The problem is the language use. Some frameworks are ill suited for taking proper account of that which exists in it's entirety prior to our discovery of it. Pre and/or non-linguistic mental ongoings are one such thing. Consciousness consists, in part at least, of precisely such things. Since consciousness requires(is existentially dependent upon) pre and/or no linguistic mental ongoings, if we get those wrong we have no choice but to get consciousness wrong as well.

That' part of what I'm getting at here. Here's a bit more...

It is the user of "consciousness" who bears the burden of clear definition lest the resulting conception is muddled. There is nothing in conversation about consciousness that cannot be adequately accounted for and subsequently elaborated upon by a better framework. All of which is sure to sharpen one's understanding. This is all the product of better language use.

That is to say that all conceptions of consciousness point to that which can be better taken account of in when we talk in terms of thought and belief(pre and/or non-linguistic mental ongoings). Not all thought and belief are pre and/or non-linguistic, but that's an aside.

All consciousness consists of thought and belief. Not all thought and belief requires consciousness. Thus, consciousness is existentially dependent upon thought and belief, but not necessarily the other way around, although some complex thought and belief are virtually indistinguishable from consciousness. Thought and belief begin simply and grow in complexity.

Get thought and belief right, and our conception of consciousness will be better as an inevitable result. — creativesoul

I agree with you about language up to a point. I try not to talk about Consciousness in general but instead I like to use language that talks about particular aspects of Consciousness. Specifically I am interested in how we See. I believe Science has shown us what happens inside the Brain when we See. Science can point to the exact areas in the Brain where Neural Activity happens when we See. But I like to narrow this down even more to recognizing the particular Neural Activity that happens when we have an Experience of the color Red. Science may know what Neural Activity happens when we See the color Red but Science knows nothing about how the Conscious experience of Red happens. This is the Hard Problem of Consciousness. I like to encapsulate the Hard Problem in a question. I post this question all the time on the forums but it is a central question that needs to be asked over and over ... Given:

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

How does 2 happen when 1 happens? The answer to this question must include an understanding of what 2 is in the first place.

Would you say there is something wrong with the language used to describe the problem? What language would you use to describe the problem?

Many people do not seem to understand the difference between human consciousness and a machine. A computer can memorize, store and repeat data faster than any human. A computer can do math calculations faster than any human. However, neither of these things make the computer conscious. If you can read a book in an hour and know it by heart, a computer can do that too, but this alone will not make the computer be considered conscious or AI. This act, although impressive, is really a human acting like a machine, with the machine setting the standard. This is not intelligence, or else that alone would make the computer super intelligent.

Consciousness requires a different type of hardware or else computer would be naturally conscious based on any hardware. I have explained how neuron design; memory, is based on the rest state of a neuron being at highest potential due to ion pumping and exchange. Computer memory is designed to be at lower potential. This makes a big difference, since a high potential starting point can meander in new ways driven by the lowering of free energy, apart from programming logic. It follows energy and matter logic as well as computer logic. The meandering path of the river, is not based on any program in the river. This is connected to something larger; laws of physics that are same in all references.

Another key element to consciousness is the hydrogen bond, such as occurs between water molecules, protein, RNA and the DNA and all combinations thereof.

The hydrogen bond is an odd duck, since it shows both polar and covalent bonding character. In essence, the hydrogen bond it is a natural binary switch. Observations in water show that water exists in both high and low density clusters. The difference in density is connected to whether the hydrogen bonding switches are more to the polar; higher density, or covalent side; lower density, of the switch. The polar side is also slanted more heavily to the electrostatic force, while the covalent side is more slanted toward the magnetic force. The hydrogen bond can break the unified electromagnetic force, into its two separated components, based on the switch setting. This adds new things.

The hydrogen bonding switch is way more advanced, than any semi-conductor switch. The main reason is the two extreme switch settings are different in terms of physical properties, allowing the switch setting to impact the matter around itself, differently for each setting.

The polar side has higher enthalpy, higher enthalpy but less volume (more density).The covalent side has lower entropy and lower enthalpy but occupies more volume. Chemical changes near the switch can flip the switch, so there is equilibrium. Whereas, a pure information transfer via the switches can impact the physical environment.

When we think, the information transfer through hydrogen bonding switches, muscles the molecules causing physical changes that create memory. The line between information and matter gets blurred. If we add to this, the high energy rest neurons, that meander potential energy, as this energy moves, hydrogen bonding translates that to natural and spontaneous information based on material logic.

But what is the Experience of the color Red?

Dude, your reduction of mind to brain and soul to body is the essence of materialism.

I agree with you about language up to a point. I try not to talk about Consciousness in general but instead I like to use language that talks about particular aspects of Consciousness. Specifically I am interested in how we See. I believe Science has shown us what happens inside the Brain when we See. Science can point to the exact areas in the Brain where Neural Activity happens when we See. But I like to narrow this down even more to recognizing the particular Neural Activity that happens when we have an Experience of the color Red. Science may know what Neural Activity happens when we See the color Red but Science knows nothing about how the Conscious experience of Red happens. This is the Hard Problem of Consciousness. I like to encapsulate the Hard Problem in a question. I post this question all the time on the forums but it is a central question that needs to be asked over and over ... Given:

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

How does 2 happen when 1 happens? The answer to this question must include an understanding of what 2 is in the first place.

Would you say there is something wrong with the language used to describe the problem? What language would you use to describe the problem? — SteveKlinko

Yes. The same I've been using. Normal parlance does just fine. The problem is the language use itself.

The very notion of "A Conscious Red experience" is problematic. It's a chimera. There is no such thing.

Yes. The same I've been using. Normal parlance does just fine. The problem is the language use itself.

The very notion of "A Conscious Red experience" is problematic. It's a chimera. There is no such thing — creativesoul

I think I understand now. You are saying that there is no such thing as the Conscious Red experience. Do you not See the color Red? If you do then it is real. It exists in what I like to call Conscious Space. It does not exist in Physical Space. The Redness of the Red is a Property that only exists in Conscious Space. There is no Redness in Physical Space. Red Physical Light has Wavelength as a Property but does not in fact have Redness as a Property. The Conscious Red that you See has Redness as a Property but does not have Wavelength as a Property. The Conscious Red Light is a Surrogate for the Physical Red Light. In general our Conscious Light is how we Detect Physical Light. Physical Light does not Look like anything. We only know our Conscious Light. So the Conscious Red experience is not a Chimera, but rather it is just something outside of normal Scientific knowledge. But it could become part of Normal Scientific knowledge if we could understand it a whole lot more.

When memory is formed, sensory input is combined with an emotional tag, by aspects of the limbic system, and then written to the cerebral matter. If we see red, this input data is stored as visual data with an emotional tag. If we see red again, this will trigger previous memories, which will also trigger the emotional tag, that had been added.

Since memory has both sensory content and emotions, we can trigger memory from either side. We can think of a feeling and images will appear in our mind. If we feel hungry, we will start to imagine food we would like to eat. Or one can think of an event; wedding, and emotions will appear.

In the case of the color red, this triggers previous visual memories, which triggers emotions. The emotions can then trigger other memories; red sports car, with some of these memories triggering related emotions; desire, etc., It is this chain reaction reverberation in memory that creates the dynamics in awareness we call conscious. The stimulus becomes alive to us.

In tradition, red is a warm color due to how fire is red. This is the same sensory color input and will get a very similar tag. Fire is one of those dramatic primal memories which will reverberate when we see red. This can bring us to other places, separate in space and time; old memories, from which two references appear so consciousness can isolate itself.

I think I understand now. You are saying that there is no such thing as the Conscious Red experience. Do you not See the color Red? If you do then it is real. It exists in what I like to call Conscious Space. It does not exist in Physical Space. — SteveKlinko

I think you might be assuming too much here. When a robot sees red, the seeing-red is definitely occurring in physical space

The Redness of the Red is a Property that only exists in Conscious Space. There is no Redness in Physical Space. Red Physical Light has Wavelength as a Property but does not in fact have Redness as a Property. — SteveKlinko

Again, in a robot, when it sees red, certain physical changes happen in its circuitry that correspond to red. You could point to the circuits and say, "Look, the robot is seeing red!" but there would be no consciousness there.

The Conscious Red Light is a Surrogate for the Physical Red Light. — SteveKlinko

Maybe, but is not the quale of red more in the nature of what-it-is-like to see red, rather than a surrogate for photons of a certain energy?

When memory is formed, sensory input is combined with an emotional tag, by aspects of the limbic system, and then written to the cerebral matter. If we see red, this input data is stored as visual data with an emotional tag. If we see red again, this will trigger previous memories, which will also trigger the emotional tag, that had been added.

Since memory has both sensory content and emotions, we can trigger memory from either side. We can think of a feeling and images will appear in our mind. If we feel hungry, we will start to imagine food we would like to eat. Or one can think of an event; wedding, and emotions will appear.

In the case of the color red, this triggers previous visual memories, which triggers emotions. The emotions can then trigger other memories; red sports car, with some of these memories triggering related emotions; desire, etc., It is this chain reaction reverberation in memory that creates the dynamics in awareness we call conscious. The stimulus becomes alive to us.

In tradition, red is a warm color due to how fire is red. This is the same sensory color input and will get a very similar tag. Fire is one of those dramatic primal memories which will reverberate when we see red. This can bring us to other places, separate in space and time; old memories, from which two references appear so consciousness can isolate itself. — wellwisher

All this may be true. But the question remains: How do we See Red? A Memory of Red is just chemical modifications among the Neurons associated with the Memory. There is never any Red actually stored. So when the Memory is accessed there are only chemical changes that are detected. How do the chemical changes and all the Neural Activity get converted into the experience of Red? That is the Hard Problem of Consciousness. Also remember that when there is an Experience of Red then there is an Experiencer that has the Experience. This is also part of the Hard Problem.

I think I understand now. You are saying that there is no such thing as the Conscious Red experience. Do you not See the color Red? If you do then it is real. It exists in what I like to call Conscious Space. It does not exist in Physical Space. — SteveKlinko
I think you might be assuming too much here. When a robot sees red, the seeing-red is definitely occurring in physical space — tom

Do you seriously think a Robot has a Conscious Red experience? I think you must know that a Robot is just a Computer that is processing numbers. The Human Brain processes signals but there is an extra processing stage that a Computer does not have. it is the stage where the Red experience is generated. We don't sense what our Neurons are doing but rather we interface through the Conscious stage of the Visual process.

The Redness of the Red is a Property that only exists in Conscious Space. There is no Redness in Physical Space. Red Physical Light has Wavelength as a Property but does not in fact have Redness as a Property. — SteveKlinko
Again, in a robot, when it sees red, certain physical changes happen in its circuitry that correspond to red. You could point to the circuits and say, "Look, the robot is seeing red!" but there would be no consciousness there. — tom

Ok I agree with this. But it sounds like you are saying something different in the comment above.

The Conscious Red Light is a Surrogate for the Physical Red Light. — SteveKlinko
Maybe, but is not the quale of red more in the nature of what-it-is-like to see red, rather than a surrogate for photons of a certain energy? — tom

The Quale is the Surrogate. I think saying Conscious Red Light is more descriptive than saying the Red Light Qualia. Sorry, it's my fault for using non standard Philosophical terminology.

Do you seriously think a Robot has a Conscious Red experience? — SteveKlinko

Do you seriously think I claimed robots are conscious?

The Human Brain processes signals but there is an extra processing stage that a Computer does not have. — SteveKlinko

How many processing stages are required to create qualia? 2, 3, 4? How does the last one create the qualia? Why can't a robot have that "extra processing stage"?

Do you seriously think a Robot has a Conscious Red experience? — SteveKlinko
Do you seriously think I claimed robots are conscious? — tom

You say things like this :

I think you might be assuming too much here. When a robot sees red, the seeing-red is definitely occurring in physical space — tom

I think when you say the Robot Sees Red you mean that the Robot only Detects Red. It does not have a Conscious experience of Red. Ok I get it.

The Human Brain processes signals but there is an extra processing stage that a Computer does not have. — SteveKlinko
How many processing stages are required to create qualia? 2, 3, 4? How does the last one create the qualia? Why can't a robot have that "extra processing stage"? — tom

Nobody knows how that final stage works. But it is clear that there is a Consciousness stage in our chain of Visual Processing stages. And your question: How does the last stage create the Qualia? is the Question that Science cannot answer yet. This is the Hard Problem of Consciousness.

I think a Robot with the right hardware could very well have Consciousness. Only after we understand our own Consciousness will we be able to design Robots with Consciousness. I think the hardware will be a lot different than we have today.

You are saying that there is no such thing as the Conscious Red experience. Do you not See the color Red? If you do then it is real. It exists in what I like to call Conscious Space. It does not exist in Physical Space. — SteveKlinko

This doesn't square with everyday common knowledge.

Conscious Space(whatever that is supposed to refer to) is in the universe, right? Everything in the universe is in 'physical' space. Everything that exists does so by virtue of being in physical space.

The Redness of the Red is a Property that only exists in Conscious Space. There is no Redness in Physical Space. — SteveKlinko

What on earth is 'the redness of the red' supposed to be talking about? What's wrong with just plain 'red'? As above, red exists in physical space.

Red Physical Light has Wavelength as a Property but does not in fact have Redness as a Property. The Conscious Red that you See has Redness as a Property but does not have Wavelength as a Property. The Conscious Red Light is a Surrogate for the Physical Red Light. In general our Conscious Light is how we Detect Physical Light. Physical Light does not Look like anything. We only know our Conscious Light. — SteveKlinko

Red is a range of wavelength. See that last claim above? Do you understand that you've defined this notion of 'Physical Light' along with this notion of 'Conscious Light' in such a way that you've admitted that you do not know, cannot know perhaps, about what you're talking about?

As before, I'm reminded of Kant's Noumena.

So the Conscious Red experience is not a Chimera, but rather it is just something outside of normal Scientific knowledge. But it could become part of Normal Scientific knowledge if we could understand it a whole lot more. — SteveKlinko

That does not follow from anything you've written.

Que talk about red cups...

You are saying that there is no such thing as the Conscious Red experience. Do you not See the color Red? If you do then it is real. It exists in what I like to call Conscious Space. It does not exist in Physical Space. — SteveKlinko
This doesn't square with everyday common knowledge.

Conscious Space(whatever that is supposed to refer to) is in the universe, right? Everything in the universe is in 'physical' space. Everything that exists does so by virtue of being in physical space. — creativesoul

If the Conscious Red experience is a thing that exists in Physical Space then what is it? Is it made out of Matter, Energy, or is it some aspect of Physical Space? Can you describe what Red is using any words of any language? Red and I mean the Redness itself is not describable. Red is a Conscious experience that exists in the Conscious Mind. The Conscious Red experience is how we Detect Physical Red Light. We have never Seen Physical Red Light, but only our internal Conscious Red Light. Physical Red Light does not Look like anything. Conscious Red Light is a Surrogate for the Physical Red Light. Most people are so used to Seeing their own Conscious Red Light that they think it is the way Physical Red Light actually Looks.

It makes little sense to insist that the Red experience is some Physical Space Phenomenon. It makes more sense to propose that the Red experience and all Conscious experience takes place in some new Conscious Space. Conscious Space is not like a Physical Space. It is just a conceptual place to put Conscious experiences. Although it might someday be discovered to be an actual Scientific principle.

The Redness of the Red is a Property that only exists in Conscious Space. There is no Redness in Physical Space. — SteveKlinko
What on earth is 'the redness of the red' supposed to be talking about? What's wrong with just plain 'red'? As above, red exists in physical space. — creativesoul

I say things like the Redness of the Red to Emphasize the Conscious experience of Red. I think that when you think about the Redness itself without the context of anything else you will discover the absolute Mystery of the Phenomenon. You will understand that it is not really something that is even in the Physical Universe. If it is in the Physical Universe then what is it and where is it?

Red Physical Light has Wavelength as a Property but does not in fact have Redness as a Property. The Conscious Red that you See has Redness as a Property but does not have Wavelength as a Property. The Conscious Red Light is a Surrogate for the Physical Red Light. In general our Conscious Light is how we Detect Physical Light. Physical Light does not Look like anything. We only know our Conscious Light. — SteveKlinko
Red is a range of wavelength. See that last claim above? Do you understand that you've defined this notion of 'Physical Light' along with this notion of 'Conscious Light' in such a way that you've admitted that you do not know, cannot know perhaps, about what you're talking about? — creativesoul

We all know what Physical Red Light is from Science. We all know what Conscious Red Light (Red Light Qualia if you like) is from our Conscious experience of it. We know both of these things but they are separate things. The thing that Science does not know is how the Physical Red Light gets converted into the Conscious Red Light that we actually See. We have never Seen Physical Red Light but rather we have only ever Seen our own internal Conscious Red Light. So the Conscious Red Light Phenomenon is a purely Conscious Mind Phenomenon. And nobody knows what they are talking about when they talk about Consciousness. We must however speculate on new ways of approaching the Problem of Consciousness if we are ever going to solve it.

As before, I'm reminded of Kant's Noumena. — creativesoul

Conscious experience is discussed in many different ways by many different writers.

So the Conscious Red experience is not a Chimera, but rather it is just something outside of normal Scientific knowledge. But it could become part of Normal Scientific knowledge if we could understand it a whole lot more. — SteveKlinko
That does not follow from anything you've written. — creativesoul

Seems perfectly reasonable that when Science discovers new things about how Consciousness works that those things will become part of normal Scientific knowledge regardless of anything I have written.
Visit http://TheInterMind.com to see a more in depth development of Conscious Space and Conscious Light.

Conscious Space(whatever that is supposed to refer to) is in the universe, right? Everything in the universe is in 'physical' space. Everything that exists does so by virtue of being in physical space. — creativesoul

Really? Sherlock Holmes or Harry Potter? Ignoring the trivial matter of their 'existing' in physical books, they have no existence in 'physical' space, do they? And how about science (the discipline, not its subject matter)? It also has no 'physical' existence. And so forth.... :chin:

Red is a range of wavelength. See that last claim above? Do you understand that you've defined this notion of 'Physical Light' along with this notion of 'Conscious Light' in such a way that you've admitted that you do not know, cannot know perhaps, about what you're talking about? — creativesoul

Conscious Space(whatever that is supposed to refer to) is in the universe, right? Everything in the universe is in 'physical' space. Everything that exists does so by virtue of being in physical space.
— creativesoul

Really? — Pattern-chaser

Really. Think about it.

I've thought. When most people refer to the universe, especially on philosophy forums ( :wink: ) they mean to refer (exclusively) to the space-time universe that science so ably describes. Do I take it your intended meaning (of "universe") is somewhat broader than that? :chin: [And 'physical' space too?]

The universe is everything on my view. All that was. All that is.

I am neither a dualist, nor a monist. Consciousness is emergent. It is a matter of emerging in varying layers.

I reject almost all dichotomies on grounds of inherent inadequacy. Some things consist of both and thus are neither.

The origen of the universe is and always will remain a complete mystery. I could not care less about it.

You are saying that there is no such thing as the Conscious Red experience. — SteveKlinko

if you are serious about the language problem, then ask yourself:

what is the difference between:

1. a conscious experience of Red; and
2. an experience of red.

Unnecessary words cause confusion.

You are saying that there is no such thing as the Conscious Red experience. — SteveKlinko
if you are serious about the language problem, then ask yourself:

what is the difference between:

1. a conscious experience of Red; and
2. an experience of red.

Unnecessary words cause confusion. — Arne

I think that for some people 2 opens up the possibility that the Red is out there in the Physical World. Whereas 1 emphasizes the fact that the Red it is in your Conscious Mind. Extra words can further specify and define things.

↪Pattern-chaser
The universe is everything on my view. All that was. All that is. — creativesoul

Makes sense to me. :up: :grin: I was only confused because most people mean something less when they write universe.

I think that for some people 2 opens up the possibility that the Red is out there in the Physical World. Whereas 1 emphasizes the fact that the Red it is in your Conscious Mind. Extra words can further specify and define things. — SteveKlinko

You raised the issue of language.

Who is your audience? I find it confusing.

Calling it a "conscious" experience of red tells me nothing about where the red is.

Certainly the materialists consider their experience of red to be "conscious."

There is no un"conscious" experience of red.

Calling it a "conscious" experience of red only raises the forgoing issues, it does not resolve them.

Just saying.

Calling it a "conscious" experience of red tells me nothing about where the red is. — Arne

In your mind, where your consciousness lives? :wink:

That is begging the issue.

Everyone agrees their experience of red is conscious.

Not everyone agrees the red is in their mind (where their consciousness lives?).

Some believe the red is in the world.

Nobody has non-conscious experiences of red.

Calling it a "conscious" experience of red raises the foregoing issues; it does not resolve them.

I know of no evidence that 'red' exists in the scientifically-described space-time universe, do you? Do you even know of a theory that describes how 'red' might exist in the scientifically-described space-time universe? I don't.

Red is a human concept; electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength around 700 nm is something that occurs and can be measured.

It is not my intent to engage in the Cartesian/Materialsim/Heideggerian debate.

He solicited advice on language.

I gave it too him.

And now you are proving me correct.

Thank you.

:smile:

You raised the issue of language.

Who is your audience? I find it confusing.

Calling it a "conscious" experience of red tells me nothing about where the red is.

Certainly the materialists consider their experience of red to be "conscious."

There is no un"conscious" experience of red.

Calling it a "conscious" experience of red only raises the forgoing issues, it does not resolve them.

Just saying. — Arne

I didn't raise any language issue. A bunch of posts back somebody made the claim that if we could just "Get the Language Right" then the Hard Problem would go away. Anything I said about language was probably referring to that. My audience is anyone that is interested. So it bothers you that I say Conscious Red Experience? Is it your opinion that saying Conscious Red Experience is redundant and I should just say Red Experience? This is confusing to you? It maybe slightly redundant but confusing, I don't think so. Sorry, I actually don't understand your complaint.

I didn't raise any language issue. A bunch of posts back somebody made the claim that if we could just "Get the Language Right" then the Hard Problem would go away. — SteveKlinko

So I am mistaken about who raised the issue.

Why would that matter?

My comments were about the language.

I took no position regarding the location of the color red.

I am sure will find it.