Conscious Experience Is A Type Of Data

SteveKlinko

Scientists can describe the Neural Activity that occurs in the Brain when we See. But they seem to be completely puzzled by the Conscious Visual experience that we have that is correlated with the Neural Activity. Incredibly, some even come to the conclusion that the Conscious experience is not even necessary! They can not find the Conscious experience in the Neurons so the experience must not have any function in the Visual process. They believe that the Neural Activity is sufficient for us to move around in the world without bumping into things. This is insane denial of the obvious purpose for Visual Consciousness. The Conscious Visual experience is the thing that allows us to move around in the world. Neural Activity is not enough. We would be blind without the Conscious Visual experience. The Conscious Visual experience contains vast amounts of information about the external world all packed up into a single thing.

Scientists should not disregard the Conscious Visual experience. It's just another type of Data that can be analyzed. We should call it Conscious Data. We use and analyze this Conscious Visual Data all the time without realizing it. For example when I reach for my coffee mug I have a Conscious Visual experience where I See my hand moving toward the coffee mug. If My hand is off track I sense this in the Conscious Visual experience and adjust the movement of my hand. If I did not have the Conscious Visual experience I would not be able to pick up my coffee mug, or at least it would be much more difficult with just Neural Activity. So the Conscious Visual experience is just Data that helps us interact with the world. This Conscious Visual Data is absolutely necessary for us to function. Similar arguments can be made for the Conscious Auditory experience, the Conscious Smell experience, the Conscious Taste experience, and the Conscious Touch experience. All these experiences are just a type of Data that we can analyze.

The Conscious Mind concept can be viewed as a kind of Conscious Processor that takes the Conscious Light, Sound, Smell, Taste, and Touch Experiences as Input Data to help it survive in the world. This is a very strange kind of Processing (although actually very familiar) and it is very different from the Processing that Computers can do. The Processing that the Conscious Mind does is also very different than the Neural Processing that the Brain does. Let's talk about the Color Red. In the Physical World we know that Red Light is an oscillating Electromagnetic phenomenon with a particular wavelength associated with it. In the Brain Red is the coordinated Firing of groups of specific Neurons. In the Conscious Mind Red is an Experience. In Computers Red is usually represented as the hex number 00FF0000 stored in a memory location. Electromagnetic Phenomena, Firing Neurons, the Red Experience, and the Number 00FF0000 are completely different kinds of Data.

Harry Hindu

The implication of indirect realism is that what we experience is a model of the world, not the world as it is. This means that when we look at someone's brain, the brain we experience is a visual model, not the the way it really is. We too often think of it as the other way around - that what we see is real, and then we run into the problem of how the brain generates the model we experience. If we were to think of it in reverse - that what is real is "out there", and "in here" is the model, then we can understand the reason why we can't experience someone else's experiences - or mental activity. The brain that we see is a model of their mental activity that is happening "out there" in the way that it does whether or not someone is looking at it or not. You might say that the brain we experience visually is the model of all of their mental activity, including their conscious experience.

SteveKlinko

The implication of indirect realism is that what we experience is a model of the world, not the world as it is. This means that when we look at someone's brain, the brain we experience is a visual model, not the the way it really is. We too often think of it as the other way around - that what we see is real, and then we run into the problem of how the brain generates the model we experience. If we were to think of it in reverse - that what is real is "out there", and "in here" is the model, then we can understand the reason why we can't experience someone else's experiences - or mental activity. The brain that we see is a model of their mental activity that is happening "out there" in the way that it does whether or not someone is looking at it or not. You might say that the brain we experience visually is the model of all of their mental activity, including their conscious experience. — Harry Hindu

But when you say Visual Model what is that? I want to know what the Model is. If you say the Model is just Neural Activity then I think there is a big Explanatory Gap in going from Neural Activity to the Conscious Experience. Measuring the Neural Activity is the David Chalmers Easy Problem of Consciousness but understanding how the Visual Experience happens as a result of the Neural Activity is the David Chalmers Hard Problem of Consciousness. I don't believe the Hard problem has been solved yet.

VagabondSpectre

↪SteveKlinko

No the hard problem has not been solved. Our best guess is that the consciousness is a kind of reflection/illusion produced by interactions of matter in the brain.

We cannot identify the neurons of consciousness because we're pretty sure that consciousness has something to do with the way neurons interact with each-other rather than a property of individual neurons.

Consciousness is like a dance in this sense. When the dancers (neurons) are motionless, there is no consciousness. It rises and falls with activity the between them.

SteveKlinko

No the hard problem has not been solved. Our best guess is that the consciousness is a kind of reflection/illusion produced by matter in the brain.

We cannot identify the neurons of consciousness because we're pretty sure that consciousness has something to do with the way neurons interact with each-other rather than a property of individual neurons.

Consciousness is like a dance in this sense. When the dancers (neurons) are motionless, there is no consciousness. It rises and falls with activity the between them. — VagabondSpectre

Isn't it possible that the Conscious Mind grows along with the Neurons in the Brain and is a separate thing from the Neurons? The only thing we know how to measure is Neural Activity. If the Conscious Mind is separate from the Brain then we would have to somehow directly measure Consciousness to prove that it truly does rise and fall with the Neural Activity in the Brain. I think it is possible that we might not know what the Conscious Mind does during Neural suppression as in with anesthesia. After the fact testimonials are not really valid because it depends on Memories that are part of the Neural side of things. The Conscious Mind has no memory in and of itself. The Conscious Mind uses the Brains memory to function in the Physical World. The Conscious Mind might be a stranger thing than people think it is. I think the Conscious Mind Is the place where Conscious Experience happens. I always go back to the experience of the color Red. How can that be in the Physical Neurons of the Brain? It is a pure experiential thing.

VagabondSpectre

Isn't it possible that the Conscious Mind grows along with the Neurons in the Brain and is a separate thing from the Neurons? — SteveKlinko

Yes and no.

The brain is the seat of consciousness. If we meddle with the brain, the consciousness gets meddled with. If the brain gets destroyed, as far as we know the consciousness gets destroyed.

A good analogy here is the difference between computer software and computer hardware:

The hardware houses data and provides physical connect-ability between bits of data.

The software is data contained within the neurons, but more importantly it is the complex way in which individual bits of data connect together which produces a higher function.

The software is dependent upon the hardware (and constrained by it), but is much greater (more complex) than merely the sum of it's parts (it's hardware and also it's bits). There are 100 billion neurons in the human brain, but there are 1000 trillion connections between neurons in the human brain. It is these connections which seems to most plausibly represent the base unit of human cognition.

Like a dance (consciousness), it cannot be defined only by the nature of the dancers (the hardware of the brain), it must also be defined by their movements, including the spaces in-between them.

SteveKlinko

Isn't it possible that the Conscious Mind grows along with the Neurons in the Brain and is a separate thing from the Neurons? — SteveKlinko
Yes and no.

The brain is the seat of consciousness. If we meddle with the brain, the consciousness gets meddled with. If the brain gets destroyed, as far as we know the consciousness gets destroyed.

A good analogy here is the difference between computer software and computer hardware:

The hardware houses data and provides physical connect-ability between bits of data.

The software is data contained within the neurons, but more importantly it is the complex way in which individual bits of data connect together which produces a higher function.

The software is dependent upon the hardware (and constrained by it), but is much greater (more complex) than merely the sum of it's parts (it's hardware and also it's bits). There are 100 billion neurons in the human brain, but there are 1000 trillion connections between neurons in the human brain. It is these connections which seems to most plausibly represent the base unit of human cognition.

Like a dance (consciousness), it cannot be defined only by the nature of the dancers (the hardware of the brain), it must also be defined by their movements, including the spaces in-between them. — VagabondSpectre

I agree that the Brain has a type of Software and a type of Hardware. But from my point of view none of that has to actually be the Conscious Mind. A Conscious Mind is connected to all that, but does not have to actually be that. A Computer has Hardware and Software but will not be Conscious because it is not connected to a Conscious Mind as far as anyone can know. Certainly a Computer does not have Conscious Volition. The Hardware and Software of a Brain probably do not have Conscious Volition. The Conscious Mind provides the Conscious Volition.

Harry Hindu

But when you say Visual Model what is that? I want to know what the Model is. If you say the Model is just Neural Activity then I think there is a big Explanatory Gap in going from Neural Activity to the Conscious Experience. Measuring the Neural Activity is the David Chalmers Easy Problem of Consciousness but understanding how the Visual Experience happens as a result of the Neural Activity is the David Chalmers Hard Problem of Consciousness. I don't believe the Hard problem has been solved yet. — SteveKlinko

How is there any explanatory gap at all, much less a big one, if neural activity IS the model? Again, all you see is a brain, or a model of the brain on a computer screen with different colors representing certain activity in the brain. Just as the model on the computer screen isn't the real brain, the brain you look at when a doctor opens up someone's head is just a visual model of someone's neural activity.

yazata

"The implication of indirect realism is that what we experience is a model of the world, not the world as it is." -- Harry Hindu

My concern is that the idea that what "we experience" is a model of the world suggests a homunculus theory, in which there's a little man (our soul) inside our heads that perceives the 'model of the world' as if it was a TV monitor. Pushing too hard on that kind of theory leads to problems with solipsism.

I think that I'd rather say that we do perceive the world outside our heads, and that we do so by gathering information about it through our senses (and probably through the use of our interpretive activities as well). The sum total of the information that we possess about the world (along with added interpretive stuff like assumed causal relationships) may indeed resemble a model, But the knowledge that we possess about the world isn't the object of our awareness. The object of our awareness is the world. It's just that we don't know everything about it and some of what we think we know might be wrong.

SteveKlinko

How is there any explanatory gap at all, much less a big one, if neural activity IS the model? Again, all you see is a brain, or a model of the brain on a computer screen with different colors representing certain activity in the brain. Just as the model on the computer screen isn't the real brain, the brain you look at when a doctor opens up someone's head is just a visual model of someone's neural activity. — Harry Hindu

Let's just talk about the experience of the color Red. Electromagnetic waves in the external Physical World are an oscillating Electric and Magnetic phenomenon. A changing Electric field causes the Magnetic field and a changing Magnetic field causes the Electric field. This mutual interaction of the two types of fields is how the wave propagates. Now think about the Red experience. The Red experience in and of itself has nothing to do with the Electromagnetic phenomenon. There is no sense of any of the actual properties of Red Electromagnetic waves in the Red experience. There is no sense of an oscillatory phenomenon in the experience of Red. The Red experience is a whole different Kind of thing than Red Electromagnetic waves. So the Red experience is something that we see in place of actually seeing Red Electromagnetic waves.

Now the next step is to talk about the Neural Activity that occurs when Red Electromagnetic waves hit the Retina. We know that certain Neurons fire when Red Electromagnetic waves hit the Retina. But Neurons firing is not the Experience of Red. The experience of Red is a whole different thing than Neurons firing. So the Red experience is something that we see in place of actually sensing Neural Activity. That's where the Explanatory Gap comes in and that is the Hard problem of Consciousness.

VagabondSpectre

I agree that the Brain has a type of Software and a type of Hardware. But from my point of view none of that has to actually be the Conscious Mind. A Conscious Mind is connected to all that, but does not have to actually be that. A Computer has Hardware and Software but will not be Conscious because it is not connected to a Conscious Mind as far as anyone can know. Certainly a Computer does not have Conscious Volition. The Hardware and Software of a Brain probably do not have Conscious Volition. The Conscious Mind provides the Conscious Volition. — SteveKlinko

It sounds like you're just presuming that some sort of separate entity exists apart from the brain and it's goings on which has something to do with human consciousness. I contend that the human brain contains the entirety of whatever human consciousness really is.

It's possible that some extra-dimensional plane contains the human consciousness, but we've not much reason to presume this is the case.

Harry Hindu

↪yazata

I don't see how the homunculus theory leads to solipsism, but to the issue of the conscious mind being a model, I would direct your attention to your attention. You experience a visual and auditory field where some parts are blurry and faded and others are more detailed and clear. It is accompanied by this force of will - of this sense of wanting, or needing, more information about something and focusing on the relevant parts of the field that would provide that information. These feelings of wanting and the amplification of certain parts of the model, or information architecture I sometimes call it, is itself part of the model. They are representations of the neural activity, or the programming of certain neurons to fire a certain way when certain signals come in, which often have to do with the process of homeostasis - of maintaining a stable body-environment relationship. When that balance is disrupted then that is when we experience the wanting, the goal-oriented thinking and the amplification of certain bits of information relevant to the task at hand. In the computer field this director of the flow of information is called the central executive. It handles the flow of data based on the information it gets from it's sensory devices (keyboards, mice, touchscreens, etc.), and what it is programmed to do with that information. Natural selection programmed us, and we cherry-pick our information based on our awareness of our short and long term goals at any moment.

Harry Hindu

Let's just talk about the experience of the color Red. Electromagnetic waves in the external Physical World are an oscillating Electric and Magnetic phenomenon. A changing Electric field causes the Magnetic field and a changing Magnetic field causes the Electric field. This mutual interaction of the two types of fields is how the wave propagates. Now think about the Red experience. The Red experience in and of itself has nothing to do with the Electromagnetic phenomenon. There is no sense of any of the actual properties of Red Electromagnetic waves in the Red experience. There is no sense of an oscillatory phenomenon in the experience of Red. The Red experience is a whole different Kind of thing than Red Electromagnetic waves. So the Red experience is something that we see in place of actually seeing Red Electromagnetic waves.

Now the next step is to talk about the Neural Activity that occurs when Red Electromagnetic waves hit the Retina. We know that certain Neurons fire when Red Electromagnetic waves hit the Retina. But Neurons firing is not the Experience of Red. The experience of Red is a whole different thing than Neurons firing. So the Red experience is something that we see in place of actually sensing Neural Activity. That's where the Explanatory Gap comes in and that is the Hard problem of Consciousness. — SteveKlinko

All these things that you say aren't the Experience of Red (propagating, oscillating, waves, neurons firing, etc.) are all visual descriptions of some external phenomenon. When you think about propagating, oscillating waves, what color are they? What about neurons firing? What color are they? Black? Grey? In order for you to imagine these waves and neurons means you must have some visual image of them in your mind. How did you acquire these images? Isn't it because you've been shown pictures in school of waves and neurons? What color were they in the school books?

So, if these waves in your mind have a color, then if direct realism is true, then the waves out there have color and look like the waves in your mind too, right?

SteveKlinko

It sounds like you're just presuming that some sort of separate entity exists apart from the brain and it's goings on which has something to do with human consciousness. I contend that the human brain contains the entirety of whatever human consciousness really is.

It's possible that some extra-dimensional plane contains the human consciousness, but we've not much reason to presume this is the case — VagabondSpectre

The short answer is that it has not been found in the Brain so far and we have been trying to find it in the Brain for a long time now. It just does not seem to be happening. I think it's time to think outside the box. Also, the absolutely odd and special nature of something like the experience of Red screams out for new explanations. Think of the Red of Red. I have come to the conclusion that Red is something completely different than anything in the Physical world.

SteveKlinko

So, if these waves in your mind have a color, then if direct realism is true, then the waves out there have color and look like the waves in your mind too, right — Harry Hindu

There are no Waves in my Mind. The Waves are in the External World. Just because I understand the Waves doesn't mean they are in my Mind. The Waves are one thing, the resultant Neural Activity is another thing, and the Red experience is but yet another thing. These are all separate things that are correlated with each other. One causes the other in a chain of causation and this is why they seem correlated.

Harry Hindu

↪SteveKlinko

If there are no waves in your mind, then how is it that you can say "I'm thinking of waves."? Again, I'm not saying that there are actual waves in your head. I'm saying that whatever it is that you think takes the form of the qualia that you experience of the world. To say that you can think of anything is to say that your thoughts take some form for you to even be aware that you are thinking. What form do they take?

SteveKlinko

↪SteveKlinko If there are no waves in your mind, then how is it that you can say "I'm thinking of waves."? Again, I'm not saying that there are actual waves in your head. I'm saying that whatever it is that you think takes the form of the qualia that you experience of the world. To say that you can think of anything is to say that your thoughts take some form for you to even be aware that you are thinking. What form do they take? — Harry Hindu

Something like the experience of Red is an experience. It is not a thought. There's no meaning to it. You can't argue with it. Red is a Conscious thing that we use as data input to our Conscious Mind processors.

I deal with causes and effects. I can understand how Electromagnetic Waves hitting the Retina cause Neural Activity. I can understand that the experience of Red is caused by Neural Activity. That step in between Neural Activity and the experience of Red is the unknown part. It just is an unknown at this point in our understanding. We will probably figure it out someday.

Wayfarer

Our best guess is that the consciousness is a kind of reflection/illusion produced by interactions of matter in the brain. — VagabondSpectre

Illusions only exist in consciousness.

There is a long-standing explanatory issue which is one of the various forms of 'neural binding problem'. The neural binding problem concerns how items that are encoded by distinct brain circuits can be combined for perception, decision, and action. So, for example, a moving object of a certain colour is seen as a unitary object, even though the various neural systems that comprehend colour and movement are distinct. There is a real difficulty in accounting for the system that integrates all of the disparate aspects into a unified whole. This is also known as the subjective unity of perception:

There are intractable problems in all branches of science; for Neuroscience a major one is the mystery of subjective personal experience. This is one instance of the famous mind–body problem (Chalmers 1996) concerning the relation of our subjective experience (aka qualia) to neural function. Different visual features (color, size, shape, motion, etc.) are computed by largely distinct neural circuits, but we experience an integrated whole. This is closely related to the problem known as the illusion of a stable visual world

Conscious Experience Is A Type Of Data

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions