Our biology isnt made for 4D, thats all. Will it ever be? Perhaps. We will learn more and more about our biology, and 4D. Eventually we might alter our biology to understand or sense 4D, or invent a proper interface that might get us there.
I dont think “not smart enough” is right, that is like saying we are not smart enough to have a bats radar senses. A 4D being, whatever that might entail, could very well have no ability to imagine a 3D universe and instead forced to rely on math models the way we do for 4D. Doesnt mean its dumb, or that we are. — DingoJones

But a Bats Radar sense can be perfectly understood by the 3D Brain. We may not know exactly what a Bat Sees in its Mind but we do understand. The 4th dimension however is not really comprehensible by our 3D Brains. The requirement I always give is that we must understand how a 3D object could ever look Flat, as it must, in a 4D world. You will be able to see every point inside and outside a 3D object in 4D Space. The Visualization techniques of using Slices or Projections don't ever get you there.

What could be more fundamental than Electrons, Protons, and Neutrons? Well you quickly find out that Elementary Particles are just made out of Energy. So Energy seemed to be the thing to start with. — SteveKlinko
The problem with energy is, it's not a tangible thing, it's a mathematical tool. It took me a long time to grasp that. Physicists like to treat energy as an entity that has the ability to cause things, but energy doesn't cause anything, it is simply a description of motion and potential to cause motion. We don't need to talk about the fuzzy concept of energy to describe the universe, we could simply talk about particles and their motion and their ability to move other particles (even though as we talked about in your thread about physicalism such particles cannot explain the emergence of conscious experience so they cannot be all there is).
When they say a photon is pure energy, they mean to say that it can't be slowed down or accelerated, but it can be seen as a particle that has the ability to cause motion.

When they talk about the famous E = m.c², what that equation says is simply that an atom that emits a photon becomes easier to put into motion by a certain quantity, but again we could describe that without referring to the concept of energy which often carries with it a lot of misconceptions. — leo

When I say Energy I am referring to Electromagnetic Energy, which is not just a Mathematical Tool but is an actual thing. Energy is what Matter is made out of. At the dawn of the Universe there was only Energy and Matter formed at a later time out of the Energy.

Eventually I learned that Energy can arise out of Space itself. So what does this mean about our concept of Space? — SteveKlinko
I think you may be referring here to what they call the energy of the void, of empty space, but really all that means is that what they call empty space isn't empty, there are a bunch of things in apparent empty space, a bunch of particles we don't detect easily, and again we don't have to treat energy or space as tangible substance or entities. — leo

I agree that there must be something there, but when you see how Science views this Phenomenon, they usually have no other explanation than that it came out of Empty Space.

There could be different kinds of Spaces besides our 3D Space. There could be a 4D Space. There could be no Space. The possibility of no Space is almost impossible to grasp by the 3D human brain. — SteveKlinko
I wonder if you came to the idea of a 4D space because of the theory of general relativity that makes use of a 4D space. But in fact we don't need a 4D space to make the predictions that general relativity does, we can explain observations as accurately as general relativity in a theory that makes use of a 3D space, Einstein felt simply forced to use a 4D space because of the assumptions he made which made 4D more mathematically elegant, but mathematical elegance is not conceptual simplicity.

Space is just a background, a map on which we put the particles, we can choose whatever kind of map we want, flat, elliptic, hyperbolic, all that changes is the coordinates we give to the particles, but observations won't tell us what kind of space we live in, space has no shape other than the one we give it, I'm sure we could also come up with a convoluted way to describe the whole universe in 2 dimensions, it doesn't mean there is an actual physical entity called space that is 2D or 3D or 4D, it's just a tool, and we just find it easier to describe the whole in 3D.

Many concepts in physics are treated as tangible entities while they are merely mathematical tools, concepts, this is the fallacy of reification, and it is widespread regarding the concepts of energy, mass, force, space, time, they are all just tools, not things we actually observe or interact with. — leo

The Space we live in is 3D. You can go up/down, left/right, and forward/backward. It is a particular kind of Space. We can conceptualize 4D Space where you can have an addition directional pair. 4D Space would be a different kind of Space than 3D Space. So I did my 4D Animations in order to explore if a 4D Space is even a workable concept to create a Material Universe in. I think I convinced myself that it was workable. But this leads us to the conclusion that Space could have been 4D instead of 3D. This is a whole different thing than 3D Space. You have more degrees of freedom to move around in a 4D Space. But the really amazing conclusion is that if you can have 3D Space or 4D Space then it would seem that Space itself is a thing that can have different basic properties. This leads to the conclusion that there could be no Space! Most Cosmologists would say there was no Space before the Big Bang. The Space and the Energy were created by the Big Bang.

I think this is an important realization for Philosophy and the study of the limits of our ability to understand things. — SteveKlinko
I wouldn't say there are limits to our ability to understand so much as limits of our ability to see, our eyes only see a small part of all that is, they only see a small part of the photons that reach them, many photons do not interact with our eyes in a detectable way but they interact with other instruments that we see with our eyes and that's how we come to believe that there are a bunch of photons we don't see, and that's just one small part of what we don't see, that we have feelings tells us that there is more than particles out there, there's more that we can't comprehend by focusing on what we see with the eyes and on all our concepts that stem from what we see with the eyes, we need to come up with other concepts that stem out of what we feel, and I feel there is a great unknown there we have barely explored. — leo

But the limitation of all that is our 3D Brains. We just aren't Smart enough to Visualize, if you like, an actual 4D Space.

The Arguments, Logic, and Terminology that lead to this Conclusion will be found on the website at http://TheInterMind.com . The following is taken from the "An Interesting Conclusion" section :

The previous arguments I hope have shown that the Conscious Light and Conscious Sound are not in the Physical Mind so the conscious experience of these things must be manufactured somewhere in the Inter Mind to Conscious Mind segment of the Inter Mind Model. Even if someday the Conscious Light and Conscious Sound are actually found to be in the Physical Mind it is still true that they are inside us and part of what we are. If we can agree that Conscious Light and Conscious Sound are created totally internal to us then we can only conclude that we are the Conscious Light and the Conscious Sound. The Conscious Light and Conscious Sound are aspects of what we really are. We are the Light and the Sound that we have always experienced. The Inter Mind must paint that beautifully colorized high definition Conscious Light Scene onto some Conscious vaguely rectangular screen that we perceive as floating in front of our faces. The Inter Mind must also create that surround sound Conscious Sound Scene that seems to be all around us.

But the Inter Mind that does all that is part of what we are. Maybe the Physical Mind (and the whole Physical Body) are just one component of what we are. Maybe our Inter Mind and Conscious Mind components are really the larger part and the most important aspect of what we are. Our Physical differences become irrelevant because we are all made out of the same Conscious stuff in Conscious Space. Note that the experience of Light and Sound is emphasized in these arguments but all Conscious experience, Taste, Smell, Touch, Love, Hate, Pleasure, Pain, etc. are experienced in the Conscious Mind not in the Physical Mind. There will be Neural Correlates in the Physical Mind but the eventual experience is in the Conscious Mind.

Very Good, You get it. Thank You for the great post!

Right, so the first thing I typed there was, ""If you're going to forward an argument hinging on explanations, you'd better have a theory of explanations that is coherent, consistent, etc." — Terrapin Station

Ok, I give up. What is your theory of Explanations? Lets just use your theory and answer the question: How does Neural Activity produce Conscious Activity?

This raises several questions/issues for me.

1. Does it dissolve the hard problem of consciousness by providing a scientific explanation for colors, sounds, smells, etc? — Marchesk

If the Scientific explanation, for something like the experience of the Color Red, consists of an analysis that ends with particular Neurons Firing then that would not solve the Hard Problem. The Scientific explanation must go beyond the Neurons and tell us How it is that Neural Activity can produce a Conscious experience like Redness. What property of Neurons produces this Redness and How does a particular Conscious Mind perceive this Redness thing. We need to give more importance to the Experience itself. Start with the Experience and work back to the Neural Activity. How can that experience of Redness ever come out of Neural Activity? That is the Hard Problem.

2. Does this entail that direct perception is false, being that secondary qualities (color, taste, etc.) are not properties of things themselves, but rather coding schemes that relate to the chemical makeup of sugar or reflective surfaces of leaves (using the two examples above)? — Marchesk

Direct perception is obviously false with any analysis of the chain of processing from Retina to Cortex to Experience. The Experience is at the end of this chain of Processing and is always a Surrogate for the External World perceived thing. We never Directly See anything.

3. We know that color experience is produced after the visual cortex is stimulated. This can the result of perception, memory, imagination, dream, magnetic cranial stimulation, etc. If a person's visual cortex is damaged enough, they lose all ability to have color experiences, including being able to remember colors. It's hard to avoid concluding that color experiences are generated by the brain. But that sounds like the makings of a cartesian theater, which Dennett has spent his career tearing down. — Marchesk

Science can tell you what the resultant Neural Activity is for the Perception of the Color Red, but Science can only speculate that there is some undiscovered Property of Neurons that produces the actual Experience of Redness. Science does not know How Neural activity produces Redness. There is a Huge Explanatory Gap here.

I accept that direct realism is the case when perception is non-conscious. I'm driving down the road on autopilot. My hands, eyes and ears are directly perceiving the environment as I successfully navigate the car down the road.

However, when I'm conscious of driving, the content of my perception is a conscious experience, which is mental. I'm no longer directly perceiving the car on the road. Instead, I'm perceiving a world of feels, sounds, colors, smells, and so on. The phenomenal objects of my consciousness are made up these sensations. The road, the car, the wheel, the air and so on are not made up of colors, sounds, smells and so on. They are not phenomenal objects, but rather real, physical ones.

Therefore, I cannot be directly perceiving the real, physical objects when I'm conscious — Marchesk

I can't get past the assumption where you say, that when you are not Consciously driving, that this means you are Directly Perceiving. Could you elaborate more on that?

We need an Explanation for that question, and not some Dive into the meaning of the word "Explanations". — SteveKlinko
"If you're going to forward an argument hinging on explanations, you'd better have a theory of explanations that is coherent, consistent, etc."

Objecting to critically looking at your theory of explanations isn't a good argument. — Terrapin Station

I don't have a theory of Explanations. Where did you get an idea like that? Ok then what did I say that seems like a theory of Explanations. All I ever intended was to get an Explanation for how Neural Activity can produce or lead to Conscious Activity. Nothing exotic about this question. It just needs an answer.

So you are playing some kind of Semantic game with this. — SteveKlinko
You'd have to explain how you're reading it that way, because that comment makes no sense to me.

Your argument is based on the explanation not seeming like consciousness. But no explanation seems like what it's explaining. Explanations for neural activity do not SEEM like neural activity. That's the nature of explanations. There's nothing semantic about that. It's that you're using a rather odd double standard and/or you don't really understand the relationship between explanans and explanandum. — Terrapin Station

It's a Semantic game and it's a Diversion from the issue which was: How can Neural Activity produce Conscious Activity? We need an Explanation for that question, and not some Dive into the meaning of the word "Explanations". If what you are saying is relevant to answering that question then I apologize because I don't get what you are driving at.

Seriously, are you implying that Neural Activity seems like Consciousness to you? — SteveKlinko
What I'm saying is that no explanation of anything seems like what it's explaining. — Terrapin Station

So you are playing some kind of Semantic game with this. There exist Explanations for Neural Activity. There are no Explanations for what Property in the Neurons is the cause of Conscious Activity. There is in fact Zero understanding of what that Consciousness Property of Neurons could be. The Explanatory Gap is Huge in this case.

Are you saying that the explanations of neural etc. activity don't seem like consciousness to you, and you wouldn't count something as an explanation that doesn't seem like consciousness? — Terrapin Station

If Neural Activity seemed like Conscious Activity, in any sense of the word "Seemed", then we would have a starting point at least. But Neural Activity is in a Category of Phenomena that is quite different from the Category of Phenomena that Conscious Activity would be in. Seriously, are you implying that Neural Activity seems like Consciousness to you?

See http://TheInterMind.com for more on the terminology of the following:

Even if Reality is a Simulation we obviously still have Conscious Experiences of that Reality. So there is probably still a Conscious Mind doing the Experiencing in Conscious Space. There is probably still an Inter Mind but it would now connect the Conscious Mind to the Simulation instead of to a Physical Mind. There are two basic types of Simulations that we can talk about. One type is a Simulation that just runs with us being helpless observers having no ability to affect things that are happening in the Simulation. This means that all our desires, strivings, and actions are just something we experience, but we really can't do anything about anything. The Simulation makes us think we have desires and strivings and that we can do things. In this type of Simulation the Conscious Mind would have no Volitional connections back to the Simulation and would only have connections from the Simulation to the Inter Mind and then to the Conscious Mind. In the other type the Conscious Mind can, through Volitional connections through the Inter Mind and to the Simulation, affect things in the Simulation similar to how the Conscious Mind can, through the Inter Mind, affect things in Physical Space. The Simulation will make us believe we are actually in Physical Space, but there would be no difference for us if we were in an Actual Physical Universe or a Simulated Physical Universe. The take away from this is that it doesn't matter if the Inter Mind is connected to a Brain or to a Simulation.

↪SteveKlinko Leaving Aside your Questions, You Don't need to Randomly Capitalise Words.

Do you believe in God, or is that a software glitch?

An article about the promises and pitfalls of fMRI



...when you divide the brain into bitty bits and make millions of calculations according to a bunch of inferences, there are abundant opportunities for error, particularly when you are relying on software to do much of the work. This was made glaringly apparent back in 2009, when a graduate student conducted an fM.R.I. scan of a dead salmon and found neural activity in its brain when it was shown photographs of humans in social situations. Again, it was a salmon. And it was dead. — Wayfarer

That's funny. Might not be as consistent as I would like but the Capitalizations are not Random.

What makes any explanation necessary or not necessary? (I mean in general, not just re this issue.)

Also what makes any explanation sufficient/adequate or insufficient/inadequate? (Again, in general.) — Terrapin Station

I don't want make any generalizations. But for this specific case the disparate nature of the Phenomenon of Neural Activity and the Phenomenon Conscious Activity demand an Explanation. The Neural Activity is in a Category of Phenomena that is quite different than the Category of Phenomena that Conscious Activity is in. It is not reasonable to say they are the same thing given their different basic realities.

The sufficiency of Explanation for this case would be to logically show how something like Neural Activity could produce, for example, that experience of the Redness of the Color Red in the Mind. With the Physicalist premise as stated you must just Believe that the Redness experience just happens with no Explanation.

I want to know How any kind of Neural Activity can result in the experience of the Redness of Red, for example, in the Conscious Mind. Mapping the Brain and Measuring the Neural Correlates of Consciousness for Red is the Easy Problem. I want to know the answer to the Hard Problem. That is, the Conscious experience of Redness itself. — SteveKlinko
Why are you assuming that there's any difference? — Terrapin Station

it's not about assuming a difference. It's when the Physicalists say "no further Explanation is needed" that I have a problem. They can't just say the Neural Activity IS the Conscious Activity, they have to Explain how that works. Without an Explanation it is just a Belief.

Thank You for the link but that kind of thing is all about the Neural Correlates of Color perception and not about the actual experience of Color in the Mind. — SteveKlinko
Hence "If that sort of thing doesn't answer the question for you, you probably need to define just what question you're asking better." Just what sort of thing are you looking for that that sort of blueprint isn't giving you? — Terrapin Station

I want to know How any kind of Neural Activity can result in the experience of the Redness of Red, for example, in the Conscious Mind. Mapping the Brain and Measuring the Neural Correlates of Consciousness for Red is the Easy Problem. I want to know the answer to the Hard Problem. That is, the Conscious experience of Redness itself.

I'm sending you a bill for needing to have my eyeballs rotated back to the front of my head. — Terrapin Station

I've seen that affect before. Good luck with your recovery.

Re a blueprint of how color experiences work, we have a lot of research in the vein of this:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10651872

If that sort of thing doesn't answer the question for you, you probably need to define just what question you're asking better. — Terrapin Station

Thank You for the link but that kind of thing is all about the Neural Correlates of Color perception and not about the actual experience of Color in the Mind.

You simply said "zero understanding with regard to consciousness."

The neural correlates of consciousness aren't something with regard to consciousness?

If you want to make a more specific, qualified claim, make that claim from the start, and then we can address that. — Terrapin Station

Sorry, but this topic does expect a certain minimum of prior knowledge of the issues of Consciousness. If you are just playing word games then I can't help you. If you did not understand the question then please read http://TheInterMind.com . Other than that I basically don't understand your complaint.

1) Science has Zero, I repeat Zero, understanding with regard to Consciousness. — SteveKlinko
False.

Let's start with that. — Terrapin Station

Science has made great progress with understanding the Neural Correlates of Consciousness. This is the Easy Problem of Consciousness. But Science has no Clue what actual Consciousness is. Exactly how does an experience like the Redness of Red in your Mind get generated from any kind of Neural Activity known to Science? The answer to this is the Hard Problem of Consciousness. And we truly have Zero understanding of this.

The problem is that people see in your argument just the words "Science has zero understanding" and they stop reading there as they are offended by all the anti-science rhetoric they are confronted in our times. — ssu

It's not anti Science to point out that Science does in fact have Zero understanding with regard to Consciousness. Most real Scientists would probably agree with the statement. The Physicalists have created this situation by pretending that Science has figured out Consciousness. The Physicalists will probably be the only people that are offended. It's Physicalist Lies like this that create the Anti Science rhetoric. In my case it's Anti Physicalist rhetoric. I suspect that the Physicalists who are the most uncivil, ironically have only a meager background in Physics.

I'm not convinced it's useful to attack sciencists on such a specific topic. Their problem is more general: they apply science where it cannot be usefully applied, outside of its area of relevance/use. Like using a hammer to design software. This (your OP) is an example, for sure, but there's so much more wrong with sciencism than just this. IMO, of course. — Pattern-chaser

I'm attacking the Physicalists that push the, lets call it what it is, Lie that Science understands Consciousness even in the most fundamental way. Science really does have Zero understanding of Consciousness. I think most real Scientists would agree. My beef is with the dogmatic Physicalists on the different forums that don't want to debate about it. They just want to Insult anyone that defies their Beliefs. I don't know if most of these Physicalists even have a good Science background.

If matter creates mind then what type of matter causes mind and why that arrangement of matter and what properties?

For example if it is neurons creating mind what material properties predict this and causally necessitate it.

However if you see mind as functionally emerging from patterns in the brain then why are certain functional patterns of matter causing mind
and what prevents any matter and any arrangement of matter from causing a mind or experience to occur.

This kind of question makes me turn dualist because it seems like materialism about the mind leads to too much mind emerging indiscriminately and without clear location — Andrew4Handel

Exactly. I too have been driven to Dualism. I decided to concentrate mostly on how Visual perception works. I like to specifically understand How we experience Color and more specifically How we experience the Color Red.

The Physicalists will say that the Conscious experience of Red is just an Illusion or it at least is not very important. They will say that it is just an emergent Property of the Neurons and that is all you have to know. They say that Consciousness is all already Explained.

I think what the Physicalists must do to understand the Dualist position is to give the Conscious experience more importance. In order to do this the Physicalists need to think more Deeply about the Conscious experience itself. In the case of the Color Red they should understand that the Conscious experience of Red is a thing in itself that exists in the Mind. I like to tell the Physicalists to think about the Redness of the Red. I like to say Redness because it directs attention more to the Conscious Phenomenon of perceiving Red. It impedes the Diversion of Physicalists talking about the Wavelength of Red Electromagnetic Light. We are trying to think about the Conscious Redness that exists only in the Mind, and not about the external Electromagnetic Phenomenon.

After getting a good grasp on what the Conscious Phenomenon is I like to ask the question ... Given:

1) Neural Activity for Red Happens in the Brain
2) A Conscious experience of Redness Happens in the Mind

How can the Neural Activity produce the Conscious experience?

This is also the question you asked about: What Properties of Neurons can produce Consciousness?
It is the Chalmers Hard problem of Consciousness. Science has Zero answers to these basic questions about Consciousness.

It's been known for a hundred years that Brain Activity, of whatever kind you want to talk about, produces Consciousness. — SteveKlinko
Unfortunately, this has not been known for hundreds of years... :)

I stated that the totality/infinity of visual/auditor impressions precedes retinal preprocessing. I, therefore, state again that totality/infinity of visual/auditory impressions precedes further preprocessing making the totality/infinity available to our senses. In other words, consciousness does not emerge from retinal preprocessing or other neuronal activities... — Damir Ibrisimovic

Now I really don't understand what you are saying. But that's ok you could be right. When it comes to Consciousness all ideas are still on the table.

That's how it is when someone has a Belief about something — SteveKlinko
The traditional Christian view of God is that he is eternal and infinite. I wonder if some people are still religiously invested in infinity? I suspect some atheists might likewise be 'religiously' invested in infinity as a mechanism to explain the apparent fine tuning of the universe for life?

Every time you really work out a problem or analyze a little Deeper it is always found that Infinity is a big problem — SteveKlinko
Wikipedia lists a few (but there are more):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paradoxes#Infinity_and_infinitesimals

In cosmology they have this paradox:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_problem_(cosmology)

The solution is a finite universe but cosmologists press on regardless... — Devans99

Good links. Thank You.

But what is the Solution? If you are saying that your statement is also the Solution then I don't understand. — SteveKlinko
As I said before: We witness the totality of visual/auditory impressions before retinal preprocessing. The retinal preprocessing adds "what's what" to the totality of visual/auditory impressions. In a way, retinal preprocessing dulls the totality of visual/auditory impressions - but give us a faster management of the totality/infinity impressions... :)

This is not a farfetched impossibility - for retinal cells are directly exposed to unaltered stimuli... — Damir Ibrisimovic

So you are saying that all the Neural and Retinal processing (adding the What's What) produces the Visual/Auditory Impressions that we experience. It's been known for a hundred years that Brain Activity, of whatever kind you want to talk about, produces Consciousness. You are just saying it does this, but you are not saying How. That is the Hard Problem.

The website http://TheInterMind.com delves into Dualism. Arguments for a Conscious Mind that is separate from the Physical Mind (Brain) are developed. I think the Conscious Mind could be equated to the Soul concept you are inquiring about.

Mathematicians always say things only approach Infinity — SteveKlinko
Unfortunately this is far from universally the case; many mathematicians have made a substantial intellectual investment in Cantor's flavour of actual infinity and are quite hostile to anyone questioning set theory's approach. There are also Cosmologists with models based on actual infinity for time and/or space who are not very open minded when the existence of actual infinity is questioned. — Devans99

That's how it is when someone has a Belief about something. None of us can truly comprehend Infinity with our limited Human Brains. Every time you really work out a problem or analyze a little Deeper it is always found that Infinity is a big problem.

as the passing of time is considered to be continuous — Metaphysician Undercover
I was wondering about that: If time is truly continuous then a 1 second interval is graduated as finely as a 1 hour interval (implicit from the definition of continuous). That seems contradictory by itself: suggests the short interval contains as many distinct states (therefore information) as the long interval... — Devans99

Lets consider the points on the interval 0 to 1 on the x axis. Assume a point is just a location on the interval and the point itself has zero width on the interval. Now consider the usual setup where we put a bunch of these points on the interval and separate them by dx. As long as dx is not zero the number of points will be discrete and they will not count to Infinity. Remember that a differential dx only approaches Zero. If dx = 0 then there will be Infinite points but you cannot arrange points with Zero width along side each other when dx = 0. They will all have to superimpose on top of each other and the whole x axis of points will collapse on top of the point x=0. This is just nonsense and shows that trying to use actual Infinity as a real quantity of anything is not possible. Mathematicians always say things only approach Infinity. Infinity is a Mathematical fiction. It is a goal that cannot be achieved. Mathematics breaks down when faced with Infinity. Cantor used the slight of hand talking about Countable Infinities as if such a thing was not a contradiction. Don't be fooled. There is no such a thing as an Infinite anything. There can be no actual Infinite Information in any volume. The moment the Information would become Infinite then the dV = 0. So each differential Volume would have to be identically Zero for Infinite Information. An Infinite amount of Zero is still zero. Infinity is a nonsensical concept to begin with.

My preferred solution to this is to deny that there are unfelt states, and suggest that consciousness is an intrinsic property of everything. That brings its own problems, but it is a putative solution to the problem. — bert1
I have not a problem with what you say. I'm stating something similar... :)

Can you have another go at stating the problem, and then say what your solution is? — bert1
I'm tired of repeating myself... I can only restate my position which seems to be beyond your grasp:

The hard problem of consciousness is hidden in the totality of visual/auditory impressions... :) — Damir Ibrisimovic

I suppose that is one way to state the Hard Problem. But what is the Solution? If you are saying that your statement is also the Solution then I don't understand.

You are still saying that the Neural Activity happens and that Explains everything. It is mind boggling to me that you cannot realize the thing that is missing in your explanation. The thing that is missing is the Red experience itself and the 440Hz Tone experience itself. — SteveKlinko
>From my perspective, once the mechanical process is outlined, something is explained. I think we've gone through this cycle of disagreement before, but I get the sense you want or expect something more than an explanation of function. I believe that's all there is, and different conscious experiences just seem so extravagant and profound, that its hard for our minds to except an explanation. — Tyler

But we are saying there are two different categories of Phenomena happening here. The first is the Neural Activity the second is the Conscious experience. When the Neural Activity is explained then you have explained the Neural Activity but you have not explained the Conscious experience at all. The Conscious experience is in a whole different Category of Phenomena. Think about the Conscious experience itself. It is separate thing from the Neural Activity. It must be explained.

Your very statement screams out for further explanation. — SteveKlinko
Why? :) You started with Consciousness happens - without anything like neuronal activity... :)

Neuronal activity can produce only "what is what" or sketchy images. It simply does not have the capacity to produce/transmit the totality of visual impressions... :)

Enjoy the day, — Damir Ibrisimovic

I say that:

1) Neural Activity happens
2) A Conscious experience happens

1 and 2 are the two things we know that are happening. We don't know why 2 happens when 1 happens.

Well I would class FTL travel as potentially naturalistic; it’s certainly not a magical proposition.

‘Something from nothing’ is however magical so I’d rule it out. Returning to the argument:

1. Something can’t come from nothing
2. So base reality must have always existed
3. If base reality is permanent it must be timeless
4. So base reality must be timeless (to avoid the infinities) and permanent
5. Time was created and exists within this permanent, timeless, base reality
6. So time must be real, permanent and finite

Do you buy the argument as far as 2 now or do you still have objections? — Devans99

1 and 2 certainly hold in the manifested Physical Universe that exists today. But these are unproven theories when it comes to the reality before the Big Bang. As for 3 to 6 which seem to be about Time, all I can say is that a lot of people interpret Relativity as having shown that there is no such thing as Time.

But how can you know that Naturalism holds before the Beginning? — SteveKlinko

Science (or natural philosophy as it used to be called) is based on naturalistic explanations. Science, for example, excludes god and magic as valid explanation for natural phenomena.

If the early universe does not follow naturalistic rules then we have little hope of ever understanding it.

Rather than giving up, why not assume the universe behaves in a naturalistic ways and proceed to argue from there? — Devans99

We don't give up but we look for the extended Naturalistic rules that probably apply before the Beginning. What Naturalistic rules can cause the Inflation of the early Universe? The Inflation is a theoretical expectation based on observations of the Universe. The phenomenon of Inflation could not be deduced from known Naturalistic rules. It requires tremendously faster than Light speeds. There is a new Naturalistic rule lurking here.

↪SteveKlinko exactly! I have seen what you have seen without any mind altering substance as well. But I will remark again on the extraordinary effect the safe psychedelic substances can have on perception and experience, as well as the brain, which already have endogenous hallucinogens and hallucinogenic tendencies that represent certain neural components, neurotransmitters and synaptic receptors whose function and effect are correlated with a fine mechanism of consciousness, feeling, sensation and understanding. But I degress.
These light shows as I call them represent an extraordinary system, display or paradigmatic system of consciousness and organic life. They are amazing and the beauty they show of our own very experiences makes life ever more fascinating. — Blue Lux

I agree it is amazing. It is an amazing Mystery as to How our Conscious Minds present this Light Show to us..

But then the question becomes: How does Only a combination of the totality of visual experiences and retinal activity (sketchy images) produce a "Conscious Visual experience"? — SteveKlinko
We are stuck here... :) You are asking for something to "... Produce a Conscious Visual experience"...

The totality of visual experiences is simply there --- without anything to produce it... :)

Enjoy the day, — Damir Ibrisimovic

I'm actually perplexed as to how you think that just saying: "The totality of visual experiences is simply there" is any kind of answer to the Hard Problem. Your very statement screams out for further explanation. How is that beautiful Visual Image that you See presented to your Conscious Mind?

What is this Naturalism? How do you know Naturalism holds before the beginning. — SteveKlinko
Naturalism is the exclusion of magic from our consideration of the physical sciences.

I assert that ‘something from nothing’ is a magical proposition so we can exclude from our investigations of the origin of things. — Devans99

Yes I understand what you mean by Naturalism. But how can you know that Naturalism holds before the Beginning? Naturalism might only hold after a Universe comes into existence. But of course your Speculation could be correct. Any thing is possible related to knowing why the Universe is here.

I may have forgotten to mention that the Rods, Cones, etc. of the Retina are considered to be specialized Neurons. The Retina is just an extension of the Brain and so you can say that the external Light impinges directly on the Brain. — SteveKlinko
Actually - I said that... :)

There are two effects of the retinal activity. The totality of visual experiences and hints and edges that travel through the optical nerves to the rest of the brain... :)

How does the Neural Activity of the Retina produce a Conscious Visual experience? — SteveKlinko
Neural activity does not produce a "Conscious Visual experience"... :) Only a combination of the totality of visual experiences and retinal activity (sketchy images) produce a "Conscious Visual experience". For example: If we are born blind there would not be "Conscious Visual experience"... :)

When we are born - we are almost blind and need to learn "what is what"... :)

When the "what is what" is diminished (under the influence of a drug, for example) the totality of our visual experiences dominates... :) — Damir Ibrisimovic

But then the question becomes: How does Only a combination of the totality of visual experiences and retinal activity (sketchy images) produce a "Conscious Visual experience"? Further, exactly what is that Experience? What is the Thing that is having the Experience? Think about the Conscious experience itself.

↪SteveKlinko You should see the phosphenes when you close your eyes in darkness while your brain is on LSD or psilocin, or any psychedelic substance. Extraordinary colors, patterns, fractals, zooms, geometry... Even colors that you never see otherwise. — Blue Lux

Without LSD I can See some things that are more than random noise. For example I can See Vortices where there will be a small circular section in the Phosphenes spiraling around and into a center. This is usually after dozing off for a moment so it is probably partially a Dream experience.

Something can't come from nothing" is an unproven Belief when it comes to the beginning of everything. — SteveKlinko
I’m basing my argument on common sense and naturalism - not referencing any particular rule of physics.

- if you define nothing as no matter, energy, space or dimensions
- then it’s pretty clear ‘can’t get something from nothing’ holds
- so it follows something has existed always — Devans99

We don't even really know what any kind of Something is. You could be right. But when it comes to before the beginning nobody knows anything. What is this Naturalism? How do you know Naturalism holds before the beginning. We are completely Ignorant of beginnings. We can only Speculate and one Speculation is as good as any other.