• Tyler
    58
    OK, on what logical basis do you assume these things?Pattern-chaser
    > The basis for my assumption that conscious experiences are more complex;
    1. Conscious experiences seem to be significantly more common with humans, than animals. The correlation for "conscious experiences" seems to be intelligence, which involves more complex brain activity. More complex brain activity = more complex process for the experience.
    2. Conscious experiences seem to always involve additional memory access, relevant to the concept or experience, which is the focus of consciousness.
    3. As I mentioned, "conscious experiences" seem to be scientifically explained less than simpler experiences.

    Where? By whom? What are these explanations? You assert they exist, without saying where, and without saying what they are. :roll:Pattern-chaser
    > I believe simpler experiences are mostly explained by science, wherever you search. The links I posted after that statement were examples of just that, as was that an insinuated answer of, by whom, and what the explanations are.
    Here's some more;
    Video of how we experience hearing
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkGOGzpbrCk
    Video of the science of sensation and perception
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unWnZvXJH2o&t=2s

    Your third link describes our memories, but offers nothing specific to vision or seeing, that I could see.Pattern-chaser
    I liked that as 1 of the steps in the experience of sight. After the other stages, the information received by the eye needs to be saved as memories, which could be considered part of an "experience", depending on how you define it.

    Of course I know very little details about any of these processes, but these are examples showing that scientific explanations of simple experiences are known and available.

    Don't you think we could be more successful if we applied a different process, and retained the interconnection-information instead of throwing it away?
    Pattern-chaser
    >Sure. I think that's basically what I meant.
    Instead of destroying the information of the connections between portions, save that data, for future reference. But still take the concept from reductionism, of analysing each portion, to determine its function, before later determining the connections between portions.

    It should (be discernible), maybe. But is it? And how does this discernment work, exactly? You're offering wishful thinking in lieu of explanation.Pattern-chaser
    It "should" be, as far as any problem "should" be discernible by analyzing cause and effect. The discernment is done like any science. Hypothesis, experiment, results.
  • SteveKlinko
    290
    Your very statement screams out for further explanation. — SteveKlinko
    Why? :) You started with Consciousness happens - without anything like neuronal activity... :)

    Neuronal activity can produce only "what is what" or sketchy images. It simply does not have the capacity to produce/transmit the totality of visual impressions... :)

    Enjoy the day,
    Damir Ibrisimovic

    I say that:

    1) Neural Activity happens
    2) A Conscious experience happens

    1 and 2 are the two things we know that are happening. We don't know why 2 happens when 1 happens.
  • SteveKlinko
    290
    You are still saying that the Neural Activity happens and that Explains everything. It is mind boggling to me that you cannot realize the thing that is missing in your explanation. The thing that is missing is the Red experience itself and the 440Hz Tone experience itself. — SteveKlinko
    >From my perspective, once the mechanical process is outlined, something is explained. I think we've gone through this cycle of disagreement before, but I get the sense you want or expect something more than an explanation of function. I believe that's all there is, and different conscious experiences just seem so extravagant and profound, that its hard for our minds to except an explanation.
    Tyler

    But we are saying there are two different categories of Phenomena happening here. The first is the Neural Activity the second is the Conscious experience. When the Neural Activity is explained then you have explained the Neural Activity but you have not explained the Conscious experience at all. The Conscious experience is in a whole different Category of Phenomena. Think about the Conscious experience itself. It is separate thing from the Neural Activity. It must be explained.
  • Damir Ibrisimovic
    129
    say that:

    1) Neural Activity happens
    2) A Conscious experience happens

    1 and 2 are the two things we know that are happening. We don't know why 2 happens when 1 happens.
    SteveKlinko

    Either way, you are having 2) happening on undecided 1) relations. I could claim a relation too... :)
    But I do not. You are still looking for the totality of visual impressions somewhere in the brain... :) And that's unrealistic, to put it mildly... :)

    Enjoy the day, :cool:
  • bert1
    159
    Either way, you are having 2) happening on undecided 1) relations. I could claim a relation too... :)
    But I do not. You are still looking for the totality of visual impressions somewhere in the brain... :) And that's unrealistic, to put it mildly...
    Damir Ibrisimovic

    This is unclear Damir. It's not clear you actually understand the difficulty SteveKlinko is describing. Maybe you do understand it, and you have a good answer, but so far nothing you have said indicates that (not that I have really understood much of what you have said). Can you state in your own words the philosophical problem that SteveKlinko is patiently and repeatedly raising?
  • Damir Ibrisimovic
    129
    his is unclear Damir. It's not clear you actually understand the difficulty SteveKlinko is describing. Maybe you do understand it, and you have a good answer, but so far nothing you have said indicates that (not that I have really understood much of what you have said).bert1

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11177421 :)
    https://sites.oxy.edu/clint/physio/article/moviesinoureyes.pdf :)
    https://www.physiology.org/doi/pdf/10.1152/jn.00113.2006 :)

    In short, these links (posted in the previous comments) show that only sketchy images are passed from the retinas to the rest of the brain... :)

    In my own words: https://www.dropbox.com/s/rdrvqa3t5rresxz/Imagination%20is%20Greater%20than%20Knowledge%20%286%29.pdf?dl=0 :)

    Can you state in your own words the philosophical problem that SteveKlinko is patiently and repeatedly raising?bert1

    I am growing impatient myself... :) Steve is pressing for the totality of visual impressions somewhere in the brain. But this has been refuted in the links above... :)

    I had offered the totality of visual impressions before retinal pre-processing... :) But this was unacceptable to Steve... :)

    I suggest patience on all sides (including you)... :) I also suggest that we consider the science seriously and read carefully the science presented... :)

    Enjoy the day, :cool:
  • bert1
    159
    We know that neural processing must have something critical to do with qualitative experience.apokrisis

    We don't know that. That's a hasty generalisation.
  • bert1
    159
    In short, these links (posted in the previous comments) show that only sketchy images are passed from the retinas to the rest of the brain... :)Damir Ibrisimovic

    Sure, but what has that got to do with subjective experience?

    I'm not defending SteveKlinko's sketch towards a theory of consciousness, I think it is wrong. What I am defending is his characterisation of the problem which his theory is a genuine attempt to grapple with. Yet you still have not stated the problem yourself, and I am doubtful you understand what it is.

    You quoted my question, but did not answer it. Here is wikipedia's characterisation of the problem:

    "The hard problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining how and why sentient organisms have qualia or phenomenal experiences—how and why it is that some internal states are felt states, such as heat or pain, rather than unfelt states, as in a thermostat or a toaster."

    My preferred solution to this is to deny that there are unfelt states, and suggest that consciousness is an intrinsic property of everything. That brings its own problems, but it is a putative solution to the problem.

    Can you have another go at stating the problem, and then say what your solution is?
  • Damir Ibrisimovic
    129
    My preferred solution to this is to deny that there are unfelt states, and suggest that consciousness is an intrinsic property of everything. That brings its own problems, but it is a putative solution to the problem.bert1

    I have not a problem with what you say. I'm stating something similar... :)

    Can you have another go at stating the problem, and then say what your solution is?bert1

    I'm tired of repeating myself... I can only restate my position which seems to be beyond your grasp:

    The hard problem of consciousness is hidden in the totality of visual/auditory impressions... :)

    Enjoy the day, :cool:
  • SteveKlinko
    290
    My preferred solution to this is to deny that there are unfelt states, and suggest that consciousness is an intrinsic property of everything. That brings its own problems, but it is a putative solution to the problem. — bert1
    I have not a problem with what you say. I'm stating something similar... :)

    Can you have another go at stating the problem, and then say what your solution is? — bert1
    I'm tired of repeating myself... I can only restate my position which seems to be beyond your grasp:

    The hard problem of consciousness is hidden in the totality of visual/auditory impressions... :)
    Damir Ibrisimovic
    I suppose that is one way to state the Hard Problem. But what is the Solution? If you are saying that your statement is also the Solution then I don't understand.
  • Damir Ibrisimovic
    129
    But what is the Solution? If you are saying that your statement is also the Solution then I don't understand.SteveKlinko

    As I said before: We witness the totality of visual/auditory impressions before retinal preprocessing. The retinal preprocessing adds "what's what" to the totality of visual/auditory impressions. In a way, retinal preprocessing dulls the totality of visual/auditory impressions - but give us a faster management of the totality/infinity impressions... :)

    This is not a farfetched impossibility - for retinal cells are directly exposed to unaltered stimuli... :)

    Enjoy the day, :cool:
  • SteveKlinko
    290
    But what is the Solution? If you are saying that your statement is also the Solution then I don't understand. — SteveKlinko
    As I said before: We witness the totality of visual/auditory impressions before retinal preprocessing. The retinal preprocessing adds "what's what" to the totality of visual/auditory impressions. In a way, retinal preprocessing dulls the totality of visual/auditory impressions - but give us a faster management of the totality/infinity impressions... :)

    This is not a farfetched impossibility - for retinal cells are directly exposed to unaltered stimuli...
    Damir Ibrisimovic

    So you are saying that all the Neural and Retinal processing (adding the What's What) produces the Visual/Auditory Impressions that we experience. It's been known for a hundred years that Brain Activity, of whatever kind you want to talk about, produces Consciousness. You are just saying it does this, but you are not saying How. That is the Hard Problem.
  • Damir Ibrisimovic
    129
    It's been known for a hundred years that Brain Activity, of whatever kind you want to talk about, produces Consciousness.SteveKlinko

    Unfortunately, this has not been known for hundreds of years... :)

    I stated that the totality/infinity of visual/auditor impressions precedes retinal preprocessing. I, therefore, state again that totality/infinity of visual/auditory impressions precedes further preprocessing making the totality/infinity available to our senses. In other words, consciousness does not emerge from retinal preprocessing or other neuronal activities... :)

    Enjoy the day, :cool:
  • SteveKlinko
    290
    It's been known for a hundred years that Brain Activity, of whatever kind you want to talk about, produces Consciousness. — SteveKlinko
    Unfortunately, this has not been known for hundreds of years... :)

    I stated that the totality/infinity of visual/auditor impressions precedes retinal preprocessing. I, therefore, state again that totality/infinity of visual/auditory impressions precedes further preprocessing making the totality/infinity available to our senses. In other words, consciousness does not emerge from retinal preprocessing or other neuronal activities...
    Damir Ibrisimovic

    Now I really don't understand what you are saying. But that's ok you could be right. When it comes to Consciousness all ideas are still on the table.
189101112Next
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.