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
That's not entirely true. Some scientists talk about multiverse... — 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 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 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
I think that Color Consciousness is further upstream in the processing and is probably a composite of all the Visual Cortex areas. — SteveKlinko
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
EDIT: you have suggested a theory of your own, maybe that is what you mean. — bert1
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.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. — SteveKlinko
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
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.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
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
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
>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).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 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."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
>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.We just have to explain the experiences, starting from simple, as they increase in degree of conscious awareness.
— Tyler
Go on then.... — 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).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
>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.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
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
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 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
"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
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
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
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
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
What we see is what we expect to see, to an alarming degree... — Pattern-chaser
This still did not invalidate the fact that V1 is Topologically mapped with the Retina.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
What we see is what we expect to see, to an alarming degree... — Pattern-chaser
Exactly!
Enjoy the day, :cool: — Damir Ibrisimovic
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... :) — Damir Ibrisimovic
This still did not invalidate the fact that V1 is Topologically mapped with the Retina. — SteveKlinko
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
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.