It is? It looks to me like the Hard Problem of (misapplied) science. For good reasons (that we don't really want to investigate here), science reduces humans to impartial observers, or ignores them altogether. This makes it difficult or impossible to come up with a scientific way of studying humans as active participants (in the world), instead of impartial observers. The success of science is (for me) beyond challenge, but it is not a tool that fits every problem, and this is one of the ones it doesn't fit.
These matters can be investigated, but it looks to me like we need to use considered, structured, thought to do it. No theories, no falsifiable hypotheses (and so forth), just careful consideration. It's what we have. We must use it, or we have nothing. — Pattern-chaser
> Do you mean, how it can result in specifically the Red experience, or generally any experience?but how can any kind of Neural Activity result in that Experience? — SteveKlinko
> If its agreed that simpler sensory input causes simpler experiences, then I believe (just as with consciousness) the Red is caused in a similar process, just involving multiple simultaneous experiences.Scientists have no idea how Neural Activity causes or results in the Red experience. — SteveKlinko
> If the experience is caused by neural activity, then the experience and the experiencer are simply neural activity. There may be nothing more to it.Scientists do not yet have a method for studying the Experience or the Experiencer. — SteveKlinko
> I'd argue that correlation does imply cause. It doesn't prove cause, but correlation implies a higher probability that it is also a cause.correlation between brain activity and consciousness, but this in no way implies the euphemistic application of correlation with the notion 'cause' — Marcus de Brun
> There may be no conclusive evidence at this time, but I believe there is still supportive evidence that consciousness is caused by neural activity. The supportive evidence would be similar to what I mentioned of currently known neuroscience. There is evidence that neural activity does cause simpler specified processes of thought. and since consciousness is correlated with thought processes, this is supportive evidence of the high probability that neural activity causes consciousness as well. This is why I believe consciousness is just a more complex combination of neural activity, than the specific thought processes (which are caused by neural activity).yet there is no evidence to suggest that it is caused. — Marcus de Brun
> Since elements involved with conscious experiences, are measurable and evident to occur regardless of consciousness, this suggests that those elements are the cause of consciousness, rather than consciousness being the cause of those elements.I might just as easily assert that brain activity is in fact caused by consciousness — Marcus de Brun
I'm not quite sure what is simpler when it comes to Sensory inputs but I suppose a Bell and a Flashing Light would be more complicated and would result in a more complicated experience (I see a Light and hear a Bell).but how can any kind of Neural Activity result in that Experience? — SteveKlinko> Do you mean, how it can result in specifically the Red experience, or generally any experience?
Do you agree that simpler neural activity, results in simpler experiences?
eg. audio sensory input, results in the experience of simply hearing a bell — Tyler
But to me Red is a very simple basic Experience.Scientists have no idea how Neural Activity causes or results in the Red experience. — SteveKlinko> If its agreed that simpler sensory input causes simpler experiences, then I believe (just as with consciousness) the Red is caused in a similar process, just involving multiple simultaneous experiences. — Tyler
There's nothing more to it than Explaining how the Experience and Experiencer are Neural Activity. The Hard Problem remains.Scientists do not yet have a method for studying the Experience or the Experiencer. — SteveKlinko> If the experience is caused by neural activity, then the experience and the experiencer are simply neural activity. There may be nothing more to it. — Tyler
Scientists do not yet have a method for studying the Experience or the Experiencer. — SteveKlinko
> If the experience is caused by neural activity, then the experience and the experiencer are simply neural activity. There may be nothing more to it. — Tyler
I'd argue that correlation does imply cause. It doesn't prove cause, but correlation implies a higher probability that it is also a cause. — Tyler
This fallacy is also known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "with this, therefore because of this," and "false cause." A similar fallacy, that an event that followed another was necessarily a consequence of the first event, is the post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "after this, therefore because of this.") fallacy. — wikipedia
elements involved with conscious experiences, are measurable and evident to occur regardless of consciousness — Tyler
I think I meant that the bell would theoretically be simpler than the Red Experience, since The Red E. specifically involves the conscious aspect.I'm not quite sure what is simpler when it comes to Sensory inputs but I suppose a Bell and a Flashing — SteveKlinko
I agree that red itself is basic, but The Red E. is specifically more complex since it requires conscious focus regarding red. Without the conscious focus and attention, I think red does become simple (similar to hearing a bell), but without the conscious aspect, there is no Red Experience, and no problem with explanation. Without conscious focus, red is just a light wave-length measurement I believe.But to me Red is a very simple basic Experience. — SteveKlinko
Right, and it has been explained by science, how the simple experiences (without conscious focus involved) are neural activity, has it not?There's nothing more to it than Explaining how the Experience and Experiencer are Neural Activity. — SteveKlinko
It seems you presume that I only believe consciousness is caused by neural activity, because of a bias that it's common belief. That's could be fair enough, but I argued that the reason I believe it is logical, regardless of most common belief. It could be argued just as easily that your position might be just as biased (but to the contrary), toward assuming that the common belief is incorrect. Or you could have a bias aligned with another common perspective, that consciousness is mysterious and seems magical, so cannot be explained by current science.Indeed there is a correlation between both neural activity and consciousness. It is very easy then to join the herd in the assumption that consciousness is the 'effect' and private neural activity is the 'cause'. — Marcus de Brun
It seems to me that the view of [consciousness is caused by neural activity] does directly address the concept that "neural activity and the identification of such activity is both contained and consequential to, consciousness." Why do you believe it does not address that concept? The concept that neural activity is consequential to consciousness, is just the logical reasoning to assume that the neural activity is the cause.I have already pointed out that this view is homocentric and does not address the reality that neural activity and the identification of such activity is both contained and consequential to, consciousness. — Marcus de Brun
That is exactly what I'm doing isn't it? Questioning the creation of the experience of consciousness.we can then consider the fundamental question pertaining to its creation of the experience of material reality. — Marcus de Brun
What false assumptions are needed, for the assumption that neural activity causes consciousness?principally because we do not venture into assumptions that result in the need for further false assumptions. — Marcus de Brun
What is wrong with temporality?Consciousness as an entity outside of or uncaused by neural activity, becomes relieved of temporality — Marcus de Brun
So you believe that neural activity causing consciousness does not satisfy determinism? I see no conflict between the 2It also satisfies the empirical nature of determinism — Marcus de Brun
I believe I'm not adhering strictly to the old paradigm, if I apply a concept which was not part of it, and theoretically solves the problem. The concept I apply is: a complex combination resulting in a construct greater than the sum of is parts. This advances the correlation.Wilful adherence to the old but persistent paradigm does not advance the agreed correlation between consciousness and neural activity, it merely reasserts the current paradigm. — Marcus de Brun
If the experience etc. is simply neural activity, then I believe we do have a method for studying it, as we have studied lots of neural activity.And yet Steve's point remains unanswered: scientists do not have a method for studying the Experience or the Experiencer. — Pattern-chaser
But, in order to have an impartial observer, dont we only need a different human? The only active participant for experience, is the specific human which is being tested for experience. The other humans who are observing the tests, are not an active participant in the experience, therefore are impartial observers.Science is the (valuable and useful) perspective you get when you reduce humans to impartial observers. The study of experience and experiencers requires that humans be considered as active participants. — Pattern-chaser
I disagree. Science should be capable, since alternate humans from the experience, can be impartial. It should be comparable to using AI or an alien as the observer. They would not be human, but would still use science, and would you agree, be an impartial observer?To investigate experience and experiencers, a tool other than science is needed. — Pattern-chaser
I believe I am not arguing the same concept which you are citing the contradiction of. I am not arguing this point: (quote from the Wiki article) "That "correlation proves causation," is considered a questionable cause logical fallacy "that followed another was necessarily a consequence of the first event, is the post hoc ergo propter hoc — wikipedia
We have knowledge of consciousness to a vague degree, at least. We have knowledge that consciousness (by definition (which yes, is not very concrete in itself (as a result of lack of explanation))) involves; life, a brain, thought, wakefulness, awareness.Doesn't this presuppose knowledge of consciousness that we do not currently have? :chin:
...and exactly what are these "elements" that are measurable and evident, and have they actually been measured, and found to be evident? :chin: Just asking. :wink: — Pattern-chaser
Consciousness is the cause and neural activity is the determined effect. — Marcus de Brun
When we talk about the Bell we are talking about the Conscious experience of Sound. To make the Sound analogous to the Red we should talk about a pure tone, lets use standard A pitch at 440 Hz. This is simpler than the Bell which can have multiple other components around the fundamental. The point is that the Physical Sound has the 44Hz Property. The Conscious Sound experience has no 440Hz Property. The Physical Sound is made out of pressure waves in the air that oscillate at 440Hz. The Conscious Sound experience is a Continuous sensation or experience. There is no sensation of oscillation in the Conscious Standard A Sound that you experience. The Conscious Sound is a Surrogate for the Physical Sound. You can hear the Standard A Sound without any Physical Standard A Sound in your dreams. The thing you have always experienced as Sound is just your own internal creation. How the Brain translates signals from the ear into the Conscious Sound experience is the great mystery of the study of Consciousness. It is the classic Hard Problem of Consciousness.Sorry to all for my delayed responses btw. I've been too distracted in the summer...
I'm not quite sure what is simpler when it comes to Sensory inputs but I suppose a Bell and a Flashing — SteveKlinkoI think I meant that the bell would theoretically be simpler than the Red Experience, since The Red E. specifically involves the conscious aspect. — Tyler
The Conscious Red experience is not a wavelength of Light. The Red experience is a Surrogate for the Physical Red Light. You can see Red in Dreams at night where there is no Physical Red Light.But to me Red is a very simple basic Experience. — SteveKlinkoI agree that red itself is basic, but The Red E. is specifically more complex since it requires conscious focus regarding red. Without the conscious focus and attention, I think red does become simple (similar to hearing a bell), but without the conscious aspect, there is no Red Experience, and no problem with explanation. Without conscious focus, red is just a light wave-length measurement I believe. — Tyler
The experience of Red or the Standard A Pitch are completely unexplained by Science at this point in time.There's nothing more to it than Explaining how the Experience and Experiencer are Neural Activity. — SteveKlinkoRight, and it has been explained by science, how the simple experiences (without conscious focus involved) are neural activity, has it not?
So if simple experiences are explained, then complex experiences involving conscious focus, can be explained by complex combinations of those simple experiences (by my theory) — Tyler
Lets consider the Conscious experience of the color Red again. The chain of events is from Physical Red Light hitting the Retina to downstream Neural Activity that culminates in Neurons for Red firing in the Visual Cortex and then the Conscious experience of Red occurs. Seems to me it makes no sense to stipulate that the Conscious experience ever happens before the Neural Activity in this logical chain of events.I can't reconcile the notion that consciousness and neural activity could be the same thing. Neural activity is a sequential process with action potentials travelling along axons and awaiting action potentials etc, it (neural activity) is temporal. The relationship appears only to make sense if we consider consciousness the cause and neural activity the secondary effect.. — Marcus de Brun
If you are talking about Conscious Volition then the sequence would be from Conscious Mind to Physical Mind (Brain). We have no idea how a Conscious desire to move your hand, for example, results in Neurons firing in the Motion Control centers of the Cortex to produce the motion. But for incoming Sensory signals the sequence is logically from Neural Activity to Conscious experience.I can't reconcile the notion that consciousness and neural activity could be the same thing. Neural activity is a sequential process with action potentials travelling along axons and awaiting action potentials etc, it (neural activity) is temporal. The relationship appears only to make sense if we consider consciousness the cause and neural activity the secondary effect.. — Marcus de Brun — SteveKlinko
And yet Steve's point remains unanswered: scientists do not have a method for studying the Experience or the Experiencer. — Pattern-chaser
If the experience etc. is simply neural activity, then I believe we do have a method for studying it, as we have studied lots of neural activity. — Tyler
Seems to me it makes no sense to stipulate that the Conscious experience ever happens before the Neural Activity in this logical chain of events. — SteveKlinko
I can't reconcile the notion that consciousness and neural activity could be the same thing. Neural activity is a sequential process with action potentials travelling along axons and awaiting action potentials etc, it (neural activity) is temporal. The relationship appears only to make sense if we consider consciousness the cause and neural activity the secondary effect.. — Marcus de Brun
Yes, the Conscious experience of Red is in the final stage of the Visual process.Yes, the whole process of human perception, starting with sensation, and including all the other stuff that comes with perception, is pre-conscious, chronologically. The final result of the perception process is passed, complete, to the conscious mind. This then results in experience, yes? — Pattern-chaser
>If you mean on terms of each instance, then stimulus instigates the neural activity. Usually sensory input stimulus would trigger the neural activity, which then causes consciousness (with the effective quantity and combination of neural activity).If indeed consciousness is caused by neural activity then one must ask what is the instigation of this "neural activity'. — Marcus de Brun
This doesn't sound mere. Since there is no observable evidence to suggest consciousness is caused externally, it seems unlikely that this is the case. The concept that consciousness is caused by something externally, of which we have not observed any connection of cause and effect, makes it much less probable to be the circumstances. Compared to neural activity being the cause, of which we have suggestive evidence. This is probably the logical reasoning that it is a more common belief.and merely requires us to consider consciousness as a valid ex-homino exogenous entity/force with ex-homino activity that is observable in the context of physics and or quantum mechanics. — Marcus de Brun
>This depends on how you define conscious experience. I assumed by the context, conscious experience refers to requiring the additional mental focus and attent. Without the mental focus, simply hearing a bell, would not be the conscious experience of the sound.When we talk about the Bell we are talking about the Conscious experience of Sound. — SteveKlinko
>I agree the conscious sound experience would not involve the specific accuracy of 440Hz, but the conscious experience likely involves a rough measurement of that 440Hz, which could be considered a property of it. There would be no need for hearing to develop to an accurate degree of measurement (including distinguishing the oscillation), so a rough measurement would make sense, by natural selection.The point is that the Physical Sound has the 44Hz Property. The Conscious Sound experience has no 440Hz Property. — SteveKlinko
>I agree. Once the rough measurement is taken, the brain must translate it into code, to then save as memories. The overall interpretation of the coding would be the surrogate.The Conscious Sound is a Surrogate for the Physical Sound. — SteveKlinko
>This would be accessing memories, as it is coded and saved in the brain. Since dreaming is neural activity accessing memories, we could not dream of an entirely new pitch of sound, which has not been recorded by memory.You can hear the Standard A Sound without any Physical Standard A Sound in your dreams. — SteveKlinko
>I think that may be an over-exaggeration. I believe a lot of the elements involved in the experiences, are explained.The experience of Red or the Standard A Pitch are completely unexplained by Science at this point in time. — SteveKlinko
>I disagree, and think the distance is not big. By "experience" do you mean specifically the more conscious aware experience, or any experience?the abstract distance between neural activity and experience is just too big to span. — Pattern-chaser
>If the stream of bytes was measurable and detailed to the same degree that neuroscience is, then by testing the comparison of reaction between the bytes and the alterations on the screen, I think it would be helpful to understand it as a word processor.It's like trying to appreciate Microsoft's word processor as a stream of bytes. It is a stream of bytes, but this does not help us to understand it as a word processor. — Pattern-chaser
>like what for example?Human experience is mostly composed of stuff that science discards, or does not detect/acknowledge in the first place. — Pattern-chaser
Yes, the whole process of human perception, starting with sensation, and including all the other stuff that comes with perception, is pre-conscious, chronologically. The final result of the perception process is passed, complete, to the conscious mind. This then results in experience, yes? — Pattern-chaser
Yes, the Conscious experience of Red is in the final stage of the Visual process. — SteveKlinko
the abstract distance between neural activity and experience is just too big to span — Pattern-chaser
I disagree, and think the distance is not big. — Tyler
By "experience" do you mean specifically the more conscious aware experience, or any experience? — Tyler
If you consider different experiences in different degrees of conscious vividness, then an experience with very minimal or no conscious vividness, should have basically no figurative distance to span, from neural activity to experience. — Tyler
It's like trying to appreciate Microsoft's word processor as a stream of bytes. It is a stream of bytes, but this does not help us to understand it as a word processor. — Pattern-chaser
If the stream of bytes was measurable and detailed to the same degree that neuroscience is, then by testing the comparison of reaction between the bytes and the alterations on the screen, I think it would be helpful to understand it as a word processor. — Tyler
Human experience is mostly composed of stuff that science discards, or does not detect/acknowledge in the first place. — Pattern-chaser
like what for example? If science explains the functional processes of the neurology involved with an experience (such as the eye measuring light, coding it into neurons, then accessing those neurons), then what more is there that science does not detect? — Tyler
This reminds me of Pirsig's rephrasing, whereby "A causes B" becomes "B values pre-condition A". Both are valid expressions of the same thing. Perhaps consciousness and neural activity are the same? — Pattern-chaser
I can't reconcile the notion that consciousness and neural activity could be the same thing. — Marcus de Brun
I am always trying to emphasize the difference between the external Physical Phenomenon and the internal Conscious Phenomenon. When I say Conscious Sound I am referring to the internal Experience. Doesn't matter if someone is mentally focusing on it or not.When we talk about the Bell we are talking about the Conscious experience of Sound. — SteveKlinko>This depends on how you define conscious experience. I assumed by the context, conscious experience refers to requiring the additional mental focus and attent. Without the mental focus, simply hearing a bell, would not be the conscious experience of the sound. — Tyler
But my point is that the Physical 440Hz has no tonal Property. It doesn't and cannot Sound like anything. The sensation of Tone-ness is only in the Conscious Sound which the Brain creates as a Surrogate for the 440Hz. The Tone sensation that you hear seems so appropriate for the Physical Phenomenon because it is the only way you have ever experienced Physical Sound. That is through the Surrogate which has nothing to do with the 440Hz itself.The point is that the Physical Sound has the 44Hz Property. The Conscious Sound experience has no 440Hz Property. — SteveKlinko>I agree the conscious sound experience would not involve the specific accuracy of 440Hz, but the conscious experience likely involves a rough measurement of that 440Hz, which could be considered a property of it. There would be no need for hearing to develop to an accurate degree of measurement (including distinguishing the oscillation), so a rough measurement would make sense, by natural selection. — Tyler
But what is the Surrogate? That is the Hard Problem of Consciousness.The Conscious Sound is a Surrogate for the Physical Sound. — SteveKlinko>I agree. Once the rough measurement is taken, the brain must translate it into code, to then save as memories. The overall interpretation of the coding would be the surrogate. — Tyler
I See Places and People in my Dreams all the time that I have never Seen. Why not a Sound that I have never heard?You can hear the Standard A Sound without any Physical Standard A Sound in your dreams. — SteveKlinko>This would be accessing memories, as it is coded and saved in the brain. Since dreaming is neural activity accessing memories, we could not dream of an entirely new pitch of sound, which has not been recorded by memory.
Same as coded memories of recordings of Red, then accessed in a dream. — Tyler
This is all at the Front End of the processing. It is all Neural Correlates of Consciousness.The experience of Red or the Standard A Pitch are completely unexplained by Science at this point in time. — SteveKlinko>I think that may be an over-exaggeration. I believe a lot of the elements involved in the experiences, are explained.
-Here's a video of how te eye measures light: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoUyMuMVJQY
-Then here's an explanation of the next step, of transfering that information to the brain: http://discoveryeye.org/the-brain-and-the-eye/
-then the next step of storing information as memories: http://www.human-memory.net/processes_storage.html — Tyler
Yes, huge Explanatory Gap is still there. This is the Hard Problem of Consciousness.That is for the more simple function of experiencing the sight of red. Then, for the Conscious Experience, it just has to be explained how the correct combination of accessing these memories, with relevant alternate memories, causes a conscious experience — Tyler
Yes I agree. I think the chain of events is more or less correct but Science cannot explain that last step: "that Consciousness constructs or informs is a certain 'redness'." Everyone just blithely makes statements like this thinking that it explains everything. Huge Explanatory Gap in the statement.↪SteveKlinkoYes, the whole process of human perception, starting with sensation, and including all the other stuff that comes with perception, is pre-conscious, chronologically. The final result of the perception process is passed, complete, to the conscious mind. This then results in experience, yes? — Pattern-chaser
Yes, the Conscious experience of Red is in the final stage of the Visual process. — SteveKlinko
What I find interesting here is not so much the reply in respect of the process 'seeing the colour red'
but rather the hyper-enthusiasm for the existing paradigm. I like the use of the word 'determined' to explain both the determination or fixed nature of the idea of a'neural' generation of consciousness, and the determined nature of aspects of our thinking.
I am not going to change the paradigm because the paradigm is 'determined' in both senses of the word determined. Those wedded to the paradigm are IMOP following their own determined nature... as my own objections to the paradigm are following their own determined and fixed nature.
Regardless of the paradigm, let us consider the weakness of the 'neural' argument, not so much in an effort to convince, but more in an effort to focus upon the 'determined' nature of the argument. In this sense my reply is both on AND somewhat off topic.
The colour red.
There is unquestionable evidence for the process of photons of light of a particular wavelength, leaving a material object and striking the human retina. The interaction between retina and light causes a nerve impulse to travel from the retina along neurons in the form of an action potential. This series of action potentials arrives at the 'color center' in the occipital lobe of the brain and more neurons are potentiated thus giving rise to a stimulus that consciousness constructs or informs is a certain 'redness'.
The example cited here as an explanation for consciousness brings nothing to the table and does not refer in any way to 'consciousness'. The above pathway refers to a stimulus and is the same material process that causes an amoeba to react to light... however it is carted out time and time again as the explanation of consciousness.
This would be strange if it was not entirely determined. — Marcus de Brun
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.