The Inter Mind

What you think about how you think.
SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 380
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:38 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Mara wrote:Ahhh, see our friend here Mr Klinko, believes he is not an evolutionary animal, he thinks he is a very special creation of a magic wand used by an old man with white beard who somehow has never been seen by anyone properly for billions of years BUT managed to made him see the color red in a very unique way...that’s the much more plausible alternative :fsm:


Oh it gets much better........from the other thread :
SteveKlinko wrote:Consciousness probably existed prior to the Big Bang and might have even been the cause of the Big Bang.

https://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic. ... 20#p630527

Now if homo habilis is the first evolved hominid with the beginnings of the modern human brain, 2 million years ago, then how is an evolved modern human conscious that sees red in its brain, causing the Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago? This claim by Steve is simply insane.
homo Habilis.jpg


It is pretty clear Steve doesn't know what the Big Bang or a singularity or cosmic inflation is.
:lol:
I think you are naïve if you think those are done deals in Science.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 380
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:41 pm

Mara wrote:Ah... panpsychism is like mental illness, it really is, one could call it ‘looping’ literally and metaphorically. It’s based on a circular logic that is so general (like horoscopes :-)) that fits everything, cannot be proven, will never be scientificly verifiable, so convenient and so useless that we may as well belive in unicorns.

Guys like Mr Klinko come here and really think that we have not heard it before...
If people could put all the energy required in speculating these theories into, I don’t know, charity work, we would have a better world.
I'm glad that one got you going. You cannot refute it because you don't know what Consciousness is and you don't know how the Big Bang really happened.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 380
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:55 pm

It is good to remind everyone what this thread is all about. I think The Inter Mind website sums it up pretty good in the final comment:

It all began a number of years ago when I decided it might be fun to understand how Consciousness occurs in the Brain. I decided that Conscious sensory perception, specifically Light and Sound, were the things I would study. I can see Light and I can hear Sound.

I spent years reading what the Philosophers had to say about Consciousness, only to find that they seem to have hit a pretty hard brick wall on the issue. So I began studying Brain Physiology, Eye Physiology, and Ear Physiology for explanations. The thinking was that if I could understand more and more how the physical Brain, Eye and Ear actually worked then the Conscious perception of Light and Sound would become obvious. That was naive. The Brain Physiologists have become pretty good at finding the Neural Correlates of Consciousness but they have also hit a brick wall beyond that.

If we are going to break through that brick wall then I think it is essential for Philosophers and especially Scientists to let go of the thought that the Conscious Mind has to be found in the Physical Mind or that it is just an illusion. The Inter Mind is a placeholder in a Framework for exploring Consciousness. I hope that this Inter Mind Framework perspective helps to drive a conceptual wedge between the Physical Mind and the Conscious Mind that serves to emphasize the reality of the separation between them. I also hope that with this Framework, some future Mind will be able to discover the key to Consciousness that leads to a whole new Science of Conscious Mind and ultimately to Artificial Consciousness in Machines. The search for the Inter Mind is on! What really is that Conscious Light and that Conscious Sound that we have always seen and always heard?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27862
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Mar 14, 2018 3:17 am

SteveKlinko wrote:Consciousness probably existed prior to the Big Bang and might have even been the cause of the Big Bang.
viewtopic.php?f=32&t=22805&start=320#p630527
Matthew Ellard wrote:It is pretty clear Steve doesn't know what the Big Bang or a singularity or cosmic inflation is. :lol:


SteveKlinko wrote:I think you are naïve if you think those are done deals in Science.
No Steve, it simply shows you are a total idiot. You have been discussing human consciousness. If humans only evolved 190,000 years ago, how can human consciousness cause the big Bang 13.8 billion years ago?

Show me your "logic".
:lol:

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27862
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Mar 14, 2018 3:20 am

SteveKlinko wrote:It is good to remind everyone what this thread is all about. It all began a number of years ago when I decided it might be fun to understand how Consciousness occurs in the Human Brain.


I fixed your sentence for you. You keep forgetting on purpose that dogs and bees and other species don't see "red". :lol:

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27862
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Mar 14, 2018 3:25 am

Matthew Ellard wrote: It is pretty clear Steve doesn't know what the Big Bang or a singularity or cosmic inflation is. [/color] :lol:
SteveKlinko wrote:I think you are naïve if you think those are done deals in Science.


Gosh Steve, explain to me why Doppler red shift isn't evidence of cosmic inflation since you claim cosmic inflation isn't real. :lol:

Mara
Poster
Posts: 174
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2018 7:38 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Mara » Wed Mar 14, 2018 6:24 am

Steve, there is no 'conscious experience' and your ideas are just a philosophical thought experiments of old days, none of these have ever been proven, they are hopeful speculations.

You simply see colour that you differentiate as in comparison to other colours. In fact, depending on what you were taught, you could go through life with different categories of colors. These are purely subjective cognitive processes, artificial and linguistically created nuances, often cultural. Perspectives on many things in life that you take for granted are culturally predisposed, this is something that comes out in narrative therapy and gestalt psychology.

Some reads you could use to be on the same level with us:

https://www.amazon.com/Consciousness-Ex ... 0316180661

https://horizon-magazine.eu/article/how ... in_en.html

Ludwig, D., Goetz, P., Balgemann, D., & Roschke, T. (1972). Language and color perception: A cross-cultural study. International Journal of Symbology.

Roberson, D., Davidoff, J., Davies, I. R., & Shapiro, L. R. (2005). Color categories: Evidence for the cultural relativity hypothesis. Cognitive psychology, 50(4), 378-411.

Those journals will give you references to more journals.


It's not even just colour...constructed perceptions include perception on many things including something as seemingly one directional as time:

Gell, A. (1992). The anthropology of time: cultural constructions of temporal maps and images.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... nea-tribe/

and many other things that you think are real. Humans organise what they perceive by 5 senses. Perception does not equal conscious experience, ok? A thermostat perceives. If it perceives cold temperature it switches on, when it perceives hot temperatures it switches off. The thermostat is programmed, you are also programmed by socio-cultural and biological factors.

Steve, unless you actually research human behaviour empirically by looking at actual studies not just philosophical theories you are really not in a position contemplate consciousness.

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

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Dimebag » Wed Mar 14, 2018 10:29 am

Mara, what exactly do you mean by, "there is no conscious experience"? Do you mean that there is no conscious experience separate from the brain and its activity? Or do you literally mean 13 billion people are just mistaken that they are having conscious experiences? If that's the case, it is a very convincing non existent phenomenon.

You mentioned you have studied gestalt theory. Then you must be aware of the main claim within gestalt psychology, that the "whole is other than the sum of its parts". Consciousness is obviously a phenomenon composed of lower level properties, which when combined, form something not wholly explainable in terms of the individual parts. It can only be understood as a whole. This is basically emergentism. Science is full of emergence, usually at the boundaries between disciplines. The phenomena which are described within a discipline are viewed as being real, and though higher level phenomena supervene on lower level phenomena and are composed of those at lower levels, they obey different rules when viewed as a whole, due to the constraints formed by the interaction of individual parts, thus creating an entirely different framework to view the phenomena. This must be the same case for conscious experience, however it is going to be a very complex interaction due to the many different levels at work below, as well as the many parallel systems at play.

What is apparent is there are a set of properties which need explanation, and neuroscience seems Not quite ready to describe them, it is looking at the wrong level of analysis, where rules only apply to the individual and not the whole or combination of parts. That is not to say that there is no point in studying consciousness within the neuro scientific framework, but at some stage we will need some brilliant theorists to extract out the next level which describes the conscious experience. I have a feeling we will be greatly assisted by computers, to discover this emergent set of rules which might begin to describe the way in which these new properties behave, using the lower levels of neuroscience.

What is your view on this?

Mara
Poster
Posts: 174
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2018 7:38 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Mara » Wed Mar 14, 2018 11:14 am

Correct, it’s a convincing illusion, in fact, it’s a survival mechanism to keep us going. Not that much different to the convinient illusion of anthropocentrism or other cognitive biases that whole industries of politics, marketing and entertainment figured out and have been using against people successfully.

Neurosciences is no longer interested in consciousness, they are interested in behavioral sciences and neuropsychology these days as those findings are much more useful and testable. Consciousness is an area of study that got left to philosophers and people like Stuart Hameroff who do it as a hobby side job.

If you really knew of gestalt psychology, you would know it comes from heavy psychoanalytical background also based on evolutionary psychology where humans are seen as categorising subjectively their interpretation of reality (that has not much to do with the actual reality) in order to make sense out of chaos, otherwise our brains would ‘blow up’ as we are unable to process all the details correctly and objectively in each moment, we make mental shortcuts in reference to other things we already know. This also allows us to move forward rather than stagnation in indecision. Gestalt therapy recognises such human tendency to subjective perception and if the person is stuck in particular gestalt, particular ‘C’the therapist, essentially, in a skilled manipulative and diplomatic manner shows such person how their perception is subjective, inadequate and unsubstantiated, and it is time to create new perceptions that can serve the person better right now...till the next time they get stuck again. Psychology is about helping the person to survive in a manner that is not pathological. There still should be a classic video of therapy session on YouTube between Perls and Gloria. Watch it.

That is all these processes are, we all do it, there is no magic, it’s simply complex psychology. There is no actual evidence to belive we are conscious. Most people trust themselves too much, and crave to mantain confidence (that is also a part of survival needs) to recognise how un-special and predictable we are.

Personally, I belive if we accepted this reality of ourselves then we could put processes in place to make up for those natural shortfalls (by use of technology for instance) and we would live in a more honest world. Religion and spirituality would not exist then.

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

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Dimebag » Wed Mar 14, 2018 12:00 pm

Mara wrote:Correct, it’s a convincing illusion, in fact, it’s a survival mechanism to keep us going. Not that much different to the convinient illusion of anthropocentrism or other cognitive biases that whole industries of politics, marketing and entertainment figured out and have been using against people successfully..........

.........That is all these processes are, we all do it, there is no magic, it’s simply complex psychology. There is no actual evidence to belive we are conscious. Most people trust themselves too much, and crave to mantain confidence (that is also a part of survival needs) to recognise how un-special and predictable we are.

Mara , understand that with your claim you not only deny the existence of conscious experience, you also deny the illusion. Without an ability to be conscious, the whole concept of real vs illusion is nonsensical, neither can exist. And yet your own mind is convinced there is something there, rather than nothing. Even if you have managed to convince yourself that what you are experiencing is not really there, there is still something there which you have to deny. There is still an illusion. I call it a construction rather than illusion, but either way, construction or illusion, it's still something. It requires explanation. Even if you try to convince yourself that your brain is simply fooling you into thinking something is there, this presupposes a self, a homunculus, so the argument is nonsensical. This is why the idea of a construction is more appealing. There is no subject which needs to experience it. There is simply an experience which is constructed. I find this idea more logically consistent than the idea of a non existent conscious experience, requiring a homunculus to be fooled.

Now if you want to try to explain the construction of conscious experience in terms of the brain, it's structures, it's interactions and neuro chemistry, I am happy to listen. But it's pretty clear to me that something is going on which requires explanation, based on the parts which are interacting.

I would also like to ask you a further question. If conscious experience is not a thing in the world, not even an emergent phenomenon consisting of lower level interactions, what is it that we as humans value? And with that attitude, what is stopping anyone from destroying all life? We value other people because we assume they have the same experiential aspect to life that we do. For organisms which we presume lack this inner world, we do not value them, because we assume they have nothing to lose. Beyond your continuing life for the sake of it, what keeps you living? I for one am thankful to have conscious experience, to not have it would mean I would have nothing to hold on to.

Artilectium
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:16 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Artilectium » Wed Mar 14, 2018 11:19 pm

I find it funny how nobody can seem to grasp what SteveKlinko is getting at. He's trying to figure out why neurons cause a certain quale (color, smell, pain, etc...)

Someone says he's insane and say they have the answer,
>ITS NEURONS, ITS IN THE BRAIN, ITS ALL FIGURED OUT.
> we can understand why we feel pain; it is a feeling caused by certain neurons firing.

You used the thing that you were supposed to explain in the explanation of the thing you were supposed to explain.

See, we can always ask, "Why does that cause the feeling of pain?" after any explanation you give me. 8 million neurotransmitters moved across the synapse. Why should that cause pain? There are synchronized oscillations at 40Hz. Why should that cause pain? The microtubules are quantum entangled. Why should that cause pain?

Mara
Poster
Posts: 174
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2018 7:38 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Mara » Thu Mar 15, 2018 4:27 am

Dimebag wrote: Mara , understand that with your claim you not only deny the existence of conscious experience, you also deny the illusion. Without an ability to be conscious, the whole concept of real vs illusion is nonsensical, neither can exist. And yet your own mind is convinced there is something there, rather than nothing. Even if you have managed to convince yourself that what you are experiencing is not really there, there is still something there which you have to deny. There is still an illusion. I call it a construction rather than illusion, but either way, construction or illusion, it's still something. It requires explanation. Even if you try to convince yourself that your brain is simply fooling you into thinking something is there, this presupposes a self, a homunculus, so the argument is nonsensical. This is why the idea of a construction is more appealing. There is no subject which needs to experience it. There is simply an experience which is constructed. I find this idea more logically consistent than the idea of a non existent conscious experience, requiring a homunculus to be fooled.

Now if you want to try to explain the construction of conscious experience in terms of the brain, it's structures, it's interactions and neuro chemistry, I am happy to listen. But it's pretty clear to me that something is going on which requires explanation, based on the parts which are interacting.

I would also like to ask you a further question. If conscious experience is not a thing in the world, not even an emergent phenomenon consisting of lower level interactions, what is it that we as humans value? And with that attitude, what is stopping anyone from destroying all life? We value other people because we assume they have the same experiential aspect to life that we do. For organisms which we presume lack this inner world, we do not value them, because we assume they have nothing to lose. Beyond your continuing life for the sake of it, what keeps you living? I for one am thankful to have conscious experience, to not have it would mean I would have nothing to hold on to.


You are using a circular reasoning, trust me…I have been involved in these conversations for almost 10 years, your behaviour is a classic typical bias representative of those who desperately want to believe there is more to life than there is, the irony here is that, this very behaviour is an evidence for what I am saying. Skeptics do not have any existential needs invested in their understanding and interpretations of evidence, believers do. Most of us can predict the arguments that are about to come because we already thought of them on our path to this point.

Let's get few operational definitions for you:

Subjectivity
- the quality of being based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. He is the first to acknowledge the subjectivity of memories"
- the quality of existing in someone's mind rather than the external world.
"the subjectivity of human perception"

- The subjective character of experience is a term in psychology and the philosophy of mind denoting that all subjective phenomena are associated with a single point of view ("ego").


illusion
1.
a. An erroneous perception of reality: Mirrors gave the illusion of spaciousness.
b. An erroneous concept or belief: The notion that money can buy happiness is an illusion.
2. The condition of being deceived by a false perception or belief: spent months flailing about in illusion.
3. Something that is erroneously perceived or construed: The animal in the shadows turned out to be an illusion.
4. A fine transparent net fabric, used for dresses or trimmings

Social constructionism or the social construction of reality (also social concept) is a theory of knowledge in sociology and communication theory that examines the development of jointly constructed understandings of the world that form the basis for shared assumptions about reality.

Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

You start with an assumption that there is a conscious experience, you need to take a step back and ask what evidence we have for it? I recommend you check out this book, it explains it well https://www.amazon.com/Consciousness-Ex ... 0316180661

Also have a look at definition of bias and the types of it, they should have references to the actual experiments illustrating these in human behaviour.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias

'Something' can be a delusion, illusion, construction, hallucination, whatever term makes you happy - these are operational words to describe that 'something' that has nothing to do with the actual reality, they are external and independent of the actual reality.

There are plenty of 'somethings' that people do every-day. Try working with schizophrenics who tell you there is a dinosaur in the room about to eat them, or that the Beatles are coming to play on their upcoming b'day. They really believe it, it has nothing to do with objective reality.

These are processes in which a person interprets and names information produced by their brain. Your computer has such processes, do you think your computer is conscious?

Organisms such as homo sapiens, especially as an individual, have no chance at objectively perceiving reality. Sciences understand it hence the scientific method based on number of protocols and verification procedures. An example of these could be relativistic considerations that are understood in a reference to the observer, in this case, an Earth bound observer, these need to be taken under consideration and programmed into our technology such as GPS systems for instance, otherwise we would not be receiving precise time measurement.

Another way of saying this would be - humans can follow protocols to get things right eventually but most of the things that go through our minds daily are man-made, artificial and actually 'false''

No, you need explanation, skeptics understand it already. The question is when will you be ready to drop needy illusions.

Humans value what they make themselves to value, these are constructed and illusionary needs and assumptions. From the point of view of the external reality it does not matter if you go through life as Mother Therese or a Jack the Ripper, this only matters to other humans hence we have justice system and ethics etc. These exist to keep order in line with assumption of anthropocentrism. These are subjective and man-made illusions that, as you hopefully know vary based on cultures, historical era, interpretation of what is right and wrong etc. None of these are closer to the truth than others, they are just different. Even perception of pain is subjective.

For instance if we dropped the anthropocentric illusions, by our current standards, we would need to define ourselves as a pest animal because we are not a part of the food chain anymore and we cause significant damage (worst from all the animals) to the environment.


An exercise for you:

Sit on your veranda or similar, observe the birds on the trees tweeting. If you block your emotions and assumptions as much as possible and try to focus on what you can actually see, you will find yourself looking at a moving small something that makes noise.

Now imagine that your friends are coming over to your house, you set up a table with some crackers and drinks, your friends tell you few personal stories and jokes - while that happens a bird is sitting on the tree branch looking at you - what do you think the bird sees? - a large moving object, making noise. That in itself already requires assumption that the bird has some type of evolutionary mental process recognising size and movement and the sense of hearing of sounds that cover human sound range, otherwise the bird would perceive nothing, just as we do not see bacteria and microorganisms yet they are there, that we know of thanks to technology and rational thinking.

There is really nothing that philosophical approaches that are not rational offered to understanding of objective reality.

There are actually studies showing a link between schizophrenia and creativity for example, that in itself is interesting...http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 05708.html

My recommendation would be you stick to rationality...

P.S. I should also point out that you may be using the term consciousness differently to Mr Steve, as he seems to be stuck at the 'Mary the super scientist' philosophical thought experiment in regards to the 'experience of the colour red' that is similar to many of the eastern philosophical assumptions - that is what I have been responding to here.

If you are referring to consciousness as a purely subjective experience i.e.mental processes then the confusion is in assuming that subjective experience needs to be conscious. I also seen conversations and lectures where people refer to 'consciousness' as the feedback mechanism or self-awareness but that does not require consciousness in the way Steve sees it, it just requires a feedback programming like the single loop learning example with the thermostat or a camera facing a mirror. Some of the child development studies suggest that an infant develops ability to recognise oneself in the mirror at 6 months for instance.

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

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Dimebag » Thu Mar 15, 2018 11:33 am

Mara wrote:You are using a circular reasoning

How do you respond to my thought that you still require an inner observer for something to be illusory? Your definitions of illusion describe there being a perception of one thing, which is not there, but which is caused by something else which is there. If we extend this logic to conscious experience, for it to be an illusion, we would be perceiving one thing when in reality it is another. Can you explain how even an illusion of conscious experience is possible under your explanation? Either admit that what you mean is conscious experience does not exist, or admit that using word play such as illusion is mere obfuscation.

Mara wrote:trust me…I have been involved in these conversations for almost 10 years, your behaviour is a classic typical bias representative of those who desperately want to believe there is more to life than there is, the irony here is that, this very behaviour is an evidence for what I am saying. Skeptics do not have any existential needs invested in their understanding and interpretations of evidence, believers do. Most of us can predict the arguments that are about to come because we already thought of them on our path to this point.

You could say I am biased, yes, in that I do consistently have conscious experience, and I am not alone. The mere fact that conscious experience is something which occurs so consistently throughout the human species is something which begs explanation. It is not transient, like some kind of hallucination. There is no belief required in order to apprehend conscious experience, all you need is the right hardware, ala, a working brain. The very evidence which science is founded on is extracted from conscious experience, without conscious experience there would be no science. If you deny conscious experience you cannot justify anything scientifically. Something must be observed. A skeptic is someone who should be able to be swayed by evidence, and yet your mind is made up, based on what evidence exactly?

Mara wrote:Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

You start with an assumption that there is a conscious experience, you need to take a step back and ask what evidence we have for it? I recommend you check out this book, it explains it well https://www.amazon.com/Consciousness-Ex ... 0316180661

What evidence do I have that conscious experience exists? Due to the very nature of the thing we are trying to describe, and thanks to the way in which science removed subjectivity in order to progress (due to its inability to account for it), I'm afraid we can't point to something and say that is conscious experience. However, we can point to parts of the brain which coincide with it.

Can I give you an analogy? The wetness of water is not inherent to a h20 molecule. You could not look at a h20 molecule and predict or describe anything about the property of wetness based on the molecule on its own. The wetness is an emergent property which only occurs when the individual molecules combine, and based on their interactions together, the properties of viscosity and surface tension emerge, and these coupled together produce wetness. I think consciousness is the same thing, viewed individually, in its parts, we only notice the parts. It is only when those parts combine that the properties of consciousness emerge. This is a simplistic idea though, because I think in reality, there are probably multiple levels of emergent properties built one on top of the other.

Mara wrote:There are plenty of 'somethings' that people do every-day. Try working with schizophrenics who tell you there is a dinosaur in the room about to eat them, or that the Beatles are coming to play on their upcoming b'day. They really believe it, it has nothing to do with objective reality.

I agree that conscious experience is only associated with objective reality, it is not objective reality in itself. When a person hallucinates something, obviously what they hallucinate isn't real, their perceptual mechanisms are malfunctioning, basically their mind is guessing incorrectly. What I am saying is that when certain parts of the brain interact, that interacting process leads to properties that just are conscious experience. Conscious experience is not distinct from the interaction. In the same way that wetness is not distinct from the interacting of h20 molecules, the properties of conscious experience are novel, but with a full understanding of the underlying mechanisms, we should be able to predict these emergent properties.

Mara wrote:These are processes in which a person interprets and names information produced by their brain. Your computer has such processes, do you think your computer is conscious?
No, but my computer has entirely different hardware, and achieves what it does by entirely different processes. Our brains biology is an amazingly specific set of hardware, we have no reason to believe that conscious experience could be achieved by any other process. Just because it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck doesn't mean it's a duck.

Mara wrote:No, you need explanation, skeptics understand it already. The question is when will you be ready to drop needy illusions.
If science could explain why I THINK I am conscious but really am not, and it was as explanatory as any other hypothesis we have and stood up to the same standards, then I wouldn't hesitate to accept it. Obviously there would still be a non rational oart of me which would still think that it was experiencing something, but in the same way a person can understand that their self is a construction rather than an indivisible entity, I would be able to reach a satisfying point of understanding.
Mara wrote:An exercise for you:

Sit on your veranda or similar, observe the birds on the trees tweeting. If you block your emotions and assumptions as much as possible and try to focus on what you can actually see, you will find yourself looking at a moving small something that makes noise.

Now imagine that your friends are coming over to your house, you set up a table with some crackers and drinks, your friends tell you few personal stories and jokes - while that happens a bird is sitting on the tree branch looking at you - what do you think the bird sees? - a large moving object, making noise. That in itself already requires assumption that the bird has some type of evolutionary mental process recognising size and movement and the sense of hearing of sounds that cover human sound range, otherwise the bird would perceive nothing, just as we do not see bacteria and microorganisms yet they are there, that we know of thanks to technology and rational thinking.

The birds perception would no doubt be very different to ours. I find it very difficult to imagine what other animals experience might be like, the more we study our own brain, the more we realise that all that we experience is built from smaller parts of our brain responsible for interpreting sensory signals and predicting or constructing a likely cause of that signal. When we are in what is described as "flow state" or basically when we are focussing on a particular task intently, there is very little of our conscious experience which is committed to memory. I imagine this might be similar to what some animals might experience, but even then, so much of the semantic knowledge we use to understand and define our environment is due to our language centred brain.

Mara wrote:P.S. I should also point out that you may be using the term consciousness differently to Mr Steve, as he seems to be stuck at the 'Mary the super scientist' philosophical thought experiment in regards to the 'experience of the colour red' that is similar to many of the eastern philosophical assumptions - that is what I have been responding to here.
I have been previously caught up on the understanding of the explanatory gap or hard problem, however I came to realise that this line of thought leads to the adoption of consciousness being a fundamental property of all matter. This line of reasoning has some major inconsistencies with mind body problems, problems of interaction and causality and is a real trap you don't want to fall in. The mind body problem happens when we separate the matter which produces conscious experience from the phenomenon of conscious experience itself, but this is a problem because as soon as you separate the two you will never find a way to bring them back. We need to understand how conscious experience is the result of physical processes in the brain. This is my interest currently, not so much on the problems and gaps. You can't build a bridge by building in open space, you need to start from a solid area and extend out.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 380
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Fri Mar 16, 2018 1:47 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:Consciousness probably existed prior to the Big Bang and might have even been the cause of the Big Bang.
https://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic. ... 20#p630527
Matthew Ellard wrote:It is pretty clear Steve doesn't know what the Big Bang or a singularity or cosmic inflation is. :lol:


SteveKlinko wrote:I think you are naïve if you think those are done deals in Science.
No Steve, it simply shows you are a total idiot. You have been discussing human consciousness. If humans only evolved 190,000 years ago, how can human consciousness cause the big Bang 13.8 billion years ago?

Show me your "logic".
:lol:
We are really talking about Consciousness in general but we can only describe our own Human Conscious experiences. There are probably virtually uncountable Animal Conscious experiences that we don't know how to measure yet. Consciousness is not just a Human thing.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 380
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Fri Mar 16, 2018 1:50 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:It is good to remind everyone what this thread is all about. It all began a number of years ago when I decided it might be fun to understand how Consciousness occurs in the Human Brain.


I fixed your sentence for you. You keep forgetting on purpose that dogs and bees and other species don't see "red". :lol:
You keep forgetting that this thread is about how the Human Brain can experience Sensory input. If you want to know how Bees and Dogs Brains work start another thread.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 380
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Fri Mar 16, 2018 1:55 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote: It is pretty clear Steve doesn't know what the Big Bang or a singularity or cosmic inflation is. [/color] :lol:
SteveKlinko wrote:I think you are naïve if you think those are done deals in Science.


Gosh Steve, explain to me why Doppler red shift isn't evidence of cosmic inflation since you claim cosmic inflation isn't real. :lol:
Never said Cosmic Inflation isn't real. You are not only creating a Diversion, now you are just plain Lying.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 380
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Fri Mar 16, 2018 2:19 pm

Mara wrote:Steve, there is no 'conscious experience' and your ideas are just a philosophical thought experiments of old days, none of these have ever been proven, they are hopeful speculations.

You simply see colour that you differentiate as in comparison to other colours. In fact, depending on what you were taught, you could go through life with different categories of colors. These are purely subjective cognitive processes, artificial and linguistically created nuances, often cultural. Perspectives on many things in life that you take for granted are culturally predisposed, this is something that comes out in narrative therapy and gestalt psychology.

Some reads you could use to be on the same level with us:

https://www.amazon.com/Consciousness-Ex ... 0316180661

https://horizon-magazine.eu/article/how ... in_en.html

Ludwig, D., Goetz, P., Balgemann, D., & Roschke, T. (1972). Language and color perception: A cross-cultural study. International Journal of Symbology.

Roberson, D., Davidoff, J., Davies, I. R., & Shapiro, L. R. (2005). Color categories: Evidence for the cultural relativity hypothesis. Cognitive psychology, 50(4), 378-411.

Those journals will give you references to more journals.


It's not even just colour...constructed perceptions include perception on many things including something as seemingly one directional as time:

Gell, A. (1992). The anthropology of time: cultural constructions of temporal maps and images.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... nea-tribe/

and many other things that you think are real. Humans organise what they perceive by 5 senses. Perception does not equal conscious experience, ok? A thermostat perceives. If it perceives cold temperature it switches on, when it perceives hot temperatures it switches off. The thermostat is programmed, you are also programmed by socio-cultural and biological factors.

Steve, unless you actually research human behaviour empirically by looking at actual studies not just philosophical theories you are really not in a position contemplate consciousness.
Ironically, a large motivation for The Inter Mind was because of writings like Dennett's. He says that Conscious experience is just an Illusion. He never really has an explanation for how this could be true, he just says it. He never properly explains exactly what is the thing that is experiencing the Illusion. According to Dennett there should be no Experience.

With regard to the second reference, she states up front that there are Millions of Colors that we actually can Experience. She is only talking about the way we categorize our Color experiences. If a culture only has four words for Color it does not mean they only develop an ability to Experience 4 Colors. They still experience millions of Colors.

But these are all Diversions from the question of this thread: How do we Humans experience Color. What is the mechanism that produces an experience of Color from Neural Activity.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 380
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Fri Mar 16, 2018 2:32 pm

Artilectium wrote:I find it funny how nobody can seem to grasp what SteveKlinko is getting at. He's trying to figure out why neurons cause a certain quale (color, smell, pain, etc...)

Someone says he's insane and say they have the answer,
>ITS NEURONS, ITS IN THE BRAIN, ITS ALL FIGURED OUT.
> we can understand why we feel pain; it is a feeling caused by certain neurons firing.

You used the thing that you were supposed to explain in the explanation of the thing you were supposed to explain.

See, we can always ask, "Why does that cause the feeling of pain?" after any explanation you give me. 8 million neurotransmitters moved across the synapse. Why should that cause pain? There are synchronized oscillations at 40Hz. Why should that cause pain? The microtubules are quantum entangled. Why should that cause pain?
All I can say is Thank You for this post, and welcome to the thread. The Physicalists obviously don't have any idea how Neural Activity produces the Conscious experience of Red. They just won't admit it. If they would admit it then it would be a lot easier for Science to move forward on the whole issue.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9090
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 Mar 16, 2018 3:36 pm

Artilectium wrote:I find it funny how nobody can seem to grasp what SteveKlinko is getting at. He's trying to figure out why neurons cause a certain quale (color, smell, pain, etc...)

Someone says he's insane and say they have the answer,
>ITS NEURONS, ITS IN THE BRAIN, ITS ALL FIGURED OUT.
> we can understand why we feel pain; it is a feeling caused by certain neurons firing.

You used the thing that you were supposed to explain in the explanation of the thing you were supposed to explain.

See, we can always ask, "Why does that cause the feeling of pain?" after any explanation you give me. 8 million neurotransmitters moved across the synapse. Why should that cause pain? There are synchronized oscillations at 40Hz. Why should that cause pain? The microtubules are quantum entangled. Why should that cause pain?

Yeah, most of us find it funny too. But hang on ... WE weren't supposed to explain anything. It's Steve's proposition - let HIM do the explaining (which, if you read through the whole thread, you'll discover he has signally failed to do). His pet is the explanatory gap, which I refuse to capitalise as though its name was Donald Trump. I fail to see the gap, as do a lot of people on here. It's up to Steve (and you if you want to have a go rather than joining the Declaration Club) to show that it exists. Anyway, you've read him wrongly. He isn't claiming that neurons cause anything - he's claiming that a sensory experience is much, much more than that.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 380
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Fri Mar 16, 2018 6:02 pm

Poodle wrote:
Artilectium wrote:I find it funny how nobody can seem to grasp what SteveKlinko is getting at. He's trying to figure out why neurons cause a certain quale (color, smell, pain, etc...)

Someone says he's insane and say they have the answer,
>ITS NEURONS, ITS IN THE BRAIN, ITS ALL FIGURED OUT.
> we can understand why we feel pain; it is a feeling caused by certain neurons firing.

You used the thing that you were supposed to explain in the explanation of the thing you were supposed to explain.

See, we can always ask, "Why does that cause the feeling of pain?" after any explanation you give me. 8 million neurotransmitters moved across the synapse. Why should that cause pain? There are synchronized oscillations at 40Hz. Why should that cause pain? The microtubules are quantum entangled. Why should that cause pain?

Yeah, most of us find it funny too. But hang on ... WE weren't supposed to explain anything. It's Steve's proposition - let HIM do the explaining (which, if you read through the whole thread, you'll discover he has signally failed to do). His pet is the explanatory gap, which I refuse to capitalise as though its name was Donald Trump. I fail to see the gap, as do a lot of people on here. It's up to Steve (and you if you want to have a go rather than joining the Declaration Club) to show that it exists. Anyway, you've read him wrongly. He isn't claiming that neurons cause anything - he's claiming that a sensory experience is much, much more than that.
I thought you quit. Here we go again. The Inter Mind was born as a result of Science not having the answer to the following question that I will put up one more time:

Given:
1) Neural Activity for Red happens.
2) A Conscious experience of Red happens.

How does 1 produce 2?

I say I don't know how 1 produces 2. I have always said that. That's the whole point of the Inter Mind. Please read http://theintermind.com The Inter Mind is a hypothesized and as yet undiscovered processing stage in the Conscious Red experience. Physicalists say that there is no Explanatory Gap in this but have not yet explained how 1 produces 2. What I hear Physicalists say is that there's no Gap because 1 is the same as 2. Saying that 1 is the same thing as 2 is not very Scientific. Let's ask another question as an example:

Given:
1) Electronic Activity happens inside a TV
2) A Color Image happens on the TV Screen

How does 1 produce 2?

There is a definite answer to this which I don't need to go into. But if I give the equivalent Physicalist answer they would say that 1 is the same thing as 2 so there is no more Explanation needed. How is Consciousness ever going to be solved never mind even studied with logic like this?

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9090
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 Mar 16, 2018 8:53 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:I thought you quit. Here we go again ...

I have and no we don't. I was merely explaining to your friend that he hadn't read the thread properly.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27862
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Mar 17, 2018 2:22 am

Steve Klinko and basic physics.
SteveKlinko concerning cosmic inflation wrote:I think you are naïve if you think those are done deals in Science.
Matthew Ellard wrote:Gosh Steve, explain to me why Doppler red shift isn't evidence of cosmic inflation since you claim cosmic inflation isn't real. :lol:
SteveKlinko wrote:Never said Cosmic Inflation isn't real. You are not only creating a Diversion, now you are just plain Lying.
Stop lying Steve. You directly said cosmic inflation was "not a done deal", without one iota of evidence that it isn't. Your are just another religious nut case.


Steve Klinko and Human Consciousness caused the Big Bang
SteveKlinko wrote:Consciousness probably existed prior to the Big Bang and might have even been the cause of the Big Bang.
Matthew Ellard wrote:You have only been discussing human consciousness. If humans only evolved 190,000 years ago, how can human consciousness cause the big Bang 13.8 billion years ago?
SteveKlinko wrote:We are really talking about Consciousness in general but we can only describe our own Human Conscious experiences.
SteveKlinko wrote:You keep forgetting that this thread is about how the Human Brain can experience Sensory input. If you want to know how Bees and Dogs Brains work start another thread.
You are now directly claiming the human conscious caused the big bang 13.8 billion years ago while simultaneously knowing humans only evolved 190,000 years ago.

You are both mad and religious.
:lol:

Steve Klinko and his religious Anthropomorphism
SteveKlinko wrote: A Conscious experience of Red happens. How does Neural Activity for Red happens produce a conscious experience of red?

1) You are only talking about humans as other animals and probably every other alien in the universe does not see red in their minds for photon frequencies of 430–480 THz Your evidence is not evidence about consciousness in general at all.
2) There is no neural activity for "red". Humans evolved cones in their eye that pick up a particular photon frequency and simultaneously evolved an interpretative colour system for neuron patterns receiving that information, that indicate that frequency is being received. It is no different to conscious concepts of "thirst", "tastes salty" or "I'm cold". It is how evolution allows the conscious to integrate different types of environmental inputs. There is no external thing as "red" "tastes salty" or "thirst". Secondly, and you can't handle this as you are religious, aliens may have a totally different manner of receiving, integrating and assessing external environmental data. Y

Your ridiculous claim human consciousness may have caused the Big Bang is just religious nonsense.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27862
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Mar 17, 2018 2:28 am

Artilectium wrote:I find it funny how nobody can seem to grasp what SteveKlinko is getting at. He's trying to figure out why neurons cause a certain quale (color, smell, pain, etc...)
Steve, like yourself, refuses to do any basic research. As you refuse to consider how basic animals, like paramecium, evolved to react to environmental inputs, such as following light, you will never have the ground work to understand how more complex systems like human neural pathways evolved and work.

What do you think is the first evolved consciousness, of any kind, in a species on Earth?

Mara
Poster
Posts: 174
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2018 7:38 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Mara » Sat Mar 17, 2018 8:00 am

As expected this is becoming repetitive so this will be the last one from me.

Dimebag wrote: "How do you respond to my thought that you still require an inner observer for something to be illusory? Your definitions of illusion describe there being a perception of one thing, which is not there, but which is caused by something else which is there."


1. Your thought ASSUMES that the observer is conscious. As stated before, take a step back. The observer is an organism, an evolutionary system that responds to stimuli. In the case of humans that includes conditioning by socio-cultural forces, just like a complex puppet essentially - that is what deterministic universe is. You touch hot, you feel pain, you learn not to do this again...you experience trauma in a relationship, you form a framework (gestalt) about the circumstances that occurred in, and you learn to avoid similar circumstance in the future...you complete a task at work in a specific way and you receive a reward, you continue doing it...you experience sense of empowerment you want more of it...you experience loss you try to avoid it...somebody tells you a story about God that places you at the centre of the universe you believe it as it feels good until it conflicts with your direct experience (new stimuli) etc.

Go to a library and pick up a basic introductory psychology book, I promise you it is all there.

Dimebag wrote: If we extend this logic to conscious experience, for it to be an illusion, we would be perceiving one thing when in reality it is another. Can you explain how even an illusion of conscious experience is possible under your explanation? Either admit that what you mean is conscious experience does not exist, or admit that using word play such as illusion is mere obfuscation.


2. We do not need to extend this to 'conscious experience' at all in order to understand it, this is your choice to make the leap of faith with this assumption and that is the problem. It is based on wishful thinking, not actual need.

Dimebag wrote: You could say I am biased, yes, in that I do consistently have conscious experience, and I am not alone. The mere fact that conscious experience is something which occurs so consistently throughout the human species is something which begs explanation. It is not transient, like some kind of hallucination. There is no belief required in order to apprehend conscious experience, all you need is the right hardware, ala, a working brain. The very evidence which science is founded on is extracted from conscious experience, without conscious experience there would be no science. If you deny conscious experience you cannot justify anything scientifically. Something must be observed. A skeptic is someone who should be able to be swayed by evidence, and yet your mind is made up, based on what evidence exactly?


3. Just because many people believe in something it does not make it true, populism is not equal with evidence. You will actually find that based on evidence derived understanding it is often opposite. Most of the time the truth is opposite to what people believe in as we are predisposed by survival instinct to cling to things that make us feel better not worse - again this is basic psychology. We function optimally when we are more ignorant than accepting of reality. This is the basis of success in the area of positive thinking, that really is just an ability to self-manipulate and convenient ignorance. Hundreds of human studies have confirmed it, our entire marketing/advertisement industry is based on this understanding (even though it is based on lies) AND it is very successful. In simple terms: Humans are more likely to believe in what makes them feel good and hopeful. That is actually why we have vicarious trauma and PTSD, these occur because we are not designed to face the truth psychologically, the truth is substantially worse that what we can handle.

…Do you know what is one of the very common 'issues' distressed individuals come to the counsellor with? - Having sexual desires for their family members. It is a classic. They are bitting themselves up and think they are monsters to the point of compromised mental functioning. Why is that the case? Our reproductive organs are not conditioned by human morality, our brain is, hence the conflict. If we did not have justice system (fear of punishment) and condition ourselves with ethics since early development we would engage in much more animalistic behaviour than we do. This is also why there is a differentiation between emotion, emotional expression, thought and action. Our justice system is only concerned with action otherwise most of us would end up behind the bars many times through our lives.

Dimebag wrote: What evidence do I have that conscious experience exists? Due to the very nature of the thing we are trying to describe, and thanks to the way in which science removed subjectivity in order to progress (due to its inability to account for it), I'm afraid we can't point to something and say that is conscious experience. However, we can point to parts of the brain which coincide with it.


4. That is not consciousness, that is responsiveness. I respond to you within my existing knowledge base and you respond to me within yours, it is a computation, like that complex puppet ...it is also why we are not likely to arrive at any final understanding or agreement- that in itself is the evidence for responsive and limited human nature. Online discussions are about ego which is also just basic psychology.

If you can be truly honest with yourself try to work backwards from your assumptions and you will see how it is all a result of accumulated and responsive behaviour based on your individual life story.

Dimebag wrote: I agree that conscious experience is only associated with objective reality, it is not objective reality in itself. When a person hallucinates something, obviously what they hallucinate isn't real, their perceptual mechanisms are malfunctioning, basically their mind is guessing incorrectly. What I am saying is that when certain parts of the brain interact, that interacting process leads to properties that just are conscious experience. Conscious experience is not distinct from the interaction. In the same way that wetness is not distinct from the interacting of h20 molecules, the properties of conscious experience are novel, but with a full understanding of the underlying mechanisms, we should be able to predict these emergent properties.


5. You make an assumption here that 'wetness' is a part of objective reality when in fact it is just a perception of our senses (a stimuli). Many other organisms do not perceive wetness the way we do… fish, bacteria, birds etc. It is how humans cut with the knife of logic to organise our experience.

This is similar to those articles I posted earlier regarding cultural differences in perception of time and colours by the way.

Watch yourself for that anthropocentric thinking by the way - Humans like doing it a lot, makes them feels good (see point 3)

Dimebag wrote: No, but my computer has entirely different hardware, and achieves what it does by entirely different processes. Our brains biology is an amazingly specific set of hardware, we have no reason to believe that conscious experience could be achieved by any other process. Just because it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck doesn't mean it's a duck.


6. It depends how you describe what duck is, if you describe the duck by its functions then if it does what the duck does it is a duck - again it is about that cutting with the knife of logic (see point 5)


7. Hard problem is a philosophical problem only for those who need to believe in consciousness, for mainstream materialists it is redundant to contemplate it. By your line of thinking, you must admit, we are doing greatly without mainstream acknowledging it. It is essentially not needed (not so hard after all.. ;-)

All the best.

Mara
Poster
Posts: 174
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2018 7:38 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Mara » Sat Mar 17, 2018 10:28 am

Here, this is where you are stuck in a circular reasoning (and I can see nothing will help you) :

SteveKlinko wrote: He never really has an explanation for how this could be true, he just says it. He never properly explains exactly what is the thing that is experiencing the Illusion. According to Dennett there should be no Experience.


THERE IS NOTHING TO EXPLAIN, THAT IS WHAT AN ILLUSION IS. THERE IS NO EXPERIENCE OF CONSCIOUSNESS, THERE IS JUST AN ILLUSION (for some more than others obviously!) THAT IS WHAT I MEANT BY SAYING 'YOU THINK YOU ARE CONSCIOUS'.

Your logic is like saying: a bucket cannot be ever empty because it has to be a bucket that is first empty. Ponder that for a bit…

I have screenshotted a definition of an illusion just for you. Perhaps the issue is with the way you understand English language...(see attachment)
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 380
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Sat Mar 17, 2018 11:55 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:Steve Klinko and basic physics.
SteveKlinko concerning cosmic inflation wrote:I think you are naïve if you think those are done deals in Science.
Matthew Ellard wrote:Gosh Steve, explain to me why Doppler red shift isn't evidence of cosmic inflation since you claim cosmic inflation isn't real. :lol:
SteveKlinko wrote:Never said Cosmic Inflation isn't real. You are not only creating a Diversion, now you are just plain Lying.
Stop lying Steve. You directly said cosmic inflation was "not a done deal", without one iota of evidence that it isn't. Your are just another religious nut case.


Steve Klinko and Human Consciousness caused the Big Bang
SteveKlinko wrote:Consciousness probably existed prior to the Big Bang and might have even been the cause of the Big Bang.
Matthew Ellard wrote:You have only been discussing human consciousness. If humans only evolved 190,000 years ago, how can human consciousness cause the big Bang 13.8 billion years ago?
SteveKlinko wrote:We are really talking about Consciousness in general but we can only describe our own Human Conscious experiences.
SteveKlinko wrote:You keep forgetting that this thread is about how the Human Brain can experience Sensory input. If you want to know how Bees and Dogs Brains work start another thread.
You are now directly claiming the human conscious caused the big bang 13.8 billion years ago while simultaneously knowing humans only evolved 190,000 years ago.

You are both mad and religious.
:lol:

Steve Klinko and his religious Anthropomorphism
SteveKlinko wrote: A Conscious experience of Red happens. How does Neural Activity for Red happens produce a conscious experience of red?

1) You are only talking about humans as other animals and probably every other alien in the universe does not see red in their minds for photon frequencies of 430–480 THz Your evidence is not evidence about consciousness in general at all.
2) There is no neural activity for "red". Humans evolved cones in their eye that pick up a particular photon frequency and simultaneously evolved an interpretative colour system for neuron patterns receiving that information, that indicate that frequency is being received. It is no different to conscious concepts of "thirst", "tastes salty" or "I'm cold". It is how evolution allows the conscious to integrate different types of environmental inputs. There is no external thing as "red" "tastes salty" or "thirst". Secondly, and you can't handle this as you are religious, aliens may have a totally different manner of receiving, integrating and assessing external environmental data. Y

Your ridiculous claim human consciousness may have caused the Big Bang is just religious nonsense.
I said Cosmic Inflation was not a done deal and you said that I said that Cosmic Inflation was not real. Not a Done Deal means there are still aspects of it that are debated. But you know that. You are just a Liar.

Because Science has no clue about Consciousness everything is on the table. I said that Consciousness Probably existed before the Big Bang. The key word is Probably. Never said it definitely did. When I talk about very hypothetical things like this I try to say Might Have and Could Have. Maybe Probably was a little too strong and I should have said Consciousness Might Have existed before the Big Bang. Statement still holds. We have to think in new ways when it comes to Consciousness.

I'm not sure where you keep coming up with that thing about me being Religious. I think that anyone reading the things I have said over a period of time will understand that this is just another one of your lies.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 380
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Sat Mar 17, 2018 12:26 pm

Mara wrote:Here, this is where you are stuck in a circular reasoning (and I can see nothing will help you) :

SteveKlinko wrote: He never really has an explanation for how this could be true, he just says it. He never properly explains exactly what is the thing that is experiencing the Illusion. According to Dennett there should be no Experience.


THERE IS NOTHING TO EXPLAIN, THAT IS WHAT AN ILLUSION IS. THERE IS NO EXPERIENCE OF CONSCIOUSNESS, THERE IS JUST AN ILLUSION (for some more than others obviously!) THAT IS WHAT I MEANT BY SAYING 'YOU THINK YOU ARE CONSCIOUS'.

Your logic is like saying: a bucket cannot be ever empty because it has to be a bucket that is first empty. Ponder that for a bit…

I have screenshotted a definition of an illusion just for you. Perhaps the issue is with the way you understand English language...(see attachment)

You talk like you really don't even have any Conscious experiences. I've brought this up before on this thread. With regard to the experience of the color Red I can completely understand what you are saying because you never really do have an Experience of Red. It must be different for you. You must be able to sense your Neurons for Red in some other way than having a Red experience. There is a group of people on this thread that consistently manifest this odd denial of the Experience itself. Maybe there are different kinds of Human Minds that operate in completely different ways. For me the Conscious experience of Red is a Real thing that exists in my Conscious Mind. It must be explained. But if you have never had a Conscious experience of Red I can see your point.

On the other hand if you really can have a Conscious experience of Red then I would suggest you try this: Think about the Redness of the Red. What is that. The Redness is a thing in itself. Experience it and understand the Reality of it.

Mara
Poster
Posts: 174
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2018 7:38 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Mara » Sat Mar 17, 2018 1:03 pm

...it's like talking to a wall that ironically confirms what I am saying...I do think that you have a problem with understanding what is being communicated to you. I don't know what your definition of real is.

If you have truly looked into the consciousness topic you would have come across a term 'biological robot' do you know what that means Steve?

Looking at a colour red is no different to looking at anything else. Your brain is recognising a sensory input of what once upon a time your brain labeled as a colour red, most likely because someone has told you that in your childhood. Since then, your brain matches it against that existing information that your memory stores. It's a learned information that you somehow take for granted. Some people cannot do that, they suffer daltonism, so what, they are not conscious by your definition as they do not experience colour red? It's 2018 we have computer programs that can recognise colours, your local paint shop is likely to have one. Those programs are actually better at recognising colours than most of the humans. From the point of view of the computer program they are experiencing colour red as well so are they conscious?

I don't know what to say to you Steve anymore...you just really want to believe that your internal illusions are more than that. Mainstream have outgrown that need as they have found no evidence for consciousness as an actual separate, objectively real phenomena anymore than a term used in anaesthesia where being conscious and unconscious can be measured and observed clinically i.e. asleep or awake with specific vital signs. I do not see a difference between you looking at a colour red or my camera for example.

All the best Steve.

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 » Sat Mar 17, 2018 7:05 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:You say Orchestrated, Integrated, and Tagged Databanks of Memories explains the Red experience. You are still thinking about the Experience of Red in terms of the Neural Correlates of the Red experience.
Because neural correlations ARE the experience of red! Remember that I said if you were blind from birth, you would have NO experience of red? That's because your retinae would NOT be sending signals to your visual cortex. OTOH, if you've always been sighted and I blindfold you, you're ARE still able to have the experience of red...because that information is stored in your memory.

SteveKlinko wrote:Humor me and start with the Experience itself. Experience the Red. Think about the Redness of the Red.
Ok, I'm thinking about the "redness of the red" and experiencing it with my eyes closed.

SteveKlinko wrote:Think about where the experience of Red is located.
In my memory...because my eyes have seen light at that wavelength and communicated it to my brain. Since my eyes were closed, I wasn't directly perceiving red, therefore, the only "place" it can be located is in my brain, and I'm accessing it via neural connections.

If I stop at thinking just about the color itself, my brain generates a disconnected image like a paint chip with no real world associations, like this:
Image
If I think about things that are red, my brain recalls memories:
• the times my grandfather took me to the firehouse (he was a firefighter)
• the rose garden at the park near me
• the time I passed out and cracked open my chin...my white sweater was soaked with blood
• going to the apple orchard in Autumn
• the huge antipasto plate I made one Christmas...it had a half dozen types of Italian cold cuts
• the paintings of Vittore Carpaccio
• the living room carpet in my dad's house
...and numerous others.

SteveKlinko wrote:You will eventually find that the Red is a thing in itself that exists in the Physical Universe.
Nope. Your conclusion/prediction is incorrect. Red only exists because I'm capable of perceiving it and storing those perceptions in my memory. If red were a "thing" in the physical universe, my dogs would be able to experience it...like they can experience bacon. But they can't experience red, because their eyes aren't designed to perceive light at that wavelength.

SteveKlinko wrote:It may be a subjective thing because you can't see my Red and I can't see your Red, but it is a real thing nevertheless. It must be explained. What you say about the workings of the Brain do not explain the Experience.
Yes, they do explain it. "Red" is sensory information; it's not a tangible object. You're unnecessarily anthropomorphizing adjectival descriptions of your experiences. "Red" is an adjective, not a noun. Perhaps you're being misled by the way you're using the word "red."
What you said: ...you can't see my red... (using "red" as a noun)
What you actually meant: ...you can't see the way I perceive the color red...
We do this kind of thing in casual conversation all the time. "You okay?" is what we say, but we mean "Are you okay?" "My red" is not correct English; "red" is not something you can possess; it's not like "my face." If red were a noun, Germans would capitalize the word, and they don't. It's "Das Buch ist rot." (The book is red.)
"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 » Sat Mar 17, 2018 7:59 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:This is from "Developing an Artificial Inter Mind" on http://theintermind.com :

It has been stated previously...
Only by YOU. Uploading your blather to the internet doesn't make it factual. What you're doing here is this:
Steve: "Hey, the Inter Mind actually exists. Here's a link."
*posts link to his own website*
SteveKlinko wrote:...that the Inter Mind...
Which is a concept you made up.
SteveKlinko wrote:...must be connected...
State the scientifically factual basis for your conclusion.
SteveKlinko wrote:...in some way...
"In some way?" You mean, you made up this BS and even YOU don't know how it works? :lol:
SteveKlinko wrote:...to all the Visual Cortex areas in order to get the information needed to produce the Conscious Visual Image that the Conscious Mind experiences.
Nope.
The visual cortex of a newborn baby has a hypertrophy, or overgrowth, of haphazard connections which must be carefully pruned, based on visual experience, into crisply defined columns. It is actually a reduction in the number of connections, not an increase, that improves the infant's ability to see fine detail and to recognize shapes and patterns.

This type of activity-dependent refinement is not limited to V1, but occurs in many areas throughout the cerebral cortex. At the same time that the ability to discriminate lines and edges is improving in primary visual cortex, cells in secondary visual cortex, V2, are refining their ability to interpret colors. V2 is largely responsible for the phenomenon of color constancy, which explains the fact that a red rose still looks red to us under many different colors of illumination. Color constancy is thought to occur because V2 can compare an object and the ambient illumination, and can subtract out the estimated illumination color; however, this process is strongly influenced by what color the viewer expects the object to be.

In fact, almost all higher order features of vision are influenced by expectations based on past experience. This characteristic extends to color and form perception in V3 and V4, to face and object recognition in the inferior temporal lobe, and to motion and spatial awareness in the parietal lobe.
Go read the neurology of vision, ffs.
SteveKlinko wrote:It is not known how the Inter Mind does this at this point in our understanding. I haven't worked on my made up theory sufficiently to explain what it is, how it works, where it's located, and how it's connected to the various structures of the brain.
FTFY.
SteveKlinko wrote:Scientists have developed techniques for measuring Neural Activity, Brain Wave Activity, and other Activities. These measurements are then processed to provide various insights into Brain operations.
Yes. We call this "the scientific method," something your made up theory lacks.
SteveKlinko wrote:Scientists don't realize it but they are accidentally developing an Artificial Inter Mind when using this instrumentation.
:roll: You haven't proven the existence of a "natural Inter Mind" yet. This is what happens when you begin with a biased conclusion, then attempt to force data to fit it.
SteveKlinko wrote:By understanding what kind of processing is required for these measurements we can anticipate what an actual Inter Mind must be doing for a Conscious Mind.
1. An "actual Inter Mind?" Where exactly is it located in the brain? Measure its dimensions and mass. What color is it? Describe its interconnections to the rest of the brain. You can't do any of these things, can you? Your "Inter Mind" is as imaginary and ephemeral as the concept of the "soul."
2. Exactly what data enables you to predict the existence and function of an "Inter Mind?"
3. "Must be?" State the factual basis for your conclusion.
SteveKlinko wrote:For example, if scientists can develop the proper instrumentation to measure all Visual Cortex Activity then they should be able to process that information to generate a Visual image on a monitor screen that corresponds to the Visual Scene that the subject is looking at.
Why exactly should they be able to do this? How will they account for individual perceptions based on episodic memories of personal experiences? If you read the quote above, you will recall that it said, "...almost all higher order features of vision are influenced by expectations based on past experience." The monitor screen lacks that experience, doesn't it? Yep.
SteveKlinko wrote:The processing needed to display those Images should provide insight into how an Inter Mind might operate.
Again, you're attempting to force scientific data to fit your dualist concept. You've begun with a conclusion to which you're emotionally attached. Sadly, this means that you repeatedly discard factual scientific data the instant it disproves your conclusion.

There Image is Image no Image such Image thing Image as Image the Image "Inter Mind."
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

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

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13597
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Mar 17, 2018 8:12 pm

It strikes me as an "easy" mistake to make to think that RED exists apart from the perceiving brain..... UNTIL... you read how such objective wave vibrations are received, organized, interpreted, and remembered by the Brain. After that KNOWLEDGE is offered.... its silly to refuse to learn the nature of reality.

Perhaps too quickly skimmed, but I've read articles on brain mapping being indeed able to determine what the brain is thinking about or imaging. Its not "the memory" that is beind analysed, but the current state of the neuron connectors. I have not read close enough to determine what cautions or limitations or special circumstances are really being reported.....but I think it is important to realize that brain scans can tell if a person is lying or truthfully remembering/reporting an event. Different areas of the brain are used to make things up vs simply recall them. Thats a first real break through that I believe..... after this....its only details?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

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 » Sat Mar 17, 2018 8:27 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Poodle wrote:You have invented 'conscious light' and it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate it, although you have made not a single attempt to do so, instead inventing the 'explanatory gap' to hide behind.
Come into the light, Steve. The real light, that is, which is demonstrable and measurable. Leave behind wibbly-wobblyism. You'll be so much happier.
An example of Conscious Light is the Light you see when you rub your eyes. Think about the Light itself. Don't go off on a tangent about mechanically exciting front end Visual Neurons.
The established scientific explanation for a phenomenon is NOT a "tangent." It's the actual {!#%@} explanation. You're NOT seeing light when you rub your eyes. You're merely stimulating visual sensors with pressure. Since those sensors have only evolved to perceive light, any and all sensory stimuli, to them, will be translated into terms of "light."

I'll give you a real world example of how the normal functioning of nerves becomes dysfunctional...
I have fibromyalgia, the medical definition of which is "central nervous system sensitization." It is a neurological dysfunction in which normally non-painful stimuli are perceived as pain. A light touch. A sudden loud noise. Extremely bright light. Strong odors. All of these things are perceived by my brain as "pain," even in the absence of any injury or illness which would cause inflammatory pain.

You probably don't think twice about sauntering down the soap aisle in the grocery store. When I need laundry detergent, I hold my breath in that aisle, because the strong chemical odors are overpowering and painful to me. In the same way that I perceive ordinary sensory stimuli as "pain," your retinae perceive any and all sensory stimuli as "light." However, whilst rubbing your closed eyes, you are demonstrably NOT seeing light. It's just that your retinae are reacting the only way they know how to react.

Nor is this "conscious light." It's not light at all, by any definition of the word, since it cannot be measured in terms of its speed, intensity, wavelength, etc. Your insistence on calling this phenomenon "light" just introduces unnecessary confusion, as do all your made up terms for phenomena that science has already labeled and explained. It's like insisting on calling thunder "the footsteps of the gods" and claiming it's some wondrous, magical event that defies explanation.
"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 » Sat Mar 17, 2018 8:33 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:If the Physicalist position was true we would not be having this debate because there would be no Conscious experience of Red. There would just be nothing. The fact that we can have this debate means the Physicalist position is false.
This is the single most stupid thing you've said. It's utterly illogical. You certainly get a LOT of exercise jumping to conclusions. Let's take your words and translate them into a different issue, then tell me if you still believe your own BS.

If the Physicalist atheist's position was true we would not be having this debate because there would be no Conscious experience of Red god. There would just be nothing. The fact that we can have this debate means the Physicalist atheist's position is false.

See how abysmally stupid and irrational that sounds? It clearly presupposes that your biased belief is factual, while discarding facts as irrelevant. I'm with Poodle at this point. It's a waste of time to have a discussion with someone who automatically ignores factual evidence when it contradicts his personal belief system. Bye, Felicia.
"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: 27862
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Mar 17, 2018 11:03 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:I said Cosmic Inflation was not a done deal and you said that I said that Cosmic Inflation was not real. Not a Done Deal means there are still aspects of it that are debated. But you know that. You are just a Liar.
There are no missing bits to cosmic inflation. It is real. You deny it exists so you can make your insane religious claim that human consciousness caused the big bang. :lol:
SteveKlinko wrote:Consciousness probably existed prior to the Big Bang and might have even been the cause of the Big Bang.
You are just another religious nut case. :lol:


SteveKlinko wrote: I said that Consciousness Probably existed before the Big Bang.
How can human consciousness exist in a singularity, before quarks, gluons and photons even existed? You don't know what the Big Bang is remember....

SteveKlinko wrote: Maybe Probably was a little too strong
"complete crap" would be more appropriate. Tell me how you think consciousness could exist in the singularity before the big bang?

SteveKlinko wrote:I'm not sure where you keep coming up with that thing about me being Religious.
You are a mad religious person, claiming human consciousness (God in man's image ) went back in time to the singularity 13.8 billion years ago and caused the Big Bang ( God created the universe) and you know this because you see red in your mind.

You are mad as a hatter! :lol:

Mara
Poster
Posts: 174
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2018 7:38 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Mara » Sun Mar 18, 2018 12:15 am

I wonder Steve, do you label humans the same way based on ‘your consciousness’ interpreting skin colour for instance? I find that many believers often use the same simplistic thinking schema to categorise people and are often backwards people. That’s the irony of spiritual people. The Human Genome project found that there are more differences between two individuals of the same race or ‘nationality’ traditionally speaking (remember this is socially constructed) than between two races, yet many people focus on the small % to categorise their knowledge because that is what they see with their eyes, like a child would. Your perception of the colour red is a similar phenomenon, you generalise it greatly. There are many different shades, plenty of experiments showing how colours look different when against specific backgrounds etc. You may as well say that ‘you see something’ and then subjectively you interpret it one way or the other. Just like a face recognition app on your iPhone or google images uploading option. There is no need for a ‘Bing’ here. You are confusing seeing and interpreting with consciousness.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 380
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Sun Mar 18, 2018 12:53 pm

Mara wrote:...it's like talking to a wall that ironically confirms what I am saying...I do think that you have a problem with understanding what is being communicated to you. I don't know what your definition of real is.

If you have truly looked into the consciousness topic you would have come across a term 'biological robot' do you know what that means Steve?

Looking at a colour red is no different to looking at anything else. Your brain is recognising a sensory input of what once upon a time your brain labeled as a colour red, most likely because someone has told you that in your childhood. Since then, your brain matches it against that existing information that your memory stores. It's a learned information that you somehow take for granted. Some people cannot do that, they suffer daltonism, so what, they are not conscious by your definition as they do not experience colour red? It's 2018 we have computer programs that can recognise colours, your local paint shop is likely to have one. Those programs are actually better at recognising colours than most of the humans. From the point of view of the computer program they are experiencing colour red as well so are they conscious?

I don't know what to say to you Steve anymore...you just really want to believe that your internal illusions are more than that. Mainstream have outgrown that need as they have found no evidence for consciousness as an actual separate, objectively real phenomena anymore than a term used in anaesthesia where being conscious and unconscious can be measured and observed clinically i.e. asleep or awake with specific vital signs. I do not see a difference between you looking at a colour red or my camera for example.

All the best Steve.
So do you actually have a Conscious experience of Red or not? I'm beginning to think not, since you think that a Computer detecting Red is the same thing as a Human experiencing Red. I work with Computers and I know exactly how to write the programs that can find all the Red on an image. There is no Conscious experience of Red going on there. You are confusing Detection with Experience. Red can be Detected in many ways. A Human Brain adds an extra Processing stage where a Conscious experience of Red happens. But maybe not in your Brain.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 380
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Sun Mar 18, 2018 1:39 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:You say Orchestrated, Integrated, and Tagged Databanks of Memories explains the Red experience. You are still thinking about the Experience of Red in terms of the Neural Correlates of the Red experience.
Because neural correlations ARE the experience of red! Remember that I said if you were blind from birth, you would have NO experience of red? That's because your retinae would NOT be sending signals to your visual cortex. OTOH, if you've always been sighted and I blindfold you, you're ARE still able to have the experience of red...because that information is stored in your memory.
Maybe the Neural Correlates ARE the Red. But you can't just say something like that without a chain of Explanations that lead you from Neural Correlates to the Experience of Red. You must be one of those that really do not have a Conscious experience of Red. For you it's all Neural Activity. I wonder what your Conscious Visual Experience could be like if you really do not have a Conscious experience of Red, or Blue, or Green, or any other Color.

Nikki Nyx wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:Humor me and start with the Experience itself. Experience the Red. Think about the Redness of the Red.
Ok, I'm thinking about the "redness of the red" and experiencing it with my eyes closed.
And ... ?

Nikki Nyx wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:Think about where the experience of Red is located.
In my memory...because my eyes have seen light at that wavelength and communicated it to my brain. Since my eyes were closed, I wasn't directly perceiving red, therefore, the only "place" it can be located is in my brain, and I'm accessing it via neural connections.

If I stop at thinking just about the color itself, my brain generates a disconnected image like a paint chip with no real world associations, like this:
Image
If I think about things that are red, my brain recalls memories:
• the times my grandfather took me to the firehouse (he was a firefighter)
• the rose garden at the park near me
• the time I passed out and cracked open my chin...my white sweater was soaked with blood
• going to the apple orchard in Autumn
• the huge antipasto plate I made one Christmas...it had a half dozen types of Italian cold cuts
• the paintings of Vittore Carpaccio
• the living room carpet in my dad's house
...and numerous others.
Yes don't think about things, but rather think about the Red itself. When you disconnected the Red from things, and you ended up with your paint chip, you were getting close to what you must try to do. You will find that the Red is something that can stand on it's own as a thing in and of itself.

Nikki Nyx wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:You will eventually find that the Red is a thing in itself that exists in the Physical Universe.
Nope. Your conclusion/prediction is incorrect. Red only exists because I'm capable of perceiving it and storing those perceptions in my memory. If red were a "thing" in the physical universe, my dogs would be able to experience it...like they can experience bacon. But they can't experience red, because their eyes aren't designed to perceive light at that wavelength.
We don't know what dogs actually experience in their Visual field. It's like asking what a totally Color blind Human experiences. They might experience shades of Red and not shades of Gray like you would expect. But these degenerate cases are Diversions from the question of this thread: How does a fully developed Human with normal color vision experience Red given the Neural Activity?

Nikki Nyx wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:It may be a subjective thing because you can't see my Red and I can't see your Red, but it is a real thing nevertheless. It must be explained. What you say about the workings of the Brain do not explain the Experience.
Yes, they do explain it. "Red" is sensory information; it's not a tangible object. You're unnecessarily anthropomorphizing adjectival descriptions of your experiences. "Red" is an adjective, not a noun. Perhaps you're being misled by the way you're using the word "red."
What you said: ...you can't see my red... (using "red" as a noun)
What you actually meant: ...you can't see the way I perceive the color red...
We do this kind of thing in casual conversation all the time. "You okay?" is what we say, but we mean "Are you okay?" "My red" is not correct English; "red" is not something you can possess; it's not like "my face." If red were a noun, Germans would capitalize the word, and they don't. It's "Das Buch ist rot." (The book is red.)

Never said Red was a tangible object. I simply say it exists in the World because we can Experience it. I say Red is a Conscious Object that exists in our Conscious Minds. But our Conscious Minds exist in the World and so Red must exist in the World. But the Conscious Mind and Conscious Red are certainly different kinds of things than any Physical thing that we can think of. Conscious Red is truly unexplainable in terms of any Physical World explanation. You are getting close to understanding what I am trying to say when you say I use Red as a Noun. Red IS a thing. Continue doing what you said previously about disconnecting the Red from the Object. That's a good way to eventually understand.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 380
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Sun Mar 18, 2018 1:55 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:This is from "Developing an Artificial Inter Mind" on http://theintermind.com :

It has been stated previously...
Only by YOU. Uploading your blather to the internet doesn't make it factual. What you're doing here is this:
Steve: "Hey, the Inter Mind actually exists. Here's a link."
*posts link to his own website*
SteveKlinko wrote:...that the Inter Mind...
Which is a concept you made up.
SteveKlinko wrote:...must be connected...
State the scientifically factual basis for your conclusion.
SteveKlinko wrote:...in some way...
"In some way?" You mean, you made up this BS and even YOU don't know how it works? :lol:
SteveKlinko wrote:...to all the Visual Cortex areas in order to get the information needed to produce the Conscious Visual Image that the Conscious Mind experiences.
Nope.
The visual cortex of a newborn baby has a hypertrophy, or overgrowth, of haphazard connections which must be carefully pruned, based on visual experience, into crisply defined columns. It is actually a reduction in the number of connections, not an increase, that improves the infant's ability to see fine detail and to recognize shapes and patterns.

This type of activity-dependent refinement is not limited to V1, but occurs in many areas throughout the cerebral cortex. At the same time that the ability to discriminate lines and edges is improving in primary visual cortex, cells in secondary visual cortex, V2, are refining their ability to interpret colors. V2 is largely responsible for the phenomenon of color constancy, which explains the fact that a red rose still looks red to us under many different colors of illumination. Color constancy is thought to occur because V2 can compare an object and the ambient illumination, and can subtract out the estimated illumination color; however, this process is strongly influenced by what color the viewer expects the object to be.

In fact, almost all higher order features of vision are influenced by expectations based on past experience. This characteristic extends to color and form perception in V3 and V4, to face and object recognition in the inferior temporal lobe, and to motion and spatial awareness in the parietal lobe.
Go read the neurology of vision, ffs.
SteveKlinko wrote:It is not known how the Inter Mind does this at this point in our understanding. I haven't worked on my made up theory sufficiently to explain what it is, how it works, where it's located, and how it's connected to the various structures of the brain.
FTFY.
SteveKlinko wrote:Scientists have developed techniques for measuring Neural Activity, Brain Wave Activity, and other Activities. These measurements are then processed to provide various insights into Brain operations.
Yes. We call this "the scientific method," something your made up theory lacks.
SteveKlinko wrote:Scientists don't realize it but they are accidentally developing an Artificial Inter Mind when using this instrumentation.
:roll: You haven't proven the existence of a "natural Inter Mind" yet. This is what happens when you begin with a biased conclusion, then attempt to force data to fit it.
SteveKlinko wrote:By understanding what kind of processing is required for these measurements we can anticipate what an actual Inter Mind must be doing for a Conscious Mind.
1. An "actual Inter Mind?" Where exactly is it located in the brain? Measure its dimensions and mass. What color is it? Describe its interconnections to the rest of the brain. You can't do any of these things, can you? Your "Inter Mind" is as imaginary and ephemeral as the concept of the "soul."
2. Exactly what data enables you to predict the existence and function of an "Inter Mind?"
3. "Must be?" State the factual basis for your conclusion.
SteveKlinko wrote:For example, if scientists can develop the proper instrumentation to measure all Visual Cortex Activity then they should be able to process that information to generate a Visual image on a monitor screen that corresponds to the Visual Scene that the subject is looking at.
Why exactly should they be able to do this? How will they account for individual perceptions based on episodic memories of personal experiences? If you read the quote above, you will recall that it said, "...almost all higher order features of vision are influenced by expectations based on past experience." The monitor screen lacks that experience, doesn't it? Yep.
SteveKlinko wrote:The processing needed to display those Images should provide insight into how an Inter Mind might operate.
Again, you're attempting to force scientific data to fit your dualist concept. You've begun with a conclusion to which you're emotionally attached. Sadly, this means that you repeatedly discard factual scientific data the instant it disproves your conclusion.

There Image is Image no Image such Image thing Image as Image the Image "Inter Mind."
Well I seem to have hit a Nerve here. Obviously the Inter Mind is a new thing and will seem Made Up if you don't understand the purpose of it. It is a place holder for some further Processing that must exist if our Conscious experiences are ever to be explained. You talk like you have figured out that I didn't explain how the Inter Mind works. I quite explicitly say nobody knows how the Inter Mind might function. I say it is a further refinement of the Explanatory Gap proposition. The Inter Mind says the Explanatory Gap must be filled with further Processing. The Inter Mind is a Processing Gap.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 380
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Sun Mar 18, 2018 3:44 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:It strikes me as an "easy" mistake to make to think that RED exists apart from the perceiving brain..... UNTIL... you read how such objective wave vibrations are received, organized, interpreted, and remembered by the Brain. After that KNOWLEDGE is offered.... its silly to refuse to learn the nature of reality.

Perhaps too quickly skimmed, but I've read articles on brain mapping being indeed able to determine what the brain is thinking about or imaging. Its not "the memory" that is beind analysed, but the current state of the neuron connectors. I have not read close enough to determine what cautions or limitations or special circumstances are really being reported.....but I think it is important to realize that brain scans can tell if a person is lying or truthfully remembering/reporting an event. Different areas of the brain are used to make things up vs simply recall them. Thats a first real break through that I believe..... after this....its only details?
I don't know how you can say things like wave vibrations, organized, and interpreted and think you have explained how we Experience the Color Red. Do you really not Experience the Red as a Conscious event?

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 380
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Sun Mar 18, 2018 3:58 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:
Poodle wrote:You have invented 'conscious light' and it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate it, although you have made not a single attempt to do so, instead inventing the 'explanatory gap' to hide behind.
Come into the light, Steve. The real light, that is, which is demonstrable and measurable. Leave behind wibbly-wobblyism. You'll be so much happier.
An example of Conscious Light is the Light you see when you rub your eyes. Think about the Light itself. Don't go off on a tangent about mechanically exciting front end Visual Neurons.
The established scientific explanation for a phenomenon is NOT a "tangent." It's the actual {!#%@} explanation. You're NOT seeing light when you rub your eyes. You're merely stimulating visual sensors with pressure. Since those sensors have only evolved to perceive light, any and all sensory stimuli, to them, will be translated into terms of "light."

I'll give you a real world example of how the normal functioning of nerves becomes dysfunctional...
I have fibromyalgia, the medical definition of which is "central nervous system sensitization." It is a neurological dysfunction in which normally non-painful stimuli are perceived as pain. A light touch. A sudden loud noise. Extremely bright light. Strong odors. All of these things are perceived by my brain as "pain," even in the absence of any injury or illness which would cause inflammatory pain.

You probably don't think twice about sauntering down the soap aisle in the grocery store. When I need laundry detergent, I hold my breath in that aisle, because the strong chemical odors are overpowering and painful to me. In the same way that I perceive ordinary sensory stimuli as "pain," your retinae perceive any and all sensory stimuli as "light." However, whilst rubbing your closed eyes, you are demonstrably NOT seeing light. It's just that your retinae are reacting the only way they know how to react.

Nor is this "conscious light." It's not light at all, by any definition of the word, since it cannot be measured in terms of its speed, intensity, wavelength, etc. Your insistence on calling this phenomenon "light" just introduces unnecessary confusion, as do all your made up terms for phenomena that science has already labeled and explained. It's like insisting on calling thunder "the footsteps of the gods" and claiming it's some wondrous, magical event that defies explanation.
You say things like the Sensory input is "Perceived by the Brain". Think about that: "Perceived by the Brain", this is a Non Explanation. You are merely saying that the Brain can Perceive but not saying anything about how it Perceives.

The Conscious Light that I talk about is in fact the only Light you have ever Perceived. You have never Perceived Physical Light. It's the Physical Red Light that has wavelength. The Conscious Red Light has Redness. The Physical Red Light has no Redness. The Conscious Light is something different than the Physical Light. The Conscious Light needs to be called Light because it is the Light you See. You are so used to Seeing your Conscious Light that you mistakenly think that the real Physical Light looks like that in some way. The real Physical Light does not Look like anything. You only know the Conscious Light which is a Surrogate for the Physical Light.


Return to “Brain, Mind, & Consciousness”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests