How can Neural Activity of any kind ever result in a Red experience? Think about the Redness of the Red. — SteveKlinko
Colours are the cultural thing. Colour red is not perceived in some cultures. The sound is much more basic. :)

Unidirectional paradigm [cause → effect] or [input → processing → output] is causing all sorts of problems. The new paradigm is multi-directional [agent ↔ agent] (self-referral). This is explored in AI - Complex Adaptive System theory. (There is a good overview on Wikipedia.) :)

Also. Passive Perception theory is replaced by Active Perception theory. In active perception, there is a communication between eyes/ears and the rest of the brain.

We also tend to think in an egocentric way. An Australian aboriginal child thinks and acts in a geocentric way. The child will learn a new dance facing north, for example, and then will turn south and dance exactly with mirror-like moves... :)

Since [agent ↔ agent] includes self-referral the issue of consciousness is already half done. :)

Hearty, :cool: — Damir Ibrisimovic

Some cultures don't have a good naming convention for Color but it does not mean that they can't see Colors. Maybe there could be a whole group of isolated people that are genetically color blind from birth. They would have no use for Color designations.

Complex Adaptive System Theory might be applicable except that there is a Chain of Neural Processing that happens from the initial Light hitting the Retina to signals travelling down the Optic Nerve to multiple stages of Visual Cortex Processing. All this has been know for decades. The only missing stage is the stage where the Neural Processing results in the experience of Red for example.

We have Neural Activity that seems to produce the Metaphors but we have no Explanation of How we experience the Metaphors. This is the Explanatory Gap of Consciousness — SteveKlinko
Neural activity produces the metaphors... (Metaphor!) — Blue Lux

But how does Neural Activity produce the Metaphors. You can't just say it does and that is supposed to explain it.

Some cultures don't have a good naming convention for Color but it does not mean that they can't see Colors. — SteveKlinko

Well that's not entirely true. Russian people, who have one or more extra words to describe blue are able to see different shades of blue that you or I would see as being identical. So cultural "naming conventions" can mean that we see colours in different ways. In my example, Russians see two or more shades or colours while you and I see only one.

I have yet to read all the comments yet but in my opinion you overcomplicated things. A much simpler(but more importantly, truer) diagram, is as follows: Physical light hits the retinas, which is transformed into Neural light inside the brain. That Neural light is perceived by the conscious mind and is transformed into conscious light. So we would have PL---->PM---->NL---->CM---->CL

I know that leaves some confusion about what happens to the conscious light and what it's used for if you follow the diagram alone. Neural light is perceived by the conscious mind and transformed into Conscious light, by the very act of perception. Thus we can see there really is no need for an inter mind

Some cultures don't have a good naming convention for Color but it does not mean that they can't see Colors. — SteveKlinko
Well that's not entirely true. Russian people, who have one or more extra words to describe blue are able to see different shades of blue that you or I would see as being identical. So cultural "naming conventions" can mean that we see colours in different ways. In my example, Russians see two or more shades or colours while you and I see only one. — Pattern-chaser

Just because we don't have a name for the other shades of Blue doesn't mean we can't see them. I can see a whole spectrum of just Blues. Putting a name on every discernible variation of Blue could be done by some culture. I would see all those variations even though I don't have names for them.

I have yet to read all the comments yet but in my opinion you overcomplicated things. A much simpler(but more importantly, truer) diagram, is as follows: Physical light hits the retinas, which is transformed into Neural light inside the brain. That Neural light is perceived by the conscious mind and is transformed into conscious light. So we would have PL---->PM---->NL---->CM---->CL

I know that leaves some confusion about what happens to the conscious light and what it's used for if you follow the diagram alone. Neural light is perceived by the conscious mind and transformed into Conscious light, by the very act of perception. Thus we can see there really is no need for an inter mind — Lucid

Very good. Thank you for actually reading the website. Of course you could make a diagram like this but then the glaring question is How does the NL become the CL. You could say that the CM does this directly. We have no idea how a CM concept could do such a thing. My realization is that there is more processing needed than is in the Brain. I spliced in the IM as a place holder for this processing. The IM could be part of the CM or part of the PM or part of both. In any case there is something missing and I think it is instructive to highlight the missing aspect by giving it a place in the diagram. The missing processing that I talk about is explored more in the Arguments For the Inter Mind section.

To get to the bottom of this we must ask ourselves what the definition of Conscious light is. Which would be the light that is perceived by the mind, as distinguished from physical light and it's Neural counterpart. As we know, the brain is the seat of the mind, the neurons feed into the brain and it's reactions we perceive as our own.

So in my view, the thing which distinguishes Neural light and consciousness light, is the act of perception, by consciousness itself. I agree there is some extra processing her but I think it's embellishment more than anything, building up a picture using the composite given by the brain, with imagination

So in my view, the thing which distinguishes Neural light and consciousness light, is the act of perception, by consciousness itself. I agree there is some extra processing her but I think it's embellishment more than anything, building up a picture using the composite given by the brain, with imagination — Lucid

Perception precedes consciousness/awareness; it takes place wholly outside conscious awareness. And I think perhaps it's a great deal more than embellishment. The data from our senses are interpreted and integrated into our internal world views, and so on, and then presented, complete, to our conscious minds.

If you look into the details of human vision, you will immediately see how there's so much more to perception than we think. Because perception takes place outside our awareness, we tend to minimise its complexity. But our eyes give us only four ( :gasp: ) snap-shots per second, mostly in low-res monochrome, with a higher-res colour area in the middle, the latter occupying the same area in our fields of vision as a full moon viewed from Earth. It takes a great deal more than embellishment to make this seem like full-motion hi-res colour video, and this is part of what our brains and minds do to enable us to perceive the world. It astonishes me that we can see at all. :smile:

Just because we don't have a name for the other shades of Blue doesn't mean we can't see them. — SteveKlinko

No indeed, but it does mean we can't distinguish the different shades; we see them all as 'blue' - the same shade of blue - while our Russian counterparts see different colours (all of them shades of blue, of course). :up:

But our eyes give us only four (:gasp: ) snap-shots per second, mostly in low-res monochrome, with a higher-res colour area in the middle, the latter occupying the same area in our fields of vision as a full moon viewed from Earth. It takes a great deal more than embellishment to make this seem like full-motion hi-res colour video, and this is part of what our brains and minds do to enable us to perceive the world. It astonishes me that we can see at all. — Pattern-chaser

Yeah, compared to the eyes of a Mantis Shrimp, ours aren't so great. But then again, the Mantis Shrimp wastes it's incredible visual capabilities on a dinky brain.

I am saying that it is a metaphor to say that neural activity creates a metaphor.

What we know about Redness is that certain Neural Activity has to happen before we experience it. — SteveKlinko

Why? We can have a neuronal activity for redness before we perceive red. In Active Perception theory, this may happen like this: eyes of mine look there and see a red tomato. :)

Hearty, :cool:

Firstly, please don't presume to lecture me on the importance of perception, okay? I know more than most how perception is effectually godlike in power where it concerns us humans. That's besides the point however.

You said "Perception precedes consciousness/awareness; it takes place wholly outside conscious awareness. "

And I don't disagree. However, I would argue that while, yes, perception occurs outside of conscious Awareness, it does not occur outside of the conscious mind. I would in fact state that perception is the very first rung of he conscious mind, because everything that conscious ness is, is built off of it.

As far as embellishment goes, embellishment is defined as "the action of adding details or features." So no, it is not more than embellishment, it is just embellishment.

Finally, you said "... and this is part of what our brains and minds do to enable us to perceive the world."

LOL. If you're going to lecture of the difference between conscious awareness and perception. You really should be a lot more careful of your usage of the word perception :)

When I close my eyes and think of any concept, it will be different than yours. Blue, flower, cat, philosophy... If I am told to picture 'blue,' the first thing that comes to mind... What will it be?

Why?

Some cultures don't have a good naming convention for Color but it does not mean that they can't see Colors. Maybe there could be a whole group of isolated people that are genetically color blind from birth. They would have no use for Color designations. — SteveKlinko

Anthropologists tested that. People really had sensations of two shades of green only. We could not distinguish between these two shades. :)

A very interesting and relevant read: http://www.richardgregory.org/papers/recovery_blind/contents.htm :)

All this has been know for decades. — SteveKlinko

If you are saying that your knowledge is decades old - I agree. But that is not supported by science. :)

Enjoy the day, :cool:

To get to the bottom of this we must ask ourselves what the definition of Conscious light is. Which would be the light that is perceived by the mind, as distinguished from physical light and it's Neural counterpart. As we know, the brain is the seat of the mind, the neurons feed into the brain and it's reactions we perceive as our own.

So in my view, the thing which distinguishes Neural light and consciousness light, is the act of perception, by consciousness itself. I agree there is some extra processing her but I think it's embellishment more than anything, building up a picture using the composite given by the brain, with imagination — Lucid

The transformation of Neural Activity into Consciousness Activity is a process that Science cannot explain at this time. Consciousness Activity is so conceptually removed from Neural Activity that we have to invoke that a Category change has taken place. There has to be some functionality in the Mind that is doing this transformation. There must be an undiscovered (for now) part of the Mind that is doing this. I think that this new functionality deserves to be a whole new stage of the Mind (the IM). In any case the missing functionality will have to be found. If it is found to all be located in the PM then that part of the PM should be called the IM part of the PM. Any functionality for the transformation that is found in the CM should likewise be called the IM part of the CM. The Inter Mind Model is neutral as to what the IM is. The IMM just wants to find the functionality.

Just because we don't have a name for the other shades of Blue doesn't mean we can't see them. — SteveKlinko
No indeed, but it does mean we can't distinguish the different shades; we see them all as 'blue' - the same shade of blue - while our Russian counterparts see different colours (all of them shades of blue, of course). :up: — Pattern-chaser

You are saying we can't verbalize the difference but we do see the difference?

What we know about Redness is that certain Neural Activity has to happen before we experience it. — SteveKlinko
Why? We can have a neuronal activity for redness before we perceive red. In Active Perception theory, this may happen like this: eyes of mine look there and see a red tomato. :) — Damir Ibrisimovic

Don't know why but the best we know from Science is that Neural Activity precedes Consciousness Activity.

Just because we don't have a name for the other shades of Blue doesn't mean we can't see them. — SteveKlinko
No indeed, but it does mean we can't distinguish the different shades; we see them all as 'blue' - the same shade of blue - while our Russian counterparts see different colours (all of them shades of blue, of course). :up: — Pattern-chaser

Since the Russian language has several extra categories for blue they have had practice sorting blues into more bins than Americans do. They will do better at distinguishing blues only if the test requires quick answers. Americans are slower at distinguishing these blues but can still actually see the differences. Americans see all the shades of blue that Russians see.

I am saying that it is a metaphor to say that neural activity creates a metaphor — Blue Lux

Ok I don't get it. Sorry.

Don't know why but the best we know from Science is that Neural Activity precedes Consciousness Activity — SteveKlinko

Decades ago computer enthusiasts were guessing neuronal activity along following lines:

Eyes like TV cameras were sending raw images to the brain → the raw image in the brain was then analysed → the result of analyses was then sent to other parts of the brain. I'm guessing that at this point you expect neuronal activity for consciousness, but the unidirectional picture does not let you to get back to the same point (self-referral)... :)

This unidirectional chain of neuronal activities has many problems and no wonder you are lost. This unidirectional chain is also impossible. The raw stimuli are detected by the retinas but only abstract is sent to the rest of the brain. The redness of the red is only present in retinas. Optical nerve simply does not have the capacity to transfer the raw image to the rest of the brain. (REM in vivid dreams also allows for activity of retinas.) fMRI scans also do not show the complete image anywhere in the brain. :)

Richard L Gregory's article shows the complexities of visual processing which should be studied before any attempt to articulate a coherent Active Perception theory. :)

Enjoy the day, :cool:

How don't you get it?

Experience and consciousness created these understandings of what could possibly amount to it's transphenomenality. There is absolutely no solid connection between neural activity and consciousness. Consciousness is. It is experiencing. Neural activity is a representation that consciousness has created in order to metaphorically understand itself, because it itself is the most truthful, adamantine reference point.

How on Earth could a representation that consciousness has created and understood to be therefore replace the authenticity of consciousness and be 'The True Consciousness' or The True Experience or 'the definition' or the truth?

Neural activity is a metaphor of consciousness as it relates to a completely incommensurable paradigm.

Don't know why but the best we know from Science is that Neural Activity precedes Consciousness Activity — SteveKlinko
Decades ago computer enthusiasts were guessing neuronal activity along following lines:

Eyes like TV cameras were sending raw images to the brain → the raw image in the brain was then analysed → the result of analyses was then sent to other parts of the brain. I'm guessing that at this point you expect neuronal activity for consciousness, but the unidirectional picture does not let you to get back to the same point (self-referral)... :)

This unidirectional chain of neuronal activities has many problems and no wonder you are lost. This unidirectional chain is also impossible. The raw stimuli are detected by the retinas but only abstract is sent to the rest of the brain. The redness of the red is only present in retinas. Optical nerve simply does not have the capacity to transfer the raw image to the rest of the brain. (REM in vivid dreams also allows for activity of retinas.) fMRI scans also do not show the complete image anywhere in the brain. :)

Richard L Gregory's article shows the complexities of visual processing which should be studied before any attempt to articulate a coherent Active Perception theory — Damir Ibrisimovic

It does not matter if the Neural Processing has feed forward and feed backward connections. It's still just Neural Processing. The Redness of the Red only exists in a further processing stage after the Retina. To understand what I am saying you have to understand that even the 670nm Light does not have Redness. The Retina does not have Redness. The Optic Nerve does not have Redness. No Neural Activity has Redness. But somewhere after the Neural processing we experience Redness in our Conscious Minds. Redness only exists in our Conscious Minds. Redness does not exist in the Physical World. This is the thing that needs to be explained.

↪SteveKlinko How don't you get it?

Experience and consciousness created these understandings of what could possibly amount to it's transphenomenality. There is absolutely no solid connection between neural activity and consciousness. Consciousness is. It is experiencing. Neural activity is a representation that consciousness has created in order to metaphorically understand itself, because it itself is the most truthful, adamantine reference point.

How on Earth could a representation that consciousness has created and understood to be therefore replace the authenticity of consciousness and be 'The True Consciousness' or The True Experience or 'the definition' or the truth?

Neural activity is a metaphor of consciousness as it relates to a completely incommensurable paradigm. — Blue Lux

Thank You, I see what you are driving at. The chain of processing for the Detection of 670nm Light is that this Light must first hit the Retina. Would you say that the Physical Light is also just a Metaphor? Is the whole external Physical World just a Metaphor in your Philosophy?

The Redness of the Red only exists in a further processing stage after the Retina. — SteveKlinko

The redness exists in the retina with cells tuned to dance to the red light. It is also passed to the rest of the brain as an abstract to which we can attach label red. :)

Redness does not exist in the Physical World. This is the thing that needs to be explained. — SteveKlinko

Then where it exists if not in Physical World? :)

Enjoy the day, :cool:

The Redness of the Red only exists in a further processing stage after the Retina. — SteveKlinko
The redness exists in the retina with cells tuned to dance to the red light. It is also passed to the rest of the brain as an abstract to which we can attach label red. :)

Redness does not exist in the Physical World. This is the thing that needs to be explained. — SteveKlinko
Then where it exists if not in Physical World? — Damir Ibrisimovic

It exists in the World of Consciousness. This could very well be part of the Physical World. Science can not say How the Red experience that we have is in the Physical World. So it makes sense to propose this Consciousness World until Science can show how it is a part of Physical World.

My question is what is the physical world other than consciousness?
@Damir Ibrisimovic

Firstly, please don't presume to lecture me on the importance of perception, okay? I know more than most how perception is effectually godlike in power where it concerns us humans. — Lucid

I have found that what people actually know is inversely proportional to what they claim to know ... but maybe you're the exception that proves the rule? :chin:

Finally, you said "... and this is part of what our brains and minds do to enable us to perceive the world."

LOL. If you're going to lecture of the difference between conscious awareness and perception. You really should be a lot more careful of your usage of the word perception :) — Lucid

I think I wrote what I intended to write. :chin: Maybe I'm staring at a huge stupidity, and failing to see it?

If I am told to picture 'blue,' the first thing that comes to mind... What will it be? Why? — Blue Lux

First, let's be clear that I'm guessing, as we all are. These are not things for which clear and complete knowledge exists, as far as I know. :up:

If you are told to picture blue, you will picture ... blue. All the associations with blue that you hold in your memory/mind, not just an abstract blob of colour, or something. :wink: So you will 'see' something sad (blue), perhaps the moon, which can also be blue (well, sort of), something that has the colour blue, and so on. Why? Because that's how our minds work. [ I think. :wink: ]

That's my guess, anyway. :chin:

Just because we don't have a name for the other shades of Blue doesn't mean we can't see them. — SteveKlinko
No indeed, but it does mean we can't distinguish the different shades; we see them all as 'blue' - the same shade of blue - while our Russian counterparts see different colours (all of them shades of blue, of course). :up: — Pattern-chaser


You are saying we can't verbalize the difference but we do see the difference? — SteveKlinko

No, I'm saying we don't see the difference, although we could learn to - maybe only as children? :chin: - just as the Russians did. N.B. I don't know this as fact, but believe it to be so. :up: