It is? It looks to me like the Hard Problem of (misapplied) science. For good reasons (that we don't really want to investigate here), science reduces humans to impartial observers, or ignores them altogether. This makes it difficult or impossible to come up with a scientific way of studying humans as active participants (in the world), instead of impartial observers. The success of science is (for me) beyond challenge, but it is not a tool that fits every problem, and this is one of the ones it doesn't fit.

These matters can be investigated, but it looks to me like we need to use considered, structured, thought to do it. No theories, no falsifiable hypotheses (and so forth), just careful consideration. It's what we have. We must use it, or we have nothing. — Pattern-chaser

The Hard Problem is a Philosophical not a Scientific proposition. I agree we can only use the tools that are available at this moment in history. If Considered, Structured, Thought is all we have then we must use it.

but how can any kind of Neural Activity result in that Experience? — SteveKlinko

> Do you mean, how it can result in specifically the Red experience, or generally any experience?
Do you agree that simpler neural activity, results in simpler experiences?
eg. audio sensory input, results in the experience of simply hearing a bell

Scientists have no idea how Neural Activity causes or results in the Red experience. — SteveKlinko

> If its agreed that simpler sensory input causes simpler experiences, then I believe (just as with consciousness) the Red is caused in a similar process, just involving multiple simultaneous experiences.

Scientists do not yet have a method for studying the Experience or the Experiencer. — SteveKlinko

> If the experience is caused by neural activity, then the experience and the experiencer are simply neural activity. There may be nothing more to it.

correlation between brain activity and consciousness, but this in no way implies the euphemistic application of correlation with the notion 'cause' — Marcus de Brun

> I'd argue that correlation does imply cause. It doesn't prove cause, but correlation implies a higher probability that it is also a cause.

yet there is no evidence to suggest that it is caused. — Marcus de Brun

> There may be no conclusive evidence at this time, but I believe there is still supportive evidence that consciousness is caused by neural activity. The supportive evidence would be similar to what I mentioned of currently known neuroscience. There is evidence that neural activity does cause simpler specified processes of thought. and since consciousness is correlated with thought processes, this is supportive evidence of the high probability that neural activity causes consciousness as well. This is why I believe consciousness is just a more complex combination of neural activity, than the specific thought processes (which are caused by neural activity).

I might just as easily assert that brain activity is in fact caused by consciousness — Marcus de Brun

> Since elements involved with conscious experiences, are measurable and evident to occur regardless of consciousness, this suggests that those elements are the cause of consciousness, rather than consciousness being the cause of those elements.

If its agreed that consciousness is directly linked with sensory experiences, then it is evident that the original cause of those sensory experiences occurs regardless of consciousness, and therefore the cause is not consciousness. For eg. a tree falls in the forest with nobody to witness. The tree falling is measurable and evident to occur, regardless of sensory experience witness (brain activity). This suggests that in an alternate case of brain activity witnessing a tree falling, the cause of the sensory experience was the tree actually falling. If the cause of the sensory experience was consciousness, then the tree falling would not occur without the cause of consciousness.

but how can any kind of Neural Activity result in that Experience? — SteveKlinko> Do you mean, how it can result in specifically the Red experience, or generally any experience?
Do you agree that simpler neural activity, results in simpler experiences?
eg. audio sensory input, results in the experience of simply hearing a bell — Tyler

I'm not quite sure what is simpler when it comes to Sensory inputs but I suppose a Bell and a Flashing Light would be more complicated and would result in a more complicated experience (I see a Light and hear a Bell).

Scientists have no idea how Neural Activity causes or results in the Red experience. — SteveKlinko> If its agreed that simpler sensory input causes simpler experiences, then I believe (just as with consciousness) the Red is caused in a similar process, just involving multiple simultaneous experiences. — Tyler

But to me Red is a very simple basic Experience.

Scientists do not yet have a method for studying the Experience or the Experiencer. — SteveKlinko> If the experience is caused by neural activity, then the experience and the experiencer are simply neural activity. There may be nothing more to it. — Tyler

There's nothing more to it than Explaining how the Experience and Experiencer are Neural Activity. The Hard Problem remains.

Tyler

You appear to me to be attempting to justify a common place conclusion, rather than allowing the known facts direct you towards a new view or an evolution of the current paradigm..

Your alignment with the pedestrian notion that consciousness is caused by brain activity is boring, in the sense that it is commonplace and predictable.

Indeed there is a correlation between both neural activity and consciousness. It is very easy then to join the herd in the assumption that consciousness is the 'effect' and private neural activity is the 'cause'.

I have already pointed out that this view is homocentric and does not address the reality that neural activity and the identification of such activity is both contained and consequential to, consciousness.

If you liberate yourself from the commonplace and consider consciousness with impartiality we can then consider the fundamental question pertaining to its creation of the experience of material reality. This starting point is more interesting because it reconciles many profound philosophical questions, principally because we do not venture into assumptions that result in the need for further false assumptions.

Consciousness as an entity outside of or uncaused by neural activity, becomes relieved of temporality, and therefore satisfies Hume's critique of casualty itself. It also satisfies the empirical nature of determinism and offers the possibility of an evolved view of the universe and the reconciliation of quantum mechanical paradox.

Wilful adherence to the old but persistent paradigm does not advance the agreed correlation between consciousness and neural activity, it merely reasserts the current paradigm.

Scientists do not yet have a method for studying the Experience or the Experiencer. — SteveKlinko

> If the experience is caused by neural activity, then the experience and the experiencer are simply neural activity. There may be nothing more to it. — Tyler

And yet Steve's point remains unanswered: scientists do not have a method for studying the Experience or the Experiencer. Science is the (valuable and useful) perspective you get when you reduce humans to impartial observers. The study of experience and experiencers requires that humans be considered as active participants. This requires a tool that is science's complement. Science cannot extend itself to cover what it explicitly and deliberately rejects. Those rejections, as well as what is included, define science, and make it what it is.

To investigate experience and experiencers, a tool other than science is needed. :chin:

I'd argue that correlation does imply cause. It doesn't prove cause, but correlation implies a higher probability that it is also a cause. — Tyler

I don't think it does. In scientific phraseology, correlation does not disprove the existence of causation. We cannot safely go beyond this, without going beyond the evidence of the real world. You are contradicting a long-held piece of wisdom here. See what wikipedia has to say.

This fallacy is also known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "with this, therefore because of this," and "false cause." A similar fallacy, that an event that followed another was necessarily a consequence of the first event, is the post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "after this, therefore because of this.") fallacy. — wikipedia

elements involved with conscious experiences, are measurable and evident to occur regardless of consciousness — Tyler

Doesn't this presuppose knowledge of consciousness that we do not currently have? :chin:

...and exactly what are these "elements" that are measurable and evident, and have they actually been measured, and found to be evident? :chin: Just asking. :wink:

Sorry to all for my delayed responses btw. I've been too distracted in the summer...

I'm not quite sure what is simpler when it comes to Sensory inputs but I suppose a Bell and a Flashing — SteveKlinko

I think I meant that the bell would theoretically be simpler than the Red Experience, since The Red E. specifically involves the conscious aspect.

But to me Red is a very simple basic Experience. — SteveKlinko

I agree that red itself is basic, but The Red E. is specifically more complex since it requires conscious focus regarding red. Without the conscious focus and attention, I think red does become simple (similar to hearing a bell), but without the conscious aspect, there is no Red Experience, and no problem with explanation. Without conscious focus, red is just a light wave-length measurement I believe.

There's nothing more to it than Explaining how the Experience and Experiencer are Neural Activity. — SteveKlinko

Right, and it has been explained by science, how the simple experiences (without conscious focus involved) are neural activity, has it not?
So if simple experiences are explained, then complex experiences involving conscious focus, can be explained by complex combinations of those simple experiences (by my theory)

Indeed there is a correlation between both neural activity and consciousness. It is very easy then to join the herd in the assumption that consciousness is the 'effect' and private neural activity is the 'cause'. — Marcus de Brun

It seems you presume that I only believe consciousness is caused by neural activity, because of a bias that it's common belief. That's could be fair enough, but I argued that the reason I believe it is logical, regardless of most common belief. It could be argued just as easily that your position might be just as biased (but to the contrary), toward assuming that the common belief is incorrect. Or you could have a bias aligned with another common perspective, that consciousness is mysterious and seems magical, so cannot be explained by current science.

I have already pointed out that this view is homocentric and does not address the reality that neural activity and the identification of such activity is both contained and consequential to, consciousness. — Marcus de Brun

It seems to me that the view of [consciousness is caused by neural activity] does directly address the concept that "neural activity and the identification of such activity is both contained and consequential to, consciousness." Why do you believe it does not address that concept? The concept that neural activity is consequential to consciousness, is just the logical reasoning to assume that the neural activity is the cause.

we can then consider the fundamental question pertaining to its creation of the experience of material reality. — Marcus de Brun

That is exactly what I'm doing isn't it? Questioning the creation of the experience of consciousness.

principally because we do not venture into assumptions that result in the need for further false assumptions. — Marcus de Brun

What false assumptions are needed, for the assumption that neural activity causes consciousness?

Consciousness as an entity outside of or uncaused by neural activity, becomes relieved of temporality — Marcus de Brun

What is wrong with temporality?

It also satisfies the empirical nature of determinism — Marcus de Brun

So you believe that neural activity causing consciousness does not satisfy determinism? I see no conflict between the 2

Wilful adherence to the old but persistent paradigm does not advance the agreed correlation between consciousness and neural activity, it merely reasserts the current paradigm. — Marcus de Brun

I believe I'm not adhering strictly to the old paradigm, if I apply a concept which was not part of it, and theoretically solves the problem. The concept I apply is: a complex combination resulting in a construct greater than the sum of is parts. This advances the correlation.
.

And yet Steve's point remains unanswered: scientists do not have a method for studying the Experience or the Experiencer. — Pattern-chaser

If the experience etc. is simply neural activity, then I believe we do have a method for studying it, as we have studied lots of neural activity.

Science is the (valuable and useful) perspective you get when you reduce humans to impartial observers. The study of experience and experiencers requires that humans be considered as active participants. — Pattern-chaser

But, in order to have an impartial observer, dont we only need a different human? The only active participant for experience, is the specific human which is being tested for experience. The other humans who are observing the tests, are not an active participant in the experience, therefore are impartial observers.

To investigate experience and experiencers, a tool other than science is needed. — Pattern-chaser

I disagree. Science should be capable, since alternate humans from the experience, can be impartial. It should be comparable to using AI or an alien as the observer. They would not be human, but would still use science, and would you agree, be an impartial observer?

that followed another was necessarily a consequence of the first event, is the post hoc ergo propter hoc — wikipedia

I believe I am not arguing the same concept which you are citing the contradiction of. I am not arguing this point: (quote from the Wiki article) "That "correlation proves causation," is considered a questionable cause logical fallacy "
I totally agree that correlation does not prove causation. I am arguing that correlation logically suggests a higher probability of causation, than lack of correlation. Simply put; if you take 2 variables with a correlation, it is more likely that there is causation between them, than between 1 of those variables and a random other variable (without a correlation).

Doesn't this presuppose knowledge of consciousness that we do not currently have? :chin:
...and exactly what are these "elements" that are measurable and evident, and have they actually been measured, and found to be evident? :chin: Just asking. :wink: — Pattern-chaser

We have knowledge of consciousness to a vague degree, at least. We have knowledge that consciousness (by definition (which yes, is not very concrete in itself (as a result of lack of explanation))) involves; life, a brain, thought, wakefulness, awareness.
So these are the elements which I believe are measurable and evident. I believe the last 3 are measurable by specifically neural activity, which is the correlation to consciousness, which I think suggests it is more probable (than any other random variables) to also have a link of causation.

Your position is not logical. To state that consciousness is the effect and neural activity the cause makes no sense if we are to consider the human subject objectively. If indeed consciousness is caused by neural activity then one must ask what is the instigation of this "neural activity'. Here you might reply it is the 'subconscious' is consciousness-unknown or you will tell me it is caused by god, or by nature or random chaos or some such, all are euphemistic. Or you might tell me that neural activity is a causa sui.

Consciousness is the cause and neural activity is the determined effect. This sequence is both logically and empirically valid and merely requires us to consider consciousness as a valid ex-homino exogenous entity/force with ex-homino activity that is observable in the context of physics and or quantum mechanics.

Consciousness is the cause and neural activity is the determined effect. — Marcus de Brun

This reminds me of Pirsig's rephrasing, whereby "A causes B" becomes "B values pre-condition A". Both are valid expressions of the same thing. Perhaps consciousness and neural activity are the same? :chin:

Interesting. Made me think. Thank you for that. :smile:

I can't reconcile the notion that consciousness and neural activity could be the same thing. Neural activity is a sequential process with action potentials travelling along axons and awaiting action potentials etc, it (neural activity) is temporal. The relationship appears only to make sense if we consider consciousness the cause and neural activity the secondary effect..

Sorry to all for my delayed responses btw. I've been too distracted in the summer...

I'm not quite sure what is simpler when it comes to Sensory inputs but I suppose a Bell and a Flashing — SteveKlinkoI think I meant that the bell would theoretically be simpler than the Red Experience, since The Red E. specifically involves the conscious aspect. — Tyler

When we talk about the Bell we are talking about the Conscious experience of Sound. To make the Sound analogous to the Red we should talk about a pure tone, lets use standard A pitch at 440 Hz. This is simpler than the Bell which can have multiple other components around the fundamental. The point is that the Physical Sound has the 44Hz Property. The Conscious Sound experience has no 440Hz Property. The Physical Sound is made out of pressure waves in the air that oscillate at 440Hz. The Conscious Sound experience is a Continuous sensation or experience. There is no sensation of oscillation in the Conscious Standard A Sound that you experience. The Conscious Sound is a Surrogate for the Physical Sound. You can hear the Standard A Sound without any Physical Standard A Sound in your dreams. The thing you have always experienced as Sound is just your own internal creation. How the Brain translates signals from the ear into the Conscious Sound experience is the great mystery of the study of Consciousness. It is the classic Hard Problem of Consciousness.

But to me Red is a very simple basic Experience. — SteveKlinkoI agree that red itself is basic, but The Red E. is specifically more complex since it requires conscious focus regarding red. Without the conscious focus and attention, I think red does become simple (similar to hearing a bell), but without the conscious aspect, there is no Red Experience, and no problem with explanation. Without conscious focus, red is just a light wave-length measurement I believe. — Tyler

The Conscious Red experience is not a wavelength of Light. The Red experience is a Surrogate for the Physical Red Light. You can see Red in Dreams at night where there is no Physical Red Light.

There's nothing more to it than Explaining how the Experience and Experiencer are Neural Activity. — SteveKlinkoRight, and it has been explained by science, how the simple experiences (without conscious focus involved) are neural activity, has it not?
So if simple experiences are explained, then complex experiences involving conscious focus, can be explained by complex combinations of those simple experiences (by my theory) — Tyler

The experience of Red or the Standard A Pitch are completely unexplained by Science at this point in time.

I can't reconcile the notion that consciousness and neural activity could be the same thing. Neural activity is a sequential process with action potentials travelling along axons and awaiting action potentials etc, it (neural activity) is temporal. The relationship appears only to make sense if we consider consciousness the cause and neural activity the secondary effect.. — Marcus de Brun

Lets consider the Conscious experience of the color Red again. The chain of events is from Physical Red Light hitting the Retina to downstream Neural Activity that culminates in Neurons for Red firing in the Visual Cortex and then the Conscious experience of Red occurs. Seems to me it makes no sense to stipulate that the Conscious experience ever happens before the Neural Activity in this logical chain of events.

I can't reconcile the notion that consciousness and neural activity could be the same thing. Neural activity is a sequential process with action potentials travelling along axons and awaiting action potentials etc, it (neural activity) is temporal. The relationship appears only to make sense if we consider consciousness the cause and neural activity the secondary effect.. — Marcus de Brun — SteveKlinko

If you are talking about Conscious Volition then the sequence would be from Conscious Mind to Physical Mind (Brain). We have no idea how a Conscious desire to move your hand, for example, results in Neurons firing in the Motion Control centers of the Cortex to produce the motion. But for incoming Sensory signals the sequence is logically from Neural Activity to Conscious experience.

And yet Steve's point remains unanswered: scientists do not have a method for studying the Experience or the Experiencer. — Pattern-chaser

If the experience etc. is simply neural activity, then I believe we do have a method for studying it, as we have studied lots of neural activity. — Tyler

This is a difficult one. To the extent that neural activity gives rise to consciousness, and thereby experience, it is correct to observe that experience reduces to neural activity, as you say. But today, with our current understanding, the abstract distance between neural activity and experience is just too big to span. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying it's just too difficult for human minds to appreciate experience in terms of neural activity. It's like trying to appreciate Microsoft's word processor as a stream of bytes. It is a stream of bytes, but this does not help us to understand it as a word processor. The abstract distance is just too large. In the same way, seeing experience in terms of neural activity is not useful or helpful to humans attempting to reach some sort of understanding.

Secondly, you seem to suggest that we investigate the way that humans experience the real world using science ("...we have studied lots of neural activity"). :chin: Human experience is mostly composed of stuff that science discards, or does not detect/acknowledge in the first place. Science is not the right tool for this job, I don't think.

Seems to me it makes no sense to stipulate that the Conscious experience ever happens before the Neural Activity in this logical chain of events. — SteveKlinko

Yes, the whole process of human perception, starting with sensation, and including all the other stuff that comes with perception, is pre-conscious, chronologically. The final result of the perception process is passed, complete, to the conscious mind. This then results in experience, yes? :chin:

I can't reconcile the notion that consciousness and neural activity could be the same thing. Neural activity is a sequential process with action potentials travelling along axons and awaiting action potentials etc, it (neural activity) is temporal. The relationship appears only to make sense if we consider consciousness the cause and neural activity the secondary effect.. — Marcus de Brun

My best guess - and I am happy to observe that this is not proven, just a summary of our current beliefs - is that neural activity eventually gives rise to consciousness and thereby to experience. Just as you, a thinking, feeling, person, are composed of quarks. Somehow those tiny and fundamental particles are arranged in such a way that this becomes possible. But it is far from intuitive, I admit. :wink: :up:

Yes, the whole process of human perception, starting with sensation, and including all the other stuff that comes with perception, is pre-conscious, chronologically. The final result of the perception process is passed, complete, to the conscious mind. This then results in experience, yes? — Pattern-chaser

Yes, the Conscious experience of Red is in the final stage of the Visual process.

If indeed consciousness is caused by neural activity then one must ask what is the instigation of this "neural activity'. — Marcus de Brun

>If you mean on terms of each instance, then stimulus instigates the neural activity. Usually sensory input stimulus would trigger the neural activity, which then causes consciousness (with the effective quantity and combination of neural activity).
-If you mean, in terms of development of the concept of neural activity, then the instigator to cause it to develop would be natural selection, in general. neural activity likely developed through natural selection, within an environment which benefited memory use, as a more accurate determinant, compared to instinct.

and merely requires us to consider consciousness as a valid ex-homino exogenous entity/force with ex-homino activity that is observable in the context of physics and or quantum mechanics. — Marcus de Brun

This doesn't sound mere. Since there is no observable evidence to suggest consciousness is caused externally, it seems unlikely that this is the case. The concept that consciousness is caused by something externally, of which we have not observed any connection of cause and effect, makes it much less probable to be the circumstances. Compared to neural activity being the cause, of which we have suggestive evidence. This is probably the logical reasoning that it is a more common belief.

When we talk about the Bell we are talking about the Conscious experience of Sound. — SteveKlinko

>This depends on how you define conscious experience. I assumed by the context, conscious experience refers to requiring the additional mental focus and attent. Without the mental focus, simply hearing a bell, would not be the conscious experience of the sound.

The point is that the Physical Sound has the 44Hz Property. The Conscious Sound experience has no 440Hz Property. — SteveKlinko

>I agree the conscious sound experience would not involve the specific accuracy of 440Hz, but the conscious experience likely involves a rough measurement of that 440Hz, which could be considered a property of it. There would be no need for hearing to develop to an accurate degree of measurement (including distinguishing the oscillation), so a rough measurement would make sense, by natural selection.

The Conscious Sound is a Surrogate for the Physical Sound. — SteveKlinko

>I agree. Once the rough measurement is taken, the brain must translate it into code, to then save as memories. The overall interpretation of the coding would be the surrogate.

You can hear the Standard A Sound without any Physical Standard A Sound in your dreams. — SteveKlinko

>This would be accessing memories, as it is coded and saved in the brain. Since dreaming is neural activity accessing memories, we could not dream of an entirely new pitch of sound, which has not been recorded by memory.
Same as coded memories of recordings of Red, then accessed in a dream.

The experience of Red or the Standard A Pitch are completely unexplained by Science at this point in time. — SteveKlinko

>I think that may be an over-exaggeration. I believe a lot of the elements involved in the experiences, are explained.
-Here's a video of how te eye measures light: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoUyMuMVJQY
-Then here's an explanation of the next step, of transfering that information to the brain: http://discoveryeye.org/the-brain-and-the-eye/
-then the next step of storing information as memories: http://www.human-memory.net/processes_storage.html

That is for the more simple function of experiencing the sight of red. Then, for the Conscious Experience, it just has to be explained how the correct combination of accessing these memories, with relevant alternate memories, causes a conscious experience.

the abstract distance between neural activity and experience is just too big to span. — Pattern-chaser

>I disagree, and think the distance is not big. By "experience" do you mean specifically the more conscious aware experience, or any experience?
If you consider different experiences in different degrees of conscious vividness, then an experience with very minimal or no conscious vividness, should have basically no figurative distance to span, from neural activity to experience.

It's like trying to appreciate Microsoft's word processor as a stream of bytes. It is a stream of bytes, but this does not help us to understand it as a word processor. — Pattern-chaser

>If the stream of bytes was measurable and detailed to the same degree that neuroscience is, then by testing the comparison of reaction between the bytes and the alterations on the screen, I think it would be helpful to understand it as a word processor.

Human experience is mostly composed of stuff that science discards, or does not detect/acknowledge in the first place. — Pattern-chaser

>like what for example?
If science explains the functional processes of the neurology involved with an experience (such as the eye measuring light, coding it into neurons, then accessing those neurons), then what more is there that science does not detect?

Yes, the whole process of human perception, starting with sensation, and including all the other stuff that comes with perception, is pre-conscious, chronologically. The final result of the perception process is passed, complete, to the conscious mind. This then results in experience, yes? — Pattern-chaser

Yes, the Conscious experience of Red is in the final stage of the Visual process. — SteveKlinko

What I find interesting here is not so much the reply in respect of the process 'seeing the colour red'

but rather the hyper-enthusiasm for the existing paradigm. I like the use of the word 'determined' to explain both the determination or fixed nature of the idea of a'neural' generation of consciousness, and the determined nature of aspects of our thinking.

I am not going to change the paradigm because the paradigm is 'determined' in both senses of the word determined. Those wedded to the paradigm are IMOP following their own determined nature... as my own objections to the paradigm are following their own determined and fixed nature.

Regardless of the paradigm, let us consider the weakness of the 'neural' argument, not so much in an effort to convince, but more in an effort to focus upon the 'determined' nature of the argument. In this sense my reply is both on AND somewhat off topic.

The colour red.

There is unquestionable evidence for the process of photons of light of a particular wavelength, leaving a material object and striking the human retina. The interaction between retina and light causes a nerve impulse to travel from the retina along neurons in the form of an action potential. This series of action potentials arrives at the 'color center' in the occipital lobe of the brain and more neurons are potentiated thus giving rise to a stimulus that consciousness constructs or informs is a certain 'redness'.

The example cited here as an explanation for consciousness brings nothing to the table and does not refer in any way to 'consciousness'. The above pathway refers to a stimulus and is the same material process that causes an amoeba to react to light... however it is carted out time and time again as the explanation of consciousness.

This would be strange if it was not entirely determined.

M

the abstract distance between neural activity and experience is just too big to span — Pattern-chaser

I disagree, and think the distance is not big. — Tyler

You think, then, that we can easily - intuitively and usefully - express human experience(s) in terms of neural activity? How is that? If I experience a boat trip on the Thames, can you express the feeling of trailing my hand in the water as we proceed, in terms of neural responses? OK, perhaps you can, but will it account for the human experience I have described? The feel of the water as my hand passes through it. The trees on the bank, and the rustling sound of their leaves blowing in the wind? The smell of a local brewery nearby, and the imagined pleasure of drinking a pint of beer, that might soon follow...? In other words, the whole experience, as a human experiences it. Can you describe that adequately and usefully in terms of neural activity? I don't think that's possible, is it?

By "experience" do you mean specifically the more conscious aware experience, or any experience? — Tyler

I am not aware of any human experience that is not a "conscious aware" experience. Perception precedes experience, as it must, but the human does not experience the experience (sorry! :wink:) until it reaches our conscious minds, and then we become aware of it.

If you consider different experiences in different degrees of conscious vividness, then an experience with very minimal or no conscious vividness, should have basically no figurative distance to span, from neural activity to experience. — Tyler

I think you're saying here that an experience that barely (or doesn't?) registers in our awareness is closer to "neural activity" than one which engages our attention thoroughly? I think you are not referring to what I would call a human experience. I mean much more by 'experience' than mere sensation. I refer to the whole process of human perception, followed by the thoughts and feelings that come with the experience once it enters our conscious awareness. The whole thing.

It's like trying to appreciate Microsoft's word processor as a stream of bytes. It is a stream of bytes, but this does not help us to understand it as a word processor. — Pattern-chaser

If the stream of bytes was measurable and detailed to the same degree that neuroscience is, then by testing the comparison of reaction between the bytes and the alterations on the screen, I think it would be helpful to understand it as a word processor. — Tyler

The bytes are the Word program, not its active (RAM) memory, or the document it's operating on. These bytes don't change with the screen display. They are the instructions that cause the computer to execute word processing functions. Just like (in a very general way :wink:) the DNA in your cells programs your growth. And I contest your assertion that neuroscience is "detailed". The problem here, with the abstract distance between neural activity and human experience, is that the gap between the two is huge, and not yet understood or "detailed".

How does my experience of joy, fear or grief affect my neural activity (or vice versa, if you prefer :wink:)? What combination of neurons fire in these circumstances? What are the weightings that cause them to fire in this way, not another? And what is your detailed description of how the firing of these particular neurons gives rise to these experiences?

Back to the Word example: you need to monitor the program bytes in order to correlate the bytes accessed with the change in the screen display. In theory, this can be done. But in practice, the incredible difficulty of doing this is down to the abstract distance between understanding the program in terms of its executable bytes and the resulting word-processor display on your screen. Do you see?

Human experience is mostly composed of stuff that science discards, or does not detect/acknowledge in the first place. — Pattern-chaser

like what for example? If science explains the functional processes of the neurology involved with an experience (such as the eye measuring light, coding it into neurons, then accessing those neurons), then what more is there that science does not detect? — Tyler

I think your appreciation of human perception (according to our current understanding) might be somewhat lacking. There is much more to it than mere sensation. Yes, we could reasonably see the eye as measuring light, but it does not code "it into neurons". The optic nerve itself begins the neural processing, even before the data reaches the brain proper. Then the perception process begins in earnest. It is not sense - store - recall - review. It is more like sense - perceive - associate - interpret - integrate into worldview - conscious awareness. [No, let's not argue about trivial details. It's something along those general lines. Thanks. :smile:] Note in particular that only at the final stage, when perception is effectively complete, is the information passed to our conscious awareness. Prior to that, there is no conscious input to the process whatever. Not even the tiniest bit. Perception is pre-conscious. And it is much more than detecting light, and storing the fact that we detected it.

Science does not acknowledge or detect (using the red snooker ball example) the wealth of meaning contained within the human concepts of "red" "snooker" and "ball", all of which are recalled from memory as part of the perceptive process, along with others such as (I'm guessing here!) "billiards", "pool", "sphere", "cue", "trajectory", "collision", and so on (and on). Each of these concepts brings with it considerably more than a simple dictionary definition of the words we use to label them. And this is just a tiny fraction of what perception involves. I know I have described it as an ignorant layman might, because that's what I am when it comes to human perception. I think you probably are too. It's a complicated subject, of which we know only the most basic details, as yet. But current knowledge definitely indicates that you underestimate or misunderstand what human perception involves. :chin:

This reminds me of Pirsig's rephrasing, whereby "A causes B" becomes "B values pre-condition A". Both are valid expressions of the same thing. Perhaps consciousness and neural activity are the same? — Pattern-chaser

I can't reconcile the notion that consciousness and neural activity could be the same thing. — Marcus de Brun

Sorry, my mistake. :blush: I meant to convey that perhaps consciousness and neural activity could be linked and 'reversible', in the same way as the two quotes from Pirsig are. I didn't mean

consciousness = neural activity

although (in theory) this might well be the case. :chin:

The current sciences that deal with the mind and brain leave out certain features of chemical matter that are needed to explain the consciousness phenomena. We still use last century science that is not up the task. Most of these needed features are connected to water.

Water exists in the liquid state, with the liquid state having unique properties that are different from the solid and gas states. The body and brain is more or less organic semi-solids and solids immersed in liquid water with the solids and liquids each having distinct properties.

A liquid can be under pressure and tension at the same time, and still reach steady state. This is not possible for gases or solids. The organic materials of the brain are closer to solid state, with the water of the brain able to complement solid state affects with liquid state affects.

For example, a glass of water open to the atmosphere feels the atmospheric pressure while also exhibiting tension; surface tension. It is being pushed by the atmosphere at the macro-level and pulled at the same time, at the microlevel, via surface tension. Gases do not exert tension, just pressure, while solids can express pressure and tension but these vectors will add instead of remain independent at the macro and micro-levels.

Another unique set of properties of the liquid state is connected to osmosis. Osmosis is a colligative property, meaning it is only dependent on the concentration of the solute but not the character of the solute. This means that osmosis is generated by entropy. It is entropy in action. Osmosis will generate pressure called the osmotic pressure. Pressure is defined as force/area with this force generated by entropy, a fifth force of nature; entropic force. This fifth force of nature is unique to the liquid state, and found at the interface of organic semi-solid membranes and liquid water.

If we had an osmotic device at steady state, one side of the device will have a pressure head driven by entropy. Although this pressure head would be expected to force the water to go the other direction; pushes downward, at steady state the water will still move in both directions like the pressure is not there. This is another example of micro and macro separation in the liquid state.

Consciousness is generated by the organic hardware; semi-solid state, working in conjunction with the liquid state of water. The liquid state of water can generate a global or macro affect; consciousness, that is connected to, but can act independent of the micro-state; memory. We can generate new ideas or actions not in memory; spontaneity, due to liquid state physics.

My theory is consciousness exists in the cerebral spinal fluid and ventricles. This is sort of a holographic projection medium, that is wired to the solid state organics of the brain, through the continuity of water. The liquid state duality allows it to stand in its own as a macro-affect that is connected to the micro-affects of organics and water.

When we talk about the Bell we are talking about the Conscious experience of Sound. — SteveKlinko>This depends on how you define conscious experience. I assumed by the context, conscious experience refers to requiring the additional mental focus and attent. Without the mental focus, simply hearing a bell, would not be the conscious experience of the sound. — Tyler

I am always trying to emphasize the difference between the external Physical Phenomenon and the internal Conscious Phenomenon. When I say Conscious Sound I am referring to the internal Experience. Doesn't matter if someone is mentally focusing on it or not.

The point is that the Physical Sound has the 44Hz Property. The Conscious Sound experience has no 440Hz Property. — SteveKlinko>I agree the conscious sound experience would not involve the specific accuracy of 440Hz, but the conscious experience likely involves a rough measurement of that 440Hz, which could be considered a property of it. There would be no need for hearing to develop to an accurate degree of measurement (including distinguishing the oscillation), so a rough measurement would make sense, by natural selection. — Tyler

But my point is that the Physical 440Hz has no tonal Property. It doesn't and cannot Sound like anything. The sensation of Tone-ness is only in the Conscious Sound which the Brain creates as a Surrogate for the 440Hz. The Tone sensation that you hear seems so appropriate for the Physical Phenomenon because it is the only way you have ever experienced Physical Sound. That is through the Surrogate which has nothing to do with the 440Hz itself.

The Conscious Sound is a Surrogate for the Physical Sound. — SteveKlinko>I agree. Once the rough measurement is taken, the brain must translate it into code, to then save as memories. The overall interpretation of the coding would be the surrogate. — Tyler

But what is the Surrogate? That is the Hard Problem of Consciousness.

You can hear the Standard A Sound without any Physical Standard A Sound in your dreams. — SteveKlinko>This would be accessing memories, as it is coded and saved in the brain. Since dreaming is neural activity accessing memories, we could not dream of an entirely new pitch of sound, which has not been recorded by memory.
Same as coded memories of recordings of Red, then accessed in a dream. — Tyler

I See Places and People in my Dreams all the time that I have never Seen. Why not a Sound that I have never heard?

The experience of Red or the Standard A Pitch are completely unexplained by Science at this point in time. — SteveKlinko>I think that may be an over-exaggeration. I believe a lot of the elements involved in the experiences, are explained.
-Here's a video of how te eye measures light: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoUyMuMVJQY
-Then here's an explanation of the next step, of transfering that information to the brain: http://discoveryeye.org/the-brain-and-the-eye/
-then the next step of storing information as memories: http://www.human-memory.net/processes_storage.html — Tyler

This is all at the Front End of the processing. It is all Neural Correlates of Consciousness.

That is for the more simple function of experiencing the sight of red. Then, for the Conscious Experience, it just has to be explained how the correct combination of accessing these memories, with relevant alternate memories, causes a conscious experience — Tyler

Yes, huge Explanatory Gap is still there. This is the Hard Problem of Consciousness.

↪SteveKlinkoYes, the whole process of human perception, starting with sensation, and including all the other stuff that comes with perception, is pre-conscious, chronologically. The final result of the perception process is passed, complete, to the conscious mind. This then results in experience, yes? — Pattern-chaser

Yes, the Conscious experience of Red is in the final stage of the Visual process. — SteveKlinko
What I find interesting here is not so much the reply in respect of the process 'seeing the colour red'

but rather the hyper-enthusiasm for the existing paradigm. I like the use of the word 'determined' to explain both the determination or fixed nature of the idea of a'neural' generation of consciousness, and the determined nature of aspects of our thinking.

I am not going to change the paradigm because the paradigm is 'determined' in both senses of the word determined. Those wedded to the paradigm are IMOP following their own determined nature... as my own objections to the paradigm are following their own determined and fixed nature.

Regardless of the paradigm, let us consider the weakness of the 'neural' argument, not so much in an effort to convince, but more in an effort to focus upon the 'determined' nature of the argument. In this sense my reply is both on AND somewhat off topic.

The colour red.

There is unquestionable evidence for the process of photons of light of a particular wavelength, leaving a material object and striking the human retina. The interaction between retina and light causes a nerve impulse to travel from the retina along neurons in the form of an action potential. This series of action potentials arrives at the 'color center' in the occipital lobe of the brain and more neurons are potentiated thus giving rise to a stimulus that consciousness constructs or informs is a certain 'redness'.

The example cited here as an explanation for consciousness brings nothing to the table and does not refer in any way to 'consciousness'. The above pathway refers to a stimulus and is the same material process that causes an amoeba to react to light... however it is carted out time and time again as the explanation of consciousness.

This would be strange if it was not entirely determined. — Marcus de Brun

Yes I agree. I think the chain of events is more or less correct but Science cannot explain that last step: "that Consciousness constructs or informs is a certain 'redness'." Everyone just blithely makes statements like this thinking that it explains everything. Huge Explanatory Gap in the statement.