The Inter Mind

What you think about how you think.
User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3367
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Nikki Nyx » Mon Feb 19, 2018 3:10 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Cadmusteeth wrote:He really doesn't get it does he?
Steve is quick to ignore any evidence that answers his questions. :D
Makes me see red, it does. To me, answers that comprise valid scientific data are eminently satisfying. Such answers do not reduce my sense of wonder toward the natural world one iota. If anything, knowing how things work increases that wonder. So, why would I need to create magical answers when the scientific one are magical?
"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: 3367
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Nikki Nyx » Mon Feb 19, 2018 4:23 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:Nothing to reply to in that last group of nasty and derogatory responses.
Of course not. Because our posts contain valid scientific data, in which you are manifestly uninterested, since said data negate your hypothesis of an "inter mind."
SteveKlinko wrote:The basic question remains:

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

How does 1 produce 2? It's such a basic question.
No, it doesn't remain. The question has been answered multiple times by several posters, but since the answer contradicts your magical religion, you reject it. Bye, Felicia.
SteveKlinko wrote:All anyone ever provides as an explanation is to talk about more Neurons firing.
Because that's how the {!#%@} brain {!#%@} works, for {!#%@}'s sake!
SteveKlinko wrote:You can fire all the Neurons you want.
I have. I wish you would.
"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: 3367
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Nikki Nyx » Mon Feb 19, 2018 8:24 pm

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

1) Neurons for Red fire
2) ?
3) A Conscious experience of Red happens
Your step-by-step ignores most of the process. Try this instead:

1. Light with a wavelength of 620–750 nm is perceived by the retinae.
2. The retinae's cones identify the wavelength and transmit it via the optic nerve to the brain.
3. The brain, orchestrated by the claustrum, integrates the sensory information with its databanks (memory), matching it up with the learned language tag "red" and associating it with all memories that include that tag.
4. This integration process creates the conscious (and subconscious) experience of "red."

Consider the brain to be an organic computer, because that's basically what it is. In this analogy:
• Your skull is the housing, the case that contains and protects the computer.
• Your claustrum is the motherboard, the structure that connects all other parts of the computer.
• Your sensory organs are the input devices (mouse, keyboard, camera, trackpad, etc.).
• The parts of your brain that interpret and integrate information, mostly located in the cerebrum, are the CPU.
• Your short-term memory is the RAM, while your long-term memory is the hard drive.
• Your occipital lobe (along with the midbrain) is the graphics card.
• Your temporal lobe (along with the midbrain) is the sound card.
• Your imagination is both the monitor and the speakers (or headphones), reproducing and displaying information stored in your memory (both RAM and hard drive).
• Your digestive system is the power supply unit, and the nutrients you ingest are the electricity.
• Your brainstem, limbic system, and cerebellum are the firmware, maintaining the autonomous functions.
All sensory input, when analyzed and integrated, is the software.

When you consider this analogy, the functioning of the brain becomes less mystical and more comprehensible as a device with many parts, all of which function together, the computer via hard-wiring and the brain via neurotransmitters. The analogy can be extended: If you remove or damage any part of a computer, it will not function properly...and if you suffer injury to any part of your brain, you will not function properly.

The only difference, aside from one being organic and the other inorganic, is that the computer is not self-aware and, therefore, cannot reflect on the processes that comprise its functioning. If it could, I highly doubt it would invent an imaginary component to account for questions it could not answer.
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

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

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Sat Feb 24, 2018 1:47 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A High school graduate would look into how these are converted by observing basic forms of these conversions, in paramecium and so forth. You refuse to do this as you religiously wish to pretend there is a magical thing called conscious light, which has neither light, electromagnetic frequencies, nor electromagnetic amplitudes.
Yes the Light you experience is not Physical Light which has properties of frequency and amplitude, The Light you experience is a proxy for the Physical Light which I call Conscious Light just to emphasize the difference.

You say that the Eye/Brain system converts the Physical Red Light, for example, into Synapse Patterns. I think you are saying that the Synapse Patterns are a proxy for the actual Physical Red Light. But how do you get from the Synapse Patterns to the actual experience of the color Red? There still seems to be something missing in your explanation. And the question remains: what is that experience of the color Red? Your proxy is not an experience of the color Red. Your proxy is only Synapse Patterns. I think it is perfectly Scientific to ask the question: exactly how do those Synapse Patterns result in an experience of the color Red?

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Sat Feb 24, 2018 1:51 pm

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

1) Photons of a particular frequency hit the cones in eye.
2) Energy from photon is converted to synapse patterns using electrons, defined by DNA to allow recognition by the brain's other synapses.
3) A Conscious experience of Red happens
Vision and Light-Induced Molecular Changes
Spectroscopy and Quantum Chemistry Experiment / Rachel Casiday and Regina Frey / Department of Chemistry, Washington University
http://www.chemistry.wustl.edu/~edudev/ ... ision.html
So you really believe that saying Synapse Patterns explains the experience of the color Red? Well there it is for all to see. You have described no logical connection between Synapse Patterns and the experience of the color Red.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Sat Feb 24, 2018 2:29 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

These questions are important, but the only way we will make progress on them and the many others associated with this topic, is to be focussed in our approach, to use the tools we have at our disposal, and have a very healthy dose of humility and be able to accept that for now we have to say that to the most pressing questions concerning consciousness we have to admit, we DON'T KNOW, and..... That's okay.
I agree that the experience of Red may very well be in the Neurons. I have always said that. But if it is going to be in the Neurons then it will have to some new discovery. The discovery will have to address the very nature of the Self. The question that is missing in all these discussions is: what is it that is having the experience of Red?

I think we are enough down the road with our understanding of Brain processing that we can say that there is a problem with thinking that if we just knew more and more about Brain processing that then we will eventually figure out what that experience of Red is. If all the present knowledge about Brain processing was giving us at least a clue then I would say that maybe more understanding of Brain processing would get us there. But there is no clue from what we currently know about the Brain as to what that experience of Red is. All we can say is that there are processes in the Brain that are Correlated with the experience of Red. These processes do not explain how we have an experience of Red.

What the Physicalists are hoping for is a step function of understanding that will take them from zero understanding to full understanding or at least a clue of understanding. The most remarkable thing I have learned is that some of the Physicalists believe that there is no missing knowledge. They think the experience of Red is already all explained. The Physicalist talk like they really don't even have a Conscious experience of Red. I have to think that they are just messing with me at this point.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Sat Feb 24, 2018 2:39 pm

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

1) Neurons for Red fire
2) ?
3) A Conscious experience of Red happens
Your step-by-step ignores most of the process. Try this instead:

1. Light with a wavelength of 620–750 nm is perceived by the retinae.
2. The retinae's cones identify the wavelength and transmit it via the optic nerve to the brain.
3. The brain, orchestrated by the claustrum, integrates the sensory information with its databanks (memory), matching it up with the learned language tag "red" and associating it with all memories that include that tag.
4. This integration process creates the conscious (and subconscious) experience of "red."

Consider the brain to be an organic computer, because that's basically what it is. In this analogy:
• Your skull is the housing, the case that contains and protects the computer.
• Your claustrum is the motherboard, the structure that connects all other parts of the computer.
• Your sensory organs are the input devices (mouse, keyboard, camera, trackpad, etc.).
• The parts of your brain that interpret and integrate information, mostly located in the cerebrum, are the CPU.
• Your short-term memory is the RAM, while your long-term memory is the hard drive.
• Your occipital lobe (along with the midbrain) is the graphics card.
• Your temporal lobe (along with the midbrain) is the sound card.
• Your imagination is both the monitor and the speakers (or headphones), reproducing and displaying information stored in your memory (both RAM and hard drive).
• Your digestive system is the power supply unit, and the nutrients you ingest are the electricity.
• Your brainstem, limbic system, and cerebellum are the firmware, maintaining the autonomous functions.
All sensory input, when analyzed and integrated, is the software.

When you consider this analogy, the functioning of the brain becomes less mystical and more comprehensible as a device with many parts, all of which function together, the computer via hard-wiring and the brain via neurotransmitters. The analogy can be extended: If you remove or damage any part of a computer, it will not function properly...and if you suffer injury to any part of your brain, you will not function properly.

The only difference, aside from one being organic and the other inorganic, is that the computer is not self-aware and, therefore, cannot reflect on the processes that comprise its functioning. If it could, I highly doubt it would invent an imaginary component to account for questions it could not answer.
The Explanatory Gap is fully illustrated by your step 4. You say the integration process creates the experience of Red. How? I have to think you must be messing with me if you think that was an explanation.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Sat Feb 24, 2018 9:23 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote: 1. Light with a wavelength of 620–750 nm is perceived by the retinae.
2. The retinae's cones identify the wavelength and transmit it via the optic nerve to the brain.
3. The brain, orchestrated by the claustrum, integrates the sensory information with its databanks (memory), matching it up with the learned language tag "red" and associating it with all memories that include that tag.
4. This integration process creates the conscious (and subconscious) experience of "red."
Matthew Ellard wrote: 1) Photons of a particular frequency hit the cones in eye.
2) Energy from photon is converted to synapse patterns using electrons, defined by DNA to allow recognition by the brain's other synapses.
3) A Conscious experience of Red happens
The basic question I asked was: how do you get from Neural Activity to the experience of the color Red? In both answers they only say there was Neural Activity but they give no explanation of how we experience the color Red. They say Neural Activity happens and the Red experience happens and you must be ignorant if you don't understand that. I can see by their words that they are ignoring the actual Conscious experience of Red and are just looking at the Neural Correlates of the Conscious experience of Red.

I have to ask them to direct their attention to the experience of the Red itself. Think more deeply about the Redness of the Red. I hope they will find that the Red is a thing in itself that exists in the Physical World. It's not Magical but rather it is something that is unexplained at this point. It might exist as an internal Consciousness thing but it exists nevertheless. It's not an Illusion (meaning it doesn't really exist) of Brain processing although it seems to be related to Brain processing. It is something that must be explained. It is unscientific to ignore the Red experience itself. What probably scares them the most is that when they start thinking about experiencing Red they implicitly must admit some kind of observer of the Red. But that's another topic.

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10167
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 » Sat Feb 24, 2018 11:03 pm

I think not, Steve. They're more likely to be completely ignoring your multiplication of entities. I mean, why stick to vision? Where is the Tactile Gap, the Aural Gap, the Stink Gap? Or do you actually understand those senses but not vision? From where do original ideas come? Do fairies really die when children say they don't believe in them?

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 804
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Dimebag » Sun Feb 25, 2018 2:54 am

SteveKlinko wrote:I agree that the experience of Red may very well be in the Neurons. I have always said that. But if it is going to be in the Neurons then it will have to some new discovery. The discovery will have to address the very nature of the Self. The question that is missing in all these discussions is: what is it that is having the experience of Red?
I think the concept of the self is heavily tied into understanding how conscious experience occurs, however, maybe not in the way that you are implicating it, as the owner of experience. I think of experience as being about the self, and how the self can operate in the world. Without the self, an experience has no practical use, it is not necessary or useful. However, if we view an experience as a seamless representation of embodied action, the self emerges necessarily. The world is presented to us devoid of this embodiment; they exist on a sub-conscious level, but can become conscious during focused attention. When we attend to one particular object in our focused attention, the possibilities of embodied action with that object and our self, combined with any other area of focus within our environment become apparent. This is the source of the perception of possibility and choice. Basically, our cortex models the ways in which we can interact with an object for practical use. Anything is potentially a tool to be used to our advantage, or to assist in our survival. Due to the understanding of our mortality, we have a heightened sense of our need to protect ourselves. Thankfully, due to millions of years of evolution, and countless deaths and near misses, we have this astounding practical ability.
SteveKlinko wrote:I think we are enough down the road with our understanding of Brain processing that we can say that there is a problem with thinking that if we just knew more and more about Brain processing that then we will eventually figure out what that experience of Red is. If all the present knowledge about Brain processing was giving us at least a clue then I would say that maybe more understanding of Brain processing would get us there. But there is no clue from what we currently know about the Brain as to what that experience of Red is. All we can say is that there are processes in the Brain that are Correlated with the experience of Red. These processes do not explain how we have an experience of Red.
What is the practical application of being able to see red, as opposed to say, green, or other similar shades? It has been hypothesized that early humans were fruit eaters, and by being able to discern the shades that we see, we were able to identify chemical changes within fruits, so as to ensure we could safely eat. Couple that with an ability for memory and the ability to communicate a particular event, as well as the tendency for humans to exist within larger groups, and you have a system of attaining knowledge about a potentially deadly environment, and the further ability to spread this knowledge to the wider group.

So now we also include the episodic memory system, the vocalisation system, as well as the embodied sensorimotor systems of the cortex, and further more, a cultural feedback component in which knowledge about cause and effect with our environment can be stored and passed onward and within the group for survival advantages. Without all of these systems, I do not believe what we define as conscious experience could have occurred. Experience is much more complex and essential to survival than people would lead you to believe. But without this ability, we would not be here today, we would have nothing in the way of culture, society, laws, structures, science, etc. Experience is an extremely important part of what makes humans great.
SteveKlinko wrote:What the Physicalists are hoping for is a step function of understanding that will take them from zero understanding to full understanding or at least a clue of understanding. The most remarkable thing I have learned is that some of the Physicalists believe that there is no missing knowledge. They think the experience of Red is already all explained. The Physicalist talk like they really don't even have a Conscious experience of Red. I have to think that they are just messing with me at this point.
I think the tendency for some people to be of the opinion that conscious experience is a closed book, that there are no problems with our ability to understand it, are looking through the optimistic lens of past science. What they may not be taking into account is that in order for us to get where our scientific endeavors have brought us, it was necessary to exclude all subjective information from scientific inquiry. However, we now face a difficult task of how to re-integrate that which was removed from all realms of science, the subjective.

That is a tricky question, and one which can potentially lead down muddy paths which might bring scientific progress to a halt. Only one thing is certain, the only way forward is more science. And thankfully, we also have the basic process of evolution to assist. Due to the nature of the mind, and the ability for creative minds to produce ideas which are extremely novel and brilliant, we have at our disposal potentially an infinite amount of variation, within ideas. Couple that with the fact that ideas which produce results are more likely to "reproduce", or pass their memetic (rather than genetic) information down the line, and it would seem as if we have the perfect system to find a way, just as it has found answers to all the other seemingly impossible questions of existence..... evolution.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29565
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Matthew Ellard » Sun Feb 25, 2018 6:34 am

SteveKlinko wrote: I hope they will find that the Red is a thing in itself that exists in the Physical World.
No. We have been through this before and you pretend to forget your logical errors . There is no physical "tastes salty" in the universe. The human brain has evolved patterns of synapses firing to represent environmental stimulus. The brain recognising sound, light, warmth, pressure, pain are all just different patterns of synapses. You keep pretending to forget that.

I cannot point at "red" in the universe anymore than I can point at "pain", "noisy" or "tastes salty". These are the human mind's evolved method to allow the brain to interact with the environment.

What destroys your claim in seconds is other animals. They don't see red for the same frequencies we do. That immediately destroys your religious fantasy that "Red" is a real thing in the universe, Only human brains create that "red".

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Sun Feb 25, 2018 2:05 pm

Poodle wrote:I think not, Steve. They're more likely to be completely ignoring your multiplication of entities. I mean, why stick to vision? Where is the Tactile Gap, the Aural Gap, the Stink Gap? Or do you actually understand those senses but not vision? From where do original ideas come? Do fairies really die when children say they don't believe in them?
Even though you have invalidated any requirement for me to answer because of your last sentence I'll just ask why do you want to jump around. Lets stick to one aspect like Vision. When we understand Conscious Vision we will understand all of the Conscious Sensory Gaps.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Sun Feb 25, 2018 2:18 pm

Dimebag wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:I agree that the experience of Red may very well be in the Neurons. I have always said that. But if it is going to be in the Neurons then it will have to some new discovery. The discovery will have to address the very nature of the Self. The question that is missing in all these discussions is: what is it that is having the experience of Red?
I think the concept of the self is heavily tied into understanding how conscious experience occurs, however, maybe not in the way that you are implicating it, as the owner of experience. I think of experience as being about the self, and how the self can operate in the world. Without the self, an experience has no practical use, it is not necessary or useful. However, if we view an experience as a seamless representation of embodied action, the self emerges necessarily. The world is presented to us devoid of this embodiment; they exist on a sub-conscious level, but can become conscious during focused attention. When we attend to one particular object in our focused attention, the possibilities of embodied action with that object and our self, combined with any other area of focus within our environment become apparent. This is the source of the perception of possibility and choice. Basically, our cortex models the ways in which we can interact with an object for practical use. Anything is potentially a tool to be used to our advantage, or to assist in our survival. Due to the understanding of our mortality, we have a heightened sense of our need to protect ourselves. Thankfully, due to millions of years of evolution, and countless deaths and near misses, we have this astounding practical ability.
SteveKlinko wrote:I think we are enough down the road with our understanding of Brain processing that we can say that there is a problem with thinking that if we just knew more and more about Brain processing that then we will eventually figure out what that experience of Red is. If all the present knowledge about Brain processing was giving us at least a clue then I would say that maybe more understanding of Brain processing would get us there. But there is no clue from what we currently know about the Brain as to what that experience of Red is. All we can say is that there are processes in the Brain that are Correlated with the experience of Red. These processes do not explain how we have an experience of Red.
What is the practical application of being able to see red, as opposed to say, green, or other similar shades? It has been hypothesized that early humans were fruit eaters, and by being able to discern the shades that we see, we were able to identify chemical changes within fruits, so as to ensure we could safely eat. Couple that with an ability for memory and the ability to communicate a particular event, as well as the tendency for humans to exist within larger groups, and you have a system of attaining knowledge about a potentially deadly environment, and the further ability to spread this knowledge to the wider group.

So now we also include the episodic memory system, the vocalisation system, as well as the embodied sensorimotor systems of the cortex, and further more, a cultural feedback component in which knowledge about cause and effect with our environment can be stored and passed onward and within the group for survival advantages. Without all of these systems, I do not believe what we define as conscious experience could have occurred. Experience is much more complex and essential to survival than people would lead you to believe. But without this ability, we would not be here today, we would have nothing in the way of culture, society, laws, structures, science, etc. Experience is an extremely important part of what makes humans great.
SteveKlinko wrote:What the Physicalists are hoping for is a step function of understanding that will take them from zero understanding to full understanding or at least a clue of understanding. The most remarkable thing I have learned is that some of the Physicalists believe that there is no missing knowledge. They think the experience of Red is already all explained. The Physicalist talk like they really don't even have a Conscious experience of Red. I have to think that they are just messing with me at this point.
I think the tendency for some people to be of the opinion that conscious experience is a closed book, that there are no problems with our ability to understand it, are looking through the optimistic lens of past science. What they may not be taking into account is that in order for us to get where our scientific endeavors have brought us, it was necessary to exclude all subjective information from scientific inquiry. However, we now face a difficult task of how to re-integrate that which was removed from all realms of science, the subjective.

That is a tricky question, and one which can potentially lead down muddy paths which might bring scientific progress to a halt. Only one thing is certain, the only way forward is more science. And thankfully, we also have the basic process of evolution to assist. Due to the nature of the mind, and the ability for creative minds to produce ideas which are extremely novel and brilliant, we have at our disposal potentially an infinite amount of variation, within ideas. Couple that with the fact that ideas which produce results are more likely to "reproduce", or pass their memetic (rather than genetic) information down the line, and it would seem as if we have the perfect system to find a way, just as it has found answers to all the other seemingly impossible questions of existence..... evolution.
Yes I agree, it's time for Science to directly confront the Subjective aspect. They have to admit that the Subjective aspect is an existent thing in the Physical Universe. And since the Subjective exists in the Physical World it should be a completely legitimate Scientific pursuit. They have to stop making believe it doesn't even exist. Their denials are getting childish at this point.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Sun Feb 25, 2018 2:24 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote: I hope they will find that the Red is a thing in itself that exists in the Physical World.
No. We have been through this before and you pretend to forget your logical errors . There is no physical "tastes salty" in the universe. The human brain has evolved patterns of synapses firing to represent environmental stimulus. The brain recognising sound, light, warmth, pressure, pain are all just different patterns of synapses. You keep pretending to forget that.

I cannot point at "red" in the universe anymore than I can point at "pain", "noisy" or "tastes salty". These are the human mind's evolved method to allow the brain to interact with the environment.

What destroys your claim in seconds is other animals. They don't see red for the same frequencies we do. That immediately destroys your religious fantasy that "Red" is a real thing in the universe, Only human brains create that "red".
You can't point at Red, Pain, or Salty Taste in the Physical Universe because they exist in the Conscious Universe. You are beginning to understand the problem, just keep thinking about the Redness of the Red and you will get there.
Last edited by SteveKlinko on Sun Feb 25, 2018 2:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10167
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 » Sun Feb 25, 2018 2:35 pm

You know, Steve, you can (in the real universe) set up machines which can sense and identify a) colour b) extremes of shock or temperature which may be injurious to humans and make them say Ouch and c) tastes/smells identifiable by the human tongue and nose. How do you think it is possible to do this if we suffer from an inexplicable sensory gap?

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Sun Feb 25, 2018 4:35 pm

Poodle wrote:You know, Steve, you can (in the real universe) set up machines which can sense and identify a) colour b) extremes of shock or temperature which may be injurious to humans and make them say Ouch and c) tastes/smells identifiable by the human tongue and nose. How do you think it is possible to do this if we suffer from an inexplicable sensory gap?
I know exactly how to write programs to scan images to search for Red. But Red is not ever an experience of color in a Machine. Red is a number in the computer. There is no Conscious experience of Red in a Machine. So of course there is no Gap. But there is an experience of Red in the Human Conscious Mind. You have implied, and basically admitted, that the experience of Red is an added feature in the Conscious Mind that a Machine does not have. That's not to say that a Machine can not be designed to have a Conscious aspect. It's just that we don't understand Consciousness and so we don't know how to design a Machine with Consciousness.

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10167
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 » Sun Feb 25, 2018 8:17 pm

I have neither implied nor admitted any such thing, Steve. Behave! I made the point (as you admit) that a machine can be made to identify any part of the visible spectrum and, in fact, can out-perform a human by going well beyond the visible spectrum. It is YOU, not me, who insists that consciousness has anything to do with this. You claim that colour vision is special in humans but not special in machines. I don't think you could tell the difference in a blind test - and if you cannot do that then you are, in fact, unnecessarily multiplying entities. So, Steve, how can you differentiate in the first place? (You know the stuff - sealed room, computer interface in either case, identify a colour). Which is which, Steve?
I may be calling William of Ockham as my next witness.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29565
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Matthew Ellard » Sun Feb 25, 2018 10:56 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:No. We have been through this before and you pretend to forget your logical errors . There is no physical "tastes salty" in the universe. The human brain has evolved patterns of synapses firing to represent environmental stimulus. The brain recognising sound, light, warmth, pressure, pain are all just different patterns of synapses. You keep pretending to forget that.
SteveKlinko wrote:You can't point at Red, Pain, or Salty Taste in the Physical Universe because they exist in the Conscious Universe.".
That's right because they are patterns of synapses in the evolved human brain and not real things on their own. The human mind is not the universe. You are slowly learning from us. :lol:

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Mon Feb 26, 2018 12:11 am

Poodle wrote:I have neither implied nor admitted any such thing, Steve. Behave! I made the point (as you admit) that a machine can be made to identify any part of the visible spectrum and, in fact, can out-perform a human by going well beyond the visible spectrum. It is YOU, not me, who insists that consciousness has anything to do with this. You claim that colour vision is special in humans but not special in machines. I don't think you could tell the difference in a blind test - and if you cannot do that then you are, in fact, unnecessarily multiplying entities. So, Steve, how can you differentiate in the first place? (You know the stuff - sealed room, computer interface in either case, identify a colour). Which is which, Steve?
I may be calling William of Ockham as my next witness.
Of course the Machine can detect Red but the Machine does not have a Conscious experience of Red. A Human can also detect the color Red. But a Human has a Conscious experience of Red. The Conscious Red experience is the data that the Conscious Mind uses to detect Red. It's an extra step in the processing but it seems to be necessary. I'm only reporting what I observe.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Mon Feb 26, 2018 12:18 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:No. We have been through this before and you pretend to forget your logical errors . There is no physical "tastes salty" in the universe. The human brain has evolved patterns of synapses firing to represent environmental stimulus. The brain recognising sound, light, warmth, pressure, pain are all just different patterns of synapses. You keep pretending to forget that.
SteveKlinko wrote:You can't point at Red, Pain, or Salty Taste in the Physical Universe because they exist in the Conscious Universe.".
That's right because they are patterns of synapses in the evolved human brain and not real things on their own. The human mind is not the universe. You are slowly learning from us. :lol:
You seemed to be getting closer to the reality of the Universe you live in, but now I think you have done some backsliding. Think about the Redness of the Red and tell me how that is the same as any kind or form of Patterns of Synapses.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Mon Feb 26, 2018 12:23 am

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

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29565
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Matthew Ellard » Mon Feb 26, 2018 4:26 am

Matthew Ellard wrote: That's right because they are patterns of synapses in the evolved human brain and not real things on their own. The human mind is not the universe. You are slowly learning from us. :lol:
SteveKlinko wrote: You seemed to be getting closer to the reality of the Universe you live in
That's why I am educating you.

You have just realised that different evolved patterns of synapses, giving the human brain information the external environment, about heat, photon frequencies, chemicals and so on are no more real things that a crayon drawing of a monster. It does not make the monster real in the universe. :lol:
SteveKlinko wrote:Think about the Redness of the Red and tell me how that is the same as any kind or form of Patterns of Synapses.
The cones in your eyes that convert photon frequencies of 430–480 THz to evolved electron patterns, giving us the interpretative "red", have synapses connect to the brain. Didn't you know this? :lol:

You really do get basic physics do you? Your DNA cannot create anything other than protein chains. They cannot create magical red light in the universe. The "red" is only an illusion in human brains and not the whole universe.
optic_nerve.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29565
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Matthew Ellard » Mon Feb 26, 2018 4:35 am

Hey Steve? If I draw a picture of a monster using crayons, does that drawing make the monster real in the universe?
Monster 2.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3367
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Nikki Nyx » Mon Feb 26, 2018 9:41 pm

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

1) Photons of a particular frequency hit the cones in eye.
2) Energy from photon is converted to synapse patterns using electrons, defined by DNA to allow recognition by the brain's other synapses.
3) A Conscious experience of Red happens
Vision and Light-Induced Molecular Changes
Spectroscopy and Quantum Chemistry Experiment / Rachel Casiday and Regina Frey / Department of Chemistry, Washington University
http://www.chemistry.wustl.edu/~edudev/ ... ision.html
So you really believe that saying Synapse Patterns explains the experience of the color Red? Well there it is for all to see. You have described no logical connection between Synapse Patterns and the experience of the color Red.
Synapses ARE the connection!
In the nervous system, a synapse is a structure that permits a neuron (or nerve cell) to pass an electrical or chemical signal to another neuron or to the target efferent cell.
"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: 3367
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Nikki Nyx » Mon Feb 26, 2018 9:51 pm

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

1) Neurons for Red fire
2) ?
3) A Conscious experience of Red happens
Your step-by-step ignores most of the process. Try this instead:

1. Light with a wavelength of 620–750 nm is perceived by the retinae.
2. The retinae's cones identify the wavelength and transmit it via the optic nerve to the brain.
3. The brain, orchestrated by the claustrum, integrates the sensory information with its databanks (memory), matching it up with the learned language tag "red" and associating it with all memories that include that tag.
4. This integration process creates the conscious (and subconscious) experience of "red."
The Explanatory Gap is fully illustrated by your step 4.
No, it's not. Did you miss Step #3? It fully describes the integration process.
SteveKlinko wrote:You say the integration process creates the experience of Red. How?
:nea: I literally just said how: "The brain, orchestrated by the claustrum, integrates the sensory information with its databanks (memory), matching it up with the learned language tag "red" and associating it with all memories that include that tag." Those collective memories ARE your "experience of red."
SteveKlinko wrote:I have to think you must be messing with me if you think that was an explanation.
I'm not "messing" with you; the explanation is right there. I can't imagine how you missed it.
"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: 3367
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Nikki Nyx » Mon Feb 26, 2018 10:25 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote: 1. Light with a wavelength of 620–750 nm is perceived by the retinae.
2. The retinae's cones identify the wavelength and transmit it via the optic nerve to the brain.
3. The brain, orchestrated by the claustrum, integrates the sensory information with its databanks (memory), matching it up with the learned language tag "red" and associating it with all memories that include that tag.
4. This integration process creates the conscious (and subconscious) experience of "red."
Matthew Ellard wrote: 1) Photons of a particular frequency hit the cones in eye.
2) Energy from photon is converted to synapse patterns using electrons, defined by DNA to allow recognition by the brain's other synapses.
3) A Conscious experience of Red happens
The basic question I asked was: how do you get from Neural Activity to the experience of the color Red? In both answers they only say there was Neural Activity but they give no explanation of how we experience the color Red.
:hmm: The neural activity IS the "experience of red."
• If you were blind from birth, lacking the ability to perceive light, you would have no "experience of red". You'd be unable to either imagine or dream about "red."
• If your neural activity ceased, you would have no "experience of red" because perception, interpretation, and integration would be impossible.
• If you suffered traumatic brain injury to your visual cortex, you would have no "experience of red" because you would lack the ability to interpret visual stimuli. Thus, it could not be integrated into your existing memories.

If any of the organs required to perceive, interpret, and integrate visual stimuli were dysfunctional, you would lack the "experience of red"...except for what was already in your memories.
SteveKlinko wrote:They say Neural Activity happens and the Red experience happens and you must be ignorant if you don't understand that. I can see by their words that they are ignoring the actual Conscious experience of Red and are just looking at the Neural Correlates of the Conscious experience of Red.
Neural activity—the retinae's cones identifying the light's wavelength, the visual cortex's interpretation of the data, and the claustrum's integration of said data with your memories—IS the bloody "conscious experience of red."
SteveKlinko wrote:I have to ask them to direct their attention to the experience of the Red itself. Think more deeply about the Redness of the Red. I hope they will find that the Red is a thing in itself that exists in the Physical World. It's not Magical but rather it is something that is unexplained at this point.
No, it's not unexplained. Red is light at a wavelength of 620-750 nm. End of explanation. You're simply denying the available science to support your belief, no different from what anti-vaxxers do. Also, this is a Straw Man; both Matthew and I have repeatedly described red's existence in the physical world.
SteveKlinko wrote:It might exist as an internal Consciousness thing but it exists nevertheless. It's not an Illusion (meaning it doesn't really exist) of Brain processing although it seems to be related to Brain processing. It is something that must be explained.
"Seems to be related to brain processing?"
1. As opposed to what?!
2. It's not merely "related to brain processing." It actually IS just that.
SteveKlinko wrote:It is unscientific to ignore the Red experience itself.
1. Another Straw Man. None of us has ignored "the red experience." We simply don't subscribe to your New Age pseudo-science.
2. It's unscientific to ignore science! Why do you insist on continuing to discard established neurology?
SteveKlinko wrote:What probably scares them the most is that when they start thinking about experiencing Red they implicitly must admit some kind of observer of the Red. But that's another topic.
Nothing about this discussion scares me, except your will to ignore or deny facts.

When I perceive the color red, I am certainly observing it, am I not? In fact, my perception and interpretation of "red" is exactly the same as everyone else's (given normal vision and a functioning visual cortex). The only difference is in how my brain integrates that data, based on my unique experiential memories of "red." Mine will be different from yours, and both of ours will be different from a child who hasn't yet learned the language tag "red" to describe 620-750 nm light.
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

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

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10167
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 » Mon Feb 26, 2018 10:42 pm

As far as I can see, Steve, all you are doing is adding mystery to your theory by adding (and capitalising) the word 'conscious'. But conscious means 'aware of and responding to one's surroundings'. In turn, aware means 'having knowledge or perception of a situation or fact'. There is no doubt in my mind that those two definitions apply to an artificial system designed to register and identify the colour red as much (if not more so in the case of frequency measurement) as a human observer. I find it difficult to understand why you are attempting to insert unnecessary mysticism into the situation when none is demanded. There is no explanatory gap except inside your head. Any organism with photoreceptor proteins can sense light with no great amount of angst. The particular organism with which you are having so much trouble has different sets of cones for each colour in its eyes. The brain knows which sets are firing. A subset of the organisms in question have named the situation in which a certain set of cones send signals along the optic nerve to the brain 'red'. With slightly different terminology, it is a simple matter to write a parallel description for an artificial colour-sensing and identification system.
So - light of a certain frequency enters the eye, some cones fire up, an electrical signal is sent to the appropriate part of the brain via physical connections called nerves, and the brain sends a notelet to its owner which, in certain parts of the world, says RED.
Where would you like to put your fictitious gap into that system?

Ah - I see others have also said the same thing. I wonder why?

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3367
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Nikki Nyx » Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:35 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote: I hope they will find that the Red is a thing in itself that exists in the Physical World.
No. We have been through this before and you pretend to forget your logical errors . There is no physical "tastes salty" in the universe. The human brain has evolved patterns of synapses firing to represent environmental stimulus. The brain recognising sound, light, warmth, pressure, pain are all just different patterns of synapses. You keep pretending to forget that.

I cannot point at "red" in the universe anymore than I can point at "pain", "noisy" or "tastes salty". These are the human mind's evolved method to allow the brain to interact with the environment.

What destroys your claim in seconds is other animals. They don't see red for the same frequencies we do. That immediately destroys your religious fantasy that "Red" is a real thing in the universe, Only human brains create that "red".
I can only point to "red" in the physical universe because:
1. My retinae can perceive 620-750 nm light.
2. My visual cortex, which interprets the data, is functional.
3. I have been taught that 620-750 nm light corresponds to the language tag "red."
4. I have other memories of "red" to which my brain can connect my current visual experience.

Which does NOT mean that others will agree with my perception...or that I'll agree with theirs. Someone might point to this as "red"...
Image
...while that image doesn't generate "red" in my brain, but "magenta." This might be "red" to some people...
Image
...but it would be an "orange experience" to me.

So, while we may perceive the same wavelengths, our interpretations will be different. The measurement of the light wave in our physical universe will never predict an individual's interpretation of it...or his/her conscious experience.
"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: 3367
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Nikki Nyx » Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:40 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:The Conscious Mind concept, which is developed in the Inter Mind paper (http://theintermind.com)...
Image

Oops! Freudian slip. I meant...
Spoiler:
Image
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

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

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10167
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 » Tue Feb 27, 2018 7:54 am

That site brings up an interesting point ...
When humans see a noun, why do some see it as having an initial capital whereas others can actually read?
Note: This does not apply to native German speakers - taking the piss out of them makes them see red.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29565
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Matthew Ellard » Tue Feb 27, 2018 9:59 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote:So, while we may perceive the same wavelengths, our interpretations will be different. The measurement of the light wave in our physical universe will never predict an individual's interpretation of it...or his/her conscious experience.
I'd pay money to watch Steve explain his "red" theory to a bee. :D
Bee VS human.jpg
Poor Steve. He just refuses to understand evolution.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3367
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Nikki Nyx » Tue Feb 27, 2018 11:03 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:So, while we may perceive the same wavelengths, our interpretations will be different. The measurement of the light wave in our physical universe will never predict an individual's interpretation of it...or his/her conscious experience.
I'd pay money to watch Steve explain his "red" theory to a bee. :D
Bee VS human.jpg
Poor Steve. He just refuses to understand evolution.
In a similar vein, I'd pay money to watch him explain why "lesser" lifeforms can sense ultraviolet and infrared, but we "greater" humans cannot. :mrgreen:
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

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

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Sat Mar 03, 2018 1:03 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote: That's right because they are patterns of synapses in the evolved human brain and not real things on their own. The human mind is not the universe. You are slowly learning from us. :lol:
SteveKlinko wrote: You seemed to be getting closer to the reality of the Universe you live in
That's why I am educating you.

You have just realised that different evolved patterns of synapses, giving the human brain information the external environment, about heat, photon frequencies, chemicals and so on are no more real things that a crayon drawing of a monster. It does not make the monster real in the universe. :lol:
SteveKlinko wrote:Think about the Redness of the Red and tell me how that is the same as any kind or form of Patterns of Synapses.
The cones in your eyes that convert photon frequencies of 430–480 THz to evolved electron patterns, giving us the interpretative "red", have synapses connect to the brain. Didn't you know this? :lol:

You really do get basic physics do you? Your DNA cannot create anything other than protein chains. They cannot create magical red light in the universe. The "red" is only an illusion in human brains and not the whole universe. optic_nerve.jpg
If the Red is an illusion then what is having that Illusion?

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Sat Mar 03, 2018 1:07 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:Hey Steve? If I draw a picture of a monster using crayons, does that drawing make the monster real in the universe? Monster 2.jpg
The drawing is real but the monster is not real. A Hallucination is a real Conscious experience but the objects and people in the Hallucination are not real.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Sat Mar 03, 2018 1:13 pm

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

1) Photons of a particular frequency hit the cones in eye.
2) Energy from photon is converted to synapse patterns using electrons, defined by DNA to allow recognition by the brain's other synapses.
3) A Conscious experience of Red happens
Vision and Light-Induced Molecular Changes
Spectroscopy and Quantum Chemistry Experiment / Rachel Casiday and Regina Frey / Department of Chemistry, Washington University
http://www.chemistry.wustl.edu/~edudev/ ... ision.html
So you really believe that saying Synapse Patterns explains the experience of the color Red? Well there it is for all to see. You have described no logical connection between Synapse Patterns and the experience of the color Red.
Synapses ARE the connection!
In the nervous system, a synapse is a structure that permits a neuron (or nerve cell) to pass an electrical or chemical signal to another neuron or to the target efferent cell.
You are saying that the fact that the Synapses are Connected explains the Conscious experience?

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10167
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 » Sat Mar 03, 2018 1:26 pm

The objects and people are certainly not real - you got that right. Where you go wrong is to then pretend that these unreal things can be grouped together to form a 'real' experience. They are in your imagination - it is an imaginary experience. They do not even form a hallucination, which has to have the quality of real perception to be classified as such. There is no concrete thing which is a hallucination - the word is merely a convenient handle to describe a vivid imaginary experience. Stop insisting that such things are concrete and you'll be getting somewhere.
The monster is not real and the red is not real - it is the result of your sensory organs passing data to your brain. That's what your eyes and your brain are supposed to do - it's what they're for. No gap anywhere in there.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Sat Mar 03, 2018 1:29 pm

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

1) Neurons for Red fire
2) ?
3) A Conscious experience of Red happens
Your step-by-step ignores most of the process. Try this instead:

1. Light with a wavelength of 620–750 nm is perceived by the retinae.
2. The retinae's cones identify the wavelength and transmit it via the optic nerve to the brain.
3. The brain, orchestrated by the claustrum, integrates the sensory information with its databanks (memory), matching it up with the learned language tag "red" and associating it with all memories that include that tag.
4. This integration process creates the conscious (and subconscious) experience of "red."
The Explanatory Gap is fully illustrated by your step 4.
No, it's not. Did you miss Step #3? It fully describes the integration process.
SteveKlinko wrote:You say the integration process creates the experience of Red. How?
:nea: I literally just said how: "The brain, orchestrated by the claustrum, integrates the sensory information with its databanks (memory), matching it up with the learned language tag "red" and associating it with all memories that include that tag." Those collective memories ARE your "experience of red."
SteveKlinko wrote:I have to think you must be messing with me if you think that was an explanation.
I'm not "messing" with you; the explanation is right there. I can't imagine how you missed it.
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.

Humor me and start with the Experience itself. Experience the Red. Think about the Redness of the Red. Think about where the experience of Red is located. You will eventually find that the Red is a thing in itself that exists in the Physical Universe. 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.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Sat Mar 03, 2018 1:39 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote: 1. Light with a wavelength of 620–750 nm is perceived by the retinae.
2. The retinae's cones identify the wavelength and transmit it via the optic nerve to the brain.
3. The brain, orchestrated by the claustrum, integrates the sensory information with its databanks (memory), matching it up with the learned language tag "red" and associating it with all memories that include that tag.
4. This integration process creates the conscious (and subconscious) experience of "red."
Matthew Ellard wrote: 1) Photons of a particular frequency hit the cones in eye.
2) Energy from photon is converted to synapse patterns using electrons, defined by DNA to allow recognition by the brain's other synapses.
3) A Conscious experience of Red happens
The basic question I asked was: how do you get from Neural Activity to the experience of the color Red? In both answers they only say there was Neural Activity but they give no explanation of how we experience the color Red.
:hmm: The neural activity IS the "experience of red."
• If you were blind from birth, lacking the ability to perceive light, you would have no "experience of red". You'd be unable to either imagine or dream about "red."
• If your neural activity ceased, you would have no "experience of red" because perception, interpretation, and integration would be impossible.
• If you suffered traumatic brain injury to your visual cortex, you would have no "experience of red" because you would lack the ability to interpret visual stimuli. Thus, it could not be integrated into your existing memories.

If any of the organs required to perceive, interpret, and integrate visual stimuli were dysfunctional, you would lack the "experience of red"...except for what was already in your memories.
SteveKlinko wrote:They say Neural Activity happens and the Red experience happens and you must be ignorant if you don't understand that. I can see by their words that they are ignoring the actual Conscious experience of Red and are just looking at the Neural Correlates of the Conscious experience of Red.
Neural activity—the retinae's cones identifying the light's wavelength, the visual cortex's interpretation of the data, and the claustrum's integration of said data with your memories—IS the bloody "conscious experience of red."
SteveKlinko wrote:I have to ask them to direct their attention to the experience of the Red itself. Think more deeply about the Redness of the Red. I hope they will find that the Red is a thing in itself that exists in the Physical World. It's not Magical but rather it is something that is unexplained at this point.
No, it's not unexplained. Red is light at a wavelength of 620-750 nm. End of explanation. You're simply denying the available science to support your belief, no different from what anti-vaxxers do. Also, this is a Straw Man; both Matthew and I have repeatedly described red's existence in the physical world.
SteveKlinko wrote:It might exist as an internal Consciousness thing but it exists nevertheless. It's not an Illusion (meaning it doesn't really exist) of Brain processing although it seems to be related to Brain processing. It is something that must be explained.
"Seems to be related to brain processing?"
1. As opposed to what?!
2. It's not merely "related to brain processing." It actually IS just that.
SteveKlinko wrote:It is unscientific to ignore the Red experience itself.
1. Another Straw Man. None of us has ignored "the red experience." We simply don't subscribe to your New Age pseudo-science.
2. It's unscientific to ignore science! Why do you insist on continuing to discard established neurology?
SteveKlinko wrote:What probably scares them the most is that when they start thinking about experiencing Red they implicitly must admit some kind of observer of the Red. But that's another topic.
Nothing about this discussion scares me, except your will to ignore or deny facts.

When I perceive the color red, I am certainly observing it, am I not? In fact, my perception and interpretation of "red" is exactly the same as everyone else's (given normal vision and a functioning visual cortex). The only difference is in how my brain integrates that data, based on my unique experiential memories of "red." Mine will be different from yours, and both of ours will be different from a child who hasn't yet learned the language tag "red" to describe 620-750 nm light.
Brain development and pathology are interesting topics. These are diversions from the topic of this thread. Stick with a fully developed and healthy Brain. How does Neural Activity for Red lead to the ultimate Conscious Experience of Red? When we understand this question we will be able to address the development and pathology aspects.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Sat Mar 03, 2018 1:48 pm

Poodle wrote:As far as I can see, Steve, all you are doing is adding mystery to your theory by adding (and capitalising) the word 'conscious'. But conscious means 'aware of and responding to one's surroundings'. In turn, aware means 'having knowledge or perception of a situation or fact'. There is no doubt in my mind that those two definitions apply to an artificial system designed to register and identify the colour red as much (if not more so in the case of frequency measurement) as a human observer. I find it difficult to understand why you are attempting to insert unnecessary mysticism into the situation when none is demanded. There is no explanatory gap except inside your head. Any organism with photoreceptor proteins can sense light with no great amount of angst. The particular organism with which you are having so much trouble has different sets of cones for each colour in its eyes. The brain knows which sets are firing. A subset of the organisms in question have named the situation in which a certain set of cones send signals along the optic nerve to the brain 'red'. With slightly different terminology, it is a simple matter to write a parallel description for an artificial colour-sensing and identification system.
So - light of a certain frequency enters the eye, some cones fire up, an electrical signal is sent to the appropriate part of the brain via physical connections called nerves, and the brain sends a notelet to its owner which, in certain parts of the world, says RED.
Where would you like to put your fictitious gap into that system?

Ah - I see others have also said the same thing. I wonder why?
So your scientific explanation is that "the brain sends a notelet to its owner". This is supposed to explain the Experience of Red? You have got to be messing with me.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Sat Mar 03, 2018 1:55 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote: I hope they will find that the Red is a thing in itself that exists in the Physical World.
No. We have been through this before and you pretend to forget your logical errors . There is no physical "tastes salty" in the universe. The human brain has evolved patterns of synapses firing to represent environmental stimulus. The brain recognising sound, light, warmth, pressure, pain are all just different patterns of synapses. You keep pretending to forget that.

I cannot point at "red" in the universe anymore than I can point at "pain", "noisy" or "tastes salty". These are the human mind's evolved method to allow the brain to interact with the environment.

What destroys your claim in seconds is other animals. They don't see red for the same frequencies we do. That immediately destroys your religious fantasy that "Red" is a real thing in the universe, Only human brains create that "red".
I can only point to "red" in the physical universe because:
1. My retinae can perceive 620-750 nm light.
2. My visual cortex, which interprets the data, is functional.
3. I have been taught that 620-750 nm light corresponds to the language tag "red."
4. I have other memories of "red" to which my brain can connect my current visual experience.

Which does NOT mean that others will agree with my perception...or that I'll agree with theirs. Someone might point to this as "red"...
Image
...while that image doesn't generate "red" in my brain, but "magenta." This might be "red" to some people...
Image
...but it would be an "orange experience" to me.

So, while we may perceive the same wavelengths, our interpretations will be different. The measurement of the light wave in our physical universe will never predict an individual's interpretation of it...or his/her conscious experience.
You continue to ignore the actual Experience of Red by saying things like Interpretations and Red Tagging. There is a mountain of missing Explanation in a work like Interpretation. Please do this: think about the existence of the Red experience itself. What is that? How does the brain Interpret Neural Activity into a Conscious Experience of Red?