It's been known for a hundred years that Brain Activity, of whatever kind you want to talk about, produces Consciousness. — SteveKlinko

Unfortunately, this has not been known for hundreds of years... :)

I stated that the totality/infinity of visual/auditor impressions precedes retinal preprocessing. I, therefore, state again that totality/infinity of visual/auditory impressions precedes further preprocessing making the totality/infinity available to our senses. In other words, consciousness does not emerge from retinal preprocessing or other neuronal activities... :)

Enjoy the day, :cool:

But what is the Solution? If you are saying that your statement is also the Solution then I don't understand. — SteveKlinko

As I said before: We witness the totality of visual/auditory impressions before retinal preprocessing. The retinal preprocessing adds "what's what" to the totality of visual/auditory impressions. In a way, retinal preprocessing dulls the totality of visual/auditory impressions - but give us a faster management of the totality/infinity impressions... :)

This is not a farfetched impossibility - for retinal cells are directly exposed to unaltered stimuli... :)

Enjoy the day, :cool:

My preferred solution to this is to deny that there are unfelt states, and suggest that consciousness is an intrinsic property of everything. That brings its own problems, but it is a putative solution to the problem. — bert1

I have not a problem with what you say. I'm stating something similar... :)

Can you have another go at stating the problem, and then say what your solution is? — bert1

I'm tired of repeating myself... I can only restate my position which seems to be beyond your grasp:

The hard problem of consciousness is hidden in the totality of visual/auditory impressions... :)

Enjoy the day, :cool:

his is unclear Damir. It's not clear you actually understand the difficulty SteveKlinko is describing. Maybe you do understand it, and you have a good answer, but so far nothing you have said indicates that (not that I have really understood much of what you have said). — bert1

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11177421 :)
https://sites.oxy.edu/clint/physio/article/moviesinoureyes.pdf :)
https://www.physiology.org/doi/pdf/10.1152/jn.00113.2006 :)

In short, these links (posted in the previous comments) show that only sketchy images are passed from the retinas to the rest of the brain... :)

In my own words: https://www.dropbox.com/s/rdrvqa3t5rresxz/Imagination%20is%20Greater%20than%20Knowledge%20%286%29.pdf?dl=0 :)

Can you state in your own words the philosophical problem that SteveKlinko is patiently and repeatedly raising? — bert1

I am growing impatient myself... :) Steve is pressing for the totality of visual impressions somewhere in the brain. But this has been refuted in the links above... :)

I had offered the totality of visual impressions before retinal pre-processing... :) But this was unacceptable to Steve... :)

I suggest patience on all sides (including you)... :) I also suggest that we consider the science seriously and read carefully the science presented... :)

Enjoy the day, :cool:

say that:

1) Neural Activity happens
2) A Conscious experience happens

1 and 2 are the two things we know that are happening. We don't know why 2 happens when 1 happens. — SteveKlinko

Either way, you are having 2) happening on undecided 1) relations. I could claim a relation too... :)
But I do not. You are still looking for the totality of visual impressions somewhere in the brain... :) And that's unrealistic, to put it mildly... :)

Enjoy the day, :cool:

Your very statement screams out for further explanation. — SteveKlinko

Why? :) You started with Consciousness happens - without anything like neuronal activity... :)

Neuronal activity can produce only "what is what" or sketchy images. It simply does not have the capacity to produce/transmit the totality of visual impressions... :)

Enjoy the day, :cool:

But then the question becomes: How does Only a combination of the totality of visual experiences and retinal activity (sketchy images) produce a "Conscious Visual experience"? — SteveKlinko

We are stuck here... :) You are asking for something to "... Produce a Conscious Visual experience"...

The totality of visual experiences is simply there --- without anything to produce it... :)

Enjoy the day, :cool:

I may have forgotten to mention that the Rods, Cones, etc. of the Retina are considered to be specialized Neurons. The Retina is just an extension of the Brain and so you can say that the external Light impinges directly on the Brain. — SteveKlinko

Actually - I said that... :)

There are two effects of the retinal activity. The totality of visual experiences and hints and edges that travel through the optical nerves to the rest of the brain... :)

How does the Neural Activity of the Retina produce a Conscious Visual experience? — SteveKlinko

Neural activity does not produce a "Conscious Visual experience"... :) Only a combination of the totality of visual experiences and retinal activity (sketchy images) produce a "Conscious Visual experience". For example: If we are born blind there would not be "Conscious Visual experience"... :)

When we are born - we are almost blind and need to learn "what is what"... :)

When the "what is what" is diminished (under the influence of a drug, for example) the totality of our visual experiences dominates... :)

Enjoy the day, :cool:

In other words, discussions of free will are determined by the limited capacities of our minds? — Bitter Crank

I was optimistic that this discussion could be ended by my joke... :)

Obviously, I was wrong. We are doomed to endlessly debate this issue, for we can not/will not accept the solution... :)

Enjoy the day, :cool:

The Hard Problem is: How does the Neural Activity (using drugs or not using drugs) produce the Conscious experience? — SteveKlinko

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

Enjoy the day, :cool:

Mescaline trips are interesting but they do not shed any insight into the question at hand. — SteveKlinko

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

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

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

Enjoy the day, :cool:

Where is "all of the evidence" that you refer to? — Pattern-chaser

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

Enjoy the day, :cool:

Are you aware this is a philosophy forum? You seem innocent of the philosophical issues. — bert1

Such as? :)

Enjoy the day, :cool:

But when I look at a particular scene in front of me How is that Scene Image presented for me to See it? It appears that the scene I am looking at is painted on a kind of Screen that is embedded in the front of my face. — SteveKlinko

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

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

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

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

Enjoy the day, :cool:

If your speculation is that the Visual Images that we see are strictly generated by the Retina then the question is how does the Retina generate the Visual Images that we see? — SteveKlinko

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

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

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

Enjoy the day, :cool:

... discussions of free will are determined by the limited capacities of our minds? — Bitter Crank

Yes... :)

My Joke:
-----
Since Libet's findings started to trickle out ---
there was plenty of nonsense about our Free Will... :)
What???!!! My Free Will is useless???!!! I'll give it up... :gasp:
Here, my friend, take it and tell me what to do... :worry:

Now, how could I give up something I do/did not have... :cool:
-----

I have started this joke on 22 May 2011. It offers several scenarios to prove that we have Free Will. They are so simple that experiments can be conducted in a cafe, for example... :)

Deterministic [cause & effect driven universe] paradigm is now in progress of being replaced by [agents driven universe] paradigm... :)

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

Enjoy the day, :cool:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enjoy the day, :cool:

Determinism is claiming that free will is false because you cannot prove that is is true, or alternatively, that the mind is physically determined because you cannot prove that it isn’t. — Ryan B

Here we go again... :)

My old joke:

Since Libet's findings started to trickle out -
there was a lot of nonsense about our Free Will... :)
What???!!! My Free Will is useless???!!! I'll give it up... :)
Here my friend take it and tell me what to do... :)

Now, how could I give up something I do/did not have??? :)

I have started this joke on 22 May 2011. Since then I haven't encountered many discussions still evoking the ancient notion of determinism. The Joke clearly outlines the reasonings that are so simple that we can refute determinism in a caffe... :)

There is a new paradigm... Cause and effect driven universe is now replaced by agents driven universe... :)

I know that paradigm change is not easy... But, if we wish to get rid of stale discussions like this one, we need to start somewhere... :)

Enjoy the day, :cool:

But while Dreaming at night you can have very Vivid and Complete Images created by the Mind and there is no input from the Retina. — SteveKlinko

I'm not convicted that REM does not contribute to the vividness of our dreams... :)

Enjoy the day, :cool:

If this is an hallucination, I'd be interested to know why and how.... — Pattern-chaser

It's not a hallucination... :)

The totality of visual experiences is in the activity of retinal neurons... Whatever is passed to the rest of the brain are sketchy images only... :)

Enjoy the day, :cool:

The question is, how does all that Neural Processing create the Visual Image that we see in our Conscious Minds? — SteveKlinko

Since there is no totality of visual experiences in the rest of the brain - we can assume that the retinas offer the basis for the totality of visual experiences... :)

Whatever passes through optical nerves is turned into hints of edges and coulour can not be the basis for the totality of visual experiences... :)

Enjoy the day, :cool:

It seems that to have a Visual experience further processing must happen. — SteveKlinko

That's not what the science says... :) According to numerous findings - there is no anything like a reconstruction of visual impressions anywhere in the brain... :)

If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, Infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thro' narrow chinks of his cavern.

from The Doors of Perception

...to enable us to live, the brain and nervous system eliminate unessential information from the totality of the Mind at Large.

Charlie Dunbar Broad :)

The whole cascade of neural activities has only one purpose - to emphasise the most relevant stimuli as quickly as possible...

The only point at which we have the unfiltered totality of visual impressions is when retinas are exposed to the visual stimuli minus retinal cells activity... :)

Enjoy the day, :cool:

Nobody knows why. — SteveKlinko

Retinal outputs are hints and edges - sketchy images... :) our impression of the visual images are vastly more than that. The further neuronal activities are even more sketchy than that. There is no room for the richness of visual impressions... :)

The only way to account for the totality of visual experiences is to take raw stimuli before any neural activity... :)

Enjoy the day, :cool:

I seems that for Sensory input that there has to be Neural Activity before the Conscious experience happens. — SteveKlinko

Why?

Enjoy the day, :cool:

Science does not have a theory for how Consciousness is produced from the Neural Activity. — SteveKlinko

Consciousness does not emerge from neuronal activity... :)

As I said: neuronal activity produces abstracts vital for quick responses to the environmental challenges. :)

Enjoy the day, :cool:

This argument of consciousness is like what the argument of gravity used to be (before Newton). — BrianW

Before Newton geometry (circle) drove movements of celestial bodies. Copernicus tried to describe the heliocentric system with circles - but it didn't work. Kepler "cheated" with ellipses to make it fit into the heliocentric system. Only when Newton proposed the theory of gravitation things started to "click together"... :)

Enjoy the day, :cool:

Good article. — SteveKlinko

All neuronal activities produce an abstract... :)

I suggest Aldous Huxley's "The Doors of Perception". In it, there is the world of unprocessed stimuli.

Enjoy the day, :cool:

Given that all that Neural Activity is happening then how do we get that Visual experience in our Conscious Minds? — SteveKlinko

As I suggested: Retinal cells are part of our brain. So, the retina is part of our brain that is directly exposed to visual stimuli... :)

What is that Visual experience? — SteveKlinko

The totality of visual experience before any neuronal activity. :)

Enjoy the day, :cool:

What we ‘see’ depends on the features extracted in the retina, and how this information is integrated and interpreted by the brain. In the retina, the visual information is split into two streams, one for colour and one for form and motion.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/retinal-ganglion-cell .

Enjoy the day, :cool:

Means that each point on the Retina is mapped to a point on V1. — SteveKlinko

Then how do you interpret this: http://unisci.com/stories/20011/0329011.htm ?

Recent studies at the University of California, Berkeley, however, show that the metaphor is more poetic than real. What the eye sends to the brain are mere outlines of the visual world, sketchy impressions that make our vivid visual experience all the more amazing.

It's time to be serious. Vague references to textbooks are not constructive. Show us a paper... :)

Enjoy the day, :cool:

Why is there so little in Western philosophy that deals with our emotions? — ChatteringMonkey

From the age of reason, everybody was "weeding out" emotions. And you are absolutely correct that we need emotions in our discourse... :)

Now, what will be your next step? :)

Enjoy the day, :cool:

The expectation puts the towels there but reality catches up fast. The real world is remarkably and reliably presented.and reality overrides expectation quickly unless you are psychotic. — SteveKlinko

There was an experiment: Person A would ask for directions. Person B would start giving directions to persona A. Two other people would carry something between persons A & B so that A & B cannot see each other for a couple of seconds. The third person C would quickly replace person B... :)

The interesting thing is that person A would not notice the switch... :)

Enjoy the day, :cool:

This still did not invalidate the fact that V1 is Topologically mapped with the Retina. — SteveKlinko

What do you mean with "V1 is Topologically mapped with the Retina"?

Enjoy the day, :cool:

I'm interested in how you perceive the problem of consciousness pre-theory. — bert1

Based upon scientific research, there is no "detailed graphics" in our brain. So, I suggest that we see what our retinas see... :)

What we see is what we expect to see, to an alarming degree... — Pattern-chaser

Exactly!

Enjoy the day, :cool:

Don't see how this undermines the Topological mapping from Retina to V1. Anything you do will change your Brain in some way. — SteveKlinko

It needs to be considered together with another older research:

http://unisci.com/stories/20011/0329011.htm :)

Enjoy the day, :cool:

[quote="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/london-taxi-memory/[/quote]

Enjoy the day, :cool:

I did not get from these links that anything they said disproves the Topological mapping from Retina to V1. Refresh my memory, did you say that because of a Capacity problem of the Optic Nerve that there is no Topological mapping? — SteveKlinko

Refresh my memory, did you say that because of a Capacity problem of the Optic Nerve that there is no Topological mapping? — SteveKlinko

https://www.wired.com/2011/12/london-taxi-driver-memory/ :)

Enjoy the day, :cool:

It's about how we treat theories when there is no evidence. — Pattern-chaser

Basically "theories" without evidence are not theories. The lack of the evidence would take the speculation as a thesis at best... :)

Enjoy the day, :cool: