So If I just say the Mind is the Brain that explains it all. Sorry it doesn't work for me. Even if Mind truly is the Brain then I would still need to know what the Conscious experience of Red is. What is the Red? Saying that the Red is Neurons is a Dodge with no explanation. The Red has to be explained.You continue assuming that brain and mind are like two effects, that can "correlate" such as the increasing of educative and economical level. If you identify the two thing, we have not hard problem, only psychological problem. If you differentiate them, so conscience is "to know if you brain is or not lying you", that is, to differentiate reality from fiction, then the hard problem is the "transcendental" deduction problem. That is, following to Kant, we are conscience bears, but to be conscious and to know conscience are two different things. We can say that conscience is a condition of possibility of knowledge, in the sense that this requires a subject and its conscience to be produced. Then, we can not study conscience empirically because we presuppose it when try to know it. — Belter
I would still need to know what the Conscious experience of Red is. What is the Red? — SteveKlinko
I think that you are in a kind of conceptual vortex. "Red" is a color... — Belter
Red is a Conscious experience that exists in the Conscious Mind. — SteveKlinko
We experience the Red and recognize it as a Category of Experience that we call Color — SteveKlinko
I will try another way. How do you know that 1) "Red is a Conscious experience that exists in the Conscious Mind" is true; but 2) "a Conscious experience that exist in the Physical world" and "a Physical experience that exists in the Conscious Mind" are false? — Belter
Don't think about Objects think about the Red itself apart from any Object. Think about the Red experience. Objects are not Red. Objects can reflect Red Physical Light. But the Physical Red Light does not even have the property of Redness. The Redness is a conversion that the Brain does to let you Detect the Red Physical Light. What we See is the Conscious Surrogate for the Physical Red Light. We never actually See Physical Red Light. Physical Red Light doesn't look like anything. Physical Red light has the Property of Wavelength. Conscious Red Light has the Property of Redness.There are several problems with Hard Problem. Another more is that we do not experience the Red as red (the Redness) but something as red. An object (real or fictional) can have the property of being viewed as red; in the same way that it has the property of being eaten by a black hole. The difference between another properties is that these kind of them needs another object to be corroborated empirically (an observer and a black hole respectively).
We call color to a property of objects, but not mental states. The properties of mental states could be "conscious", "vivid", etc., which would be a kind of "categories of experience". — Belter
See previous post.So, you can say "What is that I am viewing?" "A red tomato"; "How are you viewed it?" "Very vividly". "With that are you viewing it?" "With my visual system (eyes->visual cortex)", and so. — Belter
Physical Red light has the Property of Wavelength. Conscious Red Light has the Property of Redness. — SteveKlinko
> How do you know your "self" remains intact, compared to your brain?because my brain is dying yet my self remains far more intact than most people assume — MiloL
> This could be true, but it is also the most logical position, as I explained. So thinking that consciousness is not brain activity, may be just as bias toward an alternate explanation.I suggest that this position is a consequence of a; pleasing, tempting, fashionable, contemporary and entirely materialist bias. — Marcus de Brun
> I tried to give a general explanation that it is complicated, but the key is that its a combination of relevant parts. The explanation of function was in earlier posts, with more specific details, but you still ask "how", and I'm not sure what else there is to explain.All you just said is that it is Complicated and involves Memory and some kind of Interpretations. Maybe this is all true but there is no explanation in what you say. — SteveKlinko
I suggest that this position is a consequence of a; pleasing, tempting, fashionable, contemporary and entirely materialist bias.
— Marcus de Brun
> This could be true, but it is also the most logical position, as I explained. So thinking that consciousness is not brain activity, may be just as bias toward an alternate explanation. — Tyler
Then you will agree that Physical Red Light does not in fact have a Property of Redness. It is the Conscious Light in the Mind that has Redness as a Property. The Thing that has Redness is not the Physical Red Light Thing it is only the Conscious Thing.The property of redness is said to all that we call "red", both if it is real or fictional light. I follow the semantic rule of predicating a property of the thing that has it. — Belter
I think I understand what you are saying, I'll look for your summary. I also thank you for the discussion.Another way of accounting conscience is the following: conscience is the vividness or "resolution" of mental states. It would be a property of mental states, different to redness, which is of objects. When I finish a summary of hard problem I will post here. Thank you for your responses — Belter
But how can something like the experience of Red come from Memory Access? Memory Access is Neural Activity and other chemical changes in the Neurons. The experience of Red is a whole other Category of Phenomenon. I have given it my best shot and I agree that we are at a stand-still.> I tried to give a general explanation that it is complicated, but the key is that its a combination of relevant parts. The explanation of function was in earlier posts, with more specific details, but you still ask "how", and I'm not sure what else there is to explain.
As much as I think about the Redness of Red, I still think it is explained by a combination of memory access.
So I guess we're at a stand-still anyway... — Tyler
I can See Red while dreaming. No objects are being lighted there.Red is how individuals see certain objects when they are lighted. This is a psychological fact. You are which must prove that the scientific view of colors is wrong. The Chalmers' argument in my view only proves that fantasy is very persuasive. — Belter
Unfortunate that you can not appreciate the question: What is Red? To me it is a pivotal question. It is not the only question but you have to start somewhere. I like to stick with trying to understand what seems like a simple thing (Redness) but when you consider it long enough you see the mystery of it. If we could understand what Red is we would understand an aspect of Consciousness itself. Remember that Red only exists in the Conscious Mind.In previous responses I said that you can see objective and subjective red objects. You seem to want misunderstanding me.
Anyway, even when you imagine a red tomato, you need to see it with "imagined" light. Are you able to imagine a red thing in a dark scenario? You are only questioning "What is red?", "What is Red"? like a colorblind. Sorry, but it is not interesting for me. — Belter
my position cannot be construed as containing a bias as my view strictly accords with the agreed facts (ie there is no material evidence for the endogenous manufacture of human thought/consciousness). My position is also your position, unless you have some evidence to contradict my view — Marcus de Brun
All of this amounts to nothing more than self serving assumption and lies outside of the facts. — Marcus de Brun
> Basically, the same way that emotions, or dreams, or mindful images/ sounds can come from memory access. The experience of Red is just perhaps a more complex combination of such memory access.But how can something like the experience of Red come from Memory Access? — SteveKlinko
No doubt that Neural Activity seems to happen when a Red Experience happens, but how can any kind of Neural Activity result in that Experience? Memory Access is just a type of Neural Activity. Scientists have known that there was a Correlation between Neural Activity and Conscious experience for a hundred years. The knowledge that certain types of Neural Activity happen when the Red experience happens is the Easy Problem of Consciousness.But how can something like the experience of Red come from Memory Access? — SteveKlinko> Basically, the same way that emotions, or dreams, or mindful images/ sounds can come from memory access. The experience of Red is just perhaps a more complex combination of such memory access. — 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. — SteveKlinko
We speculate that the Conscious Mind is connected to the Physical Mind (the Brain) in some way. If the inner Self is connected to the Thalamus then the real question is how? There must be some other Mind component or mechanism that provides this connection. This is what I call the Inter Mind.The inner self is connected to the thalamus. — wellwisher
Scientists have no idea how Neural Activity causes or results in the Red experience. Scientists don't actually even know what the Experience of Red is. They also don't even know what the Experiencer is, that is having the Experience. Scientist do not know what they themselves are. Scientists do not yet have a method for studying the Experience or the Experiencer. Scientists understandably then mostly ignore the Experience and the Experiencer. This is the Hard Problem of Consciousness. — SteveKlinko
> Do you mean agreed facts are that there's no evidence that consciousness is related to brain activity?
If so, I don't agree to that, as I believe there is lots of evidence that thought processes correlate with brain activity. I did provide suggestive evidence of this, which you didnt seem to refute. — Tyler
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.