Well for starters I would like to point out that:Anyway, if large such experiments do exist just as here explained, what do you make of them? — Gregory
Basically the experiments flashed images of animals in front of people at a speed they could not consciously process. — Gregory
...these two things seem to conflict.However each time they were asked why they named that particular animal they said "because I saw a picture of it the other day" or something and very seldom said "i don't know". — Gregory
these two things seem to conflict. — InPitzotl
The qualitative actions we determine and initiate without conscious deliberation don’t require certainty or logic. They’re probabilistically determined based on an ongoing prediction of attention and effort (from our conceptual reality) in relation to an ongoing interoception of affect. — Possibility
Lisa Feldman Barrett’s meta-analyses of psychology/neuroscience research in relation to constructed emotion concepts supports this. — Possibility
Did the experimenters include exotic animals, insects, birds, animals that people generally have never encountered in their lives, even on TV? — TheMadFool
Are you familiar with the study that John Lorber conducted? — Dharmi
Not yet, but I will look it up. Thanks — Gregory
It's decisive proof against the idea that brain creates consciousness. Since the folks involved had no brain hemispheres, or were missing massive volume of their brain hemisphere, yet were fully conscious and had intelligence. Many were even students at university. — Dharmi
Lorber's patients either had no brains — Dharmi
That severely lowers the probability that brain produces consciousness. — Dharmi
decisively debunked — Dharmi
I think you have the wrong video... I've played through this and there didn't seem to be any references to such experiments in them.Sam Harris mentions these types of studies at the end of this short video: — Gregory
But the conflict that I'm seeing has nothing to do with a feeling of complete free will, or feeling of knowing why exactly we do things. There were two statements that I quoted. The first claimed that the images were being flashed too quickly for subjects to consciously process. But in the second, the subjects correctly report their motivation of naming that animal as being based on seeing an image of the animal. (Mind you, they incorrectly report the time, but you're not claiming for example that they remember eating chicken last night, or reading about chickens, or watching cartoons about chickens, or having a pet chicken when they were little, or any of a number of alternate potential triggers).People, just as they feel like they have complete free will, also feel like they know what exactly why they are recalling ideas. However, — Gregory
This does not explain why the subject's report is of seeing an image of the chicken.Maybe the signal made the subject's brain think of chicken and in the subjects mind he remembered something about chickens and believes this alone was the reason. — Gregory
The conflict I see gives some reason to doubt this very thing. Whatever speed these subjects were flashed those images, it was apparently sufficient enough for them to self report seeing images.However, they are becoming very sophisticated in science where they can tease out these factors and know when something is known (by the subject) subconsciously only and when it's in the conscious mind — Gregory
I think we're talking about different things then. Or not. In your reporting of these experiments, people are confabulating. It's completely untrue that they saw the image "yesterday"; rather, they saw the image moments ago. But what appears to be true is that they were influenced by seeing an image, and their self report of why contains the account of seeing an image.People seem to make up stories as to why they do things and "believe their own shit" so to speak. — Gregory
Yes; it would be interesting to see the studies. I'm solely describing the report you have given; if you run across particular citations of the experiments I'll be interested (though reserve the right not to comment).Since no one so far has referenced studies in this area, it IS hard to discuss this further nonetheless. — Gregory
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.