I agree, very puzzling.

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

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.

I should have said Topological, not Topographical, mapping meaning there is a one to one correspondence between points on the Retina and points on V1. 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..

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. 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.

Here's what the Inter Mind website says about the two way connection:

With any Conscious experience there seems to be an implied Conscious Self (CSf) that experiences the experience. One approach is to say that the Conscious experience and the CSf are all part of a single Conscious Mind thing. I think the best thing to say is that we really don't know how to understand this yet, which is ironic because this is what we are.

The CSf can have Good experiences, Neutral experiences, or Bad experiences. The CSf will try to seek out Good experiences and try to avoid Bad experiences. The CSf must have a Conscious Volition (CV) capability in order to satisfy it's desires. This means that the Inter Mind must not only connect forward from the Physical Mind to the Conscious Mind but must also connect backward from the Conscious Mind to the Physical Mind. With the forward connection the Inter Mind is monitoring the Physical Mind and converting Neural Activity into Conscious experience. With the backward connection the Inter Mind is monitoring the Conscious Mind and converting CV into Neural Activity to move the Physical Body. — SteveKlinko
This is considerably more complete than the mode of thinking I came from originally. Though, I don't quite understand why the conscious mind needs to be something, I guess, non-physical? Why might it not all be neural? — HuggetZukker

Each of us knows what our own Conscious Mind is by virtue of the Experiences we have but we would be unable to explain it. Consciousness is as I have been saying a Categorically different thing than anything Science knows about in the Physical Universe. This does not mean it can not be a Neural thing. But until Science makes the discovery to explain that to us it makes more sense to keep it a separate thing.

Science just denies Consciousness and Conscious Volition even though it is the 800 pound Gorilla in the Scientific room. — SteveKlinko
I don't think this is quite true anymore. Consciousness Studies have existed since the 1980's, and, I believe, came forth along with the availability of functional MRI scanning. Notably neural correlates are studied to find correlations between conscious experience and patterns of neural activity. There is no doubt plenty more research to do, and new, more sophisticated techniques would be great, but to say that consciousness is being denied seems to me like an unfair assessment. — HuggetZukker

MRI machines do study the Neural Correlates of Consciousness but MRI machines do not study actual Consciousness at all. Science has known for a hundred years that there is Neural Activity that is related to Consciousness. We can measure Neural Activity all day long and we will still not have explained how that Neural Activity leads to or produces Conscious Experience. Scientists say that the Neural Activity is the Consciousness. So they say they are measuring Consciousness. It is not true to say that measuring Neural Activity with an MRI scan is measuring Consciousness.

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 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 simply recognize two Categories of things that happen. First Category is all the Neural Activity that can happen. Second Category is all the Qualia that can happen. It appears that Neural Activity leads to or produces Qualia. You cant just say that the Neural Activity is the Qualia. The Neural Activity is one Category of Phenomenon and the Qualia is a different whole Category of Phenomenon. If they are the same thing then the burden is on you to show how these two disparate Categories can be one and the same thing. Nobody knows how the Neural Activity produces the Qualia. I don't have any theories of how this can happen. There's nothing to falsify. The Hard Problem remains. — SteveKlinko
If you sufficiently deconstruct anything that is actual and thoroughly deconstructible, you will end up with a model of how it works. Such a model makes anything look functional and quantitative in nature (physical, even if you call it by another name), which may be contrary to one's everyday intuition about qualia. If such a functional clockwork* is an unsatisfactory picture, it may well mean that one has no justifiable choice but to adapt one's intuition to that which is superficially unintuitive.

Of course, I cannot therefore prove that the cause of the conscious experience of qualia is something other than a clockwork* in nature, unlike everything else which is actual that we know of, since you can't prove a negative.

*The word "clockwork" carries the outmoded connotation of perfect determinism, which is at odds with quantum mechanics. Therefore, I'd really like to find a similar word, which does not connote determinism at the fundamental level of reality. I hope you can catch my meaning despite this. — HuggetZukker

I would look at the generation of Qualia as the final product that results from a chain of processing. The chain starts with the Retina and progresses back to the Visual Cortex areas. During all this there is a good amount of feedback connections that affect the forward processing. But somewhere during the Cortex processing the Qualia is generated. How does this happen? That is the essence of the Hard Problem and the Explanatory Gap. I think this chain of processing is a machine like Deterministic processing even if we don't know how it works at the level of the Qualia. Where the non-Deterministic aspect comes in is when you consider Conscious Volition. This probably also happens in stages but it would originate in the Mind and flow back to the Neurons to produce bodily motion. Science does not know how any of this works. People are mostly just afraid to even think about the possibility of these things. Science just denies Consciousness and Conscious Volition even though it is the 800 pound Gorilla in the Scientific room.

Very good post...

Here's what the Inter Mind website says about the two way connection:

With any Conscious experience there seems to be an implied Conscious Self (CSf) that experiences the experience. One approach is to say that the Conscious experience and the CSf are all part of a single Conscious Mind thing. I think the best thing to say is that we really don't know how to understand this yet, which is ironic because this is what we are.

The CSf can have Good experiences, Neutral experiences, or Bad experiences. The CSf will try to seek out Good experiences and try to avoid Bad experiences. The CSf must have a Conscious Volition (CV) capability in order to satisfy it's desires. This means that the Inter Mind must not only connect forward from the Physical Mind to the Conscious Mind but must also connect backward from the Conscious Mind to the Physical Mind. With the forward connection the Inter Mind is monitoring the Physical Mind and converting Neural Activity into Conscious experience. With the backward connection the Inter Mind is monitoring the Conscious Mind and converting CV into Neural Activity to move the Physical Body.

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
This world is a physical world. I have introduced it as a contrast to Steve's otherworldly Conscious World... :)

Also, we are talking about assumptions here... :) Generally, in science, the assumption is that all phenomena are of physical world until proven otherwise. Otherwise, we may assume that a phenomenon is not of this world and get stuck - with impotence to prove that it is not... :gasp:

Enjoy the day, :cool: — Damir Ibrisimovic

Science has been assuming that Consciousness will be found in the Neurons for a hundred years now. That may still ultimately be true but after this amount of time one would think that Science might have the first clue but it doesn't. 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.

For me I experience the Color. I have no inner knowledge of Neural Activity. — SteveKlinko — Damir Ibrisimovic

My answer for the third question was the last sentence: So the purpose of the Neural Activity is to enable the Inter Mind to Connect the Physical Mind to the Conscious Mind.

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
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:

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
Depending on how do you answer the above questions we might be able to continue these monologues... :)

However, I'm afraid that we will need a long time until science provides you with acceptable answers - since we can only infer from experiments with rats/cats/rabbits etc... :) — Damir Ibrisimovic

For me I experience the Color. I have no inner knowledge of Neural Activity. We know Neural Activity happens and then correlated Conscious Activity happens. I say that Neural Activity exists in Physical Space which is the normal World we know about through Science. I call the Brain and all Neural Activity the Physical Mind. I also say that Conscious Activity exists in some kind of Conscious Space that we don't understand yet. Conscious Space is also where the Conscious Mind exists. The Conscious Mind is the experiencer of the Conscious Activity. But Conscious Space is not a literal Space like our 3D Physical World Space. You can think of Conscious Space simply as the place where Conscious experience happens. When we think about Neural Activity and Conscious Activity as existing in two different Spaces then we can talk about Connections. I think there is some sort of Connection which I call the Inter Mind on the website. So now if it is a Connection then it is easy to see how the Conscious Activity is a further processing stage after Neural Processing. Something must be transforming the Neural Activity into Conscious Activity. I put that function in what I call the Inter Mind. So we can speculate that the Inter Mind Connects the Physical Mind to the Conscious Mind. The Inter Mind is somehow continuously monitoring Neural Activity and generating the Conscious Activity for the Conscious Mind. The Inter Mind could very well be some as yet undiscovered aspect of the Physical Mind but that aspect will have to be called the Inter Mind aspect and it will have to explain how Neural Activity gets transformed into Conscious Activity.

So the purpose of the Neural Activity is to enable the Inter Mind to Connect the Physical Mind to the Conscious Mind.

↪SteveKlinko it is interesting that you say it is a metaphor, yet you are interested in 'how' this metaphor comes about, as if the metaphor itself is something determined by something other than the experience it is.

What is the purpose of finding out the what of this 'metaphor?'

By the way, I am red/green colorblind, so I don't even apply to this, btw.
How do I come in?

What is red other than the totality of its manifestations? Wouldn't this wavelength-red be another reference point of color-red? What is the primary phenomenon here?
...
And now we are back to the debate of the aeon.

I don't care about THAT debate anymore.

I experience experience. That is it.

I will not be able to find anything more about consciousness by using something consciousness has given function to.

What is the goal here? — Blue Lux

Sorry about that. The point is not only about Red. All colors are Metaphors. So I will assume you can See Blue. You could think about the Blueness of the color Blue. What is that? It's the same problem. But actually I used the word Metaphor only because you or someone else on this thread used it. I prefer to say that the Blue we See is a Surrogate for the 470nm Light. On my website I would call it the Conscious Blue Light. Whatever you call it, it is experienced in our Conscious Minds.

To say that you experience experience and that is it, is giving up the Scientific struggle to understand the Universe.

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
Red experience is a subjective experience of the neuronal activity for red. It's true that subjective experience seems like a whole different category, but that is the nature of all subjective experiences... :)

We do not need to artificially separate these two... :)

There were experiments about what we see first. The stimuli were masked after .1,.2 &.3 sec and the first thing we notice is it a pattern or object (including colour)... :)

Things are already complicated and we do not need to complicate even further... :) — Damir Ibrisimovic

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. If ultimately 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.

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
Which textbook, for example? This is rather a dismissal of the request to cite a paper. We cannot chase each other with "textbook claims". Textbooks are likely to be simplified. I will, therefore, cite:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/11/001110073236.htm . Kanwisher and Kathleen O'Craven did not notice the absence of differences between imagined and actually seen.
Frank Werblin and Botond Roska found that what we "see" (in the rest of our brain) are hints of edges in space and time: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2766457/ . ( https://sites.oxy.edu/clint/physio/article/moviesinoureyes.pdf ).

Again. General dismissals like it's all in textbooks are not very constructive... :)

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
I can also ask "What do you know about redness and the rest of the world doesn't?" :)

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
I have read textbooks long time ago. Now I read papers... :)

I cannot but conclude that you are taking ad hominem approach... :down: — Damir Ibrisimovic

I said there is a chain of Processing that the Visual system performs. You said that there was no chain of Processing and that it was just a Web of Processing. There is no need to produce a paper on the chain of Processing as if it was some new concept. The chain of Processing is basic Brain Physiology for the Visual system. The only thing I can think of that makes you say it's a Web is the feedback connections. The feedback connections don't change the basic Chain structure.

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?

The only missing stage is the stage where the Neural Processing results in the experience of Red for example. — SteveKlinko
In the neuronal activity, there is no before or after (causal chain). We simply have a web of simultaneous neuronal activities. Since you refer to neuronal activity before the experience of the redness - which neuronal activity precisely you refer to. Could you also give us a reference to the paper or papers describing this neuronal activity? :) — Damir Ibrisimovic

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.

Redness does not exist in the Physical World. — SteveKlinko
Are we trying to reintroduce Descartes' soul? The soul that experiences the totality of (audio-visual) experiences in the pineal gland? :worry: — Damir Ibrisimovic

What have I ever said about the Pineal Gland? You're going off the rails with that one.

If the redness does not exist in the Physical World then how it is caused by neuronal activity?

In this case, we would be better off with Descartes' soul. But Descartes' soul is outside our time/space sequences. :) — Damir Ibrisimovic

That's the Hard Problem of Consciousness and also the Explanatory Gap of Consciousness. Nobody knows how the Neural Events produce the Consciousness Events.

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
The Physical World exists within time/space where we can have before and after. If the redness is outside of this world - it can be neither before nor after a neuronal activity. So, please make up your mind. :) — Damir Ibrisimovic

Why can't Redness be before or after Neural Activity? What do you know about Redness that the rest of the world doesn't?

So it makes sense to propose this Consciousness World until Science can show how it is a part of Physical World. — SteveKlinko
To be scientific - I would put it differently: "Consciousness World" is of this world - until proven otherwise. :) — Damir Ibrisimovic

That's a valid place to start but I think it is more productive to look at it the other way. Neural Activity is in one Category of Phenomenon and Conscious Activity is in a whole different category of Phenomenon. It is more sensible to separate them for study. You need to appreciate the categorical difference of the two Phenomena.

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
Again - there are no chains of neuronal activities. There are no unidirectional signals traveling from retinas only. There are also signals traveling to retinas from Visual Cortex... :) — Damir Ibrisimovic

As I said above there are feedback connections but the overall processing is from Retina to V1 of the Cortex and on to V2, V3, etc. of the Visual Cortex.

In principle, if you refer to the science - please quote the papers... Otherwise, I will be forced to conclude that you do not have the science backing your words... :groan: — Damir Ibrisimovic

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.

Colours are detectable by retinal cells. Why do you think that redness is not present in our retinas? The whole of this thread is based upon your refusal that redness is not present in our retinas...

The pigment in cone cells defines the colour perceived. (Trichromacy.) Without the pigments, there would not be the redness... :)

Enjoy the day, :cool: — Damir Ibrisimovic

Colors are not detected by the Retina. Wavelengths are detected by the Retina. The Colors are added by downstream processing stages in the Visual Cortex. Electromagnetic Light in the Physical World has Wavelength as a Property but has no Color properties. Your Mind produces the experience of Color. The Colors that you See are Surrogates for the Electromagnetic Light Wavelengths. But Science does not know how any of this this happens yet.

You have a hypothesis that, to my understanding, claims it is possible to find something in the brain that transforms physical information or physical processing into qualia.

How can the hypothesis be falsified? What predictions does the hypothesis make? This is what I mean by knowing what you're looking for.

I don't think neuroscience should quit studying any aspects of consciousness, including perception and qualia. Any kind of studying of consciousness is a good thing.

Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all? It seems objectively unreasonable that it should, and yet it does. — from Chalmers's formulation
When it is asked how it can be that "physical processing" (something physical) gives rise to "a rich inner life" (something not defined in physical terms), it creates the problem, what kind of physical signs might "rich inner life" leave? At some point we must identify something as the physical sign we were looking for, since if the thing we are looking for isn't physical, how can it possibly be found by natural sciences?

Also, "it seems objectively unreasonable that it should" is being asserted without an actual attempt at justification. — HuggetZukker

I simply recognize two Categories of things that happen. First Category is all the Neural Activity that can happen. Second Category is all the Qualia that can happen. It appears that Neural Activity leads to or produces Qualia. You cant just say that the Neural Activity is the Qualia. The Neural Activity is one Category of Phenomenon and the Qualia is a different whole Category of Phenomenon. If they are the same thing then the burden is on you to show how these two disparate Categories can be one and the same thing. Nobody knows how the Neural Activity produces the Qualia. I don't have any theories of how this can happen. There's nothing to falsify. The Hard Problem remains.

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 we 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.

I don't follow how this resolves the problem of what is consciousness or how is it that you are conscious. This seems to only answer the question of where consciousness come from. My understanding of emergent theories is that they explain how consciousness can arise in a purely physical environment — Hanover
In my case the problem specifically concerned qualia, so it was the "hard problem". My change boils down to the realization that the hard problem is not a problem, because if you don't know what you're looking for, you're not actually looking for anything, so you won't find "it."

Suppose there is found a neural effect that correlates with someone's account of experiencing "red". Then the hard problem proposes to ask how the neural representation of red causes a conscious experience of red. What does not seem to be considered is the possibility that the neural representation of red is the conscious experience of red.

I can sympathize with wanting there to be some kind of "conscious endpoint" besides the machinery itself, but if there is no physical role hypothesized for it, how will you know what signs to look for? How will you know when you have found it? — HuggetZukker

But we do know what we are looking for. We just are unable to find it, so we give up and say things like the Neural Representation is the Conscious Experience. This is worse Superstition than that which you started with. There is zero explanatory power in such a statement. The Hard Problem remains.

Pattern-chaser↪SteveKlinko "The projection of inner perceptions to the outside is a primitive mechanism which, for instance, also influences our sense-perceptions, so that it normally has the greatest share in shaping our outer world."

Freud - Totem and Taboo

This primitive mechanism subsists, and the outside world is often understood in metaphor.

"Only with the development of the language of abstract thought through the association of sensory remnants of word representations with inner process did the latter [the outer world] gradually become capable of perception."

Perception was, in primitive psychology, was hugely projection of inner happenings upon the world, in order to understand the world. Man was not severed from the world, egotistical in his desire for power over it.
Obviously these primitive cultures displayed heinous tendencies the result of this inclination and lack of abstract thought capable of being organized; however, the fact still remains that the world is processed by our inner perceptions and associations of inner process with what we come in contact with in the form of a sensory perception.

The world can be classified symbolically with reference only to the function or dynamic of its physicality, but the world of the human, of the personality, of desire and of furthermore of MEANING which is of utmost priority, depends on the inner processes and associations that give them substance. This substance is not a mere classification but is the character of perception and of feeling.

The world, our world, is consciousness. But this is not a panpsychism... The two are clearly distinguished. — Blue Lux

I agree that our World is Consciousness in the sense that we don't know anything about the external Physical World except through our Conscious experience. I like to specify a particular aspect of Consciousness such as the perception of Light and in particular Red Light. The Red Light in the external World has a Wavelength at about 670nm and is an Oscillating Electromagnetic phenomenon. When this Red Light hits the Retina it is turned into a cascade of chemical reactions that ultimately results in a Neural signal being sent to the multiple processing stages of the Visual Cortex. The Red Electromagnetic Light is long gone and all you have is Neural Processing. Somewhere during this Neural processing the Red Metaphor is generated. This Red Metaphor has Redness as a Property but this Metaphor does not have Wavelength as a Property. Wavelength is an external World Physical Property. Redness is an internal World Conscious Property that happens in your Conscious Mind. I like to call the Red Metaphor in your Mind the Red Conscious Light to contrast it with the Red Physical Electromagnetic Light. How the Brain produces this Red Metaphor and what exactly is this Red Metaphor is the greatest problem facing Brain Science at this time. No body knows how any kind of Neural Activity can produce the Red Metaphor or Red Conscious Light that we See.

↪SteveKlinko My question is what is the physical world other than consciousness? — Blue Lux

If you are claiming that everything is Consciousness then that's ok. But you will have to explain that. At this point in time the Physical World of Energy, Material , and Space seems to be a separate thing from the World of Consciousness.

The Redness of the Red only exists in a further processing stage after the Retina. — SteveKlinko
The redness exists in the retina with cells tuned to dance to the red light. It is also passed to the rest of the brain as an abstract to which we can attach label red. :)

Redness does not exist in the Physical World. This is the thing that needs to be explained. — SteveKlinko
Then where it exists if not in Physical World? — Damir Ibrisimovic

It exists in the World of Consciousness. This could very well be part of the Physical World. Science can not say How the Red experience that we have is in the Physical World. So it makes sense to propose this Consciousness World until Science can show how it is a part of Physical World.

↪SteveKlinko How don't you get it?

Experience and consciousness created these understandings of what could possibly amount to it's transphenomenality. There is absolutely no solid connection between neural activity and consciousness. Consciousness is. It is experiencing. Neural activity is a representation that consciousness has created in order to metaphorically understand itself, because it itself is the most truthful, adamantine reference point.

How on Earth could a representation that consciousness has created and understood to be therefore replace the authenticity of consciousness and be 'The True Consciousness' or The True Experience or 'the definition' or the truth?

Neural activity is a metaphor of consciousness as it relates to a completely incommensurable paradigm. — Blue Lux

Thank You, I see what you are driving at. The chain of processing for the Detection of 670nm Light is that this Light must first hit the Retina. Would you say that the Physical Light is also just a Metaphor? Is the whole external Physical World just a Metaphor in your Philosophy?

Don't know why but the best we know from Science is that Neural Activity precedes Consciousness Activity — SteveKlinko
Decades ago computer enthusiasts were guessing neuronal activity along following lines:

Eyes like TV cameras were sending raw images to the brain → the raw image in the brain was then analysed → the result of analyses was then sent to other parts of the brain. I'm guessing that at this point you expect neuronal activity for consciousness, but the unidirectional picture does not let you to get back to the same point (self-referral)... :)

This unidirectional chain of neuronal activities has many problems and no wonder you are lost. This unidirectional chain is also impossible. The raw stimuli are detected by the retinas but only abstract is sent to the rest of the brain. The redness of the red is only present in retinas. Optical nerve simply does not have the capacity to transfer the raw image to the rest of the brain. (REM in vivid dreams also allows for activity of retinas.) fMRI scans also do not show the complete image anywhere in the brain. :)

Richard L Gregory's article shows the complexities of visual processing which should be studied before any attempt to articulate a coherent Active Perception theory — Damir Ibrisimovic

It does not matter if the Neural Processing has feed forward and feed backward connections. It's still just Neural Processing. The Redness of the Red only exists in a further processing stage after the Retina. To understand what I am saying you have to understand that even the 670nm Light does not have Redness. The Retina does not have Redness. The Optic Nerve does not have Redness. No Neural Activity has Redness. But somewhere after the Neural processing we experience Redness in our Conscious Minds. Redness only exists in our Conscious Minds. Redness does not exist in the Physical World. This is the thing that needs to be explained.

I am saying that it is a metaphor to say that neural activity creates a metaphor — Blue Lux

Ok I don't get it. Sorry.

Just because we don't have a name for the other shades of Blue doesn't mean we can't see them. — SteveKlinko
No indeed, but it does mean we can't distinguish the different shades; we see them all as 'blue' - the same shade of blue - while our Russian counterparts see different colours (all of them shades of blue, of course). :up: — Pattern-chaser

Since the Russian language has several extra categories for blue they have had practice sorting blues into more bins than Americans do. They will do better at distinguishing blues only if the test requires quick answers. Americans are slower at distinguishing these blues but can still actually see the differences. Americans see all the shades of blue that Russians see.

What we know about Redness is that certain Neural Activity has to happen before we experience it. — SteveKlinko
Why? We can have a neuronal activity for redness before we perceive red. In Active Perception theory, this may happen like this: eyes of mine look there and see a red tomato. :) — Damir Ibrisimovic

Don't know why but the best we know from Science is that Neural Activity precedes Consciousness Activity.

Just because we don't have a name for the other shades of Blue doesn't mean we can't see them. — SteveKlinko
No indeed, but it does mean we can't distinguish the different shades; we see them all as 'blue' - the same shade of blue - while our Russian counterparts see different colours (all of them shades of blue, of course). :up: — Pattern-chaser

You are saying we can't verbalize the difference but we do see the difference?

To get to the bottom of this we must ask ourselves what the definition of Conscious light is. Which would be the light that is perceived by the mind, as distinguished from physical light and it's Neural counterpart. As we know, the brain is the seat of the mind, the neurons feed into the brain and it's reactions we perceive as our own.

So in my view, the thing which distinguishes Neural light and consciousness light, is the act of perception, by consciousness itself. I agree there is some extra processing her but I think it's embellishment more than anything, building up a picture using the composite given by the brain, with imagination — Lucid

The transformation of Neural Activity into Consciousness Activity is a process that Science cannot explain at this time. Consciousness Activity is so conceptually removed from Neural Activity that we have to invoke that a Category change has taken place. There has to be some functionality in the Mind that is doing this transformation. There must be an undiscovered (for now) part of the Mind that is doing this. I think that this new functionality deserves to be a whole new stage of the Mind (the IM). In any case the missing functionality will have to be found. If it is found to all be located in the PM then that part of the PM should be called the IM part of the PM. Any functionality for the transformation that is found in the CM should likewise be called the IM part of the CM. The Inter Mind Model is neutral as to what the IM is. The IMM just wants to find the functionality.

I have yet to read all the comments yet but in my opinion you overcomplicated things. A much simpler(but more importantly, truer) diagram, is as follows: Physical light hits the retinas, which is transformed into Neural light inside the brain. That Neural light is perceived by the conscious mind and is transformed into conscious light. So we would have PL---->PM---->NL---->CM---->CL

I know that leaves some confusion about what happens to the conscious light and what it's used for if you follow the diagram alone. Neural light is perceived by the conscious mind and transformed into Conscious light, by the very act of perception. Thus we can see there really is no need for an inter mind — Lucid

Very good. Thank you for actually reading the website. Of course you could make a diagram like this but then the glaring question is How does the NL become the CL. You could say that the CM does this directly. We have no idea how a CM concept could do such a thing. My realization is that there is more processing needed than is in the Brain. I spliced in the IM as a place holder for this processing. The IM could be part of the CM or part of the PM or part of both. In any case there is something missing and I think it is instructive to highlight the missing aspect by giving it a place in the diagram. The missing processing that I talk about is explored more in the Arguments For the Inter Mind section.

Some cultures don't have a good naming convention for Color but it does not mean that they can't see Colors. — SteveKlinko
Well that's not entirely true. Russian people, who have one or more extra words to describe blue are able to see different shades of blue that you or I would see as being identical. So cultural "naming conventions" can mean that we see colours in different ways. In my example, Russians see two or more shades or colours while you and I see only one. — Pattern-chaser

Just because we don't have a name for the other shades of Blue doesn't mean we can't see them. I can see a whole spectrum of just Blues. Putting a name on every discernible variation of Blue could be done by some culture. I would see all those variations even though I don't have names for them.

We have Neural Activity that seems to produce the Metaphors but we have no Explanation of How we experience the Metaphors. This is the Explanatory Gap of Consciousness — SteveKlinko
Neural activity produces the metaphors... (Metaphor!) — Blue Lux

But how does Neural Activity produce the Metaphors. You can't just say it does and that is supposed to explain it.

How can Neural Activity of any kind ever result in a Red experience? Think about the Redness of the Red. — SteveKlinko
Colours are the cultural thing. Colour red is not perceived in some cultures. The sound is much more basic. :)

Unidirectional paradigm [cause → effect] or [input → processing → output] is causing all sorts of problems. The new paradigm is multi-directional [agent ↔ agent] (self-referral). This is explored in AI - Complex Adaptive System theory. (There is a good overview on Wikipedia.) :)

Also. Passive Perception theory is replaced by Active Perception theory. In active perception, there is a communication between eyes/ears and the rest of the brain.

We also tend to think in an egocentric way. An Australian aboriginal child thinks and acts in a geocentric way. The child will learn a new dance facing north, for example, and then will turn south and dance exactly with mirror-like moves... :)

Since [agent ↔ agent] includes self-referral the issue of consciousness is already half done. :)

Hearty, :cool: — Damir Ibrisimovic

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.

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. All this has been know for decades. The only missing stage is the stage where the Neural Processing results in the experience of Red for example.

The 'red' or 'redness' that we perceive is the difference between the signals induced from the different vibrations impacting our senses. There are always multiple vibrations impacting our senses constantly and perception is the distinction between them. A red dot cannot be distinguished on a red paper (when both reds are of equal 'redness') because the filtration process is not equipped to do that. All products of perception are comparisons. We don't see red, we perceive a particular vibration in contrast to other vibrations. Red light is a vibration which is lacking in the other vibrations other than that which it has. It also explains the combination of colours to form a completely different colour. (When the vibrations are matched, from whatever circumstance is producing that effect, it becomes impossible for the brain to tell that there are different vibrations acting as a unity, e.g., purple -> red + blue; orange - red + yellow; white light -> all the vibrations in the spectrum.) — BrianW

The reason we can't see the Red dot on the Red background is that we don't really see objects themselves. We only see the reflected Light. So if all the reflected Light is Red we won't see the Red dot. If we were able to see objects themselves then we would see the Red dot on the Red background because the reflected Light would be irrelevant. Objects in the World don't have Redness as a property. The Redness is a further processing stage in the Brain.

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.

Following from the OP, please allow me to give my take on this topic using what I believe are the basic mental processes preceding the idea of 'knowing something'.

Sensation - The recognition of neural impacts by the 'mind' or 'mental process'. This means that the 'mental process' has determined that the brain has registered (recorded and categorized) an impulse which has come through any of its neural pathways.

The brain and the neural pathways act as both recording and filtering instruments. The vibrations from an external object (red light - light whose wavelength and frequency is within the range we identify as red.) reaches the nerve fibres through the specialized organs (in this case, the eyes, others sensory organs include the nose, tongue, etc.). Upon impact that vibration induces a nerve signal in the nerve fibres which is then carried to the brain. Each nerve signal is received as a unique impression and graded in accordance with its characteristics such that even minute changes produce minute differences in the nerve signal induced. The signals are then recorded in the brain, each signal in its own domain. (Signals from the nerves in the eyes are recorded separately from those in the nose or skin.) In this way the neural organization is the first filter. From there, the 'mind' applies its own processing towards identifying the impulse and determining a channel of response.

A major part of the mind's process is what we refer to as attention.

Attention - The focus or distinct application of concentrated awareness towards an object/subject.

"The real truth is that we become conscious of the report of these senses only when the attention is directed toward the sensation, voluntarily or involuntarily. That is to say, that in many cases although the sense nerves and organs report a disturbance, the mind does not become consciously aware of the report unless the attention is directed toward it either by an act of will or else by reflex action. For instance, the clock may strike loudly, and yet we may not be conscious of the fact, for we are concentrating our attention upon a book; or we may eat the choicest food without tasting it, for we are listening intently to the conversation of our charming neighbor." -
From Your Mind and How to Use It by William Walker Atkinson.

Perception - The interpretation or characterization of the acquired sensation by the mind. This process relies heavily upon memory and, sometimes, a little upon the imagination.

"While perception depends upon the reports of the senses for its raw material, it depends entirely upon the application of the mind for its complete manifestation."
"A sensation is a simple report of the senses, which is received in consciousness. Perception is the thought arising from the feeling of the sensation. Perception usually combines several sensations into one thought or percept. By sensation the mind feels; by perception it knows that it feels, and recognizes the object causing the sensation."
"Sensation merely brings a report from outside objects, while perception identifies the report with the object which caused it. Perception interprets the reports of sensation. Sensation reports a flash of light from above; perception interprets the light as starlight, or moonlight, or sunlight. Sensation reports a sharp, pricking, painful contact; perception interprets it as the prick of a pin. Sensation reports a red spot on a green background; perception interprets it as a berry on a bush."
"Moreover, while we may perceive a simple single sensation, our perceptions are usually of a group of sensations. Perception is usually employed in grouping sensations and identifying them with the object or objects causing them. In its identification it draws upon whatever memory of past experiences the mind may possess. Memory, imagination, feeling, and thought are called into play, to some extent, in every clear perception."
"The infant has but feeble perception, but as it gains experience it begins to manifest perceptions and form percepts. Sensations resemble the letters of the alphabet, and perception the forming of words and sentences from the letters. Thus c, a, and t symbolize sensations, while the word “cat,” formed from them, symbolizes the perception of the object." - From Your Mind and How to Use It by William Walker Atkinson.

Conception - The process by which we create or develop objects/subjects in our minds in relation to the external objects and subjects perceived.

From perception, through processes such as reference to memory, abstraction, comparison, classification, generalization, imagination, etc., we create, build or develop an object/subject in our minds which bear characteristics which are similar or relatable to the external objects/subjects.

Therefore, that relationship between the concept and the external object/subject is what I refer to (not conclusively) as 'knowing'. — BrianW

This is all reasonable. But what I want to know is How does the Brain do all this with the result that I See the color Red or Hear a 440Hz Tone. I'm interested in the end product of all the Processing which is the Conscious Experience. How can Neural Activity of any kind ever result in a Red experience? Think about the Redness of the Red. What is that?

We think we know something about the things themselves when we speak of trees, colors, snow and flowers, yet we possess only metaphors of the things, which in no way correspond to the original essences — Blue Lux

Exactly. What I want to know is How do we come into possession of those Metaphors? What are those Metaphors? We have Neural Activity that seems to produce the Metaphors but we have no Explanation of How we experience the Metaphors. This is the Explanatory Gap of Consciousness.

I am always trying to emphasize the difference between the external Physical Phenomenon and the internal Conscious Phenomenon. When I say Conscious Sound I am referring to the internal Experience. Doesn't matter if someone is mentally focusing on it or not. — SteveKlinko> Fair enough, if that is your intent of the term "conscious sound", but that would mean conscious sound includes the simple (compared to conscious awareness) process of hearing, which is pretty much explained by science. By that definition of conscious sound, it could include any animal receiving audio, or human hearing without even noticing they heard (often saved to subconscious). So, i think my point was, if this simple "conscious sound" is explained by science, then there is not such a big gap from that to a gradual increase of mental attentiveness to the sound, where it would become consciousness of the sound.

The sensation of Tone-ness is only in the Conscious Sound which the Brain creates as a Surrogate for the 440Hz. The Tone sensation that you hear seems so appropriate for the Physical Phenomenon because it is the only way you have ever experienced Physical Sound. That is through the Surrogate which has nothing to do with the 440Hz itself. — SteveKlinko> I agree with most of what you said, except that the surrogate has nothing to do with the 440Hz. The surrogate does have something to do with the 440Hz, because the surrogate used a (rough) measurement of the 440Hz to create the surrogate.

But what is the Surrogate? That is the Hard Problem of Consciousness. — SteveKlinko> The surrogate is simply the mechanical function described.
I think this is similar to my previous attempted explanation of consciousness in general. I believe the mechanical function IS the explanation. I don't see what more needs to be explained.
Sound and toneness seems weird to us, when you think about it, that is only the physical process, and interpreted by our ears and brain to turn into the sound we hear. But I think the surrogate of sound only SEEMS like something more, when we use consciousness to be aware of it.

I See Places and People in my Dreams all the time that I have never Seen. Why not a Sound that I have never heard? — SteveKlinkoIn your dreams, you see new combinations of images that you have seen before, but you never see an entirely new color or pixel, which you have never seen before. Dreams are just like imagination, how they only use what your senses have recorded previously, and take tiny portions (to the smallest size that your senses and memory recorded) to make new combinations, whether pixels/colors, or pitches of sound.

This is all at the Front End of the processing. It is all Neural Correlates of Consciousness. — SteveKlinko> It may be the front end of processing, but is basically how the brain records. The next steps would be accessing memories. True they are neural correlates of consciousness, which makes them more likely to be involved in the cause of consciousness.

Then, for the Conscious Experience, it just has to be explained how the correct combination of accessing these memories, with relevant alternate memories, causes a conscious experience
— Tyler
Yes, huge Explanatory Gap is still there. This is the Hard Problem of Consciousness. — SteveKlinko>But it doesnt seem so huge of a gap. Simultaneous memory access of a factor, plus its relative cause and effect. There, no problem :) — Tyler

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

So all we can really say is that we experience Neural Activity not Physical Light.
Why say that we experience either? The story you are telling (and incidently it is just a story, not an argument) is a familiar one to me, it's just a more detailed account of the story that the blog page I linked to in an earlier post claims is ultimately incoherent. — jkg20

There is Physical Red Light out there in the Physical World and there is Conscious Red Light that we actually experience in our Conscious Minds. The Conscious Red Light is a different thing than the Physical Red Light. The Conscious Red light is created by the Brain to be a Surrogate for the Physical Red Light. You have only ever Seen the Conscious Red Light. You have never Seen the Physical Red Light. The Redness that you have always known is not a Property of the Physical Red Light. The Physical Red Light has Wavelength as a Property. The Redness is only in the Conscious Red Light. We are so used to Seeing the Surrogate that we think the Physical Red Light looks like the Surrogate. The Physical Red Light does not and cannot look like anything. That's why the Brain creates the Surrogate. So you can move around in the Physical World and not crash into things.

But digging deeper into this we understand that there is a chain of processing that happens. As we trace the chain from the Physical Red Light hitting the Retina it is understood that there is no longer any Physical Red Light. It has been converted into Neural Impulses that ultimately travel to the Visual Cortex. It is known that when certain Neurons fire in the Cortex that we can experience the Redness. It seems that it is the Neurons firing that somehow leads to the experience of Red. With open Brain surgery the Visual Neurons can be probed and stimulated into creating a Red Conscious experience as well as all kinds of other Visual effects.. It sure seems like you have to have Neural Stimulation before Red is experienced. I simply say that there must be a further Processing stage that is monitoring the Neurons that produces the ultimate experience of Red. I call the missing Processing stage The Inter Mind. The Inter Mind is an undiscovered part of the Mind that connects the Physical Mind (the Brain) to the Conscious Mind. But the key to all of this is first recognizing that the Redness is a more amazing thing than we have thought. It is a Conscious thing that exists only in our Conscious Minds. The Property of Redness is a Property that does not exist in the Physical World that we think we know. We can make statements that because we can See it that it must ultimately exist in the Physical World. But then what is it? If it exists in the Physical it must be made out of something. Is it made out of Matter? Is it made out of Energy? Is it some aspect of Space? If you think these questions are idiotic then you do not understand the problem. You will be a Dualist when you understand the problem,

↪SteveKlinkoYes, the whole process of human perception, starting with sensation, and including all the other stuff that comes with perception, is pre-conscious, chronologically. The final result of the perception process is passed, complete, to the conscious mind. This then results in experience, yes? — Pattern-chaser

Yes, the Conscious experience of Red is in the final stage of the Visual process. — SteveKlinko
What I find interesting here is not so much the reply in respect of the process 'seeing the colour red'

but rather the hyper-enthusiasm for the existing paradigm. I like the use of the word 'determined' to explain both the determination or fixed nature of the idea of a'neural' generation of consciousness, and the determined nature of aspects of our thinking.

I am not going to change the paradigm because the paradigm is 'determined' in both senses of the word determined. Those wedded to the paradigm are IMOP following their own determined nature... as my own objections to the paradigm are following their own determined and fixed nature.

Regardless of the paradigm, let us consider the weakness of the 'neural' argument, not so much in an effort to convince, but more in an effort to focus upon the 'determined' nature of the argument. In this sense my reply is both on AND somewhat off topic.

The colour red.

There is unquestionable evidence for the process of photons of light of a particular wavelength, leaving a material object and striking the human retina. The interaction between retina and light causes a nerve impulse to travel from the retina along neurons in the form of an action potential. This series of action potentials arrives at the 'color center' in the occipital lobe of the brain and more neurons are potentiated thus giving rise to a stimulus that consciousness constructs or informs is a certain 'redness'.

The example cited here as an explanation for consciousness brings nothing to the table and does not refer in any way to 'consciousness'. The above pathway refers to a stimulus and is the same material process that causes an amoeba to react to light... however it is carted out time and time again as the explanation of consciousness.

This would be strange if it was not entirely determined. — Marcus de Brun

Yes I agree. I think the chain of events is more or less correct but Science cannot explain that last step: "that Consciousness constructs or informs is a certain 'redness'." Everyone just blithely makes statements like this thinking that it explains everything. Huge Explanatory Gap in the statement.

When we talk about the Bell we are talking about the Conscious experience of Sound. — SteveKlinko>This depends on how you define conscious experience. I assumed by the context, conscious experience refers to requiring the additional mental focus and attent. Without the mental focus, simply hearing a bell, would not be the conscious experience of the sound. — Tyler

I am always trying to emphasize the difference between the external Physical Phenomenon and the internal Conscious Phenomenon. When I say Conscious Sound I am referring to the internal Experience. Doesn't matter if someone is mentally focusing on it or not.

The point is that the Physical Sound has the 44Hz Property. The Conscious Sound experience has no 440Hz Property. — SteveKlinko>I agree the conscious sound experience would not involve the specific accuracy of 440Hz, but the conscious experience likely involves a rough measurement of that 440Hz, which could be considered a property of it. There would be no need for hearing to develop to an accurate degree of measurement (including distinguishing the oscillation), so a rough measurement would make sense, by natural selection. — Tyler

But my point is that the Physical 440Hz has no tonal Property. It doesn't and cannot Sound like anything. The sensation of Tone-ness is only in the Conscious Sound which the Brain creates as a Surrogate for the 440Hz. The Tone sensation that you hear seems so appropriate for the Physical Phenomenon because it is the only way you have ever experienced Physical Sound. That is through the Surrogate which has nothing to do with the 440Hz itself.

The Conscious Sound is a Surrogate for the Physical Sound. — SteveKlinko>I agree. Once the rough measurement is taken, the brain must translate it into code, to then save as memories. The overall interpretation of the coding would be the surrogate. — Tyler

But what is the Surrogate? That is the Hard Problem of Consciousness.

You can hear the Standard A Sound without any Physical Standard A Sound in your dreams. — SteveKlinko>This would be accessing memories, as it is coded and saved in the brain. Since dreaming is neural activity accessing memories, we could not dream of an entirely new pitch of sound, which has not been recorded by memory.
Same as coded memories of recordings of Red, then accessed in a dream. — Tyler

I See Places and People in my Dreams all the time that I have never Seen. Why not a Sound that I have never heard?

The experience of Red or the Standard A Pitch are completely unexplained by Science at this point in time. — SteveKlinko>I think that may be an over-exaggeration. 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

This is all at the Front End of the processing. It is all Neural Correlates of Consciousness.

That is for the more simple function of experiencing the sight of red. Then, for the Conscious Experience, it just has to be explained how the correct combination of accessing these memories, with relevant alternate memories, causes a conscious experience — Tyler

Yes, huge Explanatory Gap is still there. This is the Hard Problem of Consciousness.

↪Pattern-chaser "Red" is perhaps giving too much leeway to veer off the metaphysical point that Klinko is trying to hammer home. Let's go with "cadmium orange" instead. — jkg20

Choose any Color that you want to study. People with colorblindness can think about the shade of White. Pick a Sound to study. Take the Standard A Tone.

What is the Redness of the Red?
What is the Orange-ness of the Orange?
What is the A-ness of the Standard A?

These are all Conscious experiences.