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
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
So please explain to me how we are beings of free will and not just observers in life ? — Christos
EDIT: you have suggested a theory of your own, maybe that is what you mean. — bert1
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
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
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 think not. Science recognises only one world, Steve's Physical World, so they don't have a need to discuss worlds. Like in the sci-fi stories, when they ask the aliens what they call their home, and they say "Earth" or "the world", and look at the strangers oddly. When there's only one world, there's little point in discussing it. :wink: — Pattern-chaser
But you separated them yourself in the previous sentence! — bert1
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
I'm not 100% convinced that this is a scientific viewpoint. :chin: I don't think science would assert anything that has not yet been demonstrated. So science would surely hang back from asserting the location of the Consciousness World, until we know where that might be, yes? :chin:
Oh yes, and what is "this world", in the context of the Physical and Conscious Worlds? Is it the former, or is it something else? — Pattern-chaser
Then the question is: Do we experience neuronal activities themselves (not the colour)? If we do, how do we experience them? If not, what is the purpose of neuronal activities? :gasp: — Damir Ibrisimovic
For me I experience the Color. I have no inner knowledge of Neural Activity. — SteveKlinko
The two Categories are not Artificially separated. They are so different in the kind of things that they are that you would actually have to Artificially combine them. They are Naturally separated by their own manifestations as different Categories of phenomena. — SteveKlinko
Science can put them together and show how Neurons firing produce a Red experience then that's ok too. But for now at this point in our understanding it is only sensible to keep them separate. — SteveKlinko
With regard to Redness, the only thing I know is that it is a whole different Category of Phenomenon than Neural Activity. I don't say anything more about it than that. But I do ask this question ... Given:
1) Neural Activity for Red happens
2) A Red experience happens
How can Neural Activity, of any kind or complexity, produce that experience of Red? — SteveKlinko
Any introductory textbook on the Eye and Visual Cortex will tell you that there is certainly a Chain of Processing. There is of course lots of feedback from later stages back to previous stages but the general concept of a Chain of Processing is absolutely true. — SteveKlinko
Why can't Redness be before or after Neural Activity? What do you know about Redness that the rest of the world doesn't? — SteveKlinko
Don't have to quote papers for every post I do. The Neural Chain of processing is basic Brain Science. Go read any textbook on Brain Physiology. — SteveKlinko
The only missing stage is the stage where the Neural Processing results in the experience of Red for example. — SteveKlinko
Redness does not exist in the Physical World. — SteveKlinko
What we know about Redness is that certain Neural Activity has to happen before we experience it. The question remains as to how Neural Activity can result in an experience of Redness. — SteveKlinko
So it makes sense to propose this Consciousness World until Science can show how it is a part of Physical World. — SteveKlinko
Complex Adaptive System Theory might be applicable except that there is a Chain of Neural Processing that happens from the initial Light hitting the Retina to signals travelling down the Optic Nerve to multiple stages of Visual Cortex Processing. — SteveKlinko
The Redness of the Red only exists in a further processing stage after the Retina. — SteveKlinko
Redness does not exist in the Physical World. This is the thing that needs to be explained. — SteveKlinko
Don't know why but the best we know from Science is that Neural Activity precedes Consciousness Activity — SteveKlinko
Some cultures don't have a good naming convention for Color but it does not mean that they can't see Colors. Maybe there could be a whole group of isolated people that are genetically color blind from birth. They would have no use for Color designations. — SteveKlinko
All this has been know for decades. — SteveKlinko
What we know about Redness is that certain Neural Activity has to happen before we experience it. — SteveKlinko
How can Neural Activity of any kind ever result in a Red experience? Think about the Redness of the Red. — SteveKlinko
I am in the process of trying to found knowledge on love. — Blue Lux
o my own experiences after all?
Is language a game of mere abstraction? — Blue Lux
A theory to test whether or not free will exists cannot be built upon language use that already assumes precisely what needs argued for. — creativesoul
By virtue of the fact that consciousness is always consciousness of something, — Blue Lux
Who needs a new theory to verify that all sorts of people are incapable of recognizing poor reasoning in the wild? — creativesoul
Talking in terms of giving away free will is talking about the idea or the belief in free will. — creativesoul
I don't see how you can get away from talk about cause/effect and determinism, especially if agency talk can be broken down into deterministic talk. — gurugeorge
But the point I was making was that you don't get identity in the sense we're talking about, — gurugeorge
Is thought interchangeable with expression? Thought is itself an expression? Or is thought prior to expression? — Blue Lux
Perhaps language is accompanied, but fantasies and images constitute much of thought, and furthermore these images and fantasies inspire language. — Blue Lux
The basis for the conclusion is the testimonial evidence of those who have had an NDE ... — Sam26
If that's the case then I have a fun legit way of traveling backwards in time in a very restricted sense. — TheMadFool