Two more:

https://www.physiology.org/doi/pdf/10.1152/jn.00113.2006
http://unisci.com/stories/20011/0329011.htm

Enjoy the day, :cool:

Assuming you understood what I was trying to say then do you believe there is not enough capacity in the Optic Nerve to allow such a mapping? If so then you are wrong about the lack of capacity because this mapping is basic Visual Cortex physiology that you can find in any textbook on Visual Cortex operation.. — SteveKlinko

As I said before: I have been reading textbooks long time ago. Now I read papers... :)

Here are some about the capacity of optical nerves:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/author/frank-werblin-and-botond-roska/ ,
http://cnc.cj.uc.pt/BEB/private/pdfs/SystemsNeurosc0607/PapersSergePicaud/ArticleDiscussion%201Picaud_%20Roskanature.pdf ,
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2766457/

Enjoy the day, :cool:

Rapid eye movements do not imply Retinal activity. Besides it is a fact that there is no Retinal activity while Dreaming. There is even very little V1 activity. — SteveKlinko

There is no direct evidence either way. But consider: Why eyes move during REM sleep? :)

The Optic Nerve transmits a complete Topographical mapping of what is on the Retina reproduced on V1. The image on V1 is distorted, kind of like a very bad fish-eye lens. — SteveKlinko

The optic nerve simply doesn't have the capacity... :)

Enjoy the day, :cool:

So please explain to me how we are beings of free will and not just observers in life ? — Christos

I'm getting tired, but here is my old joke:

Since Libet's findings started to trickle out -
there was a lot of nonsense about our Free Will... :)

What??!! My free will is useless?! I'll give it up... :)
Here, my friend, take it and tell me what to do... :)

Now, how could I give up something I did/do not have... :)

Debating Free Will again simply does not make sense...

Enjoy the day, :cool:

EDIT: you have suggested a theory of your own, maybe that is what you mean. — bert1

Yes... :)

Enjoy the day, :cool:

My main point is that the Conscious World is non-existent to science. Science cannot see it. So science cannot meaningfully address it, can it? :chin: — Pattern-chaser

Scientists are people like us... :)

Enjoy the day, :cool:

I don't thinK Color Consciousness requires the Retina to be involved. We can experience Color while Dreaming where the Retina is inactive but certain areas of the Cortex are active. — SteveKlinko

There is an activity - Rapid Eyes Movement (REM) - suggesting an involvement of our retinas. :)

I think that Color Consciousness is further upstream in the processing and is probably a composite of all the Visual Cortex areas. — SteveKlinko

Optic nerves do not have a capacity to send a complete graphics to the rest of the brain. And that's what we are after -aren't we? :)

Enjoy the day, :cool:

I did read it. You said it seems separate. I know you don't think it is separate, but you have not acknowledged that the person who says things are not as they seem is the one with work to do. — bert1

I suggest that you read my reply to Steve... :)

I do not shy away from considering different scenarios in order to establish a compromise required for a dialogue. I, therefore, suggest that we start talking to each other - to turn endless monologues into constructive dialogues... :)

Enjoy the day, :cool:

The separation is not mine. Try to read what is written... :)

Enjoy the day, :cool:

I think not. Science recognises only one world, Steve's Physical World, so they don't have a need to discuss worlds. Like in the sci-fi stories, when they ask the aliens what they call their home, and they say "Earth" or "the world", and look at the strangers oddly. When there's only one world, there's little point in discussing it. :wink: — Pattern-chaser

That's not entirely true. Some scientists talk about multiverse - that's unscientific for there is no way to prove the existence of any other universe than our own physical world... :)

Enjoy the day, :cool:

But you separated them yourself in the previous sentence! — bert1

Would be better to quote this. Where did I separate these two things?

Enjoy the day, :cool:

I have to emphasize the point: Science has Zero understanding with regard to Consciousness. Consciousness is clearly something that Science can not handle yet. They are getting nowhere thinking it is in the Neurons. It is time to think outside the box. — SteveKlinko

As yet, I wouldn't dismiss the science... :)

However, I agree that there is something in the redness of the red. For the moment, consider the consciousness as a composite. My scenario that does not go against science would be as follows:

The retina is made of rods and cones that are essentially specialised neurons of the central nervous system. This enables us to see directly what retinas are exposed to. As yet, there is no colour - the rest of the brain has to agree with what is seen... :)

This scenario allows for colour label as we learn to see the redness. This also allows for colour as a cultural thing... :)

In short, I propose that consciousness is a composite of all retinal and neuronal activities... :)

Enjoy the day, :cool:

I'm not 100% convinced that this is a scientific viewpoint. :chin: I don't think science would assert anything that has not yet been demonstrated. So science would surely hang back from asserting the location of the Consciousness World, until we know where that might be, yes? :chin:

Oh yes, and what is "this world", in the context of the Physical and Conscious Worlds? Is it the former, or is it something else? — Pattern-chaser

This world is a physical world. I have introduced it as a contrast to Steve's otherworldly Conscious World... :)

Also, we are talking about assumptions here... :) Generally, in science, the assumption is that all phenomena are of physical world until proven otherwise. Otherwise, we may assume that a phenomenon is not of this world and get stuck - with impotence to prove that it is not... :gasp:

Enjoy the day, :cool:

Then the question is: Do we experience neuronal activities themselves (not the colour)? If we do, how do we experience them? If not, what is the purpose of neuronal activities? :gasp: — Damir Ibrisimovic

For me I experience the Color. I have no inner knowledge of Neural Activity. — SteveKlinko

It appears that your answer to the first question is no... There is no clear answer to the third question... :)

As I said - there is no clear converging path to a dialogue - and perpetuating monologues seem to be the reality. I'll, therefore, stop wasting your time... :)

Enjoy the day, :cool:

The two Categories are not Artificially separated. They are so different in the kind of things that they are that you would actually have to Artificially combine them. They are Naturally separated by their own manifestations as different Categories of phenomena. — SteveKlinko

Then the question is: Do we experience neuronal activities themselves (not the colour)? If we do, how do we experience them? If not, what is the purpose of neuronal activities? :gasp:

Science can put them together and show how Neurons firing produce a Red experience then that's ok too. But for now at this point in our understanding it is only sensible to keep them separate. — SteveKlinko

Depending on how do you answer the above questions we might be able to continue these monologues... :)

However, I'm afraid that we will need a long time until science provides you with acceptable answers - since we can only infer from experiments with rats/cats/rabbits etc... :)

Enjoy the day, :cool:

With regard to Redness, the only thing I know is that it is a whole different Category of Phenomenon than Neural Activity. I don't say anything more about it than that. But I do ask this question ... Given:

1) Neural Activity for Red happens
2) A Red experience happens

How can Neural Activity, of any kind or complexity, produce that experience of Red? — SteveKlinko

Red experience is a subjective experience of the neuronal activity for red. It's true that subjective experience seems like a whole different category, but that is the nature of all subjective experiences... :)

We do not need to artificially separate these two... :)

There were experiments about what we see first. The stimuli were masked after .1,.2 &.3 sec and the first thing we notice is it a pattern or object (including colour)... :)

Things are already complicated and we do not need to complicate even further... :)

Enjoy the day, :cool:

Any introductory textbook on the Eye and Visual Cortex will tell you that there is certainly a Chain of Processing. There is of course lots of feedback from later stages back to previous stages but the general concept of a Chain of Processing is absolutely true. — SteveKlinko

Which textbook, for example? This is rather a dismissal of the request to cite a paper. We cannot chase each other with "textbook claims". Textbooks are likely to be simplified. I will, therefore, cite:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/11/001110073236.htm . Kanwisher and Kathleen O'Craven did not notice the absence of differences between imagined and actually seen.
Frank Werblin and Botond Roska found that what we "see" (in the rest of our brain) are hints of edges in space and time: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2766457/ . ( https://sites.oxy.edu/clint/physio/article/moviesinoureyes.pdf ).

Again. General dismissals like it's all in textbooks are not very constructive... :)

Why can't Redness be before or after Neural Activity? What do you know about Redness that the rest of the world doesn't? — SteveKlinko

I can also ask "What do you know about redness and the rest of the world doesn't?" :)

Don't have to quote papers for every post I do. The Neural Chain of processing is basic Brain Science. Go read any textbook on Brain Physiology. — SteveKlinko

I have read textbooks long time ago. Now I read papers... :)

I cannot but conclude that you are taking ad hominem approach... :down:

Enjoy the day, :cool:

The only missing stage is the stage where the Neural Processing results in the experience of Red for example. — SteveKlinko

In the neuronal activity, there is no before or after (causal chain). We simply have a web of simultaneous neuronal activities. Since you refer to neuronal activity before the experience of the redness - which neuronal activity precisely you refer to. Could you also give us a reference to the paper or papers describing this neuronal activity? :)

Redness does not exist in the Physical World. — SteveKlinko

Are we trying to reintroduce Descartes' soul? The soul that experiences the totality of (audio-visual) experiences in the pineal gland? :worry:

If the redness does not exist in the Physical World then how it is caused by neuronal activity?

In this case, we would be better off with Descartes' soul. But Descartes' soul is outside our time/space sequences. :)

What we know about Redness is that certain Neural Activity has to happen before we experience it. The question remains as to how Neural Activity can result in an experience of Redness. — SteveKlinko

The Physical World exists within time/space where we can have before and after. If the redness is outside of this world - it can be neither before nor after a neuronal activity. So, please make up your mind. :)

So it makes sense to propose this Consciousness World until Science can show how it is a part of Physical World. — SteveKlinko

To be scientific - I would put it differently: "Consciousness World" is of this world - until proven otherwise. :)

Complex Adaptive System Theory might be applicable except that there is a Chain of Neural Processing that happens from the initial Light hitting the Retina to signals travelling down the Optic Nerve to multiple stages of Visual Cortex Processing. — SteveKlinko

Again - there are no chains of neuronal activities. There are no unidirectional signals traveling from retinas only. There are also signals traveling to retinas from Visual Cortex... :)

In principle, if you refer to the science - please quote the papers... Otherwise, I will be forced to conclude that you do not have the science backing your words... :groan:

Colours are detectable by retinal cells. Why do you think that redness is not present in our retinas? The whole of this thread is based upon your refusal that redness is not present in our retinas...

The pigment in cone cells defines the colour perceived. (Trichromacy.) Without the pigments, there would not be the redness... :)

Enjoy the day, :cool:

The Redness of the Red only exists in a further processing stage after the Retina. — SteveKlinko

The redness exists in the retina with cells tuned to dance to the red light. It is also passed to the rest of the brain as an abstract to which we can attach label red. :)

Redness does not exist in the Physical World. This is the thing that needs to be explained. — SteveKlinko

Then where it exists if not in Physical World? :)

Enjoy the day, :cool:

Don't know why but the best we know from Science is that Neural Activity precedes Consciousness Activity — SteveKlinko

Decades ago computer enthusiasts were guessing neuronal activity along following lines:

Eyes like TV cameras were sending raw images to the brain → the raw image in the brain was then analysed → the result of analyses was then sent to other parts of the brain. I'm guessing that at this point you expect neuronal activity for consciousness, but the unidirectional picture does not let you to get back to the same point (self-referral)... :)

This unidirectional chain of neuronal activities has many problems and no wonder you are lost. This unidirectional chain is also impossible. The raw stimuli are detected by the retinas but only abstract is sent to the rest of the brain. The redness of the red is only present in retinas. Optical nerve simply does not have the capacity to transfer the raw image to the rest of the brain. (REM in vivid dreams also allows for activity of retinas.) fMRI scans also do not show the complete image anywhere in the brain. :)

Richard L Gregory's article shows the complexities of visual processing which should be studied before any attempt to articulate a coherent Active Perception theory. :)

Enjoy the day, :cool:

Some cultures don't have a good naming convention for Color but it does not mean that they can't see Colors. Maybe there could be a whole group of isolated people that are genetically color blind from birth. They would have no use for Color designations. — SteveKlinko

Anthropologists tested that. People really had sensations of two shades of green only. We could not distinguish between these two shades. :)

A very interesting and relevant read: http://www.richardgregory.org/papers/recovery_blind/contents.htm :)

All this has been know for decades. — SteveKlinko

If you are saying that your knowledge is decades old - I agree. But that is not supported by science. :)

Enjoy the day, :cool:

What we know about Redness is that certain Neural Activity has to happen before we experience it. — SteveKlinko

Why? We can have a neuronal activity for redness before we perceive red. In Active Perception theory, this may happen like this: eyes of mine look there and see a red tomato. :)

Hearty, :cool:

How can Neural Activity of any kind ever result in a Red experience? Think about the Redness of the Red. — SteveKlinko

Colours are the cultural thing. Colour red is not perceived in some cultures. The sound is much more basic. :)

Unidirectional paradigm [cause → effect] or [input → processing → output] is causing all sorts of problems. The new paradigm is multi-directional [agent ↔ agent] (self-referral). This is explored in AI - Complex Adaptive System theory. (There is a good overview on Wikipedia.) :)

Also. Passive Perception theory is replaced by Active Perception theory. In active perception, there is a communication between eyes/ears and the rest of the brain.

We also tend to think in an egocentric way. An Australian aboriginal child thinks and acts in a geocentric way. The child will learn a new dance facing north, for example, and then will turn south and dance exactly with mirror-like moves... :)

Since [agent ↔ agent] includes self-referral the issue of consciousness is already half done. :)

Hearty, :cool:

I am in the process of trying to found knowledge on love. — Blue Lux

The love is growing old together. :)

Hearty, :cool:

o my own experiences after all?
Is language a game of mere abstraction? — Blue Lux

You are not alone. There are so-called mirror neurons that allow us to feel what others feel. :smile:

Hearty, :cool:

quote="creativesoul;206187"]A theory to test whether or not free will exists cannot be built upon language use that already assumes precisely what needs argued for.[/quote]

You are trying to make a point out of thin air...

Enjoy the day, :cool:

A theory to test whether or not free will exists cannot be built upon language use that already assumes precisely what needs argued for. — creativesoul

How precisely, language use determines whether or not Free Will exists? :)

I'm under impression that you are trying to make a point out of thin air...

Enjoy the day, :cool:

which seems to miss the point entirely. — creativesoul

And the point is??? :)

Enjoy, :cool:

Do you know how to ride a bicycle? :) Can you describe how to ride the bicycle? :) Is then riding of the bicycle a part of our knowledge? :)

Enjoy the day, :cool:

By virtue of the fact that consciousness is always consciousness of something, — Blue Lux

In psychological terms, consciousness is consciousness of 7±2 of items of something...

In philosophical terms, consciousness is psychological consciousness + nonconsciousness and is almost infinite...

Did you read my short story? It covers pretty much philosophical consciousness... :)

Enjoy the day, :cool:

Who needs a new theory to verify that all sorts of people are incapable of recognizing poor reasoning in the wild? — creativesoul

The proposal is "Free Will exists" and it's not new. With enough tests, the proposal is promoted into theory. What is new are scenarios to test the new theory. :)

I'm not really interested to judge the capacity of other people to recognise pure reasoning...

Enjoy the day, :cool:

Talking in terms of giving away free will is talking about the idea or the belief in free will. — creativesoul

The scenarios of the joke are simple enough to test it in a cafe with a friend. Since we can assume that enough people tested the scenarios from 22 May 2011 - we can start to talk about it as a theory...

Hearty, :cool:

I don't see how you can get away from talk about cause/effect and determinism, especially if agency talk can be broken down into deterministic talk. — gurugeorge

Descartes considered the universe as a gigantic "clock" - devised and put in motion by God. The tick-tock of the "clock" were causes and effects. (The clock was back then the most complex automata.)

Shortly after we had automata of all kinds - like The Duck and automatic looms using punch-cards... After we have the first adding/subtracting machines and later the first conceptual computer...

The agents in Complex Adaptive System theory - are not like cause & effect. They are rather in interplay with other agents within the web of agents...

You are partly correct that the agency can be simulated within cause & effect driven - deterministic machine. The simulation is based upon the iteration of N unidirectional steps. The reason is simple - we do not have the hardware. There are suggestions for agent ↔ agent hardware, but we must wait...

Hearty, :cool:

But the point I was making was that you don't get identity in the sense we're talking about, — gurugeorge

I was under the impression we agreed that human identity is indeed more complex than yeast's. The only thing we need now - is to weed out deterministic terminology. There are no cause and effect driven robots and computations.

Hearty, :cool:

Is thought interchangeable with expression? Thought is itself an expression? Or is thought prior to expression? — Blue Lux

I believe that sequentiality is our stumbling block. There are two kinds of expression - habitual and nonhabitual. Habitual expressions do not need thoughts - they only need to react in a quick-paced dialogue...

The common mistake is that we think in an orderly fashion: something → thought → expression. That's not the case. We are having several iterations of interplays between intent to express and nonhabitual expressions - until we decide that the expression is good enough. (Intent ↔ expression)

As I was drafting this reply - I had several attempts to express myself. Each time my expression grew in detail - until the draft was acceptable. That's exactly how we think... :)

Enjoy the day, :cool:

Perhaps language is accompanied, but fantasies and images constitute much of thought, and furthermore these images and fantasies inspire language. — Blue Lux

Maybe we could take the painter's "language" as a proto-language - in which colours and shades are "words" - that predates our verbal language...

Practically whatever we express - and how we express it - has a syntax - and is translatable into our verbal language...

Our differences are not so great. You think of only verbal language emerging from non-verbal expressions. I agree with a remark - non-verbal expressions are also a language in its own right... (Consider body language for example.)

Practically all we express is expressed in a language. Sometimes we even create a "language" with its "words" and "syntax"...

Hearty, :cool:

There are other types of languages: painters' language, musicians' language, wine-tasters' language, chefs' language etc. etc...

A painter's language is about visual impressions, shadows etc. etc. Wine-testers language is about taste and can be translated with vocabulary related to a variety of wine-taste descriptions.

Consequently, it is hard to determine which of the languages guide our not-lingual and lingual thoughts. It is also hard to determine how and if a language guides our lingual thoughts...

Hearty, :cool:

Quality is what you say before doing something - mapped with the deliverables when you finish...

The difficult part is a non-ambiguous specification of what the deliverables will be so that mapping afterwards is simple...

Hearty, :cool:

The basis for the conclusion is the testimonial evidence of those who have had an NDE ... — Sam26

There was a project related to NDE. In short, at places where NDE are likely - objects were placed at places not normally perceived. The goal was to ask persons after their ND experiences about objects perceived during NDE...

The project is still in progress and there is no official report...

Enjoy the day, :cool:

If that's the case then I have a fun legit way of traveling backwards in time in a very restricted sense. — TheMadFool

Time is not the only status of your room. You can restore it to (almost) all of the details - but the rest of the universe will not be restored. There is also a problem with how well you restored status of your room. You can never restore 100%... :)

To travel back in time you would need to restore the whole universe to a previous state including yourself. But then you will not remember yourself from the new now...

Hearty, :cool: