The Inter Mind

What you think about how you think.
User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3159
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Nikki Nyx » Fri Feb 09, 2018 8:04 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:To understand this better close your eyes and observe what you See. At first there may be various After Images that represent remnants of what you were looking at, but eventually these fade away. What is left is not totally black. Note that you might have to put your hand over your eyes if you are in a bright place in order to cut off external Light from leaking through your eyelids. Most people will notice a background that has a vague grainy noise almost like the video snow noise that used to appear on old analog TVs. Let's call this Conscious Light Noise.
Let's not, since it already has a name: the Ganzfeld Effect.
The Ganzfeld Effect, or perceptual deprivation, is a phenomenon of perception caused by exposure to an unstructured, uniform stimulation field. The effect is the result of the brain amplifying neural noise in order to look for the missing visual signals. The noise is interpreted in the higher visual cortex, and gives rise to hallucinations.
If you took the time to study neurology, you would not invent New Age labels for concepts science has already analyzed and explained. Nor would you be asking questions that have already been answered.
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9031
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Poodle » Fri Feb 09, 2018 8:47 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:The people in the Fantasyland of course don't exist by definition, but the Conscious Light that you are seeing them with certainly exists.

What? OK, Steve, I play my Superman counter which overrides your negation of Fantasyland. Are you kidding? You think you can simply define Conscious Light into existence? You think that declaring Conscious Light makes it exist? Here lies your problem, Steve. You've jumped over a research step or ten. Establish (you know what that means?) Conscious Light rather than declaring it. Show me Conscious Light with references. Give me Conscious Light with proof. If you can't do that, Steve - well, you know what I'm going to say. You have nothing.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27746
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri Feb 09, 2018 11:31 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:Please set out your working description and scientific hypothesis for "Conscious Light". Don't forget to mention electromagnetic wave frequencies and photons. :lol:
SteveKlinko wrote: For the 1 zigabillionth time: It's through Observation and Deduction.
You sir are a total failure at basic science.

You know there is no actual light beaming around in your head and yet you stupidly call this conscious phenomena of visualising colours, blackness, or pure white as "light". It is not light at all.

This is why you can never get anywhere. You deny basic science to maintain your religious belief that "red" is some sort of magical colour

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 377
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Mon Feb 12, 2018 12:20 am

Nikki Nyx wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:The people in the Fantasyland of course don't exist by definition, but the Conscious Light that you are seeing them with certainly exists.
Your statement is cognitively dissonant. The light in your imagination has a real world existence, but the people in your imagination do not? Explain.
If the Conscious Light didn't exist you would not have seen anything.

SteveKlinko wrote:Secondary Elaboration is a distraction that probably only applies to trying to recall complicated details of a Dream.
Nikki Nyx wrote:No. Secondary elaboration is the brain's way of adjusting an experience to fit its model of reality. The brain will discard any parts of the experience that make no logical sense, and create events that have not been experienced to fill in any gaps. This process doesn't occur solely when attempting to make sense of a dream, but also in real world observations, where it is called "confabulation." While the term is evocative of an intent to deceive others, no deception is intended when a person confabulates.

For example, I recall that my first thought upon observing the second plane flying into the tower on 9/11 was, "This must be a movie. It can't possibly be real." My mind was attempting to reject an event that was inconsistent with my real world experiences and inconsistent with an event I might imagine. It initially rejected what my eyes had observed, until it was forced, via incontrovertible evidence, to accept the event as real. Confabulation.
Ok good.

SteveKlinko wrote:If you don't like the Dream evidence then how about: what is that Light you can see when you rub your eyes. There is no Physical Light involved with that. That is completely internal and Seeable while fully awake. It is of course mechanical stimulation of Visual Neurons in the Retina or directly of the Optic Nerve. The signals travel to the Visual Cortex where they are processed and then a Conscious experience of Light occurs. What is that Light you see when there is no Light?
Nikki Nyx wrote:How many times have I explained this phenomenon to you? I've lost count. Rubbing your eyes causes the experience of light because you have stimulated your retina in the exact same way physical light does. End of story. There's nothing mystical about it; it's a physical phenomenon called phosphenes.
Grüsser et al. showed that pressure on the eye results in activation of retinal ganglion cells in a similar way to activation by light. (Grüsser O. J.; Grüsser-Cornehls U.; Hagner M.; Przybyszewski A. W. (1989). "Purkyne's description of pressure phosphenes and modern neurophysiological studies on the generation of phosphenes by eyeball deformation". Physiologia bohemoslovaca. 38 (289–309): 1059–1068.)
Your inability to comprehend these concepts stems from your insistence on rejecting proven scientific data in favor of metaphysical BS. Read the science, Steve, and your explanatory gap will disappear, since it's imaginary.
I said it was mechanical stimulation of the Retina or Optic Nerve. So where does the Light come from? What is the Light that you see?

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 377
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Mon Feb 12, 2018 12:34 am

Nikki Nyx wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:To understand this better close your eyes and observe what you See. At first there may be various After Images that represent remnants of what you were looking at, but eventually these fade away. What is left is not totally black. Note that you might have to put your hand over your eyes if you are in a bright place in order to cut off external Light from leaking through your eyelids. Most people will notice a background that has a vague grainy noise almost like the video snow noise that used to appear on old analog TVs. Let's call this Conscious Light Noise.
Let's not, since it already has a name: the Ganzfeld Effect.
The Ganzfeld Effect, or perceptual deprivation, is a phenomenon of perception caused by exposure to an unstructured, uniform stimulation field. The effect is the result of the brain amplifying neural noise in order to look for the missing visual signals. The noise is interpreted in the higher visual cortex, and gives rise to hallucinations.
If you took the time to study neurology, you would not invent New Age labels for concepts science has already analyzed and explained. Nor would you be asking questions that have already been answered.
Never said I discovered this effect. I'm only suggesting a new way of looking at it. When you look at it in a new way it is often advantageous to use new terms. Isn't it just like there is a Screen is embedded in the front of your face? My suggestion was that the image you See during normal Sight is painted on that same Screen and is as close to your face as the Noise.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 377
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Mon Feb 12, 2018 12:41 am

Poodle wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:The people in the Fantasyland of course don't exist by definition, but the Conscious Light that you are seeing them with certainly exists.

What? OK, Steve, I play my Superman counter which overrides your negation of Fantasyland. Are you kidding? You think you can simply define Conscious Light into existence? You think that declaring Conscious Light makes it exist? Here lies your problem, Steve. You've jumped over a research step or ten. Establish (you know what that means?) Conscious Light rather than declaring it. Show me Conscious Light with references. Give me Conscious Light with proof. If you can't do that, Steve - well, you know what I'm going to say. You have nothing.
What do you call that Light you see when you rub your eyes? What do you call that Light that you See while dreaming. What do you call the Light that you see behind you eyelids when you are seeing an After Image? I call it Conscious Light. It is obviously no kind of actual Physical Light. It's right in front of your face.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 377
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Mon Feb 12, 2018 12:47 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:Please set out your working description and scientific hypothesis for "Conscious Light". Don't forget to mention electromagnetic wave frequencies and photons. :lol:
SteveKlinko wrote: For the 1 zigabillionth time: It's through Observation and Deduction.
You sir are a total failure at basic science.

You know there is no actual light beaming around in your head and yet you stupidly call this conscious phenomena of visualising colours, blackness, or pure white as "light". It is not light at all.

This is why you can never get anywhere. You deny basic science to maintain your religious belief that "red" is some sort of magical colour
Yes there is no light beaming around in anybody's head. You're implying some kind of Physical Light from the Physical World. There is a difference between Physical Light and Conscious Light. There are no electromagnetic wave frequencies with Conscious Light. You are talking about Physical Light. You never have seen Physical Light only the Conscious Light representation of Physical Light.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27746
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Feb 12, 2018 2:55 am

SteveKlinko wrote: Yes there is no light beaming around in anybody's head. You're implying some kind of Physical Light from the Physical World.
I'm not implying anything. Light is set range of electromagnetic wave frequencies that use photons and not the electrons jumping discreet synapses in your brain.

SteveKlinko wrote: There is a difference between Physical Light and Conscious Light.
You are doing it again. There is no such thing as Conscious light, the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus.

I ask you again. Set out your scientific description and working hypothesis for "Conscious Light". It is exactly the same cognitive phenomena as "tastes salty" for Sodium Chloride isn't it? :D

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27746
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Feb 12, 2018 3:01 am

SteveKlinko wrote:What do you call that Light you see when you rub your eyes?
A cognitive representation caused by the brain using synapses. There are no photons at all.

SteveKlinko wrote:What do you call that Light that you See while dreaming.
A cognitive representation caused by the brain using synapses. There are no photons at all.

My Turn
What do you taste when you remember eating a packet of salted chips? Is that conscious Sodium Chloride?
:lol:

What do you think when you remember the sound of a Harley Davidson? Is that conscious air pressure waves?

So WTF is "conscious light"? :lol:

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 766
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Dimebag » Mon Feb 12, 2018 3:29 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:What do you call that Light you see when you rub your eyes?
A cognitive representation caused by the brain using synapses. There are no photons at all.

SteveKlinko wrote:What do you call that Light that you See while dreaming.
A cognitive representation caused by the brain using synapses. There are no photons at all.

My Turn
What do you taste when you remember eating a packet of salted chips? Is that conscious Sodium Chloride?
:lol:

What do you think when you remember the sound of a Harley Davidson? Is that conscious air pressure waves?

So WTF is "conscious light"? :lol:

It is very clear that when we experience some kind of after image, or the Ganzfield effect, or similar such experiences, there is no photons involved in this process. As you have said, there is a cognitive representation occurring. It's interesting that certain cognitive representations will take on visual type representations, whereas other representations take on audible representation. This has always made me wonder, why do certain representations take on their specific type, with specific characteristics or properties.

What is clear is, the specific visual representation areas are used to receiving visual related signals, whereas the audible representations are used to receiving audible related signals. I don't mean that they receive photons or pressure waves, but, the signals they do receive relate to stimulations from the retina or the ear drum and the miniscule hairs within the ear canal which respond in certain ways to the incoming pressure waves. This already creates a distinction, from the signals alone. Furthermore, the retina receives a huge amount of information, very concentrated within the centre few degrees. And once we think about the information being extracted about the visual field, it is no wonder we perceive such differences between vision and hearing.

The retina is a matrix like structure, and it is no surprise that our visual experience is matrix like. Whereas our hearing exists on a single scale in so far as tone, (not sure about other sound characteristics though I'm sure others here may know), so this constraint places bounds on the nature of the experience, with a low end to a high end.

Colour is similar to this, but because any colour is a combination of three distinct hues, the complexity of colour contains more dimensions than that of tone, though we can try and represent colour on a single chart, but with three hue combinations.

Now obviously this doesn't satisfy people wanting some explanation to the explanatory gap, though I think maybe the explanatory gap one day might be broken down into quite a few sub problems, to which we may already have answers to.

Furthermore, the properties we experience are related specifically to characteristics which aid in our survival, colour helps us determine ripeness of fruit, from sound we can determine location of a sound, as well as predict what may be he source of that sound, whether it be a threat, or the voice of a person, with specific language we can use to assist in our survival. What we experience has obviously been honed over hundreds of millions of years, borrowed from previous species, so that our specific experience exists as a highly specialised form, based on previous species, but highly bootstrapped to allow our specific traits of language use, culture formation, social systems, etc.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9031
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Poodle » Mon Feb 12, 2018 7:45 am

I'm sure William of Ockham would have had something to say about all this.

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 766
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Dimebag » Mon Feb 12, 2018 8:42 am

Poodle wrote:I'm sure William of Ockham would have had something to say about all this.

Just admit it, you didn't actually read it. :lol:

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9031
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Poodle » Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:41 am

Unfortunate juxtaposition, Dimebag. I wasn't commenting on your post but on the general gist of the thread. However, I'm sure that William would have done his nut if anyone had used the term 'explanatory gap' within his earshot.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3159
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Nikki Nyx » Tue Feb 13, 2018 3:08 am

SteveKlinko wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:The people in the Fantasyland of course don't exist by definition, but the Conscious Light that you are seeing them with certainly exists.
Your statement is cognitively dissonant. The light in your imagination has a real world existence, but the people in your imagination do not? Explain.
If the Conscious Light didn't exist you would not have seen anything.
:banghead: You're NOT seeing anything when you're dreaming! Your bloody eyes are closed and you're fast asleep! The "images" you think of while awake are produced the same way as dream images...by neurons firing. But you're not "seeing" anything either when you dream of red or when you imagine it. You can imagine red while you're physically looking at something blue.

SteveKlinko wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:If you don't like the Dream evidence then how about: what is that Light you can see when you rub your eyes. There is no Physical Light involved with that. That is completely internal and Seeable while fully awake. It is of course mechanical stimulation of Visual Neurons in the Retina or directly of the Optic Nerve. The signals travel to the Visual Cortex where they are processed and then a Conscious experience of Light occurs. What is that Light you see when there is no Light?
How many times have I explained this phenomenon to you? I've lost count. Rubbing your eyes causes the experience of light because you have stimulated your retina in the exact same way physical light does. End of story. There's nothing mystical about it; it's a physical phenomenon called phosphenes.
Grüsser et al. showed that pressure on the eye results in activation of retinal ganglion cells in a similar way to activation by light. (Grüsser O. J.; Grüsser-Cornehls U.; Hagner M.; Przybyszewski A. W. (1989). "Purkyne's description of pressure phosphenes and modern neurophysiological studies on the generation of phosphenes by eyeball deformation". Physiologia bohemoslovaca. 38 (289–309): 1059–1068.)
Your inability to comprehend these concepts stems from your insistence on rejecting proven scientific data in favor of metaphysical BS. Read the science, Steve, and your explanatory gap will disappear, since it's imaginary.
I said it was mechanical stimulation of the Retina or Optic Nerve. So where does the Light come from? What is the Light that you see?
There is no light! Physical pressure stimulates the retina the same way that physical light does. As far as your retina is concerned, that pressure IS light. So that's the data sent to your brain via your optic nerve. You'll also see light (and patterns) in the absence of visual stimuli, because your brain creates it by amplifying neural activity in an attempt to find what it considers missing visual stimuli. Did you not read the Ganzfeld Effect article?
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3159
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Nikki Nyx » Tue Feb 13, 2018 3:44 am

SteveKlinko wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:To understand this better close your eyes and observe what you See. At first there may be various After Images that represent remnants of what you were looking at, but eventually these fade away. What is left is not totally black. Note that you might have to put your hand over your eyes if you are in a bright place in order to cut off external Light from leaking through your eyelids. Most people will notice a background that has a vague grainy noise almost like the video snow noise that used to appear on old analog TVs. Let's call this Conscious Light Noise.
Let's not, since it already has a name: the Ganzfeld Effect.
The Ganzfeld Effect, or perceptual deprivation, is a phenomenon of perception caused by exposure to an unstructured, uniform stimulation field. The effect is the result of the brain amplifying neural noise in order to look for the missing visual signals. The noise is interpreted in the higher visual cortex, and gives rise to hallucinations.
If you took the time to study neurology, you would not invent New Age labels for concepts science has already analyzed and explained. Nor would you be asking questions that have already been answered.
Never said I discovered this effect. I'm only suggesting a new way of looking at it. When you look at it in a new way it is often advantageous to use new terms.
Creating mystical New Age names for known scientific phenomena is not advantageous; it's disingenuous and obfuscatory. It implies to the reader that you've either discovered or invented the phenomenon, and that it remains unexplained. And it encourages both the reader and you yourself to be willfully ignorant of established scientific knowledge.

I get that the term Ganzfeld Effect doesn't have the flavor of mystery, but that's not an excuse to give it a brand new name and imply that the effect is still a mystery when it's not. Case in point:
Steve: Let's call this amazingly mysterious phenomenon "Conscious Light Noise."
Nikki: It's called the Ganzfeld Effect, and it's a thoroughly explored and explained phenomenon.
Steve: {!#%@}, that {!#%@} up my whole spiel.


If you are genuine in your curiosity, then go read about the Ganzfeld Effect, as well as Closed-Eye Hallucination and Prisoner's Cinema. All your questions will be answered, and we avoid this needless speculation in the future. Honestly, I think you deliberately avoid actually learning neurology because you would have to discard your pet "inter mind" theory. And that's disingenuous and obfuscatory too.
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3159
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Nikki Nyx » Tue Feb 13, 2018 3:54 am

SteveKlinko wrote:What do you call that Light you see when you rub your eyes?
You are not seeing light when you rub your eyes. Did you forget or ignore my answer to this question? Phosphenes, Steve. Go read about them.

SteveKlinko wrote:What do you call that Light that you See while dreaming.
You are obviously not seeing light when you dream, since your eyes are {!#%@} closed. :roll:

SteveKlinko wrote:What do you call the Light that you see behind you eyelids when you are seeing an After Image?
You are not seeing light when you see an after image. Photochemical activity continues in the retinae subsequent to you closing your eyes. It's measurable, not mystical.

SteveKlinko wrote:I call it Conscious Light. It is obviously no kind of actual Physical Light. It's right in front of your face.
You can call it "Purple Hedgehog-Flavored Jellybeans From Hell" if that floats your boat. It certainly wouldn't be any more wrong than what you're calling it. But it's NOT light.
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3159
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Nikki Nyx » Tue Feb 13, 2018 3:58 am

Poodle wrote:I'm sure William of Ockham would have had something to say about all this.
I wonder if more people would practice his principle if he called it "Keep it simple, stupid." :P
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
Cadmusteeth
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1086
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Location: Colorado, USA

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Cadmusteeth » Tue Feb 13, 2018 4:02 pm

They might if you associate the two.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30685
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Gord » Thu Feb 15, 2018 2:01 am

Nikki Nyx wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:But pain can not be found in the Physical World. It is a Conscious Space phenomenon. What is Pain made out of? Is it matter? Is it Energy? Is it some aspect of Space? If it is a Physical World Phenomenon then it must be one of those things. Which is it?

Seriously? Pain is absolutely part of the physical world, since it is a direct response to it, caused by injury or illness. Nerve receptors in the skin perceive sensory stimuli and relay them to the brain using electrical and chemical energy. In the brain, those signals are interpreted as danger (or potential danger) to the body's integrity. The nerve relays can be measured with a nerve conduction test, and the brain's reaction to pain can be measured by a functional MRI. If it can be measured, it's physical.

"Energy"? What is "energy"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUn2izowBkw
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3159
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Nikki Nyx » Fri Feb 16, 2018 7:07 pm

"Don't do it! You have so much potential!" :lol:
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."—Christopher Hitchens

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 377
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Sun Feb 18, 2018 2:28 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote: Yes there is no light beaming around in anybody's head. You're implying some kind of Physical Light from the Physical World.
I'm not implying anything. Light is set range of electromagnetic wave frequencies that use photons and not the electrons jumping discreet synapses in your brain.

SteveKlinko wrote: There is a difference between Physical Light and Conscious Light.
You are doing it again. There is no such thing as Conscious light, the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus.

I ask you again. Set out your scientific description and working hypothesis for "Conscious Light". It is exactly the same cognitive phenomena as "tastes salty" for Sodium Chloride isn't it? :D

So I guess it's just that you don't like that I call it Conscious Light instead of the Light Qualia? You keep bringing up the Tastes Salty experience. Sure we could talk about Conscious Taste or Taste Qualia. How do we experience the Salty Taste?

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 377
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Sun Feb 18, 2018 2:29 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:What do you call that Light you see when you rub your eyes?
A cognitive representation caused by the brain using synapses. There are no photons at all.

SteveKlinko wrote:What do you call that Light that you See while dreaming.
A cognitive representation caused by the brain using synapses. There are no photons at all.

My Turn
What do you taste when you remember eating a packet of salted chips? Is that conscious Sodium Chloride?
:lol:

What do you think when you remember the sound of a Harley Davidson? Is that conscious air pressure waves?

So WTF is "conscious light"? :lol:
That is the question I ask.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 377
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Sun Feb 18, 2018 2:43 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:The people in the Fantasyland of course don't exist by definition, but the Conscious Light that you are seeing them with certainly exists.
Your statement is cognitively dissonant. The light in your imagination has a real world existence, but the people in your imagination do not? Explain.
If the Conscious Light didn't exist you would not have seen anything.
:banghead: You're NOT seeing anything when you're dreaming! Your bloody eyes are closed and you're fast asleep! The "images" you think of while awake are produced the same way as dream images...by neurons firing. But you're not "seeing" anything either when you dream of red or when you imagine it. You can imagine red while you're physically looking at something blue.
Yes but what is that Red experience? Exactly how does Neural Activity lead to an experience of Red?

SteveKlinko wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:If you don't like the Dream evidence then how about: what is that Light you can see when you rub your eyes. There is no Physical Light involved with that. That is completely internal and Seeable while fully awake. It is of course mechanical stimulation of Visual Neurons in the Retina or directly of the Optic Nerve. The signals travel to the Visual Cortex where they are processed and then a Conscious experience of Light occurs. What is that Light you see when there is no Light?
How many times have I explained this phenomenon to you? I've lost count. Rubbing your eyes causes the experience of light because you have stimulated your retina in the exact same way physical light does. End of story. There's nothing mystical about it; it's a physical phenomenon called phosphenes.
Grüsser et al. showed that pressure on the eye results in activation of retinal ganglion cells in a similar way to activation by light. (Grüsser O. J.; Grüsser-Cornehls U.; Hagner M.; Przybyszewski A. W. (1989). "Purkyne's description of pressure phosphenes and modern neurophysiological studies on the generation of phosphenes by eyeball deformation". Physiologia bohemoslovaca. 38 (289–309): 1059–1068.)
Your inability to comprehend these concepts stems from your insistence on rejecting proven scientific data in favor of metaphysical BS. Read the science, Steve, and your explanatory gap will disappear, since it's imaginary.
I said it was mechanical stimulation of the Retina or Optic Nerve. So where does the Light come from? What is the Light that you see?
Nikki Nyx wrote:There is no light! Physical pressure stimulates the retina the same way that physical light does. As far as your retina is concerned, that pressure IS light. So that's the data sent to your brain via your optic nerve. You'll also see light (and patterns) in the absence of visual stimuli, because your brain creates it by amplifying neural activity in an attempt to find what it considers missing visual stimuli. Did you not read the Ganzfeld Effect article?
If that Physical Pressure can be Light and real Light is Light don't you think you have just discovered that the Light you See is not Physical Light But something else?

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 377
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Sun Feb 18, 2018 2:55 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:To understand this better close your eyes and observe what you See. At first there may be various After Images that represent remnants of what you were looking at, but eventually these fade away. What is left is not totally black. Note that you might have to put your hand over your eyes if you are in a bright place in order to cut off external Light from leaking through your eyelids. Most people will notice a background that has a vague grainy noise almost like the video snow noise that used to appear on old analog TVs. Let's call this Conscious Light Noise.
Let's not, since it already has a name: the Ganzfeld Effect.
The Ganzfeld Effect, or perceptual deprivation, is a phenomenon of perception caused by exposure to an unstructured, uniform stimulation field. The effect is the result of the brain amplifying neural noise in order to look for the missing visual signals. The noise is interpreted in the higher visual cortex, and gives rise to hallucinations.
If you took the time to study neurology, you would not invent New Age labels for concepts science has already analyzed and explained. Nor would you be asking questions that have already been answered.
Never said I discovered this effect. I'm only suggesting a new way of looking at it. When you look at it in a new way it is often advantageous to use new terms.
Creating mystical New Age names for known scientific phenomena is not advantageous; it's disingenuous and obfuscatory. It implies to the reader that you've either discovered or invented the phenomenon, and that it remains unexplained. And it encourages both the reader and you yourself to be willfully ignorant of established scientific knowledge.

I get that the term Ganzfeld Effect doesn't have the flavor of mystery, but that's not an excuse to give it a brand new name and imply that the effect is still a mystery when it's not. Case in point:
Steve: Let's call this amazingly mysterious phenomenon "Conscious Light Noise."
Nikki: It's called the Ganzfeld Effect, and it's a thoroughly explored and explained phenomenon.
Steve: {!#%@}, that {!#%@} up my whole spiel.


If you are genuine in your curiosity, then go read about the Ganzfeld Effect, as well as Closed-Eye Hallucination and Prisoner's Cinema. All your questions will be answered, and we avoid this needless speculation in the future. Honestly, I think you deliberately avoid actually learning neurology because you would have to discard your pet "inter mind" theory. And that's disingenuous and obfuscatory too.
The Ganzfeld Effect is a Neural Physiological explanation of why we See the Noise. But this is all Neural Correlates for the Conscious experience of the Noise. The term Conscious Light Noise is the thing we actually experience. I use the new term to emphasize that it is an internal Conscious phenomenon that we don't understand. We understand the Ganzfeld Effect as a Brain Physiology and Neural Activity, but we do not understand how we experience the Ganzfeld effect as the Noise that we see.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 377
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Sun Feb 18, 2018 2:58 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:What do you call that Light you see when you rub your eyes?
You are not seeing light when you rub your eyes. Did you forget or ignore my answer to this question? Phosphenes, Steve. Go read about them.

SteveKlinko wrote:What do you call that Light that you See while dreaming.
You are obviously not seeing light when you dream, since your eyes are {!#%@} closed. :roll:

SteveKlinko wrote:What do you call the Light that you see behind you eyelids when you are seeing an After Image?
You are not seeing light when you see an after image. Photochemical activity continues in the retinae subsequent to you closing your eyes. It's measurable, not mystical.

SteveKlinko wrote:I call it Conscious Light. It is obviously no kind of actual Physical Light. It's right in front of your face.
You can call it "Purple Hedgehog-Flavored Jellybeans From Hell" if that floats your boat. It certainly wouldn't be any more wrong than what you're calling it. But it's NOT light.
You don't think you see Light when you Dream or when you rub your Eyes? It's almost as if you really don't see these things as Light. This could explain your inability to understand Conscious Light as a separate thing from Physical Light.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 377
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Sun Feb 18, 2018 3:03 pm

Gord wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:But pain can not be found in the Physical World. It is a Conscious Space phenomenon. What is Pain made out of? Is it matter? Is it Energy? Is it some aspect of Space? If it is a Physical World Phenomenon then it must be one of those things. Which is it?

Seriously? Pain is absolutely part of the physical world, since it is a direct response to it, caused by injury or illness. Nerve receptors in the skin perceive sensory stimuli and relay them to the brain using electrical and chemical energy. In the brain, those signals are interpreted as danger (or potential danger) to the body's integrity. The nerve relays can be measured with a nerve conduction test, and the brain's reaction to pain can be measured by a functional MRI. If it can be measured, it's physical.

"Energy"? What is "energy"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUn2izowBkw
These are all Neural Correlates of the Conscious experience of Pain. What is the actual experience of Pain. How does the actual experience of Pain happen? None of what you said explains it. You have a big Explanatory Gap with what you are saying.

User avatar
Cadmusteeth
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1086
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Location: Colorado, USA

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Cadmusteeth » Sun Feb 18, 2018 3:53 pm

He really doesn't get it does he?
(Don't answer that)

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9031
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Poodle » Sun Feb 18, 2018 4:15 pm

It's not his fault. He has an Understanding Gap.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3159
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sun Feb 18, 2018 4:21 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:The people in the Fantasyland of course don't exist by definition, but the Conscious Light that you are seeing them with certainly exists.
Your statement is cognitively dissonant. The light in your imagination has a real world existence, but the people in your imagination do not? Explain.
If the Conscious Light didn't exist you would not have seen anything.
:banghead: You're NOT seeing anything when you're dreaming! Your bloody eyes are closed and you're fast asleep! The "images" you think of while awake are produced the same way as dream images...by neurons firing. But you're not "seeing" anything either when you dream of red or when you imagine it. You can imagine red while you're physically looking at something blue.
Yes but what is that Red experience? Exactly how does Neural Activity lead to an experience of Red?
Asked and answered. Reread this thread, because I'm tired of repeating myself. I post scientific data supported by evidence, and you repeatedly discard it and ask the same questions already answered.

SteveKlinko wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:There is no light![/i][/b] Physical pressure stimulates the retina the same way that physical light does. As far as your retina is concerned, that pressure IS light. So that's the data sent to your brain via your optic nerve. You'll also see light (and patterns) in the absence of visual stimuli, because your brain creates it by amplifying neural activity in an attempt to find what it considers missing visual stimuli. Did you not read the Ganzfeld Effect article?
If that Physical Pressure can be Light and real Light is Light don't you think you have just discovered that the Light you See is not Physical Light But something else?
No! The physical pressure is NOT light! Your retinae are misinterpreting it as light, because they're designed to perceive light, not pressure.

Similarly, your eardrums react to vibration. Any vibration near you that's within the range human ears are capable of detecting will be interpreted as sound. If I box your ears, I'll only hear the slap of my hands hitting the sides of your head, but you'll hear both that and the impact of the air on your eardrums. And, possibly, the twang of cobwebs inside your head letting go.

At this point, I feel like you're the type of person who hears hoofbeats and expects unicorns, and nothing I say will convince you they're just horses, because you WANT them to be unicorns.
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3159
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sun Feb 18, 2018 5:54 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:If you took the time to study neurology, you would not invent New Age labels for concepts science has already analyzed and explained. Nor would you be asking questions that have already been answered.
Never said I discovered this effect. I'm only suggesting a new way of looking at it. When you look at it in a new way it is often advantageous to use new terms.
Creating mystical New Age names for known scientific phenomena is not advantageous; it's disingenuous and obfuscatory. It implies to the reader that you've either discovered or invented the phenomenon, and that it remains unexplained. And it encourages both the reader and you yourself to be willfully ignorant of established scientific knowledge.
The Ganzfeld Effect is a Neural Physiological explanation of why we See the Noise.
No. It doesn't explain why we see it; it merely explains how we see it. The "why" is that evolution adopted a method of avoiding a lack of sensory input because human beings are not mentally equipped to handle that lack; it tends to drive us insane, since we function based on the interpretation of sensory input.

SteveKlinko wrote:But this is all Neural Correlates for the Conscious experience of the Noise. The term Conscious Light Noise is the thing we actually experience.
Again, no. These are not correlates to your imaginary metaphysical entity; these are the answers to your questions. You want there to be something special and mystical; that's why you refuse to accept valid scientific explanations.

SteveKlinko wrote:I use the new term to emphasize that it is an internal Conscious phenomenon that we don't understand.
YOU don't understand it. Neurologists do. And I certainly understand the results of their research. It's only wooists who choose to remain in the dark.

SteveKlinko wrote:We understand the Ganzfeld Effect as a Brain Physiology and Neural Activity, but we do not understand how we experience the Ganzfeld effect as the Noise that we see.
Yes, we do. The way our brains are designed, when we perceive chaos, we must superimpose order onto that chaos in order to make sense of it. The ganzfeld effect is an example of this. The eyes lack sensory input, so the brain ramps up neural activity to search for the missing input, and its neural noise is interpreted as visual input. This is why people who experience sensory deprivation hallucinate.

Other examples of our brains imposing order onto chaos:
• Constellations - an attempt to impose patterns onto an infinite three-dimensional space. The stars in constellations are unrelated in any astronomical way, since the pattern is only viewed in two dimensions. Only length and width are considered; depth (distance of stars from Earth) is ignored because it can't be perceived from Earth.
Image
• Pareidolia - includes phenomena like seeing cloud animals, hearing voices buried in the white noise of a fan, seeing the man in the Moon, hearing messages when music is played backward (excludes backmasking), and seeing the image of Jesus on this dog's butt.
• The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy - Committed when differences in data are ignored, but similarities are stressed, and a false conclusion is inferred therefrom. (cf. anti-vaxxers, the Bermuda Triangle, NDEs, intelligent design, etc.)
• Misinterpretation of the mirror neuron's functioning as meaningful (a.k.a. "Monkey see, monkey do.")

The only way to avoid falling prey to this is to learn how and why it happens, then question any patterns you perceive to discern whether they actually exist...or if your brain is imposing them. Then, when you see a tortured face in the bark of a tree, you know it's a Jedi mind trick, not the spirit of a transformed human.
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3159
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sun Feb 18, 2018 6:06 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:I call it Conscious Light. It is obviously no kind of actual Physical Light. It's right in front of your face.
You can call it "Purple Hedgehog-Flavored Jellybeans From Hell" if that floats your boat. It certainly wouldn't be any more wrong than what you're calling it. But it's NOT light.
You don't think you see Light when you Dream or when you rub your Eyes? It's almost as if you really don't see these things as Light. This could explain your inability to understand Conscious Light as a separate thing from Physical Light.
This is the operative word, obviously. Everyone thinks they see light in dreams or when applying pressure to their eyes. But it is measurably NOT light.

I do not have an "inability to understand conscious light as a separate thing from physical light." I reject the concept of "conscious light" entirely, since there is no evidence such a concept exists. The "light" you see when you rub your eyes is not light at all, any more than phantom pain is a response to actual injury or disease. Both are the brain's attempts to match experiences with its model of reality, subject to the limitations of sensory perception.

The retina is designed to perceive light; any stimulus of it will result in the message of "light" being sent to the brain. The organ has limitations, and cannot differentiate between different types of stimuli. The "light" you see in dreams is drawn from your memories.
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3159
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sun Feb 18, 2018 6:24 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:But pain can not be found in the Physical World. It is a Conscious Space phenomenon. What is Pain made out of? Is it matter? Is it Energy? Is it some aspect of Space? If it is a Physical World Phenomenon then it must be one of those things. Which is it?

Seriously? Pain is absolutely part of the physical world, since it is a direct response to it, caused by injury or illness. Nerve receptors in the skin perceive sensory stimuli and relay them to the brain using electrical and chemical energy. In the brain, those signals are interpreted as danger (or potential danger) to the body's integrity. The nerve relays can be measured with a nerve conduction test, and the brain's reaction to pain can be measured by a functional MRI. If it can be measured, it's physical.
These are all Neural Correlates of the Conscious experience of Pain. What is the actual experience of Pain. How does the actual experience of Pain happen? None of what you said explains it. You have a big Explanatory Gap with what you are saying.
The gap is not in my explanation, but in your refusal to accept scientific facts in your quest to be spiritually "special."

In the course of this thread, you have been provided with valid scientific information showing:
• how the brain interprets sensory stimuli, and why it interprets it the way it does,
• how the claustrum functions as an "orchestra conductor," integrating neuronal impulses from the various regions of the brain,
• the myriad ways in which your own brain can trick you, and
• how and why evolution created all of this.
You persist in imagining that you've discovered some mystical entity that you've dubbed "the inter mind," which you claim is responsible for our conscious experiences, and you've not a shred of evidence to support your hypothesis.

Frankly, your posts amount to trolling at this point. Presumably, you came here to subject your hypothesis to scientific data. We've given you that data. You continue to reject it in favor of your beliefs. Therefore, given that the motto of this forum is "promoting SCIENCE and CRITICAL THINKING," and you're demonstrably uninterested in either one, it's time you moved on to some wooists' forum where your views will be embraced, providing you with the masturbatory boost your self-esteem seems to require from others.

Note the poster on the door as you exit:
Image
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."—Christopher Hitchens

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27746
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Feb 18, 2018 9:28 pm

SteveKlinko wrote: So I guess it's just that you don't like that I call it Conscious Light instead of the Light Qualia?
No. Because there is no light at all. Light is a electromagnetic frequency that is converted to synapse brain cells by the evolved cones in your eyes. It is an evolved function of the brain, defined by genes, that allows the human brain to interpret the external environment. Didn't you know this?

SteveKlinko wrote:How do we experience the Salty Taste?
Taste buds in your tongue have evolved to trigger certain synapse configurations to detect Sodium Chloride. It allows the brain to interpret the external environment. Didn't you know this?

Steve doesn't understand evolution.
Steve. Do you agree that the brains ability to convert external data to synapse configurations is all defined by existing evolved genes?

Show us how your magical light is anything other than a series of protein constructions all defined by evolved genes? If you can't do this then you entire premise of magical light falls apart in seconds.
:D

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27746
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Feb 18, 2018 9:30 pm

Cadmusteeth wrote:He really doesn't get it does he?
Steve is quick to ignore any evidence that answers his questions. :D

User avatar
Cadmusteeth
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1086
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Location: Colorado, USA

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Cadmusteeth » Sun Feb 18, 2018 9:38 pm

So I've noticed.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 377
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Mon Feb 19, 2018 12:51 am

Nothing to reply to in that last group of nasty and derogatory responses. The basic question remains:

1) Neurons for Red fire
2) A Conscious experience of Red happens

How does 1 produce 2? It's such a basic question. All anyone ever provides as an explanation is to talk about more Neurons firing. You can fire all the Neurons you want. You can talk about feed forward and feed backward propagations and amplifications. You still never explain the Experience of the Red.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 377
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Mon Feb 19, 2018 1:14 am

I have rewritten my usual question to include a middle step. I would ask each of you detractors to please indulge me and tell me what you would put in as step 2? Thank You

1) Neurons for Red fire
2) ?
3) A Conscious experience of Red happens

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27746
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Feb 19, 2018 2:35 am

SteveKlinko wrote:Nothing to reply to in that last group of nasty and derogatory responses. The basic question remains:
This is the question you keep avoiding.

There is no human brain activity that is not defined by your genes ( DNA) and thus any physics going on is limited to those proteins formed by genes.

Therefore, unless you have evidence that some new sort of physics is going on, which you can't, you cannnot claim any new sort of magic or physics is happening.

Do you agree with that logic? If not offer us your alternative hypothesis and evidence..


SteveKlinko wrote:1) Neurons for Red fire
2) A Conscious experience of Red happens

How does 1 produce 2?
Evolution has created normal physical mechanisms using DNA templates, that allow the brain to receive input from external environmental inputs by converting the original format to specific synapse brain functions.

Sodium Chloride is converted by the taste buds of the tongue into synapse brain patterns ( taste salty)

Atmospheric pressure waves are converted by the ear hammer into into synapse brain patterns (sound)

Electromagnetic photon frequencies and amplitudes are converted by the cones in the eye into synapse brain patterns (colour and whiteness)

A High school graduate would look into how these are converted by observing basic forms of these conversions, in paramecium and so forth. You refuse to do this as you religiously wish to pretend there is a magical thing called conscious light, which has neither light, electromagnetic frequencies, nor electromagnetic amplitudes.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27746
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Feb 19, 2018 2:41 am

SteveKlinko wrote: indulge me and tell me what you would put in as step 2? Thank You

1) Photons of a particular frequency hit the cones in eye.
2) Energy from photon is converted to synapse patterns using electrons, defined by DNA to allow recognition by the brain's other synapses.
3) A Conscious experience of Red happens


Vision and Light-Induced Molecular Changes
Spectroscopy and Quantum Chemistry Experiment / Rachel Casiday and Regina Frey / Department of Chemistry, Washington University
http://www.chemistry.wustl.edu/~edudev/ ... ision.html

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 766
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Dimebag » Mon Feb 19, 2018 9:03 am

SteveKlinko wrote:I have rewritten my usual question to include a middle step. I would ask each of you detractors to please indulge me and tell me what you would put in as step 2? Thank You

1) Neurons for Red fire
2) ?
3) A Conscious experience of Red happens

Steve, I find myself to be very sympathetic towards the instinct you have, and the problem you put forth here, is that you have placed all the explanatory power into step 2. The fact is, we don't really totally understand step 1. It is probably much more complex than neurons associated with red firing, leading to an experience of red. I am inclined to think that once we fully understand step 1, we may not need to insert a step 2. However, what that means is we need to accept that we don't have a total understanding of the processes involved in the production of a conscious experience.

I think if you pressed most of the Skeptics here, they would admit that to being the case. I consider vision to be a special case, compared to sound. I and most people here can easily and at will produce any sound I wish within my head, to the same degree as when I hear it externally. Now it lacks some of the properties inherent in a heard sound, such as position, and the compression of sound, similar to what you hear when the source is approaching or receding (I have noticed I can actually hear this property within fixed sources of sound). But when I compare this to say, my ability to picture the colour red, vs the actual experience of red, it is night and day comparison. There is something about the degree of information contained in our vision which cannot be reproduced by the brain alone, or rather its imaginative capacities alone. If it were as simple as simply having a neuron respond to the detection of red, which lead to the production of the experience of red there would be no reason why babies shouldn't have colour vision from birth. But it's not that simple. The vision system doesn't inherently know the colours from birth.

I am partial to the theory that incoming sensory information from the retina inform our visual cortex which is an amazing prediction machine. It attempts to guess what the incoming signal might be. Left to its own devices, the system will produce wildly inaccurate and strange representations (hallucinations/illusions), but it is the incoming information which reins in the system and produces an accurate description. It is this guessing which leads to the inner world we experience, which requires the external world to make its imprint which our perceptual systems can sift through and produce the meaningful and useful conscious experiences.

If you take a look at colour perception across cultures it actually varies, to the point where the environment they are raised in will determine the colours they can consciously recognise. That topic has been brought up here previously in another thread. What I'm getting at is, the brain is extremely versatile, and because of this it takes quite a while for concepts such as red, or apple, or even circle, to be learned and therefore experienced with any degree of reflection. Only once the mind is capable of awareness can we truly say a conscious experience is possible. Before this stage there could be perception and response to those stimulus' without the ability to reflect.

The problem is, we only have one data point to go on, the human brain and mind. We don't know to what degree other minds can experience as we do, without the ability to reflect. Is it that brains with retinas are capable of experience? Or does one require a specialised cortex? Or furthermore, does one require the ability to reflect, and be as aware as we are to be conscious?

These questions are important, but the only way we will make progress on them and the many others associated with this topic, is to be focussed in our approach, to use the tools we have at our disposal, and have a very healthy dose of humility and be able to accept that for now we have to say that to the most pressing questions concerning consciousness we have to admit, we DON'T KNOW, and..... That's okay.


Return to “Brain, Mind, & Consciousness”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests