• Damir Ibrisimovic
    120
    There is no activity in the Rods and Cones when Dreaming. Eye movements don't create Visual Scenes. Something at a further stage of the processing seems to be creating the actual Visual Images that we see when we are Dreaming or when we are Awake.SteveKlinko

    It is true that we do not have a proof about the activity of rods and cones in the retinas during the REM. For that, we would need a human subject + fMRI... :)

    However, we are running in circles... :) Despite all of the evidence that there is no a totality of visual experiences within the brain -- you are coming back to your hypothesis... :)

    Now, give us a proof that the totality of visual experiences is hidden somewhere in the brain... :) But, that's rhetorical... :) I'm sure that you will not find a paper... :)

    Alternatively, consider a reverse path of signals from the rest of the brain --- to the retinas during imagination or sleep... :)

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11177421
    http://edition.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/11/02/brain.imagining.reut/

    (Please note that there is no difference between imagined and actually seen.) :)

    Enjoy the day, :cool:
  • SteveKlinko
    265
    There is no activity in the Rods and Cones when Dreaming. Eye movements don't create Visual Scenes. Something at a further stage of the processing seems to be creating the actual Visual Images that we see when we are Dreaming or when we are Awake. — SteveKlinko
    It is true that we do not have a proof about the activity of rods and cones in the retinas during the REM. For that, we would need a human subject + fMRI... :)

    However, we are running in circles... :) Despite all of the evidence that there is no a totality of visual experiences within the brain -- you are coming back to your hypothesis... :)

    Now, give us a proof that the totality of visual experiences is hidden somewhere in the brain... :) But, that's rhetorical... :) I'm sure that you will not find a paper... :)

    Alternatively, consider a reverse path of signals from the rest of the brain --- to the retinas during imagination or sleep... :)

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11177421
    http://edition.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/11/02/brain.imagining.reut/

    (Please note that there is no difference between imagined and actually seen.)
    Damir Ibrisimovic

    There is no paper on how Consciousness is produced from the Neural Activity in the Brain. The Retina is just an extension of the Brain and the Rods and Cones are specialized Neurons. If your speculation is that the Visual Images that we see are strictly generated by the Retina then the question is how does the Retina generate the Visual Images that we see? That is the Hard Problem of Consciousness.
  • Damir Ibrisimovic
    120
    If your speculation is that the Visual Images that we see are strictly generated by the Retina then the question is how does the Retina generate the Visual Images that we see?SteveKlinko

    While we are awake, the retina does not generate images. It simply contains the totality of visual sensations. Retinal pre-processing turns this totality of visual sensations into abstracts of "what is what" giving us the fast and pretty accurate navigation through the infinity of visual impressions... :)

    While dreaming (REM) this is reversed. The rest of the brain generates abstracts of "what is what" sending them to the retinas. And the retinas provides the rest of simulated visual experiences... :)

    While we are awake, consumption of hallucinogens (like mescaline, for example) reduces the impact of abstracts of "what is what" resulting in an overwhelming infinity of visual impressions. (See "The Doors of the Perception".) :)

    Enjoy the day, :cool:
  • SteveKlinko
    265
    If your speculation is that the Visual Images that we see are strictly generated by the Retina then the question is how does the Retina generate the Visual Images that we see? — SteveKlinko
    While we are awake, the retina does not generate images. It simply contains the totality of visual sensations. Retinal pre-processing turns this totality of visual sensations into abstracts of "what is what" giving us the fast and pretty accurate navigation through the infinity of visual impressions... :)

    While dreaming (REM) this is reversed. The rest of the brain generates abstracts of "what is what" sending them to the retinas. And the retinas provides the rest of simulated visual experiences... :)

    While we are awake, consumption of hallucinogens (like mescaline, for example) reduces the impact of abstracts of "what is what" resulting in an overwhelming infinity of visual impressions. (See "The Doors of the Perception".)
    Damir Ibrisimovic

    But when I look at a particular scene in front of me How is that Scene Image presented for me to See it? It appears that the scene I am looking at is painted on a kind of Screen that is embedded in the front of my face. All the Colors are painted there and are overlaid on top of the Physical World scene that I am looking at. The painted Image is a very good representation of the Physical World scene. I am looking at a Surrogate for the Physical World scene that is created by my Conscious Mind. Also what is the "I" that is Seeing that screen? These are the Deep Philosophical questions that we need to answer.
  • Damir Ibrisimovic
    120
    But when I look at a particular scene in front of me How is that Scene Image presented for me to See it? It appears that the scene I am looking at is painted on a kind of Screen that is embedded in the front of my face.SteveKlinko

    When awake, visual sensations have many layers... :) The most fundamental is an infinity of visual sensations, but without "what is what". In other words, we are lost, without "what is what" layers... Subsequent layers are "what is whats" - that dull the infinity of visual sensations...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Doors_of_Perception ... :)

    Also what is the "I" that is Seeing that screen?SteveKlinko

    The "I" is a part of "what is what"... However, the roots of identity have been found in plants:
    (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/08/050811104308.htm
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23779000 )... :)

    Enjoy the day, :cool:
  • bert1
    138
    Damir,

    Are you aware this is a philosophy forum? You seem innocent of the philosophical issues.
  • Damir Ibrisimovic
    120
    Are you aware this is a philosophy forum? You seem innocent of the philosophical issues.bert1

    Such as? :)

    Enjoy the day, :cool:
  • SteveKlinko
    265
    But when I look at a particular scene in front of me How is that Scene Image presented for me to See it? It appears that the scene I am looking at is painted on a kind of Screen that is embedded in the front of my face. — SteveKlinko
    When awake, visual sensations have many layers... :) The most fundamental is an infinity of visual sensations, but without "what is what". In other words, we are lost, without "what is what" layers... Subsequent layers are "what is whats" - that dull the infinity of visual sensations...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Doors_of_Perception ... :)

    Also what is the "I" that is Seeing that screen? — SteveKlinko
    The "I" is a part of "what is what"... However, the roots of identity have been found in plants:
    (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/08/050811104308.htm
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23779000 )...
    Damir Ibrisimovic

    Mescaline trips are interesting but they do not shed any insight into the question at hand. Don' t understand what the Pea Pod growth behavior has to do with anything. What does it have to do with Consciousness?
  • Pattern-chaser
    375
    Despite all of the evidence that there is no a totality of visual experiences within the brain -- you are coming back to your hypothesis... :)

    Now, give us a proof that the totality of visual experiences is hidden somewhere in the brain... :)
    Damir Ibrisimovic

    You assert your belief again and again, but you offer no justification, even though you now demand proof of an opposing view. :chin: Where is "all of the evidence" that you refer to?
  • Damir Ibrisimovic
    120
    Where is "all of the evidence" that you refer to?Pattern-chaser

    You are free to use links I provided in the previous comments... :)

    Enjoy the day, :cool:
  • Damir Ibrisimovic
    120
    Mescaline trips are interesting but they do not shed any insight into the question at hand.SteveKlinko

    That's the reason why reading the book I recommended would be useful... :)

    Don' t understand what the Pea Pod growth behavior has to do with anything.SteveKlinko

    The difference between self and non-self is a root to what we call identity, In other words, self and non-self distinction evolves into what we call "I"... :)

    Enjoy the day, :cool:
  • SteveKlinko
    265
    Mescaline trips are interesting but they do not shed any insight into the question at hand. — SteveKlinko
    That's the reason why reading the book I recommended would be useful... :)

    Don' t understand what the Pea Pod growth behavior has to do with anything. — SteveKlinko
    The difference between self and non-self is a root to what we call identity, In other words, self and non-self distinction evolves into what we call "I"...
    Damir Ibrisimovic
    I read articles summarizing the Book. I know that's not like reading the whole book, but I got a good feel for the book. I did not see from the summary at least how the book was going to solve the Hard Problem. The book just talked about enhanced perceptions and philosophical realizations. Could you possibly give a summary of How the book explains the Hard problem? The Hard Problem is: How does the Neural Activity (using drugs or not using drugs) produce the Conscious experience?
  • Blue Lux
    496
    The hard problem of consciousness is the problem of qualia or Husserl's hyle?

    There is simply a prior, non physical, phenomenal aspect that no understanding of the physical will ever give rise to: for such an understanding would have to suffice to replace it, which is utterly impossible, and is completely incommensurate with its object, and is bombastic in even a consideration.

    This is not said nowadays because people are scared of being called a theist or, even worse, NOT ATHEIST! HOW SCARY!

    As if such a statement says anything further!

    insanus populi
  • SteveKlinko
    265
    ↪SteveKlinko The hard problem of consciousness is the problem of qualia or Husserl's hyle?

    There is simply a prior, non physical, phenomenal aspect that no understanding of the physical will ever give rise to: for such an understanding would have to suffice to replace it, which is utterly impossible, and is completely incommensurate with its object, and is bombastic in even a consideration.

    This is not said nowadays because people are scared of being called a theist or, even worse, NOT ATHEIST! HOW SCARY!

    As if such a statement says anything further!

    insanus populi
    Blue Lux

    Quite correct. But I still think that the non-Physical will be understood by Science someday if only they would sit back, relax, and think more Deeply about it.
  • Blue Lux
    496
    The phenomenologists attempted this... But I am about ready to say that philosophy is over... At least with what I have now at my disposal.
  • Blue Lux
    496
    What bothers me so much is this aversion to what cannot be empirically distinguished, such to be defined like an atom can be, or a neural impulse. It is really sad; this pop-atheist, pseudo-philosophical simulacrum disguised as philosophical discourse today. And I'm talking about Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett , and others. Many others. Its just tasteless.
  • Blue Lux
    496
    There is visual stuff when you close your eyes. They are called phosphenes. Have you heard of this? I, personally, have a theory about how sleep begins, with regard to phosphenes, and subjectively I have proven it, because it always works.
  • Damir Ibrisimovic
    120
    The Hard Problem is: How does the Neural Activity (using drugs or not using drugs) produce the Conscious experience?SteveKlinko

    Again. Neural activity does not produce conscious experience. But, we are getting back to neuronal activity (not retinal activity) again --- as if we never discussed it. I will, therefore, stop repeating myself... :)

    Enjoy the day, :cool:
17891011Next
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.