What is CTD?

Discussions on the nature of being, existence, reality and knowledge. What is? How do we know?

Re: What is CTD?

Postby doogles on February 8th, 2018, 6:06 am 

hyksos wrote:
RJG » October 14th, 2017, 7:00 pm wrote:C. Therefore, our ‘present’ conscious experience(s) are of ‘past’ events, and our ‘future’ (next) conscious experiences have already happened, (...we just don’t ‘know’ it yet).[/list]

We are, in effect, being ‘fed’ our conscious experiences. That which happens, ‘necessarily’ happens. This conclusion is a bit ‘chilling’, as it destroys any viability of conscious control (aka “free-will”, mental causation, conscious causation) or any form or notion of “consciously doing” anything.

So, contrary to popular belief, we don’t actually “consciously do” anything, ...we are only “conscious” of what we’ve “done”.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1120070.Remembered_Present


Hyksos, do you have a copy of the book you cited, and is it possible to identify any passages that specifically apply to the subject matter of this thread? I would love to see any relevant experimental data.
These days I peruse the scientific literature looking for the original basic experiments on which authors base the information. At 86, my time is becoming precious and the whole books take up time.
User avatar
doogles
Member
 
Posts: 991
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: What is CTD?

Postby doogles on February 8th, 2018, 6:12 am 

RJG wrote:
doogles wrote:Your only sound premise in this discussion so far is that there is a CTD of maybe 200 milliseconds between a vision sensation reaching the retina and its transmission, translation and recognition by the mind’s eye.

...so here you seem to agree that CTD exists (...that one's 'consciousness-of-X' is AFTER 'X', by "maybe 200 milliseconds")

doogles wrote:He makes this statement in an attempt to identify our disconnect -- “But although you agree with CTD, you somehow disagree with its logical implication (that 'conscious causation' does not exist). ..Okay, so as to help pinpoint our disconnect, let me know which of the following line items you disagree with:” 8 multiple choices of answers are provided.

The premise is that CTD is real, therefore its logical implication is that conscious causation does not exist. ??????? DURR? I’m supposed to accept this as logical, before I answer questions about it.

...and here you seemingly contradict yourself, and scoff at the same notion.

********

1. If we are conscious of 'nothing' then there is NO consciousness, and
2. If we are conscious of 'something', then this 'something' is a 'past' event ("of maybe 200 milliseconds").

So then, how does one "consciously cause" 'something', if all the 'somethings' (that we could possibly be conscious of), at the moment of its consciousness, have already happened, already been caused ("200 milliseconds" ago)? ...so what's left to be consciously caused?

Doogles, you can either 1) answer/argue the above with 'logic', or you can 2) join the chorus (bandwagon) of those that answer/argue with 'insults', or 3) or you can ignore this ugly logical truth, ...so what say you?


*******

The 'consciousness'-of-content cannot logically cause the 'content' of one's consciousness.

In other words -- Consciousness does not cause reality; reality causes consciousness. Without 'content' (reality) there can be no consciousness. Without 'something' to be conscious of, there is 'nothing' to be conscious of. And if there is 'nothing' to be conscious of, then there is no consciousness.


*******

If "married bachelors" are logically impossible, then science can't overturn this truth.
If "conscious causation" is logically impossible, then science can't overturn this truth.

So, no need to run off to 'science' to help justify a wishful truth. - Simple 'logic' ALWAYS DEFEATS 'science'! (...sorry, no offense to all the science-nazi's on this forum)


Good evening RJG.

Re “1. If we are conscious of 'nothing' then there is NO consciousness, and
2. If we are conscious of 'something', then this 'something' is a 'past' event ("of maybe 200 milliseconds").


If you restricted these two premises to external events then they seem okay in principle. You’ll note that I accepted your term CTD without any problems at all as it applies to observation of external events. CONSCIOUS TIME DELAY. I’ve been familiar with it for over six decades.

Our ‘disconnect’ in this is that you ASSUME that our minds do not perform an automatic computation and adjustment during the transmission and translation stages of ‘transmission, translation and finally RECOGNITION’ of moving objects. I have produced partial evidence relating to race finishes that we do. But you’ve NOT acknowledged that and that’s why I’m tending to join the ranks of those who find chatting with you tedious.

And you’ve done it again in this post. You have totally ignored my dogma that the seat of ‘recognition’ after CTD, is the SEAT OF IMMEDIATE CONSCIOUSNESS. And that this represents immediate synchronous awareness of the instant. Your own theory of CTD has to have a final conscious instant recognition of an external event, even if that recognition is 200 milliseconds later. You’ve totally ignored what I proposed, and once again repeated your ‘logic’. It ceases to become a chat in a chat room.

Keep an open mind because we are both being dogmatic due to the lack of experimental evidence in this field. I’m thinking about drafting a dogmatic statement about the real relevance/insignificance of CTD to the practicalities of everyday life. I would say that the majority of people on the planet have never heard of it and yet manage to survive into old age without that knowledge.
User avatar
doogles
Member
 
Posts: 991
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: What is CTD?

Postby doogles on February 8th, 2018, 6:24 am 

Positor, thank you for the interesting questions. I wish I could confidently cite references to you as answers, but the experimental work in this area seems sparse.

“Can you please elaborate a little on STPD (Subconscious Thought Processing Delay), and its relationship to CTD.” This is something I wrote in my first book – “I now know that thoughts do not appear spontaneously. We are never in a state of brain limbo with the light-globe-of-a-thought appearing out of nowhere. Our brains are continuously following serial mental images, an element in one triggering off the next and so on. It seems as if anything I read, or something I hear, smell, or touch, has to be matched up in my mind with similar things in my memory stores. I seem to be able to retrieve appropriate scenarios as required. Then an item in this retrieved scenario, which I had recalled or reconstructed completely from my memory stores, in turn seems to be able to trigger the appearance of a new one, and so on.

If you doubt that your brain ‘free-wheels’ with mental imaging, try a test that Russ Harris suggested on page 25 of his book The Happiness Trap: Stop Struggling, Start Living. He drew the outline of a star on the page and invited his readers to stare at that star for 60 seconds without thinking about anything, including the star itself. His aim was to demonstrate that we can’t go for that long without images generating in our minds. Everyone attempting this exercise finds that their minds wander to other scenarios.

I’ve noted that two things can terminate these series of mental images. Firstly, they end when something in the current scenario relates to my immediate outside world (This is a thought), such as the examples in this chapter. Secondly, they end if something in the outside world attracts my attention. An example of the second could be a member of my family calling “Earth to Dougie, Earth to Dougie! Are you receiving? Over.”

I feel that these images actually fleet across our mind’s eye until a meaningful image, eg something relevant to our immediate interests, stays there and is interpreted as a ‘thought’. As I’ve said recently, I regard this as immediate conscious recognition. No evidence of course, but it works for me.

This daydreaming and thought development is independent of CTD if you regard the latter as pertaining to the recognition of external events. In the last paragraph CTD would have been involved in “Earth to Duggie”.
..............................................................................................................................................

“Could 'recognition' be a lower brain process distinct from subsequent 'conscious recognition'?” Once again, I’ve used the expression ‘the mind’s eye’. I think all animals from reptiles upwards at least have to have such a thing, but I have no idea what it is anatomically or where it is. It is the ‘recognition’ site of all five senses in touch with the external world and could also be called the mind’s ear, nose, tongue of skin, as well as being the seat of our imagination. I would expect it to involve the primitive part of our brain simply because it is so well developed and because all five senses are present in animals as low as reptiles on the evolutionary scale.

Whether there are other ‘recognition’ sites in the lower brain independent of conscious recognition is beyond my imagination. I suppose, in one sense, all sensory receptors are recognisers of a stimulus.

In 1996, Grafton et al (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00227183 ) used Positron Emission Tomography to identify parts of the brain that used radio-labelled oxygen when people and monkeys viewed the grasping of an object. A number of sites showed up in the cerebral cortex as well as the posterior right side of the cerebellum. From what I’ve just said about the primitive brain, you can imagine that I think the cerebellum may be involved in the mind’s eye. I can speculate that the cerebro-cortical areas are involved in the translation before recognition stages of CTD.
................................................................................................................................................

“Could the 'lower' brain's response (leading to action) likewise be distinct from subsequent consciousness of that response? (The epiphenomenalist would say yes.)”
I’m not into epiphenomenalism, but we do have many spinal reflexes, mainly to touch stimuli. The reaction time is very fast and the reflex pathways take short circuits, bypassing the brain. I think some of the fright reflexes involving sudden visual or auditory stimuli and whole-body motor reactions also bypass the mind’s eye. Well, the freeze reaction certainly does the opposite by causing paralysis of all motor output. There would be a reflex time but it would be much shorter than CTD.

While on that question, my recall of practical life events has me questioning whether a stimulus, reaching our retinas, does in fact need a mind’s eye. I wonder whether there is some instant recognition by our retinas. Just musing.
...................................................................................................................................................

“What point in your schema corresponds to a decision?”
I’m fairly sure I utilise my mind’s eye for all decision-making. In committees and in management situations, a topic is usually provided. In private life, circumstances provide situations on which decisions have to be made. In trades and professions, all intended jobs have to be rehearsed in our minds to make sure we have the correct tools and materials.

Whenever I had to do a surgical operation in the field, eg an exploratory laparotomy on a cow, I would have to go through the entire operation in my mind in advance, imagine all the possible variations in what I may find, and imagine exactly what instruments I may need. This resulted in a decision as to what instruments would be disinfected and what sort of makeshift stand I could find around the dairy to have my instrument tray upon. It was all continuous conscious imagination going on in my mind’s eye.

Even if we make a decision to go to the beach on a hot day, further images may flood into our mind’s eye, of traffic jams on the road, sunburn, sand sticking to our sunscreen, and the lugging of paraphernalia. On balance we may make a decision to stay home, sit in a shady spot in the garden with a fan going and have a cold beer while reading a book or listening to some nice music. My schema suggests that all of this occurs in the mind’s eye. Many of the inputs may come in by subconscious association and the process takes time, but the final decision is a conscious one because it occurred in the ‘NOW’, in the area where recognition equates to consciousness.

Just as an afterthought, some of the scenarios that flood into our mind’s eye may contain uncomfortable emotional elements associated with past experiences (evidence is available) and obviously will have a highly emotional input into the final decision.

CTD is not involved in decision-making unless we seek external input.
User avatar
doogles
Member
 
Posts: 991
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE
Positor liked this post


Re: What is CTD?

Postby RJG on February 8th, 2018, 12:30 pm 

DragonFly wrote:OK, so we are greatly automated…

Not quite. We are "fully" automated; wholly auto-reactive beings.


DragonFly wrote: ...some of the automation was kind of "approved" by C, for C had to be very attentive when we were first learning to drive a car and those kinds of things that we "wanted" to automate, and so again C is a necessity.

Positor wrote:But if C is necessary for learning new procedures, it must have some causal power.

Hey guys, although contrary to popular belief/indoctrination, C has absolutely NO bearing whatsoever (approval, causal, or otherwise) with the process of "learning".

When we are conscious, we are only conscious of "old news" ('past' events), while our physical bodies receive 'real-time' inputs and influences. It is these 'real-time' inputs/influences that "teach" (coerce/cause) our bodies to react and behave as they do.

We "learn" from the repetition of these actions/reactions (i.e. "muscle memory") and from the positive/negative (pleasurable/unpleasurable) reinforcements of these actions/reactions.

We don't (and can't!) "do" anything "consciously". Everything our body does; every action our body takes, is simply a bodily reaction to a given stimuli/input/influence. It is these bodily reactions (aka "experiences") that we then become conscious of (via the process of 'recognition').

Conscious learning is impossible. "Learning" is an unconscious process whose effects are only consciously realized.


RJG wrote:1. If we are conscious of 'nothing' then there is NO consciousness, and
2. If we are conscious of 'something', then this 'something' is a 'past' event ("of maybe 200 milliseconds").

doogles wrote:If you restricted these two premises to external events then they seem okay in principle. You’ll note that I accepted your term CTD without any problems at all as it applies to observation of external events.

CTD applies to 'ALL' events happening in reality. This includes our physical body which also exists/happens in reality. The sensors internal to our body sense/react in 'real-time'. Since our consciousness of these sensors/reactions does not (and can not) happen 'instantaneously', there is a delay; i.e. CTD, that applies to the conscious recognition of all bodily processes/reactions/sensations/experiences.


doogle wrote:CONSCIOUS TIME DELAY. I’ve been familiar with it for over six decades.

That is odd, considering I am the 'original' author of the term CTD (conscious time delay), and I was not alive in the early 50's. Maybe this term was already coined back then, ...idk.


doogles wrote:Our ‘disconnect’ in this is that you ASSUME that our minds do not perform an automatic computation and adjustment during the transmission and translation stages of ‘transmission, translation and finally RECOGNITION’ of moving objects.

Yes, I "assume" that we cannot do the impossible. That is correct. ...so, again:

1. It is impossible to compute and adjust to an 'unknown' reference point.
2. It is impossible to compute and adjust 'instantaneously'.


doogles wrote:I have produced partial evidence relating to race finishes that we do. But you’ve NOT acknowledged that and that’s why I’m tending to join the ranks of those who find chatting with you tedious.

Doogles, your race finish analogies have nothing to do with CTD. The conscious viewing of a horse crossing the finish line, and the conscious viewing and conscious sensation of seeing and pressing a button on a stopwatch, only measures 'reaction' time, ...not CTD.

CTD is the time delay between the unconscious-to-conscious, not from the conscious-to-conscious. CTD has nothing to do with 'duration' from one conscious event to another conscious event. CTD is the time delay from an event happening in reality to our conscious realization of that event.


doogles wrote:And you’ve done it again in this post. You have totally ignored my dogma that the seat of ‘recognition’ after CTD, is the SEAT OF IMMEDIATE CONSCIOUSNESS.

Did I disagree with this somewhere? I agree that, that which we 'recognize' ("after"' the CTD process of transmission, translation, and recognition) is that which we are 'conscious' of. So what is so significant about this obvious fact??

Are you trying to imply that once we have achieved this "seat of immediate" consciousness (recognition) of 'something', that we then magically somehow have immediate (instantaneous) consciousness/recognition of everything else (all the other 'somethings')???

Every conscious moment is subject to CTD, there are no exceptions. The 'reality' that we are conscious of, is "long gone" by the time we become conscious of it.
User avatar
RJG
Banned User
 
Posts: 964
Joined: 22 Mar 2012


Re: What is CTD?

Postby DragonFly on February 8th, 2018, 4:10 pm 

I'm going to stick with the learning process idea that conscious qualia, C, as old news, but as the latest news there is, gets referenced by the ongoing neural activity, C', either in memory or as being otherwise available, to better make adjustments to learn the task. C does not directly cause any motor movements nor ever cause anything.

Learning then, adds to our automation, making for more informed C' decisions. We ever get more and more automated. We can become rainbows as good robots or ugly stains as bad robots.


Value systems also come into play for many C' decisions, possibly through neurotransmitter effects on the neural signals, but that's another topic. The other two main brain ingredients remain as logic and pattern forming.

Since the brain does it all, with no 'soul' or such, there is no afterlife. Death is the The End and Finis.
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2316
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: What is CTD?

Postby DragonFly on February 8th, 2018, 5:09 pm 

The first, simpler mode of Consciousnesss, C, is that like a dog or a cat only has, that of an “extended present” or a “remembered present”, which I’ll call “primary consciousness”.

I am always implicitly including C’ with C in what I say, for when there is C there is always C’, C being sequential to C’.

The “higher consciousnesss” mode of C, that humans and perhaps some higher animals have, is of self-consciousnesss, of being conscious of being conscious, of there being other minds, and other deeper appreciations.

The “mind’s eye” or ‘I’ would be the ever ongoing neural activity, C’, best in its “higher consciousness” mode, its plans ever able to get picked up again and continue through blips, lags, gaps, and interruptions, making the .5 lag somewhat less of an obstacle to ongoing C’ thinking, the only thinking place that there is. The .5 lag still wholly impacts/applies to “primary consciousness”.

Free will defined as conscious control is still out the window, badly breaking the stained-glass on it way. The fixed will (of the instant), as C’, is necessity, if that can soften the blow to our desired but impossible first-cause C-style instant selves.

Sure, C gets involved with C’ activities, for its unified form is useful to C’. After all, C’ activities culminate in C. The “phenomenal transform” to qualia is the means of conveying the integrated states of C′ on a first-person basis. There is no other way to directly experience these neural events.

RIP: Folk psychology.
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2316
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: What is CTD?

Postby Positor on February 8th, 2018, 9:27 pm 

A crucial question is this: Are qualia (a) simultaneous with, or (b) subsequent to, the physical brain states/events/processes that correspond to them? I think (b) implies dualism.

If (as RJG claims) there is a delay between the brain's 'physical' recognition of something and the consciousness (quale) of that recognition, then we can say that the physical brain event happens at t1 and the quale happens at t2. So something is happening at t2, but what is it? It cannot be anything physical, because (according to RJG) the relevant physical event has all happened at t1. So it must have some non-physical mode of being; yet it is caused by a physical event, and occurs at a specific moment of the physical world. All very mysterious and Cartesian!

A monist, on the other hand, would say that a quale is the same event as the physical brain event that corresponds to it, but experienced from a first-person perspective. And if it is the same event, it cannot take place at a different time.
Positor
Active Member
 
Posts: 1058
Joined: 05 Feb 2010
Braininvat liked this post


Re: What is CTD?

Postby DragonFly on February 9th, 2018, 12:27 am 

Positor » February 8th, 2018, 8:27 pm wrote:A crucial question is this: Are qualia (a) simultaneous with, or (b) subsequent to, the physical brain states/events/processes that correspond to them? I think (b) implies dualism.


Edelman says:

Our thesis has been that the phenomenal transform, the set of discriminations, is entailed by that neural activity. It is not caused by that activity but it is, rather, a simultaneous property of that activity.
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2316
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: What is CTD?

Postby RJG on February 9th, 2018, 12:30 am 

Positor wrote:If (as RJG claims) there is a delay between the brain's 'physical' recognition of something and the consciousness (quale) of that recognition…

Positor, this is not correct. The 'delay' is between the physical bodily reaction and the consciousness (recognition) of said bodily reaction.

Consciousness itself is just the experience of recognition (a physical bodily reaction in itself) made possible by memory.

The human body is strictly monistic: just a blob of reactive material :-). Those of us with eyes, are capable of seeing. Those of us with memory, are capable of recognizing (consciousness).
User avatar
RJG
Banned User
 
Posts: 964
Joined: 22 Mar 2012


Re: What is CTD?

Postby doogles on February 9th, 2018, 6:05 am 

Good RJG, we have a 'connect'.

RJG wrote doogles wrote: And you’ve done it again in this post. You have totally ignored my dogma that the seat of ‘recognition’ after CTD, is the SEAT OF IMMEDIATE CONSCIOUSNESS.”

“Did I disagree with this somewhere? I agree that, that which we 'recognize' ("after"' the CTD process of transmission, translation, and recognition) is that which we are 'conscious' of. So, what is so significant about this obvious fact??”


True. You did not disagree with it somewhere, because you’ve either never mentioned it till now or I blinked while reading it.

So, we finally have both stated that the final ‘recognition’ of the external event after CTD is immediate consciousness of the event.

“Are you trying to imply that once we have achieved this "seat of immediate" consciousness (recognition) of 'something', that we then magically somehow have immediate (instantaneous) consciousness/recognition of everything else (all the other 'somethings')???”

No! Not at all. I’ve agreed that CTD applies in my schema to recognition of external events only.

“Every conscious moment is subject to CTD, there are no exceptions. The 'reality' that we are conscious of, is "long gone" by the time we become conscious of it.”

Well you’ve just agreed to ‘recognition’ after CTD being a conscious moment. It is a conscious moment when CTD ends.

Maybe it’s the only case, but if you looked at my schema, you’ll see where I have dogmatically (no experimental data) extrapolated this ‘obvious fact’ to anything that appears in the mind’s eye, including conscious thought (not the subconscious preliminaries to conscious thought).

(Don’t worry about the term CTD. It was not in use in the 1950s. And your coining of it could have been the first time I’ve seen it. I could have called it anything else, but I stuck to your use of it because you used it in the OP.)
User avatar
doogles
Member
 
Posts: 991
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: What is CTD?

Postby doogles on February 9th, 2018, 6:18 am 

We’ve spent a fair amount of time on this CTD, and I’ve been asking myself what its relevance is to everyday life. I made a comment in a previous post that most people would never have heard of it and yet they live out their lives with no real problems because of the lack of that awareness.

Mind you, I’ve found the thread somewhat stimulating in that I’ve had to broaden my thinking processes a bit.

I think it is relevant for professional pugilists who cannot react quickly enough to a thrown punch because of this reaction time. There would possibly be no ‘coward-punch deaths’ if our perceptions and reactions were not slowed by CTD. I think it is relevant to bull riders who seem to be able to stick to a bull if it turns in the one direction while bucking; it becomes predictable if it keeps turning one way; but if it changes its turn direction the rider cannot detect and adjust quickly enough. It’s vital to illusionists who use sleight-of-hand faster than we can perceive the event. A short CTD could make the difference between winning and losing short footraces and swimming races. Of course, we now know that all stopwatch users were an average 0.2 seconds slow in their commencement of timing at the start of races and maybe too early in pressing the stop button in anticipation of the finish. It applies when we try to squash a mosquito between our two hands; after we localise its position, during the delay it takes to consciously clap our hands together, the mosquito has gone.

There must be many more, but that’s where I see the main relevance of CTD – in sporting events mainly.

Otherwise billions of people go about their daily lives adequately without any knowledge of it, or handicap as a result of it. We all work and play, participate in group conversations, share e-mails and texts, run and maintain our houses in spite of a 200 thousandths of a second delay in our recognition of all incoming stimuli to our five senses in touch with the world around us.

Overall I believe it has very little application to ordinary everyday life.
User avatar
doogles
Member
 
Posts: 991
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: What is CTD?

Postby RJG on February 9th, 2018, 9:57 pm 

doogles wrote:I think it is relevant for professional pugilists who cannot react quickly enough to a thrown punch because of this reaction time. There would possibly be no ‘coward-punch deaths’ if our perceptions and reactions were not slowed by CTD.

doogles wrote: [--many more sport examples given by doogles removed by RJG for brevity--]

doogles wrote:There must be many more, but that’s where I see the main relevance of CTD – in sporting events mainly.

Doogles, again, you are confusing "reaction time" (or the short duration of time between one conscious event to another conscious event) with CTD. Again, this has absolutely NOTHING to do with CTD. CTD is about the time between the unconscious-to-the-conscious, NOT the conscious-to-the-conscious.

A boxer's (pugilist?) ability to react quick enough to block an incoming punch is NOT reliant on his "consciousness" of the incoming punch, nor on a supposed "conscious decision" to raise his glove in front of his face to defend himself. NO.This pugilist (...cool word btw), "reacts" automatically (without conscious intervention or permission), ...his body already knows what to do! ...it reacts accordingly, as he has been trained (conditioned; pre-conditioned) to do so.

So, now I think I hear you saying "Balderdash RJG!, ...that is impossible! #*!@" ...and after a few more expletives, I think I hear you say "...my pugilist friend must first have to 'see' the incoming punch before he can then 'react' to defend himself".

So here, I will jump back in. Yes, I agree Doogles. He must 'see' the incoming punch before the body can auto-react accordingly! BUT, does this mean that he must 'consciously see' this incoming punch, or just 'see' it? Is it possible for the body to see and react to incoming danger, PRIOR to the consciousness of the situation?

The answer is yes. It is possible for light waves (of the varying patterns/signals attributable to that of an object moving towards us) to enter into the eyes, strike the retina and optic nerves, and start the neurons flying, and the initiation of automatic bodily reactions 'WELL-BEFORE' the memory processing of recognition/consciousness (of this visual input) is complete. Our unconscious bodies react much more efficiently/quicker than the 'consciousness' of our bodily actions. (...ever play piano? ...do your fingers already know what to do?).

Being conscious (CTD seconds later) of the visual input, and then being conscious (CTD seconds later) of one's reactive bodily movements, and then being conscious (CTD seconds later) of the "thud" against your glove protecting your face, does not mean that you "consciously" did anything, nor does it mean that you 'need' consciousness to defend yourself from a bully pugilist!

Bottom-line: We don't consciously "do" anything. We don't consciously move our bodies about, instead, we are only conscious of our bodies moving about.

The sun-god is now a myth. The flat earth is now a myth. Conscious causation is now a myth. Time to move forward everyone. Let old myths die.
User avatar
RJG
Banned User
 
Posts: 964
Joined: 22 Mar 2012


Re: What is CTD?

Postby Positor on February 10th, 2018, 12:11 am 

RJG » February 9th, 2018, 4:30 am wrote:
Positor wrote:If (as RJG claims) there is a delay between the brain's 'physical' recognition of something and the consciousness (quale) of that recognition…

Positor, this is not correct. The 'delay' is between the physical bodily reaction and the consciousness (recognition) of said bodily reaction.

Consciousness itself is just the experience of recognition (a physical bodily reaction in itself) made possible by memory.

The human body is strictly monistic: just a blob of reactive material :-). Those of us with eyes, are capable of seeing. Those of us with memory, are capable of recognizing (consciousness).

OK, I think I understand you now.

Does anyone have any comments on the above, particularly with regard to the role of memory?
Positor
Active Member
 
Posts: 1058
Joined: 05 Feb 2010


Re: What is CTD?

Postby doogles on February 10th, 2018, 6:15 am 

RJG wrote - "Doogles, again, you are confusing "reaction time" (or the short duration of time between one conscious event to another conscious event) with CTD."

Hell! I didn't know that! Can you give some real life examples of what you mean?

Are you giving the definition of CTD a broader meaning in terms of delay than I did in my schema a few posts ago? You haven't chatted about that schema yet. Don't forget that this is a chat room and not just an outlet for dogmatic assertions.
User avatar
doogles
Member
 
Posts: 991
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: What is CTD?

Postby doogles on February 10th, 2018, 7:08 am 

Positor, You asked - "Does anyone have any comments on the above, particularly with regard to the role of memory?"

One of RJGs plausible statements was that CTD involves neural transmission time, translation time and recognition at the end. The 'translation' time is the time-absorbing process the brain takes for the neurons in our brains that receive the image on the retina of the external event and match it with the stores of memory images in our brain. Each neuron has approximately 10000 axon and dendrite connections with other neurons. When the image from the retina matches with a known object in our memory stores, this immediately hits our mind's eye and is referred to as 'recognition'.

As recognition at the end of CTD, it is our instant constant consciousness and awareness of what we are looking at in the external world. It is conscious without delay when the image arrives in the mind's eye and will as remain as contemporary consciousness without delay as each new frame (or continuous retinal image) is transmitted sequentially to our in our mind's eye as we concentrate on the external event.

This implies dogmatically that the retinal receptors are continuously transmitting the back-up flow of images to the mind's eye and being recognised in the flow without delay. It is continuous conscious viewing at this stage. Once there is recognition, translation is not necessary, and I maintain with some evidence ( see the footrace studies above) that we compute and adjust for not only the initial CTD, but for trajectory as well.

You may have experienced this personally. If you are following a moving object you can predict its trajectory to a large extent because the continuous image hitting your retina is continuously reaching your mind's eye in sequence. You could dogmatically state that every frame still has CTD time behind the initial one and that therefore the external object is actually x feet ahead of where we curently perceive it our mind's eye.

That is RJGs postulate, but definitely not mine. I have at least cited the footrace and stopwatch experiment where sure, there was an initial delay of 0.2 seconds in the commencement of timing, but at the end of the race the judges had computed and adjusted for CTD by predicting the end of the race too soon. Now RJG has never discussed that evidence or any other, so I haven't been able to chat with him about it.

So because of our computation and adjustment ability, we see moving objects in real time without CTD delay effects and viewing continues smoothly unless something unexpected happens. As an example, recall the manned space ship that blew up before our very eyes in the 1980s. We usually say words to the effect of "I couldn't believe my eyes". We all have a delay in rationalising what has happened and this is an occasion when CTD kicks in again to 'recognise' the mishap as our brains 'translate' what has happened from our memory stores.

Otherwise, after initial transmission and translation, once the original recognition of an external moving object has occurred, we compute and adjust, and see the external event in real, current conscious time. Continuous viewing becomes an ongoing conscious act.
User avatar
doogles
Member
 
Posts: 991
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: What is CTD?

Postby Positor on February 10th, 2018, 10:14 am 

doogles » February 10th, 2018, 11:08 am wrote:So because of our computation and adjustment ability, we see moving objects in real time without CTD delay effects and viewing continues smoothly unless something unexpected happens. As an example, recall the manned space ship that blew up before our very eyes in the 1980s. We usually say words to the effect of "I couldn't believe my eyes". We all have a delay in rationalising what has happened and this is an occasion when CTD kicks in again to 'recognise' the mishap as our brains 'translate' what has happened from our memory stores.

Otherwise, after initial transmission and translation, once the original recognition of an external moving object has occurred, we compute and adjust, and see the external event in real, current conscious time. Continuous viewing becomes an ongoing conscious act.

The problem is that we do not literally experience events in real time. We guess that they will continue (or change) as expected, and we usually guess correctly, or approximately so. There is always a delay between an actual event and our consciousness of it, even if we anticipate it perfectly.

Moreover, brain processes are physical themselves, so in that sense they are like the outside world. According to this view, they take place in real time according to the laws of physics, but any consciousness (recognition) of such physical processes is delayed. So:

1. The brain interprets sensory information, and we become conscious of (recognize) such interpretation after a delay.
2. The brain reacts to the interpreted sensory input in accordance with the laws of physics, and we become conscious of (recognize) such reaction after a delay.
3. There is a physical brain event corresponding to (and simultaneous with) recognition, and that physical event is a contributing factor to the brain's reaction at any given moment; but since this is itself a physical process, any consciousness of that process (together with consciousness of the brain's reaction) is likewise delayed.
Positor
Active Member
 
Posts: 1058
Joined: 05 Feb 2010
DragonFlyRJG liked this post


Re: What is CTD?

Postby doogles on February 11th, 2018, 6:41 am 

Positor wrote:
doogles » February 10th, 2018, 11:08 am wrote:So because of our computation and adjustment ability, we see moving objects in real time without CTD delay effects and viewing continues smoothly unless something unexpected happens. As an example, recall the manned space ship that blew up before our very eyes in the 1980s. We usually say words to the effect of "I couldn't believe my eyes". We all have a delay in rationalising what has happened and this is an occasion when CTD kicks in again to 'recognise' the mishap as our brains 'translate' what has happened from our memory stores.

Otherwise, after initial transmission and translation, once the original recognition of an external moving object has occurred, we compute and adjust, and see the external event in real, current conscious time. Continuous viewing becomes an ongoing conscious act.

The problem is that we do not literally experience events in real time. We guess that they will continue (or change) as expected, and we usually guess correctly, or approximately so. There is always a delay between an actual event and our consciousness of it, even if we anticipate it perfectly.

Moreover, brain processes are physical themselves, so in that sense they are like the outside world. According to this view, they take place in real time according to the laws of physics, but any consciousness (recognition) of such physical processes is delayed. So:

1. The brain interprets sensory information, and we become conscious of (recognize) such interpretation after a delay.
2. The brain reacts to the interpreted sensory input in accordance with the laws of physics, and we become conscious of (recognize) such reaction after a delay.
3. There is a physical brain event corresponding to (and simultaneous with) recognition, and that physical event is a contributing factor to the brain's reaction at any given moment; but since this is itself a physical process, any consciousness of that process (together with consciousness of the brain's reaction) is likewise delayed.
1. The brain interprets sensory information, and we become conscious of (recognize) such interpretation after a delay.\ The quote ends here. There was a flaw in the reproduction.


Positor -- Why do you say "The problem is that we do not [i]literally experience events in real time"?[/i]

I've stated that I believe that that we do, once the first frame has been recognised, and I'll try to elaborate. We are both making dogmatic assertions that appear to be contradictory. We do however, have a connect in that I agree in principle with your points 1 and 2 but not 3, as it stands.

I CLAIM THAT THIS ‘RECOGNITION’ IN THE MIND’S EYE IS CURRENT CONSCIOUS AWARENESS AND THAT IT REPRESENTS CONSCIOUSNESS OF THE EXTERNAL EVENT AND THAT THE DELAY TIME IS FINISHED. The physical process has ended when the image is ‘recognised’ and computed to be say, a moving car in the mind’s eye. If it was a stationary car, it would be one frame of recognition, that would be IT. But if sequential frames (I would like to use a more appropriate term than ‘sequential frames’ and would like to convey continuity, but am having trouble wording that) keep streaming into the mind’s eye from the retina, we are conscious that the car is moving and if we keep watching it, the ongoing process becomes adjusted to real time conscious viewing by computation and adjustment.

Up till now, we’ve all been talking with little back-up evidence, using our imaginations and dogma, and one person’s dogmatic opinion is as good as the other, but I have to ask you once again to have a look at the reference I gave about footrace judges using stopwatches. It implies that there is computation and adjustment.

So, the obvious question is where and when in the brain does the computation and adjustment occur for the initial CTD. My working theory is that as soon as the first few frames hit the mind’s eye, we subconsciously do the computing and adjusting which takes STPD (Subconscious Thought Processing Delay). The developed computation then blends in smoothly with the ongoing recognition in the mind’s eye and becomes a part of our conscious real-time viewing of the moving car.

Apart from the experimental evidence I threw into the ring, this entire thread is pure dogmatic supposition and, in that sense, any one of our opinions is as good as the others.

But all I can say, is that in all of my 8 decades of living, I’ve never personally experienced a ‘blip’ or anything that would indicate that a moving object is ahead or behind where my mind perceives it to be. I’ve never heard of a stopwatch judge hitting a stopwatch for final timing when the athletes are a couple of metres past the post or of racehorses being 9 feet past the post while judges are viewing the finish, nor of overtaking cars commonly colliding with the front half of vehicles that are further ahead than we perceive them to be.

Because we are all talking with minimal research input, we could agree at this point to disagree.

We all apparently agree in principle with 1 and 2 above. But if anyone would like to chat further with some fresh ideas or research about point 3, I’ll join in.

At this stage I regard anything that's recognised in the mind's eye, as conscious awareness, whether it's a single initial glance or the ongoing sequential scenario.
User avatar
doogles
Member
 
Posts: 991
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: What is CTD?

Postby RJG on February 11th, 2018, 10:43 am 

doogles wrote:At this stage I regard anything that's recognised in the mind's eye, as conscious awareness, whether it's a single initial glance or the ongoing sequential scenario.

Are you then relying on the mind's 'fabricated' reality (the compensated/adjusted view) to continue representing reality?

If there was a change in the 'real' reality (e.g. a squirrel suddenly darting across the street in front of the car), how would this 'fabricated' reality detect and represent this "new event" to the mind's eye?

Also, what about the constantly changing background? Does this fabricated view also fabricate/paint in it's own background (trees, mailboxes, bushes, houses, etc)?

Doesn't it still take 'time' (CTD) to transmit the 'real' reality to the mind's eye?
Last edited by RJG on February 11th, 2018, 12:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
RJG
Banned User
 
Posts: 964
Joined: 22 Mar 2012


Re: What is CTD?

Postby DragonFly on February 11th, 2018, 11:29 am 

Apart from the experimental evidence I threw into the ring, this entire thread is pure dogmatic supposition and, in that sense, any one of our opinions is as good as the others.

This doesn't even out the playing field because dogma is for when one has no information.

Here's a good read: http://14.139.206.50:8080/jspui/bitstream/1/1983/1/Edelman,%20Gerald%20M.%20-%20Wider%20than%20the%20sky,%20the%20phenomenal%20gift%20of%20consciousness.pdf
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2316
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: What is CTD?

Postby doogles on February 12th, 2018, 6:25 am 

I’ll respond to your post first Dragonfly because I think my responses to RJG may be contained in this response.

Thank you for that reference. It would take me 3 days to read it all, but the small amount I did read was quite interesting. Edelman has obviously been influenced in his thinking by William James. Likewise, I read the entire works of William James about 30 years ago and I think I can safely say that my thinking has been either heavily influenced by William James or else his thoughts tended to confirm my own views.

I looked through the Index of Edelman’s book, but could see no reference to neural delays or the mind’s eye as such. So it’s not helpful as far as the importance of neural delays are concerned.

But possibly relating to the mind’s eye, I found the following. It has no references and appears to be a result of his own and James’ introspection. So, in one sense it’s at the same level of authenticity as the dogma we are using in this thread –

“P7 -- One outstanding property is that consciousness is unitary or integrated, at least in healthy individuals. When I consider my conscious state at the time of this writing, it appears to be all of a piece. While I am paying attention to the act of writing, I am aware of a ray of sunlight, of a humming sound across the street, of a small discomfort in my legs at the edge of the chair, and even of a “fringe,” as James called it, that is of objects and events barely sensed. It is usually not entirely possible to reduce this integrated scene to just one thing, say my pencil. Yet this unitary scene will change and differentiate according to outside stimuli or inner thoughts to yet another scene. The number of such differentiated scenes seems endless, yet each is unitary. The scene is not just wider than the sky, it can contain many disparate elements—sensations, perceptions, images, memories, thoughts, emotions, aches, pains, vague feelings, and so on. Looked at from the inside, consciousness seems continually to change, yet at each moment it is all of piece—what I have called “the remembered present”—reflecting the fact that all my past experience is engaged in forming my integrated awareness of this single moment.
P9 -- If an outside observer tests whether I can consciously carry out more than two tasks simultaneously, he will find that my performance deteriorates. This apparent limitation of conscious capability, which is in contrast to the vast range of different inner conscious states, deserves analysis. I will consider its origins when I discuss the difference between conscious and nonconscious activity.”


You can see that he talks about his consciousness in current time, but we all know and agree that a CTD would apply to “I am aware of a ray of sunlight, of a humming sound across the street.” He has either simply disregarded the existence of CTD, or it may be that like the billions of people not involved in sporting activities at any given time, it has no significant relevance to most daily cognitive activities.

The point that grabbed my attention was “and even of a ‘fringe’, as James called it, that is of objects and events barely sensed.”

It was quite timely for me, because in thinking about some of your questions in the last couple of days, eg about subconscious internal machinations and ‘recognised’ thoughts, that these seem to flit in and out of consciousness in my mind. I was picturing the mind’s eye as a real focus of the conscious thought, but these subconscious machinations were just flitting on the fringe of the mind’s eye. This does suggest, as Edelman stated that there may a layering effect in what I, and others have labelled ‘the mind’s eye’. I believe this mind’s eye is what Edelman was referring to on P 6 – “The evidence, as we shall see, reveals that the process of consciousness is a dynamic accomplishment of the distributed activities of populations of neurons in many different areas of the brain.”

This conforms to the observations of an experiment on the observation of a person grasping an object by Grafton et al (1996) that I described in an earlier post. Although positrons were detected in multiple areas (in the cerebral cortex and cerebellum), the ‘recognition’ would have been of a person grasping an object. The same would have happened in your brains when I asked you to imagine a tropical beach or NOT TO imagine a red elephant. A sort of mind’s eye does exist, doesn’t it, even if it does consist of neural networks all over the brain. It’s a convenient representation of the consciousness centre.

I’d like to get around to reading that book, Dragonfly, and particularly what he has to say about ‘consciousness and unconsciousness.

I went through the reference list as well as the Index and found a reference to a review with 60 odd references. If I get a chance I’ll have a look through those references to see if there is any useful experimental evidence.
User avatar
doogles
Member
 
Posts: 991
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: What is CTD?

Postby doogles on February 12th, 2018, 6:35 am 

RJG asked “Are you then relying on the mind's 'fabricated' reality (the compensated/adjusted view) to continue representing reality?”

Only if there are sequential frames flowing into the mind’s eye and the viewer is concentrating on the event (Unidentified car moving slowly down the street, by judges at the start and finish of races).

“If there was a change in the 'real' reality (e.g. a squirrel suddenly darting across the street in front of the car), how would this 'fabricated' reality detect and represent this "new event" to the mind's eye?” AND “Also, what about the constantly changing background? Does this fabricated view also fabricate/paint in it's own background (trees, mailboxes, bushes, houses, etc)?”

Edelman
described such events (See Dragonfly post). He spoke as if he believed it was all in the conscious present. I described an interruption in a previous post, in the form of an exploding launched rocket, and believe that a long delay occurs in the ‘translation’ of such a new event.

Regarding these latter events where multiple inputs from external events and internal machinations flit into and out of consciousness while we are performing a task. Edelman mentioned “sensations, perceptions, images, memories, thoughts, emotions, aches, pains, vague feelings, and so on”. Of these, the way I see it (opinion), is that all of the external events would register AFTER the event. CTD would apply, and they would be past events by the time he became conscious of them (sensations, perceptions, images from external events, aches, pains, emotions, feelings) but that internal events (internally-generated images, memories, thoughts) would all be processing (STPD) ‘on the fringe’ and become instant conscious ‘things’ as they flit into the mind’s eye.

My question to myself then becomes “Do these conscious things interfere with the conscious continuous viewing of the strange car or a judge’s viewing of the start and finish of a race?”

Actually, I’m glad you asked that question. Edelman believes (P 9 see above), that we can be conscious of two things at once but that our performance deteriorates. Like James and Edelman, I’m introspecting at the moment, imagining myself in the position of intense concentration on anything, and using my full consciousness on what I’m observing or actually doing.

I believe we have all been in this position many times and I think our responses are possibly similar. I’m often in trouble because I tend to not heed the interruption. I recall coming out of such a bout of concentration once, only to hear my 13-year-old daughter proclaim at the time “Look at him; he’s got that ears-shut look on his face again.”

Another response has been to ignore what anyone around me has said and to answer “Yes” by rote as if I've heard them. I’ve been berated by my wife on too many occasions for not doing something I’ve said I would do. Another time I’ve berated one of my children for going off somewhere without telling me, only to hear that I had been asked and responded “Okay” by rote.

Our other response is to wave an interruptive person away with an irritable gesture of the hand.

Greatm, RJG, I hadn’t thought of that before, but I think I can now qualify my belief that we can continuously and consciously follow an event in real time IF WE CONCENTRATE. To be distracted means going through CTD again. And if there is less than 0.2 s left to view the outcome of an event, it means that we’ve missed the finish.

Thank you.
User avatar
doogles
Member
 
Posts: 991
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: What is CTD?

Postby Positor on February 12th, 2018, 9:51 am 

I have not yet come to any conclusions on this topic. All the contributors have produced arguments that seem initially plausible, and I am unable to pinpoint the exact underlying assumption(s) that cause the disagreement. I will continue to read this thread with interest.
Positor
Active Member
 
Posts: 1058
Joined: 05 Feb 2010


Re: What is CTD?

Postby RJG on February 12th, 2018, 12:45 pm 

RJG wrote:Are you then relying on the mind's 'fabricated' reality (the compensated/adjusted view) to continue representing reality?”

doogles wrote:Only if there are sequential frames flowing into the mind’s eye…

But these "sequential frames" are only of the 'fabricated' view, ...not of the 'real' (time delayed) view!


doogles wrote: ...and the viewer is concentrating on the event (Unidentified car moving slowly down the street, by judges at the start and finish of races).

But again, the viewer is only concentrating on the 'fabricated' view. What if the car turned left in 'reality'? ...if the 'fabricated' view is still projecting the car moving forward, then how would the "mind's eye" ever know of the 'real' reality of the car turning left?

The 'fabricated' view seems to be nothing more than a 'hopeful hallucination' of reality, ...not an 'actual' representation of reality.

We can't simulate "instantaneous" consciousness of reality through hallucinatory or other added mental processes.


doogles wrote:Edelman described such events (See Dragonfly post). He spoke as if he believed it was all in the conscious present.

The content of the "conscious present" is always of 'past' events. The brain can't transmit and process data fast enough to the mind's eye, to ever be conscious of the 'true' present!

CTD is a function of the brain's processing speed. Adding additional (compensating/adjusting) processes does not and cannot yield "instantaneous" conscious processing.

Until we humans get a serious upgrade in equipment, we are all stuck processing NON-instantaneously!


From the OP:
RJG wrote:P1. “Instantaneous” detection/sensing is not logically (nor scientifically) possible. This includes human conscious experiences (sensing/detecting). A ‘time delay’ is an unavoidable fact.

P2. None of our conscious processes are ‘exempt’ from this ‘time delay’, as ALL processes consume time.

Doogles, so it is here (with these two above premises) that we ultimately disagree. You are seemingly arguing for the possibility/actuality of "instantaneous processes" ...whereas I see this as a simple logical impossibility.

It doesn't look like either of us want to move from our respective positions, so with that said, we probably should agree to disagree and move on. Thank you for the intellectual banter. I've enjoyed it. Take care my good friend.
User avatar
RJG
Banned User
 
Posts: 964
Joined: 22 Mar 2012
doogles liked this post


Re: What is CTD?

Postby DragonFly on February 12th, 2018, 5:46 pm 

Edelman goes on to indicate no conscious causation.

I congratulate Doogles, for he reads and investigates the offerings, attending to the topic and really getting into it.
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2316
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: What is CTD?

Postby doogles on February 13th, 2018, 5:52 am 

RJG Yes, I agree. I think we've kicked it around enough for now. Some of the peripheral issues were intriguing. I might research Edelman and the experimental research into consciousness a little, privately, if I get the time. Thank you.

And Dragonfly, thanks for the compliment. It was an enjoyable discussion, but unfortunately it was a topic with very little experimental investigation to support our individual imaginations. .
User avatar
doogles
Member
 
Posts: 991
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: What is CTD?

Postby neuro on February 16th, 2018, 8:44 am 

I believe we should keep separate the two topics: neurological phenomena and facts vs. philosophical questions of consciousness, free will and choice.

Neurologically, consciousness (however one wishes to define it) is a wonderful process which is able to synchronize mental activity with external reality. If it were not so, it would be useless.

Perception (and especially interpretation-understanding) of external events is necessarily delayed by physical aspects (minimally, microsecs) and by neural processing time (noticeably, hundreds of ms).
One of the most crucial functions of consciousness, however, is being able to frame experience in a consistent picture. In order to do so, quite a lot of neural elaboration is dedicated to predict what will happen next, so that what we actually experience next makes sense.
If I am looking at a ball coming toward me, and I see it at position X, it was actually there few hundres ms before now. However, my conscious activity consists in picturing where the ball would be 100, 200, 300 ms after the moment it was in at position X.
Similarly, if I wish to hit it with a bat, I must compute where my arm is to be at a certain future time in order to elaborate and issue the appropriate motor commands to the muscles. So, My brain must decide to "hit the ball" quite a bit before I actually initiate the movement. But the delay must be very precise: my brain must take into accout that it will take a while for my arm to start moving, and in the mean time the ball will have travelled some distance, and the ball actually is not were I see it, because it was there a few hundred ms ago.

I believe this kind of comparative computation is fascinating: whatever I see has already happened. Whatever I actually do NOW must have been programmed by my brain in advance.
Still, I manage in hitting the ball.
Because my CONSCIOUSNESS is a wonderful process that is capable of prediciting where the ball ACTUALLY IS NOW based on the knowledge (the only knowledge I possess now) of where IT WAS up to some hundred ms ago, and is capable of having initiated a movement in advance so that the bat in my hand ACTUALLY IS NOW where the ball is.

So, neurologically consciousness is a wonderful synchronizing machine capable of generating the impression of NOW as an encounter between what must be occurring NOW (based on what I know has occurred up to some moments ago) and what I am presumably doing NOW (based on what my brain decided to do some moments ago, so that I could actually be doing it NOW).

This also explains why I have the conscious perception that I am doing something NOW, although my brain has decided to do it some (short) time ago and the actual perception of my doing it will only arrive in a few hundred ms from now.
If it were not so, I would feel crazy. I would suffer dissociation of consciousness.

I make a movement: the premotor cortex programs the movement - the motor cortex issues the command - the muscles receive the order and react - the movement starts - the muscle spindles sense the contraction of the muscle and the pressure sensors in the joint sense the change in the joint angle - this info reaches the brain and is elaborated to generate the perception that the muscle length is changing and the joint is moving.
I am actually making a movement (muscle action) quite a certain time after I am thinking I am doing it (pre-motor+motor cortex activity), and I perceive I am making the movement quite a certain time after I actually did it.
Still, in order not to get crazy, I must perceive I am performing a movement when I think I am performing it.
This is what consciouness NEUROLOGICALLY does.

What are the philosophical implications of this, in terms of free will, I do not know.
Actually, I think this has no philosophical implication at all.
Determinism, free will an all the rest have nothing to do with time delays and the capability of consciousness to avoid that we become insane because our finger appears to move half a second after we moved it.
User avatar
neuro
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2635
Joined: 25 Jun 2010
Location: italy
dooglesspongePositor liked this post


Re: What is CTD?

Postby RJG on February 20th, 2018, 2:12 am 

neuro wrote:Neurologically, consciousness (however one wishes to define it) is a wonderful process which is able to synchronize mental activity with external reality. If it were not so, it would be useless.

Everything that one is conscious of, is old news; past events. Therefore, it is impossible for consciousness to "do" anything, including "synchronizing" itself to reality.

Since consciousness can't "do" anything, it does appear to be as useless as one's own appendix.

******
Additional comment regarding the possibility of "synchronizing" -- if time is required to transmit and translate the real-time 'bodily experiences' (bodily reactions) into the conscious-time 'conscious experiences' (consciousness), then to synchronize, the body would first have to transport into the 'future' so as to experience 'future' real events. So then by the time the brain finishes processing these bodily experiences into conscious experiences, it would hopefully coincide (synchronize) with the real-time of reality.
User avatar
RJG
Banned User
 
Posts: 964
Joined: 22 Mar 2012


Re: What is CTD?

Postby BadgerJelly on February 20th, 2018, 2:31 am 

RJG -

Why do you feel the need to say the same thing to the same people over and over and over? Do you not remember saying this already about a hundred times?

Maybe it is true for you. All you can do is write the same thing over and over and over, thus feeding your self made lie and turning it into an inescapable "truth."

For five (maybe six?) years you've said this. We understand what you believe. Repeating it does little more than reinforce your belief and reinforce our view of your limitation by the fact of endless repetition.

To be fair you've at least made a slight change of tack. Over all you seem very set in your ideas so you'll gain more from reading something and seeing how your views constrast with thoughts more clearly laid out than a bunch of nitwits online? haha!

You distress me sometimes because I want to see you partake in discussions that don't orbit this singular idea.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5302
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: What is CTD?

Postby RJG on February 20th, 2018, 8:29 am 

Good comments Badger. It appears that it is time for me to move on. I've given my best (and maybe over-winded) attempt to explain a difficult truth.

People's continued belief in that which is logically impossible, is somewhat baffling to me.

So yes, maybe it is time for me to move on. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
User avatar
RJG
Banned User
 
Posts: 964
Joined: 22 Mar 2012


Re: What is CTD?

Postby BadgerJelly on February 20th, 2018, 9:04 am 

Find the hardest book to read you can. Pick it up, attack it, but try to understand what the reader was trying to say and why they were partially right and partially wrong. If they are either all one or the other, then you're not trying hard enough.

OR pick something more subjective to ponder. Grab a copy of Moby Dick or what ever classic springs to mind and give it a good going over. Analyse it, study the author and the historical context, expand from there.

What do you have to lose? :A)

Something I wrote on the white board on my wall a few weeks ago that I left to linger:

"Flowers don't exist: A flower is god of its surroundings. Flowers as a grouped commonality in the world, as 'flowers', are non-local. There is no 'position' of the flower. The flower is a field of probable being for flowers."
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5302
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


PreviousNext

Return to Metaphysics & Epistemology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests