The Inter Mind

What you think about how you think.
Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29607
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Matthew Ellard » Wed Mar 07, 2018 4:51 am

I agree with everything you said in your post Mara.

I don't know if this is still true, but one theory was humans co-evolved red vision to see ripe fruit. If true, that really sort of shows that "red" isn't some sort of magical thing as Steve claims. It is just an advantageous evolutionary adaption in hominids to get more fruit. It's no different to humans evolving "thirst" or "this meat smells off"
:D

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10218
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Poodle » Wed Mar 07, 2018 9:14 am

SteveKlinko wrote:
Poodle wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:They have to exist because we Experience them.
Well, let's do away with this obvious error. Colour blindness, Steve, throws your claim into the rubbish bin. A person with the most common form of this deficiency (red/green dichromacy) cannot clearly distinguish not only red and green but ANY colour containing red or green. They do not experience red or green in any meaningful way. There are other conditions associated with other senses in which a deficiency creates apparent non-existence of certain smells, tastes and sounds. The fault lies in the receiver, not the environment. There's a big clue, then, because if things have to exist because we experience them, their existence is called into question when some of us don't - and I refuse to consider that our environment operates upon democratic principles.
We experience dreams. We may dream about physical things and we may dream in glorious technicolor, but to claim that dreams have a physical existence in the everyday world is verging upon Grade A dingbat.
We experience love, hatred, fun, and depression. If they exist in physical reality and are not products of our minds, Steve, than show them to me. Give me a bagful of each, if you please.
Experience is no indicator of physical existence. Once again, Steve, you are confusing mental processes with the external physical world.
Just because there are cases where people do not see Color properly does not mean that Color experience does not exist as a Conscious entity. If we could only really know what a Color Blind person sees we might find out that they are seeing shades of Red instead of shades of Gray. They would never know that they are seeing shades of Red and they could never explain to us what they really see. We need to develop a technology that will let us See what is in the Conscious Experience of a Conscious Mind. Science can measure the Neural Correlates of Consciousness but not the Conscious Experience itself.

But in any case you are creating a diversion from the topic by bringing up degenerate cases of Vision. The question that needs an answer is, in the case of a Fully Developed and Healthy Human, how does Neural Activity produce the experience of Red? What is experiencing the Red?
Look at your first line above, Steve - "They have to exist because we Experience them". And just a few posts later, here we are with you telling me that this 'truism' isn't valid for people who cannot register the very thing you are saying is a universal truth. You are grasping at straws. However, you are absolutely correct in identifying the problem of what people with defective colour vision actually think they're seeing. I want to emphasise that this was what YOU said, Steve, in your last post. Now I invite you to think about this - if you assert that it's true, you cannot possibly assert that we have a common experience of red. However, now that you have heavily modified your original question to include "... in the case of a Fully Developed and Healthy Human, how does Neural Activity produce the experience of Red?" I can honestly answer that the only possible question that you you can logically ask in the first place is "In the case of Steve Klinko how does neural activity produce the experience of red?"

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10218
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Poodle » Wed Mar 07, 2018 9:30 am

SteveKlinko wrote:I talk about Conscious experience all the time but I think the real issue here is: What is Experiencing the Conscious Experience? How does this happen? What is the Self?

For me it's all about Conscious Sensory perception. The Conscious experience of the color Red, and all Colors, and Light in general continues to fascinate me. How is it that the Self experiences these things? What is Red? The Light we see is Conscious Light that is inside us. It's not the Physical Light that is outside us. The Light we see is inside us and must therefore be part of what we are. So it is clear that the Self is the Light but it still doesn't seem to help explain what the Self is.
And there you go again. We must define the human optical system and its ramifications upon consciousness when you are being obstinately insistent that we take into account an apparent fiction. Show me conscious light, Steve. Define it. Lose such nebulous statements as "So it is clear that the Self is the Light" because they are meaningless (and if you want to claim they're not, then explain them with comprehensive scientific evidence rather than the befuddled meanderings of non-dualist navel-gazing). You are rejecting every argument which does not suit your position on the grounds that it does not suit your position. 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.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Fri Mar 09, 2018 2:36 pm

Dimebag wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:We need to develop a technology that will let us See what is in the Conscious Experience of a Conscious Mind. Science can measure the Neural Correlates of Consciousness but not the Conscious Experience itself.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/21 ... rain-scan/

Steve, it seems as though science is moving closer to being able to reconstruct our visual experience from brain scans, see the link above. Unfortunately it's behind a paywall so you can't see the full article, but the pictures of the reconstructions alone are rather promising.
We've known for years that the Brain has a Neural Correlate of the external Visual scene, A reconstruction of a Visual scene like they show was inevitable. It explains nothing about how we see that Visual scene in our Conscious Minds. They are trying to create an Artificial Inter Mind without realizing it.

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

It has been stated previously that the Inter Mind must be connected, in some way, to all the Visual Cortex areas in order to get the information needed to produce the Conscious Visual Image that the Conscious Mind experiences. It is not known how the Inter Mind does this at this point in our understanding.

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. Scientists don't realize it but they are accidentally developing an Artificial Inter Mind when using this instrumentation. 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.

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. It might also be possible to display what a subject is seeing while dreaming. The processing needed to display those Images should provide insight into how an Inter Mind might operate.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Fri Mar 09, 2018 2:43 pm

Dimebag wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:I talk about Conscious experience all the time but I think the real issue here is: What is Experiencing the Conscious Experience? How does this happen? What is the Self?

For me it's all about Conscious Sensory perception. The Conscious experience of the color Red, and all Colors, and Light in general continues to fascinate me. How is it that the Self experiences these things? What is Red? The Light we see is Conscious Light that is inside us. It's not the Physical Light that is outside us. The Light we see is inside us and must therefore be part of what we are. So it is clear that the Self is the Light but it still doesn't seem to help explain what the Self is.
Steve, what makes you think it is the self that experiences these things? There are cases of people losing their sense of self, due to stroke, and there is no mention of them losing all experience. It seems the self is an experience as well, we feel as if we are an entity located within our brain area, but this can become disembodied, or dislocated. It makes sense that we would experience our own entity as a singular thing, because is enables us to act as if we are a single thing, which for all intensive purposes we are, although we change over time.

I think you have been caught up in the idea of a homunculus, but what experiences experience inside that self, and so on and so on?
I would say that just because you lose a sense of Self doesn't mean the Self is gone. I agree, That sense of Self is just another Conscious experience. It is Subjective. But if there is an experience of Red then I think there has to be a Self that is experiencing that no matter whatever degenerate condition the Brain is in. I think the very word Experience implies a Self. If there is a Red Experience without an Experiencer then I think that needs an explanation.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Fri Mar 09, 2018 2:54 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:So you were assuming if there were no Humans. Any Animal that has color vision would have an Experience of Color.
I see you have dropped "red" all of a sudden. If another species did not evolve cones in their eyes to receive 400–484 THz, there is no reason to believe it sees red in it's conscious mind. Do you see infra red? Nope.

I can go further. Another non-human species may have cones that receive 400–484 THz and see green in their mind.

You simply don't understand basic genetics and evolution.

SteveKlinko wrote:How does Neural Activity produce that Gray Scale Image that we assume a Color Blind Animal or Human has? .
Oh dear. You are now confusing photon amplitude with wave frequency. Does your skin feel hotter under a bright light or a weak light? Are you now going to claim the conscious skin heat gap for light? :lol:
Humans don't have a Conscious experience for Infra Red, but some animal do. Wouldn't it be interesting to be able to experience Conscious Infra-Red. What could that possibly be like? But it must be some kind of Conscious experience for these animals. No matter how much you study such an animals Brain you will never know what their experience of Infra-Red is like. Knowing the Neural Correlates does not tell you anything about the actual experience. We can't know the full gamut of the different types of Conscious experience that could be had. We only know our range of experience. We might be missing out on a lot of experience that could be had.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Fri Mar 09, 2018 3:04 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:They have to exist because we Experience them.
Matthew Ellard wrote: So if I experience hunger as triggered by an evolved pattern of synapses.....then hunger is real on it's own, away from the brain? I don't think so. :lol:
SteveKlinko wrote: All Conscious Experience certainly does Exist. Hunger is a Conscious thing just like Red is a Conscious thing. These things are obviously Real in some way.
Yes Steve they are real evolved patterns of synapses to allow the brain to interact with the environment. Did you forget? I just told you in my previous sentence. :lol:
You say Real Evolved Patterns of Synapses allow the Brain to interact with the environment. That should be the title of an article that explains how we have Conscious experiences. The title has no explanatory usefulness by itself. An article explaining how it all works should then follow. When you say Real Evolved Patterns of Synapses allow the Brain to interact with the environment you are not explaining Conscious experience at all. You have a huge Explanatory Gap in your statement.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Fri Mar 09, 2018 3:21 pm

Mara wrote:I think SteveKlinko should look at mental disorders such as anorexia when people starve themselves to death believing they are fat no matter the amount of evidence shown to the point of being on tenementary due to failing heart...or phantom limb syndrome where humans feel a limb that is not there, or schizophrenia where humans hear voice telling them to kill themselves and their family members - these are examples of experiencing something that is not real, not objective and the only thing that truly shows us is how faulty our interpretations of reality can be. The main point here, Steve, is to understand that you cannot trust yourself in regards to many interpretations, that is who we are, it's not our fault but still it does not change the fact. With that in mind TFG we have a scientific method.

You can call it 'inter mind', you can call it boloney, it does not matter, it is your subjectivity because evolution is not perfect and within this subjectivity a sense of consciousness sits, especially, that we do not have evidence of otherwise, just a bunch of feel good theories of desperate, intellectually hyperactive existentialists.
Of course it is subjective in the sense that it is my Experience when I experience Red for example. But I do Experience Red and you do experience Red (if you are normally developed and healthy). We could probably say that billions of Humans can experience Red. With a sample size of Billions of Humans all experiencing Red it is safe to say that there really is such a phenomenon It is something that must be explained. Because it is impossible to explain the Red Conscious experience we must conclude that there is something different going on here. It is not like any other usual Physical World phenomenon. We must find a way to measure and study Conscious experiences. Measuring Neural Activity does not tell you anything about how we have the Subjective experience of the color Red.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Fri Mar 09, 2018 3:31 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:I agree with everything you said in your post Mara.

I don't know if this is still true, but one theory was humans co-evolved red vision to see ripe fruit. If true, that really sort of shows that "red" isn't some sort of magical thing as Steve claims. It is just an advantageous evolutionary adaption in hominids to get more fruit. It's no different to humans evolving "thirst" or "this meat smells off"
:D
There you go again just providing a possible Why but no How for experiencing Conscious Red. It's like saying the Allied forces invented Radar in WWII so that they could more easily know when enemy planes are coming. That's the Why of Radar but the question of How a Radar system works would be the Explanatory Gap if you are just providing the Why.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Fri Mar 09, 2018 3:42 pm

Poodle wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:
Poodle wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:They have to exist because we Experience them.
Well, let's do away with this obvious error. Colour blindness, Steve, throws your claim into the rubbish bin. A person with the most common form of this deficiency (red/green dichromacy) cannot clearly distinguish not only red and green but ANY colour containing red or green. They do not experience red or green in any meaningful way. There are other conditions associated with other senses in which a deficiency creates apparent non-existence of certain smells, tastes and sounds. The fault lies in the receiver, not the environment. There's a big clue, then, because if things have to exist because we experience them, their existence is called into question when some of us don't - and I refuse to consider that our environment operates upon democratic principles.
We experience dreams. We may dream about physical things and we may dream in glorious technicolor, but to claim that dreams have a physical existence in the everyday world is verging upon Grade A dingbat.
We experience love, hatred, fun, and depression. If they exist in physical reality and are not products of our minds, Steve, than show them to me. Give me a bagful of each, if you please.
Experience is no indicator of physical existence. Once again, Steve, you are confusing mental processes with the external physical world.
Just because there are cases where people do not see Color properly does not mean that Color experience does not exist as a Conscious entity. If we could only really know what a Color Blind person sees we might find out that they are seeing shades of Red instead of shades of Gray. They would never know that they are seeing shades of Red and they could never explain to us what they really see. We need to develop a technology that will let us See what is in the Conscious Experience of a Conscious Mind. Science can measure the Neural Correlates of Consciousness but not the Conscious Experience itself.

But in any case you are creating a diversion from the topic by bringing up degenerate cases of Vision. The question that needs an answer is, in the case of a Fully Developed and Healthy Human, how does Neural Activity produce the experience of Red? What is experiencing the Red?
Look at your first line above, Steve - "They have to exist because we Experience them". And just a few posts later, here we are with you telling me that this 'truism' isn't valid for people who cannot register the very thing you are saying is a universal truth. You are grasping at straws. However, you are absolutely correct in identifying the problem of what people with defective colour vision actually think they're seeing. I want to emphasise that this was what YOU said, Steve, in your last post. Now I invite you to think about this - if you assert that it's true, you cannot possibly assert that we have a common experience of red. However, now that you have heavily modified your original question to include "... in the case of a Fully Developed and Healthy Human, how does Neural Activity produce the experience of Red?" I can honestly answer that the only possible question that you you can logically ask in the first place is "In the case of Steve Klinko how does neural activity produce the experience of red?"
So you are saying that if we figure out how a particular Human experiences Red then that doesn't explain how any other Human experiences Red? Maybe we will find that that is true. We just don't know yet. But I think that if we figure out how any Human experiences Red then we will understand how every Human experiences Red. We will then at last be able to understand the variations that different Humans might have when experiencing Red. We need to understand the Conscious experience itself not just the Neural Correlates of the Conscious experience.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Fri Mar 09, 2018 3:54 pm

Poodle wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:I talk about Conscious experience all the time but I think the real issue here is: What is Experiencing the Conscious Experience? How does this happen? What is the Self?

For me it's all about Conscious Sensory perception. The Conscious experience of the color Red, and all Colors, and Light in general continues to fascinate me. How is it that the Self experiences these things? What is Red? The Light we see is Conscious Light that is inside us. It's not the Physical Light that is outside us. The Light we see is inside us and must therefore be part of what we are. So it is clear that the Self is the Light but it still doesn't seem to help explain what the Self is.
And there you go again. We must define the human optical system and its ramifications upon consciousness when you are being obstinately insistent that we take into account an apparent fiction. Show me conscious light, Steve. Define it. Lose such nebulous statements as "So it is clear that the Self is the Light" because they are meaningless (and if you want to claim they're not, then explain them with comprehensive scientific evidence rather than the befuddled meanderings of non-dualist navel-gazing). You are rejecting every argument which does not suit your position on the grounds that it does not suit your position. 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. Just think about the Light you are seeing. This is a very strange thing to see Light that is not really there. This Light is Conscious Light. It sure is not Physical Light. This Light is a real thing that exists in the Conscious Mind but yet does not exist in the Physical World. Even if you think that this Light is just a product of Neural Activity you must admit that it is inside us. There was no external Light that lead to the experience. So even using a Physicalist interpretation you must say that this Light is part of what we are.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Fri Mar 09, 2018 4:11 pm

Consciousness will never be explained or even studied by Science as long as Scientists proclaim that there is no such thing as Consciousness or that it is just an Illusion. What can you do when people say there is no Hard Problem or Explanatory Gap and it is all already solved Scientifically? They say its all in the Neurons. They don't understand the Hard Problem of Consciousness that leads to the Explanatory Gap.

I think that Science will develop new Concepts that are not known yet. These Concepts will describe Consciousness in a Scientific way. It will be a new branch of Science. But first Science must acknowledge the existence of a separate Consciousness concept that is Not Explained yet and that can be studied. The very fact that Consciousness exists in the Universe means that we must explain it. It is basic human Scientific curiosity that will drive it. It might take thinking in new Scientific ways.

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10218
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Poodle » Fri Mar 09, 2018 4:23 pm

I'm out. There's no point arguing with someone with such unreasonably entrenched opinions and whose reading ability (as demonstrated above) appears to be lacking. I've been through one Klinko cycle and we're no further forward.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Fri Mar 09, 2018 4:37 pm

Poodle wrote:I'm out. There's no point arguing with someone with such unreasonably entrenched opinions and whose reading ability (as demonstrated above) appears to be lacking. I've been through one Klinko cycle and we're no further forward.
Sorry that I was unable to convince you.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Fri Mar 09, 2018 6:06 pm

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. The Physicalists say they are not Experiencing the things that they Experience and if you think you are it is all an Illusion. They always forget that in order for there to be an Illusion there must be an Experiencer of the Illusion. Truly remarkable.

User avatar
mirror93
Poster
Posts: 467
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by mirror93 » Fri Mar 09, 2018 9:37 pm

placid wrote:
Poodle wrote:
Metaphysics - abstract theory with no basis in reality.
So who is this ''placid character'' you keep piping on about? is it some abstract theory that has no basis in reality that I keep telling you about?

:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

God..IS...without doubt or error.

I am placid is an abstract theory with no basis in reality whatsoever.

Did you forget what you taught yourself again? did you forget to remember? :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
so basically placid is preaching god, christ consciousness, aka emptiness, you and me are both connected through the same one aka christ consciousness, and the void between us is an illusion, and christ is the savior through advaita woo........ does placid has followers? did she start her cult ?
:paladin:

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

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Mara » Sat Mar 10, 2018 4:41 am

SteveKlinko wrote:Of course it is subjective in the sense that it is my Experience when I experience Red for example. But I do Experience Red and you do experience Red (if you are normally developed and healthy). We could probably say that billions of Humans can experience Red. With a sample size of Billions of Humans all experiencing Red it is safe to say that there really is such a phenomenon It is something that must be explained. Because it is impossible to explain the Red Conscious experience we must conclude that there is something different going on here. It is not like any other usual Physical World phenomenon. We must find a way to measure and study Conscious experiences. Measuring Neural Activity does not tell you anything about how we have the Subjective experience of the color Red.

This is where your assumptions and problems are:

- you THINK that you experience red, and you THINK it is unique to you, just like a person who is high on DMT or mushrooms THINKS they are experiencing aliens beings in different dimensions, or kaleidoscopic visions, these drugs work on the same perceptory areas of brain that when looking at colour or hearing music get activated, which is what gets disturbed during psychosis for instance when schizophrenics suffer visual and auditory hallucinations, some even suffer textile type of hallucinations and can even feel itch and pain etc. that's what placebo and our minds can trick us in to.

- It's NOT a phenomena, it's an illusion. Human brain creates great deal of illusions for us, it's a survival mechanism, also so our brain does not blow up from processing too much at once, the way we make sense out of the world (I mentioned it elsewhere on skepticforum but look up gestalt psychology) is subjective and not representative of actual objective reality.

- You simply trust yourself too much which is exactly why we need scientific method treating reality as external to us, as we humans are born with such subjective illusions. The colour red is just a projection of your subjective interpretation.

The mainstream view of consciousness in neurosciences is that there is no such thing essentially, but there is an illusion of it. Your conversation here is based on old school philosophy that is not needed today any longer. Philosophical theories and thought experiments are not evidence-based science. I see this all the time with spiritualists, they keep quoting Plato, Eastern philosophies, all sorts of limited approaches specific to the days when the quality of science was at its beginning - we moved on from those days, Ok? There is a reason it is in the past.

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

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Mara » Sat Mar 10, 2018 4:54 am

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. The Physicalists say they are not Experiencing the things that they Experience and if you think you are it is all an Illusion. They always forget that in order for there to be an Illusion there must be an Experiencer of the Illusion. Truly remarkable.
Again, you refer to old school philosophies not evidence-based science. What makes you think you are conscious? Because you like to be? Because your religion told you so?

We live in a deterministic universe, homo sapiens are a part of that universe, humans' actions are based on responding to stimuli based on fairly complex psychology, humans organise knowledge specific way and understand reality by comparison, there are also personality traits, some engage in reverse psychology a bit more often than others, you are nowhere as free or unpredictable as you think of yourself. Look up studies of positive and negative conditioning, attachment experiments on children, cognitive biases list, group behaviour, the purpose of empowerment and how our survival depends on it (even though it's an illusion ) - it's all there, all those studies are replicable time by time and humans behave the same way...that is why by the way marketing works and is so successful in the era of consumerism.

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

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Mara » Sat Mar 10, 2018 5:01 am

mirror93 wrote: so basically placid is preaching god, christ consciousness, aka emptiness, you and me are both connected through the same one aka christ consciousness, and the void between us is an illusion, and christ is the savior through advaita woo........ does placid has followers? did she start her cult ?
Yep, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism ? ...and as always, there is no verifiable and reliable evidence for that, convenient isn't it? Horoscopes are written the same way...

I guess Placid it is difficult to accept that your entire life you have been surrounded by lies and people who are full of lies. Plenty of people die this way, it's just sad and a bit pathetic...

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Sat Mar 10, 2018 1:11 pm

Mara wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:Of course it is subjective in the sense that it is my Experience when I experience Red for example. But I do Experience Red and you do experience Red (if you are normally developed and healthy). We could probably say that billions of Humans can experience Red. With a sample size of Billions of Humans all experiencing Red it is safe to say that there really is such a phenomenon It is something that must be explained. Because it is impossible to explain the Red Conscious experience we must conclude that there is something different going on here. It is not like any other usual Physical World phenomenon. We must find a way to measure and study Conscious experiences. Measuring Neural Activity does not tell you anything about how we have the Subjective experience of the color Red.

This is where your assumptions and problems are:

- you THINK that you experience red, and you THINK it is unique to you, just like a person who is high on DMT or mushrooms THINKS they are experiencing aliens beings in different dimensions, or kaleidoscopic visions, these drugs work on the same perceptory areas of brain that when looking at colour or hearing music get activated, which is what gets disturbed during psychosis for instance when schizophrenics suffer visual and auditory hallucinations, some even suffer textile type of hallucinations and can even feel itch and pain etc. that's what placebo and our minds can trick us in to.

- It's NOT a phenomena, it's an illusion. Human brain creates great deal of illusions for us, it's a survival mechanism, also so our brain does not blow up from processing too much at once, the way we make sense out of the world (I mentioned it elsewhere on skepticforum but look up gestalt psychology) is subjective and not representative of actual objective reality.

- You simply trust yourself too much which is exactly why we need scientific method treating reality as external to us, as we humans are born with such subjective illusions. The colour red is just a projection of your subjective interpretation.

The mainstream view of consciousness in neurosciences is that there is no such thing essentially, but there is an illusion of it. Your conversation here is based on old school philosophy that is not needed today any longer. Philosophical theories and thought experiments are not evidence-based science. I see this all the time with spiritualists, they keep quoting Plato, Eastern philosophies, all sorts of limited approaches specific to the days when the quality of science was at its beginning - we moved on from those days, Ok? There is a reason it is in the past.
I don't understand how you can so blithely shrug off Conscious experience as an Illusion. Not only is Conscious experience not an Illusion it is the only thing you know about the External World. You are your Conscious experiences. You are denying what you are. The irony here is astounding.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Sat Mar 10, 2018 1:25 pm

Mara wrote:
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. The Physicalists say they are not Experiencing the things that they Experience and if you think you are it is all an Illusion. They always forget that in order for there to be an Illusion there must be an Experiencer of the Illusion. Truly remarkable.
Again, you refer to old school philosophies not evidence-based science. What makes you think you are conscious? Because you like to be? Because your religion told you so?

We live in a deterministic universe, homo sapiens are a part of that universe, humans' actions are based on responding to stimuli based on fairly complex psychology, humans organise knowledge specific way and understand reality by comparison, there are also personality traits, some engage in reverse psychology a bit more often than others, you are nowhere as free or unpredictable as you think of yourself. Look up studies of positive and negative conditioning, attachment experiments on children, cognitive biases list, group behaviour, the purpose of empowerment and how our survival depends on it (even though it's an illusion ) - it's all there, all those studies are replicable time by time and humans behave the same way...that is why by the way marketing works and is so successful in the era of consumerism.
This thread is about how we Experience our Sensory inputs. Anything else is just a diversion. Bringing up Free Will is a diversion. Here is the basic question of this thread. Given:

1) Neural Activity happens for the Color Red.
2) A Red Conscious experience happens.

How does 1 produce 2? It's actually a very Scientific question. It must be answered. You cant use the old Dodge that Red is just an Illusion anymore.

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

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Mara » Sat Mar 10, 2018 1:29 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:I don't understand how you can so blithely shrug off Conscious experience as an Illusion. Not only is Conscious experience not an Illusion it is the only thing you know about the External World. You are your Conscious experiences. You are denying what you are. The irony here is astounding.

Yes, I can see very clearly that you do not understand...I think we all see it.

How? Based on hundreds of psychological experiments where human behaviour is easily predicted, topped up by neuroscientific studies - you should try it sometimes. You can call it irony or whatever you like, it does not change the fact that's what it is. You just think that becsoue it makes you feel lesser therefore must be false? Human beings are nothing more than pack of meat, that's the reality. This is a ScepticForum, sceptics are not quick to fall for feel good concepts if evidence shows otherwise, that includes going against own existential needs... The Santa is also not what your parents told you... Sorry buddy, time to grow up.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Sat Mar 10, 2018 1:57 pm

Mara wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:I don't understand how you can so blithely shrug off Conscious experience as an Illusion. Not only is Conscious experience not an Illusion it is the only thing you know about the External World. You are your Conscious experiences. You are denying what you are. The irony here is astounding.

Yes, I can see very clearly that you do not understand...I think we all see it.

How? Based on hundreds of psychological experiments where human behaviour is easily predicted, topped up by neuroscientific studies - you should try it sometimes. You can call it irony or whatever you like, it does not change the fact that's what it is. You just think that becsoue it makes you feel lesser therefore must be false? Human beings are nothing more than pack of meat, that's the reality. This is a ScepticForum, sceptics are not quick to fall for feel good concepts if evidence shows otherwise, that includes going against own existential needs... The Santa is also not what your parents told you... Sorry buddy, time to grow up.
I'll just say to you what I say to all the Physicalists on this thread ... You need to start with the Red experience itself. Experience the Redness of the Red. You will find that it really is something in and of itself. You will find that it's not an Illusion. Eventually you will understand that it is part of What you are.

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 805
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Dimebag » Sat Mar 10, 2018 11:30 pm

I'll just say something I find pretty interesting about experience. In our experience we have the subjective element, and we also have a knowledge or informational element. For instance, if we see an red apple, we have the visual sensation of a red roughly circular shaped object, and we also have an informational component with that experience, such as the knowledge of the shape of the object, the ability to report its position within space relative to other objects, the different colours present on the object, and the fact that it is a distinct thing from the surrounding environment, and much much more which I can't think of or can't be bothered listing. The question is, which feature is primary or comes first, or do they both form at the same time. Can we have a sensory experience without the accompanying informational component. My experience tells me no, however it could be that the informational component arrives a split second after the experience component. Take your peripheral vision, there appears to be something going on there, however as your focus of attention is currently within the foveal area of your vision it is in this area that awareness can extract functional, reportable information. Whatever is going on in the peripheral vision could be said to be present, but it is entirely transient, and almost entirely not reportable (you might be able to guess about its contents, but this is more of a memory of what is normally present in such a particular setting). So there is experience present, without memory or information. It is useful as if a something unexpected occurs within this peripheral area, your body will automatically direct your attention towards that area, but your attentional mechanisms can intentionally ignore these requests for foveal attention, or basically stall the attention directing movement (it still remains queued within the motor system, we feel this as a motivational force directed towards a certain area).

What I am getting at is, the thing we call vivid conscious experience is actually a combination of several systems all directed towards a single area, when these systems become uncoupled, the experience becomes less than what it normally is. This to me is an emergence, or gestalt. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. That is because the whole can do something that the parts cannot do alone, they endow a greater ability, which is awareness. It is a potential because it allows an organism to see beyond that which is readily apparent. It allows it to infer, to predict, to extrapolate, and to plan ahead of execution. Basically to move beyond the immediate, into either the past or the future moment. It creates the ability to imagine what could be. This is all a bit wishy washy, I know, but no less profound.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Sun Mar 11, 2018 10:51 am

Dimebag wrote:I'll just say something I find pretty interesting about experience. In our experience we have the subjective element, and we also have a knowledge or informational element. For instance, if we see an red apple, we have the visual sensation of a red roughly circular shaped object, and we also have an informational component with that experience, such as the knowledge of the shape of the object, the ability to report its position within space relative to other objects, the different colours present on the object, and the fact that it is a distinct thing from the surrounding environment, and much much more which I can't think of or can't be bothered listing. The question is, which feature is primary or comes first, or do they both form at the same time. Can we have a sensory experience without the accompanying informational component. My experience tells me no, however it could be that the informational component arrives a split second after the experience component. Take your peripheral vision, there appears to be something going on there, however as your focus of attention is currently within the foveal area of your vision it is in this area that awareness can extract functional, reportable information. Whatever is going on in the peripheral vision could be said to be present, but it is entirely transient, and almost entirely not reportable (you might be able to guess about its contents, but this is more of a memory of what is normally present in such a particular setting). So there is experience present, without memory or information. It is useful as if a something unexpected occurs within this peripheral area, your body will automatically direct your attention towards that area, but your attentional mechanisms can intentionally ignore these requests for foveal attention, or basically stall the attention directing movement (it still remains queued within the motor system, we feel this as a motivational force directed towards a certain area).

What I am getting at is, the thing we call vivid conscious experience is actually a combination of several systems all directed towards a single area, when these systems become uncoupled, the experience becomes less than what it normally is. This to me is an emergence, or gestalt. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. That is because the whole can do something that the parts cannot do alone, they endow a greater ability, which is awareness. It is a potential because it allows an organism to see beyond that which is readily apparent. It allows it to infer, to predict, to extrapolate, and to plan ahead of execution. Basically to move beyond the immediate, into either the past or the future moment. It creates the ability to imagine what could be. This is all a bit wishy washy, I know, but no less profound.
Let's take the case of amnesia where someone does not recognize the faces of people they knew. The recognition part of the Brain must be malfunctioning. But because the recognition is lost doesn't necessarily mean that the Conscious experience of Seeing the face is any less Vivid. In a normally functioning Brain the Conscious experience of Seeing the face of someone you never met would be the same thing. The Conscious experience of Seeing the unknown face is probably still as Vivid as for Seeing a known face.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29607
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Matthew Ellard » Sun Mar 11, 2018 9:58 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:I'll just say to you what I say to all the Physicalists on this thread ... You need to start with the Red experience itself.
In human evolution...we have walked you through this and you keep pretending to forget. Bees and dogs have no concept of red. You have no concept of what bees see for ultra violet.

You are simply displaying innate anthropocentric narcissism in thinking humans represent everything. We don't.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Sun Mar 11, 2018 11:29 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:I'll just say to you what I say to all the Physicalists on this thread ... You need to start with the Red experience itself.
In human evolution...we have walked you through this and you keep pretending to forget. Bees and dogs have no concept of red. You have no concept of what bees see for ultra violet.

You are simply displaying innate anthropocentric narcissism in thinking humans represent everything. We don't.
I didn't know that Bees and Dogs were reading this thread. I'll have to be more species sensitive. Thank You for the advice.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Sun Mar 11, 2018 11:43 pm

Just the fact that Science has so much trouble with Consciousness tells me that Consciousness is a separate thing apart from the Physical World. Science deals with Physical World phenomenon. I think if Consciousness was part of the Physical World Science would have had lots of things to say about it by now. The absolute zero understanding that Science has about Consciousness shows me that Consciousness must not be a Physical World phenomenon. So I think that it is pretty clear that there are Physical World phenomenon and Conscious World phenomenon. They seem to be separate things.

User avatar
Austin Harper
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5374
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:22 pm
Custom Title: Rock Chalk Astrohawk
Location: Detroit

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Austin Harper » Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:41 am

Science used to have a hard time with why things fall down. Give it time.
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29607
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Matthew Ellard » Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:56 am

SteveKlinko wrote:I didn't know that Bees and Dogs were reading this thread.
No Steve. humans who understand biology and evolution are reading this thread and they already know about bees and dogs not seeing "red" in their consciousness. It's called knowledge.

We also already know that you, as a human, don't see ultra violet in your mind and thus your whole silly claim falls apart.
Last edited by Matthew Ellard on Mon Mar 12, 2018 4:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29607
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Matthew Ellard » Mon Mar 12, 2018 4:01 am

SteveKlinko wrote: I think if Consciousness was part of the Physical World Science would have had lots of things to say about it by now.
That is terrible logic. Science knows what "running" and "waiting" and "resting" are, yet they are not part of the physical world either. You just destroyed your own claim.....again.

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

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Mara » Mon Mar 12, 2018 11:42 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:I'll just say to you what I say to all the Physicalists on this thread ... You need to start with the Red experience itself.
In human evolution...we have walked you through this and you keep pretending to forget. Bees and dogs have no concept of red. You have no concept of what bees see for ultra violet.

You are simply displaying innate anthropocentric narcissism in thinking humans represent everything. We don't.

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:

P.s. This forums teaches me so much about the current state of human evolution btw... ;-)

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29607
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Matthew Ellard » Mon Mar 12, 2018 9:24 pm

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. [/color] :lol:
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

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

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Mara » Mon Mar 12, 2018 10:40 pm

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.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29607
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Matthew Ellard » Tue Mar 13, 2018 3:34 am

Exactly. It's the same old Christian logic again.

God created the universe (13.8 billion years ago)
God created man in his own image ( humans evolved 190,000 years ago)
Christian scientists accept that evolution is real and man evolved 190,000 years ago.

You can drive a truck through that logic hole.
:lol:

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

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Mara » Tue Mar 13, 2018 4:26 am

...that naughty God seems to be favouring some more than others with his magic wand as he skipped John Dalton with the gift of colour consciousness ;-)

P.s. just at the Sydney airport going home, almost forgot how busy life looks like!

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:13 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:I didn't know that Bees and Dogs were reading this thread.
No Steve. humans who understand biology and evolution are reading this thread and they already know about bees and dogs not seeing "red" in their consciousness. It's called knowledge.

We also already know that you, as a human, don't see ultra violet in your mind and thus your whole silly claim falls apart.
How does not seeing Ultra Violet explain how we see Red?

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:17 pm

Austin Harper wrote:Science used to have a hard time with why things fall down. Give it time.
I agree Science may figure it out some day. But there is zero understanding at this point. There should at least be some understanding no matter how small. Understanding the Neural Correlates does not help in understanding actual Conscious experience.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:26 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote: I think if Consciousness was part of the Physical World Science would have had lots of things to say about it by now.
That is terrible logic. Science knows what "running" and "waiting" and "resting" are, yet they are not part of the physical world either. You just destroyed your own claim.....again.
If you are equating Running, Waiting, and Resting with Conscious experience then you are mixing Apples and Oranges. You are not explaining how we Experience the Color Red which is the point of this thread. You are just creating diversions again. Just admit it that Science does not know how we Experience Red

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:32 pm

Mara wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:I'll just say to you what I say to all the Physicalists on this thread ... You need to start with the Red experience itself.
In human evolution...we have walked you through this and you keep pretending to forget. Bees and dogs have no concept of red. You have no concept of what bees see for ultra violet.

You are simply displaying innate anthropocentric narcissism in thinking humans represent everything. We don't.

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:

P.s. This forums teaches me so much about the current state of human evolution btw... ;-)
So I say you need to start with the Red experience itself and you come up with all kinds of what really come down to lies about what I think about origins. The question remains ... Given:

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

How does 1 produce 2?