Plasticity

Gosh, sounds like some self-realizing topological control system, the brain is.

Yet the micro is not congruent with the macro, is this what brings about the illusion of consciousness?

... I think what brought about consciousness was evolution ... at some point along the line, some primitive sense of self arose in a species ... whether or not that primitive sense of self was immediately selective or later exapted, I don't think we can say ... all I think we can say is that it has become highly refined in humans.

As to the "illusion", are you referring to the "illusion of conscious will"? ... while it has been demonstrated that conscious will can be illusory, that does not logically imply that conscious will is always illusory ... it may simply be psychologically adaptive for consciousness to interpret the actions of subconscious will as being consciously willed in order to maintain a cohesive sense of self.

As to the discontinuity between the micro and the macro, are you referring to a proposed quantum basis for "free" will? ... some people choose to interpret the mathematics of quantum mechanics as providing a way out of determinism for free will ... but while pure chance is certainly "free" of determinism, is pure chance "will"? ... and even if it could be, can quantum chance bubble as far up as consciousness, or is it weeded out long before that by broken symmetries?

Anyhoo, swinging this back to plasticity - do you think consciousness is plastic?

Now I'm all confused. The way I see it, there is no conscious will. Consciousness is indifferent to the actual gesture the entity will act concurrently to. It is just a portal to the motion of such intent, not actually creating it. All processing is done in the brain.

our personality is certainly shaped by genetics and experiences. would it be possible to change our personality by sheer force of will? would changing our personality simply be a part of who we are? can we make decisions based on information or experiences we don't have?

... doesn't that go against all evidence to the contrary? ... certainly, there is subconscious will - that's supported both by introspective evidence as well as scientific evidence such as Libet's experiments ... but introspective evidence also strongly suggests conscious will, and I don't think Libet's experiments disconfirm this ... consider this: in Libet's experiments, what would be the result if the experimenter did not first instruct the subject as to what behavior was expected? - nothing! ... the subject would simply sit there ... so it is the communication between the experimenter and the subject that precedes the experiment which "primes" the subject to perform the behavior the experimenter wants to measure ... and isn't it an act of conscious will that allows the subject to accept the experimenters instructions? isn't it an act of conscious will that allows the subject to be ready to perform the desired behavior? isn't it possible that the conscious will can delegate the simple behavior required in Libet's experiments to the subconscious will for for the final performance of the behavior? in which case, isn't the interpretation of Libet's experimental results as an "illusion of conscious will" somewhat mistaken because the subconscious will is acting on behalf of the conscious will? ...

... ah ha! - more questions to add to the list!!!

I'm not denying the subject is priming, I'm just saying that the priming is subconsciously done and the consciousness only realizes such.

... would you say that language is a conscious facility or a subconscious facility? ... and if you answer that it is a conscious facility, since it is the subject's conscious that is listening to and processing the experimenter's instructions, isn't it then the conscious will that gets everything set up so that the appropriate behavior is performed on command? ... (but if you answer that language is a subconscious facility, then must you add language to the list of things that are merely "illusions" of consciousness?) ...

Paul, what do you suppose consciousness is made of to be able to do all this "stuff"?

All this "stuff" is being done by the brain. Why not?

... my best guess is that consciousness is an emergent process that appears due to the complex web of interactions of lower-level emergent processes in the brain, which in turn appear due to the complex web of interactions of even lower-level emergent processes - an emergent chain which you can trace all the way down to an emergent process that appears due to a complex web of chemical interactions: life ... and just like the emergent process of life, there is an element of feedback ("downward causation", if you will) where these emergent processes constrain the interactions of the lower-level entities from which they appear in a self-sustaining cycle ... for the emergent process of life, we call this self-sustaining downward causation "autopoiesis"; and if consciousness is indeed an emergent process, do we call this self-sustaining downward causation "conscious will"?

I agree it is emergent, but is it of itself a process? I don't feel that it is, so how can it even emerge from a process when it is required to sustain the process?

Is it that the self realizing of the system itself is required to sustain the system? Yet inherently the system is topological, just as the universe is.

... yes, that is the central idea behind autopoiesis - literally, "self-creation" ... Autopoiesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ...

EDIT: I've just forked a new thread on the subject - http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/philosophy-mind/3530-mind-autopoietic.html

Hi All!!

I think basic evolutionary biology is undoubtly plastic, we are defined, shaped if you will by our context, our very consciousness is dependent upon the changing nature of the physcial world as object. We are a reactionary creature, indeed I do not believe there is any such thing as human action, it is all reaction, these reactions are as plastic as the consciousness that forms their intent. Yes context does define, and possiabilities are limited to context/environment, thus, one can chose among choices, but, one cannot chose not to react, for even a non-action or rather non-reaction is a reaction to said environment/context. If the mind was not plastic, adaptation would not be possiable on an individual level or a species level.

All the answers you need to know are in this article. Well, most.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/magazine/11Genome-t.html

... I have long wondered if I should read something by Pinker - this'll be my opportunity

Oh, Pinker is great. I keep citing this other article of his:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html