|
sudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,797
|
Re: RGV's Consciousness 101 Basics [Re: Freedom]
#28613173 - 01/07/24 03:43 PM (20 days, 22 hours ago) |
|
|
The integration of environmental stimuli with our brain's basic functions provides a strong basis for believing in an external reality. Our sensory systems are specifically evolved to interpret external stimuli, leading to responses and adaptations that have practical survival value. This suggests that our experiences are not just internal constructs but are interactions with a world that exists independently of our consciousness. The consistency and predictability of these interactions, along with their alignment with collective human experiences and scientific observations, further reinforce the existence of an external reality. While we can never have absolute certainty, the congruence of our neurocognitive processes with the external environment provides compelling evidence for its existence.
I could ask you, "Do we know the Sun will rise tomorrow? Or have we figured out the likelihood it will?" But it's a rhetorical question.
We cannot know with absolute certainty that the Sun will rise tomorrow, but based on empirical evidence and our understanding of astronomical physics, we have determined the likelihood of this event to be extremely high. Our predictions about the sunrise are based on consistent observational data and well-established scientific principles governing celestial mechanics. This pattern has been observed and verified over millennia, lending strong support to the expectation that the Sun will rise tomorrow. While absolute certainty is elusive in empirical science, the high degree of probability and the consistency of past occurrences give us a near-certain expectation of the sunrise, illustrating how empirical evidence shapes our understanding of likely future events.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 5,851
Last seen: 6 minutes, 58 seconds
|
Re: RGV's Consciousness 101 Basics [Re: sudly]
#28613181 - 01/07/24 03:50 PM (20 days, 22 hours ago) |
|
|
You say there are environmental stimuli, but that's the exact assumption I'm asking about. To say that you know there is an external environment because our sensory systems evolved to interpret exteranal stimuli allready assumes that there are external stimuli.
My question isn't rhetorical
I've never understood how or why people believe things, or say they do. Its hard for me to comprehend that people do believe things. So it fascinates me, especially because there is so much seperation between groups and conflict based on belief.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,797
|
Re: RGV's Consciousness 101 Basics [Re: Freedom]
#28613185 - 01/07/24 03:54 PM (20 days, 22 hours ago) |
|
|
Do you believe evolution can be observed?
If evolution is true, then our sensory systems evolved, that's my reasoning.
Or for a more detailed explanation;
Lenski's E. coli experiment is a significant case in understanding evolution, particularly from an epistemological standpoint. It demonstrates over 35,000 generations how E. coli bacteria evolved the ability to utilise citrates. This observable change serves as a clear instance of evolutionary adaptation and provides tangible evidence supporting evolutionary theory.
Epistemologically, this experiment underscores the importance of scientific methodology in shaping our knowledge and beliefs about evolutionary processes. Through controlled experimentation, detailed data collection, and rigorous analysis, we gain a deeper, evidence-based understanding of the principles underlying evolutionary theory. These scientific methods are crucial for objectively interpreting phenomena and forming reliable conclusions.
In terms of connecting with our understanding of the external world, the results from such experiments reinforce the effectiveness and reliability of our sensory systems and scientific tools in accurately interpreting and interacting with our environment. The consistency and reproducibility of empirical data from such experiments lend credence to the idea of an external reality that is not only observable but also understandable through scientific inquiry.
By focusing on the empirical evidence provided by Lenski's experiment, we can appreciate how our beliefs about evolution are grounded in observable phenomena, aligning with an epistemological approach. This perspective emphasises the role of scientific evidence and methodology in validating our understanding of complex processes like evolution, without necessarily delving into the ontological implications of these processes.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
Edited by sudly (01/07/24 04:17 PM)
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 5,851
Last seen: 6 minutes, 58 seconds
|
Re: RGV's Consciousness 101 Basics [Re: sudly]
#28613213 - 01/07/24 04:29 PM (20 days, 21 hours ago) |
|
|
I know it sounds kind of crazy, that this could be like a dream.
Yet the existence of anything, dream or physical, color or wavelength is unexplainable, as far as i can tell. This fundamental lack of ground means I have no way to compare
its like saying which impossible thing is more likely, that a world exists out there and creates my consciousness and experience of the world, or that the world is an illusion created by consciousness in the same way as a dream.
I can't comprehend either, they both are deeply mysterious.
Evolution may happen in a world, it may be a dream within a dream.
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 5,851
Last seen: 6 minutes, 58 seconds
|
Re: RGV's Consciousness 101 Basics [Re: Freedom]
#28613218 - 01/07/24 04:37 PM (20 days, 21 hours ago) |
|
|
very interesting conversation looking at reality and evolution and consciousness:
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,797
|
Re: RGV's Consciousness 101 Basics [Re: Freedom]
#28613308 - 01/07/24 06:16 PM (20 days, 19 hours ago) |
|
|
And here's some interesting reading from a discussion between Anil Seth and Riccardo Manzotti on the topic at hand.
Quote:
If there are no colors in the physical world, how can the brain, which is part of the physical world, have colors? You might answer that the brain has no colors, but that the brain sees colors. But that seems even more confusing to me. How can the brain see properties that are not part of the physical world? How can the brain actually see anything at all? Is the brain the kind of thing that sees? I do not see how.
It was Cezanne who said that “color is the place where the brain and the universe meet” and he was on the right track. When we experience color, we experience both less than what’s really there, and more than what’s really there. Less than, because our eyes are only sensitive to three wavelengths of a spectrum of (colorless) energy that goes all the way from radio waves to x-rays and beyond. More than, because out of these three wavelengths, the brain conjures a palette of millions of distinguishable colors. Why does it do this? It turns out creating perceptions of color is a useful way for the brain to track the reflectance properties of different surfaces, especially under changing lighting conditions. Again, the point is that we don’t see things as they are, but in ways that evolution has determined it is useful for us to do so.
In my book I give an example of looking at a red chair. In this example, the redness I experience depends both on properties of the chair and on properties of my brain. It corresponds to the content of a set of perceptual predictions about the ways in which a specific kind of surface reflects light. There is no redness-as-such in the world or in the brain. As Cezanne said, redness happens where the two meet.
An important point in your approach is the notion of prediction. This is another point on which we agree. The brain is probably a prediction machine, similar to recent advances in AI, from RNN to LLM and Transformers. This idea has been around for some time, possibly since Helmholtz himself. You’ve just said that our perception of, say, the color red, is the brain's best guess about the reflectance properties of surfaces. But why should the brain's guesses have a phenomenal character? Should not they just be guesses?
This question dangles the hard problem of consciousness temptingly in front of us: What is the ‘special sauce’ that conjures experience out of mere mechanism? I do not think this is a productive question to ask. In my preferred ‘real problem’ approach, the goal is to explain, predict, and control properties of consciousness in terms of things happening in brains (and bodies and worlds). The short account of redness I gave above is one example, though there’s much more to be said about even this (as I do say in the book). My overall strategy is to explain every kind of conscious experience as a form of perceptual prediction. At the end of this road, my hope is that the ‘hard problem’ question of why there is phenomenal character at all will fade away, disappearing in a puff of metaphysical smoke.
In a physical world, what are hallucinations made of? I do not see what hallucinations can be made of, unless you already assume that you are in a hallucinatory world. Is not that a kind of dualism in disguise?
Definitely not! My working principle is pragmatic materialism. To rehearse what I just said: I explore how far we can get by assuming that conscious experiences are properties of matter, organized in particular ways. The questions I am interested in accept that conscious experiences exist, and ask how their properties can be explained in terms of processes unfolding across brains, bodies, and worlds. I do not ask, or answer, the metaphysical question of what an experience is ‘made of’. But if you press me: well, they’re made of the same stuff that brains and bodies are made out of.
https://iai.tv/articles/anil-seth-the-hallucination-of-consciousness-auid-2525
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,530
|
Re: RGV's Consciousness 101 Basics [Re: sudly]
#28613391 - 01/07/24 08:24 PM (20 days, 17 hours ago) |
|
|
There certainly are colors in the real world which are wavelengths of light - we are not the only creatures who make a big deal about colors.
Violet - shortest wavelength, around 380-450 nanometers with highest frequency. ... Indigo - 420 - 440 nm. Blue - 450 - 495 nm. Green - 495 - 570 nm. Yellow - 570 - 590 nm. Orange - 590 - 620 nm. Red - longest wavelength, at around 620 - 750 nanometers with lowest frequency.
Even though we efficiently conjure millions of shades from just 3 colors, it is because the way 3 colors can mix to produce all the wavelengths of light by their harmonics and intensities.
all animals with color sensitivity see colors, many beyond the spectrum that we can detect. Special cameras have been devised to transduce images in ultra violet and infra red into spectra versions that we can see.
https://www.beeculture.com/bees-see-matters/
secondly I think the notion of prediction (maybe in the way of AI) is not appropriate for the way we think, we think associatively accessing all kinds of sensory experiences as well as stories and scenarios we have studied.
we do not predict or guess color, we become familiar with colors and remember them, they are associated with body feelings at the times of experiencing the color.
sometimes we cannot discern colors in the light, and then we might guess it but still not see it or skip the color question and accept the dark form and deal with it.
reading that article made me a bit sad because Anil Seth is missing important aspects of the physical nature of consciousness namely the core physical matter of associative memory formation and reflexive perception (NOT PREDICTION sheesh!), how that works and how fast that works, makes it clear that it is not prediction. We can follow trajectories in real time and synchronize with those arcs but that is not prediction. It is an extension of our motor centers and timing centers.
Prediction to the best of our abilities only occurs when we devote ourselves to the matter by associatively recycling the relevant mental contents until a plan comes together that makes sense. Even then it is all about associative memory and perception.
At least he acknowledges the brain.
I think that there is also a wrongness in how he uses the term illusion in how we experience the world, because we are capable of getting great telemetry about the world from our senses (we miss a lot that we do not sense but we also miss a lot that lies in directions where we do not look) and to us that is the real world - limited as it may be by our senses and how and where we look. It is a working relationship that we have with the world.
Since our consciousness is a continual mix of sensation and memory we naturally also project/mix our memory with sensation and make things familiar as we go along which simplifies life to a manageable level.
the illusion as far as I can see, is to imagine that there is a separate self from the conscious stream that is continuously making new memory of all the mental contents and having perceptive reflexes of the familiar at the same time.
It is somewhat of a waste of words. but a good use of trigger words to get attention on TV.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
Icon
Bloomer



Registered: 05/15/14
Posts: 2,866
Last seen: 3 hours, 50 seconds
|
|
Found a clip that you'd like RGV:
30:00 - 33:45
He estimates 100,000,000,000 neurons, each with 50,000 dendrites, which could be in contact with 50,000 other dendrites. Someone calculated 10 trillion connections, and the number of different ways that a thought could travel through the brain is more than there are atoms in the entire universe. The average brain with an average high schooler's lexicon of 12,000 words listening to a sentence and deciphering it at the rate of 1 neuron per ms, would take 12s to understand each syllable. So to keep up understanding in a live conversation, our brains are not simply listening and running the sound through a list, but predicting the next sound that is most likely to fit, greatly reducing the amount of checks that are actually made and still coming out understanding what was said.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,530
|
Re: RGV's Consciousness 101 Basics [Re: Icon]
#28613785 - 01/08/24 08:02 AM (20 days, 5 hours ago) |
|
|
I work with slightly different numbers eg 80 billion neurons in the brain of various types, and he is talking about 100 billion neurons of one type (i.e. having 50000 dendrites). so basically oversimplifying. simple is good, too simple is not so good.
I also do not consider that we are predicting meanings as he and many AI aficionados are promoting and as LLM's seem to be doing.
but he is stirring the pot and making people think. that is good.
I did not and would not watch the whole video but if there is a transcript I might read it or scan it.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 5,851
Last seen: 6 minutes, 58 seconds
|
Re: RGV's Consciousness 101 Basics [Re: sudly]
#28613791 - 01/08/24 08:06 AM (20 days, 5 hours ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sudly said: And here's some interesting reading from a discussion between Anil Seth and Riccardo Manzotti on the topic at hand.
Quote:
If there are no colors in the physical world, how can the brain, which is part of the physical world, have colors? You might answer that the brain has no colors, but that the brain sees colors. But that seems even more confusing to me. How can the brain see properties that are not part of the physical world? How can the brain actually see anything at all? Is the brain the kind of thing that sees? I do not see how.
It was Cezanne who said that “color is the place where the brain and the universe meet” and he was on the right track. When we experience color, we experience both less than what’s really there, and more than what’s really there. Less than, because our eyes are only sensitive to three wavelengths of a spectrum of (colorless) energy that goes all the way from radio waves to x-rays and beyond. More than, because out of these three wavelengths, the brain conjures a palette of millions of distinguishable colors. Why does it do this? It turns out creating perceptions of color is a useful way for the brain to track the reflectance properties of different surfaces, especially under changing lighting conditions. Again, the point is that we don’t see things as they are, but in ways that evolution has determined it is useful for us to do so.
In my book I give an example of looking at a red chair. In this example, the redness I experience depends both on properties of the chair and on properties of my brain. It corresponds to the content of a set of perceptual predictions about the ways in which a specific kind of surface reflects light. There is no redness-as-such in the world or in the brain. As Cezanne said, redness happens where the two meet.
An important point in your approach is the notion of prediction. This is another point on which we agree. The brain is probably a prediction machine, similar to recent advances in AI, from RNN to LLM and Transformers. This idea has been around for some time, possibly since Helmholtz himself. You’ve just said that our perception of, say, the color red, is the brain's best guess about the reflectance properties of surfaces. But why should the brain's guesses have a phenomenal character? Should not they just be guesses?
This question dangles the hard problem of consciousness temptingly in front of us: What is the ‘special sauce’ that conjures experience out of mere mechanism? I do not think this is a productive question to ask. In my preferred ‘real problem’ approach, the goal is to explain, predict, and control properties of consciousness in terms of things happening in brains (and bodies and worlds). The short account of redness I gave above is one example, though there’s much more to be said about even this (as I do say in the book). My overall strategy is to explain every kind of conscious experience as a form of perceptual prediction. At the end of this road, my hope is that the ‘hard problem’ question of why there is phenomenal character at all will fade away, disappearing in a puff of metaphysical smoke.
In a physical world, what are hallucinations made of? I do not see what hallucinations can be made of, unless you already assume that you are in a hallucinatory world. Is not that a kind of dualism in disguise?
Definitely not! My working principle is pragmatic materialism. To rehearse what I just said: I explore how far we can get by assuming that conscious experiences are properties of matter, organized in particular ways. The questions I am interested in accept that conscious experiences exist, and ask how their properties can be explained in terms of processes unfolding across brains, bodies, and worlds. I do not ask, or answer, the metaphysical question of what an experience is ‘made of’. But if you press me: well, they’re made of the same stuff that brains and bodies are made out of.
https://iai.tv/articles/anil-seth-the-hallucination-of-consciousness-auid-2525
I agree with the practical approach. I don't see any practical reason to assume either that an external reality exists or doesn't exist. There is a practical reason to recognize I don't know. This leaves me open to understanding.
If I were to cling to either claim, that clinging would get in the way of seeing and understanding.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,530
|
Re: RGV's Consciousness 101 Basics [Re: Freedom]
#28613796 - 01/08/24 08:10 AM (20 days, 5 hours ago) |
|
|
I am more bothered by what is the Universe contained in, than what is reality, and what is illusion. my mind does not stretch the way Einstein's did. I think I got reflection pretty good though.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 5,851
Last seen: 6 minutes, 58 seconds
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said: There certainly are colors in the real world which are wavelengths of light - we are not the only creatures who make a big deal about colors.
Violet - shortest wavelength, around 380-450 nanometers with highest frequency. ... Indigo - 420 - 440 nm. Blue - 450 - 495 nm. Green - 495 - 570 nm. Yellow - 570 - 590 nm. Orange - 590 - 620 nm. Red - longest wavelength, at around 620 - 750 nanometers with lowest frequency.
Color is an experience in our minds. Wavelength is also an experience, its the experience of a concept in our minds. Without minds, there may be no visual or conceptual experience of light. Also, the concepts are just aspects of light. For example, wavelength doesn't explain fluorescence (the absorption and emission of light in molecules). To understand fluorescence we have quantum mechanics, which is also another incomplete conceptual experience. Incomplete in that it doesn't fully explain the universe.
Quote:
redgreenvines said: Even though we efficiently conjure millions of shades from just 3 colors, it is because the way 3 colors can mix to produce all the wavelengths of light by their harmonics and intensities.
all animals with color sensitivity see colors, many beyond the spectrum that we can detect. Special cameras have been devised to transduce images in ultra violet and infra red into spectra versions that we can see.
https://www.beeculture.com/bees-see-matters/
secondly I think the notion of prediction (maybe in the way of AI) is not appropriate for the way we think, we think associatively accessing all kinds of sensory experiences as well as stories and scenarios we have studied.
we do not predict or guess color, we become familiar with colors and remember them, they are associated with body feelings at the times of experiencing the color.
sometimes we cannot discern colors in the light, and then we might guess it but still not see it or skip the color question and accept the dark form and deal with it.
reading that article made me a bit sad because Anil Seth is missing important aspects of the physical nature of consciousness namely the core physical matter of associative memory formation and reflexive perception (NOT PREDICTION sheesh!), how that works and how fast that works, makes it clear that it is not prediction. We can follow trajectories in real time and synchronize with those arcs but that is not prediction. It is an extension of our motor centers and timing centers.
Prediction to the best of our abilities only occurs when we devote ourselves to the matter by associatively recycling the relevant mental contents until a plan comes together that makes sense. Even then it is all about associative memory and perception.
At least he acknowledges the brain.
I think that there is also a wrongness in how he uses the term illusion in how we experience the world, because we are capable of getting great telemetry about the world from our senses (we miss a lot that we do not sense but we also miss a lot that lies in directions where we do not look) and to us that is the real world - limited as it may be by our senses and how and where we look. It is a working relationship that we have with the world.
Since our consciousness is a continual mix of sensation and memory we naturally also project/mix our memory with sensation and make things familiar as we go along which simplifies life to a manageable level.
the illusion as far as I can see, is to imagine that there is a separate self from the conscious stream that is continuously making new memory of all the mental contents and having perceptive reflexes of the familiar at the same time.
It is somewhat of a waste of words. but a good use of trigger words to get attention on TV.
I'm curious what you think of Donald Hoffman's work
Quote:
(From https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality-20160421/ ) The classic argument is that those of our ancestors who saw more accurately had a competitive advantage over those who saw less accurately and thus were more likely to pass on their genes that coded for those more accurate perceptions, so after thousands of generations we can be quite confident that we’re the offspring of those who saw accurately, and so we see accurately. That sounds very plausible. But I think it is utterly false. It misunderstands the fundamental fact about evolution, which is that it’s about fitness functions — mathematical functions that describe how well a given strategy achieves the goals of survival and reproduction. The mathematical physicist Chetan Prakash proved a theorem that I devised that says: According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness.
...
So everything we see is one big illusion? We’ve been shaped to have perceptions that keep us alive, so we have to take them seriously. If I see something that I think of as a snake, I don’t pick it up. If I see a train, I don’t step in front of it. I’ve evolved these symbols to keep me alive, so I have to take them seriously. But it’s a logical flaw to think that if we have to take it seriously, we also have to take it literally.
If snakes aren’t snakes and trains aren’t trains, what are they? Snakes and trains, like the particles of physics, have no objective, observer-independent features. The snake I see is a description created by my sensory system to inform me of the fitness consequences of my actions. Evolution shapes acceptable solutions, not optimal ones. A snake is an acceptable solution to the problem of telling me how to act in a situation. My snakes and trains are my mental representations; your snakes and trains are your mental representations.
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 5,851
Last seen: 6 minutes, 58 seconds
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said: I am more bothered by what is the Universe contained in, than what is reality, and what is illusion. my mind does not stretch the way Einstein's did. I think I got reflection pretty good though.
it seems beyond my ability to understand in every direction, if I look carefully enough
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,530
|
Re: RGV's Consciousness 101 Basics [Re: Freedom]
#28613874 - 01/08/24 09:19 AM (20 days, 4 hours ago) |
|
|
I think that the questions Hoffman is approaching are not the questions that I have or will approach. I look at evolution as something other than clarity of understanding in creatures, although fitness and survivability of mutations somewhat ensure the next generation engendering further generations and that is how we have come to be.
My interest is primarily how can we form memory, and how does it come into play - then what is consciousness? is it other than ongoing experiences: sensation + associative memory formation + perceptive reflexes?
I was never really interested in AI, but have become interested in it somewhat, after simulating memory formation and perception myself, although not using standard AI architecture or algorithms.
The LLM is a fascinating idea. I do not understand it well enough to imagine if it can scale down in a useful way for navigation purposes. I think our minds have evolved initially for navigation and developed from there to the point where language tends to point the way at this juncture in our evolution. LLM is going the other way.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 5,851
Last seen: 6 minutes, 58 seconds
|
|
to be conscious of what consciousness is?
i like your model it makes sense
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,530
|
Re: RGV's Consciousness 101 Basics [Re: Freedom]
#28613900 - 01/08/24 09:49 AM (20 days, 4 hours ago) |
|
|
it hangs together sustainably
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 5,851
Last seen: 6 minutes, 58 seconds
|
|
I like the idea of maybe you already have a phrase for this but 'memory-perception-
how sensation is mixed with memory and that is what we are conscious of. that idea then can become a memory modifying perception to create awareness that we are seeing the present through the lens of the past
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,530
|
Re: RGV's Consciousness 101 Basics [Re: Freedom] 1
#28614017 - 01/08/24 11:24 AM (20 days, 2 hours ago) |
|
|
we are not more than the awareness of the mental contents of we are being and what we are being is the pattern of neurons that are activated moment by moment some of that is sensation the rest is reflex perception (re-activation of neurons from memory), and some of that neural reactivation moves muscles in the body so we can speak and do things. AND recent activation is a warm trail that we tend to follow as well.
I keep wanting to make that simpler but not so simple that it is oversimplified. so Yeah awareness and associative memory is continuously formed from the mix of sensation and perception (i.e. active mental contents), and perception is facilitated by recent activation. that's pretty much it.
I almost want to add that awareness is mental contents, although it is like the reflection of mental contents just passed in mental contents - which means it is an attitude in the sequence of conscious moments which is the mental contents.
some people equate awareness with consciousness, but this may not be correct, as dreams and waking consciousness have different degrees of that reflective awareness attitude.
The clear non-judgemental attitude of awareness is a quality of presence (here I think frontal cortex activation is involved) that becomes part of memory as well.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
cubedryeguy
Stranger


Registered: 07/24/15
Posts: 536
|
Re: RGV's Consciousness 101 Basics [Re: redgreenvines]
#28614120 - 01/08/24 01:36 PM (20 days, 19 minutes ago) |
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said:
some people equate awareness with consciousness, but this may not be correct, as dreams and waking consciousness have different degrees of that reflective awareness attitude.
Agreed. Would sentience and awareness be closer in relation?
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,530
|
Re: RGV's Consciousness 101 Basics [Re: cubedryeguy] 1
#28614128 - 01/08/24 01:48 PM (20 days, 7 minutes ago) |
|
|
you know - perhaps it would, but it would not be clear to most people what was what.
I'm thinking at this point that awareness is the engagement of the frontal/prefrontal cortex which can "grok" the aggregate of mental contents the way the eye can grok a visual field.
and it is not more or less important among senses.
In ancient lore the idea of the 3rd eye or eye of wisdom would be "awareness" right there in behind the forehead.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
|