> The basis for my assumption that conscious experiences are more complex;OK, on what logical basis do you assume these things? — Pattern-chaser
> I believe simpler experiences are mostly explained by science, wherever you search. The links I posted after that statement were examples of just that, as was that an insinuated answer of, by whom, and what the explanations are.Where? By whom? What are these explanations? You assert they exist, without saying where, and without saying what they are. :roll: — Pattern-chaser
I liked that as 1 of the steps in the experience of sight. After the other stages, the information received by the eye needs to be saved as memories, which could be considered part of an "experience", depending on how you define it.Your third link describes our memories, but offers nothing specific to vision or seeing, that I could see. — Pattern-chaser
>Sure. I think that's basically what I meant.
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? — Pattern-chaser
It "should" be, as far as any problem "should" be discernible by analyzing cause and effect. The discernment is done like any science. Hypothesis, experiment, results.It should (be discernible), maybe. But is it? And how does this discernment work, exactly? You're offering wishful thinking in lieu of explanation. — Pattern-chaser
Your very statement screams out for further explanation. — SteveKlinko
Why? :) You started with Consciousness happens - without anything like neuronal activity... :)
Neuronal activity can produce only "what is what" or sketchy images. It simply does not have the capacity to produce/transmit the totality of visual impressions... :)
Enjoy the day, — Damir Ibrisimovic
You are still saying that the Neural Activity happens and that Explains everything. It is mind boggling to me that you cannot realize the thing that is missing in your explanation. The thing that is missing is the Red experience itself and the 440Hz Tone experience itself. — SteveKlinko
>From my perspective, once the mechanical process is outlined, something is explained. I think we've gone through this cycle of disagreement before, but I get the sense you want or expect something more than an explanation of function. I believe that's all there is, and different conscious experiences just seem so extravagant and profound, that its hard for our minds to except an explanation. — Tyler
say that:
1) Neural Activity happens
2) A Conscious experience happens
1 and 2 are the two things we know that are happening. We don't know why 2 happens when 1 happens. — SteveKlinko
Either way, you are having 2) happening on undecided 1) relations. I could claim a relation too... :)
But I do not. You are still looking for the totality of visual impressions somewhere in the brain... :) And that's unrealistic, to put it mildly... — Damir Ibrisimovic
his is unclear Damir. It's not clear you actually understand the difficulty SteveKlinko is describing. Maybe you do understand it, and you have a good answer, but so far nothing you have said indicates that (not that I have really understood much of what you have said). — bert1
Can you state in your own words the philosophical problem that SteveKlinko is patiently and repeatedly raising? — bert1
In short, these links (posted in the previous comments) show that only sketchy images are passed from the retinas to the rest of the brain... :) — Damir Ibrisimovic
My preferred solution to this is to deny that there are unfelt states, and suggest that consciousness is an intrinsic property of everything. That brings its own problems, but it is a putative solution to the problem. — bert1
Can you have another go at stating the problem, and then say what your solution is? — bert1
I suppose that is one way to state the Hard Problem. But what is the Solution? If you are saying that your statement is also the Solution then I don't understand.My preferred solution to this is to deny that there are unfelt states, and suggest that consciousness is an intrinsic property of everything. That brings its own problems, but it is a putative solution to the problem. — bert1
I have not a problem with what you say. I'm stating something similar... :)
Can you have another go at stating the problem, and then say what your solution is? — bert1
I'm tired of repeating myself... I can only restate my position which seems to be beyond your grasp:
The hard problem of consciousness is hidden in the totality of visual/auditory impressions... :) — Damir Ibrisimovic
But what is the Solution? If you are saying that your statement is also the Solution then I don't understand. — SteveKlinko
But what is the Solution? If you are saying that your statement is also the Solution then I don't understand. — SteveKlinko
As I said before: We witness the totality of visual/auditory impressions before retinal preprocessing. The retinal preprocessing adds "what's what" to the totality of visual/auditory impressions. In a way, retinal preprocessing dulls the totality of visual/auditory impressions - but give us a faster management of the totality/infinity impressions... :)
This is not a farfetched impossibility - for retinal cells are directly exposed to unaltered stimuli... — Damir Ibrisimovic
It's been known for a hundred years that Brain Activity, of whatever kind you want to talk about, produces Consciousness. — SteveKlinko
It's been known for a hundred years that Brain Activity, of whatever kind you want to talk about, produces Consciousness. — SteveKlinko
Unfortunately, this has not been known for hundreds of years... :)
I stated that the totality/infinity of visual/auditor impressions precedes retinal preprocessing. I, therefore, state again that totality/infinity of visual/auditory impressions precedes further preprocessing making the totality/infinity available to our senses. In other words, consciousness does not emerge from retinal preprocessing or other neuronal activities... — Damir Ibrisimovic
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.