You are probably directing this to Tyler. But I think what you are saying tracks pretty good with what The Inter Mind is all about. Although, I think I am less certain that the Conscious Self can exist after loss of the Physical body, I do see that the possibility exists.The Mind is a computer. The Body is a Machine. The Self is what I'll call "Self". For my purposes Self is the energy that experiences the data that it receives from the computer. Life is the every changing environment in which we live. Self evaluates that information and inputs the requisite commands reflective of Self's decisions. The Mind and Machine work together to process the commands all while gathering data. Self faces choices that will impact the very fabric of how they experience Life.
Life is often referred to as a game which is in some ways accurate but in truth is more an open world MMO (an open explorer formatted world online game in which anyone around the world can play and interact with each other).
Much like the game we start at birth with nothing. Now modern life might toss a few basics your way. A home of some kind, clothes, perhaps some food. Granted as humans we are giving very little in the way of instinctive memories. So we learn from the world around us.
You see in this game the player is your self. It arrives with no instructions, no training and little else. We are 100% reliant on the machine we assigned and those who birthed out machine.
I will leave the example at this point and ask that you consider your position on this topic with a certainty that the self remains regardless of the condition of the machine. Once the Machine is damaged beyond repair and function the self moves on but that topic has enough threads no doubt. I will add that the self also is with certainty separate from the machine. The self experiences all the physical and emotional feelings and sensations provided by the machine and the computer but the self is definitely separate.
This all being said does it chance what you think and how? — MiloL
Proof of that would probably solve the Hard Problem of Consciousness and eliminate the Explanatory Gap all at the same time. I have also toyed with someway to do that but am not there yet. Good Luck.Just looking for the right partners. — MiloL
> Assuming by "consciousness", we mean the awareness and comprehensive perception, the evidence is that brain activity has proven to be directly correlated with being awake, thinking, remembering, and interpreting sensory input. Consciousness involves these concepts as well.What is the evidence that suggests that consciousness involves brain activity? — Marcus de Brun
> This very well may be true, and the lack of explanation of brain activity by science, is what leaves the open potential for brain activity to still be the explanation of consciousness. Since there is that unexplored potential, it seems most logical to assume that with further investigation of brain activity, using science, we will then discover the explanation of consciousness.I would suggest that consciousness has been more thoroughly investigated by Philosophy than brain activity has been explained by Science — Marcus de Brun
Yes, and wouldnt you consider "perception of 'objective' reality" to be the basic concept of "consciousness"?Consciousness in Philosophical parlance would appear to cause and or contain brain activity, in the same manner that it may contain our perception of 'objective' reality. — Marcus de Brun
> 1 produces 2 by a complex but coordinated combination producing an intricate outcome.How does 1 produce 2?
Think about the Redness of a Red experience. Think about Neurons firing. How on Earth do think that these are not two different categories of Phenomenon? — SteveKlinko
> I see no reason to believe that the self remains regardless of the condition of the machine, or that it moves on after damage.consider your position on this topic with a certainty that the self remains regardless of the condition of the machine. Once the Machine is damaged beyond repair and function the self moves on but that topic has enough threads no doubt. — MiloL
Since there is that unexplored potential, it seems most logical to assume that with further investigation of brain activity, using science, we will then discover the explanation of consciousness. — Tyler
Consciousness in Philosophical parlance would appear to cause and or contain brain activity, in the same manner that it may contain our perception of 'objective' reality. — Marcus de Brun
Yes, and wouldn't you consider "perception of 'objective' reality" to be the basic concept of "consciousness"? — Tyler
All you just said is that it is Complicated and involves Memory and some kind of Interpretations. Maybe this is all true but there is no explanation in what you say.How does 1 produce 2?
Think about the Redness of a Red experience. Think about Neurons firing. How on Earth do think that these are not two different categories of Phenomenon? — SteveKlinko> 1 produces 2 by a complex but coordinated combination producing an intricate outcome.
I think they are the same category because it seems logical that the 1 process (of neural activity) is the functional explanation of the other (Redness of Red).
By my theory, I might say, I use consciousness to access memories of the concepts relative to the explanation, simultaneously to accessing new memories of incoming sensory input of the image of red.
When I look at and think about red, I also think about the function of my eye measuring the light wave-lengths of red, and my neural activity coding it and saving it as a memory. So the appearance of red, is just the interpretation of the coding of wave-length measurements. — Tyler
Doesn't matter what I call the Red experience. The red experience is still an experience of Redness. The Redness of the Red is beyond any words that you can say to interpret it. I'm not sure what your last question is asking.But is Red even Red? How would your Redness of the Red experience change if no one taught you the word red? Does you theory account for the variety of ways one might learn to interpret all the photons and wave length considerations? — MiloL
The Redness of the Red — SteveKlinko
Think about the Redness of Red. The more you think about Redness the more you can understand that it is not even something that exists in the Physical World. It exists in your Conscious Mind World. — SteveKlinko
Maybe I'm not understand what you mean by this ^. What is this to you? — MiloL
I agree with this. But where does this leave us? If you agree that there is a separate Mind World where Conscious experience exists then you must agree that there is a Hard Problem of Consciousness. I can illustrate the Problem by asking the question ... Given:The redness is a property of the some objects, which has the property of being view as red (at least for humans), so redness perception is which "exists" in the mind world. This is the "problem of universals". It is a nonsense to say: "My viewing of this tomato is red". Instead, we say "This tomato (as I view it) is red". As pragmatists philosopher have suggested, many (if not all) philosophical problems are originated by a confused use of language. — Belter
you agree that there is a separate Mind World where Conscious experience exists then you must agree that there is a Hard Problem of Consciousness — SteveKlinko
Even if Mind World is part of Physical World there has to be an explanation for Conscious experience. You cannot say the Mind (Conscious) World is all just part of the Physical World and That Explains It. That does not explain anything. You must Explain not just Say. The Hard Problem does not presuppose Dualism. The solution to the Hard Problem could very well be that Consciousness is all Physical. But Science has not shown that yet. The Hard Problem is alive and well whether you are a Dualist or a Physicalist.I do not agree it. Mind world is part of the physical world, referred to certain abilities of individuals, and realized by brains. I am not a dualist, and the hard problem presupposes it, but not justify it. — Belter
The explanatory gap is jumped everyday by psychological researchers. I recommended you for example, "I of the vortex" if you want to know this "mysterious" problem of how brain is used for individuals to think — Belter
it assumes this Virtual Reality without explaining what it actually is — SteveKlinko
I agree with this. But where does this leave us? If you agree that there is a separate Mind World where Conscious experience exists then you must agree that there is a Hard Problem of Consciousness. I can illustrate the Problem by asking the question ... Given:
1) Neural Activity for Red happens in the Brain (Physical World)
2) A Conscious Red experience happens in the Mind World
There is definitely Correlation between 1 and 2, but how does 2 happen when 1 happens? If the language is wrong with this question then I don't understand what's wrong. — SteveKlinko
Synchronicity in Groups, Circuits, Specialized Neural Firing, Calcium Channels, 40 Hz synchronized Firing, etc. all involve Neural Activity of one sort or another. All these things are related to the Easy Problem. None of these solve the Hard Problem. None of these explains what the Conscious experience of Red could be. So, even if all these Neural things have to happen for me to experience the color Red, these are just Neural Correlates of experiencing the color Red. The fact that these things happen does not get us any closer to solving the Hard Problem. The fact that these things happen does not explain the Red experience. We have known for a hundred years that Neural Activity is related to Conscious experience but we are no closer today in understanding how the Conscious experience happens when the Neural Activity happens.I think that the book permit us to know a lot of not evident features of mind. The synchronicity in groups, circuits, etc., of specialized neurons when firing is the basic "explanation": "what the Virtual reality is, the Hard Problem".
In the book you can encounter one of the most advanced theories of mind (role of calcium channels, 40 Hz of frequency in the synchronized fired, etc.). I consider that the explanations of mind must be in this form or another one with the same (psychological) method. It is a "hard" problem such as "life" one is: we still not be capable of replicating artificially. But there are not a priori reasons for its skepticism. — Belter
these are just Neural Correlates of experiencing the color Red — SteveKlinko
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.