↪SteveKlinko My question is what is the physical world other than consciousness? — Blue Lux

If you are claiming that everything is Consciousness then that's ok. But you will have to explain that. At this point in time the Physical World of Energy, Material , and Space seems to be a separate thing from the World of Consciousness.

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 consciousness is, is built off of it. — Lucid

Sorry, I meant to respond to this bit, but forgot. :blush: As far as I know, there is no 'map' of the human mind. We gives names to parts of it based on observed function. For example, we know that our minds have memory. The term "conscious mind" is given to those parts of our minds of whose operation we are aware. We could have assigned a name for any number of reasons, but we chose to focus on awareness.

So when you claim that perception is "outside of consciousness", and also that "it does not occur outside of the conscious mind", you introduce a contradiction. Nothing that is outside of our awareness can form part of the conscious mind, which covers the mind-parts of which we are aware, by definition.

Consciousness is surely built on perception, as you say (and perhaps some other elements too). But perception takes place outside the conscious mind, which receives the result(s) of perception 'as if from nowhere'. It's not really nowhere, of course, we're just using those words to communicate that we are unaware of perception taking place.

If you seek to place perception in the 'conscious mind', please can you redefine 'conscious mind' to mean something other than 'that part of our minds of which we are aware'? :wink: I wonder what your definition will be...? :chin: And I wonder too how perception will fit with the definition you offer.

@Pattern-chaser "The projection of inner perceptions to the outside is a primitive mechanism which, for instance, also influences our sense-perceptions, so that it normally has the greatest share in shaping our outer world."

Freud - Totem and Taboo

This primitive mechanism subsists, and the outside world is often understood in metaphor.

"Only with the development of the language of abstract thought through the association of sensory remnants of word representations with inner process did the latter [the outer world] gradually become capable of perception."

Perception was, in primitive psychology, was hugely projection of inner happenings upon the world, in order to understand the world. Man was not severed from the world, egotistical in his desire for power over it.
Obviously these primitive cultures displayed heinous tendencies the result of this inclination and lack of abstract thought capable of being organized; however, the fact still remains that the world is processed by our inner perceptions and associations of inner process with what we come in contact with in the form of a sensory perception.

The world can be classified symbolically with reference only to the function or dynamic of its physicality, but the world of the human, of the personality, of desire and of furthermore of MEANING which is of utmost priority, depends on the inner processes and associations that give them substance. This substance is not a mere classification but is the character of perception and of feeling.

The world, our world, is consciousness. But this is not a panpsychism... The two are clearly distinguished.

Pattern-chaser↪SteveKlinko "The projection of inner perceptions to the outside is a primitive mechanism which, for instance, also influences our sense-perceptions, so that it normally has the greatest share in shaping our outer world."

Freud - Totem and Taboo

This primitive mechanism subsists, and the outside world is often understood in metaphor.

"Only with the development of the language of abstract thought through the association of sensory remnants of word representations with inner process did the latter [the outer world] gradually become capable of perception."

Perception was, in primitive psychology, was hugely projection of inner happenings upon the world, in order to understand the world. Man was not severed from the world, egotistical in his desire for power over it.
Obviously these primitive cultures displayed heinous tendencies the result of this inclination and lack of abstract thought capable of being organized; however, the fact still remains that the world is processed by our inner perceptions and associations of inner process with what we come in contact with in the form of a sensory perception.

The world can be classified symbolically with reference only to the function or dynamic of its physicality, but the world of the human, of the personality, of desire and of furthermore of MEANING which is of utmost priority, depends on the inner processes and associations that give them substance. This substance is not a mere classification but is the character of perception and of feeling.

The world, our world, is consciousness. But this is not a panpsychism... The two are clearly distinguished. — Blue Lux

I agree that our World is Consciousness in the sense that we don't know anything about the external Physical World except through our Conscious experience. I like to specify a particular aspect of Consciousness such as the perception of Light and in particular Red Light. The Red Light in the external World has a Wavelength at about 670nm and is an Oscillating Electromagnetic phenomenon. When this Red Light hits the Retina it is turned into a cascade of chemical reactions that ultimately results in a Neural signal being sent to the multiple processing stages of the Visual Cortex. The Red Electromagnetic Light is long gone and all you have is Neural Processing. Somewhere during this Neural processing the Red Metaphor is generated. This Red Metaphor has Redness as a Property but this Metaphor does not have Wavelength as a Property. Wavelength is an external World Physical Property. Redness is an internal World Conscious Property that happens in your Conscious Mind. I like to call the Red Metaphor in your Mind the Red Conscious Light to contrast it with the Red Physical Electromagnetic Light. How the Brain produces this Red Metaphor and what exactly is this Red Metaphor is the greatest problem facing Brain Science at this time. No body knows how any kind of Neural Activity can produce the Red Metaphor or Red Conscious Light that we See.

The only missing stage is the stage where the Neural Processing results in the experience of Red for example. — SteveKlinko

In the neuronal activity, there is no before or after (causal chain). We simply have a web of simultaneous neuronal activities. Since you refer to neuronal activity before the experience of the redness - which neuronal activity precisely you refer to. Could you also give us a reference to the paper or papers describing this neuronal activity? :)

Redness does not exist in the Physical World. — SteveKlinko

Are we trying to reintroduce Descartes' soul? The soul that experiences the totality of (audio-visual) experiences in the pineal gland? :worry:

If the redness does not exist in the Physical World then how it is caused by neuronal activity?

In this case, we would be better off with Descartes' soul. But Descartes' soul is outside our time/space sequences. :)

What we know about Redness is that certain Neural Activity has to happen before we experience it. The question remains as to how Neural Activity can result in an experience of Redness. — SteveKlinko

The Physical World exists within time/space where we can have before and after. If the redness is outside of this world - it can be neither before nor after a neuronal activity. So, please make up your mind. :)

So it makes sense to propose this Consciousness World until Science can show how it is a part of Physical World. — SteveKlinko

To be scientific - I would put it differently: "Consciousness World" is of this world - until proven otherwise. :)

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. — SteveKlinko

Again - there are no chains of neuronal activities. There are no unidirectional signals traveling from retinas only. There are also signals traveling to retinas from Visual Cortex... :)

In principle, if you refer to the science - please quote the papers... Otherwise, I will be forced to conclude that you do not have the science backing your words... :groan:

Colours are detectable by retinal cells. Why do you think that redness is not present in our retinas? The whole of this thread is based upon your refusal that redness is not present in our retinas...

The pigment in cone cells defines the colour perceived. (Trichromacy.) Without the pigments, there would not be the redness... :)

Enjoy the day, :cool:

The only missing stage is the stage where the Neural Processing results in the experience of Red for example. — SteveKlinko
In the neuronal activity, there is no before or after (causal chain). We simply have a web of simultaneous neuronal activities. Since you refer to neuronal activity before the experience of the redness - which neuronal activity precisely you refer to. Could you also give us a reference to the paper or papers describing this neuronal activity? :) — Damir Ibrisimovic

Any introductory textbook on the Eye and Visual Cortex will tell you that there is certainly a Chain of Processing. There is of course lots of feedback from later stages back to previous stages but the general concept of a Chain of Processing is absolutely true.

Redness does not exist in the Physical World. — SteveKlinko
Are we trying to reintroduce Descartes' soul? The soul that experiences the totality of (audio-visual) experiences in the pineal gland? :worry: — Damir Ibrisimovic

What have I ever said about the Pineal Gland? You're going off the rails with that one.

If the redness does not exist in the Physical World then how it is caused by neuronal activity?

In this case, we would be better off with Descartes' soul. But Descartes' soul is outside our time/space sequences. :) — Damir Ibrisimovic

That's the Hard Problem of Consciousness and also the Explanatory Gap of Consciousness. Nobody knows how the Neural Events produce the Consciousness Events.

What we know about Redness is that certain Neural Activity has to happen before we experience it. The question remains as to how Neural Activity can result in an experience of Redness. — SteveKlinko
The Physical World exists within time/space where we can have before and after. If the redness is outside of this world - it can be neither before nor after a neuronal activity. So, please make up your mind. :) — Damir Ibrisimovic

Why can't Redness be before or after Neural Activity? What do you know about Redness that the rest of the world doesn't?

So it makes sense to propose this Consciousness World until Science can show how it is a part of Physical World. — SteveKlinko
To be scientific - I would put it differently: "Consciousness World" is of this world - until proven otherwise. :) — Damir Ibrisimovic

That's a valid place to start but I think it is more productive to look at it the other way. Neural Activity is in one Category of Phenomenon and Conscious Activity is in a whole different category of Phenomenon. It is more sensible to separate them for study. You need to appreciate the categorical difference of the two Phenomena.

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. — SteveKlinko
Again - there are no chains of neuronal activities. There are no unidirectional signals traveling from retinas only. There are also signals traveling to retinas from Visual Cortex... :) — Damir Ibrisimovic

As I said above there are feedback connections but the overall processing is from Retina to V1 of the Cortex and on to V2, V3, etc. of the Visual Cortex.

In principle, if you refer to the science - please quote the papers... Otherwise, I will be forced to conclude that you do not have the science backing your words... :groan: — Damir Ibrisimovic

Don't have to quote papers for every post I do. The Neural Chain of processing is basic Brain Science. Go read any textbook on Brain Physiology.

Colours are detectable by retinal cells. Why do you think that redness is not present in our retinas? The whole of this thread is based upon your refusal that redness is not present in our retinas...

The pigment in cone cells defines the colour perceived. (Trichromacy.) Without the pigments, there would not be the redness... :)

Enjoy the day, :cool: — Damir Ibrisimovic

Colors are not detected by the Retina. Wavelengths are detected by the Retina. The Colors are added by downstream processing stages in the Visual Cortex. Electromagnetic Light in the Physical World has Wavelength as a Property but has no Color properties. Your Mind produces the experience of Color. The Colors that you See are Surrogates for the Electromagnetic Light Wavelengths. But Science does not know how any of this this happens yet.

Any introductory textbook on the Eye and Visual Cortex will tell you that there is certainly a Chain of Processing. There is of course lots of feedback from later stages back to previous stages but the general concept of a Chain of Processing is absolutely true. — SteveKlinko

Which textbook, for example? This is rather a dismissal of the request to cite a paper. We cannot chase each other with "textbook claims". Textbooks are likely to be simplified. I will, therefore, cite:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/11/001110073236.htm . Kanwisher and Kathleen O'Craven did not notice the absence of differences between imagined and actually seen.
Frank Werblin and Botond Roska found that what we "see" (in the rest of our brain) are hints of edges in space and time: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2766457/ . ( https://sites.oxy.edu/clint/physio/article/moviesinoureyes.pdf ).

Again. General dismissals like it's all in textbooks are not very constructive... :)

Why can't Redness be before or after Neural Activity? What do you know about Redness that the rest of the world doesn't? — SteveKlinko

I can also ask "What do you know about redness and the rest of the world doesn't?" :)

Don't have to quote papers for every post I do. The Neural Chain of processing is basic Brain Science. Go read any textbook on Brain Physiology. — SteveKlinko

I have read textbooks long time ago. Now I read papers... :)

I cannot but conclude that you are taking ad hominem approach... :down:

Enjoy the day, :cool:

Any introductory textbook on the Eye and Visual Cortex will tell you that there is certainly a Chain of Processing. There is of course lots of feedback from later stages back to previous stages but the general concept of a Chain of Processing is absolutely true. — SteveKlinko
Which textbook, for example? This is rather a dismissal of the request to cite a paper. We cannot chase each other with "textbook claims". Textbooks are likely to be simplified. I will, therefore, cite:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/11/001110073236.htm . Kanwisher and Kathleen O'Craven did not notice the absence of differences between imagined and actually seen.
Frank Werblin and Botond Roska found that what we "see" (in the rest of our brain) are hints of edges in space and time: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2766457/ . ( https://sites.oxy.edu/clint/physio/article/moviesinoureyes.pdf ).

Again. General dismissals like it's all in textbooks are not very constructive... :)

Why can't Redness be before or after Neural Activity? What do you know about Redness that the rest of the world doesn't? — SteveKlinko
I can also ask "What do you know about redness and the rest of the world doesn't?" :)

Don't have to quote papers for every post I do. The Neural Chain of processing is basic Brain Science. Go read any textbook on Brain Physiology. — SteveKlinko
I have read textbooks long time ago. Now I read papers... :)

I cannot but conclude that you are taking ad hominem approach... :down: — Damir Ibrisimovic

I said there is a chain of Processing that the Visual system performs. You said that there was no chain of Processing and that it was just a Web of Processing. There is no need to produce a paper on the chain of Processing as if it was some new concept. The chain of Processing is basic Brain Physiology for the Visual system. The only thing I can think of that makes you say it's a Web is the feedback connections. The feedback connections don't change the basic Chain structure.

With regard to Redness, the only thing I know is that it is a whole different Category of Phenomenon than Neural Activity. I don't say anything more about it than that. But I do ask this question ... Given:

1) Neural Activity for Red happens
2) A Red experience happens

How can Neural Activity, of any kind or complexity, produce that experience of Red?

With regard to Redness, the only thing I know is that it is a whole different Category of Phenomenon than Neural Activity. I don't say anything more about it than that. But I do ask this question ... Given:

1) Neural Activity for Red happens
2) A Red experience happens

How can Neural Activity, of any kind or complexity, produce that experience of Red? — SteveKlinko

Red experience is a subjective experience of the neuronal activity for red. It's true that subjective experience seems like a whole different category, but that is the nature of all subjective experiences... :)

We do not need to artificially separate these two... :)

There were experiments about what we see first. The stimuli were masked after .1,.2 &.3 sec and the first thing we notice is it a pattern or object (including colour)... :)

Things are already complicated and we do not need to complicate even further... :)

Enjoy the day, :cool:

it is interesting that you say it is a metaphor, yet you are interested in 'how' this metaphor comes about, as if the metaphor itself is something determined by something other than the experience it is.

What is the purpose of finding out the what of this 'metaphor?'

By the way, I am red/green colorblind, so I don't even apply to this, btw.
How do I come in?

What is red other than the totality of its manifestations? Wouldn't this wavelength-red be another reference point of color-red? What is the primary phenomenon here?
...
And now we are back to the debate of the aeon.

I don't care about THAT debate anymore.

I experience experience. That is it.

I will not be able to find anything more about consciousness by using something consciousness has given function to.

What is the goal here?

With regard to Redness, the only thing I know is that it is a whole different Category of Phenomenon than Neural Activity. I don't say anything more about it than that. But I do ask this question ... Given:

1) Neural Activity for Red happens
2) A Red experience happens

How can Neural Activity, of any kind or complexity, produce that experience of Red? — SteveKlinko
Red experience is a subjective experience of the neuronal activity for red. It's true that subjective experience seems like a whole different category, but that is the nature of all subjective experiences... :)

We do not need to artificially separate these two... :)

There were experiments about what we see first. The stimuli were masked after .1,.2 &.3 sec and the first thing we notice is it a pattern or object (including colour)... :)

Things are already complicated and we do not need to complicate even further... :) — Damir Ibrisimovic

The two Categories are not Artificially separated. They are so different in the kind of things that they are that you would actually have to Artificially combine them. They are Naturally separated by their own manifestations as different Categories of phenomena. If ultimately Science can put them together and show how Neurons firing produce a Red experience then that's ok too. But for now at this point in our understanding it is only sensible to keep them separate.

↪SteveKlinko it is interesting that you say it is a metaphor, yet you are interested in 'how' this metaphor comes about, as if the metaphor itself is something determined by something other than the experience it is.

What is the purpose of finding out the what of this 'metaphor?'

By the way, I am red/green colorblind, so I don't even apply to this, btw.
How do I come in?

What is red other than the totality of its manifestations? Wouldn't this wavelength-red be another reference point of color-red? What is the primary phenomenon here?
...
And now we are back to the debate of the aeon.

I don't care about THAT debate anymore.

I experience experience. That is it.

I will not be able to find anything more about consciousness by using something consciousness has given function to.

What is the goal here? — Blue Lux

Sorry about that. The point is not only about Red. All colors are Metaphors. So I will assume you can See Blue. You could think about the Blueness of the color Blue. What is that? It's the same problem. But actually I used the word Metaphor only because you or someone else on this thread used it. I prefer to say that the Blue we See is a Surrogate for the 470nm Light. On my website I would call it the Conscious Blue Light. Whatever you call it, it is experienced in our Conscious Minds.

To say that you experience experience and that is it, is giving up the Scientific struggle to understand the Universe.

The two Categories are not Artificially separated. They are so different in the kind of things that they are that you would actually have to Artificially combine them. They are Naturally separated by their own manifestations as different Categories of phenomena. — SteveKlinko

Then the question is: Do we experience neuronal activities themselves (not the colour)? If we do, how do we experience them? If not, what is the purpose of neuronal activities? :gasp:

Science can put them together and show how Neurons firing produce a Red experience then that's ok too. But for now at this point in our understanding it is only sensible to keep them separate. — SteveKlinko

Depending on how do you answer the above questions we might be able to continue these monologues... :)

However, I'm afraid that we will need a long time until science provides you with acceptable answers - since we can only infer from experiments with rats/cats/rabbits etc... :)

Enjoy the day, :cool:

The two Categories are not Artificially separated. They are so different in the kind of things that they are that you would actually have to Artificially combine them. They are Naturally separated by their own manifestations as different Categories of phenomena. — SteveKlinko
Then the question is: Do we experience neuronal activities themselves (not the colour)? If we do, how do we experience them? If not, what is the purpose of neuronal activities? :gasp:

Science can put them together and show how Neurons firing produce a Red experience then that's ok too. But for now at this point in our understanding it is only sensible to keep them separate. — SteveKlinko
Depending on how do you answer the above questions we might be able to continue these monologues... :)

However, I'm afraid that we will need a long time until science provides you with acceptable answers - since we can only infer from experiments with rats/cats/rabbits etc... :) — Damir Ibrisimovic

For me I experience the Color. I have no inner knowledge of Neural Activity. We know Neural Activity happens and then correlated Conscious Activity happens. I say that Neural Activity exists in Physical Space which is the normal World we know about through Science. I call the Brain and all Neural Activity the Physical Mind. I also say that Conscious Activity exists in some kind of Conscious Space that we don't understand yet. Conscious Space is also where the Conscious Mind exists. The Conscious Mind is the experiencer of the Conscious Activity. But Conscious Space is not a literal Space like our 3D Physical World Space. You can think of Conscious Space simply as the place where Conscious experience happens. When we think about Neural Activity and Conscious Activity as existing in two different Spaces then we can talk about Connections. I think there is some sort of Connection which I call the Inter Mind on the website. So now if it is a Connection then it is easy to see how the Conscious Activity is a further processing stage after Neural Processing. Something must be transforming the Neural Activity into Conscious Activity. I put that function in what I call the Inter Mind. So we can speculate that the Inter Mind Connects the Physical Mind to the Conscious Mind. The Inter Mind is somehow continuously monitoring Neural Activity and generating the Conscious Activity for the Conscious Mind. The Inter Mind could very well be some as yet undiscovered aspect of the Physical Mind but that aspect will have to be called the Inter Mind aspect and it will have to explain how Neural Activity gets transformed into Conscious Activity.

So the purpose of the Neural Activity is to enable the Inter Mind to Connect the Physical Mind to the Conscious Mind.

To be scientific - I would put it differently: "Consciousness World" is of this world - until proven otherwise. — Damir Ibrisimovic

I'm not 100% convinced that this is a scientific viewpoint. :chin: I don't think science would assert anything that has not yet been demonstrated. So science would surely hang back from asserting the location of the Consciousness World, until we know where that might be, yes? :chin:

Oh yes, and what is "this world", in the context of the Physical and Conscious Worlds? Is it the former, or is it something else?

Then the question is: Do we experience neuronal activities themselves (not the colour)? If we do, how do we experience them? If not, what is the purpose of neuronal activities? :gasp: — Damir Ibrisimovic

For me I experience the Color. I have no inner knowledge of Neural Activity. — SteveKlinko

It appears that your answer to the first question is no... There is no clear answer to the third question... :)

As I said - there is no clear converging path to a dialogue - and perpetuating monologues seem to be the reality. I'll, therefore, stop wasting your time... :)

Enjoy the day, :cool:

I'm not 100% convinced that this is a scientific viewpoint. :chin: I don't think science would assert anything that has not yet been demonstrated. So science would surely hang back from asserting the location of the Consciousness World, until we know where that might be, yes? :chin:

Oh yes, and what is "this world", in the context of the Physical and Conscious Worlds? Is it the former, or is it something else? — Pattern-chaser

This world is a physical world. I have introduced it as a contrast to Steve's otherworldly Conscious World... :)

Also, we are talking about assumptions here... :) Generally, in science, the assumption is that all phenomena are of physical world until proven otherwise. Otherwise, we may assume that a phenomenon is not of this world and get stuck - with impotence to prove that it is not... :gasp:

Enjoy the day, :cool:

For me I experience the Color. I have no inner knowledge of Neural Activity. — SteveKlinko — Damir Ibrisimovic

My answer for the third question was the last sentence: So the purpose of the Neural Activity is to enable the Inter Mind to Connect the Physical Mind to the Conscious Mind.

I'm not 100% convinced that this is a scientific viewpoint. :chin: I don't think science would assert anything that has not yet been demonstrated. So science would surely hang back from asserting the location of the Consciousness World, until we know where that might be, yes? :chin:

Oh yes, and what is "this world", in the context of the Physical and Conscious Worlds? Is it the former, or is it something else? — Pattern-chaser
This world is a physical world. I have introduced it as a contrast to Steve's otherworldly Conscious World... :)

Also, we are talking about assumptions here... :) Generally, in science, the assumption is that all phenomena are of physical world until proven otherwise. Otherwise, we may assume that a phenomenon is not of this world and get stuck - with impotence to prove that it is not... :gasp:

Enjoy the day, :cool: — Damir Ibrisimovic

Science has been assuming that Consciousness will be found in the Neurons for a hundred years now. That may still ultimately be true but after this amount of time one would think that Science might have the first clue but it doesn't. I have to emphasize the point: Science has Zero understanding with regard to Consciousness. Consciousness is clearly something that Science can not handle yet. They are getting nowhere thinking it is in the Neurons. It is time to think outside the box.

Evidence suggests that consciousness involves brain activity. — Tyler

I doubt this. Can you give an example of what you mean?

It's true that subjective experience seems like a whole different category, but that is the nature of all subjective experiences... :)

We do not need to artificially separate these two... :) — Damir Ibrisimovic

But you separated them yourself in the previous sentence!

If two things seem very different, the default assumption is that they are different, not that they are the same!

The person who wants to say they are, in fact, the same is the one with work to do.

I'm not 100% convinced that this is a scientific viewpoint. :chin: I don't think science would assert anything that has not yet been demonstrated. So science would surely hang back from asserting the location of the Consciousness World, until we know where that might be, yes? :chin:

Oh yes, and what is "this world", in the context of the Physical and Conscious Worlds? Is it the former, or is it something else? — Pattern-chaser


This world is a physical world. I have introduced it as a contrast to Steve's otherworldly Conscious World... :) — Damir Ibrisimovic

Ah, OK. :up:

Also, we are talking about assumptions here... :smile: — Damir Ibrisimovic

Yes, we're humans, with no direct access to Objective Reality, and so on, and so forth. :wink: Of course we assume stuff; we can do nothing other. Scientists often make themselves feel better about it by calling them axioms, but they're still assumptions; guesses. :smile:

Generally, in science, the assumption is that all phenomena are of physical world until proven otherwise. — Damir Ibrisimovic

I think not. Science recognises only one world, Steve's Physical World, so they don't have a need to discuss worlds. Like in the sci-fi stories, when they ask the aliens what they call their home, and they say "Earth" or "the world", and look at the strangers oddly. When there's only one world, there's little point in discussing it. :wink:

Steve's Conscious World is non-existent to science. If philosophy is a swiss army knife, science - a highly-successful tool that emerged from a particular school of analytic/objective philosophy - is a stilletto. Science gained its power from optimisation. It has been honed to achieve one of the purposes of a knife better than any other tool can manage, but it has sacrificed its general-purpose nature to do this. So if you want to stab something, science is your tool. But if you want to strip a cable and connect a mains plug, you need philosophy's swiss army knife functionality. :smile:

Steve's Conscious World is discarded by science because it contains no suitable material for it to process. There are no simple binary statements that are falsifiable, and can be treated using logic alone. To science, the Conscious World is quite invisible. To the scientist, it is a mire of chaos and nonsense. This is not something to blame or criticise science for, it is one consequence of the honing and optimisation that was applied to science during its creation. We can't have our cakes and eat them too. :smile:

Otherwise, we may assume that a phenomenon is not of this world and get stuck - with impotence to prove that it is not... :gasp: — Damir Ibrisimovic

What would be so wrong with that? A thing could be of the Conscious World, but not the Physical World, without causing existence to collapse like a Schrodinger-ish wave function. :wink: :smile: What are you worried about, that makes you say these words? [ Actual question, not a rhetorical one. :up: ]

Very good post...

:blush:

I have to emphasize the point: Science has Zero understanding with regard to Consciousness. Consciousness is clearly something that Science can not handle yet. They are getting nowhere thinking it is in the Neurons. It is time to think outside the box. — SteveKlinko

As yet, I wouldn't dismiss the science... :)

However, I agree that there is something in the redness of the red. For the moment, consider the consciousness as a composite. My scenario that does not go against science would be as follows:

The retina is made of rods and cones that are essentially specialised neurons of the central nervous system. This enables us to see directly what retinas are exposed to. As yet, there is no colour - the rest of the brain has to agree with what is seen... :)

This scenario allows for colour label as we learn to see the redness. This also allows for colour as a cultural thing... :)

In short, I propose that consciousness is a composite of all retinal and neuronal activities... :)

Enjoy the day, :cool:

But you separated them yourself in the previous sentence! — bert1

Would be better to quote this. Where did I separate these two things?

Enjoy the day, :cool:

I think not. Science recognises only one world, Steve's Physical World, so they don't have a need to discuss worlds. Like in the sci-fi stories, when they ask the aliens what they call their home, and they say "Earth" or "the world", and look at the strangers oddly. When there's only one world, there's little point in discussing it. :wink: — Pattern-chaser

That's not entirely true. Some scientists talk about multiverse - that's unscientific for there is no way to prove the existence of any other universe than our own physical world... :)

Enjoy the day, :cool:

It's true that subjective experience seems like a whole different category, — Damir Ibrisimovic

Here.

The separation is not mine. Try to read what is written... :)

Enjoy the day, :cool:

I did read it. You said it seems separate. I know you don't think it is separate, but you have not acknowledged that the person who says things are not as they seem is the one with work to do.