• Tyler
    28
    I don't see that there is an explanation for the Vivid Image that you Experience for the Squirrel. If you lost all your memories about Squirrels you would still see the Squirrel just as Vividly.SteveKlinko
    >By "Vivid Image", do you mean just the photographic picture of the squirrel, or comprehended overall image of the conceptual idea of the existence of the squirrel?
    If all memories of squirrels and concepts relative to to squirrels were lost, I think you would still see the physical picture of the squirrel (vividity of this just, depends on eyesight and resolution), but it would mean nothing to you conceptually. I think it would be like a current day computer receiving a video of the squirrel. It could save the images in memory, but there would be no consciousness of the squirrel, with a lack of comprehension.
  • SteveKlinko
    84
    The PL is Electro-Magnetic Energy, the NL is Neural Activity in the Visual areas, and the CL is the thing that we actually perceive. — SteveKlinko
    This sums up a representational position on consciousness. There is a world, there is the data processing, and then third, mysteriously, there is a self that witnesses the resulting neural output.

    So it is setting the problem up as an issue of translation - a transformation of inputs into outputs. First there is the physical output, then the neural output and then the conscious output ... which is somehow an experiential output. It has this new and substantial property of "being aware".

    Nothing is being explained by this line of thought. We know that neural processing must have something critical to do with qualitative experience. But we don't answer any important question by positing it as an "inter" stage as that just shovels the essential mystery down the line to a new blackbox that somehow contains a self that does the witnessing of the neural output.

    The better approach is to understand the neural processing in terms of a model of reality - a model of reality that dynamically incorporates a "selfish" point of view of the world.

    So it is no surprise that a model of reality - one that is starting from a "selfish" point of view - should feel like something. If there is all this information being constructed into a living relation between a "self" and a "world", then why wouldn't it feel like something?

    I would stick to understanding how brains model their worlds. And then turning the table on Hard Problem questions by asking is it really conceivable that a model with its own personalised point of view wouldn't feel like it was just such a personalised view?

    If the neuroscience is viewed in the right light - as embodied reality modelling, with a "self" as an essential part of that construction of a reality - then the zombie argument loses its metaphysical force.

    We can see why any amount of "information processing" wouldn't "light up" with the further substantial property of "consciousness". If the problem is framed as one based on representationalism, then the witnesser of the representation is forever left out of the conversation and zombies are made conceivable.

    But if we understand how the brain is representing the observer as much as the observables, then the question becomes how could a sense of being conscious get left out of such a dynamic and highly personalised process of reality modelling? How could it be lacking when it would be the starting point of the "representing"?
    apokrisis
    I never said the three stage approach explained Consciousness. All I ever say is that if we are going to explain Consciousness we have to acknowledge the two things that we do know:

    1) Neural Activity happens.
    2) A Conscious experience happens.

    We know that these things are happening and it seems that 1 causes 2. So the natural thing to ask is How does 1 cause 2? The Explanation of that cause is another stage in the process. So I never say I have an Explanation I merely ask a question that seems to have no Scientific answer and annoys the Physicalists.

    The problem I have with the Model approach to Consciousness is that it never ends up with a real Conscious experience. The Model approach just hides the problem in a further Abstraction of the Conscious experience. I don't understand the Selfish point of view that you talk about. How does a Selfish point of view in a Model ever feel like something? Especially how does the Model Light Up?. The Model approach has the same Explanatory Gap that all Conscious theories have..
  • SteveKlinko
    84
    I don't see that there is an explanation for the Vivid Image that you Experience for the Squirrel. If you lost all your memories about Squirrels you would still see the Squirrel just as Vividly. — SteveKlinko>By "Vivid Image", do you mean just the photographic picture of the squirrel, or comprehended overall image of the conceptual idea of the existence of the squirrel?
    If all memories of squirrels and concepts relative to to squirrels were lost, I think you would still see the physical picture of the squirrel (vividity of this just, depends on eyesight and resolution), but it would mean nothing to you conceptually. I think it would be like a current day computer receiving a video of the squirrel. It could save the images in memory, but there would be no consciousness of the squirrel, with a lack of comprehension.
    Tyler
    If it is still a Vivid Image then I think you are Conscious of it. I think we can have Vivid Images of all kinds of things that we have never seen before. We would never be able to be Conscious of new things with that theory. I think the Conscious experience and the Comprehension are two different and separate things.
  • Tyler
    28
    If it is still a Vivid Image then I think you are Conscious of it. I think we can have Vivid Images of all kinds of things that we have never seen before. We would never be able to be Conscious of new things with that theory. I think the Conscious experience and the Comprehension are two different and separate things.SteveKlinko

    > If an image is photographically vivid, you think that means whatever is perceiving that image, is conscious of it?
    Or if it's mentally vivid, then yeah, I'd agree that the individual is conscious of it, by definition...
    But in order for an image to be mentally vivid, the individual should need comprehension of the scenario involved with the image. If no comprehension of scenario, than I would think it would not be mentally vivid. As humans, we can see images throughout the day, but if you're not paying attention, then you're not comprehending the scenario, and the image is not mentally vivid. You dont even notice what you saw...
    The only way we would never be conscious of new things, is if we had no comprehension of the new image.
  • SteveKlinko
    84
    If it is still a Vivid Image then I think you are Conscious of it. I think we can have Vivid Images of all kinds of things that we have never seen before. We would never be able to be Conscious of new things with that theory. I think the Conscious experience and the Comprehension are two different and separate things. — SteveKlinko
    > If an image is photographically vivid, you think that means whatever is perceiving that image, is conscious of it?
    Or if it's mentally vivid, then yeah, I'd agree that the individual is conscious of it, by definition...
    But in order for an image to be mentally vivid, the individual should need comprehension of the scenario involved with the image. If no comprehension of scenario, than I would think it would not be mentally vivid. As humans, we can see images throughout the day, but if you're not paying attention, then you're not comprehending the scenario, and the image is not mentally vivid. You dont even notice what you saw...
    The only way we would never be conscious of new things, is if we had no comprehension of the new image.
    Tyler

    Just by saying that Something is perceiving the Image, to me, means that the Something is Conscious of the Image. With all Conscious Sensory experience there is an implied Observer. Understanding what the Observer is, of course, is the Hardest part of the Hard problem of Consciousness. Ironic since we are the Observers.

    I think that any scene that you direct your Attention at will be Vivid. If you do not direct your Attention you may miss detail. But directing Attention to a Conscious Object in your Visual Image is different than Knowledge and Memories about that Object. I think you can have Vivid Images without any Knowledge or Memories of an Object.
  • Tyler
    28
    Just by saying that Something is perceiving the Image, to me, means that the Something is Conscious of the Image.SteveKlinko

    >But what do you mean by perceiving? I think this is coming back to my same question of what you mean by a vivid image. These both relate to the basic question; what is the required function to be conscious of something?
    If by "perceive" and "vivid image", you mean mentally comprehend the scenario involved, then the required function would be that mental comprehension. This is basically my theory, that mental comprehension (and therein memories of concepts) is required for consciousness. This is the mechanical function.

    Or, if by "perceive" and "vivid image", you mean simply storing the image as a memory, then that seems like an overly simple method for consciousness, as even computers perform this function.

    But directing Attention to a Conscious Object in your Visual Image is different than Knowledge and Memories about that Object.SteveKlinko

    >I think I would argue just the contrary, that they are not different, but the same, and that knowledge and memories of an object, are the mechanical function of directing conscious attention.

    I think you can have Vivid Images without any Knowledge or Memories of an Object.SteveKlinko

    >But if you had no knowledge of the object or its setting or environment (so you had no comprehension of any aspect of an image you were seeing (for eg. woke up in a virtual reality world, where nothing that you sense is familiar)), then would you have a consciously vivid image or perception of any object within the environment?
    Also, would the image be visually vivid before your brain stores the new sensory input as memories, then begins to theoretically, actively access those memories, at the same time that you continue to view the image?
  • SteveKlinko
    84
    Just by saying that Something is perceiving the Image, to me, means that the Something is Conscious of the Image. — SteveKlinko
    >But what do you mean by perceiving? I think this is coming back to my same question of what you mean by a vivid image. These both relate to the basic question; what is the required function to be conscious of something?
    If by "perceive" and "vivid image", you mean mentally comprehend the scenario involved, then the required function would be that mental comprehension. This is basically my theory, that mental comprehension (and therein memories of concepts) is required for consciousness. This is the mechanical function.

    Or, if by "perceive" and "vivid image", you mean simply storing the image as a memory, then that seems like an overly simple method for consciousness, as even computers perform this function.
    Tyler

    By Vivid Image I'm talking about the immediate present moment when you are looking at something.. I'm not talking about trying to remember the Image of something after the fact.

    But directing Attention to a Conscious Object in your Visual Image is different than Knowledge and Memories about that Object. — SteveKlinko
    >I think I would argue just the contrary, that they are not different, but the same, and that knowledge and memories of an object, are the mechanical function of directing conscious attention.

    I think you can have Vivid Images without any Knowledge or Memories of an Object. — SteveKlinko
    >But if you had no knowledge of the object or its setting or environment (so you had no comprehension of any aspect of an image you were seeing (for eg. woke up in a virtual reality world, where nothing that you sense is familiar)), then would you have a consciously vivid image or perception of any object within the environment?
    Also, would the image be visually vivid before your brain stores the new sensory input as memories, then begins to theoretically, actively access those memories, at the same time that you continue to view the image?
    Tyler
    We can certainly see new Objects we have never seen before in our Physical Reality so there is no reason to think that we would not be able to see the Objects injected by a Virtual Reality no matter how strange they might be.
  • Tyler
    28
    By Vivid Image I'm talking about the immediate present moment when you are looking at something.. I'm not talking about trying to remember the Image of something after the fact.SteveKlinko

    >Yes, I realize you mean the present moment, but I'm questioning what function in the mind defines your intended meaning of vividness.
    Hence my mention: "Or, if by "perceive" and "vivid image", you mean simply storing the image as a memory, then that seems like an overly simple method for consciousness, as even computers perform this function."

    We can certainly see new Objects we have never seen before in our Physical Reality so there is no reason to think that we would not be able to see the Objects injected by a Virtual Reality no matter how strange they might be.SteveKlinko

    I don't doubt we could see new things, I doubt the mental vividness of new things if we have 0 comprehension of what we are seeing. If you mean visually vivid, then perhaps it would still be vivid with no comprehension, as long as you have clear vision. But it seems quite likely that conscious vividness of viewing, involves more than just visual sensory input and data storage (as memory) of an image.
  • SteveKlinko
    84
    I don't doubt we could see new things, I doubt the mental vividness of new things if we have 0 comprehension of what we are seeing. If you mean visually vivid, then perhaps it would still be vivid with no comprehension, as long as you have clear vision. But it seems quite likely that conscious vividness of viewing, involves more than just visual sensory input and data storage (as memory) of an image.Tyler
    Yes there are many things going on when we look at an Object. But my study is purely about the Image that we See. I think it's better to concentrate on specific Conscious operations, at this point, rather than trying to study everything all at the same time. I would simplify the Vivid Image example even further and concentrate on one color. I choose to study how the Conscious experience of Red happens in our Minds. Here is the basic question ... Given:

    1) Neural Activity for Red happens.
    2) A Conscious Experience of Red happens.

    How does 1 happening result in 2 happening?

    The answer to this is not known by Science yet (although Scientists jump up and down saying that Consciousness is just an Illusion). This is the classic Hard Problem of Consciousness. This also is the classic Explanatory Gap of Consciousness. I want to know the answer to this question.
  • Tyler
    28
    1) Neural Activity for Red happens.
    2) A Conscious Experience of Red happens.

    How does 1 happening result in 2 happening?
    SteveKlinko
    > I think my explanation would still be basically the same, The neural activity for Red, causes a conscious experience, because of the combination of neural activity, which accesses memories relative to Red. This fills the Explanatory Gap, and would be the function causing the illusion of consciousness.
    I'm trying to figure out, what doesn't work with this simple explanation?
  • SteveKlinko
    84
    1) Neural Activity for Red happens.
    2) A Conscious Experience of Red happens.

    How does 1 happening result in 2 happening? — SteveKlinko> I think my explanation would still be basically the same, The neural activity for Red, causes a conscious experience, because of the combination of neural activity, which accesses memories relative to Red. This fills the Explanatory Gap, and would be the function causing the illusion of consciousness.
    I'm trying to figure out, what doesn't work with this simple explanation?
    Tyler
    A Memory is just more Neural Activity. You're just saying that Neural Activity causes the Red Experience, but the question is how does Neural Activity cause the Red Experience.
  • Tyler
    28

    >I mean it is the coordinated combination, that creates the experience.
    If the neural activity of a memory is on its own, the memory doesn't do much for experience.
    Or if the combination of neural activity is uncoordinated, and random or irrelevant, then the experience would be nonsense.
    But when it's a coordinated combination of parts, the sum of those parts is a coordinated assembly.
    The coordinated assembly, is the experience of Red.
  • SteveKlinko
    84
    >I mean it is the coordinated combination, that creates the experience.
    If the neural activity of a memory is on its own, the memory doesn't do much for experience.
    Or if the combination of neural activity is uncoordinated, and random or irrelevant, then the experience would be nonsense.
    But when it's a coordinated combination of parts, the sum of those parts is a coordinated assembly.
    The coordinated assembly, is the experience of Red.
    Tyler

    But when I say Neural Activity I mean any and all Neural Activity, coordinated and or not coordinated. How does the coordinated combination of any kind of Neural Activity produce the Conscious experience of Red?
  • Tyler
    28

    I don't know how the neural activity functions mechanically, if that's what you're asking. All I know is somehow neurons store memories as information, and when that neuron is accessed, the info of that memory is recalled.
    But as far as I can theorize, based on these concepts, this process of accessing the recorded information, is all it takes to produce a conscious experience of anything (including Red), as long as it's the appropriate info and neurons which are being accessed simultaneously.
    I don't see why there should be anything more to it.
  • SteveKlinko
    84
    I don't know how the neural activity functions mechanically, if that's what you're asking. All I know is somehow neurons store memories as information, and when that neuron is accessed, the info of that memory is recalled.
    But as far as I can theorize, based on these concepts, this process of accessing the recorded information, is all it takes to produce a conscious experience of anything (including Red), as long as it's the appropriate info and neurons which are being accessed simultaneously.
    I don't see why there should be anything more to it.
    Tyler
    Think about the Redness of the Red. What is that? The Redness of the Red is not explainable in words. It exists only in the Conscious Mind. It's purely a Conscious Phenomenon. Nobody even knows what the Red experience is. It's so familiar to us but it is a complete Mystery. How can you possibly think you know the answer when you don't even know what the Red experience is? Concentrate on the Redness itself and you will eventually see the Mystery of it and that it is quite a different thing than anything Science can Explain right now.
  • Tyler
    28

    I think I understand what the question is asking. But my answer is still the same; it's just memory. Even when I concentrate on it, and it seems indescribable, I still comprehend the scientific reasoning behind that.

    The brain is accessing the neurons which have saved the information about the wavelengths of light which reached the eyeball, when Red was recorded. It probably "feels" like something special and unique when you focus on it, because you are accessing memories of concepts relative to red, simultaneously to memories of the visual of red (wavelength information). This would also explain why Red does not seem significant, when it is seen or remembered, but not consciously thought about (no memory concepts accessed).

    I think that is basically the only mystery about it. Same as all sensory data saved as memories.

    How could you know that it exists only in the conscious mind though? It could potentially exist in a computer program (unless you would consider that a conscious mind). I dont believe it would with current day technology, but I suspect future general AI with perceive similar conscious states, including the experience of red
  • SteveKlinko
    84
    I think I understand what the question is asking. But my answer is still the same; it's just memory. Even when I concentrate on it, and it seems indescribable, I still comprehend the scientific reasoning behind that.

    The brain is accessing the neurons which have saved the information about the wavelengths of light which reached the eyeball, when Red was recorded. It probably "feels" like something special and unique when you focus on it, because you are accessing memories of concepts relative to red, simultaneously to memories of the visual of red (wavelength information). This would also explain why Red does not seem significant, when it is seen or remembered, but not consciously thought about (no memory concepts accessed).

    I think that is basically the only mystery about it. Same as all sensory data saved as memories.

    How could you know that it exists only in the conscious mind though? It could potentially exist in a computer program (unless you would consider that a conscious mind). I dont believe it would with current day technology, but I suspect future general AI with perceive similar conscious states, including the experience of red
    Tyler

    Physical Red Light has Wavelength as a Property, but Physical Red does not have Redness as a Property. Conscious Red Light (the Conscious Experience of Red) has Redness as a Property, but Conscious Red Light does not have Wavelength as a Property. Physical Red Light is a Physical Phenomenon, and Conscious Red Light is a Conscious Phenomenon. Redness has nothing to do with how Physical Red Light looks. Physical Red Light doesn't look like anything. Conscious Red Light is a Surrogate for the Physical Red Light. The question is where does this Surrogate come from and how do we Experience it? How does Neural Activity, including Memory Activations, ever produce the Conscious Red Light experience? There's no question that Conscious experiences are Correlated with Neural Activity. The Huge question is how does this Correlation happen?
  • Tyler
    28
    the Conscious Experience of Red) has Redness as a Property, but Conscious Red Light does not have Wavelength as a Property.SteveKlinko
    So, if by definition, the property of "Redness" is only in the conscious experience, doesn't that mean, the property of Redness is just the neurological process? (assuming conscious experience is a neurological process).

    The difference between Wavelength and Redness, is Redness is in the brain as an interpretation of the wavelength.
    So, basically I would think Redness is just the coded version of the measurement of the Wavelength.

    where does this Surrogate come from and how do we Experience it?
    >Assuming the eyeball measures the wavelength and translates that measurement into information (as you mentioned, it's a surrogate), then the brain would send and store that information as neurological activity.
    So Redness would be the coded information of the measurements of wavelengths.

    Computers code information, save it, and access it later. I'm guessing the brain does a similar concept, but with a more efficient coding and saving process (and the additional function of accessing many bits of information simultaneously).

    It is a little bizarre to think that everything we ever experience, is probably only information of measurements, which is coded and saved with neurons...
  • SteveKlinko
    84
    the Conscious Experience of Red) has Redness as a Property, but Conscious Red Light does not have Wavelength as a Property. — SteveKlinkoSo, if by definition, the property of "Redness" is only in the conscious experience, doesn't that mean, the property of Redness is just the neurological process? (assuming conscious experience is a neurological process).

    The difference between Wavelength and Redness, is Redness is in the brain as an interpretation of the wavelength.
    So, basically I would think Redness is just the coded version of the measurement of the Wavelength.



    where does this Surrogate come from and how do we Experience it?
    >Assuming the eyeball measures the wavelength and translates that measurement into information (as you mentioned, it's a surrogate), then the brain would send and store that information as neurological activity.
    So Redness would be the coded information of the measurements of wavelengths.

    Computers code information, save it, and access it later. I'm guessing the brain does a similar concept, but with a more efficient coding and saving process (and the additional function of accessing many bits of information simultaneously).

    It is a little bizarre to think that everything we ever experience, is probably only information of measurements, which is coded and saved with neurons..
    Tyler
    The Conscious Red Light can be interpreted as a type of input Data that the Conscious Mind can process. The Conscious Red Light is input Data for the Conscious Mind in a similar way to how the hex number 00FF0000 is input Data for a Computer. A Conscious Mind Detects Physical Red Light when it receives a Conscious Red experience. A Computer Detects Physical Red Light when it receives the 00FF0000 hex number. The Conscious Red Light and the hex number 00FF0000 are Surrogates for the Physical Red Light.

    The Brain is like the Computer in that it generates certain Neural Patterns when Red Light is being detected. The Neural Pattern for Red would be equivalent to the Hex number 00FF0000 in the Computer. The Human Mind produces an extra stage of processing beyond the Neural Patterns and presents us with the Conscious experience of Red. You can't say that the Conscious experience of Red is just the Neural Patterns. The Conscious experience is something extra that the Computer does not do. If the Conscious experience is just the Neural Patterns then you have a lot of explaining to do. How do Neural Patterns, or Neural Activity of any kind get turned into the Conscious Red experience?
12Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

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.