I did read it. You said it seems separate. I know you don't think it is separate, but you have not acknowledged that the person who says things are not as they seem is the one with work to do. — bert1

I suggest that you read my reply to Steve... :)

I do not shy away from considering different scenarios in order to establish a compromise required for a dialogue. I, therefore, suggest that we start talking to each other - to turn endless monologues into constructive dialogues... :)

Enjoy the day, :cool:

I read your replies but I still think your have not addressed my point. You don't have to if you don't want to of course.

EDIT: you have suggested a theory of your own, maybe that is what you mean.

That's not entirely true. Some scientists talk about multiverse... — Damir Ibrisimovic

And so they may, but the entire multiverse, if there is such a thing, is part of the Physical World. Did you think it literally referred to a single world? :wink:

My main point is that the Conscious World is non-existent to science. Science cannot see it. So science cannot meaningfully address it, can it? :chin:

I have to emphasize the point: Science has Zero understanding with regard to Consciousness. Consciousness is clearly something that Science can not handle yet. They are getting nowhere thinking it is in the Neurons. It is time to think outside the box. — SteveKlinko
As yet, I wouldn't dismiss the science... :)

However, I agree that there is something in the redness of the red. For the moment, consider the consciousness as a composite. My scenario that does not go against science would be as follows:

The retina is made of rods and cones that are essentially specialised neurons of the central nervous system. This enables us to see directly what retinas are exposed to. As yet, there is no colour - the rest of the brain has to agree with what is seen... :)

This scenario allows for colour label as we learn to see the redness. This also allows for colour as a cultural thing... :)

In short, I propose that consciousness is a composite of all retinal and neuronal activities... :)

Enjoy the day, :cool: — Damir Ibrisimovic

I think that Color Consciousness is further upstream in the processing and is probably a composite of all the Visual Cortex areas. I don't thinK Color Consciousness requires the Retina to be involved. We can experience Color while Dreaming where the Retina is inactive but certain areas of the Cortex are active.

I don't thinK Color Consciousness requires the Retina to be involved. We can experience Color while Dreaming where the Retina is inactive but certain areas of the Cortex are active. — SteveKlinko

There is an activity - Rapid Eyes Movement (REM) - suggesting an involvement of our retinas. :)

I think that Color Consciousness is further upstream in the processing and is probably a composite of all the Visual Cortex areas. — SteveKlinko

Optic nerves do not have a capacity to send a complete graphics to the rest of the brain. And that's what we are after -aren't we? :)

Enjoy the day, :cool:

My main point is that the Conscious World is non-existent to science. Science cannot see it. So science cannot meaningfully address it, can it? :chin: — Pattern-chaser

Scientists are people like us... :)

Enjoy the day, :cool:

EDIT: you have suggested a theory of your own, maybe that is what you mean. — bert1

Yes... :)

Enjoy the day, :cool:

I don't thinK Color Consciousness requires the Retina to be involved. We can experience Color while Dreaming where the Retina is inactive but certain areas of the Cortex are active. — SteveKlinko

There is an activity - Rapid Eyes Movement (REM) - suggesting an involvement of our retinas. :)

I think that Color Consciousness is further upstream in the processing and is probably a composite of all the Visual Cortex areas. — SteveKlinko
Optic nerves do not have a capacity to send a complete graphics to the rest of the brain. And that's what we are after -aren't we? :) — Damir Ibrisimovic

Rapid eye movements do not imply Retinal activity. Besides it is a fact that there is no Retinal activity while Dreaming. There is even very little V1 activity. The Optic Nerve transmits a complete Topographical mapping of what is on the Retina reproduced on V1. The image on V1 is distorted, kind of like a very bad fish-eye lens.

Rapid eye movements do not imply Retinal activity. Besides it is a fact that there is no Retinal activity while Dreaming. There is even very little V1 activity. — SteveKlinko

There is no direct evidence either way. But consider: Why eyes move during REM sleep? :)

The Optic Nerve transmits a complete Topographical mapping of what is on the Retina reproduced on V1. The image on V1 is distorted, kind of like a very bad fish-eye lens. — SteveKlinko

The optic nerve simply doesn't have the capacity... :)

Enjoy the day, :cool:

Rapid eye movements do not imply Retinal activity. Besides it is a fact that there is no Retinal activity while Dreaming. There is even very little V1 activity. — SteveKlinko
There is no direct evidence either way. But consider: Why eyes move during REM sleep? :)

The Optic Nerve transmits a complete Topographical mapping of what is on the Retina reproduced on V1. The image on V1 is distorted, kind of like a very bad fish-eye lens. — SteveKlinko
The optic nerve simply doesn't have the capacity... :) — Damir Ibrisimovic

I think the obvious first thing you would think is that the eyes during REM are following the action in some Dream scene. But I don't think anyone is sure about the purpose of REM.

I should have said Topological, not Topographical, mapping meaning there is a one to one correspondence between points on the Retina and points on V1. Assuming you understood what I was trying to say then do you believe there is not enough capacity in the Optic Nerve to allow such a mapping? If so then you are wrong about the lack of capacity because this mapping is basic Visual Cortex physiology that you can find in any textbook on Visual Cortex operation..

My main point is that the Conscious World is non-existent to science. Science cannot see it. So science cannot meaningfully address it, can it? :chin: — Pattern-chaser

Scientists are people like us... :) — Damir Ibrisimovic

Yes, they are, and that's the odd thing. We humans live much of our lives in the Conscious World.

Note to scien[ct]ists: that is not a literal statement. Humans have bodies, and they exist in the Physical World, of course. I refer to living as we humans experience it. We live as much (or more?) in the Conscious World of thought, human-created media, art, music, politics, and so on, as we do in the Physical World. Or so it seems to us.

But when a scien[ct]ist enters a philosophy forum, a change comes over them. They become unable to remember their RL experiences. They become able to dismiss the Conscious World as a trivial frippery, with no real existence. Puzzling. :chin:

I agree, very puzzling.

Assuming you understood what I was trying to say then do you believe there is not enough capacity in the Optic Nerve to allow such a mapping? If so then you are wrong about the lack of capacity because this mapping is basic Visual Cortex physiology that you can find in any textbook on Visual Cortex operation.. — SteveKlinko

As I said before: I have been reading textbooks long time ago. Now I read papers... :)

Here are some about the capacity of optical nerves:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/author/frank-werblin-and-botond-roska/ ,
http://cnc.cj.uc.pt/BEB/private/pdfs/SystemsNeurosc0607/PapersSergePicaud/ArticleDiscussion%201Picaud_%20Roskanature.pdf ,
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2766457/

Enjoy the day, :cool:

Two more:

https://www.physiology.org/doi/pdf/10.1152/jn.00113.2006
http://unisci.com/stories/20011/0329011.htm

Enjoy the day, :cool:

First, it is not clear to me that "experiences lacking in conscious awareness" are "simpler". Do you offer any justification for this assumption? — Pattern-chaser

>I assume conscious experiences are more complex, partially based on my understanding that conscious experiences are still considered unexplained, yet experiences without consciousness are mostly explained (which I see you ask about next, so will attempt to explain my perspective there).

"if it's agreed that those simpler experiences are explainable" - again, this has not been established. You have asserted so, but offered no justification. Please explain these 'simpler' experiences, in terms of neural activity. — Pattern-chaser

>I believe simpler experiences, which don't involve conscious awareness, are currently explained (to a sufficient degree), because as far as I'm aware, all the steps involved in a simple experience, are scientifically explained. As all the steps are explained, this sequence explains the overall experience, by my understanding.

An example of the steps of a simpler experience, explained (quoted from my previous reply to steve..)

"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"

We just have to explain the experiences, starting from simple, as they increase in degree of conscious awareness.
— Tyler

Go on then.... — Pattern-chaser

>Starting from my previous reply, theoretically explaining a simple experience, my theory is that conscious awareness, and therein complexity, increase gradually from this more simple process, by an increase of neural activity accessing memories relative to the experience. Basically, as the neurons increase the amount of memories accessed, relative to the experience, consciousness of the experience increases.

I am confused. First you agree that reductionism cannot properly investigate something whose function is primarily related to the connections between its components:
I think I mostly understand your point, and agree that it cannot be explained by only reductionism.
— Tyler

Then you ignore this, and repeat your previous (unjustified) assertion: — Pattern-chaser

>I agreed that Reductionism on its own, would not be a sufficient explanation, then I intended to explain that after reductionism, a further step could be taken, to then allow a sufficient explanation. Explaining the overlap of portions, would be the continued step, which is not included in reductionism (to my understanding).

But how will you explain the connections when you have used a reductionist approach? Let's just remind ourselves, again, how reductionism works. Divide and conquer. The components are disconnected - and further disassembled themselves, if necessary - until the remaining fragments are simple enough to be analysed and understood in isolation. Where significant functionality lies in the connections, it is necessarily lost in the reductive dismembering!

Please explain how "the connections of the portions are explained", when those connections were ignored and destroyed by your reductionist approach. :chin: — Pattern-chaser

>After the portions are explained, it can be reviewed where those portions came from. Then, in the same way that each portion was likely understood by cause and effect, the portions can be understood by cause and effect, in their relation to each other. If 1 portion is found to have a result, it can then be compared to the original overview, in how that portion connects to the next, then it can be analysed how the result of portion 1, causes the beginning of the next portion.
After reductionism, taking the next step of placing the portions back into the original combination, it should be discernible how all the portions interact with each other, to understand the overlap, and explain the overall function.

Assuming you understood what I was trying to say then do you believe there is not enough capacity in the Optic Nerve to allow such a mapping? If so then you are wrong about the lack of capacity because this mapping is basic Visual Cortex physiology that you can find in any textbook on Visual Cortex operation.. — SteveKlinko
As I said before: I have been reading textbooks long time ago. Now I read papers... :)

Here are some about the capacity of optical nerves:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/author/frank-werblin-and-botond-roska/ ,
http://cnc.cj.uc.pt/BEB/private/pdfs/SystemsNeurosc0607/PapersSergePicaud/ArticleDiscussion%201Picaud_%20Roskanature.pdf ,
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2766457/ — Damir Ibrisimovic

Thank You for the links. More details of how the Visual System works are always welcome. I did not get from these links that anything they said disproves the Topological mapping from Retina to V1. Refresh my memory, did you say that because of a Capacity problem of the Optic Nerve that there is no Topological mapping?

First, it is not clear to me that "experiences lacking in conscious awareness" are "simpler". Do you offer any justification for this assumption? — Pattern-chaser

>I assume conscious experiences are more complex, partially based on my understanding that conscious experiences are still considered unexplained, yet experiences without consciousness are mostly explained... — Tyler

I asked for a (logical) justification for your beliefs, but you have just explained what they are (again), and - with refreshing honesty :smile: - been quite clear that you "assume" these things. OK, on what logical basis do you assume these things?

I believe simpler experiences, which don't involve conscious awareness, are currently explained (to a sufficient degree), because as far as I'm aware, all the steps involved in a simple experience, are scientifically explained. — Tyler

Where? By whom? What are these explanations? You assert they exist, without saying where, and without saying what they are. :roll:

"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

I read the second link quite carefully. The way it describes the eye, you'd think it was a high-res colour camera. In fact - according to our current understanding - it is mainly monochrome, and its shutter speed is 0.25 s. That is, it 'takes' approximately four pictures per second.

These pictures are mainly low-res monochrome; the high-res colour part occupies the same area in your visual field as a full moon does in the sky! The snapshots are taken by the brain, and used to construct a picture. Most of the result is fabricated by the brain, although this fabrication is based on previous snapshots, and so on, so it's not random. But it is 'made up'. What we see is what we expect to see, to an alarming degree, and this is not even hinted at in the link. Human perception, from sense-organ-input to an 'image' presented to your conscious mind, is an incredibly complex thing, and I suspect our understanding of it is at a very early stage.

Your third link describes our memories, but offers nothing specific to vision or seeing, that I could see.

After the portions are explained, it can be reviewed where those portions came from. Then, in the same way that each portion was likely understood by cause and effect, the portions can be understood by cause and effect, in their relation to each other. — Tyler

So we destroy the information inherent in the connections between the portions. Then we analyse the portions. And finally, we try by guesswork to reconstruct the data we destroyed by applying a reductionist approach. Don't you think we could be more successful if we applied a different process, and retained the interconnection-information instead of throwing it away?

After reductionism, taking the next step of placing the portions back into the original combination, it should be discernible how all the portions interact with each other, to understand the overlap, and explain the overall function. — Tyler

It should (be discernible), maybe. But is it? And how does this discernment work, exactly? You're offering wishful thinking in lieu of explanation. I don't think you have a choice though: our understanding of all of this is, I think, far behind where you think it ought to be. :chin: :smile:

I did not get from these links that anything they said disproves the Topological mapping from Retina to V1. Refresh my memory, did you say that because of a Capacity problem of the Optic Nerve that there is no Topological mapping? — SteveKlinko

Refresh my memory, did you say that because of a Capacity problem of the Optic Nerve that there is no Topological mapping? — SteveKlinko

https://www.wired.com/2011/12/london-taxi-driver-memory/ :)

Enjoy the day, :cool:

[quote="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/london-taxi-memory/[/quote]

Enjoy the day, :cool:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/london-taxi-memory/

Damir

I'm interested in how you perceive the problem of consciousness pre-theory. I was struck by the sharp contrast between your statement saying how consciousness and brain activity seem very different, but that there is no need to separate them. We wouldn't say that about other things that seem very different, for example, we wouldn't say "Dogs and bicycles seem very different, but there is no need to separate them." However, we might say "Water and ice seem very different, but there is no need to separate them," but even then the identity between ice and water is only at a deeper level (H2O), superficially they remain very different.

The vast majority of things are different from one another, and we don't even bother starting to come up with a theory of their identity - doing so would just seem like madness. Why is it different with consciousness and brains? Why even do we start to think that they might be the same thing, such that we would even bother making a theory about their identity, or at least close relationship?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/london-taxi-memory/ — Damir Ibrisimovic

Don't see how this undermines the Topological mapping from Retina to V1. Anything you do will change your Brain in some way.

Don't see how this undermines the Topological mapping from Retina to V1. Anything you do will change your Brain in some way. — SteveKlinko

It needs to be considered together with another older research:

http://unisci.com/stories/20011/0329011.htm :)

Enjoy the day, :cool:

What we see is what we expect to see, to an alarming degree... — Pattern-chaser

Exactly!

Enjoy the day, :cool:

Don't see how this undermines the Topological mapping from Retina to V1. Anything you do will change your Brain in some way. — SteveKlinko
It needs to be considered together with another older research:

http://unisci.com/stories/20011/0329011.htm :) — Damir Ibrisimovic

This still did not invalidate the fact that V1 is Topologically mapped with the Retina.

What we see is what we expect to see, to an alarming degree... — Pattern-chaser
Exactly!

Enjoy the day, :cool: — Damir Ibrisimovic

There is a certain amount of seeing what you expect to see but it only lasts for fractions of a second. For example: when my towels are in the washing machine and I forget to put another set on the towel rack an interesting phenomenon happens. If I go into the bathroom and wash my hands and then turn around to get a towel from the towel rack behind me I swear for an instant I see a vague image of towels on the rack but they immediately disappear. The expectation puts the towels there but reality catches up fast. The real world is remarkably and reliably presented.and reality overrides expectation quickly unless you are psychotic.

I'm interested in how you perceive the problem of consciousness pre-theory. — bert1

Based upon scientific research, there is no "detailed graphics" in our brain. So, I suggest that we see what our retinas see... :)

Based upon scientific research, there is no "detailed graphics" in our brain. So, I suggest that we see what our retinas see... :) — Damir Ibrisimovic

Thanks for your reply. I think we are struggling to communicate.

This still did not invalidate the fact that V1 is Topologically mapped with the Retina. — SteveKlinko

What do you mean with "V1 is Topologically mapped with the Retina"?

Enjoy the day, :cool:

The expectation puts the towels there but reality catches up fast. The real world is remarkably and reliably presented.and reality overrides expectation quickly unless you are psychotic. — SteveKlinko

There was an experiment: Person A would ask for directions. Person B would start giving directions to persona A. Two other people would carry something between persons A & B so that A & B cannot see each other for a couple of seconds. The third person C would quickly replace person B... :)

The interesting thing is that person A would not notice the switch... :)

Enjoy the day, :cool: