The premise that we start with is that Before The Beginning there was Absolute Nothing. There was no Energy, and there was no Matter, and there was no Space. — SteveKlinko
I don’t think you can start with that premise:

- Something can’t come from nothing
- So something must have always existed
- So the state of ‘Nothingness’ is impossible
- If something is permanent it must be timeless (proof: assume base reality existed eternally - the total number of particle collisions would be infinite - reductio ad absurdum)
- So base reality must be timeless (to avoid the infinities)
- Time was was created inside this base reality — Devans99

"Something can't come from nothing" is an unproven Belief when it comes to the beginning of everything. No one knows what happened back then. Science is pretty sure that the normal rules of Physics don't even apply. The things you say above probably don't apply. The rules of Physics don't apply because Science does not know all the rules of Physics yet. In any case, the concept of Nothingness is a real possibility. Why is there Something? The real point of the Thought experiment was to talk about Multi-Dimensional Spaces. The usual common sense Belief is that Space is some Background ever present thing that is always there extending out Infinitely in 3 directions. This is just because we live in a 3D Space and it is all we know. Space could have been 4D which is a whole different Thing than 3D. Where would all that extra Space in 4D come from?

Just a thought: The premise that we start with is that Before The Beginning there was Absolute Nothing. There was no Energy, and there was no Matter, and there was no Space. Matter is made out of Energy but it is still useful to think of them as separate things. The no Space part of this is the most difficult to grasp. We naturally think of Space as an ever present background reality that infinitely extends out in three dimensions. It boggles the mind to try to think of no Space or even a finite Space. But we can conceive of other Spaces than our 3 dimensional Space. So our Space could have been a 4 dimensional Space for example. A 4 dimensional Space is a very different Thing than a 3 dimensional Space. The point is that if Space can be different Things then Space is a Thing. And like all Things we conclude that Space can exist or not exist. It is not the always present background reality that we assume it is.

Imagine a Square drawn on a piece of paper. Now imagine the Square shrinking smaller and smaller. It remains a Square no matter how small it shrinks. If we stop shrinking it and start magnifying it back we can bring the Square back to the original size. But now imagine the Square shrinking to Zero size. All points of the Square collapse to a single point and there is no longer a Square on the paper. The square has been transformed into a single point. We would not be able to magnify the resulting point back the the original Square. We could also shrink a Triangle in the same way and at Zero size it would be a single point just like the Square. The Square and the Triangle lose their identity when they are Zero size. They become something different. They become something less than what they were. Zero size is an unrecoverable threshold of size that changes everything.

Now imagine a Square that is the smallest Square that is not equal to Zero. This thought sends your mind into an endless recursive loop of the Square getting smaller and smaller and we soon realize that it is impossible to imagine such a smallest Square. One thing we can say is that this Square is Infinitely small but is still a Square. In general mathematics this would be called a differential Square or an infinitesimal Square.

Next imagine the Square that was drawn on the paper growing larger and larger. If the Square was exactly in the center of the paper the sides of the Square would eventually move off of the paper and past the edges of the universe. It remains a Square no matter how large it grows. If we stop growing it and start shrinking it back we can bring the Square back to the original size. But now imagine the Square growing to Infinite size. The sides would all move out to infinity. No matter how far you went in the universe you would never encounter a side of the Square. The Square has effectively exited the universe. We could also grow a Triangle in the same way and at Infinite size it will no longer be found in the universe. The Square and the Triangle lose their identity when they are Infinite size. They become something different. Paradoxically they become something less than what they were. You might think that the Square and Triangle are still out there at Infinity. But there is no "there" at Infinity. The Square and Triangle are gone. If you think you can go out "there" to an edge of the Square or Triangle at Infinity then that "there" is not Infinity. Infinite size is an unrecoverable threshold of size that changes everything.

Now imagine a Square that is the largest Square that is not equal to Infinity. Similar to the differential Square, this thought sends your mind into an endless recursive loop of the Square getting larger and larger and we again soon realize that it is impossible to imagine such a largest Square. We can say that this Square is Infinitely large but is still a Square that exists in the universe.

I think that just as Infinite Squares are not possible it is probably true that any Infinite Physical quantity of anything is not possible. Just because an equation in Science goes to Infinity, it doesn't mean that the Physical quantity in the equation is able go to Infinity. I think this is a limitation of what we can do with Mathematics. Seems like a minor limitation but it has big consequences when equations in Science go to Infinity.

Imagine a Square drawn on a piece of paper. Now imagine the Square shrinking smaller and smaller. It remains a Square no matter how small it shrinks. If we stop shrinking it and start magnifying it back we can bring the Square back to the original size. But now imagine the Square shrinking to Zero size. All points of the Square collapse to a single point and there is no longer a Square on the paper. The square has been transformed into a single point. We would not be able to magnify the resulting point back the the original Square. We could also shrink a Triangle in the same way and at Zero size it would be a single point just like the Square. The Square and the Triangle lose their identity when they are Zero size. They become something different. They become something less than what they were. Zero size is an unrecoverable threshold of size that changes everything.

Now imagine a Square that is the smallest Square that is not equal to Zero. This thought sends your mind into an endless recursive loop of the Square getting smaller and smaller and we soon realize that it is impossible to imagine such a smallest Square. One thing we can say is that this Square is Infinitely small but is still a Square. In general mathematics this would be called a differential Square or an infinitesimal Square.

Next imagine the Square that was drawn on the paper growing larger and larger. If the Square was exactly in the center of the paper the sides of the Square would eventually move off of the paper and past the edges of the universe. It remains a Square no matter how large it grows. If we stop growing it and start shrinking it back we can bring the Square back to the original size. But now imagine the Square growing to Infinite size. The sides would all move out to infinity. No matter how far you went in the universe you would never encounter a side of the Square. The Square has effectively exited the universe. We could also grow a Triangle in the same way and at Infinite size it will no longer be found in the universe. The Square and the Triangle lose their identity when they are Infinite size. They become something different. Paradoxically they become something less than what they were. You might think that the Square and Triangle are still out there at Infinity. But there is no "there" at Infinity. The Square and Triangle are gone. If you think you can go out "there" to an edge of the Square or Triangle at Infinity then that "there" is not Infinity. Infinite size is an unrecoverable threshold of size that changes everything.

Now imagine a Square that is the largest Square that is not equal to Infinity. Similar to the differential Square, this thought sends your mind into an endless recursive loop of the Square getting larger and larger and we again soon realize that it is impossible to imagine such a largest Square. We can say that this Square is Infinitely large but is still a Square that exists in the universe.

I think that just as Infinite Squares are not possible it is probably true that any Infinite Physical quantity of anything is not possible. Just because an equation in Science goes to Infinity, it doesn't mean that the Physical quantity in the equation is able go to Infinity. I think this is a limitation of what we can do with Mathematics. Seems like a minor limitation but it has big consequences when equations in Science go to Infinity.

I think the mathematicians have the definition of Point wrong:

“That is, a point is defined only by some properties, called axioms, that it must satisfy. In particular, the geometric points do not have any length, area, volume or any other dimensional attribute’

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_(geometry)

If a point has no length it does not exist so the definition is contradictory.

A point must has length > 0 else it does not exist. With this revised definition of a point we can see that the number of points on any line segment is always a finite number rather than Actual Infinity. — Devans99

See the section "Mathematical Points and Dimensional Points" at:
http://www.theintermind.com/ExploringThe4thDimensionUsingAnimations/ExploringThe4thDimensionUsingAnimations.asp You will have to scroll down a bit to get to it.

↪SteveKlinko There is visual stuff when you close your eyes. They are called phosphenes. Have you heard of this? I, personally, have a theory about how sleep begins, with regard to phosphenes, and subjectively I have proven it, because it always works. — Blue Lux

We do not See things in the external World, but rather we Detect things by using internal Conscious processes that we are born with. We all have a personal Conscious Light Screen (CLS) that we use to detect what is happening in the external World. If we try to describe where this CLS is located it seems to be embedded in the front of our faces in some way. The CLS is vaguely horizontally rectangular with ambiguous edges that are hard to locate exactly. The screen seems to just fade into nonexistence at the borders. But wherever you look, that screen is there showing you with Conscious Light what is in the scene you are looking at.

To understand this better close your eyes and observe what you See. At first there may be various After Images that represent remnants of what you were looking at, but eventually these fade away. What is left is not totally black. Note that you might have to put your hand over your eyes if you are in a bright place in order to cut off external Light from leaking through your eyelids. Most people will notice a background that has a vague grainy noise almost like the video snow noise that used to appear on old analog TVs. Let's call this Conscious Light Noise (CLN). This noise effect is also called Phosphenes. It is due to random Retinal and Cortical firings. CLN really is the background noise in your Visual detection system. Most people easily perceive that this CLN, and possible After Images, are close to the front of their faces. If you move your head around you will See the CLN, and After Images, move around with your head to keep them in front of your face. If you move your eyes up, down, left, or right, the CLN and After Images will seem to be displaced a little in those directions but will still basically be located in front of your face. It is interesting to note that After Images will always look close even if the scene element that caused the After Image is far away. Now you know where your CLS is located.

When you open your eyes the scene that you are looking at is painted onto your CLS and it is harder to perceive that the Conscious Light making up the image is still close to your face. Your Visual system tries to give you the illusion that there are things that are far away and things that are close. If you look through only one eye the depth illusion is less pronounced. But the Conscious Light that the scene is painted with is actually still located close to your face and is at the same distance as the CLN. The illusion of distance is absolutely necessary for moving around in the World.

It should be mentioned that the things and scenes you See while Dreaming are also painted onto your CLS. The CLS is a general purpose Visual Display Device for all Conscious beings, whether Human or Animal. We walk around all day long looking at our CLSs which are embedded in the front of our faces. We cannot See the CLSs of other people but if we could it would be as if everyone was wearing Virtual Reality goggles. But instead of goggles it would be Conscious Light Screens. We think we are Seeing the external World directly but we (our Conscious Minds) are always just looking (in some Conscious way) at our own CLSs.

The Hard Problem is: How does the Neural Activity (using drugs or not using drugs) produce the Conscious experience? — SteveKlinko
Again. Neural activity does not produce conscious experience. But, we are getting back to neuronal activity (not retinal activity) again --- as if we never discussed it. I will, therefore, stop repeating myself... :) — Damir Ibrisimovic

I may have forgotten to mention that the Rods, Cones, etc. of the Retina are considered to be specialized Neurons. The Retina is just an extension of the Brain and so you can say that the external Light impinges directly on the Brain. It's all just Neural Activity. You want to give more importance to the Retina and that's ok and may be true. Neural Activity and the Conscious Visual experience are two different Categories of Phenomena. How does the Neural Activity of the Retina produce a Conscious Visual experience?

Infinity is a Mathematical fiction and should be applied carefully to the World of Physical Things. For example we can say that there are an Infinite number of Natural Numbers. Natural Numbers are Mathematical concepts. But there can not be an infinitely large Pencil in the Universe. A good old fashioned Pencil is made out of a core of Lead or graphite (lets just say Lead). surrounded by a tube of Wood and then a coat of Paint. Take a point exactly in the center of the Lead and then let the Pencil grow in size to Infinity. You will have a Universe that is completely filled with Lead. You can never get to the Wood no matter how far you travel away from the center point (assuming you can travel through Lead). There will be no Wood or Paint in this Universe. The Pencil will become something less than it was when it becomes Infinite. You can not really have an Infinite Pencil.

↪SteveKlinko The hard problem of consciousness is the problem of qualia or Husserl's hyle?

There is simply a prior, non physical, phenomenal aspect that no understanding of the physical will ever give rise to: for such an understanding would have to suffice to replace it, which is utterly impossible, and is completely incommensurate with its object, and is bombastic in even a consideration.

This is not said nowadays because people are scared of being called a theist or, even worse, NOT ATHEIST! HOW SCARY!

As if such a statement says anything further!

insanus populi — Blue Lux

Quite correct. But I still think that the non-Physical will be understood by Science someday if only they would sit back, relax, and think more Deeply about it.

If a particle only occupied discrete states then according to your theory it would have to jump from position to position while moving. It would necessarily have to stop at each position for the time it would take to continuously travel between two of the positions. — SteveKlinko
A good point. It depends on your view of time as to whether you think the particle exists in an actually infinite number of states:

- Presentist. The past does not exist. So the particle does not exist in an Actually Infinite number of states, just one state, the present.
- Eternalist. The past exists so continuous time implies the particle must exist in an actually infinite number of states.

Presentism leads to paradoxes, so that suggests Eternalism. But time must be discrete for Eternalism to be free of Actual Infinity (which I class a paradox). — Devans99

The Infinitely Large and the Infinitely Small are a real pain in the Brain.

Mescaline trips are interesting but they do not shed any insight into the question at hand. — SteveKlinko
That's the reason why reading the book I recommended would be useful... :)

Don' t understand what the Pea Pod growth behavior has to do with anything. — SteveKlinko
The difference between self and non-self is a root to what we call identity, In other words, self and non-self distinction evolves into what we call "I"... — Damir Ibrisimovic

I read articles summarizing the Book. I know that's not like reading the whole book, but I got a good feel for the book. I did not see from the summary at least how the book was going to solve the Hard Problem. The book just talked about enhanced perceptions and philosophical realizations. Could you possibly give a summary of How the book explains the Hard problem? The Hard Problem is: How does the Neural Activity (using drugs or not using drugs) produce the Conscious experience?

SteveKlinko

But neither can theists prove the existence of God, this is why this cannot be taken as a point for theism unless you make the argument from ignorance fallacy (You don't know therefore God/ Spaghetti monster/ Universe crapping unicorn, etc) — khaled

I didn't say that what I said was any argument for Theism. You added that. The statement assumed that the Theists just Believe in things. I was only pointing out that the Atheists Believe in things too. The difference is that the Atheist rail against the Beliefs of the Theists even thought they have Beliefs themselves. Most people do not think of Atheists as having Beliefs.

The way you are solving the paradox uses the undefined quantity ‘infinity’ but I acknowledge there are other ways out of Zeno’s paradoxes other than discrete space.

Still I’d argue for discrete spacetime on the grounds:

- there is no such distance as 1/oo mathematically.
- Imagine a particle moving over a finite period of time. Continuous spacetime would require the particle to have occupied a actually infinite number of states which is nonsensical.

Still even if space is continuous, that would only be a potential infinity rather than actual infinity. — Devans99

I say that Infinity is a Mathematical Fiction that only exists in the world of Mathematics. But since the construction of the Zeno Paradox uses Infinity as the basis of the argument we must accept the premise and argue from that. I think the compensating Infinity argument is the best way out of the Paradox.

If a particle only occupied discrete states then according to your theory it would have to jump from position to position while moving. It would necessarily have to stop at each position for the time it would take to continuously travel between two of the positions. This is as nonsensical as a continuous movement with Infinite intermediate positions. These are both nonsensical and serve to illustrate the problems you can get into when you think a little more Deeply about things. Good Thoughts however.

But when I look at a particular scene in front of me How is that Scene Image presented for me to See it? It appears that the scene I am looking at is painted on a kind of Screen that is embedded in the front of my face. — SteveKlinko
When awake, visual sensations have many layers... :) The most fundamental is an infinity of visual sensations, but without "what is what". In other words, we are lost, without "what is what" layers... Subsequent layers are "what is whats" - that dull the infinity of visual sensations...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Doors_of_Perception ... :)

Also what is the "I" that is Seeing that screen? — SteveKlinko
The "I" is a part of "what is what"... However, the roots of identity have been found in plants:
(https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/08/050811104308.htm
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23779000 )... — Damir Ibrisimovic

Mescaline trips are interesting but they do not shed any insight into the question at hand. Don' t understand what the Pea Pod growth behavior has to do with anything. What does it have to do with Consciousness?

Qualia are symbolic systems.

Qualia are language, they have the same logical structure as language.

Qualia are to reality as language is to semantic content.

The sematic value blue is is not the utterance blo͞o. Rather, the utterance blo͞o signifies the semantic value.

By the same relation, 470nm light is not the qualia blue. Rather, blue the qualia is a sign that signifies 470nm light. — hypericin

I like to think of the Qualia as Data for the Conscious Mind Processor.

Actual Infinity is not a quantity:

- There is no number X such that X > all other numbers
- Because X+1 > X

Space is discrete that’s why we get paradoxes when we assume it’s continuous (Zeno’s paradoxes). — Devans99

The Zeno paradox, where to walk any finite distance you have first walk half the distance, then half of the remaining distance etc. is a paradox because Zeno is throwing in a false assumption that you are going across each Half in the same amount of time. This is artificially slowing you down. Of course this would make it impossible to cover the total distance when you consider an Infinite amount of Halves. Zeno forgets that at the same time the Half distances are going to Infinity the number of Halves you are traversing (at constant velocity) is going to an Infinite amount of Halves per second. The Infinite Halves per second and the Infinite number of Halves are compensating Infinities that cancel the paradox.

to know absolutely that there is no god one must have infinite knowledge.
but to have infinite knowledge one would have to be god.
it is impossible to be god & an atheist at the same time.
atheists cannot prove that god doesnt exists.

which fallacy of relevance it makes? — 0cards0

From my dealings with Atheists, when you pin them down, they will admit that they can only Believe there is no God. Proof to come later.

If space is a thing, it's not the same as the natural understanding of a thing. That's what I was talking about.

You're other point wasn't what I was talking about. I'm not saying space is infinite in breadth, but it can be infinitely divided without hitting some kind of base unit or boundary point. — MindForged

I wouldn't be so sure that Space can be Infinitely divided. I'll give that a Maybe. It might be subject to the Planck Constant. I don't think you should assume that a Physical Space is the same as a Mathematical Space.

If your speculation is that the Visual Images that we see are strictly generated by the Retina then the question is how does the Retina generate the Visual Images that we see? — SteveKlinko
While we are awake, the retina does not generate images. It simply contains the totality of visual sensations. Retinal pre-processing turns this totality of visual sensations into abstracts of "what is what" giving us the fast and pretty accurate navigation through the infinity of visual impressions... :)

While dreaming (REM) this is reversed. The rest of the brain generates abstracts of "what is what" sending them to the retinas. And the retinas provides the rest of simulated visual experiences... :)

While we are awake, consumption of hallucinogens (like mescaline, for example) reduces the impact of abstracts of "what is what" resulting in an overwhelming infinity of visual impressions. (See "The Doors of the Perception".) — Damir Ibrisimovic

But when I look at a particular scene in front of me How is that Scene Image presented for me to See it? It appears that the scene I am looking at is painted on a kind of Screen that is embedded in the front of my face. All the Colors are painted there and are overlaid on top of the Physical World scene that I am looking at. The painted Image is a very good representation of the Physical World scene. I am looking at a Surrogate for the Physical World scene that is created by my Conscious Mind. Also what is the "I" that is Seeing that screen? These are the Deep Philosophical questions that we need to answer.

There is no activity in the Rods and Cones when Dreaming. Eye movements don't create Visual Scenes. Something at a further stage of the processing seems to be creating the actual Visual Images that we see when we are Dreaming or when we are Awake. — SteveKlinko
It is true that we do not have a proof about the activity of rods and cones in the retinas during the REM. For that, we would need a human subject + fMRI... :)

However, we are running in circles... :) Despite all of the evidence that there is no a totality of visual experiences within the brain -- you are coming back to your hypothesis... :)

Now, give us a proof that the totality of visual experiences is hidden somewhere in the brain... :) But, that's rhetorical... :) I'm sure that you will not find a paper... :)

Alternatively, consider a reverse path of signals from the rest of the brain --- to the retinas during imagination or sleep... :)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11177421
http://edition.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/11/02/brain.imagining.reut/

(Please note that there is no difference between imagined and actually seen.) — Damir Ibrisimovic

There is no paper on how Consciousness is produced from the Neural Activity in the Brain. The Retina is just an extension of the Brain and the Rods and Cones are specialized Neurons. If your speculation is that the Visual Images that we see are strictly generated by the Retina then the question is how does the Retina generate the Visual Images that we see? That is the Hard Problem of Consciousness.

↪SteveKlinko I don't see how that's a given. Space is infinitely divisible. Whether or not space counts as a "thing" or not I don't think matters, but it's infinite. — MindForged

Space is definitely a Thing. There can be the 3D Space that we are familiar with, but there can also be 4D Space for example. 4D Space is a whole different Thing than 3D Space. If Space can be different Things then there can be no Space. That would be Absolute Nothingness.

It is not known if Space is Infinite or not. It depends on what the value of a particular constant in Physics is found to be. The current thinking is that our 3D Space is Finite but Unbounded in the sense that it curves back around on itself in some way.

But while Dreaming at night you can have very Vivid and Complete Images created by the Mind and there is no input from the Retina. — SteveKlinko
I'm not convicted that REM does not contribute to the vividness of our dreams... :) — Damir Ibrisimovic

There is no activity in the Rods and Cones when Dreaming. Eye movements don't create Visual Scenes. Something at a further stage of the processing seems to be creating the actual Visual Images that we see when we are Dreaming or when we are Awake.

The question is, how does all that Neural Processing create the Visual Image that we see in our Conscious Minds? — SteveKlinko
Since there is no totality of visual experiences in the rest of the brain - we can assume that the retinas offer the basis for the totality of visual experiences... :)

Whatever passes through optical nerves is turned into hints of edges and coulour can not be the basis for the totality of visual experiences... — Damir Ibrisimovic

I agree that it is tempting to give more weight to the contribution the Retina makes in the Visual System because it is only in the Retina that the Image is completely represented. But while Dreaming at night you can have very Vivid and Complete Images created by the Mind and there is no input from the Retina. The Lateral Geniculate Nucleus (LGN) switches the Optic Nerve off during sleep. This would indicate that Visual Image creation is further downstream from the Retina and is probably mostly a product of Cortex Neural Activity. But even if the Retina was more involved in the generation of Visual Images we still have the Explanatory Gap. How is the Visual Image that we experience generated from all the Retinal and Cortical Neural Activity? That is the Hard Problem of Consciousness.

One thing Science is pretty sure about is that there is lots of Neural Processing that happens before a Conscious experience happens. — SteveKlinko
That's what I call "perception", but maybe I use the term incorrectly. :chin: First there is sensation - input from the senses - then there is perception - (extensive) 'processing' of the sensory input - and the end results are passed to the conscious mind, apparently fully-formed. Perception, like sensation, is pre-conscious and unconscious. We have no awareness of it, but we deduce (maybe wrongly? :chin:) that it happens. — Pattern-chaser

Your sequence is probably correct.

Infinity is a Mathematical fiction and should be applied carefully to the World of Physical Things. For example we can say that there are an Infinite number of Natural Numbers. Natural Numbers are Mathematical concepts. — SteveKlinkoWell, infinity is a very useful mathematical concept then. After all, the number "3" doesn't physically exist either. — ssu

3 things can exist but an infinite amount of things can not.

It seems that to have a Visual experience further processing must happen. — SteveKlinko
That's not what the science says... :) According to numerous findings - there is no anything like a reconstruction of visual impressions anywhere in the brain... :)



If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, Infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thro' narrow chinks of his cavern.
from The Doors of Perception



...to enable us to live, the brain and nervous system eliminate unessential information from the totality of the Mind at Large.
Charlie Dunbar Broad :)

The whole cascade of neural activities has only one purpose - to emphasise the most relevant stimuli as quickly as possible...

The only point at which we have the unfiltered totality of visual impressions is when retinas are exposed to the visual stimuli minus retinal cells activity... — Damir Ibrisimovic

One thing Science is pretty sure about is that there is lots of Neural Processing that happens before a Conscious experience happens. The question is, how does all that Neural Processing create the Visual Image that we see in our Conscious Minds? There seems to be an Explanatory Gap here.

Nobody knows why. — SteveKlinko
Retinal outputs are hints and edges - sketchy images... :) our impression of the visual images are vastly more than that. The further neuronal activities are even more sketchy than that. There is no room for the richness of visual impressions... :)

The only way to account for the totality of visual experiences is to take raw stimuli before any neural activity... :) — Damir Ibrisimovic

If the Optic Nerve is severed then it does not matter how much Light is directed to the Retina. The person would be blind. It seems that to have a Visual experience further processing must happen. This happens in the Visual Cortex. The Visual Processing seems to be geared towards taking the image apart and finding features like edges. There has to be an even further Processing stage where all the dismantled features are combined into the Visual experience that we have. The Inter Mind Model proposes that this Combining or Binding function is accomplished in an as yet undiscovered part of the Brain or Mind called the Inter Mind. The Inter Mind would monitor and utilize all areas of the Visual system and create that beautiful high definition Color Visual scene of what we are looking at.

I seems that for Sensory input that there has to be Neural Activity before the Conscious experience happens. — SteveKlinko
Why? — Damir Ibrisimovic

Nobody knows why. The appropriate question is, given that Neural Activity seems to precede Conscious Activity, How does the Neural Activity lead to the Conscious Activity? What is the mechanism or process?

Science does not have a theory for how Consciousness is produced from the Neural Activity. — SteveKlinko
Consciousness does not emerge from neuronal activity... :)

As I said: neuronal activity produces abstracts vital for quick responses to the environmental challenges. — Damir Ibrisimovic

I seems that for Sensory input that there has to be Neural Activity before the Conscious experience happens.

How can the hypothesis be falsified? — HuggetZukker
Not all hypotheses can. This is upsetting for scientists, but philosophers can continue applying their considered thought in such a case. Only scientists must grind to a halt. And surely no-one would be rash enough to attempt to investigate consciousness using science? — Pattern-chaser

Especially since Science won't let Scientists investigate Consciousness. Any and all thoughts are still on the table.

Forget about Neurons for a moment and think about the experiences of Consciousness itself. Think about the experience of the color Red at 670nm Wavelength or any other color. Think about the experience of the Standard A tone at 440Hz Frequency. I mean really, really think about these things. You must come to the point in your observations where you realize that these experiences are Surrogates for the external Physical World phenomena. These are Conscious World phenomena. They exist only in your Conscious Mind. Redness only exists in your Conscious Mind and Wavelength only exists in the external Physical World, There is no Redness in the Physical World but only Wavelength. The Redness is a Surrogate for the Wavelength that the Brain Somehow creates. The experience (let's call it the Toneness) of a 440 tone is something that exists only in your Conscious Mind. The Standard A Toneness is only a Conscious Mind experience and the 440Hz frequency is only an external Physical World phenomenon. There is no Toneness in the Physical World but only Frequency. The Toneness is a Surrogate for the Frequency that the Brain Somehow creates. It is this "Somehow" that is the Hard Problem of Consciousness.

So there is a whole World of Phenomena that exist in the Consciousness of your Mind. These Conscious Phenomena are in a different Category of Phenomena than any Physical World Phenomena. What is that Redness and Toneness that you have always seen and heard?

This argument of consciousness is like what the argument of gravity used to be (before Newton). — BrianW
Before Newton geometry (circle) drove movements of celestial bodies. Copernicus tried to describe the heliocentric system with circles - but it didn't work. Kepler "cheated" with ellipses to make it fit into the heliocentric system. Only when Newton proposed the theory of gravitation things started to "click together"... :) — Damir Ibrisimovic

Yes this is what I have been arguing. Science does not have a theory for how Consciousness is produced from the Neural Activity. When Science finds a theory the Hard Problem will be solved
.

What we ‘see’ depends on the features extracted in the retina, and how this information is integrated and interpreted by the brain. In the retina, the visual information is split into two streams, one for colour and one for form and motion.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/retinal-ganglion-cell . — Damir Ibrisimovic

Good article. But the real question is: Given that all that Neural Activity is happening then how do we get that Visual experience in our Conscious Minds? What is that Visual experience? That is the Hard Problem of Consciousness.

Means that each point on the Retina is mapped to a point on V1. — SteveKlinko
Then how do you interpret this: http://unisci.com/stories/20011/0329011.htm ?



Recent studies at the University of California, Berkeley, however, show that the metaphor is more poetic than real. What the eye sends to the brain are mere outlines of the visual world, sketchy impressions that make our vivid visual experience all the more amazing.

It's time to be serious. Vague references to textbooks are not constructive. Show us a paper... — Damir Ibrisimovic

I originally said it was a Topographical mapping but changed it to Topological mapping. When I Googled it, it looks like I was right the first time. They call it a Topographical mapping. Google Retina to V1 Topographical mapping. I'm surprised you didn't do this already.

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... — Damir Ibrisimovic

I've heard of experiments like this. Interesting but it's about paying attention. Not that they can't see the two different people because of some Visual System defect. They just weren't paying attention.

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"? — Damir Ibrisimovic

Means that each point on the Retina is mapped to a point on V1. Also points near each other on the Retina are mapped to points near each other on V1. There are some details about the Retia mapping being split between the left side V1 and the right side V1 but there is this mapping nevertheless.

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.

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.

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.

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?