The Inter Mind Model of Consciousness

SteveKlinko

Consciousness has many aspects that could be used as discussion tools, but for this paper the Conscious perception of Light and Sound will be emphasized. Light and Sound perception seem to be things that could be understood using basic scientific and engineering reasoning.

The prevailing Philosophical and Scientific view that Consciousness is just an illusion seems to me to be totally unscientific. When they say that Consciousness is just an Illusion they are saying that Consciousness does not really exist. Have they ever actually seen Light or heard Sound? Many Philosophers at least admit that they do not know. They have produced such concepts as the Explanatory Gap by Joseph Levine in Materialism and Qualia, the Hard Problem and the Easy Problem by David Chalmers in The Conscious Mind, and the concept of sensory Qualia by Clarence Irving Lewis in Mind and the World Order.

The state of the art in Brain Physiology these days can describe how electromagnetic waves (Physical Light) hitting the Retina cause signals to be generated in Nerve paths that travel from the Eye through the Brain and to the Visual Cortex in back of the head. A vast amount of parallel processing occurs and specific areas of the Visual Cortex will fire for various different aspects of the Light scene that is being viewed. Some Neurons will fire for straight lines, some Neurons will fire for various specific Colors, some Neurons will fire for image motion, and other Neurons will fire for any number of other specific aspects of the Light scene. These are the Neural Correlates of Consciousness for Light perception as described by Christof Koch in The Quest for Consciousness.

The problem is that the Brain is an electro-chemical machine and nowhere during all the processing that goes on can you find the actual Conscious perception of Light. I like to say that when you have a Conscious perception of Light that you are seeing Conscious Light. I also want to emphasize the distinction between Physical Light (PL) and Conscious Light (CL). The PL is electromagnetic waves which are always black and colorless, but it is the CL that we actually perceive and see. This distinction between PL and CL must be understood completely and fully. This distinction should seem obvious to people but I have found that most people just don’t get it. We can say that before Consciousness there was no Light on the Planet, just electromagnetic waves. This paper will attempt to make this distinction more plausible and understandable.

Philosophers like to call CL the Light Qualia. My spell checker does not even know the word Qualia. I like the symmetry and intuitiveness of saying PL and CL. I also like to say that PL exists in Physical Space (PSp) and CL exists in Conscious Space (CSp). We can also talk about Physical Sound (PS) which consists of pressure waves in the air and Conscious Sound (CS) which is the Sound that we experience in CSp.

The Light or Sound that we have always experienced is CL or CS not PL or PS. PL or PS exists in PSp and CL or CS exists in CSp. 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. I decided that saying Conscious Realm was too spooky and maybe misleading so I’m going to stick with CSp. CSp may ultimately be recognized to be an aspect of PSp but at this point it is better to keep it distinct. I think that eventually, CSp will be recognized as a completely different thing than we can imagine today. I would also like to refer to the Brain as the Physical Mind (PM) and the “thing” that experiences the CL or CS as the Conscious Mind (CM). The CM is your personal Conscious “I”. With these definitions and abbreviations in hand I would like to present the following diagram to show what we know so far about the Conscious perception of Light.

The PM is defined to consist of the Brain and all connected sensory devices, like Eyes and Ears. The Retina of the Eye is acknowledged to be made up of specialized Neurons, so it is an actual component of the PM. It’s easy to see why the PL arrow is connected directly to the PM.

The instant PL hits the PM it is not PL anymore, but rather it is converted into Neural Activity that is transmitted to the various Visual areas inside the PM. Since the Neural Activity occurs in the Visual areas of the PM and the Neural Activity is correlated with the PL, I like to call this particular Neural Activity, Neural Light (NL). The diagram shows that even though the NL is correlated with the PL it is not CL yet. The CL that we actually perceive is also correlated to the PL and therefore to the NL. The heart of the problem is that CL cannot be found in the PM by studying the NL. We are sure we know two things: 1) when NL occurs in the PM 2) there is correlated CL occurring in the CM. Both of these are also correlated with the original PL. There is an analogous argument for PS, Neural Sound (NS), and CS.

I would like to make a quick comment about my definition of Neural Light. The complaint that people have had was that Neural Activity is not Light. Of course it's not PL, but the NL that I talk about is actually more related to the CL that we experience. What we experience is a further processing stage that uses the NL to produce the CL. We have never seen the PL only the CL that is correlated to the NL. PL is just some electro-magnetic phenomenon that can stimulate NL. If you rub your eye the right way you will see lights. Rubbing your eye can stimulate NL which results in a CL experience.

Now think about the CL experience you have while dreaming at night in your bedroom where there is almost no PL. You could say that Dreams are made out of CL. If it's not CL then what is it? The one thing we can say for sure is that this Dream Light is certainly inside of us.

Also think about the CL experience of After Images, where you continue to see a remnant of the scene you were looking at even after you close your eyes. Obviously we can and do experience CL without PL. We have always seen our own CL but we did not know it was ours. This should become more understandable after reading the two Arguments sections.

I take the position that the PM is an electro-chemical machine that exists in PSp. The PM has no consciousness in and of itself. I take the position that the CM exists in a separate reality and I say that the CM exists in CSp. But how does the NL in the PM get converted to CL that the CM can use? Somehow the CM must monitor the NL in the PM and then generate the CL for the CM. I think that there must be some other Mind component that monitors the NL in the PM and converts this into the CL that the CM experiences. I call this other Mind the Inter Mind (IM), because it is an interface between the PM and the CM. From these definitions we can now draw the following diagram for the Conscious perception of light.

This diagram is for the Light path and it compresses many complicated things into a simple Triplistic or Triple Mind model that is easily remembered and conceptualized. I like to call it the Inter Mind Model (IMM) to emphasize the central role that the IM plays. Forget about Dualism this is Triplism. Note that I am not saying the diagram explains anything we did not already know. In fact, I think the IM is but yet another thing that we do not know. It is probably counterintuitive but I think the introduction of this new unknown might actually help us understand the other unknowns in the whole Mind problem.

The IM could be a part of the PM or the CM or it could stand alone as a separate Mind. Whatever the case may be there must be something somewhere that has the functionality of the IM. NL does not turn into CL all by itself. Even if everything is eventually found to be located in the PM, the functional stages of the diagram must still be true. Maybe Dark Matter or Dark Energy will eventually be shown to have something to do with Consciousness and the Inter Mind. We just don't know yet so all options must be left on the table.

Philosophers will say the IM is just the Explanatory Gap. I believe that the IM is more specifically a Processing Gap rather than a more general Explanatory Gap. But of course Processing would still be an Explanation. Evidence for this Processing Gap idea will be presented later.

According to the IMM: PL is converted into NL by the PM in PSp, and then NL is converted into CL by the IM, and then CL is what is actually perceived by the CM in CSp. But the PL, NL, and CL are three very different kinds of phenomena related to the experience of Light. 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.

This means that we all have our own Personal CL that we use to guide us while moving around in the world. I have my own CL and every other person on the planet has their own CL. No one sees PL but only their own Personal CL. I have my Light, you have your Light, we all have our own Light. We don't really See in the way we think we do, rather we examine our CL to determine what we are looking at. So instead of asking the question: "What do you see?", we should ask: "What does your CL show you?".

Note that the IMM shows that the IM presents the CL to the CM but the process of how this happens is not known. The CL is not PL so we should not expect that the CM will need some CSp Retina to perceive it leading to an infinite regression of other forms of Light and other forms of Retinas. The CM is the end point of the perception chain even if we do not understand how the CL is experienced by the CM.

I take the position that we have never seen any actual object that exists in PSp. We do not "See" but rather we "Detect" objects. We might think we see the PL reflected from objects but do not see the objects themselves. But it's even worse than that because we don't really see the PL either. The Light that we have always seen is CL not PL. We have never seen PL only the CL that is correlated with the PL. The PL originates in PSp causing correlated NL in the PM which is also in PSp, but the CL is perceived by the CM in CSp. We can say that the PM exists and lives in PSp and the CM exists and lives in CSp.

SteveKlinko

People have complained about the quantity of Acronyms. Just want to mention that there is now an easier to read version of this paper on a website that I can't mention without getting this post deleted. Might try Googling something. The website is easier to read because the Acronyms have Mouse hover over popup text boxes that show the full text of any Acronym as you read the paper.

ernestm

lol, I likewise have something very long along those lines that I also can't share here )

SteveKlinko

↪ernestm

It is kind of restrictive. The post is still here so I think I'll take the next step and say to everyone: Try Googling something that rhymes with "The Winter Mind".

SteveKlinko

The basic question that the Inter Mind Model and this thread addresses is ... Given:

1) Neural Activity for Red happens.
2) A Conscious experience of Red happens.

How does 1 produce 2? The old Dodge that an Illusion happens does not work anymore. Science demands a better and way less ambiguous answer than that. We can not ignore the Conscious experience anymore. Think about the Redness of the Red. How can that possibly come from Neural Activity? This must be explained.

bahman

It is the mind which experience the Qualia, electromagnetic wave in a brain. It is mind that decides and act on matter too.

Harry Hindu

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.

SteveKlinko

↪bahman

It is the mind which experience the Qualia, electromagnetic wave in a brain. It is mind that decides and act on matter too.

We know the Mind does these things but the question is How does it do it?

SteveKlinko

↪Harry Hindu

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

It's fine to say the Brain creates a Model, but the question remains as to how we experience the Model as a Conscious thing?

Harry Hindu

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.

SteveKlinko

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

How does this Process produce the experience of Red that we all know?

Harry Hindu

↪SteveKlinko

A particular wavelength of light enters the eye and is modeled by our mental activity (brain) as the color red.

We should also consider that the brain is not just a model, but a process itself.

Whenever we look deeper at things, we find that they are composed of the interaction of smaller things, like atoms are composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons. The brain is an interaction of neurons. Neurons are the interactions of molecules, and molecules the interaction of atoms, etc. It's all process.

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?

SteveKlinko

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

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?

Tyler

We have never seen the PL only the CL that is correlated to the NL — SteveKlinko

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.

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

How do you come to the conclusion that this is a certainty?
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.

You could say that Dreams are made out of CL. If it's not CL then what is it? — 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.

But how does the NL in the PM get converted to CL that the CM can use? — 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)?
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.

how does Neural Activity produce the Conscious Red experience? — 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.

SteveKlinko

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

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.

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 never say it is a certainty. I only propose that there could be a separate CSp that the CM exists in.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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

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.

Tyler

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. — SteveKlinko

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 mind

I never say it is a certainty. I only propose that there could be a separate CSp that the CM exists in. — 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".

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

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 you are still experiencing CL aren't you? — 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.

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

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.
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.

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

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.

.

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. — 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

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.

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

Yes that happens but how does all the Neural Activity produce the end product of a Conscious experience?

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 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.

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 agree.

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

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.

Tyler

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

Fair enough.

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

>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).
Would you agree that you are more "conscious" of something that you're remembering while awake, than while dreaming of it?
Similar to the previous eg of a human consciously experiencing something, compared to an animal.

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

>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?

SteveKlinko

>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

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.

apokrisis

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"?

Tyler

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.

SteveKlinko

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

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:

1) Neural Activity happens.
2) A Conscious experience happens.

We know that these things are happening and it seems that 1 causes 2. So the natural thing to ask is How does 1 cause 2? The Explanation of that cause is another stage in the process. So I never say I have an Explanation I merely ask a question that seems to have no Scientific answer and annoys the Physicalists.

The problem I have with the Model approach to Consciousness is that it never ends up with a real Conscious experience. The Model approach just hides the problem in a further Abstraction of the Conscious experience. I don't understand the Selfish point of view that you talk about. How does a Selfish point of view in a Model ever feel like something? Especially how does the Model Light Up?. The Model approach has the same Explanatory Gap that all Conscious theories have..

SteveKlinko

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.

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 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.

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. With all Conscious Sensory experience there is an implied Observer. Understanding what the Observer is, of course, is the Hardest part of the Hard problem of Consciousness. Ironic since we are the Observers.

I think that any scene that you direct your Attention at will be Vivid. If you do not direct your Attention you may miss detail. But directing Attention to a Conscious Object in your Visual Image is different than Knowledge and Memories about that Object. I think you can have Vivid Images without any Knowledge or Memories of an Object.

Tyler

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.

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?

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

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.

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

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.

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

>Yes, I realize you mean the present moment, but I'm questioning what function in the mind defines your intended meaning of vividness.
Hence my mention: "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."

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

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.

SteveKlinko

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

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:

1) Neural Activity for Red happens.
2) A Conscious Experience of Red happens.

How does 1 happening result in 2 happening?

The answer to this is not known by Science yet (although Scientists jump up and down saying that Consciousness is just an Illusion). This is the classic Hard Problem of Consciousness. This also is the classic Explanatory Gap of Consciousness. I want to know the answer to this question.

Tyler

1) Neural Activity for Red happens.
2) A Conscious Experience of Red happens.

How does 1 happening result in 2 happening? — SteveKlinko

> 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.
I'm trying to figure out, what doesn't work with this simple explanation?

The Inter Mind Model of Consciousness

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions