Consciousness is not an illusion. It is a model - a representation.
This means what we see is a model of what is there.
This means that the brains we see are models of the mental processes "out there" - outside of the model. The model is the brain we see, not the real thing that the model represents. What a brain represents is mental processes. Everything is a process, not a thing, like a brain. Things are the models we experience. — Harry Hindu
How does this Process produce the experience of Red that we all know?No. The model is the brain. What you experience is a process - mental activity. When you look at others' mental activity, you experience a model of it, which is a brain. The brain does not create models. The brain itself is a model of mental activity. Mental activity creates the model of the brain and all of it's interconnecting neurons. — Harry Hindu
We know the Mind does these things but the question is How does it do it? — SteveKlinko
You can't equate understanding Decision with understanding the experience of Red. I think these are Apples and Oranges. I'm interested in Sensory perceptions. Specifically, I want to know how does Neural Activity produce the Conscious Red experience?bahman
We know the Mind does these things but the question is How does it do it? — SteveKlinko
Experience, decision and act are simply the properties of mind. We cannot understand how they work. Take the obvious example, how does decision work? — bahman
I think that argument depends heavily or the definition of "see". If the definition of "seeing" includes the eyeballs receiving the physical light, then we do see light.We have never seen the PL only the CL that is correlated to the NL — SteveKlinko
How do you come to the conclusion that this is a certainty?In talking about CSp it is assumed that it is not a space like our physical three dimensional world but it is certainly a different realm or reality. — SteveKlinko
I think you're nearly correct that dreams are made of CL, although it depends on your definition of "conscious" within the term "CL". I think it may be more accurately NL, since there is no conscious comprehension (if that is included in the definition of the C within CL) required of the light, for the NL to be saved as a memory, then stimulated later during sleep.You could say that Dreams are made out of CL. If it's not CL then what is it? — SteveKlinko
Now that I think about it, a lot of this may depend on your definition of the (C)onscious part of these terms. Do you mean conscious as in; mentally aware of (which we assume mostly only humans accomplish)? or as in; awake (which any animal accomplishes)?But how does the NL in the PM get converted to CL that the CM can use? — SteveKlinko
By memory. As the PL hits the eye and the information is coded into NL, the PM stores that coded information. Then later, the conscious red experience is produced by accessing that coded information again. Since, as you mentioned, the light is never physically in the mind, the initial experience of light is received only as the coded information. So accessing that same information (which is stored in the PM) later as a memory, should be nearly the same as experiencing it in the first place. Both occurrences are just coded information in the brain.how does Neural Activity produce the Conscious Red experience? — SteveKlinko
Seeing CL does not require the eyes to be involved. The CL we See while dreaming certainly has nothing to do with Physical Light or eye function. The CL we See while dreaming is not correlated with external World scenes. The CL we See while Awake however is correlated with External World scenes. But in both cases we are only Seeing CL. We never See Physical Light even while Awake.We have never seen the PL only the CL that is correlated to the NL — SteveKlinkoI think that argument depends heavily or the definition of "see". If the definition of "seeing" includes the eyeballs receiving the physical light, then we do see light. — Tyler
I never say it is a certainty. I only propose that there could be a separate CSp that the CM exists in.In talking about CSp it is assumed that it is not a space like our physical three dimensional world but it is certainly a different realm or reality. — SteveKlinkoHow do you come to the conclusion that this is a certainty? — Tyler
I do say that the Inter Mind could very well be a part of the Brain and Neural Activity, but the functionality of the Inter Mind must then be discovered to exist in Neural Activity and it must be explained as to how this happens.I think it is more simple than the model you have shown. I think the PM and CM are the same, and the physical occurrence in the brain of neurons firing is the CM.
I think there is no need for the IM. In order for the NL to cause CL, the CM just needs to send neurons to alternate memories which are relative to the NL. The CL is created using the NL in combination with related memories of light. The correct combination of neurons firing to memories, is what creates a conscious experience of anything. — Tyler
But you are still experiencing CL aren't you? You don't experience NL But NL seems to produce the CL that you experience while dreaming.You could say that Dreams are made out of CL. If it's not CL then what is it? — SteveKlinkoI think you're nearly correct that dreams are made of CL, although it depends on your definition of "conscious" within the term "CL". I think it may be more accurately NL, since there is no conscious comprehension (if that is included in the definition of the C within CL) required of the light, for the NL to be saved as a memory, then stimulated later during sleep. — Tyler
I'm talking about the Aware Conscious experience. Don't you think an Animal that has color vision can experience the Color Red just like we do? I think that they do. I think they have Conscious Minds just like we do. They're just not as smart. I'll do a diversion here to talk about Pain. Animals seem to feel the full and total Agony of the Pain just like we do. Pain is a Conscious experience. If an Animal feels Pain then why not the experience of Red?But how does the NL in the PM get converted to CL that the CM can use? — SteveKlinkoNow that I think about it, a lot of this may depend on your definition of the (C)onscious part of these terms. Do you mean conscious as in; mentally aware of (which we assume mostly only humans accomplish)? or as in; awake (which any animal accomplishes)?
If you mean simply awake, then I would think the NL just needs to be saved as a memory. Then the mind can access that memory later. — Tyler
This is all true but the question remains: How does that Memory (It's just Neural Activity) produce the experience of the Red? How does coded information in the Brain lead to an experience of Red? That is the Explanatory Gap of Consciousness.how does Neural Activity produce the Conscious Red experience? — SteveKlinkoBy memory. As the PL hits the eye and the information is coded into NL, the PM stores that coded information. Then later, the conscious red experience is produced by accessing that coded information again. Since, as you mentioned, the light is never physically in the mind, the initial experience of light is received only as the coded information. So accessing that same information (which is stored in the PM) later as a memory, should be nearly the same as experiencing it in the first place. Both occurrences are just coded information in the brain. — Tyler
That is likely true, if your definition of "seeing" the light includes that which occurs while dreaming. I'd consider dreaming to be a process of memory (just like remembering seeing light, while awake), so I think its debatable whether or not to consider the process of remembering light, as "seeing" light. I think my point remains, if someone defines "seeing" PL, as light hitting the eyeball, then by definition, we do see light. That's seeing light, in general, but I would agree, if you specify "Conscious light", then it is not the PL hitting the eye, it is a process in the mindSeeing CL does not require the eyes to be involved. The CL we See while dreaming certainly has nothing to do with Physical Light or eye function. — SteveKlinko
I "see" (ha ha). That's fair, as a possibility. Just a technical misunderstanding, as you stated "but it is certainly a different realm or reality".I never say it is a certainty. I only propose that there could be a separate CSp that the CM exists in. — SteveKlinko
True. And, I believe I have an explanation, as I had posted separately, called "Consciousness as Memory Access". Summed up, basically conscious experience is created by; neurons accessing memories of any given thing, at the same time as neurons accessing memories of concepts of the interaction (cause and effect) of that same thing. I just dont really know what more to do with my theory, ha ha.but the functionality of the Inter Mind must then be discovered to exist in Neural Activity and it must be explained as to how this happens. — SteveKlinko
I would think no, while dreaming, but yes, while awake and remembering it. Because you mentioned that your definition of the "conscious" part of CL, is being aware. I would say someone is not consciously aware of anything while dreaming (except to some degree perhaps, in the rare case of lucid dreams), so therefore not experiencing conscious light.But you are still experiencing CL aren't you? — SteveKlinko
I think an animal does experience red just as a human, if the human is not consciously thinking about the red. Based on my theory, if a human accesses memories of the interaction of red, then they are being conscious of the red. I believe animals (mostly) do not execute this function of accessing memories of the interaction of red, and therefore do not experience red to the same degree, as humans.Don't you think an Animal that has color vision can experience the Color Red just like we do? I think that they do. I think they have Conscious Minds just like we do. They're just not as smart. I'll do a diversion here to talk about Pain. Animals seem to feel the full and total Agony of the Pain just like we do. Pain is a Conscious experience. If an Animal feels Pain then why not the experience of Red? — SteveKlinko
The conscious experience of red (or anything) is by means of a combination of simultaneous memories being accessed. The specialty of humans, is being able to dissect memories, and access all the individual components of memories, required to understand the interaction or cause and effect of something. If a person accesses the different components (saved as memory code) which are relative to "red" or "pain" or perhaps "self-existence", then they obtain a conscious experience of that thing or concept.How does that Memory (It's just Neural Activity) produce the experience of the Red? How does coded information in the Brain lead to an experience of Red? That is the Explanatory Gap of Consciousness. — SteveKlinko
If someone defines it that way then ok. But we really only Detect Physical Light we never really See it. We always only See our internal CL.Seeing CL does not require the eyes to be involved. The CL we See while dreaming certainly has nothing to do with Physical Light or eye function. — SteveKlinkoThat is likely true, if your definition of "seeing" the light includes that which occurs while dreaming. I'd consider dreaming to be a process of memory (just like remembering seeing light, while awake), so I think its debatable whether or not to consider the process of remembering light, as "seeing" light. I think my point remains, if someone defines "seeing" PL, as light hitting the eyeball, then by definition, we do see light. That's seeing light, in general, but I would agree, if you specify "Conscious light", then it is not the PL hitting the eye, it is a process in the mind — Tyler
Yes that happens but how does all the Neural Activity produce the end product of a Conscious experience?I never say it is a certainty. I only propose that there could be a separate CSp that the CM exists in. — SteveKlinkoI "see" (ha ha). That's fair, as a possibility. Just a technical misunderstanding, as you stated "but it is certainly a different realm or reality".
but the functionality of the Inter Mind must then be discovered to exist in Neural Activity and it must be explained as to how this happens. — SteveKlinkoTrue. And, I believe I have an explanation, as I had posted separately, called "Consciousness as Memory Access". Summed up, basically conscious experience is created by; neurons accessing memories of any given thing, at the same time as neurons accessing memories of concepts of the interaction (cause and effect) of that same thing. I just dont really know what more to do with my theory, ha ha — Tyler
I disagree. I think I am fully experiencing the Conscious Light that makes up the scene I am looking at. This is true if I am Awake or Dreaming.But you are still experiencing CL aren't you? — SteveKlinkoI would think no, while dreaming, but yes, while awake and remembering it. Because you mentioned that your definition of the "conscious" part of CL, is being aware. I would say someone is not consciously aware of anything while dreaming (except to some degree perhaps, in the rare case of lucid dreams), so therefore not experiencing conscious light. — Tyler
I agree.Don't you think an Animal that has color vision can experience the Color Red just like we do? I think that they do. I think they have Conscious Minds just like we do. They're just not as smart. I'll do a diversion here to talk about Pain. Animals seem to feel the full and total Agony of the Pain just like we do. Pain is a Conscious experience. If an Animal feels Pain then why not the experience of Red? — SteveKlinkoI think an animal does experience red just as a human, if the human is not consciously thinking about the red. Based on my theory, if a human accesses memories of the interaction of red, then they are being conscious of the red. I believe animals (mostly) do not execute this function of accessing memories of the interaction of red, and therefore do not experience red to the same degree, as humans.
I think animals have a minimally conscious (sub-conscious) mind, compared to humans. I think this is why they are not nearly as smart as humans. I think conscious memory access of cause and effect of any given thing, is what causes humans to be so much smarter. I think there is a direct correlation between degree of intelligence and consciousness.
Pain is virtually the same concept as red. I would not consider an animal to be consciously aware of pain while they experience it. Humans can consciously experience pain, if they consciously think about the occurrence of the pain. Consider this, if you ignore, or become distracted from pain, it is not nearly as bad as if you pay attention to it. Because you are not being conscious of it, by not firing neurons to parts of the brain relative to pain. — Tyler
I still don't understand how any kind Neural Activity can create the Experience of Red. You are saying: Neural Activity happens and obviously a Conscious experience happens. It isn't obvious to me how the Conscious experience happens.How does that Memory (It's just Neural Activity) produce the experience of the Red? How does coded information in the Brain lead to an experience of Red? That is the Explanatory Gap of Consciousness. — SteveKlinkoThe conscious experience of red (or anything) is by means of a combination of simultaneous memories being accessed. The specialty of humans, is being able to dissect memories, and access all the individual components of memories, required to understand the interaction or cause and effect of something. If a person accesses the different components (saved as memory code) which are relative to "red" or "pain" or perhaps "self-existence", then they obtain a conscious experience of that thing or concept. — Tyler
Fair enough.If someone defines it that way then ok. But we really only Detect Physical >Light we never really See it. We always only See our internal CL. — SteveKlinko
>I think I get what you mean, that the light in your mind seems the same. But I think the difference between dreaming and awake remembering, is not in how the CL (though, I would call it NL) appears, but the additional processes in mind which are occurring. Just that you are more aware of the whole concept (of seeing CL) which is occurring, while awake, than while dreaming (I think this lack of additional mind process, is why people mostly cannot remember dreams).I disagree. I think I am fully experiencing the Conscious Light that makes up the scene I am looking at. This is true if I am Awake or Dreaming. — SteveKlinko
>The neural activity produces conscious experience because the neural activity causes memories to simultaneously come to the mind of the person.Yes that happens but how does all the Neural Activity produce the end product of a Conscious experience?"
-"I still don't understand how any kind Neural Activity can create the Experience of Red. You are saying: Neural Activity happens and obviously a Conscious experience happens. It isn't obvious to me how the Conscious experience happens. — SteveKlinko
Even though all the things you listed are happening in the Brain when you look at a Squirrel, I don't see that there is an explanation for the Vivid Image that you Experience for the Squirrel. If you lost all your memories about Squirrels you would still see the Squirrel just as Vividly.>The neural activity produces conscious experience because the neural activity causes memories to simultaneously come to the mind of the person.
So, that which is being remembered all at once, by the person, is; [the object or concept, that the person is being conscious of] + [aspects of how that object or concept interact with its environment (or in this world)].
I'll try making into an equation:
CE = MA (FA + IF)
CE = Conscious Experience
MA = Memory Access
FA = Factor
IF = Interactions of Factor
For eg. Bob is conscious of a squirrel on his lawn.
FA = squirrel,
IF = concepts saved in memory of how that squirrel relates to this world.
CE (in Bobs mind) = MA (FA [the squirrel itself] + IF [Many concepts which are relative to the squirrel, including: being an animal, living on Earth, being alive, having a mind, the lawn which it is on, its behavior, its motivations, its senses, the weather elements affecting it, etc.]
This actually just made it more graspable for myself...
When Bob has memories of all those relative concepts, in his mind, at the same time, this combination of memories creates the Conscious Experience.
Does that sound like it makes sense? — Tyler
The PL is Electro-Magnetic Energy, the NL is Neural Activity in the Visual areas, and the CL is the thing that we actually perceive. — SteveKlinko
>By "Vivid Image", do you mean just the photographic picture of the squirrel, or comprehended overall image of the conceptual idea of the existence of the squirrel?I don't see that there is an explanation for the Vivid Image that you Experience for the Squirrel. If you lost all your memories about Squirrels you would still see the Squirrel just as Vividly. — SteveKlinko
I never said the three stage approach explained Consciousness. All I ever say is that if we are going to explain Consciousness we have to acknowledge the two things that we do know:The PL is Electro-Magnetic Energy, the NL is Neural Activity in the Visual areas, and the CL is the thing that we actually perceive. — SteveKlinko
This sums up a representational position on consciousness. There is a world, there is the data processing, and then third, mysteriously, there is a self that witnesses the resulting neural output.
So it is setting the problem up as an issue of translation - a transformation of inputs into outputs. First there is the physical output, then the neural output and then the conscious output ... which is somehow an experiential output. It has this new and substantial property of "being aware".
Nothing is being explained by this line of thought. We know that neural processing must have something critical to do with qualitative experience. But we don't answer any important question by positing it as an "inter" stage as that just shovels the essential mystery down the line to a new blackbox that somehow contains a self that does the witnessing of the neural output.
The better approach is to understand the neural processing in terms of a model of reality - a model of reality that dynamically incorporates a "selfish" point of view of the world.
So it is no surprise that a model of reality - one that is starting from a "selfish" point of view - should feel like something. If there is all this information being constructed into a living relation between a "self" and a "world", then why wouldn't it feel like something?
I would stick to understanding how brains model their worlds. And then turning the table on Hard Problem questions by asking is it really conceivable that a model with its own personalised point of view wouldn't feel like it was just such a personalised view?
If the neuroscience is viewed in the right light - as embodied reality modelling, with a "self" as an essential part of that construction of a reality - then the zombie argument loses its metaphysical force.
We can see why any amount of "information processing" wouldn't "light up" with the further substantial property of "consciousness". If the problem is framed as one based on representationalism, then the witnesser of the representation is forever left out of the conversation and zombies are made conceivable.
But if we understand how the brain is representing the observer as much as the observables, then the question becomes how could a sense of being conscious get left out of such a dynamic and highly personalised process of reality modelling? How could it be lacking when it would be the starting point of the "representing"? — apokrisis
If it is still a Vivid Image then I think you are Conscious of it. I think we can have Vivid Images of all kinds of things that we have never seen before. We would never be able to be Conscious of new things with that theory. I think the Conscious experience and the Comprehension are two different and separate things.I don't see that there is an explanation for the Vivid Image that you Experience for the Squirrel. If you lost all your memories about Squirrels you would still see the Squirrel just as Vividly. — SteveKlinko>By "Vivid Image", do you mean just the photographic picture of the squirrel, or comprehended overall image of the conceptual idea of the existence of the squirrel?
If all memories of squirrels and concepts relative to to squirrels were lost, I think you would still see the physical picture of the squirrel (vividity of this just, depends on eyesight and resolution), but it would mean nothing to you conceptually. I think it would be like a current day computer receiving a video of the squirrel. It could save the images in memory, but there would be no consciousness of the squirrel, with a lack of comprehension. — Tyler
If it is still a Vivid Image then I think you are Conscious of it. I think we can have Vivid Images of all kinds of things that we have never seen before. We would never be able to be Conscious of new things with that theory. I think the Conscious experience and the Comprehension are two different and separate things. — SteveKlinko
If it is still a Vivid Image then I think you are Conscious of it. I think we can have Vivid Images of all kinds of things that we have never seen before. We would never be able to be Conscious of new things with that theory. I think the Conscious experience and the Comprehension are two different and separate things. — SteveKlinko
> If an image is photographically vivid, you think that means whatever is perceiving that image, is conscious of it?
Or if it's mentally vivid, then yeah, I'd agree that the individual is conscious of it, by definition...
But in order for an image to be mentally vivid, the individual should need comprehension of the scenario involved with the image. If no comprehension of scenario, than I would think it would not be mentally vivid. As humans, we can see images throughout the day, but if you're not paying attention, then you're not comprehending the scenario, and the image is not mentally vivid. You dont even notice what you saw...
The only way we would never be conscious of new things, is if we had no comprehension of the new image. — Tyler
Just by saying that Something is perceiving the Image, to me, means that the Something is Conscious of the Image. — SteveKlinko
But directing Attention to a Conscious Object in your Visual Image is different than Knowledge and Memories about that Object. — SteveKlinko
I think you can have Vivid Images without any Knowledge or Memories of an Object. — SteveKlinko
Just by saying that Something is perceiving the Image, to me, means that the Something is Conscious of the Image. — SteveKlinko
>But what do you mean by perceiving? I think this is coming back to my same question of what you mean by a vivid image. These both relate to the basic question; what is the required function to be conscious of something?
If by "perceive" and "vivid image", you mean mentally comprehend the scenario involved, then the required function would be that mental comprehension. This is basically my theory, that mental comprehension (and therein memories of concepts) is required for consciousness. This is the mechanical function.
Or, if by "perceive" and "vivid image", you mean simply storing the image as a memory, then that seems like an overly simple method for consciousness, as even computers perform this function. — Tyler
We can certainly see new Objects we have never seen before in our Physical Reality so there is no reason to think that we would not be able to see the Objects injected by a Virtual Reality no matter how strange they might be.But directing Attention to a Conscious Object in your Visual Image is different than Knowledge and Memories about that Object. — SteveKlinko
>I think I would argue just the contrary, that they are not different, but the same, and that knowledge and memories of an object, are the mechanical function of directing conscious attention.
I think you can have Vivid Images without any Knowledge or Memories of an Object. — SteveKlinko
>But if you had no knowledge of the object or its setting or environment (so you had no comprehension of any aspect of an image you were seeing (for eg. woke up in a virtual reality world, where nothing that you sense is familiar)), then would you have a consciously vivid image or perception of any object within the environment?
Also, would the image be visually vivid before your brain stores the new sensory input as memories, then begins to theoretically, actively access those memories, at the same time that you continue to view the image? — Tyler
By Vivid Image I'm talking about the immediate present moment when you are looking at something.. I'm not talking about trying to remember the Image of something after the fact. — SteveKlinko
We can certainly see new Objects we have never seen before in our Physical Reality so there is no reason to think that we would not be able to see the Objects injected by a Virtual Reality no matter how strange they might be. — SteveKlinko
Yes there are many things going on when we look at an Object. But my study is purely about the Image that we See. I think it's better to concentrate on specific Conscious operations, at this point, rather than trying to study everything all at the same time. I would simplify the Vivid Image example even further and concentrate on one color. I choose to study how the Conscious experience of Red happens in our Minds. Here is the basic question ... Given:I don't doubt we could see new things, I doubt the mental vividness of new things if we have 0 comprehension of what we are seeing. If you mean visually vivid, then perhaps it would still be vivid with no comprehension, as long as you have clear vision. But it seems quite likely that conscious vividness of viewing, involves more than just visual sensory input and data storage (as memory) of an image. — Tyler
> I think my explanation would still be basically the same, The neural activity for Red, causes a conscious experience, because of the combination of neural activity, which accesses memories relative to Red. This fills the Explanatory Gap, and would be the function causing the illusion of consciousness.1) Neural Activity for Red happens.
2) A Conscious Experience of Red happens.
How does 1 happening result in 2 happening? — 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.