Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

What you think about how you think.
SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 997
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by SteveKlinko » Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:46 am

Dimebag wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 11:10 am
SteveKlinko wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2019 7:38 pm
We have Zero understanding about what Conscious Experience is. So anything and everything is still on the table. It does not mean everybody gets a Trophy but it means we let everybody compete. I think that we are going to have to move the Goalposts if we are ever going to understand Consciousness. We need to think outside the box and we need to think more Deeply about our own Conscious experiences.
If we ever are to have a scientific understanding of consciousness it is essential that we arrive at any conclusions with sound reasoning and with appropriate evidence which can substantiate claims made. I do believe there is a bridge which will have to be built in order to scientifically describe consciousness, we do not yet have the tools to describe the process of consciousness, nor the theoretical framework. But, we cannot simply assemble a theoretical framework of consciousness without any kind of evidential basis, otherwise there is no way to verify the theory. And if the theory doesn’t make predictions which can be compared to other competing hypotheses then you are no longer practicing science.

It is essential that each step toward an understanding be grounded in testable theory. An analogy would be, imagine you have to find your way in a maze but have no senses to observe and help assist you in traversing the maze, you are almost certainly never going to arrive at the finish as all the dead ends are much more likely to trap you. The same would happen with no testable theory, you have no way to ground the theory in reality and are essentially operating randomly.

We have barely begun to traverse the maze, and for far too long we have had our eyes closed to the most important aspect of consciousness, that being the inherent subjective quality of it. Science is now paying attention and has opened at least one eye a small fraction. It still has more opening to do before it is fully functioning and can traverse the path towards an answer. There are many out there with the opinion that there is no bridge required. They ARE wrong. But that doesn’t mean any new fundamental concepts need to be invented. And if they are to be, they will fall out of the system and become obvious as we progress closer.
Hey Dimebag:

I agree with most of what you say, but I have to repeat this again because It is at the core of my thinking... For the Conscious Red experience we know two things:

1) Neural Activity for Red happens.
2) A Conscious Red Experience happens.

It is not possible to study Neural Activity and say ok there is the Redness. The Redness is there in your Mind but it is inexplicable. Since Redness cannot be found in the Neurons it is illogical to insist, as the Physicalists do, that it is merely some Neural Activity aspect that we don't understand yet. In fact it is more logical to propose that the Redness exists in some sort of Conscious Realm or as I like to say Conscious Space. If someday Science can show how Conscious Space is in the Neurons then that's ok. If you do not utilize the concept of Conscious Space when thinking about Redness then what do you do with the Redness? It has to float out there in you Mind untethered to any Physical process because we don't know how it happens. You will have no basis to talk about Redness. All you can say is that the Redness is there, somewhere, but you don't know where. I think it is completely Sensible to say the Redness is in Conscious Space.

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 889
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by Dimebag » Thu Jun 06, 2019 9:48 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:46 am
I agree with most of what you say, but I have to repeat this again because It is at the core of my thinking... For the Conscious Red experience we know two things:

1) Neural Activity for Red happens.
2) A Conscious Red Experience happens.
We have no idea currently how these two are linked. It is not simply neural activity for red which coincides with a conscious red experience. It is a more contingent system of the brain which is required for conscious experience to occur, as our brain can be looking directly at red, and we might not be paying "internal" attention to that red, and so not have an experience; in other words, we might be distracted and thinking about something else, which will "block" the red experience. There is a contingent network of attention, short term memory, and sensory gating, which is involved in the production of all experience, which is either internally sourced or externally sourced. The vividness of redness can only be produced by the attending to something red in our external environment; it may be simulated internally via a dream, or via internal imagery, but the vividness of this redness is inferior to the external equivalent. Therefore the difference of internal vs external experience is both magnitude and fullness of signal. When we imagine red internally, we don't also imagine the surrounding colours which are not red, which provide contrast for the red to be compared and juxtaposed. Our retina has neural circuitry which is involved in this parsing, and so is going to be naturally more informational and rich.


SteveKlinko wrote: It is not possible to study Neural Activity and say ok there is the Redness. The Redness is there in your Mind but it is inexplicable. Since Redness cannot be found in the Neurons it is illogical to insist, as the Physicalists do, that it is merely some Neural Activity aspect that we don't understand yet.
I agree that it is not that simple. As I previously stated, there is much more which we are not simultaneously considering, and therefore we don't fully understand the functional relationships of the conscious network, and why it MUST produce a conscious experience. We might focus on one aspect, such as the sensory perception, or the default mode network, or the attentional mechanisms, or the short term memory, or the structure of the retina, or the thalamo-cortical loops, but by doing so we are isolating only one part of a machine, and expecting to understand the function of the whole machine. Imagine if you had a circuit board you were trying to understand the function of, by looking at individual components. You would NEVER understand its function unless you started to look at the broader structure and how they interface with the individual components. And even then, would you ever really be able to know the nature of the information present within it, without any previous knowledge of it or any other similar boards?
SteveKlinko wrote: In fact it is more logical to propose that the Redness exists in some sort of Conscious Realm or as I like to say Conscious Space.
I'm not sure we need to propose a conscious space. We know that conscious experience only exists while the contingent network of our brain is operating under certain specific conditions. It "creates" this experience. Is it really useful or even logical to propose a conscious space which is continually created and destroyed every millisecond? Can we not just say that conscious experience is present? Why must we locate it within a space? I understand your reasons, but I don't feel they are justified. You feel like if we propose a conscious space, a "place" where conscious experience is located, that it will become more real, or substantial. But such a conscious space has never been "detected". We don't know that this conscious space "exists" in the same way that physical space exists. We know physical space exists because it can be shared among individuals, and aspects of it can be described independent of any one person. In fact, even if no person were around, it would still be there, as it must have by logical inference, or "we" could have never emerged. But the same can't be said of a conscious space. It is only observable by the individual, it is not present when noone else is around. It is contingent on specific formations of matter, i.e. functioning human brains operating under certain conditions. To imagine a conscious space existing is to imagine such a space being created and destroyed, moment by moment, and "matter" or experience, within this space popping in and out of existence. It is not something which can be logically apprehended. It doesn't logically follow from any specific thoughts we can have about the brain, so it seems you have nothing to justify its existence, apart from being an idea. But you must justify why this idea MUST be so. Why could it not be any other way? What is it about the brain which means this conscious space is inevitable? That would be evidence. You use the concept of conscious space in a philosophical way, in an almost platonic sense, but plato won't do for this day and age. We need links between the physical and the conscious. So what are they?
SteveKlinko wrote: If someday Science can show how Conscious Space is in the Neurons then that's ok. If you do not utilize the concept of Conscious Space when thinking about Redness then what do you do with the Redness? It has to float out there in you Mind untethered to any Physical process because we don't know how it happens. You will have no basis to talk about Redness. All you can say is that the Redness is there, somewhere, but you don't know where. I think it is completely Sensible to say the Redness is in Conscious Space.
You might think it is sensible, but it doesn't logically follow from anything, it isn't obvious. There is no indication that such a conscious space exists. You need to expand more on what this conscious space really is. Is it always present, even when a human brain is not imprinting on it? Or is it generated BY the brain? You need to flesh this out more so we can further explore the idea and then either show logically why it MUST or MUST NOT be an option.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 997
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by SteveKlinko » Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:51 pm

Dimebag wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 9:48 pm
We have no idea currently how these two are linked. It is not simply neural activity for red which coincides with a conscious red experience. It is a more contingent system of the brain which is required for conscious experience to occur, as our brain can be looking directly at red, and we might not be paying "internal" attention to that red, and so not have an experience; in other words, we might be distracted and thinking about something else, which will "block" the red experience. There is a contingent network of attention, short term memory, and sensory gating, which is involved in the production of all experience, which is either internally sourced or externally sourced. The vividness of redness can only be produced by the attending to something red in our external environment; it may be simulated internally via a dream, or via internal imagery, but the vividness of this redness is inferior to the external equivalent. Therefore the difference of internal vs external experience is both magnitude and fullness of signal. When we imagine red internally, we don't also imagine the surrounding colours which are not red, which provide contrast for the red to be compared and juxtaposed. Our retina has neural circuitry which is involved in this parsing, and so is going to be naturally more informational and rich.
I know from previous conversations that you don't have Vivid Color Dreams like I do. My Dreams are not always Vivid but when they are Vivid the Color is just as Real and Intense as Awake Vision. On the other hand if I try to imagine Colored objects the Color is not very Vivid and is rather Vague.
Dimebag wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 9:48 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: It is not possible to study Neural Activity and say ok there is the Redness. The Redness is there in your Mind but it is inexplicable. Since Redness cannot be found in the Neurons it is illogical to insist, as the Physicalists do, that it is merely some Neural Activity aspect that we don't understand yet.
I agree that it is not that simple. As I previously stated, there is much more which we are not simultaneously considering, and therefore we don't fully understand the functional relationships of the conscious network, and why it MUST produce a conscious experience. We might focus on one aspect, such as the sensory perception, or the default mode network, or the attentional mechanisms, or the short term memory, or the structure of the retina, or the thalamo-cortical loops, but by doing so we are isolating only one part of a machine, and expecting to understand the function of the whole machine. Imagine if you had a circuit board you were trying to understand the function of, by looking at individual components. You would NEVER understand its function unless you started to look at the broader structure and how they interface with the individual components. And even then, would you ever really be able to know the nature of the information present within it, without any previous knowledge of it or any other similar boards?
But regardless of the Attention aspect the question is how do we Experience the Redness when we are paying Attention to it?
Dimebag wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 9:48 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: In fact it is more logical to propose that the Redness exists in some sort of Conscious Realm or as I like to say Conscious Space.
I'm not sure we need to propose a conscious space. We know that conscious experience only exists while the contingent network of our brain is operating under certain specific conditions. It "creates" this experience. Is it really useful or even logical to propose a conscious space which is continually created and destroyed every millisecond? Can we not just say that conscious experience is present? Why must we locate it within a space? I understand your reasons, but I don't feel they are justified. You feel like if we propose a conscious space, a "place" where conscious experience is located, that it will become more real, or substantial. But such a conscious space has never been "detected". We don't know that this conscious space "exists" in the same way that physical space exists. We know physical space exists because it can be shared among individuals, and aspects of it can be described independent of any one person. In fact, even if no person were around, it would still be there, as it must have by logical inference, or "we" could have never emerged. But the same can't be said of a conscious space. It is only observable by the individual, it is not present when noone else is around. It is contingent on specific formations of matter, i.e. functioning human brains operating under certain conditions. To imagine a conscious space existing is to imagine such a space being created and destroyed, moment by moment, and "matter" or experience, within this space popping in and out of existence. It is not something which can be logically apprehended. It doesn't logically follow from any specific thoughts we can have about the brain, so it seems you have nothing to justify its existence, apart from being an idea. But you must justify why this idea MUST be so. Why could it not be any other way? What is it about the brain which means this conscious space is inevitable? That would be evidence. You use the concept of conscious space in a philosophical way, in an almost platonic sense, but plato won't do for this day and age. We need links between the physical and the conscious. So what are they?
We know all kinds of things about the Neural Correlates of Consciousness but we know Zero about the Phenomenon of Consciousness itself. When I say Zero I'm not exaggerating. There really is Zero understanding of what something like Redness actually is. The knowledge that there is certain Neural Activity that happens when Redness is experienced does not in any way Explain the Redness itself. Science always takes the Bottom-Up approach I think we need to take a Top-Down approach where we start with the Experience of Redness and work our way back to the Neural Activity. Think about the Redness and Experience the Redness. It really is a Phenomenon that is in a Category of Phenomena that Science can not yet deal with. It is some kind of Conscious Phenomenon.
Dimebag wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 9:48 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: If someday Science can show how Conscious Space is in the Neurons then that's ok. If you do not utilize the concept of Conscious Space when thinking about Redness then what do you do with the Redness? It has to float out there in you Mind untethered to any Physical process because we don't know how it happens. You will have no basis to talk about Redness. All you can say is that the Redness is there, somewhere, but you don't know where. I think it is completely Sensible to say the Redness is in Conscious Space.
You might think it is sensible, but it doesn't logically follow from anything, it isn't obvious. There is no indication that such a conscious space exists. You need to expand more on what this conscious space really is. Is it always present, even when a human brain is not imprinting on it? Or is it generated BY the brain? You need to flesh this out more so we can further explore the idea and then either show logically why it MUST or MUST NOT be an option.
I hope that the Inter Mind Model Framework will allow some future Mind to be able to discover the key to Consciousness that leads to a whole new Science of Conscious Mind and ultimately to Artificial Consciousness in Machines. Conscious Space at this point in our understanding should be thought of as a place holder for Conscious Experiences until Science gets a clue about Consciousness. If what I say seems like Philosophy it is because that is where we are with regard to understanding Consciousness.

My job, as it were, is to put a spotlight on the failure of Science to address the problem of Consciousness. The Physicalists have become Intellectually Blinded with their insistence that Redness (Consciousness Experience in general) is just some aspect of Neural Activity, thereby trying to minimize the fact of Conscious Experience. The Physicalists are so Blinded that they have serious discussions that question if Consciousness is even necessary. Some think there would be no difference if we did not have Conscious Experience. They think the Neural Activity is enough to let us move around in the World without bumping into things. This is, as I have said before, Insane Denial of the purpose of Conscious Experience. We avoid bumping into objects because we have a Conscious Visual Experience. We know nothing about the Neural Activity that is happening. We would be functionally Blind if we did not have the Conscious Visual Experience.

We don't know anything about the Physical World except that which we obtain through our own internal Conscious experiences. We are the Consciousness. The Primacy of Consciousness is always pushed aside by the Physicalists. Redness is a thing we can study. But what can we do? All we can do at this point is think more Deeply about something like Redness and eventually understand the great mystery of the Redness Experience. When the Mystery of it is realized then the journey of understanding it can begin.
Last edited by SteveKlinko on Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:55 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:51 pm
The Physicalists are so Blinded that they have serious discussions that question if Consciousness is even necessary.
Many plants will "follow" the track of the sun across the sky. How much consciousness is involved?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11738
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by landrew » Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:33 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:55 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:51 pm
The Physicalists are so Blinded that they have serious discussions that question if Consciousness is even necessary.
Many plants will "follow" the track of the sun across the sky. How much consciousness is involved?
None whatsoever. Very simple mechanism; light-sensitive chemicals that act as plant hormones, controlling the flow of water in the plant, turning the plant towards the sun. No different from a sponge or an insect or a frog or a human being, except by degrees of complexity. Consciousness is purely conceptual, existing only within the models we construct in our minds to make understanding easier. The conceptual "world" is not a world at all.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 997
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by SteveKlinko » Sat Jun 08, 2019 1:06 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:55 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:51 pm
The Physicalists are so Blinded that they have serious discussions that question if Consciousness is even necessary.
Many plants will "follow" the track of the sun across the sky. How much consciousness is involved?
Zero (my opinion).

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 889
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by Dimebag » Sat Jun 08, 2019 11:14 pm

landrew wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:33 pm
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:55 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:51 pm
The Physicalists are so Blinded that they have serious discussions that question if Consciousness is even necessary.
Many plants will "follow" the track of the sun across the sky. How much consciousness is involved?
None whatsoever. Very simple mechanism; light-sensitive chemicals that act as plant hormones, controlling the flow of water in the plant, turning the plant towards the sun. No different from a sponge or an insect or a frog or a human being, except by degrees of complexity. Consciousness is purely conceptual, existing only within the models we construct in our minds to make understanding easier. The conceptual "world" is not a world at all.
If consciousness is purely conceptual, what is it we are conceptualising? What does the concept refer to? Are we simply mistaken that we are having an experience?

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11738
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by landrew » Sat Jun 08, 2019 11:41 pm

Dimebag wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 11:14 pm
landrew wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:33 pm
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:55 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:51 pm
The Physicalists are so Blinded that they have serious discussions that question if Consciousness is even necessary.
Many plants will "follow" the track of the sun across the sky. How much consciousness is involved?
None whatsoever. Very simple mechanism; light-sensitive chemicals that act as plant hormones, controlling the flow of water in the plant, turning the plant towards the sun. No different from a sponge or an insect or a frog or a human being, except by degrees of complexity. Consciousness is purely conceptual, existing only within the models we construct in our minds to make understanding easier. The conceptual "world" is not a world at all.
If consciousness is purely conceptual, what is it we are conceptualising? What does the concept refer to? Are we simply mistaken that we are having an experience?
A picture of an apple is not an apple, only a symbolic representation.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 889
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by Dimebag » Sun Jun 09, 2019 12:09 am

landrew wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 11:41 pm
Dimebag wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 11:14 pm
landrew wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:33 pm
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:55 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:51 pm
The Physicalists are so Blinded that they have serious discussions that question if Consciousness is even necessary.
Many plants will "follow" the track of the sun across the sky. How much consciousness is involved?
None whatsoever. Very simple mechanism; light-sensitive chemicals that act as plant hormones, controlling the flow of water in the plant, turning the plant towards the sun. No different from a sponge or an insect or a frog or a human being, except by degrees of complexity. Consciousness is purely conceptual, existing only within the models we construct in our minds to make understanding easier. The conceptual "world" is not a world at all.
If consciousness is purely conceptual, what is it we are conceptualising? What does the concept refer to? Are we simply mistaken that we are having an experience?
A picture of an apple is not an apple, only a symbolic representation.
Agreed, but what is the nature of that picture? Why is there a picture at all? Do you not think there is something to explain as to why a picture is present at all? You don’t seem to think there is a mystery to explain. You accept there is experience, so it seems obvious to you as to why there is experience. What then, are the conditions for an experience to occur?

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 997
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by SteveKlinko » Sun Jun 09, 2019 10:52 am

landrew wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 11:41 pm
Dimebag wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 11:14 pm
landrew wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:33 pm
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:55 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:51 pm
The Physicalists are so Blinded that they have serious discussions that question if Consciousness is even necessary.
Many plants will "follow" the track of the sun across the sky. How much consciousness is involved?
None whatsoever. Very simple mechanism; light-sensitive chemicals that act as plant hormones, controlling the flow of water in the plant, turning the plant towards the sun. No different from a sponge or an insect or a frog or a human being, except by degrees of complexity. Consciousness is purely conceptual, existing only within the models we construct in our minds to make understanding easier. The conceptual "world" is not a world at all.
If consciousness is purely conceptual, what is it we are conceptualising? What does the concept refer to? Are we simply mistaken that we are having an experience?
A picture of an apple is not an apple, only a symbolic representation.
A picture of an Apple is another Physical thing. The Picture is not just a symbol for the Apple it is a thing in itself. Likewise for the Conscious Experience of something like Redness. The Redness Phenomenon is a Conscious Phenomenon and it is a thing in itself. It is not merely a Symbol for something it is a Something.

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 889
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by Dimebag » Mon Jun 10, 2019 10:51 am

SteveKlinko wrote:
Sun Jun 09, 2019 10:52 am
landrew wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 11:41 pm
Dimebag wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 11:14 pm
landrew wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:33 pm
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:55 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:51 pm
The Physicalists are so Blinded that they have serious discussions that question if Consciousness is even necessary.
Many plants will "follow" the track of the sun across the sky. How much consciousness is involved?
None whatsoever. Very simple mechanism; light-sensitive chemicals that act as plant hormones, controlling the flow of water in the plant, turning the plant towards the sun. No different from a sponge or an insect or a frog or a human being, except by degrees of complexity. Consciousness is purely conceptual, existing only within the models we construct in our minds to make understanding easier. The conceptual "world" is not a world at all.
If consciousness is purely conceptual, what is it we are conceptualising? What does the concept refer to? Are we simply mistaken that we are having an experience?
A picture of an apple is not an apple, only a symbolic representation.
A picture of an Apple is another Physical thing. The Picture is not just a symbol for the Apple it is a thing in itself. Likewise for the Conscious Experience of something like Redness. The Redness Phenomenon is a Conscious Phenomenon and it is a thing in itself. It is not merely a Symbol for something it is a Something.
I think you can think of redness as a symbol for something, in a way. Take the animal kingdom. The red back spider, has a black body, and a striking red spot on the abdomen. It is essentially a symbol saying “I am dangerous, don’t try to eat me”.

Or for example, a red apple. It is signalling to whatever creature can see it and likes ripe fruit “I am ready to eat, and while you are at it, spread my seeds around so I can proliferate”. Creatures that benefit from eating apples have the ability to distinguish redness as being a distinct and attention grabbing colour, which allows them to single out certain ripe fruits, and avoid dangerous spiders. I agree though, that this redness is something we need to explain, how does an experience of redness occur?

We know we need eyes, retinas, optical nerves, thalamus, visual cortex, associative cortex (for learn colours and objects), etc. Do babies see colour? Or must they first learn about colour before they can be conscious of it? Do they need to slowly train their brains to identify different colours, then have vocal distinctions of each, and concepts of different colours, before their consciousness can present the experiences to them?

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11738
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by landrew » Mon Jun 10, 2019 12:03 pm

Dimebag wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 10:51 am
SteveKlinko wrote:
Sun Jun 09, 2019 10:52 am
landrew wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 11:41 pm
Dimebag wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 11:14 pm
landrew wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:33 pm
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:55 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:51 pm
The Physicalists are so Blinded that they have serious discussions that question if Consciousness is even necessary.
Many plants will "follow" the track of the sun across the sky. How much consciousness is involved?
None whatsoever. Very simple mechanism; light-sensitive chemicals that act as plant hormones, controlling the flow of water in the plant, turning the plant towards the sun. No different from a sponge or an insect or a frog or a human being, except by degrees of complexity. Consciousness is purely conceptual, existing only within the models we construct in our minds to make understanding easier. The conceptual "world" is not a world at all.
If consciousness is purely conceptual, what is it we are conceptualising? What does the concept refer to? Are we simply mistaken that we are having an experience?
A picture of an apple is not an apple, only a symbolic representation.
A picture of an Apple is another Physical thing. The Picture is not just a symbol for the Apple it is a thing in itself. Likewise for the Conscious Experience of something like Redness. The Redness Phenomenon is a Conscious Phenomenon and it is a thing in itself. It is not merely a Symbol for something it is a Something.
I think you can think of redness as a symbol for something, in a way. Take the animal kingdom. The red back spider, has a black body, and a striking red spot on the abdomen. It is essentially a symbol saying “I am dangerous, don’t try to eat me”.

Or for example, a red apple. It is signalling to whatever creature can see it and likes ripe fruit “I am ready to eat, and while you are at it, spread my seeds around so I can proliferate”. Creatures that benefit from eating apples have the ability to distinguish redness as being a distinct and attention grabbing colour, which allows them to single out certain ripe fruits, and avoid dangerous spiders. I agree though, that this redness is something we need to explain, how does an experience of redness occur?

We know we need eyes, retinas, optical nerves, thalamus, visual cortex, associative cortex (for learn colours and objects), etc. Do babies see colour? Or must they first learn about colour before they can be conscious of it? Do they need to slowly train their brains to identify different colours, then have vocal distinctions of each, and concepts of different colours, before their consciousness can present the experiences to them?
Symbolism depicts reality, but it can never be the reality itself.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 889
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by Dimebag » Mon Jun 10, 2019 8:09 pm

landrew wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 12:03 pm
Dimebag wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 10:51 am
SteveKlinko wrote:
Sun Jun 09, 2019 10:52 am
landrew wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 11:41 pm
Dimebag wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 11:14 pm
landrew wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:33 pm
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:55 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:51 pm
The Physicalists are so Blinded that they have serious discussions that question if Consciousness is even necessary.
Many plants will "follow" the track of the sun across the sky. How much consciousness is involved?
None whatsoever. Very simple mechanism; light-sensitive chemicals that act as plant hormones, controlling the flow of water in the plant, turning the plant towards the sun. No different from a sponge or an insect or a frog or a human being, except by degrees of complexity. Consciousness is purely conceptual, existing only within the models we construct in our minds to make understanding easier. The conceptual "world" is not a world at all.
If consciousness is purely conceptual, what is it we are conceptualising? What does the concept refer to? Are we simply mistaken that we are having an experience?
A picture of an apple is not an apple, only a symbolic representation.
A picture of an Apple is another Physical thing. The Picture is not just a symbol for the Apple it is a thing in itself. Likewise for the Conscious Experience of something like Redness. The Redness Phenomenon is a Conscious Phenomenon and it is a thing in itself. It is not merely a Symbol for something it is a Something.
I think you can think of redness as a symbol for something, in a way. Take the animal kingdom. The red back spider, has a black body, and a striking red spot on the abdomen. It is essentially a symbol saying “I am dangerous, don’t try to eat me”.

Or for example, a red apple. It is signalling to whatever creature can see it and likes ripe fruit “I am ready to eat, and while you are at it, spread my seeds around so I can proliferate”. Creatures that benefit from eating apples have the ability to distinguish redness as being a distinct and attention grabbing colour, which allows them to single out certain ripe fruits, and avoid dangerous spiders. I agree though, that this redness is something we need to explain, how does an experience of redness occur?

We know we need eyes, retinas, optical nerves, thalamus, visual cortex, associative cortex (for learn colours and objects), etc. Do babies see colour? Or must they first learn about colour before they can be conscious of it? Do they need to slowly train their brains to identify different colours, then have vocal distinctions of each, and concepts of different colours, before their consciousness can present the experiences to them?
Symbolism depicts reality, but it can never be the reality itself.
And yet we infer everything we know about reality through consciousness, it mediates our view of reality.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 997
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by SteveKlinko » Thu Jun 13, 2019 10:56 am

Dimebag wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 10:51 am
I think you can think of redness as a symbol for something, in a way. Take the animal kingdom. The red back spider, has a black body, and a striking red spot on the abdomen. It is essentially a symbol saying “I am dangerous, don’t try to eat me”.

Or for example, a red apple. It is signalling to whatever creature can see it and likes ripe fruit “I am ready to eat, and while you are at it, spread my seeds around so I can proliferate”. Creatures that benefit from eating apples have the ability to distinguish redness as being a distinct and attention grabbing colour, which allows them to single out certain ripe fruits, and avoid dangerous spiders. I agree though, that this redness is something we need to explain, how does an experience of redness occur?

We know we need eyes, retinas, optical nerves, thalamus, visual cortex, associative cortex (for learn colours and objects), etc. Do babies see colour? Or must they first learn about colour before they can be conscious of it? Do they need to slowly train their brains to identify different colours, then have vocal distinctions of each, and concepts of different colours, before their consciousness can present the experiences to them?
Exactly, how does an Experience of Redness occur? The answer will propel us into the whole concept of what is the Conscious Mind because the Redness needs a Conscious Mind to do the Experiencing. Maybe the Redness and the Conscious Mind are not understandable without each other. We might need to understand both at the same time in order to understand either one of them.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jun 13, 2019 10:59 am

No....its Darwinian evolution. No conscious mind needed.

Simple basics.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 997
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by SteveKlinko » Fri Jun 14, 2019 10:50 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 10:59 am
No....its Darwinian evolution. No conscious mind needed.

Simple basics.
Then you must believe that there is no such thing as actual Pain and Pleasure in the Universe.

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 889
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by Dimebag » Fri Jun 14, 2019 10:46 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 10:50 am
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 10:59 am
No....its Darwinian evolution. No conscious mind needed.

Simple basics.
Then you must believe that there is no such thing as actual Pain and Pleasure in the Universe.
I have always (since I started thinking about the brain) disliked the term mind. To me it is a placeholder concept which encapsulates everything inside our heads, the conscious and the unconscious), the mind is just what the brain does. It isn’t some unified whole existing elsewhere, floating outside the head somewhere, it is just what the brain is doing. When we start to get more specific about what the brain is doing, we don’t really need the concept of mind anymore, unless we are stepping back to the level of humans interacting with other humans.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 997
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by SteveKlinko » Sun Jun 16, 2019 11:28 am

Dimebag wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 10:46 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 10:50 am
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 10:59 am
No....its Darwinian evolution. No conscious mind needed.

Simple basics.
Then you must believe that there is no such thing as actual Pain and Pleasure in the Universe.
I have always (since I started thinking about the brain) disliked the term mind. To me it is a placeholder concept which encapsulates everything inside our heads, the conscious and the unconscious), the mind is just what the brain does. It isn’t some unified whole existing elsewhere, floating outside the head somewhere, it is just what the brain is doing. When we start to get more specific about what the brain is doing, we don’t really need the concept of mind anymore, unless we are stepping back to the level of humans interacting with other humans.
I agree that Mind is a placeholder that we can use until we figure out what the Mind is and how it relates to Neural Activity. Similarly I have said that Conscious Space might eventually be found to be a component of ordinary Physical Space, but until Science figures out how to deal with Consciousness we should think about Conscious Space as simply a Tool that allows Conscious Phenomena to have a place to exist for the sake of discussion.

The problem with saying that Consciousness is all in the Neurons is that Science cannot find it in the Neurons yet so even when you believe it is all in the Neurons it still floats apart from the Brain as a separate Phenomenon from the Neural Activity happening in the Brain. It is more sensible to up front separate Neural Activity and Conscious Activity into two separate classes of Phenomena. Even if Science figures out how the Neural Activity is the Conscious Activity they will still be two separate categories of Phenomena.

From my usual perspective I would be thrilled if Science could tell me what the Redness of Red is and how it comes from Neural Activity. Right now there is a lack of imagination in the Scientific world about how this could happen. I think I say this mostly because of my own lack of imagination for how this all works. However, Science is not helping me with this. Science has been trying for a hundred years to solve this problem. It has gotten to the point where it is getting to be an embarrassment for Science that it has not figured this out yet.