↪Wayfarer What about a life-form that isn't conscious, like a starfish, that has eyes, but no central nervous system with a brain?

But what does it really mean to See? — SteveKlinko

What it means to see is that you are using light as a source of information about the world. We know this is true because we don't have any information about the world when there is no light. Actually, the only information we have is that there is no light symbolized by our visual field covered in black. — Harry Hindu

Maybe I should have simply asked How do we See?, not What does it Mean to See?

First of all Conscious Life Forms like us are Physical Things. That's just a fact. — SteveKlinko

It's simply not fact. Physical things are describable by physics - up to a point - conscious subjects are not. This fundamental misconception invalidates everything that comes after it.

That's ok if you don't like how I say it. Can't help it that's how I talk. I didn't say that that's all we are is Conscious. I just said Conscious Life Forms Like us are Physical Things and later I say how we also have a Conscious aspect. You might not like Dualism but that's all I'm talking about here. No need to invalidate everything because of a simple semantic problem you see in the whole thing.

Maybe I should have simply asked How do we See?, not What does it Mean to See? — SteveKlinko

http://www.webmd.com/eye-health/amazing-human-eye

It's simply not fact. Physical things are describable by physics - up to a point - conscious subjects are not. This fundamental misconception invalidates everything that comes after it. — Wayfarer

All this means is that physics hasn't described consciousness - yet. It doesn't imply that consciousness has some special quality about it that allows it to be untouched by science. That would be an description of consciousness that isn't based on any facts. It's most likely that consciousness simply hasn't yet been defined correctly.

All this means is that physics hasn't described consciousness — Harry Hindu

It's not in the business of trying to 'describe consciousness'. What it describes is the motion of objects. It's amazing the number of people who don't seem to get that.

All this means is that physics hasn't described consciousness - yet. It doesn't imply that consciousness has some special quality about it that allows it to be untouched by science. That would be an description of consciousness that isn't based on any facts. It's most likely that consciousness simply hasn't yet been defined correctly. — Harry Hindu

It may be that physics hasn't yet been defined correctly, of course. A Chomsky paper from the 90's called 'Language and Nature' argues that earlier similar intra-science puzzles, like how physics and chemistry can interact, were puzzled by redescribing physics and science.

I'm into J J Gibson's 'ecological approach' at the moment. He argues that his approach is non-dualistic and even makes playful reference to ecological physics. This is on the basis that for an animal to perceive an object is for it to see the 'affordances' available from the object, i.e. the natural world is a vast network of mutual relations of affordance, an approach derived from gestalt psychology.

I'm into J J Gibson's 'ecological approach' at the moment. He argues that his approach is non-dualistic and even makes playful reference to ecological physics. This is on the basis that for an animal to perceive an object is for it to see the 'affordances' available from the object, i.e. the natural world is a vast network of mutual relations of affordance, an approach derived from gestalt psychology. — mcdoodle

Did you read The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception? Gibson is the most philosophical of all the psychologists. My understanding of Aristotle's metaphysics, of Kant's epistemology, and of the inseparability of practical and theoretical reason, are conditioned by Gibson's concept of an affordance.

The visual system uses Nerve signals from the Retina to construct the scene we are looking at with our own internal Conscious Light. — SteveKlinko

What organ is that? What signals would it use?

It's not in the business of trying to 'describe consciousness'. What it describes is the motion of objects. It's amazing the number of people who don't seem to get that. — Wayfarer

...says someone who isn't up to par with the latest attempts of scientists (not physicists, but neurologists and psychologists) to explain consciousness. They are preliminary explanations no doubt, but philosophy by itself hasn't advanced our understanding of consciousness beyond any preliminary stages since it began addressing it thousands of years ago. As usual, we need a different view to understand something better. Thinking about it like we have for the last few thousand years (like it's some special, magical, supernatural property or thing) hasn't gotten us anywhere.

Sounds interesting. I'll look it up. Thanks.

Did you read The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception? — Pierre-Normand

Yes, in fact I'm deep into the secondary literature because I'm hoping to write a student paper on the relationship of affordance and 'familiarity'. It is such a clear and different way of understanding, the notion of affordances, just because it does cut through stale distinctions between subjectivity and objectivity. And actually it's a bridge between analytic and Continental philosophers, because members of both schools are interested, and everyone gets to quote Heidegger :)

All this means is that physics hasn't described consciousness — Harry Hindu
It's not in the business of trying to 'describe consciousness'. What it describes is the motion of objects. It's amazing the number of people who don't seem to get that — Wayfarer

Certainly Quantum Physic has talked about the effect of Consciousness on results of certain experiments. So it would seem like it is well within the jurisdiction of Physics to describe Consciousness some day .

The visual system uses Nerve signals from the Retina to construct the scene we are looking at with our own internal Conscious Light. — SteveKlinko
What organ is that? What signals would it use? — jkop

Saying, What Organ is that, is just asking the basic question how does Consciousness work. We don't know yet. There's probably no Physical type of Organ involved.

Regardless of whether we call it an organ or inner light, what signals does it use? If it is using the same signals as the visual system, then whence the addition of "inner light" that is supposedly "looking" at the alleged construction or "result" of the visual system?

Regardless of whether we call it an organ or inner light, what signals does it use? If it is using the same signals as the visual system, then whence the addition of "inner light" that is supposedly "looking" at the alleged construction or "result" of the visual system? — jkop

The Conscious Mind is definitely using the same Physical Signals as the Visual System. The Inner Light (Conscious Light) is correlated with these Signals. It still defies Physical explanation what the Conscious Light is. It can not be found in the Physical Mind (Brain) yet. We have been waiting too long for the Physical explanation of Consciousness. It's time to start thinking in different ways. The Conscious Space and the Conscious Mind concepts are primarily thought experiments to see if there might be some new way of approaching the problem.

It's time to start thinking in different ways. — SteveKlinko

Right, so why are you stuck in dualism?

Direct realism is a better assumption as defended by Searle, or Putnam.

Perception has no interface between the brain's causation of becoming aware of what you see, and the causal chain to what you become aware of; the latter sets the conditions for what you will perceive.

The visual system does not produce a "result" that would be "looked" at by some inner homunculus. Instead it produces the looking-part of the experience, whereas the present features of the external object sets the conditions of what the object-part of the experience will appear like. For example, if a door is open, then it will be an open door that you see. Looking at some result of your own brain events would amount to blindness or hallucination.

It's time to start thinking in different ways. — SteveKlinko
Right, so why are you stuck in dualism?

Direct realism is a better assumption as defended by Searle, or Putnam.

Perception has no interface between the brain's causation of becoming aware of what you see, and the causal chain to what you become aware of; the latter sets the conditions for what you will perceive.

The visual system does not produce a "result" that would be "looked" at by some inner homunculus. Instead it produces the looking-part of the experience, whereas the present features of the external object sets the conditions of what the object-part of the experience will appear like. For example, if a door is open, then it will be an open door that you see. Looking at some result of your own brain events would amount to blindness or hallucination — jkop

The main problem with Direct Realism is that there never is any explanation of how we directly experience things. Even if Direct Realism is true there is a Huge Explanatory Gap between saying we Directly Experience the world and explaining how that happens.

So it would seem like it is well within the jurisdiction of Physics to describe Consciousness some day . — SteveKlinko

But, it's a huge and unresolved argument. It's not as if physicists have agreed on what it means - they don't agree at all. The existence of 'the observer effect' is a great unresolved mystery. Here is an essay on it.

The main problem with Direct Realism is that there never is any explanation of how we directly experience things. — SteveKlinko

When the appearance that you see is the external object that you see there is no gap to explain.

The gap arises by assuming dualism, it was invented by dualists, and it is incoherent to speak of a gap under the assumption of direct realism.

That said, there are neuroscientific questions to explain, but they are not philosophical questions.

So it would seem like it is well within the jurisdiction of Physics to describe Consciousness some day . — SteveKlinko
But, it's a huge and unresolved argument. It's not as if physicists have agreed on what it means - they don't agree at all. The existence of 'the observer effect' is a great unresolved mystery. Here is an essay on it. — Wayfarer

Good essay. I think that Quantum Mechanics could be the key to understanding Consciousness. The effect of Consciousness has always been part of some interpretations of QM theory.

yeah but do notice how far away it is from 'bodies in motion'.

When the appearance that you see is the external object that you see there is no gap to explain — jkop

Then I would want to know what the mechanism or process is that facilitates this Direct Seeing of objects. If you can not show me a convincing mechanism or process then that is a big Gap in understanding. You can't just say it's true without an explanation.

You can't just say it's true without an explanation. — SteveKlinko

It is called 'direct' because there is nothing by way of which the objects are seen, neither a process nor a mechanism, so there are no such things to explain.

The seeing, however, is a causation of biochemical processes in the brain, and that's the short explanation of how the capacity to see works. Its detailed explanation is the subject for empirical research.

there are neuroscientific questions to explain, but they are not philosophical questions. — jkop

Oh yes they are. How do you get from ions being passed across synapses, to meaning? Is meaning in a general sense, something that can be understood through neuroscience? When a scientist says that this data means or entails that fact, where in the objective data is that interpretation itself to be found? I say that it's never found in the data but always supplied by an act of interpretation or declaration on the part of the researcher, of what the data means.

This is borne out by the fact that much or all of the early optimism about how neuroscience could 'explain' the nature of thought has collapsed in the face of the vast amounts of information collected over decades of research. It was thought in the 60's and 70's that the emerging neuroscience would quickly reveal how the 'brain creates thoughts' but it has proven incredibly complicated. (See Do You Believe in God, or is that a Software Glitch?, and Your Brain is not a Computer.)

And besides, the processes of reasoning, are themselves required to form any conclusions about 'what the brain does'. At every step in the analysis requires judgement - and where in the data are 'the seat of judgements' to be found? Judgement is internal to the process of thinking, it's not an external or material process at all. This is one reason why the chimera of 'explaining thought' has always receded in front of the advance of neuroscience. You're basically looking for something like the plot of a movie in the circuits of the television that's playing it; it's a species of category error.

It is called 'direct' because there is nothing by way of which the objects are seen, neither a process nor a mechanism, so there are no such things to explain.

The seeing, however, is a causation of biochemical processes in the brain, and that's the short explanation of how the capacity to see works. Its detailed explanation is the subject for empirical research. — jkop

It seems like you have a big process in the Brain function. And it seems like you say empirical research will be needed. Sorry if I am still not quite following because it seems like you say the empirical research is going to provide an explanation some day.

Relatively simple and small organisms can see, recall, so it should be fairly clear that the conscious awareness that is the seeing doesn't require "a big process in the Brain function".

Whatever is left to explain on how seeing arises from biochemistry is not the big explanatory gap that arises from assuming dualism or representational perception, because a direct realist does not make the latter assumptions.

How do you get from ions being passed across synapses, to meaning? — Wayfarer

Meanings just ain't in the head! — Hilary Putnam

Relatively simple and small organisms can see, recall, so it should be fairly clear that the conscious awareness that is the seeing doesn't require "a big process in the Brain function".

Whatever is left to explain on how seeing arises from biochemistry is not the big explanatory gap that arises from assuming dualism or representational perception, because a direct realist does not make the latter assumptions. — jkop

We don't know what any other organism sees or does not see. But if it is a Conscious type of seeing then there is a Big Explanatory Gap that needs to be filled even if the organism has a more simple Brain.

Ok forget Dualism, how exactly does seeing arise from biochemistry?

We don't know what any other organism sees or does not see. — SteveKlinko

Your skepticism arises from the assumption that each organism would see their own sensations instead of the objects in our shared environment.

But if it is a Conscious type of seeing then there is a Big Explanatory Gap that needs to be filled even if the organism has a more simple Brain. — SteveKlinko

All seeing is conscious.

Again, the idea of an explanatory gap arises from assuming dualism or representational perception. Not so with direct realism.

Ok forget Dualism, how exactly does seeing arise from biochemistry? — SteveKlinko

Ask a biochemist or neuroscientist. It's not a philosophical question. The philosophical question is as far as I know whether seeing presents objects in your conscious awareness or represents images of what you don't see. If the latter, then your skepticism would be entailed.

Meanings just ain't in the head!
— Hilary Putnam — jkop

That doesn't answer the question.