we have no means to understand them, except..... — Mww

Do you always contradict yourself in the same sentence?

Which is better parallel then for the biological system producing actual qualia out of the electro-chemical sensory signals? — Zelebg

Why argue so convoluted. Our sensory organs transmit the signal by means of a biochemical electrical charge and our brains are able to interpret that signal in such a fashion that it provides us with knowledge about our environment. Don't have to make it more complicated than that.

A photo-receptor cell is 'conscious' of light. A cochlear hair cells is 'conscious' of sound...etc
— ovdtogt
This is the mereological fallacy- — Wayfarer

It is a fallacy to believe only the (human) brain is conscious.

as the signals that they process are not being interpreted by a conscious agent. — Wayfarer

For something to be able to react to a signal it must by definition be 'conscious' of it. The general public has a extreme exclusive concept of consciousness.
An eye that can see is conscious of light.

mathematician's played around with numbers as an abstract exercise long before they applied it to the real world (?) — 3017amen

Maybe not so much numbers, for even the proverbial caveman had the idea of quantity and the ability to represent it to himself. I mean....who goes hunting with only one measly arrow? And if you’ve got two hands, why not carry two spears?

Geometry, on the other hand, well.........

“....A new light must have flashed on the mind of the first man (Thales, or whatever may have been his name) who demonstrated the properties of the isosceles triangle. For he found that it was not sufficient to meditate on the figure, as it lay before his eyes, or the conception of it, as it existed in his mind, and thus endeavour to get at the knowledge of its properties, but that it was necessary to produce these properties, as it were, by a positive a priori construction; and that, in order to arrive with certainty at a priori cognition, he must not attribute to the object any other properties than those which necessarily followed from that which he had himself, in accordance with his conception, placed in the object....”

This is not to say all those produced properties arrived out of the blue. But however much trial-and-error the old geezer did, all of it without exception, was pure thought, and all could have been derived from a single example of a single triangle. What’s really amazing....sorta.....is, Thales lived around 600BC, but square roots had been known for 1000 years before that. So arriving at 1,1, sq rt 2 for one of the properties of the isosceles triangle, while seeming quite unlikely, actually wasn’t.

So, yeah, no doubt. The abstract mathematical playground was in use long before its application to the natural empirical one.

It is a fallacy to believe only the (human) brain is conscious. — ovdtogt

An eye that can see is conscious of light. — ovdtogt

Beings are conscious, that’s why they’re called ‘beings’. ‘Eyes’ are conscious, they’re organs.

Science relies on the assumption that we live in an ordered Universe that is subject to precise mathematical laws. Thus the laws of physics, the most fundamental of the sciences, are all expressed as mathematical equations. — ovdtogt

That attitude is a direct historical consequence of the Christianity.

Beings are conscious, that’s why they’re called ‘beings’. ‘Eyes’ are conscious, they’re organs. — Wayfarer

Eyes are [a] be(ing) conscious of light.

That attitude is a direct historical consequence of the Christianity. — Wayfarer

Which attitude?

"You equate "physical" and "actual", and I agree. But if a simulated electron is not physical & actual, what is it?" --Gnomon
It's virtual. It means it is represented as information by some other physical form rather than its actual form. — Zelebg

I'm beginning to see a part of our communication glitch. You seem to think that a "virtual electron" --- as represented by illuminated pixels on a computer screen --- is still an electron in a different physical form. Yet, those screen pixels have none of the physical properties of an actual electron. Instead, they only have the potential to cause the metaphysical idea of an electron to be generated in the mind of the observer. The graphic symbol is merely an illusion or appearance, due to its conventional association with a real object. I'm sure you know this, but your terminology is misleading.

The physical pixels are not the thing represented, but a coded message (information) that triggers the idea of an electron in a conscious mind. So, the physical representation on the screen (symbol) is converted into an abstract idea (eidos) in a conscious mind. Hence, a virtual electron is not, as you suggested, an electron in an alternative "physical form" in space-time, but merely a pointer to a meta-physical form in consciousness. A simulated electron is not a virtual electron, but an abstract sign directing your mind to recall the idea of an actual object that you are already familiar with. :nerd:


Virtual : not physically existing as such but made by software to appear to do so.
___Google

Symbol : a thing that represents or stands for something else, especially a material object representing something abstract.
___Google

PS___ Your definition of "virtual" above is like saying a statue of an invisible god, is still the god, but in a different form. Early Christians ridiculed pagans for equating the powerless symbol with a powerful deity. Our God, they said, is a spirit and will never be found in a physical form. Ironically, the Christians could see the error in pagan idolatry, but not in their own equation of human Jesus with divine Jehovah : spirit in the flesh. :smile:

Eyes are [a] be(ing) conscious of light. — ovdtogt

Nonsense. You can take frog’s eyes out and place them in solution, and the photo-receptors will still respond to simulation, but ‘responding to stimuli’ doesn’t constitute ‘consciousness’. Consciousness is holistic, it manifests as the interaction of all manner of cells and organs as an orchestrated whole which is what 'being' refers to. There are 'conscious beings' but not 'conscious organs'. That is the mereological fallacy in a nutshell.

None of what you say in this thread conveys any insight into subject, so unless you have anything useful to contribute, we’re done.

Consciousness is holistic, it manifests as the interaction of all manner of cells and organs as an orchestrated whole which is what 'being' refers to. — Wayfarer

A 1 cell organism has also a 'being'. It is called being alive. Being alive mean being conscious.
To assume consciousness is unique to humans is the height of arrogance and

That attitude is a direct historical consequence of the Christianity.
— Wayfarer — ovdtogt

We do not own consciousness as we are not the center of the universe.

Virtual : not physically existing as such but made by software to appear to do so.

What you're doing would be called intellectual dishonesty, if you knew what you’re doing. Do you understand the difference between "not physically existing" and "not physically existing as such"?

Do you understand the information or ‘data & instructions’ that make up “software” at the time of execution is defined or contained by the dynamics and interaction of electrons and electronic components in a computer?

Hence, a virtual electron is not, as you suggested, an electron in an alternative "physical form" in space-time, but merely a pointer to a meta-physical form in consciousness.

Oh dear god smite him with some fiery serpents or something! You’ve used up my patience and I will be ignoring you if you fail to understand it this time.

Pointer points FROM something to something. Do you understand the difference when that pointer of yours points from, say an actual chair in a room, and virtual chair on a computer screen?

Why argue so convoluted. Our sensory organs transmit the signal by means of a biochemical electrical charge and our brains are able to interpret that signal in such a fashion that it provides us with knowledge about our environment. Don't have to make it more complicated than that.

I was just about to say, but you already said it yourself:

An eye that can see is conscious of light.

That is crazy in so many ways, beautiful!

I'm saying the concept is incoherent, and therefore as a counterfactual premise it renders the "hard problem" argument invalid. — 180 Proof

So if a scientist takes up the challenge of addressing the "hard problem", you'd see that as misguided?

So if a scientist takes up the challenge of addressing the "hard problem", you'd see that as misguided? — frank

No. "The hard problem ... ", like e.g. æther, is an empty concept (i.e. pseudo-problem, based on the dissolved 'MBP'); any competent scientist will reformulate such a speculative chimera into an explanatory conjecture that can be modeled computationally and, at least in principle, tested (e.g. IIT) or discard it and move on to a more productive line of inquiry and research.

an eye that can see is conscious of light.

That is crazy in so many ways, beautiful! — Zelebg

But it's only true for eyes that are the organs of conscious beings.

will reformulate such a speculative chimera into explanatory conjecture that can be modeled computationally and, at least in principle, tested (e.g. IIT). — 180 Proof

You might have missed the scientific paper I mentioned above, which mentions the 'hard problem' in particular connection to what is called the 'neural binding problem'. The paper is here, from which I quote:

We will now address the deepest and most interesting variant of the NBP, the phenomenal unity of perception. There are intractable problems in all branches of science; for Neuroscience a major one is the mystery of subjective personal experience. This is one instance of the famous mind–body problem (Chalmers 1996) concerning the relation of our subjective experience (aka qualia) to neural function. Different visual features (color, size, shape, motion, etc.) are computed by largely distinct neural circuits, but we experience an integrated whole. This is closely related to the problem known as the illusion of a stable visual world (Martinez-Conde et al. 2008). ....

Traditionally, the NBP concerns instantaneous perception and does not consider integration over saccades. But in both cases the hard problem is explaining why we experience the world the way we do. As is well known, current science has nothing to say about subjective (phenomenal) experience and this discrepancy between science and experience is also called the “explanatory gap” and “the hard problem” (Chalmers 1996). There is continuing effort to elucidate the neural correlates of conscious experience; these often invoke some version of temporal synchrony as discussed above.

There is a plausible functional story for the stable world illusion. First of all, we do have a (top-down) sense of the space around us that we cannot currently see, based on memory and other sense data—primarily hearing, touch, and smell. Also, since we are heavily visual, it is adaptive to use vision as broadly as possible. Our illusion of a full field, high resolution image depends on peripheral vision—to see this, just block part of your peripheral field with one hand. Immediately, you lose the illusion that you are seeing the blocked sector. When we also consider change blindness, a simple and plausible story emerges. Our visual system (somehow) relies on the fact that the periphery is very sensitive to change. As long as no change is detected it is safe to assume that nothing is significantly altered in the parts of the visual field not currently attended.

But this functional story tells nothing about the neural mechanisms that support this magic. What we do know is that there is no place in the brain where there could be a direct neural encoding of the illusory detailed scene (Kaas and Collins 2003). That is, enough is known about the structure and function of the visual system to rule out any detailed neural representation that embodies the subjective experience. So, this version of the NBP really is a scientific mystery at this time.

Bolds added. So here we have "scientist acknowledges 'scientific mystery'". Maybe you could explain to him that he ought to be doing his job better. :wink:

I want to understand how the way the eye works and how that corresponds to the sound of a breeze through the leaves of a tree.

You might have missed the scientific paper I mentioned above, which mentions the 'hard problem' in particular connection to what is called the 'neural binding problem'. The paper is here, from which I quote: — Wayfarer

The problem with great minds such as yours and others I have come across on this forum is that their cleverness prevents them from seeing the whole picture. You are like great scientists examining every stone and leaf but still haven't figured out that the world is round.

With my simple mind I stick to the basics but have over the years been able to figure out the large picture even though the details remain obscure to me. With child-like awe I observe the world.

Scientists, like most of us on these forums, traffic from time to time in pseudo-philosophical speculation. Peer-review, etc usually sorts them out. I don't read "papers" proffered by those, like you, Wayf, whose responses demonstrate they haven't read - or have no intention of reading - the links I've proffered (e.g. IIT) previously. We all make claims and occasionally provide links and I'm content to leave it to discerning 3rd parties to judge alternative arguments, or positions, for their soundness and/or plausibility.

Instead of ad homs against the scientist, see if you can come to grips with the actual argument. But I'm not holding my breath.

I want to understand how the way the eye works and how that corresponds to the sound of a breeze through the leaves of a tree. — ovdtogt

No time like the present for being able to study such things. Why not start with Facing up to the Hard Problem of Consciousness.

No ad hominem was directed at any scientist by me to support an argument I didn't even bother to make. Another non sequitur. Goo goo g'joob, Wayf.

No ad hominem was directed at any scientist by me — 180 Proof

Scientists, like most of us on these forums, traffic from time to time in pseudo-philosophical speculation. — 180 Proof

Observation, not an ad hominem, qualifying a subsequent opinion on the merits of reading the "paper" you linked; no argument was made, or more to the point, premised by my observation, so no ad hominem. And one more thing: it happens to be a manifestly true statement. Evidence? The preponderance of thread topic titles posted in the last 8 hours ... for a start. :yawn:

Evidence? — 180 Proof

Here is Jerome S. Feldman's homepage. If you could pick a scientist to refer to regarding the subject of this thread, then he would be a leading contender.

You said:

any competent scientist will reformulate such a speculative chimera into explanatory conjecture — 180 Proof

BUT, here we have, not only a competent, but exemplary scientist, who specialises in the very kind of science that addresses 'the hard problem of consciousness', from a scientific perspective. And this very scientist says that, and again I quote,

There are intractable problems in all branches of science; for Neuroscience a major one is the mystery of subjective personal experience. This is one instance of the famous mind–body problem (Chalmers 1996) concerning the relation of our subjective experience (aka qualia) to neural function.

and also that

What we do know is that there is no place in the brain where there could be a direct neural encoding of the illusory detailed scene

whilst commenting on 'the subjective unity of experience'.

Which is dismissed by you as follows:

Scientists, like most of us on these forums, traffic from time to time in pseudo-philosophical speculation. — 180 Proof

There genuinely, really is 'a hard problem of consciousness', but it's almost beyond doubt that you don't actually comprehend what it is.

And this very scientist says that, and again I quote [ ... ] There genuinely, really is 'a hard problem of consciousness', ... — Wayfarer

Argumentum ab auctoritate ... :roll:

... but it's almost beyond doubt that you don't actually comprehend what it is. — Wayfarer

Well, I have no doubt whatsoever, Wayf, that you don't comprehend the demarcation problem at all (re: your penchant for 'so much wooooo, so little defeasible corroboration'). Or elementary informal logic for that matter (since you can't help making fallacious utterances). Anyway. You get the last word - link & quote away with your badd self ...

↪Wayfarer I want to understand how the way the eye works and how that corresponds to the sound of a breeze through the leaves of a tree.

You might have missed the scientific paper I mentioned above, which mentions the 'hard problem' in particular connection to what is called the 'neural binding problem'. The paper is here, from which I quote:
— Wayfarer

The problem with great minds such as yours and others I have come across on this forum is that their cleverness prevents them from seeing the whole picture. You are like great scientists examining every stone and leaf but still haven't figured out that the world is round.

With my simple mind I stick to the basics but have over the years been able to figure out the large picture even though the details remain obscure to me. With child-like awe I observe the world.

Pointer points FROM something to something. Do you understand the difference when that pointer of yours points from, say an actual chair in a room, and virtual chair on a computer screen? — Zelebg

Yes. A symbol points to something else. But it is not the actual something else. And the something else is not necessarily concrete or real. It may be an idea or concept. In that latter case, the physical symbol points to a meta-physical concept. The pointer points FROM something symbolic or virtual, TO something semantic, which is an abstraction pointing BACK TO something real or physical. The "difference" is between Mind & Matter, Substance & Attribute, Potentiality & Actuality. "Vive la difference!"

If you point a camera at an actual physical chair in a room, and display the collected optical information on a TV screen, the image on the screen may be defined as a "virtual" chair, but you can't sit on it. The image is a simulation, or a symbol, or an illusion of a chair. The symbol has a physical reality, but not that of a chair. The symbol only serves to remind you of the idea of a chair. The meaning of "chair" is already in your memory as a pattern of abstract information, but not as a little chair inside the head.

In computer theory, a symbolic reference is sometimes called a "semantic pointer". It redirects to the metaphysical meaning of a thing, but not to the thing itself. Meaning is in the mind, not the brain. A symbol is not the thing symbolized. A virtual thing is not the thing symbolized. A virtual electron is not an actual electron; it's the idea of an electron. You might say it's the Platonic form of an electron. :nerd:

Note : a Virtual Electron is a potential particle, not an actual particle.

Semantic pointers : neural representations that carry partial semantic content and are composable into the representational structures necessary to support complex cognition.
http://compneuro.uwaterloo.ca/research/spa/semantic-pointer-architecture.html

Metaphysics : the branch of philosophy that examines the fundamental nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between potentiality and actuality. ___Wikipedia

But it's only true for eyes that are the organs of conscious beings.

Of course. And a symbol points to something else, but it is not the actual something else. What symbol now, you may ask. Who cares! I'm just talking gibberish.

No. "The hard problem ... ", like e.g. æther, is an empty concept — 180 Proof

It's the problem of explaining subjectivity.

Note : a Virtual Electron is a potential particle, not an actual particle.

"Virtual electron" (as a potential particle) is a phrase in quantum field theory. We were talking about a single word, and you even gave correct definition:

Virtual : not physically existing as such but made by software to appear to do so.

To suddenly confuse the two like that is not simply senseless, it requires total cognitive blindness. You are a robot, pulling word salad strings from the internet, but you are failing to make any sense as you are unable to google properly because you do not understand words.

but you are failing to make any sense as you are unable to google properly because you do not understand words. — Zelebg

If you don't like the Google definition of "Virtual", which alternative definition would better suit your personal preference, and preconceptions?

you even gave correct definition: — Zelebg

That was my own personal definition.

To suddenly confuse the two like that is not simply senseless, it requires total cognitive blindness. — Zelebg

So, you believe that "virtual" and "potential" existence are equivalent to "real" and "actual or physical" existence? Hence, nothing in the world is "unreal" or "ideal" or "metaphysical", yes?

Is it true that Platonic Idealism and Aristotelian Metaphysics are literally non-sensical, hence meaningless? If so, then anything you can't detect with your senses does not exist, and does not matter; correct?

PS__I'm enjoying our philosophical ping-pong, because it challenges me to refine my own ideas and beliefs about reality and consciousness. :nerd: