not thought.
On 07 Apr 2012, at 08:22, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: Craig, You may like this paper as well Klemm, W. (2010). Free will debates: Simple experiments are not so simple, Advances in Cognitive Psychology http://versita.metapress.com/content/l820g65u22883625/fulltext.pdf I have not yet read the whole paper, but I agree with his main critics against the idea that free will is an illusion. It is almost like saying that consciousness is an illusion. I refute only the conception that free-will is opposed to determinism, or that free will has no mechanical justification. But as I define it, (free will is the ability to make a voluntary conscious choice in situation with partial information), free will is real, and it gives the main role to consciousness as a speeding up factor, and often as building a simplified conception of the local reality around us. Free-will is a generalization of responsibility, and attempts to defend the idea that free-will does not exist can lead to an elimination of the role of consciousness and conscience. That attitude is doubly dangerous socially, I think, in time where (white collar) bandits develop tools for diluting responsibility in all sort of economical and health affair. In fact I think that the idea that free will is an illusion is one of the many defect brought by Aristotle naturalistic philosophy, and the idea that we can separate science from religion. This can only transform science into a pseudo-religion, and indeed into the worst possible religion, where humans become the tools of the environment and others. It leads to confusion of means and goals. It kill spiritual values. The fake political use of religion, which lasts since a long time in occident, can only be promoted by the rejection of free-will and conscience. Basically, I suspect some 1/3 confusion in any attempt to reject free will. It is like confusing a third person account of your behavior, which exists and does not use free will, with the first person account which can use it. it is just impossible for a machine to identify those accounts. Such abstract appeal to the view from outside is a form of lie, quite compatible to the use of God as argument per authority. Free-will is based on a form of necessary self-ignorance, and it can be said not existing, in some absolute sense which can not make sense in the first person vision. It is an illusion, but only in a third person sense which is simply NOT available to the subject: so it cannot be an illusion from the first person perspective: the ignorance is real, and we have to take into account in our local real concrete decisions. That is why, also, consciousness can be real, and do have an important role in evolution and life. Those things are unreal only from a point of view which is not accessible to us. The fact that God, or some omniscient being or equation can predict my behavior does not prevent it to be free. I defend the compatibilist approach to free will, if that was not clear. With comp, a similar error would be to derive the non existence of matter from the non existence of primitive matter. I can, in some conversation conceded that free will is an illusion, but then it is a "real illusion", like matter and everything. This illustrates also that mechanism + materialism can lead to nihilism, of sense, conscience, and in fine of humanity. Free-will is necessary for keeping the vigilance against the pressure against your universal nature. It is necessary to fight for having more freedom, and for avoiding being swallowed and became a particular tool of your neighborhood. Those arguing against free will can only help those wanting to manipulate you for their special interests. Bruno I have seen it on a Russian cite: http://nature-wonder.livejournal.com/189090.html Evgenii On 06.04.2012 14:17 Craig Weinberg said the following: Two more reasons to suspect that consciousness is received through the brain directly as primitive sense rather than decoded as complex information. "The data from the seven participants were unambiguous. Paying attention to the target consistently and strongly increased the fMRI activity, regardless of whether the subject saw the target or not. This result was expected because many previous studies had shown that attending to a signal reinforces its representation in the cortex. Much more intriguing, though, was that whether or not the stimulus was consciously perceived made no difference to signal strength. Visibility didn’t matter to V1; what did was whether or not selective visual attention focused on the grating. Indeed, the experimentalists could not decode from the signal whether or not the subject saw the stimulus." http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=consciousness-does-not-reside-here "We expected to see the outer bits of brain, the cerebral cortex (often thought to be the se
Re: Two Studies. Visual Cortex does not see. Consciousness is not thought.
Craig, You may like this paper as well Klemm, W. (2010). Free will debates: Simple experiments are not so simple, Advances in Cognitive Psychology http://versita.metapress.com/content/l820g65u22883625/fulltext.pdf I have seen it on a Russian cite: http://nature-wonder.livejournal.com/189090.html Evgenii On 06.04.2012 14:17 Craig Weinberg said the following: Two more reasons to suspect that consciousness is received through the brain directly as primitive sense rather than decoded as complex information. "The data from the seven participants were unambiguous. Paying attention to the target consistently and strongly increased the fMRI activity, regardless of whether the subject saw the target or not. This result was expected because many previous studies had shown that attending to a signal reinforces its representation in the cortex. Much more intriguing, though, was that whether or not the stimulus was consciously perceived made no difference to signal strength. Visibility didn’t matter to V1; what did was whether or not selective visual attention focused on the grating. Indeed, the experimentalists could not decode from the signal whether or not the subject saw the stimulus." http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=consciousness-does-not-reside-here "We expected to see the outer bits of brain, the cerebral cortex (often thought to be the seat of higher human consciousness), would turn back on when consciousness was restored following anesthesia. Surprisingly, that is not what the images showed us. In fact, the central core structures of the more primitive brain structures including the thalamus and parts of the limbic system appeared to become functional first, suggesting that a foundational primitive conscious state must be restored before higher order conscious activity can occur" http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-04/aof-sst040412.php -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Two Studies. Visual Cortex does not see. Consciousness is not thought.
Two more reasons to suspect that consciousness is received through the brain directly as primitive sense rather than decoded as complex information. "The data from the seven participants were unambiguous. Paying attention to the target consistently and strongly increased the fMRI activity, regardless of whether the subject saw the target or not. This result was expected because many previous studies had shown that attending to a signal reinforces its representation in the cortex. Much more intriguing, though, was that whether or not the stimulus was consciously perceived made no difference to signal strength. Visibility didn’t matter to V1; what did was whether or not selective visual attention focused on the grating. Indeed, the experimentalists could not decode from the signal whether or not the subject saw the stimulus." http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=consciousness-does-not-reside-here "We expected to see the outer bits of brain, the cerebral cortex (often thought to be the seat of higher human consciousness), would turn back on when consciousness was restored following anesthesia. Surprisingly, that is not what the images showed us. In fact, the central core structures of the more primitive brain structures including the thalamus and parts of the limbic system appeared to become functional first, suggesting that a foundational primitive conscious state must be restored before higher order conscious activity can occur" http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-04/aof-sst040412.php -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
