Comments
TooOldToRock-n-Roll t1_iuf1tc4 wrote
So...we are just accessing log files?
shukufuku t1_iuf4d3g wrote
If consciousness doesn't affect our immediate choices, what does it do? Does it update our beliefs for future unconscious choices? Does it affect our actions when we take time to consider a choice? How is it beneficial or necessary for us to believe we're in conscious control of our actions?
Lost_Vegetable887 t1_iuf64lh wrote
It helps us to rationalize and therefore explain our actions to others. Which is hugely important for us as a social species. Basically we act first unconsciouly, then come up with the reasons for why we acted that way, then convince others of our reasons while believing ourselves that these were truly our motivations.
Puck85 t1_iuf71ve wrote
ok, that's your theory. I can't say it applies to other apparently-conscious things, like crows or dogs, since they aren't social in the ways humans are, so i'm not satisfied with your approach because it doesn't address other forms of consciousness, and it even gets things backwards, because how can unconscious complicated social structures develop anyway?
actually reading the article provides some insight:
“Our theory of consciousness rejects the idea that consciousness initially evolved in order to allow us to make sense of the world and act accordingly, and then, at some later point, episodic memory developed to store such conscious representations,” Budson and his colleagues said in the study. “Our theory is that consciousness developed with the evolution of episodic memory simply—and powerfully—to enable the phenomena of remembering.”
“We posit further that consciousness was subsequently co-opted to produce other functions that are not directly relevant to memory per se, such as problem-solving, abstract thinking, and language,” the team noted. “We suggest that this theory is compatible with many phenomena, such as the slow speed and the after-the-fact order of consciousness, that cannot be explained well by other theories. We believe that our theory may have profound implications for understanding intentional action and consciousness in general.”
Please read the article folks. It's interesting.
uncoolcentral t1_iuf86vi wrote
TL;DR
“Our theory of consciousness rejects the idea that consciousness initially evolved in order to allow us to make sense of the world and act accordingly, and then, at some later point, episodic memory developed to store such conscious representations,” Budson and his colleagues said in the study. “Our theory is that consciousness developed with the evolution of episodic memory simply—and powerfully—to enable the phenomena of remembering.”
[deleted] t1_iuf9tk0 wrote
[removed]
Thebitterestballen t1_iufdh9u wrote
It makes total sense from a development point of view.
For example my dogs have excellent memory of objects, people, places and where to find things, because they need it. I wouldn't say they do much abstract thinking or self reflection... The need to evolve memory comes before problem solving.
On the other hand, this theory implies every animal that is capable of memory is also conscious. So whether they are self aware or not they experience events as they happen in much the same way that we do.
Puck85 t1_iufedsr wrote
it's exhausting that threads about this type of research devolve into everyone's personal thoughts.
The article involves experts in this field. Let's talk about them instead of your thoughts.
samuelnotjackson t1_iufem0v wrote
While it is possible to conceive of a consciousness with extremely limited memory, I would think all forms of temporal sensation, let alone consciousness, imply an inate requirement of memory whether milliseconds or decades. Somewhere between a bacterium, c.elegans and a tadpole, there exists an evolutionary path of memory where actual sentience could be defined.
State_Dear t1_iuffhn8 wrote
Theories are assumptions pulled out of ones ass, with no proven facts to back it up. Other then a guess,,,
We do it all the time, try it.
My theory is bananas are intelligent aliens. See?,,, It's easy and anyone can do it.
Jewish space lasers are a fact.
kanye west, is mentally stable.
DennisJM t1_iuffmha wrote
If our body/mind decides our actions before we are conscious of them how does it do it? What are the decisions making elements? How are they processed? And most important, why?
Certainly, we have physical reactions that do not require conscious decisions. Touch a hot bowl out of the microwave and we drop it. No, we didn't have to consider our decision. And yes, our reaction is based on some form of instinctive pain input processing. But that doesn't apply to how and why we decide to eat or what we did to produce the environment that has a microwave.
This theory is just Sociobiology, E.O Wilson's simplistic theory.
Consciousness is the personal experience of reality not its author.
[deleted] t1_iufiiwg wrote
[removed]
gnathan87 t1_iufnal8 wrote
Some theories are. Others come with months or years of rumination followed by a 35 page peer-reviewed paper critically discussing the author's reasoning behind their theory in relation to contemporary thought and evidence.
Portalrules123 t1_iufq88b wrote
But can you really be sure of this? How can you be sure your mind didn't unconsciously decide to eat that Pizza for you and then imprinted a false memory to rationalize it being "your choice" afterwards?
MarkDavisNotAnother t1_iufr011 wrote
Oh good, there must be a consensus on a definition of consciousness now, right?
DennisJM t1_iufrtpr wrote
You can't be sure of anything when it comes to consciousness. People have been trying to define it since the ancient Greeks.
Theories tend to fall into two camps: the mechanistic--which this is--and the philosophic--which tends to imply a higher order consciousness, a spirituality, if you will, that is rejected by most scientists as being too spooky and untestable.
Check out A.O. Wilson's theories. But keep in mind he studied ants. They may be total automatons but we aren't. And I just read about bees that like to play with balls. Why?
Left-Warthog-632 t1_iufruvb wrote
Just because we HAVE the ability to make unconscious actions that means nothing we do is conscious?
Portalrules123 t1_iuftta7 wrote
Very interesting!
To be honest considering where we are currently taking the planet I wouldn't even be shocked if it turned out we were automatons the whole time, sadly and honestly......
bracewithnomeaning t1_iufvv72 wrote
Zen is about the direct perception of reality. Steipping the walls off. It says the same thing...
irish37 t1_iufw1zg wrote
Spot on, it's a barometer for the organism to get a sense if things are going well, thus updating priors for the next go round
irish37 t1_iufw9zf wrote
Your mind IS subconsciously deciding, that's the point, the brain runs in automatic, we have feelings then to give feedback to the organism to update automatic responses for the next situation
tornpentacle t1_iufwgx3 wrote
Consciousness ≠ involvement in decisionmaking. Consciousness is simply awareness of events. In our case, as humans, there is certainly a correlation between past sensations witnessed by the sensory organs and future "output" (i.e. movements, thoughts, etc). In turn, those outputs act as inputs which again influence the outputs, and so on and so forth until cessation of consciousness. The brain is essentially a feedback loop, with the external inputs being constantly filtered (like in the initial pass through our nervous system to the brain, including the regions of the brain responsible for processing sensory information) then re-filtered (cognition). This introduces an appearance of randomness, especially when we examine other people's behavior (as we are often quick to explain our reasons for our own behavior).
Tha_Daahkness t1_iufy4ws wrote
Sir, this is reddit.
We don't read the articles.
IrishNinja8082 t1_iug0ew4 wrote
This sure reads like a lot of nothing. As I speak I am planning my words then acting upon them. This is silly.
CrazyWillingness3543 t1_iug3p7z wrote
A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.
What you are describing is a hypothesis. If you perform experiments on the bananas and find solid evidence that they are intelligent aliens, you have yourself a theory.
CatalyticDragon t1_iug674b wrote
It’s not that radial is it. I thought this was largely accepted.
badjokemonday t1_iug6kyl wrote
Is this Kenneth from 30 Rock?
tornpentacle t1_iug9l11 wrote
Consciousness is simply awareness of sensory input.
tornpentacle t1_iug9qkr wrote
Care to expound a bit?
tdmoney t1_iugd6fx wrote
Maybe I’m misunderstanding the premise… but I decide what I’m going to do. I’m going to go to the store and buy x,y,z… so that later I can make dinner.
I might not choose every step I take, or how exactly I do it… but I do make the decisons.
To me this is an overly complicated and incorrect way to view “muscle memory”…. When I’m learning how to do a new thing, I’m “in the moment” making micro decisions about how to complete whatever task. To me that’s consciousness.
Gimmil_walruslord t1_iugdxpz wrote
Sounds like "Scientists got drunk, had orgy, nobody could remember but evidence says it happened" consciousness. Happens from what you remember not actively
Dashing_McHandsome t1_iuge1cu wrote
Consciousness is just one big Kibana instance
[deleted] t1_iugeqte wrote
tornpentacle t1_iugfq3c wrote
That is the colloquial definition of the word. In a scientific context, theory refers to a hypothesis that has been extensively studied and proven to be consistent with all available evidence.
tornpentacle t1_iugg8hk wrote
All those decisions are determined by previous conditions and experiences. "You" do not make decisions. "You" are a feedback loop. The conscious experience is the joining together in the brain of various sensory experiences...it also ignores the vast majority of sensory input. For the record, neurons fire in a deterministic manner.
Tisk_Jockey t1_iuggc4f wrote
What they are saying is your brain is making all the decisions, the part that is conscious of it gets all of the thoughts from the brain with a micro tone delay and just assumes it is the one driving the boat not just Dwight with a fake wheel.
-downtone_ t1_iugibi6 wrote
I don't know that episodic is necessary. People going on 'gut' feeling is based on unactualized memory imo. Just leaves a positive or negative bias which is governed by emotion. Details are not necessary.
ThrowbackPie t1_iugild6 wrote
I'm curious how this theory - which makes a lot of sense - interacts with things like meditation. If you meditate a lot you can essentially maintain perfect focus. I guess consciousness (our perception of reality) and decision making influenced by our environment are different things.
[deleted] t1_iugji7u wrote
[deleted]
FourAM t1_iugjip4 wrote
He’s using an analogy to illustrate what the article is stating, that’s not “personal thoughts” it’s a discussion of the topic.
Good lord this sub is riddled with folks not even trying to understand.
Kailaylia t1_iugjl06 wrote
>Consciousness is simply awareness of events.
There's no such thing as simple awareness of events.
All awareness is contextual, being influenced by our perceptions of the past, our current expectations, and fears or hopes for the future.
Petewonder t1_iugk3o7 wrote
Sooooo, the Buddhists are right??
SwansonHOPS t1_iugk7ic wrote
I'm not so sure. What if someone had no sensory input? Like they are completely blind, deaf, no tactile sensations, can't detect gravity, etc. Could they be conscious? Could they still form thoughts that they are aware of?
I'd say consciousness is simply awareness. Not necessarily of sensory inputs, but of anything.
SwansonHOPS t1_iugkrbb wrote
So that raises the question: how is "remembering" beneficial to evolution?
Emergency-Eye-2165 t1_iugls6l wrote
Sounds not even wrong.
uncoolcentral t1_iuglu92 wrote
“At some point in our ancestral past, memory developed because it helped solve problems related to survival and ultimately, reproduction. An organism with the capacity to remember the location of food, or categories of potential predators, was more likely to survive than an organism lacking this capacity.”
https://thisviewoflife.com/adaptive-memory-evolutionary-influences-on-remembering/
Edit: would love to pick authors’ brains on their thesis vis-à-vis implicit memories of classical conditioning. I don’t have a specific question, but I bet I could prompt them to say some cool stuff!
mistersmith_22 t1_iugn2lk wrote
This is ridiculous:
“this hypothesis is that all of our decisions and actions are actually performed unconsciously, and then remembered consciously about a half-second later. In this way, our brains fool us into thinking we are making conscious actions in the present, when we are only experiencing delayed memories of events.”
I mean. Come on.
avogadros_number t1_iugoezv wrote
Remember that nothing has to be "beneficial" for it to remain, it simply needs not be selected against.
JCPRuckus t1_iugp8am wrote
>Maybe I’m misunderstanding the premise… but I decide what I’m going to do. I’m going to go to the store and buy x,y,z… so that later I can make dinner.
No, your subconscious polls your body to see what nutrients (or addictive foodstuffs) it's lacking, gets back the report, decides lasagna would fit the bill, and says, "I want lasagna". Then you become conscious of that message and fill in some other explanation for why it's worth it to go to the store and get ingredients for lasagna. Your conscious choice is an illusion. It's actually just the process of you creating an ex post facto rationilazation for doing the thing your subconscious told you to do.
SwansonHOPS t1_iugpqyu wrote
Yes, I was aiming for brevity. But yes, you're right.
Dramatic_Can_4628 t1_iugpwon wrote
Split-brain is one of the most interesting things I've ever learned about.
daren_sf t1_iugpz8n wrote
You are never present in the now. On average any input you receive takes 18 milliseconds to travel to the brain and be turned into a thing you experience. Then you process that experience into recognition.
This research seems to be saying that along the way it’s stored as a memory and 482 milliseconds later your brain not only finished processing that recognition, but acted on it a well. All the while doing the same for the continuous input your receive.
I’m actually astounded that’s it’s only 500 milliseconds!
sweglord42O t1_iugpzjr wrote
Not radical at all to many people.
One might even call this idea obvious.
digitalhelix84 t1_iugqgxc wrote
A hunter gatherer that remembers the good spots to hunt and the good spots to gather is probably going to do alright for itself.
[deleted] t1_iugqt0z wrote
[removed]
donairdaddydick t1_iugrr3k wrote
This mushroom will kill you, this one won’t. I know this cuz I remember when buddy ate one he died.
donairdaddydick t1_iugrvtt wrote
Smoke a joint and read this thread
Revelec458 t1_iugssvv wrote
Interesting.
LunarGiantNeil t1_iugv0op wrote
Perception of reality is display lag.
What drives me nuts are all the people who think just because the perception of consciousness is lagged in this manner that there's no actual thinking, deciding, or choice in the manner, like we're all just robots doing rational things.
If only!
XxHavanaHoneyxX t1_iugv5s9 wrote
How does anyone conquer addiction if they aren’t involved in decision making? I can understand how it would perpetuate addiction and make it incredibly difficult to break the habit, but how do some people conquer it? Where does that intervention come from if it’s not the person’s will?
lawnmowerlatte t1_iugwp2k wrote
I'd be interested in learning more about how well this maps to System 1 vs. System 2 thinking. My initial reaction is that this unconscious decision making corresponds to System 1, where System 2 is a hover level process at least directed by conscious choice.
kaveldun t1_iugx02x wrote
This is 100% speculative pseudo stuff.
kaveldun t1_iugx7yy wrote
That dumb definition just pushes the question futher:
- What is "awareness"?
- What is "sensory input"?
Is something weighing on a see-saw "sensory input" to that system? Is electricity coming into a light bulb "sensory input"? Is there "awareness" involved? How could you possibly know?
You're talking about these things as if you know them for fact, but fact is that science is dumb-founded when it comes to even agreeing on a definition for what consciousness and subjective awareness even is, or how to think about it.
NEYO8uw11qgD0J t1_iugylez wrote
Somewhere in this, there's a new legal defense theory. :-)
tornpentacle t1_iuh19mm wrote
Those are also inputs in the network. And there most certainly is such thing as that.
tornpentacle t1_iuh1bjy wrote
No, it is how the brain works, written in simple terms rather than in technical language.
kaveldun t1_iuh1osx wrote
Nope. Science doesn't know what consciousness is, how/why it exists or even how to define it. You're confusing cognitive processes with consciousness/subjectivity.
Read up on the hard problem of consciousness - it's "hard" for a reason, and there is not even almost a consensus on how to go about conceptualising it.
GepardenK t1_iuh4u5u wrote
>Remember that nothing has to be "beneficial" for it to remain, it simply needs not be selected against.
In theory yes, but not in practice.
Because things we recognize as 'traits' tend to rely on a complex set of dependencies they almost invariably get scrambled beyond functionality unless actively selected for.
It's a principle similar to that of entropy. If there is no force in play to actively maintain a particular structure, then, through sheer randomness alone, that structure is destined to dilute eventually; be it one way or another.
sphulcrum t1_iuh5vdb wrote
What a gotcha moment....
The creature you're describing doesn't exist. If you're talking about a human that has no working sensory inputs ,its brain would still be wired in the same way as if they do work. Hence it would indeed have conscious thoughts.
PoSlowYaGetMo t1_iuh6yhk wrote
All the article is hypothesizing, is that our brain is making decisions before we are aware of them. The effect, is our ability to rationalize the decision as it pertains to our episodic short and long term memories. The “self” is an illusion.
Shoelacious t1_iuh7ite wrote
This theory sounds like semantics to me, and is really just a reframing of consciousness as a narrative experience—something that goes back to Enlightenment theories of mind. Mark Solms’ work on consciousness as an emergent phenomenon of homeostasis is both deeper and more illuminating, and also has a firm grounding in physiology.
Ok_Lifeguard_6508 t1_iuh81or wrote
If conciousness is merely a memory of unconscious actions, how does one account for planning complex actions?
Cloudy0- t1_iuhbrrv wrote
Does that mean that what we perceive to be consciousness is actually just reliving our pasts? For example, have I already posted this and am doing something else right now, and although I think I'm writing it in real time, I'm just remembering myself writing it?
SwansonHOPS t1_iuhc7tl wrote
Yes, but I meant more: how is conscious remembering beneficial to evolution? Utilizing previously gained information does not require consciousness. So I was wondering, what would it add to the equation?
tkenben t1_iuhctgc wrote
Likely yes. Destined, I think, is a bit strong. Dilute in utility, maybe, but not necessarily in existence. That depends on other factors.
tkenben t1_iuhcvjn wrote
More like piecing together events.
deviltamer t1_iuhda3z wrote
All animals are conscious by this definition
RLDSXD t1_iuhdpl9 wrote
Seems like they’re proposing that they’re one and the same. Consciousness is just the byproduct of that remembrance.
GepardenK t1_iuhdu0s wrote
It depends on the level of complexity of what you consider to be a 'trait' to begin with. If it's something like "flight", and a species goes 100.000 years without opportunity to use their ability to fly, then the chances of them still retaining their ability to fly after all that time is astronomically small. Simply due to the dependencies such a complex trait would require.
If, by 'trait', you mean something much more basic, like the presence of a particular protein, then that could obviously stick around much longer without active selection.
Destined is the right word, though. Given enough time things will go away without something to keep it in place.
[deleted] t1_iuhfn2o wrote
>Utilizing previously gained information does not require consciousness.
Oh really? Go ahead and knock yourself out and tell me how good you are at getting food.
Dry_Turnover_6068 t1_iuhgnc5 wrote
Consciousness is a word used to describe the dynamic collection of cognitive processes that people possess.
There doesn't seem to be any kind of "consciousness particle" (i.e. physical spirit) so science has had a hard time pinning this down to a certain "thing". A hard problem to be sure.
never987not987 t1_iuhgqov wrote
Google research on split brain patients and you’ll see why it’s true. Free will is a mirage.
insaneintheblain t1_iuhgvcm wrote
We are perceiving our perception of reality, at any given moment. We see the world through a tangle of preconceptions, complexes, and learned conditioning.
"If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, Infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thro' narrow chinks of his cavern.” - William Blake
Most people are stuck in the proverbial cavern.
insaneintheblain t1_iuhh815 wrote
You see things through the lens of useful not-useful - but this is a conditioned way of seeing things.
insaneintheblain t1_iuhha7m wrote
Yes we lie to ourselves constantly
red75prime t1_iuhihjz wrote
The description is so high-level that a PID controller matches it.
Extension-Ad-2760 t1_iuhiuxk wrote
I feel like you haven't actually read the previous comments. If you could unconsciously gather food, you would be just as good when not conscious.
Extension-Ad-2760 t1_iuhizy7 wrote
But then... how does anyone ever go on a diet? I think that is a massive hole in this theory. We don't always follow our body's instructions.
Extension-Ad-2760 t1_iuhj4ur wrote
How do people even go on a diet.
I feel like just that one thing blows this whole hypothesis open. Maybe I've missed something.
monkeypetey t1_iuhj5cy wrote
always have been
[deleted] t1_iuhj637 wrote
>If you could unconsciously gather food,
But you can't. So clearly your statement: "Utilizing previously gained information does not require consciousness.", is completely stupid.
Extension-Ad-2760 t1_iuhjgpt wrote
Or maybe... just hear me out here... someone with a serious mental condition is different to someone without one?
"Google research on sociopaths and you'll see why it's true. Empathy is a mirage"
foggierclub4259 t1_iuhk4ua wrote
I'm consciously moving right now. Not just unconsciously doing it and remembering
Whatdosheepdreamof t1_iuhlky5 wrote
You want to know the actual gotcha moment in this? This is why AI will never materialise in the fashion that most think will take over humans. It is simply this. That our minds and bodies are the same thing. They cannot work separately. If there were an AI capable of thinking like we do, it likely would come to a singular conclusion, that there is no point. We exist to avoid death and reproduce, and there are hormones built into our existence that ensure this happens.
Cayleth1791 t1_iuhm7ms wrote
Weird. I've been contemplating this interpretation of reality for years, never even mentioned it, now science is like "heyyyy maybe?"
SwansonHOPS t1_iuhmqnp wrote
Lots of things that I think most of us assume lack consciousness gather food.
[deleted] t1_iuhn74j wrote
Not complex organisms, there's a different category of existance.
Gathering food is just one thing.
Try knocking yourself out every single day, all day and keeping a shelter or any other function that keeps you from being wholly dead.
Sure if you can reduce yourself to a single cell organism you'll do fine just eating and shitting whatever falls into your path.
[deleted] t1_iuhocd9 wrote
[deleted]
never987not987 t1_iuhp5qo wrote
You’re comparing apples to oranges and don’t understand the research.
HandMeDownCumSock t1_iuhppi2 wrote
Morality and ethics are just rules that prove to be mutually beneficial and thus are followed. An automaton would act morally if it was programmed to do so. If it had a learning function programmed in, it would even determine the correct mutually beneficial rules (morals) to use depending on the environment, which is no different to what we do.
HandMeDownCumSock t1_iuhsmml wrote
If our mind is just a machine that functions in accordance to available chemicals and stimulus then purely existing in the world will cause cognitive changes.
Your nutrition and available chemicals in your body changes over time, depending on what you consume, what kind of air you inhale, what kind of organisms are living inside of you. All these effect how your brain works.
Everything we see, hear, smell, touch, taste, is a stimulus that the brain will respond to. Even patterns and waveforms of light can change how your brain acts. Pretty much everything that exists is affecting how our brains work. We just ignore most of it.
The agents of change are even more obvious in a case of breaking an addiction. The experiences of being an alcoholic is constantly feeding into memory, each experience is different, and complicates that system. Even simply existing they will be put under the stimulus of withdrawal in some environment, the brain will react to that also. They may here a friend or family member's opinion on their addiction, they may read a book, see an ad online, they may see someone in public that makes them think a certain way, they may see a painting, or a building, or a piece of cheese that for some reason connects in their mind some action for change. It's never just one thing either, there's an unfathomable amount of stimulus happening all the time, and it can all work towards a cumulative effect like deciding to break a habit.
Further environmental factors, based on your brain, will influence whether you do or don't succeed. But those factors could be anything and everything.
FireDragon1111 t1_iuhu5lk wrote
They aren’t talking about conscious or unconscious, they’re talking about your active memory vs your subconscious memory (in science, they use the term “unconscious” to refer to the subconscious)
[deleted] t1_iuhuinc wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iuhvozq wrote
[removed]
JCPRuckus t1_iuhwcgf wrote
>But then... how does anyone ever go on a diet? I think that is a massive hole in this theory. We don't always follow our body's instructions.
Your subconscious takes what you know about the dangers of obesity, or your lack of dating success, or the amount of stress that your mother calling you fat causes you, and decides that eating less would actually be better for whichever of those reasons. Then it tells says, "We're eating less for a while", and again, your conscious mind tries to guess why it got this order and come up with an explanation of why... I didn't say that we always follow our bodies' instructions. It was just one purposefully simple example.
Think of the subconscious as upper management and the conscious mind as the worker on the shop floor. Except the worker, for their own sanity, has to believe that management is competent. So directions come down from on high, and even though the worker has no understanding of what went into the deliberation process, they piece together the best explanation they can from what they have available.
Basically, it's exactly what you do any other time you have incomplete information. What do you genuinely know about what Pitun thought before he invaded Ukraine? Basically nothing. But if you have any interest in the story, you probably immediately had some strong guesses at what you thought he must be thinking. Well, it's exactly like that except you think you're making the decision, so you don't think your guesses about the real motivations are guesses.
LunarGiantNeil t1_iuhxnj9 wrote
You are correct. There are a lot of people misinterpreting where abstract thinking and problem solving takes place in the cognitive chain.
You're also not a purely "rational actor" who makes choices devoid of underlying impulses, of course. There's an interplay between the two.
Your brain makes decisions bureaucratically.
LunarGiantNeil t1_iui32e4 wrote
Most people here are interpreting the data the way they want it to lead.
The research is showing that the experience of consciousness happens after the brain decides to do things, not that there isn't any active intervention by the higher level abstract thinking, reasoning, problem solving portions.
Nerves and brain matter interpret stuff, make recommendations, and bounce stimuli back and forth more than once. It's not all "multiple choice" made by the 'you' parts of your social and consciousness brain matter, true, but those parts DO get input.
So if you want to do something that you don't enjoy, like a diet, it's a wrestling match between parts of the brain and body. It's not a simple one-way decision chain and then it's over and decided.
People want it to be one way or the other. It's not.
LunarGiantNeil t1_iui4ope wrote
Here's another example, because the popular bad take on the valid mechanistic view just annoys me: the science on learning things demonstrates that neuroplasticity (the reorganizing of the brain to optimize for cognitive tasks) responds best to "quality inputs" given over your span of attention, which is about 15 minutes for a lot of people, and then requires a good sleep that night to put into practice.
But a quality input requires intent, your conscious role is to filter stimuli, put yourself into a good learning environment, and practice with intention until your focus wanders.
This absolutely suggests the 'awake' part of the brain plays a huge role in teaching things to the unconscious parts of the brain, and then the even other parts play a role in building new brain pathways to make it possible for the conscious and unconscious parts to repeat that thing later.
You 'experience' things through a perception lag, but there really is a role being played by the part of your brain that decides to get off your butt and practice things, with focus. It actually plays a role in physically changing the parts of your brain that run the autopilot parts of your brain that you trigger when you do a complex physio-cognitive thing like playing an instrument or speaking a language.
There's lots of moving parts up there.
Monti_r t1_iui7skc wrote
Being able to remember and being able to willingly remember have far different consequences to solving problems. Say I buried an acorn 6 months ago but I can’t actively remember it, I can only remember it when I’m standing on it. How do I find it?
[deleted] t1_iui8a82 wrote
[removed]
Monti_r t1_iui8aew wrote
We act first unconsciously? What about when I spend 15 minutes thinking about what move to make in chess. Am I already done with my move but spending 15 minutes to rationalize it?
Lost_Vegetable887 t1_iui9vlr wrote
No, but your brain will have decided on the next move a short time before you became consciously aware of it.
While you are weighing different options and strategies for your next move, at some point you will reach a critical decision threshold - when you feel like you accumulated sufficient evidence for a certain move to give the "go" signal. You will reach this point first unconsciously, then you will consciously rationalize to yourself why you make your decision now, after the 15 mins, and not for instance after 14 or 16 minutes.
Think about it, when you decide on your next move, what made you so certain about that move right then? What caused you to go over the tipping point from contemplation to action? Most people will mention that at some point they just "know" they are ready.
Monti_r t1_iuib2am wrote
Except I don’t make a move until it’s rational and logically (hopefully) sound. If I can’t logic my way to a move it is never made and thus a decision is not reached. Once I make a move the clock stops I don’t then think about why I made that move over other moves I am now thinking of future moves. Are you saying that I reached that decision in say 5 minutes then took ten minutes to rationalize? Because I have regularly changed my mind on what piece I’m even going to move while going through the logic of the move.
thruster_fuel69 t1_iuibvkn wrote
By linking memories together in a chain. First I go to this tree, then beside that rock. I'd imagine it's the same for all animals, wiring memories together in a big relational web.
bearcatgary t1_iuic21q wrote
Yes, I think this is what they are saying. The delay between your actual subconscious action and when you actually perceive it is only half a second though. Still, a pretty mind boggling theory.
Extension-Ad-2760 t1_iuigxzm wrote
I fully agree with you here.
I think some comparison can be made to the way our societies are run. The leader (your consciousness) has final decision on the biggest decisions, but their decision is affected by hundreds of different other people, and their decisions by hundreds of thousands more (your subconscious. You could argue that in some cases the decisions are pretty much pre-determined, but that's only if the decision is just really obvious.
And these other people also do the more mundane jobs of actually keeping everything going (running your body).
And yet some people are convinced that either the leader has complete control, or the people that inform them do. No: they talk to each other, work things out, and neither truly has full control.
Extension-Ad-2760 t1_iuih5x8 wrote
And you're immediately doing an inaccurate ad hominem because you can't think of a good argument against what I said.
fithbert t1_iuih6uz wrote
Not the same for all animals. Some memory, but a large web of memory is not required for seemingly complex “remembering.”
Salmon are barely grown when they head out to the ocean. They stay in the ocean up to seven years, then travel back based on earths magnetic field. No retracing remembered steps, just vibes, for hundreds or thousands of miles. This is just innate/unconscious. Salmon have very limited memory. Scientists think memory is only involved at the very end of that journey, remembering smells that tell them precise locations right around the spawning ground.
[deleted] t1_iuijp2j wrote
[removed]
never987not987 t1_iuik4ac wrote
There’s plenty of research on this topic in healthy populations as well. It’s well documented that the decision to act happens well before we are conscious of that decision.
Extension-Ad-2760 t1_iuimwzt wrote
Yes, I've seen a lot of that. It's never a complex decision, merely detection of brainwaves in preparation of a decision.
Make no mistake, subconscious activity has a lot of effect. But you have absolutely no basis to say that consciousness is an illusion. It's ironic to say that I don't understand the research - you're claiming knowledge on a very complex topic apparently based entirely off of confirmation basis.
Let's just both admit that we don't know how much the subconscious affects our conscious being. But it would be stupid to say that either the subconscious or the conscious is a mirage. They are both real and affect each other.
CookandNero t1_iuimy93 wrote
Are we talking about the reveries update?
[deleted] t1_iuiokjh wrote
[removed]
never987not987 t1_iuiokyn wrote
OK I like that! :)
[deleted] t1_iuip6dg wrote
[removed]
hypnoticlife t1_iuipmgz wrote
Planning of actions and decisions is different than awareness of actions. Different parts of the brain handle this. Even if there is a delay in seeing your actions and decisions you still make them. Even if you don’t become aware until after the fact, it was still your brain with your experiences that did it. It’s just that we too highly identify with our awareness and forget to identify with the whole body and mind.
ScriptM t1_iuiw2a4 wrote
You and some others are contradictory here. Who rationalizes what?
If brain is just a matter interacting and produces output based on computations inside itself, who rationalizes that afterwards?
There is no one out there. It is still the same dead matter interacting and nothing else. Lifeless atoms do not need to explain anything.
ScriptM t1_iuiw6k9 wrote
You and some others are contradictory here. Who rationalizes what?
If brain is just a matter interacting and produces output based on computations inside itself, who rationalizes that afterwards?
There is no one out there. It is still the same dead matter interacting and nothing else. Lifeless atoms do not need to explain anything.
ScriptM t1_iuiw9kr wrote
You and some others are contradictory here. Who rationalizes what?
If brain is just a matter interacting and produces output based on computations inside itself, who rationalizes that afterwards?
There is no one out there. It is still the same dead matter interacting and nothing else. Lifeless atoms do not need to explain anything.
tornpentacle t1_iuiyh09 wrote
Science does indeed know "what consciousness is". Perhaps you've been listening to silly old non-scientist David Chalmers, who believes in magic? His entire schtick is ignoring the fact that consciousness can be (and has been) fully explained from a neurological standpoint. You don't need spooky magic for consciousness. In fact, your initial response to me applies far more to Chalmers's unscientific ramblings than to the observable, empirically-verified description of the mechanism of consciousness that has been established over decades of scientific research.
[deleted] t1_iuj0q2r wrote
[removed]
BokUntool t1_iuj2ry0 wrote
Not just reproduction, but evaluation of similar choices. Game Theory describes this a little better than procreation/survival as top. Survival is incidental, we are pleasure seeking, often against our self-interests.
Lost_Vegetable887 t1_iuj41e4 wrote
You'd probably agree there is almost always more than one logical / rational next step to consider, right? Decision making in chess is about weighing different probabilities, long-term outcomes etc. How do you decide that you've reached the most sound conclusion? How do you reach a conclusion at all?
The unconscious part of that decision-making process lies in the moment just before you determine you've made your most sound decision. While you were circling through different options, at some point your unconscious brain decided it knew enough, and converged on a decision. This choice has been shown to take place fractions before you become consciously aware of the choice. If a neuroscientist were reading out your brain signaling while you were playing chess, they would know you've reached a decision right before you yourself would know you'd reached a decision.
tornpentacle t1_iujs2qu wrote
Just wanted to add that this is an absurd discussion to even have in the science subreddit, because David Chalmers is not a scientist, and has no understanding of the workings of the brain (or else he would realize that conscious experience is fully explained via physical means that can be understood and observed). Chalmers's "hard problem" only presents difficulty to people without knowledge of neurology and cognition...because people with knowledge in those fields can and have elucidated the nature and origin of conscious experience via purely physical means.
JCPRuckus t1_iujy3w6 wrote
>You and some others are contradictory here. Who rationalizes what?
>If brain is just a matter interacting and produces output based on computations inside itself, who rationalizes that afterwards?
>There is no one out there. It is still the same dead matter interacting and nothing else. Lifeless atoms do not need to explain anything.
There is nothing contradictory here at all. If you want to insist that the conscious self is also an illusion, then that only makes it necessary that conscious choice be an illusion.
Our brains developed extra capacities that allowed us to be able to store new and complex, even second hand, experiential information to supplement our inborn instincts for processing during the subconscious decision process. Consciousness seems to be an emergent property of this additional storage and computational hardware. Apparently it tends to increase survivability, otherwise the pre-conscious step in human evolution would have won out.
AutoModerator t1_iuevdis wrote
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our normal comment rules still apply to other comments.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.