Predictions are overtly conscious and intentional on the events, movements of objects or functional processes which are uncertain in their results. It sounds illogical and unsound to suggest that our brain keeps making predictions on everything it sees, just because it is their nature to do so.The prediction function is not a detached function of our brain like the visual cortex, it is the fundamental function of the entire brain. It fundamentally is our brain. — Christoffer
Prior to your seeing something from your memory, you must be conscious of the content of your memory, or know what you are remembering about. You cannot see something from your memory, if you cannot remember what they were.I don't see how this isn't answered? How we perceive non-existing objects has already been answered. It's a hallucinatory flow of predictions detached from sensory inputs and composed by a collage of previous experiences and concepts of objects that we have stored in memory. The nature of them is that they are hallucinations detached from sensory information or minorly influenced by it while imagining or hallucinating in an awaken state. Internally they differentiate to existing objects in that they are pure memory information formed into prediction calculations by the brain that detaches from sensory grounding, transforming memory representations of real objects into a malleable conceptualized mental model that can be reshaped internally. During dreaming, this process happens without our ability to control it, since the flow of this collage of memories flowing together is influenced by the brain's process of fusing long term memory with the new short term memories. — Christoffer
I'm not sure what else you're asking for, because with this field of science in mind, the answers are somewhat clear or at least rationally explained enough by the current understanding of our consciousness and how we function. — Christoffer
Predictions are overtly conscious and intentional on the events, movements of objects or functional processes which are uncertain in their results. It sounds illogical and unsound to suggest that our brain keeps making predictions just because it is their nature to do so. — Corvus
Prior to your seeing something from your memory, you must be conscious of the content of your memory. You cannot see something from your memory, if you cannot remember what they were.
Seeing hallucinatory images from one's past memories is what is happening in one's dreams doesn't quite assuredly explain the nonexistent objects appearing in dreams, if the dreamer has never seen, encountered or experienced the object in his / her life ever. — Corvus
You say, that your explanations are from the scientific research on the topic, but it seems to have basic logical flaws in the arguments. Blindly reading up the scientific explanations on the topics, and accepting them without basic logical reflections on their validity appears to be unwise and unhelpful for finding out more logical explanations and come to better understanding on the subject. — Corvus
I am not too sure on the details of technicality of hallucination on why and how it occurs. But that is my idea on it. — Corvus
That is a peculiar way to use the concept of prediction. From my idea, prediction is always for the unknown future. You don't predict how a cup of coffee will look like, when you are seeing a cup of coffee. The cup of coffee is sending you a vivid and forceful image to your eyes. You are perceiving it with certainty and realistic assurance for its existence. Why do you have to predict it? It is just a logical flaw and nonsense.I think you are severely misunderstanding how this works. I suggest that you engage with the scientific material surrounding predictive coding theory. — Christoffer
Again, it is a simple basic logic of remembering something. If you are seeing a cup of coffee from your memory, then logically you cannot fail to recall the factual past content of your memory when you are seeing it. If you are seeing an image from your memory, it wouldn't be just the object of the image, you would also see the background, material detail of the cup, the type of the coffee and where it was lying on etc etc.Here you are also looking at the concept of "hallucination" in the textbook description of it, not as what it means as a mental process. Our entire experience is a hallucination that our brain is constructing, it is perception itself. The hallucination of dreams and psychedelics is only the version of that hallucination that isn't grounded by our real time sensory data grounding it through correlation. — Christoffer
As I said, the OP is not about how we form and see images from some scientific research. It is about how we see non existing images sometimes, and what is the nature of non existing objects. I have asked a few questions on the nature of non existing objects and perceiving non existing objects in my previous posts, but you have not answered any of them, but just kept going on about the prediction and hallucination.You are looking for an answer to a faulty question and the only thing anyone can do is to answer the real question; how these imagined concepts form within us, which I have answered to the best of my ability out of the entire scientific field that researches this very question. — Christoffer
That is a peculiar way to use the concept of prediction. From my idea, prediction is always for the unknown future. You don't predict how a cup of coffee will look like, when you are seeing a cup of coffee. The cup of coffee is sending you a vivid and forceful image to your eyes. You are perceiving it with certainty and realistic assurance for its existence. Why do you have to predict it? It is just a logical flaw and nonsense. — Corvus
OK you say, you are using the concept of prediction differently to describe how you structure the images in your perception, and it is Scientific research. But why would you do that? Why do you have to change the meaning of the concept prediction in order to describe the perceptual process in that context? — Corvus
If you are seeing a cup of coffee from your memory, then logically you cannot fail to recall the factual past content of your memory when you are seeing it. If you are seeing an image from your memory, it wouldn't be just the object of the image, you would also see the background, material detail of the cup, the type of the coffee and where it was lying on etc etc. — Corvus
As I said, the OP is not about how we form and see images from some scientific research. It is about how we see non existing images sometimes, and what is the nature of non existing objects. I have asked a few questions on the nature of non existing objects and perceiving non existing objects in my previous posts, but you have not answered any of them, but just kept going on about the prediction and hallucination. — Corvus
You must be aware of the fact that scientific research explanations and theories are not all eternal and infallible truths. When new research and experiments prove otherwise, the present scientific theories and principles are destined to collapse. That is the way scientific explanations work, and you have to be always open minded on the scientific explanations and answers on the abstract topics. — Corvus
Philosophy is not about accepting and adopting the scientific explanations into their inquiries without analysis, logical and critical reflections. — Corvus
Otherwise you're going to get stuck and never evolve intellectually. — Christoffer
Our empathic ability. It's the ability to mentally construct, visualize, and actually feel things that we are not directly exposed to. So if you know what it feels like to see things, then you probably have the ability to evoke the same or similar feeling when you don't see anything. The same areas in the brain are activated when you see something and when you imagine seeing it. — jkop
Time and space may not be objects of perception, but we can use our knowledge of descriptions and theories of them in order to evoke relevant experiences of duration, extension etc. — jkop
What exists for us to experience of God, souls, spirits etc. are our own and other people's descriptions, pictures, sculptures, plays performed by actors, movies with special effects, churches or art museums designed specifically with an ambience that tends to evoke sacred or otherworldly experiences. — jkop
If time is not an object of perception, how do they know today is a Saturday night? — Corvus
If space is not an object of perception, how do they know where the Eiffel tower is located? — Corvus
But how do we experience the real God, souls and spirits? — Corvus
If they say, we are going to meet in the cafe in 1 hour, how do they know when to meet, if they don't perceive time?They experience days and nights following previous days and nights, not the time in which they follow each other. — jkop
Every part and corner of the space is mapped with the co-ordinates, so drones can pin-point the objects in them, and airplanes can reach the location. If space is not perceivable, how can it happen?They see the Eiffel tower, its extension and relations to other buildings, not the space that its extension and relations occupy. — jkop
When you say "they are real", what do you mean by that? What do you mean by "we can experience systematically"?If they are real, then we can experience them systematically, also by those of us who don't expect them to be real. But since we don't, there's little reason to assume that they're real. — jkop
Yes, I did. But I chose the words consciously reflecting the contents of my thoughts. In dreams, I have no consciousness of real world, hence things appear without my choice, and I have no control of the dreams.You CHOSE words and COMBINED them together to make sentences. — night912
Philosophical discussions are not about being happy. It is about trying to come to the agreed conclusion via good arguments.Happy? — night912
When you say "they are real", what do you mean by that? What do you mean by "we can experience systematically"? — Corvus
Imaginary, nonexistent, or nonactual things such as ghosts are not real in the sense that molecules are real, nor in the sense that colours are real. Ghosts are fiction. — jkop
When you say ghosts are not real, does it mean that there are the real ghosts? — Corvus
how do you know ghosts are not real? — Corvus
To know "not real", you must know "real". Would you agree? — Corvus
You seem to suggest that there are different type of "real" objects in the world. — Corvus
Why Casper, the friendly ghost is real while the other ghosts are not? — Corvus
You just say somethings are real, while others are not. But you need to give reasons for what makes something real. For instance, you say money is real, but ghosts are fiction. But who is to say the ghosts in fiction don't exist or is not real? — Corvus
At the time, was money real? What are the properties / qualities which makes something real? What is the real real? If something is real to me, then is it real to you too? — Corvus
It's a fact that there are different types of real objects in the world. — jkop
If they are real, then we can experience them systematically, also by those of us who don't expect them to be real. But since we don't, there's little reason to assume that they're real. — jkop
I'd say my visual experience is real to me when I have it while it's not real to you, obviously, when you don't have it. But like now when we both see this dark coloured text, then we both have the same visual experience, i.e. the object that we see is the same. — jkop
ergo your claim that God is not real to you because you don't expect God to be real. — Corvus
You didn't explain why you expect God to be not real. You just claim that you don't expect God to be real. — Corvus
But how do we experience the real God, souls and spirits?
— Corvus
If they are real, then we can experience them systematically, also by those of us who don't expect them to be real. But since we don't, there's little reason to assume that they're real. — jkop
Because, I don't see jkop, but I only see what jkop wrote in text on the computer screen — Corvus
The negation "don't expect" means that we don't have the expectation. Yet you say that I "expect God to be not real". You omit the negation and thus misrepresent my claim. — jkop
Because the human mind has the capability for creativity. Creativity often comes about by taking bits and pieces that belong to one thing, and then applying them to another. Think of a unicorn for example. Its a horse with a horn on its head. Now make a duocorn. That's a horse with two horns on its head. Keep going. That's why you can dream of things you've never seen before. — Philosophim
But this is not true with respect to consensus reality. Also the physical world, which everybody would agree "exists" because it is self-evident, has a relative (illusory/dreamlike) appearance to whatever organism is conscious of it. — Nils Loc
Yes, it is a Kantian point of view. I know that scientists claim that time and space are external entities, but as I said previously, I tried to explain that my argument was not under that frame but another perspective. The basic premise is that we try to determine a basic sense or notion, and for this reason we tend to discard dreams for several reasons. Nonetheless, we usually dream with past experiences, people, and places, and I wouldn't name these dreams as 'illusions' because I literally experienced this in the past. Otherwise, I had to admit that what I lived in the past is somehow not plausible. — javi2541997
Could there be other factors involved in perception apart from the the object of perception, sensory organs, memories and experiences? — Corvus
How would we perceive them? — ssu
Hume and Kant were correct in saying that the principle of causality, space and time exist in mind rather than in the external world. — Corvus
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.