What is CTD?

[BadgerJelly]

According to Edelman, zombies are not possible:

DF, thanks. That makes my point. No zombies, no epiphenomenal mind. C is causally efficacious. Otherwise, we wouldn't need it.

Cheers.

The only "reasonable" way to attack this would be via psychologism I think ;)

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/psychologism/#ExaPsyRea

From Mills position:

(PA 1) 1. Psychology is defined as the science which studies all (kinds of) laws of thought.
2. Logic is a field of inquiry which studies a subset of all laws of thought.
Ergo, logic is a part of psychology.
(PA 2) 1. Normative-prescriptive disciplines — disciplines that tell us what we ought to do — must be based upon descriptive-explanatory sciences.
2. Logic is a normative-prescriptive discipline concerning human thinking.
3. There is only one science which qualifies as constituting the descriptive-explanatory foundation for logic: empirical psychology.
Ergo, logic must be based upon psychology.
(PA 3) 1. Logic is the theory of judgments, concepts, and inferences.
2. Judgments, concepts, and inferences are human mental entities.
3. All human mental entities fall within the domain of psychology.
Ergo, logic is a part of psychology.
(PA 4) 1. The touchstone of logical truth is the feeling of self-evidence.
2. The feeling of self-evidence is a human mental experience.
Ergo, logic is about a human mental experience — and thus a part of psychology.
(PA 5) 1. We cannot conceive of alternative logics.
2. The limits of conceivability are mental limits.
Ergo, logic is relative to the thinking of the human species; and this thinking is studied by psychology.

This is a subject I have to admit I am not capable of committing to one way or the other just yet. I do find it right at the heart of the "consciousness" issue though.

[RJG]

But this does not mean that the consciousness at this time is not the cause of what one is conscious of at a later time.

It does mean 'exactly' this! -- Remember, consciousness is wholly reliant upon 'something' to be conscious of. Without this 'something' to be conscious of, there is no consciousness.

Consciousness is wholly reliant upon a (pre-existing) event/thing (happening/existing in real-time).

Much like:
A 'shadow' is wholly reliant upon a (pre-existing) object, or
An 'echo' is wholly reliant upon a (pre-occuring) sound

Without a pre-existing object or sound, there could be no shadow or echo.
Without a pre-existing event, there could be no consciousness.

Shadows/echoes/consciousness are just 'representations' of objects/sounds/events.

Also, if you are conscious of a 'process', then:
When you are conscious of step/event 1, step/event 2 is already happening in real-time.
When you are conscious of step/event 2, step/event 3 is already happening in real-time.
etc. etc.

Consciousness can never "catch-up" to reality, nor have a 'causal' effect upon it, ...no more than a 'shadow' can catch-up to and 'cause' the movement of an object.

[sponge]

But this does not mean that the consciousness at this time is not the cause of what one is conscious of at a later time.

It does mean 'exactly' this! -- Remember, consciousness is wholly reliant upon 'something' to be conscious of. Without this 'something' to be conscious of, there is no consciousness.

Consciousness is wholly reliant upon a (pre-existing) event/thing (happening/existing in real-time).

Much like:
A 'shadow' is wholly reliant upon a (pre-existing) object, or
An 'echo' is wholly reliant upon a (pre-occuring) sound

Without a pre-existing object or sound, there could be no shadow or echo.
Without a pre-existing event, there could be no consciousness.

Shadows/echoes/consciousness are just 'representations' of objects/sounds/events.

Also, if you are conscious of a 'process', then:
When you are conscious of step/event 1, step/event 2 is already happening in real-time.
When you are conscious of step/event 2, step/event 3 is already happening in real-time.
etc. etc.

Consciousness can never "catch-up" to reality, nor have a 'causal' effect upon it, ...no more than a 'shadow' can catch-up to and 'cause' the movement of an object.

I think we all understand what you are saying, RJG and nobody, as far as I can tell, has disagreed with the basis of your argument. The problem seems to lie in the fact that you refuse to consider any suggestions about how this delay phenomenon might come about through normal brain processes. As you rightly say, we don't know what drives the subconscious mind and that's where ideas should be exploring, rather than simply restating the accepted difficulty.

You have come up with a theory and you may be right. It is surely sensible and 'scientific' to test that idea against any others put forward and maybe even keep an open mind about all possibilities.

[BadgerJelly]

sponge -

You'll find more productive discussion in talk to other people and simply ridiculing RJG (after all it is not YOU doing the ridiculing so it makes no difference to rules of the forum because RJG denies his own, and our, agency in anything we say, think or write - because according to him we don't "DO" any of this.)

I can only hope that he manages to find the time to read the discussions going on around him rather than remaining focused on his own little echo chamber of denial of denial, of parroting the same thing over and over , and then there is a fragment of a chance he'll latch onto something others are discussing and see his own absurdity and "absurdism" and grow from there.

I am optimistic that he may be more than a bored man at work trolling for fun unable to face the mirroring of himself and his own words.

[sponge]

[quote="[url=http://ww just fine. The C' neural activity can orchestrate thoughts and actions quite well, plus what else is there as the basis to do the figuring, anyway.


And sponge, how is your friend, Patrick, doing, in your underwater world?

He doesn't get down this way too much these days. He is kept busy dealing with a series of messages being shown to his consciousness from a guy calling himself Omar.

[sponge]

sponge -

I am optimistic that he may be more than a bored man at work trolling for fun unable to face the mirroring of himself and his own words.

I hadn't thought of that. :(

Glad you're still here and working on your writing too, BJ.

[mitchellmckain]

But this does not mean that the consciousness at this time is not the cause of what one is conscious of at a later time.

It does mean 'exactly' this! -- Remember, consciousness is wholly reliant upon 'something' to be conscious of. Without this 'something' to be conscious of, there is no consciousness.

Consciousness is wholly reliant upon a (pre-existing) event/thing (happening/existing in real-time).

This reliance in no way prevents consciousness being the cause of what one is conscious of at a later time.

Much like:
A 'shadow' is wholly reliant upon a (pre-existing) object, or
An 'echo' is wholly reliant upon a (pre-occuring) sound

And seeing that our shadow is blocking the light for someone else can cause us to move, and thus the shadow causes the object creating the shadow to move.

And hearing the echo we are delighted and thus make more noise to create more echoes, and thus the echo causes the noise which produces a later echo.

If it bothers you that there is a conscious entity involved (but since you claim these don't actually cause anything I don't see why they would), these can be replaced with machinery which do exactly the same thing.

But we really have been over this repeatedly already such as with the whole computer display example. But you refuse to hear anything contrary to what you have decided. It is like you are wearing horse blinders. You see only one fact and refuse to look at the rest.

Consciousness can never "catch-up" to reality, nor have a 'causal' effect upon it, ...no more than a 'shadow' can catch-up to and 'cause' the movement of an object.

No "catching up" is required when we are talking about consciousness at one time being the cause of something at a later time, just like the shadows and echoes in the above examples.

I am optimistic that he may be more than a bored man at work trolling for fun unable to face the mirroring of himself and his own words.

However much creationists and flat earthers may look like parodies of themselves, the truth is that people are quite capable of things like willful ignorance and self-deception, believing what they want to believe no matter how much the facts simply do not agree with it.

[RJG]

I think we all understand what you are saying, RJG and nobody, as far as I can tell, has disagreed with the basis of your argument.

My comments were directed to Mitch, and not necessarily to everyone else that "gets it". Mitch seemingly still disagrees with the logical consequences of CTD.

The problem seems to lie in the fact that you refuse to consider any suggestions about how this delay phenomenon might come about through normal brain processes. As you rightly say, we don't know what drives the subconscious mind and that's where ideas should be exploring, rather than simply restating the accepted difficulty.

Agreed. And if you look carefully at my words, you'll see that I have never "refused" to accept a plausible cause/reasoning of CTD.

I only "refuse" to accept the position that 'logical impossibilities' are somehow 'possible'. (e.g. such as claiming one can know 'before' they know, etc.)

You have come up with a theory and you may be right. It is surely sensible and 'scientific' to test that idea against any others put forward and maybe even keep an open mind about all possibilities.

Again, I have an open mind to ALL possibilities, so long as they are not 'logical impossibilties'.

[RJG]

Sponge, read mitchellmckain response. My point is made. He doesn't "get it"; doesn't see the logical consequences of CTD.

[mitchellmckain]

Sponge, read mitchellmckain response. My point is made. He doesn't "get it"; doesn't see the logical consequences of CTD.

This is because they are not logical at all. What nobody denies, sponge included, is CTD itself. What everybody denies is your absurd argument which is contrary to all logic, according to which there should be no consciousness or computer displays because they would serve no purpose. They exist because they do serve a purpose to inform the operator which directs the actions of the person or computer. The only valid point you can make is that consciousness is not the whole person anymore than the display is the whole computer, and this is also something which nobody has denied and which you with your horse blinders refuse to even look at.

[BadgerJelly]

RJG -

Mitch is pretty sharp, if he "doesn't get it" it is likely because he doesn't understand why anyone would state something so simplistic; it could likely be he is overestimating your dull approach.

[DragonFly]

Consciousness is not a singular event but a continuing process. All that is shown is that the consciousness at a particular time is not the cause of what it is conscious of at that particular time. But this does not mean that the consciousness at this time is not the cause of what one is conscious of at a later time.

This is good, Mitch, as well as your entire post, and is close to what I've been saying. While conscious qualia, C, can't cause anything instantly, ever, much less what is already history, C' (not C) can subsequently reference this record of history as input, subconsciously, of course, when relevant C' plans continue, which then lead to the sequential C state, etc. It's not likely that the C' work reflected in C gets thrown away.

The key point remains of no 'right then and there' conscious agency/causation. C' ever only does all the causing, subconsciously, as the only 'I'. This can be upsetting, at first, until one fully realizes that it couldn't be any other way.


Sponge Bob,

Thanks for the good bubbles' vibrations. I'm redoing Rubaiyat II, but it's pretty good already.


Ridiculers/Viotrolists/Insulters,

The forum rules were made by a C' for other C' to learn from, thereby perhaps producing more informed C'. It could be in some cases that a C' is unable to learn and then gets banned by a mod C'. A deep kind of stuckness can result from C' wires that have too often fired together and thus got heavily wired into learning resistant bundles that can then only claim useless generalizations without specifies, such as "That's a lie" or "mental patient", etc.


RJG,

Yes, there will be all manner of baffling responses/insults, but that's what sometimes has to come forth, so, noting this, you can be baffled no more. It's here and also out there in the world, everywhere, everyday. Some of the automates are so far gone, that they best just be ignored rather than risk raising your aggravation toward. Compassion for their stuck condition works double, then, for your peace, it being two steps away from the 'noise'.


Edelman intro on the evolution of C/C':

How might the C′–C relationship have evolved?

I have already considered the necessary development of reentrant connections between brain regions carrying out perceptual categorization and value-category memory. Here I want briefly to speculate on the origin of the relationship of entailment between C′ and C. It is reasonable to assume that the development of the ability to carry out refined distinctions conferred by the dynamic core would have selective advantage. The core could conceivably have evolved even in species without extensive communicative abilities. I find it more attractive, however, to consider that, in animal species in which rich communication of emotional states led to enhanced fitness, it would have been advantageous to connect the ability (C′) to make refined distinctions with the communication of these distinctions. Animals so evolved would communicate efficacious C′ states in terms of C.

C, after all, is the only information available that reflects C′ states to each animal and to others. As long as C states reflect C′ states reliably, the fact that the world is causally closed and that only C′ is causal would not undermine the role of C as a vehicle of communication.

The fact that the world is causally closed has been noted by certain philosophers of mind, notably Jaegwon Kim. Following another philosopher, Donald Davidson, Kim has proposed that a C state as a psychological state is “supervenient,” or dependent on a physical state (in our terms, C′) that is causal. In early work, he has described all causal relations involving psychological events as epiphenomenal supervenient causal relations. Presumably this refers to C′ as causal since “epiphenomenal” means causally impotent. Although these notions are roughly in accord with our account, I would not designate any mental event as directly causal, for it is a relationship and cannot exert a physical force. But the neural firings in C′ can do so, for example, by activating muscles. By providing a description of how C depends on C′ in a specific neural model we can go beyond an abstract statement about the dependence of C on C′.

[DragonFly]

This reliance in no way prevents consciousness being the cause of what one is conscious of at a later time.

A history of what C qualia attended C' in the past may be employed by subsequent subconscious C' for a new C qualia to attend. So, then, C representations are useful to C' carrying out of plans and for communication (Edelman). C itself doesn't carry out plans; C' is in charge.

Some propose a separate C reservoir for C to do additional figuring from, such as a 'soul', but this 'soul' would just be as a another C' type of formulator, and so it still doesn't make for a direct C first-cause type of agent. We can grant all kinds of further inputs to a C' type formulator, such as brain waves coming in from other people, but they are just further inputs to a process.

C is a brain process, its qualia evidently the highest language symbol the brain itself came up with. Perhaps there are intermediate brain language symbols at various stages cascading or they are going directly into a kind of global work space.

[RJG]

If we wish to close this CTD topic with a true "Twilight Zone" moment, ...here it is:

When you get off work today and walk across the parking lot to your car, know that your 'real' body is at least 7 inches out in front of you. And if it were possible to see the 'real' you (the one existing in 'reality'), then you would see the back of your own head. ...spooky, ...yes.

And then when you reach for the car door handle, your 'real' hand has already opened the door. ...again, spooky, ...but true!

Our 'real' self (body) always leads our 'conscious' self. There is no way to avoid this logical truth.

_____
Note: "7 inches" is based on an average walking speed @ 150 ms CTD.

[BadgerJelly]

Walk without motion, watch blindly, listen deafly, and speak mutely.

[mitchellmckain]

And then when you reach for the car door handle, your 'real' hand has already opened the door. ...again, spooky, ...but true!

Spooky? LOL It is complete bullshit.

By your fantasy, it is impossible to reach for a car door handle and then think or remember something which gives you reason to change your mind. Yet this happens all the time.

The conscious time delay is 80 miliseconds -- that is less than a tenth of a second. There are are very few things we do which are completed in such a short period of time, and thus there very few things which we cannot interrupt and change our mind in the middle of it.

So.... it is more like this... We reach for the car door handle, and OOOPS, our hand already started moving and OMG it is too late to change our mind about moving our hand. DAMN! If only we didn't have that pesky CTD then we could stop our body from giving away our intention of doing something before we actually do it.

[Watson]

CTD is Conscious Time Delay. It is the delay in time between that which happens in reality (in ‘real-time’) and that which happens in the conscious mind of the observer (in ‘conscious-time’).

From the OP, for us late comer to the thread.

The conscious time delay is 80 miliseconds -- that is less than a tenth of a second

I would think the time delay would vary depending on the person mental and physical state.

[RJG]

And then when you reach for the car door handle, your 'real' hand has already opened the door. ...again, spooky, …but true!

Spooky? LOL It is complete bullshit.

By your fantasy, it is impossible to reach for a car door handle and then think or remember something which gives you reason to change your mind. Yet this happens all the time.

The conscious time delay is 80 milliseconds...

Were you 'conscious' of "reaching for the door handle", and "thinking and remembering of something" and also of "changing your mind"? In other words, aren't ALL these "conscious events" subject to CTD (...to your "80 millisecond" delay)?

I would think the time delay would vary depending on the person mental and physical state.

Agreed. I suspect the brain's (recognition) processing speed is dependent on many variables including the type of bodily reaction/experience, age, and mental/physical development.

The Libet experiments seemingly imply a CTD closer to 500 ms (though the Libet experiments were focused more on the "decision making" than actual CTD). Whereas others have noted CTD at around 200 ms for the average human, and 150 ms for the exceptional ones.

Though we don't really need science to confirm CTD. Logic does it as well, as it is logically impossible to be 'conscious'-of-something without some pre-existing 'something' to be conscious of. The 'something' logically 'precedes' the 'consciousness-of something'. For without 'something' to be conscious of, there can be no consciousness.

The actual 'amount' of the delay, is really meaningless. Whether it is .0000001 ms, or 5 years, the effect is still the same; it renders 'us' as merely "conscious shadows" of a physical auto-reactive body.

[mitchellmckain]

Were you 'conscious' of "reaching for the door handle", and "thinking and remembering of something" and also of "changing your mind"? In other words, aren't ALL these "conscious events" subject to CTD (...to your "80 millisecond" delay)?

Now you are being nonsensical. Conscious events are already conscious events so there is no CTD involved between an event and the event itself. CTD would only be involved if we were talking about a self-reflective event such as being conscious of the fact that we were thinking or remembering. I have mentioned this before.

Oh... and there is a very BIG difference between saying that a CTD CAN be longer and that a CTD must be longer. I have little doubt that the CTD can quite long indeed when the person is walking about in a daze half asleep or under the effect of something like alcohol.

[sponge]

I just found something that seems relevant to this discussion...

Featured on the Science Alert website, this article describes how a team from the Allen Institute for Brain Science believe they have come a step closer to discovering how consciousness arises in the brain. Read it here:

https://www.sciencealert.com/a-giant-ne ... -the-brain

[TheVat]

That reminds me of a joke I thought up about 80 milliseconds ago:

Who brings the gift of consciousness?

Santa Claustrum.

[RJG]

That reminds me of a joke I thought up about 80 milliseconds ago:

Who brings the gift of consciousness?

Santa Claustrum.

Thanks Biv, for that bit of humor; a good way to end this topic.

It is time for me to get back to the 'real' world as the semiconductor industry is popping now and needs my full attention. The next generation sub-nanometer devices are now being developed, and new products and tools (which my company develops) are needed to produce these new devices.

We are fast approaching a scary point in all this new technology. The resolution of 'virtual reality' and 'AI' will soon be on par with 'reality'. We won't be able to recognize one from the other (the 'real' from the so-called 'not-real'). -- maybe a good topic for another discussion!

[zetreque]

We won't be able to recognize one from the other (the 'real' from the so-called 'not-real').

"We" as in those who aren't as conscious...

[RJG]

We won't be able to recognize one from the other (the 'real' from the so-called 'not-real').

"We" as in those who aren't as conscious…

No, "we"as the 'conscious' ones (the biological beings) from the 'non-conscious' ones (the non-biological beings).

These new devices (machines) do not have the same problems (that create the symptoms of "consciousness") as "we" biological machines do. At some point in our evolutionary future, I suspect "biological machines" (i.e. us human beings) will be replaced by the non-biological machines.

Instead of 'birthing biological babies', the new "we" will be 'manufacturing machine beings'. Scary stuff. Glad I won't be around.

[zetreque]

If it's so scary, why do you participate in creating it?

[RJG]

If it's so scary, why do you participate in creating it?

I suspect that my desire to provide for my family, is far greater than, my desire to worry about a possible scary future. -- I'm just a cog in the grand system.

Besides, if is not me producing the tools needed for this new technology, then it would be my competitors. So I would rather it be me. -- this new technology is moving forward with or without me.

[mitchellmckain]

No, "we"as the 'conscious' ones (the biological beings) from the 'non-conscious' ones (the non-biological beings).

These new devices (machines) do not have the same problems (that create the symptoms of "consciousness") as "we" biological machines do. At some point in our evolutionary future, I suspect "biological machines" (i.e. us human beings) will be replaced by the non-biological machines.

Instead of 'birthing biological babies', the new "we" will be 'manufacturing machine beings'. Scary stuff. Glad I won't be around.

First of all, I see no reason why only biological beings can be conscious. I don't think our machines have consciousness now but believe this may be possible in the future.

Second, I agree that just because something is biological doesn't mean it isn't a machine. But I do think there is a difference between living things and machines quite apart from the difference between the biological and the electro-mechanical. Furthermore although the machine life may not have birthing I don't believe the rest of the child rearing process can be eliminated. If we are creating something which operates by learning rather than simply following a set of instructions then then it needs time and interactions to learn.

Third, I believe that our technological developments is an extension of the same process of evolution and the development of life. In particular, I would compare it to the developments which followed the advent of multicellular organisms where we see the same kind of developments for communication and material transports (as well as means to improve the gathering information about the universe) in these large communities of smaller organisms to create a larger communal organism.

Therefore, I think this fear you express is somewhat misplaced. This is not to say there is no reason for fear. But the real reason for fear is EXACTLY the same as it always has been and it is an issue of ethics and power. If we create machine life and consciousness then there are the same issues of ethics involved as when we have and raise children. We must not forget what I call the "Frankenstein syndrome" where creating life as in stories such as "Blade Runner" as well as "Frankenstein" show what can happen when we create life similar to our own for the wrong reasons. Furthermore, it is a natural part of child development that they gain power in the world gradually so that they learn to handle that power appropriately in the process. And of course, there is always a danger when two much power is placed into the "hands" of single individuals, such as the gigantic computer AI in the film "I Robot."

With that said, the fear you seem to be expressing might be compared with an older irrational fear of anything or anyone who are different than us -- and that is something I hope will continue to fade from the human race.

[TheVat]

I'm just a cog in the grand system.

This seems consistent with your hard determinist philosophy that you've promoted here.

The moral reasoning you offered about helping build SkyNet (if I can metaphorically use the AI horror that rises up in the Terminator movies) is branched from the classic moral justification, "If I don't do this, someone else would do it anyway." Perhaps for another thread, but how far should one go with that reasoning. E.g. "If I don't push all these Jews into the shower and then flood the chamber with Zyklon B gas, then someone else will do it anyway." Clearly, you don't see your moral dilemma as quite so serious, or necessarily leading to a scary outcome, or you would decide differently and provide for your children in some other line of work.

I ask this, not to inflame opinions, but because of a scenario you earlier mentioned, where nonbiological intelligence would be without consciousness. This raises a particularly disturbing point - if people start uploading themselves onto hardware platforms, will they unwittingly be committing suicide in a sense? Will uploading result in the loss of consciousness and only provide the simulation of it? That strikes me as a horror that would undermine the significance of being human and having our rich phenomenal world. But then, I see consciousness as having some causal efficacy in the great scheme of things. And not an epiphenomenal side effect of neural processing.

[RJG]

With that said, the fear you seem to be expressing might be compared with an older irrational fear of anything or anyone who are different than us -- and that is something I hope will continue to fade from the human race.

I don't disagree.

The moral reasoning you offered about helping build SkyNet (if I can metaphorically use the AI horror that rises up in the Terminator movies) is branched from the classic moral justification, "If I don't do this, someone else would do it anyway." Perhaps for another thread, but how far should one go with that reasoning. E.g. "If I don't push all these Jews into the shower and then flood the chamber with Zyklon B gas, then someone else will do it anyway." Clearly, you don't see your moral dilemma as quite so serious, or necessarily leading to a scary outcome, or you would decide differently and provide for your children in some other line of work.

I agree it appears terrible, but without 'conscious causation', then we have no say-so in our bodily actions (however terrible they may be). Without 'conscious causation', there is no "morality". Being conscious of our bodily actions/reactions is one thing. And (consciously) controlling/causing these bodily actions/reactions is quite another.

That strikes me as a horror that would undermine the significance of being human and having our rich phenomenal world.

If truth is a "horror", then "so be it"! We don't have to like it. Nor should we feel pressured to continue claiming to not see 'it', and the "Emperor's new clothes". If the truth is ugly, then let's stop pretending, and just say "eff-it!" (aka "so be it"), and move on. To me, believing in an 'ugly truth' is still more desirable than believing in a 'pretty lie'.

But then, I see consciousness as having some causal efficacy in the great scheme of things. And not an epiphenomenal side effect of neural processing.

This is where we differ, with opposing views. Since logic tells me 'conscious causation' is NOT logically possible, I cannot in good faith convince myself that it 'is' possible, even if this means rendering "consciousness" as 'useless' as a shadow.

[BadgerJelly]

Nihilism. You say it's not nihilistic yet seem unable to say why RJG.

You are avoiding an ugly truth.